Yes, the amendment as proposed does not define "transportation," so all currently funded programs - biking, walking, transit, roadways, education, safety, etc. - can still be funded from the Transportation Fund if the voters approve it next year.
However, in the Governor's BUDGET, he proposed to move transit into the general fund. He made the same proposal last year, and it did not pass. There are some influential allies of Walker that are also transit fans. Thank goodness. However, the precedent is troublesome. 'Nuf said. Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst State Smart Transportation Initiative www.ssti.us 608-263-9984 (o) [email protected] On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Mitchell Nussbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > What does the TEXT of the amendment say? > > If the current administration stops funding transit and bikes from the > transportation fund, that's a bad thing. If the amendment bars future > administrations from reversing their policy, that's a considerably worse > thing. > > My understanding is that the amendment doesn't define "transportation" as > highways alone, but I got my info from the newspapers, so who knows? > > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
