1. So, what does Cantor have to say about all this? FWIW, I’m not convinced that bike share programs are something the Feds ought to be touching with a ten foot pole. States, sure. Cities, sure. But should the USG really take my money and send it to New York so they can feed it to Alta? I’d rather put that money towards a new set of tires on my commute bike. Of course, I object even a lot more to them sending billions or trillions off for new highways with no real interstate purpose. Shovel ready or not. And don’t talk to me about Fed money to GM so they can turn around and create ads that ridicule people that ride bikes. My main objection to ilk such as Cantor is he isn’t even handed in turning off the pork. THAT might be better for cyclists than the current subsidy of car culture…

  2. You answer your own question. Cantor wants to specifically slice out funding for bike share, bike paths, bike lanes, sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrians, etc.. from Federal funding but he is not pushing to cut funding for highways and the like. If the Feds are going to get out of the transportation game, “fine”, but that should be across the board.

    However, I do believe there should be a Federal role. Wyoming might not have the tax base to maintain I-80 but people in California and Illinois really need for it to be there. And if we are going to have rural areas with small tax bases, more dense areas might need to subsidize them, and that subsidy should not be solely based on the automobile.
    But it turns out oil companies contribute more to Eric Cantor than Cannondale Bikes does.

  3. Is that a sidepath, or a sidewalk? Doesn’t meet sidepath standards and he shouldn’t be ridign on the sidewalk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.