Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/11/2025 4:47:56 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
People like him are why most of us hate cyclist. Also, if they are going to use the roads, they should have to pay for a tag like the rest of us.
Bike lanes are a waste of tax dollars. When bikes are taxed like the rest of us to pay their way, I might feel different.
Otherwise, I am being taxed to fund someone else’s hobby...
OMG Newsome can’t even build a bike path……LMAO, along with the train that goes NOWHERE he is writing his own ads for the GOP in 2028 what a damn MORON!!! It is utterly insane that an 8 mile SIDEWALK could cost in the BILLIONS!!!
But, as the year nears a close, the bike path still isn’t open. In fact, construction hasn’t even started, and the environmental review process is still in the early stages.
That they are still working on an Environmental Impact Stury is incredibly stupid.
The Environmental Impact Study should have amounted to this: The proposed bike path will be built immediately adjacent to the Los Angeles River. Any environmental impact that may occur has already happened by by building the LA River no further study is required.
A bike path costing a proposed $45,6250,000 per mile should have been rejected to start with.
The current project should be closed down and everyone working on it fired.
The entire 8 mile path should be given a budget of a total of $45,625,000 or $5,703,000 per mile - 1/8 the original estimate.
No state agency should be involved.
The per mile budget should be doled out to localities in grants to complete the project on their own terms, requiring only that they achieve the connections of the path at the localities boundaries. That could permit localities to contract with vendors who could work on the project for more than one locality.
Localities must be allowed to set their own “environmental” requirements with no state questioning. Before any money is given to localities they would have to get their own vendor estimates and set their own timelines for completing their section of the path. No additional funds would be permitted. Any cost overruns would be born by the localities.
Localities would only be required to coordinate how their plans will join each other but do have to agree with when. Once the grants were given to the localities they would be penalized and owed refunds to the state if the their part in the project failed to meet their own promised timeline.
Every incentive is to urge the localities to not spend more than the grants they are given and meet their own timelines.
When the city and state slash an arterial road through a quiet residential area — taking sidewalks, tree plats, sometimes parts of the front yard, and eliminating on-street parking in long-established Main Street type neighborhood shopping areas — mitigation of those impacts should most certainly be part of the cost of the project. And if the road is constructed using Highway Trust Fund money, gasoline taxes should bear their share of the cost.
My longstanding response when things get feisty is to suggest to suburban commuters that we should eliminate eminent domain and stop subsidizing the infrastructure cost of building out new suburban areas (water, sewer, electrical, schools, police and fire protection, etc.). Let the developers pay the full marginal cost of new development, and we would put a serious limit on suburban sprawl.
People should be able to walk around their own neighborhoods safely. This means sidewalks, or at least wide shoulders. And in many places, it would mean limiting speeds. I live in the city, so I’m ok with stop signs or stoplights on every block. People who want to live 30 miles away from their jobs shouldn’t be empowered to ruin other people’s neighborhoods to shave a few minutes off their commutes. These costs should also be borne by the highway budget.
If you have an adequate sidewalk and safe road crossings at reasonable intervals, much of the problem is solved. Don’t do it for cyclists; do it for pedestrians. Pedestrian deaths far outnumber cyclist deaths, but they tend to occur in the same places for the same reasons. And every adequate sidewalk can double as a bike path in a pinch.
If you see a cyclist on a clearly inappropriate road, it’s not because he wants to be there. He’s probably been riding in safe biking areas, and then he hits a chokepoint or barrier and the only way through is to get out on the arterial road. Very often, at least here, this occurs when the safe sidewalks were taken years ago to create new traffic lanes and no mitigation was undertaken. This is bad highway design. Highway builders and motorists should pay to fix the problems they create for other people.
If you ride a bike, you need to pay your way, just like the rest of us. Cars pay their way with gasolene taxes and licenses/car tags.
Bikes pay nothing.
A) This $1 billion 8 mile bike path
B) California High Speed Rail
C) Newscum presidential campaign
or
D) None of the above because the Dems wants more money to embazzle...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.