How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> > You did not mention a particular city, so I looked at
>> > Chicago. Chicago does not use the general property tax to
>> > fund the Chicago Department of Transportation. This
>> > department is entirely funded by vehicle taxes and fuel
>> > taxes.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> Hell you didn't cite a damn thing. You probably pulled it all out of your
>> ass.
>
> The Chicago Budget is available on line. Look it up before
> implying I "pulled it out of my ass." The link is session
> related and too long to fit in a normal window. You can trry
> this tinyurl version, but I won't gaurantee it works -
> http://tinyurl.com/99jjx

http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...ARY_TABLES.pdf

Funny, this doesn't break down which dollars are spent on what.
Just what comes in per fund and what is expected to be spent.
It's impossible to tell from here what dollars went where.

Snow plowing is streets and san, (so is pot hole filling as I remember)
And then there is the police department as well. These appear to be funded
out of the 'corporate' fund that is supported by property tax directly. See:
http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...OPERATIONS.pdf

The transporation department appears to be as you claim, but they are far
from the only department that keeps the roads usuable in the city. And
they are spending every dollar they take in.

> How about backing up your claim that Property Taxes Revenues
> are paying for roads. You constantly use this the basis for
> your claim that bike riders are paying for roads.

It's just one way. But look up any suburban town. What do you think pays
for the police force (which significantly deals with autos in these towns)?
The snow plowing in the winter? The local roads? Where else are they
getting the money?

If you want my cite, see the city of chicago budget. It shows a fair
amount of property tax funds going to the roads.

Wayne Pein wrote:

> I would send those pictures to whatever agency(ies)
> designed/built/paid for them. It would provide evidence that the
> subbase was inferior. Perhaps they would then extend then effort on
> the front end to build it better. They might also prohibit heavy
> motorized maintenance vehicles from using it (if that is applicable),
> or else build it to support those vehicles. You might also send the
> pictures to a local newspaper in order to foment some outrage at
> shoddy construction.

If they build it too good, then no one gets no work... an' taxes prolly gotta
go up...

Matt O.

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> > You did not mention a particular city, so I looked at
> >> > Chicago. Chicago does not use the general property tax to
> >> > fund the Chicago Department of Transportation. This
> >> > department is entirely funded by vehicle taxes and fuel
> >> > taxes.
> >>
> >> Cite?
> >>
> >> Hell you didn't cite a damn thing. You probably pulled it all out of your
> >> ass.
> >
> > The Chicago Budget is available on line. Look it up before
> > implying I "pulled it out of my ass." The link is session
> > related and too long to fit in a normal window. You can trry
> > this tinyurl version, but I won't gaurantee it works -
> > http://tinyurl.com/99jjx
>
> http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...ARY_TABLES.pdf
>
> Funny, this doesn't break down which dollars are spent on what.
> Just what comes in per fund and what is expected to be spent.
> It's impossible to tell from here what dollars went where.

Look for the summary.pdf file.

> Snow plowing is streets and san, (so is pot hole filling as I remember)
> And then there is the police department as well. These appear to be funded
> out of the 'corporate' fund that is supported by property tax directly. See:
> http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...OPERATIONS.pdf

See below for more info on this subject.

> The transporation department appears to be as you claim, but they are far
> from the only department that keeps the roads usuable in the city. And
> they are spending every dollar they take in.

What government agency doesn't spend every dollar it takes
in? I am only concenrned with the money spend to build and
maintiain roads. Not the money for other items. Define
usuable. Raleigh (my home town) spends hundreds of thousands
of dollars of road tax money landscaping roads and buiding
sidewalks. This is not increasing the usability of the roads
for motor vehicles. Other road tax money is spent on
studying (not even buildig or operating) a light rail
system. This isn't increasing the usability of the roads
either.

> > How about backing up your claim that Property Taxes Revenues
> > are paying for roads. You constantly use this the basis for
> > your claim that bike riders are paying for roads.
>
> It's just one way. But look up any suburban town. What do you think pays
> for the police force (which significantly deals with autos in these towns)?
> The snow plowing in the winter? The local roads? Where else are they
> getting the money?

So if there were no cars, there would be no need for police?
No need for snow removal? I am talking about where the money
comes from for building and maintining roads. Using your
logic, I suppose we could include the NASA budget as
justification for bike to use the highways.

> If you want my cite, see the city of chicago budget. It shows a fair
> amount of property tax funds going to the roads.

Your cite of the Streets and Sanitation is for the garbage
men (mostly). So you are saying that bikes have a right to
use the streets becasue property tax is used for garbage
collection and snow removal? Besides if you actually look at
the summary tables significant chucks of the motor vehicle
revenue is diverted to both the police and sanitation
departments (and several others as well).


For Chicago both the Dept of Transsportation and Streets and
Sanitation are supported by non-property tax funds.

Vehicle Tax Fund Revenue - 158,259,000
Motor Fuel Tax Fund Revenue - 88,490,000

Streets and Sanitation got 63,115,329 from the Vehicle Tax
Fund
Chicago Department of Transportation only got 31,800,442
from the Vehicle Tax Fund
Streets and Sanitation got 44,895,699 from the Motor Fuel
Tax Fund.
Chicago Department of Transportation only got 28,280,685
from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund.

In general the Chicago Streets and Sanitation budget dwarfs
the Chicago Department of Transportation Budget. Only a
small fraction of Streets and Sanitation's Budget is for
"Street Operations." By far the largest part is for garbage
collection. The Burea of Electricty, which is under Steets
and Sanitation, gets almost as much money as street
operations. The snow removal budget was only $18 million.
Pavement and Bridge maintenance was only $28 million. Since
Streets and Sanitation got more than $100 million from
vehicle and fuel taxes, I think even you can see that Motor
Vehicles are paying for the roads and much more - at least
in Chicago. I think if you will carefully review the budget,
you will see that motor vehicle revenues are being diverted
to pay for other servies, instead of Property Tax revenues
being diverted to pay for roads - at least in Chicago.

Regards,

Ed White

See

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/graynotebook.pdf
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres...ackage2005.pdf
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Funding/2005/
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Funding.htm

As far as I can tell, over the next ten years, the State of
Washington is expecting vehicle derived revenue (Gas Tax,
Licence Fees, etc) to exactly cover all Department of
Transportation expenditures. The Wasington State Department
of Transportation does not show revenue from any other
sources in their budget.
I see some vehicle derived revenue in Washington is being
used for "future fish barrier removal projects" I am sure
that will make the roads more usable.

Ed


wrote:
>
> C. E. White wrote:
> >
> > Where do you live?
>
> WA.
>
> E.P.

C. E. White wrote:
> See
>
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/graynotebook.pdf
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres...ackage2005.pdf
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Funding/2005/
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Funding.htm
>
> As far as I can tell, over the next ten years, the State of
> Washington is expecting vehicle derived revenue (Gas Tax,
> Licence Fees, etc) to exactly cover all Department of
> Transportation expenditures. The Wasington State Department
> of Transportation does not show revenue from any other
> sources in their budget.

WADOT ain't the only road-building and street-maintaining game in town.

That fish thing? I think it's about where roadways cross salmon
streams. Not sure about that, but it does have to do with roads and
access.

E.P.

> wrote
> C. E. White wrote:

> That fish thing? I think it's about where roadways cross salmon
> streams. Not sure about that, but it does have to do with roads and
> access.

Indeed you are exactly right. In fact, us enviros are supporting
transportation
improvements when those projects improve existing conditions. See
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/I90...almiePassEast/
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90...oKeechelusDam/ and
http://www.i90wildlifebridges.org/

FYI, one of the main causes of accidents on I90 are deer/elk kills,
and this would help reduce them.

Of interest to rec.bicycles.misc, one of the *original* WADOT proposals
would have placed the eastbound lanes essentially on top of the Iron
Horse Trail (a rails-to-trails fantastic mt. bike experience) on the other
side of Lk. Keechelus. See http://www.theslowlane.com/paths/iron.html
and http://www.parks.wa.gov/parkpage.asp...Horse&pageno=1

FloydR

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> > You did not mention a particular city, so I looked at
>>> > Chicago. Chicago does not use the general property tax to
>>> > fund the Chicago Department of Transportation. This
>>> > department is entirely funded by vehicle taxes and fuel
>>> > taxes.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Hell you didn't cite a damn thing. You probably pulled it all out of
>>> your ass.
>>
>> The Chicago Budget is available on line. Look it up before
>> implying I "pulled it out of my ass." The link is session
>> related and too long to fit in a normal window. You can trry
>> this tinyurl version, but I won't gaurantee it works -
>> http://tinyurl.com/99jjx
>
> http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...ARY_TABLES.pdf
>
> Funny, this doesn't break down which dollars are spent on what.
> Just what comes in per fund and what is expected to be spent.
> It's impossible to tell from here what dollars went where.
>
> Snow plowing is streets and san, (so is pot hole filling as I
> remember) And then there is the police department as well. These
> appear to be funded out of the 'corporate' fund that is supported by
> property tax directly. See:
> http://216.146.77.178/BA2005/Recomme...REET_OPERATION
> S.pdf
>
> The transporation department appears to be as you claim, but they are
> far from the only department that keeps the roads usuable in the city.
> And they are spending every dollar they take in.
>
>> How about backing up your claim that Property Taxes Revenues
>> are paying for roads. You constantly use this the basis for
>> your claim that bike riders are paying for roads.
>
> It's just one way. But look up any suburban town. What do you think
> pays for the police force (which significantly deals with autos in
> these towns)? The snow plowing in the winter? The local roads? Where
> else are they getting the money?
>
> If you want my cite, see the city of chicago budget. It shows a fair
> amount of property tax funds going to the roads.
>
>
>

So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?
That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a USE tax
for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT pay,but still use
the roads.
Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS paying
USER taxes.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

C. E. White wrote in message >...

>As far as I can tell, over the next ten years, the State of
>Washington is expecting vehicle derived revenue (Gas Tax,
>Licence Fees, etc) to exactly cover all Department of
>Transportation expenditures. The Wasington State Department
>of Transportation does not show revenue from any other
>sources in their budget.

That's nice.

Since the vast majority of my bicycle miles are not on state highways, I am
not sure exactly how this is relevant. If I am not mistaken, city streets
are paid for through property and sales tax in our state, no? And there are
lots of state highways my gas tax and license fees pay for, when I'm in the
car, that I'll never drive on, like in Asotin County, or some place, so
let's consider it a wash.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky

Jim Yanik wrote:

> So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?
> That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a USE tax
> for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT pay,but still use
> the roads.
> Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS paying
> USER taxes.
>

Yes, you are correct. Legislators have made rules that if you want to
operate a motor vehicle, you have to meet certain obligations. They have
also let those who choose to operate a bicycle to not have to meet those
same obligations. If bicycle drivers were required to have a license and
registration, then they would do so.

Some tax payers that don't have children still have to pay for schools.
In some places there is extra tax for schools. Taxpayers have to pay for
many ammenities that they may not use. Those are the rules.

If you don't like the rules, change them or ignore them. Or reject
paying a user fee and swear off cars. Or in your case, just incessantly
bitch about them.

Wayne

In article >, C. E. White wrote:

> Look for the summary.pdf file.

That's what I looked at.

>
> What government agency doesn't spend every dollar it takes
> in?

The point is that streets and san and other departments supported clearly
by property tax do things for the roads.

> So if there were no cars, there would be no need for police?

There wouldn't be a need for as many of them.

> No need for snow removal? I am talking about where the money
> comes from for building and maintining roads. Using your
> logic, I suppose we could include the NASA budget as
> justification for bike to use the highways.

*sigh* you'll keep playing semantic games endlessly. Because that's all
this 'bicyclists don't pay' nonsense is.

> Your cite of the Streets and Sanitation is for the garbage
> men (mostly).

You show your ignorance of chicago.

Scott, tell this man what many of the snow plows are durring the summer.