Voting

[scott]

Portland has gone crazy with bike lanes. Seems as though they are trying harder and harder to push cars out, and force people to use public transportation if they aren't a bike rider.

Sounds like Portland is one of the Nation's leaders in "Reducing our Dependence on Foreign Oil" then.

[Wild Cobra]

In any event, I was merely making fun of your stupid whining about being forced off the road by bikes and public transportation. You're a god damn fool.

I'm mainly upset about it because they use gas taxes to pay for something cars can't use. I hate subsidies. Meanwhile, the potholes go unfilled as traffic lanes get narrower, or reduced in number.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats ok considering all my taxes go to subsidize protecting your gas consumption and unused roads throughout the state. Hate to tell you this, roads are subsidized with or without bike lanes.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course you ignore that because its inconvenient for you.

[Wild Cobra]

Sounds like Portland is one of the Nation's leaders in "Reducing our Dependence on Foreign Oil" then.

Liberals run Oregon. Oregon's motto:

Oregon. We Love Dreamers.

[MannyIsGod]

So sad for you WC

[Wild Cobra]

Thats ok considering all my taxes go to subsidize protecting your gas consumption and unused roads throughout the state. Hate to tell you this, roads are subsidized with or without bike lanes.

Your opinion is not fact. Fact is gas taxes are used in Oregon for bike lanes.

[scott]

Liberals run Oregon. Oregon's motto:

Oregon. We Love Dreamers.

Seeking the relevence to my statement. Feel free to lend a hand anytime.

[MannyIsGod]

Fact is gas taxes don't pay for all of roads nor do they pay for protection of your oil assets overseas.

[CosmicCowboy]

SA's props were 1) 1/8 cent sales tax to buy more land over the aquifer and 2) 1/8 cent sales tax to do long green belt/parks in all the creek flood plains in town...

I voted no on #1 and yes on #2

[Cry Havoc]

I'm mainly upset about it because they use gas taxes to pay for something cars can't use. I hate subsidies. Meanwhile, the potholes go unfilled as traffic lanes get narrower, or reduced in number.

Right. You want to subsidize things you use but other people might feel no need for.

[Wild Cobra]

Seeking the relevence to my statement. Feel free to lend a hand anytime.

You are right. Oregon is a leader at attempting to rid the people of their right to drive.

[scott]

You are right. Oregon is a leader at attempting to rid the people of their right to drive.

Driving is a right?

[MannyIsGod]

SA's props were 1) 1/8 cent sales tax to buy more land over the aquifer and 2) 1/8 cent sales tax to do long green belt/parks in all the creek flood plains in town...

I voted no on #1 and yes on #2

Prop one seems pretty important but probably too expensive too. Prop 2 is meh but its not terrible depending on how the develop the parks.

[Wild Cobra]

Right. You want to subsidize things you use but other people might feel no need for.

What am I asking to be subsidized?

Gas taxes go to roads. Roads are a government function anyway. Even by cons ution, "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" Gas taxes are established for the roads, and paid for by users of fuel. If bicyclists want to use the road with their own special lanes, then they should not be paid for from gas taxes like they are in Oregon.

[Wild Cobra]

Driving is a right?

Spin much?

[Cry Havoc]

What am I asking to be subsidized?

Gas taxes go to roads. Roads are a government function anyway. Even by cons ution, "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" Gas taxes are established for the roads, and paid for by users of fuel. If bicyclists want to use the road with their own special lanes, then they should not be paid for from gas taxes like they are in Oregon.

Then don't complain about bikers using the road, and get used to following behind them at 15-20 mph. They have every bit as much a right to the lane as you do. Some would say more so, since they aren't subsidizing our county's dependence on foreign oil.

You can't have it both ways. Either you relinquish your right to dominate the road and allow for cycling traffic (realizing that millions of dollars in lawsuits are going to result because of vehicular road rage/accidents when someone behind the wheel of a 2 ton slog plows over a biker), or you help bike lanes to be built so they can use the roads the same as you do at their own speed. Don't like it? Tough. Roads are not exclusively for personal motor vehicles with internal combustion engines.

[CosmicCowboy]

Prop one seems pretty important but probably too expensive too. Prop 2 is meh but its not terrible depending on how the develop the parks.

Actually, the creek parks would be perfect for San Antonio...they could give people a place close to home to walk/jog//bike away from traffic in a relatively "natural" setting...I know I would only be a couple minutes from one if they developed it...

[Wild Cobra]

Then don't complain about bikers using the road, and get used to following behind them at 15-20 mph. They have every bit as much a right to the lane as you do. Some would say more so, since they aren't subsidizing our county's dependence on foreign oil.

You can't have it both ways. Either you relinquish your right to dominate the road and allow for cycling traffic, or you help bike lanes to be built so they can use the roads the same as you do. Don't like it? Tough. Roads are not exclusively for personal motor vehicles with internal combustion engines.

Love how you conveniently IGNORE my earlier points asshole. I never said I was against them using the roads.

. I started explaining, but it's obvious. You don't care about my points. You are going to disagree anyway.

[coyotes_geek]

If you find time to amplify on this, I'd sure appreciate it. Contrary to most of my instincts I voted yes on prop 1.

I think all the neighborhood street reconstruction stuff is more than justified. The "prettying up" of the downtown streets is also good IMO.

There's alot of preliminary engineering and mobility studies. For the most part I think those are good, they'll help prioritize projects which is a big deal considering how construction dollars are hard to come by these days. But there are some where there's no chance of the study ever leading to a construction project and that doesn't have any value to the taxpayer IMO. For example, I don't see a point in doing a mobility study for I-35 because it's F'd up, we know it, and there's nothing we can do about it. So what's the point?

The traffic management stuff out in Oak Hill and on 183 are good.

Not really a fan of the Guadalupe bike lanes.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Boardwalk is needed, but as someone who likes to jog along the lake from time to time I don't have a problem with it.

[Cry Havoc]

Love how you conveniently IGNORE my earlier points asshole. I never said I was against them using the roads.

. I started explaining, but it's obvious. You don't care about my points. You are going to disagree anyway.

I'm sorry, I didn't feel like scrolling through stellar posts like this:

I wonder how many on this unofficial Tea Party supported list will win:

U.S. Senate

Alaska: Joe Miller

Arkansas: John Boozman

Colorado: Ken Buck

Delaware: Christine O'Donnell

Florida: Marco Rubio

Idaho: Mike Crapo

Kansas: Jerry Moran

Kentucky: Rand Paul

Nevada: Sharron Angle

North Dakota: John Hoeven

Oklahoma: Tom Coburn

South Carolina: Jim DeMint

South Dakota: John Thune

Utah: Mike Lee

Washington: Dino Rossi

U.S. House of Representatives

Alabama

4th District: Robert Aderholt

5th District: Mo Brooks

Arizona

1st District: Paul Anthony Gosar

4th District: Janet Contreras

5th District: David Schweikert

7th District: Ruth McClung

8th District: Jesse Kelly

Arkansas

2nd District: Tim Griffin

4th District: Beth Anne Rankin

California

1st District: Loren Hanks

2nd District: Wall Herger

3rd District: Dan Lungren

4th District: Tom McClintock

11th District: David Harmer

18th District: Michael Clare Berryhill Sr.

20th District: Andy Vidak

21st District: Devin Nunes

22nd District: Kevin McCarthy

23rd District: Tom Watson

24th District: Elton Gallegly

25th District: Buck McKeon

29th District: John Colbert

30th District: Star Parker

40th District: Ed Royce

41st District: Jerry Lewis

42nd District: Gary Miller

44th District: Ken Calvert

46th District: Dana Rohrbacher

47th District: Van Tran

48th District: John Campbell

50th District: Brian Bilbray

Colorado

1st District: Mike Fallon

2nd District: Stephen Baily

3rd District: Scott Tipton

4th District: Cory Gardner

5th District: Doug Lamborn

6th District: Mike Coffman

7th District: Ryan Frazier

Delaware

1st District: Glen Urquhart

Hawaii

1st District: Charles Djou

Idaho

1st District: Raul Labrador

2nd District: Michael Simpson

Kansas

1st District: Tim Huelskamp

2nd District: Lynn Jenkins

3rd District: Kevin Yoder

4th District: Mike Pompeo

Massachusetts

3rd District: Marty Lamb

4th District: Sean Bielat

5th District: John Golnik

6th District: Bill Hudak

10th District: Jeff Perry

Michigan

1st District: Dan Benishek

2nd District: Bill Huizenga

3rd District: Justin Amash

4th District: David Camp

5th District: John Kupiec

6th District: Fred Upton

7th District: Lee Byberg

8th District: Chip Cravaack

Minnesota

1st District: Rand Demmer

2nd District: John Kline

3rd District: Erik Paulsen

4th District: Teresa Collett

5th District: Joel Demos

6th District Michele Bachmann

7th District: Lee Byberg

8th District: Chip Cravaack

Montana

At Large: Denny Rehberg

Nebraska

1st District: Jeff Fortenberry

2nd District: Lee Terry

3rd District: Adrian Smith

Nevada

2nd District: Dean er

3rd District: Joe Heck

New Mexico

1st District: Jon Barela

2nd District: Steve Pearce

3rd District: Tom Mullins

New York

4th District: Fran Becker

27th District: Leonard Roberto

North Dakota

At Large: Rick Berg

Oklahoma

1st District: John Sullivan

2nd District: Charles Thompson

4th District: Art Robinson

5th District: Scott Bruun

South Dakota

At Large: Kristi Noem

Utah

1st District: Rob Bishop

2nd District: Morgan Philpot

3rd District: Jason Chaffetz

Washington

1st District: James Watkins

2nd District: John Koster

3rd District: Jamie Herrara

4th District: Doc Hastings

5th District: Cathy McMorris

6th District: Doug Cloud

9th District: Muri

Wyoming

At Large: Cynthia Lummis

Governor

Arkansas: Jim Keet

Colorado: Tom Tancredo

Florida: Rick Scott

Minnesota: Tom Emmer

New Mexico: Susana Martinez

New York: Carl Paladino

Oklahoma: Mary Fallin

South Carolina: Nikki Haley

To find out your opinion on everything in this thread. Maybe keep from posting things that are 6 pages long and I'll consider reading more of what you write.

[Winehole23]

I think all the neighborhood street reconstruction stuff is more than justified. The "prettying up" of the downtown streets is also good IMO.

There's alot of preliminary engineering and mobility studies. For the most part I think those are good, they'll help prioritize projects which is a big deal considering how construction dollars are hard to come by these days. But there are some where there's no chance of the study ever leading to a construction project and that doesn't have any value to the taxpayer IMO. For example, I don't see a point in doing a mobility study for I-35 because it's F'd up, we know it, and there's nothing we can do about it. So what's the point?

The traffic management stuff out in Oak Hill and on 183 are good.

Not really a fan of the Guadalupe bike lanes.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Boardwalk is needed, but as someone who likes to jog along the lake from time to time I don't have a problem with it.

Thanks for your take on it. I feel a little better.

Will the bonds be approved in your opinion?

[coyotes_geek]

Once these bike lanes are established, they become part of the reoccurring cost over time. I'm in favor of licensing bikes and using that cost to help maintain their infrastructure. Roads are supported by gas taxes and shouldn't subsidize bicyclists.

What gets me is they seem to always put bike lanes on the busy streets. Why not the next street over?

Portland has gone crazy with bike lanes. Seems as though they are trying harder and harder to push cars out, and force people to use public transportation if they aren't a bike rider.

Anything you build is going to cost money over time, bike lanes are no different.

I'm not opposed to bike lanes and don't have a problem with cities spending money on them. That being said, I agree that taking vehicle capacity away from congested streets to put in bike lanes is a bad idea.

Not sure how it works in Oregon, but in Texas cities can't levy gas taxes. So it's not a case of gas tax money being used to fund bike lanes.

[scott]

Spin much?

Where's the spin?

More aptly, where is the relevence to my original statement I was looking for?

[coyotes_geek]

Thanks for your take on it. I feel a little better.

You're welcome.

Will the bonds be approved in your opinion?

I think so.