To further identify the issues, because of recent court cases and state code interpetations we (cities) have a difficult time requireing the dedication of parkland and requiring the construction of trails in new developments. This legislation is a step in the right direction for creating livable communities however there is more to be done.

These comments represent those of me personally and not of the City of Marion.

tom treharne

My point is that given limited resources, it would be more sensible – or pragmatic, depending on how you see it – to fix the much more densely populated areas’ roadways.

In college, residents of my dorm had to dash across a clover interchange to get to the grocery store because some car obsessed mayor thought it was appropriate in a densely populated student neighbourhood. I’d rather lose these dangerous projects than invest in rural areas where the facilities are less likely to be used.

Certainly once the urban and suburban streets have been converted and the mindset is established you could look to carry the program across all roadways. I’d be afraid that if it went full out right away, it would either not pass in the Senate or be vetoed. Which would solve nothing… Sometimes you gotta take it one day at a time.

So, in that spirit, I’d endorse token measures.

Geoffrey, maybe it’s pragmatic to ignore the holes in the bill, but I wouldn’t say that it’s sensible. I grew up walking and cycling on rural roads, and sustained a concussion because the only “safe” part of my road was four inches deep in loose gravel that day. Something needs to be done to make rural roads safer for non-motorized use. I don’t know what, but something.

Ddartley, you’d be much better off contacting Schumer anyway, since he’s actually interested in representing New Yorkers.

This legislation will get Americans thinking about alternative transportation again. Soon we’ll need to drop the term “alternative” once the movement goes mainstream. But that is for tomorrow. For now, go Harkin!