This post is going to be way too long...
I haven't read all of the posts on the Highway Trust Fund...nor have I read the
bill. I'm a little behind on this listserv in general. But it is worth saying
that, I believe, the Highway Trust Fund covers all kinds of transportation
expenses...including transit funds and funds for bike/ped facilities. "Highway"
is an unfortunate mis-nomer (if I'm wrong on this I apologize). Matt's done way
more research on this particular issue...so I defer to the things that he's
posted.
I don't doubt that somewhere along the line money is going to highway expansion
in this deal rather than to road maintenance, transit, and bike/ped stuff...I
also don't disagree that transit and bike/ped often get the short end of the
funding stick in federal legislation (as well as at other levels of
government)...BUT...
By the same token, if you want any of the transit and bike/ped stuff that's
already been proposed and/or approved for federal funding to get
money...there's probably some reason to support preserving the Highway Trust
Fund...at least in the short term and under the rules as they are currently set
up.
As I think has already been said...it's probably a good time to contact elected
officials and mention that...in light of the recent legislation regarding the
Highway Trust Fund...that you'd like to see more federal (or state or local)
money devoted to transit and bike/ped as a more effective and sustainable way
to reduce congestion than highway expansion.
Now I'll slip off into subject matter probably left alone. It's probably
pointless to say this in this particular forum...but here it goes anyway...
I guess I just think it is a more nuanced argument than I often hear. I also
think that most elected officials would rather read a letter like...
"I appreciate your support of transportation funding via the recent bill on the
preservation of the Highway Trust Fund...but I do hope that you'll consider
devoting a higher percentage of future funding to transit and bike/ped as a
more effective and sustainable way to reduce congestion than highway expansion"
as opposed to...
"You're a road-loving idiot for funding highways"
I think that it is possible to be strong in your convictions, firm in your
words, and persistent in your advocacy without also being mean or over stating
your case...and I think that most people/elected officials/government types,
who are probably TRYING to do the right thing in the first place, probably
respond better when criticism or suggestions are framed in a more constructive
and empathetic manner.
Being an elected official is a complicated proposition...one that involves
representing many diverse interests. While it is possible for elected
officials to champion their own convictions...I think they often also have to
compromise. And when they do, they probably aren't happy about it. Support from
their constituents helps them to take the right stand when the going gets
tough. Support, to me, means making your views clear to the elected official,
but also being...ya know...supportive. You can, and should, keep pressure on an
elected official to do the right thing...without being mean. Because if you are
mostly mean, they are probably going to ignore you eventually...because most
human being just don't like it when people are mean to them over and over again.
That said, we all have our own personal styles and I'm sure that I won't
convince anyone who is well-invested in their advocacy style to change (just
like they won't convince me to change mine). But if there are folks out there
lurking and wondering how to advocate to their elected officials, I hope that
you'll take a "strong in your convictions, firm in your words, and persistent
in your advocacy" tact and leave the name calling to the people who do it best.
-Dar
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
Bikies@danenet.org
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
