Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Cyclists
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Raoul Duke" data-source="post: 2627289" data-attributes="member: 27529"><p>Well according to INCOG documents, their goal is to:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let's see what can be deduced from this, a ten fold increase by 2022 to 4% would put the current number at a fraction of one percent of the population using this free to the public dedicated bicycle infrastructure at an expenditure of over $18 million tax dollars since the inception of this investment in bicycle infrastructure.</p><p></p><p>Judging from the fact that there are plenty of private ranges in Tulsa where citizens pay to shoot at these facilities and they don't seem to have any problems at all keeping their doors open, I'd say way more. Especially, if they had access to a publicly funded range for free.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the government is going to be in the business of using tax dollars to provide recreational amenities, which is debatable as to it's proper role, it should at least be something that will be utilized and benefit the greatest percentage of taxpayers and citizens to the greatest extent possible that should also generate revenue or provide an impact to the economy that will provide the greatest return on investment of tax dollars or at least generate enough to break even and pay for itself. </p><p></p><p>BTW, I didn't say I wanted it, I said it would be a better use of the money that would be utilized and benefit more taxpayers who are forced to subsidize it than bike infrastructure.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I see how ******* cyclists ride with such reckless disregard to life and limb to their fellow pedestrians that Tulsa River parks had to build(at quite an expense) cylists their own bike paths because they were too inconsiderate to safely share the existing pedestrian paths at River parks.</p><p></p><p>You might want to change your screen name to Slave, cause you just got <img src="/images/smilies/owned3.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":owned3:" title="Owned3 :owned3:" data-shortname=":owned3:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Raoul Duke, post: 2627289, member: 27529"] Well according to INCOG documents, their goal is to: Let's see what can be deduced from this, a ten fold increase by 2022 to 4% would put the current number at a fraction of one percent of the population using this free to the public dedicated bicycle infrastructure at an expenditure of over $18 million tax dollars since the inception of this investment in bicycle infrastructure. Judging from the fact that there are plenty of private ranges in Tulsa where citizens pay to shoot at these facilities and they don't seem to have any problems at all keeping their doors open, I'd say way more. Especially, if they had access to a publicly funded range for free. If the government is going to be in the business of using tax dollars to provide recreational amenities, which is debatable as to it's proper role, it should at least be something that will be utilized and benefit the greatest percentage of taxpayers and citizens to the greatest extent possible that should also generate revenue or provide an impact to the economy that will provide the greatest return on investment of tax dollars or at least generate enough to break even and pay for itself. BTW, I didn't say I wanted it, I said it would be a better use of the money that would be utilized and benefit more taxpayers who are forced to subsidize it than bike infrastructure. I see how ******* cyclists ride with such reckless disregard to life and limb to their fellow pedestrians that Tulsa River parks had to build(at quite an expense) cylists their own bike paths because they were too inconsiderate to safely share the existing pedestrian paths at River parks. You might want to change your screen name to Slave, cause you just got :owned3: [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Cyclists
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom