I can understand your alarm that conventional roads are not in our budget. It’s kind of how those of us who care about transit, bicycling, and walking have felt about federal transportation budgets over the years.
Hi Tim, thank you for your thoughtful response.

I get that, but have you ever lived in a rural town where your only employment was 40 miles away over deteriorated roads that would pop your tires, bend your wheels, and snap your springs, blowing away your entire week’s paycheck on a single repair that wasn’t your fault?

I have. That’s where I grew up.

Now I live in a mid-sized midwest city, Kansas City, and have traveled to most major cities for work or vacation. It continues to astonish me how little regard and consideration city folk have for rural folk who grow the food that city folk require to survive. Maybe it shouldn’t surprise me, but I guess I’m an optimist.

People who live in big cities should really think hard about the needs of the rural populace, as ignoring the interests of the rural populace did not turn out well in November:

If we continue to disregard the needs of the rural public (for example, by producing budget recommendations that only consider the preferences of city-dwellers), we will not be able to effectively advocate for transit, bikes, or walkability (all of which are great and I support), because the rural public isn’t stupid, they see themselves being disregarded, and they will move to thwart the efforts to improve cities unless those efforts are balanced by showing care and respect to the non-transit, non-bicycle, non-walkable requirements of the rural populace.

I urge you to move to Adrian, MO for one month and then get back to me on whether basic road maintenance or high-speed rail are more relevant to those people and those like them.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.