Federal funding for bike enhancements needs help

[tv_vt]

Please go to http://www.peopleforbikes.org/ for more info:

Federal funding for bicycling is under serious attack. Today or tomorrow, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma will introduce an amendment to eliminate dedicated funding for Transportation Enhancements, which is the main source of funding for bike projects of all types. We need you to take action today by emailing your U.S. Senators to urge them to oppose and defeat Mr. Coburn's amendment.

[ultraman6970]

Good idea.

[zap]

What cycling related projects receive federal funds?

I would like to see major improvements in drivers education and training.

[avalonracing]

I heard about this on NPR last night. Thanks for the post and the link.

[93legendti]

Who is going to pay for this?

[avalonracing]

Who is going to pay for this?


Okay, I'll pay for it... But the next one is on you.

[rugbysecondrow]

It is a small sum of money, but I also know that the budget environment around DC is pretty drastic now. Not just at the Congressional level but at the Agency and working level. The public wants cuts, but they don't want a decrease is service or amenities...that doesn't reconcile.

That said, I think there is a cost avoidance aspect to these funds so any cut to this would be short sighted. From a cursury reading about it, it seems biking funds are coupled with an "enhancements" line item of the budget, about 50% of which is biking. The other 50% seems to have more contentious expenditures.

[93legendti]

Okay, I'll pay for it... But the next one is on you.
So far, they have all been on me - no thanks.

[JMerring]

Who is going to pay for this?

in a normal society, taxpayers.

[93legendti]

in a normal society, taxpayers.
Ah, so in this one, you mean borrow from China.

[William]

Ah, so in this one, you mean borrow from China.

Does anyone really believe that the mug that you drank your coffee in this morning that comes from China is safe to heat up in the microwave and drink from?




William :rolleyes: :)

[JMerring]

Ah, so in this one, you mean borrow from China.

there are a number of things we could learn from the chinese. however, we don't have the gumption to actually do so.

[bozman]

ask the Pentagon. They are awash in cash.

[bozman]

Does anyone really believe that the mug that you drank your coffee in this morning that comes from China is safe to heat up in the microwave and drink from?




William :rolleyes: :)

ha! no chance. microwaves are evil anyway!

[SamIAm]

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. --Frederic Bastiat

[torquer]

So far, they have all been on me - no thanks.
Thank you for your service.
Two possible solutions to your problem: get poorer, or get richer.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/13/business/economy/taxrates2.jpg
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/

[93legendti]

How about stop spending money we don't have and spending the money we do have in a responsible manner?

[Kirk007]

How about stop spending money we don't have and spending the money we do have in a responsible manner?

GREAT idea. Where where you and the rest of the newborn fiscal conservatives during oh, most of the the Bush I and II years (among others)?

My point being the deficit problem is the result of a long term lack of fiscal responsibilitity. The new love of short term fiscal responsibility may be just the opposite - fiscally irresponsible in the near term as we struggle with the economy and lack of jobs.

And with respect to federal funding related to cycling. While I don't know that it is the answer, I do know this: states and local governments are just as broke if not more so. In Seattle I think the count is now up to 7 fatalities, all cyclists, almost all with motor vehicles, in the past year. It has completely altered where I will ride; no more streets, even with bike lanes, where the speed, legally or illegally, can average over 30 mph. This is a major impendiment to commuting in Seattle, a practice that is good for individual health (and the nation's health costs - except when we get run over), oil and gas consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

[93legendti]

GREAT idea. Where where you and the rest of the newborn fiscal conservatives during oh, most of the the Bush I and II years (among others)?
Great, now Ari will blame me for "partisan posts". :D


Please, with the news of the last week, this is funny, Yes?

So you are advocating spending money we don't have in an irresponsible manner? :confused:

I registered my objections to TARP and the auto takeovers on these pages.

Anyway, comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing a wave to a tsunami. Obama has spent 4x what Bush spent.

Considering the debt was $400 billion during Bush' presidency, gas was ~$2 a gallon and unemployment was ~5%, even you must admit we were better off during Bush' presidency.

How about we get the $500 million we gave Solyndra for a photo op back?

[SamIAm]

GREAT idea. Where where you and the rest of the newborn fiscal conservatives during oh, most of the the Bush I and II years (among others)?

This is a great example of why we never make any progress. At some point, we have to stop using the excuse, "well you guys are just as guilty as we are" and actually just do the right thing, which is live within our means.

[goonster]

At some point, we have to stop using the excuse, "well you guys are just as guilty as we are" and actually just do the right thing,
QFT. :beer:

[avalonracing]

GREAT idea. Where where you and the rest of the newborn fiscal conservatives during oh, most of the the Bush I and II years (among others)?

That is odd isn't it.
Hmm, perhaps there are other issues that people have with the President and they are just latching on to this sudden importance of "fiscal conservatism" as they "take their country back". :rolleyes:

(Oh by the way, this thread is short lived. It's a shame because it started with a useful and cycling related post).

[Mike126]

This is a great example of why we never make any progress. At some point, we have to stop using the excuse, "well you guys are just as guilty as we are" and actually just do the right thing, which is live within our means.

And stop treating legislative changes as "wins" and "losses". This is not the MLB, NFL, or TdF! Seems to me the only score we need to keep is the one about the overall health of the economy.

Back to the original post... As much as I would not want to see funding for cycling related projects cut, we are in an economic environment where everything needs to be reassessed.

[Kirk007]

This is a great example of why we never make any progress. At some point, we have to stop using the excuse, "well you guys are just as guilty as we are" and actually just do the right thing, which is live within our means.

Agreed, but the do the right thing is the hard part no? As there is no apparent appetite for any compromise on what the "right thing" looks like, there is little hope for progress. When the tide turns in 2012, the only thing that will change is who wears the just say no suits (although the Ds probably lack the discipline the Rs do).

As to biking content, see my edited post above.

[Kirk007]

So you are advocating spending money we don't have in an irresponsible manner? :confused:



Only when it comes to personal decisions to buy another bike :)

[SamIAm]

Agreed, but the do the right thing is the hard part no? As there is no apparent appetite for any compromise on what the "right thing" looks like, there is little hope for progress. When the tide turns in 2012, the only thing that will change is who wears the just say no suits (although the Ds probably lack the discipline the Rs do).

As to biking content, see my edited post above.

This may be why the only thing that is going to work is to make spending cuts across the board, in essence take a piece of everyone's sacred cow.

[rugbysecondrow]

And stop treating legislative changes as "wins" and "losses". This is not the MLB, NFL, or TdF! Seems to me the only score we need to keep is the one about the overall health of the economy.

Back to the original post... As much as I would not want to see funding for cycling related projects cut, we are in an economic environment where everything needs to be reassessed.


I agree with both of these points. Frankly, I don't think either party is basing their decisions towards actual solutions. I don't think they are inclined, motivated nor vested in a solution...it actually runs contrary to what their goals are...elections. A politicians job is not to pass meaningful legistlation or to improve our nation, their job is to get elected every 2 or 6 year. If a few people get help along the way, great, but the purpose is elections. Since the election cycle is so short and Reps are in a continuous cycle of electioneering, anything with a short term hit, long term pay off is out of the questions (think anything budget, debt or deficit related) the Senators a little bit less so, but the point is still the same.

Legistlators cut from the Moinihan mold or even the pre-presidential election McCain mold are not the leaders now, which is bad for us all

[JMerring]

I agree with both of these points. Frankly, I don't think either party is basing their decisions towards actual solutions. I don't think they are inclined, motivated nor vested in a solution...it actually runs contrary to what their goals are...elections. A politicians job is not to pass meaningful legistlation or to improve our nation, their job is to get elected every 2 or 6 year. If a few people get help along the way, great, but the purpose is elections. Since the election cycle is so short and Reps are in a continuous cycle of electioneering, anything with a short term hit, long term pay off is out of the questions (think anything budget, debt or deficit related) the Senators a little bit less so, but the point is still the same.

Legistlators cut from the Moinihan mold or even the pre-presidential election McCain mold are not the leaders now, which is bad for us all

This (and the electoral college) is exactly why, come 2012, I'll be 'participating' in the electoral process by staying at home. It's my version of conscientious objection and a recognition that going to a voting booth is a complete waste of my and the nation's time and resources.

[Kirk007]

I agree with both of these points. Frankly, I don't think either party is basing their decisions towards actual solutions. I don't think they are inclined, motivated nor vested in a solution...it actually runs contrary to what their goals are...elections. A politicians job is not to pass meaningful legistlation or to improve our nation, their job is to get elected every 2 or 6 year. If a few people get help along the way, great, but the purpose is elections. Since the election cycle is so short and Reps are in a continuous cycle of electioneering, anything with a short term hit, long term pay off is out of the questions (think anything budget, debt or deficit related) the Senators a little bit less so, but the point is still the same.

Legistlators cut from the Moinihan mold or even the pre-presidential election McCain mold are not the leaders now, which is bad for us all

Agree this is the heart of the problem. I'm tempted to quit my job and go to work on campaign reform and advocating for term limits. Maybe a new ngo called "throw them all out and start over"

[R2D2]

Agree this is the heart of the problem. I'm tempted to quit my job and go to work on campaign reform and advocating for term limits. Maybe a new ngo called "throw them all out and start over"
Well in a way that's how the country was founded. A King had the longest term around.

[sg8357]

Agree this is the heart of the problem. I'm tempted to quit my job and go to work on campaign reform and advocating for term limits. Maybe a new ngo called "throw them all out and start over"

Don't forget balanced voting districts, term limits gets you gummint
by staff member and lobbyist. When districts are solid for one party,
you get a race to the tin foil hatted fringe to prove your political
purity.

[johnnymossville]

I know this is a tired old argument and may sound mean, but maybe some people should start looking elsewhere for solutions. My grandparents left their families and home countries to come to the USA to make a go of it. Maybe it's time for some of you to stop pissing and moaning and start thinking of moving to a place better suited to your hopes and dreams. Find your happy place.

People migrate to other countries all the time, just spend a day in my neighborhood for example. It's like the UN here.

[Lifelover]

Virginia Beach has done a great job getting funding for bike paths and I use them quite a bit. They provide me some of my favorite rides.

However, I know the woman who obtain the federal funds for the 1/2 mile pier path to nowhere. Just the environmental study for this project probably cost more that than 1 mile of paved road way. Really, really nice to look at and ride, but a complete waste of money.

I say cut away if this is what we are losing.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6081/6151060954_dce373281b_b.jpg

[rugbysecondrow]

Virginia Beach has done a great job getting funding for bike paths and I use them quite a bit. They provide me some of my favorite rides.

However, I know the woman who obtain the federal funds for the 1/2 mile pier path to nowhere. Just the environmental study for this project probably cost more that than 1 mile of paved road way. Really, really nice to look at and ride, but a complete waste of money.

I say cut away if this is what we are losing.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6081/6151060954_dce373281b_b.jpg

My follow up would be the loss, or avoidance, of positive the economic impact from tourism, recreating, shops, restaurants and other ancillary benefits that follow places like this.

I understand, there are times to invest and times to save, but the governmental programs, for efficiency sake, seem to operate better if not ramped up and down but rather are consistent.

[Chance]

And with respect to federal funding related to cycling. While I don't know that it is the answer, I do know this: states and local governments are just as broke if not more so. In Seattle I think the count is now up to 7 fatalities, all cyclists, almost all with motor vehicles, in the past year. It has completely altered where I will ride; no more streets, even with bike lanes, where the speed, legally or illegally, can average over 30 mph. This is a major impendiment to commuting in Seattle, a practice that is good for individual health (and the nation's health costs - except when we get run over), oil and gas consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.
Not sure that is a valid assumption.

A quick death costs a lot less than 30 years of retirement and Medicare costs. Obviously no one wants this as a solution, but we also have to consider that living longer has many added costs.

Regarding bike/car accidents, better control of cell phone and texting use may reduce them at a small fraction of the cost of building bike highways. Distracted drivers is one of the biggest problems we face today.

[Kirk007]

Not sure that is a valid assumption.

Regarding bike/car accidents, better control of cell phone and texting use may reduce them at a small fraction of the cost of building bike highways. Distracted drivers is one of the biggest problems we face today.

re health care: what about the costs of health issues related to our lack of physical condition - obesity, diabetes, heart issues etc - those costs are huge and many are in the control of the individual. Granted not everyone is going to get on a bike to go to work for exercise, but....

Agreed but good luck with that - this is the land of yearned for small government and less intrusion, besides the local police forces keep on getting smaller so....

I think the article was in the Economist recently contrasting fatalities here with places that have dedicated lanes that result in physical separation of bikes from cars. Of course it was a night/day difference.

The cost of transportation to individuals is a major drain on many personal budgets. It seems like thoughtful government investment in less expensive and healthier transit is something that most cyclists regardless of political stripes could get behind.

[Kirk007]

I know this is a tired old argument and may sound mean, but maybe some people should start looking elsewhere for solutions. My grandparents left their families and home countries to come to the USA to make a go of it. Maybe it's time for some of you to stop pissing and moaning and start thinking of moving to a place better suited to your hopes and dreams. Find your happy place.

People migrate to other countries all the time, just spend a day in my neighborhood for example. It's like the UN here.


Well given the tenor of the discussion around the country, who are you suggesting move? Seems like most of the country would be going somewhere given that most everyone is pissed off with the status quo!

[William]

ha! no chance. microwaves are evil anyway!

You know, I think you are right!!! (http://www.hulu.com/watch/149653/saturday-night-live-timecrowave)






William

[zap]

I know this is a tired old argument and may sound mean, but maybe some people should start looking elsewhere for solutions. My grandparents left their families and home countries to come to the USA to make a go of it. Maybe it's time for some of you to stop pissing and moaning and start thinking of moving to a place better suited to your hopes and dreams. Find your happy place.

People migrate to other countries all the time, just spend a day in my neighborhood for example. It's like the UN here.

This is my third country.

Anyhow, your grandparents may have left a place where one person/party ruled. Some of my relatives sat in jail for years for going against such an establishment.

The USA is a place where one can get involved. It's tough (easier to piss and moan) and many don't get it but we can make at least a small change.

Not sure the posted link to the bike vote thingy is worth a darn but we all can (Zip and I did 15 years ago) start with our respective local communities and work up from there.

[Chance]

re health care: what about the costs of health issues related to our lack of physical condition - obesity, diabetes, heart issues etc - those costs are huge and many are in the control of the individual. Granted not everyone is going to get on a bike to go to work for exercise, but....

Those are all shorter-term problems that likely result in lower long-term costs. So while we would all want to live to be 150 years old there is no way in sight to pay for that cost. Longevity and associated costs are a huge problem no one wants to discuss. The budget for that makes bike lane costs seem trivial.

No doubt the individual has a huge impact on control and thus should be rewarded or penalized accordingly. The problem we face is that if an individual wants to eat until obese, or feed his/her kids into obesity, we don't have the system to make them more responsible for associated costs. Are we willing to say to someone that if they want to eat themselves to death that it's their right but also their problem? Or those who prefer to sit on a couch instead of go for a walk? Or drive without seatbelts? It's doubtful. We've been conditioned to look at government for all answers, including many personal choices.

[fiamme red]

What kind of bike enhancements are we talking about here?

[rugbysecondrow]

What kind of bike enhancements are we talking about here?

Not entirely certain, but here is some info from my google machine.

It seems this issue has been thwarted:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/15/news/economy/coburn_senate_squirrels/

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- In Tennessee, $269,000 was spent on a sanctuary for white squirrels. A Chevrolet Corvette simulator destined for a Kentucky museum cost $200,000. A Roman bath house in West Virginia was renovated for $160,000.
Believe it or not, a critical bill in the Senate was nearly brought to a standstill by a dispute over whether to fund projects like these.

One senator -- Tom Coburn -- threatened to block his colleagues from voting on a stop-gap measure to fund the Federal Aviation Administration and highway construction program because he objects to how some of the funds will be spent.
Coburn had said he would block the Senate from voting on the bill, but relented Thursday afternoon after reaching a deal with Democratic leadership.
The cantankerous Republican from Oklahoma wanted more highway construction funds to be spent on critical infrastructure projects like bridges, and fewer federal dollars directed to a category called "transportation enhancement activities."
As it was written, 10% of the highway bill's surface transportation funding would be directed to projects that fall into that category, which include transportation museums, pedestrian walkways, bicycle paths, landscaping and scenic beautification.
Oh, and in the past, that has even meant projects like squirrel sanctuaries.
National debt: The five-minute primer
Congress spent nearly $1 billion on transportation "enhancement" projects last year.
According to Coburn's office, the deal the senator struck with Democrats will allow states to opt out and spend enhancement money on bridge repair and other priorities of their choosing when the bill extension expires in six months.
The deal came at the last minute. Earlier on Thursday, Coburn said he was making his stand against government waste.
"We're in trouble as a nation because Congress doesn't set priorities, and when they do set priorities they are of no connection to the reality of our financial situation," Coburn said.
The federal highway program, which includes an 18.4 cent tax on gasoline, was set to expire at the end of the month. A failure by lawmakers to extend it would mean less funding for highway construction -- at a terrible time for the economy.
And at the moment, FAA funding is also tied up in the bill, which has already passed the House.
For Coburn, this isn't exactly a new strategy. The Oklahoman has thrown the Senate a few procedural curve balls in the past in order to prove a point. He even earns concessions from the majority on occasion.
In 2009, he successfully added a proposal to allow guns in national parks to a bill cracking down on credit card abuses.
Once again, despite vocal opposition from Democrats, and even some Republicans, Coburn was adament.
"There has to be a point in time in this country when we change direction and we start meeting the obligations that are put before us," Coburn said Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the clock is once again winding down on another critical piece of legislation that requires the attention of lawmakers.
Congress has to authorize funding for government agencies before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1. If nothing happens, funding will expire and the government will shut down.
Lawmakers took the first step toward implementing a stopgap measure on Thursday, introducing a "continuing resolution" that will act as a Band-Aid until a long-term solution can be found.
First Published: September 15, 2011: 5:27 PM ET

[Kirk007]

Those are all shorter-term problems that likely result in lower long-term costs. So while we would all want to live to be 150 years old there is no way in sight to pay for that cost. Longevity and associated costs are a huge problem no one wants to discuss. The budget for that makes bike lane costs seem trivial.

No doubt the individual has a huge impact on control and thus should be rewarded or penalized accordingly. The problem we face is that if an individual wants to eat until obese, or feed his/her kids into obesity, we don't have the system to make them more responsible for associated costs. Are we willing to say to someone that if they want to eat themselves to death that it's their right but also their problem? Or those who prefer to sit on a couch instead of go for a walk? Or drive without seatbelts? It's doubtful. We've been conditioned to look at government for all answers, including many personal choices.

well, i have no desire to live that long but you are right, the cost of those last few years of medical care is a huge issue.

On the other point: I want to be responsible for my decisions and acts. One of them is to ride a bike as a mode of transport for a whole host of reasons. I can and do so reasonably responsibly and in a way that minimizes conflict with motor vehicles, but I cannot always avoids being on the same road at the same time. Others tend to want to drive tons of steel at high speed while texting regardless of whether they are on a freeway, country lane or drifting through a designated bike lane, and if they run over a lycra clad cyclist on the way, well that's a minor inconvenience. I would like to think that I could look to some governmental agency to reconcile those competing interests in a responsible way while I am still alive rather than when I'm dead. I don't think my interest in responsible cycling is unreasonable such that I am the sole bearer of the risk of fatal bodily harm from irresponsible motorists, yet without some government, what are we left with? At what point does the individual's interest yield to a larger societal norm?

Today that seems to me to be a big part of the problem. The majority (of people not opinion) are not willing to move an inch from their perspective for the greater good.

Look at the Simpson/Bowles report. Unless each side gets its way all the time, nothing gets done anymore, unless our President completely capitulates, as he is increasingly want to do. Capitulation is not compromise and is not good government. I for one would have applauded our leaders if they would have swallowed those recommendations, even though I was uncomfortable with some of them.

[93legendti]

Again, where does the money come from?

We just threw away billions of dollars on green energy boondoggles with Solyndra, Evergreen Solar Inc., SpectraWatt, Mountain Plaza Inc., Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Co (now all bankrupt) -with 15 more such throw aways set to be made before the month ends.

Europe tried all of this and it failed. China (CHINA!) is warning us to stop spending so much money.

[Kirk007]

Again, where does the money come from?

We just threw away billions of dollars on green energy boondoggles with Solyndra, Evergreen Solar Inc., SpectraWatt, Mountain Plaza Inc., Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Co (now all bankrupt) -with 15 more such throw aways set to be made before the month ends.

Europe tried all of this and it failed. China (CHINA!) is warning us to stop spending so much money.

well we throw away money everywhere; we could play the i see your boondoogle and raise you a war or entitlement all day long. That's the problem - almost every politician plays it; there is no fiscal discipline on spending or revenue generation on either side. The only approach I see is to hoist your idealogical opponents spending while preserving enhancing one's own. This approach hasn't and doesn't work.

[Ray]

FWIW, unless things have changed a lot in the transportation enhancements business, this is not about spending more money or less money - its about whether cycling and pedestrian facilities get a share of the pie, whether that overall pie is growing in good times or shrinking in these times. So, Adam, nobody's coming to ask you for more money - if you pay $100 in transportation taxes, this doesn't affect that. Its just about whether the "softer" modes of transportation continue to get a share of that hundred dollars (and not to worry, its never been a big share). Republicans periodically call up transportation enhancements as a terrible waste of taxpayer money because its not like there are huge constituencies for these projects (which is why the percentages are not high). And yeah, if TE funding went away a higher percentage of those transportation funds could go to brick and mortar highway solutions that would benefit motorists and not cyclists. So THAT's what the fight is about - whether bicycling and walking are legitimate means of transportation that deserve a small percentage of transportation funding. I think they do - I think they're much more cost effective modes of travel in the short and long run. But these projects have always been easy whipping boys when someone is on a rampage about cutting spending, but its not about cutting spending at all - its just about slicing up the pie differently.

So, if you're a total libertarian who doesn't believe government should have ANY role in building or maintaining roads or bridges, then you should be complaining about this, as well as ALL of the other highway funding we pay for through our tax dollars. But if you're not fundamentally opposed to government providing for transportation infrastructure, then this is not a big gummit vs little gummit issue - its a cycling vs motorist issue.

-Ray

[Kirk007]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016216008_bikesafety16m.html

[froze]

I'm not for it. In a time when the US is drowning in debt we need to cut expenses, not figure out how to spend more. And the Pentagon is not awash in cash their having major cutbacks as well.

In fact all levels of government need to cut services and chop useless offices,

throw out the czars,

cut pay to all federal employees including politicians big time and then freeze the pay and benefits,

stop politicians from building buildings and monuments and libraries etc on our dime,

Require all eligible federal employees to compete for their job with a private sector bidder,

streamline the tax code-better yet eliminate it altogether and go with a flat tax or a consumption tax,

reduce troops levels stationed all over the world in countries where there is no fighting by 75% and furlough those,

hire only one new federal employee for everyone that retires,

get rid of nonessential government employees,

transfer all government retirement money into the SS fund and the they can use that retirement and they can opt for a 401k like the rest of us and besides the government stole 4 trillion out of the SS fund from us it's time we get it back,

stop using emergency spending loopholes to get around budget rules,

reform the farm subsides back to the 1996 Freedom Farm Act provision,

and freeze discretionary spending to 2008 levels,

quit spending money on weird scientific projects like the study of a bull frogs mating call,

stop giving grants to other countries they can take a loan and pay it back with interest,

Stop helping those countries with their disasters if they don't help us with ours,

take from Iraq the oil as payment they owe us for the cost of liberating them in terms of military cost and troop injury costs, once it's paid then they can have it back.

take any budget access money and pay down the debt and make a law that no leader or law or whatever can ever again push our debt pass 50% of our gross national product unless a serious war breaks out then they do like in WW1 and WW2 issue bonds first tax last.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg what I would do. I can hear the screams of liberalism already with what I said, let the war begin. I said what I said, I will now bow out much to the pleasure of most of you.

[mjbyl]

The pie chart in the following link is pretty provocative, indicating that by these (obviously biased) calculations 54% of all Federal Spending was actually military spending.

pie chart (http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm)

There seems to be much debate over tiny discretionary spending (like bike paths) and less so about where the real money is being spent.

Just saying...

[Ray]

I'm not for it. In a time when the US is drowning in debt we need to cut expenses, not figure out how to spend more.
Its not about spending more. We spend X amount on highway projects. We'll spend more on highways in good times and less on highways in bad times. The question isn't whether we're gonna spend more - we're clearly NOT in this environment. The question is whether whatever percentage of highway spending has gone for bike and pedestrian projects CONTINUES to go for bike and ped projects. This is not a liberal vs conservative issue - a spend more or spend less issue. Its a question of WHAT our federal highway money will be spent on - whether a portion of it will still go for bike/ped projects or not.

This is not that complicated. An attempt to turn EVERY question into a liberal vs conservative polemic is exactly why our government can't get anything done. And we seem to be just as bad as they are. I guess its true that we get the government we deserve.

-Ray

[93legendti]

FWIW, unless things have changed a lot in the transportation enhancements business, this is not about spending more money or less money - its about whether cycling and pedestrian facilities get a share of the pie, whether that overall pie is growing in good times or shrinking in these times. So, Adam, nobody's coming to ask you for more money - if you pay $100 in transportation taxes, this doesn't affect that. Its just about whether the "softer" modes of transportation continue to get a share of that hundred dollars (and not to worry, its never been a big share). Republicans periodically call up transportation enhancements as a terrible waste of taxpayer money because its not like there are huge constituencies for these projects (which is why the percentages are not high). And yeah, if TE funding went away a higher percentage of those transportation funds could go to brick and mortar highway solutions that would benefit motorists and not cyclists. So THAT's what the fight is about - whether bicycling and walking are legitimate means of transportation that deserve a small percentage of transportation funding. I think they do - I think they're much more cost effective modes of travel in the short and long run. But these projects have always been easy whipping boys when someone is on a rampage about cutting spending, but its not about cutting spending at all - its just about slicing up the pie differently.

So, if you're a total libertarian who doesn't believe government should have ANY role in building or maintaining roads or bridges, then you should be complaining about this, as well as ALL of the other highway funding we pay for through our tax dollars. But if you're not fundamentally opposed to government providing for transportation infrastructure, then this is not a big gummit vs little gummit issue - its a cycling vs motorist issue.

-Ray
Ray,
We are told our bridges are crumbling. Our roads in Michigan have so many potholes, they look like swiss cheese. This money for biking lanes/paths would take away $ from these projects, so in a few years we will be hit with a tax hike to fix what wasn't fixed so the bike lanes/paths could be built.
Then of course, the biking lanes have to be maintained.

Maybe the roads and bridges are perfect in your area-they aren't here.
Our roads here are built so poorly by the union workers, that they have to be patched and "repaired" 2 years after they were built.

The pie is only so big and you can only cut it so many times. There are no free lunches.

[Ray]

Ray,
We are told our bridges are crumbling. Our roads in Michigan have so many potholes, they look like swiss cheese. This money for biking lanes/paths would take away $ from these projects, so in a few years we will be hit with a tax hike to fix what wasn't fixed so the bike lanes/paths could be built.
Then of course, the biking lanes have to be maintained.

Maybe the roads and bridges are perfect in your area-they aren't here.
Our roads here are built so poorly by the union workers, that they have to be patched and "repaired" 2 years after they were built.

The pie is only so big and you can only cut it so many times. There are no free lunches.
OK, fine. Its a legitimate argument to say you'd rather put all of the money into roads and bridges and none into bike and ped facilities. As usual, I disagree with you vehemently, but that's a "how do you slice the pie" argument and that's what this should be. Its not a "how big should the pie be" question, but that's how nearly everyone in this discussion is treating it. BTW, the roads in PA generally suck too, as do the bridges. And when they repave a road or rebuild a bridge, that's the best POSSIBLE time to retrofit it with a bike lane or a wide shoulder or whatever.

Nobody's saying its a free lunch or that it should be. Its a matter of how we divide up our highway funds, as small as they will be for the foreseeable future. Its NOT about adding to the total size of the highway spending. At least THIS issue isn't been and never has been. The whole "jobs bill" question of putting more money into, uhhh, rebuilding and repairing roads and bridges IS a "how big is the pie" question, but whether to spend a portion of whatever that final number is on bike/ped facilities is a completely different type of question.

-Ray

[fiamme red]

We are told our bridges are crumbling. Our roads in Michigan have so many potholes, they look like swiss cheese. This money for biking lanes/paths would take away $ from these projects, so in a few years we will be hit with a tax hike to fix what wasn't fixed so the bike lanes/paths could be built.
Then of course, the biking lanes have to be maintained.In NYC, the streets that I commute on daily have fallen into utter disrepair. Meanwhile the city is spending millions on worthless bike lanes.

[rugbysecondrow]

this is the sort of thing somebody writes when they don't have a clue.

there is too much ridiculousness here.

I'm not for it. In a time when the US is drowning in debt we need to cut expenses, not figure out how to spend more. And the Pentagon is not awash in cash their having major cutbacks as well.

In fact all levels of government need to cut services and chop useless offices,

throw out the czars,

cut pay to all federal employees including politicians big time and then freeze the pay and benefits,

stop politicians from building buildings and monuments and libraries etc on our dime,

Require all eligible federal employees to compete for their job with a private sector bidder,

streamline the tax code-better yet eliminate it altogether and go with a flat tax or a consumption tax,

reduce troops levels stationed all over the world in countries where there is no fighting by 75% and furlough those,

hire only one new federal employee for everyone that retires,

get rid of nonessential government employees,

transfer all government retirement money into the SS fund and the they can use that retirement and they can opt for a 401k like the rest of us and besides the government stole 4 trillion out of the SS fund from us it's time we get it back,

stop using emergency spending loopholes to get around budget rules,

reform the farm subsides back to the 1996 Freedom Farm Act provision,

and freeze discretionary spending to 2008 levels,

quit spending money on weird scientific projects like the study of a bull frogs mating call,

stop giving grants to other countries they can take a loan and pay it back with interest,

Stop helping those countries with their disasters if they don't help us with ours,

take from Iraq the oil as payment they owe us for the cost of liberating them in terms of military cost and troop injury costs, once it's paid then they can have it back.

take any budget access money and pay down the debt and make a law that no leader or law or whatever can ever again push our debt pass 50% of our gross national product unless a serious war breaks out then they do like in WW1 and WW2 issue bonds first tax last.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg what I would do. I can hear the screams of liberalism already with what I said, let the war begin. I said what I said, I will now bow out much to the pleasure of most of you.

[tv_vt]

maybe you should close this thread now. Interest in original post is long gone. Thoughts and opinions are free and all of value, but not really the point of the thread. Ignore OP if you disagree.

Thanks.

Thom

[1happygirl]

I've said it before, but I try to use Maslow in budgeting. Food, shelter, clothing etc. 1st

also I know it's different in different parts of the country, so ...



I guess paying for my friends Horse trails (horse and ride) won't get funded either.

[Chance]

Nobody's saying its a free lunch or that it should be. Its a matter of how we divide up our highway funds, as small as they will be for the foreseeable future. Its NOT about adding to the total size of the highway spending. At least THIS issue isn't been and never has been. The whole "jobs bill" question of putting more money into, uhhh, rebuilding and repairing roads and bridges IS a "how big is the pie" question, but whether to spend a portion of whatever that final number is on bike/ped facilities is a completely different type of question.

-Ray
Why is that? Considering the country is broke, why do we budget a number first and then decide how to divide it out? If we can justify bike lanes then fine, build them. However, if bike lanes are not justified why spend those funds fixing pot holes? Shouldn't they be justified separately on their own merit?

This is part of why we spend way too much. Everything should be justified on its own merit. Otherwise funds will be misused.

[drewski]

Ray,
We are told our bridges are crumbling. Our roads in Michigan have so many potholes, they look like swiss cheese. This money for biking lanes/paths would take away $ from these projects, so in a few years we will be hit with a tax hike to fix what wasn't fixed so the bike lanes/paths could be built.
Then of course, the biking lanes have to be maintained.

Maybe the roads and bridges are perfect in your area-they aren't here.
Our roads here are built so poorly by the union workers, that they have to be patched and "repaired" 2 years after they were built.

The pie is only so big and you can only cut it so many times. There are no free lunches.


I am not sure I buy that deterioration correlates to union labor.
Seems like an oversimplification to me.

I have witnessed roads in New York state have issues on both
roads that are built in union heavy and non-union heavy towns.
Salting roads in New York seems like the more likely prime suspect.
In Canada they use ash which is less acidic and breaks down tar
a lot less quickly.

2 cents of every dollar are currently spent on pedestrian and bicycle projects.
Since pedestrians and bicyclists also drive, and pay taxes, I fail to see where the free lunch analogy makes any sense either.

[93legendti]

FWIW, unless things have changed a lot in the transportation enhancements business, this is not about spending more money or less money - its about whether cycling and pedestrian facilities get a share of the pie, whether that overall pie is growing in good times or shrinking in these times. So, Adam, nobody's coming to ask you for more money - if you pay $100 in transportation taxes, this doesn't affect that. Its just about whether the "softer" modes of transportation continue to get a share of that hundred dollars (and not to worry, its never been a big share). Republicans periodically call up transportation enhancements as a terrible waste of taxpayer money because its not like there are huge constituencies for these projects (which is why the percentages are not high). And yeah, if TE funding went away a higher percentage of those transportation funds could go to brick and mortar highway solutions that would benefit motorists and not cyclists. So THAT's what the fight is about - whether bicycling and walking are legitimate means of transportation that deserve a small percentage of transportation funding. I think they do - I think they're much more cost effective modes of travel in the short and long run. But these projects have always been easy whipping boys when someone is on a rampage about cutting spending, but its not about cutting spending at all - its just about slicing up the pie differently.

So, if you're a total libertarian who doesn't believe government should have ANY role in building or maintaining roads or bridges, then you should be complaining about this, as well as ALL of the other highway funding we pay for through our tax dollars. But if you're not fundamentally opposed to government providing for transportation infrastructure, then this is not a big gummit vs little gummit issue - its a cycling vs motorist issue.

-Ray
So if it the $ is spent on bike lanes, another project involving bridges or roads doesn't get short changed? That's quite a trick.

I guess if you feel "it's only money and it will be spent or not; money get's wasted all the time; more can be printed; more rich people can be taxed next year-what's the big deal" you can rationalize this.

The budget is the budget. If you add projects, others don't get funded.
Either our roads and bridges are crumbling and we need more money thrown at them or we don't (even after $317 Billion allocated for "infrastructure in 2009). If money is spent on bike lanes it isn't spent on bridges and roads.

I see that our respective views are 100% influenced by our political leanings.

[goonster]

I see that our respective views are 100% influenced by our political leanings.
I think that Ray's view is influenced by having extensive experience with the process, i.e. local government.

It is not a top-down process. You don't start with a baseline federal transportation budget of zero, and then add $ for every pothole and bridge repair. You start with a number, and delegate prioritization to lower levels of management. Every state, county and municipality in the nation does it that way, regardless of political leanings.

It works that way in the private sector too. Exxon's IT division doesn't have its budget incremented by every service call, and shareholders don't complain that coffee machines are an extravagant luxury.

[LesMiner]

I see that our respective views are 100% influenced by our political leanings.

I do not know that political leanings are so much the driver as money. Everyone agrees to cut spending but it is the priority that gets in the way. In other words do all these great things to save the budget as long as I do not give up anything. So I want my taxes lowered and all the entitlements and services that benefit me to be saved and not yours. Reminds me of a Pink Floyd tune

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bull????.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

[rugbysecondrow]

Adam, this really isn't about roads, bridges or bike lanes. The greater question is not how we trim a little here and there, which is really only superficial ($100 million will not solve any deficit issue), but what do we do about the size of government as it is currently operating? Although I agree with your sentiments regarding the federal government, we have realities that will not allow the Federal Government to retract in any meaningful way. Sure, lay off federal workers, but where from. How does a closed Smithsonian or National Monument sound? Longer TSA lines at the airport, a diminished FBI workforce? Services are expected by the public, they expect to have a Social Security office nearby, they expect an IRS person to answer the phone when they call, they expect National Parks to be open for family vacations and they expect air travel to allow them to do whatever the hell they want etc etc etc. Where to cut? Where to retract? How do the needs get met, the gaps filled, the expectations met? State and local governments maybe, but they have no money? Will the public just expect less? Not likely. Will the States tax more so they can pick up the burdon? They should, but will the local politicians do that...nope.

So, here we are, a larger yet under funded government, created by politicians and approved by voters...we (the collective we) have been irresponsible in this operation. The reality is we have to fund it and pay for it for now. Taxes will have to increase, fees for services will have to be enacted or increased to cover operations. Somehow the balance sheet has to be reconciled, is it easy to cut services or ask people to pay more for services or both? That is hard to answer. Now, this means the lunancy of adding more services delivered from the Federal level is stupid (obamacare) just like cutting taxes (repub tax cuts) now is stupid. Maybe, once we get our house in order we can revisit these and other issues, but now we just looks like fools.

Now, this is not how I would like it to be, but the realities are different then ideology. I want it to be different, but this is the hand we are dealt, and we need to play it based on what it is and not what it should be.


So if it the $ is spent on bike lanes, another project involving bridges or roads doesn't get short changed? That's quite a trick.

I guess if you feel "it's only money and it will be spent or not; money get's wasted all the time; more can be printed; more rich people can be taxed next year-what's the big deal" you can rationalize this.

The budget is the budget. If you add projects, others don't get funded.
Either our roads and bridges are crumbling and we need more money thrown at them or we don't (even after $317 Billion allocated for "infrastructure in 2009). If money is spent on bike lanes it isn't spent on bridges and roads.

I see that our respective views are 100% influenced by our political leanings.

[Ray]

I'll respond within the quoted area:

So if it the $ is spent on bike lanes, another project involving bridges or roads doesn't get short changed? That's quite a trick.

Yes, if we hold the transportation budget as a constant, any dollar spent on non-motorized modes is a dollar NOT spent on a motorized mode. A dollar spent on a bike lane is a dollar not spent on a road. Who's claimed otherwise here?

I guess if you feel "it's only money and it will be spent or not; money get's wasted all the time; more can be printed; more rich people can be taxed next year-what's the big deal" you can rationalize this.

That may be how you believe I think, but its got nothing to do with how I actually think and it has no relation to this particular discussion at all. I'm not advocating a larger transportation budget.

The budget is the budget. If you add projects, others don't get funded.
Either our roads and bridges are crumbling and we need more money thrown at them or we don't (even after $317 Billion allocated for "infrastructure in 2009). If money is spent on bike lanes it isn't spent on bridges and roads.

Agreed. But nobody's talking about ADDING money for bike lanes or sidewalks. What the GOP periodically recommends, as it is now, is to CUT all money for bike lanes and sidewalks before it cuts ANY money for roads and bridges. My position is that bikes and pedestrians should continue to get a percentage (and a damn small one) of the overall transportation budget. I'm not talking about ADDING bike/ped projects - I'm talking about cutting them at the same rate as the road/bridge projects instead of eliminating all bike/ped projects before cutting any road/bridge projects. This this isn't about the overall bottom line - its about the apportionment within a given total budget.

I see that our respective views are 100% influenced by our political leanings.

Yup

[JMerring]

back on topic, sanity prevailed, even if only temporarily:

"Earlier this evening the Senate passed a clean extension of the surface transportation program until March 31, 2012. The measure passed by a vote of (92-6).


The League would like to take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time this week to participate in our campaign to urge your Senators to pass a clean extension of the transportation bill in opposition of Senator Coburn’s (R-OK) efforts to strip Transportation Enhancements from the bill.


Due in very large part to your participation the League generated over 10,000 messages to Senate offices, this number combined with other national advocacy groups brought the total number of messages sent to Senate offices to well over 45000. In the face of such a resounding response Mr. Coburn eventually gave up his opposition to the bill. THIS TIME.


Bicycle and pedestrian advocates and enthusiasts are certainly a passionate group and over the course of the next six months as Congress continues to debate the next transportation authorization bill we will need to call on you again. We fully expect the next battle to be even more challenging.


Thanks again.


Walter Finch
Advocacy Director
League of American Bicyclists"

[Chance]

Now, this is not how I would like it to be, but the realities are different then ideology. I want it to be different, but this is the hand we are dealt, and we need to play it based on what it is and not what it should be.
Precisely. And the majority of voting Americans don’t bike much and certainly don’t bike to work in large numbers, but drive motorized vehicles constantly. By exercising their voting rights they are “playing” their hand in a different manner than most of us cyclists would prefer.

If we want a bigger piece of the funding “pie” we need a lot more votes. Which means a lot more people interested in cycling. And at present that’s not the case. Not even close.

The perception of cycling as an acceptable and normal mode of transportation has to change. And that’s best done at a local level, not federal.

[Ray]

The perception of cycling as an acceptable and normal mode of transportation has to change. And that’s best done at a local level, not federal.
As it mostly has been, but nothing happens in a vacuum. The transportation "enhancements" funding that's being fought over now (again) came out of local requests to the feds to contribute to the funding of their non-motorized transportation projects as they had been contributing to their road projects. It's always been cities and parks departments and trail conservancies and the like at the local level that's been creating this demand and fighting for their share of federal transportation funds. This wasn't some bright idea that just sprung out of someone's head in DC on day. Politics and funding doesn't work that way.

And yes, its a small percentage of the American people who bike for transportation and that's why the funding represents a very small percentage of the total, as it arguably should. But that doesn't mean it should be eliminated. Because there's also an element of "if you build it, they will come" to all of this. Philadelphia instituted a very aggressive bike lane program over the past couple of decades and, functional arguments against bike lanes aside, ridership within the city has gone WAAAAAY up as a result. So, there are plenty of chickens and eggs here, as with most such issues. But if people at the local level ride enough to demonstrate the need for facilities and eventually get some funding pointed their way for them, then the new facilities will draw more users which turns into more demand for more facilities and over time it makes a REAL difference. Its not all bottom up but it much more bottom up than top down.

-Ray

[Chance]

As it mostly has been, but nothing happens in a vacuum. The transportation "enhancements" funding that's being fought over now (again) came out of local requests to the feds to contribute to the funding of their non-motorized transportation projects as they had been contributing to their road projects. It's always been cities and parks departments and trail conservancies and the like at the local level that's been creating this demand and fighting for their share of federal transportation funds. This wasn't some bright idea that just sprung out of someone's head in DC on day. Politics and funding doesn't work that way.


Ray, the issue that many of us have a hard time grasping is why the Federal government has to get involved at all, or to such an extent. Bike lanes are such a local issue that having DC make any decision seems insane.

For example, some areas have severe winters that don’t lend themselves to bike commuting which means that other transportation provisions (whether mass transit or roads) have to be in place regardless. If that’s the case then funding has to be allocated first to segments that serve as last resort. The same for areas that have long commuting distances. On the other hand bike lanes in moderate climates and where commute distances are reasonably short should get much more support. But if we get the Federal budgeting process involved who decides whether Honolulu should receive Nebraska tax dollars for bike lanes or vice versa?

Centralizing “some” decision making is imperative and unavoidable but most belong within states. Preferably they should be driven down to cities and communities. Citizens most affected by a given bike lane should decide whether they will pay for it or not. If local cyclists can't convince their friends and neighbors to pay for a bike lane then they probably shouldn't get one paid by people they don't even know.

[Ahneida Ride]

The term "Federal Funding" is designed to make it seem like
the stuff is free ...

it ain't

Federal funding is Federal Spending and it comes outa our hides
via direct taxation or the back door method, the fed reserve
dilution tax, which is a flat tax that everyone pays.

But federal funding sound so much better then taxation.

[Ray]

Ray, the issue that many of us have a hard time grasping is why the Federal government has to get involved at all, or to such an extent. Bike lanes are such a local issue that having DC make any decision seems insane.

Look, I'm not prepared to get into a debate on the entire "role of government" - lord knows we've done that enough around here I don't recall it ever being productive. There are many things that the feds shouldn't be involved in if you take a libertarian view of the whole enterprise and this is a fine example. But that's not the world we live in - maybe it will be someday if we go broke enough, or maybe not. I was merely responding to the charges that continuing to fund transportation enhancements as a small percentage of transportation funding is NOT about anyone asking for MORE money or raising anyone's taxes - its merely an argument about how current transportation funds are apportioned. We obviously hold different views on that - I don't have any problem with that. Its a fairly limited issue unless you see every federal governmental role outside of the basics of defense as a poster boy for the evils of liberalism. THAT discussion I'm not gonna have here. Again.

-Ray

[Kirk007]

*** never mind

[1happygirl]

What is right to you may be wrong to me, and who is either one of us to tell the other that they are full of it?
True, but also?
My parents always told me growing up since they were paying for it (whatever it was I was doing), they got the say.

Idk if it is applicable in this way, but seems like sound advice?

[fiamme red]

http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2011/09/vox-populi.html

September 14, 2011
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5922

Dear Senator Hutchison,
As a retired Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Planner, and as a bicycling safety instructor, I am greatly concerned about the safety of those who use bicycles. Unfortunately, much of the money spent on bicycling infrastructure is worse than wasted. Many of the projects actually introduce hazards.

I urge you to SUPPORT any move to eliminate dedicated funding for the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program, and to OPPOSE an extension of the federal transportation act SAFETEA-LU.

My experiences since the institution of the original ISTEA legislation has shown the vast majority of Transportation Enhancement projects have little or no impact on transportation, and are exceedingly wasteful, costing up to five times as much as they would otherwise cost to construct. I have actually seen the City of Dallas build projects twice as fast without using Enhancements money, and for little more than the 20% local match they would have spent using Federal dollars. Claims that bicycle projects create more jobs than all-purpose roadway projects only underscores the inherent waste in these inefficient programs.

Until "bicycle advocates" stop pushing for all segregated infrastructure, no matter what hazards they produce, these projects should be stopped.

Their is a need for bicycling education - teaching people "defensive driving," to recognize and avoid potential dangers. But the current programs instead reinforce dangerous fallacies while they build hazards into the highway system.

Thank you for supporting real safety for bicycling. Please oppose these unwise projects.

Sincerely yours,
P.M. Summer

[Ray]

http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2011/09/vox-populi.html

September 14, 2011
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5922

Dear Senator Hutchison,
As a retired Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Planner, and as a bicycling safety instructor, I am greatly concerned about the safety of those who use bicycles. Unfortunately, much of the money spent on bicycling infrastructure is worse than wasted. Many of the projects actually introduce hazards.

I urge you to SUPPORT any move to eliminate dedicated funding for the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program, and to OPPOSE an extension of the federal transportation act SAFETEA-LU.

My experiences since the institution of the original ISTEA legislation has shown the vast majority of Transportation Enhancement projects have little or no impact on transportation, and are exceedingly wasteful, costing up to five times as much as they would otherwise cost to construct. I have actually seen the City of Dallas build projects twice as fast without using Enhancements money, and for little more than the 20% local match they would have spent using Federal dollars. Claims that bicycle projects create more jobs than all-purpose roadway projects only underscores the inherent waste in these inefficient programs.

Until "bicycle advocates" stop pushing for all segregated infrastructure, no matter what hazards they produce, these projects should be stopped.

Their is a need for bicycling education - teaching people "defensive driving," to recognize and avoid potential dangers. But the current programs instead reinforce dangerous fallacies while they build hazards into the highway system.

Thank you for supporting real safety for bicycling. Please oppose these unwise projects.

Sincerely yours,
P.M. Summer
I'm also a (mostly) retired bicycle and pedestrian transportation planner and I've seen some of the same things. I've seen some projects done more quickly and less expensively without using TE money. Montgomery County, PA has taken to funding almost all of their extensive series of trails using one form or another of local funding, and they're one of the most aggressive and effective agencies anywhere for this sort of work - they have a GREAT system of bike facilities that's getting better by the year. BUT, this is almost like saying 'I know several kids who went to private schools and they got a better education for less money per pupil than all of those public school kids out there" as an argument for closing all public schools. Not a perfect analogy, but pretty close.

There are a couple of things at work here. First, most of the communities that have figured out how to get by withOUT using TE money spent a lot of TE money building facilities, learning the ins and outs of the entire funding stream from various sources, and only THEN decided that they could do it better without using the federal money. If the TE money hadn't been there for the first 50% of projects for them to really learn the ropes of getting projects like this together, AND to build massive local public support for future projects (because these things tend to end up being VERY popular despite massive doubts and opposition initially), they never would have been able to do the next 50% of projects on their own. So, yes, these are great success stories of communities building facilities without using TE money, but if they hadn't built a LOT of facilities WITH the TE money first, it never would have happened. And for the smaller communities without the resources or knowhow, the ONLY way they'll ever get any bike or ped facilities done is with the use of TE and other federal and state program money.

The letter writer above also makes the point that bike facilities are often no safer and in some cases LESS safe than just building wider curb lanes, better maintenance of shoulders, driver and rider education, etc. And I agree with this completely EXCEPT for one massive over-riding point - bike lanes and other possibly ill-conceived facilities do get people out on their bikes in much greater numbers than anything else that's been tried. Even the illusion of safety provided by a bike lane will draw people to ride who other wouldn't have. And the key point here is that the single greatest thing that can be done to make cycling safer is to increase the number of people riding out on the roads. If a motorist sees one cyclist every ten minutes on their commute, they tend to be disregarded as cranks and idiots and in the way. If they see one a minute their perception changes, and when there's a constant presence of cyclists out on the road interacting with the traffic, they become an accepted part of the traffic flow and the perception of them as a nuisance goes waaaaaay down as they're seen as just other road users trying to get where they're going. This is as close to undisputed fact as anything in the transportation planning profession and its very clear empirically that if the facilities are built, people will use them in vastly greater numbers than if they aren't there to begin with. As such, even though you could look at an individual bike lane design and demonstrate why it made cycling less safe than merely learning to ride without it, the fact that more people will be riding if its there makes it the most effective way to improve cycling safety on the roads. Early on, I was anti-bike lane for many of the same reasons as the letter writer. Experience over many years changed my mind. For all of their flaws, they work. While a stupid design decision can sometimes lead to a fatality, the greater number of cyclists are much safer and fatality rates go way down as a result of greater numbers. As imperfect as it, or any other, program is, TE gets a lot of projects built that wouldn't otherwise be built. There are anecdotes of stupid projects and wasteful spending, but the overall good has been pretty clear.

Again, this doesn't answer those of you who just feel the federal government shouldn't be involved in this type of thing - I have no answer for that, we simply disagree. But I think the letter writer makes a lot of very good individual points but misses the much larger point.

-Ray

[Climb01742]

you're a good man, ray. your neck of the (penn's) woods was/is lucky to have you doing your job. and thanks for taking the time to write all your posts.

[fiamme red]

And the key point here is that the single greatest thing that can be done to make cycling safer is to increase the number of people riding out on the roads. If a motorist sees one cyclist every ten minutes on their commute, they tend to be disregarded as cranks and idiots and in the way. If they see one a minute their perception changes, and when there's a constant presence of cyclists out on the road interacting with the traffic, they become an accepted part of the traffic flow and the perception of them as a nuisance goes waaaaaay down as they're seen as just other road users trying to get where they're going. This is as close to undisputed fact as anything in the transportation planning profession and its very clear empirically that if the facilities are built, people will use them in vastly greater numbers than if they aren't there to begin with."Safety in numbers" may be unquestioned dogma among cycling advocates and transportation planners. But I'm skeptical.

I've cycled many miles in small towns where you almost never see a cyclist, and motorists always treated me with respect. On the other hand, I've never dealt with such hostility from motorists in NYC as in the past few years, since the bike advocates have gotten their way with segregated lanes.

[zap]

I have to agree, the larger problem is with motorist who have little patience and lack motoring knowledge.

I'm still a firm believer in educating motorists for not only reducing cycling acidents but improving the motoring environment in the USA. Best bang for the US buck.

[froze]

"Safety in numbers" may be unquestioned dogma among cycling advocates and transportation planners. But I'm skeptical.

I've cycled many miles in small towns where you almost never see a cyclist, and motorists always treated me with respect. On the other hand, I've never dealt with such hostility from motorists in NYC as in the past few years, since the bike advocates have gotten their way with segregated lanes.

And good luck with getting more Americans on bicycles. Americans for the large part are lazy, and they like their cars. Unless gasoline went to $10 a gallon your not going to see much of an increase in riders. And even at $10 a gallon they would probably hop buses before getting on a bike. But worse then that is at $10 a gallon the economy would completely collapse, more people would hunt for food and strain the wildlife because food would be expensive, building projects would cease, people wouldn't buy new clothing, restaurants would shutter their doors, most retail stores would shutter their doors, the cost of anything and everything you buy would go way up due to transportation costs, most airlines would stop flying, etc, etc; and of of that would have an effect on jobs and people won't be able to even afford a bicycle, unless they buy beaters, then what about bad weather?

America is not Europe, nor should it lower itself to anyone else's standard just so we can "fit in" as some politicians want to see happen; other countries need to raise themselves to our level instead.

I'm sorry but in America bicycling will never catch on like in Europe, nor should money be spent to try to appease the cyclists for infrastructural improvements for their needs that represent less the 1% of the population ESPECIALLY since America is having such severe economic crises as we're having now. If the economy was like it was in the late 80's or the national debt was below 50% of the GNP then I wouldn't care if you all wanted the luxury of a bike infrastructure built, but today is not the day for that.

If you all want this sort of infrastructure built then I suggest you start a donation program like the way Rails to Trails is done, but don't ask the taxpayers of America to fund you're pity needs.

I'm a cyclist too, I'm not the enemy nor against cycling projects, I'm against strong arm tactics of cycling activists, and I'm against spending money for something when we have greater pressing needs. How many of you here would buy a $4,000 bicycle and not pay your mortgage instead? Essentially that's what your asking your governments to do.

[Ray]

America is not Europe - most of America is spread much thinner than most of Europe, which is much more densely developed in general. Hence, most trips would be longer and beyond the range that most Europeans would do, let alone Americans for whom its not part of the culture. And in some suburban and exurban areas, cycling will never take a big chunk out of automobiles as a primary means of transportation.

But in many of America's urban areas and denser first ring suburbs, numbers of cyclists are increasing and they increase much much more when there are facilities in place, even if they're only perceived as safer than the same roads without the facilities. And yeah, they increase a lot faster when gas prices are high. I remember when they went well above $4 a couple of years ago, there was a VERY noticeable increase in the number of cyclists (utility, not recreational - we always have loads of those) in my small town. It only lasted a few months and as gas prices came down, so did the number of folks on bikes. Guess what, gas isn't gonna get cheaper over the long term. Whether we find replacement sources of energy is an open question. Having facilities in place both for now, to encourage those who are already interested in riding if they feel safe doing it, and for later as gas prices continue to creep up (I hope it just continues to creep up rather than go up in big jumps).

In my opinion this is good policy. In others opinions, its clearly not. Building bike facilities is "lowering ourselves" to be more like Europe"? Really? OK, no more Italian or French food for you! :cool:

-Ray

[froze]

America is not Europe - most of America is spread much thinner than most of Europe, which is much more densely developed in general. Hence, most trips would be longer and beyond the range that most Europeans would do, let alone Americans for whom its not part of the culture. And in some suburban and exurban areas, cycling will never take a big chunk out of automobiles as a primary means of transportation.

But in many of America's urban areas and denser first ring suburbs, numbers of cyclists are increasing and they increase much much more when there are facilities in place, even if they're only perceived as safer than the same roads without the facilities. And yeah, they increase a lot faster when gas prices are high. I remember when they went well above $4 a couple of years ago, there was a VERY noticeable increase in the number of cyclists (utility, not recreational - we always have loads of those) in my small town. It only lasted a few months and as gas prices came down, so did the number of folks on bikes. Guess what, gas isn't gonna get cheaper over the long term. Whether we find replacement sources of energy is an open question. Having facilities in place both for now, to encourage those who are already interested in riding if they feel safe doing it, and for later as gas prices continue to creep up (I hope it just continues to creep up rather than go up in big jumps).

In my opinion this is good policy. In others opinions, its clearly not. Building bike facilities is "lowering ourselves" to be more like Europe"? Really? OK, no more Italian or French food for you! :cool:

-Ray

Good point in the first paragraph, not so much in the second. I live in Fort Wayne IN I saw no increase of cyclists when the gas prices went up, there was surge in bus ridership though but even according to the transportation dept not a significant increase.

Second when I said lowering ourselves to Europe standards I meant increasing are debt and tax load so much as to make us poorer, it wasn't to mean we should not build a cycling infrastructure, it was to mean that once we get our house in order financially then we could look into that, today is not that day though...reread the post. Talk about no food for someone!

[fiamme red]

Whether we find replacement sources of energy is an open question. Having facilities in place both for now, to encourage those who are already interested in riding if they feel safe doing it, and for later as gas prices continue to creep up (I hope it just continues to creep up rather than go up in big jumps).The on-road segregated facilities that are meant to attract new riders (who are most afriad of getting hit by a car from behind) give a dangerously false sense of security. They also take away the choice from experienced cyclists to ride in traffic.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm almost ready to give up commuting by bike. The segregated lanes in Manhattan have made it so slow and dangerous that it's not enjoyable any more.

[christian]

The on-road segregated facilities that are meant to attract new riders (who are most afriad of getting hit by a car from behind) give a dangerously false sense of security.Do you have any statistics to back this up? I don't prefer to ride in them, but I've seen no statistics to bear out that they're particularly dangerous (or more dangerous than riding on the street, certainly).

BTW I love the NCT, SCT, Van Cortlandt Trail, and Westside Path for my commute. Amazing to ride 42 miles with only 3-4 miles of traffic. Almost unbelievable.

[fiamme red]

Do you have any statistics to back this up? I don't prefer to ride in them, but I've seen no statistics to bear out that they're particularly dangerous (or more dangerous than riding on the street, certainly).

BTW I love the NCT, SCT, Van Cortlandt Trail, and Westside Path for my commute. Amazing to ride 42 miles with only 3-4 miles of traffic. Almost unbelievable.I don't have statistics, but here's an example:

http://www.vancourier.com/news/ICBC+report+prompts+calls+cycling+safety+program/3673230/story.html#ixzz12emMswzw

According to data released by ICBC, the number of accidents at the north end of the Burrard Street Bridge spiked dramatically in the summer months after the separated bike lane was installed. Nearly an accident a day occurred in July and August 2009, with 60 crashes occurring in those two summer months. This is a six-fold increase over the previous summer when 10 crashes were recorded in July and August. In the same period for 2007, there were 35 crashes.

Of course, the advocates of segregation always claim that it's only a matter of time and education before everything is perfect:

...but cycling advocates suggest the data isn’t as stark as it seems. Instead, they say it points to the need for education programs for all road users.

This is what the bike lane where I live looks like most of the time (and that's when no construction is going on):

http://john-s-allen.com/galleries/NYC/grand_st/IMG_5815hotelzone.JPG

[fiamme red]

More from P.M. Summer on bicycle infrastructure:

http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=1123

(P. M. Summer is the former bicycle coordinator of Dallas, Texas, who was removed from his job because of his conservative approach to bicycle facilities. I post the following with his permission.)

There is a whole new breed of bicycle professional out there. They aren’t what we usually think of as cyclists, much less traffic engineers or transportation planners. They are most often urban planners and landscape architects, who have become virtual social engineers. They see their job as changing the way dumb old Americans live in favor of the ways enlightened Low-Country Europeans live.

The bicycle is a means to that end. In their eyes, the bicycle isn’t a vehicle (as code defines it), and never has been. It’s a shoe with wheels. Cynically, they usually add “pedestrian” to their title, while short-shifting pedestrians in favor of “pedalcyclists”.

Most of these new bicycle professionals have never used a bicycle as a regular transportation device (including the gentleman hired to replace me), believe the road (any road) is inherently unsafe for cyclists, and believe that a segregated network is the enlightened (and sole) way to dramatically change mode share.

It’s almost impossible to argue with folks like this, because the only common point of reference is the word “bicycle”, and by “bicycle”, they mean something very different than what I, or others who think like me, do.

The problems we point out about how traffic operates don’t register, because bicycles can never be “traffic” in their eyes. Traffic is always the bicycle’s enemy, and never the bicycle’s environment. People who operate bicycles are like swimmers in shark-infested waters to them. The brave and fool-hardy only need apply. “Normal” people know better, and stay on the side-path/walk/track/gutter.

Fifteen years ago I had the Texas DOT Bicycle Coordinator plead with me to quit defending placing bicycle facilities (signed bike routes) on streets with lanes less than 14 ft. wide. When I explained to him that I preferred 10 ft. lanes, I thought he was going to have a heart attack. “You can’t put cyclists in the way of cars!” he said.

There is a growing “bikes belong off the road” sentiment. Cycling Advocates are slow to support cyclists like Eli Damon, or Reed Bates, or Fred U., [who have been harassed by police for exercising their legal right to use the road] because to defend them would be to say that it’s not unsafe to ride on the roads… and LAB, ABW, and APBP [the League of American Bicyclists, Alliance for Bicycling and Walking and the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals] can’t afford to admit that.

Why can’t these new bicycle advocates admit that bicycles can easily operate as part of the transportation mix, instead of having to be segregated from it? To admit that makes the extravagant demands for special facilities clearly just that: extravagant demands. Andy Clarke, then of BikeFed [the Bicycle Federation of America, now the National Center for Bicycling and Walking; now Clarke is President of the League of American Bicyclists] once described the cost for a segregated bicycle facility as being “mere decimal dust” compared to the cost of automobile projects. That ‘decimal dust’ has turned into hundreds of millions of dollars in consultant and lobbyist fees, as well as “bicycle planner” salaries. Admitting that most of these facilities aren’t necessary for safe and easy bicycle transportation endangers too much money currently being poured into the new cottage industry of “Amsterdamning America”, and threatens too much personal power. Politicians, eager for popular (if unproven) quick fixes, are far more likely to endorse feel-good projects using other people’s money than they are to call for better educated and trained cyclists.

[torquer]

Politicians, eager for popular (if unproven) quick fixes, are far more likely to endorse feel-good projects using other people’s money than they are to call for better educated and trained cyclists.[/I]
I would be a lot more sympathetic to this line of arguement if "cyclists" were replaced by "drivers." Education and training doesn't get people on bikes. A perceived safe environment does. That same perception accounts for cyclists on sidewalks when no alternative (in their eyes) exists.

Its a chicken and egg problem, unfortunately; more cyclists in the road make it safer, because drivers are less oblivious; but only a few hardcore riders use the road because drivers are oblivious. Segregated paths are one way to get from here (marginal minority) to there (Amsterdam ;) )

My own priority for increasing ridership would be secure bike parking at non-CBD subway stations, but that's not under discussion here.

[fiamme red]

Its a chicken and egg problem, unfortunately; more cyclists in the road make it safer, because drivers are less oblivious; but only a few hardcore riders use the road because drivers are oblivious. Segregated paths are one way to get from here (marginal minority) to there (Amsterdam ;) )I, for one, have no desire to get there (Amsterdam or Copenhagen).

[Ray]

The on-road segregated facilities that are meant to attract new riders (who are most afriad of getting hit by a car from behind) give a dangerously false sense of security. They also take away the choice from experienced cyclists to ride in traffic.
In many cases, I agree that they create a false sense of security. As I discussed in a previous post, the way they help increase safety is by getting more riders out on the road - higher numbers are the greatest single safety improvement anyone has come up with. The Bicycle Coalition of Philadelphia, who works very hard to raise funds and awareness for bike facilities, had a real debate about this, because LOTS of bike/ped planners (errr, sorry, social engineers... :cool: ) recognize some of the safety concerns about segregated on-road facilities. But they finally concluded, after doing a lot of research and seeing how the existing bike lanes in Philly were working, that the good done by getting more riders on the road far outweighed the "false sense of security" that the lane itself created. That's pretty much been my evolution too. I had some very large concerns about bike lanes specifically early on, but seeing how successful they were in getting people to ride, I changed my mind over the years.

As for forcing experienced riders OUT of traffic, I've never ridden that way - I ride in a lane when it suits my purposes, but if I need to make a left or otherwise need to be in with traffic, that's where I ride. Never had a problem with cops on that one. The much bigger problem in Philly is much less experienced cyclists riding on the sidewalk where there are no lanes. There were a couple of pedestrian/bike collisions on the sidewalks that have had really negative PR implications for cyclists in Philly. I've spent significant time in Tucson, Seattle, and Philly both before and after major bike lane programs were implemented. You can argue with the specific design of a given facility all day, but when you see the vastly higher numbers of cyclists in each of those cities after the improvements versus before, you'd never argue that those cities were less safe for cyclists after the lanes went in and the cyclists came out.

-Ray