Pat

According to today's Orlando Sentinel, John Mica a representative from central FL who is the chairman of the house transportation committee, wants to take all federal funding away from bike lanes, bike paths, and sidewalks. He wants all of the money from the gas tax to go into more roads. What makes his proposal especially ugly is the fact that central FL has one of the highest fatality rates for pedestrians because of a lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crossings on major roadways. You might want to let your representative and John Mica know exactly how you feel about this one.

thanks,

Pat

Pat

Today, May 6, 2011, the Orlando Sentinel ran an article about funding from gas tax revenues for bike paths, bike lanes and sidewalks. Apparently, a central Florida congressman who is chairman of the house transportation committee, John Mica, is against continuing using gas tax money for these purposes.

John Mica believes that all of the revenue should be spent solely on roads.

Now central Florida has one of the highest pedestrian fatality rates in the country. One of the reasons for this is that many of our urban high speed roads lack sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. For pedestrians, it is a matter of the quick and the dead . It just does not make any sense to me for a central Florida congressman to be against more sidewalks when we need them so badly.

Also, the bike paths made in the area: the Cady Way trail, the West Orange Trail, the Cross Seminole Trail and the Seminole Wekiva Trail have been very successful. They have enjoyed a considerable amount of use. They are credited with revitalizing some of the local communities. They get people out into the air and exercising. There are a number of obvious additions and connections that could be made to this system. Apparently, these facts have eluded John Mica.

Finally, in the article in the Orlando Sentinel, it is claimed that 80% of the state routes in the state have bike lanes. I ride a bunch. I am familiar with the local state routes. Many are really high speed. They typically have paved shoulders but bike lanes are pretty rare. The paved shoulders are often in poor repair, they are often interrupted by driveways, curbs and other obstructions. These interruptions force cyclists trying to use them into high speed traffic.

It seems to me with the price of gasoline going up relentlessly since 1960, we can expect people to be priced out of the automobile as a primary form of transportation. Bikes are a cheap and healthy alternative. Why stop improving the infra structure?

If you do not like the plans to stop the funding of bike paths, bike lanes and sidewalks, you might want to email Congressman Mica or your own congressman and let them know your viewpoint.

thanks,

Pat

Jamesw2

what bill number or what is the name of the legislation pleaase

The Human Car

from Streetsblog New York City by Tanya Snyder

A draft of the president’s full transportation bill
...
The formula-based Livable Communities Program, which would absorb popular livability programs including Transportation Enhancements, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, National Scenic Byways Program, Recreational Trails Program, Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways, and Safe Routes to School. Some transit projects proven to improve air quality would be allowed. States would be required to use some of the money to employ a full-time Safe Routes to School coordinator and at least one bicycle and pedestrian coordinator. States would also be required to develop a livable communities strategy in support of national performance goals for livability, to be reported on annually. The budget allocates $23 billion over six years to this program.
The discretionary Bicycling and Walking Transportation Grant Program has a big “[NEED TO MODIFY]” in front of it in boldface type, so let’s take all this with a grain of salt. The analysis says the program would fund “sidewalks, bikeways, and shared use paths” and other facilities, including bike-share stations, and bike education and encouragement programs. Grants could be as high as $20 million, out of an annual program budget of a half-billion dollars.
...
https://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/05/04...gh-speed-rail/

unterhausen

the only thing is that federal money isn't equivalent to gas tax proceeds.

genec

Hey, let the gas tax pay for roads, and only the gas tax... see how well that works. GRIN.

UptownJoe60640

Yeah, this is the mentality we need running things... NOT!

dougmc

If they increased that gas tax sufficiently, it would work well.

It would also be fair to say that gasoline taxes pay only for roads (and possibly related things like sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. -- these things are part of the road, after all) and not other things like education. Ideally, this would happen at both the federal and state levels.

It would also be fair to put an additional tax on electric cars, perhaps a per mile or kWHr charge, so they also pay for the roads. (Hybrids don't need to be taxed extra, they do pay, unless they can also be plugged in.) Or this tax could be ignored to encourage the development and use of electric cars, at least until they reach some sort of critical mass.

sggoodri

Some state DOTs are changing how they do things in response to the adoption of "Complete Streets" policies. Before, when building a new road, the municipality would be required to pay for including sidewalks in the project or else no sidewalks would be built. In many cases, the municipality would decline - especially if the municipality were cash-strapped or there weren't outspoken advocates for pedestrians active. After the policy change, however, the sidewalks would be an essential part of the project and the municipality would not be required to pay for them. It seems to me that this trend will increase the use of highway money to build the entire highway and not just travel lanes.

Note that I am not a fan of the common interpretation that "Complete Streets" always include segregated striped bicycle lanes, since these are not required in many places, and attempts to shoe-horn them in to many streetscapes results in bad designs such as door zone bike lanes and curbside bike lanes at right turn locations. But there's no reason that wide outside lanes, wide paved shoulders, and other designs can't be paid for by highway money as the part of a complete street construction.

B. Carfree

I suppose the article in the Orlando Sentinal didn't mention all the property and income tax money that has gone to build travel lanes used almost exclusively by motorists, did it?

rekmeyata

Why not charge a one time registration fee of $30 for each new bike sold in the USA kids and adults? And have that fee do two things, register the serial number for theft tracking and help pay for bike paths and lanes. From 1992 to 2009 there were an average of 17.4 million bikes sold, that would have translated to 522 million dollars average! If each state did that and the money was used solely for paths and lanes within the state the bike was sold (or in case of internet sales to which state the bike was sold and sent to) we wouldn't be complaining about the cost for paths and lanes. In Indiana the state budget for bicycle infrastructure is 31.4 million in 2010; though I don't have the figures for bike sales in Indiana for 2010 and doing a very inaccurate estimate by dividing 17.4 million bikes into 52 (inaccurate due to some states sell far less bikes then others and some far more) $30 per bike would have provided Indiana with roughly 10.1 million in revenue. Of course federal grant money is always applied for to do projects such as this. But a $30 fee would pay for roughly more then half of the budget.

I know some of you will scream and yell at the idea of charging a fee for buying a bicycle; but for example, you pay green fees to play golf so that the grounds is built and kept up, so why not a fee to keep the lanes and paths built and kept up? I would not balk at paying $30 more for a bike if I knew where the money was going. And a one time fee would prevent a state expenditure and personal hassle of dealing with renewals.

What's crazy is how much it cost in some states to provide bicycle lanes and paths. In California it can cost from $15,000 to $60,000 PER MILE just to add a bike lane to an existing road!! Of course this includes engineering, design, paint and signage...someone is making money...lots of money. I think we're being scammed, but that's just me, I'm sure none of you here think that way.

Digital_Cowboy

The biggest problem with your example is that not everyone plays golf so it's lost on those who don't. Next is the fact that states have the bad habit of "losing" money. Over in Tampa money that had been ear marked for one neighborhood "somehow" ended up funding a project in another neighborhood. So how would we guarantee that the monies generated by bicycle sales would be used only for bicycle related projects?

And we already pay a "fee" for buying a bike, it's called sales tax. We pay it every time we buy a bike, buy a new saddle, new tires, new tubes, new brake pads, new wheels, etc., etc., etc. So why should we have to pay an additional fee on top of the sales state that the state collects? Now if the sales tax, which may or may not be more than the $30.00 fee you're purposing depending on the bike.

Also given that one can pick up a used bike at a pawn shop or at a garage sale how do you purpose that the state collect the $30.00 fee from bikes sold at yard/garage sales and flea markets? And those bikes are not always worth $30.00 so that fee can end up being more than the bike is worth.

Just a thought, and my $0.02.

rekmeyata

Not everyone plays golf...right, and not everyone rides a bike, so whats your point?

And your right tax payers money often gets lost, and most of the time so lost there's no evidence of where it went. Even the state lottery programs designed to give big money to schools...the schools get very little of the money, so little the school districts are asking for more taxpayer money from bonds. But yet taxpayer money is at work though highly wasted thus my example of how much a mile of bike lane costs.

Sales tax does not go towards bike paths, it goes towards totally unrelated projects. You buy a car and pay taxes PLUS a registration fee, and that fee is every year! You don't cry about that, so why not a one time fee on bicycles? At least it wouldn't be every year! And the fee would register your bike so in case of theft you might stand a chance to recover it...note I said might, but at the very least bike theft might decline a tad if the would be thief knows he's taking a chance selling it on Craigslist or in garage sale.

If you read my post I stated clearly only on new bikes, used bikes you don't collect, I know it's a problem, but to try to enforce collecting registration on a used bike would eat up more of the money used in the new purchase registration fee leaving less for it's intended purpose. Besides all new bikes become used bikes and it is a one time fee.

You don't like fees, I don't like taxes either yet I have to pay them; I don't like registration fees on cars either yet I have to pay it even though I pay taxes on it; I don't think I should have pay to fish either but I have to pay for a license even though I spend taxes on fishing gear; I could go on and on about taxation and fees but you get the point...I hope.

prathmann

The immediate effect of such a fee on new bike sales would be to drastically cut the number of kids getting a bike for their birthday or under the Christmas tree. Many such kid's bikes are bought at Walmart or similar stores for around $50-60 and an additional $30 fee would shift quite a few of the purchases to yet another electronic gadget instead. Now granted, the $50 bike probably isn't the best quality, but it still may give a child some needed exercise and a little independence and overall I think our society benefits from having kids with bikes instead of more video games. And how likely is the person who doesn't ride a bike as a kid to later develop an interest in bicycling for either recreation or for transportation? My view is that our society benefits in many ways from having more people biking and walking around instead of driving everywhere and therefore we should encourage those behaviors rather than impose additional fees on them.

The other problem I have with the idea that cyclists and pedestrians should bear an additional cost burden is that most of the infrastructure improvements I feel are necessary are a direct result of new road and highway construction that was built to improve convenience for motorists without consideration of how it affected the mobility of others.

When a typical town road system consisted of a grid of residential streets with a speed limit of 25 mph and a few designated 2 - 4 lane arterials with 30 -35 mph speeds, it was safe and convenient to walk and bicycle everywhere without the need for any special infrastructure. But then traffic levels grew and urban freeways were built with the result that now one needs to walk or cycle miles out of the way to get to the nearest place to cross the highway - and even then it isn't safe as a result of high speed traffic merging onto the overpass from the sides. The previous safe and convenient 2 mile ride to the local grocery store may now be a far more dangerous 10 mile ride instead. So cycle and pedestrian advocates call for additional crossings to be built for cyclists and pedestrians and such bridges are quite costly. But they weren't needed before and still wouldn't be needed except for the freeway or multi-lane high speed arterial that was built for the convenience of motorists that now divides the town. Is it really fair to ask that the cost be picked up entirely by the pedestrians and cyclists?

markus_mudd

I don't have much faith in a politician (or most any individual) who denies that bicycles and feet are transportation. The auto and oil industry are already heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers so it seems like the fuel taxes should be able to pay for sidewalks and bike lanes/paths in new construction. The problem with this solution is that the taxpayer is still the one paying the bill while the auto and oil industries see no change.

Taking monies away from sidewalk and bike lane/path construction hurts those of us who don't rely on a car for every transportation need. Adding a new tax/registration fee to our new bike purchases is just a punishment to us.....It doesn't address the problem.

I already pay for roads and other services I may not even use through local and property taxes. I have no choice. Our local Wal Mart made a large donation to the city to build sidewalks and paths to make accessing their new store location easier if you're on foot, bicycle, or scooter. The city council decided to spend that money on renovations to the golf course instead.

Should I and everyone else who might want sidewalks and bike paths pay a registration fee for our bicycles or even our shoes? Money isn't the real transportation construction problem......Priorities are the problem and until politicians and governments figure out that bicycle and foot traffic should be a priority, we won't get anywhere by punishing everyone who buys a new bicycle with a registration fee or new tax. The car + gasoline isn't the only way to get around and politicians need to know that.

rekmeyata

But we're not even close to paying for the cost 100% except in property taxes, and maybe sales taxes, that's my point we should be paying more and a reg. fee would go towards that, but still fall short by at least 50% of the cost. A reg. fee would free up some of our other taxes to pay for other more important infrastructure improvements. We cyclists are the ones using the paths and lanes not cars, cars pay tax when they buy gas and pay reg. fees that go toward road improvements, it's only fair that cyclist pay some sort of (ie reg.) fee to go towards partially offsetting the cost of bike lanes and paths.

genec

Well the plain truth is that roadways are heavily subsidized by everything from developer fees (locally) to local general revenue taxes to federal general revenue taxes... well beyond the gas tax. Of course the flip-side argument is that roadway users contribute to the economy.

What these naysayers of cycling fail to realize is that road users are road users regardless of what form of vehicle they chose... and likely due to the taxes that cyclist pay, and the relatively small amount of damage a bike causes, cyclists tend to contribute more to the roads than do motorists.

genec

Frankly this sounds like a great idea to me... after all how often does one buy a new bike? Of course the real issue is that registration of the bike alone could easily cost more than $30, and thus the cost of administrating that registration will eat up all the funds.

unterhausen

there is no similar fee for cars (in most states anyway). Not sure I would be too happy paying for most of the bike infrastructure I see. And should the multitudinous pedestrians that use this infrastructure have to pay a fee for shoes?

geo8rge

Why is he forcing this on all states, or even all places withing Florida. If he wants that in his own district that's fine with me. Rep Mica seems to have a habit of imposing bad ideas on the rest of the country.

atbman

From Wikipedia: The word "mica" is derived from the Latin word mica, meaning "a crumb",

atbman

Courtesy of the Florida Bicycle Association. On 22nd October, 2010:
Congressman Mica stated: “The Safe Routes to School Program is a great initiative that encourages kids to walk or bike to school. It is a win-win, benefitting the security of our students and making our roadways and bike paths safer for everyone.”

The event began with a video presentation from a Walk to School Event held at Westside on International Walk to School Day (October 6, 2010). Following the video presentation and remarks by the community leaders, Congressman Mica presented a certificate and flag that had been flown over the U.S. Capitol Building to Westside Principal Judy Winch. Chairman Frank Bruno presented Principal Winch with a Proclamation from the Volusia County Council for Safe Routes to School Day on October 22, 2010.

Did someone mention the phrase "joined-up thinking"?

Or hypocrisy?

Digital_Cowboy

My point is/was that you were making it seem as if the "average" person on the street is aware of green fees. On top of having to buy/rent clubs/shoes. Which is not so, if one doesn't play golf how are they going to know about greens fees?

Exactly, and it isn't much of a stretch to envision some politician to justify redirecting that $30.00 to other non-bicycle related projects. Using the "logic" of "well they didn't know about it, so they won't miss it" or some such nonsense.

Sorry, I've never owned a car, so no I don't pay sales tax or registration fees on any car. Because as as been said before for a lot of the box store bikes it would effectively double the price of the bike. And given that the economy is still pretty much in the toilet as it were why add more financial burden to those who can least afford it?

The same has been said about your "one time" registration fee. That it would basically require a whole department to collect and disperse the money. The staff and office space alone would cost more than would be collected.

So then why are you trying to add another fee to the mix? Think of the lower middle class/below the poverty line family who is struggling to make ends meet. Scrimping and saving to buy their child(ren) a bicycle(s), now add a $30.00 fee to each bike that family buys and they wouldn't be able to afford it.

Well said, or it'd send them to the pawn shops looking for used (and possibly unsafe) bikes to buy for their children. This and all purposed "registration" fees would serve to keep more bikes out of the hands of the people who need them the most. Plus as has been said it would cost more to run the program than the program would collect.

Exactly, if city planners and/or street designers/engineers had laid out the roads correctly in the first place they wouldn't need to go back and "correct" their "mistakes." Why so many roads weren't more intelligently designed is something that we have the right to ask and know.

Digital_Cowboy

I don't think that may do these days. Exactly, the auto/oil industry has gotten a "free ride" for way too long. And they should now have to "pay the piper" as it were.

Was an investigation opened to find out why the money was redirected?

Well said, well said.

Digital_Cowboy

How do you figure that? Given that a bicycle or pedestrian doesn't cause anywhere near the level of wear and tear on the roads that we all use it's been shown that those who ride bikes, walk or use public transportation actually PAY more than our "fair share." And you want to add another fee?!?

Have you figured how much it would cost collect and disperse the money collected? As I said in another post, think of the overhead involved in such a practice.

Also have you figured out who would be collecting this fee? Would the LBS/box store be collecting it? Or would the purchaser be given a form and have to mail the fee into either the state or federal government? And what about bikes purchased out of state? Where does that money go? Say I purchase bikes for my niece and nephews? I'm in Fl and they're in NY, who gets the money? What about Internet sales, who collects that money? And given that it's hard enough to collect sales tax on purchases made over the Internet, any such fee would also likely be next to impossible to collect. And what about bikes bought in another country? Or what if a person in Fl moves to Ga, or NY, or Tx, or wherever? Does one have to re-register their bike(s) each time that they move?