US Govt to use fuel taxes to pay for yuppie cyclist paths.

Blind_Io

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
24,224
Location
Utah
Car(s)
See signature
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/bicycle-policy-ray-lahood_n_536791.html

WASHINGTON ? Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a weekend bicyclist, might consider keeping his head down and his helmet on. A backlash is brewing over his new bicycling policy.

LaHood says the government is going to give bicycling ? and walking, too ? the same importance as automobiles in transportation planning and the selection of projects for federal money. The former Republican congressman quietly announced the "sea change" in transportation policy last month.
"This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized," he wrote in his government blog.

Not so fast, say some conservatives and industries dependent on trucking. A manufacturers' blog called the policy "nonsensical." One congressman suggested LaHood was on drugs.

The new policy is an extension of the Obama administration's livability initiative, which regards the creation of alternatives to driving ? buses, streetcars, trolleys and trains, as well as biking and walking ? as central to solving the nation's transportation woes.
LaHood's blog was accompanied by a DOT policy statement urging states and transportation agencies to treat "walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes." It recommends, among other things, including biking and walking lanes on bridges and clearing snow from bike paths.

Transportation secretary is normally a quiet post, a Cabinet backwater. But LaHood has been the administration's point man on an array of high-profile issues, from high-speed trains and distracted drivers to runaway Toyotas.

The new policy has vaulted LaHood to superstar status in the bicycling world. Bike blogs are bubbling with praise. A post on Ridemonkey.com calls him "cycling's man of the century." The Adventure Cycling Association's Web site calls LaHood "our hero."
"LaHood went out on a limb for cyclists," Joe Lindsey wrote on Bicycling.com. "He said stuff no Transportation secretary's ever said, and is backing it up with action."

The policy has also been embraced by environmentalists and many urban planners.
Word of the policy change is still filtering out beyond the bicycling and transportation communities, but the initial reaction from conservatives and industry has been hostile.
The National Association of Manufacturers' blog, Shopfloor.org, called the policy "dumb and irresponsible."

"LaHood's pedal parity is nonsensical for a modern industrial nation," said the blog. "We don't call it sacrilege, but radical is a fair description. It is indeed a sea change in federal transportation policy that could have profound implications for the U.S. economy and the 80 percent of freight that moves by truck."

LaHood said he has been surprised by the response.
"It didn't seem that controversial to me," he wrote in a second blog item. "After all, I didn't say they should have the only voice. Just a voice."

At a recent House hearing, Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, suggested jokingly to a Transportation Department official that one explanation for the new policy is that the secretary's thinking has been clouded by drugs.

"Is that a typo?" LaTourette asked. "If it's not a typo, is there still mandatory drug testing at the department?"

The new policy is not a regulation and, therefore, not mandatory, Transportation undersecretary for policy Roy Kienitz responded to LaTourette.
But it's LaHood's view "that the federal government should not take the position that roads and trains are real transportation and walking and biking is not," Kienitz said. "His view is it's all real transportation, and we should consider it based on what benefits it can bring for the amount of money we spend."

That didn't satisfy LaTourette.
"So is it his thought that perhaps we're going to have, like, rickshaws carrying cargo from state to state, or people with backpacks?" asked the congressman.

Bicycling advocates have been blasting LaTourette. Andy Clarke, president of the League of American Bicyclists, with 300,000 affiliated members, called his comments "a little childish."

LaTourette said in an interview that he thinks bike paths, bike lanes and projects that make communities more walkable are fine but shouldn't be funded with money raised by a gasoline tax paid by motorists. The federal gas tax pays for most highway and transit aid, although lately general Treasury funds have been used to supplement the programs.

LaHood noted that LaTourette supports federal funds for a bike path in his district.
"The point is, on his Web site he's bragging about the fact that he got some money for a bike path," LaHood said. "He knows people in his district like them."

LaHood, 64, said he and his wife have biked on weekends for years. Three days before his announcement of the new policy, LaHood stood on a table to speak to a gathering of hundreds of bike enthusiasts in Washington. He drew cheers when he vowed the Obama administration will put affordable housing next to walking and biking paths.

"I'm not going to apologize for any of it," he said in the interview. "I think this is what the people want."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If cyclists want cycle paths maintained, then be prepared to pay a cyclist tax to pay for it. All motorized users pay for the upkeep of the roads which they use, so why should cyclists be the exception? Just because you are powered by food instead of gas doesn't mean that your roads should be free too.
 
Crazyjeeper said:
If cyclists want cycle paths maintained, then be prepared to pay a cyclist tax to pay for it. All motorized users pay for the upkeep of the roads which they use, so why should cyclists be the exception? Just because you are powered by food instead of gas doesn't mean that your roads should be free too.
Click to expand...

Stop! You're making too much sense.
 
Crazyjeeper said:
If cyclists want cycle paths maintained, then be prepared to pay a cyclist tax to pay for it. All motorized users pay for the upkeep of the roads which they use, so why should cyclists be the exception? Just because you are powered by food instead of gas doesn't mean that your roads should be free too.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 
On the other hand, people need to be forced against their will (By economic factors) to use their cars less, maybe this is just the way to do it. Make cars more expensive while simultaniously providing a realistic alternative.

I changed my mind, tax the cars, give it to the bikes
 
Crazyjeeper said:
If cyclists want cycle paths maintained, then be prepared to pay a cyclist tax to pay for it. All motorized users pay for the upkeep of the roads which they use, so why should cyclists be the exception? Just because you are powered by food instead of gas doesn't mean that your roads should be free too.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it strikes me as another one of those "using a 'sin tax' to fund 'sinless expenses'" things. State lotteries and gambling funding education is the most well-known example.
 
Dogbert said:
On the other hand, it strikes me as another one of those "using a 'sin tax' to fund 'sinless expenses'" things. State lotteries and gambling funding education is the most well-known example.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I think most people would agree that we diverting funds from maintaining roads is not something that would be very wise considering the state of a lot of major roads in this country. The Lottery still has enough money to run itself, and then gives the proceeds to education. The fuel tax doesn't really have a lot of excess money raised that can be reasonably diverted. If you think the bridge over the Mississippi collapsing in Minneapolis was bad, think about how many more could go if road repair funding is diverted to cycle paths and other non-motorized transportation projects. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have safe bridges on my interstates than a cycle path.
 
Crazyjeeper said:
If cyclists want cycle paths maintained, then be prepared to pay a cyclist tax to pay for it. All motorized users pay for the upkeep of the roads which they use, so why should cyclists be the exception? Just because you are powered by food instead of gas doesn't mean that your roads should be free too.
Click to expand...

You sir get the idea! +1

Unfortunatly, the whole off Europe is full off bycicle paths , none of witch are paid for by actual cyclists,all off them are paid for by roadtaxfees...... and then the cyclists still ride on the road 'because the paths are to dirty' :wall: :wall:

welcome to communisme......
 
Sounds like a complete non-issue in my ears. Fuel taxes can be spent on any number of things, healthcare, books for children or some shrubberies with a nice little path running down the middle. It's nothing stranger than that the tax you pay on movie tickets might fund your countrys military. The tax you pay on fruit can be used to fund foreign aid. Or something else that needs funding.

Not to mention that cycling generally brings alot of health benefits which in turn saves money.
 
Last edited:
MattD1zzl3 said:
On the other hand, people need to be forced against their will (By economic factors) to use their cars less, maybe this is just the way to do it. Make cars more expensive while simultaniously providing a realistic alternative.

I changed my mind, tax the cars, give it to the bikes
Click to expand...

It's called congestion.

When Utah wanted to plow over a bunch of wetlands to build the Legacy Highway I was against it. The traffic it was supposed to alleviate was created by a bunch of people buying cheap houses in a particular suburb. They knew when they moved in that they would have a commute and then whined and cried that they had to commute.

Instead of building a new road or widening the existing road, I was in favor of commuter rail and expanding light-rail. The traffic itself becomes the incentive to use trains or bikes.

So, hands off my tax money! It's there to pay for my road if you want your own road, then you pay for it.
 
Bike paths are awesome, especially if they're well designed and can get you to where you need to go relatively easily and quickly. Fewer cars on the road means more space for those of us there, they're usually pretty great from a recreation standpoint, AND getting those jerk cyclists who think they own the road and hate anyone with a motor onto a path is always a good idea.

THAT SAID, highway maintenance should be a priority for gas tax, and this seems like it should be a municipal responsibility more than anything. Bike paths could, potentially, reduce the wear and tear on city streets - which are a municipal responsibility here, not sure about the US - but they're not going to touch highways.
 
Crazyjeeper said:
Yes, but I think most people would agree that we diverting funds from maintaining roads is not something that would be very wise considering the state of a lot of major roads in this country. The Lottery still has enough money to run itself, and then gives the proceeds to education. The fuel tax doesn't really have a lot of excess money raised that can be reasonably diverted. If you think the bridge over the Mississippi collapsing in Minneapolis was bad, think about how many more could go if road repair funding is diverted to cycle paths and other non-motorized transportation projects. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have safe bridges on my interstates than a cycle path.
Click to expand...
True enough.

Building a dual carriageway with a middle lane in the US would require 10% more money, and ultimately 10% more effort, to build two 4ft bike lanes on either side. Take that however you will; not a large amount, or not a small amount.
 
2Billion said:
Bike paths are awesome, especially if they're well designed and can get you to where you need to go relatively easily and quickly. Fewer cars on the road means more space for those of us there, they're usually pretty great from a recreation standpoint, AND getting those jerk cyclists who think they own the road and hate anyone with a motor onto a path is always a good idea.

THAT SAID, highway maintenance should be a priority for gas tax, and this seems like it should be a municipal responsibility more than anything. Bike paths could, potentially, reduce the wear and tear on city streets - which are a municipal responsibility here, not sure about the US - but they're not going to touch highways.
Click to expand...

Ding. My town has a huge bike path. Barely any bikes on the road, and tons of people use it (it hooks up with a number of parks, other hiking trails and communities so most everyone has easy access). It also keeps kids walking home from school away from busy roads.
 
The problem around here is the Lycra Warriors. The "hardcore" cyclists wearing a body-condom and riding at $2,500 cycle and wearing a $500 helmet. These guys are the ones who blast through stop signs and traffic lights and won't use bike lanes or bike routes.

Bike routes tend to wind their way through parks and open space, which is great for the casual ride to enjoy the day, but the Lycra Warrior isn't about that. He has Quads of Steel and is out to get from point A to B as fast as he can by pedal power. They also tend to be very politically vocal and aggressive towards anyone else in the road. They aren't interested in bike paths because they aren't intense enough training for whatever race they have coming up.
 
AiR said:
Sounds like a complete non-issue in my ears. Fuel taxes can be spent on any number of things, healthcare, books for children or some shrubberies with a nice little path running down the middle. It's nothing stranger than that the tax you pay on movie tickets might fund your countrys military. The tax you pay on fruit can be used to fund foreign aid. Or something else that needs funding.

Not to mention that cycling generally brings alot of health benefits which in turn saves money.
Click to expand...

In the US, road taxes and gas taxes are (in most states) supposed to be used for something at least tangentally related to the item being taxed; road taxes are supposed to go to the maintenance of the roads.

Remember this?
800px-I35W_Collapse_-_Day_4_-_Operations_%26_Scene_%2895%29.jpg


This is the I35 bridge collapse in Minnesota that CrazyJeeper was referencing. It collapsed due to maintenance deferrals and lack of inspections brought on by lack of funding. This lack of funding, despite lavish amounts of money being pumped into the fund via taxation, was due to the fact that instead of maintaining roads, signals and bridges like they were supposed to, they diverted ONE BILLION DOLLARS from the road fund to build a light rail train in Minneapolis that nobody rides and does nothing but consume money. Then they whined about not having any money and how the bridge collapse was seriously hurting business.

MattD1zzl3 said:
On the other hand, people need to be forced against their will (By economic factors) to use their cars less, maybe this is just the way to do it. Make cars more expensive while simultaniously providing a realistic alternative.

I changed my mind, tax the cars, give it to the bikes
Click to expand...

What ever happened to 'pay your fair share', hm?

Also, if I have to pay for these special roads, I should be allowed to use them. Perhaps a car can be rightly excluded, but there should be no reason why a motorcycle should not be allowed on these special paths, especially if the speed limit is obeyed - yet motorcycles are banned from bike paths.

Why should I be forced to pay for something I cannot use, derive no good from, and cannot even vaguely be attributed to increasing 'the public good'?

For that matter, bicycles are not now nor will they ever be a practical means of daily transport for the supermajority of American people in American cities. The more so now since businesses are going belly up and people have to travel longer distances for services they need.
 
Blind_Io said:
The problem around here is the Lycra Warriors. The "hardcore" cyclists wearing a body-condom and riding at $2,500 cycle and wearing a $500 helmet. These guys are the ones who blast through stop signs and traffic lights and won't use bike lanes or bike routes.

Bike routes tend to wind their way through parks and open space, which is great for the casual ride to enjoy the day, but the Lycra Warrior isn't about that. He has Quads of Steel and is out to get from point A to B as fast as he can by pedal power. They also tend to be very politically vocal and aggressive towards anyone else in the road. They aren't interested in bike paths because they aren't intense enough training for whatever race they have coming up.
Click to expand...

A +rep for you, sir. My thoughts exactly.
 
If you choose to ride a bicycle on the road/cycle path you should be forced to pay (OK a small proportion) of the road upkeep. However you should also be forced to have at least third party insurance for any and all accidents you cause - then you can go on the road/cycle path.

Now why this does not fly here nor will it in the US is . ... Hills and distance. We have too many hills and in the US/Canada/Oz their distances are Too Far mostly.

Any how the money - as has been said will not go on what it is supposed to - in the UK it will go to moat upkeep and Duck Houses. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top