Saturday Morning Ride (11/28/09)

The CTB decided to limit Transportation Enhancement funding to only 5 of the 12 federally designated programs. The original proposal was to limit it to only the top four on this list.

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Education
• Landscaping and Scenic Beautification along Transportation Corridors (including streetscape improvements)
• Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors and Conversion to Trails (traditional rails-to-trails and rails-with-trails projects)
• Acquisition of Scenic or Historic Easements and Sites

There's more at the Virginia Bicycling Federation blog.

The Board indicated that they want to fund fewer projects, but make sure that they support these core transportation functions, and insure funded projects are completed.  

Since 1993, approximately $270 M has been spent on a total of 817 projects.

Virginia is working on a statewide Bicycle Plan. A final draft is expected in mid-February.

The Glover Park Transportation Study includes bike lanes on New Mexico Avenue and Tunlaw Road.There would be a climbing lane on the hill up New Mexico toward American U.

Another recommendation is creating a new bicycle route from 39th Street to Idaho Avenue and Porter Street. Additionally, the report recommends adding new bike racks along the Wisconsin Avenue commercial corridor and other key locations in Glover Park.

Richard Layman has a link to Montgomery County biking maps.

Montgomery County Maryland has three very nice bicycling-sustainable transportation maps for White Oak, Silver Spring, and the Medical Center (National Institutes of Health and the Bethesda National Naval Hospital). These maps are models for promoting bicycling and optimal mobility in key destinations. 

17th St, NW will soon get a bike lane between Massachusetts and New Hampshire Avenues.

The reconfigured 17th Street will maintain two traffic lanes and parking on both sides of the street, with a new five-foot wide bike lane on the west side of the street. One resident observed that it would be safer to place the lane on the east side of the street, so cyclists are not in the door zone on the driver's side of parked cars. DDOT staff at the meeting stated that "striping is the last thing we do" and that the location of the bike lane could be subject to change, but did not make any promises.

The other bike-related news for 17th Street is that individual parking meters will be removed, to be replaced by multispace meters. To make up for lost bike parking, new U-racks are included in the plan, but DDOT staff last night were unable to say whether this change will result in a net gain or net loss of bike parking on the street.

Those of us who don't pay gas taxes (i.e. users fees) still pay quite a bit for roads. So reports Subsidyscope.

in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees—down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.

Richard Layman writes about methods to slow down drivers that are more effective than speed limits.

Comments

[Contrarian]

Contra the SubsidyScope story, today's Examiner has a screaming headline: "Big Squeeze on Motorists: Cash-strapped local governments are turning to fees and fines to help boost their bottom lines, but the extra costs are leaving residents feeling squeezed."

[Froggie]

I would've liked to see Subsidyscope do a breakdown by level of government.

For example, recent "bailouts" notwithstanding, highway funding at the Federal level has always been 100% covered via user fees. At the state level, it's hit or miss. Some states are 100% (Minnesota being one), while others aren't (like Virginia and their sales tax for transportation). Then you also have the case of user fees at the state level being diverted to non-transportation uses...Texas is one that comes to mind.

The biggest disparity, and the one driving that percentage down the most, is at the local/county level, where it's largely property taxes that are paying for road improvements.

[Paul Product]

Froggie - Yes, a break down by level of government would be interesting information for a couple of purposes, but wouldn't necessarily be as coherent or interesting as you might suspect. Highway funding at the federal level hasn't "always been 100% covered by user fess," although the highway trust fund is mostly self-financing. (It was out of money this year, necessaitating a "bailout" as you mention.) At the state level, no state funds roads purely through user fees. (I don't know where you're getting your figures for Minnesota, but it spends money out of general funds and local taxes for roads, as do other states.)

[Froggie]

Minnesota is my home state, hence why I've been keeping tabs for years on the situation there. The "general funds" is a misnomer, since that was money that originally came from Minnesota's motor vehicle sales tax. Of course local taxes pay for roads, but in Minnesota that's for projects at the local/county level.