Sen. Tom Coburn Continues His War on Cycling

After the highly publicized bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007, Senator Tom Coburn proposed taking money from federal spending on bicycle paths and using it for maintaining and repairing bridges (Even though it turned out that the I-35 bridge collapse was from a design flaw, not a lack of maintenance).

In February of this year, he tried to remove all stimulus funds for bike and hiking trails, and bad mouthed bike lockers and paths as waste this past summer (twice). [He's 0 for 2 so far, so the good news in this war is that he's an incompetent General]

So it's no surprise that he recently, proposed two amendments to the FY10 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill that will strike funding for transportation enhancements. As streetsblog.dc writes

The first of Coburn's amendments would allow states to opt out of the current mandate that 10 percent of federal transportation aid be spent on "enhancements" such as bicycle and pedestrian paths, bike and pedestrian safety education, or the conversion of abandoned rail tracks to bike-ped paths. A report released by McCain and Coburn in July found that states spent $3.7 billion on such enhancements between 2004 and 2008.

Coburn's second clean transportation-related amendment would block funding for bike and pedestrian paths and other "enhancement" projects until the DOT certifies that the nation's highway trust fund is fiscally solvent -- a prospect that is exceedingly unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Many local bike projects (and other projects) have been paid for with TE money. You can find out how to contact your Senator (I don't have any) through the League's Advocacy Center. The vote will occur sometime on Wednesday, so this needs to be done early...

Comments

[Jack]

You lie! Bike routes are used by illegal immigrants and should be banned. Heck, just ban bikes.

[shawrider]

I'm commenting unarmed...THIS TIME.

[Froggie]

On that 35W comment, the design flaw may have been the primary factor, but lack of maintenance (which I can personally attest to...born and bred in Minneapolis) was definately a contributing factor.

Back on topic....given both how much less bike/ped infrastructure costs compared to other modes as well as the mode share, I don't necessarily see why 10% of transportation funds is REQUIRED be allotted to transportation enhancements (definately make it optional...or even a higher percentage optional...but not a requirement).

But at the same time, I don't think eliminating the TE category entirely would be a smart move either...

[Case Simpson]

I think he is rather confused on what to do with the streets, including bike transportation.