The [Senate Finance Committee] has posted 53 pages worth of amendments that could be voted on at today’s markup....Republicans have targeted some of their biggest traditional transportation pet peeves in their amendments, which include ones to let states opt out of the federal highway and transit programs, end spending on the Transportation Alternatives program that funds bike and pedestrian paths
And, relatedly
As the Highway Trust Fund continues is slow slide toward insolvency, biking remains popular around the country, and more and more advocates are pushing for bike lanes and other infrastructure specifically for two-wheeled commuters. But that attention comes with a price — Republicans often point to bike lanes as a waste of federal dollars, and many want bikers to pay up. But nobody seems to have figured out a way to charge bikers in a fair and cost-efficient way. “I have no problem paying an extra nickel or quarter or dollar on a bike tire,” bow-tied biker Rep. Earl Blumenauer told MT. “I’m not opposed to it, but most of the systems I’ve seen actually cost almost as much as they collect.” Maybe the best strategy, even if the ideas so far are unfair, is for bikers to not immediately reject those efforts, even if just to get a seat at the table. “We probably will not benefit by being self-righteous or smug, even though the benefits of bicycle use are multi-faceted and significant,” said Tim Blumenthal, president of People for Bikes. My story in today’s POLITICO paper looks at the obstacles to a bike fee and why recent state efforts have failed: http://politico.pro/1nHyAHM
Fine, but stop the whining when I'm riding at whatever the heck speed I want in the middle of the lane of whatever street I want.
Which will now include the GW Parkway north of Alexandria and the Rock Creek Parkway (which, BTW has the world's most dangerous "bike path" alongside it).
Posted by: Crickey7 | June 26, 2014 at 02:01 PM
Hey, that bike path is pretty awesome. On a mountain bike with no people around.
The highway trust fund problem is a serious one, btw. No one wants to do the evil deed needed to make it solvent, but I do kinda want to keep my job.
Posted by: DE | June 26, 2014 at 03:03 PM
They can install a toll booth on the CCT, W&OD and MVT. Insert a quarter and ride through.
Posted by: Crickey7 | June 26, 2014 at 03:33 PM
I'm happy to pay my full share of the social cost of riding my bike, when drivers pay their full share of the social cost of strapping 4,000 pounds of metal, glass and plastic to their backs and burning fossil fuels fossil fuels to power their personal transport.
Posted by: Greenbelt | June 26, 2014 at 06:13 PM
A carbon tax that starts out as a revenue neutral substitute for the gas tax and is then ramped up is the most rational way to solve the insolvency problem short-term. Then develop user fees for vehicles that actually degrade road surfaces. As for taxing cyclists I would be fine paying something if I knew the funds were being used for cycling projects. So put a check box on the Federal tax form for a Bike Trust Fund and put reps from LAB, Bikes Belong, etc. on the board.
Posted by: Early Man | June 27, 2014 at 05:50 AM
The highway trust fund has serious problems. Bikes are not the cause of the problem. If anything, they are part of the solution.
Posted by: SJE | June 27, 2014 at 01:36 PM
Cyclists are already paying for the bike lanes--the money for that comes out of the taxes I pay, just like the money for the rest of the road.
Posted by: Mike | June 30, 2014 at 07:13 AM
We're probably the best for paying our use, but I doubt we even pay the full cost. Which of course makes me think the whole transportation system is rigged.
The way to get the GOP on board is have some good studies indicating the money saved. Ie, but a net volume a 3% decrease in DC-area traffic equates to X less use on roads wear and tear, X faster, and reduces health care costs for an economic impact of X. I guarantee it's a good outcome. Just have to have something solid to say so.
Posted by: T | June 30, 2014 at 10:04 AM
Subsidizing transportation is probably something we should do, just as we subsidize the park system (which also has a user fee).
I think that a belief that "studies" will sway congress members to act ignores the production of dozens of studies of global warming and the lack of a response from Congress. Also, pretty much everything else.
Posted by: washcycle | June 30, 2014 at 12:25 PM
There's also the study about bikeshare and head injuries, which continues to be twisted completely out of all connection with the actual... facts. The percentage of injuries that were head-related increased, but that is some weird statistics fetish. Total injuries seem to have decreased, and so did head injuries.
Fewer injuries, fewer head injuries, and yet the media are portraying this as somehow a bad thing. Maybe too many fantasy baseball fans out there, who care more about statistics than what is actually beneficial?
Posted by: Michael H. | July 01, 2014 at 12:18 AM
For example, this story on FOX 5:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/25902944/rise-in-brain-injuries-may-be-linked-to-bike-sharing-programs
Posted by: Michael H. | July 01, 2014 at 12:19 AM