Sunday, January 11, 2009
 

Commonwealth Transportation Board hearings Tuesday

The Commonwealth Transportation Board will hold public hearings in Fairfax County on Tuesday, January 13 at the Fairfax Co Government Center starting at 7 p.m. This is your chance to let the CTB know about the need for better bicycle facilities in Virginia.

According to the VDOT press release, "Representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) will be present to provide information and answer questions." (It has always seemed odd to us that the Department of "Transportation" does not include rail and public transportation).

All road projects should accommodate bicyclists. When projects are designed, the impact on all modes should be considered. As an example, if a project could be extended a short distance to complete a bicycle facility, at least that part of the project should be included in the overall project scope.

There should be dedicated funds to maintain bike facilities. This includes regularly sweeping debris from bike lanes, regular repaving of major paved trails, and adding paved shoulders to existing roads.

See the Virginia Bicycling Federation site for more information on what you can do.
Comments:
First, all road projects DO accommodate bicyclists. The roadway itself is accommodation. In fact, I’ve seen signs to that effect….”Share the Road”… Not every road needs to have a dedicated bike lane or even paved shoulders. That would add significant costs to road projects. With a budget this is constantly dwindling, that means fewer projects can be completed, and that hurts everyone, not just cyclists.

Does everyone know where the money comes from for transportation projects? It comes from the Transportation Fund. Does everyone know where the money comes from for the Transportation Fund? That would be from the Gas Tax. (State and Federal) How much gas does a cyclist buy…? I would imagine none when using the dedicated cycle facilities. If FABB wants to enjoy dedicated bicycle facilities on all projects and “dedicated funds”, I suggest a registration or taxation for cyclists. There should be a use tax for these facilities just like there is a use tax (gas tax…) for the roadway.

I will commend FABB and other “Special Interests Groups” on their success. You’re certainly part of the vocal minority whose sense of entitlement has led to a substantial number of dedicated bicycle facilities. I’m just part of the silent majority that is tired of wasteful spending… Maybe the current state of the economy will encourage other rational people to speak their mind allowing logic and reason will prevail!
 
I agree that cyclists can use the existing roads and many currently do; we have no choice. I think cyclists are actually safer when using the road and being regarded as part of traffic. Most motorists are looking for other road vehicles, not for pedestrians or cyclists on sidepaths or sidewalks.

However, if we are ever going to encourage more people to use bicycles for transportation, we'll need dedicated facilities on some roads. Many neighborhood and urban roads with low speed limits don't require bike facilities, but collectors and arterials in N. Va. need either wide outside lanes, paved shoulders or bike lanes. There are few options on the local roads, many of which end in cul-de-sacs.

"Does everyone know where the money comes from for transportation projects? It comes from the Transportation Fund."

This is a common fallacy. "Highway" projects are funded by the Federal gas taxes, but local roads are funded through general tax revenue. Most cyclists pay their share of gas taxes anyway, since most of us own motor vehicles. We just choose to use bikes because they are cheaper, less polluting, and a healthier way to get around.

According to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, "Although motorist user fees (fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees) fund most highway expenses, funding for local roads (the roads pedestrians and cyclists use most) originates mainly from general taxes. Since bicycling and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes, people who rely primarily on nonmotorized modes tend to overpay their fair share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists."

The report goes on to state that "in 2002, $27.9 billion were spent on U.S. local roads, of which only $3.1 billion was from user fees."
 
1) On-road bicycle facilities benefit motorists by improving the safety, capacity, and maintenance of the road for everyone. For example, they make it much easier for motorists to overtake bicyclists who are legitimately traveling on the road.

2) The rights-of-way for virtually all roads and highways (except for freeways which often impede bicycling and where bicycling is often prohibited) were NOT acquired with any motor vehicle user fees such as a gasoline tax.

3) Motor vehicle traffic congestion, not bicyclists, are the reason why roads are ever widened.

4) Bicycles, unlike motor vehicles, do essentially no damage to roadways. Motor vehicle user fees are needed to undo to damage to roads caused by cars, trucks, and buses.
 

Post a Comment

Contact FABB via email: info@fabb-bikes.org

Subscribe to the
FABB e-newsletter


Subscribe to posts:
[Atom 1.0] or [RSS 2.0]





  Bike to Work Day 2015 at Wiehle Station

  Transportation choices

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Archives

  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007