Advocacy & Safety - Senate amendment introduced to prohibit stimulus spending on bicycle infrastructure!

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced an amendment last night that would prohibit funding of “bicycle routes” and paths from the economic stimulus package that’s working its way through Capitol Hill right now.

Visit this page for more information or to take action! http://www.biketempe.org/?p=245

That's just fribbin' crazy!

Actually, I'd be happy with Wide Outside Lanes.

My guess is that the DeMint amendment would block the funding of those too. As much as I disagree with Sen. DeMint, the point he's trying to make is that such money would be wasted. It's OUR job to show that the money would not be wasted. Cycling infrastructure can potentially be a great use of funds, when one considers the savings in environmental damage, fuel, and health benefits that can accrue. But hey, it's up to us to prove that the money isn't going to waste.

BTW, those who live in SC might want to consider firing Mr. DeMint when the next election rolls around. This is headed toward P&R, but in general Republicans are skeptical of government spending no matter where it goes, except when it comes to military spending. Democrats, OTOH, have historically had a case of not remembering that the amount of available money is finite.

That is a good summary of the problems with both the left and the right, Ngchen.

DeMint is guilty of regarding human-powered transportation as pure recreation, the bikes-as-toys syndrome. My admittedly emotion-charged mental image of him is one of the Buy and Large starship cruise customers in "Wall-E."

DeMint is guilty of regarding human-powered transportation as pure recreation, the bikes-as-toys syndrome. My admittedly emotion-charged mental image of him is one of the Buy and Large starship cruise customers in "Wall-E."

And whose fault it is? It certainly isn't DeMint's.

It's the collective fault of you all you people in the US who ride bicycles and sit on your hands watching while others work to give you something for nothing.

The collective you have become mere puppets in a political show rather than even dreaming, let alone attempting, to be the puppeteers.

Just how many people who belong to the broad membership of BFs have made any effort to contact their local representatives at any level of government to offer constructively the reasons why cycling should be considered along any other form of transport for infrastructure funding?

You only have to look at the crap served up here to see there is no unity of voice on *any* subject to do with cycling.

It's a classic case of "they should do something about it" rather than "I have to do something about it".

You'd all rather b!tch and piss and moan in some little forum club instead of spending some effort in real, coalface cycling advocacy.

And whose fault it is? It certainly isn't DeMint's.

It's the collective fault of you all you people in the US who ride bicycles and sit on your hands watching while others work to give you something for nothing.

The collective you have become mere puppets in a political show rather than even dreaming, let alone attempting, to be the puppeteers.

Just how many people who belong to the broad membership of BFs have made any effort to contact their local representatives at any level of government to offer constructively the reasons why cycling should be considered along any other form of transport for infrastructure funding?

You only have to look at the crap served up here to see there is no unity of voice on *any* subject to do with cycling.

It's a classic case of "they should do something about it" rather than "I have to do something about it".

You'd all rather b!tch and piss and moan in some little forum club instead of spending some effort in real, coalface cycling advocacy.


So where in the hell do you live? Have you ever lived in the U.S.? If not then shut the hell up because you know nothing about how it actually works here. Some of us do actually do something. Take a lok at my thread about the Bicyclist Bill of Rights. Myself and several hundred others contacted our Senators and Representatives to ask them to support and pass this. I imagine a lot of Americans do something similar when it comes to stuff like this. Oh and we also elect these officials and expect them to do something about it, on our behalf. That is our way of doing something about it ourselves. Do you hold free elections in your country? I am going to guess not. Until you do and understand how the free election process works and why shut up.

Want to hear a GOPer vent on what a waste bikes are listen to. Rep. Patrick McHenry. He's One of the most vociferous.
Patrick McHenry, U.S. Representative, North Carolina

What he said:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the Democrats, promoting 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. If you don’t like it, ride a bike. If you don’t like the price at the pumps, ride a bike. Stay tuned for the next big idea for the Democrats: Improving energy efficiency by the horse and buggy.” McHenry was speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives on an Energy Bill that included a “conserve by bike” pilot study to determine the effectiveness of education and encouragement programs in getting people to bicycle instead of drive.

The full text and video of his lengthy harangue is provided below.

For a list of politicans who frequently trash talk cycling, here is a story from League of American Bicyclists.

http://www.bikeleague.org/action/trashtalk/

And whose fault it is? It certainly isn't DeMint's.

It's the collective fault of you all you people in the US who ride bicycles and sit on your hands watching while others work to give you something for nothing.

The collective you have become mere puppets in a political show rather than even dreaming, let alone attempting, to be the puppeteers.

Just how many people who belong to the broad membership of BFs have made any effort to contact their local representatives at any level of government to offer constructively the reasons why cycling should be considered along any other form of transport for infrastructure funding?

You only have to look at the crap served up here to see there is no unity of voice on *any* subject to do with cycling.

It's a classic case of "they should do something about it" rather than "I have to do something about it".

You'd all rather b!tch and piss and moan in some little forum club instead of spending some effort in real, coalface cycling advocacy.

If they want me on my bike out of the traffic lane and out of the way of cars, then they need to provide and maintain equivalent suitable infrastructure that suits any and all of my destinations. This is not a me problem. Particularly not since I pay all the same taxes and fees on my car as they pay on theirs.

Statement by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, as per Huffington Post
(Original is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-earl-blumenauer/no-seriously-republicans_b_164822.html if I can get this link to work):


With this latest attempt to strip bike finding [sic; presumably he meant funding?] from the recovery bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated how out of touch they are with their pathologically short-sighted attacks on bicycles. To their detriment, they are continuing their trend from last Congress of using the most economical, energy-efficient, and healthy forms of transportation as their whipping post. Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want.

Moreover, bicycle and pedestrian paths are precisely the kind of infrastructure projects our country needs. These projects tend to the most "shovel-ready" and are more labor-intensive than other projects-- therefore putting more people to work per dollar spent.

We might have understood these attacks a decade ago, but today they ignore the explosion of bicycling in this country in recent years that has been nothing short of phenomenal. There are tens of millions of American cyclists and even more who want their children to be able to bike and walk to school safely and therefore support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.

American families have indicated time and again in the passage of bond measures across the country that they favor spending on alternative transportation, such as bicycles and mass transit, over spending on mere highway capacity. Americans want real solutions to the economic crisis, not just a band-aid fix. These investments will stimulate our economy now - when it counts and point our nation toward the economic and environmental realities of the future.

Recent transportation surveys indicate that 52% of Americans want to bike more than they do now - but don't, because of the lack of safe and connected bicycle facilities.

Think about it: More than 50% of working Americans live [work?] less than 5 miles from home, an easy bicycle commute. Already more than 490,000 Americans bike to work; in Portland, 8% of downtown workers are bicycle commuters. Individually, they are saving $1,825 in auto-related costs, reducing their carbon emissions by 128 pounds per year, saving 145 gallons of gasoline, avoiding 50 hours of being stuck in traffic, burning 9,000 calories, reducing their risk of heart attack and stroke by 50%, and enjoying 14% fewer claims on their health insurance.

Nationally, if we doubled the current 1% of all trips by bike to 2%, we would collectively save more 693 million gallons of gasoline - that's more than $5 billion dollars - each year. From 2007 - 2008, bicyclists reduced the amount Americans drive by 100 million miles.

Bicycling also has immediate and direct benefits for communities that invest in bicycle paths, bike lanes, trails, and secure bicycle parking. For each $1 million invested in an FHWA-approved paved bicycle or multi-use trail, the local economy gains 65 jobs and between $50 and $100 million in local economic benefits. Some communities are already showing the results of these investments. After investing less than 1% of their total transportation budget in bicycle facilities in the past eight years, the City of Portland has seen a 144% increase in bicycle use - and the growth of a $90 million bicycle industry that has added nearly 50 new businesses in just the past two years.

I can think of no other transportation investment that provides more benefits to American communities who so desperately need: more jobs, reduced transportation costs, increased personal health, a cleaner environment, reduced carbon footprint, and greater community livability. It's time the Republicans got the point about what Americans want. Investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure will help us create jobs and build healthier more livable communities for the future - these projects are the gifts that keep on giving.

That's just fribbin' crazy!


What do you expect - he's DeMinted

And whose fault it is? It certainly isn't DeMint's.

It's the collective fault of you all you people in the US who ride bicycles and sit on your hands watching while others work to give you something for nothing.

The collective you have become mere puppets in a political show rather than even dreaming, let alone attempting, to be the puppeteers.

Just how many people who belong to the broad membership of BFs have made any effort to contact their local representatives at any level of government to offer constructively the reasons why cycling should be considered along any other form of transport for infrastructure funding?

You only have to look at the crap served up here to see there is no unity of voice on *any* subject to do with cycling.

It's a classic case of "they should do something about it" rather than "I have to do something about it".

You'd all rather b!tch and piss and moan in some little forum club instead of spending some effort in real, coalface cycling advocacy.

You are criticizing and complaining to the wrong person. I have been an active member of SDCBC for many years, and I have submitted numerous pro-cycling comments at city, county, and SANDAG workshops. On the road I am an ambassador for cycling, riding in a courteously, predictably, defensively, and appropriately assertive manner.

We cyclists have our disagreements, but we also do have "unity of voice" on several critical issues, including traffic signal loop detectors, traffic calming of high-speed intersections, and the need for some space (irrespective of whether it is well-maintained shoulders, wide outer lanes, or marked bike lanes -- this is all a secondary and distracting debate) on high-speed roads.

How can we provide support to Rep. Earl Blumenauer and indicate to the other representatives that may be unsure, that there is a desire for cycling funding?

If they want me on my bike out of the traffic lane and out of the way of cars, then they need to provide and maintain equivalent suitable infrastructure that suits any and all of my destinations. This is not a me problem. Particularly not since I pay all the same taxes and fees on my car as they pay on theirs.

Spot-on!

How can we provide support to Rep. Earl Blumenauer and indicate to the other representatives that may be unsure, that there is a desire for cycling funding?

Just found an answer to my own question...

http://capwiz.com/lab/home/



Please call your both Senators as soon as possible. They will be continuing to vote late tonight and possibly into the weekend. Use these talking points:

· I am calling to ask the Senator to vote against the DeMint amendment to prohibit bicycle and pedestrian projects from being funded in the economic recovery bill.
· I also ask you to support explicit funding for bike/ped projects in the final economic recovery bill.
· It takes construction workers and materials to create bicycle and pedestrian, creating jobs at the same or better rate than highway projects
· These smaller projects can move quickly to get local businesses working and help Main Street economies.
· Providing safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to workplaces, schools, and transit gives families cheaper transportation options.
· Improving sidewalks and bike lanes can make downtown a destination, further helping local business and the economy.

To get contact information, please go to the League of American Bicyclists' action alert-all you have to do is type in your zip code to get your Senator's phone numbers, talking points, and a form to fill in the response from your Senator's office. If your Senator's office does not answer, please leave a message.

http://capwiz.com/lab/callalert/index.tt?alertid=12611861&PROCESS=Call+Now

Here is the list of reasons for paved shoulders. Is Senator DeMint against paved shoulders?
I believe paved shoulders should be given priority. This list does not include street-parking:

Safety - highways with paved shoulders have lower accident rates, as paved shoulders:
Provide space to make evasive maneuvers;
Accommodate driver error;
Add a recovery area to regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects such as guardrail, signs and poles (highways require a “clear zone,” and paved shoulders give the best recoverable surface);
Provide space for disabled vehicles to stop or drive slowly;
Provide increased sight distance for through vehicles and for vehicles entering the roadway (rural:in cut sections or brushy areas;
urban: in areas with many sight obstructions);
Contribute to driving ease and reduced driver strain;
Reduce passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians;
Make the crossing pedestrian more visible to motorists; andProvide for storm water discharge farther from the travel lanes, reducing hydroplaning, splash andspray to following vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Capacity -
highways with paved shoulders can carry more traffic, as paved shoulders:
Provide more intersection and safe stopping sight distance;
Allow for easier exiting from travel lanes to side streets and roads (also a safety benefit);
Provide greater effective turning radius for trucks;
Provide space for off-tracking of truck's rear wheels in curved sections;
Provide space for disabled vehicles, mail delivery and bus stops;
andProvide space for bicyclists to ride at their own pace;
Maintenance -
highways with paved shoulders are easier to maintain, as paved shoulders:
Provide structural support to the pavement;
Discharge water further from the travel lanes, reducing the undermining of the base and subgrade;
Provide space for maintenance operations and snow storage;
Provide space for portable maintenance signs;
Facilitate painting of fog lines.

I just sent the following to my Senators:


I recently learned that Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a Senate amendment that would would strip funding for bicycle infrastructure from stimulus bill (Amendment No. 461).

I hope you do not support this amendment and take action to remove the amendment from the stimulus bill.

Bicycle infrastructure is actually some of the most effective "bang for the buck" when it comes to transportation. Encouraging commuters to ride bicycles to work (which I started doing a year ago) reduces pollution and eases traffic congestion in cities. However, there will only be any kind of real effect if greater numbers of people start riding. Building bicycle infrastructure will encourage ridership.

Bear in mind that 55% of Texas cyclists who are registered voters vote in Republican primaries. Cycling is not just some left-wing, hippie movement; cyclists are a key part of your constituency.

Please consider that with respect to Amendment No. 461 and other legislation regarding bicycle infrastructure. This is not about recreation; it's about transportation.

Thank you for your consideration,

[Doohickie]
Fort Worth

Just sent a note to both of mine. Our one trail that needs completed (and will stretch 22 miles when it does) is in very close proximity to a high traffic road, with plenty of semis and freight operations, where a local cyclist was killed last year. Thankfully our transit system is slowly extending the stops out that way, near the stretch of road he was killed on. Having the trail way completed would be a big help as well.

Here is the list of reasons for paved shoulders. Is Senator DeMint against paved shoulders?
I believe paved shoulders should be given priority. This list does not include street-parking:

I ride on roads with 35mph, 45mph and 55mph limits, all with no shoulders.

Shoulders would be great on the 55mph road and tolerable on the 45mph road, but i definitely wouldn't want them on the 35mph road - a 15mph speed differential is basically nothing, and shoulders would only encourage speeding, make people think I belong on the shoulder, and put me in the path of a potential right hook.

If they want me on my bike out of the traffic lane and out of the way of cars, then they need to provide and maintain equivalent suitable infrastructure that suits any and all of my destinations. This is not a me problem. Particularly not since I pay all the same taxes and fees on my car as they pay on theirs.

This is the kind of actions that would make me susceptible to the thinking of the likes of Critical Mass. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Can one imagine how much more traffic would be on the roads of cities in so many cities in Europe , if it were not for bikes. This decade will see drastic energy conversion problems and every citizen will soon need every form of transport at their disposal. When will America deal with its stupid politicians.
PS.. I am sure the amendment did not pass. Anyone know for sure.? It would not hurt to call Rep. Blumenauer on Monday. Wonder if any senator is a member of the Congressional bike caucus. ?

Below is a link to the Congressional Bike Caucus..
....Does membership necessarily equal true budgetary conviction. ?.. Anyway, that caucus is one of the larger non partisan caucus ' in the Congress. 182 Members. 55 Republicans. So not all Republicans are enemies of the cycling community.
Anyway about Demint. Hopefully he does not represent South Carolinians , or even South Carolina Republicans.. Two S.C. GOP congress members are members of the Bike Caucus.
Rep. Bog Ingliss and Rep. Joe Wilson. ...I suggest, They need be contacted and told to have a word with Sen. Demint. .....A good turn. Rep. John Spratt , D-SC is chair of the House Budget Committee and a member of the bike caucus.
...... ps. Two senators are members of the Bike Caucus. Senators Tom Udall and Mark Udall of New Mexico and Colorado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_Caucus

I just posted about this on the VBF website:

http://www.vabike.org/bike-ped-projects-stimulus/

There's a link there to a Streetsblog article that everyone should check out.

so, I ride my bike to work most days, and yet, I'm asking why this should be funded by a stimulus bill. It seems that the additional funding that cycling facilities require would return little from a ROI standpoint, and since the point of the bill is to promote economic stimulus, ROI is the proper viewpoint to take. The Senator may just be biased against cycling facilities, but I tend to agree that this is not the proper vehicle for funding. Otherwise what could be used to effectively stimulate our economy becomes a big excuse to pass a bunch of pork.

Statement by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, as per Huffington Post
(Original is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-earl-blumenauer/no-seriously-republicans_b_164822.html if I can get this link to work):


With this latest attempt to strip bike finding [sic; presumably he meant funding?] from the recovery bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated how out of touch they are with their pathologically short-sighted attacks on bicycles. To their detriment, they are continuing their trend from last Congress of using the most economical, energy-efficient, and healthy forms of transportation as their whipping post. Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want.

Moreover, bicycle and pedestrian paths are precisely the kind of infrastructure projects our country needs. These projects tend to the most "shovel-ready" and are more labor-intensive than other projects-- therefore putting more people to work per dollar spent.

We might have understood these attacks a decade ago, but today they ignore the explosion of bicycling in this country in recent years that has been nothing short of phenomenal. There are tens of millions of American cyclists and even more who want their children to be able to bike and walk to school safely and therefore support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.

American families have indicated time and again in the passage of bond measures across the country that they favor spending on alternative transportation, such as bicycles and mass transit, over spending on mere highway capacity. Americans want real solutions to the economic crisis, not just a band-aid fix. These investments will stimulate our economy now - when it counts and point our nation toward the economic and environmental realities of the future.

Recent transportation surveys indicate that 52% of Americans want to bike more than they do now - but don't, because of the lack of safe and connected bicycle facilities.

Think about it: More than 50% of working Americans live [work?] less than 5 miles from home, an easy bicycle commute. Already more than 490,000 Americans bike to work; in Portland, 8% of downtown workers are bicycle commuters. Individually, they are saving $1,825 in auto-related costs, reducing their carbon emissions by 128 pounds per year, saving 145 gallons of gasoline, avoiding 50 hours of being stuck in traffic, burning 9,000 calories, reducing their risk of heart attack and stroke by 50%, and enjoying 14% fewer claims on their health insurance.

Nationally, if we doubled the current 1% of all trips by bike to 2%, we would collectively save more 693 million gallons of gasoline - that's more than $5 billion dollars - each year. From 2007 - 2008, bicyclists reduced the amount Americans drive by 100 million miles.

Bicycling also has immediate and direct benefits for communities that invest in bicycle paths, bike lanes, trails, and secure bicycle parking. For each $1 million invested in an FHWA-approved paved bicycle or multi-use trail, the local economy gains 65 jobs and between $50 and $100 million in local economic benefits. Some communities are already showing the results of these investments. After investing less than 1% of their total transportation budget in bicycle facilities in the past eight years, the City of Portland has seen a 144% increase in bicycle use - and the growth of a $90 million bicycle industry that has added nearly 50 new businesses in just the past two years.

I can think of no other transportation investment that provides more benefits to American communities who so desperately need: more jobs, reduced transportation costs, increased personal health, a cleaner environment, reduced carbon footprint, and greater community livability. It's time the Republicans got the point about what Americans want. Investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure will help us create jobs and build healthier more livable communities for the future - these projects are the gifts that keep on giving.

Nice job! Do you mind if I pilfer some of the above to send to my Govt reps???

Like many Americans, I frequently phone and write to my elected governmental officials about topics that concern me..... Sometimes, I even talk to them face to face

Do they do that in where you live Rowan?

so, I ride my bike to work most days, and yet, I'm asking why this should be funded by a stimulus bill. It seems that the additional funding that cycling facilities require would return little from a ROI standpoint, and since the point of the bill is to promote economic stimulus, ROI is the proper viewpoint to take. The Senator may just be biased against cycling facilities, but I tend to agree that this is not the proper vehicle for funding. Otherwise what could be used to effectively stimulate our economy becomes a big excuse to pass a bunch of pork.

And we are getting a ROI for more roadways and researching the life of some critter? If they really, really wanted to stimulate the economy they would be looking at investing in more mass transit and bringing manufacturing of basic necessities back to the US.

Unfortunately most Americans are so deep in debt they will probably never dig themselves out, a sizable amount of any money they get will go to service that debt, not stimulate the economy.

Aaron:)

I can't believe how naive most of you are regarding Sen. DeMint's attitudes about biking. The senator is simply engaging in realpolitik.

Here are the facts:


The is no large scale bicycle industry in the US anymore. 90+ percent of bikes sold in the US are imported, as are are most bike components, and accessories.

Only a tiny percentage of people ride bikes as a form of transportation. It's impossible in most places for people to use bikes as transportation, with the exception of some older urban areas. To rebuild the US to resemble Europe would take decades and trillions of dollars. Even then, most people would resist, since they believe motoring is their birthright.

Bike riders don't pay registration fees, insurance premiums, tolls, gas taxes etc.

Nothing will alter American attitudes about transportation before Americans find themselves much poorer and have no other choice.

I can't believe how naive most of you are regarding Sen. DeMint's attitudes about biking. The senator is simply engaging in realpolitik.

Here are the facts:


The is no large scale bicycle industry in the US anymore. 90+ percent of bikes sold in the US are imported, as are are most bike components, and accessories.

Only a tiny percentage of people ride bikes as a form of transportation. It's impossible in most places for people to use bikes as transportation, with the exception of some older urban areas. To rebuild the US to resemble Europe would take decades and trillions of dollars. Even then, most people would resist, since they believe motoring is their birthright.

Bike riders don't pay registration fees, insurance premiums, tolls, gas taxes etc.

Nothing will alter American attitudes about transportation before Americans find themselves much poorer and have no other choice.

I :love: facts

I can't believe how naive most of you are regarding Sen. DeMint's attitudes about biking. The senator is simply engaging in realpolitik.

Here are the facts:


The is no large scale bicycle industry in the US anymore. 90+ percent of bikes sold in the US are imported, as are are most bike components, and accessories.

Only a tiny percentage of people ride bikes as a form of transportation. It's impossible in most places for people to use bikes as transportation, with the exception of some older urban areas. To rebuild the US to resemble Europe would take decades and trillions of dollars. Even then, most people would resist, since they believe motoring is their birthright.

Bike riders don't pay registration fees, insurance premiums, tolls, gas taxes etc.

Nothing will alter American attitudes about transportation before Americans find themselves much poorer and have no other choice.

Keep in mind that bicycles don't cause any where near the wear and tear on a road that a motor vehicle does.

I was at our bike to work week planning meeting this past week and we were talking about the events we had planned for May. We try to have a different event each evening, each covering various cycling related subjects. One even that has been suggested is a panel discussion on cycling empowering individuals. We started discussion the concept-in relation to women's rights, lower income areas, individuals with medical issues or disabilities-and got even further into how cycling affects youth. Teach a kid, get a kid interested in cycling and it opens a world of possibilities. A 16 year old riding a bike can concentrate on school instead of a part time job, trying desperately to afford a vehicle.

I'm all for limited government, the people's voice and say in politics and governance. But if there is one area where I don't give a damn what the public thinks, it's alternative transit-bikes, transit, pedestrians. We elect leaders to stand above the fickleness and short sightedness of the general public and lead. Thankfully we have a few who can recognize that it's time for a new way of thinking.

Not entirely true. Ever been to New York or Chicago. Cycling infrastructure can be found in America. And with congestion and energy concerns need be encouraged. It's better to prepare Americans for when the car becomes even more expensive to drive. Because it will. It's called forward thinking.

Nice job! Do you mind if I pilfer some of the above to send to my Govt reps???

It's in the public record so sure, quote away, with attribution to Rep. Blumenauer...



Do they do that in where you live Rowan?

Hey, don't misunderestimate him -- he's the guy who married Machka, right? :)

if I remember right, this stimulus bill was supposed to at least partially fund infrastructure and guess what, bicycle infrastructure is still infrastructure.

I can't believe how naive most of you are regarding Sen. DeMint's attitudes about biking. The senator is simply engaging in realpolitik.

Here are the facts:


The is no large scale bicycle industry in the US anymore. 90+ percent of bikes sold in the US are imported, as are are most bike components, and accessories.

Only a tiny percentage of people ride bikes as a form of transportation. It's impossible in most places for people to use bikes as transportation, with the exception of some older urban areas. To rebuild the US to resemble Europe would take decades and trillions of dollars. Even then, most people would resist, since they believe motoring is their birthright.

Bike riders don't pay registration fees, insurance premiums, tolls, gas taxes etc.

Nothing will alter American attitudes about transportation before Americans find themselves much poorer and have no other choice.

You're kidding right?

* Manufacturing is all over but last I heard Trek and SRAM are US companies.

* It is a tiny percentage and we get even less funding.

* Bike riders pay the same 30% that everyone does which is the unfunded part of road construction. User fees account for 70% of road costs. We don't account for 30% wear and tear when compared to 1.5 cars. Cyclists pay far more than their fare share. And what do we get in return? Unmaintained "roads" with no drainage system. Bike lanes which are really snow storage space for winter. And we're happy to get those!

The sick part of this is that cyclists are a small but real part of the transport infrastructure in the US. To completely cut us out of this is giving us the shaft.

This is probably nothing more than a political stunt.

As much as I enjoy having infrastructure suitable for bicycling, the Federal government HAS NO BUSINESS, HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, to fund ANY type of bicycling legislation! Please stop the gimme-gimme attitude folks.

Statement by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, as per Huffington Post
...
Nationally, if we doubled the current 1% of all trips by bike to 2%, we would collectively save more 693 million gallons of gasoline - that's more than $5 billion dollars - each year. $5 billion dollars / 693 million gallons of gasoline = $7.22/gallon ... did gas go up when I wasn't looking? He is talking about the US, right?

I like the sentiment, but the math seems wrong.

$5 billion dollars / 693 million gallons of gasoline = $7.22/gallon ... did gas go up when I wasn't looking? He is talking about the US, right?

I like the sentiment, but the math seems wrong.

Well of course it will take time to get all that infra in place... that must be the projected price of gas in 2 years. ;)

As much as I enjoy having infrastructure suitable for bicycling, the Federal government HAS NO BUSINESS, HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, to fund ANY type of bicycling legislation! Please stop the gimme-gimme attitude folks.

Really? Is not cycling transportation? Has not the Government funded RR and the Interstate Freeway System?

Really? Is not cycling transportation? Has not the Government funded RR and the Interstate Freeway System?

It's not gimmie, gimmie. It's I have commuted to work by bike and will continue to do so. I view it as our right. Some of us want as little to do with cars as possible. If motorists don't want me in their lane , forcing them to travel at my speed- they have no choice. Take that right away. I'll be calling out Critical Mass. I did not invest over 7000 dollars in bicycles for the hell of it.

It's not gimmie, gimmie. It's I have commuted to work by bike and will continue to do so. I view it as our right. Some of us want as little to do with cars as possible. If motorists don't want me in their lane , forcing them to travel at my speed- they have no choice. Take that right away. I'll be calling out Critical Mass. I did not invest over 7000 dollars in bicycles for the hell of it.

It may not be gimmie gimmie, but I guarantee there are monies in the stimulus package for roads used primarily by motor vehicles.

Why shouldn't cyclists get some direct benefit, rather then always depending on the leftovers from MV planning... or worse, parks and rec?

As much as I enjoy having infrastructure suitable for bicycling, the Federal government HAS NO BUSINESS, HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, to fund ANY type of bicycling legislation! Please stop the gimme-gimme attitude folks.

Have you ever driven on an Interstate Highway? :rolleyes:

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Congressman from Oregon (and cyclists' best friend in Congress) responds to Republican attacks on spending for cycling infrastructure:

"With this latest attempt to strip bike funding from the recovery bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated how out of touch they are with their pathologically short-sighted attacks on bicycles. To their detriment, they are continuing their trend from last Congress of using the most economical, energy-efficient, and healthy forms of transportation as their whipping post. Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want."

More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-earl-blumenauer/no-seriously-republicans_b_164822.html

This link (http://stimulusbike.typepad.com/stimulus_bike/2009/01/simulus-bill-from-the-house-to-the-senate.html) seems to have a breakdown of the major infrastructure spending in the house bill. I'm still searching for info on the bicycle spending. I remember hearing something about 40-50 million dollars worth but I can't find it. It's probably pretty tough to track down because bike trails are often small parts of major parks developments or river work (In which case Demint's legislation would be very sick because it'd ignore useful space).

If we get our proper share we'll get around 500 million. It's become very apparent that in 99% of modern development bikes are not welcome. 4-6 lane high speed through-ways to provide access to triple sized parking lots. Can they stick a lane in there for bikes or build an alternate street? No. They need zig zaggy residential roads that never go through and even if they did you've have to cross a 6 lane through-way!

I'd be happy with no money for bike infrastructure if we stopped building like this. I don't need a stop light to get across a 3 lane road. And if you build them more often than once every mile you will find that people still get where they need to go and bikes, peds, and slow moving vehicles can still get around comfortably.

Anyway, the road spending is tiny. To put it in perspective it adds about 20% to normal road funding for a year in the US. Maybe that's enough to put out the current fires? I will say though: If we don't put out the fires our economy will crumble. Trucks need interstates in perfect condition. You can't do 70mph if there are potholes. Our economy needs trucks on interstates (although trains would work if we had the rail). City roads are a bit less important. Cars can handle bad roads. But people will be very unhappy when the speed limit seems unattainably fast because the road surface is so bad.

Roads are expensive (especially when they have storm sewers and 14' lanes). You have to maintain them. Maintaining them is expensive. Sorry kids. The good news is that health care is far more expensive than roads. Wait, no, that's bad news.

Senator DeMint's amendment didn't make it into the Stimulus package, which the Senate passed today. However, Transportation Enhancements didn't get specifically funded, so please contact your US Senator now, to save Transportation Enhancements funding. There are alerts about this on all the national bike advocacy websites, and on ours for Virginia:

http://www.vabike.org/keep-transportation-enhancement-in-the-stimulus-bill/ (http://www.vabike.org/keep-transportation-enhancement-in-the-stimulus-bill/)

Follow the Capwiz link to contact your Senator directly.

I wonder what kind of subsidies the Tobacco Farmers in DeMint's state receive...

I wonder what kind of subsidies the Tobacco Farmers in DeMint's state receive...

I do recall hearing that one item the Senate dropped from the House's bill was funding for either smoking cessation efforts or smoking prevention education.

A consideration. When calling members of congress about Transportation Enhancement , where do we have the most impact. The likes of DeMint are impossible. It's Susan Collins and Sen. Ben Nelson who are pushing these cuts. You might have more impact by calling Sen's Collins, Nelson, and Snowe. Of course , the greatest effect is upon your own members representing the caller. I'd only hassle the likes of DeMint with a nasty postcard. They are impossible.

As much as I enjoy having infrastructure suitable for bicycling, the Federal government HAS NO BUSINESS, HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, to fund ANY type of bicycling legislation! Please stop the gimme-gimme attitude folks.

Talk about 19th century solutions for 21st century problems!