Google sponsored links
Damn.
BICYCLING:
- A Department of Transportation task force would be required to recommend ways to promote walking and bicycling under SB1381 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica.
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/10747798p-11666081c.html
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
But he signed Safe Routes to Schools, so it's not a complete loss.
What do you expect from a moron who drives a hummer.
What do you expect from a moron who drives a hummer.
Yea, because you're the only person to pay taxes. o_o
What does a hummer have to do with anything?
Most of the bills he vetoed looked ridiculous anyhow. Reccommend ways to promote walking and bicycling? How about, "Get off your fat asses and exercise" promotion. That's about as dumb as the school food one there. Haha.
A hummer has to do w a stupid or insecure driver. A stupid or insecure driver might not be a wise, self-confident leader.
Actually you're right. The hummer has nothing to do with it. My post should have actually read "what do you expect from a moron"
Actually you're right. The hummer has nothing to do with it. My post should have actually read "what do you expect from a moron"
:p Much better. Even though I still disagree about the moron part, I do believe the Hummer deserves some respect :D
Not knowing the intracacies(sp) of California politics doesn't anyone seem to realize that ultimately all the bills passed eventually must be funded and that the funds don't come from some fairy godmother in the heavens? You the taxpayers who continually B----H about higher taxes should be in the front lines to call a halt to unlimited spending. Just cause it is supposed to be in aid of cycling hardly makes it a noble cause
Hummer is crap. A lot of Americans killed in Iraq because they were in Hummers instead of armored vehicles. What is it good for? I think people use Hummer to bolster self-confidence but don't they know everyone else is laughing at them? Insecure and stupid, I guess you need both and too much money.
As cool as it would be for the bicyclists if this bill passed, we all know California doesn't have the 'loose change' to fund something like this.
Americans killed in hummers instead of armored vehicles? The original H1 was THE vehicle the military used, no? Why on earth did they switch to the H2 when we all know the H2 was just a means for "every day people" to drive a "hummer." Blaming the hummer for those deaths isn't very reasonable.
Here is a link to a page with links to all of the legislative analysis by the House and Senate on SB1381: California Task Force for Bicycling and Walking
Bill Text: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1381_bill_20040823_enrolled.html
Analysis: http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-bin/port-postquery?bill_number=sb_1381&sess=CUR&house=B&author=kuehl
Here is a link to the Bill and a page with links to all of the legislative analysis by the House and Senate on SB1087: Safe Routes to School construction
Bill Text: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1051-1100/sb_1087_bill_20040909_chaptered.html
Analysis: http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-bin/port-postquery?bill_number=sb_1087&sess=CUR&house=B&author=soto
At a minimum, you would need to read the last reports from the Senate and Assembly Floors to get a quick summary of what the bills entail. The historical analysis is somewhat interesting and offers up additional details that are sometimes watered down or built-on in the final analysis. As a former California resident with an appreciation for the fiscal issues faced by the Governator and state legislature, SB1381 was a bit open ended as written, heavy on recreational facilities, and somewhat redundant to existing legislation. I would also think that most of what is being sought would be something that could / should be addressed by local government and the existing resources already targeted for bicycle and pedestrian efforts. As for SB1087, good call to extend that program for another 3 years. Here in Cobb County Georgia, children are forbidden from riding bicycles to school... How's that for planting seeds for future generations of non-cyclists or more people who don't recognize the bicycle as a transporation mode.
Most of the bills he vetoed looked ridiculous anyhow. Reccommend ways to promote walking and bicycling? How about, "Get off your fat asses and exercise" promotion.
Yeah, how about it. Like they need some kind of official committee to make recommendations on walking?? Holy cow what a bunch of beauracratic crap.
But I was just picturing this. A real short, 2 second commercial. Suddenly, some obnoxious, thinnish guy's face would fill the screen and scream, "Get up lardass and do something!" - and then just as suddenly the regular mind numbing programs would come back on. :D Kind of like a very much not-subtle subliminal message. That would be hilarious.
Yeah, how about it. Like they need some kind of official committee to make recommendations on walking?? Holy cow what a bunch of beauracratic crap.
But I was just picturing this. A real short, 2 second commercial. Suddenly, some obnoxious, thinnish guy's face would fill the screen and scream, "Get up lardass and do something!" - and then just as suddenly the regular mind numbing programs would come back on. :D Kind of like a very much not-subtle subliminal message. That would be hilarious.
Hah, I like that.
And I realise this is off topic, but, the original Hummer is an armoured vehicle. In fact, it is, as was stated before, THE armoured vehicle. o_o The H2 is a piece of plastic crap. Don't go blaming vehicle, either. If that was true, why did the russian army get their ass handed to them by a bunch of peeps with spears, horses, and old guns? Hahaha!
Yeah, but if Ahhhnoldt were to shoot commercials himself, boing "into character" for them, they could have quite an impact--and with people who need to see it. I think the Terminator could turn into the Motivator! Never underestimate the power of media mixed with fantasy characters.
And further, he should film a commercial showing bike commuters and talking about how "They're not girlie men. Girlie men need their big cars."
Even a girly man needs a hummer now and then! I'm not talking about a car that won't fit in garage, real girly men need that all the time.
Not to change the subject, but what is "o_o" I keep seeing in these forums?
This bill looks like a waste of money for a state with serious budget problems. The bill does not appear to fund any actual cycling facilities. All it does is pay for a study on how to promote walking and cycling. Like people don't know about these new technologies?
One suggested Ad that might be recommended by this bill:
"Hey Californians! There's a new way to get from one place to another. It's called walking. Scientists at CalTech have discovered that the accerlerator and clutch feet, in conjunction with the body parts known as legs can be used to actually transport a person from one place to another without the use of an automobile! You'll be amazed that your legs are actually good for something other than 'giving it the gas'. What's more, with this new technology, you can save money on car expenses like gas, insurance, and registration.
Call your local community college to find out when classes are scheduled that will teach you this exciting new skill. And for those early adopters who have already learned this skill off of the internet, UC Berkley is close to developing an advanced concept that will allow you to go farther and faster than walking. It's called bicycling and although it's still experimental, scientists are confident that they can bring this new technology to you in the near future.
So, save some gasoline for Arnold's Hummer. Sign up today!"
Hah, I like that.
And I realise this is off topic, but, the original Hummer is an armoured vehicle. In fact, it is, as was stated before, THE armoured vehicle. o_o The H2 is a piece of plastic crap. Don't go blaming vehicle, either. If that was true, why did the russian army get their ass handed to them by a bunch of peeps with spears, horses, and old guns? Hahaha!
um, if you're referring to the soviets' afghanistan invasion, the US was supplying the jihadi with weapons that were no older than a generation behind standard government issue. lots of which are still in use by Islamic militants fighting our occupation forces now. hahaha indeed.
This bill looks like a waste of money for a state with serious budget problems. The bill does not appear to fund any actual cycling facilities. All it does is pay for a study on how to promote walking and cycling. Like people don't know about these new technologies?
One suggested Ad that might be recommended by this bill:
"Hey Californians! There's a new way to get from one place to another. It's called walking. Scientists at CalTech have discovered that the accerlerator and clutch feet, in conjunction with the body parts known as legs can be used to actually transport a person from one place to another without the use of an automobile! You'll be amazed that your legs are actually good for something other than 'giving it the gas'. What's more, with this new technology, you can save money on car expenses like gas, insurance, and registration.
Call your local community college to find out when classes are scheduled that will teach you this exciting new skill. And for those early adopters who have already learned this skill off of the internet, UC Berkley is close to developing an advanced concept that will allow you to go farther and faster than walking. It's called bicycling and although it's still experimental, scientists are confident that they can bring this new technology to you in the near future.
So, save some gasoline for Arnold's Hummer. Sign up today!"
That's along the lines of what I was thinking. It was a waste of a bill, but here we go lamenting it's demise and bashing the governor for having enough common sense to know that putting a law into place that mandates an unfunded task force to study ways of promoting walking and cycling is stupid. Didn't California elect him largely on the promise of getting the state's budget under control after it was shredded? Make no mistake about Arnold's intelligence....he's made most of his money in real estate and wise investments, not as an actor. The guy's got some fiscal sense, and I don't think anyone would claim he doesn't have any concern for health.
well looks like the Amendments on the bill made it the Director of Transportation problem to do what Rails-to-Trails is already doin
My feelings about Hummers. It is a personal disconnect with reality. With a barrel of petroleum at $50 and no chance of reduction in sight , a silly economic move to put it mildly. As to funding Bike lanes, etc..A state responsibility..If implemented gradually it would spread out the costs.The time to save future alternative transportation expenses is when roads are rebuilt or consturcted. After the fact it is too late.
Oregon has done this I understand.California certainly should..Certain expeses need not be delayed..With our gasoline/transportion future as bleak as I fear it is; this is unwise.
As to funding Bike lanes, etc..A state responsibility..If implemented gradually it would spread out the costs.The time to save future alternative transportation expenses is when roads are rebuilt or consturcted. After the fact it is too late.Oregon has done this I understand.California certainly should..Certain expeses need not be delayed..With our gasoline/transportion future as bleak as I fear it is; this is unwise.
FWIW, according to Frances Chacon who was responsible for the Assembly analysis, existing California law already...
1)Requires Caltrans to engage in various activities relative to
bicycles and other non-motorized transportation facilities and
programs, and provides for a bicycle coordinator within the
department who is responsible for bicycle-related activities.
2)Requires Caltrans to submit the Blueprint to the Legislature
addressing measurable goals for increasing bicycling and
walking throughout the state, funding of facilities, and a
reduction in pedestrian and bicycling injuries and fatalities.
3)Requires all Caltrans' deputies, under Deputy Directive 64
(DD-64), to "fully consider the needs of non-motorized
travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with
disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance,
construction, operations, and project development activities
and products. This includes incorporation of the best
available standards in all of the Department's practices. The
Department adopts the best practice concepts in the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) Policy Statement on
Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation
Infrastructure."
4)Provides, through BTA, state funds for cities and counties for
bikeway improvements and maintenance, bicycle parking
equipment, bicycle racks on transit vehicles, traffic control
devices, safety, education, and planning.
5)Authorizes, through the State Highway Account (SHA), funds for
nonmotorized transportation facilities.
Livingood..A couple years ago the governor vetoed a bill to require new road construction be required to build a bike lane where possible...This I expect out of a state as forward looking( so many of us have always thought) as California. I understand this is the law in Oregon. I expect that here. From what I see, we come no where close to that goal.
Warning: venting ahead ;)
Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't care about bicycles, walking or any form of transportation for that matter. I live and work in the California capitol and virtually all political observers agree that transportation is dead last on Schwarzenegger's priority list.
This bill would have cost less than $100,000 a year to fund. Caltrans annual budget is about $7 billion. This bill is less than a drop in the bucket: about 0.00001 of the Caltrans annual budget. If the cost is so minute, what's the point in vetoing it except to send a message that you're anti-walking and anti-biking?
As far as transportation in general, Schwarzenegger has thoroughly raided state gas tax coffers that were supposed to go to streets and highways and diverted them to pay for social services and education. Poorly maintained roads are just as bad for bikes as they are for cars. If you think California freeways are bad now, wait a few years when Schwarzeggers underfunding of transportation really starts to show up in terms of potholes, cracked pavement, rough patches and so on -- and not just in the car lanes, but in the shoulders too.
The roads are choked now.Couple more years of neglect is such a high growth state, gridlock will be as negative a factor for business as Schwarzeneggers' emphasis on taxes...
But then, my belief roads don't get built for people but for new development tracts. So that only adds to the gridlock anyway.. New highways reducing traffic? What a joke. Don't encourage them.
Livingood..A couple years ago the governor vetoed a bill to require new road construction be required to build a bike lane where possible...This I expect out of a state as forward looking( so many of us have always thought) as California. I understand this is the law in Oregon. I expect that here. From what I see, we come no where close to that goal.
Let me ask a few questions....
1. Why do you believe the state or federal government is better equipped to do a better job of addressing your local or regional transportation and recreational needs than local or private organizations?
2. Is it your belief that local government or private non-profits would not be able to generate sufficient revenues from their own constituents through local tax, bond, or fund raising efforts to pay for local infrastructure improvements and new recreational facilities?
3. If as outlined in the California Assembly's analysis of the bill there are already laws on the books in California that address bicycle and pedestrian issues using very similar language to what is contained in the bill just vetoed, what makes you believe the new laws would have been adhered to with any more rigor than the existing laws?
4. Given the state of the budget in California, just where should the Govenator and legislature be looking to make the necessary spending cuts or on which group should they raise taxes to pay for recreational pedestrian and bicycling facilities?
This bill would have cost less than $100,000 a year to fund. Caltrans annual budget is about $7 billion. This bill is less than a drop in the bucket: about 0.00001 of the Caltrans annual budget. If the cost is so minute, what's the point in vetoing it except to send a message that you're anti-walking and anti-biking?
From the Assembly's analysis in June...
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1381_cfa_20040817_205142_asm_floor.html
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Minor costs to Caltrans, about $125,000 annually starting in
fiscal year (FY) 2005-06, to support the activities of the
bicycling and walking task force and to provide more access to
information on abandoned rail corridors and their potential to
serve as venues for bicycling, walking, and other nonmotorized
travel.
2)Significant cost pressures, perhaps in the millions of dollars**
annually starting in FY 2005-06, to Caltrans to increase state
funding for projects that develop and expand bicycling and
pedestrian facilities.
** From earlier analysis of the bill in May....
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1381_cfa_20040510_085541_sen_comm.html
Staff notes that implementation of the policies expressed
in this bill would require significant resources given
current unmet needs. The recent "Blueprint for Bicycling
and Walking" indicated that in 2000-01, there were 720
applications to the Safe Routes to Schools program with a
total of $140 million in funding requests. 85 projects
were funded at a total of $19.9 million. In 2001-02, there
were 520 requests for $117 million; 101 projects were
funded at a total of $24.3 million.
Livingood. First of all. Roads are funded by the state.It is our gas taxes at work..They should not be raided for non tranportion needs. To have a comprehensive road system it takes regional planning..I not only want to be able to ride in my home town but when I go up to say Lompoc.
Most Californian's polls show support education,transportation projects,colleges. I support the funding of such. Schwiznegger does not really reflect the states opinions on the matter in spite of his popularity..He certainly has offered no solutions to California's long term needs.California is in as desperate shape as ever. Reason.It takes a 2/3 vote to pass a budget in the legislature and no one wins. Just stalemate.
Livingood. First of all. Roads are funded by the state.It is our gas taxes at work..They should not be raided for non tranportion needs. To have a comprehensive road system it takes regional planning..I not only want to be able to ride in my home town but when I go up to say Lompoc. Most Californian's polls show support education,transportation projects,colleges. I support the funding of such. Schwiznegger does not really reflect the states opinions on the matter in spite of his popularity..He certainly has offered no solutions to California's long term needs.California is in as desperate shape as ever. Reason.It takes a 2/3 vote to pass a budget in the legislature and no one wins. Just stalemate.
Let me try this again...
1. Reference.... Why do you believe the state or federal government is better equipped to do a better job of addressing your local or regional transportation and recreational needs than local or private organizations?
Clarification Question: Does the state/Caltrans also have jurisdiction over parks & recreational facilities such as the rails-to-trails initiatives?
Out of the Box Question: Is the current model of having the state/Caltrans responsible for all roads the most efficient model and is it adequately addressing regional needs?
2. Reference.... Is it your belief that local government or private non-profits would not be able to generate sufficient revenues from their own constituents through local tax, bond, or fund raising efforts to pay for local infrastructure improvements and new recreational facilities?
Clarification Question: Are local governments and private non-profits prohibited from making infrastructure improvements in their recreational and pedestrian facilities?
3. Reference.... If as outlined in the California Assembly's analysis of the bill there are already laws on the books in California that address bicycle and pedestrian issues using very similar language to what is contained in the bill just vetoed, what makes you believe the new laws would have been adhered to with any more rigor than the existing laws?
Don't think I saw a response to this one....
4. Reference.... Given the state of the budget in California, just where should the Govenator and legislature be looking to make the necessary spending cuts or on which group should they raise taxes to pay for recreational pedestrian and bicycling facilities?
Clarification....
- don't redirect fuel tax revenue to non-transportation programs: would this by itself cover the future costs of the bill that was vetoed? If not...
- everyone including you wants full funding of education & colleges: but this doesn't seem to answer what should be cut or where additional revenue should be sought to pay for those AND additional transportation and recreational facilities improvements.
I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. In general, when someone has a complaint they also have a solution in mind but can't get anyone to listen or don't know how to act on it. I hear your desires loud and clear, but I don't know how the "system" that's in place in California can address it given the constraints that you've outlined. Would a different Govenor not have the same challenges and constraints that the current administration is trying to address? After all, at least from my experience in dealing with the government, most of the folks who actually "run" the government are state and federal employees who bridge administrations and laws enacted by previous administrations are often times the current constraints.
we need a commerical with seargent slaughter in it (remember him??), cussing us out for being couch ornaments, and to get our butts off the couch and get in shape, well in his own words of course :p
Livingood..No I do not think private foundations will give us a comprehensive transportation system. Neither will local government.Besides here in California, local government has very little revenue sources of its own..The real estate taxes being so low. Most local revenues comes from vehicle license fees and kickbacks from sales tax receipts.
Ignore the problems if we must, but it means fewer kids going to college, tuition beyond reach of more families, and almost the lowest public school per capita expenditures per student of the 50 states,and choked freeways that require maybe an extra 5 hours per week of your commute time because they don't move..
I do not agree public transit and bike lanes are not a part of transportation expenditures. They are among the best way to solve our highway problems.
Budget cuts. They are to go on into the future indefinitely. How many billions can we cut before there is a solution.
I asked...
1. Reference.... Why do you believe the state or federal government is better equipped to do a better job of addressing your local or regional transportation and recreational needs than local or private organizations?
Clarification Question: Does the state/Caltrans also have jurisdiction over parks & recreational facilities such as the rails-to-trails initiatives?
Out of the Box Question: Is the current model of having the state/Caltrans responsible for all roads the most efficient model and is it adequately addressing regional needs?
You replied:
No I do not think private foundations will give us a comprehensive transportation system. Neither will local government.
That's a fair observation, but it doesn't answer my questions.
Does the state/Caltrans also have jurisdiction over parks & recreational facilities such as the rails-to-trails initiatives?
Is the current model of having the state/Caltrans responsible for all roads the most efficient model and is it adequately addressing regional needs?
I asked...
2. Reference.... Is it your belief that local government or private non-profits would not be able to generate sufficient revenues from their own constituents through local tax, bond, or fund raising efforts to pay for local infrastructure improvements and new recreational facilities?
Clarification Question: Are local governments and private non-profits prohibited from making infrastructure improvements in their recreational and pedestrian facilities?
... here in California, local government has very little revenue sources of its own..The real estate taxes being so low. Most local revenues comes from vehicle license fees and kickbacks from sales tax receipts.
So, what is the source of funding for parks & recreation facilities?
Are Rails-to-Trails Conservancy partnership's with local groups like Bike Alameda, Alameda Open Space and Pedestrian Friendly Alameda prohibited from pursuing their projects by state law or are they unable to generate enough funds from the cycling and local residents for projects like their "Vision Plan" for a Cross Alameda Trail?
I asked...
3. Reference.... If as outlined in the California Assembly's analysis of the bill there are already laws on the books in California that address bicycle and pedestrian issues using very similar language to what is contained in the bill just vetoed, what makes you believe the new laws would have been adhered to with any more rigor than the existing laws?
Still haven't seen a reply to this question in two attempts.
I asked...
4. Reference.... Given the state of the budget in California, just where should the Govenator and legislature be looking to make the necessary spending cuts or on which group should they raise taxes to pay for recreational pedestrian and bicycling facilities?
and asked for clarification of your initial response...
- don't redirect fuel tax revenue to non-transportation programs: would this by itself cover the future costs of the bill that was vetoed? If not...
- everyone including you wants full funding of education & colleges: but this doesn't seem to answer what should be cut or where additional revenue should be sought to pay for those AND additional transportation and recreational facilities improvements.
You replied with, in essence, "ignore the problems" and "accept that budget cuts are inevitable"... and reaffirmed that there are problems but didn't offer any thoughts on what you think the possible solutions might be or where additional revenue should be obtained to help fund the needs and wants of California residents.
Ignore the problems if we must, but it means fewer kids going to college, tuition beyond reach of more families, and almost the lowest public school per capita expenditures per student of the 50 states,and choked freeways that require maybe an extra 5 hours per week of your commute time because they don't move..
I do not agree public transit and bike lanes are not a part of transportation expenditures. They are among the best way to solve our highway problems.
Budget cuts. They are to go on into the future indefinitely. How many billions can we cut before there is a solution.
I asked...
Would a different Govenor not have the same challenges and constraints that the current administration is trying to address? After all, at least from my experience in dealing with the government, most of the folks who actually "run" the government are state and federal employees who bridge administrations and laws enacted by previous administrations are often times the current constraints.[/b]
Nothing was offered in response; perhaps it appeared to be a rhetorical question?
Again, I'm just trying to understand a few things and I can't do get there if you won't entertain me with specific answers to specific questions. Your responses are obviously sincere and demonstrate a lot of pent up frustration, but they aren't responsive to my questions.
Livingood..All bills proposed in the Legislature must be reviewed for budget analysis. Some with the proposed bike law. Can't say I have done such.If it passed the legislature it had to have been..
Under current leadership the only solution to budget stalemate is cuts..However, the governor has not the nerve to outline exactly what those will be as far into the future as budget cuts will be necessary.
I understand a majority of the legislature advocate temporary tax inceases to get us beyond budget stalemates. But because the governor says he will not propose temporary tax increases and the 2/3 rule that is not on the menu.
So we have legislative and traffic gridlock.
All the way to the Nevada border. I am not kidding with that. I mean exactly what i said..Coming back from Vegas, I have seen it backed up that far.
This bill would have cost less than $100,000 a year to fund.
1) thousands of special interest groups submit bills that only cost $100k a year and use the same argument. It has to stop somewhere. And make no mistake, bicyclist advocates are a special interest group.
2) Most of the money would have went into the pocket(s) of the beaurocrat(sp?) who would have run the program.
Cheers,
Could not disagree with G. Blake more. Then , we the voters should be disallowed the vote.. I elect our legislators to enact the people's business. We have our needs.That is why we have a government. Can't get to work because the roads are broken down and buses don't work, that is when special interests have run rough shod.
This program was enacted because of constituent pressure, as we have a right to demand.. Thank god a couple legislators react to constituent's needs. Not too many do.
It is elements like the construction lobby that run government which build huge developments ruthlessly without consideration to needs such as transportation, highway, or impact on utilies.
You say bicycle lobbies run roughshod. The state has an obligation to make basic services work. it is in all of our interests. What good is it to cut a couple pennies off of your tax bill if your house burns down because of unplanned growth or you can't get to work or waste 5 hours a week burning gas on clogged freeways.
I am proud to work to encourage extra tax burdens on the state such as high speed railway or lower tuition for students so we can have an educated work force so international investors don't think we live in the back country. An uneducated work force is one sure all indicator that a region is going nowhere.
As to the needs of cyclists..I want nothing less than how Oregon treats the cycling community. Implemented correctly, it will not cost that much per year. California is a wealthy state and as I recall our tax bite is less than Oregon's, should I get the almanac out. Future generations will thank us for such insight.
1. Why do you believe the state or federal government is better equipped to do a better job of addressing your local or regional transportation and recreational needs than local or private organizations?
You need both local and state/federal involvement in all modes of transportation. If only local gov't ran it, there would be no standards. Cities only think about their little worlds. There would be no incentive for them to invest in intercity travel.
Rail beds cross multiple city limits so it only makes sense for the State to run it; again, for consistency and uniform standards.
2. Is it your belief that local government or private non-profits would not be able to generate sufficient revenues from their own constituents through local tax, bond, or fund raising efforts to pay for local infrastructure improvements and new recreational facilities?
Some can, some cannot. Depends on demographics and tax base. State funding ensures we have a way of travelling thru "less fortunate" cities.
4. Given the state of the budget in California, just where should the Govenator and legislature be looking to make the necessary spending cuts or on which group should they raise taxes to pay for recreational pedestrian and bicycling facilities?
Definitely time to increase the gas tax. The backlog on road work, for both cars and bikes, is getting out of hand because Calif underfunds transportation horribly. Go to velonews and look at Vuelta photos, and look how beautiful Spanish roads are.
I wouldn't object to an excise tax on bicycle tires to help pitch in bike projects, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.
Could not disagree with G. Blake more. Then , we the voters should be disallowed the vote.. I elect our legislators to enact the people's business. We have our needs...
<further>
You say bicycle lobbies run roughshod....
<further>
As to the needs of cyclists..I want nothing less than how Oregon treats the cycling community. Implemented correctly, it will not cost that much per year..
a) The problem is though (I am playing Devil's advocate) is every single special interest groups claims to be the people's business. While I am certainly in favor of safer roads for bicycles and such, this clearly simply looked like a bill of abuse. We all know what is needed to make roads and such safer. This bill smelled 100% though. It would have basically paid the salary of one person, a political hack, to run a so-call public campaign program. Again, 1,000's of groups claim the same thing, they need for money for (name-your-cause). This is something that I feel we in the bicycling should be doing or even the private sector. For example, tonight on the news here in South Carolina, an attorney, Bill Green, did a commerical telling bicyclist to wear helmets and their rights to be on the road. I just don't like bigger Government for such petty things. Now had they emarked money to mark bike routes with signs and such, I be in favor of such spending.
b) I did not say bicycle lobbies run roughshod. But they are a special interest group just like 1,000's of others. Make no mistake. It is a special interest.
c) If it can be done with minimum of cost, I fully support it. My state (SC) is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to bicyclist concerns but I don't want millions spent on Government hacks getting involved in it either. That is because so much of the money goes to the hacks, not into things that really benefit us.
Cheers,
Definitely time to increase the gas tax. The backlog on road work, for both cars and bikes, is getting out of hand because Calif underfunds transportation horribly. Go to velonews and look at Vuelta photos, and look how beautiful Spanish roads are.
The solution I believe is much simpler. Eliminate this whole idea of trying to solve traffic problems by simply building more roads. For one thing, it's been shown clearly time and again not to work. Building more roads requires building everything else further apart to make space for them, hence increasing the amount of travelling people have to do, and hence increasing the usage of those roads, and hence leading to increased calls for even more roads. For another thing, it sounds to me like the demand for more roads time and again is leading to an inability to maintain any of these roads to an acceptable standard.
Sounds like it's time to compress the suburbs, and start building things closer together so that people feel a little less need to travel so far. Who knows? If things were a little closer together, and there weren't so many "roads" to drive on, perhaps a few more people might find walking and cycling to be more convenient transport options, and might start taking them up, with no need for promotion from the Terminator.
I wouldn't object to an excise tax on bicycle tires to help pitch in bike projects, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.
While that might sound noble, I doubt sales of bicycle tyres are sufficient for any excise tax to generate enough revenue to go very far. Rest assured, if it were economically viable (i.e. the revenue exceeding the administrative costs) it would have been done by now.
What do you expect from a moron who drives a hummer.
I can't believe those things are even being made. Let's make the ugliest, most foul smelling polluting piece of sheit on the planet...sheesh. That man should be shot and shoveled into a shallow grave.
GS..When I see the bicycle manufaturers contributing hundreds of millions of special interest bike dollars to lobbying organizations,such as the Bicycle League forcing asphalt dealers to build bike lanes where there are no bikes; I will get upset..
As of right now, I suspect the League of American Bicyclists is underfunded because we their constituency are to cheap to help them help us. Certainly American bike interests are too small to make the bike lobby the biggest in our legislative halls.
Washington DC has something like 500 lobbyists per legislator..Like to know how big the lobbying staff for the American Bicycle league is...
Sen. Kuehl is the originator of this bike bill...Ever see how many cyclists line the bike paths of her district.The Malibu, Santa Monica, Venice , Marina del Rey areas....Good to know she is responsive to them..Good for them to lobby her for us.
When our state government becomes as responsive to cycling interests as Oregon has, then I will be proud of our government as looking out for the needs of the people.
As of right now, I suspect the League of American Bicyclists is underfunded because we their constituency are to cheap to help them help us. Certainly American bike interests are too small to make the bike lobby the biggest in our legislative halls. Washington DC has something like 500 lobbyists per legislator..Like to know how big the lobbying staff for the American Bicycle league is...
At the risk of being an arsonist, "The League" has brought on a lot of it's own problems by losing it's direction and focus and reducing bicycles and bicyclists to a "special interest group" with "special needs". Many of it's recent and current efforts support the segregation of bicycles from the motoring public via designated or recreational path and paint facilities and not necessarily integration of cyclists with the transportation infrastructure. Back to your question, in fact, the LAB has become quite effective as a lobbying group -- joining forces and leveraging synergies with the bicycle industry, the fitness industry, and other lobbying groups -- as it pursues the "cyclist's fair share" of the taxpayer's money for "projects" instead of focusing on cyclist / community education and cycling advocacy. You can read a brief history of the LAB here: http://www.labreform.org/history.html
To be fair, everything the LAB does is not wrong-minded, but it's often times poluted by the activist lobby approach that says any PR is good PR, even if you designate bicycle friendly cities that really aren't; hey, it's a press release, the local community development groups and bike shops get to latch onto it, and bike paths really are lovely, aren't they? And, is it really a big deal when a "bicycle friendly" city like Schaumburg, IL has a mandatory sidepath ordinance with an inordinately steep $100 to $750 fine for violators? http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/schaumbu/_DATA/TITLE07/CHAPTER_73___BICYCLES/__167__73_12_RIDING_BICYCLES_O.html. Or, how about Cambridge, MA, with it's bike lanes in the door-zone? So, is it really the bicycle-friendly communities that we are calling attention to or the ones with pro-active bicycle dealers who are pushing for path and paint initiatives or ones that have successfully integrated accommodations for cyclists into their road projects and residential development projects and that have taking innovative steps at providing cycling education to children and the motoring public? Again, not all of the BFCs have huge warts. However, the BFC was originally a grass-roots effort that seemed to do a better job of screening applicant cities before it became a poster child for the LAB and others. The same thing goes for the more recent radio-station fiasco's where local cycling advocate groups and individuals went after the station owners. Of course, that's the whole point: local advocacy and focus is most often more effective than nation-wide efforts. LAB picked up on the topic because it garnered national media attention, but was hardly instrumental in the actual work that was done to gain PSAs, personnel changes, etc...
Now, on the brightside, the Lab Reform movement has been making progress, has been able to bring about some changes in direction in recent years, and has just recently agreed to a "truce" with the League's leadership based on preliminary agreements outlined on their Web site's home page: http://www.labreform.org So, I'm cautiously optimistic that further, positive changes will be forth coming. In the mean time, I'm not and will not be impressed when bills are introduced anywhere that don't clearly delineate the difference between providing bicycle accommodations that promote cycling as a form of transportation (safe routes to schools is a good one) and recreational facilities that, while certainly nice, don't do anything to make riding on public roads any safer for cycling enthusiasts who chose not to ride on MUPs.
In the mean time, I get to have a daily reminder of how integrating reasonable accommodations for cyclists in the transportation infrastructure have taken a backseat or been simply left behind when I ride by our local monument to the path and paint movement: a $1m, 1.2mi MUP trail that was installed along the Kennesaw National Battlefield Park festooned with it's lovely split rail fence, grass median, landscaping and cute little traffic signs that mirror those on the road it parallels.... well, except that the motorists don't have two "stop sign ahead" and two "stop signs" at every side street and driveway it crosses or have strollers, dog walkers, roller-bladers, and pedestrians or joggers walking down the middle of the road two-by-two. Granted, they're "doing something" to promote cycling and fitness... but it has nothing to do with making the roads that you would use to get to work, or getting our kids to school, or making the rest of the roads that cycling enthusiasts prefer to use when they go out for a ride any more conducive to safe cycling. http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Fqbz-kY9Nu4J:www.trailexpress.com/sct_news_cobb0301.shtml+silver+comet+trail+funding&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Just something to think about. I've diverted my annual LAB membership check to the Atlanta Bicycle Campaign (a minor windfall for them) but am hopeful that sufficient changes will continue to occur with the LAB that will allow me to send them a check too.
A final thought provoking question regarding fund raising and cyclists for the small percentage of you who have actually read this far: Who do you think has been more effective at and raised more money? The Lance Armstrong Foundation & Nike, the MS Society with it's annual MS150 rides, or the League and other bicycle industry groups?
Livingood..Thanks for some of the links..I will get back.A busy Saturday, plus I had to ride 65 miles on top of home duties. Scanned your reply...
I oppose any lobbying effort to segregate bikes from general transportation programs..I ride in part not just as a lark or a quick Saturday in the park...But, to me it is a serious transportation method. Not unique...If we are not assured access to the asphalt, then I just might as well sell my bike and give up.
I must have access to the asphalt whether it is in my home town or going to San Diego to visit family/friends. That is how I get around and choose to get around.
Some private entity that would give me access to some big oval bike path..I would not contribute..Not fulfill my needs.
I admire your involvement in advocacy groups..I had time and access I would be...
You know how this cyclist and many others feel, now..Doubt any private concern will build me a bike path to cross North America..
Since so many communites are involved, obviously only a national plan will meet our needs.
One [lifelong] Californian's view of the Governator:
1) He inherited a fiscal mess from his predecessor(s) and is under heavy pressure to clean it up.
2) He has demonstrated an ability to use his charisma to work both sides of the aisle, drawing bipartisan support.
3) His popularity extends far deeper than the obvious, superficial Hollywood celebrity factor, to a centrist (fiscal conservative / social progressive) core with which the true "silent majority" of Americans can strongly identify. The country is not nearly as "red" and "blue" as the media and the two major parties want us to believe.
I can't believe those things are even being made. Let's make the ugliest, most foul smelling polluting piece of sheit on the planet...sheesh. That man should be shot and shoveled into a shallow grave. Despite how you feel about hummers people are buying them .That is called freedom of choice in the free market. instead of insulting others simply do your part for the enviroment
You will not change the behaviour of others in a positive way with bad manners.
Doubt any private concern will build me a bike path to cross North America..Since so many communites are involved, obviously only a national plan will meet our needs.
Would you be surprised if I told you that a private concern based in California has been working on the creation of a transcontinental bike path since 1987? Perhaps you've heard of it but didn't know what it was; it's the National Bicycle Greenway: http://www.nationalbicyclegreenway.com/About_NBG/
There's also a private concern driving an East Coast Greenway project that will designate a cycling route from Maine to Florida: http://www.greenway.org/ I would suggest the same thing already exists between San Francisco and San Diego as my wife and I rode most of the way on our tandem bicycle in September of 2002 following the Adventure Cycling Association's West Coast route map: http://home.att.net/~rally_central/trips/catrip.html
As for linking communities, again... the government is not always (or even usually) the answer when it comes to making things happen in an efficient and effective way. Bicycle projects seem to work best when people from the community who have a personal stake and interest head-up private organizations to create and drive the projects. It's the sense of "ownership" and "personal interest" that make these things happen and it gives cyclists an opportunity to spend their money on something where they can actually have tangible direct evidence that their "contribution" was not squandered on bureaucracy when they can ride on the trail they helped fund. This also tends to create users who have a personal stake in making sure the trails are properly managed and maintained... which is what we almost always see in projects that were initiated by private concerns and wholly or partially funded by private donations.
Here in Atlanta, it is the PATH Foundation that has lead the way: http://www.pathfoundation.org/about/index.cfm
Again, it's a private initiative that has been able to leverage matching funds from local communities, the state, and the federal government to achieve it's vision for a recreational trail system in Atlanta that may one day evolve into a transportation network. And, yes, it is stakeholder support from average citizens that have made it happen and that keep the trail maintained: http://www.pathfoundation.org/about/newsletter.cfm#1
This type of project is not unique to Atlanta. In fact, in my old home town of Redlands, California the Redlands Conservancy is yet another private concern working to create a trail system for the local community: http://www.redlandsconservancy.org/rail_to_trail/strategy.htm
Don't sell the power and ability of the community and individual citizens short; they often can accomplish things that the government is ill equipped to do. Moreover, once there is a visible and realistic plan, finding government funding to match private contributions can often times be easier to obtain because there are fewer unanswered questions about how and where the money will be used.
Just some food for thought.
ok I know how to solve the problem and you dont need the Gov to do it
arent their at least 100,000 cyclest in Ca ?
then each of you donate $1 and fix the trails
And now I guess your goin to say it isnt worth $1 to ya
if not what is all the complaining about
if it is then give the $1 and get them fixed
Livingood..I commend your work..Conservancy does great work.
I suggest it is the laws under which we drive or cars and demand bike's reasonbly comparable status to autos since some of us use bikes as a real transportation alternative..
This society will not chain me to monthly car payments or garage repair bills, if I can help it or at least minimize the need.
I suggest your organization does great work and I might use the fine trails you develop as a vacation alternative , but I really doubt you can do anything to assure the multitude of routing options I might need to complete my work commute or bike errands.
I just doubt the millions of cyclist's needs out there can be accomdated by private organizations..You need access to the public roads and roads must be made compatable to our needs.
By not buying gas and saving on choked roads we are doing this society a favor not a disservice by our needs and demands.
yes, private orgainzations have a role and can help fuel Highway projects, but our main focus is the plans of the County Highway Department or State Department of Transportation. (CalTrans, here.) A one dollar contriubtion to build bike lanes..for 100,000 cyclists...Would not pave a mile.
The cheapest way to help us lessen gridlock, plan bike facilities as roads are repaired or constructed. I expect no less than the bike friendly ness of a place like Oregon.That is my personal goal...And since we demand our Constitutional rights of movement and bikes are our choice of transportation, we do all a favor of constructing bike facilities so we are safe and out of the way of motorists..Otherwise, upholding our right to the road as we will, all will suffer.
well if $100,000 wouldnt pave a mile then whats all the complaining about him vetoeing the bill cause it oveious that it wasnt goin to do anything if all it was goin to cost $100,000
I read the bill and didnt think it was goin to do much to begin with and thats why I think he might have vetoed it, I know it was just something for the anti Arnold people to complain about huh
I dont live in Ca so I guess who you all pick as a Gov isnt really any of my business
except that for some reason what happens in Ca seems to lead the rest of the U.S.
in setting standards.
if you all want more done then donate $5 each or something
or get a hold of Rails to Trails and give them $1, $2 or $5 each
I garreenty they will get something done for ya
if we all want things to change then we have to get together some how to get ourselfs reconized by the Gov as a group of people that want to see changes made and a group like Rails to Trails seems to be doin this
or maybe I just plain wrong and you all want to keep complaining about who didnt do what to help you
Despite how you feel about hummers people are buying them .That is called freedom of choice in the free market. instead of insulting others simply do your part for the enviroment
You will not change the behaviour of others in a positive way with bad manners.
Yeah, sorry, I sometimes get too mad at this stuff. I had a huge fight with my dad actually, because he told me he was buying one of those, knowing how I feel, and I told him I would never ride in that thing for as long as I live. As for arnie, I cannot fathom having a man who like that in public office. I mean, here in Canada, we have some terrible politicians too, but this guy takes the cake. They even did a radio call in show from edmonton, and were talking to him for like five minutes before the gig was up. What a retard.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.