Advocacy & Safety - AAA pushes to cut trail funding... Please help us send them a message.

Hi all,

AAA is pushing for the elimination of existing federal funds that are used for trail and other bicycling projects around the country (including Transportation Enhancements, the nation's largest funding source for such programs).

Please help us nip this line of reasoning in the bud. We've launched a petition to send AAA the message that these programs are highly popular, and that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are not mutually exclusive groups. Please sign the petition to help us send a strong message:

www.railstotrails.org/AAA

And while I'm happy to engage in VC conversations or questions about why we're against rail (we're not!), I'd appreciate doing so on a different thread so comments here can be focused on this petition.

Thanks!

Considering how seriously underfunded the transportation infrastructure (and how much of the existing infrastructure is becoming unsafe) is in this country I think you and the AAA are haggling over a dead corpse. You (and the AAA) would do better to seek ways to increase funding via new sources or increased fees...

Without greater funding levels (at federal, state, and local levels) projects such as bike trails are likely to be viewed as a waste of limited resources by the masses and the politicians they elect.

As an example:

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13606

I like the sidewalks that have been installed locally. Makes walking along 45mph roads more comfortable instead of having to jump into the scrub every time a car approaches.

I like the sidewalks that have been installed locally. Makes walking along 45mph roads more comfortable instead of having to jump into the scrub every time a car approaches.

But you can drive there... heaven forbid you should walk anywhere... that's just NOT the American way... now go home and eat your smashed 'taters.

/sarcasm off

Myrridin - true that transportation infrastructure is seriously underfunded. That'll be even more the case sometime in the next year or so when the Highway Trust Fund hits insolvency.

The question of new sources of funding is a huge one, and while there are some potent ideas out there, the primary question that we're seeking to address is how to best allocate limited resources. That's where walking and bicycling come in... it's a much wiser investment to provide options, which allow some folks to travel without a car (safely and conveniently), reducing road impact and reducing congestion so cars can actually move more efficiently.

You're right to some extent that the public doesn't always recognize the benefits of trails--but that's where we come in! Some forward-thinking electeds (at all levels, all the way up) do see the benefits, and the message is beginning to trickle up. As an example, see our "Active Transportation for America" report -- showing that we'd save tens of billions of dollars annually (conservative estimate) from more walking/biking and less driving. www.railstotrails.org/ATFA

But, if we let AAA's message go through, then the < $1 B spent on bike/ped annually (that is somehow meant to explain the $89 B highway shortfall) could dry up. These are the funds that have made the majority of bike, pedestrian and trail projects all around the country possible. We can't let that happen. It's a safety, economic, mobility, environmental, health, social justice, etc. etc. issue.

Thanks.

I got the email ... I'm also an AAA member. I won't be contacting my Congressmen/women about this. Either way this pie gets split benefits me.

Myrridin - true that transportation infrastructure is seriously underfunded. That'll be even more the case sometime in the next year or so when the Highway Trust Fund hits insolvency.

The question of new sources of funding is a huge one, and while there are some potent ideas out there, the primary question that we're seeking to address is how to best allocate limited resources. That's where walking and bicycling come in... it's a much wiser investment to provide options, which allow some folks to travel without a car (safely and conveniently), reducing road impact and reducing congestion so cars can actually move more efficiently.

You're right to some extent that the public doesn't always recognize the benefits of trails--but that's where we come in! Some forward-thinking electeds (at all levels, all the way up) do see the benefits, and the message is beginning to trickle up. As an example, see our "Active Transportation for America" report -- showing that we'd save tens of billions of dollars annually (conservative estimate) from more walking/biking and less driving. www.railstotrails.org/ATFA

But, if we let AAA's message go through, then the < $1 B spent on bike/ped annually (that is somehow meant to explain the $89 B highway shortfall) could dry up. These are the funds that have made the majority of bike, pedestrian and trail projects all around the country possible. We can't let that happen. It's a safety, economic, mobility, environmental, health, social justice, etc. etc. issue.

Thanks.

I think you are tilting at windmills.

Given the relative percentages of motorists and cyclists (many of whom are recreational and rely on motor vehicles as their primary transportation) I suspect that AAA will win this fight.

If you want a reliable source of funding for trails, you will need a specific revenue source. Something like excise taxes on shoes, bicycles, tires, tubes, etc... When you start pursuing such activities, rather than acting as a typical special interest group seeking to save your piece of the shrinking pie you might get something useful accomplished.

Also, in reference to your Active Transportation for America report, I've seen many such reports from many special interest groups over the years claiming savings. In my opinion, it is much like a women who claims she save $X because she purchased an item that was Y% off. The fact is the only thing that matters is the $Z she actually spent.

I held my nose and signed the petition even though I prefer cycling on the road, and even though I've hated every single trail I've cycled on. Sometimes we just have to do what's right.

Most of my riding is on streets and roads. Why should I care about trail funding?

I want to encourage cycling, know many riders around the country appreciate separate facilities, enjoy riding good trails, and know that cycling infrastructure is a small fraction of total transportation spending.

myrridin-

Our goal is not to "beat" AAA--just to send the message that this is an unpopular position. You're exactly right that many cyclists are purely recreational, but this in no way diminishes our stance. We're not out to take away highway money. But AAA calling on pulling away our ~1.5% of transportation funding? Or blaming that on an $89B highway funding shortfall? Really?

We do have a specific revenue source for trails: the gas tax. Many will argue that the gas tax should be a user fee, only for roads. What's the goal: to spend more on roads, or to have a more efficient transportation system? If the latter (obviously), then investing in trails and bike/ped makes the most sense. We should be encouraging walking & biking (and not applying an excise tax) for all of those issues I mentioned previously, not taxing them, thereby disincentivizing.

We've actually gotten quite a bit "useful" accomplished over the past 19 years since TE was first created--including having grown that pot of funds by leaps and bounds. Which has resulted in the majority of trails and other infrastructure on which you and the rest of us likely rely. Which has led to substantial growth of mode share for cyclists and pedestrians. Which has been accompanied by numerous benefits.

I find it troublesome that it seems you simply lumped our report into those from other "special interest groups" (incidentally, I would have assumed that you have a special interest in something to do with cycling). Have you read the report? The basic gist is this: we're spending billions upon billions every year on roads. If we spend some of that on infrastructure that enables some of our citizens to get around without cars, the savings are huge.

It's nothing like saving $X by buying a Y% reduced item. In truth, the lady (or man, for the record) was going to spend much more than $X to have a far inferior product that got her sick, cost her time, etc. The $Z spent is not all that matters at all.

Respectfully,

Kartik

PS - ianbrettcooper & gcottay: thank you. that's the logic we're encouraging, even (especially?) for those who may not personally take part in such investments.

I'm still on the fence regarding this petition. I want trails to be funded but I veiw trails as recreational and beleive that thay should be funded as parks, not as roads. I think I'm going to have to look at the AAA statement and write my own letter (I am a member).

I think you are tilting at windmills.

Given the relative percentages of motorists and cyclists (many of whom are recreational and rely on motor vehicles as their primary transportation) I suspect that AAA will win this fight.


RTC actually gets lots of support outside of cyclists.

Such as:
* Everyone with children
* People who hike
* People who like nature (since so many of their trails go out of town -- and are often transportationally almost useless)

In my area when you say "money for bikes yes or no" every hand goes up for yes. It's kind of amazing.


The AAA probably still will win the fight. The fact that they're picking it makes me curious if they feel a little threatened by alternative transportation or if they're just desperate to get the fed to do anything to fix the highway fund.

I'm still on the fence regarding this petition. I want trails to be funded but I veiw trails as recreational and beleive that thay should be funded as parks, not as roads. I think I'm going to have to look at the AAA statement and write my own letter (I am a member).

Whatever you do, never look at how things are funded ;).

In my area we have two types of these rail trails, and they're kind of fantastic. There are trails leaving town which are almost purely used for recreation/exercise. And we have lots of trails in the city providing connectivity. Not all of them are rail trails, but several are. They probably wouldn't have gotten built without the federal funds. And they're heavily used. If I had to guess:
25% walkers
25% runners
20% recreational cyclists (exercising or riding to ride)
10% utility cyclists (people going somewhere they'd go anyway)
20% other -- skaters, dogs, etc.

Even in the dead of winter the parks department funds plowing and you still see every group (in much smaller numbers). The runners especially keep going all winter.

The out of town trails are left unplowed and people cross country ski and snow shoe.


A week ago I sat out on the trail doing an official head count and survey. In 2 hours on a Tuesday we had, IIRC, about 100-200 people go by our check point. That doesn't compare to the highway next to the trail, but that's a lot of folks (especially seeing as how we weren't on one of the popular routes).


Now, not all of that is transportational, but I think all of it is very useful and good. And I think about half of those people would discontinue their activity if the trail weren't there. We're a pretty healthy city sitting right in the fat belt. If this keeps going maybe RTC should try to get congress to continue and extend the funding under HHS?

The AAA probably still will win the fight. The fact that they're picking it makes me curious if they feel a little threatened by alternative transportation or if they're just desperate to get the fed to do anything to fix the highway fund.

I too agree that AAA will likely win the fight. I would suspect that it is a desire to get the funding fixed and barring that secure as big a piece of the pie as possible.

I too agree that AAA will likely win the fight. I would suspect that it is a desire to get the funding fixed and barring that secure as big a piece of the pie as possible.

It's so tiny though, and they don't get any pie directly.... I guess buses are too political to go after?

It's so tiny though, and they don't get any pie directly.... I guess buses are too political to go after?

Yes, it is tiny (when viewed from the massive spending the federal government already does), but like many of the earmarks targeted by the media (when they choose to do so) it will appeal to a certain demographic. When Joe motorist has his car in a shop because of damage from a pot hole, who will he believe the cycling proponent saying "One BILLION is a small amount of money and by encouraging pedestrians and cycling we ..." or the AAA who says "In tough financial times we need to spend every penny as wisely as possible and where it provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people." And when you consider that Joe motorist tends to view cyclists as impediments, I think it clear.

Transit systems are as underfunded as the highway system. The reason they are not relevent here is that they have a different revenue stream (kind of, it is complicated) and because of that are more immune to attacks on funding. That is why I believe that for cycling infrastructure to be more widely (and wisely) built and maintained it will need its own funding stream.

While the rails to trails program is laudable, it has largely created a group of recreational facilities (there are exceptions). In my opinion, many of the projects supported by railstotrails.org are not appropriately funded through the transportation funding source. If the infrastructure has value, then the tax payers should pay for it. Using highway funds for purposes for which it was not intended (without also increasing its funding) is the reason for its current state.

Trail expenditures, by themselves, didn't create the problem with the highway fund; however, the growing list of earmarks and special interest sponsored growth in how the money is spent (without taking the political hit to get the funding increased at the same time) is why we are going broke as a country. The large pool of money collected by the federal government became a toy box for whatever special interests can seize it.

Trail expenditures, by themselves, didn't create the problem with the highway fund; however, the growing list of earmarks and special interest sponsored growth in how the money is spent (without taking the political hit to get the funding increased at the same time) is why we are going broke as a country. The large pool of money collected by the federal government became a toy box for whatever special interests can seize it.

I'd have to see a list of the special interests rising over time to buy that. It looks to me like road costs have simply far outpaced road revenues. I'm sure special interests played some tiny part, but this TE money has been small and a part of the mix since the mid 90's when road revenues nearly matched road expenditures.

Maybe some of the special interests are useless road projects? Bridge to nowhere sorts of things?

I'd have to see a list of the special interests rising over time to buy that. It looks to me like road costs have simply far outpaced road revenues. I'm sure special interests played some tiny part, but this TE money has been small and a part of the mix since the mid 90's when road revenues nearly matched road expenditures.

Maybe some of the special interests are useless road projects? Bridge to nowhere sorts of things?

Yes, hence my comment about earmarks.

However, the Highway fund was and is used for many types of projects (or components added through legislative requirement) that were never part of the original concept. And funding has never kept up with the additional requirements/uses or even with inflation for the original intended purposes. You can find a reference study in the link I posted earlier in the thread. In that study it was estimated that in 2004 the funding shortfall was approximately 100 billion dollars from what was needed to just maintain the status quo on existing facilities much less construct new capacity to deal with growth.

About 20% of the nations roads are below acceptable grade.
In excess of 300,000 bridges in this country are deemed unsafe or insufficient.

Examples of special interest changes that have added costs to roadways:

Requirements for bicycles lanes and/or pedestrian facilities
Environmental justice legislation
Environmental protection studies and mitigation
Building recreational trails using transportation funds.

These are just a few examples. Whether you think they are a good idea or not, is irrelevant. They add cost to transportation projects, in some cases substantial costs. Yet funding/revenue was not increased to account for the increased costs.

[QUOTE=myrridin;11501994]
If you want a reliable source of funding for trails, you will need a specific revenue source. Something like excise taxes on shoes, bicycles, tires, tubes, etc... When you start pursuing such activities, rather than acting as a typical special interest group seeking to save your piece of the shrinking pie you might get something useful accomplished. QUOTE]

Kind of like sportsmen have been "paying to play" for years. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, but no one wants to supply the apples.

http://www.nraila.net/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=103

Yes, hence my comment about earmarks.

However, the Highway fund was and is used for many types of projects (or components added through legislative requirement) that were never part of the original concept. And funding has never kept up with the additional requirements/uses or even with inflation for the original intended purposes. You can find a reference study in the link I posted earlier in the thread. In that study it was estimated that in 2004 the funding shortfall was approximately 100 billion dollars from what was needed to just maintain the status quo on existing facilities much less construct new capacity to deal with growth.

About 20% of the nations roads are below acceptable grade.
In excess of 300,000 bridges in this country are deemed unsafe or insufficient.

Examples of special interest changes that have added costs to roadways:

Requirements for bicycles lanes and/or pedestrian facilities
Environmental justice legislation
Environmental protection studies and mitigation
Building recreational trails using transportation funds.

These are just a few examples. Whether you think they are a good idea or not, is irrelevant. They add cost to transportation projects, in some cases substantial costs. Yet funding/revenue was not increased to account for the increased costs.

That's just absurd. Pedestrian facilities are absolutely a mandatory part of road construction. In no way is that special interest. It's how you accommodate people, you know, walking on the legs God gave them...


I know the trail funds have been tiny. To some extent environmental protection studies are important: You can do a lot of harm building a bridge the wrong way and blocking a waterway, or contaminating a water way: Not just to the environment in general, but to farms. I've heard some examples of environmental studies gone to the extreme, but I don't know the character of the average study. Given that we build lots of highways I'm guessing the environmental studies aren't crazy on average.

I signed it, but now that i'm taking some time to really think about it, transportation infrastructure does need a lot of work, despite the large amount of funding (and corresponding high use) that it gets. At the same time, I don't necessarily think we should reduce funding for bicycle facilities that can be an asset to making roadways safer. Segregated trails aren't an absolute necessity, even though it sucks to lose them. That's what I get for following my knee-jerk reactions I guess.

I signed it, but now that i'm taking some time to really think about it, transportation infrastructure does need a lot of work, despite the large amount of funding (and corresponding high use) that it gets. At the same time, I don't necessarily think we should reduce funding for bicycle facilities that can be an asset to making roadways safer. Segregated trails aren't an absolute necessity, even though it sucks to lose them. That's what I get for following my knee-jerk reactions I guess.

Neither are expressways, which suck up far more money. Feel better :).

The one tipping factor that got my vote is that the folks asking for our vote are the Rails-to-Trails folks. As we all know, Rails to Trails takes old light railway rail beds (which often go places commuters actually need to go) and turns them into bike paths. If it had been an organization that advocates putting concrete alongside rivers to access state parks and other wilderness areas, I probably would have stayed out of it.

Neither are expressways, which suck up far more money. Feel better :).

Actually expressways and other roadways are a necessity. How do you think your groceries and such make it to the stores you ride your bicycle to?

There isn't an urban area in the world that would survive without a road/motor vehicle transport system to distribute the consumables needed by its populace. And without those urban areas, significant portions of the population would have to die, in order to accommodate the capacity of alternative goods delivery mechanisms.

Actually expressways and other roadways are a necessity. How do you think your groceries and such make it to the stores you ride your bicycle to?

There isn't an urban area in the world that would survive without a road/motor vehicle transport system to distribute the consumables needed by its populace. And without those urban areas, significant portions of the population would have to die, in order to accommodate the capacity of alternative goods delivery mechanisms.

No, roadways are. Grade separated intersections are not a necessity. Trucks work just fine on old fashioned highways and roads.

Do you not know what an expressway is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressway

Or do you just need to rewrite the point so you can argue with your version of it?

My biggest concern with this is the lack of considering proper trails as transportation infrastructure.

We forget that there are urban trails that are more than recreational. During peak hours, the Cherry Creek trail in Denver sees tons of cyclists using it for utilitarian and commuting purposes.

Fully separated from roadways
http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/underfirst.jpg

On/off ramps similar to freeways
http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/pathandramp.jpg
(Although, those ramps could be better... they're a pain when you have to do that 180)

When I can go from the cherry creek neighborhood to downtown with only crossing one, very low traffic street (just the entrance to the Denver country club), why wouldn't I want to use it for transportation? I can go miles without ever worrying about running into a car.

Even suburban areas can use trails.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4905797714_d3c426f561_z.jpg
Another great trail setup like a bicycle freeway, the clear creek trail. I can go from Golden to Wheatridge without ever intersecting a road. There's on/off ramps at all the major intersections. Just like a freeway.

These are great transportational facilities.

These may not be rail trails like the RTC is advocating, but they're trails that use the same funding. I would hate to lose these trails.

Yes, funding is short right now. Even with CDOT saying that greater than 52% of state maintained roads are in poor condition, I don't think we need to be taking funding away from these projects. We do however, need to find new ways to fund our roads. Even if our slice of the pie was taken away, I doubt there'd still be enough money to maintain the current roads and bridges we have.

No, roadways are. Grade separated intersections are not a necessity. Trucks work just fine on old fashioned highways and roads.

Do you not know what an expressway is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressway

Or do you just need to rewrite the point so you can argue with your version of it?

Sorry, I assumed that you were being as imprecise in your terminology as many other I have seen on here.

That said, with the reduction in rail facilities (which of course benefited the railtotrails organization) Expressways/Freeways are essential to longer distance shipping.

These may not be rail trails like the RTC is advocating, but they're trails that use the same funding. I would hate to lose these trails.

I don't think anyone is advocating bulldozing them. Personally, I'd like to see more trails like the Clear Creek Trail (and I would advocate for such trails), but the reality is that most trails don't look anything like that. Most trails look like this (and this one is relatively wide and straight compared to most that I've seen):

http://mtobikes.com/wp-content/uploads/currahee-mountain-bike-trail-making-a-game-plan.jpg

Losing that kind of trail, to be honest, wouldn't bother me much. In fact, losing that kind of trail would benefit me a lot, since it would put more cyclists on roads that I (with my slipped discs) could use, which would tend to make my commute less unbearably painful (if I bike on gravel I'm in pain for three days afterwards) and safer. Now if the trail money that AAA is wanting to appropriate is going to be used to make the above trail look like the Clear Creek Trail, then I'm totally for keeping AAA's hands off it. My only question is, why on Earth don't they build them like that to start with, instead of wasting time and money building them half-assed, so that they have to spend more in upkeep and in resurfacing them?

If the money AAA wants is merely pigeonholed to build more unsuitable trails, then I say, let AAA have it - maybe it will get used for making the other bicycle infrastructure (by which I mean roads) better for cyclists.

As a hopelessly politically incorrect aside, the guys in this image are not some kind of weird reenactors trying to fit into cycling jerseys. Apparently these days, real cyclists get this fat. Heck, I'm 20lbs overweight and if I was in the photo I'd be the slimmest guy there.

My biggest concern with this is the lack of considering proper trails as transportation infrastructure.

We forget that there are urban trails that are more than recreational. During peak hours, the Cherry Creek trail in Denver sees tons of cyclists using it for utilitarian and commuting purposes.

Fully separated from roadways
http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/underfirst.jpg

On/off ramps similar to freeways
http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/pathandramp.jpg
(Although, those ramps could be better... they're a pain when you have to do that 180)

When I can go from the cherry creek neighborhood to downtown with only crossing one, very low traffic street (just the entrance to the Denver country club), why wouldn't I want to use it for transportation? I can go miles without ever worrying about running into a car.

Even suburban areas can use trails.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4905797714_d3c426f561_z.jpg
Another great trail setup like a bicycle freeway, the clear creek trail. I can go from Golden to Wheatridge without ever intersecting a road. There's on/off ramps at all the major intersections. Just like a freeway.

These are great transportational facilities.

These may not be rail trails like the RTC is advocating, but they're trails that use the same funding. I would hate to lose these trails.

Yes, funding is short right now. Even with CDOT saying that greater than 52% of state maintained roads are in poor condition, I don't think we need to be taking funding away from these projects. We do however, need to find new ways to fund our roads. Even if our slice of the pie was taken away, I doubt there'd still be enough money to maintain the current roads and bridges we have.

Trails such as the one you show are still far far cheaper to build than 2 more lanes on a freeway... The solution of course is to use transportation funds for such transportation trails and save money overall. If such trails can relieve a freeway load by 5%, then new lanes for the freeway won't be required. It all comes down to including bicycles into a well diversified transportation plan.

Trails such as the one you show are still far far cheaper to build than 2 more lanes on a freeway... The solution of course is to use transportation funds for such transportation trails and save money overall. If such trails can relieve a freeway load by 5%, then new lanes for the freeway won't be required. It all comes down to including bicycles into a well diversified transportation plan.

First sentence is usually true. The rest; however, is not in differing degrees.

First since major freeways routinely handle 100,000+ vehicles per day, expecting a bicycle path to take 5,000+ vehicles from the freeway is not realistic for most of the US.

That said two new lanes of freeway can handle an additional 20,000 vehicle per day (give or take). I do not believe the freeway would cost more than four times what the above mentioned bike trails would, though it is certainly possible to build some type of bike facility for less than 1/4 of the cost of two additional freeway lanes. But, the cost savings comes at the expense of the usability/convenience of the facility and hence reduces its likelihood of actual use as a transportation facility.

I don't think anyone is advocating bulldozing them. Personally, I'd like to see more trails like the Clear Creek Trail (and I would advocate for such trails), but the reality is that most trails don't look anything like that. Most trails look like this (and this one is relatively wide and straight compared to most that I've seen):

http://mtobikes.com/wp-content/uploads/currahee-mountain-bike-trail-making-a-game-plan.jpg

Losing that kind of trail, to be honest, wouldn't bother me much. In fact, losing that kind of trail would benefit me a lot, since it would put more cyclists on roads that I (with my slipped discs) could use, which would tend to make my commute less unbearably painful (if I bike on gravel I'm in pain for three days afterwards) and safer. Now if the trail money that AAA is wanting to appropriate is going to be used to make the above trail look like the Clear Creek Trail, then I'm totally for keeping AAA's hands off it. My only question is, why on Earth don't they build them like that to start with, instead of wasting time and money building them half-assed, so that they have to spend more in upkeep and in resurfacing them?

If the money AAA wants is merely pigeonholed to build more unsuitable trails, then I say, let AAA have it - maybe it will get used for making the other bicycle infrastructure (by which I mean roads) better for cyclists.

The trail you indicate with the photograph is a purely recreational trail without even the temerity to suggest that it has a transportation function. Unfortunately it is closer to the two major "rails to trails" projects I've seen in my area than the examples Mike provided. The two big ones in my area are the Lake Mineral Wells Trailway and the Caprock canyon trailway. The former is at least paved, the latter is not. I know the former is touted on the rails to trails conservancy site as utilizing the transportation enhancement funding, which is precisely why I support the AAA position. The LMWT has no transportation purpose. It is operated by the State Parks (TPWD) agency and if there are any commuters on there I would be astounded.

I don't think anyone is advocating bulldozing them. Personally, I'd like to see more trails like the Clear Creek Trail (and I would advocate for such trails), but the reality is that most trails don't look anything like that. Most trails look like this (and this one is relatively wide and straight compared to most that I've seen):

http://mtobikes.com/wp-content/uploads/currahee-mountain-bike-trail-making-a-game-plan.jpg

Losing that kind of trail, to be honest, wouldn't bother me much. In fact, losing that kind of trail would benefit me a lot, since it would put more cyclists on roads that I (with my slipped discs) could use, which would tend to make my commute less unbearably painful (if I bike on gravel I'm in pain for three days afterwards) and safer. Now if the trail money that AAA is wanting to appropriate is going to be used to make the above trail look like the Clear Creek Trail, then I'm totally for keeping AAA's hands off it. My only question is, why on Earth don't they build them like that to start with, instead of wasting time and money building them half-assed, so that they have to spend more in upkeep and in resurfacing them?

If the money AAA wants is merely pigeonholed to build more unsuitable trails, then I say, let AAA have it - maybe it will get used for making the other bicycle infrastructure (by which I mean roads) better for cyclists.

As a hopelessly politically incorrect aside, the guys in this image are not some kind of weird reenactors trying to fit into cycling jerseys. Apparently these days, real cyclists get this fat. Heck, I'm 20lbs overweight and if I was in the photo I'd be the slimmest guy there.

It ends up on boths kinds of trails. Where you are probably matters more than anything with what type actually gets built. I've seen crushed limestone (which is what this trail probably used to be, but it looks like they haven't put any new gravel down in a long time), asphalt, and cement; in city, out of town, between towns.

First sentence is usually true. The rest; however, is not in differing degrees.

First since major freeways routinely handle 100,000+ vehicles per day, expecting a bicycle path to take 5,000+ vehicles from the freeway is not realistic for most of the US.

That said two new lanes of freeway can handle an additional 20,000 vehicle per day (give or take). I do not believe the freeway would cost more than four times what the above mentioned bike trails would, though it is certainly possible to build some type of bike facility for less than 1/4 of the cost of two additional freeway lanes. But, the cost savings comes at the expense of the usability/convenience of the facility and hence reduces its likelihood of actual use as a transportation facility.

In urban areas, it might be quite easy to remove 5000 cars from the freeway... LA showed that this was possible for the Olympics they held, where a small change in the number of vehicles makes a huge change in the usability of existing facilities. But until cycling is considered part of the transportation mix and properly funded, we really won't know what the possibilities are.

For now we continue to assume that everyone needs to drive a mostly empty metal box around just to get a few miles down the road. The reality is that many miles driven are short miles... 2-3 for errands and 12-15 for commutes. But we keep building freeways as if everyone is commuting some 120 miles down the road. As long as we build our transportation system that way, that is the way people are going to respond. Perhaps we should try something new before the hand is forced.

But until cycling is considered part of the transportation mix and properly funded, we really won't know what the possibilities are.

I completely agree that all transportation facilities need to be properly funded. It is clear that the highway fund is being used for facilities with which it was not intended, and that the funding levels were never increased to account for that additional spending. In fact the funding levels weren't increased to account for inflation, even if the spending had been limited to the purposed for which the fund was originally intended.

I seem to recall that you were one of those who reacted negatively to a thread I started concerning user fees for bicycle infrastructure. Do you not believe that cyclists should pay for the infrastructure they need? It is clear that motorists are not paying a sufficient amount for the infrastructure they use, and cyclists are paying little to nothing for cycling infrastructure or the road infrastructure.

Funding is the problem and their needs to be more of it. Until funding levels rise to meet the needs, then arguments over pieces of the pie will continue. And motorists outnumber cyclists at least 20:1 in the US



For now we continue to assume that everyone needs to drive a mostly empty metal box around just to get a few miles down the road. The reality is that many miles driven are short miles... 2-3 for errands and 12-15 for commutes. But we keep building freeways as if everyone is commuting some 120 miles down the road. As long as we build our transportation system that way, that is the way people are going to respond. Perhaps we should try something new before the hand is forced.


Average commute lengths are increasing. They averaged between 8-9 miles in 1983 and were up to between 12-13 miles in 2001.

You can wish all you want for people to change, but infrastructure needs to be designed for the way they actually behave. We keep building roads (not just freeways) because people keep using them in ever greater numbers.

And there is plenty of research into using technologies/alternatives, but cycling is not something that most Americans seem amenable to as an alternative to their cars.

The trail you indicate with the photograph is a purely recreational trail without even the temerity to suggest that it has a transportation function. Unfortunately it is closer to the two major "rails to trails" projects I've seen in my area than the examples Mike provided. The two big ones in my area are the Lake Mineral Wells Trailway and the Caprock canyon trailway. The former is at least paved, the latter is not. I know the former is touted on the rails to trails conservancy site as utilizing the transportation enhancement funding, which is precisely why I support the AAA position. The LMWT has no transportation purpose. It is operated by the State Parks (TPWD) agency and if there are any commuters on there I would be astounded.


It does appear to go through the town of Mineral Wells before leaving town and going to a nearby state park (which is a recreational destination, but a valid destination) and then to another small down. Is all of that trail paved? The info sites about it indicate it's at least part crushed limestone.

What's our slice of the pie anyways?

Would the 1.5% of federal funding (http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=40651) that goes to bicycle and pedestrian projects really solve our problems of underfunded roads?

What's our slice of the pie anyways?

Would the 1.5% of federal funding (http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=40651) that goes to bicycle and pedestrian projects really solve our problems of underfunded roads?

Maybe if the Democrats would just let the Bush tax cuts continue, all that revenue would naturally trickle down from the all the BMW and Mercedes drivers and fix all the roads.

Maybe if the Democrats would just let the Bush tax cuts continue, all that revenue would naturally trickle down from the all the BMW and Mercedes drivers and fix all the roads.

What are you smoking? It must be good stuff.

What are you smoking? It must be good stuff.

I'm smoking a weed called 'Sarcasm', if that wasn't already evident.

I'm smoking a weed called 'Sarcasm', if that wasn't already evident.

I'll take a hit off of that if you don't mind.

It does appear to go through the town of Mineral Wells before leaving town and going to a nearby state park (which is a recreational destination, but a valid destination) and then to another small down. Is all of that trail paved? The info sites about it indicate it's at least part crushed limestone.

I have not ridden the trail so I am not sure. The parts I have seen were paved. Given that it is 20 miles long and the federal funding was only 75,000 per mile it could have been paved to the standards I saw (about like a sidewalk level of construction) depending upon how much they paid for the right-of-way. Probably not, though.

Given the nature of the area I doubt anyone commutes on the facility. US 180 runs parallel, and while a high speed road, does have a nice wide shoulder in that area. If I were commuting in that area I would choose it over this. And the trail also has four parking areas along its length, which would indicate it isn't designed for commuting.

The other trail is not paved. It is 63 miles and gravel. Supposedly very nice for mountain bikes. I keep meaning to try it out, but haven't had a chance yet.

I signed the petition.

Cutting trail funding isn't the answer. Bicyclists and hikers use them for the following reasons.

* transportational reasons or utility (e.g. commuting from home to work),
*safety reasons (riding outside congested roads)
*recreational purposes In this regard, they are good places to enjoy the outside.


Many ideal bike trails covering most if not all the above uses do exist and more are being built when possible. Some trails effectively connect one community to another and see considerable use. Yet AAA wants to decrease the funding and undo what has been accomplished. Cutting trail funding is wrong. Please sign the petition.

The one tipping factor that got my vote is that the folks asking for our vote are the Rails-to-Trails folks. As we all know, Rails to Trails takes old light railway rail beds (which often go places commuters actually need to go) and turns them into bike paths. If it had been an organization that advocates putting concrete alongside rivers to access state parks and other wilderness areas, I probably would have stayed out of it.

exactly

Given the nature of the area I doubt anyone commutes on the facility. US 180 runs parallel, and while a high speed road, does have a nice wide shoulder in that area. If I were commuting in that area I would choose it over this. And the trail also has four parking areas along its length, which would indicate it isn't designed for commuting.


I know this goes against your religious beliefs but things can be used for multiple purposes ;). For example, that might be useful for someone who wants to drive halfway and ride halfway. And it would be useful for someone who wants to use the trail recreationally. Lots of trails, including some directly marked "commuter path" have parking lots here and there.

You may be right that no one commutes on it or that it's poorly designed for commuting. But just from looking at it on a map, a couple miles of it make perfect sense to commute on and I wouldn't be shocked if people did.

I don't use these trails and they may or may not be for transportation, but I believe they are for the better of the country I live in.

I know this goes against your religious beliefs but things can be used for multiple purposes ;). For example, that might be useful for someone who wants to drive halfway and ride halfway. And it would be useful for someone who wants to use the trail recreationally. Lots of trails, including some directly marked "commuter path" have parking lots here and there.

You may be right that no one commutes on it or that it's poorly designed for commuting. But just from looking at it on a map, a couple miles of it make perfect sense to commute on and I wouldn't be shocked if people did.

Multi-use is certainly possible, but I just confirmed what I suspected. Since this trail is managed by TPWD there is a fee associated with its use. So they charge a recreation (parks) fee on a facility that was built with public Transportation Enhancement funds. Essentially this is a toll facility built with federal funding, not something normally allowed with other transportation facilities. Something apparently supported by the Rails to trails organization--they have a page highlighting the trail as a success of their program.

This trail is an excellent example of why AAA opposes the use of Transportation Enhancement funding for trails. The existing system for determining what projects get enhancement funds is clearly broken. This trail and others like it may serve a public need, but they do not serve a transportation need. Get the funding from somewhere else, not from funds intended to meet the transportation needs of the community... Particularly when the available funding is far short of the needed levels. If such projects have public support then funding can be obtained for them, don't use underhanded redirection of existing funds...

I signed the petition.

Cutting trail funding isn't the answer. Bicyclists and hikers use them for the following reasons.

* transportational reasons or utility (e.g. commuting from home to work),
*safety reasons (riding outside congested roads)
*recreational purposes In this regard, they are good places to enjoy the outside.


Many ideal bike trails covering most if not all the above uses do exist and more are being built when possible. Some trails effectively connect one community to another and see considerable use. Yet AAA wants to decrease the funding and undo what has been accomplished. Cutting trail funding is wrong. Please sign the petition.

Speaking of trails being used for transportation... in a subtle bit of irony, the open space in and around San Diego is quite "littered" with impromptu trails that young cyclists use to avoid the streets while they TRANSPORT themselves back and forth... but of course these are unsupported trails that no doubt some would decry as being "useless." Never mind that the same darn dirt paths are cut each spring and renewed for use... in spite of the hew and cry of those that feel bike trails have so little purpose.

Google provides the best map of these "useless" routes... never mind that the funding is never available make any of these "official."

I'll agree with you that transportation funds should be used for transportation facilities. Building recreational trails such as the one posted by ianbrettcooper with transportation funding seems misguided.

OTOH, I do believe transportation funding should be used for bicycle transportation projects such as the trails I've grown up using and displayed pictures of.

What is a transportation facility?