This just came to me via email. A small coup for Bicycle Advocacy

Congress Saves Transportation Enhancements!
By Ed Barsotti, Executive Director, League of
Illinois Bicyclists

On September 4, the House of Representatives
voted overwhelmingly (327-90)
to restore funding for the Transportation
Enhancements program in the 2004
Transportation Appropriations bill. A
bi-partisan amendment was led by
Representatives Petri (R-WI) and Olver (D-MA).

Since 1991, the Enhancements program has been the
main federal funding
source for trails, bike lanes, and other bike
infrastructure throughout the
country. Bikeways account for roughly half of
Enhancements dollars, less
than 1% of all federal transportation spending.
Illinois bike projects have
received over $100 Million during that time - see
www.enhancements.org for a
list.

Earlier this summer, a House Appropriations
subcommittee removed the popular
program from this year's spending package,
diverting the funds to more
roadwork. An effort to restore dedicated
Enhancements funding barely failed
in full committee, but won decidedly on the House
floor. A broad coalition
of groups contributed to the effort.

With Enhancements intact in the Senate bill, the
House victory restores the
program for 2004. It also puts the bicycle and
pedestrian community on
strong footing for the bigger battle over the
reauthorization of TEA-21, the
6-year transportation funding bill that will
continue to be defined over the
coming year. The Bush Administration's SAFETEA
proposal maintains
Enhancements, but reduces its effective amount of
funding by 15%. House and
Senate versions are being developed now.

Illinois did particularly well in the 327-90
vote. Yes: Biggert, Costello,
Crane, Davis, Emanuel, Evans, Gutierrez, Hyde,
Jackson, Johnson, Kirk,
LaHood, Lipinski, Rush, Schakowsky, Shimkus,
Weller. No: Manzullo. Not
voting: Hastert. Congressman LaHood not only
testified for Enhancements
on the House floor, but he was one of only two
Appropriations members
nationwide who went against their leadership on
the committee vote.

A huge thanks to everyone who responded to LIB's
written, e-mail, and web
alerts - you showed that Illinois supports
bicycling! Please watch
www.bikelib.org and www.americabikes.org for
future developments.

Yay!

Fantastic!

I hope to get further involved in supporting these efforts by contacting my representatives.

Whoo hooo!



Thanks for the update!

Koffee

This is a tremendous waste of federal tax money. Plus, the federal government has no authority to expend money in this way.

My local, county government, is expanding the bike trails in my area by leaps and bounds. The state is also kicking in money and helping to coordinate between the various local government organizations.

If the federal government reduced spending by the amount they will spend on this bill, perhaps our local governments, who are closer to us, to which we have easier access and can influence, and can better respond, would have more money and could expand bike paths faster and respond to other cycling needs and desires in a better, more productive way.

I think it is great!

This entire bill is a boondoggle. There is $500 million to enforce wearing of seat belts! Talk about Nanny Statism. I would rather see the entire thing voted down.

Plus, by the time all the rules and regulations are implemented, bike commuters will have to log every mile and keep the log available for the IRS in case of an audit. The paper work will make bike commuting a nightmare.

Anytime the feds stick their noses in areas where they have no authority, they tend to muck it up pretty bad. Then, you add in the IRS and their vaunted bumbling and it will be a huge mess.

It is good because the government shows the moral support for cycling.

Congratulations!

I could go along with moral support. It's the waste of federal dollars and the expansion of the role of government that galls me.

I'm with ya, TrekRider. In my opinion, this sort of funding should be local or state, not federal.

Hooray for the federal government!! They should take over all state and local governments, as well.

Without Federal spurs in their ribs from time to time, the horses of state and municipal governments wouldn't steer the right way.
Especially when talking about road construction, which is a land use issue as local govs are almost always heavily swayed by local land-use businesses. Contractors, developers, and the like are terrified to build anything but autocentric tracts, malls, etc., and really need their hand forced by the feds to build a diverse transportation environment--remember it's
Federal money that built the Interstates and that runs the army that keeps oil for our excessive driving habits going! It will be interesting to see what transportation policies will come from the next president we get who is not, unlike the current critter, a bought and paid for piece of ass of the oil industry.

Trekrider and Booyah. Do you never ride multiuse trails? Sad. First the government will give the money only if the local or state use funds also. Next, if there were no government money, even if the localities or state were to get the money for the trails it's a lot harder to get the additional money to maintain them. Surely, you've seen trails not properly maintained due to lack of funds. If you haven't, I have. Many of these projects are done for the safety of everyone. Do you realize that the federal government has a 24 billion dollar transportation budget?

Actually, I generally don't ride multi-use paths. At least, not urban ones in anycase. I consider the road to be much safer and more practical.

If voters don't get involved and wait for "someone else" to spur the locals, you would be right. But, if you want something, wouldn't it be easier to go to Bill, the state senator or county councilman who is also the butcher, baker, or candlestick maker who lives down the street?

When I want something or oppose something, I pick up the phone and call my councilman's office and let him know. I e-mail my state representatives. I have testified in state senate hearings about things that I am passionate about.

I am just an ordinary citizen who wants what is best and is not afraid to take my own time - I had to use vacation time to get off work to testify - for things in which I believe.

If you are content to sit back and wait for "someone else" to do it, you don't deserve it.

As to the federal highway system, et al, you are, of course, trying to mix apples and oranges to rationalize your own inactivity, aren't you?

Yes, multi-use trails are part of my daily ride. And they will be a bigger part as my LOCAL government builds new ones. A new stretch opened just last week and another stretch will open in a few months. My LOCAL government, responding to the wishes of LOCAL citizens is doing this with COUNTY TAX money.

In fact, I am thinking of joining with a group that is advocating a bicycle license, like $10 per year, to use the trails. Currently, in many state and county parks, it costs $5 each time you enter in a car, or you can buy a yearly pass for $25. This money is used to maintain the parks.

You miss the point entirely. First, there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to build bicycle or multi-use trails. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Second, the federal government doesn't "give" anything to anyone. It always comes with strings attached. And those strings always make things 10 times more expensive than they otherwise would be. My county is doing fine by itself without federal funds.

If yours isn't, then it is your fault. Get out and lobby!

(Sigh.......)

Yes, and you know what I do? I join with other users of the trails and WE CLEAN THEM UP OURSELVES! We take individual responsibility! We don't sit back on our butts and whine about government not doing more. We actually organize, enlist bike clubs, community organizations, girl and boy and cub scouts. Geez! What is so difficult about this?

If you were to stretch a point to where it almost snaps, you could say this about anything. In fact, that is one of the reasons that people have used to justify paroling sex offenders into the local community and building methadone clinics in residential areas.

Do you realize that probably 50% of that $24 billion is for pork and other unconstitutional outlays? Heck, 50% of the entire federal budget is probably for pork or other unconstitutional outlays.

You mean like Al Gore, who owes his riches to Oxydental Petroleum?

If you want to spout off about politicians, making inane and ignorant comments, move it to the political discussions arena.

I already pay for riding on our state and county trails. You're lucky to be living in an area where trails seem to be a priority cause citizens lobby for them. I've only recently taken a job where I'll have time to do that. My city wants to ban cyclists from a path around our local lake because the adjacent land owners don't want them riding by their property.




My county isn't doing fine financially. The most recently improved section of the railtrail was a serious safety issue which was heavily funded by TE. Without that funding that improvement wouldn't have happened.



I called my congressman to support TE. I see all of Maryland's congressmen did to.




I see my point was missed. I'm not talking about clean up of trails. That's the easy part. I'm talking about keeping a rideable surface on the trail.

To find out what TE were made in your area go to www.railstotrails.org The information is there.

I agree that a lot of the transportation budget is pork. So why can't a very very small part of the pork be something I want.

I think this news is great. But for it to be truly meaningful for cycling advocacy, it has to be connected to local and federal efforts to reduce our depdendence of private gas-powered transportation, and to encourage a combination of mass transit and clean transit like cycling.

It appears that some people are upset about this bill because it is federal, but any success in local advocacy is at some point contingent on what happens in the federal legislature. While local organizing and advocacy is absolutely essential, we have to push the agenda beyond our own neighborhoods. The federal interstate funds had a tremendous impact on how we travel in every neighborhood, how safe it is to ride a bike, and there are important battles to win there, too. Additionally, some towns are not incorporated and have very little access to the kind of resources (capital etc.) to build bikepaths and to provide attention to the needs to the cycling community.

Often, the absence of good bike paths will eliminate the development of a local cycling advocacy group in the first place, which means that local demands for safe biking will never present themselves.

If some of you are upset at the unnecessary pork riders on this bill, rather than condemn the federal legislature's role in cycling advocacy, have your local organization take that up with your representative, or endorse an opponent who attends to your concerns. I find it unacceptable as well , but that problem exists for all kinds of legislation.

I want to clarify that I think local organizations are key for this, too.

That may be true where you live. Where I live paths provide a a safe and convenient network, especially in urban areas (not much designated paths in the countryside anyways). Building that sort of infrastructure takes time and money. This bill together with local initiative might help in the US.

--J

Just a couple of observations.
1. Bike paths primarily see recrational activity.
2. Bike commuters almost universally started out as recrational cyclists.
3. More bike paths mean more recreational cyclists.
4. More rec cyclists provide a larger pool to possibly have more commuters and others that use bikes for transportation.
5. More commuters and such the more bike friendly infrastructure will be needed and hopefully funded for them.
6. More people on bikes is less people on cars.

If all this money does is provide facilities to introduce people to cycling is a safe not threating environment, then it's money well spent. Just my opinion.

Hmm, If there is no constitutional authority to build bike trails, which can't be used by cars, how is there authority to build freeways which can't be used by bicycles?

Both are transportation, and in the case of a private auto, neither one very directly contributes to interstate commerce moreso than ferrying a consumer of goods from one state to the other?

take care,

Jester