You may have read on other cycling sites that Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) has offered up an amendment “to prohibit funds for any bike trail path in the version of the stimulus act now in the Senate.”
We urge everyone to contact their Senators immediately to let them know that you want them to support bicycle-friendly infrastructure projects in the Stimulus package and to block the DeMint amendment. The League of American Bicyclists even has a handy Senator lookup feature and talking points for you to call their offices and let your voices be heard. This lookup feature can be found by clicking here.
Talking points for calling or writing your U.S. Senators include:
–Bike/ped projects offer better direct stimulus, because labor is a higher percentage of their cost compared to other transportation projects
–These smaller projects can start more quickly, providing immediate stimulus to local economies
–When polled, Americans call for bike trails and walking paths more than for highway projects
–Better bike/ped connectivity helps the poorest members of society, by giving them transportation options that they can afford
–Bike/ped connectivity is an essential part of Safe Routes to School
–Bike/ped projects are essential in reviving troubled downtowns
(thanks to the Virginia Bicycling Federation for providing these points).
And just so you know, this isn’t just “another day at the office for Republicans”…for U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has also spoken out against using Stimulus funding for bicycle infrastructure.
Let your Senators and other elected officials know that they’re really dropping the ball if they don’t realize that investing in alternative transportation infrastructure of ALL kinds makes quality of life better for all Americans, not just cyclists, mass-transit users and pedestrians.
Special tip of the ol’ “foam chapeau” to Fritz of Cyclelicious for bringing this to our attention.
Popularity: 9% [?]
I have mixed feelings on this. I may upset a few of my cycling compatriots, but I generally oppose federal funding of local projects. As an overall rule, I oppose federally funded bike lanes and paths. If the community wants them, the community should fund them.
I am also opposed to the President’s stimulus tactics. more jobs would be created through corporate tax cuts and credits than through government spending. I am a general opponent of this stimulus plan.
However, if the plan is going to be passed regardless of my opinion and that of those who share it, I would much prefer that it funded infrastructure like roads, dams, and bike lanes than global warming researchers, new sod for the national mall, and a remodel of the commerce department.
Gavin, the Federal government is (in a sense) just returning money that came from local resources in the first place, or — in this case — money that local future taxpayers will eventually have to pay. Communities should indeed be free to choose how they spend the funds — if you watch C-SPAN, this was one of the primary arguments against DeMint’s and Coburn’s ridiculous amendments that put FEDERAL restrictions on how local transportation departments can spend their money.
I should add: The Senate bill passed and now goes to conference committee to negotiate the substantial differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. After conference, a common bill is returned to House & Senate to get voted on again. Watch School House Rock “I’m just a Bill” for details
Obama will fix this, Obama can do anything. Go to Change.gov to let Obama know we need this. He is so great. Hope him and Michelle and the girls are enjoying their new digs. America is so lucky to have such a caring and loving person to be our blessed leader.
Someone’s had too much kool-aid….
I think Eric’s comments were meant to be sarcastic…
The bottom line is, regardless of who’s President, is that bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure can help American cities develop jobs and quality of life.
Am I glad to see it all attached to the Stimulus package? Not necessarily…the thing is bloated and unwieldly as is. Do I still think developing infrastructure for us to take advantage of is a good idea? You’re damn right I do — and it CAN make a difference in the way we ALL live our lives (motorists included).
I’m kinda mixed on this too. I personally see the good that could come of new bike lanes, but I can’t help but feel a little self-serving in that. I do know that the bike lanes/paths in my area are either useless, or seen as really large and really narrow parks. And the folks in my town are fed up with the local government spending money on parks while our city police and fire department pension funds are millions in the hole.
As a side note, I hope this thread doesn’t devolve into a political debate. Not here. I don’t come here for that.
Iron Man…I hope not, too. Unfortunately, these kinds of topics are deeply wound up with politics and there’s really no way to talk about it without getting into a bit of a debate.
What I really hope it doesn’t do is devolve into a “Obama’s a Saint vs. Obama’s an Idiot” thread. That’s happening all too often here and pretty much everywhere else.
I’m with most of you on this. Would more bike lanes/paths be good? Without a doubt Should it be in the stimulus package?….I don’t know. I’m glad it’s not my decision.
While I didn’t vote for Obama, I really do hope he does a good job, so I’m pulling for him. Whether you like it or not, he is your president!
Re: corporate tax cuts
If there’s no profits to tax, where’s the savings exactly? And realistically, how much of that extra money goes to shareholders instead of job creation? If it hasn’t worked for the last 8 years… (just saying)
Re: federal funds for local projects
Federal funding is used to fund local roadways, traffic and air quality surveys, etc. So why not put bike paths on equal footing? Isn’t one of the ideas behind this site that bikes are every bit as much a part of the American transportation strategy as the automobile?
Like any compromise, there is something for everyone to dislike in the stimulus bill. So funding for bike paths is way down on my list of objections.
Claire hasn’t spoken out against it, she’s just reluctant to support bike/ped funding because she’s not sure if people outside urban areas would support it. You’re thinking about Kit Bond, the other senator from MO, speaking out against bike/ped projects.
Missouri politics is kind of weird, lots of which goes back to the civil war. Missouri was a split state, and that split is still there today. The only way democrats win elections in Missouri is attempting to limit their losses, not necessarily win, with rural/outstate/downstate voters and folks in far suburban/exurban counties like St. Charles.
As someone who works in local government as an urban planner, I can tell you that the vast majority of funding for ANY bicycle related projects comes from federal sources. That includes bike trails and bicycle lanes. Most state and local governments did not consider implementing bicycle plans until it was a requirement to unlock federal funds for broader purposes. I wanted to point this out because this is the second place I’ve seen a cyclist express concern over this spending in the stimulus bill.
Without getting too politicky, I’ll say that the President has one thing right: spending money is stimulus. Something like a bike trail, for example, involves construction workers, private engineers, and usually private consultants who produce plans for trail routes. Tax incentives are great if they are just that, and incentive to spend money you otherwise would not have. While the new car tax break doesn’t drive me wild (what about a new bike tax break!), it makes sense from an economical standpoint. Rebates, corporate tax reductions, etc. don’t achieve that purpose.
Fritz, my point is that if the citizens of Cleveland want a bike lane, the citizens of Cleveland should pay for said bike lane. In other words, local project, local taxes. If the citizens of Cleveland get a bike lane with stimulus monies, the lane will be paid for by citizens of Tampa, Reno, Detroit, Las Angeles, and Wasilla. Rather than leveraging our grandchildren, it makes more sense to me to cut federal tax, drastically reduce federal spending and the size of federal government and just sit back and let the market correct itself.
Private spending is stimulus, federal spending is placing tax payers deeper in debt and weakening the dollar even further.
Again, I am all for bike infrastructure, although I think educatiing both cyclist and drivers is more important than any construction project, and don’t want to make this a huge political debate. I just think that this overbloated stimulus package is not the tree we should bark up for our bike path.
[...] February 8th, 2009 by Jack “Ghost Rider” Sweeney · 12 Comments [...]
Bikeadave, thanks for the clarification regarding Claire McCaskill…my choice of wording is a bit off, but the article I linked to about her has it right.
The stimulus bill is 90% pork and it simply doesn’t matter because will be passed. Now, the question is “What kind of things would you like to buy with your grandchildren’s taxes?”
Bike lanes and paths sound better than fish farming research!
Aw…but fish farming research is one of my backgrounds!
My point about the Stimulus package is that I wish bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure was just part of “regular” Federal and state government business — that they just funded these thing because it makes sense…not shoehorned into some other deal that may or may not be related. But I dream…
As a parent, I don’t want to leave my kids with this huge debt. Heck, I don’t want it now. But something does need to be done. I haven’t seen a valid plan from the Repulican side. At least this adminstration is trying to do something. BTW, I would mind not having the bike lanes as long as people would just share the roads and calm down a bit.
Correct, Gavin, but my point is that a Senator from North Carolina has no business telling Cleveland how to spend its money, which is exactly what DeMint and Coburn wanted to do. If Cleveland or San Francisco or Atlanta decide that transportation funds are better spent on bicycling or transit infrastructure instead of new highways (there is *no room* for new highways in San Francisco!).
And don’t forget: it will be the people of Cleveland will pay the debt on this spending along with the rest of the nation. This isn’t just free money from Uncle Sam — and the people paying this debt should have some flexibility in how this money is spent.
Fish farming research? Were you listening to McCain last night on Face the Nation last night? Half of what he claimed were earmarks and pork aren’t even in either version of the stimulus bill — he pulled it all out of thin air. McCain’s claim that “Republicans weren’t involved in the negotiations” is an straight out lie — I have the notes on in those meetings, where Senator Inhofe was *key* in getting GOP provisions in the Senate bill.
I beg to differ, Fritz. The senator from North Carolina wants to tell the city of Cleveland how to spend the money that they are given by the people of North Carolina, not to mention Arizona, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah. I may not agree with Senator DeMint in opposing bike friendly infrastructure, but I do disagree with the notion that spending our children into slavery on a wishlist of democrat pork will fix every economic ill.
Also, fish farming is in the “stimulus package, as is birth control spending and nationalized medicine.
To clarify the point I was trying to make above, The federal government can put restrictions on how money is spent and always does. An example from this Stimulus bill is a restriction that stimulus money can not be spent on any university building where worship services of any kind might be held.
I have to confirm Gavin’s point from #22 here. There are restrictions on almost ALL government funds, and typically this is a good thing. With the exception of Portland and maybe NYC, no other places in America would have bike infrastructure without these “strings” attached.
BTW – I appreciate the very civil discussion despite unique viewpoints, and thanks BC for posting about this in the first place.
Gavin makes an incredible amount of sense on this issue. A commonsense way to fund bike trails and appeal to conservative and liberal-minded folk, is to offer incentives or tax breaks to individuals or corporations who invest in such projects that have been approved by federal or state authorities. That way less money is wasted through bureaucrats and inefficient labor contracts, and the project is more likely to conform to what a community needs. The feds can then focus on what they are constitutionally responsible for.
That’s such a ridiculous target. Surely there are better (worse?) things to single out than bike lanes.
Eric’s primary purpose in life seems to be to be an anonymously sarcastic S.O.B. bent on raising the hackles of anyone who supports Obama or at least wants to give him a chance. I guarantee “Eric” wouldn’t have the huevos to spout his tin foil hat nonsense to us in real life.
Hey now…we’ve kept it civil for this long — let’s keep it going in a friendly debate, OK?
Our caring leaders in Washington have told the big money bankers to take a hike. We are the change we want to see. We must be the change we can believe in. Because of Obama I can become a faster and more efficient cyclist. Because of Obama I am able to utilize bicycletutor.com and feel good about my abilities. Our Constitutional Republic is thriving right now and all those who dismiss and/or reject Obama and his team of Washington insiders our traitors. The Federal Reserve will turn around this light recession and we will be back on track to sustain more foreign entanglements (Iraq, Afghanistan and God willing Pakistan) and print trillions of dollars out of thin air to pay back the debt accrued during the Bush administration.
I have to agree with DeMint and McCaskill. This shouldn’t be part of the any stimulus package. I want massive amounts of bike trails to be created but not like this. This stimulus package is already so wrong-headed as it is. I wish this administration and both Democrats and Republicans would embrace the free market instead of attempting to control everything.
Guys, I have to repeat that all bike trail funding is piggybacked on other funding/legislation. John Boehner would call this “pork”, but this is how federal funding works. I agree that it would be great if congress members recognized the value of non-motorized transportation and passed independent, strong funding mandates just for multi-use trails, but they don’t.
Also, I would argue that free market thinking was the cause for the economy collapse, and I don’t think a little “hair of the dog that bit you” will work in this case.
I realize that funding for bike-related projects is tough to get at the local level, and that the majority of funding for such projects that have been carried off has come from federal incentives. I would argue, that philosophically, if the original intent of the founders was followed, federal taxes would be quite small, and local taxes larger, maintaining a small federal government with little responsibility outside of defense and diplomacy while local and state governments managed schools, roads, and such projects as bike lanes and public transit.
However, this is not the case. That being said, I would agree that if the focus of the bill that the senate just passed were truly economic stimulus through infrastructure improvement as it is being sold, bike lanes would be a reasonable addition to the bill. As the bill seems to be more of a collection of pet liberal projects, I can see why some of those, such as bike lanes might be targets of GOP opposition.
On a political/economical sidenote, I think that even were it less pork laden, this bill is the wrong approach. In 1920, the US had a severe economic downturn. The federal government did nothing. Within two years, that downturn had become the “roaring twenties.” However, nearly a decade later when another downturn hit, which was initially less severe, President Hoover stepped in with interventionist policies which were then continued and increased by Roosevelt. The US remained in and economically depressed state seven years longer than the rest of the world.
The US citizens were made to feel like the government was helping us, while in reality they were keeping us where we were.
Free market thinking did not create the economic crisis. Wrong-headed federal policies such as the fair housing act and neighborhood reinvestment act that forced lenders to loan to riskier recipients bear more of the blame.
I apologize, this blog is not really the place for and all-out political debate, but I feel that it is important for Americans to discuss political issues and share points of view. The sooner were stop debating and being concerned about what our government does, the sooner we lose control of it and become enslaved by it.
Sounds like it’s time to return to our grassroots.
Local politics is where a lot of this starts.
Yes, but can we get back to local politics, or are we so top heavy that we can’t truly find the roots anymore. Just like with most grasses, when the top gets overgrown and dries out, the roots die, but if the top stays trimmed, the roots are strong enough that when hard times come and the grass dries, the roots survive so that the grass can regrow. Thus the whole “grassroots” concept.
@Ghost
I really want to remain civil, but there’s only so much I’m willing to take from the tin foil hatters.
Update, from the League of American Bicyclists via Alan Snel’s “Bicycle Stories” blog:
Thanks to calls from bicycle and pedestrian advocates like you, the Senate refused to hear an amendment that would have blocked any Economic Recovery Bill money from being spent on biking and walking infrastructure projects. Now we need EVERYONE’S HELP to make certain that there is strong support for Transportation Enhancements $ for biking and walking in the final bill!”
Who knows…maybe all this heat worked against DeMint’s proposed amendment?
I wish this administration and both Democrats and Republicans would embrace the free market instead of attempting to control everything.
The Republicans did that for eight years, and the previous Democratic administration did a pretty fair job of it as well. That’s what got us where we are now: a free-for-all with no regulation. What we need for the medium to long term is to repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley and restore the regulatory structures that were put in place for our banking system in the 1930s. We learned some lessons then, but apparently we didn’t learn them well enough.
Just wanted to add this link in response to Gavin’s argument about tax cuts vs. government spending:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/02/in-defense-of-nancy.html
That, of course, is a greater political debate. Given the system we have now, I think cycling facilities are one of the more worthwhile ways the government could use its money to stimulate the economy; at least they also do some substantial long-term good.
Whew. Serious discussion here. So much for the public not paying attention. Yes, the restrictions on spending would be a bad thing, but please don’t think you’re being self-serving, as a cyclist, when you hope for this stimulus package to help build bicycle infrastructure. Remember: The whole point of the thing is to DO something- to build thing that will mean employment for engineers, designers, builders and the companies they work for and/or own. That money spent will then trickle out as they pay for their food, clothing, shelter and the things they need to live and do their job. The end result (bicycle stuff) is good, but it’s the process, the moving of money through the economy that’s the whole point of the package. For once, “pork” is good, if it’s spread evenly.
Bike paths are good for the community, whether they’re paid for by the government or local gov’s. In my opinion. Here in Houston there is a great debate on whether to build a path or not. Here’s the story.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6201599.html