Image Credit: Flickr - Dick Howe Jr.
Yesterday, leaders of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee unveiled their new plan for transportation in America. The proposal calls for the elimination of dedicated funding for biking and walking programs across the country.
In the proposal titled "A New Direction," Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) suggested that these programs serve no federal or national purpose.
In a press release for the proposal the Committee states, "Congress will not support a gas tax increase, and this proposal does not raise taxes. Without an increase in revenue, other current options, such as a two-year bill, the Administrations’ proposal, or extending expired law at the current funding levels, all lead to the Highway Trust Fund going broke by 2013."
In the Senate, James Inhofe of Oklahoma is pursuing a similar goal. Inhofe, a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said that one of his top-three priorities for the next multi-year federal transportation bill is to eliminate “frivolous spending for bike trails.”
The answer to budget deficits, as Mica and Inhofe see it, is to reform U.S. surface transportation programs by consolidating or eliminating approximately 70 programs that are duplicative or do not serve a federal purpose.
Three programs likely to get the ax? Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancements, and Recreational Trails, all of which have encouraged Americans to complete 12 percent of their trips by bicycling or walking, improving family health, and reducing harmful fossil fuel emissions.
In addition to the programs mentioned above, the proposal would also eliminate the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program. The NTPP was a cornerstone of the previous transportation bill and it provided $25 million to four communities to develop cycling and walking facilities.
The House proposal would also cut 25 percent from Amtrak's federal operating subsidy and eliminate a $100 million a year Intercity Passenger Rail grants program.
Wondering what the proposal actually would allow?
The proposal states that "nearly all" Federal Highway Program funding will go to states through programs designed to "preserve existing highways, build new highway capacity, and address congestion, freight mobility, and highway safety." It would also remove existing barriers in order to allow more private corporations to offer public transit services.
Why would the Committee introduce such a bill when enthusiasm for alternative transportation is at an all time high? If saving money is the ultimate goal, why not invest more money in infrastructure for biking and walking: two activities that are affordable, healthy, and take almost no toll on the environment?
If you prefer to live in bikeable, walkable cities, and want the government to invest your tax dollars into bike lanes, greenways, cycling education and pedestrian-friendly walkways, it's time to speak up.
PeopleforBikes.org is asking Americans to reach out to the two U.S. Senators and the U.S. Representative who represent you in Congress. Ask them to support ongoing, dedicated funding for biking and walking in the next transportation bill.
Click here to review clear, basic, suggested text for your email. Feel free to customize it and/or add a personal story.)
Sources: Bike Portland, PeopleforBikes.org
Comments
Beth Buczynski wrote on 07.08.11, 2:33pm:
Well said, Kelly. It's like they'll do anything BUT focus on the real issues.
Wolfgang Hoeschele wrote on 07.13.11, 9:22am:
The proposed changes have a perfect logic - within a mindset dominated by neo-classical, scarcity-oriented, growth-manic economics.
"The Economy" according to this mindset is only healthy if it "grows," i.e., all of us consume more, and for that, all of us have to believe that consuming more is good for us. Demand has got to grow more quickly than supply (that's scarcity) so that those manufacturers can continue selling. But unless you buy top-end racing bikes fit for the Tour de France every few years, you just can't spend as much on bikes as you can on cars. And if you're encouraged to walk or cycle, you might actually realize that you're BETTER OFF without that huge metal box that put fumes in the air, costs you a lot of money, for which you have to find parking, that costs a lot to repair, etc.
Now, that's subversive! And scary to the oil and car and highway and tire etc. interests, the interests of all those old and outdated industries that still run this country. So why wouldn't they pay their representatives in Congress to kill programs that undermine their business models?
That's what we're up against; I'm not a citizen of the US and so don't plan to write to any Congresspeople here, but I do encourage US citizens to write to their representatives on this because you can only oppose such money-power through people-power!
Wolfgang
Man With No Brain wrote on 07.18.11, 5:07am:
What's so "no-brainer" about people in Wyoming paying for bike trails in Atlanta?
Man With No Brain wrote on 07.18.11, 5:13am:
Also... neoclassical economics would support funding for bike trails (in a time like this) because they would claim it stimulates demand (more G=more Y). You're out of your element...
If we can't even get the no-brainer stuff like this right, we're in deeper trouble than I thought.