Print

Print


   Well, Jon did raise the  "P" word.  I fully subscribe to everything in
Jon's excellent exposition and advocacy for dedicated funding.   The most
exciting idea is that of California--where funding for safe walkways/bikeways
for village and urban schools provides a cogent arguement with legislators
(i.e., the Transportation Committees) to get off their duff on this entire
bike/ped issue and start spending real money, not just the mandated (they
have no choice) Enhancement funds and throw-away money that the Agency cannot
spend elsewhere.

    Specifically, it the suggestion there that the $6 million for
bicycle/pedestrian projects annually that is the Coalitions position we have
all subscribed to be revised to include three primary components
("priorities" of funding):
    1.  improving and establishing walkways and bikeways to schools (any
roundabout funding for these pathways should not be funded by bike/ped
programming).  This is exactly the California provision that Jon brings to
us.
    2. improving and establishing walkways and bikeways in downtown and
village centers, particularly those impacted by state highway route traffic
(we also need to advocate for separate state funding for the full cost of
downtown/village center walkway/bikeway winter maintenance as a separate
program within the AOT Maintenance Division)
    3.  improving and establishing shoulders on key state highways leading
into downtowns and village centers (like US 4 from the west entering
Woodstock past the High School,  US 2 from the east from the US 2/302
intersection entering Montepelier, etc. )
    4.  improving and establishing shoulders between  builtup village and
urban centers with significant/potential/bicycle tour usage

    The suggestions here are an attempt to place the STATE responsibility
somewhat in context.  I am reminded of the position of former State
Representative Curt McCormack who believes that 100% of the local cost of
highways should be borne by the State (the state now provides about a quarter
of the funding of local roads through an absurd allocation formula, about $25
million of the $100 million statewide local expenditure of funds for highways
and streets)

    One last comment--sorry for the ramble.  Except in the seven large urban
areas, the state provides 100% funding for roads and demands tribute of 10%
for every dollar of ped/bike grant.   In the cities, for over a decade,  a
federal loophole was used to fund most roads at 3% local share while bike/ped
projects remained at 10%.  These funding discriminations must end!

==========
VTBIKEPEDPOLICY-L: The Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Discussion List
Subscription control: http://list.uvm.edu/archives/vtbikepedpolicy-l.html.
For help: email [log in to unmask] with the word "help" in the message body.