[Vision2020] Ped/Bike transportation options

[Jeff Harkins]

Joe Joe Joe Joe,

1. I was not complaining - I simply made an 
observation - and a correct one. I have no 
particular problem with bicycles riding on the 
road  - and made not such inference. I do find it 
puzzling that with a new trail some 20 ft from 
the highway (HWY 8), there are folks that 
continue to walk/ride on road shoulder rather than the trail.

2. Actually, you are correct - by using your car 
less, you do pay less "fuel tax".  Seems rather 
obvious to me. It also seems logical that if you 
want more trails, you are gonna have to figure 
out how to pay for it.  Do you have a problem 
with paying for the trails you use?  But again, I 
did not state a position endorsing a fee - I 
simply asked a question. By your statement that 
your are willing to pay for roads since they help 
the community overall, you can send in your 
contribution to the Idaho State Tax 
Commission.  You can ask that those funds be 
added to the dedicated roadway trust fund.

Your tone suggests that you want to force a 
confrontation here - am I misreading your 
response?  Are you looking for a fight or is this 
just on some arbitrary partisan line that you have drawn?

At 09:45 AM 6/1/2006, you wrote:
>Wrong, wrong, wrong, Jeff. All the way around!
>
>1. I don't use the Latah trail as much as the 
>Chipman because it isn't fully developed. If 
>folks like you complain that I ride on the 
>roads, then there is an incentive for you to aid 
>in the development of that trail.
>
>2. A better analogy would be a tax on the fuel 
>used for bikes, not the trails. Trails are 
>analogous to roads not gas. By your argument it 
>follows that I should pay less tax for road 
>development since I have one car and bike often. 
>I think that is petty. I'm willing to pay for 
>roads since they help the community overall.
>
>Oh, that's right. There is no fuel used with 
>bikes! Just my own power. And they already tax beer anyway.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>Joe,
>
>I thought I made it clear in my post - my
>comments about trail non-use referred
>specifically to the Latah Trail section - not the
>Chipman Trail.  Chipman enjoys excellent use -
>although I still see a fair number of bicyclists
>using the Airport Road rather than the trail.
>
>Chipman may be a better investment (from a
>transportation point of view) because it connects
>two specific destination points - UI to WSU.  In
>developing additional trail components,
>destination points may be an important critierion to consider.
>
>It does seem appropriate that as bicycle use
>increases (as a substitute for the high cost of
>driving and commuting) that there is some
>mechanism for taxing bike riders for their share
>of developing a trail network - similar to the
>tax on gasoline is used to build and maintain highways, roads and streets.
>
>At 04:50 PM 5/31/2006, you wrote:
> >I ride the trail's often from Moscow (where I
> >live) to Pullman (where I work). Often I ride in
> >the road as well because it is difficult to get
> >from where I live to the trail. There is a trail
> >for part of the way but (a) much of it is gravel
> >and that is hard to ride a bike on, and (b) if I
> >go that route I end up on the wrong corner of
> >Rt. 95 and Rt. 8, which is difficult to pass. It
> >is much faster for me to just ride down Rt. 8.
> >Note that like many of the other speeding cars
> >you see I am on my way to work and just want to
> >get there as quickly as possible.
> >
> >The trails are great but we need more of them if
> >folks are going to complain about others riding bikes on the roads.
> >
> >And it is just false that there aren't a LOT of
> >folks using the trails, even if there are lots
> >on the roads, as well. Take a ride or walk on
> >the Chipman trail from Pullman to Moscow and
> >you'll find out for yourself! LOTS and LOTS of
> >people use those trails. Moscow just has a large
> >number of bike riders and has not dealt adequately with this fact yet.
> >
> >--
> >Joe Campbell
> >
> >---- Philip Cook <pcook818 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> >=============
> >Jeff Harkins, jeffh at moscow.com, Sat May 27 20:45:57 PDT 2006, wrote:
> >
> >"Bike trails are an interesting element in the
> >transportation mix.  I had hoped that the Latah
> >Trail would be a real solution for encouraging
> >walking and bike/traffic issues on the east
> >side.  But sadly (and I drive adjacent to the
> >trail at least twice a day) I have seen
> >wholesale disregard for the trail as a traffic
> >solution.  Each day, I see more bikers and
> >runners not using the trail - instead, opting
> >for using Palouse River Drive or Highway 8 for
> >their trek. This is puzzling.  It would be
> >helpful to know why so many folks are not using
> >the trail. Now my post is not intended to infer
> >that no one uses the trail - each day I also see
> >many folks walking with a friend, walking a dog
> >- ie, using the trail - my point is that there
> >are many opting to not use the trail."
> >
> >Response:
> >Any transportation system's function (road,
> >trail, rail, air, etc.) is to get people (and
> >goods) to and from the places they want to go.
> >If more than one route exists to get to those
> >places, then people are usually free to choose
> >their routes based on their own preferences
> >(time, directness, risk, etc.) within legal
> >constraints. Why do some cyclists and
> >pedestrians "disregard" using the Latah Trail?
> >Because it doesn't go where they want to go,
> >and/or they prefer another route for that
> >journey. The Trail is an alternative, not the "solution."
> >
> >"Question, if a more extensive bike trail system
> >were built, would it be appropriate to mandate
> >that bikers and walkers use the trails?"
> >
> >Response:
> >Absolutely not. Among the many reasons:
> >
> >First, it is doubtful that an extensive enough
> >shared-use path system ("bike trails") could be
> >built to fullfill even a fraction of the
> >transportation needs of non-motorized users,
> >particularly in already developed areas where
> >off-street public right-of-ways do not exist.
> >Certainly, more sidewalks within existing street
> >right-of-ways provide a viable alternative for
> >pedestrians, but not so for cyclists. Shared-use
> >paths provide a viable alternative to on-street
> >accommodation for cyclists only under limited
> >circumstances (see, e.g., http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/shared.htm; and
> >http://itd.idaho.gov/planning/reports/bikepedplan/idt.pdf,
> >Chapter3 and Appendix B). Unfortunately, in some
> >places poorly-designed shared-use paths have
> >been constructed; to mandate their use by cyclists would be inappropriate.
> >
> >Second, where shared-use path systems exist,
> >maintainance is often a problem, particularly in
> >winter. This limits path's usefulness as a viable route alternative.
> >
> >Third, and most importantly, cyclists have the
> >same rights as drivers of all other vehicles
> >using the roads (but for a few exceptions; see
> >Idaho Code 49-714 et seq). Mandatory sidepath
> >laws diminish those rights for no good reason. Share the road; it's the law.
> >
> >Philip Cook
> >Moscow
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >�������￠
> ½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 
> ¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯