[Vision2020] Ped/Bike transportation options

[Jeff Harkins]

Alright Joe,

I accept you at your words - and will try to be direct as well.

First, I have not taken a position on this trail 
issue.  I merely made an observation - numerous 
ones actually.  I travel Hwy 8 between home and 
town frequently and at various times - from 6:00 
am to dark.  I recognize that the price of auto 
commuting is rising and will increase the demand 
for bicycle traffic - as well as scooters, 
motorcycles, skates, skate boards, pogo sticks 
etc - as alternative forms of travel.  Before we 
fall into the "free rider" trap of a few paying 
and lots benefiting from "perceived rights to use 
existing resources as seen fit" model, I think it 
useful to consider alternatives, consider needs, 
consider costs and consider the resources needed 
to fund those "needs".  Most importantly, we should consider who will pay.

Yes, I have ridden the trail many times (the 
portion between the Waste Transfer Station and 
the old Tidyman's.  I really like it because 
there is so little traffic. (therein lies the 
conundrum).  Also,  I have helped clean it up

As to the tax issue, you don't seem to be getting 
my point - the tax on fuel which is used to 
support the construction and maintenance of roads 
is a perfectly progressive tax - the more you use 
fuel, the more tax you pay.  Those on the left 
usually like those kinds of taxes - you should be 
pleased.  The fact is - users of roads in fuel 
tax states pay for their use of the roads.  Bike 
trails are very different - some users pay, some 
don't.  Keep in mind, most of the trail sections 
in our part of Idaho were paid for by donations 
and grant proceeds. Can we sustain this form of funding?

Now then, should some of our tax revenue be 
shifted to trails and trail maintenance? 
Probably.  Which ones?  Perhaps this dialogue 
will offer some direction.  Should a new tax be 
created to build and maintain trails - not, IMHO, 
if it doesn't charge the users directly for their 
use of the trails.  Until bike traffic becomes 
the predominant form of transportation in our 
society, bike trails are a lot like sidewalks, 
forest service trails, ski trails, ATV trails, 
horse trails - a secondary travel route.  What do 
all of those forms of transportation venues have 
in common - they have a primary funding source tied to the primary users.

Oh, one more thing you should note about my 
background in Moscow travel.  Before I moved to a 
more rural part of the county, I biked to work 
every day for 9 years.  Didn't have a trail to 
use but relied on roads and sidewalks to get from 
home to work.  Never had a problem - other than 
having to watch out for the 4000# vehicles and 
the reckless frisbee golf players tossing aimlessly about!

Cheers.

At 04:25 PM 6/1/2006, you wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>As to point 1: Have you biked, or even walked, 
>along the trail? If you did, you might know why 
>folks still use the highway. Going west from 
>Tidymans it is mostly gravel, so bike riding is 
>difficult. And it is much shorter -- and much 
>easier to cross at the rt. 8/rt. 95 intersection -- to walk along the highway.
>
>As to point 2: Why can't I say "If you want more 
>roads, then folks who use the roads more should 
>pay more taxes." That seems petty to me. Again, 
>we're not talking fule costs we're talking 
>road/trail costs. Can I write to the Idaho State 
>Tax Commission and ask that my taxes be added to 
>the bike path fund? Unlikely. You don't want to 
>pay for more trails and I don't want to pay for 
>more roads. I don't see a strong argument for your point here.
>
>I'm sorry if my tone seems confrontational. I 
>don't want a confrontation. Nor am I even upset. 
>I think I'm just being direct. I like you just 
>fine. I just happen to disagree with your stance 
>on this issue and I don't see any reason to 
>change my views based on what you said so far. But I'm willing to hear more.
>
>Making alternative travel options available to 
>the people of Moscow strikes me as a social 
>good, something that the community should 
>contribute to equally. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know why.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>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
> > >���ï¿à 
> ‚½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â
> > 
> 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
> > >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯à 
> ‚¯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¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯