[Vision2020] Ped/Bike transportation options

[Jeff Harkins]

Hi Nancy,

Thank you again for participating in this dialogue.  You state that 
you hope your response helps clear any misimpressions and inspires me 
to think twice about the excellent value we have in our trail 
system.  I think you may have missed the early posts on this thread - 
so I have compiled a scenario of excerpts of my comments that pertain 
to the Latah Trail.  This may help you to focus on the issues that 
are being discussed, rather than focus on my impressions and inspirations.

Initial post - May 27th, 8:45 pm

Should there be improved transportation queues? Of course. Who should 
pay for them? Users, those in the immediate neighborhood or general 
taxpayers?  The current model seems to be built around the view that 
subdivision streets and sidewalks are covered by developers - which 
means the cost is impounded in the price of the lot.  Arterials are 
financed by general taxpayers.  Are their alternatives to this model?

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.

Question, if a more extensive bike trail system were built, would it 
be appropriate to mandate that bikers and walkers use the trails?

Second Post - 6-1-06, 6:45 am

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.

Third Post to Joe Campbell 6-1-06 3:03 pm

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?

Fourth Post to Joe Campbell - 6-3-06 3:37 pm

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!

OK - that provides all my comments on the Latah Trail up to the point 
that you entered the dialogue.  Perhaps you can now appreciate why I 
want to redirect your comments back on the issues raised rather than 
my own impressions or as you state misimpressions.

Here is a summary of some of the trail issues that are important to me:

1. Why are some walkers/bikers choosing to not use the Latah Trail 
when traveling east or west on Hwy 8 and/or Palouse River Drive?
2. If cause of non-use can be identified, is there something that can 
be done to entice those folks on to the trail?
3. Should additional investments in bike trails be encouraged?
4. If yes, why - if no, why not?
5. If more trails should be built in Latah County, what criteria 
should be used to determine where they should be built and who should 
pay for them?
6. Should the primary objective of an expanded trail system be to 
serve county/city residents as a transportation alternative to 
motorized travel?
7. Should the primary objective of an expanded trail system be to 
advance an economic development initiative that would attract bike 
enthusiasts and other tourists (e.g., the Wallen Bridge as a tourist draw).
8. If both objectives are important - how are conflicts to be resolved?

Oh,  out of curiosity, has the Latah Trail Foundation, the County or 
the Cities of Moscow, Troy or Kendrick done any travel counts on the 
various sections of the trail network?  If so, are those counts available?

Thanks again for your comments. I look forward to your continued 
interest in this thread. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060603/1c15fce8/attachment.htm