<html>
<body>
Hi Nancy, <br><br>
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.<br><br>
<b>Initial post - May 27th, 8:45 pm <br><br>
</b><i>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?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Question, if a more extensive bike trail system were built, would it be
appropriate to mandate that bikers and walkers use the trails?<br><br>
</i><b>Second Post - 6-1-06, 6:45 am<br><br>
</b><i>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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
</i><b>Third Post to Joe Campbell 6-1-06 3:03 pm<br><br>
</b><i>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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
</i><b>Fourth Post to Joe Campbell - 6-3-06 3:37 pm<br><br>
</b><i>Alright Joe,<br><br>
I accept you at your words - and will try to be direct as well.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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!<br><br>
</i>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. <br><br>
Here is a summary of some of the trail issues that are important to
me:<br><br>
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?<br>
2. If cause of non-use can be identified, is there something that can be
done to entice those folks on to the trail?<br>
3. Should additional investments in bike trails be encouraged?<br>
4. If yes, why - if no, why not?<br>
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?<br>
6. Should the primary objective of an expanded trail system be to serve
county/city residents as a transportation alternative to motorized
travel?<br>
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).<br>
8. If both objectives are important - how are conflicts to be
resolved?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
Thanks again for your comments. I look forward to your continued interest
in this thread.</body>
</html>