The recent press accounts of the RTA proposal cite these figures as
the modal split for sales tax-generated monies:
* 33 percent to be spent on commuter rail service.
* 25 percent to be spent on bus service. Currently, the city of Madison
operates the Madison Metro bus service.
* 25 percent to be spent on town and village roads.
* 17 percent to be spent on other rail service.
I am in favor of an RTA *as a concept.* But I fear that this proposal
will simply become a financial shell game that is ultimately used to
build bigger roads and foment sprawl.
To keep that from happening, I propose adding these stipulations as a
condition of our support for an RTA:
1) TRANSIT FUNDS: That all RTA sales tax-generated funds allotted to
transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities be dedicated *in addition
to* current funds spent on these modes; that these monies are matched
by localities in a way that matches population and spatial growth of
urban service areas. That is, current local monies for transit must
not be cut or allowed to stagnate.
2) ROAD FUNDS: That all RTA sales tax-generated funds allotted to
roads be dedicated for *maintenance only*. That these new monies
cannot be used to allow further expansion of roads, nor can they be
used to displace other monies dedicated to road expansion. In sum,
these new monies dedicated to roads must be used exclusively for
*property tax relief.*
3) That no monies generated from this RTA go to pay for car-oriented
transit (i.e., park & rides), that it only goes toward *transit* and
transit-oriented development (i.e., villages & town centers around
transit stops). None of the money can go toward displacing other
monies already dedicated to car-oriented purposes.
Now, some will cry that it isn't right that transit gets new monies
for expansion while roads & parking lots get nothing new. My answer
to them is this: By expanding transit, bike & ped facilities, as well
as transit-oriented development, we are, in effect, expanding
facilities for cars. How is this so? Every person that shifts over to
a bus or a bike, or chooses to live close enough to walk to work
makes space on the roadways and parking lots (i.e., reduces
congestion and frees up parking spaces) for those who continue to
insist on using their global warmers. Thus, transit expansion is good
for people who drive. I hate to put it that way, but it is so. But
the big point is, the global warmers do *not* deserve the triple
benefit of reduced congestion, more parking *and* bigger roads. They
are already getting a double benefit with reduced congestion and more
free parking spaces.
I also worry re: my point 1) that we will find ourselves in a
situation where these new monies will be an excuse to allow current
monies dedicated to transit to either be cut or stagnate. There is
precedent in that back in the mid- late-90s the state pumped up
transit spending only to have local governments respond by letting
their commitment to transit stagnate. This caught up with the locals
in recent budget cycles, however. After that big bump a decade ago,
the state's commitment stagnated as well. Combining those stagnant
trends with the fuel price spikes, well, it all converged into a big
budget mess at the local level--a recent history we all know too well.
I don't want to see the same thing happen here, where we allow
current transit/ped/bike monies to go stagnant or, worse, get cut.
After I posted my snarky comment (on the sasyna list) about the
current proposal's shell game that does nothing for bikes, I got an
off-list mini-lecture from one of our alders; that I need to propose
something that manages the money better. I hope this helps.
Also, I consider this to be a working draft and am open to further
additions, comment, corrections, etc.
But I hope that at least items 1-3 above can serve as a basis for our
discussions with the mayor, county exec and other electeds.
-Mike
P.s. I'm gone all of next week, starting, now....
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
