I have heard something about a BFW Madison listening session, and I would like to share my thoughts about where I want the BFW headed as part of getting te discussion started.
We have all heard the hot air from the "Bill Hauda types" about how we in Madison don't have perspectives that matter to the BFW. My impression is that the difference of opinion centers around the question of what the most critical issue is facing bicyclists in Wisconsin. I thought I would take a stab at identifying that critical issue. To get a sense of what the priorities are, it is best to evaluate your core principles. These principles are outlined on the BFW web site. >From the BFW about page: [ http://www.bfw.org/about/contact.php ] --- Begin Quote What We Believe: Making Wisconsin A Better Place to Bicycle. * We believe that through bicycling we can create a better world for our children and ourselves. * BFW supports Smart Growth to preserve rural areas, promote traditional neighborhoods, and provide transportation choice. * BFW provides support and resources to local bicyclists who want to make a difference in their communities. --- End Quote Now, I happened to be browsing transportation-related web pages today and ran across this from the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association web page: [ http://www.wtba.org/wimadasn/doc.nsf/doc/about_index.cm ] --- Begin Quote WTBA is also very active in public policy debates about transportation and land use, that could force the redirection of highway funds to other modes and severely restrict new highway capacity, despite growing congestion. --- End Quote As I read it, the WTBA has laid bare their motive: More and more money for highways. And how are they going to make sure they get to build more and more highways? By opposing Smart Growth, traditional neighborhoods, and transportation choice - the very core of what the BFW stands for. Now, we will probably be reading a lot from the "Bill Hauda types" about what amounts to the restoration of STP-D funds for bicycling that were cut two budgets ago. In the short term, this is a good thing. But from what I have been reading, the funding levels are identical to what they were two budgets ago, yet even the WTBA is complaining that transportation construction costs are surging. What does this mean? It means funding for bicycling infrastructure in real terms is probably lower now than it was two budgets ago. As the dust settles on the current budget I hope we can get a clearer picture about relative buying power of bicycle funding. Here is another reason for concern: That funding increase may only be temporary. It looks like the money for bicycling and pedestrian facilities came out of funds like the Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, which has historically funded extremely popular programs in SE Wisconsin. The folks in SE Wisconsin are not going to be happy when they find out their funding has been cut - and will probably react by trying to get their funding restored - at the expense of bicycling. In the longer term, I am concerned that the relative funding levels between bicycling infrastructure and highways will continue to incentivize driving. It is fairly well established that spending money on a transportation mode generally increases the user-share for that mode. I fear this in turn will increase sprawl at the expense of ease of use for bicyclists. Current MPO projections suggest that more and more people will be commuting into Madison FROM OUTSIDE DANE COUNTY - and rates of car-miles will rise accordingly. This in turn will create more congestion that the WTBA will use to try to justify further raiding funds for automobile alternatives. In summary, I believe that in order for the BFW to be true to its core beliefs, groups like the WTBA need to be fought head-on, and NOW. Growth in bicycle funding should come from where the Federal Government has provided the money - Transportation Enhancements, much of which is redirected into general road building funds in the current State budget. The State should be spending it's federal funding according to the intended purpose: TE for true enhancements only, not for Ped/Bike projects that are obviously part of new road construction. We can't be wasting our time snatching funding from other motor-vehicle alternative projects - that is just what the WTBA wants. Are we going to continue let the WTBA have our funding? _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
