Dear Group,

For the past week this debate and list of suggestions about bike counts and direction of spending for bike infrastructure avoids the real question of payments.  I have not commented before on your local Madison bike issues and advocacy groups have made Madison into one of the few "biking cities" in the country.  Yet there is a constant theme that "auto drivers" don't like bicyclists?  And why might that be?  Certainly most rode some type of bikes as children.  They are pedestrians part of their current lives--so just why?  They feel it is "us or they?"  Certainly that is the general opinion expressed in this listserv--"us or they"--"us or those big bad SUVs."

And all sorts of hockus-pokus can be put forth to show why bikes deserve all the spending they have gotten in the greater Madison area.  Nevertheless--the bikes are a minority--an elite, if you will.  So, why not have a real money raising license fee?  Then bikes can put their heads up high and declare to autos that they are really on equal footing in the payments department.  Why not an annual fee with fines for non compliance?  There is still no gas tax money--but a comparable annual bike license fee would go along way toward making a case for bike infrastructure. 

>From the Web at the close of '07 was this:----  "[
In Wisconsin, state law prohibits officials from collecting more in bike registration fees than it costs to run the registration program, said Arthur Ross, pedestrian-bike coordinator for the city of Madison. The best-known pay-off of that city's mandatory registration is also enabling police to return stolen bikes, Ross said.

"Certainly, I would not want to see program funding tied to bike registration," Ross added. "We need a whole lot more money than were ever going to raise through bicycle registration."

In Madison, about 20,000 bikes have valid registrations, said John Rider, bicycle registration coordinator. The $10 registration lasts four years. The program helps transportation planners, "get a handle on how many bicycles we have in the city so we can have some more say in trying to have bicycle facilities," Rider said. "It gives us a voice."

It was pressure from cycling advocates that eventually led Minnesota lawmakers to repeal that state's registration program several years ago, said Anderson, the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator. ]" ----------. . . .--------

Eric





STRAWSER, Charles wrote:

I’m all for advocates counting bikes. I didn’t say I wasn’t.

I said that if the city (and the state) spend tax dollars (both property tax dollars and fuel taxes) on public transportation infrastructure, and they assess needs and plan for future expansions to accommodate those needs based on data they collect on motor vehicle use, then the city should also collect data on non-motor vehicle use (and pedestrians).

 

I’ll happily volunteer to collect data, and I’m also happy to suggest some locations. The intersection of Dickinson St and the bike path would be a great one, I think, because I am almost certain that the number of vehicles (and pedestrians) traveling east or west along the E Wilson St/bike path corridor far outnumbers the number of vehicles traveling north/south on Dickinson, which means that traffic on Dickinson should be stopped, not the traffic on E Wilson/bike path. An even better example is the intersection of Thorton St (a cul-de-sac, for crying out loud) with the bike path (a veritable freeway for bikes and peds - WHY are the stop signs for the Bike Path still there, and when will the city take them down?)

 

However, once the need to collect the data is established (I think it already is, but I guess some folks don’t agree), I think it is the responsibility of  the city to collect data on all the modes in use on public infrastructure paid for with property tax dollars. If you’re not counted, you don’t count.

 

Would the city consider planning for, e.g., new fire or police stations by only counting commercial land uses and not residential ones? No, that’s ridiculous, and the question rhetorical. Not counting bikes and peds is just as ridiculous for the city, but unfortunately the question apparently is not rhetorical in some circles.

 

Sure, motor vehicle users pay for a little more than half of the cost of public roads in Wisconsin , but only a little more than half. Why don’t the other road users, literally, count?

 

chuck

 

From: Michael Rewey
I have heard some reasons why the City should do the count instead of the City [who?] .  However I see volunteers doing counts as a form of bicycle advocacy.  What better way to advocate for bikeway improvements and new bikeways than for us to take counts and show the need. Plus the advocates control the data... [snip]


_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org


_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org

Reply via email to