Actually MAP-21 sub-allocates half of the former Transportation Enhancements
(now called Transportation Alternatives) funding to MPOs. That part of the
funding, then, the state can't touch. The other part can be redirected to
highways, as Matt says. An easy way to start to do that would be to opt out of
the bike trails program, which Kansas and Florida did soon after the new law
took effect, but Wisconsin didn't, so that may be a good sign.
Wisconsin has sometimes effectively redirected bike/ped money in the past via
rescission. The new law makes it easier to repurpose TA funding, but the basic
rules of the game didn't change that much, and the sub-allocation is a plus.
I don't have any idea what Walker, Vos, et al. are thinking about the
state-level TA money. Best case WisDOT would use it in close cooperation with
the MPO-level projects that are funded through sub-allocation; some states are
doing that. As for the lobbyists, TA is pocket change compared to their asks
around gas taxes and/or VMT fees, so I'd guess they would avoid rocking the
boat. Ideologues like Vos might want to go after it just to make a point, but
again it's not much money compared to the highway budget.
FWIW.
________________________________
From: Matt Logan <[email protected]>
To: 'William Hauda' <[email protected]>; 'Bikies' <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] Bike funding to be eliminated by the legislature?
Here is an interesting article (from the BFW) from early in 2012 highlighting
the reason why Wisconsin’s Legislators may opt to zero out funding for
bicycling in the 2013-14 budget:
http://bit.ly/RlA93e
I have heard that nobody is willing to go on record yet with the news of any
details in the budget, but that there is only one concern when it comes to the
transportation budget: does It benefit the Wisconsin Transportation Builders
Association (WTBA)?
Keep in mind, the WTBA receives a bonus from the top state contractors based on
the amount of money spent by the state for construction projects. The WTBA
hates transit because the relatively large operating costs compared to highways
mean a lower percentage of money for construction. Bicycling projects aren’t
high on the WTBA’s list either, since providing an appealing alternative to
driving would decrease the demand for expensive highway expansion projects.
I contacted one Republican legislator’s office on Thursday (Rep Wynn) and
basically confirmed that budget details are generally not available until early
February, at which time there is usually a set of public hearings. I can’t get
any details from my source about which Republican legislators are behind the
push to eliminate funding for bicycling, but I plan to contact the assembly and
senate chairs for their respective transportation committees (Rep Ripp [(608)
266-3404], and Senator Petrowski [(608) 266-2502] ) today to press for details.
As we saw in 2011, by the time a state budget bill goes out for public
hearings, Republican leadership has already settled on what it wants, so for
next year, NOW is the time to start calling your representatives and making
your feelings known. We know MAP-21 gives them the ability to zero out bicycle
money and divert it to highways, and the rumors I have been hearing from
insiders suggest that is going to happen. I hope the BFW can get involved with
this effort quickly – and suggest spending on bicycling projects Republicans
are likely to support – like bike paths for children to use to go to school in
Rural districts. Yes, I know that is not the ideal, but it is better than the
alternative at this point which is nothing!
_______________________________________________
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
