Saturday 25 May 2013

Blogs

Home » Blogs

${gotBlog.title}

Petri leads push to preserve money for bike, pedestrian projects

Posted by Tom Held on Feb. 1, 2012

cycling

Rep. Thomas Petri has answered the call from bicyclists to restore $1.2 billion for bike and pedestrian projects eliminated from the transportation bill headed for a committee vote on Thursday.

The Republican from Fond du Lac drafted an amendment that keeps money flowing to states for bike trails, pedestrian improvements and Safe Routes to Schools programs.

In Wisconsin, the transportation department has received more than $6.25 million for such enhancements in 2012, and a total $20.6 million through similar federal grants. The Cannonball Path in Madison, the Oak Leaf Trail in Milwaukee and bike lanes in Kenosha County are among 60 projects depending on federal dollars.

John Burke, the president of Wisconsin-based Trek Bicycle Corp., called on cyclists to support Petri. He joined the mobilization led by the League of American Bicyclists.

They agreed the pending bill is a huge loss for bicycling.

“It basically eliminates our status and standing in the planning and design of our transportation system—a massive step backwards for individuals, communities and our nation,” League officials wrote. “It’s a step back to a 1950s highway- and auto-only program that makes no sense in the 21st century.”

Burke sent a note to Trek customers urging them to call Petri and other legislators to reverse the move.

“Bicycling and walking are critical to keeping our communities moving with healthy, safe, and accessible transportation options,” Burke wrote. “Biking and walking make up 12 percent of all trips, but only 1.5 percent of federal funding.

“And bicycling is good for health and the environment.”

15 Comments for "Petri leads push to preserve money for bike, pedestrian projects"

  1. The federal government should not be spending money it does not have on bicycle and recreational paths. First, the federal government has no $$ to spend--more than 40 cents of every dollar the fed. government spends is borrowed. Second, the federal government should not be spending $ on local projects like this even if we had no deficit. If these projects are worth having, local government should pay for it. I am a cyclist and appreciate more and better bike paths, but the federal government should not be in the business of paying for provincial projects like this.

    jpftosa Feb 01, 2012 12:51 PM

  2. This is just wrong. I own a very expensive Trek carbon fiber bike and ride thousands of miles a year. Maybe John Burke should be spending some of his millions on propagating his business instead of my hard earned federal tax dollars. I agree with tosa. Foolish spending must stop.

    Eagleminded Feb 01, 2012 1:20 PM

  3. So I can assume you would likewise consider the other 98.5% of the federal transportation budget (mostly automobile-centric) 'provincial' projects as well. If you're concerned about the federal dollars being spent, perhaps you ought to concern yourself with the vast majority of this money and the blank check America has written to oil, automotive & road-building industries?

    Anthony Hedache Feb 01, 2012 1:36 PM

  4. I trust you have both called the Governor's office and expressed your opposition to converting US 41 to an interstate. http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/121132114.html Granted that is state dollars, not federal, but its not like the state is flush with cash either.

    Frylock Feb 01, 2012 1:37 PM

  5. Many thank-yous to Representative Petri. I'm not sure what isn't to love about using government $$ for bike paths and encouraging walking.

    Are you for energy independence? Neither biking nor walking requires foreign oil.

    Do you think your health insurance costs too much? Encouraging people to walk or ride reduces your premiums by preventing obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

    Let's also not forget the many JOBS that the cycling industry has brought to WI. Trek is based here, lots of tourism dollars, etc. Don't take my word for it: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/business/econdev/docs/impact-bicycling.pdf

    @Eagleminded and jpftosa: I understand your federal vs. local argument but you don't blame the federal government for spending on money on highways in the state. The exact same argument can be made here.

    xcracermg Feb 01, 2012 1:39 PM

  6. You beat me to it. Well said.

    NorthCent Feb 01, 2012 1:41 PM

  7. Almost 100% of Americans use the highway system directly or indirectly. A small percentage ride bicycles. This is pork barrell spending and I disagree with it. 1.2 billion dollars is outrages.

    Eagleminded Feb 01, 2012 2:19 PM

  8. I do not have opinion on whether that is a wise use of state tax dollars, but that is where the decision should be made--not in Washington.

    jpftosa Feb 01, 2012 2:32 PM

  9. I would make the same argument with respect to most state roads--decisions about them and paying for them should be made locally.

    jpftosa Feb 01, 2012 2:33 PM

  10. Maybe if we spent a little more on our socialist public school system you'd know how to spell "outrageous"?

    kumicho Feb 01, 2012 2:46 PM

  11. In Madison 6.5% of all work commuting was done by bike last summer. That's 7,000 fewer cars on the roads, less gas used, less damage done to roads, and all due to the foresight to implement a diverse bicycle infrastructure over the past decade and a half. The Southwest Commuter Trail alone registered something like 3,500 users per day, and it was a TE project from.... 1998 (1999?). On a recent ride in December I counted over 60 other cyclists using it on a short ride home from work.

    My wife bike-commuted 3,000 miles last year, saving 120 gallons of gas, over $600, and 7,500,000 pounds of pressure put on our local roads. We need MORE spending on alternative forms of transportation, not less.

    kumicho Feb 01, 2012 2:53 PM

  12. For over 20 years I've made my living in the bike industry, all the while paying a multitude of taxes. I say spending on bicycle projects is warranted.

    The RTS Feb 01, 2012 2:55 PM

  13. ^^^^ What he said.

    DavidPC Feb 01, 2012 3:49 PM

  14. “Biking and walking make up 12 percent of all trips, but only 1.5 percent of federal funding." This says it all -- government subsidizes fossil fuel dependence far more than it subsidizes pedestrian/cycling infrastructure.

    DavidPC Feb 01, 2012 3:51 PM

  15. Funding is not being eliminated. The House bill simply removes the mandatory set-aside for bike/ped projects, giving states the flexibility to decide on their own if these projects should be pursued.

    Mr K Rod Feb 02, 2012 8:32 PM

Post a Comment

Limit of 2000 characters,  characters remaining

Preview

Cancel

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Please login to post a comment.

Page Tools

Latest Posts

Archives