Comments on: Advocates Say MTC Proposal Short-Changes Regional Bike Network http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/22/advocates-say-mtc-proposal-short-changes-regional-bike-network/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:20:47 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: jcs http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/22/advocates-say-mtc-proposal-short-changes-regional-bike-network/comment-page-1/#comment-7601 jcs Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:14:12 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2571#comment-7601 Today at The Bay Area Partnership meeting MTC Director Steve Heminger said that we need to invest in freeway infrastructure because motorists pay the gas tax, and that money should be invested to help them. What he is not taking into account is that motor vehicles exact a toll on our infrastructure and environment. The tax revenue generated by vehicle miles traveled should offset the unaccounted costs of driving by investing that money in infrastructure that will reduce pollution-- such as TODs, and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. The majority of Partnership members who commented on the proposal said they support prioritizing funding for local streets and transit over the FPI, yet Heminger stayed his ground, convinced the FPI needs to be funded right away. MTC's cost benefit analysis determined the FPI achieves significant goals of the RTP by increasing flow on freeways. However, making driving more convenient will increase the number of people who will drive, and combined with population growth, in a few years congestion will be the same as today. We need to shift focus away from single occupant vehicles and instead increase funding for transportation modes that will more effectively accommodate increased capacity over a longer time period. Just sheer street space taken up by motor vehicles compared to transit, bicycles and walking clearly shows that investment in these modes will be most cost effective in the long run. Transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are superior in their ability to accommodate capacity, reduce pollution and reduce wear on our roads, especially rail transit. When investment in these modes make for safe, convenient and comfortable communities, combined with ample access to public transportation and mixed-use development, less people will need to use freeways. This combination also makes for more enjoyable neighborhoods where people are more likely to get to know their neighbors, building social capital. Today at The Bay Area Partnership meeting MTC Director Steve Heminger said that we need to invest in freeway infrastructure because motorists pay the gas tax, and that money should be invested to help them. What he is not taking into account is that motor vehicles exact a toll on our infrastructure and environment. The tax revenue generated by vehicle miles traveled should offset the unaccounted costs of driving by investing that money in infrastructure that will reduce pollution-- such as TODs, and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure.

The majority of Partnership members who commented on the proposal said they support prioritizing funding for local streets and transit over the FPI, yet Heminger stayed his ground, convinced the FPI needs to be funded right away.

MTC's cost benefit analysis determined the FPI achieves significant goals of the RTP by increasing flow on freeways. However, making driving more convenient will increase the number of people who will drive, and combined with population growth, in a few years congestion will be the same as today.

We need to shift focus away from single occupant vehicles and instead increase funding for transportation modes that will more effectively accommodate increased capacity over a longer time period. Just sheer street space taken up by motor vehicles compared to transit, bicycles and walking clearly shows that investment in these modes will be most cost effective in the long run.

Transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are superior in their ability to accommodate capacity, reduce pollution and reduce wear on our roads, especially rail transit. When investment in these modes make for safe, convenient and comfortable communities, combined with ample access to public transportation and mixed-use development, less people will need to use freeways. This combination also makes for more enjoyable neighborhoods where people are more likely to get to know their neighbors, building social capital.

]]> By: Andy B from Jersey http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/22/advocates-say-mtc-proposal-short-changes-regional-bike-network/comment-page-1/#comment-7131 Andy B from Jersey Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:47:07 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2571#comment-7131 Imagine that! If I'm getting this right, the Bay Area wastes 90% to 95% of its gas just to haul fat asses to work every day. This stupidity is replicated all over the country and in many places all over the globe. When the oil runs out (which is already happening) and really becomes a problem, our children will be cursing us to hell. Imagine that! If I'm getting this right, the Bay Area wastes 90% to 95% of its gas just to haul fat asses to work every day. This stupidity is replicated all over the country and in many places all over the globe.

When the oil runs out (which is already happening) and really becomes a problem, our children will be cursing us to hell.

]]> By: bikerider http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/22/advocates-say-mtc-proposal-short-changes-regional-bike-network/comment-page-1/#comment-7061 bikerider Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:10:09 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2571#comment-7061 The Bigger the Lie, the more people will believe. Bike projects are, of course, THE most cost-effective, bang-for-the-buck, shovel-ready infrastructure. The Bigger the Lie, the more people will believe.

Bike projects are, of course, THE most cost-effective, bang-for-the-buck, shovel-ready infrastructure.

]]> By: e http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/22/advocates-say-mtc-proposal-short-changes-regional-bike-network/comment-page-1/#comment-7031 e Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:19:27 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2571#comment-7031 It seems like the MTC is doing its best to ensure driving goes to a 95% "share" everywhere for all time. Or at least for a few years until oil prices make it too costly to drive, people wake up and realize that global warming makes it immoral, and we're left with a stranded investment in a multi-billion dollar highway system that wont be fully utilized. MTC spokesman Randy Rentschler and the policy makers behind him need to resign and be replaced by planners that can build us something for the next 50 years, not the last 50. It seems like the MTC is doing its best to ensure driving goes to a 95% "share" everywhere for all time. Or at least for a few years until oil prices make it too costly to drive, people wake up and realize that global warming makes it immoral, and we're left with a stranded investment in a multi-billion dollar highway system that wont be fully utilized. MTC spokesman Randy Rentschler and the policy makers behind him need to resign and be replaced by planners that can build us something for the next 50 years, not the last 50.

]]> By: Daniel http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/22/advocates-say-mtc-proposal-short-changes-regional-bike-network/comment-page-1/#comment-7001 Daniel Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:56:17 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2571#comment-7001 This is a great example of the backwards thought process which perpetuates traffic, oil consumption, and GHG emissions. When all MTC has done over the past few decades is fund infrastructure which encourages driving, no wonder most people drive. I'd assume that MTC's "cost-benefit analysis" doesn't even take into account public health impacts, and probably places way more importance on short-term traffic relief than on environmental and energy effects. Bicycle infrastructure is among the most cost-effective investments governments can make--Portland has achieved an 8% mode share by investing just 1% of its yearly transportation budget! I recently completed a research paper on the benefits of bicycle infrastructure, which can be read at: http://21stcenturyurbansolutions.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bicycle-infrastructure-essay-final.pdf This is a great example of the backwards thought process which perpetuates traffic, oil consumption, and GHG emissions. When all MTC has done over the past few decades is fund infrastructure which encourages driving, no wonder most people drive. I'd assume that MTC's "cost-benefit analysis" doesn't even take into account public health impacts, and probably places way more importance on short-term traffic relief than on environmental and energy effects.

Bicycle infrastructure is among the most cost-effective investments governments can make--Portland has achieved an 8% mode share by investing just 1% of its yearly transportation budget! I recently completed a research paper on the benefits of bicycle infrastructure, which can be read at: http://21stcenturyurbansolutions.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bicycle-infrastructure-essay-final.pdf

]]>