Missouri Bicycle News

C.V Kersting wrote a letter to the editor of the St. Louis-area South County Times (Jan 31-Feb 6, 2003). The letter asked whether government money should be spent on rails-to-trails project and whether bicyclists pay their way on the roads: The letter asked whether government money should be spent on rails-to-trails project and whether bicyclists pay their way on the roads:

Why is it that motor vehicle drivers pay thousands of dollars in taxes and licenses to maintain the roadways they use? These bicycle riders not only complain about the motor vehicle traffic they must contend with, but at the same time pay nothing for using those streets or for the cost of purchasing and maintaining their bike trails.

Transportation engineer Luis Porrello (LPorrello @ HNTB.com) wrote this response:

It pleases it me very much to see that bicycling has become an important enough issue that letters like that by Mr. Kersting are being written to editors of media such as the South County Times. This level of attention in turn reflects what friends of bicycling have been trying to say for years: Bicycling IS a legitimate mode of transportation. I also appreciate Mr. Kersting positions on the issues noted on his letter, for it would be unjust to expect everyone to agree with any other person. However, I would like to take this opportunity to ask him and other readers who may feel the same way to consider the following information and perhaps understand - not necessarily concur with - why I disagree with his position. After all, I have yet to make an honest assessment of an argument I have had or observed without concluding that it wasn't a fight of principle, but a lack of factual information on one or both sides that culminated in said confrontation.

The forthcoming discussion will orderly progress through three major lines of discussion relevant to the aforementioned letter: Rails-to-trails, the financing of transportation improvements, and multimodal transportation policy.

First, I am afraid that ownership of the right-of-way on which rails (then trails) reside can not be attributed a blanket statement like "...can legally be taken aback by the legitimate property owners." It is exactly because of the complexity of the legalities of this area why such definition of ownership is one of the most difficult challenges in rails to trails conversion efforts. Judges, scholars and an army of attorneys have spend years debating cases related to this. It would therefore be presumptuous in my part to think I, who am not in any of these professions, could explain it in this limited space. But here is a crack at it! The essence of the problem is the ambiguity of deed language. The railroad may have, in general, either fee simple (what must people refer to as "ownership") or easement rights to the aforementioned right-of-way. Basic difference: easement allows you to use the land to pass trough and place certain improvements to facilitate your passing through, that's it. An additional source of confusion, and one that I am afraid leads to Mr. Kersting's comment "...no longer used for railroad purposes," is that sometimes - not always - restrictions have placed on the deed on the "use" of the right-of-way, in essence to protect the adjacent parcels from a highly undesirable use of the land. But that is even complicated by the fact that such restrictions lead to different outcomes depending on what type of rights (i.e. fee simple leads to "reversionary", while easement leads to "limitation of easement" clauses). And then there's the complication in defining what does and what does not entail a change in "use." The point is that it is not fair to make the assumption that someone is the "rightful owner" of anything without understanding the associated complications. Notice I have not taking the position that the rails or trails "belong" to anybody.

Second, it is also not fair to make any statements pertaining to which modal user (e.g. vehicular versus bicycles, etc.) pays for "the road." Why? Because this is also very complicated. The funding of transportation improvements, and I mean all improvements, does not come from a single source (e.g. fuel taxes, license fees, etc.). Moreover, what percentage comes from what source depends on which jurisdiction the improvements exist and even what mode receives the improvement (did you know motor fuel tax can NOT be used for transit improvements?) The state system, for example, relies primarily on federal formula funds from the federal transportation bills (2003 is a reauthorization year), to which state fuel taxes, motor carrier taxes, and even some general fund outlays such as sales taxes and bonds are added. The municipal system has historically relied on primarily the general fund including sales, property, and income taxes. Want more complication? Sometimes the state will enter into an agreement with the municipality whereby the state builds it and the municipality maintains it. Some more? Sometimes the private sector (e.g. developers) pump some private capital into the mix. So the "road" could have been built with Joe from Alabama's federal tax, Jane from the Jefferson City's fuel tax, ACME the truck company that hauls bananas across the State of Missouri's freight tax, Tim who lives a block away from the road's property tax, and guess what, even Russ the cyclist's income tax.

Third, regarding regional transportation policy, let's go back to before Mr. Kersting's timeframe of when bicycles were used by kids (which by the way was preceded by when bicycles were used by adults) and let's talk about the railroads, thus keeping the whole rails-to-trails flavor to our discussion. Back when all this right-of-way, which is nothing more than "space," was being figured out in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the vast majority of passengers and freight moved by rail. In the intervening years, other modes of transportation, the automobile being the most visible, were developed and now perform many railroad functions. We are having this discussion because some see the bicycle now assuming some of these functions from the motor vehicle, including the trip to work. All these transitions have occurred not because car people hated rail people and, in turn, bike people hate car people, but rather because transportation policy makers have adjusted to what the people want - read: responded to changes in society - such as greater population density, the distribution of demographics, and what the conventional wisdom of the time was regarding the interrelationships between transportation and economic development.

When the Eads bridge was built, it put the Wiggins Ferry Company, which hauled stuff across the river, out of business. I don't think Ford will be closing it's doors because of the bicycle. The automobile is here to stay. And so is the bicycle. They can, for the sake of the greater good of the community, work together. It is, after all, neither the car-person nor the bike-person that has the ultimate power to make change happen, but rather the public official. It is this specific democratic reality, and not any hard feelings for Mr. Kersting, that makes the writing of this response necessary, since herewith the advocate matches the enthusiasm of the objector, for the sake of the bicyclists.

permanent link to article: "Cyclist's right to the road: A transportation engineer's response"
posted by Brent Hugh at 4/21/2003 12:02:44 PM |comment on this article