|
Missouri Bicycle Federation
Wheels & HeelsUpdates from Missouri Department of Transportation's bicycle/pedestrian coordinator, Caryn Giarratano. |
|
| MBF Home Page > Wheels & Heels > Wheels & Heels archives |
|
Advocacy: Paseo Bridge Bike/Ped AccessAdvocacy: Hwy 45 Bike/Ped AccessAdvocacy: Bicycling License Plate Join Advocate Donate Tour of Missouri Maps Trails Shops Clubs News Rides Safety Tips Links Search SiteMap iCal Rss Contact
Missouri Bicycle Federation, Inc.
Post Office Box 104871 Jefferson City, MO 65110-4871 MoBikeFed is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation Webmaster email: webmaster @ mobikefed .org |
Removing Barriers to Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Will Improve Missourians’ Quality of Life
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
MoDOT, Transportation Planning, May 20, 2003
Missouri legislators are often asked to create or rewrite legislation to remove specific barriers to safe bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Conversely, legislators frequently are challenged by opponents of such efforts, who express their concern about using highway funds to help people who do not pay the taxes that support the fund, i.e. “Why should bicyclists be allowed to use the roads for free?” The following information was compiled to assist the legislators in determining appropriate courses of action. Public roads were paved under the Good Roads Movement in the 1890s specifically to provide good transportation facilities for bicyclists. When motorized vehicles were later developed, the two modes of transportation shared these paved roads. As cars became more affordable and faster, and as road quality improved, bicyclists were slowly displaced from many paved roads due to safety concerns. In Missouri, bicyclists are permitted by law in all vehicle lanes except interstates, although this right is not universally understood. Bicyclists and pedestrians represent a wide cross-section of people. Some must use these methods of transportation and some choose to use these methods of transportation. Some are occasional users while some rely completely on these methods. In fact, according to the 2000 Census, approximately 10 percent of Missouri households do not have an automobile. In some urban areas, this climbs to as high as 25 percent. While roadway systems improve mobility for motorists, they can create barriers to non-motorized travel. Children, the poor, the elderly and the handicapped most often suffer the consequences of a focus on vehicular traffic as transportation. While the benefits to communities can be great, many critics claim that providing facilities for bicycling and walking uses scarce funds that are generated by road-user fees. This argument says these facilities are nice amenities, but in tough economic times, unnecessary. Tough economic times, however, are exactly when community transportation options are tested and often found lacking. As people lose jobs or wages decrease, they look for ways to save money. The family vehicle will usually rank lower than food and shelter, forcing people into the other transportation options – mass transit, bicycling or walking. Who pays for roads and how they pay depends whether the road in question is locally owned or state-owned. The city or county general revenue primarily supports locally owned facilities. General revenue funds are raised through property tax and sales tax, which every person pays, including bicyclists and pedestrians. Additional funds for transportation facilities are available through the local portion of the state gasoline tax. Local transportation facilities move people and goods efficiently throughout the city or county. These trips can be accomplished by car, transit, bicycle or walking, depending on availability and safety of the facilities. Transportation options improve a community’s neighborhoods and help business districts thrive. In addition, as bicycling and walking become safer and easier to access, demands upon school transportation can be less and health benefits to children may increase as more choose to walk or ride to school. State-owned facilities are supported through federal and state gas tax revenue, vehicle registration fees and vehicle licensing fees. In general, the system users finance these roads. These facilities move people and goods efficiently throughout the state, focusing heavily on the movement between regions of the state. These trips are relatively long in duration and are accomplished by car, rail, air or expert bicyclists. Providing for non-expert bicyclists and pedestrians between regions would only benefit a small number of users. Since the expert cyclists are comfortable and safe on roadways designed according to current standards, additional costs to accommodate them are minimal. For example, the incremental cost of providing accommodations such as bike-friendly grates within existing roadway improvement projects is relatively inexpensive – less than $200 for each grate. Since bicyclists are legally entitled to ride in the roadways, simple accommodations that provide safer shoulders or bike lanes are safety and congestion relief issues. The larger issue is on state-owned facilities within the boundaries of municipalities or other densely populated areas. These facilities perform the same function as locally owned roads – moving people and goods efficiently for short trips through the city. The state roads tend to carry a high volume of traffic and are often considered to be unsafe for pedestrians and for most bicyclists to share with motorists. Pedestrians and non-expert bicyclists generally will choose to walk or ride on the roads only if no other facility is provided. Non-expert bicyclists prefer to use a separate multi-use path that also accommodates pedestrians because the speed differential between these users is so low. However, expert bicyclists generally prefer to ride on the road, usually integrating well with low to moderate speed motorized traffic on well-designed roadways, and utilizing shoulders or bike lanes as the traffic flow increases. Though state roads within urbanized areas function as city streets, bicyclists or pedestrians may not contribute directly to fund these state facilities. They may contribute indirectly, however, since most adult pedestrians and bicyclists also are highway users and pay user taxes. Developing a safe system for alternative transportation users in these situations often includes removal of barriers, which in many instances is the state’s primary contribution. Removing barriers include the construction of crosswalks, sidewalks, bridges and shoulders. The sidewalk constructed in Portageville along State Route 162 is an example of the use of federal earmarked enhancement funds ($75,000) to remove a barrier to safe pedestrian transportation. The costs to provide bicycle accommodations vary widely depending on the type of facility provided. A separate multi-use path averages $272,000 per mile; a bicycle lane averages $142,000 per mile; a shoulder on a rural road costs about $108,000 per mile; a sidewalk costs about $20,000 per mile; and a pedestrian crosswalk is less than $1,000. These costs seem minimal when compared to the average cost of highways. The cost of one mile of rural highway ranges from $1.6 million to $4 million and urban highway costs for one mile is often double these amounts. The balance between purpose and funding is less clear for state-owned facilities than it is for city or county roads. In 1991, the U.S. Congress stepped into the debate by designating a portion of federal transportation funds as Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funds. Use of these funds is limited to purposes that include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Their use on roads and bridges for motorized vehicle traffic is specifically excluded. Missouri uses a small portion of its TE funds on state facilities, primarily to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The remaining TE funds are distributed through a competitive project process to the local entities, which use them primarily for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Providing safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities improves Missourians’ quality of life and health and helps communities to thrive. The remaining issue that must be resolved is not should we provide these facilities, but can we afford not to provide them. Sources:
|