There’s been a big hubub this week over who or what killed the Idaho Stop Law, I wanted to add in two cents about some bike policy that’s maybe more important to the state and maybe also doomed. I blogged yesterday about the Bicycle Transportation Alliance-backed bill to increase state funding for bike/ped infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, etc) from a measly 1 percent of the state budget to 1.5 percent.
Well, yesterday in Salem, I watched the nine legislators engage in an activity lobbyists call “gut and stuff.” That sounds like a move out of Savage Love, but, no, I learned, in Salem it entails the salacious act of tearing apart the carcass of a floundering transportation bill (in this case, the Governor’s Jobs and Transportation Act) and stuffing the most savory sections into a new, more palatable bill. Rep. Jules Kopel Bailey, who hails from Sunnyside where up to 22 percent of constituents bike to work, sits on the transportation committee and wants to stuff in the bike budget increase.
But Bailey is doubtful the funding will pass. In fact, Bailey says members of the legislature are pushing to cut bike funding down below the one percent mandated back in 1976. WHAT?! “How could smart, small bike funding fail?” I asked.
Rep. Bailey’s response is revealing and articulate, so I’m just going to quote him at length and follow up with his stock Blogtown photo.
“There is a sentiment in the building that now is not the time for investing in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. There’s a perception that cyclists are a small group of people who are sometimes viewed as a privileged class. When the economy turns down and there’s high unemployment in the construction trades, the idea is we need big road projects can drive their cars on. It’s also caught up in an urban-rural split. People from rural areas don’t see bicycles as relevant to their districts. Plus, there’s a mental stereotype of cyclists. They don’t see cyclists as the mom of dad kissing their kids goodbye in the morning and loading their briefcase on the back of their bike… the argument is that cyclists have enough, they can choose to bike on the back streets.”
A privileged class of urban radicals? Ouch. But the sentiment is strong and it’s clear that it won’t be possible to shove any bike bills through Salem without serious outreach. Bailey recommends mainstreaming the image of cyclists (so that’s why politicans agreed to don Spandex yesterday) and “moving the conversation from talking about bicycles to talking about how we support strong communities and local businesses” by creating 20 minute, transit-friendly neighborhoods.
Please show us the dollar amount of 1.5% of the state’s budget. Compare that with the percentage of the population that benefits.
Cause complaining about the issue without the facts helps no one.
Legislating without the facts is pretty worthless too. Isn’t it a legislator’s job to contact someone down here in Portland (where it’s my “perception” that there are a lot of potential bike road construction jobs) and get some numbers? Are we paying our legislators to legislate based on “perception?”
MY sense is that the group of bicyclists in Portland is growing by leaps and bounds, and the fair weather cyclists haven’t even come out yet! I think I get that sense from commuting on my bike every day. My perception–based on this here post by Sarah don’t ya know–about what’s going on in that building in Salem is that a lot of folks are sitting around on their Pure Stream Lotus’s, not paying any actual attention to groups that cycle.
The group of cyclists who actually don Spandex–well now, THAT group may be on the small side, I do give Bailey that.
One last thing–do construction workers not know how to build streets for bikes? Can out of work constructors maybe be hired to construct additional bicycling routes? Oh, that’s right: the budget’s too small.
D, just showing those two numbers would prove nothing. Rather, look at how far that money goes. Look at benefit per dollar spent and you’ll see that it’s the best use of money right now. Spending money on cycling facilities is more efficient. It’s money better spent.
Not to mention that the entire population could benefit, just because you may choose not to use the facilities doesn’t mean you can’t. I choose not to use the Library, does that mean I don’t benefit from it?
Not to mention the fact that a bike is much more affordable than a car these days.
I distributed a “HB 2120 Index” formatted a la Harper’s Index (back when the bill was in HB 2120.
It simply said:
HB2120 INDEX
Percentage of trips in Oregon taken
by walking or bicycling: about 10
Percentage, number of Oregonians who are too
young, old, infirm, or poor to drive: 25, 1 million
Percentage of Oregon’s roadway funds
dedicated for walking and biking: 1
Percentage of Oregon’s roadway funds
proposed to be dedicated for walking and biking: 1.5
(and listed the sources).
Sigh.
A small and privileged class? I’d guess that’s not the case, judging by the zillion or so bike commuters I see making their way to and from work everyday along my street, of whom few, if any, are sporting monocles, top hats, ten karat pinky rings or fancy evening gowns…
As for the urban-rural split, it may well be true that bicycles aren’t as relevant in rural districts as they are in urban areas, but given that well over half of the state’s population resides in said urban areas (where, incidentally, the bulk of the state’s tax revenues are generated), perhaps, on this issue at any rate, our friends out there in the countryside could be compelled to listen to reason and then eat a bag of dicks!
Amos – I never said it would PROVE anything, except provide a rational basis to distribute adequate and useful funding.
“Spending money on cycling facilities is more efficient. It’s money better spent.”
Prove it. With numbers.
That’s my point.
Of course, Oregon government doesn’t care, they waste our money based on their feelings.
Re: Library – I didn’t bring up the 40% education funding I pay, even though I don’t have kids either, but let’s not dilute the point.
Show me dollars to donuts – how much of the state budget the bike funding will benefit (?) what amount of its residents. So far, no one will take me on with real data.
As usual.
More of the money in the fund is spent on pedestrian improvements than on bicycle improvements. They should really call it the Pedestrian/Bicycle fund rather than the Bicycle/Pedestrian fund. Additionally everyone should have a read of Michael Ronkin’s letter published over at Portland Transport about why sidewalks are amongst the best things to spend stimulus dollars on.
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2009…
There is no way in hell that the existing 1% would be lowered. whoever’s name was on that would never be elected to public office in this state again. just my .02
I’d also love to see some figures showing the financial benefits of cycle improvements – namely, more bikes equals less road repairs needed, because they do almost no damage to the road surface. My guess would be that spending more on bike paths etc actually saves the state money overall, but I can’t find any figures to prove it. Anyone?
Any journalists out there feel like rising to the challenge??
Stu,
there’s plenty of research out there that shows clearly that bikes are the best transportation investment. Portland alone has over half a BILLION in its maintenance backlog. It’s obvious that roads are very expensive to maintain and that if more people biked, less maintenance would be needed.
but this isn’t about facts or money. This is about politics and perception…and in politics, perception is more important than reality.
i do belong to a privileged class of biker: those of us who have been hit by cars making illegal turns, sent to hospital and survived to tell the tale.
BTA apparently knows nothing about how to prep for a bill in Leg; once the words “blow through” got utter (more Savage Love?), the bill was dead. the framing was never owned by BTA: they were biking on gravel the whole time (something else i know about, having busted my shoulder that way).