Completing the Streets: A Simple Discourse

As gasoline prices continue to soar, Americans are beginning to feel the pinch enough to desire an understanding of the intricate nuances of multi-modal transportation options. One of the key concepts emerging at all levels across the nation is called Complete Streets.

Two simple words that on their own merit are innocuous:

Complete, having all necessary parts, elements, or steps.

Streets, thoroughfares, especially in a city, town, or village that are wider than an alley or lane and that usually include sidewalks.

However, paired together and people, especially folks who do not have engineering or planning backgrounds, begin to sweat. The heart rate soars, the throat becomes scratchy, the breath comes in short gasps. I know that first-hand. As a bicyclist who wants the rights of the road extended to me (and my breathren) I am in favor of policies that incorporate safe passage. But, the idea was daunting. After all, if it is a concept germinating in minds of educated people with far more time to consider it constituents parts, it has to be more complex than this dumb old country boy bicyclist can comprehend, right?

Not exactly . . .

The paradox stems from the fear being both easy and hard to see. It's easy to envision because any time talk starts about infrastruture changes in the road building and maintenance theatre, John Q. and Joan X. Public sees gargantuan dollar amounts and massive interruptions on the horizon, although usually in the opposite order. "Why are we doing this project?" questions first arise after the couple, and many more like them, begin falling prey to the traffic delays that seem to occur primarily when they are behind the wheel in the project area. If John and Joan are of the fiscal mindset, they will soon discover the project is costing tax dollars they fork over. If they cannot see where the project benefits them, and immediately I might add, they begin to voice objections.

Conversely, the fear is diffcult to understand because the idea is so simple, sometimes not as costly as one might think, and extremely beneficial in both the short- and long-term. The only groups who seemingly do not benefit from a Complete Streets initiative are the auto and fossil fuel industries and the associated child enterprises. I say seemingly because only the most myopic proponents of these transportation resource gluttons do not consider how all transportation components can operate more efficiently if all are allowed, and encouraged, to operate together.

In short, there will be better resource climates for all when all are allowed to operate in the same comparative climate. It is often, though, a tough battle to fend off the more powerful commercial sectors whose real catalyst is GREED.

The National Complete Streets Coalition is the place to find a greater understanding of the concept. But it is basically summed up as the official mandate to plan and engineer streets to include all facets of multi-modal transportation options within the body governed by the proposed area. That is, the federal government can have a policy, but the states don't have to follow it on their 'private' roads. Likewise, a state can enact a policy, but a city doesn't need to adhere to it on roads they govern.

One of the most misunderstand precepts is that the policy will be the same at all levels. That is a false idea, but highly favored as propaganda by the Bastardians of Avaritia set. Even within cities of a like size, whether or not they are in the same state, the policy should be what all people in that area need to see as viable transportation options.

1. Complete Streets all begins with a vision . . . and a vision should be the property of the people, not the select few.
   

2. Complete Streets specifies that a road covered by the policy includes all users. That means pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles.
   

   (Sadly for operators of single-digit horsepower riding mowers who insist on taking their prized vehicle down to the local Bubba's Beers and Butts for noxious refills, it does not include you.)
   

3. Complete Streets covers all road projects, including new and retrofit projects, provisioning for design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way.
   

4. Complete Streets does not say that a body must do these things today, in an otherwise tight public funds fiscal landscape (Again, be mindful that the B of A lobbyists will be shouting this falsehood from rooftops . . . and probably FOX News). It just says that when things are done, they must be done with all users in mind.
   

So the next time you hear the term Complete Streets being considered in your community, county, state, or even the nation, perk up your ears and get involved with the process. And even if you do not believe the action or idea benefits you today, think ahead to the future: It might benefit your children and grandchildren.

Do Cyclists Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes?

I was doing some research a few months ago and came upon the Cyclists Bill of Rights (CBR), a document that was penned by the Bike Writers Collective, a Los Angeles-based peoples voice consortium-type group. In the process of making sure that no copyrights would be violated by posting any part of the CBR, I came across a phrase in the document’s preamble that stated, “. . . cyclists are considered to be the 'indicator species' of a healthy community.” Upon Googling the combinations of the phrasing, indicator species bicycle fair share taxes, I was led to several articles that touched on the above post title question.

It is a fair and interesting question. And, should anyone of Cyclist Nation be queried on their thoughts, having a solid answer would at least quell the cacophony of non-cyclists (whose vocal minority would readily lash out in anger over sharing their roads with cyclists) and provide us all with a bit of blessed silence. Yet, it may also be an exercise in futility to direct an answer of the inquiry to those folks. Give an idiot a voice and you give them an avenue to express their lack of intelligence.

The answer, although it could be dissected and discussed in many ways, is relatively simple: Taxes, regardless of their intent, are taxes; and any single tax dollar collected, regardless of the taxing authority, is no more, or no less, of a tax dollar than any other tax dollar.

Skeptics might counter with some argumentative drivel about highway taxes being different and use the rationale that they are more user-fee related than other taxes. But the supporting documentation is so easy to understand that it can be used by a blind man to shoot holes in biases the strength of a wet paper bag.

Cyclists who own and use an automobile

Although I own a KIA Sportage, as a cyclist I intend to hit the roads for an average of thirty-five hundred bicycle miles per year over the next twenty years (to attain a personal cycling goal). My cycling intentions do not eliminate the fact that a portion of my taxes will go to fund federal, state, and local road projects (or given the notorious history of public graft, pad the wallets of corrupt highway politicos).

Cyclists who do not own or use an automobile

Even if I did not own a car, I still use public transit for the brunt of my daily commute and have no qualms at using the same venue for non-work related travel. The principal source that fuels public transportation budgets are General Fund tax dollars. Where do those tax dollars come from? The primary sources are sales taxes, privilege taxes for entertainment purposes, and professional privilege taxes that are masked within a service fee (such as for dry cleaning, medical services, etc.). Residents of Metropolitan Davidson County proper can add property taxes to the stew.

(I’m using this municipality as an example since a) it is the closest major metropolitan center to me and, 2) such municipalities are where you will find the greatest number of non-auto owning cyclists, unless you consider a city like Davis, CA, which has more bicycles than cars.)

Those are the two scenarios and the line of demarcation is fairly plain. Still, the pessimistic prattlers pine on about highway funds being derived from user-related fees such as fuel taxes and automobile registrations. With that flawed perspective, they maintain that cyclists should not be allowed on the highways—regardless of road designation.

However, no matter where the roads are, there is an abundance of General Fund tax dollars in play. Consider a few of the General Fund services that, without these services available to every citizen, no modern society could function:

1. Police, including all forms of traffic control (i.e., school patrols, etc.)
2. Fire
3. Emergency Medical, including First Responders
4. Waste Disposal
5. Public Works, including maintenance of municipal infrastructures
6. Schools, including the system transportation
7. Public Transportation (as cited above in scenario two), including all bus routes and even light rail

Next, you need to examine the impact that bicycle usage imposes on the actual roadways. Estimates from multiple sources indicate that even liberal bicycle impact costs projections are often around a half-cent per mile. For those folks having trouble with that statement, consider the following: How many repairs have been necessitated by bicycle usage on the roads (potholes, creases from disproportionate weight, structure damage from accidents, etc.)?

Taking another angle, for my anticipated 3500 miles road impact costs will be about $17.50 annually. How much sales tax, though, will be generated from sustenance purchases necessitated by the energy expended? Anywhere from two-to-ten times more, depending on where the taxes are collected and the nature of the rides (whether it is a hard, dehydrating, summer midday workout-type ride or a leisurely, spring evening jaunt will make a difference in what my re-energizing needs are). As well, I can guarantee a non-cyclist that my bicycle will need quite a few repairs and replacement parts over the course of 3500 miles, many caused by the road damage mentioned above, thereby generating an even greater amount of tax dollars being put back into the local economies.

If there are still any objections, let’s look at some positive ideas that benefit communities large and small whose leadership embrace the ideals of Cyclist Nation.

Bicycle friendly roadway improvements are by far usually less expensive and less invasive to daily traffic flow. These improvements, such as wider lanes and shoulders, especially for the projects designed in recent years are, as a consequence of modern engineering and technological advances, going to be not only better for cyclists but also automobile traffic as well.

Further, bicycle-specific improvements (bicycle-safe grates, traffic signals that detect bicycles, etc.) are implemented in part to ensure that automobile driver liability can stay lower by avoiding tangles with cyclists. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly communities are often healthier and more closely connected than are their counterparts. Their property values are usually higher and they are often more in tune with global environmental concerns as well.

So the question of whether cyclists do indeed pay their fair share of taxes is often more far reaching than a simple yes or no, as would the non-cyclist folks have you believe. And it is resoundingly in favor of the cyclist.

Raise Our Sights?

"It is time to aspire to be more. As Tennesseans, we often aim too low when it comes to education, our health and our economy. It’s time to raise our sights.”

It was quite enlightening to hear Governor Bill Haslam commit to those three vital areas as he was sworn in as Tennessee's 49th Governor this past weekend. Yet, in some form of phrasing, any high ranking elected official would probably say much the same thing. Perhaps in another geographical area, an additional topic or two might demand to share the spotlight, maybe even be the number one area of concern. But, Governor Haslam, like a savvy gunfighter in a western movie scene, knowing just how far to stick his neck out from cover when returning fire, played it fairly safe while picking his targets.

How safe? Education is always going to be a key precept. The world is changing rapidly, and if the next generation of leaders isn't being taught today with cutting-edge methods and technologies, then how can America maintain her status quo as a leader.

The economy, either in times of up or down cycles, will always be a hot button issue. Bulls may be rambling up and down Wall Street, with the daily closing bell a happy photo op for many a winner. But somewhere, somebody, or even an entire industry sector, will be facing challenges and perhaps in imminent danger of failing. Of course, when the Bears are on their cyclical feeding frenzy, this area is usually the hands-down winner.

Health, whether that of the general populace, or those on society's life expectancy shoulders of infancy and the elderly, always needs to be addressed. Collectively, our actuarial tables are ever-changing to the good; the better we target key health issues, the longer our lifespans grow. The greater the increase of our lifespans, the better we must continue to direct emphasis on new health concerns.

That's the one area where cyclists, and stakeholders in other arenas of active/alternative transportation options, can hit the Haslam Administration with their concerns on continuing the growth of ideas that have been broached in recent years. Some of the opportunities are not wholly dependent on end-user needs to move around a community. Sustainable/liveable communities, the continued greening of the construction and reconstruction industries, a host of recycling and reuse opportunities are included here. But in the get me from here to there theatre, a myriad of bicycling and pedestrian facilities including, but not limited to, greenways, as well as light passenger rail and bus rapid lines, are examples of projects that can make our health scores grow exponentially.

Yes, I know we are in times when public fiscal prudence needs to be practiced, and not just used for campaign banter every few years. I'm all for that idea. But, let's consider more than the raw dollars and cents that we think may be saved today by not focusing on the projects noted above. True, we hear all sides expressing concerns that we are leaving a debt burden to the generations that follow; they include many of our grandchildren, and even beyond. Still, ideas that may carry unattractive front-loaded costs today will, when those generations arrive, some long after the daisies we are pushing have withered away, be in force and cost less to maintain for those generations.

And, while I understand that not everyone sees fiscal judiciouness in the same light, consider, if you will, the humble bicycle and pedestrian avenue. Something that may cost $1 Million per mile today, will in thirty years have served today's adults and children, who become tomorrow's adults and have their children, who become adults and are on the way to supplying another set of users. This will be accomplished with very little funding to maintain the facility. Will we be able to say that for the highway we build or expand today, which will, I assure you, cost more up front than a mere $1 Million per mile?

When the decisionmakers (whether federal, state, or local) who were elected on the rallying cry of Take Back Washington, or its filter-down equivalent, start working on their pledges to do just that, we need to be there reminding these well-intentioned folks, like Governor Haslam, that we are ready to raise our sights.

Whether it is more than campaign rhetoric, or an inauguration speech, is up to them.

The Theatre of Cooperation

Look up the word cooperation in Merriam-Webster. Entry number two is a very simple statement that says association of persons for common benefit. Take a closer look from another perspective you can easily see two ideas at work: operation, which is a definite action noun, and co-, which is a prefix just as strong in implying working, or coming, together.

Sadly, as people gather to be either combatants or spectators in the many skirmishes in the cycling advocacy war, the warring sides fail to see the greater picture; that cycling advocacy is more about a greater battle for an increased amount or, and better, transportation options than just a battle between the two poster children: Cyclists versus Non-Cyclists.

The result is that neither side really has any idea on how to cooperate with one another to bring about the radical change that people are clamoring for on a large scale. It’s not about cycling, per se; it’s about improved Transportation Enhancements (TE) (capitalized here because it is the current buzzword for the whole schmeer of alternative transportation options: bicycling, pedestrian, rapid bus, light rail, etc.). The nation’s people, particularly the 21st century’s urbanites, want greater public transportation options and improvements to infrastructures, they want better planning on roads and residential/business pods. Above all, many want to see this nation quit spending billions on foreign oil.

Unfortunately, many of the pro-change warriors are also cyclists. So, by default, cycling advocacy is seen as the main antagonist for the folks who desire that the status quo shape our nation’s TE policies for the foreseeable future. The combatants enter the arena wearing protective eyewear that induces a kind of myopia about their roles and mission. Thus, a great deal of energy gets wasted by a posturing that resembles two punch drunk fighters sparring, feigning jabs and awaiting their opponent to drop so they may claim a TKO victory.

I am as guilty of saber rattling as anybody. I see cyclists riding on the wrong side of the road, blatantly disregarding road rules, or just plain being jerk-offs, and the warm fuzzies that are wanting to be shared with a fellow cyclist are replaced with an apoplectic rage. As well, when confronted with opposition and disregard for my desire to see better TE options you will find me wanting to shake my fist in a face. Yet, as many sage advisors have stated in history, sometimes we are guilty of trying too hard to remove the small splinters from our neighbor’s eye when we won’t remove the plank from our own eye.

Still, more than anything, two statements by Tennessee public officials as America struggled with a great recession sum up where we are as a nation. They show that the battle lines are drawn so that more spectators see those champions of the status quo as the only true righteous voice of our future.

In early November 2009, after the state had $255 million dollars recissed in federal highway funds, the Memphis Commercial Appeal quoted Tennessee DOT Assistant Commissioner/Chief Engineer Paul Degges on the action. To wit, the article told the cuts would “hit projects to improve highway safety, air quality, and transportation "enhancements such as greenways, streetscape, and rails-to-trails projects."

"We didn't lose any bridge money, interstate (highway) money and national highway system money. Those are our major programs," Degges said.

As well a short time later I received a response from United States Senator Bob Corker after having written him about a September 2009 amendment (SA 2371) in Congress that would allow states to opt out of guaranteed TE spending.

“I understand your concern that these amendments would have hurt the development of bike paths, walking trails, and other infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation. I am an avid cyclist myself and greatly enjoy the outdoors. The two amendments mentioned in your letter would have removed spending requirements from state governments that receive highway funding from the Federal government. While one of the amendments was withdrawn, I did support S.A.2371. This amendment removed the 10% funding requirement on Transportation Enhancement programs in order to give states more flexibility in addressing their highway and transportation needs, and I felt that this would be appropriate given the current dire financial straits most states find themselves in.”

I could almost hear that nasal voice dripping with a sort of condescencion while he sought to sell me that the long-term effects of his nay vote would be diminished in the present day by the fiscal prudence.

I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But if people like Corker look further than the lobbying dollars clouding their vision, they might see that more of America wants a long-term solution. But alas, the majority of Americans, those who are concerned, and perhaps a bit enervated about the increased costs associated with spending massive amounts of tax dollars on highways that often resemble tarmacs, aren't the constituency of choice.

These two comments sum up that cooperation to improve this nation’s transportation infrastructure is a moot issue. It will not be considered by the cognoscenti in state and federal circles. Those whose wallets are primarily filled by big oil bucks; whose audiences are lobbyists, not constituents, spend their energies thumbing their noses at the masses of whom they are supposed to be of service.

As a cyclist, as a Tennessean, as an American, I, along with many others, stand ready to cooperate. But if we are the only side filling the theatre, then the concept is no more valuable than a Dead Sea scroll. Therein lies the frustration of believing in the value of cooperation.

Bicycle Projects Score Big

The winds have shifted on the political horizons, or so say the demagogic pundits, as we usher in the new congress. The Elephants are prepared to parade through bills and proposals that the formerly Democratic, and thus heretic, majority session had crammed down the throats of the American people.

What that means for bicycling concerns is not so much certain death, but rather a banishment to the dark recesses of the farthest broom closet in the golden-domed edifice that houses the legislative floor; expenditures that will no longer be considered as viable to the new thought processes.

But, harken unto the words of a recently released report by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Estimating the Employment Impacts of Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Road Infrastructure, authored by Heidi Garrett-Peltier, that sheds (gasp!) positive light on public infrastructure spending that benefit bicycle projects. It is deemed that creations of, or additions to, bicycle facilities such as dedicated lanes actually create more jobs per million dollars than those beloved transportation projects the lobbying powers of Big Business (i e., Auto and Oil) adores and trumpets as a savior to the American economy.

How can this be? Simple. As borne out in the statistics, when you take a million dollars and invest it in bicycle projects you will lay down more miles of usuable space than you can on road projects. Given that the commonality of the two is moving bodies between points A to B to C, not A to AA to AAA, the bicycle project wins every time.

First, although the basic, common materials may not be used in the same way, the cost will be nearly equal per project. For example, a truckload of asphalt or concrete will cost the same; a truckload of gravel for a sub-base will cost nearly the same (even allowing for a heavier, more coarse, constitution in road projects that may make that load sightly higher). Also, greater quantities of these materials will be needed per mile due to the user weights being far greater for roads.

Second, the costs associated with the extemporanous add-ons, whether it be something like signage for traffic control, or fencing and landscape for barriers, will see less need in bicycle projects.

Third, and probably the greatest denominator is the costs of engineering. Whether that be for design or environmental impact studies, it will be significantly higher for road projects. The uses of those avenues will be far more invasive to the surrounding area, especially the natural resources of water and air quality.

Fourth, is the costs associated with purchasing land for a project. By the necessity of the expected traffic types, the sheer size of a road project, compared to a bicycle project, has to be far greater. Keep in mind that in many road projects, the very least you can plan is two lanes. Many small projects today even need to consider for turn lanes and wide (three-to-four foot) shoulders (which, even if 1/2 lane width is considered for each shoulder, makes for one whole lane). And, if a sidewalk provision is necessary to meet existing policy standards, there is another four-to-six feet per side (counting the green buffer space between walkway and roadway).

Finally, are the costs of the construction itself, especially in relocating land mass to make for a more level roadway. In Nashville, for example, a large portion of land, primarily rock, was displaced to connect Briley Parkway to I-65 North. Even for those who do not recall the construction period, an observation of the jagged cliffs (and the width of the roadway itself) that Briley is nestled between at the connection point is evidence of this activity.

(On another extensive widening project including this area, but not related to this project, my daughter was nearly a licensed driver before seeing a 10-mile section of I-65 North of Nashville without an orange traffic control barrel. That is sixteen years.)

However, in a bicycle project of the same length (again, the commonality between the two is moving people length-wise), there will be far less width, which equates to far less materials that are needed to do nothing more than provide space for a shell that usually has only one-to-two bodies per vehicle.

But the greatest benefit, as the study bears out, is that per mile the investment dollars will be more labor intensive. That means people, not materials, will be where the brunt of the money is spent to complete a project. Add to all of those costs the eventual repairs being less expensive overall; again people, not materials, gathering the lion's share of resources, and bicycle projects score another point.

Each $1 million spent creating on-street bike lanes directly creates 7.9 jobs and creates a total of 14.4 jobs when we include the indirect and induced effects. The two categories of road repairs have the lowest employment effects, with 3-4 direct jobs and approximately 7 total jobs created for each $1 million.

Still, citing facts here and analyzing the depth of the data is probably not something easily achieved. As the study was for the Baltimore, Maryland area, the actual costs will not be the same for perhaps a similar project in Albuquerque, New Mexico or even Nashville, Tennessee. To that end, the ambivalent anti-cyclist can state that the study cannot apply in the majority of situations. However, what is to say that, more often than not, greater value would not be found in bicycling projects. The overall idea is, that when we begin looking at these projects from the point of a resusable resource return-on-investment (i. e., people), we will see greater value in the projects than what are perceived, or even desired, by the anti-cycling factions in our society.

Granted, I'm not a transportation professional; just a poor, dumb cyclist who does what he does, likes the effect of what he does, and sees the clarity of the idea from the perch atop his saddle. So, while the opinions stated can be refuted, I'm not sure that they can be totally dismissed.

But maybe, just maybe, that view is more accurate than the recalcitrant naysayers want to believe.