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.