|   TE needs your help now | Tommy Titus
Aug 25, 2003 7:41 PM | | If you can contact your congressional representative in the next few days, while representatives are still in their home districts, you may influence an important vote when Congress reconvenes after Labor Day.
Congress will be voting on the House Appropriations Bill, and that bill, as it was passed out of the House Appropriations Committee, eliminated Transportation Enhancement (TE) funding, which would have provided $600 million for pedestrian and bike facilities in the 2004 budget.
However, Representative Thomas E. Petri (R-WI) has agreed to sponsor, along with other House members, an amendment that would reinstate the TE funding.
For information on how you can contact your representative, talking points and information on TE funding, please go to the MTBAccess Website, http://www.mtbaccess.com, and click on the first link under Trail News.
In addition to reinstating the TE funding, a strong response will send a message to Congress that trails and trail funding are important to Americans.
--mark flint |
| re: TE needs your help now | Mountain^^^Man
Aug 25, 2003 11:15 PM | | I've been an active member in the largest bike club in the nation, as a ride leader and rider. This of course, is a club primarily made up of road cyclists. My riding habits have changed for various reasons, and am now primarily a mt. biker. After becoming involed to a degree with the largest mt. bike club in the same city(by no means largest in the nation), I have come to find that the more political biking issues get, the more they favor the road cyclists. This often leaves the mt. bike community feeling left out. So when you ask us to jump on that bandwagon, make your intentions clear, and tell us what good, if any this will do the mt. biking community. The word "trail", in my experience has been used by the road cycling community to intentionally deceive the bicycle community as a whole. Their definition of "trail" never includes off road, non paved mt. bike trails, or even railroad grade dirt trails. I've seen a project in my area involving a railroad grade, that was turned into a paved trail, while we were led to beleive they were taking our suggestions of a hardpan dirt trail that both could use seriously. They went on with their paved trail, and now it's always littered with sticks/small branches from the woods it is tucked into. This makes for a dangerous combination of speed and clutter. The roadie club I used to be part of had the gaul to try to get me to be a liason between them and our mt. bike club to smooth things out! |
| Here you go.... | Ken in KC.
Aug 26, 2003 9:13 AM | | A trail, as it relates to TE and TEA3 (formerly TEA21) related subjects run the gambit of non-motorized transportation options. TE funding is available for trail projects ranging from multi-use paved trails (biking, hiking, roller blading, dog walking, etc.) to primitive singletrack (6-8" wide used for hiking, biking, and equestrians).
The TE funding is an extremely small portion of fuel taxes that are set aside for non-autombile usage. The funds, while coming from the federal government, are manged at the state level.
So, how does this pertain to mountain biking? The TE funds help organizations, communities and municipalities incorporate trails ranging from 12' paved trails down to 6" singletrack trails. I don't know about you, but I'm not so mountain bike-eccentric that I consider any trails other than singletrack as pointless. any trails that benefit a community are worthwhile. It doesn't matter whether they're paved or not. Singletrack or doubletrack. Trails, in general are good.
I question most of your comments regarding road cyclists vs. mountain bikes. The blanket statemetns about mountain bikers being left out of the "trails" picture is absolutely false.
In addition, if the particular trail in question was proposed as a rail/trail or dirt trail and the organization received TEA 21 funding based on a hardpacked dirt trail, then they would not have been able to simply switch everything to paved without asking for addition funds and commissioning additional engineering studies. I admit that I don't have the particulars in your specific case, but based on knowing the TEA 21 system, I doubt that anyone who wanted to be in the know, was intentionally in the dark regarding your specific project.
One more observation: Drumming up the road cyclists vs. mountain biker debate is not only counter productive, but it's really a non-issue. The only people who really recognize a difference between road bikes, mountain bikes, freeride bikes, BMX bikes, trials bikes or cross bikes are........ you guessed it! Cyclists! Non-cyclists lump everyone together as bike riders. you know what? In some cases that may hurt one specific type of cyclist over another. In the big picture, however, it works to our advantage in working with advocacy. The simpler we can make things for government agencies with whom we work, the easier it is for us to reach our objectives. So, the road vs. mountain (or any other type of cyclist) is counterproductive and a useless focus of our energy and time.
Ken |
| Here you go.... | Mountain^^^Man
Aug 26, 2003 4:22 PM | | You're right, you DON'T know the specifics of my area(Seattle). Things here get quite heated for various reasons, partly due to the overwhelming size of the road cycling club here, and saddly in part due to the smaller percentage of the mt. bike community whom could be, lets say, riding more responsibly. It's one thing to bootleg in BC type ladder bridge trails in Canada, where it's common, but it's starting to happen here now. The road cycling community uses things like this to divert funds their direction, even though the mt. bikers involved represent a very small portion of the mt. bike community. In this part of the nation, the Cascade club tends to throw their weight around like the Sierra club, and has the resources to hire a full time lobbyist in doing so. Granted this TE program may be different than the legislation we've had, but I'm doubting the outcome will be much different. Note: I started as a road rider, and still enjoy it, and DO like paved paths as well as singletrack, but NOT at the expense of a biased system. |
| Ummm.... | Ken in KC.
Aug 27, 2003 7:03 AM | | Perhaps I wasn't clear: Losing TE funding will affect all cyclists, not just one type or another.
I will suggest that based on your recent posts, you seem a little disgruntled about political issue that are outside the scope of what can be accomplished through a BB list.
Taking an us against them stance with another cycling organization is counter productive. Whether it's the Cascade Club or you, pointing political fingers at another cycling group when working with a municipality will never lead to a productive resolution of differences.
While I don't know the specifics of your particular trail, if they received TEA 21 fuding for the trail, then they either must follow the original plan or they must submit paperwork to make the change. The only people or organization that can submit the changes are those that originally applied for the grant in the first place. In other words, the project manager.
So, getting back to the original post, you can either call your congressional representatives and ask them to keep TE funding as part of the long term transportation legislation (which will benefit all cyclists), or you can bithc about how back handed the "roadies" are. One is productive and makes a difference. The other is counter-productive and a waste of time and energy. Your call.
Ken |
| The best lawmakers are the people, not politicians | Mountain^^^Man
Aug 27, 2003 10:15 PM | | I disagree, and once again you don't know the specifics of this area, and probably many areas that have controversy such as ours. This federal plan is probably fine for some parts of the country, but here, I think it will continue to be biased politics as usual. Also, I'm not just "pointing a finger" here, I speak from experience, and for you to try and judge my political views is fool hearty. |
| Are you missing the point, or just being obstinate? | Ken in KC.
Aug 28, 2003 6:02 AM | | I'm not judging your political views, I'm judging your posts to the board: Drug Cartels in and around the NF's, ARC Coruption and your local road biking club.
This board isn't capable of working out any of these issues, other than perhaps, the bike vs. road club. While this is a bike related subject, it certainly isn't on the topic of TE funding.
The "federal plan" (I assume you're talking about TE funding?) works for all areas of the country, regardless of what type of bike you ride.
So, back to the point, of this thread: Please call your congressional representative and ask them to keep TE funding in place.
Ken |
| Are you SERIOUS? | Mountain^^^Man
Aug 28, 2003 5:48 PM | | I'm neither missing the point or being obstinate. As for my other posts, what the !@#$%& do they have to do about this subject, and what business is it of yours for that matter. I've posted on other forums as well regaurding the danger of riding the Sequioa National Forest, and received many well informed responsible replies. I think it's time for YOU to pull your bureaucratic head out of your ass long enough to respect other people's opinions. If you can't do that shut the !@#$%& up, or at the very least leave well enough alone! |
| ???? | Ken in KC.
Aug 29, 2003 5:49 AM | | I think you're missing the point.
I just don't understand why a thread regarding TE funding has been co-opted to a thread about you vs. your local road club.
Your earlier posts don't have anything to do with this post. That's why I think you're missing the point.
I think it's great that you've received well informed, responsible replies to your posts. Congratulations.
I guess I should thank you too. We've driven up the hit count on this post, so it presents an opportunity to address the point: Call your congressional representatives and ask them to continue TE funding.
Ken |
| ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? | Mountain^^^Man
Aug 29, 2003 5:36 PM | | I'm quite sure now, that narrow minded people like you are the reason this forum recieves so few "hits", as you say. The fact that you can not see beyond your own egocentric stubborness as to why my point of fund channeling is relevant, would attest to this. |
| You're shooting yourself in the foot to spite your neighbor. | Frank Tuesday
Aug 31, 2003 8:40 AM | | I don't know the range of the bike politics, and I don't care to get into it.
Here's how it has the POTENTIAL to benefit all cyclist.
Congress allocates $600m for the purpose of building trails. Some of that will go to paved trails, some will go to singletrack. Some will got to hiking, some to horse, some to MTB, some to multiuse.
At this point it is up to each user group to do the work to get their own "share" of the funds. This is where your political issue comes in. It is entirely possible that you won't see the direct benefits of the money in your trail systems. It is very feasable that you will see money. However, do you ever venture out of Seattle to ride? Might you some day get to ride a trail that benefited from this funding? If you do ride outside of your corner of the world, I would venture to say that yes, you will ride on a trail that has benefitted.
Now, the other option is that the funding doesn't get reinstated. If this happens, I can personally guarantee that you won't see any benefit. I can guarantee that your local road group won't see any benefit either. I can also guarantee that no mountain biker in the entire country won't see a single benefit. To deny the entire mountain bike community the opportunity to get funding due to your political infight is quite the selfish stance.
In order for anyone to benefit, the bill must pass first. That is just the first step. What happens after that is up to each individual group to decide. There will be fights over the money, there will be disagreements. But at least someone will win.
Brian Robinson
aka Frank Tuesday |
| Dodging not shooting, and no "spite" intended | Mountain^^^Man
Aug 31, 2003 4:42 PM | | I'm not saying this bill doesn't have potential, I'm just saying it's too vague, and as you stated, there's a good chance my areas funds will be spent in a loppsided fashion. This TE plan needs to be backed up with some kind of reasurance that the funds will be divided fairly. It's a good offering, but could be teetering between a disaster and a Godsend, depending on how well your particular areas funds are appropriated. As for other areas, it probably will work well for the most part, PROBABLY, but many of us can't afford to travel far to ride, especially paying $2.00 a gallon for gas. That's my opinion for what it's worth. Maybe those of you supporting it and posting threads to entice people to do the same would draw more interest if you would at least listen to opposing oppinions without resorting to cheap insults like "spite your neighbor". You have no clue what my intentions are or what the outcome nationwide of this funding will be until you see how it's spent in ALL areas. |
| I intended no insults. | Frank Tuesday
Sep 1, 2003 8:25 AM | | I read you posts very closely, and as best as you have represented them in this post, I think I understand them. I assure you that I meant no disrespect. I was merely trying to point out that the bill has no provisions on how the money will be spent. That is not for the federal government to decide. How the money is spent is decided on a state level. All it comes down to is that if the bill doesn't pass, there will be no money for anyone. If the bill doesn't pass we are guaranteed that everyone loses.
If you look at the current makeup of the Senate and House of Representatives, it is currently controlled by Republicans, who, for the most part, favor less intrusion of the federal government into how states conduct their business. The chance of getting a Republican controlled House and Senate to pass a bill that mandates that states spend the money in a particular matter is slim at best. They will take up the contention that each state will have a unique set of requirements and needs, and it would be foolish to try to second guess how the money should be spent. The Federal government provides the money so that the states can use it where they think it is needed. Whether we agree with that is not for debate. That is simply the fact of the current situation in congress. I too would love a provision giving fair distribution of funds, but it isn't going to happen in this current congress.
Brian Robinson
aka Frank Tuesday |
| I intended no insults. | Mountain^^^Man
Sep 1, 2003 6:12 PM | | Well herein lies the problem, and exactly the point I've been making all along. Each state DOES have specific needs, like it or not. I for one favor a well though out plan that may be slower in coming, vs one that could have each state, biased by it's particular party-favoring, unfairly dividing the funds. People always talk about too much control at the federal level in politics, but such problems often are present at the state level. Once each particular state gets the ball rolling(funding allocation) a certain direction, it could be a nightmare trying to undo any mess. The people in this state(mostly King Co. area), when it comes to funding allocation, tend to have a "first blood" attitude, and are very unwilling to give up what they got first, as if some self proclaimed "grandfather clause".
Thanks for your comments, but I really have no more to say on this issue. |
| |
