Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Who Pays for our Roads?
75 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2007 at 8:44 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
near my house that runs on an old railroad right-of-way. It's maintained by Maryland National Park and Planning. Which gets its funding mainly from property taxes, I think. So I'm paying for that trail whether I use it or not. And I'd also be paying for that trail if I quit driving! The only way I could get out of paying for that trail would be to sell my house and become a renter!
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Aug 17, 2007 8:02 am) A year or two after the paved trails went in, all these old guys who moaned and groaned about wasting money on them started writing mea culpas to the newspaper. Seems that as they had their heart attacks, they were spending an hour a day walking on doctor's orders. After a few trips trying to walk along busy roads, they figured out that bike paths were a much preferred alternative. Then everyone figured out that having close access to a bike path increased their property values and helped their houses sell faster. And they turned into a big tourist attraction too. Bike commuters often prefer the surface streets because that can be more direct and faster.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Aug 17, 2007 8:10 am) I'll admit that I use our bike path sometimes, so I do get some enjoyment out of it. Sometimes I wish it actually WENT somewhere, but it doesn't. Unless you want to go to the Patuxent River on one end, or Glenn Dale Hospital at the other end. There also aren't very many access points to the trail...just one parking area near the Patuxent and another one behind Glenn Dale Hospital. But, I guess if nothing else, the lack of accessibility and the fact that it's useless for commuting makes means that it's usually not very crowded, so it's more enjoyable for the few that do use it. |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Aug 16, 2007 10:14 am) Beethoven. Joni has been great in Canada, but today is a better Grandma. 
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Aug 17, 2007 7:32 am) Actually, you would be surprised to know that they aren't just part of the road and they cost quite a bit to maintain. Most secondary highways are not required to have extensive shoulders, meaning that the pavement isn't required to extend very far past the fog line. With the advent of bicycle lanes, they require specified widths of the bike lanes, which is an added cost. Then there is the maintenance of the bike lanes, like sweeping them (liability concerns mean the bike paths MUST stay clean or someone will sue the state when their tiny tires slip on gravel. Yes, it has happened.), patching them (which normally the shoulders aren't patched) and sending crews out every time there is a bicyclist complaint to check the condition of the bike lane. Most bikers have cars also, which they drive. So they pay their part via the costs associated with driving their car and insuring it and paying fuel taxes. I gotta disagree. In most states (I can't say all, cause I haven't checked on all states) pay their "fair share" when they use their vehicles. That amount barely covers the costs of road maintenance only. The fuel taxes were never meant to cover bike lanes. Most states have tried to get increases on fuel taxes to cover bike lane costs, but most have been voted down. And since you brought up insurance, you know who covered my vehicle when a bicyclist hit my truck and crunched the door? It was parked, by the way. My insurance. Because bikes don't have insurance, my only recourse was to file a civil suit to try and recoup my money. But, don't take my word for it, contact your local highway dept and ask them where the funds go. I wish everyone would ask where the funds go. You will be surprised.
|
|
|
Replying to: 0patience (Aug 17, 2007 4:44 pm) After a brief search of bicycle path costs on Google, it does appear they cost a lot to build but I can find nothing that shows they cost a lot to maintain. The cost to build could not possibly be passed on to bikers - that would mean thousands of dollars per biker to even make a dent in the cost of building them. That would be non-doable. Still looking for stories or data which state the cost to maintain already-built bike lanes......... |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Aug 18, 2007 5:40 am) I will say it is a GOOD way to save money. I know she now lives on a very nice boat with her husband. The bike paths in Anchorage as mentioned by Steve are mainly for pleasure. I think they are probably funded by high property tax and oil revenue. As we get more and more free services someone has to pay. You don't want people riding the bus to pay. You don't want people on bikes to pay. Just who do you think should pay? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Aug 18, 2007 6:06 am) And I'd stake my life on that being a fact. When did I say anything about people riding a bus not paying for anything? And I just got through saying that people who ONLY ride a bike could not possibly afford to come anywhere CLOSE to paying it. What do you think the alternatives are? Eliminate bike lanes?
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Aug 18, 2007 6:06 am) The property taxes in Anchorage are about the same as here in Boise unless they've soared since we left 7 years ago. The oil revenues were probably key, unless the paths were one of Uncle Ted's earmarks.  I lived close to Cal Worthington Ford and would ride the Chester Creek bike path to town a lot. Nice for XC skiing all winter too. It got a lot of use.
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Aug 12, 2007 4:22 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Who Pays for our Roads?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
