Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

WASHINGTON -- Republican senators failed Tuesday in their third effort in less than two months to eliminate federal money for bike paths, walking trails and other transportation enhancement projects.

An amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was defeated by a vote of 60 to 38. It would have forbidden the government from spending any money on enhancement projects and re-directed funds to bridge repairs.

Paul and other critics say the program is bankrolling extravagant projects, such as a giant roadside coffee-pot shaped building, movie theaters and turtle tunnels.

But in many cases, these projects have been exaggerated or misrepresented. The coffee pot, for example, didn't receive transportation aid; the movie theater is really a driver's education classroom, and the turtle tunnels are a wildlife eco-passage that allows animals to cross a busy Florida highway. Proponents of the project say motorists were swerving to avoid killing turtles, alligators and other critters.

Paul continued the misrepresentation Tuesday, telling senators "this amendment simply takes funds from beautification and puts them into bridges."

Landscaping and scenic beautification is just one of 12 areas that receive money through the program. Paul's amendment would have barred states from using federal transportation money for any one of the dozen categories, including bike and walking paths, bike lanes and pedestrian safety projects.

The money for transportation enhancements – $927 million for fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30 – is the largest source of federal funds for bicycling projects. It represents 2 percent of the nation's highway funds.

While states can use the federal aid for any of the 12 categories, bike and walking projects tend to receive about half the funds, supporters of the program said.

A national network of bicycle groups urged their members over the past week to contact their senators and ask them to vote against Paul's amendment.

A similar effort by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in September would have eliminated the requirement that states set aside a portion of their transportation funds for enhancements. He withdrew his amendment. Another effort in October by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, failed as well. His proposal would have retained funding for bike projects but would have eliminated funding for seven other enhancement project categories.

Like Paul, the senators said states should be able to spend all their highway aid on roads and bridges if they want, especially because many states have a backlog of road projects and structurally deficient bridges that need to be repaired or replaced.

The issue is expected to come up again in the next several months as the House and Senate craft long-term transportation plans. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has said the House bill will eliminate the requirement that states set aside a portion of their funding for enhancements.

Pointing to states that have suffered flooding, Mica told reporters last month that highway officials would like to be able to use the money for other priorities.

Jack Basso, chief operating officer of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which represents state highway agencies, said the stipulation that states set aside enhancement dollars has survived for nearly two decades because it's popular with local officials and metropolitan planning organizations.

"I wouldn't be telling you the straight story if I said every state is gloriously in love with this program and thinks we ought to support it. But in this business, it takes 35 states to make policy and this has been voted on once or twice and it has been sustained as something to retain," Basso said, referring to the association's board meetings.

Tim Blumenthal, president of People for Bikes, which tries to get more federal support for biking, said bike and walking paths are also popular with the public, which makes them difficult to oppose.

That's why senators "are doing a lot of spinning here to make it sound like it's a waste of money," Blumenthal said.

___

Online:

___

Comments

[Stephen Stafford]

02:19 PM on 11/03/2011

Enlightenment and uplift. Things for the common good. Government programs often provide a light in the community that many places otherwise would not have. The things noted in this bill improve the quality of life for people.

The GOP has morphed into the COD - the Confederation of Dunces. If it is a benefit to the populace, they are against it and more. It has gotten so bad that certain names are associated almost exclusively with foolishness.

It is time citizens added another tactic to make sure these people do not slip things over on us. People should monitor Paul and Coburn and the other chief dunces in their legislative activity. Most of the things they pursue are just wrong, and need to be quashed.

[fauxment]

05:09 AM on 11/10/2011

Well said.

[axcordova]

01:35 PM on 11/03/2011

This would be such a sad and drear(ier) country if the republicans had their way.

[galactictravelerjavjav]

01:10 PM on 11/03/2011

Along with more bike lines the Feds should invest in getting bikes for rent in all major urban centers..

Subsidize bikes not oil. Get the f a t arse out of the car. Cleaner Air, Healthier bodies.

[demockracy]

12:16 PM on 11/03/2011

Worth remembering: According to a 1989 World Resources Institute (wri.org) study, petroleum receives $300 billion annually in subsidies. A recent Financial Times article put the international figure at $600 billion annually.

I'll believe the authenticity of all this neo-con bike-lane-bashing when there's a move to repeal the special tax credits for petroleum (the "depletion allowance"), or a move to make gas taxes pay for all the roads, or some interest in having big oil pay for the overseas military protection for their pipelines, oil fields and transport routes.

The truth is that the bike lane funding is a tiny proportion of that subsidy, and of the transportation bill, just as the subsidies for renewables are a tiny proportion of the subsidies for conventional fuels and nuclear.

Straining at a gnat, swallowing a camel, if you ask me.

[Belle Starr]

12:10 PM on 11/03/2011

Randy looks like a petulant little child who isn't getting his way in this picture.

[CrnkyOldMan]

11:37 AM on 11/03/2011

Don't bike or walk, burn more oil.

[JoePenn]

11:27 AM on 11/03/2011

We lived in Scandinavia for a few years and where there was a road, there was normally a walking slash biking path as well --- 100's of thousands of miles worth. Those people were fit - we have to walk on the godamned road like 3rd worlders --- oh yeah, they even had those things called "lights" on the walking/biking pathways --- everywhere - nice since the daylight hours are so short in the fall/winter/spring.
Every weekend, if it's not raining, bikers in our area of VA cause accidents on our country roads --- it's pitiful -- EVERY WEEKEND.

[CrnkyOldMan]

11:39 AM on 11/03/2011

That was my experience in northern Europe. Lots of thin people, bikes everywhere, great paths, and happy faces. My wife and I were shocked, what are they so happy about? Hmmmm, come to find out it's healthcare, education, quality food, and unbridled unabashed sexual people. Got to love 'em!

[WowJones]

11:25 AM on 11/03/2011

Rand Paul has sponsored 15 bills since Jan 25, 2011 of which 10 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted. Paul has co-sponsored 57 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills, and not resolutions, actually sponsored by Paul and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

I predict that by the end of his first term Rand won't get one bill passed. He's following in the footsteps of his useless daddy.

[YodiBear]

11:23 AM on 11/03/2011

Are you guys serious? You have a very finite self-centered picture of our entire economic situation right now. Rand Paul is addressing a bigger issue. We have a 14 trillion dollar deficit and we need to cut spending. Yes, bike lanes make traveling on bikes a lot safer, but that won't really matter when our huge debt crashes the entire economy. What Rand is doing is prioritizing spending. There is no money, so where should cuts come from? Social security checks or bike lanes? All he wants to do is redirect money for new projects to areas that need repair. This is actually a pretty responsible decision.

[tumorimmunologist]

11:39 AM on 11/03/2011

Maybe if he would focus on jobs then we could have bike paths and work. I am sure he would rather we couldn't afford a car and therefore could not travel to protest, even on a bike. BTW this bill does not address the deficit, as you claim, since he is only trying to re-divert the funds to something else.

[YodiBear]

02:35 PM on 11/03/2011

Well it does address the deficit. Instead of adding to the deficit by paying for 2 things, he is taking funds that are already allocated to something that is not needed and putting it towards something that is. Rand does address jobs. Jobs are created by the private sector through production. If simply paying people for tasks that don't actually produce anything created wealth, then yes creating bike paths would make sense. So would paying people to tear down the Hoover Dam and put it back up again, but that doesn't actually create wealth.

[jdmn17]

11:47 AM on 11/03/2011

Maybe when the economy really tanks people will have to put away their cars and then the bike paths will be perfectly suited for alternative modes of transportation

[YodiBear]

02:36 PM on 11/03/2011

Or just use the roads the cars previously occupied.

[Buhe]

11:18 AM on 11/03/2011

Rand Paul acts like someone who doesn't have a clue on how to do his job and is compensating by looking busy and hoping people don't notice.

Seriously, what has he done but stand around and become part of the background while acting important.

[Bobcaaat]

11:04 AM on 11/03/2011

I ride a lot, and cars have little/no respect for bikes. I look for bike paths instead of city streets whenever I can. So far, I have been hit by cars 3 times, and it was my fault only once, when I was 9 years old.

[jdmn17]

11:49 AM on 11/03/2011

Riding a bike on city streets requires a lot of planning to find the route in which cars at least give us a shot to survive. I've been run off the road, turned in front of and even rear ended by cars, trucks and buses - not to mention cops. Drivers have no sense of right of way or watching for two wheeled vehicles. The most courteous drivers of motorized wheels are motorcycle drivers. They know the hazards out there from cars, buses and trucks as well as cyclists do

[lwfky]

10:56 AM on 11/03/2011

I love that 2 "doctors" would try to prevent bicycle paths and lanes from being created. Our country gets fatter each year. Lots of people would benefit from getting out of motorized vehicles and biking for a while.

[Stephen Stafford]

02:28 PM on 11/03/2011

These two doctors oppose many things that would improve people's health.

[Pushing70]

04:23 PM on 11/03/2011

I think you should happily bike and keep your suggestions to yourself.

[EndGOP]

10:29 AM on 11/03/2011

Well the apple didn't fall far from the tree! Just another Paul nut, like father like son. Vote GOP/Bagger and kill SS. Medicare and reason......

[The Right is Wrong]

10:13 AM on 11/03/2011

I hope all bikers take note of the Repug attack on them.

[justoverit333]

10:01 AM on 11/03/2011

What's this fool got against bicycles? Unreal. So let's not have bike lanes, more bicyclists getting hit by cars, more court cases as a result, more tax payer money being used by the courts, insurance costs go up. It's a no-brainer.