This letter to Representative Tim Scott is based upon an "op-ed" essay published today in the e-mailed publication "Charleston Currents."
Dear Rep Scott:
This is a red flag about “Tea Party” thinking on
transportation spending. The last thing our own red state roads need right now
is more red-state thinking. Times may be tough, but scarcity of dollars is no
excuse.
I am referring specifically to your response to
constituents’ pleas that you re-consider elimination of funding for
non-automotive forms of transportation. In your response, you said: “There is
no question that bicycle and walking paths enhance the likeability and safety
of a community. [but] ……we must first fund maintenance objectives of vehicular
routes ..we will remain committed to looking for ways to meet the needs of our
crumbling infrastructure systems. The day will certainly come again that we can
afford the rising cost of bicycle and walking infrastructure projects.”
In other words, “no” to spending on alternative forms of
transportation like bicycling and walking, as if these are frivolous “extras.”
Charleston Moves and other bicycle/pedestrian advocacy groups argue just the
opposite – that beginning now to invest in bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure is
actually the fiscally responsible, practical thing to do.
I'd like to convince you that you are thinking inside same
old transportation box. Lopsided cars-and-trucks-only spending means getting
around only by cars and trucks because we haven’t made it safe to walk or ride
a bike — even for the shortest trips.
Forcing everyone into cars means more cars, more pavement, more high-cost
road maintenance fees for the long-term, not to mention more costly congestion
— congestion on our roads as well as in our own veins and arteries. One reliable estimate pegs the time
lost in traffic for some drivers at as high as 40 hours per year, a full work
week, with 3 billion gallons of gas wasted at a price of $78 billion spent
idling. Meanwhile, a mere 3% reduction in cars on the road results in 30% less
congestion.
Don’t look now, Congressman Scott, but this way of thinking about
streets and roads has a huge price-tag. Without safe sidewalks and paths to
walk or bike to school, American kids are ahead of kids around the world in
obesity rates. They are falling further and further behind in academic
achievement (study after study shows that physical activity has a direct,
positive correlation to cognitive performance). Hopping in your car to go a few
blocks for a loaf of bread directly impacts health care costs, not to mention
pollution, reliance on foreign oil, even overall community health and
happiness, what used to be called “the commonweal.”
If you and your congressional colleagues are serious about
curbing the high costs of Medicaid, a good start would be investing in
preventative measures such as inexpensive bicycle and walking trails. Health
savings resulting from increased physical activity, according to 10 different
studies, range up to $1,175 per person per year. And just think about personal
liberty: the freedom to choose your own mode of transportation.
Beginning now, as we repair our roads and bridges, we must
incorporate sidewalks and bike lanes. It’s cheaper if we do it now. It isn’t
mere “likability and safety” as you refer to it. Rather, it is about how
transportation infrastructure impacts our communities and our lives. It is also about fairness and equity,
about serving the varied transportation needs of all citizens.
Many of your own constituents can’t afford to drive
cars. The very folks we all see
riding bikes to their jobs pay taxes, too. Some of them have no choice —they
can’t afford cars. Others simply sometimes choose not to drive. (Reasons? Fresh
air, exercise, pollution and traffic avoidance.)
All those non-motorists deserve our thanks. The fewer folks behind the wheel of a
car, the less severe our traffic jams. The more people walk or bike, the less
likely they are to clog hospital emergency rooms. It benefits everyone’s
pocketbook.
This broader perspective isn’t “Tea Party,” liberal,
conservative, Republican or Democrat. It is smart planning for a healthier,
more sustainable future. In California, for the cost of repaving 3 miles of
interstate, CalTrans could create 1,250 miles of bike lanes on existing
roadways—and this holds true across the country. One car parking space costs
between $3000 - $5000 dollars (in a parking deck, one space costs tens of
thousands); meanwhile 50 bicycles can be parked in the space needed for only 4
cars. From a cost-benefit analysis, paving the way for more bicycle access is
cheap, prudent and forward-thinking transportation policy.
Economic doldrums may limit our budgets, but we can’t afford
to limit our thinking. A smaller transportation funding pie is no excuse not to
give transportation choice — bicycling and walking — a fair slice. Far from
“frills,” it’s an extremely smart investment.
Tom Bradford, Director
Charleston Moves
