Thursday, July 27, 2006

50 cuts: Day 2

A state agency that we will be able to live without:

Oregon Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
The Oregon Pedestrian and Bicycle Program provides direction to ODOT in establishing pedestrian and bicycle facilities on state highways.

It's a matter of priorities. Almost everybody gets to work by car. Every bussiness trasports their goods with motor vehicles. Nobody buys a new tv and hauls it home on their bike.

Yet we spend a disproportionate amount of resources on non-motor "transportation" rather than improving the infrastructure for the majority.

I get very tired of hearing the traffic report say "normal slowing" on an interstate highway. And for some bizzare reason people seem to have accepted that going 15 mph on a road that says 55 mph is normal.

We can laugh at the old soviet union and how they had to stand in line for bread but look at us, we pay for the roads, government diverts the money and we "stand in line" to go to work and go back home.

17 comments:

R_equals_BS said...

How much money would be saved by eliminating these two(?) positions?

And, who would be responsible for sidewalks and walkways?

BEAR said...

hey, r=bs, (and I hope your name starts with an r) the "two(?) positions" represent MILLIONS in misdirected funds, as a result of idiotic social-engineering begotten by equally idiotic lefties. Dump the people, and dump the attitude that spawned the "bike-friendly" bs.

R_equals_BS said...

So the number saved is "millions?" Anything a little more definable?

And, it appears according to the provided PDF flow chart on the site linked by Daniel, that the Oregon Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee consists of a whopping two people. Is there more? (hence the "(?)")

I'm sorry you feel the need to call me names though when I ask simple questions. I forgive you.

BEAR said...

check the odot budget for non-motorized add-ons to highway projects. yes, it's millions. and yes, those who seem unable to connect even the simplest set of dots get roasted. get used to it.

R Huse said...

Work in round numbers. Assume that the two bicycle positions pay a salary that works out to $5 and hour.

With all the BS associated with hiring them, PERS, taxes, insurance, that means they cost close to $10 an hour ( trust me, I run a business, it is about double ).

Multiply by 40 hours a week, they cost $400 a week, or $20,800 a year.

Still with me?

Average salary in Oregon, figure $30,000 a year.

9% income taxes of the 30 grand? Well that comes to $2,700 a year.

Thus, the two nitwits each take the entire tax bill of close to eight average Oregonians in salary (divide 20,8000 by 2,700)

Now, does that put it in perspective?

Is it worth it that these two positions suck down all the taxes paid by 16 people? No, I sure didn’t think so.

R_equals_BS said...

Such hostility for simple questions.

I'm not the one making the proposed cuts. Why should I have to "connect the dots?"

Shouldn't Daniel be able to just tell me exactly how much this will save - without plausable guessing at what the cost "might be" to tax payers?

R_equals_BS said...

Such hostility for simple questions.

I'm not the one making the proposed cuts. Why should I have to "connect the dots?"

Shouldn't Daniel be able to just tell me exactly how much this will save - without plausable guessing at what the cost "might be" to tax payers?

R_equals_BS said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scottiebill said...

R=BS: You seem to have trouble seeing that being "bike friendly" is costing a lot of money. R Huse made an excellent start in explaining that to you. But try this on: Portland has about 100 miles of bike lanes throughout the city. This was in the fishwrap a couple or three years ago. The cost for the paint alone to stripe those bike lanes is about $4000. per mile. Remember those lines ar twice as wide as the other lines, putting them at 8 or 9 inches wide, making their cost twice what the regular 4-inch-wide lines is. The paint used for these lanes is very expensive because it has to last a long time with all the traffic over them. That $4000. per mile in 100 miles is $400,000. And this does not include the labor of the drivers of thse striping trucks, or their maintenance, or the Diesel fuel used in those trucks. And those lines have to be renewed periodically because of wear and tear.

Now, who pays for the cost of the delineation of thse bike lanes? You can bet it isn't the bicyclists. It is the car owners and drivers through their licenses and gasoline and Diesel taxes paid at the pumps. Many of the bicyclists may have cars. That is a given. But these people pay no taxes whatsoever on their bikes.

My point in all this? Bicycles should be licensed yearly as are cars and trucks. Surely $10. per year would not be too much. That $10. is an arbitrary figure, put out for arguments sake. Maybe, then, by licensing the bicycles, the owners of said bikes will be paying a bit of their fair share, would they not?

When I was a kid during the WWII years in Billings, Montana, we had to buy a license plate for our bikes. It cost 50 cents a year and had to be displayed on the back of the bike seat. It worked then. There is no reason for it not to work now.

Scottiebill said...

R=BS: You seem to have trouble seeing that being "bike friendly" is costing a lot of money. R Huse made an excellent start in explaining that to you. But try this on: Portland has about 100 miles of bike lanes throughout the city. This was in the fishwrap a couple or three years ago. The cost for the paint alone to stripe those bike lanes is about $4000. per mile. Remember those lines ar twice as wide as the other lines, putting them at 8 or 9 inches wide, making their cost twice what the regular 4-inch-wide lines is. The paint used for these lanes is very expensive because it has to last a long time with all the traffic over them. That $4000. per mile in 100 miles is $400,000. And this does not include the labor of the drivers of thse striping trucks, or their maintenance, or the Diesel fuel used in those trucks. And those lines have to be renewed periodically because of wear and tear.

Now, who pays for the cost of the delineation of thse bike lanes? You can bet it isn't the bicyclists. It is the car owners and drivers through their licenses and gasoline and Diesel taxes paid at the pumps. Many of the bicyclists may have cars. That is a given. But these people pay no taxes whatsoever on their bikes.

My point in all this? Bicycles should be licensed yearly as are cars and trucks. Surely $10. per year would not be too much. That $10. is an arbitrary figure, put out for arguments sake. Maybe, then, by licensing the bicycles, the owners of said bikes will be paying a bit of their fair share, would they not?

When I was a kid during the WWII years in Billings, Montana, we had to buy a license plate for our bikes. It cost 50 cents a year and had to be displayed on the back of the bike seat. It worked then. There is no reason for it not to work now.

R_equals_BS said...

Should we also require a license to be had to walk on the sidewalk?

(Cutting this program affects both pedestrian and bicycle)

Bobkatt said...

From the ODOT website
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant Program is a competitive grant program that provides approximately $5 million dollars every two years to Oregon cities, counties and ODOT regional and district offices for design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Proposed facilities must be within public rights-of-way. Grants are awarded by the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

Also from the same ODOT website
The Transportation Enhancement program provides federal highway funds for projects that strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, or environmental value of our transportation system. The funds are available for twelve "transportation enhancement activities " specifically identified in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). These activities fall into four main groups:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects


Historic Preservation related to surface transportation


Landscaping and Scenic Beautification


Environmental Mitigation (highway runoff and wildlife protection only)

The intent of the program is to fund special or additional activities not normally required on a highway or transportation project. So far, Oregon has funded more than 150 projects for a total of $63 million.

Anonymous said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

Scottiebill said...

R=BS: I reread my post and no where in it did I mention pedestrians needing a license to walk on the sidewalks.

However, I read in the fishwrap this morning that it has been suggested that the Hawthorne bridge have a bike lane on the sidewalks of the bridge.

That is something the bike riders will really take to in Spades. That way they can take over the sidewalks all over town, eventually, stay out of the way of the rightful travelers on the streets (the drivers), and force the pedestrians to watch out for the bike riders who rarely adhere to the rules of the road, do not obey traffic signals, and generally do whatever they want and go wherever they want with no regard for anyone else in the area.

And look for Taliban Tommy to endorse the whole idiotic idea. After all, he rides his bike occasionally with the Critical Mass gang.

Anonymous said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

Anonymous said...

I like it! Good job. Go on.
»

Anonymous said...

Nice idea with this site its better than most of the rubbish I come across.
»