Washington Votes Forum

With the budget deficeit, why would something like this "money-spender" ever be considered?  One would think that the legislature that would have their hands filled with just balancing the budget and cutting the already bloated government.

DK

Why should we suppose that gas-guzzlers own the road--or bicyclists, for that matter--in future scenarios? Complete Streets programs intend to look ahead for communities' needs for the use of roadways and byways.  One example is to look for ways streets might be used in an era when gas is too expensive for day-to-day transport via the SUV, 3/4-ton Pickup or 350-HP sedan.  In neighborhoods like some of ours in Spokane, it's reasonable to plan for non-automobile transport, including not only bicycles, but also small-HP gas and electric carts and scooters, and handicapped vehicles for which there are no accomodations today.  One of our priorities locally is to find ways for residents on one side of our new freeway to get to work by walking or to use such alternative transportation, without having to go 4 miles out of their way to use the nearest overpasses (designed for autos & trucks only) for their daily commute.  By avoiding the mistakes made by previous transportation gurus, our hopes include planning that goes beyond the "Trucks, autos and bikes only" mentalities.  We should make all our streets usable by all of the population, not just those who can afford gas at $5/gallon and up. 

Complete streets concept is excellent for quality of life factors on where people choose to live as long as it does not reduce the amount of motor vehicle lane capacity.  You cannot distribute freight on a bicycle and freight trucks and bicycles do not mix well on our streets.  Complete streets are best designed for streets with little or no commercial traffic.  Commercial and industrial activity is what generates the tax base so we can afford to build and repair our roads (and build pathways).  Tax funds should be utilized proportionately based upon use of modes and not to social engineer how we travel.  I am not apposed to spending funds on bike/ped as I bike over 2,000 miles per year but it should be as a compliment to our vehicle transport system.  Joe Tortorelli

There are many many roads that have excess motor vehicle lane capacity - it is past time to re-engineer and right-size our roads, increasing their productivity and return on investment by serving more users. There are many cities where freight vehicles and bicycles coexist. Freight can be distributed on bikes: http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter15/chapter15b.html. I suggest that it is time to stop perpetuating the myth that the current system serves us perfectly and start retooling to make sure the infrastructure is functioning at the highest level of productivity for the greatest number of users. There is not "one right solution" to the transportation system - our approach must change with the times. Complete Streets is one part of that retooling. The system is in service to all - not the other way around and equity must be a component of its design. It must ensure that costs to clean air, clean water, and the taxpayer are as low as possible. Freight movement is only one aspect of the service the infrastructure must provide. We are presently struggling with a changed economy and are moving into a future ture burdened by a costly outdated system. And finally - the American highway system is one of the world's largest and most expensive examples of social engineering - with a great many failures among its touted success.

 I cannot believe there are people who support this bill.  Why give anyone who can't balance a checkbook, has no knowledge of engineering, and probably only knows what muniple planning is by watching Nova.

Why trust politicians with anything?  It is time to clean house with people who care more about balancing the budget rather than how to screw the people out of more tax money.

DK