So, the well tread joke (it’s not particularly funny) is that there are more miles of biking trails in the 8th Congressional district than roads and it’s because Jim Oberstar wants a bike trail in exchange for every appropriation that goes through his committee.
A light rail line for you, a bike trail for me. A highway expansion for you, a bike trail for me.
That is clearly not how it works, it just seems that way sometimes.
The Strib picked up on his two-wheeled shenanigans.
Oberstar can rattle off details about northern Minnesota’s cycling trails with uncanny ease, describing scenic overlooks from Baxter to Bemidji. He has his schedule timed perfectly so that when he lands in the Twin Cities on weekend trips home, a connecting flight will get him to Chisholm in time for an hour-and-a-half ride on the Mesabi Trail before the sun goes down…. Oberstar estimated that he has helped win funding and approval for at least 60 trails nationwide
Loading ...
Actually, 53% of Americans favor increased federal spending on bicycle facilities, and people who live near trails are twice as likely to get recommended levels of physical activity as those who don’t. This is why 70% of U.S. House members requested bicycle facilities in the nation’s most recent federal transportation legislation; elected officials know bike trails provide constituents with outdoor exercise, quality time with family members of all ages, and in many cases, an alternative to driving a car to work or school. With minimal costs, bike trails are a bargain.
And keep in mind bike trail projects are carefully vetted as part of a community or regional non-motorized transportation plan, and also will likely spur economic development in the small towns that line the trail. Talk to the folks in Lanesboro, where the number of new B&Bs had to be capped, where new restaurants sprang up, and where the steady stream of cyclists each season means the town of 800 residents can afford a fulltime city administrator and fire department.
Bike trails aren’t dealt as bargaining chips at the foot of the appropriations table, whether at the federal or state level. Instead, through the combined work of citizen advocates, city, county, and state agencies, and elected officials, bike trails are built and used because they fill transportation and recreational needs for constituents who want safe places to ride.
Why a problem with bike trails?
Is the “joke” true? So we should get upset about an untrue joke?
If your going to pitch that one - you’ll have to provide more substance to the post.
WE keep hearing how fat Americans are.
We have some unspoiled regions of the state that would do well with the bike trails as a source of recreation.
Its also one open to seniors more than some activities, from my view of riders.
Minnesota has no real mountains, no real seashore - as Sjoquist already said - it is economic development & it certainly has done well for the Root River area to popularize something about the state.
Could always charge Republicans riding the trails double during the 2008 convention, if its a big problem…
Please elaborate what is “shenanigans” about Oberstar.
I must have missed what has an eye askance.
If ridership is up from 40,000 to 650,000 on the one trail, which ostensibly are not all of Oberstar’s rides - are there fees on the trail to offset the costs? - and then let’s assess whether there is value-added to the tourism package.
If you head to Colorado & Utah - you see states that exude healthy people, or at least the perception of it, from the cyclist participation there - and tourism as a result.
What is going undone because of the bike trails - and are they paying for themselves?
Please tell me what I am supposed to be so incensed about in the way of “shenanigans.”
Bravo Oberstar!!!!
What do bike trails have to do with highways? For all of the complaining some of you do about Pawlenty who has built more roads in the last four years than probably the last 12 years combined, where is the complaining about taking highway money and diverting it to bike trails? Seriously, isn’t that a state and local issue? I don’t think I would be bragging about this if I were Oberstar.
Chris, What highway money are you talking about? There’s the Transportation Committee, but no Highway Committee. It’s transportation money, to be used for any means of transportation the committee sees fit, be that roads, roundabouts, lightrails or helipads.
And if anyone is surprised about the apparent quid pro quo of the whole thing, I have to ask why you’re reading a political blog, because it seems you don’t know much about politics. That’s simply the cost of doing business. If anything, we should be glad that it’s a bike trail and not a bridge to nowhere, as Oberstar’s predecesor Don Young was prone to do.
So in response to your question, Chris, bike trails have nothing to do with highways. They have everything to do with transportation.
The other Chris,
The fact is that Recreational Trails are paid from from monies in the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The money put into the FHTF comes from the dollars collected at the gas pump. So instead of using the Federal Highway Trust Fund to build highways, we are diverting money to recreational trails and other projects that should be funded at the state and local level.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/index.htm
Moreover, your view of transporation is just silly. Bike and other recreational trails have nothing to do with transportation and everything to do with recreation.
Urban bike trails coul have some use as transit but still are primarily recreational. Rural trails like those Oberstar is so proud of are purely recreational.
KH,
Do you think it is the role of the Federal Government to be building recreational trails that aren’t in national parks or on federal lands? To me the answer is an obvious “no!”
Chris,
No. I have a hard time with the fact that states are so dependent on federal dollars for basic transit functions we have to worry more about matching funds than designing a decent system. The idea of paying Federal taxes just so have the Feds can use them to manipulate states is a racket and in my opinion goes against the basic premise of states rights.
All I meant was that urban bike trails could be seen as one mode of transit. I have a few people in my office that use them just about every day in the summer. The feds shouldn’t be funding them but it doesn’t make them without value.
“Rural trails like those Oberstar is so proud of are purely recreational.”
KH, this simply isn’t true. When I worked for Oberstar, I met with a number of people that use those trails to ride their bikes into work in Duluth from some of the suburbs during the summer months (primarily people coming up from Carlton using the Munger Trail).
Also, i would be curious to know what you thought of some of the other non-highway projects that were funded by TEA-LU in 2005 that had even less to do with transportation than the ruralest of bike trails. Are you genuinely upset about this, or simply upset because this time it was a Minnesota Democrat that did it?
Fact is that if it came time to chose between a rural bike trail and a new truck stop or a research grant to study the effects of planting prairie grass between a highway and a field, I’ll take the bike trail any day of the week, and something tells me JLO and I aren’t alone on that.
Uh, Duluth and it’s suburbs are not rural. That is why they call it a city and suburbs. Even so the PRIMARY use of the trails is recreational.
Duluth isn’t rural. Hermantown isn’t rural. Carlton is. Esko is. The vast majority of the Munger Trail is.
The Other Chris,
Actually, as a taxpayer I am upset that any money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund is used for non-highway purposes. That’s the money collected in federal gas taxes at the pump. I live along U.S. Highway 14 and I can assure you that 14 needs funding a hell of a lot more than some bike trail in Oberstar’s district. Thanks to Governor Pawlenty and Southern Minnesota Republicans on the state transportation committees, Highway 14 is finally going to be completed between Mankato and Owatonna.
In regards to the discussion here that bike trails are purely recreational, a part of me wants to answer: “so”?
I grew up in northern Cass County when one of the first bike trails from an old rr bed opened — the Heartland Trail. It ran 27 miles from Walker to Park Rapids. It was a huge success. Individuals used it as an exercise option. Couples used it for being able to spend time together. Entire families used it as was to have a family outing.
This is not to say that all bike trails, esp. those in rural areas, are well-planned. The one between Dassel and Cokato on US Highway 12 is heavily used. The one between Montrose and Buffalo along MN Hwy 25 is not.
Either way, these trails encourage alternatives to driving and offer an option for clean exercise (they are also used for walking, running, and roller-blading).
Kudos to Rep. Oberstar for getting the funding out there in legislation.
Chris,
Personally, I agree with you that State and Local Authorities should be funding stuff like the Bike Trails. The problem is, they aren’t. State and Local officials aren’t doing a lot of things that they should be doing (thanks, in part, to your friends TPaw and Southern Minn. Republicans). At that point, Oberstar sees it as the Fed. Govts job to step in and make sure the stuff gets done. The job of the government isn’t simply to provide a military and a court. It’s job is to improve the quality of life for its citizens. And if the Committee that oversees the Transportation Appropriations out of the Highway Trust Fund feels that the best way to do that is to, as MRW said, “encourage alternatives to driving and offer an option for clean exercise,” then good for them.
The Other Chris,
You’re simply wrong about trails not getting funded by the State. In fact, in the last bonding bill, there was millions and millions of dollars for trails. In my area, there are a few cities who are building their own trails as well. Minnesota has more bike trails than any other state in the country. So don’t try to claim we aren’t funding bike trails.
The problem is that we are robbing our highway fund to build non-highway projects. Moreover, we’re doing it in a way to encourage pork barrel spending. I’d like to know how many of the trails built in Oberstar’s district were earmarks.
First of all, I’d like to comment that hey, I was only joking about this being two wheeled shenanigans.
All money spent on transportation is in one way or another social engineering. If you want a little town to become a big town, send a highway through it. If you want to redevelop your downtown and have people move back into the urban area, put in light rail. And likewise if you want to engage people, try to support a healthier lifestyle, or promote local businesses, put in a bike trail.
Instead of thinking of it as a frivolous expenditure of Government funds, think of it this way: America is getting increasingly fat. And it’s not old people getting fat, it’s young people. And given the advances in medical care, and the fact that most catastrophic health care coverage comes under medicare and medicaid, you and I as tax payers will be paying for the continuing care of their diabetes, CAD, asthma, etc. for a long time. Promoting and paying for a paved bike trail is way cheaper than paying for McDonalds and Television induced diabetes. Sean
Sean,
All of the points you make are valid. But they have nothing to do with the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which should be used only for building and improving federal highways. That’s the problem when big government thinking people get to Washington. They take something like the FHTF and turn it into a slush fund for social engineering. You all have blamed Pawlenty for crumbling roads (despite the fact that he’s built more roads in the last four years than the last two governors combined. Where is your outrage over siphoning off highway trust fund money for pork barrel projects in Oberstar’s District that have nothing to do with highways?
Chris,
First, it seems that you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. By bragging about how “Minnesota has more bike trails than any other state in the country,” in the same thread as criticizing Oberstar for building bike trails, your posts beg the question, how many trails would Minnesota have if it WEREN’T for people like Oberstar?
Second, you ask Sean where his outrage is at this stuff. Yet neither you nor Kerosene have answered my question - where was your outrage about the Republican funded projects that were even poorer uses of FHTF money?
Thirdly, ISTEA, TEA-21 and most recently TEA-LU have gone above and beyond funding mere highway construction and repair. Instead, they’ve adapted to changing times and (for the most part) funded the transportation needs that the Committee felt were most prevalent at the time. That’s the Committee’s job.
Finally, you asked about earmarks. I’m guessing a lot of them are earmarked. ISTEA for example had over $156 Billion in funding, all of it earmarked. Every dime from TEA-21 was earmarked too, and (drumroll please) every dime of TEA-LU was earmarked. Earmarking isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it directs the funding toward a specific process.
The Other Chris,
First of all, I want you to know how much I enjoy debating this issue with you. You bring up good points and there has been no name calling or vitriol and I find this topic refreshing to discuss.
Let me address your points. (1) I’m not criticizing Minnesota having bike trails. I am criticizing Congress paying for some of the trails (and I can assure you that the state pays for most of them along with cities) out of our Highway Trust Fund that should be used for building highways.
(2) I question the committee’s wisdom in taking from our highways and putting the money to other projects. Where is your outrage that it took more than 30 years to expand Highway 14 from Mankato to Owatonna? By the way if the Republicans took money from the Highway Trust Fund and used the money for poor projects, shame on them too. I just never saw a Republican brag about how they cheated their district out of a road in favor of some other project.
(3) Earmarking isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, if you talk to the MNDOT district engineers, as I have countless times, they will tell you that earmarks are a bad thing in this case. If Congress didn’t earmark and sent money to states for highway projects, the money would go through the state’s process of determining which roads need improvement the most. What Oberstar has done, according to non-partisan MNDOT District Engineers, is put projects in his district ahead of other, more crucial projects. And since the federal dollars don’t pay for the entire project, the district engineers are forced to put their state dollars in the pot to finish paying for the less important Oberstar projects in order to receive the earmarked funds. Oberstar is, in effect, cheating other more urgent projects in his state by earmarking.
Chris,
Likewise, my thanks to you on the debate. It’s nice to be reminded that intelligent, clean, fact filled debate can still happen in the days of CNN’s Crossfire.
In response to your first point, I don’t deny (despite how one of my earlier posts may sound) that the State doesn’t care about bike trails, and has spent money on them. I question your assertion that the majority of the funding has come from the State (and when I say State, I’m including cities), at least in CD8, but I’m not positive on that from my side either. It would be interesting to see figures (Matt, if you’re reading this…).
Secondly, (and this relates back to one of the earlier posts) I would argue that there is a stronger benefit to bike trails rather than a highway. Clearly Mankato and Owatonna have been able to accommodate residents and visitors before Highway 14 was extended. However, now that it is, has tourism along Highway 14 increased? Are there floods of people coming to either city simply because of the highway, as there are in Northern Minnesota due to the Paul Bunyan Trail? Possibly, but I doubt it. Those riders bring tourism to the state, which in turn brings money into the state.
As an aside (so I suppose point two and a half), for a multi-million dollar boondoggle on the proud shoulders of a GOP, I direct your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Young#The_.22Bridge_to_Nowhere.22. I hate citing to Wikipedia, but this actually does a decent job explaining the Gravina Island Bridge fiasco.
Finally, I disagree with the assertion that by earmarking projects in the Transportation Equity Act, Oberstar is cheating Minnesota out of roads and other projects. By it’s very nature, a nature that Rep. Young (R-AK) held strongly to, every dime of the bill MUST be earmarked. Therefore, had your argument been “by earmarking projects, Oberstar cheated WISCONSIN out of new roads,” it would hold more weight. As it is, Oberstar’s earmarking assured funding for Minnesota projects.
The Other Chris,
Good points. I would dispute a couple of items, however. You talked about Highway 14 in the context of tourism and moving people around. But you’re again short sided. Highway 14 is a major artery that moves goods across the entire southern part of Minnesota, including, but not limited to, agricultural products. In the Twin Cities, you have congestion. On highway 14, we have deaths. Highway 14 is one of the state’s deadliest roads and these deaths should have been mitigated years ago by expanding it into a 4 lane highway.
The other item I disagree with is your take on how roads are funded in Minnesota. As I said, I’ve been involved with the transportation issue and have met personally with MNDOT District Engineers about projects. Again, these are non-partisan professionals who often design as well as administer road projects. The district engineers have all explained why earmarks are bad. They say that if Congress just divided up the highway trust fund and sent chunks of money to the states, the states would have the discretion which road projects to fund and how to go about matching the federal dollars with state dollars to build a project. When a project is earmarked, the states are required to build that project (and match with state money) in order to get the funds. So if Oberstar wanted to build a highway in his district, which he does all the time, he earmarks the funds to his district thereby depriving more urgent projects of federal (and state matching) funds.
Chris,
I think you might have misunderstood me when I was talking about the earmarks. With the way the Committee functions (and has functioned for a while) projects have to be earmarked. It’s that simple. Would it be better if the MNDOT Engineers had their way and it was a general lump sum for Minnesota rather than X dollars for a bike trail and Y dollars for a study on congestion and Z dollars for Highway 14? Probably, but that’s irrelevant. Saying it would be better if earmarks didn’t exist is kind of like saying it would be better if cancer didn’t exist. Because they both do. Not because someone put them there (at least not in the present), but because that’s just the way business is done.
This response is poorly worded I realize, but I’ve been alternating between this and legal research for my job all day, and it’s now at day’s end and my brain has kind of quit on me. If you need me to rephrase this, I’ll be happy to later tonight.