BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

done. i don't know how much it matters what the content of the letter is, i always try to edit it at least somewhat. but, obviously parts of their form letter are not applicable to Corbett since he wasn't in office last year.

Good point, Todd. I should have pointed that out.

[...paging Swalfoort...]

How much of the last TIP is to be funded by dollars at risk here? Do we have a list of completed projects that were funded by these programs?

It would be really helpful to be able to point to specific projects like trail segments, rebuilds of intersections that were dangerous for peds/bikes, bus bike racks, etc. For example, I think the rebuilds of the underpasses at 6th/7th/9th Streets (or whatever they're called) on the North Side under the railroad tracks, were from this sort of funding. Prior to this work, one waited for buses next to dead rats, dripping water, bums hiding in adjacent hidey-holes, pigeon poop bombs and no lighting. In other words, one *didn't* wait for buses there. Putting that money to work there improved the quality of life of anyone needing to go through there via any mode of travel.

Weren't the funds either Transportation Enhancement (TE) or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)?

I edited the first chunk of it to say that my needs are not being met by his budget.

I entered my plea, but I bear no hope that this retrograde fascist will consider any of it.

I wonder if anyone has pointed out to the administration that by cutting funding for transit, it will drive fuel demand up, increasing cost for even people in rural areas who have no choice but to drive. It's economics, beeatch. But idealists only care about economics when it suits their fabricated narrative.

@Stu - the holder of the detailed information you seek is out today, but I'll get it for you (all) tomorrow.

I don't want to discourage anyone from writing to Corbett to promote/support funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements, but I want to reassure folks that this proposed action does not present a huge risk to projects in Pennsylvania.

First of all, the amount of the national recission is thought to be $2.5 billion. In theory, these funds are currently allocated for use in all fifty states.

A recission is the taking back of unspent money. This money may be what is left over after a project is completed under budget, funds for an underfunded project that is unable to proceed until additional funds are identified, or money that is allocated to a project that has been stalled for some reason (property issues, environmental issues feature prominantly here).

The money will be recovered from projects of all types. However, as noted in the article, a disproportionate amount will come from ped-bike projects. In part this could be because TE funded projects are implemented by parties other than the State DOT, and may languish longer in that underfunded/stalled state.

We've been monitoring performance on Transportation Enhancement funded projects for several years now. Most of the stalled projects have begun moving again, although there are a few that still need some additional funding to be able to be completed. The recently funded (and discussed here) East Liberty Bridge (to the Borders complex) and the North Side underpasses are examples of TE funded projects that were stalled for some time, but that are once again moving (and therefore not at risk).

I'll get the numbers as to what was funded in the last TIP, as well as a summary of the overall "value" of the stalled TE projects ASAP.

All that said, it is still a good time to let Corbett know how you feel about funding for ped-bike facilities and programs. Copy your State Reps and Senators too, if you think of it.

I suspect rescission might play well for us if we have our bureaucratic ducks in a row. De-encumbered TE funds would get thrown back into the hopper for reallocation as per SAFETEA-LU policy, right? If so and hedging a bet that the administration gets to keep these funds, then what projects could the SPC, County or some bike-centric not-for-profit have available to take advantage of a possible reallocation?

@sloaps - hope springs eternal...... funds are funds, and we could use more of those. Your scenario is sort of the "silver lining" in all this. Maybe some projects (that are not ready to go at this time) are defunded, so that other ready to go projects can be advanced. But, the implied risk is that we could rescind funds from a ped/bike project to pay for a bridge project. This is much less likey to work in reverse, unfortunately.

So defunding a languishing Transportation Enhancement project wouldn't necessarily provide unencumbered "Transportation Enhancement" funding?

Damn. I thought I made lemonade with that last post...

I been a member of Rails To Trails since 2001. This summer gas will go up to $4.25 and you will see lots of bikes on the street.