A Collaborative Effort Between the Shenandoah Valley Bicycle Coalition, New Community Project, Voluntary Gas Tax, City of Harrisonburg and Davis Bicycles. This trip is funded 100% by donations.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Funding Questions

So as I have been working on settling back in Harrisonburg and I have all new these ideas, I am challenged with questions like: "How are new bike lane painting, sharrow markings, and shared use path construction going to be funded?" and "Where's the money for long-term maintenance going to come from?"

There is no doubt in my mind that investment in bicycle facilities will pay off very well in the future and it will pay off in many ways. But like all investments they require capital, money, funding from somewhere. Harrisonburg has taken it upon itself to fund new bicycle and pedestrian facilities in capital projects like:
  • Port Republic Rd. Phase I and II bicycle lanes and sidewalks
  • Neff Avenue bicycle lanes and sidewalks
  • Linda Lane shared use path
  • Arboretum Trail (shared use path off Neff Ave.)
And Harrisonburg has been lucky with grants to help fund the construction of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities like:

... the list goes on... and we have several more projects that have been awarded and are currently under design to be constructed in the near future. However, these city capital projects and outside grants are a one time deal for design and construction and they don't change the allocations (annual funding) Harrisonburg receives from the Commonwealth of Virginia in transportation maintenance funding.

So how will we pay for future repair of sidewalks and shared use paths when there are cracks and potholes in them? And how are we going to pay for the additional personnel and equipment needed for timely snow removal? Wayfinding signage repair and replacement?

For every new sidewalk, path or bicycle lane that is constructed in Harrisonburg, the City does not receive any additional state dollars for maintenance. However, over the years the city has put in its own local dollars towards maintaining our existing transportation facilities (streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, traffic signals, etc.) to keep them in the good shape they are in today.

The state's allocation of annual maintenance funding to localities is based on the number of vehicular lane miles there are within the local jurisidiction (city limits). (Read VDOT's 2009 letter about further reductions of maintenance funds due to the current economy.) Citizens could push their state representatives to change the allocation formula, maybe sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and shared use paths should be given a dollar value per mile and given maintenance funds too. At the local level, citizens could push their local council members to allocate local dollars towards new construction and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities...

But both of these ways run into the same problem: Current taxes (e.g. state and city revenues) collected are covering the costs of services that we currently are receiving (like trash collection, maintenance of existing streets and transportation facilities, police, fire, public safety, schools & education, etc.). If we want additional services whatever they might be, either less funds will be available for other services or we need to find a new funding source to add to the pot.

I'm not suggesting that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure will need or should have their own separate pot of money or budget line items for maintenance. In Davis, we learned that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are well integrated into their planning and maintenance programs. Davis city staff couldn't tell us how much they spent on annual bike lane maintenance because its integrated with their road maintenance program, and they couldn't tell us how much they spent annually on shared use path maintenance because much of that is integrated into the park maintenance system.

Davis also uses new development as a huge contributor towards leveraging new bicycle and pedestrian facilities developing "an ordinance to hold housing developers financially accountable for integrating greenbelts into new housing subdivisions." (This is a great article about the history of Davis' greenbelts.) Davis has also established development impact fees to help pay for the improvements to transportation facilities, parks, sewers, schools, etc. that are needed as new developments put pressure on existing infrastructure.

Your thoughts on how we can make Harrisonburg a bicycle friendly community?

1 Comments:

Blogger mtnsailor said...

Thanks Thanh and Davis team for seeking and thinking through practical ideas and models. One frequent "comment"/question heard (deserves close study)- is it fair that bike riders don't pay fuel taxes, which mainly pay for Va. highways? Since 1930's, Virginian's have been indoctrinated by "pay as you go" (Byrd machine to the current Repubs.). Latest Va. politics, (Gov. McDonnell & friends) adds that "mantra" with new toll roads & related, while always repeating the chant "no new taxes". Of course, any "reality check" finds that Va. faces > $15 Billion shortage of immediate road/bridge funds, and projections for Federal road funds are dimming fast as deficit/ etc. worries grow.

So, what *practical options do we (HBurg) have for *fair and *dependable funding streams for bike/ped. facilities plus their maintenance? Property &/or sales taxes could be dedicated- say $2 million/ year- toward doing the top priorities of an evolving "bike/ ped. list" (with lots of inputs). But wait, until >15- 25% of ~47,000 population used &/or valued the bike facilities (& solid cost vs. benefit analysis show results), there will be(& maybe should be) taxpayer protest that *sizable bike allocations aren't "fair"-especially in next 4 years ahead.

Not wanting to sound negative; but, any major discussion toward our area changing to "norms" now in Davis must clearly address the many funding "roadblocks"/ competing needs. About the most straight-forward "stream" is a fee or "bike sticker" for every adult (say >17 years old) who houses/ garages a road bike in the City or at JMU (like $29.50 per auto; $10 per motorcycle). But, if fee was $15 per bike
(assume City raised motorcycles to $15 too) and 4,000 City/ JMU bikers could be pushed to pay yearly, that only raises $60,000/ year; this might be matched by City- if good Cost/benefits shown. Other options and fees could be refined and explained. Everyone involved must be clear thinking and speaking about the levels of costs involved and needed measurments, such as costs versus benefits.

March 17, 2010 at 8:39 PM

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home