Funding Bike Infrastructure: Point-Counterpoint
Part of a week-long series, Randal O'Toole and blogger Will Campbell debate federal funding for bike infrastructure and question whether a broad bike system should be built before or after the demand presents itself.
Randal O'Toole writes: "American motorists deserve to know that the taxes and fees they pay to drive on our great highway system are being spent effectively. Unfortunately, too many urban planners have joined the anti-automobile movement, and the name of the game for them is to divert as many highway dollars to non-highway projects as possible.
So many cities are spending highway funds on multimillion-dollar bicycle overpasses, exclusive bike paths and other expensive facilities. When we compare the number of people using these paths and bridges with the cost, they are often not a cost-effective way of moving people."
Blogger and cyclist Will Campbell responds: "Speaking of serving a limited number of people, let's go back to 1912 for a few moments. Combined automobile production for that year topped 187,000 vehicles in a nation with a population of 95 million. For the lack of a good network of roads, getting across town was a task, across a county a challenge, across a state an ordeal. How about across a country? Practically impossible. But that didn't dampen the enthusiasm of one Carl Fisher, who hatched his dream of building the first transcontinental highway at an estimated cost of $10 million — even though only 2% of the citizenry drove and many states sported constitutional prohibitions against funding road projects."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Parsing the State of the Union Address for Planners - Jan 25, 2012
- Taking Parking Lots Seriously, as Public Spaces - Jan 07, 2012
- 2012's Big Urban Projects - Jan 02, 2012
- Six Trending Urbanist Themes for the New Year - Dec 31, 2011
- After Funding, Highway Projects Go Untracked - Dec 21, 2011

















