Monday's editorial: Bicyclists need help in KC

Ross,

City streets are mostly paid for with the capital improvements sales tax, not gasoline tax. The gas tax mostly goes to the state highways like I-70 or US 50.

So people who don't own an automobile are subsidizing the streets you use every time they buy a pair of shoes or a loaf of bread.

If you answered motorists via the gas tax, then you're (mostly) wrong. I'm not sure about the Kansas numbers, but in Missouri the gas tax revenues generate about half a billion dollars, while MO spends about $4 billion on roads. So over 80% of the cost of roads comes from sales, income, and property tax, which everybody pays into. Since bikes cause far less then 80% of the damage cars do, then it's perfectly fair to accommodate cyclists. No need to implement an expensive bicycle licensing program (though I'm not altogether against such an idea since it might make cyclists safer), bicyclists are already paying their fair share just by paying sales, income, and property taxes.

I ride nearly 1,500 miles a season on the bi-state roads. Every time I ride, at least one of these scenarios happens. I get heckled at, cut off, squeezed to the curb (if there is one), honked at from behind "to let me know a car is there", even though I can hear the vehicle approaching from behind. Every time I ride, I obey all traffic signals. Being predictible has saved me more than once. Drivers have to realize that bicyclists have the same rights to be on the street as they do. Check your legal books.

Obstacles to this program I see:
DISTANCE non-riders and their perceptions of "how far" one (can) rides on a bicycle. A usual ride for me is a minimum of 25 miles at a time. Most people think riding in their subdivision is a long way to go. So, until they let go of the "distance is a barrier" factor...bicycle lanes on ALL streets in the bi-state metro will never exist.
Yet, this model does work, take Tucson, Arizona where every street in the metro has bike lanes (painted and signs on EVERY street I drove on). The frequency of exposure ought to build awareness for vehicle drivers (thus logically, acceptance). Which one would hope, reduce accidents and prevent driver road rage towards cyclists.

AWARENESS: I rode the MARC program a couple years ago. The route I took on reduced traffic main roads, made me realize just how many blind cornererd streets exist in the metro. Plus the distance of roadway that had no curbs with drop-offs into loose gravel. Those two items I weighted heavier as concerns than the busy roadways I was riding on with traffic buzzing past me at minimum of 45 MPH.

VANITY: Riding to work means you'll show up stinky and appear "non-professional." Even if every company installs showers as part of a gym room wellness program...people will drive for vanities sake. Generally those drivers are the most dangerous group I see because of not watching the road to shave/apply makeup, etc.

SPEED:
Bicyclists don't move as quickly as vehicles. Even though the best cyclists can sustain 20+ MPH. For drivers to give five feet of width for 7 seconds or less won't disrupt anyones daily schedule.

GROUP RIDES: Biggest pet peeve of drivers for the amount of width of street group riders can take up. I agree in principle. One area group riders should be more aware of when out on the roads.

TRAILS, they're most likely cheaper to build and the easy do-good-feel-good fix. They're off the main roads, and politicians can say they did something. Trail riding is arguably not a form of efficient travel from point A to B (i.e. going to work). Trails can provide the capability for cyclists to get to work sure, but they'll take longer. Who wants a longer commute? I would argue most cyclists serious about commuting will end up back out on the roads.

I'm ready to ride to work from Olathe (Sante Fe Rd.) to Downtown. What's stopping me? My wife and her concern for my life.

Finally when I do ride, thank you for laughing at my bicycle attire! I'm glad you saw me and gave me room to ride.

minimize damage to streets, so I'd think that we could mount a fair argument that measures that increase bike usage as alternative to cars pay for themselves.

Maybe cyclists should have to purchase a license to ride those bikes on city streets in order to help pay for those improvements they want.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

Kansas City is a beautiful city, but it's bicycle-unfriendliness is appalling. Huzzah to Mayor Funkhouser for taking the initiative to improve the city's cycling facilities. It will take some time, a lot of work, and some attitudinal changes from motorists, but his goals are definitely reachable, and will prove a great benefit to the city as a whole.

Uh, Bike paths, okay......How about those metal plates? Oh, I know, you can put them on bike patchs too.