When a developer turns farmland into a subdivision of houses, the developer is generally responsible for building the local roads (that, is, generally the roads within the subdivision itself, and sometimes widening the collector or arterial road that makes the farmland accessible, and valuable, in the first place, though that is usually limited to "improvements" i.e. widening, where the collector/arterial intersects with the subdivisions roads).
Therefore, Larry's point is valid - development (when it takes place in a "greenfield" rather than an area that is already urbanized and has infrastructure) pays for the costs to construct the smallest roads, and, sometimes, development pays for some part of the cost to expand the bigger roads adjacent to the new development to accommodate the increased traffic they induce. But the point bolsters the argument of myself and others on this list that small facilities for cyclists are a better investment in the long term than big roads. Because after the local roads are built, it is the responsibility of the local municipality to maintain these newly built roads. This is just one more reason why conventional suburban development in greenfields cost more for a municipality to service than the revenue it brings in. Studies going all the way back to the 1970s have born this out again and again. One I recall estimated that typical sprawl cost $1.25 in municipal services for every $1 in tax revenue. Of course, the study considered all municipal services (water, sewer, trash, etc.), not just road maintenance. But road maintenance is typically the lion's share of the municipal budget. But the fact is, we have a mechanism to expand the transportation infrastructure (and in a manner I would say that mostly benefit's car drivers to the detriment of all other road users), but we don't have a mechanism to expand the revenue that can be used to maintain the expanding infrastructure. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for us to build smaller infrastructure that costs less to maintain (Tim's points about the maintenance requirements of paths that mostly see 50lb vehicles vs roads that mostly see 5000 lb vehicles are relevant here) than to continue building larger infrastructure (even when someone else is paying for a small portion of it) that we can't afford to maintain. chuck ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mad City Biker Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:23 PM To: Larry D. Nelson Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I'm just getting caught up. Quote Larry Nelson: "Steve Hiniker doesn't include the developer's contribution for local roads, which is generally 100%." Could you please expound on this statement? (in layman's terms please!). Bikers (myself included) tend to use talking points similar to Hiniker's to justify our right to use the roads. Are we incorrect in quoting this? Just how do developers $$$ fit into the equation? Thanks! -MCB ________________________________ From: Larry D. Nelson <[email protected]> To: burleigh chorus.net <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wed, April 28, 2010 5:10:42 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP The cost to widen a road for bike lanes is greater than just the proportion of pavement as the road bed has to be widened whereas the existing road doesn't require the replacement of the road bed. Also, the road side ditches have to be excavated beyond their current location and new turf established. Bridges and storm sewers need to be widened beneath the roadbed and the storm water culverts for driveways have to be relocated. I suspect that the County Transportation Engineers have estimated the costs quite closely and I am not surprised by the cost increase. Steve Hiniker doesn't include the developer's contribution for local roads, which is generally 100%. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of burleigh chorus.net Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:36 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP Al, thats great to hear. Unfortunately, the Town of Middleton is waffling on bike lanes on Old Sauk Road: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_b3533244-507e -11df-bb09-001cc4c03286.html Does it really cost 50% more money to add 25% more width to a road? Anyway, Ivey hits on the real problem here: "Hiniker says most drivers assume the taxes on gasoline cover the expense to build and maintain roads. But he notes the state's transportation fund - which is basically the gas tax combined with vehicle registration fees - provides only 60 percent of local road funding. The rest falls to property taxpayers." On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:55 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: Greetings fellow bikies: Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk sent out a letter I thought you'd be interested in. County Highway KP, a favorite route for bicycling in west/northwestern Dane County, is scheduled for reconstruction. Two elected officials from the Town of Black Earth expressed interest in having a bike lane/shoulder included in the construction project. The County Executive's office agreed to make this addition, and noted a price tag of $600K. -- .......... -darin
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
