Posted by CedarPosts on April 9, 2008 at 4:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

$4.4 translated is $6.2 million by the time all the funds are in place but who is counting?

So why not just remove one lane of traffic and give it to the "bike-ped" Buy some cones from Lowes and a couple cans of spray paint what???? 4 maybe 5 Hundred!

Take the 4 million and tear down the shacks and the Holiday Inn eyesores and have a gateway park instead.

I know to easy and we'd need another study or two

Posted by ColdBeer on April 9, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To help support the building and maintenance of our roads, ar ethey going to impose taxes and registration fees for the bicylcles like we have on our vehicles?

Posted by rjcontego on April 9, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

can someone explain what the "West Ashley Greenway" is? is it a road or a path? the article sure doesn't explain it and i've been that way 100 times and never saw it..thx

Posted by vicupstate on April 9, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Losing a lane of traffic on the bridge would create a huge bottleneck. Adding a new lane to the bridge would cost a lot more than $4.4 million or $ 6 million.

Charleston doesn't tear down shacks because those shacks are historic. Charleston is better than that.

Posted by swaky2000 on April 9, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm all for bike paths as soon as they figure out how the bikers are going to pay for it. We pay taxes on our automobiles that pay for our roads. Bikes pay NOTHING. They should get what they pay for.

Posted by theronce on April 9, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish that I was smart as they are to have seen this wonderful location to mix pedestrians and bicycles into the motor vehicular traffic.

Posted by kristin on April 9, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Greenway is a path along the side of highway 17 behind the buildings, so it's out of the way of traffic. Here's a link to the description: http://sciway3.net/outdoors/park-westash...

Posted by sj301 on April 9, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And what about the North Bridge? It's already restricted against pedestrian and bike traffic. Even has "poles" along the median and FREE bus rides between Azalea and Poston Roads. Think that stops folks from pushing their bikes across? Guess again! what will it take?

Posted by swaky2000 on April 9, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"We are all becoming more aware of our carbon footprints and this is going to potentially take cars off the road. That's a good thing for everybody."

Let's wait then.... As soon as the cars are off the road there will be plenty of room for the bikes. lol

Posted by out_in_charleston on April 9, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is a great idea. More people would bike instead of driving. We live is a society of inactivity. All roads should be built to accomodate bikers and walkers.

Translates to less obesity, less cars, less traffic.
And those who complain about the cost. Well if a biker gets hit and the insurance of the driver and the insurance of the biker is not enough to cover the costs; who pays? The taxpayers. If the biker becomes disabled and cannot work; who pays? The taxpayers.

The taxpayers, including the bikers and others without cars already pay for the roads.

When there are bike paths you who drive cars will no longer be hed up by bikers in the road, which is currently too bad for you becasue bikers have just as much a right to the roads as cars.

Maybe we should have tolls for the Ashley River Bridge and all the other bridges. Why should the bikers and walkes pay for the repairs needed becasue of all the cars that cross on a daily basis.

Posted by icbmman on April 9, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>swaky2000 wrote: "I'm all for bike paths as soon as they figure out how the bikers are going to pay for it. We pay taxes on our automobiles that pay for our roads. Bikes pay NOTHING. They should get what they pay for."<<

Absolutely. While I'm all for cities having bikeways and walking paths for the ability for people to have recreation or to have an alternative to get somewhere, cyclists virtually contribute NOTHING towards the infrastructure that they so vehemently demand. I'm starting to think that registration of bikes would be the best way to fund projects like this. It would actually allow revenue to be properly split: highway funds and bikeway funds. Those bikeway funds could also fund sidewalks and even pedestrian bridges.

Out_in_charleston, your brain is definitely "out in Neverland". When the hell did biking on roads become a "basic right"? One thing is certain, NONE of the cyclists contribute one dime to the infrastructure, and then they have the gall to demand cars to get our of their way! BTW, bikes became outdated in terms of viable transportation because they were MUCH slower than cars...thereby inhibiting progress.

Should people be active? Of course. Should cities provide amenities to enable activity? Yes. Should they be funded without contribution by the users? NO!

Posted by ColdBeer on April 9, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said icbmman.

Posted by desspec on April 9, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A great idea, long overdue. So many fuss about the rising cost of gas - more safe bike/pedestrian routes would certainly be welcome.

Posted by CHRISJIII on April 9, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a great idea and long overdue. Bike riders do pay registration fees and also taxes that go to fund infrastructure.

Posted by LowcountryMoose on April 9, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

icbm:

Actually, bicyclists have every right to the state's roadways, except where they are specifically prohibited, like on interstates.

Check your facts man. Here's an excerpt from SC law:

Title 56 - Motor Vehicles, Chapter 5. Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways, SECTION 56-5-3420. Rights and duties of bicyclists generally:

Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

Posted by Jessamine on April 9, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have said this in a comment for every bike related article I've read in the P&C that contains the ignorant logic of "cyclists virtually contribute NOTHING towards the infrastructure that they so vehemently demand.":

I am a cyclist - I'm 42 years old. I own a house (two actually)-- I own a car --- I am gainfully employed -- I PAY TAXES. Whether I used my car or my bike to ride on the road I did pay my fair share!!! Why is that such a hard concept to grasp??

And, I own rental property and pay twice the amount of resident homeowners in taxes since I don't get the homeowners discount, so does that mean I get to ride on twice as much road and you actually owe me??

Also, since I'm so healthy I haven't had to go to the doctor for the past 5 years for anything and will probably live longer and not require the healthcare support in my older age that sedentary folks do. So, I think I should get some type of credit for that too!

Why do people have such a hatred for cyclists? I really don't get it. We're just trying to be healthy and happy while most drivers are trying to scare us out of our minds.

Posted by icbmman on April 9, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LowcountryMoose, shall we allow bikes on interstates then? Nevermind that Title 56 contradicts traffic laws which state that all vehicles on roads should not impede the flow of traffic, which is what bikes do if they use the road like a car. My problem is that people who use bikes demand that people who drive CARS pay for biker infrastructure.

Jessamine, OK, you do contribute, but you contribute indirectly because you own a car. You contribute to infrastructure based on OTHER items that are taxed. The only tax cyclists specifically have to worry about, in relation to their vehicle, is sales tax. What if you didn't own property such as a car or rental property? If your bike is your primary means of transportation, as it is for many who aspire to be "green"/"eco-friendly", the burden would be placed on those who own cars or houses while cyclists get a free ride.

I don't hate cyclists. I just want those who demand infrastructure for their vehicle to pay their fair share.

Posted by jewing on April 9, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is actually a great idea - getting bikes out of the way of cars will make it safer for cars as well (one can think of the accident lawsuit money that will be saved as more than compensating for the cost of the bike lane).

I used to run on the cross-country team at Porter-Gaud, and one of our favorite runs was across the Ashley River Bridge, until the powers-that-were declared it too unsafe and restricted our runs to the Crescent. Blah. A lane like this will be great not only for bikers, but also for runners who had no decent link between West Ashley and Downtown.

Posted by Reader on April 9, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good grief! Some of you who think that this should be funded only by those who ride bikes really need to figure out how a tax system works!

First, taxes are - like it or not - a method of collecting income and spending it for the greater public good without regard to the source of the funds. You are confusing taxes and user fees (like tolls) which are collected from the same people who benefit from the service.

Would you also, for example, deny a public education to the children of renters since they do not contribute to the property tax base which funds our schools? Or perhaps you would favor a system in which rich people (who pay more for the service) are given priority access to libraries and fire departments and police services?

Second, and less sarcastically, the article says that the source of the funds is largely going to be the half-cent sales tax, not property taxes on cars. Bikers are every bit as likely to have paid sales taxes as car drivers.

Posted by LowcountryMoose on April 9, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

icbm:

I respect your logic behind users contributing to the cost. It is likely, however, that the majority of bicycle riders also own vehicles or have parents that do. All property owners get screwed by paying for services and projects they don't use. It is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast.

I'm sure Riley and the City/County Councils are going to find a way to dip into the Federal coffers for this too, as that is usually part of the funding game.

Posted by GeecheeBoi84 on April 9, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heh, from all the crying and whining in this forum, you would think Charleston already increased taxes two-fold...

Posted by Running on April 9, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Crossing is a great idea. I love to listen to people who complain about bikes on the roads, but when a alternative is presented they complain about that to. So I guess the bottom line is if you don't drive a hugh truck, SUV, etc. you don't belong on the roads. Also god forbid we have to slow down to pass a someone on a bike, we maybe delayed by 10 to 20 seconds.

Posted by letstakeawalk on April 9, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A dedicated crossing for pedestrians and cyclists would be greatly appreciated. I'm not surprised by the hostility expressed against cyclists - I see it everyday on the streeets downtown as I'm greeted with honking horns, shouts, and upraised middle fingers of those drivers who are ignorant of the laws of the road.

Cyclists are, as LowCountry Moose and Jessamine have pointed out, are legally entitled to use all roadways (excepting interstates) and are typically productive tax-paying members of the public. Just because we choose an alternative form of transportation, some members of the community (like icbmann and swaky2000) feel that we are inferior. However, for each bicycle commuter, there is one more space available in which to park a car, and there is one less person creating demand for gasoline. If they thought about it, they'd realize that we cyclists are actually doing them a favor by minimizing our impact on the infrastruscture of the Lowcountry.

Of course, if no ped/cyclist bridge ever happens, I'll still ride my bike on the street, in the lane with traffic, as I am legally required. If you'd like to call the police and report my impeding the flow of traffic, be my guest - my bike is properly registered and licensed. And good luck at not having the officer laugh at you for your inability to pass a vehicle only two feet wide. I'll be the one signalling my turns, stopping at yellows, and allowing pedestrians to cross.

Posted by losangeles on April 9, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. icbmman's logic is mind-boggling. icbmman, wait until you have some real traffic issues after they build 1600-2000 houses out Hwy 17. You'll be begging to get as many cars as possible off the road in any way possible. Bravo to the City of Charleston and Mayor Riley for not being short-sighted in their management of the city. Maybe someone needs to find some additional dollars for educating those like icbmman to the rights of all cyclists.

Posted by unknown_username on April 9, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icbmman – If we’re gonna aim to tax cyclists, we should also tax walkers to pay for pedestrian bridges and crosswalks. Perhaps every person who uses a city sidewalk should be taxed to cover construction and maintenance.

Do you suggest since we tax the cars of motorists, we should also tax the bikes of cyclists and the shoes of all bi-peds? If we’re going to tax bi-peds' shoes, I think we should double the tax for runners because they put more wear and tear on the pavement, but one-legged pirates and pogo-stick users should get a tax break since they’re technically mono-peds.

You say you don’t hate cyclists, but your comments certainly suggest you're harboring some hostility. Lighten up, man – life is good!

**May is National Bike Month**
May 16 is “Ride Your Bike to Work Day” and May 21 is the Ride of Silence.

Posted by lantanagurl on April 9, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jessamine....I agree. Most cyclist do contribute. We pay taxes in many ways. I pay taxes on services I will never use, but I don't gripe about it. It's the cost of living in society and those who don't want to pay can please please please get out of our society! I think there's some land in the Middle East with their names on them:)

Posted by Jessamine on April 9, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RE: "I don't hate cyclists. I just want those who demand infrastructure for their vehicle to pay their fair share."

Don't forget those people who WALK across the bridges and sidewalks. I mean, they're not paying ANYthing to do this and they may be homeless or unemployed and not pay any taxes. I mean, they're using our bridge with their feet for free! And what about tourists who don't even live here to contribute with taxes from home or vehicle ownership! Think of the wear and tear on the sidewalk that is provided to them. I guess we better nab them when they try to use "our" resources. Maybe a toll booth every block or so?

In all seriousness, the greenway is going to be used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, skaters, whatever. I'd be willing to pay my "share." If you divide the cost amongst all residents of Charleston county, I believe (using 2006 stats of 331,917 which I'm sure have increased) it works out to $13.25 a person. I'll even pay your $13.25.

Posted by Jessamine on April 9, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry for the repeat - unknown_username got my points across first. Glad I'm not the only one who sees the holes in the argument.

Posted by Native_Ink on April 9, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The attitudes you see here are why South Carolina is next to last in everything. I'm a native, but I've lived in other places where there isn't this miserly, selfish attitude. Places where people care about having cities with good public space, not just private spaces for themselves. Of course, these other places are usually better off, because when you start being selfish toward other people, you can be sure that they will be selfish toward you, even if you don't recognize the diminishment that brings to your life.

Posted by icbmman on April 9, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew that the next argument would be some of you saying that we need to tax pedestrians, following my logic. However, coming to that conclusion fails to realize the difference between pedestrians and cyclists: there is a vehicle involved for cyclists...pedestrians just bring themselves. The vehicle itself should be the target for the tax; is that not what we do with our cars and trucks?

In other words, if you own a vehicle that will be using the infrastructure, you have to pay for that infrastructure through your vehicle. You can't do that for pedestrians.

Some of the comments state that I feel cyclists are inferior. No, but as far as common sense, some cyclists lack it. A car is superior to a bike in terms of size, speed, and versatility, yet, you want the bike to be equal with the car. I say, if you truly want equality, your bike should help contribute to infrastructure just as much as my car does.

I don't know how my comments can be construed as "hostile" to cyclists, when I'm really just being truthful. Here's another fact: our state's revenue is forecast to be $240 million IN THE HOLE. Where's the money going to come from?

I want the bikeway bridge and extension built. I actually want the WA Greenway completely paved, and I want James Island to have several bikeways as well...I think they also should place a cantilevered pedestrian bridge for the JI Connector. Northbridge should also have an additional bike bridge with connecting sidewalks and paths. ALL of these are necessary as our city grows. However, these projects need to be built NOW not later, and money is tight. In order to get these things done, additional sources of revenue will need to be created.

Posted by Thomas1776 on April 9, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very few people walk/ride bicycles/jog/run on the green way.

Just more needless waste in a serious time when waste must be cut. We are in a recession. And this is big waste by Riley.

Posted by Jessamine on April 9, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RE: where the money is going to come from (by the way this is county funded not state funded so comparing the budgets is apples to oranges):

"It is asking, or will ask, for funds from Charleston County's half-cent sales tax program (which funded the feasibility study), the Charleston Area Transportation Study Committee, the state Transportation Department and federal government."

It's a half cent folks. Will it really kill you to give a half cent?

Posted by Jessamine on April 9, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry - read too fast. Now I see the state and federal involvement. Mea culpa.

I'm less worried about funding a bike lane than I am about bailing out ignorant folks (and banks who wrote bad loans) who didn't understand the meaning of the word "variable" when they bought their out-of-their-price-range houses.

Posted by icbmman on April 9, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jessamine, you just refuted your own argument when you quoted the article...the city will be asking for funds from the state, and this state will clearly be unable to help out. I have no problem with the half-cent tax being used, but if we want to create an exceptional bikeway system, funds are not going to just magically appear.

Posted by icbmman on April 9, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Jessamine, I didn't catch your retraction. I am in complete agreement with you about bailing out people from bad mortgages.

Posted by Iknow on April 9, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do all of you mental giants think that people who ride bicycles don't pay taxes? I ride a bicycle and also happen to own 3 vehicles and a house on which I pay property taxes not to mention the hefty sums I pay in income taxes and sales tax. No doubt the same crowd that believes they should not have to pay taxes for public schools unless they actually have children in the school system. Grow up and quit whining.

Posted by theronce on April 9, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not believe we will see any noticable reduction in motor vehicle traffic in this area. Along with the continued increase in motor vehicle traffic from the outlands, the additional, probably mostly recreational bicycle and pedestrian traffic will simply add to the congestion, danger, and frustration.

Posted by ColdBeer on April 9, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Getting pedestrians and bicyclist off of roads that were designed for cars is a GREAT idea. Having a bike/walk way accomplishes that. I agree with icbmman that the bikes need to be registered and taxed. I've read all of the arguments and they are all good arguments, but in my opinion, we should register and tax bikes and mopeds. I can't think of any other form of transportation that does not have those requirements.

I also think that, if you are going to operate anything on a public roadway with a speed limit of greater than 25 MPH, you should have a license to do so. Most of the near misses I’ve had with bikes on the road were due to some bum with a bike full of flags and aluminum cans riding in the wrong direction or someone squeezing up on the passenger side of my car at a red light and then me almost hitting them when I turn right. I don’t want to kill someone on a bike, even if it’s not my fault.

Posted by icbmman on April 9, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, ColdBeer.

Iknow, please read the entirety of my posts as well as others. They will give you better reasons why if we're going to build significant bikeway infrastructure, we better have the ability to pay for it. No doubt you are taxed with what you own, but your public schools argument is comparing apples to oranges.

Posted by Iknow on April 9, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Icbm, I disagree that the public schools argument is comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that the vast majority of the money I pay in taxes does not inure to my benefit. Nevertheless, I pay them without griping or trying to micromanage how the money is spent. If I don't like how a particular politician is handling the money, I don't vote for him. That's how it works in a democratic society.

Posted by kszimmer7 on April 9, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Many cyclists pay the same vehicle, property, and roadway taxes--we just don't happen to use our cars as much. Therefore, not only am I a taxpaying citizen who contributes financially to the maintenance of and privilege to use our Lowcountry roadways, but I do so with less of an impact. One of the reasons why roadways need maintenance is from the heavy, repeated use of automobiles and trucks. Bicycles certainly aren't cracking pavement and causing potholes. We'll pay now or pay later--even if there are cyclists who don't have vehicle taxes to pay, we're all paying health-wise...I hope folks who drive a lot realize that cyclists are lessening the amount of pollutants we all inhale. This proposed bike and ped path is a welcome relief. It will be fantastic to bike on something that isn't full of car pieces and torn pavement. I appreciate Mayor Riley for following through with what he promised in the State of the City Address, and I hope that this will encourage more cyclists to get out there!

Posted by ColdBeer on April 9, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kszimmer7, It's not that biking and walking crack the roads, it's that the proposed bike/walk lane will cost money to build and all of the newer roads with bike lanes cost extra money to build. Why do I pay taxes and registration on my boat? These taxes and registration fees help fund the boat ramps, DNR and other expenses that go along with supporting boaters. Why can't everyone chip in and support those activities too? Because they shouldn't have too.

By driving everywhere I go, I exhale MUCH less harmful CO2 than I would if I were to bike or walk. I also get to say things like "Awww... look at that poor guy on a bike. He can't afford a car".

That last paragraph is, obviously, just my sarcastic humor and it's not meant to be taken seriously :)

Posted by icbmman on April 9, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iknow, my rebuttal to your disagreement would say almost exactly what ColdBeer just said...probably without the sarcastic comment. :) Boat registration is an excellent example of what we're talking about. Schools and bikeways are very different entities that the government gets involved in; one involves production of a well-educated society while the other is a form of infrastructure. Apples and oranges.

Posted by letstakeawalk on April 9, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ Coldbeer

In a humorous response to your witticism, while pedaling down the street to work I like being able to say things like "Aww.. look at that poor person in the car. They can't afford to live downtown." ;)

Posted by ColdBeer on April 9, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your witty response is right on the mark letstakeawalk... I cannot afford to endanger my family by living downtown :)

Posted by kszimmer7 on April 9, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand that biking doesn't crack roads--cars do. If we had less cars, we'd have less re-paving, right? Just an assumption, but I guess when one assumes....

And you may inhale a little less CO2 while driving (maybe), but you have to get out of your car sometime. And how much will posterity be inhaling? Just a thought.

Lastly, I like to cycle by the line of cars stuck in a traffic jam on Meeting Street, and think "awwww..." so I guess we're even there :)

Posted by losangeles on April 9, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you follow icbmman's logic then everyone should pay a transit tax on every pair of shoes that are sold. Because at some point, everyone (even icbmman) is a pedestrian. After all shoes are the "vehicles" for our feet!

Posted by letstakeawalk on April 9, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To those who are suggesting (however sarcastically) that the city tax pedestrians - they already do. There is a 50 cents per person tax on every person who takes a walking tour. So where is that money going?

Posted by Thomas1776 on April 9, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

""Councilwoman Yvonne Evans said the plans are a "wonderful move into the future" for another reason.

"We are all becoming more aware of our carbon footprints and this is going to potentially take cars off the road. That's a good thing for everybody."

WHAT A PATHETIC IDIOT!!!!!!!

Posted by icbmman on April 10, 2008 at 12:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas, indeed, Ms. Evans needs to quit being part of the mindless sheep with the talk of carbon footprints and global warming. Our primary concern is for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, as well as the provision of recreational amenities...that is why we want these bikeways built.

Losangeles, have you already started to lose brain cells in the land of fruits and nuts? If you're a liberal, I'm sure that logic of taxing shoes is pleasing to you. What if the pedestrians go barefoot? Or walk with sandals? Please, step out of California and regain some common sense. Again, it's another apples to oranges comparison. Shoes are hardly "vehicles"...they're a form of clothing. Did you miss the analogy of boat registration? Please read it, so you can better understand the reasoning for taxing bikes.

Posted by Iknow on April 10, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Icbm, education, police protection, infrastructure, national defense, etc. are all services provided by government and funded by tax dollars. Apples and apples.