Roads
AAA more cycle-friendly, except where money is concerned
AAA Mid-Atlantic has made a welcome effort to be friendly toward pedestrians and cyclists since the controversy over their hateful reaction to Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes. But while they might preach "share the road," it's certainly not "share the budget," as AAA Mid-Atlantic argued in a recent editorial for taking away ped, bike and transit funding and reallocating everything to cars.
Photo by Carlo Nicora on Flickr.
Nationwide, AAA has a reputation for often lobbying against transit and pedestrian and bicycle programs, but many local clubs have tried to work more positively with users of other modes, even establishing bicycle roadside assistance (which Better World Club, AAA's main competition, has always offered).
National AAA even distanced itself from AAA Mid-Atlantic's Lon Anderson's press release slamming the installation of the Pennsylvania Avenue lanes. AAA spokesperson John Townsend and social media manager Kim Snedaker assured us they "are not anti-bike", and replaced the inflammatory press release with a more conciliatory one. (Neither is still available on the Web.)
Since then, the constant venom we had been previously seeing from Anderson and Public Affairs Manager John Townsend transformed into a more pro-coexistence message. For example, Townsend spoke positively about bicycling for WAMU, saying, "Part of living in the city is finding common ground and using common facilities for the greater good." Townsend urged both motorists and cyclists to follow the rules.
Cycle advocates and AAA also found common ground following the death of Natasha Pettigrew in Maryland. An SUV driver hit Pettigrew on her bicycle and continued driving for four miles. Townsend told WTOP that Maryland laws are inadequate for punishing drivers who kill negligently cyclists.
"They're killing people on the highways and they're only getting a slap on the wrist and being charged a fine," he said. "We need to close that loophole now." And, writes WTOP, "Townsend emphasized that in this situation the person outside the car is the victim, 'even if he contributed to the crash.'"
However, while AAA Mid-Atlantic may not "hate cyclists," want drivers to share the road amicably, and believe in laws that allow punishing negligent drivers, they want to take away the federal dollars that cover most transit, bike and pedestrian programs.
Don Gagnon, President and CEO of AAA Mid-Atlantic, published an editorial in the July/August AAA World magazine recommending that Congress reallocate the entire transportation trust fund to road programs in the upcoming reauthorization.
Rails to Trails Conservancy sounded the alarm and have asked AAA members nationwide to ask national AAA to disavow this.
AAA Mid-Atlantic is again not representing the will of their members in the region.
According to Rails-to-Trails, Americans in a survey wanted to spend 22% of transportation money on pedestrian and bicycle programs. 10% of trips are walking or biking trips. But only 1.1% of this federal money goes to ped and bike programs, and Gagnon wants to cut it to zero.
While they're free to say what they want, Gagnon and others are drawing their salaries from members across the region who just want roadside assistance. Yet their dues are going not only to pay lobbyists who fight against pedestrian and bicycle projects in Washington but to a magazine that spreads these messages to unsuspecting members.
Gagnon is careful to emphasize that AAA Mid-Atlantic isn't specifically advocating for funding cuts, but just to dedicate all of the existing trust fund money to highways. This is a distinction without a difference. Kim Snedaker repeated the party line in an email:
Do we think bike trails, hiking trails, sidewalks, museums and transit ought to be funded? Of course! Don did not in any way suggest we should stop funding any of the list of items, but simply change the federal account from which they are paid to improve road conditions and motorist safety.I appreciate Snedaker's work to be nicer to cyclists, but this statement seems very disingenuous. Gagnon's editorial is not suggesting a new, alternative revenue source for the existing ped, bike and transit programs. It's not suggesting ways to expand the pie for everyone. Instead, they "simply" want to "change the federal account" to take all the ped, bike and transit funding and give it to highways.
While we're at it, let's "simply" also change the federal accounts so all federal money that goes to California goes to DC, Maryland and Virginia instead. But no, we're not suggesting actually cutting any aid to California. It's a little insulting to our intelligence, actually.
National AAA has denied lobbying against transit in the past. But either that's splitting hairs on what "against transit" means, or else they're just hiding behind the fact that their affiliate around Washington, DC does the lobbying for them.
Rails to Trails can only ask its members nationwide to push national AAA on this issue. But we live in the AAA Mid-Atlantic region. If you're still a AAA member, switch to the Better World Club. And tell AAA you might consider being a member again only if they focus on their real mission, providing services to drivers, and stop trying to lobby against transit, pedestrian and bicycle programs.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
In terms of all the players of the "road lobby" I suspect AAA is 3rd or 4th tier.
And you argument in parts is extremely disingenuous.
1. You criticize AAA for saying all the federal transportation trust fund money should go to roads. That is the money, remember, that drivers pay via the gas tax.
2. According to Rails-to-Trails - ANOTHER ADVOCACY GROUP -- Americans want 22% of their transportation money -- not just the federal money - to go to walking or biking. And you cite that figure of 1.1% of money federal money going to walking.biking.
3. But of course, what AAA is complaining about isn't the walking/biking money. They are talking about the 1/3 of the federal highway trust fund that is going to transit money. That's a huge chunk of money, and I can see why AAA isn't happy.
There may be some benefit to drivers here in DC to get more people on Metro. However, I suspect in most cities you don't see that.
by charlie on Sep 27, 2010 10:40 am • link • report
Drivers PAID via the gas tax. The trust fund got a $6B infusion in bond money last year. That's going to be paid back by income tax.
by Omri on Sep 27, 2010 10:52 am • link • report
AAA's duty to its members probably lies somewhere between what you assume and the positions you criticize. It is certainly in the interests of the driving commuter public to have better bike, sidewalk, and transit facilities because no reasonable driver wants to be in an accident; and those facilities reduce peak traffic. But there will be times when the interests of drivers diverge from cyclists and transit users, and in those cases AAA has a duty to represent its members.
Rather than being disingenuous as you suggest, I think that in some cases they simply are wrong because they have not studied a given issue as thoroughly as they might. Consider speed cams: Up to a point, drivers benefit from higher fines for traffic infractions since drivers are at the greatest risk of infractions that are discouraged. So it ought to be possible to persuade AAA to recognize that the theory of optimal deterrence means that speed cams should raise some money, equal to the damages caused by speeding. Their opposition to high fines stems from a misguided belief that they are defending their members from paying the costs of city government. AAA is a behemoth and when pointed in the right direction can do alot of good. We need their help.
by Jim on Sep 27, 2010 11:06 am • link • report
by Jasper on Sep 27, 2010 11:21 am • link • report
The actual number, based on tax receipts and transfers, is about 15%, not 33% (1/3).
by Froggie on Sep 27, 2010 12:05 pm • link • report
Kim Snedaker, Social Media Manager, AAA Mid-Atlantic
by Kim Snedaker on Sep 27, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report
by SJE on Sep 27, 2010 12:17 pm • link • report
I personally emailed AAA Mid-Atlantic (with my membership number) and got a similar response to what David had put above. "It's not our job to figure out where trail money to come from. We just want to make sure they're not using 'our' pot of money." It was also laced with self-righteous complaints that AAA is being mis-interpreted where I still don't see any difference between what AAA is advocating and what people saying they are advocating.
If this is the best AAA can do, they really don't need me. There isn't a schism between cyclists and motorist. There is a growing gap between AAA members who care about more than driving and AAA Mid-Atlantic. I will probably help decrease this gap, by not renewing my membership.
by Dan on Sep 27, 2010 12:27 pm • link • report
Criticizing AAA for promoting a car-centric worldview is no less ridiculous than attacking WABA for favoring cyclists over drivers.
by Jacob on Sep 27, 2010 1:06 pm • link • report
by Kim Snedaker on Sep 27, 2010 1:56 pm • link • report
I'm still missing something. Where is R2T misrepresenting AAA concern. R2T says they AAA wants to use money that is currently for trails to go to roads and that AAA doesn't care where that money for trails will come from. You said the exact same thing. Could you please be specific on how R2T is misrepresenting you? Participating in a conversation and saying you don't care about sources for trail funding doesn't sound like concern to me.
by Dan on Sep 27, 2010 2:09 pm • link • report
Euhm, I signed a petition... I didn't say anything about renewing my AAA membership.
by Jasper on Sep 27, 2010 2:20 pm • link • report
by SJE on Sep 27, 2010 3:16 pm • link • report
1. Being pro-car does not mean you have to be anti-bike.
2. AAA does better PR nowadays with the cycling community, but is frequently caught saying different things to different audiences and then pleads "oh, you misunderstood" whenever the contradiction is noted. At least with the NRA I know where THEY stand.
by SJE on Sep 27, 2010 3:21 pm • link • report
I'm living proof of this one...I'm pro-TI (Transportation Infrastructure), PERIOD.
by Froggie on Sep 27, 2010 3:39 pm • link • report
As far as "AAA doesn't care where that money for trails will come from" statement - this is patently false. What we've stated is that it should come from the general fund.
We remain happy to engage in any conversation, so long as our positions are correctly stated.
For now, it appears that we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on where the funding should come from.
by Kim Snedaker on Sep 27, 2010 5:19 pm • link • report
by charlie on Sep 27, 2010 5:46 pm • link • report
These guys aren't going to change until they get some honest competition.
by bikermark on Sep 28, 2010 8:21 am • link • report
Could you clarify your explanation? Does AAA want transportation enhancements to stop funding bicycle accommodations? Regardless of what the original intentions may have been during the 1950s, they have been funding bicycle infrastructure for 20 years. So if AAA wants them to stop funding trails, then it would certainly be accurate to say that AAA wants to divert funds that currently go to trails. Your complaint with R2T would be logical if they had said: "AAA wants to use money that was originally for trails to go to roads."
The rest of your argument makes sense from an empathic standpoint. If cyclists were all taxed to pay for interstate highways that cyclists could not ride, we would indeed be upset.
But more realistically, people who rode horses were very upset when cars were allowed on them, because it scared their horses. SOme of them saw clearly that eventually, the cars would drive the horses off the roads. But for a long time those roads had shoulders. More recently, the continual upgrade of roads has eliminated the shoulders and sidewalks, for the sake of moving the cars faster. See the colonial road from Bladensburg to Annapolis, later called US-50 and now called MD-450.
So indeed, road improvements have taken resources away from cyclists and pedestrians. The pendulum swings, and now there is an impetus to correct that. The trail enhancements and other infrastructure are quite small compared to the value of all the shoulders that have been converted to travel lanes. And this does not even address the adverse effects on neighborhoods--the beltway divided neighborhoods that still don't have a pedestrian bridge.
Up to a point, funding bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure with the gas tax is in the interests even of people who never walk or ride a bike, because of the accident prevention and improved traffic flow. So up to a point, using highway dollars for bike-ped improvements **is** a roadway improvement. After that point, one can quibble over whether the gas tax is simply the most convenient way for people like me to pay for a facility I use. But note that in Maryland, sales taxes and property taxes fund far more roads than the gas tax. So overall, the general taxpayer who may not drive is funding the highways.
AAA's attempt to ensure funding of highway construction and improvements is understandable, but trying to raid budgets of other travel modes is a divisive and counterproductive tactic. Maybe you could go after the 50% of enhancement funding that has little to do with actual infrastructure (e.g. cultural centers). Or maybe AAA could forthrightly endorse a separate tax for bike-ped improvements. Why should SHA maintain highways but not the sidepaths along the highway?
by Jim on Sep 28, 2010 8:45 am • link • report
To add on to what Jim said, this money has been going to things besides cars for years. Whether or not AAA likes it, that is the fact on the ground. Saying things should be different doesn't make it so. Saying this is money currently going to trails that AAA wants to allocate towards roads is not an interpretation.
Also, if AAA is so concerned about decaying roads and infrastructure, I'm curious what is AAA's policy for deciding whether to support the building of new roads like the ICC that take away huge chunks of money needed to repair our crumbling infrastructure?
by Dan on Sep 28, 2010 9:39 am • link • report
I saw a car heading east, in the far RIGHT lane, slow down and prepare to make a RIGHT-HAND turn. The car had a great turn around.
Then I saw a bicyclist -- without a helmet -- coming up perpendicual to the car in her far LEFT-HAND lane/sidewalk. First, she was going AGAINST traffic -- which cyclists shouldn't do. Second, she was lacking helmet.
She pulled out half-way in front of the approaching car. The car had a green-arrow and right of way. But the car stopped, honked at the cyclist. The cyclist rudely gave a finger and continued to wait until she could cycle IN FRONT of the car (with a green light) still in the lane against traffic. Her light was red, by the way.
I was shocked.
As a pedistrian, I'm often concerned about cars -- but ALSO CYCLISTS who ride on the sidewalks against traffic. That's against the law. What the cyclist did, she should have gotten a ticket (and would have, if she had been a car).
Until more CYCLISTS start obeying the flow of traffic, I don't have much sympathy. One can be sure if that cyclist had been hit by the car, despite being in the wrong lane and pulling out even though she had a red light, she'd be saying the car was at fault.
For those cyclist who DO obey the law (and wear helmets) kudos -- hopefully you can convince other cyclists to do the same...
by Jonathan on Sep 29, 2010 7:17 pm • link • report
I don't think there is no legal issue of with or against traffic when you ride on a sidewalk.
There is also no law requiring adults to wear helmets while biking.
I don't know about VA, but, thanks to a new law, a cyclist on a crosswalk where there is a traffic light actually has right of way over a car, even with a green light.
Based on what you wrote, the cyclist might have been in full compliance with the law. Sounds like she was doing some stupid things, but stupidity isn't illegal.
Even if the cyclist broke the law, what does pointing at an example of an individual law-breaking means we shouldn't set policies to protect law abiding cyclists?
by Dan on Sep 29, 2010 8:03 pm • link • report
http://waba.org/blog/2010/09/changes-to-maryland-cycling-laws-effective-oct-1/
by Dan on Sep 29, 2010 8:04 pm • link • report
And in some county, sideWALKs (emphasis on WALK) are only to be used by cyclists who are learning how to ride or when there are unsafe conditions like snow/ice.
I do have objection about cyclists who assume the sidewalk is for them at the expense of pedestrians.
Also have objection in general to cyclists who don't where a helmet -- they should be ticketed if they forget to wear a helmet. If they get hit, they're going to need major surgery (assuming they survive) which drive up insurance premiums for us all.
Lastly, no, in Virginia a bicycle equals a car, and thus should follow the same rules as cars.
Please explain the Maryland law -- it doesn't make sense the way you characterized it. I read it as "if a bicyclist has a green light in THEIR DIRECTION, they have the right of way over a car".
No pedestrian I know has the right of way to walk in front of a car they itself has a green light, and it wouldn't make sense to give that to either a cyclist or a pedestrian. People could just walk or ride out in front of incoming cars, which violates the whole signaling mechanism. It DOES make sense for cars with red lights that might want to turn on red, but -- if a bicyclist or pedestrian has a green light -- do not have the right of way.
Is that the correct characterization?
Finally, I'm just observing that (A) the cyclist should have been ticketed, (B) cyclists have a responsibility to educate their fellow cyclists of the law and safety responsibilities (i.e., helmet), and (C) don't forget about the RIGHTS of pedestrians too.
Cyclists sometimes forget about pedestrians, focusing on their rights and forgetting those who walk or run.
by Jonathan on Sep 30, 2010 9:05 pm • link • report
by Alexander Dupuy on Oct 5, 2010 9:27 pm • link • report
Add a Comment