State to use $19 Million of Gas Tax Money for Bike Paths—Instead of Streets

The next time you hit a bump in the road or your car has problems because of going over one too many potholes, you have Jerry Brown to thank. Have to slow down to ten miles an hour on a city street because of a biker to the side of you—thank our confused Guv Brown. Money meant for fixing the roads go to the sensitive environmentalist special interest that prefers cars are seen in museums instead of on the streets.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

“The allocations included nearly $19 million from the Active Transportation Program that will go toward 50 biking and pedestrian projects throughout the state.

Projects ranging from highways to bikeways to sidewalks in the Central Valley received funding totaling more than $18.2 million. Here are the major projects approved for the Central Valley:”

This is why you never vote for higher taxes or bonds—government will abuse the public and misuse the money. Government lies. 


State OKs $174.8 Million for transportation projects

Central Valley Business Times, 1/24/15


•  From highways to bike paths and sidewalks

•  “Investments like these mean a better future for all Californians”
California Transportation Commission has allocated $174.8 million to 85 transportation projects that will repair aging roads and bridges, bikeways and smaller projects.

The allocations included nearly $19 million from the Active Transportation Program that will go toward 50 biking and pedestrian projects throughout the state.

Projects ranging from highways to bikeways to sidewalks in the Central Valley received funding totaling more than $18.2 million. Here are the major projects approved for the Central Valley:

• $627,000 in the city of Fresno, at the highway 99-Olive Avenue Interchange. Install traffic signalization, construct raised island, widen existing southbound off-ramp, install ramp metering and construct new curb ramps.

• $1,943,000 in and near the city of Sacramento on Interstate 5 and Highway 99 at various locations, place asphalt composite treatment under metal beam guardrail, install gore paving, and place wood mulch in interchange areas to minimize weed growth and eliminate frequency and duration of worker exposure to traffic and increase public safety.

• $10,241,000 Highway 160 near Isleton, paint Three Mile Slough Bridge to maintain and preserve bridge and prevent further deterioration on the bridge steel structural members.

• $513,000 on Highway 65 in Yuba County at Dry Creek Bridge, install rock slope protection beneath the structure and provide an incised channel for migration of salmonoids and a wildlife crossing and to maintain structural integrity, the risk to lives and properties.

• $2,607,000 in Merced County on Highway 65, in and near Snelling, repair localized pavement failures, and overlay existing pavement with a layer of asphalt concrete.

• $465,000 in city of Tehachapi, construct sidewalk, curb ramps, pedestrian lighting, and landscaping along Tehachapi Boulevard, from Snyder Avenue to Dennison Road.

• $136,000 to the city of Tehachapi to extend the existing Valley Boulevard bike path by narrowing an unnecessarily wide pavement.

• $240,000 to the city of Coalinga for an “active transportation” plan.

• $267,000 to the city of Fowler to reconstruct pedestrian facilities along Merced Street, including sidewalks and curb ramps.

• $250,000 to the city of Fresno for a pedestrian bike safety education program.

• $550,000 to Stockton to update its bicycle master plan.

• $350,000 to Stockton to develop a “Safe Routes to School Plan” for all schools within the city.

Other grants were for improvements to bike trails and for planning in various Valley cities and counties.

“Preserving, rebuilding and expanding the state’s transportation infrastructure is key to improving the state’s mobility for decades to come,” says Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty. “Not only is it critical to California’s economy, but investments like these mean a better future for all Californians.”


About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.


  1. The primary issues of the anti car groups have failed to gain support with well over 80-90% of the population. One tactic they are currently using is CHANGE THE NAME game. “Alternative Transportation” never gained appeal with the public so now the same failed policies are called “Active Transportation.”

    The problem the taxpayer has is they continue to elect politicians who support this because they voted for single issue candidates and ignored the rest of what they stand for. This is why streets and freeways, used daily for both efficiency and convenience, by 90%+ commuters are crumbling.

    Stockton should be ashamed. Almost a million dollars for planning that could be done by paid staff. School Routes and Bike routes do not need a separate category. It is obvious in this one instance it is financial driven planning instead of basic street and general fund budgeting. (get a grant and pay the staff)

    In Santa Barbara the City received a $1.9 Million grant for a walking / bike path from the 101 to Hendry’s Beach and excused it as necessary for increasing the “alternative” transportation for commuters. This is a “recreational route” with terrain not conducive to walking or bike commuters. A pure and simple waste of taxpayer money to justify a large staff and the Anti’s can go around beating their collective chests stating how they are “mitigating” intentional congestive traffic plans.

    The next time you hear “Active Transportation” remember it is a new title on a failed 50 year attempt to force you out of your car.

  2. Bike paths are not the only misallocated dollars from the gas tax. Money has also been spent on boardwalks on the beach, hiking trails and money losing public transportation. In some cities the cost per passenger to the transportation districts is so high that it would be cheaper to pay for free cab service.

    Remember also that CA drivers may soon be subject to a 1.5 cent/mile tax. The excuse is lower sales revenue on fuels doe to lower fuel prices. But that is only a 2.5% sales tax. If the save fuel cost was sent on taxable products instead it would yield an average of 8.5% for the state or a 240% increase in taxes on that portion.

    Remember also, we never heard a peep from our state leaders when the price of fuel went up because the revenue went up with the price of fuel. Now that the consumers are getting a break, the sky is falling.

    • The real squeeze is from the higher mileage that the Greens insisted that cars attain, without realizing how that was going to translate in fewer gallons of gas sold, and fewer gas-tax dollars.
      So now, they demand a mileage tax which will require some form of on-board tracking to prevent car owners from lying about their annual mileage and “cheating” the government out of its hard-earned tax.

  3. The bike paths are smooth as glass, but the roads are more like a MotoX.

  4. I’d prefer to see ‘bike paths’ addressed by a “USER FEE”, paid by those who will benefit from the improvements, much like paying an entry fee for using a state or county park. (although in actuality, our property taxes should include the upkeep and admission to the various park facilities. My exception to this is the number of people who ‘obviously’ are aliens, illegal or otherwise, who do not pay taxes that support the facilities. These individuals SHOULD NOT object to paying a nominal fee for usage and upkeep)
    Since bike paths are for the benefit of an exclusive group of individuals, they should bear the costs of such improvements.
    Many citizens, especially seniors, are not physically able to ride a bicycle, and should not be forced to pay for the ideology of another group of individuals.
    Let’s license bicycles as a source of funding for such improvements and use the gasoline tax for it’s intended purpose: construction and maintenance of roadways and infrastructure for fossil fuel burning vehicles.
    (Hate mail to follow!!!!!!)

  5. Gotta Gedada Displace says

    WAIT A MINUTE!!! NOT EVEN a week ago, they were considering per-mile charges to counter the ALLEGED “loss” of fuel taxes to alternate fuel vehicle users, yet NOW, those “scarce” funds are DIVERTED to use by transit forms that pay NEITHER fuel NOR mileage based tariffs? Each day’s ABSURDITY from the Sacramento Asylum is overwhelmed by that from the day following! My hoped-for house sale will be blessed liberation!

Speak Your Mind