There are many examples and precedents of TEA money
being used across the United States, that include "equestrians"...... I know of
a few in California that don't.....and should......
> We heard from many members
across the United > States that horses were not being allowed
because > they were not specifically mentioned in the
law,
> said Jay Hickey, president of
the American Horse > Council. We spoke to representatives of the
Federal > Highway Administration and discovered that this is > not
what they intended when they wrote the original > legislation. They then
agreed to try to resolve this > problem. > > The Bush
Administration has just released its > proposal for the reauthorization
of TEA-21, a > federal law which authorizes the federal surface >
transportation programs for highways, highway > safety, and transit. The
new legislation is referred > to as TEA-3 or SAFETEA, which stands for
Safe, > Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation >
Equity Act of 2003. > > Included in this proposal is language
that > would clarify that a "Shared Use Path" is open to >
multiple uses, including equestrian use...
First, HALLELUJAH!! This has
caused incredible
problems in
Massachusetts.
However, there are actually *two*
programs contained
within TEA-21/TEA-3 where this has
been a problem.
1. Recreational Trails
Program
$$ specifically for trails, a
relatively small pot
of money. Usually referred
to just as: RTP
2. Alternative Surface
Transportation Program
$$ for "alternative
transportation." A *much* bigger
pot of money ($60,000,000 over 10
years in Massachusetts
alone). This is the pot of
money that has been used
to buy and "renovate" most rail
trails: all too
frequently as paved bike paths.
So, the question is: is the change in language
to
define "shared-used paths" to explicitly
mention
equestrian use going to be effective for *both* RTP
