New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
When Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced late last month a “sea change” at the department that would give biking and walking the same economic treatment as driving, he set off a storm of kudos from the alternative transportation community, but also an equally vehement response, a negative one, from parts of the business and automobile communities.
It started when La Hood gave this address at the National Bike Summit (link opens YouTube video) then the department actually released a policy that stated, among other things, “The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments.”
On his blog, LaHood put it this way:
“Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.
We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
Today, LaHood again defends this position in a Q&A with the New York Times, by saying this is not a top-down directive — it’s a policy that has bubbled up from the American people themselves. From the Q&A:
“My response is that this is what Americans want. Americans want alternatives. People are always going to drive cars. We’re always going to have highways. We’ve made a huge investment in our interstate highway system. We’ll always continue to make sure that those investments in the highways are maintained.
But, what Americans want is to get out of their cars, and get out of congestion, and have opportunities for more transit, more light rail, more buses, and some communities are going to street cars. But many communities want the opportunity on the weekends and during the week to have the chance to bike to work, to bike to the store, to spend time with their family on a bike.
So, this is not just Ray LaHood’s agenda, this is the American agenda that the American people want for alternatives to the automobile.”
I don’t have a problem with federal street and highway funds being spent for transportation which supports individual mobility like safe bike lanes and bike paths. After all you can use your bike like you use your car to go where you want when you want. However I do have a problem with federal highway funds used to support mass transit, subsidized by auto users, where the traveler is at the mercy of government bus and train schedules and contrary to smart growth propaganda does not reduce congestion or air pollution.
If we’re ever going to kick the petroleum habit, its going to have to be via mass transit. People like Mr. Garcia remind me of buggy manufacturers from the 19th century.
Small private electric and electric hybrid cars will do quite nicely to kick the petroleum habit. If you want to hook a horse up to help pull the car along, thats your business.
You of course have access to the physics and the finances to provide the means and the infrastructure for such Luddism?
This is great news and I hope it actually ends up in physical projects. As an avid cyclist, this is a great sign for us.
On mass transit; it works great in areas of high density or areas where people are being collected and brought into a center. Our urbanized coasts are examples. but, we are not Europe….we are so much larger and spread out that mass transit for the bulk of the country, geographically, is not reasonable.
Unfortunately there were systems in place like the rail lines that criss-crossed LA that have been taken out years ago and it is simply too costly to put them back in. Mass transit, even in the dense envoronments is subsidized. i don’t know about the East coast, but BART in the SF area is losing money even though it is hugely popular and packed at commute times.
Even in Europe mass transit and 10 bucks a gallon gas prices has not prevented auto use from increasing nor has it prevented Europeans from leaving urban areas and moving to the suburbs. It actually would be much less costly to subsidize electric econo-cars for low income people than to subsidize mass transit.
We are not Europe, we will never be Europe; but we are petroleum junkies as a result of our insistence on an automobile as an additional appendage.
In the recent past, the biggest increases in driving have occurred as women and minorities have entered the work force and obtained cars. Women are more likely than men to do trip chaining, in which several errands are run on a single trip. While some auto opponents claim that people are addicted to autos, owning their first cars frees women. One of the best ways to help someone out of poverty is to give them a used car, even in the most transit-intensive urban areas, free transit passes don’t provide access to anywhere near as many potential jobs as an automobile.
Freeing somebody suffering from addiction is–to their mind–a fix.
The private automobile is one of the greatest inventions of mankind lately. Mostly because of the automobile: 1. Inflation adjusted incomes have increased about 700% in the last century. 2. Home ownership has increased about 40% because more working class people can afford to own their own homes. 3. The variety of food and other goods available to the average consumer has increased 100 times. 4. Farmers have been able to convert over 80 million acres of former horse pasture to forests and another 40 million acres of former horse pasture to croplands. 5. The isolation of rural families has been mostly eliminated. 6. A wide range of social and recreational opportunities are now available to the average American.
And what are the bikers going to contribute to the cost of these changes and improvements. A free ride on the backs of the gasoline taxes. Another example of a few wanting the rest to pay for their own life style. When I was young and studied Geography the chinese rode bikes and on rickshaws we had cars. Now New York has rickshaws and we are turning to Bikes and the chinese are buying cars. Im not against bike riders as long as they stay out of the way of traffic and ride responsibly but at some point they are going to have to pay directly into their own recreation or transportation demands.
I am happy to “share the road” but heres is a few suggestions… As milburn points out, cyclists have to contribute financially. Gas taxes, vehicle registration etc. Pay to play. shrink fit apparell does not buy you the roads. Hey, and i get that an evening bike ride is great w/ a friend next to you but that puts you at risk of ending up under my truck. 2by2 or 3by3 riding is dangerous and I dont want to hurt or kill you… so stay out of the way, obey road signs, wear bright colors etc.,etc. Last but not least, if I tap my horn it is for the safety of both of us. Please just scooch over a bit and I’ll get buy you safely (especially on a 50mph rd.) dont get up to pedal faster as if a:you can catch me or b:you can do anything but cause more problems with sharing if you do. Not me ofcourse, but, some guys dont take well to spandex wearing flipper offers who think they own the road.
I have a real neat bridge for sale.
Folks,
Take a moment and review our very simple rules of engagement (right below the comment threads) and be warned: play by them or play somewhere else.
Courtney
This is quite exciting, given that a lot of sociological research suggests that building larger, wider highways can actually encourage people to live farther from work.
Also, I’m totally baffled at people who are saying that car drivers shouldn’t have to “subsidize” bike lanes and other forms of alternative transportation. These modes are open to everyone–it’s not as if you will be denied a bus ticket because you usually drive to work. Also, wouldn’t it be unfair for me, someone who occasionally bikes to work, to pay taxes to repair the street in front of your house? I’ve never been to your house, and judging by the tone of these comments, I wouldn’t want to go there. Shouldn’t you have to pay for that yourself?
We indirectly subsidize the auto by free parking by landlords, merchants, schools, and employers. Even when there are meters they are not used on the first day of the week, Sunday, in many places. This is wrong. Much of the cost of the police department is traffic control and enforcement. Transit users, bicyclists, and walkers should not be at the mercy of the polluting auto, not should they support it. Businesses should be showing transit as well as driving directions in their advertising. GM deliberately destroyed transit in many cities (The Great Streetcar Conspiracy) and we have to build back what was lost. In Cincinnati they destroyed a partially completed subway in may places for a freeway instead of finishing the subway. A parking tax in many places would help restore funding and equality for the transit and bike user. All streets should have sidewalks and pedestrian right of way laws strictly enforced.