Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Member Spike3905's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In the present moment
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Trouble at the Top

    Some of you may have seen US DOT Secretary Mary Peters on the Newshour on PBS last night. She outraged me when she said the problem wasn't too little money for transportation, but that too much of the money is spent on things like "bike paths and trails" instead of transportation infrastructure.

    You can find a transcript here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...ure_08-15.html

    The top transportation official in America obviously doesn't believe that biking is a serious mode of transportation.

    If you disagree, you can make your feelings known here: dot.comments@dot.gov
    Active Transportation: Burn Calories, Not Carbon!

  2. #2
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,052
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Spike3905 View Post
    Some of you may have seen US DOT Secretary Mary Peters on the Newshour on PBS last night. She outraged me when she said the problem wasn't too little money for transportation, but that too much of the money is spent on things like "bike paths and trails" instead of transportation infrastructure.

    You can find a transcript here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...ure_08-15.html

    The top transportation official in America obviously doesn't believe that biking is a serious mode of transportation.

    If you disagree, you can make your feelings known here: dot.comments@dot.gov
    Evidently she didn't get the memo that "America is addicted to oil."

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Leeds UK
    Posts
    1,919
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sticking my nose in where it will probably not be appreciated, I have sent the following

    "Dear Ms Peters

    As someone who has used his bike for commuting, shopping, leisure, touring and racing for a sizeable portion of the last quarter century, I am baffled to learn the the US Secretary for Transportation doesn't regard my main form of transport as transportation.

    It costs you far less to take someone out of their car by providing cycling facilities than it does to provide extra infrastructure for each aditional car. Doing so also has knock-on effects on your nation's health, which, given US citizen's propensity to, frequently gross and life-threatening, obesity, you and your Dept of Health should be encouraging the shift to cycling as a greater percentage of the journeys taking place in your country.

    It would have been most instructive if you had compared the total amount of gas dollars spent on cycling infrastructure (excluding white cycle lane paint on the highways )with the likely cost of re-building the infamous bridge, not to mention how much of the cost of the surveys of other bridges which you will now be funding.

    Yours sincerely

    A (frequently baffled) observer of US transport policies"

  4. #4
    Senior Member maddyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ky. and FL.
    My Bikes
    KHS steel SS
    Posts
    3,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I ride a bike, and I think too much money is spent of bike paths and trails. Any is too much. We have a perfectly servicable system of bike paths that run from your doorstep to any where you want to go. They are called roads. We should work on getting accpeted on the roads. Any action on bike paths or trails is just a diversion.
    Last edited by maddyfish; 08-16-07 at 09:35 PM.
    Not too much to say here

  5. #5
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,052
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At the risk of political backlash...

    Perhaps we should be spending more funds on infrastructure at home vice trying to "build a country" abroad.

    I wonder how quickly Haliburton could rebuild a bridge?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To be honest, the bike paths around here are a waste of dollars. If they were designed with actual humans in mind, and consideration of where they might go (not into the woods on a 5 ft wide path, they might be more functional. I actually think more bike lanes on roads would be a better solution that bike paths/ greenways.

  7. #7
    Ride the Road Daily Commute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    My Bikes
    Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
    Posts
    4,059
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some bike paths are just recreational parks. Others are real transportation. The proof is whether any significant number of cyclists use them to get from Point A to Point B instead of just from Point A back to Point A.

  8. #8
    Member Spike3905's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In the present moment
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Daily Commute View Post
    Some bike paths are just recreational parks. Others are real transportation. The proof is whether any significant number of cyclists use them to get from Point A to Point B instead of just from Point A back to Point A.
    Well said. And the factor that determines whether cyclists go from Point A to Point B is obviously whether bike paths actually connect destinations. Some paths were originally created with only recreational use in mind but over time they have become transportation routes because they connect people with places they want to go.

    But I also don't see anything wrong with recreational paths where you go from Point A to Point A because the path itself is the destination. As long as people don't claim the path serves a transportation purpose.
    Active Transportation: Burn Calories, Not Carbon!

  9. #9
    Member Spike3905's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In the present moment
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cibai View Post
    I actually think more bike lanes on roads would be a better solution that bike paths/ greenways.
    It shouldn't be an either/or choice: I think we need both! And where it makes sense, they should be connected together.
    Active Transportation: Burn Calories, Not Carbon!

  10. #10
    Member Spike3905's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In the present moment
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by atbman View Post
    Sticking my nose in where it will probably not be appreciated, I have sent the following

    "Dear Ms Peters

    As someone who has used his bike for commuting, shopping, leisure, touring and racing for a sizeable portion of the last quarter century, I am baffled to learn the the US Secretary for Transportation doesn't regard my main form of transport as transportation.

    It costs you far less to take someone out of their car by providing cycling facilities than it does to provide extra infrastructure for each aditional car. Doing so also has knock-on effects on your nation's health, which, given US citizen's propensity to, frequently gross and life-threatening, obesity, you and your Dept of Health should be encouraging the shift to cycling as a greater percentage of the journeys taking place in your country.

    It would have been most instructive if you had compared the total amount of gas dollars spent on cycling infrastructure (excluding white cycle lane paint on the highways )with the likely cost of re-building the infamous bridge, not to mention how much of the cost of the surveys of other bridges which you will now be funding.

    Yours sincerely

    A (frequently baffled) observer of US transport policies"

    Bravo! You have every reason to be "frequently baffled." I am always impressed by what you folks are doing with what you call "sustainable transport."

    And, by the way, here's my note to the secretary:


    Madame Secretary,

    I am a motorist who pays federal gasoline taxes. But as someone who also uses "bike paths and trails" on my daily commute I was outraged to hear you say that such infrastructure is not transportation-related and doesn't merit support by the federal government.

    If I -- and the millions like me -- were to abandon our bicycles and drive to work, our already-clogged highways would be much worse, our air would be dirtier and our personal health would suffer. It grieves me that the nation's top transportation official apparently lacks the foresight to understand that walking and biking are legitimate and important modes of transportation. For if we believe that roads are the only answer to traffic congestion, then traffic congestion will only get progressively worse.
    Active Transportation: Burn Calories, Not Carbon!

  11. #11
    Badger Biker ctyler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Beloit, Wisconsin
    My Bikes
    Cannondale Saeco CAD-3, Surly Cross Check
    Posts
    974
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What else would you expect from a Bush administration flunky?

  12. #12
    Senior Member kjmillig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Displaced Texan
    My Bikes
    1984 Raliegh Wyoming, 1978 Schwinn Traveller, 2011 Wheeler Trekking Lite 3600
    Posts
    1,109
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ctyler View Post
    What else would you expect from a Bush administration flunky?
    Let's not go there. Remember that the last Democrat we had in the White House was only the second president in US history to be impeached.
    Back on topic, you notice she didn't address any specific ways to reduce traffic other than the NYC proposal, not a single mention of mass transit. That may have been due to time constraints, but she did have time to mention bike paths twice as not being an effective use of funds. I'll be sending my email and snail mail to the Sec. Peters today. Snail mail still works quite effectively in politics. Use those stamps.
    Last edited by kjmillig; 08-17-07 at 08:24 AM.
    "Pain is weakness leaving the body"......yea, right!

  13. #13
    Member Spike3905's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In the present moment
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kjmillig View Post
    Snail mail still works quite effectively in politics. Use those stamps.
    This is really true. I've done the same. A tangible letter has much more impact than an email. But an email is better than nothing!
    Active Transportation: Burn Calories, Not Carbon!

  14. #14
    Punk Rock Lives Roughstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    western new england
    My Bikes
    Fuji touring
    Posts
    3,008
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
    I ride a bike, and I think too much money is spent of bike paths and trails. Any is too much. We have a perfectly servicable system of bike paths that run from your doorstep to any where you want to go. They are called roads. We should work on getting accpeted on the roads. Any action on bike paths or trails is just a diversion.
    To me there is a menu of good ideas, many of which are discussed on this and other boards. This would include expansion of shoulders on roads where they are missing or inadequate.

    roughstuff
    Electric car sales are on fire! :)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •