Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76
  1. #1
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Federal Gov't: Bike Paths not Transportation Related

    McNeil-Lehrer's Gwen Ifill interviewing Mary Peters, U.S. Secretary of Transportation:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...ure_08-15.html

  2. #2
    Got Bent? themickeyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    My Bikes
    Rans F5 Enduro XL
    Posts
    163
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just got a email from the Bike League of America on this. Here is a copy of the letter they sent out.

    http://www.bikeleague.org/news/images/peters_letter.pdf
    "A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving."
    - Lao Tzu (570-490 B.C.) -

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks randya. I think to a certain extent, she's right, if those "bike paths" are MUPs designed for recreation. True, you can ride on them for transportation, but I would consider a "bike path" or a "bike highway" more transportation-oriented than an MUP.

    I don't think what I'm saying is what she meant by saying bike paths are not "transportation related," though.

  4. #4
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    contact the USDOT yourself:

    http://www.dot.gov/contact.html

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Leeds UK
    Posts
    1,890
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Can this thread and the one on the same subject entitled At the Top be merged, please?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Leeds UK
    Posts
    1,890
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry, should have been Trouble at the Top

    More appropriate, really, since she seems to be in a bit of a spin

  7. #7
    Senior Member mtnwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    My Bikes
    '84 Centurion Accordo RS, '06 Gary Fisher Marlin, '06 Schwinn Fastback 27, '06 Litespeed Teramo
    Posts
    1,952
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Disturbing interview with DOT Secretary

    I received an e-mail from The League of American Bicyclists regarding a recent interview by Mary Peters the Secretary of Dept of Transportation. Here is what they wrote:

    League Responds to U.S. Transportation Secretary's comments on PBS

    Transportation Secretary Mary Peters talks about infrastructure problems and travel initiatives. More Info

    Peters cited "bicycle paths" as a prime example of the waste

    Last night on the PBS NewsHour with Jim Leher, DOT Secretary Mary Peters was interviewed by Gwen Ifill.

    Peters, when asked about a possible gas tax increase, repeated President Bush's response - No, there can be no tax increase because Congress is wasting the money they already get. Peters cited "bicycle paths" as a prime example of the waste because bicycles are not a transportation use of the gas tax money.

    It is disappointing that the administration is attacking Jim Oberstar for his efforts to get the Minneapolis bridge repaired along with raising all the funding for transportation maintenance, by using Oberstar's support for bicycles as a weapon.

    The League of American Bicyclists feels strongly that this should not go without a response and we have sent a letter to Secretary Peters voicing our view. Click here to view our response.

    For those of you who feel strongly about bicycling issues, we would also urge you to contact the Secretary to share your personal viewpoints.

    To view a copy of the program click here


    From the transcripts:
    "GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

    MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure."

    "GWEN IFILL: Who is spending the money inappropriately?

    MARY PETERS: Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. Some is being spent on museums, on restoring lighthouses, as I indicated."


    I just thought I'd share with you guys what the gov't thinks about our mode of transportation. I'm going to send a response myself as soon as I get it written up. Or I could just copy the Leagues response and sign it.
    "Of all the things I like bestos, I like asbestos." - A co-worker

  8. #8
    Senior Member garysol1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Avon , Ohio
    Posts
    9,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with the secretary. Like it or not bicycles are not a means of transportation in the US. What percentage of Americans commute? I don't have the number but I am sure it is not very many. Bicycles in the US are a means of fun and fitness. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Go ahead and flame me.....I care not.




    Quote Originally Posted by mtnwalker View Post

    Peters, when asked about a possible gas tax increase, repeated President Bush's response - No, there can be no tax increase because Congress is wasting the money they already get. Peters cited "bicycle paths" as a prime example of the waste because bicycles are not a transportation use of the gas tax money.

  9. #9
    Senior Member mtnwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    My Bikes
    '84 Centurion Accordo RS, '06 Gary Fisher Marlin, '06 Schwinn Fastback 27, '06 Litespeed Teramo
    Posts
    1,952
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not here to flame anyone. This is to inform people who are into cycling and commuting by bicycle. If you don't care about alternatives then that is your prerogative.
    "Of all the things I like bestos, I like asbestos." - A co-worker

  10. #10
    Senior Member garysol1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Avon , Ohio
    Posts
    9,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnwalker View Post
    If you don't care about alternatives then that is your prerogative.
    Oh no, I do care and how I wish bicycling as a means of transportation was more widely used here. Unfortunately I am also a realist. I doubt it will ever happen here in large enough numbers for our transportation tax's to be rightfully used for bike paths.

  11. #11
    Demoralizer of Acrobats Owltooth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    My Bikes
    Specialized Crossroads, Surly Crosscheck
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garysol1 View Post
    I agree with the secretary. Like it or not bicycles are not a means of transportation in the US.


    of course bikes are a means of transportation in the US. And in order to increase bicycle use, it doesn't have to be a matter of billions of dollars invested in new infrastructure, as it does when trying to increase car use. There are many cities in the USA which are known for their bicycle friendliness, and there's nothing inherently bike friendly about their location or topography, it's a matter of will power, and a forward thinking municipality. ...it's too bad as a society we see every public work which is not "fighting" something (drugs, terrorism etc) as a "waste of taxpayer money". A network of bike paths connecting a city from corner to corner is something which the head of the DOT should certainly be in favor of...not just something to use as a talking point against a meager 5 sent gas tax. Shameful.
    Surly Cross Check Commuter

  12. #12
    Senior Member tiztim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    My Bikes
    Trek 520
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A Bush appointee and graduate from Phoenix on-line "University" is not valid qualification for having bone-headed opinions. Truly regrettable and which we can rue is the fact she determines administration policy in her department and through this expresses warped political policy. The incompetence of this administration, like mold, extends into and so rots society.

  13. #13
    Junior Member Cool User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Erie, CO
    Posts
    21
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bikes are technically a means of transportation, but not to anywhere near the degree of use that would make considering them as such logical when spending gas tax money on infrastructure.

    Gas tax money should be spent on infrastructure for vehicles that burn gas, that's fair.

  14. #14
    Snakebite gritface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    My Bikes
    Gary Fisher HT, Trek 5200
    Posts
    92
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    GWEN IFILL: No, but I mean -- I guess I mean is for the part that they asked for where they would essentially charge commuters coming into Manhattan eight dollars a head.

    MARY PETERS: What we approved was the project that they would pursue, congestion relief, pricing techniques to pursue congestion relief in New York City
    ...
    this congestion process gives them the ability to get out of being stuck in traffic, to make the air cleaner, to use less fuel, to create a better environment in their city, I think it's a great idea."

    Somehow we need to reduce the amount of people driving vehicles into cities to reduce congestion and make the air cleaner.

    Anybody have any ideas?

  15. #15
    Senior Member mtnwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    My Bikes
    '84 Centurion Accordo RS, '06 Gary Fisher Marlin, '06 Schwinn Fastback 27, '06 Litespeed Teramo
    Posts
    1,952
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What really irks me about her comments is how she seems to emphasize that bike paths are eating away from the monies needed to build our infrastructure. On the other hand her boss, our president, is doing things like this:

    "When President Bush signed the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, FY 2007 (P.L. 110-5) on February 15, 2007, it included a directive to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to order states to surrender $3.471 billion in highway program funds, by relinquishing funds from state “unobligated program balances.” This is the largest single rescission in the history of the federal transportation program, an amount that is nearly as large as the total of the three rescission orders ($3.845 billion) executed during the last fiscal year (FY’06)."-http://www.transact.org/updates/Rescission_Update.doc

    Bike paths do not take 10% of the funds. Its only a part of that 10% and actually costs only 1% of it. Yet her comments make it seem like the highway programs are not being done because all the money is going to special interest projects only.

    Gah, I can't wait for this administration to get out of office.

    EDIT: I wonder where all these money is actually going. The "war" maybe. Just MHO.
    "Of all the things I like bestos, I like asbestos." - A co-worker

  16. #16
    tired donnamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Breezer Uptown 8, U frame
    Posts
    5,660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cool User Name View Post
    Gas tax money should be spent on infrastructure for vehicles that burn gas, that's fair.
    Fair enough, but the gasoline tax only funds 60-70% of Oregon's road upkeep in a given year. I may not be paying for gasoline taxes, but having a bike as my primary means of transportation does not exempt me from paying income and property taxes - which is where the rest of the money comes from here. Given that, I find it perfectly fair for road funds to pay for some MUPs. Ours are clogged with bike commuters during rush hour. Perhaps it is different in states where the federal gasoline tax funds 100% of road upkeep. So which states are those?
    "Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."

  17. #17
    Senior Member dauphin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tiztim View Post
    A Bush appointee and graduate from Phoenix on-line "University" is not valid qualification for having bone-headed opinions. Truly regrettable and which we can rue is the fact she determines administration policy in her department and through this expresses warped political policy. The incompetence of this administration, like mold, extends into and so rots society.
    partisan pablum that uses the usual tactics rather than actually critically dissecting a policy on merit or demerit. Get a clue if you are going to attempt to participate in an intelligent debate.

  18. #18
    Violin guitar mandolin
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Friendsville, TN, USA
    My Bikes
    Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata
    Posts
    1,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While my understanding of the matter may be weak, I don't see why Federal funds would go to bike paths. Federal funds for the national defense highway system (Interstates) and for Federal highways makes sense. That's a national concern relating to the common good and to the common defense. In contrast, the overwhelming majority if not all but a very few paths serve a local audience not involved in interstate commerce. I'm surprised Federal funds go to bike paths at all, except as reasonable add-ons to Federal highway projects. For example, adding provisions for bicycle travel across bridges seems necessary to meet possible (I hope they're there) requirements not to unduly impede vehicles.

    Given the way the Feds tend to handle things, I'm not sure having Federal involvement and control over more things than necessary would be particularly helpful. Simply looks like a way to have $2M/mile bike paths supported by 10,000 lbs/mile of paperwork.

  19. #19
    Senior Member jimbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    Trek 520
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have to agree that Bike paths are not for transportation. At least the ones I have seen. They don't go where I need to go. They tend to go from neighborhood to neighborhood and not to places of work, shopping centers, or schools. They are useless and a waste of money!

  20. #20
    Fattest Thin Man Az B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Directly above the center of the earth
    My Bikes
    Miyata 610, Vinco V, Rocky Mountain Element
    Posts
    2,649
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's funny that the only real bike path around here is so packed with folks going nowhere it's almost useless, regardless of the fact that it goes nowhere and no one uese it for transportation.

    While I am a transportational rider and have been for several decades, I can see a need for bike paths that are primarily recreational. People need places to get out and have some fun just as much.

    Az

  21. #21
    SpIn SpIn SuGaR! FIVE ONE SIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    1,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnwalker View Post
    Gah, I can't wait for this administration to get out of office.
    and what makes you think the next administration is going to be any better?!?!?

  22. #22
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Perhaps it would benefit cyclists if the government applied stricter criteria for selection of which bike path projects should be funded with transportation money?

    For instance, a paved rail-trail that connects with a transportation hub or major employment center might be prioritized over an equestrian-and-jogger-friendly soft-surface trail in a rural area. Or a bike/ped bridge over a freeway to reconnect a community severed by the motor vehicle facility (offsetting its direct impact) might be prioritized over a bridge to carry a recreational trail over a river.

  23. #23
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Az B View Post
    While I am a transportational rider and have been for several decades, I can see a need for bike paths that are primarily recreational. People need places to get out and have some fun just as much.
    That's why my city funds these with recreation funds form the Parks and Rec budget. I strongly support such use of recreation funds and I support making Parks and Rec a significant part of the city budget based on local non-gasoline taxes.

  24. #24
    Kicked out of the Webelos bluebottle1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    239
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbrown View Post
    I have to agree that Bike paths are not for transportation. At least the ones I have seen. They don't go where I need to go. They tend to go from neighborhood to neighborhood and not to places of work, shopping centers, or schools. They are useless and a waste of money!
    Certainly, where I am, they are not for transportation, but that's not to say they couldn't be.
    ______________________________________________

    Kicked out of the Webelos.

  25. #25
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The biggest problem I see is that those who are attempting to obtain transportation funding for recreational trails, particularly long, contiguous paths wherever they can obtain them, are better organized (and better funded by their own trail-related businesses and NGOs) than those of us who support the creation of shorter urban short-cut paths to provide convenient new connections and alternate routes where they are most useful for utility cycling.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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