Advocacy & Safety - Disturbing interview with DOT Secretary

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

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html

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

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.

contact the USDOT yourself:

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

Can this thread and the one on the same subject entitled At the Top be merged, please?

Sorry, should have been Trouble at the Top

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

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 (http://www.bikeleague.org/news/images/peters_letter.pdf)to view our response.

For those of you who feel strongly about bicycling issues, we would also urge you to contact the Secretary (http://capwiz.com/lab/issues/alert/?alertid=10193871&type=cu) to share your personal viewpoints.

To view a copy of the program click here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html)

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.

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.






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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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

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?!?!?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't. But how much lower can the next administration go after this one?

The secretary has a point.

Althought I am shocked to learn that my daily commute on a bicycle is not considered transportation, I also realize my daily commute is not on a bike path.

I use the MUP largely for recreation, not commuting.

Hey, I'm in a hurry to get to work, I gotta go FAST! That's better done on the road!

We need wider roads!

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.

I've used it as a means of transportation both personally and professionally in the US, and I think the above is far more accurate Gary. Your initial post indicated that it was not a means of transport, here you've modified that to indicate that it is a means of transport that is not sufficiently utilized. Much better, and flame retardant.

I disagree. Adults aren't the only ppl that use bikes for transportation.
This fall my 5yo will commute to kindergarden via bike and via bike path. Of his 1.5 mile commute, 1.3 miles are exclusively on a mup.
Young children are safer on bike paths than in the street.

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.

Well, I guess I'll buy that on some level. However, the argument that there simply isn't enough money to fix our bridges due to resources being "wasted" on bike paths is simply ridiculous. Moreover, it's darn right silly given the amount of waste and corruption in the system. If we could manage to clear out just 10 or 20% of the outright theft (from contractors down to the government), we could EASILY fix all our infrastructure issues AND have HUGE chunks of money left over for bike paths and such.

I guess that just doesn't figure into her vision though. :rolleyes:


... Brad

Somebody - was is John S. Allen? - studied the folks using the multi-use trails near where he lived. He found out most users had driven there, hauling their bikes in/on their cars, and had in fact driven a far greater distance to reach the trail than they planned to ride on the trail.

Would you consider such trails and paths to be transportation projects, and a legitimate use of transportation infrastructure moneys?

TCS

Somebody - was is John S. Allen? - studied the folks using the multi-use trails near where he lived. He found out most users had driven there, hauling their bikes in/on their cars, and had in fact driven a far greater distance to reach the trail than they planned to ride on the trail.

Would you consider such trails and paths to be transportation projects, and a legitimate use of transportation infrastructure moneys?

TCS
That would only be true for people who drove there. But how about for the people who live around that neighborhood and actually use that trail from point A to point B? Just because a trail is being used for recreation by some people, it doesn't by any means make it not a part of the transportation infrastructure for other cyclists.

Well, I guess I'll buy that on some level. However, the argument that there simply isn't enough money to fix our bridges due to resources being "wasted" on bike paths is simply ridiculous. Moreover, it's darn right silly given the amount of waste and corruption in the system. If we could manage to clear out just 10 or 20% of the outright theft (from contractors down to the government), we could EASILY fix all our infrastructure issues AND have HUGE chunks of money left over for bike paths and such.

I guess that just doesn't figure into her vision though. :rolleyes:


... Brad

So true. Its baffled me for quite some time now how projects in our country, like transportation, schools and such doesn't have enough funding from the govt. OTOH we have spent more than $100 billion dollars to rebuild another country that obviously doesn't want our help. Its like a parent who will complain about paying for their families necessities but will turn around and spend thousands of dollars on an item that will only benifit him or her. Its quite sickening.

I disagree. Adults aren't the only ppl that use bikes for transportation.
This fall my 5yo will commute to kindergarden via bike and via bike path. Of his 1.5 mile commute, 1.3 miles are exclusively on a mup.
Young children are safer on bike paths than in the street.

:eek: please I hope that's adult supervised!

Somebody - was is John S. Allen? - studied the folks using the multi-use trails near where he lived. He found out most users had driven there, hauling their bikes in/on their cars, and had in fact driven a far greater distance to reach the trail than they planned to ride on the trail.

Would you consider such trails and paths to be transportation projects, and a legitimate use of transportation infrastructure moneys?

TCS

No, of course not, but the desire to ride was great enough to push these individuals to such an extreme, now imagine what might happen if suitable trails interconnected areas near their homes and offices.

While trails will not go from door to door; much like the freeway system, they can be designed and integrated into a network to serve the needs of many users. Freeways do not go from door to door and are yet considered quite useful. The primary problem with many trails and paths is that they are treated as recreational vice serious transportation corridors, thus they are designed poorly, funded poorly and in the case of CA, are given second shift legally vice given the same legal standings as any sidewalk or road.

It is the bikes as toys mentality that has done such.

Meanwhile the occasional useful transportation path that is created benefits the cyclist by allowing them to move in a much more efficient manner vice "dancing with cars." I can cover 20 miles locally on a well designed wide path with underpasses and overpasses in just over an hour, whereas it takes me about 50 minutes to cover 10.5 miles commuting on regular city streets and stopping for traffic lights and being cautious at intersections. I am rarely able to ride my fastest pace on city streets for all the potential traffic situations I encounter.

Given that cyclists represent about 2% of the transportation needs of the country, at a minimum we should be granted 2% of the funding for transportation, vice the mere 1% as quoted by the DOT Secretary.

:eek: please I hope that's adult supervised!

I walked a mile to and from first grade. ON PUBLIC STREETS. NO SUPERVISION! HOLY CRAP!

This was 21 years ago.

Here in Columbia Missouri we are one of the cities that was awarded 22 million dollars for the "non-motorized transportation pilot project." This is essentially a 5 year span where we have to spend this money and show if it was a good investment or not by proving if we have.....

#1. More bike trips.
#2. Healthier community
#3. Less pollution
#4. Less congestion

So far we have not gotten very far but I can already see the changes coming. 10% of this funding has been used for education and promotion and I am the full time bicycle education coordinator.

We are teaching the League's road 1 course and every single student has responded 100% that they are....

#1. More confident
#2. Commuting more
#3. Using their car less.

Amazing. We even had one student who was hardly riding at all and is now commuting over 200 miles a week!!

There is no doubt in my mind that using federal dollars for bicycle projects is WAY better for the USA then building more and more auto lanes. For the cost of one bridge we can change a city.

I think when congress sees the results of this project when its over they will see it as a far better use of their money then some of the other things they fund.

I walked a mile to and from first grade. ON PUBLIC STREETS. NO SUPERVISION! HOLY CRAP! This was 21 years ago.

But you weren't riding. So here it is, at what age is is considered legal to leave children unattended at home. I am under the impression that different states and provinces and different regulations on this matter. Think of babysetting ages... What I'm saying is if a child isn't old enough to be unsupervised at home, he's ALSO too young to be unsupervised on the streets.

Somebody - was is John S. Allen? - studied the folks using the multi-use trails near where he lived. He found out most users had driven there, hauling their bikes in/on their cars, and had in fact driven a far greater distance to reach the trail than they planned to ride on the trail.

Would you consider such trails and paths to be transportation projects, and a legitimate use of transportation infrastructure moneys?

TCS

Two points:

1) If trails are close to population centers and connect destinations they will be used for transportation without involving a car in the trip. In other cases, where the trail itself is the destination, people will drive to them and use them for recreational purposes.

2) And should these recreational trails get federal transportation funding? Absolutely. The recreational trails program at US DOT is funded by federal gas tax revenues paid by off-road vehicles so it is used to create off-road trail facilities. More info here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/

Somebody - was is John S. Allen? - studied the folks using the multi-use trails near where he lived. He found out most users had driven there, hauling their bikes in/on their cars, and had in fact driven a far greater distance to reach the trail than they planned to ride on the trail.

Would you consider such trails and paths to be transportation projects, and a legitimate use of transportation infrastructure moneys?

TCS

Well if there were a good way to get there on a bike....

I was in Fort Wayne IN for two months, staying in a hotel. They had one MUP there and there was absolutely no way to get there with my kid safely on a bike.

I think folks misunderstand these paths or they're too afraid to ride on the road because of bad attitudes from cars.

:eek: please I hope that's adult supervised!

Nah, he's pretty responsible for 5yo and I did put a pb superflash on his bike. He'll be fine. ;) jk

Yes, I'll ride with him. If I didn't he'd be out of the saddle all the way at roadrash speed.

So true. Its baffled me for quite some time now how projects in our country, like transportation, schools and such doesn't have enough funding from the govt. OTOH we have spent more than $100 billion dollars to rebuild another country that obviously doesn't want our help. Its like a parent who will complain about paying for their families necessities but will turn around and spend thousands of dollars on an item that will only benifit him or her. Its quite sickening.

If you want to understand it view the documentary "Why We Fight." It's a superb documentary about the military-industrial-congresional complex since Eisenhower. It starts with his farewell address and it sounds like it could have been written yesterday. Really, really worth renting. Well balanced and interview-based (almost 0 narration) with everyone from ppl that work in bomb factories to weapons designers to pentagon ppl to think tanks, to intelligence professionals to greiving 9/11 parents to a kid that's enlisted.

and yes, it is quite sickening. That nearly 45% of the discretionary federal budget goes into defense, is absolutely rediculous and sad. Our country's government is a joke.

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.

There are two distinct pots of federal money for bike/ped/trail development:

1) The Transportation Enhancements (TE) program funds bike/ped and rail-trail projects. Each state DOT determines its own priorities for the expenditure of these funds, but these projects are more likely to have a transportation purpose.

2) The Recreational Trails program is funded by gas tax revenues from off-road vehicles and is focused on creating recreational facilities. This program is also administered by the state DOTs.

In addition, some bike/trail advocates in urban metro regions have been successful in getting CMAQ - Congestion Management and Air Quality -- funding for their projects. These must be able to demonstrate that they will relieve congestion and improve air quality.

Nah, he's pretty responsible for 5yo and I did put a pb superflash on his bike. He'll be fine. ;) jk
Yes, I'll ride with him. If I didn't he'd be out of the saddle all the way at roadrash speed.

Now I'm really confused, I thought I was speaking with Recursive, I guess I've been Punk'd!!!!!!!!

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.

Hmm to +1 this or not?

In a way i agree with it but in others i don't. Considering most who do bike commute to work do not go to do grocery shopping on bikes and instead use some form of car, truck or suv to do so. My self i do bike commute to work at the bike shop where i work. I how ever do not go shopping by bike and while i my self do not at this time drive or own a car when i have my sister or niece or who ever take me to the store i pay for the gas and a little extra. So on all major longer than 10 mile or so trips from point 10 b where ill have a load of what ever to carry i go by car. I would assume that this is true for most every one here on the forums etc. So some percentage of gas tax should go to bike paths highways and mup trail systems. Not a huge percent though. If the average bike commute is 5 miles week and the average to and from store trip is 25 miles per week plus longer trips once per month then the majority (vast majority) of gas tax money should go to roads and highway and other motor vehicular related expenses.

So say a 90/10 split 90% to motor vehicular expense 10 to bike expense.Now thats a number i just yanked out of my rear but you get the general idea.. Even if only 2 or 3 % country wide gas tax money went to bike related stuff it would be a huge benefit to cyclists every where. Lets not forget it would help motor vehicles traffic as well.

Now I'm really confused, I thought I was speaking with Recursive, I guess I've been Punk'd!!!!!!!!

Nah, it's a group discussion. And I wasn't even aware that there was a legal minimum age to be home alone. Imagine that.

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.

I think that's fair, but at the same time limit spending on motor vehicle infrastructure to only the revenue paid via gas taxes... I think you would find the budget goes way down. Motor vehicle infrastructure is highly subsidized by general fund taxes, just as oil exploration and if you think about it general property use (how much space is devoted to parking cars... where some form of revenue is not otherwise returned).

Yes frankly I agree with you. Motor vehicle users should pay their entire way. (I believe the results would surprise you).

Now just to be fair, I drive too... so I am willing to take up my share of the burden.

That would only be true for people who drove there. But how about for the people who live around that neighborhood and actually use that trail from point A to point B? Just because a trail is being used for recreation by some people, it doesn't by any means make it not a part of the transportation infrastructure for other cyclists.

This is what bugs me. Sure the path I use to get to work is almost exclusively used by young 20'somethings for jogging or walking dogs or other recreational activities. But city streets and yes even gasp federal highways are used for recreational activities: marathons, parades, and street fairs to name a few special events that happen on roads and I daily see people running, and playing basketball on roads; finally there are hoards of people (teenagers mostly I think) who just drive around in their cars going from Point A to Point A on roads for no reason other than boredom. So by this logic city streets and even some federal highways need to be reclassified as "car paths" or "extra wide MUP"'s and our goverment needs to stop spending our "transportational" dollars maintaining them.

--Very frustrated (and registered to vote) bike2math.

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.
Federal funding is for capital projects and designs you mentioned are not expensive enough to be a capital project but too expensive to be funded by other means. :(

The secretary has a point.

Althought I am shocked to learn that my daily commute on a bicycle is not considered transportation, I also realize my daily commute is not on a bike path.

I use the MUP largely for recreation, not commuting.

Hey, I'm in a hurry to get to work, I gotta go FAST! That's better done on the road!

We need wider roads!
You obviously have not commuted in DC (and I assume Davis and Portland are similar) almost all bike commuters take advantage of he trail network. It all depends on how your state spends the money and what pressure the local advocates can put on the state.