Commuting - Disturbing interview with DOT Secretary

I also have this posted in A&S but I figured its also appropriate here.

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

first post. sorry, had to. The money being spent is tax money from gasoline purchases. I can understand not wanting to spend that money on a bike path. If property taxes or sales or some other sort of tax is being used to fund the bike bath, then good on the govt. But the gas tax is meant to repair and build roads and "infrastructure" used for vehicles that use gas.

Don't be upset about the DOT's comment. The govt. has many pools of money that get budgeted. This is one that bikers/commuters should not be upset about losing.

But the gas tax is meant to repair and build roads and "infrastructure" used for vehicles that use gas.

Like cars that run on electricity/hydrogen/natural gas?

The gas tax money is not earmarked for helping to support only traffic that runs on gasoline and diesel fuel.

Lighthouses aren't transportation infrastructure?

The gas tax existed before those technologies were realistic possiblilities. And even now, there are an extremely low number of vehicles that run on the fuels that you propose; less than bicycles I would guess.

Just because new technologies are on the horizon does not mean that the intent behind a tax changes. How do you propose to pay for bike paths and upkeep if no one bought gas? I'm saying that crying for gas tax is counter culture.

Lighthouses aren't transportation infrastructure?

Modern day lighthouses are touristy type attractions. GPS is changing the world.

I agree that some lighthouses protect the coast and ports from wrecks. Tarrifs or docking fees could be used to upkeep the lighthouses with true utility though.

first post. sorry, had to. The money being spent is tax money from gasoline purchases. I can understand not wanting to spend that money on a bike path. If property taxes or sales or some other sort of tax is being used to fund the bike bath, then good on the govt. But the gas tax is meant to repair and build roads and "infrastructure" used for vehicles that use gas.

Don't be upset about the DOT's comment. The govt. has many pools of money that get budgeted. This is one that bikers/commuters should not be upset about losing.

Can you explain this then:

"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

It seems to me that our current administration made a decision to take funding away from highway projects preventing them from getting done. Now that a fiasco happened regarding a certain bridge collapse and inspections of other bridges turning up in not so good conditions bike paths are getting blamed for the lack of money for transportation infrastructure? That is just assinine.

How do you propose to pay for bike paths and upkeep if no one bought gas?
Well, in Oregon the gasoline tax only covers 60-70% of road upkeep, so they make up the difference via income and property taxes. I hear that states with a sales tax often use some of the money collected from that.

I like the way this Administration attacks Jim Oberstar's (Democrat) support of bike paths and fail to mention Sen. Stevens (Republican) sponsorship of the infamous Alaska "Bridge to Nowhere". BTW, Sen. Stevens may be indicted soon because of channelling pork transportation dollars to campaign contributors.

I wish I could even comment on this but I am simply lost for words. This is yet another reason why historians are going to call this the "Dark Ages of American Politics."

first post. sorry, had to. The money being spent is tax money from gasoline purchases. I can understand not wanting to spend that money on a bike path. If property taxes or sales or some other sort of tax is being used to fund the bike bath, then good on the govt. But the gas tax is meant to repair and build roads and "infrastructure" used for vehicles that use gas.

Don't be upset about the DOT's comment. The govt. has many pools of money that get budgeted. This is one that bikers/commuters should not be upset about losing.

Nonsense! Bike paths, theoretically at least, would improve conditions on car & truck roads by pulling drivers away.

The Secretary is clearly contradicting statements she made in 2002 quoted in the LAB response (http://www.bikeleague.org/news/images/peters_letter.pdf) (BTW, the writer apparently forgot that it changed from "MacNeil Lehrer Newshour" to "The Newshour" many years ago).

Tell them to worry about Ted Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" before they start looking at resources that people actually use:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

Two comments which others have already stated.
Bike paths can be transportation projects (though many are not due to where they are located).
Gasoline taxes does not fully pay for roads. Most road repair and construction has some money coming from sales property, and income taxes. Local roads are usually fully funded by non-gas taxes.

Craig

There is no hope.
Next, the govt. new way to treat alcoholism is to give an addict unlimited supplies of liquor
:rolleyes:
You will be taxed accordingly.

We truly are on our way to becoming West Calcutta if the authoritarians continue
to be of the current caliber.

Maybe we need to consider an all volunteer government...seems that would be the way to get people that are REALLY interested in getting something done, besides lining their pockets...:D

Aaron:)

Yeah, well, bikes ruin roads at a much slower pace than cars do. The amount of gas we buy for our lawnmowers ought to cover our portion of the road upkeep.

Maybe we need to consider an all volunteer government...seems that would be the way to get people that are REALLY interested in getting something done, besides lining their pockets...:D

Aaron:)


Ive spit and slobbered that theory for a while, Aaron....
Government by committee. Lets say 5 People from different regions of
each state are picked as if it was jury duty, they remain nameless
so developers and lobbyers cannot taint them. They come to agreement on
state issues. Real people deciding whats best for thier neighborhoods.
They would then tell the feds thier requirements and similarly selected,
temporary fed people would alot fundage and OK stuff for those state areas.
Obviously, thats simplistic but we have to sever the oil/corporate noose around
our collective necks, somehow.

first post. sorry, had to. The money being spent is tax money from gasoline purchases. I can understand not wanting to spend that money on a bike path. If property taxes or sales or some other sort of tax is being used to fund the bike bath, then good on the govt. But the gas tax is meant to repair and build roads and "infrastructure" used for vehicles that use gas.

Don't be upset about the DOT's comment. The govt. has many pools of money that get budgeted. This is one that bikers/commuters should not be upset about losing.

hmmm this might just be semantics but a bike path is not the same thing as "bike lanes"... bike paths usually are localized and as such aren't really part of the infrastructure like a bike lane would be...
I would consider a bike path similar to a park where you can go to enjoy a leisurely ride.

I honestly can't believe the amount of tax money that gets spent on roads. While communities and cities try their hardest to scrape up dollars to build, fix or maintain public transportation systems and bike paths, there are literally billions of dollars set aside for road projects.

Maybe we need to consider an all volunteer government...seems that would be the way to get people that are REALLY interested in getting something done, besides lining their pockets...:D

Uhhh, do the math. Look at the monetary worth of US senators, representatives, the president, cabinet members, etc. They're the ones who are wealthy enough to finance a campaign out of pocket. They win office by throwing money at a marketing machine rather than spending years in public service, earning a reputation and building up a corps of volunteers. How on earth do you think that people like Mitts Romney, Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush ever get elected to anything? It sure isn't based on their years of public service! And -- to respond to your suggestion -- they are, in effect, a "volunteer government". They aren't in it for the salary -- they make much more money on the side. Mitts Romney made the oh so magnanimous gesture of returning his salary as governor of Massachusetts. He and those like him can afford to play politics, the sport of kings. They are rich people. Their interest in government is based on two things: ego gratification, and enacting policies that ensure that they and people like them become even more obscenely rich. The kind of people you're thinking about can't afford to be part of a "volunteer government": they have real responsibilities, they have to work for a living, they can't afford to be professional political dabblers. The idle rich will always win that game.

I interpreted as simply saying "We don't care about cycling as a form of transportation because such people don't pay a regular tax like motor vehicle transportation does (in the form of fuel tax)."

BS

I'm willing to bet that the majority of people DO have a car so they do pay this regular tax, maybe not as often, but then again it's pretty much proportional to the amount of driving they do and the damage inflicted on the roads by driving.

hmmm this might just be semantics but a bike path is not the same thing as "bike lanes"... bike paths usually are localized and as such aren't really part of the infrastructure like a bike lane would be...
I would consider a bike path similar to a park where you can go to enjoy a leisurely ride.

I spend 20% of my 45 mile RT commute on a bike path.

There is no hope.
Next, the govt. new way to treat alcoholism is to give an addict unlimited supplies of liquor
:rolleyes:
You will be taxed accordingly.

We truly are on our way to becoming West Calcutta if the authoritarians continue
to be of the current caliber.

Next? Try already in the works:
SEATTLE - A proposed housing unit for homeless alcoholics will mean room, board and booze. (http://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4072961.html)

My Reply:

Dear Secretary,

I live in Los Angeles, quite possibly the most car-centric area in America. My commute is either via the 118, 5, 170, 101, and 110 (not uncrowded freeways) in my (30+mpg) scion, or via train and bicycle.

I have made a conscious decision to try and cut traffic and try to help both myself and my city by moving to public transit and bicycle. I ride the metrolink and redline.

On "News Hour" you said

"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."

I would like to point out that a bicycle path is not only INFRASTRUCTURE, but it is infrastructure that gets one more car off the road and helps ensure safety for those who are willing to do something to help cut traffic.

Thank you for remembering that getting cars off the road DOES help not only those who chose alternate commutes, but also those who have no option but to commute via automobile, or drive for work.

Thank you for bearing this in mind in the future.


Most Sincerely,

James Barros

Ive spit and slobbered that theory for a while, Aaron....
Government by committee. Lets say 5 People from different regions of
each state are picked as if it was jury duty, they remain nameless
so developers and lobbyers cannot taint them. They come to agreement on
state issues. Real people deciding whats best for thier neighborhoods.
They would then tell the feds thier requirements and similarly selected,
temporary fed people would alot fundage and OK stuff for those state areas.
Obviously, thats simplistic but we have to sever the oil/corporate noose around
our collective necks, somehow.

Actually I prefer the government by lottery theory...you get picked you go serve one term and go home never to serve again...beats the crap out of current "best politicians money can buy" system.

Aaron:)

There is no hope.
Next, the govt. new way to treat alcoholism is to give an addict unlimited supplies of liquor
:rolleyes:
You will be taxed accordingly.



It might fly, if they throw in pizza.

17 of Bikes Belong's 21 grants last year were for paths & trails.
Complete the Streets pushes for bike lanes.
The League awards "bike friendly community" status based on paths, lanes and separate facilites.
America Bikes favors separate facilites & trail networks.
Rails to Trails funds trails.

Interesting that the Department of Transportation Secretary sides with Critical Mass in believing that the bicycle's proper place is in the general mix of traffic and not segregated off on to a sketchy and haphazard infrastructure.

TCS

Lighthouses aren't transportation infrastructure?

Tell that to the Exxon Valdez.

hmmm this might just be semantics but a bike path is not the same thing as "bike lanes"... bike paths usually are localized and as such aren't really part of the infrastructure like a bike lane would be...
I would consider a bike path similar to a park where you can go to enjoy a leisurely ride.

I spend 60% of my 28 mile RT commute on a bike path.

The majority of Americans are ambivalent at best regarding bikes as a serious means of transport. It is an easy target as such. It is no suprise that the current administration would take this tack. Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq etc. they (the administration) are primarialy reactionary, more so than visionary. It take vision to see a future reality different that what exisits currently. The Bush administration has always been short on vision in my opinion and this type of behavior is just another example how politicians in general (Republican & Democratic) are sorely lacking in true leadership and measure thier success in terms of re-election only.

It's simple really: Bicycle commuters tend to be either poor or liberal, not part of this administration's core constituency.

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."[/B]


One has to parse the words of politicians very carfully, this goes double for Republicans, and quadruple for any member of this administration where the rule of thumb is, if their lips are moving, most likely it is at best disengenious - at worst (and most commonly) an outright lie.

What does she mean by "not transportation" or "directly transportation related" and where did she get the 10 to 20 pecent figure from? Most likely she pulled it out of thin air. What defines "transportation" related. If I was a commercial sea freight captain, I would view light houses or other aids to navigation absolutely transportation related. I doubt very seriously that any of the items she mentions even register into the high single digit percentages of our total transportation expenditures, I'm also pretty sure this Peters lady is quite aware of what the numbers are, she is engaging in the default behavior for any Bush administration official and that is to spin, spin, spin and try and put the blame on someone else or find some lame concocted strawman to point to, no matter how tenuous the actual facts of the matter have to reality

Cato was bashing transit projects as soon as that bridge collapsed.

Bike facilities ease traffic for motorized traffic, are clearly a relevant use of gas tax $$.

But the gas tax is meant to repair and build roads and "infrastructure" used for vehicles that use gas.
This is simply not true.


From 1932, when Congress first enacted an excise tax on gasoline, until 1956, the proceeds of the gas tax went into general revenues, although the amount raised each year was used as an informal benchmark for Federal highway spending. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 established the Highway Trust Fund and stipulated that 100% of the gas tax be deposited into the fund. From 1956 to 1982, the Highway Trust Fund was used solely to finance expenditures from the federal highway program.

Highway Trust Fund revenues were first allocated to mass transit in the Surface Transportation Act of 1982, when Congress raised the gas tax from four cents per gallon to nine cents per gallon and dedicated one cent, or 20 percent, of the increase to the newly-established Mass Transit Account. Each time there has been an increase in the amount of gas tax going into the Highway Trust Fund—1990, 1993 and 1997—20 percent of the increase has been allocated to the Transit Account and 80 percent to the Highway Account. Of the current gasoline tax of 18.3 cents per gallon, 2.86 cents per gallon is allocated to the Mass Transit Account.
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm

There is no hope.
Next, the govt. new way to treat alcoholism is to give an addict unlimited supplies of liquor

You will be taxed accordingly.


Maybe you're refering to this......?
Actually there was a city that was doing just that; taking homeless acoholics off the streets and giving them free housing and a monetary allowance for booze, via tax payers' dime.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/05/news/booze.php

My response:

August 16, 2007


Dear Secretary Peters,

I would like to comment on your statement about bicycles not being
'transportation'

That does seem to be the prevailing attitude in this country,
unfortunately. Maybe that's why we have so much pollution and so many
traffic problems. Perhaps if more people would look into the usefulness
of bicycles as more than just 'toys' our cities would be a nicer place to
live. Let's not forget the obesity 'epidemic' that this country is
experiencing.

50% of all trips in cars in this country are less than three miles. That
distance is trivial for any person in even moderately good health. Those
miles are that much worse, because the cars barely have time to warm up...
and the catalytic converters never reach their proper operating
temperatures. Think how much less smog there would be if those cars were
left at home, and people walked or rode a bike down to the corner to pick
up cigarettes or soda.

Personally, I put over 10,000 miles on my bike in the last year... and 200
on my truck. Not all of those miles were transportation, but at least
half were. I rode my bike to and from work every day... half of the trip
on one of those bike paths that you claim don't serve for 'transportation'

We're blessed here in Denver to have a fairly extensive system of paths
and on-street bike routes, as well as a fairly bike-friendly culture. The
more extensive and better planned the paths, the more use they'll get for
transportation.

I work hard for my money, I pay my taxes. I pay WAY more than my fair
share of road maintenance expenses. I deserve to use those roads without
having to deal with the bad attitudes and misconceptions that statements
such as your's generate.

Sincerely,


Bill McLaughlin

Maybe you're refering to this......?
Actually there was a city that was doing just that; taking homeless acoholics off the streets and giving them free housing and a monetary allowance for booze, via tax payers' dime.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/05/news/booze.php
it's not necessarily a bad idea - freeroaming alcoholic homeless men can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in police and EMT time every year. Giving them an incentive to stick in one place can at least reduce the financial burden on the City.

Ok I’m not sure if her comments are being taken out of context but I think that people in the U.S. should understand that bicycles are becoming transportation more and more every day. I still have a gas vehicle to do certain jobs but I rely on my bike for my main transportation to and from work. To lessen my reliance on oil and for the benefit it has on my health. So far this year I have ridden 1200 miles, which may be very little compared to many commuters, and I have saved an average $40 per week plus an untold amount of greenhouse gases