Mary Peters responds to feedback she received after her interview with Jim Lehrer...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...ure_08-15.html
What a joke.
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
October 4, 2007
Thank you for your e-mail about the importance of bicycling and walking as a form of
transportation. I share your interest in a safe, efficient mullimodal transportation system.
Your e-mail discussed comments I made during a recent interview regarding the importance
of effectively prioritizing major transportation spending decisions. These comments were in
no way intended as an indictment of bicycle and pedestrian investments broadly. Rather, they
were part of a much larger critique of the processes by which investment decisions are
increasingly being made at the Federal level. Too often, political influence and power arc
guiding transportation spending priorities, instead of merit, competition, data, and analysis.
The U.S. Department of Transportation believes that bicyclists and pedestrians are legitimate
and welcome users of our Nation's transportation system. They are a healthy part of the
solution to congestion in our urban areas. We also believe that States, metropolitan planning
organizations, and transit agencies are in the best position to understand the unique needs of
their own communities, which is why we have continued to strongly support broad eligibility
under the Federal-aid program for a diverse mix of transportation investments, including
bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities.
Programs that improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians arc also eligible for Federal safety
dollars. Although the number of bicyclist and pedestrian injuries and fatalities has dropped by
10 percent since 1994, fatalities have increased in the last 2 years, and this is not acceptable.
Thank you again for voicing your opinion. I hope to continue to work with bicycling and
pedestrian advocates as we face the challenges of meeting our country's changing
transportation needs.
Sincerely yours,
Mary E. Peters
San Rensho
10-05-07, 08:20 AM
"Too often, political influence and power arc
guiding transportation spending priorities, instead of merit, competition, data, and analysis."
Translation- You smelly,hippy, red, tree huggers aren't getting anything from this administration, since our policy is "automobile uber ales." Only cars merit any consideration in the calculus of how to spend your billions of transportation tax dollars.
Itsjustb
10-05-07, 08:25 AM
Man, this sounds like it was written by the upper management of my company. But here's my favorite line:
Too often, political influence and power arc {sic} guiding transportation spending priorities, instead of merit, competition, data, and analysis.
Ms. Peters' original interview claimed that too much Transportation money was being spent on things like bike paths, museums, and walkways. Since when do cyclists, museum-goers, and pedestrians have political influence and power in the United States?
bmclaughlin807
10-05-07, 12:09 PM
Yeah, I got the same .PDF via e-mail today.
gosmsgo
10-05-07, 01:01 PM
Hey guys,
I live in Columbia Mo which is one of 4 communities that recently recieved 25 million dollars for non-motorized transportation from this administration and the previous congress.
I think her point is a good one where she talks about how dollars are spent. While I personally feel that this 25 million dollars will do more good than any other 25 million dollar investment in transportation its no secret that we recieved the money simply because our senator Bond is one of the more senior senators in congress and he can bring home the bacon so to speak.
While the money in the last transportation bill was pitiful in terms of bike/ped spending it was still a record and a step in the right direction.
my two cents.
This is why San Rensho's comments were so far off base. Its not as if the Clinton administration did more for non motorized transport.....in fact they did less.
Both parties see bicycles primarily as toys and even Fat ass/private jet flying environmental liberal poster boy al gore rarely if ever mentions bikes as a solution to "global warming."
Both parties have no clue and their only interest is getting elected.
NotAsFat
10-05-07, 01:22 PM
Hey guys,
I live in Columbia Mo which is one of 4 communities that recently recieved 25 million dollars for non-motorized transportation from this administration and the previous congress.
I think her point is a good one where she talks about how dollars are spent. While I personally feel that this 25 million dollars will do more good than any other 25 million dollar investment in transportation its no secret that we recieved the money simply because our senator Bond is one of the more senior senators in congress and he can bring home the bacon so to speak.
While the money in the last transportation bill was pitiful in terms of bike/ped spending it was still a record and a step in the right direction.
my two cents.
This is why San Rensho's comments were so far off base. Its not as if the Clinton administration did more for non motorized transport.....in fact they did less.
Both parties see bicycles primarily as toys and even Fat ass/private jet flying environmental liberal poster boy al gore rarely if ever mentions bikes as a solution to "global warming."
Both parties have no clue and their only interest is getting elected.Fat ass/private jet flying, etc. Algore would probably be happy to see us "little people" ride bikes if it let him keep flying in his private jet.
OH306
10-05-07, 01:58 PM
What response were you expecting? Something like "We will spend 50% of all transportation monies on bike trails"?
noisebeam
10-05-07, 03:10 PM
It is the dept. of transportation, not recreation. I've seen little of the big money projects go to infrastructure that benefits cycle transport. That is locally. I am aware of some localities that have MUP that actually get people places.
Al
wheel
10-05-07, 09:40 PM
Its the dept. of transportation, not recreation. I've seen little of the big money projects go to infrastructure that benefits cycle transport. That is locally. I am aware of some localities that have MUP that actually get people places.
Al
Tempe is one:
Bekologist
10-05-07, 09:56 PM
some countries have cities that acheive and surpass 30 percent all trips by bike, encouraged by investment in bicycling infrastructure.
What I find ironic, when I read articles about 'green' communities -one today in the paper about Austin, TX- and these communities 'commitment' to reducing environmental impact, very little talk is about reducing private car use.
Americans are addicted to sucking tailpipe. its' sad, really. our priorities are screwed up, roadway infrastructure around the country is falling apart, and the DOT can't commit to changing course away from autocentrism in the USA.
gosmsgo
10-05-07, 10:35 PM
I think the honest answer is poeples fitness level.
The average american could not walk 5 miles if there were 1 million dollars at the finish line. Al Gore could not ride a bike 10 miles if his life depended on it. They cannot/will not understand fitness until they get some of their own.
To most people the idea that you can commute by bike 50 miles in one day (I did today) is like saying that you crapped out a golden egg.
Its unbelievable to them so they do not understand it and cannot see themselves doing it.
Thats why they cannot see the bike as a possible answer. The president (believe it or not) seems to understand that its possible. I read some comments of his in bicycling magazine a couple of years ago where he talked about the bicycle reducing our oil usage. Of course he is a very fit man who loves to bike.
No matter what you think of the president you have to understand that at least having someone capable of propeling themselves is a plus for the bike crowd.
mandovoodoo
10-06-07, 06:17 AM
As usual, it's a thinking problem. When enough people think something, it gets done. Hard to get people thinking of using bikes when high-density urban areas are bike hostile. Relatively easy to think of using a bike when a clear and reasonable system exists for using them. I don't know how to get from here to there.
When I was in college in the 1970s I saw gobs of bicycle use by students for everything. Many of us simply couldn't afford a car, and didn't grow up expecting a car or two as a birthright. That's changed. Addiction to cars is worse now than ever!
I don't see the problem as folks not being willing to bike 10 miles to work. The first hurdle seems to be getting people to bike 1/2 mile to the store and back. Inside a comfort zone. Get used to that, and 3 miles to a mall seems reasonable. Or 5 miles in lycra to Starbucks, whatever! It's those first steps.
Here's where the newer city bikes seem to be making a difference. EZ to use, no particular skill required, no particular maintenance hassles. I suspect if we had bikes that required nothing but checking air every once and a while, etc. . . .. Now we mostly have derailleur equipped delicate things that take maintenance. Most people don't want the hassle.
I like the "complete road" concept. Make roads work for everything. I suspect we'll move into a mix of cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, and bicycles, with increasing numbers of the low HP vehicles. Might as well make the roads work for that mix and train people to accept it. I can't see why federal standards and dollars can't move in that direction.
What we don't need are slow MUPs at the expense of making regular roads safe for all users.
noisebeam
10-06-07, 12:52 PM
Tempe is one:
That has tranportationally useful or useless MUPs?
Al
wheel
10-06-07, 01:17 PM
That has tranportationally useful or useless MUPs?
Al
Ohh I was just listing that they have one or two MUPs that go somewhere.
Priest to Mill via river, Soon to be on the other side also
Priest to Elliot rd via highline
noisebeam
10-06-07, 01:23 PM
Ohh I was just listing that they have one or two MUPs that go somewhere.
Priest to Mill via river, Soon to be on the other side also
Priest to Elliot rd via highline
The canal? Is there any business along it? Any desitination? Any transportational use unless one lives right by it? (River is parallel to Mill and Priest) No need to sideline further. Of course by luck of where one lives works or shops there might be a bit of a MUP one can use. But no useful network of them, nor is such a network feasiblle to build out given what is already taking the land that woudl be needed.
I think MUPs are great and serve a useful purpose. I have no problem with my tax money going to them. But I don't think that they fit a transportational purpose (in some places) and I don't like how they take away from transportationally useful cycling infrastructure.
Al
wheel
10-06-07, 07:56 PM
Well the Highline canal, ends at a walmart, Costco, sports Authority etc....
I think it is a fantastic way not to use Elliot road.
I agree they don't normally work out. Unless for a short distance.
at the same time, MUP's do have value transportationally in municipalities around the country.
Cities like Mineapolis, Seattle, Portland, Denver, all have MUPs that provide valuable transportation network 'backbones' for bicycle commuters.
littlewaywelt
10-09-07, 06:32 AM
What response were you expecting? Something like "We will spend 50% of all transportation monies on bike trails"?
Of course not, that's rediculous. I was expecting something that acknowledged the misleading nature of her comments during the interview at minimum. Best case would have been an apology.