Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Commuting
Reload this Page >

Disturbing interview with DOT Secretary

Search
Notices
Commuting Bicycle commuting is easier than you think, before you know it, you'll be hooked. Learn the tips, hints, equipment, safety requirements for safely riding your bike to work.

Disturbing interview with DOT Secretary

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-17-07, 10:47 AM
  #26  
Banned
 
Bikepacker67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ogopogo's shoreline
Posts: 4,082

Bikes: LHT, Kona Smoke

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by -=Łem in Pa=-
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.
It might fly, if they throw in pizza.
Bikepacker67 is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 11:07 AM
  #27  
tcs
Palmer
 
tcs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 8,621

Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl

Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1663 Post(s)
Liked 1,817 Times in 1,057 Posts
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
tcs is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 12:19 PM
  #28  
Pedaled too far.
 
Artkansas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: La Petite Roche
Posts: 12,851
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
Lighthouses aren't transportation infrastructure?
Tell that to the Exxon Valdez.
Artkansas is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 12:48 PM
  #29  
But I'm saving $ on gas!
 
OhiOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dayton, OH - USA
Posts: 202

Bikes: LeMond Victoire (pure fun), Trek 1200 (commuter), Trek 930 MTB (winter commuter)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by e0richt
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.

Last edited by OhiOH; 08-17-07 at 12:54 PM.
OhiOH is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 01:07 PM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
fender1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Berwyn PA
Posts: 6,408

Bikes: I hate bikes!

Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 431 Post(s)
Liked 710 Times in 233 Posts
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.
fender1 is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 02:57 PM
  #31  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: northern Florida, USA
Posts: 778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It's simple really: Bicycle commuters tend to be either poor or liberal, not part of this administration's core constituency.
dwainedibbly is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 02:59 PM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
freemti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenixville, PA
Posts: 265

Bikes: Trek 7.6 FX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mtnwalker
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
freemti is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 03:03 PM
  #33  
GATC
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: south Puget Sound
Posts: 8,728
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Liked 49 Times in 27 Posts
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 $$.
HardyWeinberg is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 03:06 PM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by zmorgan
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.
https://www.artba.org/economics_resea...ax_history.htm
whatsmyname is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 03:27 PM
  #35  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 15

Bikes: trek 1000, trek 7100

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
https://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/05/news/booze.php
tismyself is offline  
Old 08-17-07, 04:32 PM
  #36  
Crankenstein
 
bmclaughlin807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Spokane
Posts: 4,037

Bikes: Novara Randonee (TankerBelle)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
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
__________________
"There is no greater wonder than the way the face and character of a woman fit so perfectly in a man's mind, and stay there, and he could never tell you why. It just seems it was the thing he most wanted." Robert Louis Stevenson
bmclaughlin807 is offline  
Old 08-19-07, 04:51 AM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tismyself
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.
https://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.
whatsmyname is offline  
Old 08-19-07, 01:19 PM
  #38  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rock Island, IL.
Posts: 2

Bikes: Miyata 750 SR road bike, Schwinn World Sport road bike, Trek 830 mountain bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
tsteele is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.