Transportation Department Embraces Bikes, and Business Groups Cry Foul: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”

Transportation Department Embraces Bikes, and Business Groups Cry Foul:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”

March 26, 2010, 10:03 am

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/transportation-department-embr...

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced a “major policy revision” that aims to give bicycling and walking the same policy and economic consideration as driving.

“Today I want to announce a sea change,” he wrote on his blog last week. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”

The new policy, which was introduced a few days after Mr. LaHood gave a well-received speech from atop a table at the National Bike Summit, is said to reflect the Transportation Department’s support for the development of fully integrated transportation networks.

It calls on state and local governments to go beyond minimum planning and maintenance requirements to provide convenient and safe amenities for bikers and walkers. “Walking and biking should not be an afterthought in roadway design,” the policy states.

Transportation agencies are urged to take action on a number of fronts, including the creation of pathways for bike riders and pedestrians on bridges, and providing children with safe biking and walking routes to schools.

They are also encouraged to find ways to make such improvements in concert with road maintenance projects and to protect sidewalks and bike lanes in the same manner as roads (by clearing them of snow, for example).

Mr. LaHood also indicated the department is discouraging “transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians.”

Not surprisingly, the news had bike enthusiasts excited.

“It is simply the strongest statement of support for prioritizing bicycling and walking ever to come from a sitting secretary of transportation,” said Darren Flusche, policy analyst for the League of American Bicyclists.

Nonetheless, some business groups have expressed concern that giving walking and biking the same policy considerations as other transportation modes, as Mr. LaHood recommended, would impede progress on other fronts.

“Treating bicycles and other nonmotorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe,” warned Carter Wood, a senior adviser at the National Association of Manufacturers. “If put it into effect, the policy would more than undermine any effort the Obama Administration has made toward jobs. You can’t have jobs without the efficient movement of freight.”

At a House appropriations committee hearing last week, Congressman Steven LaTourette, Republican of Ohio, brought up the new policy and asked a Transportation Department official to clarify what Mr. LaHood means by “equal treatment.”

“If we’re going to spend $1 million on a road, we’re not going to have half of it go to a bike lane and half of it go to cars?” he asked, according to a transcript of the hearing.

“My interpretation of that would be equal in the eyes of policymakers as what is the expenditure you make, what is the benefit you get,” responded Roy Kienitz, D.O.T.’s under secretary for policy. “And if the freight project offers the best bang, great, but if the bike project offers a good bang, great for them.”

“I don’t even understand how you get a bang for the buck out of a bicycle project,” Mr. LaTourette subsequently commented. “I mean, what job is going to be created by having a bike lane?”

269 Readers' CommentsPost a Comment »All Comments

1.leptoquark
Washington, DC
March 26th, 2010
11:22 am“Treating bicycles and other non-motorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe,”

Those bikes will be the downfall of this country. :-)
More cars, more oil, more cars, more oil.....
Recommend Recommended by 27 Readers 2.cheesebuyer
Brooklyn, NY
March 26th, 2010
11:22 am“I don’t even understand how you get a bang for the buck out of a bicycle project,” Mr. LaTourette subsequently commented. “I mean what job is going to be created by having a bike lane?”

I cannot believe that Mr. LaTourette asks this question sincerely.

What of the economic costs of our nation's deficient physical fitness? What of the economic cost of the polution and deadly traffic accidents caused by our excessive use of automobiles--even for short trips with only the driver and no passengers?

What about the economic benefit of improving the sales of bicycles nationwide? Our son is learning bicycle repair. More bicycles on the road should lead to more bicycles needing repair. That would create jobs.

As for walking, when I walk, I am more likely to stop inside the businesses that I walk past. Driving, I would have to park and possibly pay for parking. Doesn't it benefit the local economy to facilitate this type of walk-in business?

And, these are the obvious answers that a non-expert like myself can think up on the fly. I am sure that there are many more insightful answers that an expert could provide.

We have to stand up to these combustion-engine bullies who do not even try to see co-existence of motorized and non-motorized modes of transportation.

-- P.L.
Recommend Recommended by 33 Readers 3.James
Nevada
March 26th, 2010
11:22 am“I mean, what job is going to be created by having a bike lane?”

Yeah, having bike lanes is going to cost jobs. Let's see: there's the ambulance drivers and EMTs that aren't needed to pick up the cyclists hit by cars, a whole bunch of cardiologists &c that won't be treating the heart attacks of the newly-fit from biking to work, the fabric mills that sell less cloth because people become slimmer, the funeral parlors & gravediggers that will suffer a drop in business... And of course there are all the Islamic jihadists who'll be looking for new financing after oil sales decline... This is a great example of the Law of Unintended Consequences: build a few bike lanes, and devastate the world economy :-)
Recommend Recommended by 33 Readers 4.LG
Tennessee
March 26th, 2010

2:16 pmBike lanes and better pedestrian access would also move toward solving one of high schools' big problems :kids working 20-30 hours per week to pay for their cars so they can get to their jobs to they can pay for their cars. If i had a nickel for every kid who fell asleep in my class or didn't have the homework because he or she was working until 11 pm the night before, I'd be able to support my daily snickers bar habit in style. Making our lives auto-centric creates an economic burden on every activity in which we engage. Auto ownership (and the ability to provide your child with a car) are just another way we stratify our society.
Recommend Recommended by 20 Readers 5.Sudhakar
St. Louis
March 26th, 2010

2:32 pmThere needs to be a lot more dedicated bike lanes in this country. I enjoy biking and would do it more often than I do now, if it weren't for the fact that I am unwilling to ride my bike on streets with motorized vehicles. Bicyclists are defenseless in collisions.
Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers 6.Peb
IL
March 26th, 2010
4:22 pmWhy would anyone be against a bike path or bike riding?
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers 7.John
Northampton, PA
March 26th, 2010

7:16 pmSo we'll all be riding around on bicylces? We're becoming more and more like communist China every day! Three cheers for Dear Leader!
Recommend Recommended by 56 Readers 8.Thrasher3
USA
March 26th, 2010

7:16 pmWhat about skateboarders and rollerbladers? I want the same access to these pathways as bikers. Will these pathways be protected from muggers and rapists. What about muggers and rapists on bikes?
Recommend Recommended by 19 Readers 9.dhart43
Michigan
March 26th, 2010

7:16 pmLet's see. China is rapidly changing from a nation of bicyclists to a nation of motorists. And we're on the opposite path. Wonder who's going to win this race?
Recommend Recommended by 69 Readers 10.lance915
Seattle
March 26th, 2010

7:16 pmGood idea, lets make sure we require registration and licensing equally. Taxing high end bikes and license fees will help pay for some of the costs.
Recommend Recommended by 29 Readers 11.Hubbycap
Georgia, USA
March 26th, 2010

7:16 pmThe bad ole automobile paid for the roads that the pedestrians and bicycles claim such a right to. Since there is no fuel involved to walk or cycle, how about an extra $100 for sport/walking shoes and an extra $1000 per bicycle to pay for all these bike lanes and sidewalks that will be built for those specific uses. As the evil gasoline powered vehicle fades into the sunset so does its billion$ in tax revenues. If you want these nice paved pathways, cough up the cash folks. Gas or cash, no one rides for free.
Recommend Recommended by 54 Readers 12.freemon sandlewould
New York City
March 26th, 2010

7:16 pmFree-Dumb is not Free

Obama and company are a disaster. Its a slow motion train wreck.
Recommend Recommended by 73 Readers 13.Larry Bradshaw
Abilene, Texas
March 26th, 2010

7:16 pmLa Hood should be fired on the spot. Is he really that stupid? His proposal would plunge the country into a depression.

This irresponsible administration comes up with some new preposterous idea every day. Can the country really wait until November?
Recommend Recommended by 57 Readers 14.Al
Iowa
March 26th, 2010

7:16 pmI know that I don't speak for everyone, but I would not be opposed to this plan if and only if bicycle riders had to pay to use the roads like cars do.
Recommend Recommended by 22 Readers 15.retmed
home
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmIf Obama get gas to over $7.00 a gal, we will all be riding bikes more.
Obama care at its finest.
Recommend Recommended by 43 Readers 16.Jack
Oregon
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmOh, heck with it. Let's just flick it in and give the Dems what they want, COMMUNISM.
Recommend Recommended by 51 Readers 17.snappyweb
scio, or
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmI believe that if you want bike lanes you can help pay for them with a mileage tax, a license issued by your states DMV, a license plate, registration stickers, and a state certified safety inspection tag. This would exempt everyone under the age of 18.
Recommend Recommended by 15 Readers 18.rhbcazny
Cazenovia, NY
March 26th, 2010
7:17 pmYes, great idea, Where can I get a bigazz bicycle to carry my ladders to a job 25 miles away?

Recommend Recommended by 54 Readers 19.alde711
Washington
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmWill the bikes be required to pay a license fee and have insurance? If they are going to take away from the road that I pay a license fee to use they should contribute and if they get hurt or hurt someone else they should be covered. Other that that I am all for more bikes for daily commute.
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers 20.Straight Facts
New York, NY
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmGood thing we gave away hundreds of billions in Cash for Clunkers so everyone could get a $4,000 discount on a Toyota.

The mixed messages this adminstration sends are truly baffling.
Recommend Recommended by 49 Readers 21.Madison
New York, New York
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmGee, one more way for the government to impinge upon individual liberty!
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers 22.Tim
MA
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmNew Obama plan for easing unemployment and transportation woes called the
"cash for rickshaws program".
Recommend Recommended by 36 Readers 23.Geolama
San Diego
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmIf you want bike paths everywhere then you should be willing to pay hundreds of dollars a year to license your bikes. We car drivers have to pay road taxes and licensing fees and bike riders should be willing to pay $200 a year in registration fees to pay for the upkeep of your bike paths.

While we're at it anybody caught not wearing proper gear would be issued tickets just like Click It or Ticket It for cars. Caught more than three times in a year would mean you would have your bike confiscated and banning from the bike paths. You would have to a bicycle insurance in case you run some other cyclist of the path and cause them injury.
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers 24.fjr33624
tampa
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmSo I assume this means all bicycles will be licensed and inspected and taxed just like motor vehicles to pay for the roadways or are these hypocritical greenies just expecting a free ride
Recommend Recommended by 42 Readers 25.Jeb
OnTopOfYourMother
March 26th, 2010

7:17 pmFor the walkers and cyclists. I know of a good short pier you can walk or ride off.
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers of 11 Next
Post a Comment Suggest a Correction to This Blog Post »

26.Rival5SoutheastMarch 26th, 20107:17 pmOh man, this is rich (figuratively, of course. I don't want any of you to think I'M rich and start a class warfare thread) Where else but the NY Times would you find people who agree with the statement “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.” WTF? While I have no problem at all with bikes, bike trails, etc. (in fact, I ride them myself), the very idea that bikes should even be considered in the same subject with motorized vehicles is laughable! Of one thing you can be sure: you won't find ANYONE on Capitol Hill EVER riding a bicycle for transportation! They may make the "unwashed masses" ride them (since the ObaMao administration loves the looks / idea of the Chinese form of "government"), but you'll NEVER find the elitist politicians falling in line with that program........you just don't see it YET, do you? How much is going to have to be taken from you before you realize what you've done? http://www.cnbc.com/id/36013573
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers 27.GeolamaSan DiegoMarch 26th, 20107:17 pmWhat happens if someone has a severe injury while on the bike paths that are well away from existing automobile infrastructure? Will we be using bicycle-based paramedics and ambulances?

If you really want good and well maintained bike paths then they should be owned and managed by private enterprise and cyclists should pay a monthly/yearly fee to ride. As bad as the government is with automotive and rail infrastructure, would you really want THEM to build and manage your bike infrastructure?
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers 28.RightSuffTexas
March 26th, 20107:17 pmDemocrats are so delusional. The Dem party is institutionalized affirmative action for those who are devoid of brains.
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers 29.okagunalbikermizeryMarch 26th, 20107:17 pmOh, great idea... spend millions so a few of us can bike to work on the good weather days.
Unbelievable stupidity is gripping our country.
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers 30.PatriciaWNew York

March 26th, 20107:17 pmIt's not that people are against bikes, it's just laughable that bikes would get equal treatment on roads and highways over cars, trucks, vans, etc. The nation depends on these modes of transportation for it's lifeblood and now we're the internal combustion bullies! Whoever you are, this is not China or India or Russia and we are not ready to go backwards despite what the EPA and DOT believe. Not gonna do it. How about rickshaws and scooters? Do they get equality too?
Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers 31.AJPPennsylvania

March 26th, 20107:17 pmNo one is against biking, but when was the last time that your food, electronics, medicine, or any other product got from the factory to the store on a BIKE??! This isn't about exercise! This is about efficiently moving goods, so that American jobs can stay competitive. We have higher employee costs and health care costs than in China and India, so we need the competitive edge of efficient transport. I lived in a country where corruption siphoned off so much money that the pot hole filled highways could only support 35 mile per hour transportation, and it was a HUGE drain on the economy.

Bike lanes are a luxury, but roads are a necessity. It is not the government's job to make sure people exercise.

Also, last time I checked, schools provide buses for transportation, so any teenager working for a car is HIS choice. A teenager with a car is another luxury that people in most countries can not afford. Actually, it is a luxury for any adult in a lot of countries, so instead of complaining about "auto-centric" life, we should be GRATEFUL!
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers 32.Donald HarrisMurphysboro, IL

March 26th, 20107:17 pmLaHood is an IDIOT. I hope he wears a helmet when he goes biking with his chauffeur.
Recommend Recommended by 22 Readers 33.JBSSouth TexasMarch 26th, 20107:17 pmAnd he's the Republican in the Administration?
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers 34.JBRI

March 26th, 20107:17 pmThis is just another Federal intrusion into our lives. Now the government wants to take over the construction and building of our roads on a state and local level. I am all for fitness and having the ability to ride a bike or walk to a destination if I choose but these need to be local decisions and not decided by the Feds. Think of the additional burden that will be placed on local governments already stretched beyond their limits when now in the Northern States we add to the burden of plowing sidewalks and the costs of the additional equipment and manpower that will be required. What a joke!! Get the government out of our lives and instead of legislating additional rules think of ways to reduce the size of government and shrink our taxes.
Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers 35.MikeRepublic Of Texas

March 26th, 20107:17 pmI ride a bike, but do not want to rely on it for my primary mode of transport. Anybody proselytizing this had better have 3% body fat and be prepared to share how they provide for their family needs with only a bike. I've ridden when it is 107F and 24F. I've faced 35MPH head winds, not fun, but do-able. I would prefer wider sidewalks then designated bike lanes. Designated bike lanes thru sub-divisions are preferred parking and trash can lanes. And before you run out and buy a Walmart special, you had better understand bicycle maintenance is not cheap. You must be prepared to perform roadside repairs and simple upkeep. Your life insurance should be up to date. And never ever adopt an attitude, that it's a 50/50 deal when you are on the road. It's more like 150/0. And you are doing the 150%. Be alert, be seen, be prepared.
Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers 36.Ish KabibblePittsburgh

March 26th, 20107:17 pmHmm... I think tomorrow I'll load my bike on the back of my HEMI V8 Jeep Commander, drive 120 miles out somewhere and go for a short bike ride. Should be a nice day!
Recommend Recommended by 19 Readers 37.statesrightsnowCalifornia

March 26th, 20107:17 pmThe internal combustion engine has freed mankind from back breaking labor and has saved lives, like ambulances fire engines police cars.

I do not fancy walking 3 miles to the supermarket to buy groceries, and then walking another 5 miles to the doctor. Somewhere in that time span I we have to earn a living. Leave the cars, buses,trucks, and aircraft alone. Let's work on alternative fuels instead.
Recommend Recommended by 19 Readers 38.okagunalbikermizery

March 26th, 20107:17 pmCreating jobs with tax payer money has zero effect, as prices will naturally rise with the higher tax on goods and services. Come on people this is 5th grade stuff here. Also there is the fact that most of the employees of the constructon companies will be illegal and all the money funneled into Mexico. So, it's a double whamy! I'm sure there's plenty more negitives I've not yet though of.
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers 39.mrzippySan Jose Ca.

March 26th, 20107:17 pmClearly Carter Wood is a brain-dead idiot !
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers 40.mrzippySan Jose Ca.

March 26th, 20107:17 pmAnd Mr. LaTourette isn't the sharpest tool in the shed either !
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers 41.ragtimes14usaMarch 26th, 20107:19 pmI call for a $200 surcharge on the purchase of all bicycles and a 20% surcharge on bicycle equipment. Also....place a GPS on all bicycles (at user expense) and place a $0.10 surcharge on every mile the bike is rode.
Recommend Recommended by 24 Readers 42.gmpNJ

March 26th, 20107:21 pmMr. Ray LaHood is also the one who told Toyota owners to stop driving their cars. I suspect he's got a deal going with a Chinese bicycle refurbishing company.

As their people get wealthier and acquire cars, they will have a billion used bikes to get rid of. Why not sell them to Toyota owners and fat Americans?
Recommend Recommended by 16 Readers 43.BlueSpringsMoBlue Springs Mo

March 26th, 20107:24 pmLa Hood, is that French or stupid? I am going to peddle 40,000 miles per year in all weather and be able to carry a trunk of goodies to show and tell along with a change of clothes? If the coasts want to bike hike for Obama, i say let them. As for me and mine, We drive!
But think about the glory days of dirt streets and the black plague! Oh, ya. Those were the days! It may be great if La Hood leads the way. That would mean that he would never bike to my part of the country! What a bargain!
Recommend Recommended by 22 Readers 44.nevpatnevada

March 29th, 20108:07 amDon't you see! They are attacking our liberty! They are wolves in sheeps clothing! They put smiles on their faces and feign compassion only to control us! The welfare of humanity has always been the alibi of tyrants! Cars are freedom and they are attacking our freedom everywhere they can!
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 45.EddiecWest Palm Beach

March 29th, 20108:08 amMore idiotic ideas from an idotic administration. Hey all you New Yorkers and South Floridians, feel stupid about voting for this Obaclown yet?
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 46.JPFEdgewood,KY

March 29th, 20108:08 amIt's about freight. Bicycles are highly inefficient. We can get fit if we want. If you restrict motor traffic for the sake of bike traffic, you slow things down. Enforced fitness in this way does not make sense.

Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 47.omega2Arizona

March 29th, 20108:08 amHey LaHood I cant wait to see a bicycle pulling an 18 wheeler trailer down the road. You are a typical DIG BAT of the FEDRAL CZARS.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 48.AbbyMacDChicago, ILMarch 29th, 20108:08 amIn Chicago, we have three dangers on the streets (in this order):

1. Cabbies...How did they ever get a license?
2. Pedestrians. Yes, that flashing orange hand means "don't walk"...not "walk even more slowly while talking on your cell phone."
3. Bikers...If you're crazy enough to come screaming up the right side...it's your fault when I run over you while I'm making a right-hand turn.

Totally agree with several posters.....if you want to be treated the same...you get to pay like motorists do. That means an annual license fee and a city sticker...at the very least.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 49.Charles MartelHouston, Texas

March 29th, 20108:08 amI'm a cyclist, but I have to ask, under what authority would the Federal government have any business spending my tax dollars from Texas on a bike path in Rhode Island? Under what authority would the Federal government have any business spending my tax dollars, still from Texas, on a bike path right here in Texas? What could possibly be the justification for borrowing still more money from China to build bike paths anywhere?

Transportation on that scale is a local matter, and neither Congress nor the Secretary of Transportation should be playing any part whatsoever. And in case it's escaped your notice, the United States is completely out of money, and the Obama socialists have just committed us to spending still more of the money we're completely out of. Stop the stupid spending already. And get the gavel out of Nancy Pelosi's bony grip before she flushes any more of our grandchildren's future.

+++
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 50.worldchampUAW CountryMarch 29th, 20108:11 amOf course all of our brothers and sisters that work so hard in the Auto industry appreciate the HARD work this administration is doing for us. T