LaHood elevates biking, walking to parity with cars
Call it sacrilege. Call it radical. But U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has actually elevated the bicycle and the human foot to parity with the automobile in federal transportation policy.
On Monday, LaHood announced what could be -- if it is backed with actual dollars-and-cents policy -- a sea change from the auto-centric bias that has prevailed in federal transportation policy since World War II.
"People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized," he said. "We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities."
As part of this policy, LaHood said, the federal government will urge state departments of transportation to "treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes."
The WashCycle blog is calling LaHood's statement "simply the strongest statement of support for prioritizing bicycling and walking ever to come from a sitting secretary of transportation."
Thanks to Greater Greater Washington for iits coverage of what could be a landmark decision.







Comments
Great news! Since I have decided that a car-free life is what I wanted last year I love the lack of hassles, monetary outlay, and stress of having to drive. Walking or the MTA is how I get around town, but if you live in suburbia I imagine this is not always an option. Perhaps Mr. LaHood can improve this..
Posted by: Don | March 16, 2010 7:16 PM
Hooray for Secretary LaHood.
Yes, happy motorists, there is life outside of your car.
Posted by: missnj | March 17, 2010 8:05 AM
Outstanding. Now let's see this backed up with results on the state and local levels as well.
Posted by: Chris | March 17, 2010 9:41 AM
Fantastic. Federal policy is being changed to the detriment of 99% of the commuters in order to benefit a small group of enthusiasts and hobbyists. In the end our infrastructure will suffer, more time will be wasted as people spend it sitting in traffic, and the environment will suffer as backed up cars spew more and more emissions into the atmosphere.
Posted by: Thom | March 17, 2010 9:47 AM
Thom, that's silly. All of us our pedestrians and need safe places to walk even if most of what we do is driving. Some people like the first poster choose to live car-free and. But, there are plenty of people who can't afford cars, or if they can afford them can't afford to drive them often so they walk and bike when they can. Many people rely on the MTA and they need good pedestrian facilities to take them to their final destination. Others take their bike on MTA and ride a few miles past the end of the line to get home.
Local taxes are the main source of funding for local roads. I bike, walk--and also drive--and I would not want all of my money only going towards car facilities that make my street less friendly and make it harder to walk the 8 blocks to the grocery store or bike the 2 miles to Lake Montebello. I also want to be able to drive and visit my family in upstate New York.
And it's silly to pretend you're the environmentalist because in some rare cases traffic doesn't route well around a cyclist or pedestrian. Where I lived in the suburbs I was actually closer (as the bird flies) to groceries and restaurants and salons and most everything than I am here in Baltimore. But 99% of people drove there. Why? because walking to the grocery store meant going onto Rt. 40 with intermittent sidewalks or cutting through a yard at the end of a cul-de-sac. There was always a ton of traffic and driving the 1/2 mile could take 10 minutes. In Baltimore the only time there is traffic in my neighborhood is when commuters from the suburbs come in the mornings and evenings. No idea what percentage of people walk but it's definitely greater than 25%. It's great not needing to use a car for short trips especially when it's quicker to walk or bike.
So, LaHood isn't asking you not to drive. He's asking you--and the states--to respect that there are tax paying citizens who might want to walk or bike and that you realize they are equally entitled to public space.
Have a great day :)
Posted by: Fritz | March 17, 2010 10:21 AM
I quit cars 15 years ago and find my choices of where to live to be very limited in USA unlike Europe. I am very happy that the US may some day catch up with Europe with pedestrian/bike centered towns surrounded by country connected by frequent rail service.
Posted by: jim | March 17, 2010 1:10 PM
Cheers to this.
Posted by: Jed | March 17, 2010 2:43 PM
More gas tax money going to non-highway use.....
Please don't complain about drivers, we're footing the bill for you.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2010 1:48 AM
Years ago my grocery store was across the street. Gas tax funds widened that street to a four-lane, plus two turn lanes, each direction highway, no crosswalk. Gas tax funds put to good use? Progress? I don't think so.
Posted by: missnj | March 18, 2010 9:52 AM
Anonymous, let's list the subsidies we have for cars. General fund infusions into the highway trust fund. General funds subsidizing car ownership. Local tax revenues being the vast majority of money spent on local roads. General state money being a large part of state road spending. General funds going towards road plowing budgets--not plowing sidewalks or bike lanes. General funds going to subsidize oil companies. General funds going to stormwater runoff issues caused by too much of America being paved for cars. Additional costs of goods when businesses have to raise prices to pay for their parking infrastructure. Local parking minimums which pass the cost of parking onto the community as a whole. The cost of the land in front of my house which has been reserved for parking and not some other use. The cost of land used for the road itself. The cost of particulate matter in our air produced from cars. The cost of remediation at oil refineries and abandoned gas stations. The cost to hospitals--public and private--of treating car crash victims who don't get reimbursed. The cost to the families. The cost to those living in the Baltimore neighborhoods east of I-83 or along the Franklin-Mulberry corridor.
So, please, let's not pretend that this is a one way stream from car drivers to subsidize bikers and pedestrians. It's not.
Posted by: Fritz | March 18, 2010 11:27 AM
How much exercise or human contact does one get while driving a car? Walk or take a bike and open your eyes and ears to the world around your.
We are all pedestrians at some time, or should be for the good of the world, our community and ourselves.
THANK YOU Mr. LaHood, it is about time.
Posted by: lnelson | March 19, 2010 3:54 PM