US Secretary of Transportation says Bikes "are not transportation"

Mary Peters is obviously a turd.

Good luck from europe!

Is this another joke post?

Heckuvajob Mary

Maybe she doesn't understand either that we are, in ourselves, a mean of transportation: we can walk to a destination too!

Wow - how irresponsible. I just emailed a letter off to the DOT to tell her to wake up. We need more cyclists commuting in this country to decrease our dependence on oil and war.

At first glance- this was an appalling statement- but notice she said bike paths/trails.... she could be refering to recreational bike paths/trails as opposed to bike lanes which would be used for personal transportation rather than the 100% recreational use of bike paths/trails.

Is she kidding me???? Even if she is referencing money put into the building of "bike paths" that may or may not have a finite start and end, she is completely disregarding one of our nation's leading health problem: obesity. I would rather have my tax money pay for a bike path to be built knowing that people will get out and use it, thus decreasing their mass, resulting in less dependency on the healthy, productive people such as myself. Not to mention the millions of dollars in increased health costs I have to pay BECAUSE of their obesity and inactivity, than to have my money funnelled into the pockets of oil-dictators.

Andy Clarke, director of the League of American Bicyclists wrote very eloquently:

Dear Secretary Peters:

I listened with dismay to your recent interview on the MacNeil Lehrer Newshour, August 15 airing, on the subject of transportation funding and the Minneapolis bridge collapse. I was particularly taken aback by your comments related to the funding of bicycle projects in the United States.

1. Your statement that bicycle trails and paths are not “transportation-related” or “infrastructure” is baffling. I have been riding to work every day in Washington DC for almost 20 years on one of the regions many well-used bicycle paths, many of which have benefited from Federal transportation funding. Tens of millions of bicyclists and pedestrians in communities across the country use trails to get to work, school, shops, and to visit friends and family — and every one of these trips prevents congestion, pollution, and energy consumption while improving the health of the rider or walker.

2. You left the impression that an enormous percentage of Federal transportation funds are spent on projects such as these. The reality is that only one percent of these funds are spent on bicycling and walking projects despite the fact that these two modes account for ten percent of all trips in the country and 12 percent of traffic fatalities each year.

3. You also left the impression that critical bridge projects are being left unfunded because of this. You did not point out the huge sums of money that states have been allocated for bridge projects over the years but they have failed to spend. Indeed, states have returned to Washington hundreds of millions of “unspent” bridge program dollars as part of recent rescissions ordered by the Congress.

I find it astonishing that, almost 20 years after the groundbreaking ISTEA legislation that created flexibility and allowed greater local input over Federal transportation funding, you would single out bicycle trails in this way. At a time when individuals, communities and as a nation we are battling congestion, obesity, energy consumption, global warming, and air quality issues, projects and programs to help people use alternatives to driving are a wise investment.

More than 40 percent of trips in urban areas in the this country are two miles or less; one quarter are just one mile or less and most of even these trips are made by car. I urge you to stand beside Congressman Oberstar, Congressman Blumenauer, and others in Congress who are attempting to efficiently and effectively unclog our highways by shifting some of these short, polluting car trips to healthier modes.

Secretary Peters, as Federal Highway Administrator you delivered remarks at the 2002 National Bike Summit that presented a much different view of the role bicycling can play in our national transportation system.

As you stated then, and I quote, “Many people in our country use bikes for more than recreation. For them, bikes are their vehicle for the commute to work and for the errands of daily life. We need every mode of transportation to keep America mobile. What modes did you use to get to your hotel? Very few of us depend on a single mode. I strongly agree with Secretary Mineta, bicyclists are an integral part of our nation’s transportation system and we all need to work together to develop a better more balanced transportation system that provides facilities and programs for bicyclists on a routine basis.”

Secretary Peters, I urge you to stand by your words in 2002, and publicly correct the misleading impressions regarding bicycling that you left with the viewers of the MacNeil Lehrer show.

Sincerely,
Andy Clarke
Executive Director

I agree with Rollie; while I'd certainly not be surprised that a member of the Bush Administration thinks bikes aren't transportation, she's clearly referring to recreational bike trails here, not bike lanes.

Meanwhile, if I could bike-commute to work on a trail instead of trying to fight Baltimore road traffic, I would totally do so (we don't have bike lanes, either).

If more people rode bikes, I don't think our bridges would be in the shape that they are. This woman is backwards-thinking and simply wrong. What we've come to expect from a Bush appointee.

To say I am shocked would be a lie. It is however sad that even our government cannot look beyond the automobile for answers. I have used a bicycle as my exclusive transportation for anything under 25 miles for two years now. I live in a city with no cycling infrastructure and often go weeks without sighting some else on a bike who is not just out for a spin around the block. 20 miles away is slightly more proserpous city. I often visit there on my bike. they have made a commited effort at accomdating trails and bike paths in the city. Bike racks are plentiful and always in use. People use bikes to go to work, school, (there is a university right off a large rail trail leading from the city center). The farmers market and local festivals are always packed with bicycles.

In other words, where an effort to create a bicycle infrastructure is made, bicycles are a valid method of transportation. We were no effort is made, they are not. If anyone has an email address or other contact info for Mary Peters I would appreciate it. A little letter writing campaign might be in order.

The delicious irony here it that she says bike paths are not transportation, then complains about people being stuck in traffic. And then they fund the commuter congestion reduction program in NYC.

"Yes, so we'll encourage people not to drive in Manhattan, but then not make any provisions for getting them around without their cars. What, whats that? A bicycle? You mean, like, in the gym? You can't go anywhere on those! That's not transportation!"

In the bigger article, I did not see where she specifically said bikes are not transportation. But just to set the records straight-
Biking IS transportation.
I transport myself 22 miles every day on New York City's failing infrastructure.

Good Luck,

vk

@ rollie.

Many cities have bike paths/trails that are used for commuting, but are not 'bike lanes'. When I lived in Madison, I used many of these trails to commute around the city. Many routes afforded me a quicker travel than when I drove my automobile or road the bus.

I hope there is some further clarification on that (i.e. Rollie's comment) to delineate what she meant exactly. If she is referring to bikes in general as "not transportation", I guess that means that millions of people worldwide who use them daily as such have no understanding of their misuse.

Are not bicycles classified, by US law, as vehicles; technically cyclists are supposed to obey traffic laws and etc. Does she not have any reference to this?

If she is saying that bikes are "not transportation", please someone start an online petition to specifically address her comments!

rollie, have you ever been to Seattle? The Burke-Gilman Trail, which definitely falls under her statement, looks like a recreational path but also forms a kind of freeway for bicyclists that is one of the best ways to get around there. In Los Angeles the Ballona Creek Bike Path connects communities like Culver City, Inglewood, and Marina Del Rey, for both recreational and transportational cyclists. When I ride that path certainly a number of the cyclists are wearing spandex and carrying no gear, but there are an equal number of people obviously riding home from work, wearing haphazard gear and carrying a backpack or panniers. Just because something is separated from a roadway doesn't make it less of a viable transportation option- in fact I like to use this sort of path for a portion of my route whenever possible because of the separation from cars.

This is one of the most shortsighted statements I've heard in regards to bicycle commuting- if it's not transportation, then that is the case because the person in CHARGE of transportation doesn't believe that it is!

"Wow - how irresponsible. I just emailed a letter off to the DOT to tell her to wake up. We need more cyclists commuting in this country to decrease our dependence on oil and war."

Not to mention ease the strain on our infrastructure, which is what the dicussion on NewsHour was about. If more people rode bikes, our bridges would be lasting a LOT longer. Anyone feel free to disagree with me.

A do agree that when it come down to it, money for bridges is more important than money for bike trails. But bike *lanes*, I think that's very important.

People are taking her comments out of context. She was speaking of bike paths and trails (I'm not sure about the repairing lighthouses part) which typically don't go anywhere (except recreationally). I just rode a bike path back to a beautiful lake in Alaska, but there's no bike path that will get me from my condo to my office. There are, however, roads. People are interpreting her words to mean: "bikes are not a viable form of transportation from any useful point A to point B", when what she really means (as far as I'm interpreting it) is "If we want to effectively use tax dollars to improve transportation, making a pretty trail back to some pond will not help relieve urban congestion".

Another outmoded Ideologue who needs to be replaced by someone with practical vision for the future. I've been using a bike for transportation for over twenty years. Say what?????

Considering that a very large amound of America's driving is to and from recreation spots, I'm not certain recreational bike paths can be considered a waste. If people prefer to locomote on a bicycle as opposed to driving to work out or swim, then a bkie path has the effect of cutting wear and tear on our infrastructure, and should be financed by transportaiton monies. Plus it may keep recreational bikers off of dangerous roads, cutting down on accidents.

Good luck rollie. Yep another petrol head running the transport portfolio. She probably thinks that ethanol fuels will help reduce global warming.

Just in reply to the above post justifying her writing off bike paths as recreational only - I commute on them all the time... any path that goes from point A to point B is a much safer and more enjoyable (and therefore more useable) option than bike lanes or small shoulders.

I just sent a letter too. The 'recreational paths' in my city, help me get around without being menaced by entitlement filled car drivers. Hell just last week or so I read about three different bicyclists that had either died or been put in the hospital while riding on streets. That's not unusual.

In my city, there is an explosion of bicycling. Not just bike folk, but everyone. I see a lot of obviously new bike people every day. The trails are packed with folks.

How are we not transportation.

People are taking her comments out of context. She was speaking of bike paths and trails (I'm not sure about the repairing lighthouses part) which typically don't go anywhere (except recreationally)

No, she wasn't. She's talking about RTP funding, which has a heavy component of functional bike trails. It also includes trails for things not related to bicycles. Regardless, total outlays are inconsequential compared to roads, bridges, and transit.

She omitted from her assertion that 16% of the gasoline tax goes towards transit right from the outset. 84% goes to the Highway Trust Fund. She also doesn't mention that a good chunk of transportation funding comes from other sources as well.

She's just bike bashing to make a political point.

Oh, and recreational biking is still a form of transportation (ie, movement of people or goods from one point to another).

(I apologize in advance for the length of this response to this article) As a fiscal conservative I have a different political view than probably most Treehuggers but I believe this article and the comments it has generated are missing the larger point. If global warming is an issue as dire as those on this website believe it to be (and I basically agree with that assessment) then we need to re-think everything (including our personal political biases).

The question (IMO) is not whether bicycles are transportation or even if this is truly what Peters meant by her comments. The question is, in response to detoriorating infrastructure and global warming, what should be the position of the Department of Transportation? As a conservative I would be expected to be against the gas tax increase recently suggested. However, on this topic I actually support a rather substantial increase in gasoline taxes (in the range of $1 per gallon more in taxes). As a conservative I support this because: a) I believe that humans may be contributing to global warming b) If you increase the price of something you tend to get less consumption of it c) The price of gas should include at least a portion of our national defense expenditures and d) we need to be far more energy independent than we currently are.

So as a conservative I can put aside my ideological bias and support tax increases but can the Treehugger community (which I gather to be predominately liberal) agree to some compomises that would help solve the infrastructure problem and help solve the global warming problem?

Specifically, would my liberal friends support: 1) the offsetting of the gas tax with a similar reduction in the FICA taxes? After all, the goal would be to reduce gas consumption and not to necessarily increase the size and scope of government? 2) Thoroughly review how we fund transportation repairs and government in general? In short, get rid of earmarks and "pork" in general, and focus on the main necessities of government?(ie infrastructure and yes, making a huge intragenerational commitment to alternative/renewalbe energy)

So the question that I pose is this: If global warming is as dire as some people believe (Treehuggers included) what political beliefs are you/we willing to cast aside in order to fix the problem? As a conservative, I am willing to accept tax increases. As liberals, are some of you willing to thoroughly review what the federal government spends our money on and be prepared to cut funding to programs that are wasteful, do not deliver the benefits promised, etc. in order for us to re-allocate our resources to fighting global warming?

If not, then how can my conservative friends (those Rush/Hannity listeners) be convinced that the global warming issue isn't merely the latest ploy to eliminate capitalism which they equate to personal freedom?

EVERYONE! FIRE OFF A LETTER TO THIS MORON AND EDUCATE HER TO THE DEFINITION OF

Transportation: to carry, move, or convey from one place to another.

Yet another Bush cronie.

hmm... put in office by bush... why am i not surprised...

someone should stuff her stupid mouth full of dirty socks :-D

then she and the rest of her kind, including her master, should be thrown into a pit. :-D

Ah, second pancake, THAT would come from Health and Human Services. Not DOT's budget. You wouldn't believe the amount of fighting that goes on about who pays for what.

Couldn't lighthouses still be part of transportation? Even with radar, they are used.

Lloyd it doesn't surprise me that this post is from you, please stop making us look bad. She's clearly talking about recreational bike paths and trails which AREN'T transportation. I would hate to see them go away but saying she said bikes are transportation isn't true in any way shape or form.

"She's clearly talking about recreational bike paths and trails which AREN'T transportation."

Transportation is defined as the movement of people and/or goods from one place to another. It is transportation.

Did she say this because the concern of the Federal Government’s DOT is primarily interstate commerce? Constitutionally speaking, (ignoring that the Federal Gov't has ignored the Constitution for decades) Does bicycle transportation warrant federal attention or should it be solely in the hands of the state?

To all the 'she was talking about recreational paths' people, do you consider the Interstates and state highways that are paved through National Parks "recreational roads"?

sent to dot.comments@dot.gov:

Dear Mary PETERS, US Secretary of Transportation,

You were recently quoted saying that we should not spend infrastructure money on bicycles. With the quotes in full context in the transcript of a recent interview, I gathered that you think that bicycles are not transportation.

What qualifies you to say that bicycles are not transportation? Have you never ridden a bicycle to work? Have you ever ridden a bicycle at all?

Madame Secretary, have you ever been to any of the large cities in China, have you ever been to London, New York City, or Seattle?

I, by the way, regularly commute by bicycle ... to the point where I am considering getting rid of my car and all of the expense involved with owning it.

If you truly believe that bicycles are not transportation, please resign as US Secretary of Transportation for the good of our nation; if that is what you believe, you are obviously not qualified for your post.

Good day,

-my name and address deleted-

In my suburban midwestern city, we do have some of the aforementioned designated bike paths, a few of which run along main routes about town. A good thing, too, because we have NO BIKE LANES! Nada. Zip. Not a one. So for us local bike-riders, yes these are important elements of the transportation infrastructure here. I'm afraid that the good Secretary either misrepresented her complete opinion, or is misinformed somewhat about the entire transport picture in this country.

"Transportation is defined as the movement of people and/or goods from one place to another. It is transportation."

ooooohhh ok.. well then I guess I'll go ahead and apply for my funding, I gave a friend a ride on my back yesterday and that definitely falls under your description of transportation

oooohhh ok.. well then I guess I'll go ahead and apply for my funding, I gave a friend a ride on my back yesterday and that definitely falls under your description of transportation

If you want to battle with the English language, be my guest. "Transportation" means what it means.

Your silly comment only proves you have no point to make.

Do you ride bikes often? At all?

Do you know anything about transportation funding and how it works?

maybe she wassss referring to recreational....i know personally....my town built a bike path that went to no where and was totally unfunctional....mean whil this poor college student is tired of dealing with the fumes of on coming semi's......hmmmm lets put those hundreds of thousands into a functional bike path

Since when did "transport infrastructure" become synonymous with "auto infrastructure"? Don't write letters to her ! Fat lot of good that will do. Old dogs do not learn new tricks. WRITE TO HER POLITICAL OPPONENTS. They have the media attention and would use this kind of fodder to best effect as any moderate person can recognize just how rediculous her statements are.

Better late than never - just wanted to add that I am transported to and from work on a bicycle and averaging 150 miles per week. One less car on the road and I don't need anything from the wasteful, shortsighted, and lame Federal Government - my trip is mostly on dirt roads!