With the Congress becoming almost surely more conservative next November, Secretary LaHood may have some trouble getting some of his "livability" and "non-motorized" program initiatives funded.

D.J. Hughes, P.E, an associate in the Milford, Del., office of Davis Bowen & Friedel of architects, engineers and surveyors:

Personally, as a professional traffic engineer, I do not believe bikes, cars, and pedestrians should be treated equally in general, especially as a blanket policy for all areas. It may be very appropriate to do so in urban areas where people may actually live within walking or biking distance of either their workplace or a transit station that they take to work. However, in most of the country bike/ped trips are for recreational purposes and have little-to-no commuter value with respect to transportation benefits such as decreased pollution and congestion.

For most people, biking to work is simply not practical. Within our company of 100+, I would say it is not even a viable option for over 95% of our employees, if not more, regardless of available infrastructure. Commuter bike trips are not realistic for people with kids in day care, who have a 10-15+ min drive at 40-50 mph avg speed, or who have to take things such as a laptop and files to/from work. Bad weather also prevents commuter bike trips even for the most avid bicyclists. People also cannot accomplish essential tasks such as grocery shopping via bikes.

Our neighborhood is in a town and most of the town streets do have sidewalks, which is good. Bicycles are not necessarily accommodated other than a recent rails to trails project. I have a young daughter and we live in a neighborhood without any sidewalks where we frequently walk and occasionally bike. We prefer it this way as the sidewalks would have taken up too much of everyone’s yards and created unnecessary impervious surface area. A lot of people prefer to walk along the side of the street anyway within neighborhoods for various reasons even if sidewalks are available. Within the neighborhood, people drive slowly because they know they are in a neighborhood and peds/cars/bikes mix smoothly without issues.

My point is Delaware has basically taken a similar stance to the Secretary over the last few years, and I don’t view the blanket policy as good whatsoever. What we see happening are sidewalks and multi-use paths to nowhere that are not being used. We also end up with facilities that I feel are unnecessary. Requiring a 5’ dedicated bicycle lane on a roadway and then providing a 10’ multi-use path for bikes/peds within 20’ of the 5’ bike lane is overkill in my opinion. But we are told the bike lane and multi-use path are designed for two different types of users. While driving, my wife comments on them and why are they there? My response is typically don’t get me started.

I am interested to know if there is bicycle data with respect to the number of recreational versus commuter or primary trips. I believe the % will be an overwhelming majority of recreational trips, which still do have value. However, if we are going to be designing public roadway facilities for recreational trips I don’t believe we will see the bang for the buck with respect to actual transportation value or benefits. While I seem some merit in increased bike trips with improved infrastructure, the reality is bike trips only have real transportation value in certain areas such as urban areas or municipalities. There should not be a blanket policy for transportation regardless of the area a project may be located. If we are going to be accommodating them, there should undoubtedly be user fees for bicyclists. The purchase of new bikes and tires seems like a good way to accomplish that.

This post was sent in by Anne Lusk, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Harvard University School of Public Health:

My favorite words from Transportation Secretary LaHood are, “…go beyond minimum design standards and requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible, and convenient bicycling and walking networks.” To achieve his vision, inequality of funding between cars and bicycles needs to be corrected but bicycle facilities are extremely affordable when compared to highways. Bicycling also lowers dependence on foreign oil, lessens wear on roads, improves health, and reduces pollution; thus, bicycle facilities self-fund and even show a profit when considered in the full economy. But bikes and cars are not treated equally from an environmental justice perspective and this should be corrected.

Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System so that each state would be connected and each driver could have equal access to a uniform highway. In contrast, bicycle facilities are always heralded with a city name… Portland, New York City, Boulder, Davis, San Francisco. These cities have bicycle facilities because they have progressive Mayors and effective bicycle advocates. These cities also have healthy, wealthy, and educated populations.

An environmental injustice is committed if only cities with progressive leaders have bicycle facility networks. Having one distant rail trail to which everyone has to drive does not make one state equal to another. Recent research suggested that to control weight, a person should engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity for one hour seven days a week (I-Min Lee, 2010, JAMA). Bicycling is the best physical activity because it can be a daily routine, distances traveled can be far, goods can be easily carried, and it is more comfortable to most people than brisk walking. If, though, a person has to drive to the bicycle facility, then the bicycling involves discretionary time and bicycling for one hour a day becomes impossible.

If we want to treat bikes and cars equally, we need to provide all populations with comfortable, safe, attractive, and convenient bicycling networks in cities and communities (major emphasis) and between states (minor emphasis due to distances) as in the Interstate Highway System. This cannot only include bicycling on the regular road as a vehicular bicyclist because many individuals, including children, seniors, and parents with children on their bicycles do not prefer to bicycle in the road with cars. The Federal Highway Administration European scans have shown that such interconnected networks of bicycle facilities can be built and that large percentages of all individuals will then bicycle.

To truly treat bikes and cars equally, we need Transportation Secretary LaHood and President Obama to create a National System of Intra and Interstate Bicycle Facilities that have uniform comfort to all bicyclists just as the Interstate Highway System has uniform usability to all vehicle drivers. This bicycle system would be considerably less expensive than the Interstate Highway System and respond not only to economic development and the movement of goods and services but also to equitable health and sustainability.

Mr. Darbelnet raises an interesting point when he observes that “We’re facing a generational crisis with existing infrastructure.” There is no doubt that we must invest considerable sums in the coming years to bring existing roads and bridges to a state of good repair.

But in addition to a "generational crisis," we are also facing a generational opportunity. My daughter turns 24 today. She still doesn’t have a driver’s license. Neither does her 20 year old brother. That was unheard of in my youth. I got my license the day after I turned 16. But my kids grew up in a family that valued both cycling and its AAA membership. And they grew up in a place – Washington D.C. – with a world-class public transportation system that permitted them the option of mobility without driving.

My kids aren't alone. In 1988, 45 percent of 16 year olds in the U.S. had their driver’s license; by 2008, that figure had dropped to 31 percent.

I’m sure my kids will eventually get their licenses. But when they do, I think they will view the car as one transportation option, not a central element of their lives as it was when I was their age.

I submit that a subtle cultural shift is underway. We are witnessing a transition from the auto-dominated American lifestyle of the post-war years to something new. At the local level demand is growing for more livable communities with an emphasis on health and quality of life. And as part of that vision people want the choice of walking, biking, driving or public transportation if that is the best way to reach a particular destination.

Some defenders of the status quo in the transportation world might claim that Secretary LaHood is out of touch with his emphasis on bicycling and livable communities. But I am confident that he has his finger firmly on the pulse of the American people.

So as we address the infrastructure crisis that Mr. Darbelnet so rightly emphasizes, let’s keep our eyes straight ahead and focused on creating a modern transportation system for the future that provides a variety of options, rather that looking in the rear view mirror to an America of the 1950s that is rapidly receding into the past.

The following was sent in by Darla Letourneau, a member of the steering group of BikeWalkLee, a coalition working to complete the streets of Lee County, Florida:

BikeWalkLee strongly supports the Secretary's new policy statement on bicycle and pedestrian accommodations announced on 3/15. In 2009, Lee County ― through adoption of complete streets resolutions by both the Metropolitan Planning Organization and by the Lee County Commission ― embarked on a path to safer streets for everyone. In addition, the county has just launched the development of a countywide bicycle pedestrian master plan that will provide the blueprint for a safe, accessible, and connected bicycle/pedestrian system throughout the county.

We have worked closely with our elected officials, who have been strong supporters of a more bike/ped/transit-friendly community. So, it was the logical next step to ask our MPO Board on Friday (3/19) to pass a motion in support of the Secretary’s policy, and they enthusiastically endorsed it!

It's really helpful to local communities that are working on complete streets, without any assistance or leadership from the state DOT, to have encouragement and support from the USDOT Secretary. See the link below to the press release we issued about the MPO's action & our call for action by Florida leaders (Governor, Legislature, and FDOT). BikeWalkLee Blog: BikeWalkLee applauds Lee MPO quick action in support of national complete streets.

We look forward to seeing other communities around the country, as well as states, embrace the Secretary’s bold policy direction on bike and ped accommodations as one element of balancing the transportation system that is needed. In most states, a paradigm shift is not going to come from within, so we need strong national leadership and vision to move our transportation system into the 21st century.

Secretary LaHood’s proposal to put non-motorized transportation on a level playing field with highways is as fine an illustration as you will find of the bankruptcy of the federal surface transportation program. It’s on a par with the Oberstar bill’s provision for “complete streets” and an interstate bike path program.

Americans supported the creation of the Highway Trust Fund and the dedicated highway user taxes that went with it because they agreed with the goal of creating a world-class system of Interstate highways. But it’s obvious that the “highway user fee” is now looked upon by both the Administration and many members of Congress as a general slush fund for anything that has even the most remote connection with transportation, regardless of how local or how non-strategic. Voters are not just cynical about earmarks for bridges to nowhere and historic museums. They have correctly figured out that the federal “highway user fee” has become a tax on drivers for non-drivers’ benefit. No wonder it’s become impossible to increase federal fuel taxes.

The GAO has been telling us for years that the federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path and that we must prioritize the things we expect it to do. In transportation, that means thinking hard about what is truly federal in nature—versus what is more appropriately state or local—and redesigning the federal role toward those ends. Sidewalks (“complete streets”) and bikeways are quintessentially local in nature. So is urban transit. Most highways are inherently state affairs, and should be state responsibilities.

What is truly federal is (at least) the Interstate system and related goods-movement infrastructure, and that should be the primary federal priority in surface transportation. If we refocused the federal program on reconstructing and modernizing the Interstates, there would be an enormous, productivity-increasing job to do over the next few decades: rebuilding several hundred enormously time-wasting and emission-causing interchange bottlenecks, adding heavy-duty truck lanes in key inter-city corridors, and building seamless networks of value-priced HOT lanes in the largest 10 to 20 metro areas.

America’s metro areas vary enormously in their geography, transportation infrastructure, and political ethos. The LaHood vision of “livability” is embraced by the political cultures of Portland, San Francisco, and some others, but is a poor fit for many other thriving metros, such as Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix.

I welcome extended debate over what the federal role in surface transportation should be, thanks to Congress’s willingness to continue kicking the can down the road. The last thing we need is a one-size-fits-all urban transportation model, imposed by the U.S. DOT. Let Portland be Portland—but let’s also let Houston be Houston.

I think Steve Heminger has it right…the public does want options when it comes to transportation. Most of the time, they’ll choose to drive because of the flexibility and utility driving offers. But we need to make it possible for people to choose other options when it makes sense for them to do so. How we get there won’t be easy, but rhetoric about “the end of favoring motorized transportation” downplays the very real challenges ahead of us.

We’re facing a generational crisis with existing infrastructure. Roads, bridges and even transit systems that were designed and built a generation ago are crumbling and must be repaired or rebuilt. Bringing existing infrastructure to a good state of repair will be a significant undertaking on its own and we don’t have enough revenue to do even that. If we’re going to ask users of the system to pay more, whether through gas taxes, VMT fees, tolls, or otherwise, transportation leaders need to put forward a clear vision of how our transportation challenges will be addressed.

These debates will continue, even after a successor to SAFETEA-LU is enacted. The focus of our efforts and our limited funds should be on moving people and goods safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively.

Secretary LaHood’s statement about bike and pedestrian activity is a logical extension of what we have learned about transportation in America over the last 25 years. That lesson is simply to look at the big picture, serve all users, and maximize the total transportation system.

For years, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians were virtually ignored, resulting in disproportionate numbers of injuries and the loss of life. It has left many cities with an unbalanced system that doesn’t work well for all users, like those who are disabled, unable to drive, or not old enough to get a license, such as kids going to school. While not everyone uses a car, at some point everyone is a pedestrian. Transportation systems that take everyone’s needs into consideration simply work better.

The fundamental point about cycling is that it is the least expensive way to add new capacity to our stressed transportation systems. In 14 years of biking in Washington, DC and not using a car, I have produced virtually no wear-and-tear on the roads, no air pollution, no competition for scarce parking spaces, nor added to Washington’s notorious congestion. My decision to burn calories instead of fossil fuel was good for me and the motorists who have chosen otherwise.

A vivid example of this can be found on the Hawthorne Bridge, located in the heart of downtown Portland, OR. Over the last 20 years, bridge traffic has increased some 17%. All but 1% of that increase has come from bicyclists, with almost no costs going to added wear-and-tear or necessary expansion to the bridge that would have resulted if the increase in use came from auto transportation.

Making simple accommodations for cyclists and promoting pedestrian activity, supplemented by efficient transit systems, is the fastest way to make America’s congested arteries work better for motorists and businesses that need to move freight.

For communities that have tried to deal with congestion by expanding highways, it doesn’t work. As the Mayor of Phoenix told me, after they struggled with a car-only approach to fix their transportation system, it was only after offering a balanced transportation package that they got the public support they needed. In the end, they saw better results from a mix of modes.

I have worked with dozens of communities across the country in similar situations, and the pattern is repeated. As they struggle with congestion and economic development, they have turned to community revitalization and balanced transportation systems that work. A pedestrian environment that is welcoming, safe and efficient sparks retail activity, makes property more valuable, and provides housing opportunities that are more cost-effective for the community.

Further, when children can walk and bike safely to school, there will be less congestion and less strain on harried parents. These parents, in turn, will be more likely to support the need to make their communities more livable.

I have been working with a diverse coalition of interests on strategies to build support for the financial resources that are needed and long overdue for transportation. The Highway Trust Fund is in deficit, and we desperately need an injection of new money. If we enlist the support of the millions of cycling enthusiasts and the majority of Americans who walk, we will not just make our communities work better, but we will have a broad coalition more likely to support the investment needed to rebuild and renew America.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here we go again. The transportation community has refined the arguments about "my mode is better than your mode" into a high art form. The surest way to guarantee that we will never break free of today's inadequate federal funding levels is to continue squabbling over each mode's fair share of current revenue. Unfortunately, the binary form of this week's question was almost certain to generate more heat than light. The public does want transportation options, but I think they also understand the difference in utility between a Buick and a bike.

Secretary LaHood's announcement that motorized transportation will no longer be favored over non-motorized is nothing short of revolutionary. It signals a huge change from the way that the USDOT has formed policy until now—and should come with a recognition that many low-income people are walking and biking every day, not for their health, not for the scenery, but because the current transportation system fails to serve their needs.

At TEN’s annual conference in D.C. last week, a high school student from St. Louis told how he walks six miles home from his restaurant job on school nights, getting home at 2 a.m., because the city bus he needs stops running at 10:30pm. He’s saving up to attend college next year, but with no transit service available between his home and the college, and a car far out of his budget, he’s anticipating a 12-mile walk to class starting in the fall. Safer, pedestrian-friendly paths along the way would be a step forward, but for him and many others, adequately funded motorized transit is just as vital.

As the USDOT works to increase non-motorized mobility options, we also need continued support for the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program and similar programs that help connect low-income people to jobs that aren’t in walking or biking range. JARC is a program that TEN succeeded in having added to the TEA-21 transportation bill in 1999, a private-public partnership that provides transportation connections between low-income communities and suburban jobsites that would otherwise would be out of reach. Our ultimate goal should be to answer the transportation needs of all our citizens, including low-income people, older people, and the disabled, as well as those of us who can choose how to reach our places of work, study, and worship.

Thanks, Andy, for exposing the absurdity of the “economic catastrophe” argument. But let me take your excellent rebuttal one step further.

We are, hopefully, emerging from the worst economic catastrophe that the US has experienced since the Great Depression. One of major factors in causing this disaster has been a “housing bubble,” which had caused the cost of housing to increase steadily over the last decade.

These rising costs pushed many middle class families to assume mortgage payments that strained their household budgets in the hopes that their incomes and property values would grow enough in future years to make their mortgage affordable. But that didn’t happen. The housing bubble burst, causing housing values to plummet, while the recession has denied many families the incomes necessary to pay the mortgage.

What does this have to do with transportation policy?

Plenty.

The housing-transportation connection was made abundantly clear today with the release of the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing-Transportation Index. http://www.cnt.org/news/2010/03/23/expanded-h-t-index-most-comprehensive-snapshot-of-neighborhood-affordability/

What this analysis reveals is that households in walkable/bikeable/transit-rich neighborhoods can devote as little as 12 percent of household income to transportation costs, providing more discretionary income to pay the mortgage.

In contrast, the study finds that households located in auto-centric places that require long driving trips between destinations are forced to pay as much as 32 percent of household income for transportation – which may even exceed the cost of their mortgage. Not only do such families have to pay a lot more for gasoline, but they often have to assume a variety of costs associated with owning a second car, when families in more “location efficient” communities can comfortably get by with one.

By combining housing and transportation costs into a single index, this ground-breaking analysis will change the way we determine if a house is truly affordable. It will make apparent not only the purchase price of the house, but the monthly transportation costs associated with living in a particular location.

During the summer of 2008 – when gasoline prices soared to $4 a gallon – we got a taste of why this so important. As prices increased, families in auto-dependent places had no choice but to pump more and more of their disposable income into their gas tanks. And evidence indicates that housing foreclosures have been higher in auto-dependent neighborhoods that don’t provide a variety of affordable transportation options.

We know that gasoline is only going to get more and more expensive in the future. When that happens, we can actually avert economic catastrophe for America’s families if we take steps now to create more walkable/bikeable/transit-rich neighborhoods that help families keep transportation costs manageable. So not only will increased investment in active transportation not cause economic catastrophe, it will actually prevent it!

America is a diverse country. We should invest in a transportation network that reflects that diversity. The transportation portfolio should continue to be varied to ensure that travel choices are there for people as their needs and abilities change. That expansive vision is at the core of the DOT’s 21st century mission.

AARP supports the very clear meaning of Secretary LaHood’s blog posting. As the head of DOT, his words spell out a commitment to:

· treat all modes of transportation equally,

· integrate the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in federally-funded road projects,

· ensure transportation choices for persons of all ages and abilities,

· go beyond minimum design standards and requirements to provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and

· collect better data on bicycle and walking trips.

Only with this “Complete Streets” approach will DOT, states and communities meet the needs of Americans in the 21st Century.

Complete Streets policies require transportation agencies to ensure that all road users, regardless of their age or ability, can move around their community safely and efficiently. Whether traveling by car, bus, bicycle, or on foot, residents and visitors alike should be able to get to the places they need and want to go in American communities. This ability to move safely is a character-defining feature not only of Complete Streets but of livable communities.

Complete Streets are not prescriptive -- one size does not fit all. Governments and planners have an obligation to assess resident needs and develop facilities accordingly. Every community looks different. Similarly, every city, county and town will have diverse transportation infrastructures by virtue of adopting a Complete Streets policy. Demographic trends, local land use, residential patterns, and citizen input will yield different results from place to place on how each transportation mode is best accommodated.

I've been called many things as I ride to and from work every day in our nation's capital, but a harbinger of economic catastrophe...now that's a first!

As I think back to major economic catastrophes of the last 40 years, I am having a hard time finding any tell-tale trace of bicycle tire tracks. On the contrary, my recollection of significant recent economic crises is that they are invariably caused by our predeliction for foreign oil - the 1973/74 oil embargo; 1988 oil crisis; 2008 gas price increases quickly followed by the mortgage and foreclosure crisis that piled unsustainable housing costs on top of budget-busting suburban commuting costs.

In terms of economic competitiveness, I would suggest that the crippling - and rapidly rising - health care costs associated with physical inactivity and obesity among the US workforce is a crisis worth worrying about. This adds significantly to the cost of everything produced here in the United States, making us less competitive abroad. Getting people moving through daily physical activity is a national priority - enabling people to bike and walk as part of everyday routines is a remarkably cost-effective way of achieving that goal, and surely something that manufacturers and employers would be behind 100 percent. The fact that it would also reduce congestion and increase discretionary spending on goods and services seems like a pretty good deal for the business community.

Keith Laughlin referred to the recently introduced Active Community Transportation Act, which would provide a major boost to cities in completing networks and programs to encourage and enable people to walk and ride for everyday transportation. The cost of the program is just 0.5% of the estimated price tag of the next surface transportation bill - and an amount similar to bridge program funds left on the table by state DOTs for recent rescissions - and would result in voluntary and much needed shifts in mode choice.

Economic calamity is regularly predicted to follow highway improvements that favor the creation of more livable communities. Closing two blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House to motor vehicle traffic was going to bring the nation's capital to its knees. Opening Times Square in New York City to pedestrians last year was presaged by similarly dire predictions of chaos. Removing the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco after the 1989 earthquake has hardly stunted the growth of vibrant waterfront development and economic activity.

Let me be clear. We need roads; we need highways. We need cars and trucks. But they don't work for everything and everyone all the time. We need choice, we need alternatives, we need balance. That's what the Secretary's new policy gives us a chance to achieve. The most vibrant, livable communities in the world - which also happen to be economic powerhouses - are those in which there is an equitable and rational balance between car, truck, transit, bike and walk modes. That's a vision we need to achieve together.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) applauds U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's announcement of a new federal policy that puts bicycling and pedestrian projects and planning on an equal footing with highways and transit in the use of federal funding. In dense urban environments like San Francisco, support for alternative, "active" modes such as bicycling and walking is critical to maintaining both mobility and livability. In fact, San Francisco's Transit First policy requires that in San Francisco travel by bicycle, in addition to travel by public transit and by foot, must be a viable option to travel by private automobile.

The SFMTA is responsible for managing the City's formidable ground transportation system that includes pedestrians, bicycles, transit, parking, private automoblies and taxis. Adhering to principles set forth in the Transit First policy, the SFMTA's vision mandates the provision of "timely, convenient, safe and environmentally friendly transportation alternatives." Bicycling is a key component of advancing this policy as well as the City's adopted Climate Action Plan.

The SFMTA's adopted Bicycle Plan serves as an aggressive and comprehensive guide for San Francisco to become a world-class bicycling city. Miles of new bicycle lanes have been striped; hundreds of bicycle racks have been installed; educational and outreach efforts have been expanded; and the percentage of San Francisco residents who commute to work by bicycle is now five times higher than the national average, and three times higher than the California average. In fact, San Francisco has the highest bicycle to work mode share of major U.S. cities having more than 500,000 residents.

The SFMTA looks forward to working with the U.S. DOT and transportation leaders across the country to advance a sustainable, multi-modal transportation future that provides choices for all.

Secretary LaHood’s announcement related to bicycling and walking certainly didn’t go unnoticed in the nonmotorized, or active transportation, community. Unsurprisingly, the new policy and approach has been hailed as the dawn of a new era, long-overdue recognition of the value and importance of bicycling and walking to our communities and to our transportation system; and a welcome opportunity to finally play on something approaching a level playing field.

Keith and other respondents have already covered some good ground on the myriad benefits of accommodating active transportation, providing real transportation choices, and enabling more people to ride and walk for more of their everyday trips. I think everyone can agree that if more people rode and walked more often, that would be a good thing – for individuals, for communities, and for the nation; in relation to health, energy independence, congestion, climate change, and even the economy.

However, Greg Cohen provides a timely reminder of the pushback the Secretary’s new direction will inevitably face from a disgruntled few and so it’s worth addressing some of the less obvious benefits and issues. My organization, the League of American Bicyclists, is a group of cycling enthusiasts, to be sure. But it would be wrong to try and portray this new policy as being about a few bike paths and a handful of lycra-clad Lance Armstrong wannabees getting some special treatment because they caught the ear of the Secretary.

LaHood’s policy addresses fundamental issues of equity – one third of the population has no drivers licence; the independent travel needs of tens of millions of people in urban and rural communities alike have been “overlooked” during our 60-year fascination with creating a monoculture for cars. Tens of millions more are locked into expensive car loans, hellish commutes, and excessively high transportation costs that are frittered away at the gas pump because of this blinkered and ultimately unsustainable approach.

LaHood’s policy isn’t just about the bike. For livable, sustainable communities to flourish and grow people need choices and alternatives – bicycling, walking and transit live and die as one. If it weren’t for DC’s metro and bus system I probably wouldn’t be a regular bike commuter, and I wouldn’t walk as much. Our metropolitan areas are going to be adding 100 million people in the next 30-40 years and whether you love cars or not it’s pretty clear that if those 100 million people all arrive with two cars and drive 50 miles a day… things are going to get ugly.

LaHood’s policy isn’t just about spending more money on bikepaths, it’s about investing our ongoing expenditures wisely in a transportation system that accommodates everyone – on complete streets. Very often, that requires little more than putting the same lane stripes down in a slightly different configuration – no extra cost, just a little more thought. The vast majority of bicycle travel will always be on regular streets and highways that don’t require any special treatment – but it would sure be nice if traffic signals detected bicyclists, if arterials had bike lanes and cycle tracks, and if rural roads had paved shoulders. And it turns out these things make sense for other users AND save us major highway repair and replacement costs into the bargain.

LaHood’s policy isn’t about interstate bicycle travel – just as the vast majority of car and truck trips are not that long either. In fact, 50% of all the trips people make are three miles or less. Transportation policy isn’t just about commuting or interstate trucking. Only 15% of all trips are to and from work – the vast majority are social, recreational, educational, and related to family business; these are often more manageable by bike and more local than the journey to work.

LaHood’s policy is all about equity and efficiency; and ultimately it has huge potential benefits to all travelers and our individual and collective pocket books. The Dutch invest in bicycle travel because their economy depends on truck and train traffic to and from the North Sea ports. They can’t afford to have their highways bunged up with single-occupant vehicle trips – they don’t have the space and nor does their environment have the carrying capacity to manage it. For the cost of just a few hundred feet of the proposed rebuild of the I-5 Columbia River bridge from Portland to Vancouver, the Portland region could achieve a 20%-25% mode share for bikes – doing more for regional congestion, the trucking industry, air quality, and obesity levels than the entire bridge “improvement” project.

So yes, we like the Secretary’s new policy and think it’s right in line with the Administration’s and state and local government’s desire to address a whole host of issues and problems. Remarkably, we can also offer one more thing: it’s fun. Turns out that bicycling is a prescription people actually want to take.

I’m in full agreement with the National Association of Manufacturers, who said on their Shopfloor blog last week that “treating bicycles and other non-motorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe.” Such a policy will negate any effort the Administration has made to create jobs and will hinder the movement of our nation’s goods. As we work to emerge from these difficult economic times, we need policies that promote the safe, efficient movement of goods. The Administration’s major policy revision will be particularly detrimental if it diverts Highway Trust Fund dollars from critical expansion and repair projects that will help use meet national goals.

The National Highway System connects all parts of our transportation system, facilitating the movement of virtually all goods throughout the country. America relies on trucks to move 70 percent of our nation’s freight tonnage and the trucking industry is forecast to move an even greater share of freight in the future. Highways will continue to play a vital role in our nation’s supply chain. However, America’s aging infrastructure is in desperate need of repair and expansion. Congestion costs, caused by inefficiencies in the system, are rapidly approaching $100 billion annually. The federal government must focus on funding projects that alleviate freight bottlenecks. Failing to address growing congestion problems will cause costs to rise, translating into higher consumer prices and slower job growth, weakening the United States’ ability to compete in the global economy.

I strongly support Secretary LaHood's policy statement. For too long, people who walk or bicycle have seen little planning, funding, and effort to allow for their safe travel. As Ms. Todorovich discusses, the benefits of including bicycle and pedestrian facilities far outweigh their relatively low cost. We should view all transportation projects as opportunities to create safer, more accessible streets for everyone.

As Governor, I saw mothers struggle with their groceries trying to get home on bridges and roads with no sidewalks. I saw children dash across roads with no crosswalks on their way to school or a friend's home. Ten years ago, I worked with the Maryland state legislature to pass legislation requiring pedestrians and bicyclists be treated as an essential component of Maryland's transportation system. Ten other states have adopted similar legislation and ten state Departments of Transportation have made inclusive transportation projects their mission. Just this month, Caltrans - one of the largest state DOTs - released its ambitious and thorough Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan, calling for revision of guidance, programs, and procedures at all levels to achieve a truly multi-modal statewide network of complete streets.

So, Secretary LaHood's policy is really following a robust sea-change already begun at the state and local level. Communities across America have already recognized the many benefits of a more multi-modal, inclusive transportation network that offers people choices. Over 125 cities, counties, MPOs, and states have already adopted Complete Streets policies that call for the full integration of all modes (including walking, bicycling, and public transportation) into all phases of transportation projects.

And while the Secretary’s policy emphasizes bicycling and walking, it makes important references to how essential walking and bicycling facilities are to creating an effective public transportation network – because every transit trip begins and ends with a walk or bike trip. It also is inclusive of people of all ages and abilities, as all three of these modes are especially essential for people with disabilities, children, and the growing population of older Americans.

Americans want a different approach to transportation - one that gives them choices in mobility, keeps everyone safer, and builds community. As the national movement toward complete streets continues to grow, the US DOT must support this desire. The new policy statement is a great first step.

This week’s question brings up a number of key issues for Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportation, including the appropriate scope of federal transportation programs and how to fund these programs.

According to a national survey of likely voters conducted in 2008 for multiple transportation organizations by Fabrizio McLaughlin and Associates, 72% of Americans felt the federal government should take the “leadership role” in funding major highways and bridges. But only 4% of Americans felt that the federal government should take the leadership role in funding bicycle paths. 78% said that county and city governments should lead on bicycle paths and 17% said state government should do so.

These statistics point to a continuing question of the appropriate, limited role of the federal government in transportation. The survey results indicate that most Americans believe that the federal government should take a leading role in keep our major highways and bridges safe and efficient. Our founding fathers explicitly recognized an essential federal role in the regulation of interstate commerce in the Constitution, 127 years before the first federal-aid highway act of 1916. As our major highways and bridges age, meeting this primary federal responsibility becomes a serious and growing challenge. Currently, the Highway Trust Fund is insufficiently funded to even meet these basic federal responsibilities and that is why so many highway user groups are on record in support of increasing our own user fees.

According to the same national survey, 93% of likely voters felt it was important that their elected officials support dedicating the fuel tax and other highway user exclusively to roads and bridges. That 14 out of 15 voters feel this way indicates that inside-the-beltway politicians (and most of the bloggers here) are extremely out of touch with outside-the-beltway views on diversion. And I think this indicates that Secretary LaHood’s recent pronouncement is taking federal transportation policy in the wrong direction.

However, having said all that, it is clear that the horse is already out of the barn and that there is and will continue to be a role for bicycle paths in federal transportation policy. Motorists and truckers can appreciate bicyclists’ leadership in the early “good roads” movement at the turn of the 20th century. At the time, both bicyclists and early motorists recognized the need for good, all-weather roads to improve mobility, quality-of-life, and support economic growth. It would be a great achievement for all of us if the bicycling and motoring communities could seek common ground where possible today.

In my view, a couple things need to happen to make this possible:

First, as Rob Atkinson suggests, bicyclists should pay a federal user fee to support their programs. Currently truckers pay an excise tax on truck and tire sales and an additional fee for road use. There is an even stronger case for these types of user fees for bicyclists, since they do not pay fuel or energy taxes. I agree with Rob that this user fee would be a great deal for bicyclists, who could not only ask for money from their own dedicated program, but also could demand greater accountability in the way their trust fund dollars are spent.

According to the National Bicycle Dealers Association Industry Overview 2008, 18 million bicycles are sold each year in the US at an average of about $170 per bike. With a 12% excise tax on new bicycle sales (equal to the excise tax on truck sales) approximately $367.2 million in federal bicycle user fees would be generated on sales. Rob’s $5 tire tax would add another $75 million per year. Adding State and local matches would create a sizable market for new and widened bicycle facilities.

Second, bicycle advocates should refrain from viewing motorists and truckers as a problem to be solved. It is in the bicycle community’s own interests to shake off the most radical elements that demonize the automobile and truck. The reality is that under any realistic transportation system in every community in the United States, the overwhelming amount of travel will continue to be in motorized vehicles over roads. And 88% of Americans believe it is in our national interest to combat congestion on our roads. New capacity for bicycle and walking paths should not come at the expense of highway capacity. Bicycling groups create an unnecessary dispute with motorists when they oppose new highway capacity or advocate reducing motorized travel. Bicycles may be a realistic option for some trips under the right conditions, but cars and trucks will remain absolutely essential to our economy and provide a significant net positive effect on our quality-of-life. Perhaps, if a dedicated bicycle fund is established, then the motivation for this conflict will be largely eliminated. In addition, many highway advocates can support the notion of new bicycle routes as an element of new highway projects (such as the ICC in suburban Maryland).

In summary, while I disagree with the Secretary and still believe that the primary interest of the federal government should remain focused on interstate commerce, there is a great opportunity to find common ground as transportation policy evolves. But disputes within the transportation community will only become more heated if the policies to promote one mode of travel are seen as an attack on another essential, established mode.

Absolutely. The time has come for walking and biking – or “active transportation” -- to be acknowledged as legitimate modes of transportation.

Tremendous credit is due to Secretary LaHood for his leadership in catalyzing a “sea change” in federal transportation policy by recognizing the importance of walking and biking. And by introducing HR 4722, The Active Community Transportation Act, Rep. Earl Blumenauer has demonstrated how this sea change can be reflected in innovative federal policy.

Why is such leadership necessary?

For the last 50 years we have created a transportation “monoculture,” with driving often the only convenient way to get from Point A to Point B. By designing our communities to ensure the rapid movement of automobiles, we have created places where it is difficult, and even dangerous, to walk or bike. And as walking and biking have become more difficult, driving has become second nature, so embedded in our culture and our behavior that we do it without thinking.

To underscore this decline in mobility outside the automobile, half of the trips we take are within range of a 20-minute bike ride, and one-fourth are within range of a 20-minute walk. Yet the vast majority of these short trips are taken by car. What are the unintended consequences of a transportation system that offers us little choice but to drive? There are many:

• Family budgets are stretched to pay for gasoline at $3 per gallon, while the United States sends hundreds of billions of dollars to oil-producing nations;
• We waste time stuck in traffic, reducing both our personal quality of life and the economic productivity of the nation;
• We face a costly obesity crisis as too many people walk less and drive more, consuming far more calories than they burn; and
• Our local air is filled with pollution, while greenhouse gases threaten to disrupt global climate patterns.

With the interstate highway system completed, we now have the opportunity to build out the other half of our transportation system through investments to create a more balanced and diverse system that will provide Americans a variety of transportation choices.

Central to expanding transportation choices is the need to encourage “active transportation” by creating safe places to walk and bike. By connecting our communities with a seamless network of trails, sidewalks and bike lanes—and linking them to public transportation—we can give people the choice of mobility without an automobile. And for every car trip replaced by a walking/biking/transit trip, we will spend less at the gas pump, easing the strain on household budgets and keeping dollars in America. By reducing traffic congestion, we improve the commutes of those who still choose to drive. And by replacing the gasoline in our cars with the energy in our bodies, we will burn calories, not carbon, simultaneously addressing the obesity epidemic and climate change.

Does being “treated equally” mean that active transportation should get an equal share of federal transportation funding?

No, we’re not suggesting that. At present, 12 percent of trips in the US are taken by walking and biking. But only about 1 ½ cents on the federal transportation dollar are invested in furthering active transportation. Is it too much to ask that we increase that investment to three percent in the next surface transportation bill?

While far short of equality, even that small increase will provide a multi-billion dollar return on investment in terms of reduced oil consumption, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and avoided health care costs.

At a time of severe fiscal constraint, it is simply common sense to target our limited resources to relatively small investments that can provide such a big bang for the buck.

At a time when we face problems of rampant traffic congestion, global warming and an epidemic of obesity, you would think that there would be strong support for expanding bicycling. Certainly there is from Secretary LaHood as he rightly called for a new era in federal transportation policy to support bicycling. Before I state why I think the Secretary is right, I should acknowledge my self interest as a daily bicycle commuter to downtown DC.

Opponents of the Secretary’s proposed policy change will likely make two key arguments against it. First, they will point to the fact that because bicycling accounts for a relatively small share of trips (about half a percent) that it’s a waste of valuable resources to support it. But this is bit of a chicken or egg issue. One reason relatively few people ride is because the infrastructure is so bad, even in Washington, which has a number of bicycle trails. The DC trails (such as Rock Creek Park or Capital Crescent) are in poor condition (very bumpy) and too narrow, resulting in unsafe and crowded conditions. Once the trails end in DC bicyclists have to take their life into the own hands riding on crowded streets. Not to mention the fact that the trails are not maintained. I was not able to ride from before Christmas until early March because they were filled with snow. Imagine if the Beltway was not plowed this winter and Maryland DOT decided to just wait until the snow melted.

The other reason more people don’t bike is because driving (and transit) are so heavily subsidized. A recent study of the Washington, DC, area by Resources for the Future found that if users were to pay the full cost of driving, including the costs of congestion, air pollution, and other externalities, drivers in large U.S. cities would have to pay an additional 24.4–33.7¢ per mile during peak times. On top of this, if you drive or take transit you can get $230 of pre-tax employer subsidy. Bicyclists now finally get something, but its only $20 a month. Defenders of the status quo will say bicycles shouldn’t get more since it doesn’t cost more to bike to work. But this completely misses the point. What possible rationale is there for using taxpayer dollars to reward people who drive to work ten times more generously than people who bike. The program should be mode neutral and provide commuters with the same subsidy and let them decide how to use it.

So if drivers paid more to reflect their full social costs they imposed and bike commuters got the same commuter subsidy as cars, and the bike infrastructure was better (including requiring new office buildings to have showers and all office buildings to have an adequate number of secure bike racks) a lot of people would likely get out of their cars and onto their bikes. Moreover, biking is likely to exhibit “tipping point” characteristics. One reason by more people don’t bike to work is that they don’t think it’s “acceptable.” People still seem surprised when I say that I bike to my downtown DC office every day. But if more people start to ride it will become more acceptable for others and soon lots more people are biking.

The second argument the auto and truck lobby make against spending scarce HTF funds on bicycle infrastructure is that it’s unfair; after all they pay into it, why should bicyclists get money they didn’t pay. Three responses. First, as noted above, it’s not as if cars and trucks pay anything close to their true social costs. When someone bikes instead of drives a car, they are reducing the costs to society, even if they are riding on bike infrastructure paid for by the HTF. Second, it’s not as if the HTF has been supported recently by dedicated HTF revenue sources. Because Congress is unwilling to raise funds from users, taxpayers have bailed out the fund in recent years and as taxpayers, bicyclists deserve their share.

Third, and to their point: I agree that there is no reason bicyclists shouldn’t pay at least portion of new bike infrastructure costs. How to do that? One idea that our National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure considered was for Congress to institute a national sales tax on bicycle tires, whether they are on new bicycles or purchased as replacement items. The principal logic for a federal tax on bicycle tires, as opposed to a state tax, is the same as that for a federal truck tire tax. Consumers can easily go to another state (either physically or through mail-order) to purchase tires if the after-tax price is too high in one state. In fact, many bicycles and bicycle tires are purchased online and thus are not easily taxed on a state-by-state basis. Assuming a federal bicycle tax excludes the sale of tires for children’s bicycles, a $5 per tire tax could raise approximately $75 million per year and, if provided to states with the requirements that states match the funds dollar for dollar, could support a $150 million per year program to maintain and expand bicycle paths across the nation. Although collection mechanism would need to be created, tax would be fairly inexpensive to administer and collection would be fairly straightforward to administer and enforce. I know that as someone who has commuted to work in DC for over 20 years, that I would gladly pay this modest fee if I knew that it was going to support better bicycle infrastructure.

At last! Our nation’s top transportation official last week acknowledged the importance of walking and biking to our national transportation system, pledging to correct the decades-long imbalance of auto-centric transportation policy. Secretary LaHood’s announcement is a “win-win-win-win” because:

1. It is a triumph for social equity by improving transportation access for people who are: too young, too old, or unable to drive; people who cannot afford a car and insurance payments; and people who choose not to drive.

2. It is a victory for public health, by improving the safety of our roads, promoting physical activity to reduce obesity and heart disease, and by reducing air pollution from vehicle emissions.

3. The implementation of this policy will reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and positively impact our trade imbalance.

4. It will benefit household budgets, by opening access to low-cost modes of travel, making it possible for some families to go from two cars to one, or shift from the fixed cost of car ownership to the flexibility of a car sharing program.

5. It will enhance the quality of communities everywhere – from rural to urban – by increasing pedestrian and bicycling facilities, improving safety, promoting social interaction, better public spaces, access, and urban design.

6. It will benefit drivers by taking cars off the road and reducing congestion.

7. And in this economy, it is good news that pedestrian and bicycling improvements cost very little compared to the benefits they provide.

Lisa Caruso asks, “Should non-motorized modes of transportation be treated as equal to other modes, particular when modes like driving and mass transit are at least partially, if not primarily, self-funded?” While “Equals” may be the wrong choice of words – in fact, automobiles, walking, and biking and are unequal in many respects, from the higher speeds, greater use, higher costs, and higher pollution of automobiles compared to non-motorized modes – the question of self-funding is beside the point. To the degree that non-motorized transportation modes can meet federal objectives such as improving access, safety, oil independence, energy efficiency, etc. at a fraction of the cost of new road and transit capacity, we will find that the benefits well outweigh their relatively low costs. Moreover, in recent years our nation’s transportation costs are increasingly funded from general taxpayer contributions. With this in mind, the move toward spending transportation dollars on improvements with greater energy efficiency, equity, and environmental sustainability is welcomed by this taxpayer.