Alert! Respond to U.S. Transportation Secretary's comments on PBS

My letter: So you are telling us the roads should be unsafe and human beings, especially kids are just merely road kill? 13% of traffic fatalities involve a bicyclists and pedestrians, we demand our fair share of the harm that you are doing in over accommodating cars in our society. In Baltimore 60% of bicycle accidents happen to kids 18 and younger and you want to spend less on this problem??? Shame on you, just shame on you. I travel 10,000 miles a year by bike and many of that on trails, you cannot tell me bikes are not transportation. I travel to many places that most motorists are unwilling to go because of traffic and parking problems. We have reached a point were people can do more things locally on a bike then they can by car. Why? Look at it this way, take a snap shot of a highway near congested levels and in order to accommodate just one more car all you need to do as add 191 feet, that

And another one: In Maryland it is estimated that bicycle tourism contributes $3 billion to the states economy. But I guess by your point of view going places and spending money is not

More responses:

It's important for the bicycle community to clarify the facts regarding transportation funding, since many are using the MN bridge catastrophe as an excuse to question the multi modal tenants of ISTEA.

Putting bridge repairs on the back burner has been a conscious choice, and it has nothing to do with bike projects:

-- 1. One wonders if Sec. Peters comments are not a direct attack on Minn. Congressman Jim Oberstar, whose district includes the fallen bridge? Oberstar is an ardent supporter of bicycling in congress.

-- 2. An FHWA table shows how states sent back $1,035,000,000 of bridge funds as part of the big rescission earlier this year. Some funds had been sitting around for TEN years. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rescissions/pl110_5/bridge.htm

-- 3. A 2003 study by the Surface Transportation Policy Project documents how state departments of transportation have for many years given a low priority to bridge safety. Overall, between 1992 and 2001, the states spent only 73% of the bridge funding allocated by Congress -- the lowest rate of spending for any of the five major Federal highway program areas. This amounts to nearly $8 billion dollars in funding authority that was "diverted" from bridge repairs to new highway construction projects. http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/Bridge-Decoder.pdf

-- 4. In Maryland, we continue to place highway expansion over maintenance. The $3 billion Intercounty Connector, funded by borrowing against future federal transportation funds, is a perfect example of how we waste money and mortgage our future on one dubious project.

-- 5. League of American Bicyclists is offering the following response, and asking other to contact USDOT via the website www.bikeleague.org

Dear Secretary Peters
I listened with dismay to your recent interview on the MacNeil Lehrer Newshour (August 15) on the subject of transportation funding and the Minneapolis bridge collapse, and in particular your comments related to the funding of bicycle projects. I urge you to correct several misleading impressions with which you left viewers.

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 benefitted 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.

Almost twenty years after the groundbreaking ISTEA legislation that created flexibility and allowed greater local over Federal transportation funding, I find it astonishing that 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% 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 and others in Congress who are trying to efficiently and effectively unclog our highways by shifting some of these short, polluting car trips to healthier modes.

Andy Clarke

--6. Bill Wilkerson of the National Center for Bicycling and Walking wrote the following letter to the gazzette:

The Gazette Editorial Department Gaithersburg, Maryland

This is in response to a letter published in last week's Gazette from Howard Kaplan (Chevy Chase) titled, "Where does money for roads go?"

Howard Kaplan suggests that Federal and state gas tax dollars have been diverted from roads and bridges to fund light rail projects, and tries to spook people into believing that the bridges will fall down if we build the Purple Line (a local, light-rail line proposal).

Right, and the sky will likely fall, too.

Actually, Mr. Kaplan is partly correct: transportation funds made available for bridge repairs have been diverted to other kinds of transportation projects, namely new highway construction projects like the ICC (a HUGE, 18-mile, $4 billion new highway just outside Washington, DC ... in a nonattainment area).

A 2003 study by the Surface Transportation Policy Project documents how state departments of transportation have for many years given a low priority to bridge safety. Overall, between 1992 and 2001, the states spent only 73% of the bridge funding allocated by Congress -- the lowest rate of spending for any of the five major Federal highway program areas. This amounts to nearly $8 billion dollars in funding authority that was "diverted" from bridge repairs to new highway construction projects.

So, let's stick to the facts and recognize that these issues are about choices, about priorities, and about the opportunity costs of doing the wrong things ... like building the ICC.

Bill Wilkinson Bethesda, Maryland