Reasons For Funding Bike Trails

by Larry Lagarde

While President Bush may be an avid bicyclist, the Bush administration takes a dim view on federal funding for bike trails. For a recent example, just listen to DOT Secretary Mary Peter's attack on bike trails this week on the PBS NewsHour with Jim Leher.

Responding to questions from NewsHour reporter Gwen Ifill, Peters labeled bike trail funding as an example of wasteful spending by Congress and a reason why gas taxes should not be increased. Following are some additional, highly suspect comments by Mary Peters:

... Roadway congestion is increasing because "we're not putting money in the right places."
... Most of the 6000 earmarks included in SAFETEA-LU (the federal highway bill passed in 2005) were for "museums, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses," not highway infrastructure.
... 10-20% of transportation funding is inappropriate.
... Funding bike trails is not directly related to transportation and is thus an inappropriate use of federal funding.

Though it will probably mean very little to an '06 Bush Cabinet appointee like Mary Peters, I could not let her comments go in good conscience. I wrote this short note and sent it to her through an email form available from the League of American Bicyclists. Here's what I wrote:

I am a listener to the PBS NewsHour with Jim Leher. I heard your interview and was disappointed and surprised by your characterization of bike path funding as part of the highway infrastructure funding problem.

In your interview this week with Gwen Ifill, you stated that roadway congestion is increasing because "we're not putting money in the right places." Although congestion is a very real problem, the reasons for congestion are ballooning usage and inadequate funding. From 1970 to 2003, vehicle travel on America's highways increased by 161%; yet, new road mileage grew by only 6%.

With 36% of America's urban roads congested, 34% in poor condition and 27% of our bridges structurally deficient, throwing $200-300 billion annually at roadway transportation will not fix the problem. Urban partnerships are a good start but we must fund infrastructure that encourages more Americans to embrace transportation alternatives like mass transit, carpooling and multi-modal solutions including biking and walking.

As to bike paths, contrary to your comments, funding for facilities such as bike paths is related to transportation and does decrease congestion. In cities such as Portland, OR, Minneapolis, MN or Davis, CA, urban bike facility networks have resulted in record use of bicycles for commuting (20-27%).

Safe & smart bikeway networks have been found to decrease traffic congestion, reduce crime, spur urban renewal, improve health and boost household disposable income. I encourage you to rethink your stance on facilities like bike trails; they are an appropriate use of gas tax funding.

Respectfully,
Larry Lagarde
Vice President
Friends of the Lafitte Corridor
URL: folc-nola.org
Ph: 504-324-2492

For the complete PBS interview, an mp3 file of the interview is available at PBS.org. To send DOT Secretary Peters an email, visit the form at the League of American Bicyclists.