A biker zooms along the Midtown Greenway, paid for in part by a federal program that some Senators want to kill. (Credit: Thirteen of Clubs, a ubiquitous Minneapolis bike photographer, under a Creative Commons license from flickr.com)
How in the the world can biking and walking be controversial?
They’re good exercise, fun to do and—as an alternative to driving everywhere—help us save money and the environment. Both biking and walking are increasingly popular for transportation and recreation today, thanks in large part to a recent flowering of federally-funded trails, bikeways and pathways that make getting around on two wheels and two feet safer and more convenient.
But in these antagonistic political times, bikers and walkers are now targets of controversy for some members of Congress. In September, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn proposed stripping all designated federal funding for bike and pedestrian projects from the pending Transportation Bill. After an outpouring of opposition from citizens coast-to-coast, Coburn withdrew his amendment.
Now bicyclists and pedestrians are under attack again, this time in an amendment from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. He wants to redirect every last penny of money dedicated to bicycling and walking to bridge repair instead.
Now we all agree that safe bridges are important. Look at the tragic bridge collapse four years ago in Minneapolis that took 17 lives.
But safety for the millions of kids and adults that bike and walk every day is important, too. Since 2007, 2,800 cyclists and 20,000 pedestrians have died on America’s roads—many due to the lack of sidewalks, bike lanes and other safety measures that federal funds provide.
We shouldn’t have to choose between safe bridges and safe streets. Here’s why.
- First of all, Senator Paul’s amendment will not even come close to fixing America’s bridges. Biking, walking and other so-called “transportation enhancements” that Paul wants to kill account for less than two percent of the total Transportation Bill. It would take 80 years using money saved from scrapping these programs to finance the backlog of current bridge repairs—not to mention future needs.
- States are not spending the money already allocated for bridge repairs. Last year, they returned $530 million to the federal government. That represents a big chunk of total bike and pedestrian projects.
- Federal money to make biking and walking safer and more convenient is a great investment in America’s future that pays off in safer streets, reduced environmental damage, greater energy security, improved public health and more resilient, neighborly, pleasurable communities.
Comments
Neal Gorenflo wrote on 10.28.11, 9:31am:
Yeah, Felix, the auto lobby is very powerful, that's how we got the interstate highway system in the first place.
I hope US readers call their Congress people, but taking the fight local might be a good idea too. There's some quietly effective bike advocacy groups in cities across the world. This might be a great time to connect with them.
James wrote on 10.28.11, 11:41am:
Perhaps it has something to do with their experiences in DC, as city that has made more progress than most in promoting bicycling. People like rand paul have probably noticed bicycles riding past them as they sit in traffic, seen bicycle infrastructure go up as traffic gets worse. They're angry. They have an unreasonable expectation that traffic should get better and they feel it would have had the money not been spent on bicycles. As you may well know, bike lanes are as expensive as wider freeways.
Neal Gorenflo wrote on 10.28.11, 12:32pm:
James, I definitely think it has something to do with politicians' experiences in DC, especially as it relates to the influence of the auto and oil industry lobby.
And pretty sure bike lanes are much less expensive per mile then widening freeways. Consider that a lot of bike lanes, at least in the US, are made from painted lines on existing roadway.
Isn't it obvious? People who walk or bike buy fewer cars and burn less gasoline... which translates into lower profits for the bigwigs in the respective industries... who still have enough money to buy politicians by the dozen.
I'm lucky to leave in a country where every bridge must have a pedestrian lane by law. At least I think it's the law, as I'm yet to see an exception.