When one rides a bicycle, one is able to transport oneself from place to place -- thus, one might call a bicycle "transportation." But not if one is U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters. Despite the fact that 10 percent of all U.S. trips to work, school, and store happen on bike or foot, Peters said in August that bike paths "are really not transportation." She strongly opposes increasing gas taxes to pay for aging infrastructure; instead, she has implied that the 1.5 percent cut of the gas tax that goes to bike paths and walking trails is stealing tax money from more worthy roads and bridges. What may have slipped her mind: $1 billion in bridge-repair funding was sent back to the feds unspent by state departments of transportation in 2006. So we'd ask, Mary, that you not meddle with the pedal.
source: Salon
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
askantik Posted 4:49 am
17 Sep 2007
I bet that dumbass b** ain't ever even ridden a bicycle. She's just like most of the highly-paid, lowly-thinking people in Washington. What a disservice to mankind.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 4:58 am
17 Sep 2007
I can imagine that increasing the gas tax to pay for bike paths is not popular. I would not be in favor of it either. Makes little sense to me to tax those who do not use that piece of infrastructure.
However, I would like to have the option to send some of my taxes that way. I would like to see somewhere in my tax declaration forms a check box where I can choose which departments get my tax dollars. I am sure that are other elegant ways to let individuals decide where money flows. That would be democratic, but I do not know if it would result in the sort of projects I like to see happen. People are not farsighted.
Ultimately, I would like to see fewer cars on the existing roads. There are already plenty of roads and if we can all figure out how to use them, we do not need bike paths.
Karsten PolluteLessDotCom
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
jjfahl Posted 7:48 am
17 Sep 2007
Permalink
pianoyoga Posted 1:13 pm
17 Sep 2007
Driving and parking a car in the District is a bit of a nightmare, what with all the anti-terrorism blockades, etc. I suppose it would be OK to cruise around in a Lexus or ride a limo with police escort, but every day was an adventure - there are real advantages to not being sealed up in a glass and metal jug.
I might also mention that many bridges which have been deemed "unsafe" for trucks and buses and cars are perfectly fine for pedestrians and cyclists. We often need better parking facilities in urban areas and better public transit infrastructure (racks on buses, access to commuter rail, etc.) to extend the commute range.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if our tax transportation dollars supported visionary projects like wind-powered electric`rail instead of extending and repairing the interstate highway system?
Permalink
tharrison Posted 1:28 pm
17 Sep 2007
The bike is my only feasible alternative to a car, since a bus trip from my home would involve a drive/walk or ride almost halfway there to a place with no parking, and then a 40 minute bus trip with one change (buses leave every 20 minutes during rush hour), dropping me only five minutes away from my office. Our trains and light rail go in and out of the city, and that trip, or others involving trains and buses would be longer.
My bike ride takes me about 25 minutes each way, which is between 10 and 15 minutes less than when I drive. But despite an array of lights, reflectors, flashers, helmets, gloves, and cold weather gear, nothing is quite as terrifying as riding along the shoulder of a dark road on a rainy night with thousands of angry Boston drivers trying to get home. So far I haven't been killed (I'll report back if I do end up dead).
Could we possibly make it any more difficult, dangerous or unpleasant to get to work? Maybe some thumbtacks spilled on the road? Rotating knives? Another 4 years of Bush?
Oh, and this is after Boston's famous "big dig" transportation (you know, cars) project that cost billions of dollars and does not appear to have reduced traffic at all. Hmm. I wonder why?
I'll stop now.
Tom Harrison
Five Percent - Conserve a Little Energy
Permalink
Laura Posted 4:23 am
19 Sep 2007
n.
a)The act or an instance of transporting. b)The state of being transported.
A means of conveyance.
The business of conveying passengers or goods.
A charge for public conveyance; fare.
Deportation to a penal colony.
I particularly like number five myself, especially for this Mary Peters character.
Permalink
alimafairchild Posted 7:56 am
25 Sep 2007
Permalink