Feds Deem Pedestrians, Cyclists and Motorists Equals

[kpete]

Source: Wired

At long last, the feds have said the needs of pedestrians and cyclists must be placed alongside, not behind, those of motorists.

In what amounts to a sea change for the Department of Transportation, the automobile will no longer be the prime consideration in federal transportation planning. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says the needs of pedestrians and cyclists will be considered along with those of motorists, and he makes it clear that walking and riding are “an important component for livable communities.”

“People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning,” LaHood wrote on his blog. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

He goes on:

*****We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.



Read more: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/lahood-policy-statement/

[shraby]

1. I know they put a long bicycle/walking trail between

Two Rivers and Manitowoc WI, about 6 or so miles of it along the lakeshore and it gets used constantly all summer. Not so much in the winter, but is still used then. When they were building it, I thought it was a bit of a waste and that it wouldn't get much use..boy was I surprised. People of all ages, bicycles, skateboards, skaters, walkers, you name it are on it all the time. Turns out it was money well spent.

[jwirr]

3. In Minnesota the walking trail is from Minneapolis to the Canadian

border. Runs along the north shore of Lake Superior. A beautiful addition to our communities. Used by local and visitors alike. It would be nice if the cities could have trails for workers to ride to their jobs the way they do in EU.

[Jimbo S]

9. I used that trail once.

While staying overnight in Two Rivers.

Got my morning run in. Didn't need to worry about vehicular traffic. Beautiful scenery!

[Art_from_Ark]

13. On the other side of Wisconsin, there's the Elroy-Sparta Trail

It was built on an old railway bed. I cycled on it back in 1980 or so and it was a remarkable experience.

[Gormy Cuss]

2. That's a good start.

:thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

4. I know we need more sidewalks and bike paths in my community

This is good news if the government were to fund efforts!

[mike_c]

5. it has always been up to bicyclists to assert their rights, IMO....

This decision is important from a federal planning perspective, but actual traffic laws are generally the province of the states, and as far as I know-- at least in every state where I've lived-- cyclists already have equivalent rights and responsibilities on the public (state and local) roadways. The real problems are lack of respect for those rights on the part of motorists and lack of respect for their responsibilities on the part of cyclists (e.g. flaunting traffic rules).

I've been a cyclist all my adult life. I learned a long time ago that the best way to ride safely on the road is to pretend that I'm in a car and command my space in my lane-- NOT to try and avoid it. And to obey traffic laws, just like any other user of the roads.

[bnymellon sucks]

6. How A Republican Will See This

When some Hummer driving Republican runs over the pedestrian in the cross walk they'll say "We I was at the crosswalk first and the pedestrian stepped out in front of me. You know, we're equals."

[Abq_Sarah]

7. So

Does this mean they're going to put bike lanes on interstate highways? I can see some interesting unintended consequences.

[taterguy]

11. If you had read the article, you'll see that it doesn't

This doesn’t mean you”ll see bike lanes on that new expressway through town. The feds are still going to bankroll conventional roads and highways and so forth. But you’ll see bicycle connection points to these roads, such as trails and shared use pathways to create multimodal transportation.

Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/lahood-policy-statement#ixzz0iwfLVuk7

This is some of the best government news that I've read lately.

[Lagomorph]

8. Maybe we'll finally get some sidewalks outside of...

the urban areas. About time.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

12. I would favor more multi-use paths

Run the paths parallel to some nice, direct interstate highways and run them under or over interchanges to minimize motorist/bicyclist conflicts, and you'd see some very interesting changes in people's habits, I think. Once laid, they'd be far less expensive to maintain, and can you imagine cycling for 20 miles or more without having to watch out for cross-traffic? Holy smokes!

[taterguy]

14. I can imagine that but it would only be tolerated if people knew how roads are paid for

Lots of people think that roads are paid for exclusively by gas taxes and perceive cyclists to be free-loaders.

The reality is that roads use extensive funds from general revenue.

The problem is that no one knows how much.

I've given up trying to find out, and the reference librarians that I ask are getting sick of me.