The National Journal asked last week "Should bikes and cars be treated equally?" in response to Sec. Transportation's Ray LaHood's announcement that they would. There are many comments in favor of the policy - most of which you've heard before if you read the blog. So let's focus on the criticism.
Greg Cohen, President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance, writes that, according to polling, most people think the Federal government should lead in building highways but that local governments should lead in building bike paths. In fact his whole argument against the policy is based on what is popular based on polling. That's not an argument for leadership.
Bill Graves, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations argues that spending money on biking diverts it from the safe and efficient movement of goods [Hate to tell you Bill, but if you want to move goods safely and efficiently, what you want is a train, not a truck. So money spent on highways diverts it from the safe and efficient movement of goods]. But his is a myopic argument that ignores the fact that moving goods is only part of the purpose of roads. They also need to move people. He also says "“treating bicycles and other non-motorized transportation as equal to
motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe” to which Andy Clarke, President of LAB responds.
My recollection of significant recent economic crises is that they are
invariably caused by our predilection for foreign oil - the 1973/74 oil
embargo; 1988 oil crisis; 2008 gas price increases quickly followed by
the mortgage and foreclosure crisis that piled unsustainable housing
costs on top of budget-busting suburban commuting costs.
In terms of economic competitiveness, I would suggest that the crippling
- and rapidly rising - health care costs associated with physical
inactivity and obesity among the US workforce is a crisis worth worrying
about.
Bob Poole of the Reason Foundation argues not so much against treating bikes equally, but against the federal government doing anything other than the Interstate Highway System. Everything else is local. Which is kind of a punt.
Finally, D.J. Hughes, P.E, starts out echoing the reasonable point that many made that not every road needs bike facilities and that it is more important in the cities, but then the wheels come off. He states the old canards that biking is a overwhelmingly a recreational activity - but then asks for the statistics (About 52% of rides are recreational, 43% are transportational and there are 5% that are just "other"), that bike commuting isn't practical for most people and that people can't grocery shop by bike. And he's glad there are no sidewalks in his neighborhood because they would take up too much space. So he's wrong about why people ride, he's obviously wrong that you can't go grocery shopping with a bike, and - if Amsterdam and Copenhagen are any example - he's wrong that bike commuting isn't practical.
The Drudge Report stirs the pot by calling it a War on Cars*, which LAB responds to.
*Not to be confused with the movie Maximum Overdrive, the only movie Stephen King directed, which is a war on people by cars.
Below the fold are more comments, all of which have a local angle.
Even being less generous, if a bicycle tax were to cover the whole $500 million per year. A tax of $27 on each new bicycle sold would cover it.