Better bicycle infrastructure is no threat to trucks. (Photo: Wayan Vota via Flickr)Statements
made by U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood in recent weeks — including one
regarding “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense
of
non-motorized” — have gotten a lot of favorable coverage
from members of the Streetsblog Network. But they’ve caused apparent
consternation and anxiety in other quarters, including the trucking
industry. You can find a variety of arguments on the new DOT position
at the National Journal’s Transportation Expert Blog.
Today, network member Cyclelicious
responds to some of the backlash to LaHood’s words, pointing what
should be obvious: being in favor of bicycles as transportation doesn’t
mean being against trucks. Here’s part of what he says:
American Trucking Association President Bill Graves is correct in
telling us, “These [livable] communities will not be livable without an
efficient highway system and trucks to deliver the food, medicine,
clothing and other necessities that make walking and bicycling
possible.”
Transportation policies that encourage more dense development means
money that previously was spent to serve sprawling outlying communities
can now be spent on fixing the highways we already have. Policies that
encourage “alternative” transportation for commuters means more room on
the highways for trucks to deliver their goods.
Bicycle Transportation Examiner Adam Voiland has more links to Republican anti-bike rhetoric.
More from around the network: Human Transit on the difference between light rail and streetcars. Sustainable Cities Collective asks whether we should “’can’ the car or ‘green’ the car.” And Copenhagenize itemizes the folly of bicycle licenses.
