Two recent actions by Republicans have made me think that I should write an opinion piece on why conservatives and libertarians should support nonmotorized transportation. Here are those two Republican actions:

1. Yesterday in his news conference presenting the cuts he is making to the state budget, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty made a comment about unnecessary or wasteful spending by cities. He cited as an example a director of nonmotorized transportation for the city of Minneapolis, though in the following breath he noted that the position is federally funded. He was apparently referring to a position funded by the city’s role in the federal Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program.

2. Earlier this month the Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives called for eliminating several federal nonmotorized transportation programs. In a list of cuts (pdf) that they would make to reduce the budget deficit, the Republicans included the following programs: Safe Routes to Schools, the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program, and Transportation Enhancements. This is an extreme step, indeed, and not likely to win the hearts of all those walkers, wheelchair users, and cyclists out there.

I learned about the latter action at the League of American Bicyclists web site. See the June 5 post on their advocacy page, which has these good comments from League President Andy Clarke:

House Republican leaders have chosen once again to scapegoat bicycling and walking programs, proposing to end the popular and successful Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to Schools programs and to terminate four non-motorized pilot projects mid-stream. These programs are hugely popular with communities across the country and address numerous challenges facing our nation – such as climate change, obesity and oil dependence. We know that State Departments of Transportation have reluctantly implemented these programs over the years despite overwhelming public support, and will not support them independently. To suggest ending these programs is short-sighted and out of touch with reality….

We will be asking the White House to reject these proposed cuts out of hand. At a time when we are struggling across several fronts to tackle pressing national concerns related to oil dependence, obesity and the costs of physical inactivity, climate change, air quality and economic competitiveness, it seems inconceivable that we would gut some of the few modest programs that encourage and enable people to walk and bicycle for everyday trips.

The League also provided these facts:

• The Transportation Enhancement and Safe Routes to Schools programs are routinely oversubscribed by a factor of three or more whenever States request applications for funding under these programs.
• More than 40 percent of all trips in the United States are two miles or less and that almost three-quarters of all car trips are two miles or less, suggesting that most travel is local, regardless of mode.
• A 3 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled in 2008 resulted in a 30 percent reduction in congestion in metropolitan areas around the country, suggesting that demand management strategies such as increasing bicycling and walking are extremely effective in addressing congestion and other traffic-related issues
• and subsidies given through tax breaks to drivers to pay for parking at work cost the taxpayer almost as much per year ($4 billion) as Boehner’s and Cantor’s proposal to slash support for bicycling and walking would save in five years.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 at 7:06 am and is filed under Biking/Walking, Politics, Transportation.