LaHood’s Praise of Bike Lanes Irks Trucking, Highway Users

This story appears in the Jan. 24 print edition of Transport Topics.

A recent blog from U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has provoked truckers and other highway users to complain anew about an old issue — highway trust fund money paying for things other than highways.

Blogging Jan. 13 on the Department of Transportation website, LaHood touted a recent study that said adding bicycle lanes to roads creates more jobs than do traditional road-repair projects.

“This is the federal government, and the federal government needs to be focusing on interstate commerce,” said one of those annoyed by the blog, Greg Cohen, president of the American Highway Users Alliance.

“I find it quite unfortunate that Secretary LaHood does not seem to want to focus on that,” Cohen said.

“The vast majority of Americans use the highways for all their trips,” said Darrin Roth, director of highway operations for American Trucking Associations.

“Seventy percent of freight is moved by truck on the highway system. This is clearly where the . . . federal resources should be going,” Roth said.

The study LaHood blogged about was published in December by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Researchers measured the “employment impacts” of different transportation infrastructure projects in Baltimore in two categories: bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and road infrastructure projects such as resurfacing, signage, and drainage.

Pedestrian and bicycle projects created 11 to 14 jobs per $1 million of spending, while road infrastructure projects created about seven jobs per $1 million, the study said.

LaHood’s blog also mentioned a recent health study and survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found “widespread public support — 67% — in America’s cities” for street designs that increase physical activity.

The two studies together create “a powerful argument” for continuing DOT’s support for bicycle and pedestrian projects, LaHood’s blog said.

LaHood declined last week to comment on criticism of the blog, but in a statement prepared for Transport Topics said: “Biking offers terrific health benefits, brings communities together, and is easy on the environment. When we add to that mix the data that bicycle infrastructure also holds its own in terms of job creation, it’s a combination we cannot afford to ignore.”

Roth and Cohen questioned the Baltimore study’s conclusion about jobs, saying the analysis did not include projects that added new road capacity, which generates more jobs than repair work, while a project on new bicycle capacity was included.

Roads promote broad, long-term job growth, Roth and Cohen said. They also said that transportation needs must be met separate from job needs and people’s demands.

“We have very severe fiscal re-straints on this very limited pot of money that’s already oversubscribed,” Cohen said, “and while it absolutely may be something popular at a community or a local government level, or even a state government level, the federal government is not supposed to be building bike paths.”

It may be difficult, however, for federal policy makers to ignore the growing demand for cycling facilities, especially in an age of fiscal constraint, said Caron Whitaker, campaign director for America Biking, a Washington-based coalition of bicycle and walking groups pressing for a bigger share of transportation spending.

“We can’t afford to invest in things that don’t address multiple problems,” Whitaker said. “And biking and walking investments . . . address multiple problems, whether it’s road congestion . . . air pollution . . .  accessibility . . . the obesity crisis in the country. It’s a small investment that goes a long way towards several concerns.”

Whitaker said, “Based on the census numbers, bike commuting has increased by over 40% from 2001 to 2008.”

Places that invest in biking facilities see activity increase dramatically, Whitaker said, citing Portland, Ore., as an example.

“In 1991 biking and walking as a mode share in Portland was the same as any other U.S. city; it was right on the national average,” she said.

“Between 1991 and 2008, Portland invested $57 million in its biking infrastructure,” she said. “It now has a mode share of biking which is 8% and all of that $57 million would have bought them one mile of highway.”

The national mode share for bicycling is 1%, said the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center’s most recent report, which was funded by the Federal Highway Administration.

ATA’s Roth said that the purpose of the highway trust fund, however, is to increase “safety and mobility” for the people who contribute to it.

Through fuel and other taxes, truckers contribute about 40% of the money in the trust fund. Overall federal spending on transportation is split, with 80% paying for roads and bridges and 20% for transit projects.

Most of the money for transit projects, however, comes from the general fund, and the trucking industry has complained for years that about 5% of the highway trust fund money is spent on non-highway projects.