Chip
Well-known member
First off, this is not intended to start a political debate. I'm interested in honest responses to the question.
There's been a bit of a debate in Washington, apparently, whether walking and biking paths/corridors/lanes should be part of the national transportation budget and initiatives or not.
I certainly believe we need to develop alternatives to driving a personal vehicle everywhere we need to go, and I'd really enjoy more walking/jogging/biking corridors, but walking and biking are recreation and exercise, in my mind, and will never replace much in the way of powered transportation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...llion-on-cycling-and-walking-initiatives.html
There's been a bit of a debate in Washington, apparently, whether walking and biking paths/corridors/lanes should be part of the national transportation budget and initiatives or not.
the linked article said:Mary Peters, previous transportation secretary, dismissed biking paths and trails as projects that "really are not transportation," saying they had no place in federal transportation policy.
In March Ray LaHood announced a policy "sea change" that gives biking and walking projects the same importance as automobiles in transportation planning and the selection of projects for federal money.
The new policy is an extension of the livability initiative, which regards the creation of alternatives to driving – buses, streetcars and trains, as well as biking and walking – as central to solving the nation's transportation woes.
I certainly believe we need to develop alternatives to driving a personal vehicle everywhere we need to go, and I'd really enjoy more walking/jogging/biking corridors, but walking and biking are recreation and exercise, in my mind, and will never replace much in the way of powered transportation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...llion-on-cycling-and-walking-initiatives.html