Bicycles as transportation

A few weeks ago, I took a little tour of the Cobbs Creek Bikeway, also known as the Cobbs Creek Recreation Path.  “Bikeway” and “Recreation Path” have slightly different connotations, a distinction to which I had not given much thought.  The latter name embraces a broader range of uses, like jogging or dog walking, but it also implies that any cycling on the path is ‘mere’ recreation.  This post on the Philadelphia Bicycle News blog suggests that it may be worth thinking more seriously about such nomenclature.  In short, those who commute by bicycle probably consider expenditures on bike paths to be investments in our shared transportation infrastructure, but an interview with the Secretary of the US Department of Transportation Mary Peters reveals that the department sees such projects as wasteful and not contributing anything to its core mission.  Read Peters’ interview with Gwen Ifill at the PBN blog for the full picture.

2 Comments »

  1. Speedlinking 17 August 2007 » Treadly and Me said,

    August 17, 2007 @ 2:47 am

    [...] Bizarre logic of the week: the Minneapolis bridge collapse happened because the US Department of Transportation is spending money on bike paths, according to DOT Secretary Mary Peters. Apparently bikes aren’t for transportation, which is somewhat surprising news from where I’m sitting. [via malcolmxpark.org] [...]

  2. Traffic Tidbits: 18 August 2007 : Talking Traffic said,

    August 18, 2007 @ 1:45 am

    [...] DOT Not Committed to Bicycles: Malcomxpark reports that Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters does not feel that bicycles are tra….  He links to another blog with transcripts of interviews with secretary Peters.  You won’t [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment