Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood spoke at Netroots Nation on Thursday, part of a panel discussing transportation policy. The conference in Las Vegas gathers activists and bloggers from the political left, and LaHood was the highest-ranking officials from Obama Administration to participate.

It was an interesting, good panel discussion. The Secretary promoted stimulus spending, federal funding for local public transportation, “livable communities” and high-speed rail. There was little discussion of bicycling, but boy, lots of talk about high-speed rail.

The most startling comment from the Secretary was his suggestion that President Obama’s vision is for America to be more like Asia or Europe. From the context, he was saying that the United States should embrace more mass transportation akin to the systems of the densely populated areas of Western Europe and Asia, but still…

From the Q&A, discussing how to get people out of cars, Secretary LaHood:

I think the way we really get more opportunities for people other than automobiles is what we’re doing with our high-speed intercity rail. You mentioned the fact that the district that I once represented, 20 counties in central and west-central Illinois is primarily rural, so people have to have automobiles in order to get back and forth to school and to work and to recreate. The day will come, though, and if you look at our high-speed intercity rail plan, as I mentioned before, over the next 25 years with the right investment, 80 percent of America will be connected. Think of how many people will be out of their cars and on a train going to visit grandma, or going to work. There will be intercity connections but there will also be big-city connections, too.

The example that I use is that, think of if President Eisenhower would have signed the high-speed intercity rail bill, where would our investments had been made? We would be like Europe and Asia. That’s the kind of vision that President Obama and Vice President Biden have for America.

Look it …Americans like their automobiles, we all know that. One of the reasons they like ‘em, is because it is in some places in the country the only form of transportation, particularly in rural America. But the plan that we have will connect America, and I think Americans will get in the habit, if we provide comfortable train service at affordable cost, a lot of people will use it. We’ve proved that they’ll do it on the Northeast corridor. Think of all the people who are not in cars when they’re riding from Washington to New York or Boston on the train.

So, I encourage you to go on our website and look at our high-speed intercity rail plan. It’s a very good plan. I think it will connect America and take a lot of cars off the road.

We have an audio clip here with the above segment and a few more of the Secretary’s comments on rail and federal spending on high-speed rail. The interlocutor is David Alpert of GreaterGreaterWashington.

Judging by the panelists and the questions, the progressive left has no interest in the efficient movement of freight. Secretary LaHood mentioned freight only in the context of the commercial railroads reaching agreements on track access so high-speed rail projects can move forward

Netroots Nation is the now-annual gathering of the blogospheric and activist left, launched originally by Markos Moulitsas, the proprietor of the Daily Kos blog. For all the cursing at business that goes on there, the Daily Kos has turned into one heck of an enterprise.

Netroots Nation gets under way tomorrow in Las Vegas, the mecca of income redistribution (although probably not in the way the Netroots  prefer). The Obama Administration is sending one cabinet member, and the progressives are embracing him with delight. From the agenda:

Bikes, trains, stimulus, and the Obama Cabinet’s biggest surprise

Thursday, July 22nd 10:30 AM – 11:45 AM

Panel, Brasilia 1

Time: Thursday, July 22nd, 10:30am – 11:45am

Room: Brasilia 1

Despite early expectations or fears, one of the two Republicans in President Obama’s cabinet and head of an often-obscure agency has become one of the administration’s rock stars. Ray LaHood has elevated public transportation, biking and walking to prominence in American transportation policy just as the Recovery Act of 2009 pumped billions into new projects. How has a former Republican Congressman pushed some of Obama’s most progressive policy successes, and what’s needed to cement a new direction in federal policy that deeply affects where we live and how we get around?

The other speakers are advocates of smart growth, public transportation, government-subsidized housing, and promoting economic and social equity in older industrial cities.

In related news, The Journal of Commerce recently reported, “Truckers Fear Highway Bill Impasse May Last Years“:

The trucking industry is concerned the impasse in Washington over highway reauthorization may stretch into several years without a new spending bill to set planning for important road and infrastructure projects.

“There is speculation that there won’t be reauthorization in the entire first term of the Obama administration,” American Trucking Associations President and CEO Bill Graves told the Los Angeles Transportation Club.

With the Highway Trust Fund “insolvent,” and both Democrats and Republicans fearful of the political consequences of approving an increase in the fuel tax, the nation could be heading toward an infrastructure crisis now that freight volumes are once again growing, Graves said.

Trucks historically move about two-thirds of all freight in the United States, including manufactured goods and retail products.

Trucks traditionally haul about two-thirds of all freight in the United States, including manufactured and retail goods.

Trucking serves as a barometer of the U.S. economy, representing nearly 69 percent of tonnage carried by all modes of domestic freight transportation, including manufactured and retail goods. Trucks hauled 10.2 billion tons of freight in 2008. Motor carriers collected $660.3 billion, or 83.1 percent of total revenue earned by all transport modes.

That’s from the American Trucking Associations, a paragraph in its latest news release on monthly freight statistics.

We post the numbers in an effort to restore economic reality to the debate over Transportation Secretary LaHood’s recent declaration that it’s now federal policy that there shall be no distinction between motorized and non-motorized traffic. The Associated Press covers the controversy today, “Transportation’s bicycle policy hits potholes,” citing Shopfloor’s objections to the policy.

The Secretary’s defenders, those who want more federal tax dollars to be spent on local bike and walking paths, have reacted to our posts by recasting his arguments, saying he just wants to take bike paths into consideration in planning, that he wants people to have alternatives to driving their own cars, etc.

But we were taking the Secretary at his word — and disagreeing with him. Here’s what Secretary LaHood wrote on his DOT blog, FastLane, in a March 15 post, “My view from atop the table at the National Bike Summit.”

Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.

His emphasis. The “atop the table” is a reference to his mounting a table in a Congressional meeting room to give remarks to bicycle activists at the “Bike Summit.” BikePortland.org reported “he was mobbed like a rockstar.”

“Sea change…. The end of favoring motorized transportation …”

In a subsequent, April 5, interview on Green, Inc., the Secretary expressed surprise that people had taken issue with his comments, saying, “My response is that this is what Americans want.” Yet there was not one word about freight in the interview. In speaking for the American public, the Secretary did not mention freight.

Thankfully, the objections seem to have registered. In an April 6 FastLane post, “Survey shows Americans want more mobility options–biking, walking, and transit should be in the mix,” Secretary LaHood added to the record.

People are always going to drive cars. And we are always going to rely on the hardworking trucking community to haul our nation’s freight. We’ve made a huge investment in our interstate highway system, and that’s not going away. We are going to continue maintaining that investment.

But we do have many modes of transportation in this country, many different ways of getting around. Why not make room at the table for bicycling and walking?

That’s not what the original policy pronouncement said, and bicycle advocates have been bellying up to the table for a long time. (One example, an April 14, 2009, Boston Globe article, “$80m in US funds for bike projects unspent in Mass.“)  And citing a public opinion survey by an advocacy group that wants to shift more taxpayer dollars to public transportation, Transportation for America, doesn’t persuade us that, in a policy vacuum, Americans would choose to spend more federal tax dollars on local bike lanes and community walking paths.

Still, if in his comments the Secretary has now framed the argument as, “The Administration believes it’s a good use of federal dollars to make infrastructure for non-motorized transportation a higher priority in planning and appropriations,” that’s a good debate to have.

In that debate, here’s something to remember.

Trucking serves as a barometer of the U.S. economy, representing nearly 69 percent of tonnage carried by all modes of domestic freight transportation, including manufactured and retail goods. Trucks hauled 10.2 billion tons of freight in 2008. Motor carriers collected $660.3 billion, or 83.1 percent of total revenue earned by all transport modes.

From CNSNews.com, “Sebelius Says President Obama Has Instructed All Cabinet-Level Departments to Promote Public Health,” based on remarks by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

Sebelius explained that the Department of Transportation (DOT) can operate as a “health agency” by funding bike trails for communities, among other things.

“Transportation, you wouldn’t necessarily think that the Department of Transportation is a public health agency, but actually they have a lot to do with community health and public health because they have the funds for bike trails and walking paths and sidewalks and green space,” explained Sebelius.

So that’s context for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s evangelizing for pedal parity, that is, his recent declaration that the DOT would make no distinctions between motorized and non-motorized means of transportation.

Here’s a suggestion: The Department of Transportation should concentrate on the efficient and safe movement of people and goods. We already have enough public health agencies.

Green, Inc., the New York Times blog, interviews Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, delving into the Secretary’s recent pronouncement that federal policy would make no distinctions between motorized and non-motorized transportation. From “Q&A: Transportation Secretary on Biking, Walking and ‘What Americans Want’”:

Q. Bicycling and walking advocates had a very positive reaction to the policy change. But here at Green Inc., we heard mostly from critics who said it showed you were “delusional” or reflective of some sort of “Maoist” bent. What’s your response to the response?

A. My response is that this is what Americans want. Americans want alternatives. People are always going to drive cars. We’re always going to have highways. We’ve made a huge investment in our interstate highway system. We’ll always continue to make sure that those investments in the highways are maintained.

But, what Americans want is to get out of their cars, and get out of congestion, and have opportunities for more transit, more light rail, more buses, and some communities are going to street cars. But many communities want the opportunity on the weekends and during the week to have the chance to bike to work, to bike to the store, to spend time with their family on a bike.

So, this is not just Ray LaHood’s agenda, this is the American agenda that the American people want for alternatives to the automobile.

In the entire interview, there is not a single mention of “freight.” The words “truck” and “trucking” do not appear.

What Americans want right now is jobs, the creation of which requires the efficient movement of freight on trucks.  Secretary LaHood’s expressed vision of transportation priorities just doesn’t seem to recognize that economic reality.

P.S. Kudos to Green, Inc. for covering this issue. The Drudge Report linked to its previous story on March 26 with a headline, “War on Cars? Obama Transportation Sec.: ‘This is the end of favoring motorized transportation’…,” certainly driving a lot of traffic to Shopfloor’s coverage of the issue, as well.

Glad to see the Green, Inc., blog of The New York Times report on the uproar, but more importantly, on the policy implications of Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s recent pronouncement there would be no distinction between motorized and non-motorized traffic. It’s a fair report, “Transportation Department Embraces Bikes and Business Groups Cry Foul,” that highlights an exchange from a House Appropriations hearing last week prompted by comments from Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH):

“If we’re going to spend $1 million on a road, we’re not going to have half of it go to a bike lane, and half of it go to cars?” [LaTourette] asked, according to a transcript of the hearing.

“My interpretation of that would be equal in the eyes of policymakers as what is the expenditure you make, what is the benefit you get,” responded Roy Kienitz, D.O.T.’s under secretary for policy. “And if the freight project offers the best bang, great, but if the bike project offers a good bang, great for them.”

“I don’t even understand how you get a bang for the buck out of a bicycle project,” Mr. LaTourette subsequently commented. “I mean what job is going to be created by having a bike lane?”

CNS News also reported on Secretary LaHood’s remarks and the reaction, “Obama Transportation Secretary: ‘This Is the End of Favoring Motorized Transportation at the Expense of Non-Motorized’.”

Thank you Bill Graves, president of the American Trucking Associations, for contributing to the National Journal’s “Experts: Transportation” blog discussion of motorized versus non-motorized traffic. As noted below, the National Journal sought responses to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s recent pronouncement of “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

Graves’ post:

I’m in full agreement with the National Association of Manufacturers, who said on their Shopfloor blog last week that “treating bicycles and other non-motorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe.” Such a policy will negate any effort the Administration has made to create jobs and will hinder the movement of our nation’s goods. As we work to emerge from these difficult economic times, we need policies that promote the safe, efficient movement of goods. The Administration’s major policy revision will be particularly detrimental if it diverts Highway Trust Fund dollars from critical expansion and repair projects that will help use meet national goals.

The National Highway System connects all parts of our transportation system, facilitating the movement of virtually all goods throughout the country. America relies on trucks to move 70 percent of our nation’s freight tonnage and the trucking industry is forecast to move an even greater share of freight in the future. Highways will continue to play a vital role in our nation’s supply chain. However, America’s aging infrastructure is in desperate need of repair and expansion. Congestion costs, caused by inefficiencies in the system, are rapidly approaching $100 billion annually. The federal government must focus on funding projects that alleviate freight bottlenecks. Failing to address growing congestion problems will cause costs to rise, translating into higher consumer prices and slower job growth, weakening the United States’ ability to compete in the global economy.

I understand that Secretary LaHood and the Administration are adamant about creating livable communities that promote the use of non-motorized transportation. However, these 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.

Thanks for the mention, Governor. Agreed completely.

We add one other point: The Executive Branch, including Secretary LaHood, does not make policy. In the American system, the policymaking branch of the federal government is Congress.

The National Journal’s Experts: Transportation blog has continued posting brief commentaries about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s recent pronouncement of “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.” If one is take the Secretary at his word — and one should, shouldn’t one? — then federal spending and policy decisions about transportation sectors should be made without consideration of their relative importance to the U.S. economy.

Most of the posts come from representatives of groups that support more federal funding for their causes, and they build on Secretary LaHood’s comments to make a pitch for their priorities. Nothing unusual in that, but the commentaries roam far from what the Secretary actually said.

Keith Laughlin, president of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, finds in the Secretary’s expressions support for remaking America into a more urban nation: “We know that gasoline is only going to get more and more expensive in the future. When that happens, we can actually avert economic catastrophe for America’s families if we take steps now to create more walkable/bikeable/transit-rich neighborhoods that help families keep transportation costs manageable. So not only will increased investment in active transportation not cause economic catastrophe, it will actually prevent it!”

Whether it’s a rural hamlet or the smartest “smart growth” community, people still depend on trucks to move freight. Rickshaws and bicycles-built-for-two are not up to the job.

Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president of the AARP, asserts, “America is a diverse country.  We should invest in a transportation network that reflects that diversity.  The transportation portfolio should continue to be varied to ensure that travel choices are there for people as their needs and abilities change.” OK. Agreed. But please reconcile that statement with what follows: “AARP supports the very clear meaning of Secretary LaHood’s blog posting.”

Andy Clark, president of the League of American Bicyclists, argues: “The Dutch invest in bicycle travel because their economy depends on truck and train traffic to and from the North Sea ports. They can’t afford to have their highways bunged up with single-occupant vehicle trips – they don’t have the space and nor does their environment have the carrying capacity to manage it. For the cost of just a few hundred feet of the proposed rebuild of the I-5 Columbia River bridge from Portland to Vancouver, the Portland region could achieve a 20%-25% mode share for bikes – doing more for regional congestion, the trucking industry, air quality, and obesity levels than the entire bridge ‘improvement’ project.”

Holland’s population density is 1,035 people per square mile. The United States’ is 85. Comparing the U.S. economy and transportation needs to the Netherlands is a distraction.

Let’s return to what Secretary LaHood actually wrote: “Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.” Let’s say we have an interchange proposed to ease congestion in a large urban area that crosses the border of two states. If we are to take the Secretary seriously, we’d see planners devote as much time on planning and designing for bikes paths as for trucks. And that would be dumb and irresponsible.

Bikes are fine. We like bikes. More people should ride them. But their advocacy, especially coming from a Cabinet secretary, should bear some connection to the real world and the United States as a modern industrial nation.

The National Journal has joined the few media outlets giving attention to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s recent policy pronouncement of a “sea change,” that the federal government would now treat motorized and non-motorized equally. In the online “Expert Blogs” feature, the publication today asks:

LaHood called the new policy a “sea change,” but is it a good one? Should non-motorized modes of transportation be treated as equal to other modes, particularly when modes like driving and mass transit are at least partially, if not primarily, self-funded? Or is it the essence of DOT’s evolving 21st-century mission to give people more mobility options that, according to LaHood, are relatively fast and inexpensive to build, are environmentally sustainable, reduce travel costs, improve safety and public health, and “reconnect citizens with their communities?”

We’ve already pointed out (here, here and here) that 80 percent of U.S. freight moves by truck and argued that LaHood’s pedal parity is nonsensical for a modern industrial nation.

In his expert response, Greg Cohen, President and CEO of the American Highway Users Alliance, also raises the important point that the public overwhelmingly believes funding for bike paths and the like is primarily a city and county responsibility, followed by the state. Cohen cites a 2008 survey by Fabrizio McLaughlin and Associates:

[Only] 4% of Americans felt that the federal government should take the leadership role in funding bicycle paths. 78% said that county and city governments should lead on bicycle paths and 17% said state government should do so.

These statistics point to a continuing question of the appropriate, limited role of the federal government in transportation. The survey results indicate that most Americans believe that the federal government should take a leading role in keep our major highways and bridges safe and efficient. Our founding fathers explicitly recognized an essential federal role in the regulation of interstate commerce in the Constitution, 127 years before the first federal-aid highway act of 1916. As our major highways and bridges age, meeting this primary federal responsibility becomes a serious and growing challenge. Currently, the Highway Trust Fund is insufficiently funded to even meet these basic federal responsibilities and that is why so many highway user groups are on record in support of increasing our own user fees.

Since Secretary LaHood made his enthusiastic announcement, the federal government has moved to add another huge spending obligation, $940 billion for health care, and at some point the taxpayers will be tapped out (have been tapped out). Interstate commerce and post roads are a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Bike paths?

Cohen concludes:

The reality is that under any realistic transportation system in every community in the United States, the overwhelming amount of travel will continue to be in motorized vehicles over roads. And 88% of Americans believe it is in our national interest to combat congestion on our roads. New capacity for bicycle and walking paths should not come at the expense of highway capacity. Bicycling groups create an unnecessary dispute with motorists when they oppose new highway capacity or advocate reducing motorized travel. Bicycles may be a realistic option for some trips under the right conditions, but cars and trucks will remain absolutely essential to our economy and provide a significant net positive effect on our quality-of-life.

Awfully realistic of you, Greg. Glad someone is.

When a Cabinet secretary declares a “sea change” in national transportation and infrastructure policy, raising non-motorized transportation to the same priority level as motorized transportation, you’d expect intense coverage from the media. Right?

But as previously noted, reporting on Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s embrace of transportation equivalency last week has been limited to bicycle advocacy sites. One exception has been Trucker.com, a trade publication/website.

Today, a breakthrough! The Baltimore Sun took note. That is, the Sun’s transportation reporter, Michael Dresser, took note in a post on his “Getting There” blog. The post, “LaHood elevates biking, walking to parity with cars“:

Call it sacrilege. Call it radical. But U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has actually elevated the  bicycle and  the human foot to parity with the automobile in federal transportation policy.

On Monday, LaHood announced what could be — if it is backed with actual dollars-and-cents policy — a sea change from the auto-centric bias that has prevailed in federal transportation policy since World War II.

“People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” he said. “We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

Dresser reports that the The WashCycle blog has called LaHood’s statement “simply the strongest statement of support for prioritizing bicycling and walking ever to come from a sitting secretary of transportation.”

We don’t call it sacrilege, but radical is a fair description. It is indeed a sea change in federal transportation policy that could have profound implications for the U.S. economy and the 80 percent of freight that moves by truck. The Sun is the first mainstream media outfit to recognize, however briefly, the potential impact. Hope it’s not the last.