Submitted Comments
Date: May 18, 2007
Comments: I think you're missing a very valuable resource by not partnering with the American Planning Association. I strongly recommend you invite the professionals who are charged with laying out cities every day.
Date: May 14, 2007
Comments: While there is much to like in the prooposed vision (scuh as an added emphasis on transit and passenger rail), any "vision" that so completely fails to consider non-motorized transportation (in spite of the addition of a picture of a bicyclist to the web page) is a myopic one at best. In addition, the failure to include representation for non-motorized modes in the panels ensures that these modes will continue to be afterthoughts in our transportation system, which will continue failing to be truly multi-modal in any useful sense of the word.
Lumping non-motorized transportation into "other modes" ensures that they will continue to be overlooked, both in terms of the safety of persons using these modes and in policies, facilities and programs that would encourage them and help improve the mobility that matters - that of people and goods, not just the vehicles in which they ride.
I would encourage you to broaden the scope of participants in this process to include all modes of tranpsortation, and indeed to focus on the most sustainable and ecologically friendly ones -- bicycling and walking.
Date: May 14, 2007
Comments: I see no mention of needing to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists anywhere in your conference materials. It appears that the organizers have paid attention to nothing that's happened in the last 10 years in this regard. No effort that purports to be sustainable can leave out peds and bikers and public health.
Date: May 11. 2007
Comments: This vision apears to me not to be visionary , but a prescription for contining the same poolicies that have lead to our cureent trasnportaoitn problems. Teh vison needs to include alternatives to drive, particularly walking and bicycling. We need to envision a trasnportation system that provides mobilty to all without favoring any one mode.
Date: May 11, 2007
Comments: Please make sure that non-motorized transportation (especially walking and cycling) is fully integrated into the vision--not as an afterthought and not simply in the context of "accommodation", but as an integral component.
Date: May 11, 2007
Comments:The transportation vision lacks any mention or strategy for bicyclists and pedestrians (including the disabled). I also do not see any linkage between land use and transportation.
Date: May 10, 2007
Comments: Please focus on providing "Choices" for the public. This includes the choice to drive, take transit, ride a bike or walk. Choice also includes the choice to buy an electric/hybrid/hydrogen car. Sometimes tough government regulations such as California's Zero Emission Standards are necessary to impart change. The market does not always work efficiently for the public good.
Date: May 10, 2007
Comments: The primary focus should be on a sustainable national transportation policy and complete streets that provide accessibility and safety for all users -- motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Date: May 9, 2007
Comments: Great site -- and great initiative.
I have two clients who are interested in possibly being linked to on the "resources" part of your site. Both are 501(c)(3) organizations that provide information and data on transportation safety and transportation modal traffic. How do I go about seeing if you'd be ok linking them on that section of your site?
Date: May 9, 2007
Comments: None of the conference topic areas specifically address the role of bicycles in your vision. I think that is a huge oversight given today's information regarding the need for alternative transportation modes such as biking, which can help in reducing air pollution and increasing personal fitness.
Date: May 9, 2007
Comments: While I appreciate the effort to think in the long term about our transportation future, I found the website contents disappointing in the narrow scope of the vision presented. Across the country there is a growing recognition of the need to build complete streets that serve all users -- roads that increase capacity by making it possible for more people to travel via bicycle, walking, and transit. I don't see this vision reflected here. The National Complete Streets Coalition is working for this goal, and includes groups ranging from America Bikes and APTA to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, APA, and AARP. We invite you to expand your vision to include complete streets. Please visit www.completestreets.org for more information.
Date: May 9, 2007
Comments: Have you invited the American Bus Association to join the stakeholder group? Their involvement and input would be of value in such goal areas as Transit and Interpassenger Bus, Sustainable Transportation, and Funding.
Date: May 9, 2007
Comments: It came to my attention through the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) that non-motorized transportation modes are not mentioned in any portion of this web site and project. As multimodal transportation is an essential part of our future needs, I feel this project would be well served by including such professionals in the committees and discussions. If you do not have contacts for such individuals, I will be happy to provide you with some.
Date: May 9, 2007
Comments: As a transportation planner at an MPO, I am shocked that this "transportation vision" is apparently blind to the existence of nonmotorized modes. In an age of poor urban air quality across the country, the threat of catastrophic global climate change, not to mention the Peak Oil somewhere on the horizon, the idea of greatly expanding road and highway capacity as a solution to congestion is ludicrous. We have to instead create places where people can meet their daily needs by foot, by bike and by transit. If we expect to keep our society and our economy moving in the 21st century, we must shift our focus to these more sustainable modes. Thank you for your attention.
Date: May 8, 2007
Comments: Where do biking and walking fit into this grand plan. I am very disappointed in your backward looking vision.
Date: May 8, 2007
Comments: This whole program is the same as it's been for decades - that is working over the same highway and mass tranist systems. You are like the phone companies not seeing the internet coming. Your imaginations will not allow you think in terms of new a automated transportation network that operates on neither existing roads nor existing rails.
Date: May 8, 2007
Comments: Is AASHTO interested in the development of a balanced transportation system that meets the needs of all legitimate users of public rights-of-way, including pedestrians and bicyclists, or is it only interested in roads for cars? It is imperative that the non-motorized modes be represented at this visioning conference.
Date: May 8, 2007
Comments: I am always glad to see organizations asking for vision. The illustration on your tabbed pages is a vision of horror--a world of 12 lane limited acess roadways and no accompanying life.
This is not to say that you meant to say that we face a paved-over world. I am just shocked at the lack of non-motorized interests in your partners. Although each trip is limited in its reach compared to motorized travel, pedestrian and bicycle trips essential parts of our transportation system. In fact, every trip does begin and end with a pedestrian mode.
The value of recognizing pedestrian and bicycle trips as utilitarian modes sends the planning process in a direction where we look for origins and destinations (such as businesses and homes) being placed near each other. Where uses are well-mixed, it's not a given that every additional person forces more capacity on the highway system. Besides work and home, other uses that can be placed near each other are recreation (including trails) and entertainment.
I urge you right now to put some "life" into your illustration. How about a trail leading up to your megahighway with bikers and pedestrians crossing on a bridge to an ice cream shop and waterpark?
Then please recruit some non-motorized advocate partners to your vision.
Date: May 8, 2007
Comments: I not see a promise of a new vision with the current organizations listed. Where are the bicyclists and pedestrians? You need to invite representatives from organizations like the League of American Bicyclists and National Center for Bicycling and Walking to join your initiative. A very cheap form of individual tranportation. If we have spent the inheritance as your web site suggests let's get serious about transportation choice, and lessen our dependence on the automobile and roads. Also another thought is to invite planner to the table since land use and transportation go hand in hand. Thank you and I look forward to following your progress Ellen Pillsbury Duluth, MN
Date: May 7, 2007
Comments: How have you integrated pedestrian and bicycle professionals into this vision process? Most communities could benefit from more attention to alternative modes and transit. Walking not only brings communities together but increases personal health and promotes eyes-on-the-street for safety.
Date: May 7, 2007
Comments: Why is I-85 in Georgia specifically used as the image? How about changing the images at every click so that other states are also included? What's big deal of using the same quotes on every page? The menus are supposed to be seen when one first gets to the site. No scroll should be needed. If you really need to include the text about the menu bar, use it on the home page. The background color is also distracting. Use a lighter color so that it doesn't compete with the contents. Look forward to seeing a better designed vision site.
Date: May 7, 2007
Comments: Afer perusing the TransportationVision.org website for ten minutes or so, I am struck by the absence of reference to two modes that should be central the U.S.'s new multi-decade transportation vision: walking and cycling. I hope the upcoming conference will include significant discussion of the need for identifying increased funding to improve conditions for walking and biking in this country. We lag significantly behind European countries in this respect, and it's time for the US to take a leadership position in promoting walking and biking. Lumping walking and biking generally under "Sustainable Transportation" with other topics really isn't enough, either, if this is the intent.
Date: May 7, 2007
Comments: There is no mention of bikes and there does not appear to be any bicycle representation. This will be a short-sighted vision.
Date: May 7, 2007
Comments: I am a little saddened to see that although the Transportation Vision briefly mentions sustainability and land-use integration, it is still extremely lacking in substance concerning non-motorized transportation (walking and bicycling). I would love to see a greater emphasis on the importance of mixing land use and transportation planning, encouraging non-motorized modes whenever possible, and developing a road and rail system that complements the pedestrian and bicycle environment with transit, freight rail, freight trucks, and personal motorized vehicles. Thanks for your time.
Date: May 7, 2007
Comments: Ignoring Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation as a crucial component of a viable transportation system in the 21st century is silly. Adding interstate highways is silly. Fix the roads we have, stop tearing apart our cities with new roads, stop building places where everyone has to drive to, and give people options other than using their car.
Date: May 7, 2007
Comments: My only comment is that you please consider non-motorized transportation alternatives (i.e. bike/ped) in your ongoing discussions. Surely no form of transportation is more sustainable than someone walking or bicycling to work.
Date: May 6, 2007
Comments: I fail to see how a "Transportation Vision and Strategy for the 21st Century" can be complete without the inclusion of a non-motorized segment. You folk cannot be so blind as to ignore the huge contribution of a non-motorized segment to the future of the country. Please include organizations such as LAB, apbp, Thunderhead Alliance, and many more in your plans - Very Sincerely - Peter Boor.
Date: May 5, 2007
Comments: As a transportation planner I am, frankly, appalled by this "vision". But then again, when I look at the list of sponsors I am not surprised. But why is AASHTO dirtying their reputation with this garbage? Is this a joke? If it weren't on a website I'd have guessed this initiative was from the 1960s. Even given everything that defines our current national and global state of affairs - global warming, faltering American auto makers, the obesity epidemic, concerns about the inefficiency (and inaffordability) of automobile transportation infrastructure, air pollution, sustainability - AASHTO is sponsoring some kind of initiative to push, in the face of all rationality, even MORE auto-centered transportation systems!? Just look at your website's graphic -- a near-empty road with one car, representing a very inefficiency investment in transportation infrastructure. A gigantic highway, a sea of asphalt, tearing neighborhoods apart, belching pollution and CO2, wasting taxpayer money.
What exactly is this "vision", who is driving it and why? And, most importantly, why is AASHTO involved with it? I am disappointed beyond words.
Date: May 5, 2007
Comments: Where are the non-motorized transportation organizations in your vision process? Where are considerations for bicycle transportation in this process?
The vision for the 21st Century you have outlined and staffed guarantees designing more of the same thing we have been doing for the past 50 years. This direction is not sustainable in terms of energy or land use. For urban and suburban areas, where the overwhelming majority of the US population lives, works and travels, further expansion of roadway and parking space has become not only difficult but counter productive.
If we expect to "move" into the 21st Century, we will have to incorporate bicycles, walking and transit deeply into the transportation system.
Cities in Europe, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, for example, have shifted over one third of trips to bicycles, and transit trips overwhelmingly use bike and ride versus land consuming car park and ride. They also provide secure bike parking for the link at the destination ends of the transit trip - ride a bike to the office or school.
The modes we use to travel will change, but our transportation needs will be met and our standard of living will improve since we do not have to support the external costs of as much energy importation and vast acres of land dedicated to moving cars and storing parked cars.
Please expand your advisory group to include non-motorized experts, or this plan will remain a vision for the 1920s.
Contacts include the League of American Bicyclists, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, Rails to Trails.
Date: May 4, 2007
Comments: The topics to be covered in the upcoming Transportation Vision Conference appear to be remarkably short-sighted. Amazingly, there is not a single mention of non-motorized transportation in the topic areas. Nor is there any mention of innovative transportation policy and pricing schemes such as congestion pricing or improved parking policy aimed at reducing automobile use. There seems to be a very heavy focus on road construction, although it is widely known that continued expansion of our highway system will not solve our nation's future transportation needs. Continued reliance on automobile travel is NOT environmentally sustainable, and seeking to increase capacity for automobiles is counter-productive. World-class public transportation and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are needed if the US hopes to make any progress toward reducing congestion and tackling the global climate crisis. Sadly, AASHTO seems to be missing the big picture, and this transportation vision process appears doomed to fail before it starts. I hope that AASHTO reconsiders its agenda and includes a focus on the future of non-motorized transportation as well as a focus on strategies to reduce auto use.
Date: May 2, 2007
Comments: Will Short Sea Shipping reps be there too?