Author Archive

Your waterfront

Monday, February 6th, 2012 by John Mauro

How many times have you biked or walked along the Seattle waterfront, felt the salt in the air, listened to the gulls, looked out to the snowy Olympic Mountains and thought: what a city.

But despite this scene that many of us enjoy, it’s likely that you had to work a bit to get there—I always carry with me a feeling of disconnection from the natural beauty of Seattle’s waterfront.

That’s all about to change.  Maybe.

Still in the early stages of design, we’re unsure what kind of waterfront we’re going to get. (I’m surprised that the teaser images on the Waterfront Committee website don’t have a single bicycle in them.)

But we have a pretty good idea of what kind of waterfront we want: a safe and connected one that works for bicycle commuters, recreational riders and pedestrians.

Nice cycletrack-- but whoa, those are pretty long crossing distances across all those lanes...

Safe means that the crossing distances should be shorter for bicycles and pedestrians, traffic speeds should be below 30 mph and intersections should be carefully designed and signalized.

Connected means that the bicycle facilities should be wide to accommodate the large numbers of anticipated riders, the facilities should work for all types of riders and there should be strong east-west connections for all modes.

Tell the design team to get it right from the start. There’s a workshop that’ll start with a brief presentation and finish with an open discussion and a chance to speak up.  It’s 5:30 to 7 p.m. this Wednesday, Feb. 8 at Town Hall (downstairs, 1119 8th Avenue).  RSVP for the workshop here.

Let’s make sure that we make the best of this opportunity to connect to the tremendous natural beauty of our waterfront and create the kind of waterfront we’ve all been dreaming about.

No Federal Funding Says Committee

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 by John Mauro

As you might know, cities and towns across Washington rely on federal funding for programs like Safe Routes to School that build local, safe bicycle infrastructure for everyone. You also may know that we take the threat of zeroed out funding by Congress very seriously.  No federal funding would spell certain disaster for safer roads and accessibility to biking and walking.

So this week, we called on many of our supporters to take action on such a threat (that I previously wrote about here).  Thank you to those who contacted your Congressional representative to help us protect funding for bicycling.  We pushed hard but we didn’t get over the top of this vote.

Yes, unfortunately, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted against protecting bicycle funding.  It was a close, bipartisan vote: 27 to 29.

Washington state’s two committee members were split on an amendment introduced by Republican Tom Petri (R-WI) that would have restored Safe Routes to School and Transportation Enhancements programs.  Rick Larsen voted for the amendment.  Jaime Herrera Buetler voted against it. If you live in the 2nd district, be sure to thank Congressman Larsen.  If you live in the 3rd, we encourage you to reach out to Congresswoman Herrera Buetler and let her know of your disappointment.

Together, we generated over 900 emails to Congress—and while we didn’t get the result we wanted, we’re still in the fight.

What’s next?

The bill will probably pass a House floor vote void of any funding for bicycling.  But there is a silver lining.  Today’s bipartisan committee vote sends a strong signal to the Senate.  If a transportation bill is going to be worked out between the chambers, the Senate will see that funding for bicycling is supported by Democrats and Republicans across the aisle—and we should end up in a better place in the final compromise bill. That is, when or if we get one this (election) year.

We’ll continue to track this and give you a shout when things heat up again, since the results will directly impact what happens on the ground over the next several years in communities all across our state.

Thanks again to those 900 letter writers!

Funding for cycling in jeopardy: House vote Tomorrow

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 by John Mauro

Anybody who’s been following the federal transportation drama knows that it’s been a saga of anxiety-provoking bill extensions with continued threats to funding for biking.  And then nothing.  And then something.  And then just kidding.

Is this your Congressional rep?

With your help, we’ve fended some of those threats off and have kept bike funding at current levels—still not nearly enough or equitable as I noted on Monday, but at least not as bloody as a Coen brothers movie.

But boy howdy, here we go.  The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is poised to rip everything out of the bill for bicycling (and walking) with a vote tomorrow.  I give you: the “American Energy and Infrastructure Act.”  And it gives you: nothing.

I bet you could have guessed that based on the ‘50s era title page of the summary alone.  Let’s see: transportation = oil pipeline + large concrete highway spans all superimposed on an American flag.  Um, that’s not my country thank you very much.

The details aren’t any better.  The bill looks like it will:

  • Kill programs “that do not have a federal interest”—like all bicycling programs. This means eliminating Transportation Enhancements and even Safe Routes to School.  Nothing should unite us in a fight like Congress going after kid safety.  Let me upgrade my piece on Monday from “Not. Fair.”  to “Simply. Disgusting.”
  • Reduce city and metro control over funding, giving more of it—“flexibility”—to state DOTs, which, in general, haven’t demonstrated strong support for bicycling
  • Gut or eliminate discretionary funds like the very successful TIGER program that Senator Patty Murray helped create
  • Squeeze the environmental review process, which will likely mean more impacts to our health and environmental health

So we need your help.  Click here to write your representative again today and ask for support to preserve funding for biking and walking >>

If this makes it out of the committee, what next?  It’ll go to the House floor for debate and likely get passed.  Then the bill would be conferenced with a Senate bill, MAP-21, if MAP-21 is passed by the Senate.  I wrote about MAP-21 when it was released in November; it certainly has its share of serious problems, but it doesn’t rip out all bike funding like the House bill.

Why bother with your representative?  While we’re not expecting a miracle for it to simply be rewritten or go away, a strong bipartisan showing in the House Transportation Committee means a better chance of working something reasonable out with the Senate.  Like something that doesn’t gut bike funding.  Like something that keeps our state, cities and towns building the protected bike lanes, cycle tracks and greenways for all of us to reliably and safely get around by bicycle.

And I’d vote for that.

Click here to write your representative today and ask for support to preserve funding for biking and walking >>

Two Reports You Should Read

Monday, January 30th, 2012 by John Mauro

It’s been a great couple of weeks for the data-hungry.

Last week, we learned that states spent an average of $2.17 for each of us on biking and walking, even though biking and walking account for 12% of all trips—and 14% of all traffic fatalities.

If you’re not paying attention, the take-away:  NOT.  FAIR.

Two other tidbits: Seattle ranks #4 in the nation for biking and walking (combined).  And an analysis of cost-benefit shows that every dollar we invest in bicycling and walking yields up to $11.80 in benefits!  Cha-ching.

Dig deeper into the Alliance for Biking and Walking 2012 Benchmarking Report here.

We’re trying to address that awful disparity in investment at the national level (with an upcoming vote in the House this week—stay tuned!) and at the local level, where cities and towns are taking big steps forward.  Seattle, for instance, is poised to start updating its Bicycle Master Plan to reflect breakthroughs in exciting new tools and engineering that weren’t around 5 years ago.  It’s our best opportunity in the next decade to create an inspiring vision for bicycling in Seattle—hopefully a vision that will help lead the nation and lead us to action.

But, yes, we do focus on cities and Seattle quite often.  (My bad—I live here and so do lots of our members.)   How about smaller cities and towns?

Enter the second big report.  Today, the Rails to Trails Conservancy released Active Transportation Beyond Urban Centers, which shows us that rates of bicycling and walking in smaller towns is surprisingly high.  Towns with between 10,000 and 50,000 citizens see the same basic number of trips per capita as larger urban areas.  This is important for many reasons, not the least is which is that accommodating and promoting bicycling isn’t an urban or rural thing, an eastside or westside thing, a red state or blue state thing—it’s the thing.  Especially with all the recent talk about the need for job creation (bicycling projects create more jobs per dollar than just about any type of roadway project), accommodating and promoting bicycling should be front and center as an urgent priority for cities, states and our country.  Period.

Enjoy the reports—they come with brief summaries if you’re in a hurry—and make sure to spread the insights!

The conversation that we should have had

Monday, January 2nd, 2012 by John Mauro

Have you ever been talking with someone and, just when the conversation gets interesting, a casual glance at the clock results in a frantic “I’m late for a meeting!” or “I’m late for my bus!”  Or have you been watching your favorite TV show and, predictably but painfully, the plot thickens and it’s time for a commercial break?

Something like this happened to me in December.  It wasn’t a commercial break—but pretty close.

I was on The Conversation on KUOW.  Based on a recent Salon article, the subject was “Are Urban Bicyclists Just Elite Snobs?”  While I’m a fan of the show, I was disappointed that, as a show guest, I had exactly 124 seconds as part of the conversation. We barely had any time to dig in.  It left me—and many listeners, I’ve learned—with a disappointment that we just skimmed the surface and missed a good opportunity.

At Cascade, we’re committed to having the conversation about attitudes, perceptions, misperceptions and respect on the road for everyone.  So let’s create and sustain one here.  It’s a conversation that many of us want to have. And we should be able to have it without pulling together tight sound bytes or obeying a strict time limit.

To kick things off: Elite Snobs.

When I caught the article, my first reaction—to the headline—was disappointment.  How can our beloved easy and cheap mode of transportation (or popular form of recreation) be anything close to a central character in a social hierarchy struggle?

Bicycling is more normal and ordinary than ever, so I tire of the notion that bicycling is only for one group of people.  When we look at the numbers, we find it to be completely false.  In fact, when we look at the census data, those who ride bikes span income levels quite evenly.  Are there elite snobs who ride a bike?  Are you an elite snob?  Better yet, who actually cares?  The real question isn’t about snobbery, it’s whether or not we’re going to recognize the serious interest of all ages, races, incomes and backgrounds in this cheap and easy way to get around and make sure it’s safe and accessible for everyone. And beyond recognizing this increasing demand by the masses—people really want to ride—will our city’s leaders build the infrastructure and let us?

Rant over; I then actually read the article.  Beyond the snarky headline, the Salon article does dig in.  The author even calls the media to the carpet and notes the disparity in enforcement and rash of hyperbolic headlines (um, his is a case in point).  Its thesis is that it’s not so much that bicyclists are elitists, but that we’re saddled with that unfortunate and ironically poor public perception.  Okay, good point.  Next?

Next Stop: Us vs. Them

Poor public perception?  But we are the public.  And let’s take that back.  This is not a divide between completely different segments of society.  This is the case of people forgetting who our neighbors are, who our friends are, who our coworkers are. In some cases, it’s a case of people even forgetting who they are: we’ve seen people stake claims of one kind of biking or one kind of appropriate bicycle clothing over the other.  Bicyclists aren’t bicyclists.  They’re people of all types who ride bicycles.  And any conversation—like the one on KUOW—that pits one side against another side isn’t going to get real far.  There are no “sides.”  We need to recognize that there are groups, associations and differences—that we’ve got individuality but also similarity.  When we see this common Us vs. Them circular, unproductive chatter happen, we need to break the cycle.

Let’s Be Honest: We’re Afraid

Being on the road can be scary.  Almost all of us know someone who has been injured or killed while riding or driving, no doubt.  So while even though many people aren’t fully aware of the risk of distracted, drunk or inattentive driving/riding, I’d bet that most of us carry around a bit of fear with us.  It’s why my wife always tells me to “be safe out there” before I ride to work or drive anywhere.

And, sure.  None of us wants to make a mistake and hurt someone.  So as we’re trying our best to get where we’re going safely, someone (on bike or in car) who throws an unpredictable or sudden movement, stretches a yellow light or rolls through a red can get our adrenaline going.  And while I’m tempted to think that this is truer for the most vulnerable users of the road like those on bikes or on foot, we can’t dismiss that many motorists (including us when we’re driving) are truly afraid to cause harm.

Enter a stressful situation with the background of fear and it can move suddenly into anger and blame.  If you’re anything like me (and I’m loath to admit), when you’re pushed too far, it’s often the other person’s fault.  Ah, a simple projection gives temporary relief.  Taken together, the Us vs. Them and fear-turned-anger might result in some people blaming the bicyclist for simply existing and refusing to recognize the rights of bikes to exist on our roadways.

Rising Above: A Better Dance

At the risk of alienating the junior high crowd, how many tiny trips to Facebook do you need to make to remember how much we all really just wanted to be liked back then?  Think junior high school dances.  And while I’d like to think that we’ve learned some things along the way, maybe even matured a little, it’s probably still true.

We’re never going to be able to reason with those who blame us for simply existing.  But it can’t start from there with everyone and need to reset the conversation to calm, civil and mature.  We are all legitimate users of our public infrastructure.

So let’s acknowledge our long-standing desire to be liked and also use this maturity.  It might, in combination, get us to a place of being respected if we can elevate the blame game to an honest discussion about the needs of all road users.

Finally: Ride

Aside from stopping the blame game and agreeing to engage in a calm, civil and mature conversation with and within the community, you already know the best way to contribute toward a solution: ride.  (And, of course, let’s also remember that when we’re driving a car, we’re piloting what can be seen legally as a dangerous weapon.  So let’s drive with extreme care.)

Yes, there’s a sentiment that bicycle evangelists are trying to convert the masses from the sins of car driving and that we’re a preachy, holier-than-thou bunch.  Let’s not get stuck here.  No one wants to be told what to do—but if everyone is doing it and it looks fun and easy, well, why wouldn’t people give it a try?  Let’s lead by example—in word and in deed—and ride.

The more of us who ride make it safer for everyone on the road and more likely that we’ll push ourselves over the tipping point and into a city and region where bicycling is an ordinary as using a vacuum cleaner.  And a place where, as Bike Snob NYC wrote “humanity will marvel that there was once an age in which a mode of transportation as inexpensive and accessible as the bicycle was considered ‘elitist.’”

Getting There: Section of Burke-Gilman Opens Today

Friday, December 23rd, 2011 by John Mauro

As we reported last week, work on the Burke-Gilman trail in Lake Forest Park is starting to wrap up.  A large section—from Log Boom Park to Ballinger Way—will open today at noon.

If you’re not already en route, jockeying to be the first one on the 0.7 miles of fresh pavement, what do you have to look forward to?  You’ll see wider pavement, safety improvements, new lighting, better crossings and fencing.  You’ll also see the disappearance of those temporary stairs.

While we continue to cross our fingers for a holiday miracle, the rest of the 2.2 miles will likely open in about five weeks.  Stay tuned or follow along on the King County Parks project website.

Burke-Gilman Trail Missing Link: Back in Superior Court #CompleteTheTrail

Thursday, December 15th, 2011 by John Mauro

Tomorrow is another milestone for the Burke-Gilman Missing Link: another argument, back in King County Superior Court.  Yes, we’ve been here before, but haven’t we argued enough over this missing section of trail?  Or, better yet, how many times do we have to win the argument, and when do we get on with the business of finally building a safe section of trail?

The end is in sight, and we hope this is the last time.  But this seemingly endless cycle of appeals could actually continue.  (And rack up tens of thousands of dollars of additional legal fees for Cascade.  You can help us to victory with a gift to the Education Foundation today!)

As we continue down the legal path, the plot hasn’t dramatically changed.  We continue to believe that the trail section is a necessary safety improvement and connects up the backbone of our regional trail system.  The Ballard Business Appellants keep arguing that a trail would case significant traffic delays, parking loss, incompatibility with land use and wouldn’t be safe.

The quick synopsis. The City went back to study the route yet again a few hearings ago (due to concerns of “piece mealing” the analysis) and still determined that the trail would not cause significant environmental impacts.  Then on July 1 of this year, the Hearing Examiner (think of her like a judge) ruled that there will be no “probable significant adverse environmental impacts.”  The Ballard Business Appellants then appealed the Hearing Examiner’s ruling, which brings us to Superior Court tomorrow.  If we win yet again, the Ballard Business Appellants could appeal the forthcoming decision from Superior Court to the Court of Appeals or to the State Supreme Court.

Again, we hope this is the last time we have to win so we can get on with it.  As I’ve mentioned before, the City has been “eager to begin construction on a fully funded and fully designed ‘missing link’ segment,” according to SDOT.

We’ve got our eyes on the 2012 summer construction season.  It’d be a great time to celebrate.  We love ribbon cuttings.

We’ll be live-tweeting from the courtroom tomorrow starting at 2 p.m. Follow us on Twitter to hear how it’s going under #CompleteTheTrail. Please join in and share your thoughts on what this project means to you.

Please help us continue the fight for the Missing Link.  Your gift to the Education Foundation today will ensure we win!

“Half-off” Holiday Sale: (Half of) Burke-Gilman opens soon

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 by John Mauro

Well, it’s not exactly half off.  It’s half of.

Not only have we been tracking this since the spring, but if you’re a user of this trail section, you’ve been riding the bus or taking a very inconvenient bike detour much of this time.  We are all ready for a safer, wider and better trail.

It looks like they’ll have the northern section from Ballinger Way NE to Logboom Park open about on time—by Dec. 31.  I’ve been up to look at elegantly smooth pavement and can’t wait to ride it.  Unfortunately, they expect the southern section (from NE 145th Street to Ballinger Way NE) to reopen in late January.

Significant unanticipated issues like poor soils and drainage and a number of utility crossings took King County Parks and their contractors back to the drawing board for redesign, which kept pushing back the deadline.  And no excellent news on the detour front—the route will remain from Ballinger to 94th street until the project is complete.

In talking with Parks staff over the last several months, I’m sure it’s not out of line to say that they’re doing everything they can to get this project finished—and for them, the contractors and the trail users, it couldn’t come fast enough.  We’d just as well get over the past—like permitting issues with local jurisdictions, detour problems with a few vocal property owners, WSDOT’s reluctance to offer cyclists a safe route along SR 522—and just start riding this great stretch of trail again.

We certainly appreciate your patience.  While I’m not holding my breath, perhaps we can shoot for a complete trail opening by Groundhog Day just in time to declare the end of winter—and the start of a great riding season on our beloved trail.

For more details, see the King County Parks project site.

For a Northgate — and city — with safety and choices

Friday, November 11th, 2011 by John Mauro

We’ve recently talked up the importance of getting it right for bikes in Northgate with a connected, accessible bicycle network that syncs up well with the planned light rail station.  Getting the station and station area design right are fantastic ways to invite more and safer bicycling and to create a vibrant and livable neighborhood.  While the station itself opens in 2020, the conversation is about to leave the station.  And we’ve got a few good reasons why you don’t want to miss this train.

Any good transportation leaves at frequent and regular intervals, and the very next week you’ll want to join the second mayor and council-convened Road Safety Summit on Tuesday, Nov. 15 from 6 – 8 p.m. at the Northgate Community Center.  Bring your voice and ideas to the table about how we can squarely address how all of us get around more safely—by bike, by bus, by foot and by car.  (Can’t make this?  There are two other city-sponsored public meetings, one lunch-hour meeting hosted by Commute Seattle, and an evening meeting at Bike Works, too!)

Summit task force members and our city leaders will bring your ideas forward in crafting an action plan for safer streets.  Let’s continue the community conversation with some clear actions for all of us at the end of these summits.

As we called for in September, and as was reiterated at the first summit last month, all of us need to do better to ensure that the vision—an end to traffic fatalities—becomes reality.

And whether you’re from Northgate or from South Park, this shared vision is something that should get us all to the table.

Adrift in Congress: MAP-21 will only get us lost

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011 by John Mauro

With a good map, you can get just about anywhere—to work on a buffered bike lane, from Puget Sound to Long Island Sound, or from now to a time (soon?) where biking is easy, connected, safe and convenient.

But with a bad map?  Or a really, really bad map?

That’s the kind of map that the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works committee just threw down on the table.  And I’m certain that it’s not going to get any of us anywhere.  In short, it turns back the clock 20 years on the progress we’ve made in getting dedicated funding for bicycling.

Dubbed “MAP-21,” it’s a draft of the new transportation bill that we’ve been waiting for over two years since the last bill (“SAFETEA-LU“– what’s up with these acronyms?) first expired in September, 2009.  Since then, Congress has passed a series of extensions that’s kept our transportation system’s doors open.  We’ve fended off attacks on bike funding along the way, recently from both Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).  As a coalition of national partners, we sent well over 50,000 emails in 24 hours to members of congress and have kept bicycling alive and funded.

Our hope has never been in the House.  Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica (R-FL) has been clear about his intentions to gut funding for biking since day 1.  “The focus of the bill is on the national highway system,” Mica replied when asked about biking and walking.

So that left us with the Senate.  Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), one of the “Big Four” (along with Inhofe, Vitter and Baucus), has been our hope in preserving dedicated funding for bicycling.  But for some reason or another (have negotiations with Inhofe eroded Boxer’s promise to preserve bike funding?), they’ve taken a devastating first step.

What does MAP-21 do? Three zingers.  The draft Senate bill:

1.       Offers far less money for biking (and walking)

2.       Adds a pile of new categories eligible for this smaller pot of funding

3.       Allows an opt out option that many states will likely take

With MAP-21, some states might just cease spending any money on bicycling and walking! Remember the rescissions issue? States could simply send back those millions of dollars that could be building safe, connecting bicycle infrastructure.

A side-by-side comparison between the current and the proposed can be found here.  And you can read more here.

What can we do? At this point, our Senators Murray and Cantwell are aware of the threat and have been long-time supporters of our goals.  This week the Environment and Public Works Committee is marking up the bill.  With the federal budget and “super-committee” getting all of the attention in D.C. right now, we don’t expect things will really get rolling until the end of the year—and maybe until March (when the current extension expires).

But stay at the ready. We’ll be sure to call on you to help us protect federal funding for bicycling.  You don’t need a map to know that D.C. feels far away.  But these decisions dramatically impact what we can do at a local and regional level to fund and build infrastructure so that bicycling is safer, convenient and connected for everyone.  And that is one thing we need a really good map for.