Author Archive

Funding for cycling in jeopardy: House vote Tomorrow

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 by

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

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

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

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

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!