Archive for the ‘That other Washington’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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!

Posted in Advocacy, Commuting, Road & Trail News, Seattle Bicycle Master Plan Update, That other Washington | 1 Comment »

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

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011 by

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.

Posted in Advocacy, Road & Trail News, That other Washington | 2 Comments »

Rescissions take 2 (or take not 2 much)

Monday, July 25th, 2011 by

Remember this?

Two weeks ago, you generated over 1,000 emails to the Governor and to WSDOT Secretary Paula Hammond.  Thank you! Our message: don’t disproportionately send back unspent federal funds that could go toward bicycle infrastructure.

What did we accomplish?

Almost immediately after we started the campaign, we heard from WSDOT.  It’s hard to say exactly what we accomplished, because we don’t have a precise picture of what kind of send-backs they were planning before they heard from us.  But in comparison to their August 2010 rescissions, nonmotorized transportation fared far better.

Click image to enlarge


Note that CMAQ (bottom line)—a funding source that’s actually funding some of our work as subcontractors in the Duwamish—still takes a pretty big hit at over $3.2 million.  But compared to 2010’s $16 million rescission, it fared far better.  And this year, the “Enhancements Set-aside”—one of the largest sources of bicycle funding that lost $13 million last year—was untouched.

Aside from protecting this unobligated funding from being returned, we are also glad to have started a positive conversation with WSDOT about their process.  It can’t be any fun to scramble around and send back $43 million, and we understand that they want to send back less flexible funds so they can be more nimble.  I think they’ve heard from you that we don’t want to disproportionately ding nonmotorized transportation.  And we’ll hold that line, because there are billions of dollars of needed bike and ped projects—$1.6 billion statewide of which sit unfunded on Local Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs).

We’re eager to work more with our local and regional governments so that the money is competed for, apportioned and spent.  That way, we won’t have to throw back money to the federal government, since it will be invested in real projects that make a real difference for bikes.

Posted in Advocacy, Complete streets, Olympia, That other Washington | 1 Comment »

What are rescissions (and why are they far worse than flat tires?)

Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 by

The federal government is a big funder of critical transportation infrastructure—including infrastructure and safety improvements for bikes.  That’s why we’ve been active at the federal level on the next federal transportation bill.  But what the Feds giveth they often take away. State Transportation Departments from across the land occasionally have to send back unspent funds—“rescinding” the funds—to help the USDOT clear the books.

Here’s the rub.  The Feds decide how much money each state returns, but the states decide where the money comes from.  Some states give back proportionately so that, say, unspent highway funds come back at the same level as ped or bike safety funding.  But many states don’t play this way—including Washington state (supposedly the #1 state for bicycling).  Instead, a rather disproportionate amount of money comes from things like Transportation Enhancements (TE), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Recreational Trails funds—which happen to be the largest buckets for bike and ped projects.  In 2010, over $900 million of $2.2 billion was returned from these sources.  This is not a slow leak, but a nasty snake bite.  Insta-flat.

(more…)

Posted in Advocacy, Olympia, That other Washington | 9 Comments »

Dispatch #2 from D.C.: Capital Bikeshare

Friday, March 11th, 2011 by

I’ve always seen the promise of bike share. Ever since I first laid eyes on those beauties in Lyon, France, I thought that bike share would help transform Seattle into a place where biking is mainstream.  Since then, I’ve collaborated in meetings with a host of Seattle-area partners — jurisdictions, businesses, academic institutions — who want to make it happen.  We even got a small grant to start looking at which business model would make most sense.  Bike Share is in countless European cities — and other cities like Montreal, Melborne, Denver, Minneapolis, are doing it, too.

It’s one thing to be a supporter, though.  It’s another to have ridden.

I vowed in my last dispatch to ride down Pennsylvania Avenue’s new bike lanes on D.C.’s new Capital Bikeshare bikes.  And after a dozen meetings with congresspeople and their aides today (and then a side trip for a beer and a super-late lunch), that’s exactly what I did.

Let me be honest: after a day of meetings and after the machine failed to spit out the code to unlock the bike from the dock, I had to call the customer service line.  I had just come from an Irish pub.  I did my best not to look like a tourist.  I was desperate.  But in 20 seconds, I was on my way.  Five dollars a day for unlimited use.  1,100 bikes and 110 stations.  I was soon speeding along with traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue heading toward the White House.  I was grinning.  I shifted into third.

I turned around and rode back to the same dock — a joyride that isn’t really what the system is for (or is it?)  I had a reception to go to, so this was just a test ride.  But after the reception, I had to head back to the hotel.  A D.C. friend, formerly a nonprofit champion in Seattle, showed me his phone: “This is where all the stations are. There are four left just around the block. Oh, and here’s your destination. There’s a station a block away.”  Bike share mobile app: a perfect tool.

I was off.

It was easy.  It was fast.  It was cheap.  It was fun.  I even bumped into our advocacy director David Hiller randomly along the way.

A supporter before, I’m a believer now. And with National Bike Summit complete and only the evening parties to attend, I’m hopping back on a Capital Bikeshare bike in three minutes, as soon as I finish this post.  Really.

Posted in That other Washington | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »