Here’s the thing: These are serious issues. We should be concerned about them. But [...]]]>

I’ve been on a wee bit of a spree lately about the continual state of Defcon 11 every time there is federal hiccuping about restricting funds for Transportation Enhancements, or cutting Safe Routes to Schools, or classifying bicycles as vegetables instead of vehicles.

Here’s the thing: These are serious issues. We should be concerned about them. But freaking out every time it happens and having all the bicycle advocates write and call their congresscritters is a cute little bandage on a much larger problem — one that I don’t know that the active transport community is really prepared to deal with as yet.

To wit: The problem isn’t that these programs are under attack. The problem is that they are considered low-hanging fruit because the active transport lobby is considered a fringe segment, a small special interest group who wears funny spandex and don’t shower enough. The problem is that “cutting spending” is a big issue for a lot of people, but “safer biking and walking” is not.

Part of this is just the limitation of advocacy. Part of it is a failure to reach out from the circle of the converted and widen the scope of support. Part of it is that some of the advocates are unwilling to put the issues in a framework that a lot of people can support.

In general, biking and walking are not considered by a lot of people to be valid modes of daily transport. And that’s the problem. And to those people, when the advocacy community is represented by the militant car-free, or people who don’t have to buy diapers by the case, or people who can’t tie a tie and heavens knows don’t have to wear one to work… they get written off by the people who do have all of those issues.

The People For Bikes campaign from Bikes Belong has its heart in the right place — anyone who has ridden a bike should care. But even for P4B, a lot of the outreach has come at big bike races or other specialty events where the attendees are predisposed or already part of the community. Preaching to the converted is easy. This may be why, after launching the site in 2010 to try to get a million people to sign their pledge, they still haven’t hit half the goal.

Becoming sympathetic to people who perceive biking as “nice, but not for me because of time/family/commitment,” and showing them how offering added options helps them in their daily life even if they do not themselves embed their buttocks on banana seats is a lot harder. And it’s not necessarily happening enough.

As a result, TE is going to be on the block every 3-6 months for a long time. Until bicyclists convince Main Street America that bikes and pedestrians matter, that they are not merely a fringe contingent, those programs are easy targets to attack.

So ask yourself, if you support bicycling and walking, how you can help make it sympathetic to the woman working full-time with 2 kids in diapers. How street calming makes sense for an immigrant family who perceive bicycles as something children and poor people ride, and who aspire to join the car culture. How providing options that can increase community cohesion is not about special interests, but about providing freedom of choice as current options force a single modal selection. Can you back off of “bicycles as transportation!!” and expand the circle to emphasize the bicycle as a leisure activity that can and should be accommodated, and that it’s okay to maybe drive to the store for 4 gallons of milk, but bike out for some ice cream with the family — an activity that requires safe routes and traffic calming? And then get out there and try to do it.

It’s not that the lifestyle cyclists are wrong. But if the movement cannot expand and accept a broader base of people who benefit from transportation options and traffic calming, we will never get beyond a state of Save Cycling! Panic! Write your Congressperson Now! If we’re going to be expending all this energy, maybe we should do it fixing the disease, instead of slapping band-aids on gaping head wounds. And at the end of the day, the problem is that the circle isn’t yet big enough.

So go forth, and be friendly. Accept that multiple transport modes work for different situations in different families. Sympathize. And try to bring them into the movement.

The proposed trail would link Edina to the main regional network of [...]]]>

The proposed Nine Mile Creek Trail extension through Edina has stirred up a lot of controversy, including NIMBYism disguised as faux environmental concern. This is normal in Edina, which has an excellent Bicycle Task Force working hard despite many residents who just don’t get it.

The proposed trail would link Edina to the main regional network of trails, including several commuter trails and a variety of recreational trails. Three Rivers Park District has come out in favor of the proposed extension, opting for the trail route along the creek rather than rerouting to nearby surface streets. This essentially provides the go-ahead for the extension, save one kinda mission-critical issue: Funding.

The seven-mile trail is expected to cost $20 million. Three Rivers hopes to receive $11 million in federal grants to fund construction, from federal awards expected to be announced in spring 2012. Additional funding will be sought from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Hennepin County Bicycle Capital Improvement Program. Once funding is secured, construction would begin in 2015.

Worth noting in this project is the overall cost — about $2.85 million per mile of trail. To be fair, this includes $5 million for trail bridges over the Crosstown (MN 62) and MN 100, and may include funding for stabilization of the creek banks in order to avoid yearly path washouts (although that’s quite unclear in the documents and coverage I’ve read). Even dropping the cost of the two bridges and leaving their mileage in the total, you’re still looking at more than $2 million/mile of trail — and it’s perhaps unfair to drop the bridge costs for the trail, as without passage over these two highways, the system will fail to achieve stated linkage goals.

Still, given that former Congressman James Oberstar cites averages of $128,000/mile to build 12-foot bicycle paths, it’s clear that his number must be some sort of average. Either some accounting must take place to remove items like the environmental work on the creek banks, or some paths must cost next to nothing to balance out this kind of average.

And, of course, it’s worth noting for the noble Edina residents who have opposed this project: That $11 million from the feds is by no means a sure thing with the current Congress and the next election not coming until fall 2012. They may have many years without having to worry about a trail being built on public right-of-way near their homes.

I offer today a tale from close to (my) home of good intentions gone awry.

Blaine, Minnesota has been a fast-growing burbclave for some [...]]]>

I’ve talked quite a bit recently about how incremental change to encourage active transportation is very much dependent on working to improve existing poor development that can’t just be blown up with a do-over.

I offer today a tale from close to (my) home of good intentions gone awry.

Blaine, Minnesota has been a fast-growing burbclave for some time, with continued addition of new housing units. As part of some development, land was set aside to create a new city park. After last year’s opening of Lakeside Commons Park, it became wildly popular. It’s a pretty nice park — there’s a beach, there’s a splash pad, there are picnic shelters, you can rent canoes for the lake. Very pleasant.

This year, Blaine is trying to address the problem of parking at said park — there simply isn’t enough. One of the reasons is because it is next to impossible to get from one piece of Blaine to another. In the entire suburb, there are limited sidewalks. Crossing MN65 is a horror. Many major streets lack sidewalks, sidepaths or shoulders, and tend to roll in the 40 mph+ zone.

Per the local paper, even the more conservative parking lot extension plan amounts to about half of Blaine’s parks development funding budget for 2011. Half. All on more parking spots.

If you don’t live in the development the park is located in, or one of the developments along Radisson Road, which offers a shoulder and a sidepath along a 55mph roadway, it is nearly impossible to get there via bike. I’m an LCI, an experienced cyclist, and I’ve ridden on roads that would make some people need new pants, and I’m challenged to come up with a route from my house to this park — and I can’t do it if I have the Chariot or Trail-A-Bike along, frankly. They extend my total length such that at some points where I might otherwise use natural elements and medians for protection, I am unable to do so, and at some risk to my kid. Bad plan.

Blaine does know that the ability to walk and bike is an issue, and it’s addressed in the city plan. I don’t know that how to fix it or pay for it is addressed. I’m fairly certain that the Parks Development budget cannot be used to improve ways to cross MN65 or deal with all the streets that an experienced adult would fear.

So there goes $400,000 to build another sheet of asphalt, encouraging pollution and issues with run-off… so that people can enjoy a beach and walking paths. It makes no sense, but there’s your reality.

The bikes-are-toys [...]]]>

One comment common to many alternative transport advocates — including individuals like former Congressman James Oberstar — is that we need to push the idea that bicycles are transportation. One of the big challenges is to overcome perceptions that bicycles are toys or recreational. They can be, certainly — but so can cars and motorcycles.

The bikes-are-toys thought pattern is at the heart of statements like that of Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who believes that bicycling shouldn’t be a part of the House Transportation Committee’s work. In his own words, Hunter says, “I don’t see riding a bike the same as driving a car or flying an airplane…. I think it’s more of a recreational thing.” A panelist at a recent House Transport Committee public meeting in Indianapolis compared cyclists to hunters and fishermen.

There is a certain extent to which bike trails feed these notions of bicycles as recreational — and, in the case of many trails, there is a good and fair argument that they should not be funded from transportation programs, but rather from park and conservation funding.

The reasons are straightforward: Most bicycle trails are built with recreational intent. They aren’t designed for access to practical destinations, as would be necessary to classify them as “transportation” facilities. While there are certainly outliers that are contrary to this generality — like the Midtown Greenway and Cedar Lake Trails, which operate as bicycle expressways on a traditional hub-and-spoke model to downtown Minneapolis — the fact is that most trails operate in ways that make them more analogous to parks. Systems like the Gateway State Trail and the Hardwood Creek/Sunrise Prairie Trail can have incidental use for commuters, but it’s really not a primary use or intent.

That isn’t to say that there’s not reason to invest in bicycle trails. Far from it. Bicycles can be recreational. Many trail corridors promote tourism — the wild financial success of the Root River Trail network near Lanesboro, Minnesota, is proof of that. Urban trail systems provide recreational options close to cities and often help preserve green corridors near the urban cores. Users of trails both close to home and further afield provide economic benefits in areas the trails pass through — just go stand in line at the North Saint Paul DQ on a nice July day as proof!

Trail riding and recreational bicycle use can serve as lead-ins to more transport-oriented use of bicycles as well.

However, use of funds allocated to transport use for trails really needs to come down to context. A recreational trail system, defined by park-like structure and limited routing to functional destinations, is not a good use of transportation funds at a time when funding is an issue and likely to remain such as vehicles get better gas mileage, and legislative appetite to raise gas taxes remains low. Trails built on a transportation model, such as the Midtown Greenway, merit consideration for use of transportation enhancement funding. Via appropriate use of all funding models, both recreational and transportational bicycle development can be supported.

As cyclists and advocates argue for ongoing funding for alternative transit [...]]]>

With the Minnesota Bicycle Summit last week and the National Bike Summit this week, I have been noting a pernicious habit among cycling advocates and friends that I wish I could punch out of everyone: Quoting studies selectively or in ways that simply do not apply.

As cyclists and advocates argue for ongoing funding for alternative transit infrastructure in a difficult budget environment, data helps. With those who already support bicycles, data is a tool to offer them to help argue the position or defend their position to others. To doubters, data can be a means to shift opinion.

But using data badly does no one any favors. It’s easily assaulted by opponents. It makes cycling advocates look stupid.

Some recent examples:

• That damn cycletracks study. I have ranted about this seventy-eleven times at this point. There are major flaws in this study’s data methodology.
• Studies that say more people would ride if more facilities were built. Very often the data collection in these meets appropriate statistical standards. But these really do become a tyranny of the masses — what is popular is not always a good idea. National obesity trends are one example of how what is popular (being sedentary, high fat convenience foods) not necessarily being a good plan. It’s important not to let opinion polling override other forms of science.
• The Baltimore study that says that investing in bicycle infrastructure creates more jobs than highway projects. The data in this study is specific to one metro and one series of projects, and is thus difficult to credibly extend across all projects and metros. However, I am definitely seeing bicycle advocacy groups try to do so.
• I saw someone reference a study the other day from Bristol, England that says that “pedestrians, cycle and public transport users provide as much if not more spending power than car users in town centres.” It’s been re-tweeted a lot by people going to the National Bike Summit.

  One issue: This is a UK study. The way UK cities and neighborhoods are built around “High Streets” is completely unlike how most of the United States is built. I’ve lived near a UK High Street, when I was attending school in London. Neighborhoods are built around a core intersection/broadway/circus in which most of the basic needs of life can be procured, and major transit transfers are possible.

  There are some junctions within cities that act like high streets in the UK — an intersection like Cleveland and Ford Parkway in Saint Paul comes to mind, where you can get almost all the amenities of life within a short walk of the core intersection. But more often the setup is more like MN65 in Fridley/Blaine — a series of strip-malls along a high-speed state highway corridor. To invest on a High Street model would mean blowing up a lot of America to start from scratch.

I’m sure there are more out there that would just make me snarl to hear cited.

Not all studies based on small geography or populations are of no use. The health study in Madison and Milwaukee has broader applicability, because the controlled factors are such that you can credibly say: We don’t know what the total financial savings would be in THIS metro, but based on the savings in THOSE metros it’s pretty safe to bet it’d be a good chunk of change, eh.

I have seen a number of advocacy groups stick to citing well-controlled data studies and facts and figures that can easily be applied within a region without acrobatics. The Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota is one such organization.

As advocates, we don’t need to try to mutilate data to serve our needs. There are studies and data to support our goals that are credible as they stand, without trying to say “we could be more like Europe!” (which is not a good message with even some moderate Republicans, and is often not realistic based on existing build patterns). There are countless health and environmental benefits. There are social benefits. Infrastructure investment can reduce congestion and thus increase business productivity. Infrastructure can attract educated workforces to urban cores. Citing those factors, and data collected in the United States in broadly applicable studies, is going to have a greater impact on fiscal conservatives and the unconverted than using data dodgily.

Data suggests that men outnumber women on bicycles in the United States by a ratio of two-to-one. In many European nations, the ratio [...]]]>

On this International Women’s Day, I thought I’d address one of the skeletons in the room when we discuss bicycle-friendly infrastructure and the interested-but-hesitant cyclist: A pretty good portion of that 60% is female.

Data suggests that men outnumber women on bicycles in the United States by a ratio of two-to-one. In many European nations, the ratio is far closer to one-to-one.

One reason for a lower incidence of women on bikes: Women generally have a greater share of responsibility for care of children. Women do more of the household shopping. The study in Scientific American suggests that bicycle routes need to be structured around “practical” destinations to support this gender role behavior. It’s hard to see a lot of average suburban moms hitting Costco on a bike. As I’ve said before: I get it. You won’t be bringing home diapers for two kids, a turkey, and several gallons of milk on a bike while also caring for a child regardless of infrastructure. (SA suggests this can be addressed via education. What?)

Another reason for women to bicycle less than men: Safety concerns. Women are typically found by studies to be more risk averse. The Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals did a survey in 2010 about women on bicycles. The report is very clear that the sample was not representative of population and also self-selecting — which is to say drawing strong conclusions on the data is fraught with issues. However, the data collected supports assertions that women are risk-averse: Women cited such concerns about cycling as motorist behavior, distracted driving, and stranger attacks.

The APBP study also asked respondents what would get them cycling more. The answers? More than 60% said bike lanes, and another 46% responded with completely separated bike paths/tracks. Better direct routes was also cited by more than 40% of respondents.

I’ve written about this before. Many special facilities lead inexperienced cyclists into a false sense of safety, and actually guide them into hazardous scenarios. I’ll quote myself, here:

Under most state laws, roads are bicycle facilities. We need to find ways to empower the 60% of reluctant cyclists to feel safe on these facilities, and we need to educate drivers not to be jerks. Additional segregated facilities need to be developed based on context — because, yeah, there are some routes on which they make lots of sense — and not based on a knee-jerk belief that they are “safer” or “better.” Segregating cyclists as a matter of policy doesn’t productively further a goal of having bicycling be considered a transport mode, and not a cute little way to get around for hipsters, hippies and people who just aren’t cool enough to have cars.

The challenge is how to calm streets so that all potential users — cyclists, pedestrians, women, kids, the elderly, dogs, etc. — can use them safely and confidently. An additional challenge is continued education to these groups. Bike/Walk Twin Cities have done a number of cycling seminars targeted specifically to women, and many other groups have done similarly.

I happen to believe that improving programs like Safe Routes to Schools could help influence women’s participation in cycling. Enabling those who are providing childcare with the means to choose active transport to get to school, athletics/extracurriculars, and even church will help cut down on the number of car trips under two miles.

I think [the bicycle] has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives a woman a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. The moment she takes her seat she knows she can’t get into harm unless she gets off her bicycle, and away she goes, the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. — Susan B. Anthony

Amen.

The trust fund is supplied via the 18.5-cent per gallon federal gas tax. Per statements by members of the House, expanding that tax is not an option in [...]]]>

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed yet another extension to the Transportation Bill — number seven, to be exact. Most transportation spending comes via the dedicated Highway Trust Fund.

The trust fund is supplied via the 18.5-cent per gallon federal gas tax. Per statements by members of the House, expanding that tax is not an option in the current Congress — even though the trust fund has come nowhere near keeping up with demands of infrastructure building and upkeep. The shortfall has been coming from the general fund. In the current cost-cutting fervor of Congress, this source of additional funding is likely to be cut way back, if not eliminated entirely.

Enhancements, or the ability to spend transportation funds for things other than a road, may also come under fire, although the Chair of the House Transportation Committee says he expects an 80-20 mix of roads-to-mass-transit spending to continue. Spending to encourage bicycling is expected to be attacked, for a host of reasons — the belief that cycling is recreation, not transport; claims that drivers of vehicles are “subsidizing” cyclists when the trust fund is spent on multi-modal projects; claims that cycling spending “distracts” from constitutional mandate to build “post roads.”

Here’s the thing, though: We are subsidizing driving. In a really, really big way. There are plenty of studies and numbers that make it quite quantifiable and clear:

• The Government Accountability Office finds that freight shipping by truck — the means by which 70% of goods are shipped in the US — has costs not passed on to the consumer that are six times greater than equivalent rail shipping costs, and nine times greater than equivalent waterway shipping costs. The costs of freight shipping include road congestion, pollution, and crashes — and the costs of gas subsidy and increased roadway maintenance.
• Gas prices are fundamentally subsidized in the US. In an article from last year, when gas prices were only averaging $2.72 a gallon, studies suggested the “true cost” of a gallon of gas should be at least $4.37 — and even that doesn’t account for many costs associated with Americans’ thirst for oil. Cheap gas encourages dependence, and also increases associated costs (like roadway upkeep).
• Planning codes in many cities and suburbs also subsidize driving via the mandatory construction of parking lots with new buildings or projects.

At the 2011 Minnesota Bicycle Summit, former Congressman James Oberstar observed that building out 12-foot wide bicycle facilities typically averages out to about $128,000 per mile, but building urban freeways can range from $46-100 million per mile. As subsidy goes, the lower cost of infrastructure — infrastructure that doesn’t also increase use of subsidized gasoline, or cause environmental damage — can be highly profitable with a lower utilization.

Charles Marohn at the Strong Towns Blog makes a case that emphasing autos at the expense of other forms of transportation is an inefficient use of space:

When streets are auto-only, the adjacent land pattern reacts by becoming less dense and less productive (a lower rate of return). When automobiles share neighborhood space with other forms of transportation, especially in places where those other forms actually dominate, the adjacent land pattern reacts by becoming more dense and more productive (a higher rate of return). We need more productive places.

It makes sense to raise the gas tax to reflect the real cost of that energy, but that’s not likely to happen right now. It also makes sense to continue investment in transit, cycling, and pedestrian-friendly design that liberates people from being forced to choose a car as transport mode, especially for the 60%+ of total daily trips that are under five miles. We’ll just have to see if sense wins out over political posturing on roads.