Those priorities, per the chief supporters, were highways. A provision revealed in markup yesterday showed that dedicated funding for transit would also disappear.

An amendment to restore enhancements and Safe Routes to Schools failed [...]]]>

Yesterday was the great debate and committee markup session for the House Transportation Bill. As expected, it was all about the posturing about priorities.

Those priorities, per the chief supporters, were highways. A provision revealed in markup yesterday showed that dedicated funding for transit would also disappear.

An amendment to restore enhancements and Safe Routes to Schools failed 27-29. Three Republicans voted for the amendment. More than 80 other amendments were discussed. The bill itself eventually cleared the Committee on a vote of 29-24.

Meanwhile, the House Ways & Means Committee, who can be summed up as “People who control a lot of how money is used,” announced their plan to forbid gas tax revenue from funding transit. Yes, indeed! Gas taxes are for cars and highways, silly humans! Gas taxes should be used to cater to the likes of this gentleman, who raves on about subsidy given to transit, without looking at the inherent subsidies given to single-user cars via highway funds and artificially low gas prices.

Here’s the thing, though. The House does not act alone. Bills require Senate approval. And that just will not happen. This is a bunch of political posturing. Panic may be an overwrought response by advocates, because the Senate drew a line in the sand yesterday as well. The Senate Banking Committee has passed a two year transit bill from committee with unanimous bipartisan support. Yes, unanimous. Yes, Republican and Democratic votes. Among other tidbits, the bill would allow federal funds to be used on transit operations — not just build-out or capital improvement.

The House Transportation bill will never clear the full Senate, which is still Democratic. It has not been written in good faith to pass both houses. It was written to serve as campaign fodder, particularly in rural districts with a lot of roads. That’s it.

Do we still need to widen the circle? Of course we do. But maybe we can all let our blood pressure go down a bit and look at productive ways to get advocacy out of panic mode and back into building a broad movement.

Turns out it may be even worse than previously rumored.

A few points:

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.

One key thing in their summary to consider is that the bill refers to projects like the  Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program as “not in the federal [...]]]>

Streetsblog reports that there is a rough summary of the proposed panic-worthy transportation bill being considered in committee. They do a rundown on it, and refer to it as “A March of Horribles.”

One key thing in their summary to consider is that the bill refers to projects like the  Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program as “not in the federal interest.” I’ve stated before that I believe that even reauthorized, it would be hard to imagine Minneapolis getting another core grant, versus giving that kind of money ($25 million) to another metro area to do fundamental start-up enhancements. Under the bill as we are currently aware of it, no city would be getting bupkus in that regard. (Per Streetsblog, cities get the short end of anything included in the bill, in general.)

The full bill is expected to hit the public on Tuesday, January 31. It’s pretty much a sure thing that even committee staffers won’t get a chance to really read the whole thing before the committee starts voting on it. Says something wonderful right there about the legislative process, doesn’t it?

As usual, we are being asked to PANIC about it and contact appropriate representatives. The League is asking us to contact [...]]]>

Next Thursday, February 2, the House Transportation Committee is expected to vote on the “American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act.” Note the propaganda-friendly naming. This is, in fact, intended to be the long-awaited multi-year transportation bill.

As usual, we are being asked to PANIC about it and contact appropriate representatives. The League is asking us to contact everyone (even though this is still in Committee), because the current version eliminates the two largest programs that fund biking and walking infrastructure — Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to School.

Most representatives will not be a part of this voting process. Work is also underway to restore these programs to the bill, probably via a Committee member such as Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).

I agree that keeping Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to Schools active in any new transportation bill is important. I agree that people should contact appropriate House members to urge amending the bill or not passing it from Committee. I am growing a little tired of the constant state of panic about “they are going to kill cycling!”

Transportation Enhancements has been under near-constant assault for the last year. Transportation Enhancements federally funded, community-based projects that enhance surface transportation by improving the cultural, historic, aesthetic and environmental aspects of the infrastructure. They can address bike/ped infrastructure and safety, landscaping, rail-trail work, environmental mitigation, archaeological planning/research, historic preservation, and tourist facilities. The Heritage Foundation, a big conservative think-tank, has labeled them “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Because, look. They can’t kill cycling. They can remove funding, make things harder when working with federal funds, etc. But they lack the ability to dictate the use of local funds for cycling. They lack the ability to quash the grassroots. Sure, some existing infrastructure could be eliminated, but that’s true right now. A key to keeping cycling alive is much more about expanding the “movement” beyond the already-involved, the lifestylers, and advocates and convincing members of the community that bicycling is worthwhile, that bicyclists aren’t trying to force everyone’s ass onto a banana seat, and that by providing access to many modes of transport within a community we enrich users of ALL modes.

When you make that expansion, situations like this are less about paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanic and more about harnessing the general social sentiment. Right now, the general sentiment isn’t there to harness outside of specific communities. And that’s where we need to focus more energy — rather than on repeating the advocacy panic response repeatedly.

That said, check the list of members. See if your member is on the Transpo Committee. Note that if your person is not a Republican, you’ll have to manually find their House web site to call or e-mail them, the preferred methods of contacting an office in this modern, post-terrorist age. In Minnesota, these are Tim Walz of MN-1, and Chip Cravaak of MN-8. The League of American Bicyclists also has an excellent run-down of the act, some facts around the at-risk programs, and nice contact forms for members of Congress.

Now, of course, it will move on to the full Senate, where it will be subject to the ongoing Legislative Theatre that all transportation discussion has [...]]]>

In a follow-up to yesterday’s post seeking supportive contacts to Senate Commerce Committee members considering an amendment concerning Complete Streets to be considered today, the Commerce Committee unanimously approved the language.

Now, of course, it will move on to the full Senate, where it will be subject to the ongoing Legislative Theatre that all transportation discussion has been subject to in the recent past. By Legislative Theatre, I am making reference to all recent transportation proposals, counter-proposals, ‘urgent calls for advocacy!,’ regularly scheduled Coburn/Paul amendments, and etc., all of which have resulted in pretty much jack-squat except for some hyperventilation and continued extensions of the old transportation bill.

But it’s nice to have something positive endorsed for a change, even if it won’t come to anything in the current session.

You may recognize this language as a phrasing much like [...]]]>

This Wednesday, December 13, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will consider an amendment offered by Alaska Senator Mark Begichto provide safe and adequate accommodations for all users in all federally-funded street projects.  The Amendment is S. 1950, “safety for motorized and nonmotorized users.”

You may recognize this language as a phrasing much like Complete Streets language.

Most of what Congress has considered lately has been language that removes funding for active transportation from federal projects, so this is good. The League of American Bicyclists says this will be the first time in six years the Senate considers something with Complete Streets language.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is a member of this committee. Minnesotans who are in favor of Complete Streets are strongly urged to visit her web site and use the contact button to e-mail her, or phone her office, to express your support of this amendment and encourage her to vote in its favor. Phone or e-mail is the best bet, as consideration will begin tomorrow. Complete Streets, as cyclists are aware, help to build community, add jobs, and help people get to jobs in cost-effective ways that help their families. I’ve written about Complete Streets and its value plenty of time, and more info can be found at the National Complete Streets Coalition.

Please contact Senator Klobuchar today in support of this amendment!

Edit: A stellar outline of why mixed-use communities are good, and how reducing auto trips for kids is good, from Strong Towns, is part of the case for integrating active transport options in development.

This fall, the bike count will take place at 42 locations on September 13 and 14 from [...]]]>

Every fall Bike Walk Twin Cities and Transit for Livable Communities conducts a bicycle/pedestrian count. These counts are a major contributing factor in coming up with modeshare data. It’s also a core reporting element for the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program.

This fall, the bike count will take place at 42 locations on September 13 and 14 from 4:00-6:00 PM. Volunteers are needed to staff these count locations, and, well, count. A map of count locations is available on the Bike Walk website.

Volunteers need to attend a 30-minute training session on September 6, 7, or 8, and also need to have demonstrable counting skills. If you’re available and interested, sign up online to help.

I’ve discussed the current situation with the Transportation Bill previously. In an issue that is at once completely separate but entirely interlinked with the Transportation Bill, the federal gas tax [...]]]>

I’ve been a little lax with updates recently. Part of it’s been being busy. Part of it is being depressed a little about the state of things.

I’ve discussed the current situation with the Transportation Bill previously. In an issue that is at once completely separate but entirely interlinked with the Transportation Bill, the federal gas tax is up for renewal at the end of September. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gas (24.4 cents for diesel). The tax has never been indexed to inflation and has not increased since 1994. Most economists feel that the gas tax is way too low, and as you consider its alleged role in funding infrastructure, the crumbling state of our roads and bridges suggests economists to have a pretty good point even if you think math is hard. Heck, some states are trying to tax electric and hybrid vehicles to make up for ‘lost’ gas taxes based on vehicle efficiency.

Without reapproval of the gas tax, 75% of those taxes would be uncollectable. And that’s what a number of people want, including Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. Many anti-tax folk are saying that the gas tax, and any highway/bridge/road funding to come from it, should be solely controlled at the state level.

This is, of course, ridiculous. Many states are also extremely anti-tax. There’s some extent to which interstate commerce relies some on centralized planning and funding — and not on pissing battles between neighboring states “ruled” by different parties.

With both the current state of the transportation bill, and this, many transportation advocates are claiming it’s an advocacy battle. We all must write our congressional delegation! We must get involved!

Which is fine. It’s what you’re supposed to say. But advocacy requires people who are willing to compromise and change their minds. Precedent suggests that the people who’ve signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge aren’t going to budge. Writing my congressperson is a complete and abject joke, especially where it involves taxes.

I suppose I’m more of a mope about it all thanks to the deadlock in Minnesota and the Minnesota shutdown, which apparently achieved jack+squat for either side. And that’s what I see happening federally. I suspect the federal gas tax will get renewed, at present rates or a possible cut (which is its own disaster, if you consider the reduced funding levels already looming in transportation). But it’s not going to be based on advocacy. It’s going to either be based on reality biting in the ass via another bridge going ka-pow or some rarely seen but much needed pragmatism from Congress. Me writing my congressperson (who will be anti-renewal, when not running for president) will do nothing. My senators will be pro-renewal, and any letter I write will just go into the “validation” file, and won’t make an impact. And everyone else knows I can’t vote for them.

In summary: I’m going to go continue to put my younger child in the bike trailer and get her rolling, because it’s something I can do, effectively.