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.

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.

This is a reasonably good article, with some gaps. The main gap is really surrounding the concept of Complete Streets, and I’m not strictly certain that’s on the author [...]]]>

Shouts out to @reubencollins on ze Twitter for tweeting this article about people looking to have the resurfacing project on Snelling Avenue in St. Paul include bike lanes.

This is a reasonably good article, with some gaps. The main gap is really surrounding the concept of Complete Streets, and I’m not strictly certain that’s on the author so much as the people he spoke to for the piece.

Would adding bike lane striping be cheapest during a resurfacing project? Certainly. Do cyclists lack reasonable North-South choices to get through the Saintly City? Ohmyyes. Is slapping some paint lines going to make most of Snelling Avenue a Complete Street? OhmyNO.

The article does mention a few reasons why — first, Snelling is a truck route. There is a limited ability to narrow the lanes and maintain the status of the road as a truck route. And, much as cyclists lack north-south options through the city, so do trucks. Snelling Avenue is a key arterial route for trucks, and connects to many local businesses that need trucks to be able to reach them. Most of the north-south streets aren’t truck routes, and have significant direct residential frontage — people who would oppose their north-south streets becoming truck routes, and people who have less need for trucks to be able to get into their neighborhood than many of the businesses with Snelling Avenue frontage.

There are also a large number of uncontrolled intersections. The merges off the Pierce Butler Route and Como Avenue come to mind, where cars have about 3 feet to merge and the curve is not entirely blind but certainly not unobstructed.

Another key consideration is the parking situation. Snelling has a lot of on-street parking, and a lot of driveways. If the on-street parking is maintained, parked cars + abundant driveways equals out to crummy visibility for cyclists coming through. Dropping some of the parking reduces this visibility issue, and makes room for bike lane striping. However, it almost ensures local businesses to mobilize heavily against such a plan. Much of the city is unlikely to get involved in a parking removal project right now, given the many challenges in the Central Corridor, parking included. (Check the closing quote in this article about Central Corridor parking. Oy vey.)

It’s nearly impossible to argue that Snelling doesn’t need traffic calming. It does. A lot of traffic calming, in fact. Bike lanes can be a part of a traffic calming strategy. But just slapping some bike lanes down does not equate to a Complete Street, or to making Snelling an attractive roadway on which to bike. For that matter, bike lanes won’t do much to promote pedestrian safety.

Doing this project correctly could be a very good thing. Just painting in some bike lanes is not a correct approach to the problem that is Snelling Avenue, and won’t do a lot to encourage alternative mode share through much of the corridor. I have high doubts that the public meetings will do much to really address the totality of the situation, because to actually address the real issues will be very expensive, and require a lot of people to cooperate. After all, this is St. Paul, where there are still fights about simple changes to Jefferson Avenue that are unlikely to impact most residents or users. To make Snelling safe for, well, anyone not in an armored tank will require changes that will impact everyone.

They both have a point, and miss one, in my opinion.

It’s a very good point that most of the info disseminated by bicycle advocates about cycling in the snow really orients [...]]]>

The excellent Copehnagenize has an excellent post on how most posts on cycling in winter complicate the issue and emphasize subculture instead of mainstreaming the notion.

They both have a point, and miss one, in my opinion.

It’s a very good point that most of the info disseminated by bicycle advocates about cycling in the snow really orients to lifestyle cyclists and not people who ride bikes. At the same time, even somewhere like Minneapolis, riding in the snow isn’t yet considered normal, and all the gung-ho promotion of it as normal is not going to win over most people. In addition, even when you deal with a bikeway like the Midtown Greenway, which is plowed regularly, the relative normalcy of cycling in winter is also influenced by how a city approaches snow/ice removal in general, and how a city’s drivers approach cyclists in general.

In winter, in Minneapolis, drivers are less likely to look for and expect cyclists than they are normally. This is just a truth.

In winter, snow removal practices influence cycling possibilities more than usual. Snow removal focuses on major routes first, which are often not ideal bike routes, especially in snow. The artery streets that get priority are often faster, with limited shoulder/bike facility, and even if plowed to the curb, end up a little narrower than usual.

I try to avoid the cyclist elitist approach, but there are places that there is reason to emphasize certain approaches. Yes, they’re right that if “dressing in layers” is news to you, you’re likely to be dead before the end of your first Minnesota winter. But issues like how to handle in snow, how black ice mucks with bike handling, why maybe the bike you have in your garage ISN’T a good idea in some conditions (the idea of riding my Giant OCR1 on ice? Oh dear god no!), how route selection may need to vary in snow… all real. All legitimate in cities that don’t take cyclists for granted, and whose infrastructure is a hodge-podge of accommodation and suitability at the BEST of times, let alone when said streets and accommodations need to be plowed and salted.

The subculture can promote winter cycling in ways that don’t stink of subculture. But right now, cycling in winter remains subcultural. And we’d all be lying if we said that riding in winter was just like riding at any other time, or that the behaviors of June translate on a 1-to-1 basis to the behaviors of  January after 3-5″, a clear, a partial melt, and another 2″ fall. Because we’d be lying heinously in ways that if anyone were dumb enough to believe us could cause injury, confusion, and delay.

Should winter cycling be a circle-jerk? No. Does it require some extra thought processes? Hell yeah.

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.

Draft Vision – MinnesotaGO (PDF)

Now that the vision has been drafted, MnDOT has invited participants in the [...]]]>

MnDOT, via the MinnesotaGO project, has been working on a draft vision for transportation over the next 50 years in Minnesota. Following the state-wide MinnesotaGO public meetings for the project, they have now released the draft statement for the vision.

Draft Vision – MinnesotaGO (PDF)

Now that the vision has been drafted, MnDOT has invited participants in the process and interested bystanders to a public hearing to be held on October 4, 2011, from 4:00-5:30 PM. Participants can get involved in one of three ways:

• Live, at the Transportation Bldg., 395 John Ireland Blvd, Room G15, in Saint Paul.
• Online, using Adobe Connect. To participate, go to http://mndot.adobeconnect.com/minnesotago/ The Adobe Connect meeting will be open beginning at 3:30PM  on the date of the meeting.
• Via via videoconference at MnDOT offices statewide.

At Interbike in Las Vegas, Saint Paul, Minnesota, was named to the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community list for the first time. They check in with a Bronze designation, which is an excellent first-time recognition for the city.

As a sometime Saint Paul resident, I will testify [...]]]>

Enough about Minneapolis. Let’s talk about Saint Paul, baby.

At Interbike in Las Vegas, Saint Paul, Minnesota, was named to the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community list for the first time. They check in with a Bronze designation, which is an excellent first-time recognition for the city.

As a sometime Saint Paul resident, I will testify to the city’s bikeability. While everyone knows Summit Avenue and the Gateway Trail, the city is also full of hidden gems, like the Battle Creek MTB trails, and the creek-level paved trail. The trails in Hidden Falls and Crosby Farm are often missed by cyclists who know the River Road routes. And let’s not forget the mighty climbs of the city — Ramsey Hill, Ohio, and Springside all come to mind, with the last being the steepest hill in Ramsey County. And can you bike past the House at Pooh Corner in Minneapolis? Nope. Saint Paul, bay-bee. Some of the best rest stops in the city can also be found in the capitol city.

The city’s been working on improving things for cyclists as well — everything from median tests to designating some new bikeways. The Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition has been growing more active as well.

And, in a rare statement, I’ve always been impressed with the knowledge city law enforcement has of bike laws and their enforcement.

I should also mention that La Crosse, Wisconsin, also received designation as a Silver-Level Community, and River Falls received an honorable mention. Hooray for them too. But Saint Paul is home, and I’m glad to see them finally request the recognition they deserve.