Speaker John Boehner’s weekend claim that 25% of the highway dollars are “siphoned off for non-economic projects – such as beautification and bikepaths” came as a bit of a shock. The nation’s bicyclists must have gotten a big raise over the holidays, because last November Boehner and his buddy Eric Cantor were claiming only ten percent of highway funds were “diverted” this way.
Source: Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2012 Benchmarking Report, Alliance for Biking & Walking
Neither figure is anywhere close to the truth, of course. Boehner continues to use “bikepaths” as a whipping boy for everything that he thinks is wrong with our transportation system – he knows, and his colleagues know, that “bikepaths” get barely 1.5% of Federal transportation dollars. They also carefully avoid inconvenient facts like:
The 1.5% of funds that go to bicycling and walking projects compares to the 12% of trips and 14% of fatalities for which these two transportation account nationwide.
“Bikepaths” make up a small percentage of investments made in safer bicycling and walking infrastructure – most of the funds go to popular and cost-effective projects including sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, trails, bike parking, Safe Routes to Schools programs and a host of other safety projects that benefit all road users.
The Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to Schools programs are among the only programs that give local governments the opportunity to compete fairly for transportation dollars that are fiercely controlled by state highway agencies; these funds are typically over-subscribed by a factor of three or more.
Ironically, Boehner and his claims are also undone by none other than the state Departments of Transportation – for whom, or perhaps by whom, the proposed highway bill must have been written. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recently asked the Transportation Research Board to report on the job creation benefits of the small amount of stimulus funding that went to transportation infrastructure. Lo and behold, by far the most jobs per dollar spent were created by “transportation enhancement” projects, or “bikepaths”.
So if Boehner’s bill is about making good use of diminishing transportation dollars, bicycling and walking clearly ought to make the cut. They are low-cost, big impact projects that solve transportation problems as well as health, energy and environmental problems at the same time. If the bill is about creating jobs, labor-intensive, small-scale projects such as bikeways and walkways clearly fit the bill perfectly.
It’s time for Boehner to banish the bikepath-bashing bandwagon and boldly embrace the broad and brilliant benefits of bicycling.
Andy Clarke League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
Tuesday evening, I rode home from work in shorts. It was the last day of January, well after dark, and the temperature was still over 60 degrees. To be honest, though, the weather is the least crazy thing that’s been happening here in Washington this week.
We had less than two days to read an 864-page highway bill – the American Infrastructure and Energy Jobs Act – before a Committee mark-up on Thursday at 9:00am. Not only did the proposed bill strip all funding for bicycling and walking programs, but it tore at the very heart of existing provisions ensuring bicyclists and pedestrians at least have a seat at the table when transportation decisions are made at the state and local level.
Together with our colleagues in the America Bikes coalition, we had anticipated the funding attacks and had been working with Republican allies on the committee to prepare an amendment to restore funding. We had not anticipated the fury with which this initiative was greeted by Committee Chairman John Mica, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor – they evidently worked hard to dissuade their colleagues from supporting the bi-partisan amendment.
Chairman Mica and the House leadership succeeded in blocking a pro-bike amendment to the House transportation bill, but we made them work for it.
Representatives Petri (WI) and Johnson (IL) were rock stars. Despite the incredible pressure, they held firm and even added a third Republican when the final vote came, Frank LoBiondo (NJ). Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) joined the amendment and helped ensure every Democrat voted for it; fiery support coming from Reps Rahall (WV) and DeFazio (OR). Although we lost by just two votes, I think we left a big impression.
That was in large part due to the thousands of you (18,000 e-mails sent out through our on-line advocacy system alone, tens of thousands more through our allies) who called or e-mailed your Members of Congress on the Committee. This fantastic support made a difference. Several Republican members were truly on the fence right up to the last minute, because they had heard so loudly from their constituents. Thank you for taking the time to do this.
So what happens now? Well, the bill was finally approved in Committee and is currently scheduled to be debated on the floor of the House during the week of February 13 – it is still a very partisan bill and trying to pass an amendment is going to be extremely tough, should we go that route.
Meanwhile, the Senate MAP-21 bill threatens to spring back into life next week – which means we have to switch gears and ensure a strong “local control” provision is included to enable agencies to access funds for bicycling and walking projects. Senator Ben Cardin is our champion here, and if things do start to move as we expect we will need your help again.
(We honestly don’t control the timing of these things and really appreciate your patience and support as we send out bursts of e-mails asking for your help!)
If – and it’s a big if – both House and Senate complete their bills, including provisions to pay for them, they’ll try to combine them and get them to the President before March 31. Failing that, we will once again be looking at an extension of the current programs, but we won’t be able to let our guard down for a second: we have been warned to expect more attacks on dedicated funding for bicycling and walking programs.
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
Representative Tom Petri (R-WI) and his colleagues Timothy Johnson (R-IL), and Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) showed themselves today to be strong and brave defenders of biking and walking, a balanced transportation system, and livable communities. Thanks also to Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) for co-sponsoring the pro-biking amendment and all of the democrats who votes for it.
The amendment lost by just two votes. This was a strong showing in a very difficult political environment. The House leadership strongly opposed the amendment, so our thanks goes to Reps. Petri, Johnson, and LoBiondo for standing with their constituents and people everywhere who value walking and biking. If these Congressmen represent you, please let them know you recognize their efforts.
Watch this inspired performance from Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) in which he says we’re going back to the pre-1980s in this country:
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
UPDATE II: Petri-Johnson-Lipinsky Amendment failed by two votes, 27 yea, 29 no. Thank you to everyone who contacted their members to support this amendment. We came very close. This is a major set-back for bicycling and walking and a balance transportation system, but we will keep up the fight.
Here’s League President Andy Clarke on an important vote taking place Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012, that may well determine the fate of cycling in the proposed House transportation bill:
Tomorrow, on the day of the House vote on the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, Representatives Tom Petri (R-WI), Timothy Johnson (R-IL), and Daniel Lipinsky (R-IL) will submit an amendment to preserve bicycling and walking. The outcome is likely to come down to one or two key votes.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
By popular demand, you can now read the top ten list of reasons the proposed House transportation bill, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, is terrible for bicycling and livable communities.
And you can still watch Andy Clarke spell it out here:
Top 10 Reasons the House’s Proposed Transportation Bill is
Bad for Biking and Walking
10. No traffic calming.
Under current law, traffic calming and bicycle/pedestrian safety are eligible for funding from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The House’s proposed bill would make traffic calming and bike/ped safety ineligible for funding, encouraging faster, more dangerous streets.
Current law requires that rumble strips on roads “do no adversely affect the safety and mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians or the disabled.” The proposed House bill eliminates this language, allowing for unsafe placement of rumble strips that create deadly safety hazards for people riding bicycles.
Currently, when a state or local community is interested in making their streets safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, they can turn to clearinghouses for information about funding sources, best practices, and other technical assistance. The House’s transportation bill would eliminate bicycle/pedestrian and Safe Routes to School clearinghouses, making it harder for states and local communities to find technical assistance.
Today’s federal transportation laws require states to keep Bicycle/Pedestrian specialists and Safe Routes to School Coordinators on staff. As huge agencies with thousands of employees, state Departments of Transportation benefit from having one or two people familiar with biking and walking issues. The House bill would eliminate these positions, effectively making state DOTs less familiar with bicycling and walking safety.
Under current law, transit funds can be used for projects that make it safer and easier to ride a bike to and from bus stops, subway stations, and train stations. Even though bicycle parking at transit stations, bike access to transit, and bike-sharing are cost-effective fixes that improve safety, the proposed House bill would eliminate federal support for these projects.
Current transportation laws allows for the use of federal funding in converting abandoned railroad corridors into walking and biking trails. The House’s proposed transportation bill makes rail trails ineligible for federal funding.
Under current law, when states do work on a bridge that has bicycle or pedestrian access on either side, they are required to build safe bicycle or pedestrian access across the bridge itself. Even though it’s only logical that people on traveling by bicycle or by foot should be able to cross bridges safely, the proposed House bill eliminates the requirement that states provide bridge access for walkers and bicyclists when it makes the most sense.
Under current law, states can receive Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding to support projects that reduce transportation-related pollution. Currently, states use CMAQ dollars to support bicycling and walking infrastructure, which are proven to help reduce air pollutants by encouraging people to walk or bike instead of drive.
No longer. The House bill would change CMAQ by making congestion reduction, not air quality, the operative measure for eligibility. In other words, in order to qualify for CMAQ funding, a project doesn’t need to reduce air pollution; it just needs to be “likely” to reduce congestion. Under this new definition, the construction of new highway lanes qualifies for CMAQ funding. If the House bill were to become law, states would likely allocate CMAQ funds for highway construction at the expense of bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly projects.
In the House bill’s own words, the Safe Routes to School Program is “repealed.” This wildly successful program helped communities fund transportation infrastructure and education to keep kids safe on their bike rides and walks to school and encourage healthy activity.
Despite the program’s success and very low cost, the House bill would completely eliminate the program, reversing years of progress in making streets safer for kids.
…And the number one problem with the House transportation bill is…
1. Transportation Enhancements is gone.
For the past twenty years, Transportation Enhancements has helped communities build the sidewalks, crosswalks, and bikeways that keep people safe on the streets. As less than 1% of all federal transportation spending, this tiny yet effective program financed projects that made it easier, more convenient, and much safer to walk or ride a bike.
The proposed House transportation bill eliminates bicycling’s most significant funding source by making Transportation Enhancements optional. Rather than finding new ways for towns and cities to keep bicycle riders and pedestrians safe on the streets, states will be encouraged to use these dollars to build wider, faster, more dangerous arterials and highways.
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
The 50 happiest people in America this morning are waking up from a 20-year nightmare. You probably don’t know their names and you certainly wouldn’t recognize them in the street – they are the heads of the 50 state Departments of Transportation and they’ve just been promised a check for more than $200 billion over the next four years, no strings attached, to do what they love best: build highways.
For the last 20 years, they’ve had to pretend that they care about other things than highways, cars and trucks. But if the proposed highway bill introduced into Congress yesterday actually makes it into law, they can do away with that pretense. They won’t have to pretend to do anything for people who don’t drive cars; they’ll be able to skip through the public involvement process and environmental reviews; they can override local officials and plant an interstate in your back yard in double quick time – oh, and there will be heavier and longer trucks than ever thundering past your bedroom window, not only on those interstates but on many other roads besides.
Even better, the huge check comes with a variety of complex and intricate financial measures allowing them to leverage those funds and borrow a whole lot more, effectively mortgaging the future of these programs for years to come. Too bad that these agencies are among the least accountable and transparent of any at arguably the least accountable and transparent level of government – really, who knows their state legislators and if they have any effective control over their state DOT?
The House transportation bill hands the states unlimited authority to build highways like this...
...Don't expect anything but more of this...
...and say goodbye to events like this ribbon cutting for a new bike lane.
Surely all this money comes with a big vision and plan, right? Wrong. The bill has no vision or discernible direction short of just handing the keys of the car over to the State DOTs. Of course, it is purportedly about the safety of the traveling public – yet prohibits the funding of red light or speed cameras; eliminates the Safe Routes to School program, and allocates ten times more funding to increasing and speeding up traffic than it does to safety projects. Of course, it is supposedly about relieving congestion – yet eliminates most of the funding for any alternatives to driving alone and promises more and bigger highways for more and bigger vehicles which results in, if the last 60 years of evidence is anything to go by, more people getting stuck in traffic for longer than ever.
Perhaps the bill is about jobs and infrastructure? For sure, it’s about building a lot of highways. Unfortunately, it’s not so much about rebuilding and repairing the highways we’ve already got, which is an admirable goal we can all share AND sustains more jobs than building new highways we then can’t afford to maintain. And sadly there is NO place in the bill for cost-effective programs to create a more walk-able and bike-able transportation system for people that also creates more jobs per dollar spent than new highways.
Of course, we’re biased. The bill would be a disaster for bicycling and walking programs, because they are all gone. That should matter to you whether you ride a bike or not (we’re going to assume that you do walk and need to get across the street every now and then) because the principles of local control, providing transportation choices, and improving the quality of life in communities are important way beyond the bicycling community. That’s what investing in bicycling and walking is all about.
The tiny sliver of funding – just 1.5 percent – currently carved out to serve the needs of people making 12% of trips and comprising 14% of fatal crash victims, clearly is a major irritant to these agencies and their political allies. No doubt they will celebrate the return of this money and each of the 50 agencies can build another few hundred feet of Interstate instead…But it all adds up, right. Because they are also getting back all the money from discretionary programs and a 5% bonus from those high priority projects that won’t be foisted on them this time around.
No wonder this group of 50 people is smiling so broadly this morning; they are getting the closest thing to a blank check that the Federal government is writing these days.
To be fair, there are a few of this group that genuinely does care about local priorities, promoting alternatives, creating more livable communities, and the safety of people other than speeding drivers. We need them to stand up and speak up for the things they care about, because they aren’t going to be able to do them if this bill passes.
Andy Clarke League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
Knowing that the Miami Marathon would cause a lot of traffic congestion, Miami Heat Forward LeBron James beat the traffic by getting on his bike and getting in a little workout before the game. “It was good to get out in the open field this morning and get a bike ride in to be prepared for the day’s game,” James told an on-court reporter after the game. When asked if he should do it every day, he said “I think so.”
Clearly, the ride did his legs some good, as he was able to do this:
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Large rides like RAGBRAI support local economies by bringing thousands of riders to small communities (Photo: Christopher Gannon/The Des Moines Register)
Bicycling generates $364.8 million in direct and indirect benefits to the state of Iowa every year, according to a new study, “Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling in Iowa.” The Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa, known as RAGBRAI, may be the most visible expression of this, but it is not alone.
“RAGBRAI is a huge event and known across the world. Communities in Iowa understand the economic potential of the event.”says Mark Wyatt, executive director of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition. “This study shows there is a reason to be encouraging more bicycling everyday.”
The study was conducted for the Iowa Bicycle Coalition by the University of Northern Iowa Sustainable Tourism and Environment Program (STEP). It was sponsored by a grant from Bikes Belong, Creating Great Places, and members of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition.
The Iowa Bicycle Coalition hopes that this research will encourage the state to increase funding for bicycling. “This study indicates there is a solid return on investment through trails with more than $21 million being returned to the state in the form of sales tax,” says Wyatt. “There is more we can do, in addition to trails, to encourage more bicycling in Iowa.”
Communities welcome RAGBRAI riders (Photo: Christopher Gannon/The Des Moines Register)
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Yesterday we heard about the great news of the Pennsylvania Senate passing HB 170, the Safe Passing Act and sending it to Governor Corbett’s desk for his signature. Just in time for the 2012 Bicycle Friendly State survey no less! To learn what happens next, we have a story from Nancy Schulz with the Vermont Bicycle & Pedestrian Coalition.
Three feet (or more) – it’s the law, it’s safe, and it raises awareness about sharing the streets. But as cyclists often find out, safe passing isn’t always enforced. Since the passage of Vermont’s safe passing law in 2010, Nancy has encouraged reporting violations to law enforcement. Riding on a dirt road in Berlin, VT, Nancy heard a car approaching rapidly from behind. She pulled off to the side of the road, afraid the car may hit her from behind, only in time to see the car leave the road and tear off its bumper. Over the next 15 minutes, the driver would pull over, let Nancy pass, then buzz her honking his horn while the passenger screamed at her. Then they mooned her and sped off.
Nancy reported this harassment, including the unsafe passing, to the Berlin Police Department. It turns out the same driver on the same evening hit a mailbox and almost a little girl on a bicycle. The driver was caught and charged with driving under the influence. Through Nancy’s diligent work and the willingness of the Berlin Police Department to listen to her, the driver was also found guilty of violating the state’s safe passing law. The driver’s license has since been suspended and substantial fines were levied by the court.
Source: http://shiftinggearsbemidji.com/
As of the 2011 Bicycle Friendly States survey, 20 states throughout the country have a safe passing law. Cyclists in Nebraska and Indiana are working right now to ensure safe passing distances in their states. The work doesn’t end with the adoption of safe passing legislation. The awareness such laws raise is a major benefit for cyclists and motorists who share the road. But in instances like Nancy’s, there has to be meaningful enforcement of laws that protect cyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable users. Kudos to Nancy and the Berlin Police Department for working together for safe passing in Vermont.
Matt Wempe League State and Local Advocacy Coordinator
Mr. Wempe joined the League in September 2011. For the three years prior, he worked as a transportation planner and Safe Routes to School Coordinator in Fort Collins, Colo. He holds a BA in Economics from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Big news today out of Pennsylvania. The PA Senate passed House Bill 170, the Safe Passing Act by a vote of 45 to 5. The bill will now go to Governor Corbett’s desk for his signature.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Bicycling and walking make up 12 percent of all trips and 14 percent of all traffic fatalities and yet receive only 1.6 percent of federal transportation funding. What more do you need to make the case for investments in bicycling and walking? Well, if you think of something it is probably covered in Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2012 Benchmarking Report released today by the Alliance for Biking and Walking.
Here are some of the highlights
In 2009, 40% of trips in the United States were shorter than 2 miles, yet 87% of these trips are by car. Twenty-seven percent of trips were shorter than 1 mile. Still, Americans use their cars for 62% of these trips.
While bicycling and walking fell 66% between 1960 and 2009, obesity levels increased 156%.
Seniors are the most vulnerable bicyclists and pedestrians. Adults over 65 make up 10% of walking trips, yet comprise 19% of pedestrian fatalities. This age group accounts for 6% of bicycling trips, yet 10% of bicyclist fatalities.
Bicycling and walking projects create 11-14 jobs per $1 million spent, compared to just 7 jobs created per $1 million spent on highway projects. Cost benefit analysis show that up to $11.80 in benefits can be gained for every $1 invested in bicycling and walking.
On average, the largest 51 U.S. cities show a 29% increase in bicycle facilities since the 2010 report. Cities report that 20,908 miles of bicycle facilities and 7,079 miles of pedestrian facilities are planned for the coming years (much of this contingent upon funding).
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Thanks to StreetsBlog and Khal Spencer for drawing our attention to this Giant advertisement airing in Australia.
A good reminder that there is room for everybody in cycling. Let’s celebrate and support all of them.
…oh, and Happy New Year!
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Busy day today in the world of bicycling advocacy.
Complete Streets
Last night, we told you about the Complete Streets-inspired amendment that the Senate Commerce Committee is considering tomorrow. You can still contact your Senator, if she or he is a member of the Commerce Committee, to voice your support for Senator Begich’s amendment.
Blue Ridge Parkway Management Plan
This morning, we sent out an action alert to bicyclists in Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina to ask them tosend in comments to the Blue Ridge Parkway Supervisor on the park’s 20-year Draft Management Plan. Cyclists in other states are also welcome to comment. In it’s current form, the plan could limit the Parkway’s ability to sufficiently plan for biking in the future.
We have been working closely with the Virginia Bicycling Federation, the Adventure Cycling Association, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association on the Blue Ridge Parkway campaign. We are asking the park planners to: 1) Halt the National Historic Landmark application process. The designation would make it harder to make future improvements for bicycling access, such as wider shoulders and trails. 2) Recognize and promote cycling in the Draft Management Plan as a viable and important aspect of Parkway visitation. 3) Work with cyclists, the surrounding communities, and the general public to meet the needs of today’s changing world.
It is a pleasure to work with such committed bicycling advocates across the country. I look forward to seeing many of you at the National Bike Summit in March.
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
In general, safe passing laws raise awareness among drivers that they need to 1. expect bicyclists on the road, 2. respect bicyclists’ space on the road, and 3. provide cyclists plenty of space when passing. In the event of a crash, the law gives law enforcement a clear charge: if there was contact, the driver did not provide sufficient lateral distance.
The Pennsylvania House has passed HB 170, the safe bicycle passing bill. According to the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, the law would protect cyclists in the following ways:
Every car that passes a bike must give a minimum of 4-feet of clearance
It will be against the law for a motor vehicle driver to pass a bicyclist and then veer sharply in front of forcing you to jam on your brakes to avoid injury
It will be legal to ride a bike on the public road at less than the minimum speed
It will be legal for a driver to pass a bicyclist when it is safe to do so by crossing over a double line
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Kory Northrop created these graphics to show the relationship between bicycle commuting, safety, and government spending. His aim, he writes, was to present bicycling-related data ‘in a manner that is more easily digestible [which] is important to informing policymakers and the public about these issues.”
Kory presents, graphically, data from our tables of American Community Survey bicycle commuting data to show bicycle commuter rates by state, with boxes that illustrate the gender mode split (the larger the yellow box, the more female cyclists). The graph is interactive: you can scroll through the years from 2005 to 2010.
Using the list of US cities with populations over 60,000, Kory graphed commuter data, sort-able by the number of bike commuters, the percentage of bicycle commuters, and the number of female and male bicyclists.
Next, Kory presents the number of bicyclist fatalities in the 50 states for each year since 2000. For the years 2005 through 2010 he calculated a fatality rate using the number of bicycle commuters as the denominator.
Then Kory shows the amount of FHWA Federal-Aid transportation funds states spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects since 1992. The size of the circle represents per capita spending. This is a topic close to our hearts. For more information on accessing federal funds for bicycling and walking projects, please visit our Advocacy Advance website.
Finally, there is an overview that shows commuter levels and fatalities over the years.
Vote now. We’d love to see Kory’s graphic win the challenge.
But if you’re not sold, you have another bicycling graphic option to choose. This one shows roadway bicycle “accidents” on several roads in Chicago. (Ed. note, we know the preferred term is crash.)
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is an infographic worth?
In an effort to spread the word about bicycling’s benefits and popularity, Bike Walk Twin Cities created this infographic as part of Bike Walk Move, a local campaign to encourage more biking and walking in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area.
“The infographic says, ‘Hey, look how many people are getting around on bikes,’” says Hilary Reeves, Communications Manager of Bike Walk Twin Cities. “We wanted to gather some local stats and put them in a bit of context. The stats get your attention; validate things.”
The Bike Walk Move campaign spreads the word about new bicycling options in the Twin Cities resulting from the federal Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program administered by Transit for Livable Communities. “We want people to know they can make their way all across the metro, and beyond, on a lot of new routes, including bicycle boulevards,” Reeves says. The Twin Cities, along with Columbia, MO, Marin County, CA, Sheboygan County, WI, received the pilot project funds to increase bicycling and walking as transportation.
The numbers show growth in bicycling and walking, suggesting a wider acceptance, generally, of the bike as a way to get around. The Twin Cities have a higher share of female cyclists than most places and, of course, their famously intrepid winter cyclists show up in the data – one in five cyclists ride throughout the winter. Overall, the data show the cost-effectiveness of bicycling investments. “As Minneapolis Mayor Rybak has noted, you get a lot of bang for the buck with these investments,” Reeves says.
The infographic is one piece of an ongoing effort under the Bike Walk Move moniker to expand audiences for bicycling. The campaign has tabled at farmers markets, partnered with the local Major Taylor Bicycling Club, and put ads on buses featuring local bicyclists and their reasons for choosing to bike or walk, such as “infinity miles to the gallon.” “The effort is really trying to be inclusive,” Reeves says, “To say, you can do this, too.”
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
We are watching this legislation carefully and are raising this issue with Congress. Right now, we want to show the Senate how important the right to the road is to cyclists – and voters. As part of our “I Bike. I Vote.” campaign, please sign our petition opposing the mandatory sidepath provision.
We will keep you updated on our progress on the mandatory sidepath clause and other critical issues in the proposed legislation. An action alert may be needed at some point. In the meantime, you can register for the National Bike Summit, where together we will make the very strong case for bicycling to Congress.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Section § 203 (d) (p. 226), the part dealing with the “Federal lands transportation program”, states:
(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.
No, your eyes are not deceiving you. This paragraph would introduce a mandatory sidepath law on roads in our National Parks and other Federal lands.
For those unfamiliar with this term, it’s a provision that used to be found in a lot of state vehicle codes that says that when a sidepath (bike path, trail) is provided for cyclists, they have to use it and can’t ride on the parallel roadway. Over the past 20 years, the number of states with this law still on their books has dwindled to just a handful. The problem with the provision is that the restriction applies regardless of the quality, safety, and utility of the path provided; it disregards the needs of cyclists to be on the roadway to access shops, services etc.; and ignores our fundamental right to the road.
The law is rooted in a couple of mistaken philosophies. One such idea is that it’s just not safe for cyclists to sharing the road with cars going more than 30 mph and thus, for our own safety, we should have to use a path that is provided. This paternalistic (at best) approach is guilty of not only blaming the victim but simply doesn’t make sense unless every higher-speed roadway has a path alongside it.
The second principle at play is the idea that “we provided this path for you, you’d darned well better use it”. To which our response should be…if the path is any good, you shouldn’t have to force anyone to use it; they will use it voluntarily because it works. Our communities are replete with examples of poorly designed, built and maintained paths that are little more than glorified sidewalks. Many of these are throwbacks to the 1970s and 1980s; we are generally getting better about this. Anyway, cyclists routinely ignore these shoddy paths because they are dangerous, slow, and out of the way – but anyone that rides any amount knows that’s kind of hard to explain succinctly as you respond to the inevitable “get off the road” epithets yelled by passing motorists.
The inclusion of this provision in the Senate bill is really troubling on many levels.
Given the Park Service’s general track record on accommodating bicyclists of late – i.e. we really don’t want you in our Parks – it’s hard to assume any positive motives behind this proposal. Is there data or any factual basis for this move?
What precedent does this set? Two pretty awful ones come quickly to mind: why stop at Federal land highways; and if roads with higher than 30mph speed limits are so unsafe for bicyclists to share with motorists, bicyclists shouldn’t be using them, period.
This throwback to a paternalistic 1950s approach to cyclists safety is bad news; flies in the face of a 30-year trend of removing these bad laws from state vehicle codes; and threatens our long-cherished and very basic right to the road. We will do all we can to stop it from becoming law – but that won’t happen overnight.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee just voted the bill out of Committee with minimal changes (the authors had such hard-fought and finely-negotiated language that they really didn’t want to change anything at this stage). There are quite a few things that have to fall into place before the bill comes to the Senate floor for a vote (like the entire transit section, finances to pay for the bill, and floor time on the Senate schedule).
Because there isn’t a specific opportunity to strip the language from the bill right now, you won’t likely see an action alert or all-out campaign – but that doesn’t mean we aren’t working to get the job done. All our colleagues in the America Bikes coalition are on the same page, and can’t believe this language has reared its ugly head again after so many years.
We are ready with proposed changes – in this case, simply striking the provision altogether – and we’ll need to have support lined up to make it happen. For the meantime, you can write your Senators an e-mail or letter saying that you REALLY don’t like this provision. Tell them that it’s the wrong thing to do today and sets an awful precedent for tomorrow. This will help get the issue on their radar and will help with a specific push later.
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
Transportation for America has put together a helpful visual (above) on their blog showing the consolidation of the various funding programs, as proposed by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. As you can see, the main funding sources for bicycling — Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to Schools, and Recreational Trails — would get grouped into the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program category. This category has two parts: traditional CMAQ activities and additional activities. Bicycling projects fall under additional activities. Unfortunately, the total amount of funding for bicycling projects is equal only to Transportation Enhancements’ FY 2009 level. There is also an opt-out clause that allows states to use the “additional activities” money for the traditional CMAQ activities, if “unobligated balances” accumulate.
For more on this, see the America Bikes side-by-side analysis of MAP-21 with SAFETEA-LU (the current authorization act).
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Late last week, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works released their draft of the surface transportation authorization bill, the law that will determine transportation programs and funding. The America Bikes Coalition has reviewed the 600 page document and issued the following statement:
The America Bikes coalition – representing the nation’s leading bicycling and walking groups – today expressed their appreciation for the continued inclusion of funding opportunities for biking and walking in MAP‐21.
America Bikes remains deeply concerned, however, that bicycling and walking programs suffer disproportionate cuts in funding in the new bill, and that significant additional activities are made eligible for these limited funds. We remain committed to working with the EPW Committee and full Senate to resolve these issues, especially in the light of the Senate’s continued, strong bi‐partisan support for bicycle and pedestrian funding as shown in several recent votes on the Senate floor.
The process of honoring the public’s strong support for these programs begins immediately with amendments that have been introduced already by Senate supporters of dedicated funding for non‐motorized transportation.
Specific concerns include:
1. The current dedicated funding programs for bicycling and walking are combined into one program, with significantly less funding;
2. An expanded list of eligible activities are added to this smaller funding pot, including such big‐ticket items as NEPA compliance and land acquisition for wetland mitigation; and
3. The proposed bill effectively allows states to completely opt out of the program and would allow all this money to be redirected to highway construction.
The America Bikes coalition calls on the leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to restore dedicated funding for bicycling and walking in MAP‐21 and remove the opt‐out provision that would encourage States to eliminate funding for these two modes altogether.
When America Bikes, America Benefits.
From San Francisco to Bentonville, Arkansas, and from Oklahoma City to New York City, communities are increasingly investing in bicycling and walking infrastructure and programs to support popular, healthy and cost‐effective transportation. These investments – made possible by dedicated federal transportation dollars – are working:
• Commuting trips by bike have increased nationwide by more than 40% since 2000; bicycling and walking now account for 12% of all trips in the United States.
• Thousands of Safe Routes to School programs are reducing congestion and improving safety in communities across the country.
• Recreational trails are heavily used and provide crucial economic benefits, especially in rural communities. A transportation bill designed to efficiently move America in this new century should continue to include dedicated funding to create safe and accessible places for people to bike and walk.
Since 2005, a total of just 1.5 percent of annual federal transportation funding has been devoted to supporting these activities. Biking and walking not only comprise more than 12 percent of all trips but also account for 14% of annual traffic fatalities.
Dedicated funding for bike/ped projects – one or two cents of every dollar – is a time‐tested, popular, and effective approach to building a truly multi‐modal national transportation system that offers choice, safety and access for all.
Increasing the safety and use of non‐motorized transportation reduces congestion, saves lives and money, protects the environment…and creates more jobs per million dollars of investment than highway‐only projects: exactly what MAP‐21 should be trying to do.
Dedicated funding for bicycling and walking enjoys broad support at all levels of Government. Less than one week ago, 60 Senators voted in bi‐partisan support of preserving the Transportation Enhancement program – the third such vote in support of the program this year. At the state level, transportation enhancement, safe routes to school and recreational trails programs typically receive at least three times more requests for funding than is available. In May, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed solid support among Mayors for funding of bicycling and walking infrastructure.
America Bikes is a coalition of leaders from the bicycle community advocating for positive outcomes for bicycling in the federal transportation bill.
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Last week in Washington started on a high – and not just the sugar high generated by Halloween candy. We opened registration for the 2012 National Bike Summit. The Summit is a huge deal for us; a lot of work to pull together, but incredibly rewarding to see the growing impact it has each year on our issues and our movement. Clearly, the 2012 edition is going to be as critical as any previous events coming as it does just eight days before the current transportation bill expires.
Our excitement is obviously shared: folks in Arkansas and Oklahoma were proudly telling me later in the week that they had signed up already and even knew what number registrant they were!
Tuesday was a face-to-face America Bikes board meeting…and of course it was also the day of the remarkable Senate vote on Rand Paul’s amendment to strip the transportation enhancements program of all its funding and divert those dollars to bridge repair. Thanks to a massive outpouring of e-mails and calls from tens of thousands of supporters, the amendment was voted down by 60 to 38. We learned the result during the America Bikes board meeting, and it was an exciting moment. Sixty votes in the Senate is actually a pretty big deal. That’s a veto-proof majority and not many issues have garnered that kind of bi-partisan support in this most divided Congress. Yes, Republicans, Democrats and Independents voted together to unequivocally support the continuation of the TE program.
The following day, as if more validation were needed, a huge report was released by the Global Health Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Researchers found that:
Cutting out short auto trips and replacing them with mass transit and active transport would yield major health benefits, according to a study just published in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives. The biggest health benefit was due to replacing half of the short trips with bicycle trips during the warmest six months of the year, saving about $3.8 billion per year from avoided mortality and reduced health care costs for conditions like obesity and heart disease.
Wow, that’s just what the enhancements and safe routes to schools programs could help make happen, right? You betcha. So, thank you, Senators, for having the wisdom to maintain funding for such a valuable program with long-term financial benefits to individuals, communities and the nation. Remember, the total amount of Federal funding going to bicycling and walking projects in FY2011 was around $750 million…so $3.8 billion annually in returns is a pretty good investment by anyone’s standards!
Thursday morning I was traveling and picked up a copy of USA Today. The cover story was a new AAA research report on the phenomenal cost of motor vehicle crashes – $6m for every one of the more than 35,000 fatalities in 2009. Two interesting things beyond the staggering overall costs involved: first, the cost and impacts of crashes far outweigh those caused by congestion, which suggests safety should be higher priority than congestion relief for highway departments. Second, the study compared the relative costs of crashes per capita in different sized cities and showed low and high ranges. Lo and behold, all of the low-end communities – where crashes were the lowest – were Bicycle Friendly Communities of note: San Francisco (gold), Colorado Springs (silver) and Boulder (platinum). Coincidence? I don’t think so.
There is tremendous bi-partisan support for encouraging bicycling and walking as part of Federal transportation program. There are incredible health and environmental benefits to be had from such an investment. And in those places that are investing in making non-motorized transportation work, every resident is benefitting in terms of safety and quality of life, whether they bicycle or not.
Could the week possibly get any better?
Well, late on Friday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released their 600-page draft of the next Federal transportation bill. For now, you can look at the bill yourself (enjoy…it is only 600 pages after all), and review thisside-by-side analysis of the critical funding sections for bicycling and walking programs and decide for yourself what impact this might have on funding for those activities. We’ll provide more commentary on Tuesday, ahead of the Committee mark-up on Wednesday – then you’ll discover whether the high’s of the week continued, or the scary part of Halloween came to the fore…
Andy Clarke League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
The Federal Highway Administration is seeking input into which critical areas of research they should invest their limited Surface Transportation Environment and Planning (STEP) Cooperative Research Program funds – and one of the focus areas is bicycle and pedestrian research. The comment period closes November 10, so get your comment in quickly using this FHWA website. This isn’t the place to suggest researching improvements to the bicycle itself, but the environment in which bicyclists operate and the way in which they operate is fair game. The level of interest in bike-related topics is important to the final allocation of research funds, so even if you don’t have a fully-formed research problem statement to submit, please throw your ideas into the hopper.
Andy Clarke League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
Senator Rand Paul is proposing legislation that would take away the small amount of money that goes to bicycling programs and redirect it to bridge maintenance. It would be just a tiny drop in the bucket and it won’t even begin to solve the problems with our bridges. But it sounds good and some Senators might buy it. We must let our Senators know how critical the safety of bicyclists is. We need biking AND bridges, not one or the other.
League President Andy Clake explains what this is all about:
The attacks on bicycling spending seem relentless. Fortunately, no one is more relentless than cyclists. If the critics of bicycling in Congress think they can outlast us, they’re wrong. But they are trying again to do away with Transportation Enhancements. We can’t let any attack go unanswered — and this one is for real.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
If you are a student looking to add tens of thousands of dollars of long term debt, care little about the environment, and want to lump two tons of steel around campus while paying through the nose for insurance, gas, and parking…General Motors has got a perfect deal for you. Bonus: it’ll make you fat and unhealthy! All you have to do is give up that dorky bicycle that’s easy to use, practically free, gets you some exercise and is actually fun to ride.
Thankfully, a whole lot of you agreed with us…and took to Twitter and Facebook in large numbers. By the next day, General Motors had heard from so many upset cyclists that they canceled the advertisement. They also responded tweet by tweet to everyone who contacted them by Twitter to apologize. Several of the tweets said, “Want to let you know we’re making changes to the ads based on input. We created w/student input and didn’t mean to offend.”
Though it seems a little unfair to throw students under the bus for the campaign, it is remarkable, and commendable, how quickly GM made the decision and responded using social medial. However, with nearly equal swiftness, a bicycle company joined the conversation. Giant Bicycles responded with this ad, which parodies the original:
This one reads: "Reality DOES suck. Luckily Bicycles don't." We agree.
This version of the ad perfectly captures what most bicyclists were thinking when we saw the GM campaign. Bikes do not suck.
Thanks to Joe Gilpin of Alta Planning + Design for passing this along on the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals listserv.
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Last week we got a call from the mother of the Tennessee child who was told “not to ride her bike to school”; the story is lighting up the blogosphereas wespeak. We listened, offered some advice, encouraged her to contact her statewide advocacy group, BikeWalk Tennessee, and gave the police department in Elizabethton a call to get their side of the story. What emerges is a frustrating story with no obvious winners and lots of people left feeling aggrieved. The basic principle that it really should be (and probably is in this case) perfectly reasonable for a capable 10-year old to ride her bike to school on local streets is in danger of getting lost.
The student trying to get to school really doesn’t have a lot of options to riding the mile from home to school on the road – her neighborhood has no sidewalks; there aren’t any alternate routes; her mother can’t drive her; the police didn’t really help her with a solution; the school bus isn’t an option. Besides, riding is a good option – it’s quicker and healthier; the streets are pretty quiet; many ten-year olds are quite capable of riding in that environment; and her mom shouldn’t have to drive her (assuming she could)! The fact that she may not have been riding with all the traffic skills of a seasoned commuter cyclist speaks perhaps to the need for decent bike education in school, slightly more patient parents who are driving their kids to school, and – of course – a few more fellow riders and walkers out there with her who can easily access the school on foot and bike.
It’s not too much of a stretch to say that this case highlights the need for the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program currently under threat of Congressional budget cuts. The SRTS program has enabled local communities to access badly needed funds to help build sidewalks and trails to schools; to add bike lanes, signs and markings on roads around schools; to deliver critical bicycling and traffic safety education to students; to support bike trains and walking school buses; and even to begin to tackle bigger issues of school siting and access. Clearly these things are not happening without the impetus of the SRTS program and it would be a huge mistake if Congress were to approve a transportation bill without this critical initiative.
If Congress does decide to axe the program, we can anticipate a lot more cases like we are seeing in Tennessee – we can’t afford school buses because of local budget cuts; we aren’t providing education and encouragement programs to teach kids traffic safety skills; we keep putting our schools in the wrong places where people can’t walk and bike easily to them; we don’t provide sidewalks, crosswalks, lanes, trails and other safe facilities to get them to school; and then we wonder why more and more increasingly overweight and irritable kids are being driven to school [by increasingly overweight and irritable parents] adding to the danger for kids who can’t be driven…and the police and school administrators are left to sort out the mess with their own preconceived notions of what’s “safe” and “normal” behavior that doesn’t seem to include hopping on a bike and riding for kids who are generally quite capable of doing so.
To speak up for Safe Routes to School, contact your members of Congress and ask them to support the program by signing on to this bill. You can also sign up to the advocacy center for alerts on the larger transportation bill – we are expecting to see some action on this when Congress returns next week and we are going to need all the help we can get to preserve dedicated funding for bicycling and walking programs.
Andy Clarke League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
We all know how expensive it can be to fly with your bike. We update the airplane bike fees on our Web site for the National Bike Summit every March, and the rates are inconsistent and pricey. Luckily for those of you who fly Frontier, there is good news!
Frontier has removed the flat fee for checked bicycles and will now include them in the standard baggage allowance, meaning customers traveling on Classic or Classic Plus fares can include their bike as one of their two complimentary checked bags and Economy passengers would pay $20 if the bike is one of their first two checked bags. Bikes will be exempt from any oversize fees, but subject to overweight fees and excess bag fees, if applicable. This is similar to the carrier’s current policy for golf clubs and skis. Frontier recommends to give yourself an extra 30 minutes for check-in if you are checking your bike — a small price to pay for free or exceptionally low bike check-ins!
What is allowed: non-motorized touring or racing bicycles with single seats. Bicycles must have the handlebars fixed sideways and the pedals removed and encased in a protective, durable case or box. Pedals do not need to be removed if wrapped in plastic foam or similar material.
What is not allowed: Items which exceed 99.9 lbs or 109 linear inches will not be accepted. According to Frontier, the definition of linear inches is L+W”H. A standard hard-plastic bike box is around 85 linear inches, so must of us should be compliant with these specifics.
Thanks Frontier for making it easier for bicyclists to travel with bicycles. It is appreciated.
Meghan Cahill League Director of Communications
Cahill joined the League in December 2008 and has a BA in Media Communications with a concentration in Italian Studies from the College of Charleston.
Just when you think things are going well and US cities are making great progress towards being more bike-friendly (which they are…), somewhere like Copenhagen comes along and reminds you just how far we have to go! I just read the incredible bi-annual Bicycle Account published by the City of Copenhagen. The 2010 report does actually show a decline in the percentage of trips to work made by bike – down from 37% in 2008 to a paltry 35%, but this drop is attributed to two harsh winters and is made up for by a significant increase of 40,000 in the number of kilometers traveled by bike every day (up to 1.21 million) and a drop in the number of serious crashes to just 92 (3 fatals).
The numbers and the overall Copenhagen story continue to be truly inspirational:
93% of residents think Copenhagen is very good, good or satisfactory to cycle in
68% of residents cycle at least once a week
67% of cyclists feel safe (up from 51%)
And the biggest problems? The cycle tracks aren’t wide enough and there aren’t enough of them…only 346 kms of them. Cyclist and motorist behavior are also major factors in what could be done to make cycling even safer.
Copenhagen City of Cyclists: Bicycle Account 2010
One of the most astounding numbers buried deep in the report is the socio-economic benefit of cycling. The report says “When all these factors are added together the net social gain is DKK 1.22 per cycled kilometer. For purposes of comparison there is a net social loss of DKK 0.69 per kilometer driven by car.” 1.22 Danish crowns is about 25 cents and a kilometer is 6/10 of a mile, so we are talking about a net economic gain to society of 41 cents for every bicycle mile traveled. That’s a good number to have in your back pocket.
Quebec (Photo: Andy Clarke)
Iwas at the Ontario Bike Summit earlier this week and learned more about Velo Quebec’s latest round up of all things bicycling in neighboring Quebec – another impressive set of statistics.
The number of adult cyclists has increased by 500,000 since 2005;
More than half (54%) of Quebecers cycled in 2010, a return to 1995 levels (53%) after decreases in 2000 (49%) and 2005 (47%);
The number of people who cycle at least once a week has increased steadily since the year 2000 (from 1.6 million in 2000 to 1.8 million in 2005 and 2 million in 2010);
84% of children and teens cycle, a 9-point drop in 5 years;
The proportion of utility cycling has doubled: 37% of cyclists were using their bike as a means of transport occasionally or daily, compared with 20% in 2000;
Between 1987 and 2010, the total number of bicycles in Quebec more than doubled and the number of regular cyclists increased by 50%. During the same period, cycling-related fatalities decreased by 58%, serious injuries by 72% and minor injuries by 52%.
La Route Verte (Photo: Andy Clarke)
La Route Verte, the 4,300km provincial cycling network in Quebec is now returning $134 million annually (not including the cost of bikes…that’s just food, lodging and transport) on a total investment to create the network of $180m over 15 years.
Finally, the small principality of Wales is reportedly the first country in the world to require local authorities to provide cycling infrastructure. I used to ride my bike over the Severn Bridge from Bristol into Wales many years ago on practically the only dedicated bike infrastructure in either country, so it’s pretty cool to learn that Wales will soon become a cycling paradise – the place certainly has the scenery to make it happen.
Wales (Photo: road.cc)
Andy Clarke League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
This morning more than two dozen US DOT employees rode to work with their boss, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The bike ride, which started at the Washington Monument and ended at the US DOT headquarters, came about after a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) employee, Darren Buck, submitted the suggestion to the Department.
Secretary LaHood on his way to work
“This morning I biked to work with a group of DOT commuters from the Washington Monument to our headquarters building. The route was safe and well-marked; we enjoyed some exercise; and we didn’t burn a drop of gas–which saved us some money,” the Secretary wrote on his blog, “That’s what I call a successful commute.”
Nationals Park
DOT Bicycle commuters, including Secretary LaHood, at US DOT headquarters
Secretary LaHood with Darren Buck, the FHWA employee who suggested the ride
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Today is a reminder … that every American, every single person in this country, can do something to support our remarkable troops and their families. Everybody can do something.
So seven years ago, a bartender from Long Island had the same idea. He wasn’t from a military family. He had never served in the military. But he knew that he owed our military something. He was just an ordinary American who was grateful for the service of all those who wear the uniform. And he said, “I just wanted to give something back.”
So he jumped on his bike and rode across the country — over 5,000 miles — to raise funds and awareness for our wounded warriors. Today, there are Soldier Rides all across America giving our wounded warriors the confidence and support they need to recover. That’s the difference a single person can make. Today we want to thank Chris Carney and everyone from the Wounded Warrior Project for reminding us of our obligations to each other as Americans …
Photos: AP/Evan Vucci
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
America’s mayors want more control over federal transportation money. That is according to a survey released today by the United States Conference of Mayors. And what would they spend it on? Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure would be near the top of their list.
“As the federal government sets priorities for long-term spending and deficit reduction, future transportation infrastructure investments should focus spending on pressing metropolitan transportation infrastructure needs as opposed to low-priority highway expansion projects such as the infamous Bridge to Nowhere,” said Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed.
Bicycling and walking rank high among the biggest challenges identified by the mayors:
The mayors also made clear they wouldn’t favor a gas tax increase if transportation funds were allocated in the traditional way, but that 70 percent would support it if a share of the funding were allocated directly to local governments, and with more money going to bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
This will add fuel to the debate about the optimum level of decision-making for transportation spending and is further evidence that bicycle and pedestrian projects may fare better at the city level than the state or even the regional level.
In a discussion at the National Journal Transportation Experts Blog, Mortimer L. Downey, senior advisor at Parsons Brinckerhoff, which conducted the survey, says this about the countries mayors: “These are the men and women [in] big city, small city and suburban communities, who are closest to the voters and have broad responsibilities to achieve results.”
Darren Flusche League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Blog
Subscribe
