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.
If you think bicycling and walking are only for big cities, you are only getting part of the story. A report released today by the Rails to Trails Conservancy, “Active Transportation Beyond Urban Centers“, shows that people walk and bike more in rural areas than people usually think. ”This report demonstrates that, in fact, rates for walking and bicycling in rural areas are close to, and sometimes higher than, the national averages,” says Tracy Hadden Loh, RTC’s research manager and co-author of the report.
Rural areas benefit from significant federal investment in Active Transportation
Federal investment in biking and walking benefits rural areas as much or more than urban centers, according to the report. Rural areas receive almost twice as much funding per capita as urban areas from the federal Transportation Enhancements (TE) program.
The best bargain in the federal budget
Just like in urban areas, investments in walking and biking are remarkably cost-effective. “Because active transportation facilities cost a tiny fraction of roadways, and because there is pent-up demand due to past failures to build safe and convenient bicycling and walking networks, active transportation investments offer taxpayers a far greater return on their money,” the report says. “Additionally, these projects create more good jobs per dollar than large highway projects, and the money stays closer to home in small, local businesses. And when you consider that more Americans biking and walking means less spent on health care to counteract effects of the obesity crisis (the federal government pays 30 percent of all health care costs) and less of our money flowing out of the country to pay for foreign oil, active transportation adds up to the best bargain in our federal budget.”
The need to make the case
This research comes at an important time as bicycling and walking advocates are making the case to Members of Congress that investments in active transportation are critical and beneficial for all Americans. The utility and benefits are not limited to any one geographic area or segment of the population.
To find fatality, obesity, and bicycle network information, including Enhancements and Safe Routes to School projects, for your area and Congressional District, check out this interactive map (click and scroll down).
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.
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.
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.
These workshops bring together advocates, agency staff, and elected officials and are designed to ensure that participants have the knowledge, skills and resources to access untapped or under-utilized federal funding sources at the state, regional and local level to build bicycling and walking infrastructure and programs. These workshops are offered for free, thanks to the generous support of SRAM.
Attendees brainstorm funding opportunities at the Houston Action 2020 Workshop
During the workshops, participants will:
Learn about under-utilized funding sources that exist for biking and walking projects and programs, which the region has not yet tapped into;
Learn the key characteristics, requirements, and opportunities of those sources and best practices from around the country;
Discuss favorable factors for bicycling and walking investments;
Understand the important role of advocates, agency staff, and elected officials in securing this funding; and
Share knowledge and experiences in the local context, working together to develop a list of local priorities and strategies for funding bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs.
The deadline to apply to host a workshop is Friday, February 24.
Click here to learn more and see a list of locations and hosts for past workshops. Click hereto download the application form. Advocates, agency staff, and/or elected officials are required submit a workshop application and host the workshop together.
If you have any questions about Action 2020 Workshop,email us, and we will happily assist you in your application.
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.
Not long ago, a man in his sixties was visiting Washington, DC, for business. One afternoon with a little free time to kill, he came across a Capitol Bikeshare (CaBi) station. Minutes later, after his first exposure to CaBi, he was off exploring the city by bike. It had been 35 years since he had last ridden a bicycle.
Spontaneous rides like this one provide visitors and casual bicyclists a new way to see the nation’s capital, bring in revenue for the bikeshare system, and introduce new people to urban bicycling. To learn more about these users, whose data are not automatically captured in as much depth as the system’s annual users, CaBi and the transportation departments of Arlington, VA and Washington, DC asked a team of graduate students from Virginia Tech (VT) and Assistant Professor Ralph Buehler to conduct a survey and do research on the habits, characteristics, and opinions of casual bikeshare users.
A DC resident uses a 24-hour Capital Bikeshare pass rides the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes towards the U.S. Capitol Building. (Photo: Darren Flusche)
“Bikesharing is like a big advertisement for bicycling,” says Darren Buck, one of the VT students. “Folks walking by who don’t consider bikes in their daily routines are given an opportunity to ask, ‘Well, why not go for a bike ride?’” The survey found that the overwhelming number of people who decided without any pre-planning to go for a bike ride, a phenomena Buck calls “See-Rent-Ride.” Most respondents learned about CaBi by seeing the stations or bikes in use.
The final report, “Capital Bikeshare Study: A Closer Look at Casual Users and Operations,” included an analysis of other bikeshare systems in the country. “The comparison of CaBi with other systems showed that CaBi is at the cutting edge in many areas,” said Ralph Buehler, Assistant Professor in Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech, despite it being a relatively new system compared to some of the others examined.
Virginia Tech students survey CaBi users about the system. (Photo: Ralph Buehler)
The report also included several suggestions to improve the system, including improving technological approaches to redistributing bicycles, expanding repair facilities as the system grows, and providing maps and increasing the visibility of stations. The students recommended concentrating marketing around “under-served and counter peak” stations. They concluded that the system could grow ridership by concentrating and promoting in times and places where people are not riding now. Currently the heaviest use takes places during rush hour, attracting more weekend tourists gets more rides out of the system without taxing capacity.
The CaBi fleet on its first day. (Photo: Darren Flusche)
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.
Last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released traffic fatality and injury numbers for 2010. Overall, the trend in headed in the right direction. The number of motor vehicle traffic fatalities – 32,885 – was the lowest since 1949. Thankfully, there were ten fewer bicyclist fatalities in 2010 than in 2009; but 618 cyclist deaths is still 618 too many.
There was one stunning exception to the downward trend: injuries to pedestrians spiked. The number of pedestrians injured in traffic crashes increased 19 percent, going from 59,000 in 2009 to 70,000 in 2010, according to NHTSA’s data. Meanwhile, pedestrian fatalities increased 4.2 percent. Safer cars and drivers wearing seatbelts may be helping drivers’ safety, but they are little help to a person on foot.
Photo of an “incomplete street” in Charlotte, NC from the National Complete Streets Coalition website.
With a one year increase of 11,000 pedestrian injuries, it is a good time to consider what can be done to improve road safety for all road users. Senator Begich (D-AK) has introduced an amendment (to S.1950) that would require the Federal Department of Transportation to set safety standards for motorized and non-motorized modes. (A state could write its own safety policy or law to be exempted from the federal standard.) This law would give the US DOT the authority enact a Complete Streets policy and encourage states to implement their own.
The law says the Secretary of Transportation “shall establish standards to ensure that the design of Federal surface transportation projects provides for the safe and adequate accommodation, in all phases of project planning, development, and operation, of all users of the transportation network, including motorized and non-motorized users.” [Emphasis mine.] As stated above, states are granted a waiver if they pass a law of their own that accomplishes the same. The Secretary “shall determine whether the applicable State has achieved compliance with this section,” according to the amendment language.
The Commerce Committee will hear the bill on Wednesday, Dec. 14th at 10:00am. These Senators are on the Committee. You can use our Advocacy Center to send a message to your Senator to urge them to support the Begich amendment to S. 1950 for the SAFETY FOR MOTORIZED AND NONMOTORIZEDUSERS.
Majority Members
Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV
West Virginia
Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Hawaii
Senator John F. Kerry
Massachusetts
Senator Barbara Boxer
California
Senator Bill Nelson
Florida
Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
New Jersey
Senator Mark Pryor
Arkansas
Senator Claire McCaskill
Missouri
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Minnesota
Senator Tom Udall
New Mexico
Senator Mark Warner
Virginia
Senator Mark Begich
Alaska
Minority Members
Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchison
Texas
Senator Olympia Snowe
Maine
Senator Jim DeMint
South Carolina
Senator John Thune
South Dakota
Senator Roger Wicker
Mississippi
Senator Johnny Isakson
Georgia
Senator Roy Blunt
Missouri
Senator John Boozman
Arkansas
Senator Patrick J. Toomey
Pennsylvania
Senator Marco Rubio
Florida
Senator Kelly Ayotte
New Hampshire
Senator Dean Heller
Nevada
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.
Three of America’s largest cycling organizations — Adventure Cycling Association, Alliance for Biking & Walking, and the League of American Bicyclists – wish to thank the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the significant improvements the agency made last week in an important technical advisory (TA) regarding the application of rumble strips on U.S. roadways.
The FHWA issued a revised TA on rumble strips in May 2011, the first such revision in ten years. The TA is important because it provides official national guidance on the use of rumbles and influences state and local agency action in their use of rumbles on roadways of all types. FHWA had indicated that this new advisory would substantially improve the TA’s guidance on the application of rumble strips and how they affected bicyclists. As we previously noted the May 2011 TA went backwards from the 2001 TA in its lack of inclusion of cyclists’ safety issues.
The newly revised TA, released on November 16, 2011, is a substantial improvement. It includes a new section about the accommodation of all roadway users (Section 9), with a special emphasis on the needs of cyclists, and lays out “a number of measures that should be considered to accommodate bicyclists,” including wide shoulders, bicycle gaps (intervals without rumble strips that allow cyclists to safety cross back or forth), and customized rumble treatments to allow more space for cyclists. The new TA also includes a significantly improved section on public outreach and involvement.
There are still sections of the new TA that raise concerns for cyclists, including Section 7b, which identifies the optimal “length” (or width) of rumble strips as 16 inches, a dimension which can make it more likely that these strips will cut into useable road shoulder space for cyclists.
It will be important for local citizens and organizations to pay close attention to the proposed addition of rumble strips on existing roadways and when roads are being built, reconstructed or repaved.
In addition to FHWA’s new advisory, further background and guidance can be found in the League’s Bicycling and Rumble Strips report and information on state-by-state use of of rumbles prepared by Adventure Cycling Association. Adventure Cycling has also developed a Flickr page where people can share photos of well-designed and poorly-designed rumble strips.
For more on this, please see the joint press release.
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.
2. The outline of the House transportation re-authorization bill would entirely eliminate Transportation Enhancements, along with the Safe Routes to School and Recreational Trails programs. Even the vague language about eligibility seems to imply that states would have to jump through additional hoops to use federal funds on bicycling and walking projects.
But what would it look like if we didn’t have Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to Schools (and the non-motorized transportation pilot program) and the Recreational Trails program?
Here’s the amount of federal money states have spent on bicycling and walking projects each year since 1992:
Click to enlarge.
We’ve seen tremendous growth over the past twenty or so years, with a notable spike during the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus. Active transportation projects are popular and local and regional agencies are increasingly calling for these types of projects, but they need support from federal funds.
Here is where the funds came from, by funding program:
What if we didn’t have Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School & the Pilot Program, and Recreational Trails?
Just imagine all for trails, bridges, and road facilities that would not exist without the blacked out funds.
Now, here’s the picture for FY2011, using newly released numbers from the Federal Highway Administration:
And without dedicated funds?
Pretty bleak. As these charts illustrate, it is going to be a critical year for the National Bike Summit to maintain dedicated funding for bicycling and walking projects and fight for bicyclists’ rights. Register now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s happening again. Just one month ago, Sen. Coburn (R-OK) failed in his efforts to strip funding for Transportation Enhancements from the six-month transportation extension.
Now, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is taking the lead in trying to destroy Transportation Enhancements. On November 1, the Senate will finalize the transportation appropriations bill, which sets funding levels for FY2012. Sen. Paul has offered an amendment to redirect all funding for Transportation Enhancements to bridge repair. Here’s why his arguments don’t make sense.
This is the third time in a month that a small group of Senators have targeted Transportation Enhancements, using a different angle each time. It is a red herring, and a waste of the Senate’s time and taxpayers dollars to focus on this small and valuable program when we are in dire need of real and viable solutions to fix our failing transportation system.
We agree on the need to keep our bridges safe, but the lives of pedestrians and cyclists are important too. That is why we believe Senator Paul should withdraw his amendment now and let the Senate EPW Committee, which has jurisdiction over writing the next transportation bill, do their job. The Committee is actually scheduled to mark-up their bill on November, 9. That is the appropriate time to discuss changes to the overall transportation program, not during the appropriations process.
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.
On October 1, 2010, 15 cyclists left Outspokin’ bike shop in Augusta, Ga. on their weekly ride across the state border into Aiken, S.C. A truck, driven by Daniel Johnson, collided with the group and injured four cyclists and tragically left one other, Dr. Matthew Burke, critically injured with severe head trauma. After 128 days in a coma on life support, Dr. Burke passed away on February 6, 2011. The Palmetto Cycling Coalition and South Carolina cycling attorney Peter Wilborn worked on the case, and Johnson was charged with reckless homicide on February 8, 2011. After eight months of investigation and legal wrangling, Johnson admitted to his crime yesterday, October 17 and pled guilty to felony manslaughter. Johnson was taken immediately into custody and will be sentenced today, Tuesday, October 18th.
“Matt Burke’s legacy is that drivers can and should be treated as criminals for killing cyclists. Throughout the country, cycling deaths are regularly dismissed by law enforcement as mere traffic ‘accidents.’ But often they are not accidental, the needless fatalities are tragic consequences of reckless driving and lawless drivers,” Wilborn writes on his BikeLaw.com blog. “The driver’s felony conviction here proves to police, policymakers and drivers to take cycling safety seriously. This case from South Carolina is an example of how to do it right.”
Johnson claimed to have been distracted while reaching for something. Dr. Burke, a U.S. Army major and orthopedic surgeon, had been home from Iraq for about a year. “The police originally said it was just an accident,” says Wilborn. “We asked the police to just consider the data, and you know what? They listened. They did their job … and charged the driver with reckless homicide — the most serious thing that a driver could be charged with.” The South Carolina Highway Patrol and the Aiken County Solicitor’s office performed the investigation.
Dr. Burke is survived by his wife Bonnie and 1-year-old daughter, Anna. Dr. Burke was only 38. Paul Burke, the cyclist’s brother, stated on Wilborn’s blog: “Today’s felony conviction establishes the criminal responsibility of Daniel Johnson for the senseless death of Matthew P. Burke. Dr. Burke was riding legally in a group of fifteen cyclists when he and four other riders were struck from behind by Mr. Johnson on a long, flat straight road in broad daylight.”
To learn more about improving cycling safety and police enforcement, read “Enforcement: The Final Frontier” in the July/August issue of American Bicyclist magazine.
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.
In September, the Wilmington, DE, Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO) approved DelDOTs request for $480,000 in federal CMAQ funds for the final phase of the Wilmington-to-New Castle Industrial Track for fiscal year 2012. By tapping into Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement funds for bicycling projects – the first time ever in Delaware – Bike Delaware and its allies have opened the door for the future funding of bicycling projects that give people options to substitute their cars trips with enjoyable, healthy, non-polluting, non-traffic-clogging bike trips.
Every year Delaware spends about $12 million in federal CMAQ dollars. “But in the 20 year history of the CMAQ program, not one dime has ever been used for bicycling, greenways or trails in Delaware,” wrote Bike Delaware Executive Director James Wilson, “Until now. We have broken a 20 year drought and also set an immensely hopeful precedent for the future.”
A completed part of Delaware's Wilmington to New Castle trail
A little background:Federal transportation dollars are divided up into different pots of money, each with different rules and eligible project-types. Over the past twenty years, most bicycle projects have been funded out of a few dedicated programs. But bicycle projects are eligible for several other, larger pots of money for purposes such as safety, congestion reduction, and general surface transportation. It’s these larger funding sources that can really make a difference in the amount of funds dedicated to non-motorized transportation. But it also means that bike projects have to compete against a broader range of transportation projects. We believe bicycling advocates and transportation agencies have come a long way and are ready for the challenge.
As I’ve said before, accessing federal funds can be a daunting task, but it’s one with potentially game-changing pay-off. Bike Delaware has shown impressive leadership and vision in doggedly pursuing CMAQ funds for bicycling, despite no precedent in the state.
The CMAQ chapter of Bike Delaware’s ongoing effort to increase the state’s investment in bicycling and walking projects, started with a major victory. In July, after much advocacy by Bike Delaware and others,the Delaware General Assembly approved “Walkable, Bikeable Delaware” and, a month later, voted $5 million in the state budget for state bike routes. The intention from the beginning was to use that amount as matching funds for federal funding programs, like CMAQ, which require a 20 percent state or local match.
Bike Delaware had several projects prioritized and they set out to get them “programmed” – projects selected for federal funding that would then be added to the Transportation Improvement Plan. The next thing they had to do was understand how projects get programmed in Delaware.
We advise advocates to learn the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY, HOW of the selection process:
Who makes the selection decisions?
What are the rules and requirements governing the selections (ie. Application form, criteria) and what are the barriers that negatively impact bike/ped?
When are applications due and selections made?
Why do some projects get selected and not others?
And how do bicycle and pedestrian projects compete with motorized projects?
Bike Delaware took up the task. Although the project selection process was fairly typical in its opaqueness, advocates identified the WILMAPCO Technical Advisory Committee as a key decision-making body. With the $5 million in dedicated state funds as a source for the required 20 percent local match, advocates were able to participate in the process to get federal funds programmed and compete on something like an equal footing for the first time with other transportation projects. The result was the breakthrough last month: Delaware’s 1st ever CMAQ-funded bike project.
As we work with advocates and agency staff across the country as part of our Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshops, we will be using Delaware as an example of can be accomplished with savvy and determination. We look forward to the upcoming Delaware Bike Summit on Oct 14th. We will be there to talk about federal funding opportunities and celebrating Delaware’s CMAQ break-through.
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.
The 2010 US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) bike to work data that we analyzed this weekand last has sparked a lot of conversation and press coverage as communities gauges their biking levels and compare themselves to one another. Not surprisingly, we tend to zero in on the biking data. But there is a whole world of journey-to-work data out there in the ACS results.
That’s where Brian McKenzie and Melanie Rapino at the US Census bureau come in. They reviewed the 2009 ACS journey to work data to give us all a general overview of commuting in America.
The first point they make is a very important one, especially for those of us interested in cycling levels:
In the United States, commutes make up less than 20 percent of all trips taken.
Commutes can present challenges to bicycling that don’t necessarily exist for other utilitarian trips. They’re a fixed distance. We don’t all have the luxury of living near work. Sometimes our commutes are outside of comfortable biking distance. Sometimes there a dress code, and nowhere to get cleaned up. Sometimes bikes aren’t allowed in our work buildings. We don’t all work at Bicycle Friendly Businesses. But none of this means that we don’t ride for other purposes. Our need to look at commuting data — because consistent, comparable data for different geographic areas isn’t readily available — means that we’re only learning about one in five of all of the trips we’re making. The need for better data is considerable.
That said, there’s a lot we can learn from commuter travel data. The folks at the Census Bureau made the following observations (taken directly from their report):
Commuting highlights from the 2009 ACS are:
Over three-quarters of the nation’s workers drove alone to work.
Workers took an average of 25.1 minutes to get to work.
Hispanic workers carpooled at a rate of 16.4 percent, compared with 9.5 percent for non-Hispanic workers.
The rate of public transportation usage among the foreign-born population was 10.8 percent, more than twice that of the native-born population, at 4.1 percent.
Suburban workers drove alone at a rate of 81.5 percent, compared with 72.1 percent for workers living inside of a principal city.
The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area had the longest average commute, at 34.6 minutes.
The 10 metro areas with the shortest average commute times have populations of fewer than 300,000 people.
Using the 2009 ACS data for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (not the city geographies that we use), they put together these tables for bicycling and walking:
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 shared with you the 2010 US Census Bureau American Community Survey bicycle commuting data. Here is a visual representation of the trends:
Thanks to Kate Powlison at Bikes Belong for putting together this very attractive graph using ACS data to show the growth of bike commuting since 2000 in the largest Bicycle Friendly Communities, non-BFCs, and the national rate. Click on the image for a larger version.
Another version here, without the 70 city average:
The notes on the American Community Survey are worth repeating:
ACS limitations, notes, and cautions
The ACS asks only about commuting. It does not tell us about bicycling for non-work purposes.
Results are based on a survey of a sample of the population. Surveys take place throughout the year. The journey to work question asks respondents about the previous week.
The journey to work question asks about the primary mode of transportation to work. The wording of the question undercounts the actual amount of bike commuting that occurs. It does not count people who rode once or twice a week or people who bike to transit (if the transit leg is longer than the bike leg).
Since the ACS is a survey of a sample, the results are estimates. The ACS releases a margin of error along with the estimate. Users can add and subtract the margin of error value from the estimate to find the top and bottom of the range within which the ACS is 90 percent confident in their estimate lies. Refer to the2010 city table for margins of error.
Changes among years may not be statistically significant. Be cautious when drawing conclusions based on one year changes. Look at the trend over a number of years.
The numbers reported here are for the “principal city,” not the larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
UPDATE: A note of caution from the US Census Bureau: ”The 2009 ACS and 2010 ACS 1-year estimates use different Census base years for the population estimates used in the ACS weighting. Estimates of population size are not comparable between 2009 and 2010. Estimates of percent distributions, rates, and ratios should be compared with caution. For more details, visit the ACS Research Note Change in Population Controls [PDF 366K].” The Bureau is urging users to use caution in interpreting the results, but not suggesting that users avoid comparisons all together.
For detailed questions about methodology, contact the American Community Survey Office at 301-763-9810.
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.
Hard on the heels of a failed move in the US Senate to strip transportation enhancement funding out of the transportation bill, opponents of the program are now trying a new tack: claiming that bridges are falling down because of the funds diverted to “bike paths” and other beautification projects. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has suggested that enhancement funds – the primary source of Federal funding for bicycling and walking infrastructure – be siphoned off to bridge repair, in part because one key Ohio River bridge in Kentucky is in need of repair and the state transportation agency “doesn’t have the money” to do the repairs.
If this sounds familiar, it is. You may remember some of the same rhetoric surfaced around the time of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, including a statement from then-Transportation Secretary Mary Peters that she later retracted. The arguments being used by Senator Paul don’t improve with age or re-telling and still make no sense. Here are a few of the reasons why:
Safety: Thirteen people died when the Minneapolis bridge collapsed in 2007: since then, close to 20,000 pedestrians and 2,800 cyclists have died on our nation’s highways, largely as a result of poor highway design and an historic lack of safe non-motorized infrastructure – exactly what the enhancement program was created to fix. No bridges have collapsed since 2007.
Fix it First: Between six and ten percent of Kentucky bridges are classified as “structurally deficient” – yet for every dollar Kentucky has spent in recent years on bridge repair, they have spent $6.50 building new roadway capacity; they spent 77% of their stimulus funds on new capacity rather than fixing existing bridges and roadways – the fourth worst record in the nation.
Use it or Lose It: Kentucky isn’t even spending all the Federal transportation money they have already been given for bridges on bridges: in fact, earlier this year they sent $6.9 million of unspent bridge funds BACK TO WASHINGTON DC. They are not alone: nationwide, more than $534 million of unused bridge funds were sent back to Washington DC by state Departments of Transportation.
A Question of Scale: Kentucky has four massive bridge & highway projects in its “transportation improvement program” each one costing between $1.5bn and $4.1bn. The transportation enhancement program for all 50 states is around $900m annually of which bike/ped projects are typically half. This means the entire nation’s primary source of bike and pedestrian program funding for the next 20 years would have to be diverted to rebuild four bridges in Kentucky…bridges that aren’t actually structurally deficient, they are “functionally obsolete”, which means they aren’t as big and wide as the highway lobby wants them to be.
Senator Paul should be a little more skeptical of the rhetoric of many of our state’s highway agencies when they plead poverty, warn of imminent bridge collapse, and complain about “their” funds being taken from them. In far too many cases, state departments of transportation are spending vast sums of public money on the wrong projects in the wrong places for all the wrong reasons. That’s one reason why they often struggle to get approval for projects that take so long to implement – they are still trying to build a 1950s-style highway system long after the sell-by date.
As his Senate colleagues were reminded just a couple of weeks ago, the enhancements program is popular, successful, heavily over-subscribed, and is creating the kind of infrastructure improvements and choices in communities that people want more of, not less.
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.
For the third year in a row, data released by the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey show that more than half of one percent of American workers use a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation to work. While this number represents nearly 40 percent growth since 2000, it also shows that we still have a lot of work to do in making our communities truly welcoming to bicyclists.
Updated with graph:
Kate Powlison at Bikes Belong put together this very attractive graph using the data to show the growth of bike commuting since 2000 in the largest Bicycle Friendly Communities, non-BFCs, and the national rate.
A look at the country’s 70 largest cities shows that the communities that have done the most to promote bicycling through engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation – determined by the League’s Bicycle Friendly America program – have seen greater increases in bike commuting over the past decade than non-Bicycle Friendly Communities.
Since 2005, the 38 Bicycle Friendly Communities among the 70 largest cities saw a 95 percent average increase in bicycle commuting. In contrast, the 32 non-Bicycle Friendly Communities (among the largest 70) grew 46 percent. Since 2000, large Bicycle Friendly Communities grew 78 percent, compared to 55 percent for large non-BFCs.
You can see the variations on the year-by-year table of bike commuting levels for the 70 largest US cities, but overall the general and the specific city trends are upward.
The ACS asks only about commuting. It does not tell us about bicycling for non-work purposes.
Results are based on a survey of a sample of the population. Surveys take place throughout the year. The journey to work question asks respondents about the previous week.
The journey to work question asks about the primary mode of transportation to work. The wording of the question undercounts the actual amount of bike commuting that occurs. It does not count people who rode once or twice a week or people who bike to transit (if the transit leg is longer than the bike leg).
Since the ACS is a survey of a sample, the results are estimates. The ACS releases a margin of error along with the estimate. Users can add and subtract the margin of error value from the estimate to find the top and bottom of the range within which the ACS is 90 percent confident in their estimate lies. Refer to the 2010 city table for margins of error.
Changes among years may not be statistically significant. Be cautious when drawing conclusions based on one year changes. Look at the trend over a number of years.
The numbers reported here are for the “principal city,” not the larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
UPDATE: A note of caution from the US Census Bureau: ”The 2009 ACS and 2010 ACS 1-year estimates use different Census base years for the population estimates used in the ACS weighting. Estimates of population size are not comparable between 2009 and 2010. Estimates of percent distributions, rates, and ratios should be compared with caution. For more details, visit the ACS Research Note Change in Population Controls [PDF 366K].” The Bureau is urging users to use caution in interpreting the results, but not suggesting that users avoid comparisons all together.
For detailed questions about methodology, contact the American Community Survey Office at 301-763-9810.
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.
Today we have sent a national alert asking you to call, e-mail or fax your Senators and ask them to protect funding for critical and popular bicycling and walking programs – please take a moment to do this if you haven’t already.
The good news is that we understand leaders of the House and Senate have agreed on a six-month “clean” extension of the current transportation programs that would preserve the transportation enhancements and other key funding programs for bicycling and walking infrastructure. That will give them six months to continue their work on writing a new transportation program for the longer term. We do not have to take action on the House side as we expect the House to pass it out.
The bad news is that Senator Coburn (R-OK) is still planning on introducing an amendment to strip the enhancements program from the otherwise clean extension. This is no idle threat. Two years ago a similar effort by Coburn was defeated by 59-39 and it’s a very different Congress today than it was in 2009. The additional reality is that if Coburn decides to pick this one issue on which to filibuster – and there’s every reason to believe he will – we will need not just a majority but a super majority of 60 Senators to vote to end a filibuster. That’s a real challenge on almost any issue these days.
So we need to take this threat seriously and contact our Senators today. The ask is pretty simple – “please support a clean extension to current transportation funding and please support continued dedicated funding for bicycling and walking programs in the next transportation authorization.” (Until we see the specific wording we won’t know whether we are asking for a vote for or against his amendment – last time the wording was such that a “no” vote was a vote “for” the enhancements programs.) Let’s send a strong and unmistakable message to Congress that investing in a smart, sustainable transportation system for the 21st century, one that offers choice and safety for all, includes dedicated funding for bicycling and walking.
The blog post from last week (read it for more details on the debate in Congress) went viral. We’ve sen an impressive response to the advocacy alert already. Thank you to all those would acted then. Please continue to spread the word to other supporters of bicycling and transportation options. Have you made the I Bike. I Vote. graphic your facebook picture yet?
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.
For sometime we’ve been concerned about the proliferation of rumble strips on shoulders that either don’t need them or that do not have at least 4 feet of remaining shoulder space for safe cycling. Last year we wrote a report on rumble strips for advocates. We’ve been partnering with the Adventure Cycling Association and the Alliance for Biking & Walking to work with state DOTs and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to curb excessive rumble strip use.
We were extremely perturbed by FHWA guidance quietly released in May, which set out “much broader” recommendations than in the past. The new FHWA guidance on the installation of both shoulder and centerline rumble strips is significantly worse for bicyclists than the 2001 guidance. The League, the Alliance, and Adventure Cycling submitted specific points that the bicycling community wants added to the guidance.
Cyclist Will Selser rides in the travel lane on US Highway 89 in Montana in order to avoid rumble strips on the shoulder. Photo by Bill Schneider.
Today, Adventure Cycling Executive Director Jim Sayer wrote this update on the partnership’s efforts:
[We] have held lengthy meetings with FHWA’s director of safety and technology, Michael Griffith, plus many of his staff and also officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
At our most recent meeting, we were pleasantly surprised by what we heard. Rather than stonewall us, Mr. Griffith and his staff walked though our litany of concerns, in detail, and acknowledged that they could do better. They shared with us many specific and extensive changes to the TA that they are now considering and hope to move on in the next couple of months. In particular, they are working to improve the language as it relates to the needs of bicyclists and other non-automotive road users, and also the guidance on effective public participation before rumbles are applied. Also, as a good faith measure, FHWA has suspended webinars that it was going to conduct on the new TA until the language is redone.
We agree with Jim’s advice for in the meantime: be on the look out for bad rumble stripping practices and let your transportation agency know that modified guidance is on the way.
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.
Health and bicycling advocates are teaming up to fight a battle that will determine whether an Interstate-90 bridge connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin will accommodate cyclists for the next 100 years or be a barrier. Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota (BikeMN), Active Living LaCrescent (ALL) and Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin have worked hard to get Complete Streets policies passed. Now the policies are being put to the test.
The Interstate 90 Dresbach Bridge — connecting LaCrescent, Minnesota and LaCrosse, Wisconsin over the Mississippi River — is being replaced with a bridge that has a 100-year design life. Currently, that design does not include bicycle pedestrian accommodations, even though both states have Complete Streets policies and bike-ped accommodations are included in the LaCrosse area 2035 Transportation Plan.
Local and state advocates have already taken successful action. Working with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), advocates forced the Minnesota Department of Transportation to reexamine bicycle pedestrian accommodation on the bridge. Advocates now have five weeks to convince MnDOT to include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on the Interstate Bridge and work with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to create a plan that connects the bridge to the three popular Wisconsin trails.
The stakes are certainly high. If transportation officials don’t include bike-ped accommodations now, ” there will be no bicycle pedestrian connections across the Mississippi River at Dresbach for the next 100 years,” says Nick Mason, Education and Technical Assistance Program Manager for BikeMN.
Advocacy Advance is a dynamic partnership of the Alliance and the League of American Bicyclists aimed at dramatically increasing funding for biking and walking projects and programs.
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
Aiken, S.C. A truck, driven by Daniel Johnson, collided with the group and injured four cyclists and tragically left one other, Dr. Matthew Burke, critically injured with severe head trauma. After 128 days in a coma on life support, Dr. Burke passed away on February 6, 2011. The Palmetto Cycling Coalition and South Carolina cycling attorney Peter Wilborn worked on the case, and Johnson was 
Subscribe
