The League was just added as a beneficiary of Climate Ride — but there are only 20 spots left. Register for Climate Ride to raise money to support the League and take the ride of your life for five days in Northern California!
You’re invited to join us on Climate Ride, an incredible 5-day bicycle ride in Northern California and the best part is that you can help the League of American Bicyclists while you’re doing it! For the first time, we’re recruiting members for our new Team Bike League on this year’s California ride, and you can be part of the fun and raise funds for the League of American Bicyclists at the same time.
Climate Ride is an amazing journey and ‘green conference on wheels’ where people who care about a clean and green future for our nation pedal the stunning California coast together to make a difference. The event is a 5-day, fully-supported bicycle ride from Fortuna to San Francisco under towering redwoods, through the Russian River Wine Country, and along the Pacific Coast Bicycle Route – one of the most scenic coastlines in the world. Climate Ride also features nightly speakers who focus on bicycle advocacy, sustainability, and renewable energy.
Everyone who has participated in Climate Ride raves about the tour as a ‘life-changing’ and ‘eye-opening’ experience. What is even better is that you can enjoy this great event, while at the same time helping to support the League’s mission. Climate Ride has opened up the beneficiary choices so now you can choose to support the League specifically with your fundraising dollars. If you select us as your beneficiary when you register or join our Team Bike League, we will be the sole recipient of the funds you raise, which means our efforts will gain even more traction in the future.
Registration for Climate Ride California 2011 is $75 (which includes a beautiful jersey and more) and then you raise at least $2400 to participate for the all-inclusive event. The ride is fully-supported by a team of talented leader-hosts, bike mechanics, medics, and massage therapists. Climate Ride is also one of the ‘greenest’ multi-day charity ride events in the world. Riders are asked to bring no bottled water (recyclable water bottles will be used, and filtered water will be provided). There is no disposable plate ware or cups, the support vehicles are highly fuel efficient, and every effort is made to recycle and compost materials used on the ride.
When you sign up, you’ll be joining many other people who want to do something to help create a better future for us all. Climate Ride is a great way to get involved and experience an amazing adventure, powered by your own energy. The best bet is to sign up early not only so you have time to fundraise and train, but also because spots fill up!
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 context that framed our Advocacy Advance report on bicycling and Climate Action Plans (PDF) was that strong federal action on climate change was not forthcoming and, as a result, states, cities, and universities were left to take action to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. The logical extension of that was that bicycling advocates would need to work with their own states, cities, and campuses to position bicycling as part of the solution. The report recommended providing funding and bicycle-friendly policies to make it easier to replace car trips with clean trips.
Some people may wonder why local action is needed. Why can’t the federal government act? After all, to be effective, action needs to be coordinated and comprehensive. For those interested in the messy details of legislative sausage-making and why the negotiations over the once-promising “tri-partisan” energy bill proposed by Senators Kerry (D), Lieberman (I), and Graham (R) collapsed, the New Yorker has a published a thorough chronicle of the process. Like most New Yorker articles, this one’s a long one, so get comfortable.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
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.
Climate Action Plans are strategic and comprehensive tools to combat climate change by reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. They are being written and implemented by cities, states, and universities in lieu of aggressive federal action. Bicycling is a convenient, enjoyable, and efficient way to make short trips – 40 percent of all trips in the United States are two miles or less – and it does not emit CO2. As a result, policymakers are increasingly turning to promoting bicycling as a way to meet GHG reduction targets.
Bicycling advocates can help shape Climate Action Plans to include pro‐bicycling policies. Using case studies and examples from existing plans, this report examines: 1. how pro‐bicycling policies have been written into the Climate Action Plans of states, cities, and universities, 2. examples of plans that include bicycling, 3. how bicycling advocates can best support these efforts, and 4. how to ensure that governments follow through on the promises made in their plans.
Bicycling language in Climate Action Plans varies, but here are some key points to advocate for:
VMT and GHG reduction targets – plans should identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction targets to reach GHG reduction targets. They can also include ambitious bicycle mode‐share targets.
Complete the network – plans should call for the prompt completion of the Bicycle Master Plan, if one exists, or the creation and implementation of one, if not. Improvements to inadequate plans should also be called for.
Funding – plans should include increased funding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Design practices – plans should call for Complete Streets policies that require the consideration of the needs of all users, and Smart Growth policies that encourage high‐density and multi‐modal land‐use planning. Some plans include incentives or requirements for new buildings to provide showers and changing facilities and secure bicycle parking.
Experienced advocates and climate planning experts recommend that advocates follow these steps:
The process – Know what the public input process is; offer your advice as an expert
The people – Know who is writing the plan; build relationships with the officials
The plan – Contribute ideas, especially existing, well thought‐out ones with quantifiable results
The public – Conduct outreach and build support for the plan
The product – Use the plan to make things happen; integrate the plan into the operating culture of the agency
Read the full report for much more detail and case studies of bicycling advocates who have helped improve their Climate Action Plans.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
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.
I am currently researching ways that bicycling advocacy groups can organize to get strong bicycling language into the Climate Action Plans of states, cities, and universities to reduce Green House Gas emissions (suggestions/expertise welcome). So it was timely that I was just sent a blog post by Steven Miller of Boston’s LivableStreets Alliance on the topic of environmentally friendly transportation planning.
Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) launched an initiative called GreenDOT to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; promote the healthy transportation options of walking, bicycling, and public transit; and support smart growth development. Among other things that package of efforts reaffirms the MassDOT Complete Streets policy.
Stephen wonders, though, how the state’s tight budget will affect GreenDOT ability to realize its ambitious goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2 million tons by 2020. He offers five low-cost steps for MassDOT to consider:
Analyze all current and pending projects for their contribution to achievement of the three goals; stop or scale back those with a negative impact.
Revamp membership and procedures of the MPOs so that funding decisions are shaped by the three goals.
Build-in more public oversight and muscle to keep the government on track.
Move Beyond the “Highway Design Guide’s” Flexibility To Require Prioritization of Environmental, Walking, Bicycling, and Transit Facilities.
Refocus on Small, Local Projects and Programs To Continue Progress Despite the Continuing Fiscal Constraints.
Sounds like a good start. For more on these recommendations, read the whole post.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
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 surface transportation system in the United States is financed in large part by the gasoline tax, though for years the tax has been insufficient to cover the costs of the entire system. Still, the more fuel American drivers consume, the more money goes to the cost of maintaining and expanding our roads, tunnels and bridges, which will cost something in the neighborhood of $500 billion over the next six years. Consuming the same fuel that generates those funds contributes unsustainable levels of Green House Gasses (GHG) into the atmosphere – the transportation sector produces 31 percent of CO2 emissions and is responsible for 70 percent of our country’s oil use — and, as the recent oil spill shows us, can lead to environmental catastrophe. How do you control the carbon that finances the system?
This was the central question at the panel discussion, “Transportation Carbon Fees: Is Kerry-Lieberman the Answer?” hosted by at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Friday. Moderated by the Endowment’s David Burwell and featuring Vicki Arroyo of the Georgetown Climate Center, the panel was notable because it included friendly but candid contributions from John Horsley, the executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO,) and Deron Lovaas, federal transportation policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC,) who was representing Transportation for America.
As David Burwell explains in a Q & A on the Carnegie Endowment site, “the critical element of the legislation is that it puts a price on carbon and thus discourages carbon emissions, which cause global warming.” Two-thirds of all revenues generated by carbon pricing would either be returned to consumers in various ways or help pay down the national debt. Section 1711 of the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with the US Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish GHG reduction goals, assess progress every 6 years, and improve transportation planning models. The transportation sector would receive funding split among the Highway Trust Fund, the TIGER grant program, and a new competitive grant program for state and local GHG reduction plans.
Pick your metaphor
AASHTO’s John Horsley said that he could not support the bill in its current form because it essentially taxed the transportation sector too much and returned too little. In an acknowledged (and exquisite) mixed metaphor, Horsley commented that transportation is being treated as the forgotten step-child, while revenue from the sector was considered a cash cow. If, however, all of the funds from the carbon fee in the transportation sector were returned to the sector the bill would have “no better friend” than AASHTO, Horsley said.
AASHTO is concerned that the carbon fee would “suck all the oxygen from the room” for a needed gas tax to make the Highway Trust Fund solvent. To which NRDC’s Lovaas replied, “There is no oxygen in the room.” Suggesting that the only thing less popular than incumbent elected-officials right now is a gas tax, Lovaas said, “we need a new product, because we’re not making a sale” on a gas tax.
In any event, Lovaas argued, every possible approach for addressing environmental and transportation needs ought to be taken seriously: “we don’t need a silver bullet; we need silver buckshot.”
Gulf spill game changer?
AP Photo/Charlie Riedel
A refrain too often relevant in recent years has been not to let a good crisis go to waste. Though no one was sure of the exact impact of the oil spill on the fate of the American Power Act, there was general agreement that it would highlight the need to address our oil addiction. To illustrate the scale of our current dependence on oil, Lovaas put it this way: every day Americans consume 1,000 times the amount of oil that is being pumped into the gulf.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
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
