Politicycle: Should your senator be booted from the Senate Bike Caucus?

The National Bike Summit, the biggest bicycle lobbying event of the year, kicked off tonight in Washington. This is the 10th summit, and it's the largest on record. Bikes Belong unveiled a new campaign and petition drive, and Google's planning a major announcement tomorrow (most likely the launch of the much anticipated "bike there" feature).

The lobbying frenzy begins on Thursday, so I checked up on whether the members of the Senate Bike Caucus have stood up for cyclists.  Some, such as Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin, have fought hard to make cycling a more viable transportation option over the last few years. Others, such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Orrin Hatch, seem to be bicycle supporters in name only. Here's the full run down:

Kay Bailey Hutchison R-TX 
Voted against the League of American Bicyclists on two key votes and cosponsors zero bicycle-friendly pieces of legislation. Voted against funding the Cash for Clunkers program. Has voted with Republicans 89.1 percent of the time.  Voted against a fringe benefit for bicycle commuters. Her minimal web footprint about bicycling suggests Hutchinson's support of bicycling is superficial.Bottom line: She's done little to support cycling and may well deserve to be booted from the Caucus.

Sherrod Brown D-OH Voted with the League of Americans Bicyclists in two key votes and cosponsors zero pieces of bicycle-friendly legislation. He  voted against requiring the full Senate to consider cap and trade. Has voted with Democrats 97.1 percent of the time. Voted yes on fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted yes on funding Cash for Clunkers. Is pushing hard to include bicycle infrastructure for for a key bridge in Cleveland. Also has a light web footprint. Bottom line: Brown has done some to  help cyclists, but it would help if he cosponsored more bills beneficial to cyclists.

Ben Cardin D-MD 
Voted with the League of American Bicyclists on two key votes and cosponsors three pieces of bicycle-friendly legislation. Has spoken out about the in opposition to America's auto-centric lifestyle. Has voted with Democrats 97.1 percent of the time. Light web footprint. Bottom line: Cardin supports cycling, but he ought to speak out more.  

Susan Collins R-ME
Voted with the League of American Bicyclists on two key votes and cosponsors one bicycle-friendly piece of legislation. Voted yes on the fringe benefit for cyclists.  Voted to fund the Cash for Clunkers program. Voted with Republicans just 62 percent of the time, a low percentage compared to most senators. Light web footprint about bicycling. Bottom line: Collins has been a quiet supporter of bicycling, though she could do much more to convince many of her Republican colleagues that cyclists deserve a seat at the table.  

Christopher Dodd D-CT 
Voted with the League of American Bicyclists on two key votes and cosponsors two bicycle friendly pieces of legislation. Voted against requiring that the Senate consider cap and trade. Voted for the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted yes on funding Cash for Clunkers. Has voted with Democrats 98 percent of the time. Has vowed to pass the Livable Communities Act. Has argued that bikes belong on trains. However, he plans to retire soon. Bottom line: You won't catch Dodd out riding, but he values the role bicycles can play in our transportation system. It's unfortunate that he's on the way out. 

Richard Durbin D-IL 
Voted with the League of American Bicyclists on two key votes and cosponsors one bicycle friendly pieces of legislation. Voted against requiring that the Senate consider cap and trade. Voted for the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted yes on funding Cash for Clunkers. Has voted with Democrats 97.3 percent of the time. Defended bicycling as a form of transportation when Senator Coburn charged it was only a form of recreation. Earmarked some $2,850,000 for bicycle improvements in Illinois in 2009. Proposed a bill, S.808, to encourage bicycling. Bottom line: Durbin is one of the most dedicated and vocal supporters of bicycling in the Senate. Thank him.  

Orrin Hatch R-UT 
Voted against the League of American Bicyclists on two key votes and cosponsors zero bicycle-friendly pieces of legislation. Voted for requiring that the Senate consider cap and trade. Votedagainst the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted against funding Cash for Clunkers. Has voted with Republicans 86.1 percent of the time. Has a minimal web footprint suggesting he supports bicycles.Bottom line: Hatch appears to be a bicycle supporter in name only.  

Maria Cantwell D-WA 
Voted with the League of American Bicyclists on two key votes and cosponsors zero pieces of bicycle-friendly legislation. Voted for requiring the full Senate to vote on cap and trade. Voted for the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted yes on funding Cash for Clunkers. Has voted with Democrats 94.2 percent of the time. Was an early supporter of the Bicycle Commuter Act. Light web footprint about bicycling. Bottom line: Supports cycling in some ways, but why isn't she a cosponsor of more bills?

Daniel Inouye D-H
Voted with the League of American Bicyclists on two key votes and sponsors zero pieces of bicycles friendly legislation.  Voted against requiring that the Senate consider cap and trade.  Voted to fund the Cash for Clunkers program. Voted for the bicycle fringe benefit. Minimal web footprint. Bottom line:Inouye should be doing more.

John Kerry D-MA 
Voted with the League of American cyclists on two key votes and cosponsors one bicycle-friendly piece of legislation.  Voted for the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted yes to fund Cash for Clunkers. Votes with his party 97 percent of the time. Enjoys cycling on his $8,000 Serotta Ottrott. Has raced road bikes competitively. Also rides a mountain bike. Bottom line: Kerry's a strong supporter of cycling with first-hand experience in the saddle. 

Robert Menendez D-NJ 
Voted with the League of American cyclists on two key votes and cosponsors three bicycle-friendly piece of legislation. Voted for the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted yes to require the Senate to consider cap and trade. Voted yes to fund Cash for Clunkers. Votes with his party 97.1 percent of the time. Helped get stimulus funds for Camden. Bottom line: A solid supporter of bicycling. It should be interesting to see what this first term senator does in the future.

Bernie Sanders I-VT 
Voted with the League of American cyclists on two key votes and cosponsors three bicycle-friendly piece of legislation. Voted for the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted yes to require the Senate to consider cap and trade. Voted yes on the bicycle fringe benefit. Voted yes to fund Cash for Clunkers.Took a Saturday ride with Senators Schumer and LeHay. Votes with Independents 92.5 percent of the time. Minimal web presence. Bottom line: Sanders is a solid supporter of bicycles, but he's somewhat reticent.

Charles Schumer D-NY 
Voted with the League of American cyclists on two key votes and cosponsors four bicycle-friendly piece of legislation. Voted against requiring the Senate to consider cap and trade. Voted yes on the bicycle fringe benefit. Voted yes to fund Cash for Clunkers. As I've blogged about before, he's a dedicated cyclist that's unusually vocal about his support for cycling. Bottom line:  He's probably the most bicycle-friendly senator in office.

Olympia Snowe R-ME 
Voted with the League of American cyclists on two key votes and cosponsors one bicycle-friendly piece of legislation. Voted for the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted for requiring the Senate to consider cap and trade. Voted yes on funding Cash for Clunkers. Has chaired the Senate Bike Caucus since 2008. Minimal web footprint.  Bottom line: For a co-chair of the Senate Bike Caucus, Snowe has been remarkably quiet. 

Ron Wyden D-OR
Voted with the League of American cyclists on two key votes and cosponsors two bicycle-friendly piece of legislation. Voted for the fringe benefit for cyclists. Voted against requiring the Senate to consider cap and trade. Voted yes on funding Cash for Clunkers. Spoke to cyclists on Bike to Work Day in Washington. Introduced the Bicycle Commuters Act.  Has voted with Democratic colleagues 97.1 percent of the time. Bottom line: Wyden is a reliable supporter of bicycles, though that's to be expected since he hails from Oregon. 

Mayor's London cycle safety plan published

Plans to improve cycling in the capital have been unveiled by the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL).

Mayor of London Boris Johnson said his Cycle Safety Action Plan would investigate the main factors in bicycle accidents and find ways to reduce them.

The initiative coincides with the launch of a bicycle safety advertising campaign, which urges to drivers to look out for cyclists.

Mr Johnson said 2010 was "London's year of cycling".

He added: "We are working tirelessly with the police, cycling industry, safety groups, freight operators and more to ensure it can be enjoyed by everyone from seasoned commuters through to those taking up cycling for the first time."

Tfl has already distributed 20,000 cycle safety mirrors to freight companies operating in London to try to cut down on the number of collisions between cyclists and heavy goods vehicles.

Bike There

ITS HERE AT LAST CHECK IT OUT!!!


It even list all of the city bike routes and greenways. Thanks google

Huntsville City Councilwoman Sandra Moon won't seek re-election to a fourth term

So that's 3 City Council Seats up for grab. We need to get some "active" people elected. Bill Kling and Mark Russell seats are up as well.

HUNTSVILLE, AL -- Sandra Moon announced Monday that she will not seek re-election to a fourth term as southeast Huntsville's City Council member.

Moon, 63, said she is retiring from politics because she needs some "down time" after 12 years in office. She informed Mayor Tommy Battle of her decision Friday, then announced it to city department heads Monday morning. read more here

BASC Meeting Wednesday night 5pm

What: BASC Meeting

When: Wednesday, 10-March, 2010 at 5:00pm

Where: 308 Fountain Circle (in GIS/Zoning Building meeting room)

Ride the St. Patrick's Day Parade!!!!!!

If this does not make you want to come out and celebrate St. Paddy's day with us then, I don't know what top say about you people.

March 17th 10:30 am @ monroe and spragins for staging, then we start at 11:30am.

Come on out !!!!!

Do Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Promote Walking & Bicycling?

By Dom Nozzi

 Quite commonly, we are told that sidewalks and bike lanes will induce more people to walk and bicycle.

However, in my experience (and note that I am referring strictly to utilitarian/commute walking/biking, and not recreational), sidewalks and bike lanes don’t seem to induce a meaningful number of utilitarian trips by pedestrians or bicyclists — particularly in suburbia.

Why?

In my opinion, it is irrational and therefore extremely unlikely that people will opt to walk or bike (even on bike lanes or sidewalks) instead of drive a car, for trips to work or a store or other utilitarian trips. Particularly because, as Donald Shoup so convincingly points out, the free parking spaces that Americans find on nearly all of their car trips are begging people to drive a car.

Another important factor that make bike lanes and sidewalks unlikely to induce new utilitarian bicycle or pedestrian trips are the enormous distances one finds in low-density, single-use suburban settings.

Gainesville FL, where I was a planner for 20 years, had sidewalks and bike lanes everywhere, yet it was VERY rare for me to ever see or hear of someone walking or bicycling for utilitarian purposes (even though we had an enormous number of college students there). In my daily bicycle commuting, I almost always felt that I was one of 3 or 4 bicycle commuters in allegedly bike-friendly Gainesville (where bike lanes and paths are all over the community).

In stark contrast, I have been to communities in both America and Europe (Charleston, Copenhagen, Rome, etc.) where there is an enormous amount of biking and walking. And quite frequently, such places have rather inadequate sidewalks or bike lanes. In my opinion, those places have lots of bicyclists and pedestrians because of their high town center densities, mixed uses, scarce and expensive parking, and short travel distances.

Other examples: Many have observed that in a number of “new urbanist” towns, many continue to drive despite sidewalks and short distances. Or notice that most everyone drives even though their trip is only a few hundred feet in length.

Again, in my opinion, that is largely explained by the abundance of free parking that awaits at the destination.

Too often, I’ve seen elected officials unjustifiably pat themselves on the back for creating a bike-friendly community because they required installation of bike lanes or bike parking. But it was mostly window dressing, because in places like Gainesville, most everyone continued to drive for the reasons I mention above. Politicians are typically unwilling to show the leadership needed to use effective tactics like density, mixed use, efficient parking, etc. Instead, they engage in easy-way-out lip service that buys them votes but doesn’t meaningfully change the community.

In sum, the suburbs are in deep trouble when gas prices go way up again. Their low densities, single-use patterns, and long travel distances means that even with bike lanes and sidewalks, most people will feel obligated to pay a lot more money to buy gas, because the distances are too daunting to walk or bike. Suburbs, to have a future, need to densify or at least create new town centers.

I am in full agreement, despite what I’ve said above, that communities should always require new development to install bike lanes (particularly in suburbia) and sidewalks (particularly in town centers). In fact, I enthusiastically wrote ordinances that Gainesville adopted which required sidewalks for all new development.

I fully agree that people should not be expected to walk on a road due to lack of sidewalks (except, perhaps, in very low-density rural conditions), or be expected to bike without bike lanes (except in low-speed town centers).

If nothing else, such facilities show the community is bike- and ped-friendly. A very important message to send.

It shows that the community respects such people.

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life. Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Effectively Promoting Bicycling, Walking and Transit Use

By Dom Nozzi

 John Pucher has made the point that some of the tactics being used in Germany may seem politically unlikely in car-happy nations such as the US, but these more aggressive, effective policies for growing new bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users become more feasible as transportation problems such as congestion and energy costs become so intolerable “that the majority of voters, and the politicians they elect, are finally willing to do something about them.”

 I am in full agreement with John Pucher, as I note in my book, The Road to Ruin, and in my urban design and presentations. Indeed, I am increasingly convinced that we need to find a way to leverage increased congestion, increased use of priced & scarce car parking, gas tax increases, increased urban densities, increased road dieting, increased traffic calming, and more road pricing if we, in the US, expect to effectively grow the number of bicycle, pedestrian and transit commuters. 

 In other words, by using price and convenience signals.

 Admittedly, these tactics are exceptionally difficult, politically. As a result, we end up only using ineffective tactics (and then getting more cynical when such tactics fail).

 But I remain optimistic that as our transportation and financial problems worsen due to dwindling oil supplies and our on-going auto dependency, that political leadership will emerge (it has been in very scarce supply for several decades, largely due to the lack of sufficiently worrisome crises).

 I am also growing more fond of the idea that by using effective tactics and thereby meaningfully increasing the number of bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users, we will begin to see a virtuous cycle forming. A self-perpetuating loop that provides desirable changes on its own.

 A substantial rise in the cost of gasoline provides an example of a virtuous cycle. As gas costs rise, most motorists seek to make changes that will reduce the rising cost of driving a car. Some may drive less, and walk or bicycle or use transit more. Others will drive more fuel-efficient (and smaller) cars. Or start living closer to their destinations. Not only does this improve household and government finances (due to avoided transportation costs such as car and gasoline purchases, and lower road construction and maintenance costs). It also improves public and environmental health (due to more physical exercise and lower pollution emissions). These changes incrementally induce non-auto transportation improvements. The changes also result in more compact, mixed-use land use patterns. Which induces even more walking, bicycling and transit use.

 And so on.

 Another example is that many in the US don’t bicycle, walk or use transit even though they have reasonably short travel distances. I believe that at least some of that reluctance is due to a perception that non-car travel is unsafe. Or not “hip.” If motorists start seeing growing numbers of their fellow citizens getting around by bicycling, walking or using transit, such travel will seem more “normal” and therefore more desirable for the larger population.

 And that can help recruit more non-car travel. Which further promotes the “safe and hip” perception. Which then recruits even more to ride a bicycle, walk, or take the bus.

 And so on.

 In addition, a larger number of non-car travelers can, I’m convinced, result in dramatic safety improvements (via “safety in numbers,” and all that implies).

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Bicyclist Safety and Recruiting New Bicyclists: Are Bicycle Helmets Counterproductive?

By Dom Nozzi

I joined a bicycling and walking board of directors in 2008 because I was no longer able to tolerate the annual carnage of bicyclists and pedestrians killed on roads throughout the nation. For example, in 2007, 698 bicyclists were killed and 43,000 were injured in traffic crashes in America. That same year, 4,654 pedestrians were killed and 70,000 were injured in traffic crashes.

I joined the board because I am impatient with how bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations have muddled along without showing any meaningful progress with regard to their two prime objectives: Growing the number of bicyclists and pedestrians, and dramatically improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

I joined the board because I presume that bicycling and walking organizations are interested in showing the courage, wisdom and leadership to break out of this unfortunate pattern of having very little to show for its efforts to grow bicyclists and pedestrians, or improve their safety. To take measures that are effective in achieving larger numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians, and substantially improving their safety.

With that introduction to what I have to say below, I humbly suggest the following recommendations:

read more here 

New Poll

Do you think the administration of HSV cares about biking? Yes, very much so. I am so pleased with all their work. Mostly, a huge step in the right direction 50-50, I’m torn. No very little Not at all View Results Make your own poll

Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia Wins $23 Million for Trails

By Chanda Causer on February 23, 2010


The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) worked with six counties and agencies in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to secure $23 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant Program.

This multi-jurisdictional project, called Generating Recovery by Enhancing Active Transportation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (GREAT-PA/NJ), will help complete a network of biking and walking trails throughout the region, focused on connections to urban hubs in Philadelphia and Camden. The Bicycle Coalition and PEC assembled the proposal along with Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities and Mayor Nutter’s Metropolitan Caucus. The proposal received letters of support from more than 52 elected officials, institutions and non-profit organizations, including all four senators and eight members of congress in the region.

For more info visit the BCGP blog.

Boston’s Future Lies In Moving Away From The Car

People will sometimes ask me, “Why do you hate cars so much?” The truth is I don’t hate cars. They are useful to some people (delivery trucks, people with disabilities). The car itself is not the problem, it is what happens to society when everyone owns a car that is the problem. Cars are simply a representation of two real problems.

1. The burning of gasoline for transportation.

2. The idea that a car = freedom.

Burning Gas For Fuel:

It has been calculated that if every car in America was suddenly an electric vehicle, and we burned nothing but coal to produce the electricity to power those cars, we would still reduce the amount of co2 that we pump into the air. This is mostly due to the fact that an electric motor is about 90% efficient, and the internal combustion engine is about 20% efficient. So it would be fair to say that “I am not against cars, I am against internal combustion engines.”

The current gas powered paradigm requires a never ending supply of gasoline (war for oil anyone?). It’s dirty, its limited (there is only so much oil in the world, and when its gone, its gone), and there is the nagging problem of global warming. So one big step forward would be to stop using gasoline powered cars, but that wont be enough. Even if all the cars ran on electricity, and all that electricity came from renewable sources (wind, solar, etc.) and we never had to worry about global warming, or wars for oil, or pollution from burning oil, we would still have a big big problem.

Cars = Freedom:

Human beings have evolved over the eons to favor things that make thier lives easy, and shy away from those that make them hard. We are literally wired to enjoy things like sugar, fat, and salty foods, mostly because in the stone age we could never get enough of these foods so evolution wired our brains to search out these “easy” sources of calories. We use our big ol’ frontal lobes to come up with all sorts of ideas to make our lives easy. Farming, domestication of animals, automation, computers, cars…the list goes on and on. Evolution rewards (to a point) those humans that were able to “live the good life” by getting enough food and shelter, because those people had the most kids.

Cars (and more importantly car companies) tap right into that part of us that is seeking out the easier way. Why walk for weekss when you can get in your car and drive there in a day? Why ride your bike for days when you can drive your car there in a couple hours? Why walk for an hour to the store, when you can drive in a couple minutes? And you wonder why there is an obesity crisis?

People are not lazy per-say, they are simply falling victim to the wiring in their head. People don’t get fat because they eat too much, they get fat because we live in a modern world of plenty, but their brains are identical to the stone age hunters that had a very hard time getting food. Their brains tell them to eat lots of salty, sugary, fatty foods, and their bodies are designed to store that up for the hard times, they simply had the bad luck to live in a world FULL of these kinds of food. They suffer from a common problem in modern world, our brains and bodies are not set up for the modern world we have created.

The car culture feeds into that trap. It allows us if we so choose to spend our whole lives without walking a significant distance promoting obesity, and weakness. It allows (and encourages) the development of suburbs, and exurbs, and whatever comes after that, that destroy communities and encourage loneliness. It encases us in a little metal shell that promotes road rage (you don’t feel so bad about honking at the anonymous person in the other car, but would never act that way in an elevator). These are the kinds of things they don’t talk about in car commercials.

Even if you throw out all the physical and psychological negative effects on the human body you are still forced to contend with the fact that cars take up a lot of space. Much of the area in a modern city is dedicated to roads and car parking. Much of that land was taken from things like parks, sidewalks, green space, etc. Putting one person in one car, and then doing that a couple thousand times and your nice wide four lane roads suddenly don’t seem large enough anymore. Lets tear down some buildings and build more roads! Then people see the “ease” at which you can get around, so a couple hundred more people buy cars, and low and behold your 8 lane highway isn’t big enough anymore. Lets try a 16 lane highway! Damn that filled up too, better go with 32! Before long you end up with something like this.

Cars are sold as a luxury, as a path to freedom, to something that will make your life better! But in reality you can’t democratize a luxury. What I mean, is that not everyone can have a luxury item, or else it stops being a luxury and starts being a necessity. Cars are no longer a luxury in many places of this country, in a lot of places if you don’t have a car, you can’t get to the store, or to your job, or to school. Our cities have been designed in a such a horrible way that some people are forced to spend a large part of their work week earning enough money to power the car that gets them to work. Yet car commercials still show a lone traveler speeding through the empty city streets without a hint of traffic in sight.

In short, it’s a lie. The car companies sell freedom and mobility, but in fact offer only gridlock, poor land use, health problems, and global warming.

So what?

So what are we to do? If the “one car one person”, model has failed so fully what do we do to reverse it? The answer is simple, but is going to require a lot of effort. We need to stop designing our lives around cars. That means everything from removing on-street parking, building larger sidewalks, making people pay more for parking, building dense cities, providing good public transportation, and getting more people to ride bikes!

If Boston were to take seriously the idea of building a city based around what people need, and not what cars need, it would be a radically different place. Imagine for a second if the T reached every neighborhood, if there was a series of well designed bus routes that connected the places that the MBTA didn’t go. Imagine a system of bike lanes and bike paths that allowed you to get all over town quickly and stress free. Imagine if sidewalks were large and offered lots of space for people to walk and business to have on-street offerings. Imagine the benefits in health (air quality, obesity rates, asthma, cancer, deaths from car crashes). That is only the start, it would also have political implications (foreign policy regarding oil), ecological implications (sea level rise is hard on a city build mostly on landfill).

I would love to live in a city like that. That’s the kind of city you would want to raise a kid in, the kind of place you would want to open a business in. The kind of quiet green place filled with healthy people living close together to encourage community. The kind of place that Boston must become, because the alternative is simply too horrible to contemplate.