The Des Moines Register's Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI) is a major event in Iowa promoting cycling. A new study says those types of investments are paying big returns in this rural state. Photo: RAGBRAI

That’s not all. According to the study, about $74 million in health care costs are saved in Iowa annually thanks to recreational cycling activity. Commuter cyclists prevent another $13 million in avoidable healthcare spending.

In addition, about $21 million in sales tax revenues are generated for Iowa through the cycling industry, the study found.

Wow. Even the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, sponsors of the study, were surprised by just how much money cycling brings to this sparsely populated, rural state.

“The return on investment was much larger than expected,” said Mark Wyatt, executive director of the organization.

Iowa spent about $3 million on trails last year and is planning to spend about $2.5 million this year. But the Iowa Bicycling coalition is pushing for the full $3 million.

It’s needed, according to the study. Researchers found that 66 percent of Iowans would bicycle more if there were better facilities. That could have a big impact on the 67 percent of Iowa’s adults who are overweight or obese.

“We know a lot of Iowans have bicycles, but may not have ridden them in some time,” said Wyatt. “More opportunities for Iowans to bicycle will help Iowa become the healthiest state.”

During a profile of Eric Cantor this week, 60 Minutes showed the House Majority Leader enjoying a bike ride. Source: 60 Minutes

Eric Cantor, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that 60 Minutes forced you to pose for this shot.

Because, Mr. Majority Leader, it seems a little hypocritical that a person who has worked so hard to keep others from biking would enjoy it himself.

To figure out whether you mounted this bike out of your own free will, I tried to Google “Eric Cantor bicycle” but mostly got links to news stories about all your attempts to kill bicycle funding. Like when you blamed bike-share for overruns on the Highway Trust Fund. Or when you slammed the tiny speck of stimulus spending that went toward bike infrastructure (which is proven to be a better job-creator than road-building, by the way). Or when you put Safe Routes to School funding up for a vote on your YouCut website – a pretty cold-hearted move, you must admit, Mr. Majority Leader. Really, you want to take away safety funding for children? That’s going to close the deficit gap?

And then there was the time you pretended to find a “compromise” position on infrastructure funding that consisted of killing the 1.5 percent “set-aside” (though you called it 10 percent, you sly dog you) for bicycle and pedestrian projects (and a whole bunch of other things too). The media, by and large, went right along with your rhetoric about holding out some sort of olive branch to the president. Nice job controlling the message, sir.

Anyway, it’s great to see you out on a lovely Virginia day, enjoying a healthy way to get around and getting your legs pumping. Maybe you’ll come on next year’s Congressional Bike Ride or join the Congressional Bike Caucus?

Hat tip to Murph at the Holier Than Thou Blog and Richard Masoner at Cyclelicious. 

On our walk down the memory lane of 2011 so far, we’ve talked about some downers, some inspirations, some triumphs, and some struggles. Check out our first two installments of year-end Streetsie award nostalgia. Here’s some more.

Best Obama Plan That Died a Slow and Horrible Death This Year: How to choose, when there were so many? The president laid out a big, bold, ambitious transportation plan for the next six years but then stayed mum on the all-important question of how to fund it, and so, predictably, it died. His American Jobs Act included $50 billion for infrastructure projects, including at least $13 billion for rail and transit. It, too, went nowhere fast.

Obama's high-speed rail plans took a fast train to nowhere. Photo: America 2050

That wasn’t Obama’s fault, but if you’re looking for a reason to be angry at him, look no further than the ozone pollution rules the EPA was going to strengthen. The president froze at the last minute and decided to hold off another couple years, to give the economy a chance to recover (or business interests a chance to vote for him). The new ozone standard would have saved an estimated 12,000 lives and made transportation reforms essential.

But who could blame the 47 percent of you who awarded the Streetsie for saddest death of an Obama program to high-speed rail? Congress takes every opportunity to yank money away from the program, three Republican governors have very publicly thumbed their noses at federal funds, and the only true high-speed rail line with the potential to be truly transformative is in deep doo-doo in California. So much for 80 percent access in 25 years.

Non-Presidential Vices: Yes, we had our share of letdowns from President Obama this year. But not all our disappointments were related to him. We were also bummed to see plans scrapped for the Woodward Light Rail line in Detroit, and the failure of the Seattle car tab fee, which would have gone to transit, bike/ped and road maintenance. And certainly we were disappointed that the Senate transportation bill, in the end, didn’t keep dedicated funding for bike/ped. But the Streetsie for the biggest letdown has to go to the bait-and-switch the House Republicans pulled about funding their transportation plan.

It was simple enough when they were threatening to cut spending by a third so as not to overspend Highway Trust Fund receipts. Just about everyone hated the idea. But then the GOP said they’d match current levels and it seemed the best of both worlds – reasonable spending levels and a longer-term bill than the Senate was offering.

Hallelujah! So what’s the catch?

Turns out the catch was that it would be funded with oil drilling revenues. Even if it passed, the revenues would be too low and come too late to really pay for the bill, experts agreed. And of course, it would never pass anyway. Republicans have been making absolutely everything an excuse to try to pass oil-expansion legislation lately, and they have to know that the Democrats aren’t biting.

After the hard-fought Senate bill passed unanimously out of committee, with both sides making significant concessions so that they could produce a bill with a chance of passage, it was absolutely insulting for the House to produce something so ludicrously partisan. It made it clear, once and for all, that they had no intention of actually bringing a bill to passage this year.

Sen. James Inhofe: Public Enemy Number One. Photo: AP

Walkers’ and Cyclists’ Public Enemy Number One: What a year it’s been for the whimsical dreamers among us who actually believe we can get around on our own two feet – or two wheels – instead of an automobile. All autumn, Republicans lined up to shoot down the tiny amount of federal funding we get to carve out a little bit of safe space on the roadway.

House leaders staged an a-ha moment in September, in which they realized the parties could find consensus on infrastructure spending if they would just eliminate the “set-aside” for Transportation Enhancements. Then a whole parade of senators got in on the act, starting with Tom Coburn’s attempt to block a clean extension of the transportation bill (jeopardizing 80,000 jobs) unless they went along with his diabolical plot to kill TE in its sleep. Then Sen. John McCain tried to cut back on the program.

And Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky took it to a whole new level of kook when he called TE a fund for “turtle tunnels and squirrel sanctuaries and all this craziness.” Ever hear of bicycle commuting, Mr. Paul? It grew by 137 percent between 2008 and 2009 in Lexington. And Louisville is building a 100-mile Louisville Loop for hiking and biking. Just ask your constituents how crazy active transportation funds are.

But you, dear readers, reserved your greatest ire – and the 2011 Streetsie award – for Sen. James Inhofe. He stayed above the fray as his misguided colleagues engaged in their petty little antics because he had the inside track on killing dedicated funding for bike/ped once and for all. After all, the Senate transportation bill wouldn’t go anywhere if he wasn’t on board, and he made it his solemn duty to strip out the hated “set-aside” for Transportation Enhancements. At least he got the numbers right and acknowledged that TE amounted to less than two percent of the transportation program, not 10 percent as his colleagues falsely claimed.

A.J. Nelson, age 4, was killed while crossing the street between a bus stop and his home with his mother and two sisters.

Most Outrageous Attack on Cyclists and Pedestrians: The attacks didn’t all come from Capitol Hill, of course. Parents in Tennessee and Michigan were threatened with child-endangerment charges for letting their kids ride bikes. And even bike-friendly Seattle showed its dark side in 2011 with the astonishing ignorance of its police department. Cops recently berated an injured jogger by calling him names and telling him, “That’s why you drive a car!” And they’re getting tough on pedestrians and cyclists while letting bad driver behavior slide. In 2010, the department issued just 197 tickets to drivers for failing to yield — and 1,570 citations to pedestrians.

But the incident we all have burned into our memories – the one that still haunts us as we walk and ride around our hometowns – is the grievous wrong done to Raquel Nelson, She had to suffer the anguish of losing her four-year-old son to an impaired driver and then the injustice of having the blame fall on her. Cobb County, Georgia, gave a slap on the wrist to the driver and, as far as we can tell, no blame at all to the planners of auto-centric street design that makes tragedies like these inevitable. But the county charged Nelson with vehicular homicide.

It still burns us up – and makes us cry – just to think about it. Seventy-seven percent of you agreed, giving a landslide Streetsie to the prosecutors who saw fit to charge her and the jury – all whites who had never gotten on public transportation in their lives – that convicted her.

Sweet, Sweet Victory: It’s hard to see a silver lining in the whole Raquel Nelson tragedy, but more than a third of you agreed that it gave birth to one of the year’s key victories. Streetsblog caught wind of the Nelson trial once the jury had convicted her, and our coverage sparked national media attention, which led to major petition drives and resulted in a barrage of letters and phone calls to the judge. And when it came time for the judge to give her sentence, she offered a light one – or a new trial. Nelson’s lawyer said “a judge, on her own motion, granting a new trial” was “one of the most shocking things” he’d even seen in a courtroom.

Nelson took the option of a new trial, which has seen a number of delays. We hope the county prosecutors will wise up and drop the charges already, but if not, we’re confident another jury will find a different outcome.

Yesterday, we started our year-end 2011 round-up. We lamented transit cuts in places where transit is more important than ever, cheered the successful ballot initiatives that will fund transportation lifelines, took a moment to explore the nuances of some difficult issues, and called out Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin for some hare-brained ideas about the best way to spend money.

Now we continue with the second installment: What cities shone a little brighter and what cities lost their luster?

Let’s start with the good.

Cities That Led the Way: Bike-share caught on in 2011 like never before. New York City announced a system to dwarf all others, complete with 10,000 bikes. Boston had a great first season. DC and Arlington expanded Capital Bikeshare. Chicago got a TIGER grant to go full-tilt on its system. And bike-share is popping up in places you wouldn’t necessarily expect it – most recently, in Chattanooga, Tennessee. All those cities deserve credit for investing in active transportation options for their residents.

Minneapolis took the Greenway to a more sustainable future. Photo: Micah Taylor / Flickr

Meanwhile, in the DC area, suburban retrofits in White Flint and Tysons Corner started transforming these into urban, transit-rich communities with vibrant daytime and nighttime populations.

And Salt Lake City showed the country how to solve some of the most vexing geographic, political, cultural, and ecological challenges of urbanism. The city got behind a set of growth principles that champion walkability, density, transit options, and land conservation. The city’s new, sustainable developments are wildly popular and incredibly successful at encouraging active transportation.

But it was Minneapolis that stole our hearts this year. The city rocketed to the top of the Bike-Friendliness charts with its Nice Ride bike-share system and its beloved Midtown Greenway, which transformed an old industrial railroad trench into a major cyclist thoroughfare connecting key parts of the city. And that’s not all – Minneapolis has gone through the whole complete streets shopping list, from road diets to bike parking to improved crossings to bike boulevards.

Perhaps even more significantly, the Twin Cities aren’t just tacking some nice cycling amenities onto an otherwise roads-heavy transportation program. They’re actually divesting from road infrastructure, tabling 14 planned highway expansions and improving transit options instead. They’re maximizing existing highways by adding bus lanes and priced shoulder lanes, and they’re investing in transit-oriented development. As one city transportation planner said, “We couldn’t keep going on acting as if we were going to get money to build our way out of congestion.”

Cities That Lagged Behind: We at Streetsblog aren’t shy about calling out state leaders who make bad decisions in favor of sprawl and against smart transportation options. We talked about some of those yesterday (we’re looking at you, Scott Walker). But sometimes it’s not the state but the cities themselves that have a special knack for making bad decisions. And this was a big year for it.

Is this really all you want out of your street life, Dallas? Photo: Texas-Dallas.org

Where to even begin?

St. Louis’ problems didn’t begin this year, but 2011’s Urban Mobility rankings showed just how far that city has to go. Despite having wide-open highways with very little congestion, commute times are among the longest in the country. Why? Because the city is emptying out and the sprawling suburbs just keep on expanding. Sounds like an unsustainable growth plan, huh? Indeed, the metro area grew over the last census, but it’s all because of suburban sprawl. The city lost eight percent of its population.

Houston bet it all on car infrastructure this year, earning itself honorable mention for intentional sprawl. And we expected more from the Portland metro area than highway mega-projects, but the Columbia River Crossing appears to be on its way.

But Dallas really won the day with its bans on everything good about cities. Like shady sidewalk cafés on a hot Texas day. Or any sidewalk cafés at all, it turns out. Or street performances. Or sidewalk vendors. Or – I kid you not – flowers. Once you start banning flowers on the sidewalk you know you’ve gone over to the dark side.

Thanks for all you do to suck the life out of your city, Dallas. Consider yourself Streetsie’d.

Popular Overthrow of Bad Decisions: Whether it’s the city or the state that’s pushing forward unsustainable growth practices, our favorite stories are the good old-fashioned showdowns where good triumphs over stupid.

This $500 million project would have saved the average commuter a scant 36 seconds while decimating rural areas and creating more traffic in Charleston. Photo: Post and Courier

Like in Cincinnati, where the City Council and Ohio Governor John Kasich conspired to kill the streetcar project, but voters at the ballot box kept it alive and TIGER III swooped in with the funds to make it happen. It’s a happy ending on a bruising battle that showed just how far Ohio’s leaders are willing to go to sabotage forward progress (and that they still won’t win).

Charleston, South Carolina, also came back from the brink of a rotten idea when county officials unanimously voted down a highway bypass being pushed on them by SCDOT. The Coastal Conservation League had worked hard educating the public about the negative impacts of a road that would cost half a billion dollars and save half a minute off commute times.

It’s not over yet, though. SCDOT and the state infrastructure bank are still insisting that the county take “Alternative G” instead of the “no build” option the county council opted for in April. The county may be forced to pay back $12 million in spent state funds if it rejects the project in the end.

More Streetsies coming up!

The Cherry Creek trail running from downtown Denver 40 miles out to the suburbs was partially funded by TE grants. Photo: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

TE, which previously received a dedicated 10 percent cut of all Surface Transportation Program funds ($878 million in 2010), will now be competing with Safe Routes to School and the Recreational Trails Program (the other major pots of previously dedicated bike/ped funding) as part of CMAQ-AA, which will be funded at TE’s 2009 level of $833 million. (Note that although TE received 10 percent of all STP funds, it constituted less than two percent of the entire federal transportation program.)

In an even more dramatic shift, bike/ped-averse state governments will be able to opt out of CMAQ-AA altogether. The chart below, which distills a document published by America Bikes [PDF], illustrates the changes, project type by project type:

Running CMAQ Up the Flagpole…

Under the new system, most bicycle and pedestrian projects are still eligible for TE funds. What’s noteworthy are the other categories of projects that are now eligible, or not. Transportation museums are thrown out of the program, while eligibility is expanded for landscaping, environmental mitigation, and scenic and historic bridges. It’s some of those expansions that worry Jesse Prentice-Dunn of the Sierra Club, who told Streetsblog that projects like wetlands management—while obviously important as a matter of environmental stewardship—could squeeze out some bicycle and pedestrian projects. However, he applauds the last-minute decision to remove HOV lanes, another expensive category of projects, from eligibility under CMAQ.

“Overall, we really want this bill to construct a planning and funding process that enables projects to advance on their merit, particularly, in our opinion, [projects] that can reduce dependence on oil,” said Prentice-Dunn. “This bill can be a way to break that addiction.”

Still, he cautioned that any new transportation bill will need to be assessed on the basis of two things. First, funds should continue to be dedicated—or at least reliably disbursed—to non-motorized transportation projects, given the historical bias favoring automobiles. Second, project selection criteria should be altered in order to ensure that non-motorized projects have a shot even without dedicated funding from programs like TE. The changes in the Senate bill, then, signify a step backwards on dedicated funding. There’s no indication that other aspects of the bill would compensate for that setback by establishing criteria that reward investment in active transportation.

…But Who Will Salute?

What would these changes mean for bike/ped projects on the ground or in planning stages? Price Armstrong, program manager for MassBike in Boston, says he can’t overstate how important TE funding has been. Armstrong points out that Massachusetts, ranked ninth among states for bike-friendliness by the League of American Bicyclists, is one of the few states to have adopted a statewide Complete Streets policy. However, the progress in Massachusetts was not accomplished in a vacuum:

Massachusetts has made a lot of progress just over the past five years, partially on its own but significantly thanks to the federal contribution to its bike/ped projects through TE, CMAQ, and Recreational Trails Program dollars. In a cash-strapped environment, even in a bike-friendly state, active transportation projects are the first to get shelved. Since the [U.S.] Senate, which is controlled (barely) by more bike-friendly Democrats, proposed a 20-30 percent reduction in funding, an opt-out clause for states, and increased the competition for the funding, we are extremely concerned.

Armstrong specifically cited the Bay State Greenway as one project currently underway that could suffer substantial setbacks as a result of the changes to TE. Such difficulties are likely to beset the larger projects first, according to Dr. Joseph Hacker, the manager of Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian planning at the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission in Philadelphia: “The scale of projects may shift from desire lines on maps [i.e. sweeping statewide visions] to more local initiatives… Advocacy is going to have to change to projects which are possible rather than big picture ‘bicycle highway’ planning.”

Hacker added that while some states may opt to flex all their funds to road projects (Montana or North Dakota), and some metropolitan areas with nascent bike movements could be drowned out by rural interests at the state level (Georgia or Pennsylvania), other states might devote their full share to bicycle funding (Colorado or California).

“A stronger local case is going to have to be made regarding the benefits of new bike/ped projects in order to garner funding,” Hacker said.

The Storm Before The Calm?

The aversion of many states to funding active transportation only makes the job of implementing bike/ped projects that much harder. As one possible immediate adjustment, the League of American Bicyclists’ Darren Flusche suggests, “Advocates should be getting DOTs to fund as many of these projects as possible, as soon as possible, because we still don’t know what the future holds.”

The “increased flexibility” touted by the authors of the Senate bill essentially gives states an easy way to “opt out” of the program. The new provision allows states to drag their feet on spending the money, only to be rewarded for their tardiness by not having to use those funds for their intended purposes. “This could really set the clock back on all of the progress towards a more bicycle-friendly America we’ve made in the past 20 years,” said Flusche.

Flusche says that his organization and others like it will keep the pressure on Congress in the meantime. Their aim will be to convince lawmakers of the value and importance of protecting active transportation projects before MAP-21 becomes the law of the land. Afterward, advocates will shift their focus from Congress to states and local governments, as Flusche and Dr. Hacker predict, with many implications yet unknown.

Philadelphia's bike/ped network was one of four recipients of exclusively bike/ped TIGER grants. (And no, four is not too many.) Photo: Phila. Ped and Bicycle Plan

Did TIGER spend too much money on bicycle and pedestrian programs? That’s the question Larry Ehl at Transportation Issues Daily is asking. After all, Congress appears to be encouraging USDOT to spend TIGER grant money on something — anything — other than bike/ped.

It’s right there in the 2012 transportation appropriation bill, which President Obama signed into law November 18. The TIGER section includes this mandate: “The conferees direct the Secretary to focus on road, transit, rail and port projects.” It doesn’t specifically say anything about bicycles and pedestrians, but reading between the lines, it’s easy to see what they mean. And as Ehl says, it’s a warning for USDOT to “tread lightly, or risk giving TIGER opponents more reasons to eliminate future funding for the program.”

Ehl suggests we “look at the actual numbers” and decide for ourselves:

• TIGER I (Recovery Act) allocated $43,500,000 to two exclusively bike-ped projects.  That was about 3% of the $1,498,000,000 awarded and 4% of the 51 projects.

• TIGER II allocated $25,200,000 to two exclusively bike-ped projects.  That was 4.5% out of the $556,500,000 awarded to capital projects and about 5% of the 42 projects. (TIGER II also awarded $27,500,000 for 33 planning grants.)

Outta the road, cyclist! There's a new law in town. Photo: Picasa/Herbert Crosby

With all due respect to my vehicular-cyclist friends, I’m a big fan of separate facilities for bikes. They keep bicyclists safer and encourage more people to ride, and I know I make a lot fewer risky moves when I’m riding in a lane built for my two wheels and not a two-ton, 200-horsepower steel box.

So I have to admit, my first thought upon seeing the mandatory sidepath provision in the Senate transportation bill was: What’s the big deal? If cyclists have fought hard to get a separated path built in federal land, why shouldn’t we use it?

But the League of American Bicyclists set me straight with their blog post and action alert on the topic. The group says that while many states used to have similar sidepath laws, the idea has fallen out of favor recently, and here’s why:

The problem with the provision is that the restriction applies regardless of the quality, safety, and utility of the path provided; it disregards the needs of cyclists to be on the roadway to access shops, services etc.; and ignores our fundamental right to the road.

Here’s the bill language that has cyclists up in arms:

Section § 203 (d):

BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.

Bike advocates say it doesn’t make sense to say it’s too dangerous to have cyclists on some 30 mph roads, but where there’s no sidepath, sure, no problem! The League worries it’s a slippery slope toward a “paternalistic” attitude of keeping cyclists off all roads above 30 mph “for their own good” — and blaming the victim for accidents.

Plus, the League says, “if the path is any good, you shouldn’t have to force anyone to use it; they will use it voluntarily because it works.” Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. “Our communities are replete with examples of poorly designed, built and maintained paths that are little more than glorified sidewalks,” writes League President Andy Clarke. “Cyclists routinely ignore these shoddy paths because they are dangerous, slow, and out of the way.”

Cyclelicious highlighted the personal safety issues that arise on sidepaths in its post yesterday. It’s certainly an issue in urban areas. The recently-built Metropolitan Branch Trail in DC and Maryland has been rife with crime since it opened. And in Portland, a separated bike path along the I-405 overpass is widely known as the “Ho Chi Minh trail” for its high crime and low lighting.

The Bike League is especially concerned about this mandatory-sidepath provision being enacted in national parks because of an increasingly hostile attitude toward bikes on the part of the National Park Service lately. Advocates have gone up against NPS several times lately over substandard trail design in Olympic National Park, plans to build a trail unnecessarily close to the road in the Tetons, access issues along the Blue Ridge Parkway, event permits in Yellowstone, and a baffling ban on bike-share on the National Mall in DC. A blanket ban on bikes in the roadway in national parks just adds more fuel to that fire.

The League is circulating a petition to try to get the mandatory sidepath rule stripped out of the bill.

Sen. Paul's amendment to divert bike/ped funds to bridge repair failed this morning. Photo: Run Rand Run

Paul continually asserted that the Transportation Enhancements program funds “beautification projects – such as movie theaters, squirrel sanctuaries, turtle tunnels and flower beds,” despite the fact that the program largely funds life-saving and pollution-reducing projects facilitating bicycle use and walking.

Paul had tried to present bike/ped programs and bridge safety as mutually exclusive by trying to shift money from the TE program to bridge repair. Transportation reformers (and mainstream reporters) cut right through that, showing that the money needed to fund bridge repair far outstrips what’s available in the modest TE program — and making the case that increased cycling (and decreased driving) does more to help keep bridges in good shape than this misguided amendment could ever do.

Plus, as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said on the Senate floor, Paul’s amendment could actually prevent some bridges from being fixed.

“The amendment prevents a bridge from being fixed if it is a historic bridge,” said Boxer. “There are thousands of those in this country, including the Brooklyn Bridge.” She also spoke in favor of keeping critical safety funds for bicycling.

Sen. Paul remarked after the vote that he was “disappointed” that his colleagues “failed to see” crumbling bridges, including two major ones in his home state of Kentucky, as a priority. But supporters of biking and walking infrastructure — as well as people who just care about smart funding decisions in Washington — are relieved that senators didn’t fall for the false choice Paul put before them.

Transportation for America will have a vote count online soon, so you can see how your senator voted.

Sen. Rand Paul is trying to strip bike/ped programs out of the federal transportation bill in the name of bridge repair. Photo: Moderate Voice

Then last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested keeping bike/ped money but stripping out lots of other budget items that serve cyclists and pedestrians (as well as everybody else), like streetscaping. He failed too.

And now here comes Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of the kookiest of Congress’s Tea Party-affiliated newcomers, with a brilliant idea to shift all bike/ped funding — and everything else that gets funded through the embattled Transportation Enhancement program — over to bridge repair. Paul characterizes TE as a fund for “turtle tunnels and squirrel sanctuaries and all this craziness.”

Now, we’re all in favor of bridge repair. We agree that the crumbling of our nation’s infrastructure is shameful and dangerous. But really, you’re going to restore bridge safety by cutting bike safety? Get real, Senator.

Paul’s spooky amendment is scheduled for a vote the day after Halloween. It’ll be attached to the Senate transportation appropriations bill, which comes up for a vote that day by the full chamber.

Darren Flusche of the League of American Bicyclists noted in his blog post that Sen. Paul should let the Senate EPW Committee, which has jurisdiction over writing the next transportation bill, do its job. Flusche argues that the committee’s November 9 bill markup “would be the appropriate time to discuss changes to the overall transportation program, not during the appropriations process.”

Transportation for America recently criticized Sen. Paul for his misguided attack on active transportation:

Kentucky doesn’t have more than 1,300 deficient bridges today because they spent a few million dollars making their streets safer for people walking or biking. If Senator Paul’s proposal became law and the 1.5 percent [of transportation funding for bike/ped programs] was directed into bridge repair, it would take Paul’s home state of Kentucky nearly 66 years with those funds to repair of all its bridges that are currently rated as deficient. And that doesn’t even account for the bridges that would be added to the “deficient” list in the years to come. (Kentucky has more than 4,500 bridges over 50 years old. That number could double by 2030.)

Clearly, we need far more money to repair our bridges, but we lack policies that hold states accountable for fixing their bridges. The current federal program has money dedicated for bridge repair, but allows states to divert up to half of that funding to build other more politically-driven projects.

There are ways to address this problem. States like Florida have put in place fiscally responsible policies to take care of what they’ve already built, balancing the need to fix bridges and build new roads. And Florida’s bridges are among the best in the country. Florida has both spent their “enhancement” funds and ensured their bridges are in good shape. Why can’t Kentucky and other states say the same?

Bike-share can bridge the last mile for public transit. Photo: Flickr/Arlington Country

For the transit officials and livability advocates gathered at the Rail~Volution conference this week, that key piece of the journey is known as the Last Mile. Frequent service and affordable fares, on their own, won’t entice people to make that trip. The route to the station also has to appeal to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Every transit trip is a multi-modal journey, pointed out Alan Lehto, director of project planning for TriMet in Portland, at the start of a panel yesterday. “Everybody who rides transit is a pedestrian or cyclist on at least one end of their trip,” Lehto said. “Getting people to and from the station is fundamentally important.”

But that aspect of transit is often overlooked. In fact, look no further than Portland itself, Lehto said. In a recent study, TriMet evaluated all 7,000 bus and transit stations within the region and found major gaps in bike-ped accessibility. “We realized that 1,500 of those don’t even have a sidewalk,” Lehto said.

Ensuring that transit stations are served by adequate pedestrian infrastructure is the bare minimum required to connect people to transit. Making the Last Mile truly appealing takes more than laying down sidewalks and adding a few bike racks.

Tim Stoner, managing director for Space Syntax, an engineering consulting firm in London, put it this way: “I want to talk about the last mile not as a distance, but as a place.” That place doesn’t end at the edge of the bus shelter. Before you can even think about the station itself, Stoner said, you have to think about the area’s connectivity. That starts with a good street grid.

“Human beings prefer simplicity,” Stoner said. Making a route physically safe and visually interesting for pedestrians is great, but even an inviting space can be a deterrent to transit, Stoner suggested, if it means pedestrians are sucked into an awkward or circuitous route.

Whether on foot or by bicycle, traveling to a transit station should be comfortable. Rory Renfro, an associate from Alta Planning + Design, shared his experience designing multi-modal transit plans for several cities in the United Arab Emirates. Whether it’s a small town on the Persian Gulf or a new development in Arizona, the Last Mile should consider “thermal comfort.” Taking temperature into account could mean siting bus stops in shaded areas, encouraging buildings with arcades for pedestrians or even adding climate control to transit shelters.

Accommodating bicycles adds another factor to the equation. But Rob Inerfeld, transportation planning manager for the city of Eugene, Oregon, suggested bicyclists can complement existing transit service and save transit agencies money.

Safe bike routes to transit hubs reduce the need for feeder service, potentially cutting bus costs. More folks bicycling can also relieve pressure on transit service during peak hours. To understand the capacity benefits, look no further than Capital Bikeshare, Inerfeld suggested. According to a CaBi survey, 40 percent of its members reported a reduction in their use of transit. And, with 22 of the district’s metro stops equipped with bike-share stations, CaBi has become a people-powered extension of the transit system itself.

“I think bike-sharing is a really good investment for transit agencies, especially relieving pressure on transit during peak hours,” Inerfeld said. “I haven’t found any examples in the U.S. where a transit agency led in the investment and development, but it would be nice to see more involvement of transit agencies in bike-sharing.”

But what if you want to ride your own bike for that Last Mile to the train stop and leave it there? For Inerfeld, the bottom of the bike parking hierarchy is an outdoor rack — ideally, covered from the elements and placed in highly visible areas to deter theft. The next step up, Inerfeld suggested, are bike lockers — large metal boxes that can be rented by the year or accessed for shorter time frames with a key card. Bike lockers can play an additional role as small-scale billboards, too. “Bike lockers can be advertisements for riding a bike to the station, but, in so many cases, they’re not used to get the word out,” he said.

The top shelf of bicycle accommodation is the full service bike station, like the Bicycle Transit Center at Union Station in D.C. Inside the helmet-shaped glass bubble, there’s parking for 140 bikes, in addition to repair and rental service, lockers and changing rooms. “People can combine biking and transit in all different ways,” Inerfeld said, leaving their bikes overnight or keeping them secure during the day. Already the facility has 200 members and an average of 35 trips per day. But given the $4 million price tag, Inerfeld acknowledged the bike station concept can carry some sticker shock.

Still, if bike stations and bike lockers can tap into evolving technology, they could skyrocket in popularity, as bike-share systems already have. “With bike-share, the technology is no longer getting in the way,” he said. “Bike parking is still operating on the old model; you have to sit on a waiting list to get a locker; the administrator may have no way of knowing how much it’s being used.” But the key card era is just around the corner. Just check out Bike Link, a company that manages bicycle shelters in California, charging users a mere three cents per hour and providing key card access to all its facilities.

Of course, all of these innovations require dollars. The good news for local agencies is that the Federal Transit Administration made a policy change this summer that benefits bike-walk connections. Previously, the FTA allowed funding for biking and walking projects that benefited public transportation facilities if they were located within 1,500 feet of that transit location. Now that distance has been bumped up to a half-mile. So many more Last Mile ideas could be on the table for federal funding.

LaHood's tabletop speech to cyclists, March 2010. Photo: J. Maus / Bike Portland

Now LaHood says that biking and walking is not only good transportation policy; it’s good health care policy.

Speaking at the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s 25th anniversary reception last weekend, LaHood said the rail-trail program “has done more for health care than anything we’ve ever done in America. Rail-trails have contributed so much to people’s good health over the last 25 years — also preventing heart disease, and providing the kinds of opportunities people have looked for, for a long, long time.”

City health departments are getting on board with active transportation, with many health officials promoting biking and walking as a path to good health. Perhaps the innovative partnership between USDOT, EPA, and HUD should make room for Health and Human Services too?

We’ll bring you more of the LaHood-bicycle-lovefest tomorrow, when the secretary publicly endorses the NACTO bike guide, the most bicycle-friendly street-planning guide out there for engineers.

Car ads that try to appeal to the desire for social status are nothing new, but here’s one that just gets it wrong: GM is trying to convince college students that driving a Buick is hipper than riding a fixie.

Nice try, GM. Unfortunately for you, college kids aren’t falling for it. People between the ages of 20 and 40 are driving way less today than people that age drove just 10 years ago.

So, in this picture, who would be the one smiling and who would be the one hiding her face? In the deliciously sarcastic words of Andy Clarke at the League of American Bicyclists:

If you are a student looking to add tens of thousands of dollars of long term debt, care little about the environment, and want to lump two tons of steel around campus while paying through the nose for insurance, gas, and parking… General Motors has got a perfect deal for you. Bonus: it’ll make you fat and unhealthy! All you have to do is give up that dorky bicycle that’s easy to use, practically free, gets you some exercise and is actually fun to ride.

The ad is so wildly off the mark that the League is mostly poking fun at GM’s misperception of the collegiate idea of Cool — but for good measure, they’ve got an action alert in case you want to tell GM just how out of touch its marketing department has become.

In the increasingly heated competition to see who deserves the title of America’s most bike-friendly city, Minneapolis has plenty going for it. Last year Bicycling magazine anointed the city tops in the nation, knocking Portland off its long-held perch.

The Twin Cities are undergoing a steady transformation into a more bike-oriented region thanks to nearly 100 miles of greenways and off-street paths, giving residents safe and quick travel options. By far the best-known of those paths is the 5.7 mile long Midtown Greenway, which connects cyclists to destinations through the heart of Minneapolis, from east to west. As you’ll see, the path isn’t just giving people a great place to bike, walk, and run — it’s attracting development and new businesses as well.

Thanks to the Bikes Belong Foundation for funding this Streetfilm, our third in a series on innovations in Minneapolis.  Check out the Nice Ride MN and Sabo Bridge Streetfilms if you haven’t already!

Though it may seem like bicycling is booming, the data, puzzlingly, says otherwise. Photo: M.V. Jantzen / GGW

“The methodology will always work against us,” said Darren Flusche of the Bike League. The ACS question about commuting goes like this:

How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK? If this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark (X) the box of the one for most of the distance.

“As long as that’s the question, it’s going to undercount cycling,” Flusche said.

After all, someone who rides twice a week doesn’t get counted for any cycling. Someone who bikes to the train station doesn’t get counted. Someone who works too far away to bike but does everything else on two wheels doesn’t get counted.

A somewhat more useful survey is the National Household Travel Survey, but that has only been done twice, with an eight-year gap in between. It counts all trips, not just commuting, but it can’t be broken down geographically.

The .02 percent “drop” in the ACS isn’t statistically significant, but anyone following the huge gains in bicycling over the past couple years would have expected to see a jump, if anything. Major cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington are competing for bike-friendly gold, installing bike lanes, bike corrals, and cycletracks at a dizzying rate. Bike-share systems are proliferating. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declared bikes on an “equal footing” with other modes. Federal funding for bicycling has risen dramatically above what it was just five years ago.

So what gives with the low number?

Flusche emphasizes that we don’t really have to go looking for excuses to justify the dip. After all, in the 70 biggest cities in the U.S., cycling rates held steady. In cities dedicated to improving cycling, rates rose.

And sometimes, you just have to take the long view: Bike commuting is up 39 percent in the U.S. since 2000 – and up 63 percent in the 70 biggest cities. That’s news to celebrate.

John Romeo Alpha at network blog One Speed: GO! did an interesting analysis of the data as well, finding that population density tended to have a proportional effect on bike commuting. He found that Seattle managed to have a high bike mode share without density and New York had high density without correspondingly high mode share, but in general, the 25 most populous cities had cycling rates that corresponded with their mode share.

Source: One Speed GO!

That doesn’t necessarily offer an explanation of the numbers, but it does help illustrate how a city can increase its bicycle mode share. The Bike League also noted that its awarded “Bicycle Friendly Communities” just keep winning over new cyclists, but it’s harder to see year-over-year. Since 2005, “the 38 Bicycle Friendly Communities among the 70 largest cities saw a 95 percent average increase in bicycle commuting” compared to 46 percent growth for the rest of them. Numbers like that put a .02 percent drop, in a survey with questions stacked against cyclists, in perspective.

Harry Reid says nice things about bike lanes. Photo: Office of Harry Reid

From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended [Transportation Enhancements] on grounds that bicycle paths would help Americans consume less gasoline.

“The issue [Coburn] has presented is a little unusual,” said Reid on Thursday morning. “He says that he doesn’t like bicycle paths being part of the highway bill. Well, for most Americans, they are absolutely important. It’s good for purposes of allowing people to travel without burning all the fossil fuel on the highways.”

Reid added that he had taken his morning run in Washington and noticed “scores” of people commuting by bike or foot.

Sen. Boxer has been in rare form as well, standing up to defend federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs. The article quotes her as saying Transportation Enhancements are “about saving lives.” Take that, everybody who belittles TE as “beautification” projects.

Meanwhile, Sen. Coburn’s aides appear concerned that he and Boxer have two different ideas about the deal that was struck yesterday, allowing the bill to pass and the senators to go back home for the weekend instead of staying to fight it out. Next week, we should all have a clearer idea of exactly what is and what isn’t going to be in the final bill (if one is ever passed).

Image: James Yamasaki / The Stranger

Under the headline, “Okay, Fine, It’s War,” Seattle’s weekly newspaper, The Stranger, this week published a manifesto “of and by the nondrivers themselves.” They’re sick of being called “militants” for caring about pedestrian safety, and they’re tired of the specter of a “war on cars.”

We heartily recommend that you read the whole thing, but here are some of our favorite parts. Like this, from the first plank of the manifesto: “The car-driving class must pay its own way!”

For cars we have paved our forests, spanned our lakes, and burrowed under our cities. Yet drivers throw tantrums at the painting of a mere bicycle lane on the street. They balk at the mere suggestion of hiking a car-tab fee, raising the gas tax, or tolling to help pay for their insatiable demands, even as downtrodden transit riders have seen fares rise 80 percent over four years.

No more! We demand that car drivers pay their own way, bearing the full cost of the automobile-petroleum-industrial complex that has depleted our environment, strangled our cities, and drawn our nation into foreign wars. Reinstate the progressive motor vehicle excise tax, hike the gas tax, and toll every freeway, bridge, and neighborhood street until the true cost of driving lies as heavy and noxious as our smog-laden air. Our present system of hidden subsidies is the opiate of the car-driving masses; only when it is totally withdrawn will our road-building addiction finally be broken.

They go on to demand better, more expansive transit, safer streets and sidewalks, and traffic calming. And this:

This antagonism [between car driver and nondriver] traces directly to the creation of the modern car driver, a privileged individual who, as noted, is the beneficiary of a long course of subsidies, tax incentives, and wars for cheap oil. But the same subsidies that created this creature (who now rages about the roads while simultaneously screaming of being a victim in some war) can—and must, beginning now—be used to build bike lanes, sidewalks, light rail, and other benefits to the nondriving classes.

That’s the kind of manifesto we can get on board with.

After the manifesto, The Stranger goes on to report on the rising numbers of crashes between cars and cyclists, the violent anti-bike rhetoric being spewed by car drivers that are the  “victims” of some imagined war on cars, the massive disparity between funding for car infrastructure and everything else, and the heroes of the non-driver, beloved both for their advocacy and their tight asses. Read it, read it all.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has relented on his push to strip Transportation Enhancement funding from the six-month surface transportation extension, clearing the way for Senate passage last night and a White House signature today.

Sen. Barbara Boxer says dedicated funding for bike/ped projects is preserved, though Sen. Coburn appears satisfied that Transportation Enhancements is dead. Photo: AP

In exchange for releasing his stranglehold on the Senate (and the estimated 80,000 workers that could lose their jobs, at least temporarily, if the FAA bill lapsed) Coburn will get to insert his language into the long-term bill, when this latest extension expires.

According to CQ Today, Coburn said, “We’ve got an agreement that the next bill will be an opt-out for people on enhancements.” James Inhofe, the top Republican on the EPW committee which wrote the bill, “seems to have played a key role in brokering the deal,” CQ Today reports.

After the vote, Boxer quibbled with Coburn’s description of what will be in the next highway bill. Boxer said she and Inhofe had worked out “reforms” in the transportation enhancements section of the bill and met with Coburn to discuss them before the deal was worked out.

“We felt he would be pleased with the reforms,” she said. “It gives flexibility, without doing damage to the important programs in there.”

Boxer said Coburn made clear that he was “not going to vote for any more extensions” but allowed the current highway funding extension to move forward. “There’s not an opt-out,” she said. “You’ll see what we did. But no, there’s no opt-out. . . . There’s still dedicated funding. It gives more flexibility to the states as to how they will use that funding… It’s flexibility for the states within the transportation enhancements program.”

Clearly, Boxer is in a tight spot, having to placate some of the most conservative members of the Senate while also satisfying the active transportation advocates, in her state and around the country, who have held her feet to the fire on saving dedicated funds for bike/ped programs.

Sen. Coburn’s staff, meanwhile, is alarmed by Boxer’s comments. With the Senate out of session for the week, Coburn is back in Oklahoma and his aides are conferring with him. “Senator Boxer made an agreement with him to include the opt-out provision,” one staffer told Streetsblog. “The fact that she went on the record saying something that is in opposition to their agreement is concerning.”

Streetsblog could not reach the EPW Committee for comment before this story was posted, but we’ll update it if we hear more about exactly what was decided. It may just be a shuffling around of programs, with the essentials of bike/ped dedicated funding maintained, just in a different form.

Coburn was under intense pressure from senators on both sides of the aisle yesterday who wanted to avoid a weekend session, as well as the partial shutdown of the aviation system and the furlough of thousands of workers.

State DOTs and the transportation construction industry have been urging Congress for two years now to pass a long-term bill to restore some certainty to the business. They say the constant extensions create a chilling effect on new projects. Still, given the looming possibility of no extension at all, they are welcoming the six-month extension at current funding levels.

Voting against the extension last night were some of the most conservative members of the Senate. In addition to Sen. Coburn, Jim DeMint (R-SC), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Pat  Toomey (R-PA).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that if Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn insists on holding up legislation to extend the surface transportation and aviation bills, “we will have about 80,000 people out of work by Saturday.”

Three years after a chunk of concrete falling from a bridge killed a woman in Oklahoma, bridges (like this one) continue to crumble in the state. I guess it was because of the $7 million Oklahoma spent that year on bike/ped.

Although SAFETEA-LU doesn’t expire for another two weeks, the FAA reauthorization expires in two days, and Reid said that if Coburn doesn’t change course, “we cannot get to this bill prior to Friday when the FAA expires.”

But it appears Coburn hates Transportation Enhancement programs enough to cause such consequences. “If we’re going to extend the bill,” he said, “then let’s let states use the money to repair bridges and highways, not build scenic and sound walls and make things look nice.”

Coburn and other TE opponents often deride the program as funding “beautification” (about 13 percent of TE funds) and “transportation museums” (1.5 percent). But bicycle and pedestrian programs constitute 57 percent of TE spending – real transportation programs that improve mobility with positive impacts on the environment and public health.

Coburn is unmoved. “We need to let the states decide how they repair the bridges and highways,” he went on. “Instead of doing what we want them to do, we need to let the states do what they want to do.”

Transportation for America has news for Coburn: “Cutting enhancements is not going to fix Oklahoma’s problems. And it’s not the reason their bridges are in such poor shape.”

Oklahoma ranks second in the nation for most deficient bridges.

Here’s what T4America says:

So what could Oklahoma do if we quit “making” them set aside this small fraction of money to make their streets safer and save lives?

Oklahoma has almost 6,000 deficient bridges (22 percent of all of their bridges, 2nd worst percentage in the country). FHWA estimated in 2009 that they’d need $1.1 billion to repair all of their bridges. Oklahoma got just $16 million in enhancements funding in 2009. At that funding level, it would take almost 68 years of enhancements funding to address their bridge needs. And that’d be assuming that no more bridges end up structurally deficient — unlikely with an average bridge age of 45 years. (That’s 3 years older than national average, with most bridges expected to last about 50 years.)

Devote 100 percent of enhancements to bridge repair and a child born today will be on Social Security before Oklahoma’s bridges are fixed.

As for the idea that no more bridges would fall into disrepair — that’s wishful thinking, especially with Coburn’s counterparts in the House trying to slash transportation funds by a third.

Sen. Tom Coburn. Photo: TPM

When just one senator objects to a “unanimous consent” vote — the quickest way for the body to pass legislation — the leader has to allow for 30 hours of debate. Coburn has an amendment he wants to introduce, and he was concerned that Majority Leader Harry Reid wasn’t going to allow for amendments. Coburn’s action ensures that he will be able to bring his measure to the floor. The amendment, as we have reported, would eliminate the 1.5 percent of federal transportation funds that go to Transportation Enhancements, about half of which is spent on bicycle and pedestrian programs.

Reid isn’t happy about Coburn’s use of the hold to delay important legislation. “It’s a pretty good way to legislate around here, be a dictator and say either take this or leave that,” Reid was quoted as saying in a story by CQ.

In addition to his amendment to strip TE funds, Coburn wants to offer an amendment that would offset the cost of the disaster aid, so that it doesn’t add to the deficit.

As we’ve said, the votes will still go through, just more slowly. And while we at Streetsblog are no experts on the disaster relief bill, we think the odds look good that enough senators will be frustrated with Coburn’s insistence on slowing down the process that they will vote against his push to kill Transportation Enhancements.

The 12 programs that make up Transportation Enhancements. Source: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

For the last few days, we’ve been talking a lot about Sen. Tom Coburn’s crusade to remove bike/ped funding from the transportation bill — even just from the six-month extension that just passed the House and is on its way to the Senate. He’s determined to insert an amendment to take out the funds.

Ever the gentleman, Coburn had his office contact the Rails-to-Trail Conservancy, a principal supporter of Transportation Enhancement funding, since rail-trails are one of a dozen uses for the funds. Coburn’s office let RTC know that the senator would be introducing an amendment to eliminate TE funding.

Kevin Mills, vice president of policy at RTC, emphasizes that Coburn wants to eliminate the federal mandate to spend certain federal dollars on certain programs. There would no longer be dedicated funding for bike and pedestrian projects, but they would still be eligible for federal money. Without a federal mandate, however, many states hardly spend any money on active transportation at all.

Mills said that Coburn’s office left no doubt that the senator would do whatever it takes to force a vote on TE. Senate leadership is determined to pass a clean extension and wanted, like the House, to have a simple, amendment-free process. If leadership refuses to entertain Coburn’s amendment, many expect that Coburn will filibuster, though his office won’t explicitly say so.

If he does filibuster, all that means is that it’ll take 60 senators to bring the extension bill to a vote (without Coburn’s amendment). Bike advocacy groups are clearly worried about this possibility. But the facts are enough to give us hope.

The last time Coburn tried to kill TE funding (yes, he’s been at this for a while), in 2009, he offered two amendments. One would have prohibited the use of federal funds for TE projects if the Highway Trust Fund couldn’t cover unfunded highway authorizations. He had to withdraw that amendment for lack of support. The other amendment would have only eliminated the “set-aside,” or the federal mandate for all states to spend money on these programs. He lost that vote, with just 38 other senators voting with him and 59 voting to keep TE.

Now, “times are different,” Mills said. But the Congressional fervor over spending cuts still might not be enough to win the day for Sen. Coburn.

Of the 59 senators that voted to keep TE, 51 are still in the Senate. Five are Republicans, who will be under a lot of pressure to switch their votes. But then, at least one senator has pledged to switch her vote in the other direction, to save Transportation Enhancements. A couple of newly elected senators have also promised to vote to save TE.

Perhaps more importantly, many lawmakers who would love nothing more than to kill bike/ped funding once and for all are committed to voting against Coburn’s amendment. Even Sen. James Inhofe, who has been on record for years as wanting to get rid of the program, has said he won’t vote for Coburn’s amendment this time because it’s too important to get a clean extension done quickly, without introducing controversial measures that will slow it down. Knowing they’ll have their chance again in six months, even many TE opponents will put procedure before their anti-bike/ped zeal and vote the amendment down.

That should provide some comfort to cyclists, pedestrians, and others who benefit from Enhancement programs, but it just provides a little time to regroup for the big fight, in six months or whenever a longer-term bill is finally debated and voted on. Undoubtedly, the movement to kill TE will be in full swing then, and the movement to save it will have to be stronger.