Factoring in proximity to bike lanes, street connectivity, topography, and commuter cycling rates, the Bike Score algorithm rated Minneapolis America's most bikeable city. Image: Walk Score

The people behind Walk Score, the real estate rating service that goes by the slogan “Drive Less, Live More,” are out with a new rating system, based on hard data, that should prove useful to prospective city dwellers: Bike Score.

The company launched the Bike Score website today, using its new algorithm to rank the ten most bikeable cities in the country. (We covered their release of city rankings for transit last month.) Minneapolis ran away with the top prize with a 79 percent bikeability rating. San Francisco tied Portland for number two, despite the fact that hilliness was a factor. D.C. and New York also placed highly (while the NYC core rates very highly on Bike Score, the bike lane deserts outside the center city score quite low).

The staff of Walk Score is made up of a whole lot of bike commuters. No wonder they were excited to launch a new bikeability ranking. Photo courtesy of Walk Score

In other bikeability rating news, the League of American Bicyclists released its 2012 list of Bicycle Friendly Communities today. There’s a lot of overlap between the BFCs and the Bike Score winners, but they are compiled use vastly different methodologies. For one thing, you won’t find two of the League’s top three cycling cities on the Bike Score list because Bike Score, so far, only looks at cities with populations over 200,000. Sorry, Boulder and Davis.

Colorado and Montana did well in the League’s rankings this year. Missoula and Durango moved up to gold, and the Colorado towns of Gunnison and Aspen made it onto the list for the first year, rolling in at the silver level. Look for your city on their updated BFC list [PDF].

The League bases its BFC choices on somewhat subjective criteria. They look for the “five Es”: engineering, education, encouragement, evaluation & planning, and enforcement. Decisions are made by staff and external reviewers, in consultation with local stakeholders.

Bike Score, on the other hand, is based on pure numbers. Individual addresses are rated on a scale of 0-100 based on four factors:

• the availability of bike infrastructure (with on-street and off-street facilities weighted differently)
• the hilliness of the area (the one factor a city can’t control)
• amenities and road connectivity
• the number of bike commuters (because “biking is social” and there’s safety in numbers, explained Walk Score’s chief technology officer and co-founder Matt Lerner)

To then determine the score for the city, the individual address scores are used to compute scores for each block, and then the block-by-block scores are weighted by population density.

“For every location in the city, we add up the number of meters of bike lane, and there’s a distance-to-K function so the closer you have a meter of bike lane, the more valuable it is, and we don’t give you any credit after about a mile out,” said Lerner. “For every address, we do that calculation. It’s a new metric that is really about a specific location, not about the city overall. So what we’re really measuring is, for average person in that city, how good is biking.”

Note: The capability to score your own home isn’t available on the website yet, as it is for Transit Score and Walk Score, but Lerner says they hope to enable that soon so real estate agents can use Bike Score to advertise the homes they have for sale, as they do now with the other two. Walk Score has an Apartment Search function that allows renters to search by nearby amenities, distance to transit, commute time, price, number of bedrooms – and, of course, Walk Score. It interfaces with craigslist to show the complete ad all in one place with the walk/bike/transit information.

Right now you can plug in any address in the country and get a Walk Score for it, but even once Bike Score’s full functionality is rolled out, it won’t be so widespread. “With Bike Score we have to go out and get bike lane data from each city,” Lerner said, “so it’s more of a manual process.” They’re taking votes via Twitter for the next cities they should score.

For the last nine years, private motorists entering central London between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. have paid a fee (currently £10 or US$16.22) to drive on the city’s scarce street space. The revenue from the congestion charge is plowed into the city’s transit system, and as Transport for London has amply documented, many Londoners have changed their commuting habits.

Now a flurry of maps released by ITO World, a British company that specializes in visualizing transport data, shows London’s dramatic shift to more sustainable modes from 2001-2010. (The congestion charge went into effect in February 2003.)

The map above depicts the extraordinary decrease in private motor vehicle traffic, with the bright blue dots showing where driving has gone down more than 30 percent and the bright red dots showing where it’s up more than 30 percent. By the looks of it, the drivable suburbs are still a bastion of private vehicles, but the central city is seeing far less traffic.

Of course, people aren’t just sitting at home. They’ve embraced other ways of getting around. So while there are fewer vehicles in London now than in 2001, one motorized mode has become more ubiquitous: the bus.

London bus ridership has risen an impressive 60 percent in the past decade.

Bicycling has also been a big winner in this seismic shift in travel habits. Cycling is up 110 percent in London since 2000. In the country as a whole, cycling on the road has increased 12 percent.

ITO World CEO Peter Miller says it’s not just the congestion charge that’s reducing the footprint of cars on London’s streets. It’s also the phenomenon of “peak car” — the less-understood pattern, happening in several industrialized countries, of diminishing car use. According to the Wikipedia article on “peak car” that Miller co-wrote, traffic into London had already fallen 28 percent in the nine years before the congestion charge was implemented. He gives many possible reasons for peak car, including rising gas prices and a growth in the culture of urbanism.

Before and after: Sidewalk on Marshall Avenue, St. Paul. Source: Bike Walk Twin Cities

If you ever doubted whether a small investment in biking and walking could have a large impact, here is your proof.

The last transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, provided four communities with four years of funding to build an infrastructure network for nonmotorized transportation (a fancy way of saying “sidewalks and bike paths”). It wasn’t a lot of money — $25 million each to Columbia, Missouri; Marin County, California; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.

The program built 333 miles of on-street biking and walking routes, 23 of off-street facilities, and 5,727 bike parking spaces in the four municipalities — not to mention some outreach and education. Not bad, especially when you consider that $100 million would only buy about five miles of new four-lane highway in an urbanized area [PDF].

Total two-hour bicycling and walking counts for all pilot communities, fall 2007 and fall 2010. Source: FHWA Report to the U.S. Congress on the Outcomes of the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program

FHWA summed up the results in its report on the outcomes of the pilot program [PDF]:

• An estimated 32 million driving miles were averted between 2007 and 2010. It appears that the numbers keep climbing — half of that savings happened just in 2010, the last year of the pilot, when an estimated 16 million miles were walked or bicycled that would have otherwise been driven.
• The four pilot areas saw an average increase of 49 percent in the number of bicyclists and a 22 percent increase in the number of pedestrians between 2007 and 2010.
• In each community, a greater percentage of pedestrian and bicycling trips included transit in 2010 than in 2007.
• Despite increases in biking and walking, fatal bike/ped crashes held steady or decreased in all of the communities.
• The pilot communities saved an estimated 22 pounds of CO2 in 2010 per person or a total of 7,701 tons — the equivalent of saving over a gallon of gas per person.
• Many people tried bicycling for the first time in their adults lives or ever.

Interestingly, average one-way trip distances by foot and by bicycle fell in some places, probably since more people were taking more trips without cars, instead of only walking and biking for exercise. And bike/ped trips including transit went way up.

Percentage of pedestrian and bicyclist trips that included transit for Columbia and Marin County.

The pilot results were released today, the first day of National Bike Month. (Though Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood notes that when he was a kid, “every month was bike month.”)

The FHWA report is full of data showing how a small down payment on active transportation can lead — quickly — to dramatic improvements in air quality, traffic levels, and public health.

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, a major supporter of the pilot program, called it a “raging success.”

“These are not all typical, bike-friendly cities,” said Marianne Fowler, RTC’s senior vice president of federal relations. ”These four communities represent a solid cross-section of America. Even in places like Sheboygan, which doesn’t have urban density, has cold winters, and has had almost no experience with biking and walking initiatives in the past, locals have rapidly become champions because they have seen the real-time effects, the actual benefits to their community.”

Fowler went on to say that with the evidence now in black and white before them, Congressional representatives must now recognize that continued investment in walking in biking represents terrific value for American taxpayers.

“The incongruous thing is that Congress, with a simple, low-cost solution to so many transportation problems right here in front of them, can’t see the people for the cars,” she said.

How much will that new traffic calming project benefit society? A new tool from the World Health Organization puts a figure on it. Photo: Tom Fudge/KPBS

Of course, it can be hard to convince politicians to see things in those terms when it’s time to pony up for walking and biking infrastructure. That is the brilliance of this new tool from the World Health Organization.

The WHO, which is on a mission to rein in the worldwide epidemic of traffic deaths and injuries, has developed a tool that measures the health impacts of bike and pedestrian infrastructure projects, calculating cost-benefit analyses as well as the economic value of reduced mortality.

Of course you need to do a little advance preparation before using the tool. You’ll need to have a fair amount of information about local travel habits at your disposal. (For example, you’ll be prompted to estimate the percentage of people who currently take walking trips and the average length of the trip.) But it’s the type of info your local metro planning agency should have publicly available. Worst case scenario, you have to perform a survey.

The tool is recommended for planners and engineers as well as advocacy groups.

“It may not have sand and crashing waves, but the Monon Trail is the equivalent of beachfront property in the Indianapolis area." Photo: Trip Advisor

Do local and state officials tune out when you try to talk to them about bicycling? Are they unconvinced by arguments about public health, transportation options, or clean air? Do business leaders send you packing when you suggest building new bike lanes and bike parking, fearing that the loss of car parking will keep customers away?

Then show them the money.

Bikes can mean big business, and businesses are beginning to realize it. At a Bike Summit panel Wednesday on the economic boost cycling can provide cities, speakers highlighted another strong message cyclists can bring to politicians when making their case for investment in bike/ped facilities.

Far and away, the biggest reason business owners resist the addition of bike infrastructure is that they’re afraid it will limit parking. Once they realize they can get 12 bike parking spaces for each car spot, sometimes they begin to change their tune. Even better, they begin to discover that cyclists can be their best customers. “We tend to shop closer to home and shop more often,” said April Economides, a consultant who helped the city of Long Beach, California build bicycle-friendly business districts. Rather than jumping in the minivan and heading to the suburbs to go to the big shopping malls, cyclists patronize the businesses in our neighborhoods.

Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster understands the value of bikes: “I see parts of the city on my bike that I would never even notice if I was just driving,” he said. “It’s a way for me personally to get closer to the city.”

That closeness has a dollars-and-cents value. Cyclists travel at what Portland Bike Coordinator Roger Geller calls a “human-scale speed” that allows them to “stop and buy something.” Besides, Economides said, if you’re car-free you’ve got an extra $6,000 jangling around in your pocket that you otherwise would have spent on gas and car maintenance (actually, $8,776 if you believe AAA). According to researchers with Intelligent Communities, a program of the National Building Museum, only 16 percent of household car expenses stay within the local economy.

Free bike portraits, taken in a bicycle-friendly district in Long Beach.

Two of the four districts didn’t even have a lot of good bike infrastructure to begin with – but there’s more demand for it now, even from businesses that used to be bike-averse.

Long Beach got a stimulus grant to create the districts, and the term of the grant expired just last week. But Economides said participating merchants are now so jazzed about cycling that they’ll carry on the work. And it’s a diverse group of businesses: Organizers reached out to Spanish- and Khmer-speaking merchants in the area and got their full participation. They also left paper flyers and postcards on people’s doorsteps, since not everyone is wired.

“Open Streets,” or ciclovias – events where streets are closed to motorized traffic and become the domain of bicyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders, rollerbladers, jugglers, dog-walkers – are another way to bring money to local businesses. Washington University in St. Louis was able to quantify the economic benefit of Open Streets programs: 73 percent of Open Streets participants spent money at a restaurant or store on the route, and 68 percent became aware of a restaurant or store that was new to them.

Business Improvement Districts are another good place to seek support for pro-bike policies, said Andy Hanshaw of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition. Local shopping and dining is what they’re all about, and they might be happy to sponsor community bike rides and new bike parking.

Diane Gershuny of Long Beach's 4th Street Business Association rides around the bicycle-friendly district with her trusty Chihuahua in a vintage bike. Photo: Bike Long Beach

From park(ing) day, where people create ephemeral parks in parallel parking spaces, to parklets that make those tiny parks more permanent, to pop-up cafés, adding outdoor public space draws people and adds life to the street. Those spaces also often become de facto additional seating for nearby establishments, giving them more capacity for free.

“Bicycling, just like walking, helps make a Main Street more vibrant,” said Economides. “It adds more eyes and ears to the street, so it makes it safer. So think about a mom pushing a stroller. She’s going to want to walk down a block that has more people walking and bicycling; she’ll feel safer. And you do want to attract women and moms. We’re a pretty important shopping base.”

Rory Robinson of the National Park Service found many other examples of bicycling spurring economic revitalization, like the opening of the Mineral Belt Trail in Leadville, Colorado, which led to a 19 percent increase in sales tax revenues, helping the city recover from a mine closure in 1999. The 45-mile long Washington & Old Dominion Trail in the D.C. suburbs brings an estimated $7 million into the northern Virginia economy, nearly a quarter of that from out-of-towners. And downtown Dunedin, Florida was suffering a 35 percent storefront vacancy rate until an abandoned CSX railroad track became the Pinellas Trail. Storefront occupancy is now 100 percent, Robinson found. “Business is booming.”

And the economic benefit of bicycling for communities doesn’t end with cyclists’ expensive cappuccinos and impulse buys. Properties near bike paths increase in value 11 percent, said Economides. Realtors and homebuilders consistently find that access and proximity to walking and biking facilities, especially greenways, makes homes easier to sell. A reporter for the Indianapolis Star said it best in 2003: “It may not have sand and crashing waves, but the Monon Trail is the equivalent of beachfront property in the Indianapolis area.”

Add to that the fact that bike lane construction creates about twice as many jobs as road-building for the same amount of money, and you’ve got yourself a great economic argument to take to local leaders and politicians when you ask them to support walking and biking – even (or especially) in tough economic times.

While health care costs for American companies have been skyrocketing, Quality Bicycle Products is spending less on health care, thanks in part to a wellness program that encourages employees to commute by bike. Image: QBP

One of the most talked-about presentations at this week’s National Bike Summit came from Jason Gaikowski, director of sales for the Bloomington, Minnesota-based wholesale distributor Quality Bicycle Products. Over the last several years, QBP has ramped up its employee health and wellness program, which includes incentives to bike to work. At a time when most employers are grappling with rising insurance premiums, a study by the company’s health insurance provider, HealthPartners [PDF], suggests the program has helped reduce QBP’s health care costs and increase employee productivity.

Gaikowski made the case that QBP’s example bears a lesson for the nation’s transportation policy makers: Investment in infrastructure that supports active transportation can help rein in the country’s skyrocketing health care costs.

While you probably want to take research on the health benefits of cycling commissioned by a bike company with a grain of salt, Gaikowski’s basic premise has already been embraced by the experts at the Centers for Disease Control. The QBP/HealthPartners case study adds some intriguing data about the potential impact of bike commuting on employee health and the corporate bottom line, and it suggests some areas ripe for further study.

As part of its wellness program, QBP offers a few inducements for employees to commute by bike: The company provides secure parking and showers at work, and it pays employees $3 each day they ride to work. The cash payments add up to about $45,000 each year.

While the study doesn’t isolate the impact of bike commuting on lower health care costs, the program seems to be paying off. HealthPartners reported that participants in the “Bike to Work” program (about 100 of QBP’s 464 employees) cost approximately $200,000 less per year in health care claims annually, based on a comparison with employees who don’t participate in the program.

QBP’s overall health care expenses declined 4.4 percent between 2009 and 2011, according to the report, while on average health care costs for American companies rose 24.6 percent during the same period. HealthPartners attributes some of the decline to QBP’s Bike to Work program, as well as employees’ healthier eating habits and a shift to generic drug purchases.

In addition, HealthPartners reported that QBP’s health and wellness initiative, of which the Bike to Work program is the most significant component, is boosting employee productivity. With employees missing fewer work days due to health-related problems and overall health scores improving, the insurer estimates that the wellness program prevents the equivalent of $300,000 per year in lost productivity.

“I know that at QBP we have found that very simple and affordable investments to remove barriers to bicycle commuting have paid substantial returns to our business in decreased health care costs, increased productivity, and the overall well being of our company,” says Gaikowski. “My hope is that similar common-sense investments in our national infrastructure will be made – and pay similar returns to our citizens.”

Delaware Governor Jack Markell. Photo: Delaware Bicycle Council

At a National Bike Summit panel yesterday on state-level bike advocacy campaigns, Dan Grunig of Bicycle Colorado spoke about the importance of reforming the agencies that spend the lion’s share of America’s transportation funding. “If you were starting from scratch and you said, ‘Where do I want to put my limited resources, where can I get the biggest bang for the buck?’, the federal piece of the pie is the smallest,” said Grunig, “and the states’ is the biggest.”

States even influence local spending, and they govern traffic laws. And who owns the roads? Grunig gave his own state as an example. Of 35,754 miles of roads in Colorado, 41 percent is city-owned, 26 percent is state-owned, and 33 percent is county-owned.

The federal transportation bill is extremely important, and national programs like Safe Routes to School have prompted state and local agencies to think about more than just moving cars and trucks. But advocates shouldn’t let Congress dictate the pace of change. Sure, it would be huge if Washington raised the gas tax, Grunig said, but “the states aren’t waiting.” Between 2008 and 2010, 17 states enacted 29 new transportation funding bills.

A regressive transportation agency can stymie good federal programs at the state level, too. State DOTs don’t spend all the money that should be allocated for Safe Routes to School and other key bike/ped programs, for instance, choosing instead to rescind that money back to the federal government. Robert Ping of the Safe Routes to School National Partnership said SRTS was allocated $978 million for 2005-2011, but a lot of it “still needs to get out the door” or else it’s vulnerable to rescission.

“We’re saying this is an important investment into our state’s transportation network. We can’t just keep building our roads and building our roads and not providing other alternatives.”

Delaware Secretary of Transportation Shailen Bhatt

Delaware Secretary of Transportation Shailen Bhatt oversaw the state’s first uses of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) money for bike/ped projects. He says his counterparts in other state DOTs aren’t so bad. “Lots of secretaries ‘get it’,” he said, pointing to Paula Hammond in Washington and DOT chiefs in Oregon, Tennessee, and Minnesota. But he added that a secretary that “gets it” can only do so much if she or he doesn’t work for a governor that “gets it.”

Bhatt says he doesn’t act alone. He half-jokingly offered a four-part recipe for advocacy success:

1. Elect a governor who bikes.
2. Elect senators who bike.
3. Elect a congressmember who bikes.
4. Get them all to show up at all of your events.

Easier said than done, right? Bhatt put the onus on advocates to close the deal by figuring out what message will speak to officials, some of whom haven’t seen a bicycle since their elementary school days. The desire to increase biking for biking’s sake might not resonate with them. Recreational cycling might not seem to be a cause worth spending scarce state dollars on. But they might listen to arguments about household budgets in times of high gas prices.

And state budgets are even closer to governors’ hearts. Most states are suffering under tremendous burdens of cutbacks and debt. Bhatt said 36 percent of Delaware’s transportation operating budget goes to debt service.

And yet, his agency proposed $13 million for bike/ped improvements this year. “We’re not saying that this is a nice thing to have,” he said. “We’re saying this is important. This is an important investment that we’re making into our state’s transportation network. And we’re doing it in the face of all of these rising costs because we can’t just keep building our roads and building our roads and not providing other alternatives.”

If you can show that there’s a solid return on investment, state DOT leaders will listen, he said.

Even if your state DOT isn’t your friend, your public health department is, said Dorian Grilley of the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota. In his state, the Statewide Health Improvement Program has funded work on bike/walk master plans in 250 communities. “Public health people are your best friends,” he said. A tobacco lawsuit settlement a decade ago left Blue Cross Blue Shield flush with cash that they’ve pumped back into public health efforts, including cycling. They fund Minneapolis’s Nice Ride bike-share program, among other projects.

It's been more than 100 years since Susan B. Anthony said the bicycle "has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world." So why aren't there more of us riding them? Image: Colorado Historical Society

I’ve never thought of myself as a female cyclist. For the last 13 years, I’ve been a bike commuter in DC, and I figured my needs were the same needs as any cyclist. But for the last six months, I’m a biker that doesn’t bike, and that has everything to do with the fact that I’m a woman. So the Women’s Cycling Forum, which kicked off the National Bike Summit yesterday, hit home for me.

After all, I had taken the metro. To the Bike Summit.

Why wasn’t I riding? I just had a baby. So did my partner, but somehow he never had to stop cycling. But then, he didn’t find himself gaining 28 pounds in nine months. Or pushing a baby out his bike-seat anatomy. And since he’s not nursing every three hours, he leaves the house without Luna more often than I do, so he has more cause to bike. At two months, she’s too young for a bike trailer.

At least, I think she is. I have to admit I’m not sure when babies can start riding along. No one at the hospital made sure I had a child bike seat properly installed before I went home. None of the parenting websites and blogs I read list “old enough for a bike trailer” as a milestone. There are other cyclists in my mom’s group, but somehow no one talks about getting back in the saddle the way we talk about the challenges of going back to work or getting babies on a sleep schedule.

Now that I’m beginning to take short forays out of the house with Luna, I’m missing my bike. Bypassing the bus would make those short forays shorter, and more enjoyable.

But my bike needs a tune-up after six months of dormancy, and despite my best intentions, I’ve never learned to fix my own bike. I even bought a how-to book on bike repair – with a woman on the cover – but it’s my partner that used that book to teach himself bike maintenance, not me.

And I have to admit, these days when I see cyclists zip by inches from the side of the bus I’m on, it looks incredibly dangerous – far more dangerous than it ever felt when I was behind the handlebars. I know that when I get back on I’ll feel safe and confident again, but if I hadn’t started urban cycling in college, I think I’d look at those daredevil madcap risk-takers on fixies and think it wasn’t for me.

Women make up only 24 percent of bicycle trips in the U.S., and all the issues I just mentioned are reasons why. And most of them came up in yesterday’s Women’s Cycling Forum, organized by the Alliance for Biking and Walking and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.

When people talk about the two-wheeled gender disparity, they often mention the safety issue and assume that better infrastructure – specifically, separated bike paths – will encourage more women to bike. And that’s a huge part of the solution, undoubtedly. But there’s more to it than that.

Many of us don’t know how to fix our own bikes and are intimidated and patronized when we step into a bike shop. We take disproportionate parenting duty and no one ever taught us how to ride safely with children, or what kind of gear (or cargo bikes) we need to schlep diaper bags and everything else that encumbers a parent. We don’t see cyclemoms around town to model ourselves after or ask questions of. There’s no guide to bike trailers in “What to Expect the First Year” or on Ask Dr. Sears, and no one brought one to my baby shower (even though I registered for it). And the 22-year-old dude at the bike shop with the perma-black hands might not be the world’s foremost expert on such things either.

I have a car seat for Luna but not a bike seat — and I don’t have a car.

There are some resources for parents in cycling circles, but there are no resources for cyclists in parenting circles. If we want to broaden our message, we need to meet the women where they are — especially the moms, who might feel the most limited when it comes to cycling.

The sold-out Women's Cycling Forum. Photo by Tanya Snyder.

Apparently I’m not be the only one wrestling with these issues. The Women’s Cycling Forum sold out days ago, with 220 people registered and more just showing up, hoping to get a seat.

Panelist Veronica Davis said she founded Black Women Bike DC after a little girl in an African-American neighborhood saw her riding by and yelled, “Mommy! Look at the black woman on a bike!” The girl was “very excited to see someone that looked like her on a bike.” And with only 24 percent of the mode share, women in general don’t see enough of themselves on bikes – black women especially.

What we see too much of – in the pages of bicycling magazines as well as in the streets – are “MAMILs,” said Nelle Pierson of the Washington Area Bicyclists Association. (That’s Middle-Aged Men In Lycra.) And that’s who bike shops are marketing to. Pierson said she’s had some terrible experiences in bike shops. “That’s where you will get your first introduction to a bike, that’s where you can find the appropriate gear, and that’s where you can get turned off to biking,” Pierson said.

Maybe bike shops could look more like Lululemon stores, mused mountain bike racer Marla Streb. Or maybe they could at least clean their bathrooms once in a while. Or maybe they can sell gear appropriate to the needs of women commuters: “Can you make a bike with pedals that work for shoes like this?” she asked, holding up a kitten heel.

Streb said she spent $5,000 on her custom cargo bike, which she uses to shuttle around her two- and five-year-olds. “Kids are an equipment sport,” she said. But you don’t have to spend that much money, she was quick to point out. There are lots of cheaper options.

Safe infrastructure is important, and Veronica Davis said the campaign for complete streets is paramount. But even safety might not always be as important as it seems.

“I don’t think that women are necessarily more afraid [than men],” said Andrea Garland of Alta Planning + Design, “but we are more prone to say we’re afraid of something. I think it’s just not convenient for us.” Indeed, if women had a better idea how to fit two kids and their schoolbags and the groceries on a bike – and saw other women doing the same thing, and knew where to get the gear for it – they might be happy to do it, separated lanes or no separated lanes.

Women-only bike skills workshops are essential, said Streb, who teaches them. One man present will change the vibe. Besides, women are more “communal” than men, some participants commented. Group activities will be inspire them to do something they might not do individually.

Perhaps because black women are even more invisible in cycling circles than white women, Davis had a very DIY attitude. When one participant expressed her indignation that she couldn’t get bike commuter jeans made for women, Davis indicated that she really didn’t expect marketers to have her in mind. “We need to step up and start our own bike shops; start own clothing lines. We can put the pressure on other people. But we can do it ourselves.”

Davis also suggested using social media to tell the stories and provide the community that marketers and the media won’t. “In the absence of marketers marketing [to us], that doesn’t mean we can’t do it,” she said. “That doesn’t mean we can’t say, ‘Hey, this is how you can be fashionable and bike to work. This is how you can maintain your hairstyle under a helmet. Here are some bags you can take if you’re a mother.’ It doesn’t mean we can’t tell our own story and market to ourselves.”

But a representative of the Dutch embassy – who couldn’t help mentioning a few times that women make up 55 percent of trips in the Netherlands – said that the most important thing to get women’s cycling rates up in the U.S. was to organize political support to get the infrastructure in place.

And that’s what the rest of the National Bike Summit will focus on. We’ll bring you team coverage of the Summit today.

Photo: Rally for Roads

The House of Representatives is back in town, and its members still don’t have a transportation bill. In fact, they probably won’t have one for weeks. But two groups holding conferences in Washington this week would be more than happy to help them out in the meantime.

First, the League of American Bicyclists kicks off its annual National Bike Summit tomorrow. Wednesday’s program will feature a welcome speech delivered by secretary of transportation and noted bicycle commuter Ray LaHood. (Streetsblog will be covering the Bike Summit all week long.)

In a twist that probably can’t be considered purely coincidental, tomorrow will also see the highway construction industry hold its second annual Rally for Roads on the National Mall.

The Hill reports that the Rally for Roads will be attended by a litany of House transportation committee members, including Chairman John Mica, ranking member Nick Rahall, and highway subcommittee chair John Duncan. A few congressmen will make appearances at both events, including Reps. Peter DeFazio and Tom Petri, both of whom have voiced their support for bike-ped and transit programs in the House.

With the fate of the House transportation bill still undecided, both groups are hoping to win key battles over federal funding. Bike advocates will be looking to protect the programs that keep streets safe for cyclists and pedestrians, which would be eliminated under the most recent House propsal. The road builders will be looking for looser regulations on labor and environmental review, but they will also be seeking more money — money they stand to gain if bike-ped and transit programs are de-funded.

Highway builders have long been an imposing lobbying force in Washington. But rather than using their influence to promote sustainable development or multimodalism, their chief objective is usually to get the government to spend as much money as possible on highway ingredients — steel, asphalt, cement, and so on. Though they certainly don’t reflect all of America’s transportation needs, especially for cities, highway builders’ voices are often the loudest to be heard — and just as often the only ones to whom Congress listens.

However, as we saw when the House threatened to cut off dedicated funding for transit, the highway builders are not the only voice in the debate anymore.

I bet you said Bogotá. But, surprisingly, you’d be wrong.

An open streets initiative in Minneapolis. Photo credit: Bethany Heemyer.

Sure, the Colombian city is widely credited with popularizing the concept of ciclovias, which temporarily close streets to cars to liberate the roads for people. For several hours every Sunday, more than a million citizens in Bogotá take advantage of 70 miles of car-free streets to bike, walk, dance and participate in a variety of creative non-motorized activities.

But while South America has certainly set the standard for ciclovias — or open streets — around the globe, it wasn’t the birthplace. Starting as early as 1965, open streets initiatives in Seattle, New York City and San Francisco pre-dated Colombia by nearly a decade.

In fact, North American cities have played a significant role in the open streets movement and, in the past six years alone, the number of initiatives has grown from 11 in 2005 to more than 70 in 2011.

To keep those numbers ticking up and to make current initiatives even better, the Alliance for Biking & Walking and the Street Plans Collaborative just released a new resource that highlights examples and compiles best practices from 67 initiatives from across the continent.

The Open Streets Guide, released last week, features an introduction to open streets, a summary of the initiatives in North America and case studies of 67 initiatives from across the continent. The guide breaks down U.S. and Canadian initiatives into seven model types, based on how they’re funded and who’s in charge, and zeroes in on best practices taken from initiatives in North and South America. It also includes some fascinating statistics, like average route length (3.95 miles), population served (28 percent of open streets occur in cities of less than 100,000 people) and funding (52 percent of open streets initiatives are paid for by a public-private partnership).

The guide groups open streets projects by a few dominant models. For example, Seattle’s Bicycle Sunday, the longest-running open streets project in North America, first set the example of a parkway ride in 1965 with its three-mile stretch of car-free roadway on Lake Washington Boulevard. It took until 2006 for the model of an unstructured, open event to be revolutionized — and it was the city of Cleveland that did it, by instituting programmed activities in the streets.

Kentucky made open streets history in 2008 with its public/private Second Sunday program explicitly aimed at combating the state’s obesity epidemic. (It’s the fifth-fattest state in the union.) San Francisco’s “People’s Day in the Park” was kind of a dud for the first ten years of its existence, until roller skate vendors opened up in 1977, turning the weekly event into a skaters’ paradise. And if you’ve ever been to a reclaimed-street event, you know they’re boisterous times, but Phoenix calls its car-free park program “Silent Sundays” in honor of the quieting of automobile noise.

The guide is an initiative of the Open Streets Project, which was born in 2010 when Mike Lydon, a principal at the Street Plans Collaborative, recognized the skyrocketing popularity of open streets initiatives and the lack of resources on how to pull them off. So the firm set out to create a clearinghouse of information and best practices that could educate and inspire organizers of all stripes.

In partnership with the Alliance for Biking & Walking, the Collaborative launched the Open Streets Project last year with an interactive website which showcases more than 70 current initiatives, from Miami to Missoula, Los Angeles to Ottawa. It includes organizational information on routes, financing and frequency and also provides real-world templates for event logistics, like volunteer recruitment and branding.

Looking to organize a monthly event in a West Coast city of less than 50,000 people? There’s an open streets example for that. Just plug the characteristics of your city or event into the search engine.

The Open Streets Guide, the latest collaboration between the Alliance and the Open Streets Project, is available for a free, electronic download here. And if your city or organization has information to share about an open streets initiative in your community, contact Mike Samuelson, Alliance Open Streets Coordinator, at (202) 449-9692 x7 or mike@PeoplePoweredMovement.org.

Carolyn Szczepanski is the communications coordinator for the Alliance for Biking & Walking.

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.