We aren’t exaggerating when we say this ask has never been more urgent.

Click this link to contact your member of Congress in support of bicycling and walking:

http://support.railstotrails.org/site/R?i=MU6Bn3Xx8UZZlnZ9Tmaq9w

Thursday, February 2nd, the Transportation Infrastructure committee in the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on our nation’s next multiyear surface transportation bill.

There is no way to spin this: From the perspective of bicycling, walking, and trails, the bill is a total disaster.

Among its worst features:

* It eliminates dedicated funding for the Transportation Enhancements (TE), the nationa’s largest funding source for bicycling, walking, and trails facilities – funding which has provided hundreds of key bicycle, pedestrian, and trails projects in Missouri since 1991.

* It removes the rail-trail category from TE eligibility – funding which made projects like the Katy Trail possible.

* It complete eliminates funding for the Safe Routes to School program - funding which has provided sidewalks, crosswalks, and trails to safely connect neighborhoods to over 150 Missouri schools since 2006.

* It eliminates funding for the bicycle and pedestrian coordinators at state DOTs – a position that has helped MoDOT integrate bicycling and walking into its planning, funding, and policies.

In short, the bill eliminates everything the federal government has done since 1991 to turn around our country’s complete neglect of bicycling and walking.

Please take two minutes now to contact your member of Congress–tell them we won’t accept turning back the clock by eliminating support for bicycling, walking, and trails:

http://support.railstotrails.org/site/R?i=MU6Bn3Xx8UZZlnZ9Tmaq9w

But . . . there is still a chance.

Representatives Tom Petri (R-Wis) and Tim Johnson (R-Ill) have introduced an amendment in the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee that will fix many of these issues.

But they need to hear from other commmittee members, including the three committee members from Missouri, who will support this amendment.

Please take two minutes and ask your representative to defend bicycling, walking, and trails:

http://support.railstotrails.org/site/R?i=MU6Bn3Xx8UZZlnZ9Tmaq9w

Key votes will take place Thursday and soon thereafter, so please contact your member of Congress as soon as you can–and continue to urge their support until this issue is resolved.

Our country needs bicycling, walking, and trails–for our health, our communities, and to provide real choice and freedom in our transportation. Let’s not undo the past twenty years of progress–progress due in very large part to the very programs the House proposal eliminates.

Thank you!  When you take two minutes to contact your elected leaders, our united voice really DOES make a difference!

–Brent

Dr Brent D Hugh
Executive Director
Missouri Bicycle & Pedestrian Federation
director@mobikefed.org

P.S. All national bicycle and pedestrian organizations, including the Rails to Trails Conservancy, the League of American Bicyclists, the Adventure Cycling Association, the Alliance for Biking and Walking, Bikes Belong, and others, are working together in this campaign to save funding for bicycling and walking.

Thanks to the Rails to Trails Conservancy for the information and action link in the above alert.

http://support.railstotrails.org/site/R?i=MU6Bn3Xx8UZZlnZ9Tmaq9w

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, cycling

I was unable to attend the meeting. The News-Leader published an article today.

It’s difficult to tell how much talk there was of painting bicycle lanes. I’ve written plenty recently about lanes.

My position going forward: It appears the bicycle lane tide is rising fast, so there’s almost nothing to be gained by my continued opposition to all lane painting. Instead, I plan to save my energy for fighting lanes that put novice bicyclists into immediate danger — unnecessary conflicts with motorists, e.g. door-zone lanes.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, cycling, Transportation Planning, Urban Planning

What changed?

Remember the report by The Network (a group of young professionals attached to the Chamber of Commerce) about how to attract and retain young professionals? Here again were the top four results:

• Expand trails and bike routes for recreation and transportation.
• Enact a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other public places.
• Improve wages by supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses.
• Address the lack of diversity through increased awareness and support for minority-owned businesses.

Wow. We got top billing. Fantastic.

I believe the city is taking these things seriously. That’s great!

But “trails and bike routes” has apparently been translated into “bicycle lanes.” That’s not necessarily surprising. That term is, as much as anything, a metaphor for “facilities” in the minds regular folks. “Facilities” can be all kinds of helpful and progressive things.

I am not a fan of bicycle lanes in general (click here). So if you ask me if I like bicycle lanes or want to see them painted in Springfield, I’ll tell you “no.” This does not mean all lanes are bad or that I am against all facilities. It means, specifically, that I worry that some lane advocates (not necessarily our bicycle advocates) will promote poor facilities and may push for a law requiring lane use once lanes are painted (thus making bicycling suck for experienced traffic bicyclists).

I think the foundation of a good bicycle system begins with a good transportation system for all road users — one that is equitable for all users. All users should be educated in how to use the road safely and how to share it with a wide range of other users who all have equal rights and responsibilities (and equal expectations of courtesy and civility). Shared use ought to be an ethic promoted and enforced by all users.

Bicycle facilities should not reduce the bicyclist’s level of service, i.e. make it more difficult to get from point A to point B safely and efficiently or to deny access to roads. Facilities should not create traffic conflicts by encouraging bicyclists to ride in places or in ways that put them in danger. And facilities should not contradict the law or sound traffic education, e.g. creating a lane that runs against traffic. Finally, if you create facilities then I believe you (the city) are obligated to maintain them, which means keeping them cleared of debris, snow, and ice.

Progressive facilities should empower people to make the choice to ride a bicycle for transportation by making it efficient and enjoyable, i.e. easy access to destinations and no manufactured conflicts with motorists. Separation is fine as long as it does not create inferiority for the bicyclist compared to other forms of transportation.

The differences between these kinds of facilities are easy to see. Compare, for example, our greenway trails (progressive) to the new bicycle lane on Benton (regressive). (Note: That was an example. I do not mean to suggest that separated greenways are the only form of progressive facility.)

Since Springfield is moving ahead with “bicycle lanes,” I am going to seek out and publish examples of progressive facilities. And I will support such facilities, even when they involve painting lines on the street.

I will also, however, squawk like crazy if we build lanes that create conflicts or put novices in danger. I am unwilling to increase participation at the cost of safety when our roads are already safe.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle culture, bicycle education, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, bicycle trails, cycling, Transportation Planning, Urban and Regional Planning, urban design, Urban Planning, utility cycling

There’s a movement afoot at the Bicycle Friendly Springfield group on Facebook to have Springfield bicyclists send postcards to the mayor requesting more bicycle friendliness in Springfield. The post cards are available at local bicycle shops. Fill it out. Send it in. Be heard.

Good idea!

Except I ask one thing of my fellow Springfield bicyclists: Please be careful what you ask for; please re-think asking for more bicycle lanes.

Four inches of paint cannot think for you. Four inches of paint is an illusion of safety, not real safety.

Driving your bicycle as as normal part of traffic is already safe.

What is the purpose of a bicycle lane? As far as I am aware there are two:

1) To keep you from using the road that is rightfully yours. Car drivers use the road by privilege after receiving permission from the state (driver’s license and license plate for the car). Bicyclists use the road by right. No permission is necessary. And no bicycle registration fees are necessary because our bicycles do no harm to the road. Our bicycles also do not kill 35+ thousand people per year. Lanes are an effective way to keep you shunted to the side so that car drivers can ignore you.

2) To encourage more people to ride bicycles. Notice the interesting contradiction between these two reasons. Some bicycle advocates want more lanes because they want more people to ride bicycles. Some novices like bicycle lanes because they have yet to learn how to effectively and safely drive their bicycles in traffic. A big problem arises, however, when lanes are painted that are actually more dangerous than the road — door-zone lanes for example. Just watch the following video.

Now, how excited are you to go riding in the new bicycle lane on Benton between Drury U. and Commercial St.?

Despite some door-zone lanes here, the City of Springfield has done an excellent job mitigating the traffic conflicts lanes sometimes create at intersections. Our practices here provide an example of how to do it right. Be proud.

Your everyday lane that hugs the gutter — we have several miles of these — is serviceable enough if you like riding on all the broken glass, rocks, and road debris that cars sweep into the lane.

Springfield is already a remarkably bicycle-friendly city. That says nothing about the attitude of car drivers. I find most to be very polite. Every now and then you run into a jerk. So what. Their anger is their problem. We have a flat terrain, a grid street system, and generally slow speed limits through much of the urban core. In other words, without doing anything more we have it very good already. And we are doing more. Just this summer we have seen the beginning of The Link. Work is moving forward on numbering and re-signing the Springfield bicycle route system. And there’s a new bicycle parking corral downtown at Walnut and South.

I’ll leave you with a little inspiration…

More on bicycles lanes from Carbon Trace.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, bicycle video, cycling, traffic design

Bicycling is safe compared to a lot of other things we do everyday. Springfield is already a great place to drive a bicycle. And we’re getting better all the time.

But, wow, I can’t even look at the online comments.

OK, well, yes, I did read a few of them

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, cycling, transportation