Massachusetts’ public mass transportation system is about to go broke.  It is being dragged down by over .6 billion of debt (including an inappropriately huge chunk of the Big Dig costs), decreasing federal aid, and the unwillingness of state government to raise revenue.  The MBTA’s capital spending plan lists .7 billion worth of projects needed for safety or reliability, while the agency only gets to spend between 0 and 0 million a year.

Like transit systems around the country, the MBTA is caught in a downward spiral.  Cultural changes and hard times have increased demand, which is growing at a faster rate than highway vehicle travel.  But decreasing revenue means less service and higher fares. According to the American Public Transportation Association, more than 80 percent of the nation’s transit systems are considering or have recently enacted fare increases or service cuts, including reductions in rush-hour service, off-peak service and geographic coverage.  Locally, T riders are facing potential increases of 25 cents for each bus/subway ride, about 0 a year.  But these cutbacks drive away riders and reduce revenue while also setting the stage for public criticism and reduced public support, which further undermines efforts to get political support for the desperately needed investment.  The result is an increasingly unreliable and unsafe system, with anti-government right wingers crowing that “the government can’t do anything” or attacking the very idea of non-car transportation.

Somehow, the fact that mass transit needs subsidy is a disgrace.  The fact that our highways and car industry is massively subsidized is simply good capitalism.

The ultimate solution will require bold political leadership.  Until that emerges, the only way out of this trap is to find low-cost ways to increase ridership. Just as with roads, user fees such as gasoline taxes and trolley fares won’t cover the system’s full costs – although the share of operating costs born by riders in Massachusetts have dramatically (and regressively) increased from one-quarter to one-half of per-ride costs.  But increased usage will help create a more favorable political climate for demanding real solutions.  Spikes in the cost of gasoline and the increased congestion of our roads promote some amount of increased transit use, but the T needs to (and is trying to) go beyond passive strategies.  One approach is to make it easier for people to get the “last mile” to/from their homes and destinations to/from the T when they commute, socialize, or shop.  As our population ages, this will have increasing political relevance, but it needs to start now and have a very inclusive vision of who it might impact.

“Safe Routes To The T” (SR2T) is a strategy for making it safer and more inviting for people to walk, bike, or car-pool to and from train, trolley, subway, and bus stations and stops.  It would work with the expanding Hubway Shared Bicycle System, which is most accurately seen as an extension of the public transportation system.  And it would work with municipalities to extend the catchment area within which people might leave their cars at home, reducing local congestion, pollution, and car accidents.  One of its appeals is that using the T can save people a lot of money.  The American Public Transportation Association reports that Massachusetts residents who use public transport instead of a car can save ,575 annually – the second highest amount in the nation (after NYC).  Needing to use a car requires money that could be better used in other ways, especially if you are poor – the poorest fifth of Americans who do own cars have to spend nearly double the national percentage of their limited income on automobile ownership.

And focusing on increasing pedestrian and bicycle access to public transit is a strategy that works.  A recent survey of people using the MBTA’s new “Park & Roll” bike parking areas shows a significant increase in their use of the T since the creation of the bike sheds.  The planned expansion of bike parking facilities at other commuter rail, trolley, subway, and bus stations should continue this growth and hopefully create a broader constituency for the needed revenue reform.

Continue reading →

There is little or no zoning in many parts of the United States.  It is condemned as the intrusion of government rules on what you want to do with your own property.  Live free or die!

But, historically, it was precisely the unregulated freedom of property owners to do whatever they wanted that was the cause of death.  Zoning was a way to separate deadly land uses from residential areas.

Unfortunately, over the years, in many communities zoning has become a mind-bogglingly complicated bureaucratic mess, totally opaque and highly vulnerable to back-room dealings as well as political-business collusion.  In many cases, it has become so ossified that zoning categories neither address market realities nor capture sufficient value for the public good.

However, zoning is still one of the most important tools society has to promote (in the words of a proposed Massachusetts Zoning Reform Bill) “the orderly and sustainable growth, development, redevelopment, conservation, and preservation of a city or town.”  Zoning shapes the built environment and sets the boundaries on what kinds of transportation system is viable, or even possible.  It also has a direct impact on the “livability” of neighborhoods and the health of the people who live or work there.  The National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) points out that a “growing body of research reveals a strong relationship between the built environment1 and a wide spectrum of public and individual health issues such as asthma, cancer, obesity, mental health, substance abuse, crime exposure, cardiovascular disease, and social and health inequity.”

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Massachusetts is behind many other states in efforts to update its zoning laws.  One land-use attorney describes Chapters 40A and 41, the zoning laws, as “nationally considered Neanderthal for zoning.”

However, a new reform effort if underway and needs the support of everyone who advocates for better transportation, health, environmental protections, water usage controls, and urban living.  The proposed legislation is titled support the “Comprehensive Land Use Reform and Partnership Act” affectionately known as CLURPA — S.1019.

Over a decade of negotiations among a wide range of stakeholders, coupled with a supportive Governor, makes this Legislative session a unique opportunity to move from talk to action.  But unless the appropriate Committee chairs make it a priority, time will run out before the bill will be able to come to a vote.  And we will have wasted our best chance in a long time to get this done.

Let your voice be heard:  call or email the chairs of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (info below) and tell them to act now.

Senator James T. Welch
State House, Room 416A, Boston, MA 02133    Phone: 617-722-1660,    Email: James.Welch@masenate.gov

Representative Michael F. Kane
State House, Room 540, Boston, MA 02133    Phone: 617-722-2090,     Email: Michael.Kane@mahouse.gov

Continue reading →

Will Boston’s inner ring of old suburbs – Somerville, Charlestown, Roslindale, even Dorchester — be able to build on residential upgrading to become economic growth nodes as well?  Or will they continue to be left out, with growth focused either in downtown Boston or the still-expanding outer rings of suburban towns around Routes 128/95 and 495?

The answer partly depends on the types of transportation system that gets built over the next twenty years – not only what happens to mass transit but also what is done with the older highways that run through the area.  McGrath/O’Brien, Rutherford Ave., Casey (Rte 203) – these were once vital arterials bulldozed through the inner ring to connect the outer suburbs with downtown.  Building them required the destruction of working class neighborhoods.  But they kept the wheels of commerce rolling as the tide of growth moved outward.

Today, the Interstates provide more direct access.  And with today’s rising gas prices traffic counts on these old highways have significantly dropped.  McGrath traffic dropped by nearly 25% once the Zakim Bridge created a more direct alternative, with the remaining traffic no heavier than city streets like Commonwealth Avenue near BU or Mass. Ave. in the Back Bay.  (See http://mhd.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Mhd&mod= for more on traffic counts.) The future opening of both the Green Line to the north and the new Fairmont line stations to the south promise to further reduce traffic on these no-longer essential commuter routes.  And not only are the old speedways underutilized, they’re falling down.  The Sullivan Station overpass was so decrepit that the state had to tear it down before they had a chance to decide what to replace it with.  The Casey Overpass has already had its outer-most lanes closed to traffic.   The McGrath overpass, from Cambridge into East Somerville, is approaching the same state of deterioration.

So what should be done?  One idea is to rebuild them as highways – continuing to prioritize their function as regional commuter routes for people driving through the inner ring.  Another idea is to redesign them as city streets, perhaps even as urban greenways, using them as levers for local economic development and prioritizing ways to reconnect the neighborhoods that the highways used to divide.  The first approach emphasizes throughput, car capacity, truck traffic, and unimpeded fast driving from outer areas to downtown jobs.  The second emphasizes slower speeds, neighborhood quality of life, increased pedestrian/bicycle facilities, local retail and employment opportunities, and positive environmental impact.

The battle over these competing visions has already started.  Several dozen community groups are already involved in often separate planning processes in Charlestown, Somerville, Cambridge, Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, and elsewhere.  Almost all of them are pushing – often separately and not totally successfully – for a more community-orientated design of their stretch of road or real estate.  But there are strong interests pushing to retain highway-style car capacity. The outcome will determine whether the inner ring communities share in future regional prosperity or are once again left on the sidelines.

Continue reading →

Short Answer:  No money is being lost or returned.

Short Explanation:  Congress “appropriates” less money than government is “authorized” to spend.  States have great freedom to allocate the appropriated funds among different programs.  States typically use as much as they can for roads.  Massachusetts has the dubious honor of spending the lowest percentage of any state or territory of its Transportation Enhancements (TE) authorization and other programs typically used for bike/ped facilities.

For bike/ped-favoring programs such as TE and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ), the disproportionate allocation process creates an “unobligated balance” between the authorized ceiling and the obligated (to be eventually spent) amount.  This “authorized-to-obligated” gap accumulates every year.  Every now and then, Congress cleans up the books by “rescinding” some of the unobligated amounts.  States have great freedom in deciding which programs’ unobligated balances are used for the rescission – they typically use the bike/ped programs for this purpose.

Short Conclusion:  Unless state priorities change, the fact that bike/ped programs were under utilized in the past is a good indication that they will be under utilized in the future – so loosing the old balance may be aggravating, but is unlikely to make much difference in actual spending.

Short Call To Action:  We need to push states to use more of their appropriated federal transportation funds for programs funding bicycle and pedestrian facilities and off-road paths to avoid creating the large unexpended balances that set the stage for disproportionate rescissions.

But all this just scratches the surface of the story.  Every now and then word begins to circulate that the Feds are “rescinding” billions of dollars in many different spending areas, including transportation.  Emails start sending warnings that funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs is being reduced and that people should contact Washington to protest  The League of American Bicyclists, Bikes Belong, and others have said that “At the very least, rescissions should be fair and proportional.  All funding programs should receive equal consideration to others: they should be spent proportionally and rescinded proportionally. Programs favorable to bicycle and pedestrian projects should not be targeted more than others.”  See:  http://www.advocacyadvance.org/site_images/content/Rescissions_FAQs.pdf

While every opportunity to demand modal equity is worth taking, fighting rescissions is focusing too late in the process.  The cows are already out of the barn.  At both the federal and state levels we need to move “upstream” and demand policy changes that make bike/ped projects more likely to be funded in the first place.

We need to protest, to advocate, to partner.  But we need to understand what’s going on so we can use our limited advocacy resources in the most efficient manner.

—————————————

Authorization, Appropriation, and Allocation:

Every year (in some cases, every few years), Congress authorizes a certain amount of spending.  They set an overall “authorization ceiling” as well as specific authorization ceilings for broad areas (such as transportation) and even program areas within that issue (such as the Surface Transportation Program, mostly used for roads, and Transportation Enhancements, which is a major source of funding for bike/ped facilities).

But no one actually gets to spend the full authorization ceiling.  Rather, Congress then “appropriates” the actual total available to be “obligated” (and eventually spent) in that year or period – and this appropriated amount is (almost) always lower than what was authorized.  In transportation, each state’s authorization/obligation ceiling is what they are actually allowed to spend in that time period.

However, in the name of flexibility and state’s rights, each state is relatively free to allocate or divide up the total appropriated amount for a broad area (e.g. transportation) among the various programs and subprograms in any way it wants.  Except where explicitly required by Congress to do otherwise, a state can use as much (or as little) of its allocation as it wants for any particular program or subprogram — up to the “authorization ceiling” for that program or subprogram.

Key Fact:  Almost every transportation program, including the Surface Transportation program (STP), can be used to fund bike/ped facilities in some way.  Under the federal and state Complete Streets policies, every road should have the maximum feasible accommodations – including things such as wide sidewalks, buffered bike lanes, and protected bike parking spaces.  But nothing is technically out of bounds — including (in addition to TE, CMAQ, and STP) High Priority Projects (HPPs), Safe Routes to Schools

(SRTS), Recreational Trails Program (RTP), Highway Safety Improvement Program

(HSIP), Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program.  See

http://americabikes.org/Documents/AB-Federal-Program-Factsheet.pdf for more.

Unobligated Balances and Rescissions:

Since the total authorization amount for all transportation programs added together is higher than the appropriated amount, if a state allocates the full authorization amount for one program it means that there will be a lot less available to be allocated to other programs.  For example, almost every state spends its full authorization for highways and roads.  This means that almost every state spends a lot less than the authorized amount on programs typically used to fund bike/ped projects – Massachusetts is simply the most embarrassing example.  The impact of these choices is multiplied by the fact that road programs (e.g. STP) are much larger than the bike/ped programs to begin with.

For those less favored programs, this creates a “gap” between the annual authorization ceiling and the amount actually spent (or *obligated* to be spent) in those other programs.

Key Fact – in most cases, the entire amount that the state is appropriated is spent — nothing is left “on the table” or returned to the feds.

Over years, assuming that the same pattern of lopsided allocation/obligation continues, the unobligated balance – the gap between the authorized ceiling and the actually obligated amount – continues to grow in the less favored programs.

This is where rescissions come into the picture.  Accountants and budget makers do not like the kind of lingering “authorization to spend” that very large “unobligated balances” create.  In addition, any state that lets a gap grow year after year after year is clearly saying that it really isn’t interested in spending for the underfunded programs.

Key Fact:  a state could, if it wanted to, make up for past underfunding by allocating more and more of its future overall authorization total to those historically neglected programs — up to the full amount of the historically accumulated gap.  This flexibility was built into the law to allow states to use an unusual percentage of their funds for short-term special projects and then make it up as they go forward.

So every now and then the feds demand that states cancel (or “rescind”) some amount of their long-term authorization-to-obligation gap. The total rescission amount is distributed among the States in the same proportion as the funds subject to the rescission were apportioned to the States for some appropriate fiscal year.  (For the text of the federal announcement, see http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/08/return-of-rescissions/)

Disproportionate Impact and Advocacy Priorities

It should not be surprising that most states tend to assign most of their required rescissions to the programs with the biggest unobligated balances — meaning those of least value to car traffic.  This means that most states disproportionately use Transportation Enhancement (TE) and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) programs for rescissions:  while those two programs received 7.3 percent of federal appropriations, they were the source of 44 percent of the 2010 rescissions.

But this is really only a paper cancellation of a future possibility — the elimination of the ability to divert huge amounts of future transportation money from historically favored programs into the historically disfavored ones.  In fact, it is unlikely that states would ever allocate that much money to these programs.  So the loss of the possibility of such an equalizing allocation is mostly irrelevant.

Of course, it worth taking advantage of every possible opportunity to demand modal equity.  But rescissions aren’t really the issue.  We need to find ways to make bike/ped projects more likely to be funded in the first place.  And we need to find long-term, equitable ways of funding the needed improvements and transformation in our transportation infrastructure while encouraging a shift to more sustainable and safe vehicles.

======================

For More About Rescissions:

http://www.advocacyadvance.org/site_images/content/Understanding_Rescissions_%282011%291.pdf

http://americabikes.org/Documents/AB-Federal-Program-Factsheet.pdf

Or check the National Transportation Enhancements Clearing House to get a state profile about authorization, obligation, and rescission amounts:  www.enhancements.org/Stateprofile.asp

Related Previous Posts:

UPDATE on TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS in MASSACHUSETTS: From Hope for Better to Concern for Worse….?

TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS – Better, But Not Fixed

CHANGING THE RULES OF THE ROAD: National Transportation Reform

Why Transportation Policy Is (Finally) Changing

Short Answer:  No money is being lost or returned.

Short Explanation:  Congress “appropriates” less money than government is “authorized” to spend.  States have great freedom to allocate the appropriated funds among different programs.  States typically use as much as they can for roads.  Massachusetts has the dubious honor of spending the lowest percentage of any state or territory of its Transportation Enhancements (TE) authorization and other programs typically used for bike/ped facilities.

For bike/ped-favoring programs such as TE and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ), the disproportionate allocation process creates an “unobligated balance” between the authorized ceiling and the obligated (to be eventually spent) amount.  This “authorized-to-obligated” gap accumulates every year.  Every now and then, Congress cleans up the books by “rescinding” some of the unobligated amounts.  States have great freedom in deciding which programs’ unobligated balances are used for the rescission – they typically use the bike/ped programs for this purpose.

Short Conclusion:  Unless state priorities change, the fact that bike/ped programs were under utilized in the past is a good indication that they will be under utilized in the future – so loosing the old balance may be aggravating, but is unlikely to make much difference in actual spending.

Short Call To Action:  We need to push states to use more of their appropriated federal transportation funds for programs funding bicycle and pedestrian facilities and off-road paths to avoid creating the large unexpended balances that set the stage for disproportionate rescissions.

But all this just scratches the surface of the story.  Every now and then word begins to circulate that the Feds are “rescinding” billions of dollars in many different spending areas, including transportation.  Emails start sending warnings that funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs is being reduced and that people should contact Washington to protest  The League of American Bicyclists, Bikes Belong, and others have said that “At the very least, rescissions should be fair and proportional.  All funding programs should receive equal consideration to others: they should be spent proportionally and rescinded proportionally. Programs favorable to bicycle and pedestrian projects should not be targeted more than others.”  See:  http://www.advocacyadvance.org/site_images/content/Rescissions_FAQs.pdf

While every opportunity to demand modal equity is worth taking, fighting rescissions is focusing too late in the process.  The cows are already out of the barn.  At both the federal and state levels we need to move “upstream” and demand policy changes that make bike/ped projects more likely to be funded in the first place.

We need to protest, to advocate, to partner.  But we need to understand what’s going on so we can use our limited advocacy resources in the most efficient manner.

—————————————

Authorization, Appropriation, and Allocation:

Every year (in some cases, every few years), Congress authorizes a certain amount of spending.  They set an overall “authorization ceiling” as well as specific authorization ceilings for broad areas (such as transportation) and even program areas within that issue (such as the Surface Transportation Program, mostly used for roads, and Transportation Enhancements, which is a major source of funding for bike/ped facilities).

But no one actually gets to spend the full authorization ceiling.  Rather, Congress then “appropriates” the actual total available to be “obligated” (and eventually spent) in that year or period – and this appropriated amount is (almost) always lower than what was authorized.  In transportation, each state’s authorization/obligation ceiling is what they are actually allowed to spend in that time period.

However, in the name of flexibility and state’s rights, each state is relatively free to allocate or divide up the total appropriated amount for a broad area (e.g. transportation) among the various programs and subprograms in any way it wants.  Except where explicitly required by Congress to do otherwise, a state can use as much (or as little) of its allocation as it wants for any particular program or subprogram — up to the “authorization ceiling” for that program or subprogram.

Key Fact:  Almost every transportation program, including the Surface Transportation program (STP), can be used to fund bike/ped facilities in some way.  Under the federal and state Complete Streets policies, every road should have the maximum feasible accommodations – including things such as wide sidewalks, buffered bike lanes, and protected bike parking spaces.  But nothing is technically out of bounds — including (in addition to TE, CMAQ, and STP) High Priority Projects (HPPs), Safe Routes to Schools

(SRTS), Recreational Trails Program (RTP), Highway Safety Improvement Program

(HSIP), Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program.  See

http://americabikes.org/Documents/AB-Federal-Program-Factsheet.pdf for more.

Unobligated Balances and Rescissions:

Since the total authorization amount for all transportation programs added together is higher than the appropriated amount, if a state allocates the full authorization amount for one program it means that there will be a lot less available to be allocated to other programs.  For example, almost every state spends its full authorization for highways and roads.  This means that almost every state spends a lot less than the authorized amount on programs typically used to fund bike/ped projects – Massachusetts is simply the most embarrassing example.  The impact of these choices is multiplied by the fact that road programs (e.g. STP) are much larger than the bike/ped programs to begin with.

For those less favored programs, this creates a “gap” between the annual authorization ceiling and the amount actually spent (or *obligated* to be spent) in those other programs.

Key Fact – in most cases, the entire amount that the state is appropriated is spent — nothing is left “on the table” or returned to the feds.

Over years, assuming that the same pattern of lopsided allocation/obligation continues, the unobligated balance – the gap between the authorized ceiling and the actually obligated amount – continues to grow in the less favored programs.

This is where rescissions come into the picture.  Accountants and budget makers do not like the kind of lingering “authorization to spend” that very large “unobligated balances” create.  In addition, any state that lets a gap grow year after year after year is clearly saying that it really isn’t interested in spending for the underfunded programs.

Key Fact:  a state could, if it wanted to, make up for past underfunding by allocating more and more of its future overall authorization total to those historically neglected programs — up to the full amount of the historically accumulated gap.  This flexibility was built into the law to allow states to use an unusual percentage of their funds for short-term special projects and then make it up as they go forward.

So every now and then the feds demand that states cancel (or “rescind”) some amount of their long-term authorization-to-obligation gap. The total rescission amount is distributed among the States in the same proportion as the funds subject to the rescission were apportioned to the States for some appropriate fiscal year.  (For the text of the federal announcement, see http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/08/return-of-rescissions/)

Disproportionate Impact and Advocacy Priorities

It should not be surprising that most states tend to assign most of their required rescissions to the programs with the biggest unobligated balances — meaning those of least value to car traffic.  This means that most states disproportionately use Transportation Enhancement (TE) and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) programs for rescissions:  while those two programs received 7.3 percent of federal appropriations, they were the source of 44 percent of the 2010 rescissions.

But this is really only a paper cancellation of a future possibility — the elimination of the ability to divert huge amounts of future transportation money from historically favored programs into the historically disfavored ones.  In fact, it is unlikely that states would ever allocate that much money to these programs.  So the loss of the possibility of such an equalizing allocation is mostly irrelevant.

Of course, it worth taking advantage of every possible opportunity to demand modal equity.  But rescissions aren’t really the issue.  We need to find ways to make bike/ped projects more likely to be funded in the first place.  And we need to find long-term, equitable ways of funding the needed improvements and transformation in our transportation infrastructure while encouraging a shift to more sustainable and safe vehicles.

======================

For More About Rescissions:

http://www.advocacyadvance.org/site_images/content/Understanding_Rescissions_%282011%291.pdf

http://americabikes.org/Documents/AB-Federal-Program-Factsheet.pdf

Or check the National Transportation Enhancements Clearing House to get a state profile about authorization, obligation, and rescission amounts:  www.enhancements.org/Stateprofile.asp

Related Previous Posts:

UPDATE on TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS in MASSACHUSETTS: From Hope for Better to Concern for Worse….?

TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS – Better, But Not Fixed

CHANGING THE RULES OF THE ROAD: National Transportation Reform

Why Transportation Policy Is (Finally) Changing

Propose to add bike lanes or narrow traffic lanes or even to install corner bulb-outs in either a suburb or an inner-city neighborhood, and you’re likely to run into the rejection chorus from long-time residents:  “You’ll just make congestion worse.” “Cars will short-cut through our neighborhoods.”  “This discriminates against the car driving majority.”

The issue isn’t the technical details – the size of the bulb-outs, the width of the bike lanes, the height of the speed bumps.  Neither does it usually seem to be about the need to make it safer to walk, bike, or take transit.  Everyone agrees that the roads aren’t as safe as we’d like.  And often it isn’t really about bicycling, or buses, or whatever else has triggered the opposition – many people will tell you that “I’m all in favor of …; but this is just not the right place for this kind of project.”

Still, it’s amazing how quickly these discussions turn into emotional explosions, that rational discussion turns into apocalyptic fury.  In middle class Arlington, for example, one opponent to proposed traffic-calming changes has spent over ,000 of his own money proclaiming that bike lanes will destroy the local economy and cause huge numbers of injuries.  In once-working class Charlestown, long-time residents demanded the removal of in-town bike lanes and are fighting reducing lane widths on Rutherford Ave. as if these were attacks on their community by subversive outsiders.  In both communities, as in many others, public meetings ended up in angry shouting matches.

Remember “The Music Man” when the traveling salesman got the town in a frenzy about how the new pool tables were “the first big step on the road to the depths of degradation…trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble…” (I was in my high school’s performance – the last time anyone let me sing in public!)  What makes new things so scary?  How can we diminish the NIMBY response, perhaps even turning potential opponents into supporters?  And is there something special about transportation issues that we have to take into account?

It’s too easy and shallow to say that people just don’t like change, or at least change in their own community.  It’s true – but not really the point.   Of course, people have learned to deal with the status quo, for all its faults, and change threatens whatever feelings of comfort and security they may have, however tenuous that may be.  But its not change in general that is scary; it’s certain types of change.  And those of us who think that change is needed have to figure out how to deal with that opposition.

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that transportation is a foundational issue.  Along with land-use, transportation is one of the fundamental shapers of social, economic, and physical space – of our neighborhoods and lives.

Second, we need to understand that what worries the “townies” is not the bike lanes – it’s us; or rather, the fact that we are threatening to replace them as creators of local culture and norms.  They fear that the bike lanes, like the groovy coffee shops and fancy restaurants that come with us, are the visible advance guard of a demographic invasion that will disrupt old social networks and probably displace them.  And they may be correct.

Third, we need to deal with the reality – especially in working class or lower middle class areas – that the locals may be correct because those cultural changes also announce that the real estate market is about to devour their neighborhood, raising prices and replacing familiar small businesses.  As in Somerville’s Davis Square, the lucky ones will get to sell out; the majority will just get pushed out.  But the community will be gone.

In order to soften – or even prevent – this NIMBY blowback, which is often strong enough to slow and sometimes to even stop, efforts to upgrade our transportation system to meet the safety, sustainability, and multi-modal requirements of the 21^st century, we need to address our opponents displacement fears and find ways to control (or at least soften) the speculative impact.

This posting focuses on transportation, but the principles discussed are applicable to almost any issue.  To avoid NIMBY, we need to “do it right.”

Continue reading →

Parks have many functions.  Urban parks were originally seen as oases, cool and green antidotes to the noise and density of the city; a place for quiet walks, meditation, and observation of nature’s wonderfulness.  Over the years, a growing working population with limited opportunity to escape the city demanded that parks also be used for family fun and active recreation: picnics, kids’ games, adult sports and exercise.  More recently, we’ve learned that green areas are the lungs and sponges of our environment, cleaning the air, absorbing water run-offs, lowering the temperature, and providing a vital tool for dealing with the globe’s escalating climatic disruptions.

But what if parks were also treated as building blocks for a regional healthy transportation network?  What if they were nodes in a web of connected greenways with multi-use paths designed for non-motorized use for both families at play and weekday commuters?  What if the vision was to improve access to local parks by neighbors as well as to facilitate movement between and through the parklands by everyone?

Boston is uniquely suited to the implementation of such a vision – especially if we include our other types of green and open space: the parkways, river banks, beaches, woods, playgrounds, even some of the cemeteries.   Of course, the routes would occasionally have to use the street grid; but in those areas the off-road feel could be preserved by the upgrading of sidewalks and the creation of cycle tracks – bike lanes that are physically separated from traffic.   The goal is not to turn the parks into roads, but to turn the entire city into a park, to lace the city with green.

Continue reading →

Several times each day, most of us move from one place to another using one of the many options available – walk or drive, take the stairs or the elevator, bike or bus, taxi or limousine.  Most of the time, most of us don’t really think about it; we just do what we’ve usually done, what everyone else usually does, fall into the default behavior:  we drive, take the elevator, call a cab.

What creates the default?  What nudges so many of us in the same direction?  Not an act of nature or of god.  Behavioral defaults are not inevitable or inescapable.  They are created by the surrounding context – the structure of our buildings, the nature of the transportation system, the attributes of high social status, the cultural assumptions that make some things feel normal and others unthinkable.  One way to understand the decision-making context is to examine the “Four Cs” of Convenience, Cost, Comfort, and Coolness.  Which method of movement is easiest to access?  Which feels like a good value?  Which requires the least effort to use?  Which is the most appropriate for people of our (self-imagined) social standing and style?

None of these default-creating factors occur by “accident.”  They are the aggregated product of past human decisions and actions.  And that is the good news — if the Four Cs are the factors that create our society’s defaults in transportation and many other areas of daily life, and if they are themselves created by human action, then we can use our power over them to change our “ordinary” behaviors.  We can design the Four Cs to create defaults that generate the most overall value from public infrastructure investments, maximize personal and public health, create the safest and most livable neighborhoods, and other social and individual benefits.

Of course, we can not create a brand new transportation system from scratch, no more than we can shape our land use patterns as if nothing already occupied the land, or improve public health as if evolution had not programmed us to crave sugar, fat, and salt.  We have to start from what exists.  But we are not condemned to simply replicate the past.  Using our creativity, mobilizing our political forces, and finding ways to tap our society’s immense resources – we can move ourselves towards a better future.

It’s true that this is a hard time for progressive reform, efforts to create a more humane world for all.  It is, rather, a time when insecurity undermines public understanding that we rise and fall together, leading to policies that move us towards the barbarism of “all against all” and the kind of malignant inequality that creates even more insecurity.  In such a time, it is vital to keep the visionary hopes alive while focusing on the pragmatic victories, the specific improvements, the local actions that we can win.

Continue reading →

Winning isn’t everything; but being last should be embarrassing.  The Transportation Enhancement (TE) component of the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) is the major source of federal funding for pedestrian/bicycle facilities and rail-trail conversations.  A recent post pointed out Massachusetts’ worst-in-the-nation status in percent of potential-to-actual money spent on TE projects.

The post applauded the (slightly) simplified application process MassDOT was instituting for TE projects as well as the creation of financial incentives for the state’s 13 regional transportation planning groups (MPOs) to approve TE projects.  It also approvingly noted the criteria that MassDOT was considering using to evaluate TE project spending, giving priority to projects that would connect high-population areas or close gaps in existing bike routes.

(STP requires that TE funds be used for “travel related” projects, usually meaning that they connect discrete destinations rather than serve purely recreational purposes.  Rural or “non-travel” paths are supposed to be funded through the Recreational Trail Program, RTP, another federal program for which Massachusetts pathetically owns the worst-in-the-nation standing in percent of potential-to-actual money spent.)

But I may have spoken too soon.  It now appears that the state will cut a million dollars a year (almost a quarter of the total) from the promised amount, and that already locked-in road project obligations will prevent the incentives from having any effect until at least 2015, if not much later.  In addition, the recommendations submitted by MassDOT’s high-cost consultant about prioritizing projects eligible for the matching money incentives have not been publically issued.  Finally, no action seems to be forthcoming to relieve rail-trail projects from having to use the same expensive and time consuming processes set up to ensure that roads meet national construction standards – despite the fact that these paths will only, and very occasionally, have to carry ambulances, fire vehicles, or even (we should be so lucky) snow plows and street cleaners.

The most tempting way for Massachusetts to “solve” the problem is to change the labeling — to count all sidewalk and bike lane and bike trail work as Transportation Enhancements.   But this would be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of both federal guidelines and MassDOT’s own principles, dangerously undermining its legislatively-mandated Complete Streets policy. Rather, “regular” STP funds should be used to pay for any project in which the car-carrying pavement is being touched in any way, and every one of those projects should incorporate the maximum feasible accommodations for walking and cycling.

In contrast, TE funds should be reserved for situations where pedestrian and bicycle facilities would simply not be constructed otherwise — mostly meaning (1) adding ped/bike facilities to roads whose car-carrying surfaces are not being repaired or upgraded, (2) off-road paths such as rail-to-trail conversions, and (3) addressing other gaps in equity or support needed for the growth of non-motorized movement.

If the state is to live up to its multi-modal aspirations – and its legal requirements under several state laws and policies – it needs to:

• More aggressively implement its Complete Streets policies to require every road repair, upgrading, or new construction project to provide the maximum possible ped/bike accommodations (or at least go beyond the standard minimums), even if that means putting some of the space limitation burden on car movement and parking;
• Fully funding the Recreational Trail Program (rather than diverting about half the potential funds to other purposes);
• Ensure that at least 10% of Surface Transportation Funds be used for TE-eligible walking or cycling facilities in appropriate situations, by –

• • reserving the money for centralized state programming, or
  • requiring that MPOs spend 10% of the STF money on TE-eligible projects, or
  • Somehow restructuring the incentive program to have a bigger and more immediate impact.

—————————————-

The Back Story

States are allowed to reserve up to 10% of its federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) money for TE projects – either by reserving it for use by the state Department of Transportation or by requiring that it be spent by the regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) who set transportation spending priorities in their areas.  Up until now, Massachusetts simply forwarded STP money to its 13 MPOs and allowed the regional groups to do what they wanted – which was mostly road upgrading.  (MassDOT has one or more seats on each of the MPOs, so it does have influence, but it didn’t push very hard to change those priorities.)  As a result, while Massachusetts’ yearly Congressionally-authorized potential TE spending hovers around million, the actual amount “obligated” to be spent on TE projects has wavered from almost nothing to about million, usually in the lower half of that range – the lowest percentage of “authorized-to-obligated” annual TE spending in the nation.

It was very good news in 2008 when Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen acknowledged that the state’s TE program needed improvement and announced that he was hiring the Partners Collaborative (for 0,000!) to suggest changes.  The next year, his replacement as Transportation Secretary, James Aliosi, announced at his agency’s annual Moving Together conference in October, 2009 that “MassDOT will increase the statewide annual TE funding allocation pool from the current {content}.5 million to .5 million in FY2011, .0 million FY2012 and .5 million in FY2013. MassDOT will further increase the effectiveness of this funding by using it to match funds programmed regionally in order to create incentives for MPOs to program TE projects.”

The match was designed as a “1 for 2” contribution: MassDOT would add another dollar to every two dollars an MPO programmed for TE projects, a 50% bonus.  Unfortunately, the consultants’ suggestions for process reform didn’t go beyond eliminating the expensive and time-consuming double application process – once to be approved as a TE project by the Regional Planning Agency (RPA) and then again as part of the regular road project evaluation via the MPO.  (Some other states are able to approve TE projects in less than two years, a discomforting contrast to the decade-long effort it often takes in the Commonwealth.)

Problems not addressed by the consultants include:

• the inability to use TE or RTP funds to secure control of rail-trail property;
• the requirement that localities cover up to 10% of the total cost (the state provides another 10% and the rest is covered by federal money);
• the dividing up of long corridors into multiple small trail projects each of which requires the same amount of work to get approved;
• the tendency of MassDOT to require trails to meet too many road-focused design and process-approval requirements even though almost no motorized vehicles will use them;
• the lack of a method to track progress on previously approved TE projects, some of which have been languishing for years, others of which began with TE funding but shifted (often partly because of frustration with TE delays) to Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funding (CMAQ) or received a Congressional earmark;
• and the lack of dedicated staff at the state DOT to move the process forward.

In addition, the consultants updated the state’s 1997 Bicycle Plan to propose a 740-mile, seven-corridor Bay State Greenway (BSG) network consisting of on-road and off-road (multi-use path) facilities, as well identifying about 100 miles of priority segments (the BSG-100).  Supposedly, the BSG-100 segments were selected using the excellent criteria the consultants devised for identifying matching-money-eligible TE projects – although the connection isn’t always obvious.

MassDOT Backtracking…

Of course, all this was before Wall Street speculators squandered our national surplus and anti-government conservatives gained veto power over fiscal policy.  As public funds have evaporated, MassDOT has cut back.  At the 2010 Moving Together conference, the next Transportation Department Secretary, Jeffrey Mullan, said that MassDOT would use million of the FY2011 money for a special project in Worcester and .5 million for the matching offer, with .5 million used for matching in future years – both giving the bonus program a lower first year amount and locking the top level at a million dollars a year below the original promise.

Even more significantly, transportation funding is typically scheduled years in advance, partly because there is such a huge backlog of projects competing for such inadequate amounts of money.  The regional and state-wide Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) list — on which a project must be placed before it can be implemented – is short.  And while it can be amended, there are currently no major pedestrian or bicycle projects included on the short list of pending projects.

There are no federal or state laws that prohibit or inhibit the inclusion of non-auto-centric projects on the state TIP.  To the contrary.  Current law requires that roads built with federal money provide “due consideration” for pedestrians and bicyclists.  Under the Obama Administration and the leadership of US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recently issued a “policy guidance” letter saying this means that “bicyclists and pedestrians should be included as a matter of routine, and the decision to not accommodate them should be the exception rather than the rule.”

Of course, this progressive move provoked a backlash from the highway lobby.  The D.C.-based leaders of AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, objected – saying they preferred the old interpretation that only required non-motorized facilities “be considered, where appropriate.”  But there was enough pushback from state transportation officials – 23 of whose departments have adopted Complete Streets policies – that AASHTO lobbyists had to back off (at least until more pro-car Republicans get elected).

All Roads Should Be Complete Streets

These retreats and slowdowns raise concern that MassDOT will take the easy, but extremely damaging, way of lifting itself out of the TE performance basement by simply changing its accounting system to define all money spent on planning or constructing sidewalks and bike facilities associated with regular road repair or upgrading as TE expenditures.

Reclassifying sidewalks, traffic calming, road diets, bike lanes and other on-road improvements done as part of a regular road project as TE costs rather than as part of the “regular” STP budget will be a disaster because it will fatally undermine the state’s Complete Streets policies – as well as its GreenDOT commitments and Healthy Transportation Compact mandate.

In the long run, creating a multi-modal road system requires that every road project include the maximum possible pedestrian and bicycle accommodations as a core component of its design and budget.  Every time a street is being improved, or even significantly repaired, the design should automatically include – should prioritize – including lane reductions and narrowing, traffic-calming and intersection-tightening, sidewalk widening and street furniture additions, bike lane, cycle track, side-path, transit amenities, and other facilitators of “active transportation.”

Pulling these elements, or any subset of them, out of the regular design process or the project engineer’s basic responsibilities – which is what will inevitably happen to some degree once they are moved into a different budget category – will fundamentally undermine the state’s commitment to Complete Streets as well as its other goals.

Even if MassDOT is somehow able to dodge this bullet, treating pedestrian and bicycle (and transit) accommodations separately from the “road” violates both the spirit and practice of Complete Streets.  Multi-modal accommodations should be treated as the required starting point for every transportation plan, not “extras” or supplementary additions on the edges of the “real” road.  It should be inconceivable to build a road that only serves cars.  Every road build with Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds should be a Complete Street.

What should Enhancement funds be used for?  TE funds should be reserved for adding pedestrian and bicycling facilities or programs where they wouldn’t otherwise appear:

• adding sidewalks, crossing bridges, cycle tracks, side-paths, and other ped/bike accommodations in locations where no other major road work is occurring;
• creating off-road pedestrian, bicycling, or multi-use paths such as rail-to-trail conversions.  (STP/TE rules require these paths to be “travel related” rather than purely recreational, which are supposed to be funded through the Recreational Trail Program, or RTP – another program that Massachusetts pathetically owns the worst-in-the-nation standing in percent of potential-to-actual money spent.)
• supporting other parts of the “six Es” such as education, encouragement, enforcement, evaluation, and equity.

If the state is to live up to its multi-modal aspirations – and its legal requirements under several state laws and policies – it needs to:

• More aggressively implement its Complete Streets policies to require every road repair, upgrading, or new construction project to provide the maximum possible ped/bike accommodations (or at least go beyond the standard minimums), even if that means putting some of the space limitation burden on car movement and parking;
• Fully funding the Recreational Trail Program (rather than diverting about half the potential funds to other purposes);
• Ensure that at least 10% of Surface Transportation Funds be used for TE-eligible walking or cycling facilities in appropriate situations, by –

• • reserving the money for centralized state programming, or
  • requiring that MPOs spend 10% of the STF money on TE-eligible projects, or
  • Somehow restructuring the incentive program to have a bigger and more immediate impact.

It’s hard to know if you are heading in the right direction if you don’t know where you are going.    In today’s context of fiscal constraint, it is vital to justify expenditures or to choose among competing options by evaluating how much they are moving us, or potentially will move us, towards our goals.  This is particularly true for public policy and action.

The Healthy Transportation Compact, a component of the 2008 law creating today’s Massachusetts Department of Transportation, commits the agency to “support healthy transportation…reducing greenhouse gas emissions…improving access to services for persons with mobility limitations, and increasing opportunities for physical activities… increasing bicycle and pedestrian travel…[creating] complete streets for all users…”

The state’s 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act commits MassDOT to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, which currently produces over a third of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.  The agency’s GreenDOT program goes even further.  Its three “primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; promote the healthy transportation options of walking, bicycling, and public transit; and support smart growth development….[as well as] incorporate sustainability into all of its activities.”

How are we doing?  It’s hard to know – despite the fact that one of the requirements written into the Healthy Transportation Compact is to “develop goals…and measure progress.”  First, these rather general and abstract goals have to be quantified in both amount and time frame.  Second, we need to select indicators that evaluate progress towards those goals, either directly or through some appropriate surrogate.  And, third, we need to actually do the measurements and announce the results.

As good educators know, the value of a report card is not just its snapshot of current status but, even more, its ability to motivate and guide future effort – to serve as an annual review’s progress report rather than as an exit interview’s termination agreement.

Picking indicators that serve both purposes requires that they are relevant, available, transparent, actionable, sensitive, educational, benchmarked, and dramatic. In addition to meeting these criteria, indicators should describe three different categories of information:  outcomes, enabling factors, and inputs/processes.  And within each of these, at least some of the indicators in each category should evaluate possible disparities among key subpopulations.

This post explores these criteria and categories in the context of proposing indicators that might be used to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian travel at the state level.  However, this approach should also be valid for examining transportation, public health, community development and other issues at the local, regional, and national levels as well.

Continue reading →

There actually is a common theme running through all three of this week’s seemingly unconnected items:  how to deal with the changes in transportation choices that people will make as gas prices continue to rise, urban population expands, and congestion gets worse.  Or, as my carpenter brother says about his tools, “the trick is keeping everything in its own place.”

SEGWAY IN THE WAY – Reclaiming Sidewalks for People

CHARLES RIVER BRIDGES – Part of the Path or the Road?

BIKE LIGHTS AT NIGHT – “Fix It” Enforcement

The first one applauds Boston’s effort to plan ahead for the influx of electric and low-powered vehicles – such as scooters, mopeds, electric bikes, and Segways – that people will increasingly use.  If you agree, contact your favorite Boston City Councilor and urge a quick, positive vote for the proposal.

The second delves into the complications of bike and pedestrian movement around and over the River St., Western Ave, and Anderson Bridges.  Despite having spent several years arguing for bike lanes on the bridges, the more I examine the situation the more appropriate – even necessary – it seems to create two-way, separate-from-traffic, corridors for bikes on both sides of each bridge.  Read my own musings and leave a comment with your own thoughts.

Finally, the other night I was almost knocked off my bike into traffic by an idiot cyclist wearing black and without any lights who came flying down the bike lane going the wrong way on a one-way street.  So I spent a little time searching for effective “get the light” strategies.  Cambridge and Boston have “Be Bright; Use A Light” efforts, although neither have been of sufficient scale to fundamentally change local culture.  But the Portland, Oregon program seemed really good and, with some adjustment, greatly worthy of emulation.  Does anyone know of other highly effective campaigns?

Continue reading →

Arriving late is every emergency worker’s nightmare. EMTs and firefighters know that new construction materials – plastics and composites – burn fast and release unpredictable clouds of toxic fumes.  It is estimated that people have about 3 minutes to escape the heat and smoke once a fire starts, down from nearly 17 minutes forty years ago.  Response speed spells life or death not only for the residents but also for the fire fighters, whose ever-larger ladder trucks and pumpers need to fight through traffic congestion and tight intersections.   In fact, given our increasing awareness of the potential need for mass evacuations under catastrophic conditions, creating a transportation system that allows emergency movement is a matter of both public safety and national security.

So it’s not surprising that fire chiefs in many communities have fought for wide traffic lanes and intersections – a concern often shared by bus drivers and snow-plow agencies.  But this has repeatedly brought them into conflict with the growing public demand to slow traffic and create more livable streets whether under the label of “Complete Streets”, “New Urbanism”, “Traffic Calming and Road Diets”, or “Creating Better Balance Between Car, Bike, and Pedestrian Facilities”.

The good news is that there are many ways to make streets more inviting to pedestrians and cyclists of all ages and levels of traffic tolerance while also keeping them accessible for emergency vehicles (and for buses and snow plows, too!).

Rather than leave emergency responders, transit agency, and public works managers, out of the transportation planning process, forcing them to annoy everyone by angrily objecting to road designs at the last minute, those of us on the road redesign side of the process need to get them involved earlier – and show them that livable streets are actually safer (and healthier!) as well as more enjoyable.

Continue reading →

While we’re waiting for the big transformations needed to deal with climate change, resource depletion, dietary distortions, inequality, and the other despair-evoking problems we face, it’s good to remember that incremental improvements are still possible – and may be all we can gain at this particular moment in history.  The first five items in this post applauds small but significant steps forward while pointing out some additional actions that are still needed.

The fifth item picks up a previous post’s theme – the need for bicyclists to discipline their own community about dangerous and anti-social behavior.  As our streets are redesigned for pedestrian and cyclist safety, we will have to confront an inevitable backlash as car owners protest the loss of their once-privileged status and businesses worry (mostly inaccurately) about decreased access for truck deliveries, parking-dependent customers, and car-commuting employees.  The last thing we need at this time are stupid cyclists (or jay-walkers) providing good reasons to oppose continued change.

And, finally, despite all my assumptions, I recently learned that federal law does not prohibit adding pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities to Interstates.  Even more, current federal policy requires the inclusion of walking and cycling accommodations in most federally-funded projects – including on bridges!  Maybe the bigger transformations will come….

• Bike Lanes on Mass Ave. – Incredible! But A Gap Remains…
• Intersections:  Walk Signals and Bike Boxes…..
• Ghost Bikes and Memorial Signs Promote Safer Behavior….
• Bikes on the T – Breaking the Commuter Peak Barrier….
• Hubway Bike Share:  A Game Changer…
• Drive Nicely, No Matter What Your Vehicle…
• “There are no Federal laws or regulations that prohibit bicycle use on…or that prohibit shared use paths along or near Interstate highways or other freeways.”

Continue reading →

Transportation for America (T4) is a huge national coalition (including LivableStreets Alliance) focused on getting improvements in the next federal transportation authorization bill – which is already overdue and now mired in Republican demands to reduce government activity and spending no matter the consequences.  T4A conducted a lengthy national process of collecting ideas and creating a really good consensus platform.

But the T4A platform is focused on national issues.  Those of us who mostly work at the city and state levels need a set of issues and positions that more directly speak to people’s everyday experiences, fears, and hopes – and can serve as a platform for building the broad coalitions needed to successfully push for change.

And we need to be about more than bicycles or even bicycles and walking – while bike advocates are often the most active group in these coalitions, they are too narrow a base for a winning campaign.  We need to frame our slogans and construct our platforms on a vision of improvements in everyday life.  This is why the concept of “livable streets” is so powerful, and so often repeated.  But we need to get even more visceral, more concrete.  We need a platform that taps into feelings about safety, convenience, health, and economic insecurity.  Here are some ideas that I think might empower local coalition-building and action – and I welcome reader’s suggestions as well.

• Protect Your Child By Slowing Dangerous Traffic

– Make streets safer for kids, seniors, people pushing baby carriages and shopping carts, and anyone who might get hit by a speeding car.

– Implement through traffic calming, road diets, 20mph “vulnerable population” zones, and better enforcement.

• Respect Individuals By Providing Healthy and Convenient Choices

– Stop requiring everyone to move around in the same, increasingly expensive and congested manner; make transit, walking, and bicycling more convenient and inviting.

– Implement through “complete streets” (better sidewalks, family-friendly bike facilities, expanded bus/rail service), cleaner and quieter vehicles and fuels, smart growth zoning and construction codes.

• Reduce Waste by Ending the Giveaway of Public Assets

– Treat roadway as public space rather than auto subsidy.

– Implement through more market-rate parking fees, facilitating street closings for festivals and play, increasing road user fees.

Continue reading →

Because I’m out so many evenings and weekends, I try to reserve a couple of mid-week hours to bike with the Wednesday Wheelers.  This week the weather was fabulous and a small group of us did a great 40 mile ride through the beauty of the approaching spring.  Afterwards, I sat with Stan Sabin and his wife Susan at lunch. Stan Sabin was a former Pulmonologist, a sweet and careful man who probably never ran a red light or jumped in front of traffic in any of his 74 years.

When we finished eating and chatting, Stan smiled, kissed Susan, waved to everyone, then left ahead of the rest of us to get home in time for the free health clinic that he ran in Framingham.

At the same time, driving down Rte. 115, a woman who wasn’t texting, wasn’t drunk, had a valid license, and wasn’t going any faster than the 35 or 40 mph speed limit allowed, was driving down the road and had a “sneezing fit” – the kind, which has happened to each of us, that squinshes your eyes and jerks your hands.

When she opened her eyes, Stan was dead.

Maybe you’ve seen the slide that shows that when a person is hit by a car going 20 mph they have a 95% chance of survival.  But if they’re hit by a car going 40 mph, they have an 80% chance of being killed.

Turns out its true.

It’s a simple trade-off: a couple of additional seconds for going down the block at 20 mph versus the potential of killing someone.

Accidents happen. We can’t eliminate them.  But the consequences of accidents can be reduced.  We’ve got to pass a slower prevailing speed limit for residential and commercial districts closer to the European standard of 20 mph, or at least give municipalities the right to create “vulnerable user” zones (like school zones) that cut legal speeds to 20 mph in designated areas.  And then, because people (including me) actually drive as fast as road conditions allow us to feel comfortable doing, we need to restructure our roads so that drivers simply don’t feel safe going faster than we want them to.

MassDOT has the authority to make our roads truly multi-modal and safe for every type of user.  Section 1.2 of the Highway Design Guide states that its goal is “to ensure that the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system (pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers) are considered equally through all phases of a project so that even the most vulnerable (e.g., children and the elderly) can feel and be safe within the public right of way.”

It’s not an impossible dream.  Since 1997 Sweden has been implementing “Vision Zero” which aims to eliminate all traffic-related deaths. By 2009 they reduced fatalities by 34.5%. the actual ten year reduction was 13% to 471 deaths. The target was revised to 50% by 2020 and to 0 deaths by 2050. In 2009 the reduction from 1997 totals was 34.5% to 355 deaths.

The rest of this post…the stuff that follows the “continue reading” below, suggests some reasons that MassDOT hasn’t yet fulfilled or even embraced that transformative mission.  But this long introductory section is about the real reason that moving towards true multi-modal equality is so important – people’s lives are at stake.

For myself, since Stan’s death I’ve been feeling nervous each time I go out on my bike.  The vulnerability and randomness of what happens on the road feels very close.  As does Stan.

Continue reading →

Is the media’s job to reflect unpolished reality back to us?  Or to help us interpret the reality hidden in the chaos of daily events?  Or to convince us of its own version of reality?  Usually, no matter how sincere a media producer’s claims of journalist objectivity, it’s a combination of all three.

(Actually, as my publisher once told me, back when I was a magazine editor, our ultimate job was to attract desirable eyeballs so that he could then rent them out to advertisers.  If I could get the desired audience through quality material, so much the better for our reputations and the world.  But if it took something else, from a business perspective, that was ok, too.)

This posting looks at two recent incidences of media mediated reality:  the backlash against adding bike facilities to our roads that is supposedly sweeping the country and the recent failure of the brackets holding up light fixtures in the Big Dig tunnels.  In both cases, the media seems to be looking for – or perhaps creating – the “screamer headlines” that pander to the public’s supposed desire for emotional titillation.  As a result, policies are being distorted, one person’s career has been hurt, and the public is missing the truth – or at least the truth that I think lies behind the headlines.

We should not be surprised that opposition is emerging around the country to the current push to take some road space away from cars in favor of pedestrians and cyclists.  Car drivers are like two-year-olds who are suddenly forced to share their toys.  Temper tantrums are inevitable.  But most two years olds rather quickly grow out of an infantile insistence on their proprietary privileges.  What makes the anti-bike lane protesters isolated complaints about their lost status significant is that their otherwise marginal voices have been amplified by the scandal-seeking media.  The fact that the complainers tend to be upper class, well-connected, and white probably also contributes to the attention they command.

New York City’s alleged “bike lane backlash” is a case in point. The New York Times has given enormous prominence to the whining, as if they represent a significant percentage of the population rather than a small rear-guard minority.  Coverage by the Times then incites the rest of the media to follow, leading with a piece by John Cassidy in the New Yorker complaining that the bike/ped changes have “gone too far” given the limited number of cyclists in the city.  Not only have his economic arguments been totally trashed by none other than the Economist magazine, but his complaint about bicycles being the reason he is now unable to find a free, dinner-time parking place near his favorite restaurant in downtown Manhattan set him up for endless put-downs.

Best of all, he starts, as do so many critics of less auto-centric street design, by announcing that “I don’t have anything against bikes” – so long as it doesn’t stop him from doing anything else he wants.

But the bottom line, the fact that much of the backlash is a media-induced non-reality was proved by a recent poll showing that a majority of the city’s residents favored continued expansion!  And rather than backing down, the city has issued a strong statement pointing out the many benefits that their road changes have brought – to motorists as well as pedestrians and cyclists.  For example, injuries to all three drop between 40 and 50 percent on streets with physically separated bicycle lanes (aka “cycle tracks”). The city also points out that even while the number of cyclists has significantly increased over the past four years, the number of bicycle crashes that lead to injuries or deaths has fallen.  In the statement, Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson pointed out the Transportation Department had held dozens of public meetings for each of the major street redesigns and the plans had all been approved by local community boards.

The same media dynamic started to play out in Boston, when some “community leaders” in Charlestown demanded that the city stop stripping bike lanes in their community.  The city immediately scrapped off the paint, but insisted that there be open community meetings to discuss the issue.  The Boston Globe, now owned by the Times, immediately started running front-page stories about the up swelling opposition to the city’s overbearing effort to impose unwanted methods of travel upon the population.  But advocacy groups and the city’s own bike program had done their homework.  The public meeting was swamped with people from the neighborhood who said that they bicycled and that they wanted the lanes.  The “community leaders” suddenly began issuing statements that they never realized that the lanes might serve community residents rather than fly-by commuters – as if it was better to have commuters use space-hogging and polluting cars than bicycles.  The Globe didn’t give nearly as much play to these stories.  But having been embarrassed once, neither has it spent any more time fanning the flames of opposition.

The bottom line is that most people don’t like change.  They know how to manage their current situations and aren’t sure how to deal with something different.  Change is worrisome – ask anyone working on reforming the health care system!   We need to introduce the future cautiously, using pilot projects and small scale experiments to let people see that they can handle it.  Then we need to use the initial acceptance as the basis for a large-scale public education campaign so that the new idea and its non-destructive or even positive impact becomes part of the “common knowledge.”  And finally, we need to massively and permanently implement the change as much as possible in as many places as possible.

Anyone with doubts about the effectiveness of this approach should watch what the anti-government, far-right-wing forces are doing.  They get it.  We who believe in the value of public action and the need for protecting the common good need to learn from them!

———————————-

The Big Dig Light Fixture Fiasco – Another Media Event?

The continuing discovery of Big Dig safety hazards is infuriating.  And Secretary Mullan’s changing explanations of who knew what when is certainly confusing, if not obfuscating.  The ceiling-collapse-caused death of Ms. Milena Del Valle made Big Dig safety into a third-rail issue, so it’s not surprising that the media was able to pump the tension up enough to require the sacrifice of someone’s job.  But, in a deeper sense, the media campaign missed the real story and ignored the important good news hidden within MassDOT’s handling of the falling light fixture problem.

Secretary Mullan and his staff did not cause any of the tunnel’s current problems.  The Dig’s problems mainly occurred because, in pursuit of the supposed benefits of private sector outsourcing, post-Dukakis governors stripped the Highway Department of its staff and therefore of its ability to supervise the work.  The problem wasn’t too much staff but too few to do the job right, not too-big government but too-little.

There’s no question that the Governor and the public should have been more quickly informed.  Frank Tramontozzi, the former Chief Engineer, was asked to temporarily fill in as Acting Highway Administrator, a highly visible position with public relations and political demands clearly outside his expertise.  But that issue is easily correctable by his “demotion” back to Chief Engineer and the incorporation of “lessons learned.”  It’s a shame that he had to be sacrificed as the price of moving on.

However, the real news – ignored by the headlines – is that once the fixture fell, public safety was protected. Like a good engineer, Tramontozzi’s first impulse was to fix what was wrong.  And he did.

Here’s the true headline news:  Under Secretary Mullan, public employees feel empowered to take initiative.  MassDOT staff took immediate action to deal with the problem then investigated to see if it signaled something larger.  Sure, they should have passed the facts up the chain of command.  But better that they acted!

The fact that MassDOT staff took this common-sense initiative may not seem like much, but it represents a huge accomplishment – which preserved public safety.  When the Legislature created MassDOT, they walked away from the need for increased revenue and left the Secretary with the Herculean task of uniting five separate and sometimes warring agencies into a coherent and pro-active whole.  Part of the challenge was that, after years of poor management, staff in those agencies had learned to push every decision to the top, to not do anything to stick out their own necks.  It meant no one could be blamed for anything.  It also meant that very little got done very quickly.

Faced with the mandate to “repair the airplane while it’s in the air,” Secretary Mullan and his senior staff have been creative and relentless about re-inventing MassDOT while keeping everything moving.  MassDOT appears to be creating a unified organization out of bickering factions, creating a culture that stresses customer satisfaction and excellent performance, even creating a hierarchy that engages and values worker involvement.  It is an impressive piece of work requiring state-of-the-art management skills that any cutting-edge corporation would happily spend a fortune to obtain.  And the result is that front line MassDOT workers took self-initiated action that kept the light fixture failures from causing harm.

Some of us wish that MassDOT would move even faster on its other mandate – to create a transportation system that increases and improves public transit, reduces greenhouse gasses, emphasizes bicycle and walking accommodations, maintains equipment and infrastructure in good repair, and meets the challenges of the 21st century.  But through policy initiatives such as GreenDOT and Complete Streets, Mullan’s agency has at least begun the process.

Rebuilding an effective and trustworthy Transportation Department is a long term project that will surely have some bumps in the road.  But for the first time in recent memory Massachusetts has a Secretary, a MBTA General Manager, and a Board of Directors that are working in tandem to bring Massachusetts into the 21st Century.

It is likely that Big Dig problems will continue to surface.  And we hope the public is better informed about them.  But Secretary Mullan deserves praise, not criticism, for the changes he has already achieved.

Is the media’s job to reflect unpolished reality back to us?  Or to help us interpret the reality hidden in the chaos of daily events?  Or to convince us of its own version of reality?  Usually, no matter how sincere a media producer’s claims of journalist objectivity, it’s a combination of all three.

(Actually, as my publisher once told me back when I was a magazine editor, our ultimate job was to attract desirable eyeballs so that he could then rent them out to advertisers.  If I could get the desired audience through quality material, so much the better for our reputations and the world.  But if it took something else, from a business perspective, that was ok, too.)

This posting looks at two recent incidences of media mediated reality:  the backlash against adding bike facilities to our roads that is supposedly sweeping the country and the recent failure of the brackets holding up light fixtures in the Big Dig tunnels.  In both cases, the media seems to be looking for – or perhaps creating – the “screamer headlines” that pander to the public’s supposed desire for emotional titillation.  As a result, policies are being distorted, one person’s career has been hurt, and the public is missing the truth – or at least the truth that I think lies behind the headlines.

Continue reading →

Is the media’s job to reflect unpolished reality back to us?  Or to help us interpret the reality hidden in the chaos of daily events?  Or to convince us of its own version of reality?  Usually, no matter how sincere a media producer’s claims of journalist objectivity, it’s a combination of all three.

(Actually, as my publisher once told me, back when I was a magazine editor, our ultimate job was to attract desirable eyeballs so that he could then rent them out to advertisers.  If I could get the desired audience through quality material, so much the better for our reputations and the world.  But if it took something else, from a business perspective, that was ok, too.)

This posting looks at two recent incidences of media mediated reality:  the backlash against adding bike facilities to our roads that is supposedly sweeping the country and the recent failure of the brackets holding up light fixtures in the Big Dig tunnels.  In both cases, the media seems to be looking for – or perhaps creating – the “screamer headlines” that pander to the public’s supposed desire for emotional titillation.  As a result, policies are being distorted, one person’s career has been hurt, and the public is missing the truth – or at least the truth that I think lies behind the headlines.

Continue reading →

The worlds of Program Directors and Advocates often intertwine, as the later are often hired to serve as the former.  Even though Advocates typically want programs to be expansive, open ended, and systemically transformative while Program Directors can only survive by limiting their span of accountability, both groups have an interest in program success.

From an advocacy perspective, there are three high level strategic goals: creating political will, developing technical capacity in operational agencies, and preventing a backlash by mobilizing public support for the new developments.  While program people are often public employees or are otherwise constrained to play a less explicitly political role than advocates, it should not be surprising that a similar set of concerns face program designers, developers, and managers.  From their perspective the key to creating a sustainable, impactful, and successful program involves:

• Paying Attention to Context-Shaping Strategies
• Activating Interested Constituencies and Stakeholders
• Raising the Technical Capacity of Operational Staff
• Coordinating Activity Among Separate Offices and Agencies
• Including Enough Quick and Visible Improvements to Justify Continuation

The complicated constraints of public agencies make it difficult to design, develop, and manage programs and projects that successfully address these strategic challenges.  Still, it can be done, although doing so might push public leaders to the edge of their comfort zone.

Continue reading →

This post continues the list of specific suggestions for improving the bikability and walkability of our streets.  Some are quick and easy, others more complicated but with more long-term impact.  A few are focused on Metro-region municipalities but most require action by MassDOT or DCR.  They include suggestions about:

• Including Bicycles on the Rose Kennedy Greenway
• Safeguard Pedestrian Crossings on Congress St.
• Create Better Connections Between the JFK/UMass Red Line station and Mt. Vernon Street
• Create a Metro Greenway Network
• Set Modal Share, Pollution Level, Transit Use, and Single Occupancy Reduction Goals
• Increase the Standard Size of Bike Lanes
• Set Aside the Full 10% Allowance of Highway Funds For Transportation Enhancement (TE) Projects
• Require that any Municipality Receiving Chapter 90 Road Funds Must Have a Volunteer Bike/Ped (or a Bike and a Ped) Citizen Advisory Committee
• Expand the T-station Catchment Areas
• Install Bus Priority Technologies
• Improve the Southwest Corridor Intersections
• Pass a “Safe Zones for Vulnerable Populations” Enabling Act
• Allow Municipalities to Install Red Light Control Cameras

This is my list – please suggest others!

City of Boston:

• Rose Kennedy Greenway:  Correct the embarrassing omission of bike facilities from the Greenway design by painting buffered bike lanes along the Surface Artery; and then follow up by creating true, physically-separated-from-car-traffic cycle tracks that will attract families and the general public to this hidden gem.
• Safeguard Pedestrian Crossings:  The intersection at Court and Congress Streets is heavily used, but the zebra stripes need repainting and the walk signal needs to provide more time for people to get across.  Similar improvements would make a big difference at the intersection of the Surface Artery with both Lincoln and Essex streets.
• Create Better Connections Between the JFK/UMass Red Line station and Mt. Vernon Street: This is a complicated situation, and finding a solution won’t be easy, but both city and state planners need to coordinate efforts to find a short-term and long-term fixes.

State & Metro-Area Municipalities:

• Jointly Create a Metro Greenway Network: Car congestion keeps getting worse.  Our waist-lines keep getting wider.  The only solution is to encourage people to make more use of both transit and bicycles.  We need to create a regional network of off-road, multi-use paths that are family safe for recreation and connected enough for commuters.  We can use the existing Emerald Necklace, river-side path system, Harbor Walk, and other parks as the base, connecting them with road-side cycle-tracks or buffered bike lanes.  This is a vision big enough to motivate several decades of planning and growth!

State – MassDOT Central Planning Group:

• Set Modal Share, Pollution Level, Transit Use, and Single Occupancy Reduction Goals: It’s hard to know if you are moving in the right direction if you have no idea where you want to end up.   And it is hard to prioritize or evaluate spending and projects without knowing whether they are moving towards or away from your goals.  Neither the state’s Capital Spending Plan nor its State Transportation Improvement Plan – the list of projects approved for funding in coming years – include any analysis of their impact on any goal other than increasing the level of service provided to cars.  It’s the job of the Central Planning Group to guide MassDOT towards its new goals – and its time for them to start doing so.

State – MassDOT Highway Division:

• Increase the Standard Size of Bike Lanes: Whether in a car, on foot, or on a bike, we enjoy being with friends.  But the current standard size of a bike lane – 5 feet if it runs along parked cars and 4 feet if it’s against a curb – only allows single-file travel.  A new state law does allow cycling in pairs under certain conditions, and some towns will occasionally design wider bike lanes on an exceptional basis.  But the standard bike lane width hasn’t changed.  In contrast, Copenhagen’s standard width is a bit over 7 feet (2.2 meters), explicitly to allow side-by-side conversation.  (Copenhagen is now planning to increase the standard width to between 8 and 9 feet to allow three-abreast travel!)  Maybe our standard needs to expand as well – starting with the default designs for all the numbered, non-limited-access routes  such as Routes 28, 16, 30, 20, 9, etc.  (Cities and towns could act on this idea even without state leadership.)
• Set Aside the Full 10% Allowance of Highway Funds For Transportation Enhancement (TE) Projects: TE is the major source of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.  Massachusetts uses the lowest-in-the-nation percentage of possible TE funds for these purposes, diverting the rest to road projects.  While MassDOT has made some good steps, that are not likely to solve the problem.  MassDOT needs to require that all funding-decision groups, including the 10 regional MPOs, use no less than 10% of their funds for bike/ped infrastructure.
• Require that any Municipality Receiving Chapter 90 Road Funds Must Have a Volunteer Bike/Ped (or a Bike and a Ped) Citizen Advisory Committee: Providing a structure that attracts and gives official recognition to local advocates will create a state-wide constituency able to change the tone of the public dialogue about transportation priorities.

State — MBTA

• Expand the Catchment Areas: We need a “Safe Routes to the T” program that connects commuter rail, trolley, and bus stops with their surrounding neighborhoods, with special emphasis on senior residences, shopping and social service centers, health care providers, parks, playgrounds, and schools.  Walking to the T is good; expanding ridership through a larger the catchment area by encouraging bicyclists is even better.  (This would require coordination between the state and local municipalities.)
• Bus priority: It would be best if we could expand our light rail network.  But expanding the bus system is cheaper and more likely to occur in the short run.  The trick is making bus routes as much like train schedules as possible.  Creating a full Bus Rapid Transit system is complicated, but as one first step the T should work with Boston and other cities to allow key buses, and the Green Line trolleys, to have priority at intersections.  Doing this right requires installing sensors that monitor traffic loads before and after the bus or trolley passes and adjusts the traffic lights accordingly.  But neither the math nor the technology are difficult….and we need to at least begin experimenting so that we can make transit the easy and efficient choice as well as the most economical.  (This would require coordination between the state and local municipalities.)

State – DCR

• Improve the Southwest Corridor Intersections: The presence in the Southwest Corridor of two paths, one for slow movers (mostly walkers and joggers, but also kids on bikes) and one for faster movers (mostly cyclists, but also in-line skaters), is an exemplary design.  However, not only does the surface of both paths need upgrading, the road intersections need improvement.  Each one should have clear zebra markings and a user-activated cross walk signal as well as smooth curb ramps wide enough for both baby carriages and passing bikes.  (This would require coordination between the state and local municipalities.)

STATE – LEGISLATURE

• Pass a “Safe Zones for Vulnerable Populations” Enabling Act: Speed kills:  we know that people hit by a car going 40 mph (a typical speed even in residential areas) have an 80% chance of being killed.  If the car is going 20 mph the odds reverse – there is a 95% chance of survival.  Expanding the School Zone idea, municipalities should have the right to establish 20 mph (or even 15 mph) traffic zones around locations frequented by vulnerable populations – children, elders, the sick, the disabled, people pushing carriages.  These sites, picked by local authorities might include schools and day care centers, elderly housing, senior centers, health clinics and hospitals, playgrounds and swimming pools, bus stops and train stations, etc.  In addition, any municipality invoking this law would be required to do a safety study and create an action plan for other steps that could be taken to make the area safer for walkers, cyclists, people entering or exiting and those unable to move quickly or with full attention to their surroundings.  Any car driver moving through such a zone would be assumed to have the primary responsibility for avoiding hitting any more vulnerable person in the zone, including (as European law in several countries already requires) being ready to handle any unexpected or even unsafe activity done by an unthinking child or other person.
• Allow Municipalities to Install Red Light Control Cameras: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) just published a study reporting intersection fatal crash rates in the 14 largest U.S. cities using safety cameras dropped by 24 percent and 159 lives were saved from 2004-2008 compared to 1992-1996 when the cameras were not in use in those cities.  IIHS also found 815 lives could have been saved if cameras were deployed in every major U.S. city with a population of 200,000 or more from 2004-2008.  What are we waiting for?

(The Traffic Safety Coalition has produced a video called “Facts Don’t Lie” using actual red light running crash footage to refute arguments by camera opponents.  See http://www.trafficsafetycoalition.com/factsdontlie)

Grand visions and long-range analysis have enormous power to frame issues and create an actionable context.  But they don’t lead to anything unless operationalized by specific, preferably simple, do-able steps forward.  When I’m consulting with organizations on strategic planning I say that they need at least 2 solid action ideas in each of these three categories:

Symbolic – things that may not make a big difference but send key messages.

Quick– technically easy, low cost, very visible, preferably non-controversial and begin to actually change things.

Fundamental – the more complicated and challenging, long-term, but foundational changes that make a significant difference and create a new context for future actions.

So, in an effort to follow my own advice, here is the first of two posts, this week and next, describing concrete actions listed along with the city or state agency most capable of implementing them.  This is my list – please suggest others!

Continue reading →

It usually takes me about two or three weeks to develop a post – writing out my first impressions, researching missing facts, checking with knowledgeable people, writing a second draft, then tinkering with it over a couple days as I remember things I left out or think of better ways to express my thoughts.  But this very long post on the Transportation Enhancement program has taken over two months.  It’s a labyrinth of complexity. (See the Transportation Enhancement Overview at the end of this post.)  Despite all I’ve learned – particularly from Craig Della Penna whose years of involvement in rail-trail and path development has made him an encyclopedia of knowledge, I’m sure I’ve still missed key points.  So please, if you know something I’ve gotten wrong or left out, leave a comment!

—————————

For many years, Massachusetts has been in the embarrassing position of being last – out of all 50 states, Puerto Rico, DC, and various territories – in its use of Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds, the primary source of federal money for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.  It is true that since 2007 the state has completed 23 shared-use path projects covering nearly 45 miles and we have more rail-trail projects underway than anywhere else in the country (although many of them are small).  Better yet –the Massachusetts’ Department Of Transportation (MassDOT) is now reforming its TE program.  Still, the state remains fourth from the bottom in TE spending per capita on bike and pedestrian projects and absolutely last in the percentage of potential TE funds actually used.  So significant questions remain:

• Will the state’s TE program changes increase the amount actually spent state-wide on bike/ped facilities?
• How does TE relate to other sources of funding for non-motorized movement?
• What other changes might be needed to realize MassDOT’s multi-modal goals?

Some suggested steps forward are listed at the end of this post….

Continue reading →

It’s New England.  It’s February.  We’ve had multiple snow storms and the enchantment of the white landscape is getting swamped by the aggravation of shoveling.  It’s time to think about safe cycling in winter.

This post contains my thoughts, but it is also an invitation for all of you to add your own insights.  We need to begin aggregating what we’ve learned about winter cycling because so many of us are still out there, day after day, even in the worst conditions.  What a change from even the recent past!  Without studded tires, I tend to avoid bicycling during or immediately after a snow storm, or when it’s raining on still-frozen pavement.  Snow makes the world enormously beautiful, but I feel better looking around at it all when I’m on foot.  Still, no matter how bad the conditions, I see people bicycling by!

The most dangerous winter conditions probably are on the sidewalks, where unshoveled snow makes life truly disabling for people in wheelchairs, the elderly, and also for children, people pushing baby carriages or even those carrying groceries.  The recent state Supreme Judicial Court decision making private property owners responsible for snow-related hazards on their walkways is very limited, leaving the responsibility of local government and state agencies unaffected.  Most of all, the SJC ruling doesn’t deal with the roads!  Roads are key — from social justice and urban efficiency perspectives the second most serious travel issue is winter-disruption of our public transportation system despite heroic efforts by many public employees.

But those topics need their own posting.  This piece is about cycling.  And unfortunately, the first concern is a troubling new policy by the state Department of Conservation and Recreation.  DCR states that it will no longer accept responsibility for making the paths under its control safe for cycling once snow is on the ground – including the ones along the Charles, on the Minuteman Trail, and across the state.  These are major commuting routes and need to be treated as well as any arterial road!

So what are the other issues for cycling?  Temperature.  Visibility.  Snow Removal.  Parking.  Ice Patches.  And Global Warming!

(If you have the stamina, there’s a Coda at the end of this post:  “If You Can’t Bike, Ski!”)

Continue reading →

How do we make cycling safer?  It will never be perfectly safe – nothing is.  And despite all the cultural anxiety about the riskiness of bicycling, there is a lot of evidence that it’s much less dangerous than people think.  In any case, the overall health (and environmental) benefits of bicycling so totally outweigh the likely problems that it should be a no brainer choice.  Still, safety is always job one.   We need to do what we can to make bicycling as safe as reasonably possible.  But it turns out that deciding what to do depends on knowing what we want to accomplish – and it turns out that there are several different kinds of safety.  The first part of this post explores the different kinds of safety and the types of actions needed to address them.  The second explores the open question of the relative safety of riding alone or in a group.

=================== Continue reading →

One of LivableStreets Alliance’s first campaigns, soon after the group was founded five years ago, was to push a then-resistant Boston Traffic Department to include improved bike facilities on a redesigned Commonwealth Avenue in the area around the BU Bridge.  It was a last-minute effort, and would have gotten nowhere except for the willingness of newly appointed Highway Commissioner Luisa Paiewonsky’s willingness to stick her neck out and require everyone involved to get into the same room and talk things through.  The result wasn’t all that we wanted, but it was a lot better than what would have happened otherwise.

Now, as MassDOT Highway Department Administrator Paiewonsky leaves the state agency, the BU Bridge area is again in the news.  The two parts of this post start with headlines from this week’s Boston Globe:

“State Highway Commissioner Paiewonsky resigns” (Boston Globe; 1/14/11)

and

“BU bridge lane configuration is temporary” (Boston Globe, 1/17/11)

Continue reading →

There is never enough money or time to do everything.  So decision-makers always have to prioritize where to spend and what to spend on.  Other than using some random selection method, this requires having criteria (the more explicit the better) and a transparent process of applying those criteria – both understandable and visible from evaluation through decision-making.

For transportation, in addition to the standard economic development rationale, even as modified by other economic policy goals such as regional fairness and Smart Growth, the 2009 Transportation Reform Act required MassDOT to work towards a more energy-efficient, environmentally protective, and health-supporting system.

But even beyond those already broad criteria, in terms of general well-being the taxpayer will get the maximum overall return on their transportation dollars if project selection evaluation also considers the degree to which the work will improve…

• Livability – Increasing the ease of safely moving around in a healthy and clean environment with affordable options for both local and longer trips.
• Increased Usage – focusing investment on where the most people are (including the young, old, disabled, and unconfident), the places they most want to go to, and the types of activities they most want to do.
• Equity – reducing disparities in transportation facilities and transportation-related living conditions.

There is, fortunately, a lot of reinforcing overlap among the full range of prioritizing criteria.  While it is useful for prioritization evaluation to be as quantitative as possible, there is an inevitable degree of subjective assessment as well.  So it is important to create a robust process of civic engagement in decision-making involving citizens and advocates from a broad range of fields such as public health, recreation, environmental and climate protection, social services, and others.

And two general principles emerge:

• Give priority to the denser residential and commercial parts of every region across the state;
• Give priority to making up for our past imbalanced investment in car-centric facilities and wealthier-class areas.

Specifically, this translates into three major areas of investment:

• Creating Complete and Safe Streets & Bridges that incorporate the maximum possible accommodations for walking, cycling, wheelchair, and other non-car uses;
• Creating Greenway Networks of off-road multi-use paths and “near-road” cycle tracks or buffered bike lanes.
• Increasing Accessible and Affordable Modal Choices by expanding public transportation options in underserved areas of the inner cities and across the state.

———————————-

Continue reading →

There may be snow on the ground, and the roads may still be narrow due to the plow-push along the sides, but there are still lots of people on bicycles commuting to work, doing errands, enjoying the sunshine even on days when the temperature is below freezing.

Times are truly changing.  And here are three short posts – the first two about bicycle culture and the last about the need for small groups to find ways to remember their own history so that they can build on past efforts.

Group Ride Etiquette

Conspicuous Bicycling Consumption

Institutional Memory of Small Groups

Enjoy!

Group Ride Etiquette

I love group bike rides.  Being with others motivates and pleases me.  Being with people who are older, and younger, and stronger, and slower reminds me that this is a sport I share with huge numbers of all types of other people.  I love the flow of conversation followed by solitary sight-seeing as we pedal through the winding countryside.  I love the group solidarity, the calls of “slowing” and “clear” at intersections and the finger pointing at road hazards as we pass. I feel safer, go faster and longer. It’s a pleasure not having to constantly check a map or worry about loosing my way.  I feel like I’m having fun rather than exercising.

But what drives me crazy about group rides are the inevitable presence of one or two people who don’t seem to understand that good bike citizenship means accepting that we are sharing the road not only with each other but with pedestrians and cars as well.  Massachusetts’ law allows cyclists to ride two abreast where conditions allow.  But common curtsey says that if someone wants to pass – on a bike or in a car – you pull over into a single file.  In particular, when someone yells “car back” I’m flabbergasted by the people who don’t immediately pull over to the right so the car can pass.  I’m not talking about the narrow-road situations where it isn’t safe to pull over or for the car to pass.  I’m talking about situations where it would be safe for the car to pass if the bikes gave them room and not as safe if the cyclists don’t move over.

I understand that it sometimes takes a second or two to say “pulling in” and wait for a space to appear.  And sometimes it takes a while for the car to advance along the line. But that’s not an excuse to delay.  Maybe these idiots think that it’s their right as “vehicles” to block the lane.  Or maybe they’re trying somehow to make a “statement” about the superiority of bicycles to cars.

But what they don’t seem to realize is that they are endangering not only themselves but all the rest of us – and the car driver.  Many car drivers won’t pass a line of cyclists until they see a clear space not only during the passing period but also somewhere to pull back to the right should a car suddenly appear coming in the other direction.  So the driver lurks at the back of the line of cyclists, getting anxious and frustrated, and making all of us nervous, until finally they get tired of waiting and pull out to start passing – going too fast and not at all friendly.

It’s not a happy scenario.  If we want to be treated with respect as bicyclists we need to give it as well.

Related posts:

Warm Weather Cycling: On The Open Road Again

Time To Stop Behaving Badly On Bikes

In Praise of Just Enjoying the Ride

—————————————————-

Conspicuous Bicycling Consumption

The brilliance of modern advertising is based on the realization that, beyond survival basics, consumption is driven as much (or even more) by emotional needs as by functional necessities.  We may not be told much about the nutritional content of the steak, but we are certainly encouraged to hear the sizzle and associate eating it with the kind of lifestyle we aspire to.

So it is a sign of bicycling’s movement into the American mainstream that we now have articles about bikes and fashion, about celebrity cyclists, about bike style and snobbery.  As one writer put it, “like that other mode of transportation, the car, they are becoming a means of expressing ourselves, for displaying who we are.” (“Two Wheels Are Becoming As Chic As Four” by Alex Marshall, 11/25/2010)

Given my daughter’s endless disparagement of my sense of style, I’m probably not a good person to carry that part of the discussion forward.  Still, I know enough to be able to point out that bike chic is different than gear obsession, but not entirely.

Gear heads are people who get excited about the latest crank set, or the details of welding, or the exact percentages of carbon and titanium.  Except for the extremely small numbers of actual racers, for whom grams really count, this is mostly about status and money – like driving a Jaguar rather than a Hyundai.  The reason is that most trips, by bike or car, are short.  And not only is the quality of the bike almost irrelevant to the speed of travel through city streets, it is actually safer and more comfortable to ride a fatter-tired, fender and basket-laden, soft seated and unremarkable bike than to go upscale.  In addition, the cheap bike is less likely to get stolen – someone would have to be really desperate to go after my 0 commuter clunker!  Gear heads are simply pursuing another type of chic-ness.

A British doctor recently tested this theory.  For six months he tossed a coin every morning to determine whether he’d commute using his ,600 carbon-frame bike or his clunker.  Then he recorded how long it took for his daily 27-mile round trip.  His study published in the British Medical Journal, found that “the average journey time using his heavy, old bike was 1 hour 47 minutes and the average journey for the new, lighter new bike was 1 hour 48 minutes.  ‘A reduction in the weight of the cyclist rather than that of the bicycle may deliver great benefit at reduced cost,’ the study says.”

It’s true that long distance and multi-day rides go easier with a smoother, light-weight machine.  On my most recent big bike tour, a wonderful 7-day ride around the NY Finger Lakes called the Bon Ton Roulet my companions all kept saying that I’d be doing better if I had a better bike; something like their ,000 carbon-titanium speedsters.  But I think my slowness up those endless hills had more to do with my stake of fitness than with my 0 Bikes Not Bombs put-together-from-recycled parts road bike.

Still, I do occasionally borrow a friend’s fancy machine.  I pick it up and marvel at its light weight.  I get on and glide around the block and appreciate its smoothness.  Maybe when I win the lottery…

Related Posts:

Cycling and Cents:  The Bicycle’s ROI

———————

Institutional Memory of Small Groups

My son could spend hours looking through our family photo albums.  Each picture triggers wonderful stories that help pass on to the next generation our memories of past events and remind my wife and I of how much old friends are still part of our lives.  But we are increasing frustrated by the unlabeled and undated pictures of people or events that we already don’t remember, and the many people and events for which we have no pictures at all.  Those represent blanks in our family history, gaps in the story of our lives.

Small organizations have the same problem.  Each time a member leaves, a chunk of institutional memory disappears.  It’s not about nostalgia.  Organizations, like every human grouping from individuals to societies, grow through experience – meaning that wisdom comes from memory.  Big organizations spend millions finding ways to collect and share experiences and evolving insights.  Every organization, big or small, needs an institutional memory.

History is also identity.  Our reputation, character, and connections are largely the result of past actions.  If we loose contact with our pasts we also loose both the advantages of our heritage and the strength of self-knowledge.  Knowing our own back story helps us position ourselves for effective action around new challenges.  It also helps us explain ourselves to others – those who we hope to influence as well as those whose support we seek.

So every group, especially small organizations, should keep an annotated scrap book.  Departing board members should be interviewed and the discussion recorded.  Old posters and petitions should be put up on office walls.  Every public event should include at least 3 minutes of back story explanation.  Every newsletter should have at least a couple paragraphs of “how we first got involved with this issue.”  We should create archives, not just for tax review but for issue and process understanding.  And we should regularly celebrate our anniversaries and growth, acknowledge and thank our founders and predecessors.

We need to act as if we are saving our stories for our children – and grandchildren.  If we don’t do it, who will?  If they don’t know, how can they build on what we’ve done?

Related Posts:

Bikes Not Bombs: Lessons About Sustainable Organizing for Progressive Change

There may be snow on the ground, and the roads may still be narrow due to the plow-push along the sides, but there are still lots of people on bicycles commuting to work, doing errands, enjoying the sunshine even on days when the temperature is below freezing.

Times are truly changing.  And here are three short posts – the first two about bicycle culture and the last about the need for small groups to find ways to remember their own history so that they can build on past efforts.

Group Ride Etiquette

Conspicuous Bicycling Consumption

Institutional Memory of Small Groups

Enjoy! Continue reading →

Culture is us.  It surrounds us, shapes our perceptions and beliefs.  And it is also our collective creation.  Its impact comes from our core biology as much as our psychological make up.  It is part of the tide that shapes policies and carries us through history.  And yet we are not just passive responders.  We have a role and therefore a responsibility.  As another new year begins, perhaps one of our resolutions should focus on how we contribute to the bottom-up processes that culminate in culture.  Culture is political!  As two commentators recently said:

“[Culture] is where people make sense of the world, where ideas are introduced, values are inculcated, and emotions are attached to concrete change.  Or to put it another way, political change is the final manifestation of cultural shifts that have already occurred.  Jackie Robinson’s 1947 Major League Baseball debut preceded Brown v. Board of Education by seven years.  Ellen DeGeneres’ coming-out on her TV sitcom preceded the first favorable court ruling on same-sex marriage by eight years.”   (“Culture Before Politics,” by Jeff Chang & Brian Komar, The American Prospect, Jan/Feb. 2011)

Continue reading →

Posting a (mostly) weekly blog is bit like putting messages in a bottle and throwing them into the sea.

My goal was to share information about the connections between transportation, health, environmental sustainability, the built environment, economic growth, and societal well-being – as well as the implications of those connections for policy choices in my region and nation.  I’ve been organizing and working on these issues for nearly fifty years, but it’s a bit of a presumptuous stretch to think that other people might be interested in what I had to say.

So for a year-and-a-half I’ve been writing down my thoughts, analyses, and suggestions and sending them out, never really sure who would stumble across it on the virtual beach.  To reassure myself that someone is actually seeing it, I’ve recently begun emailing an occasional sampling of my posts.  (Let me know if you want to be included by emailing me at steve@livablestreets.info.)

To my endless amazement and pleasure, I now get feedback and comments not only from Boston friends and colleagues but from around the world.   Thank you.  It’s wonderful to know that people find this useful!

A lot of what keeps me going is my connection to LivableStreets Alliance, which brings together people from a wide spectrum of fields to focus on how to create more livable communities through better transportation policy from complete streets to improved transit.  Thanks in part to LivableStreets’ work, Boston got its first bike lanes, the state has agreed to improve pedestrian access across the Charles River bridges, the MBTA is installing covered bike parking facilities at subway and train stations, MassDOT is beginning to address its “Healthy Transportation” commitments, Complete Streets is becoming part of regional transportation planning, and “park(ing) day” has become an annual festival.

Like most small nonprofits, LivableStreets Alliance depends on public support.  So I’m urging all of you to become a member and if you’re already a member to rejoin and give an end of year contribution today.

I promise to keep sharing analytic frameworks that, I hope, help make sense of a bit of our world and point the way for meaningful action.  Won’t you help, too!  Please donate today

And a wonderful New Year to all!