automobiles

Complete Streets Resolution passes Missouri House with one hour to spare!

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Fri, 05/14/2010 - 17:45

Rep. Mike Sutherland of WarrentonHCR 67, the resolution in support of Complete Streets in Missouri, passed the Missouri House today--only one hour before the session ended.

Congratulations to Rep. Mike Sutherland of Warrenton, who has championed the Complete Streets concept in the Missouri General Assembly for several years, and the sponsor of HCR 67.

Sutherland is term limited out this year and the passage of HCR 67 on the last day of session--and the major changes that have come about as the result of bringing this legislation forward year after year--counts as one of his major legislative achievements.

The resolution is a comprehensive outline of the reasons for pursuing complete streets policies and urges all levels of government--from the city level up to the federal government--to use complete streets principles when designing their transportation systems.

The bill's page on the General Assembly web site is here.  Full text:

House Concurrent Resolution No. 67

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Tags:

Missouri Complete Streets Resolution: Hearing Tues, March 30th in House Committee

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Mon, 03/29/2010 - 15:31

Complete StreetsThe Complete Streets Resolution, HCR 67, sponsored by Representative Mike Sutherland, is up for a hearing in the House Transportation Committee:

  • Tuesday, March 30th, 1PM
  • House Committee Hearing Room 7, Missouri State Capitol, Jefferson City

You can help by sending a quick email or making a phone call in support--see the contact list and suggested message below.

Tags:

Columbia City Council approves first Bicycle Boulevard

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 17:47

Yesterday the Columbia City Council approved what will become the first bicycle boulevard (that we know about!) in Missouri.

A Bicycle Boulevard is a low-traffic street that been engineered to become an attractive through route for bicycling. The street is still shared with automobiles but the design of the street discourages large amounts of through traffic and encourages slow vehicle speeds compatible with the neighborhood.

For those reasons--and because a bicycle boulevard typically involves minor retrofits to existing streets, and so is very inexpensive--bicycle boulevard designs are almost always popular with residents and businesses along the boulevard.

The proposed bicycle boulevard is on Ash Street and Windsor Street between Tenth and Ann streets in Columbia.

An article in the MU Maneater summarizes the City Council discussion about the bicycle boulevard:
Mayor Darwin Hindman said he was proud of the neighborhood for being receptive to the new idea of the bicycle boulevard and he said though it focuses on cyclist safety, eliminating it would create a safer driving environment.

Several neighborhood associations were in attendance for the vote on the issue and members stood up during the public hearing portion of the meeting in a show of support for the resolution. Supporters of the project said the median would stop dangerous and high volumes of fast moving traffic on their streets.

"The modification to the crossing will add safety to that site and eliminate confusion and blind spots with cars," said Adam Saunders, who lives off Ash Street.

Linda Roots, president of the North Central Columbia Neighborhood Association, said the bicycle boulevard would attract traffic beneficial for businesses in her neighborhood, located in the North Village Arts District. She said only one business felt it would be negatively impacted by the boulevard.

Fifth Ward Councilwoman Laura Nauser and Fourth Ward Councilman Jerry Wade were the two dissenting votes on the resolution. Both cited the large number of city projects as the reason for their votes.

"This may be one project too many without letting social change in the community catch up to it," Wade said.

First Ward Councilman Paul Sturtz, who used to live off of Windsor Street, said the resolution is a win-win solution. Sturtz said the boulevard will make the roads safer for bicyclists and for cars no longer making dangerous left turns.
Tags:

Parade magazine features Columbia's bicycling explosion

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 09/27/2009 - 21:10
Yesterday in Sunday newspapers across the country Parade Magazine ran a feature on Columbia's success in becoming a bicycle-friendly city. Columbia is one of four national pilot programs that are seeing if focused investment in facilities and education can significantly shift transportation from automobiles to bicycling and walking.

Parade Magazine: Reinventing America, A Free-Wheeling City.

GetAbout Columbia bike/ped project.

PedNet Coalition.
Tags:

Federal "Highway Bill" introduced; fails to transform but doesn't fail to disappoint

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Thu, 06/18/2009 - 08:38
The federal transportation bill--which will set transportation policy for the U.S. for the next six years--is up for renewal in 2009.

Backers of the bill, including House Transportation Chair James Oberstar (D-MN), had promised that the bill would be transformative, bringing the nation's transportation system into the 21st Century, introducing greater accountability, and setting ambitious national transportation goals--not only for automobiles-related purposes but for vital national interests like reducing pollution, addressing climate change, reducing sprawl, improving the nation's health, reducing America's dependence on foreign energy, and bringing real transportation choice to America.

Highways or transportation?
However, in repeated slips that can only be described as unmistakably Freudian, two members of the Transportation and Infrastructure referred to the bill in yesterday's press conference as "the Highway Bill".

Newsflash to Congress: It hasn't been call "The Highway Bill" since at least 1991.

But based on the initial descriptions of the legislation released Thursday, "Highway Bill" is not a bad summary.

It has a long way to go before it becomes a true Transportation Bill.

Among the missing items:

* A national vision of our transportation system; specific national goals such as those proposed in Rep. Carnahan's National Transportation Objectives Act of 2009

* Any mention of the proposed 2010 Campaign for Active Transportation--to follow up on the major success in the four nonmotorized pilot projects from the previous transportation bill, which have shown that spending a small percentage of transportation dollars to create complete, comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian networks and programs really does work and is the most cost-effective approach to solving the nation's transportation problems and solving the difficult problems of congestion and pollution.

* Complete Streets language--it is included but the language seems to be weak ("shall consider" rather than "shall include").

* Clarity on livability issues: The status of cost-effective community livability programs like Safe Routes to School is still unclear.

* Land use: The bill does not seem to address the problem of land use--a very important consideration, because federal transportation policy has been the prime factor driving America's ever-increasing amount of sprawl--building cities where driving becomes the only reasonable way to get anywhere.

* Health impacts: The bill does not seem to address health impacts--though current federal transportation policy is one of the major reasons our cities have been built over the past 50 years to exclude active living as part of daily life, and the pollution caused by motor vehicles is a major health problem.

* Clarity in general: Although many good programs and priorities are outlined--such as the proposal to gather a large number of existing initiatives under the overall umbrella of "Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality"--exact funding levels have not yet been set. So it remains to be seen if Congress will have the guts to embrace concepts like Active Transportation that have the potential to transform American cities in positive ways--or if the state DOTs will have their way and the main emphasis will continue to be more, bigger, and faster highway systems.

Even the main improvements seem incremental rather than transformational:

* A slight increase in the amount of funding for transit nationwide.

* Transportation Enhancements funding--the main source of funding for bicycling and walking improvements--is included with some slight but important changes.

* A new office of livability is created in the Federal Highway Administration--it would gather together many existing programs like Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and others.

* Metropolitan Planning Organizations would have representation according to the population of members cities. This solves a major problem under the current system, where smaller cities have (in aggregate) more votes, leading to an emphasis in many metro areas on building the outlying areas of the metro rather than strengthening the core.

* Language on greenhouse gas limits (similar to the language in the currently proposed Waxman/Markey bill) has been included. With transportation contributing over 1/3 of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions it could hardly be omitted--yet it remains to be seen whether any proposed goals will have any teeth behind them.

Will our leaders have the guts to make real, transformational change happen?
It is clear that much of the promised transformation in this transportation bill has been toned down--whether to assuage the fears of key committee leaders or members of the opposition party, or as the result of pressure by transportation lobbying groups or the state DOTs.

As is the case with many issues in Washington the majority of citizens support the types of changes we have outlined above--but the views of well funded special interests often carry far more weight than citizen input.

The good news: the outlines released this week are just a starting point. The first draft of the bill will be released Monday and Representative Oberstar plans to start committee markup as soon as next Wednesday.

We will see if members of Congress have the willpower to make the changes needed to create a strong, healthy, active, vibrant America or if we will continue down our current path towards a country completely filled with single-occupant automobiles.

You can help create a better transportation system in America by asking your member of congress to co-sponsor the National Transportation Objectives Act of 2009. The bill's main sponsor is St. Louis-area Rep. Russ Carnahan but so far no other House members from Missouri have joined Carnahan in co-sponsoring the legislation.
Tags:

Lawmakers lambast MoDOT lobbying

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 20:02
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are lambasting MoDOT for its political role in actively lobbying for or against certain legislation this year.

MoDOT sent a large number of employees to the Capitol to lobby in favor of a "primary seat belt enforcement" bill and recently has launched a press blitz across the state hoping to influence the governor to veto a bill loosening requirements for wearing motorcycle helmets.

Legislators and even the Governor have spoken out against MoDOT's political role.

Senator Charlie Shields receives award
Senator Charlie Shields at Bicycle Day at the Capitol 2008

Charlie Shields, President Pro Tem of the Missouri Senate, said in a sternly worded statement:

The last time I checked, laws are written by the people’s elected representatives to the state House and Senate, and the governor then has the power to approve or veto the laws they pass that represent the will of the people. I am alarmed that an appointed bureaucrat would use taxpayer money to pay for polling and then hold a press conference while on the clock to oppose a specific piece of legislation. . . .

[T]his is the second instance this year where he has veered off-track by misusing taxpayer dollars in an effort to lobby elected officials.

MoDOT lobbies against Complete Streets
Of course, this year MoDOT stood as the only public group opposing the Missouri Complete Streets bill--which was supported by over 70 organizations and groups ranging from the Missouri PTA to the Association of Landscape Architects to ParaQuad, cities, metropolitan planning organizations, and bicycling, walking, and running clubs.


MoDOT Director Pete Rahn

And, of course, thanks to MoDOT's opposition, the Missouri Complete Streets bill was defeated in both 2008 and 2009.

In the 2009 Senate Transportation Committee hearing, the Complete Streets bill was subject to really vicious--as well as exaggerated and misleading--opposition in testimony by MoDOT's Eric Curtit, who was sent by MoDOT Director Pete Rahn personally to kill the bill. A previous MoBikeFed News article details Curtit's testimony and the many problems with it.

This year MoDOT stood alone as the only organization publicly opposing the Missouri Complete Streets bill.

Is MoDOT using taxpayer funds to undermine the political process?
The question in all of these cases is not whether MoDOT's position is right or wrong--or whether MoDOT can and should inform lawmakers and the public about technical subjects in its area of expertise.

Of course, MoDOT can and should offer information and expertise.

The question is whether it is appropriate for MoDOT to spend the taxpayer's money to engage in the political process--to go beyond simply providing information and use taxpayer funds and taxpayer-funded employees to work to influence votes in the legislature or the governor in his official capacity.

Doing this puts MoDOT in the position of using taxpayer funds to work the political process in opposition to citizen groups and elected officials.

Should MoDOT's participation in the political process be limited?
The Missouri Constitution puts MoDOT outside the political process--MoDOT is not subject to direct control by the legislature or the governor.

Maybe now it is time to take the next logical step, and prohibit MoDOT from spending taxpayer money to influence legislation.

Surely, if the stakes involved in these issues are so high, there must be other citizen groups who would be able to speak up and lead a campaign in support of the position MoDOT champions?

When MoDOT takes the lead, in such a public way, it certain gives the impression that there is no other organized public support for its positions. Into that vacuum, MoDOT steps, spending taxpayer money to do lobbying and public relations in support of a political position.

Does MoDOT's political role undermine its credibility?
By the Missouri Constitution, MoDOT is set up to work as an independent, impartial, objective, expert on transportation matters, where decisions are made on the basis of what is best for the state and not on a politics.

However, when MoDOT itself uses its funding, personnel, image, media connections, and clout to enter the political arena, it undermines MoDOT's credibility as an independent, objective expert organization.

In all the issues MoDOT has lobbied on, there are objective questions: How much will it cost? How many injuries will result? What will be the effect on our transportation system? In those areas, MoDOT can and should provide technical information and data.

But the larger questions are far outside MoDOT's sphere of expertise, and areas where MoDOT should be listening to--and not dictating--policy and public opinion:
  • Should the state be requiring personal safety measures and punishing those who fail to use them?
  • Is the tradeoff in reduced injuries worth the increased government intrusion into our personal lives?
  • In the case of Complete Streets: Should our society's transportation system be solely focussed on automobiles or should it be designed from the ground up to be inclusive of walking, bicycling, and transit?
Is the public in charge--or MoDOT?
Whatever side of those issues you stand on, are they not issues that need to be decided by the people of Missouri through the political process?

Or are they issues that can and should be decided by a MoDOT bureaucrat dictating public policy--with the rest of us simply following this "expert" advice?

What do you think?
What do you think? Is it OK for MoDOT to spend taxpayer money to take part in the political process? Should there be limits on MoDOT's political activity? Let us know by leaving a comment below or taking our survey on this issue.
Tags:

Fixing MoDOT--cause it's going to be real broken, real soon

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 08:37
Today's meeting with the Missouri Transportation Alliance about the effort to address MoDOT's funding crisis, organized by the Missouri Bicycle & Pedestrian Federation and hosted by the Mid-American Regional Council, was eye-opening for all involved.

If you have the misfortune to live in the greater Kansas City area, you've been bombarded with my email messages trying to explain the importance of this meeting about future MoDOT funding.

But everyone I spoke to after the meeting seemed to think that, if anything, I hadn't been forceful enough in explaining the real situation.

As the old saying goes, crisis equals opportunity--and there is a major crisis facing MoDOT in the immediate future.

That could mean a huge opportunity for those who would like to see Missouri's transportation priorities changed.

Of course, it could also mean disaster, as our road and highway system falls apart without even enough funding for routine maintenance!

MoDOT funding crisis by 2012
As we learned from Jewell Patek of the Missouri Transportation Alliance and Beth Wright, District Engineer for MoDOT District 4, MoDOT as we know it is very close to coming to a halt.

MoDOT's typical budget for projects now is about $1.4 to $1.5 billion per year.

Somewhere around $600 million is dedicated to maintaining Missouri's road system--over 32,000 miles of it.

By 2012, MoDOT's entire funding level is projected to be at about $400 million.

In short, MoDOT's budget would be less than 1/3 what it is today, and below the level needed for routine maintenance.

Gas tax on its last legs
To make matters worse, the consensus--not just in Missouri but around the country--seems to be that the old standby, the gasoline tax, is on its last legs.

The problem is that rising gas prices, pressure for better fuel economy, alternative fuels and power sources (electric, hybrid), and fewer miles driven are all conspiring to make less gasoline sold from year to year.

Less gasoline sold means less income from gas taxes.

At this point it would be hard to raise the gas tax enough to make up for that lost ground--let alone raise it the additional 15 cents or so per gallon it would take to get the MoDOT budget back on an even keel. (And then how to tackle the problem of the continually declining amount of gasoline sold from that point forward?)

To make matters worse, Patek pointed out that only 7% of Missourians support any increase in current gas taxes.

The opportunity
The opportunity is that--if Missouri is to continue to have a statewide system of roads--new funding sources will need to be found.

Almost certainly, some of the funding will come from new, non-automobile-related sources--not gas tax, not sales tax on automobiles.

As unpleasant as some of those other potential funding sources are (sales tax? income tax? property tax? mileage tax?), the potential is that with a diversified funding source we could, finally, have a truly diverse transportation system as well--one that includes bicycling, walking, transit, rail, high-speed rail, and who knows what else.

What should Missouri's future transportation system look like?
One of the things the Missouri Transportation Alliance is asking people to do, is talk to them and give them feedback about the future Missouri transportation system--what do you think it should look like.

What should it include?

What principles should it follow?

Tags:

Ride of Silence Wed May 20th, 7PM, four Missouri locations

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Sat, 05/16/2009 - 02:20
The 2009 Ride of Silence is happening at four locations in Missouri at 7PM on Wednesday, May 20th, 2009:

* Kansas City
* St. Louis
* Sedalia
* Springfield

Details about the locations, routes, and starting points here.

Contrary to what many people believe, bicycling is not a tremendously dangerous activity--it's certainly not much, if any, more dangerous than driving an automobile.

However, each year over 40,000 Americans are killed and about 2.9 million injured when driving in or struck an an automobiles. The fatalities for 2007 (the most recent statistics available) include:
35,555 motor vehicle drivers or occupants
4,654 pedestrians
698 bicyclists
So it is appropriate at least once a year to have an event that commemorates those who have been injured or killed on our nation's roads and helps galvanize support to change this situation--and that event is the Ride of Silence.
Tags:

Meeting about MoDOT's future funding, with MoBikeFed in Kansas City

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 06:13
Public meeting with the Missouri Transportation Alliance about the future of MoDOT funding and policy--will it include bicycling & walking?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 5:30pm CDT
Board room, Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
Please let me know if you plan to attend - director@mobikefed.org or 816-695-6736
Will future MoDOT funding include accommodation for bicycling? For walking? For transit? For anything but new roads and highways for automobiles?

That is the question YOU can help answer by attending this 60-90 minute meeting.

The meeting will include short presentations by MoTA and the Missouri Bicycle Federation, as well as time for you to respond and to ask questions.

MoDOT funding will decrease by about 60% starting in 2010. Everyone around the state knows that MoDOT needs a large new funding source just to stay in business.

The Missouri Transportation Alliance (MoTA) is the only group so far that has stepped forward to tackle the problem. This is the same coalition of groups that passed Amendment 3 in 2005--the last time MoDOT got new funding.

For about the past year, MoTA has been traveling the state, meeting and talking with people in small towns and rural areas.

But guess what--they haven't had public meetings in the large cities and they haven't talked to any groups of bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users--until now.

So the Missouri Bicycle Federation invited a representative from MoTA to come to talk with YOU.

We want MoTA to take a broad look at Missouri Transportation--not just automobiles but walking, bicycling, transit, rail, and all other transportation options that can improve our quality of life while getting the most bang for our tax dollar.

Please come out and join us. Please let me know if you plan to attend (director@mobikefed.org or 816-695-6736).
  • If you can't attend the meeting, a quick email to MoTA always helps.
  • A group of interested organizations is working to set up a similar meeting in St. Louis--we'll publish details as soon as we know them.
  • If you would like help to organize a similar meeting in your part of the state, please contact me (director [at] mobikefed.org). In particular it would be nice to have more feedback from larger cities like St. Joseph, Springfield, Columbia or Jefferson City. MoTA has made a real effort to hear from rural and small-town Missouri, but less so to hear from the half of the state the lives in medium to large metro areas.
Tags:

80% of crashes involve distracted driving

Submitted by Brent Hugh on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 18:08
Yes, distracted driving does cause crashes--lots of them. From Claire Martin of MSN Autos:
In a survey by GMAC Insurance of more than 5,000 drivers, 8 percent admitted to changing clothes while their cars were in gear and 62 percent copped to eating. Other studies have shown that people routinely apply makeup, shave, read magazines and books, and even insert their contact lenses while in the drivers' seat. . . .

NHTSA, along with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, installed cameras and sensors in 100 cars for a year to observe participants' behavior in a natural setting. In their analysis of 42,300 hours of driving data, researchers discovered that 80 percent of crashes involved driver distraction and that inattentive drivers were two to three times more likely to be involved in accidents when they were engaged in tasks such as applying makeup, dialing a phone or reading. . . .

A recent study of cell-phone use while driving, published in the journal Brain Research, helps explain why. When the brain is asked to tackle two tasks at once, it gives priority to the more deeply ingrained skill. Since we learn to talk before we learn to drive, our brain power goes into the conversation instead of onto the road, causing us to miss visual cues and experience impaired peripheral vision and coordination. Researchers suggest that the same holds true for other distracting activities, which means that magazine-reading, mascara-applying and toddler-disciplining drivers are very likely at the same risk of accidents as cell phone users.
A point to add: The safety improvements in automobiles (automobile bodies that absorb the forces of impact, air bags, etc.) partially insulate those inside the automobile from the consequences of distracted driving.

In fact a phenomenon known as risk compensation means that drivers are more likely to engage in these risky behaviors precisely because they know that features of the automobile are giving them greater protection.

The overall results is that safer automobile design gives automobile occupants a greater cushion of safety, but more risky behavior by drivers--including distracted driving and simply driving faster--takes some of the safety gains back.

However, those outside the automobile--including bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists--face only the increase in risky behavior and don't get the benefit of the safety features.

That may be one reason the risk of injury and death for automobile occupants has been going down faster than the same risk for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists.
Tags:
Syndicate content