Climate and Transportation Bills to Affect Cyclists

There's a lot of information about the new Climate bill and the new Transportation bill, both of which have the potential to do a lot to encourage cycling. Streetsblog Capitol Hill has been covering it all in a full court press so if these federal bills are your bag, that's the place to go. For example on the Climate bill.

The climate bill gives the states 10 percent of its carbon emissions allowances, the total worth of which is projected to hit $70 billion by 2010, to invest in energy-efficiency projects such as solar power or "smart" electricity grids.

Today's agreement allows 10 percent of those state allowances -- yes, 10 percent of 10 percent -- to help pay for transit expansions, new bike trails, or any other transportation efficiency project.

There's a fight going on over the new Transportation bill. Oberstar wants to pass it this year, on schedule. The Obama Administration, through DOT head Ray LaHood wants to postpone it by 18 months. If you think the current Democrat-controlled Congress is going to produce a more bike friendly bill than the next (???) controlled Congress or if you think the new bill will be better regardless; then you probably don't want the bill to be delayed. And the bill does include a lot of money for cyclists. As Adam Voiland points out

A number of Federal Highway Administration programs divert money toward bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Surface Transportation Program, which provides flexible funding for a variety of different projects, is the largest of them. The Transportation Enhancements Program provides funding for improvements in bike facilities, safety and education programs, and the preservation of abandoned rail trails. Areas with poor air quality can get money for bicycle projects through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. The Recreational Trails Program, though smaller, also funds bicycle-related projects. Finally, members of Congress can earmark money for specific programs.

Between 1992-2004, most projects—73 percent—were funded through the Transportation Enhancements Program.  Eight percent where funded through the Surface Transportation program, 7 percent through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 4 percent through the Recreational Trails Program, and 7 percent through various other programs.

And battle lines are being drawn on the parts of the bill. The AARP, for example, is pushing for complete streets language - which the Oberstar bill includes and which Obama sponsored four years ago.

LaHood has been talking the complete streets talk, both on NPR (he also talks about light rail - even though he gets bad info on why streetcars left DC - and high speed rail) and in a response to George Will. 

"We have to create opportunities for people who want to ride a bike or walk or take a streetcar," he said. "The only person that I've heard of who objects to this is George Will."

And he announced an agreement with the EPA to partner for Sustainable Communities

The Partnership for Sustainable Communities established six livability principles that will act as a foundation for interagency coordination:

1. Provide more transportation choices.
Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.

The Republicans, meanwhile have not been asleep. They have been busy proposing cutting Safe Routes to School (because they think Dangerous Routes to School is an election winner?) and other forms of bicycle funding.

House Republicans argue that helping children walk or bike to school has "traditionally been viewed as" the task of local governments. Presumably, dedicated federal funding for kids' safety amounts to creeping Big Government for the GOP -- but dedicated federal funding for kids' health care, now that's just fine.

Other transportation proposals on the Republican chopping block today were the $25 million in bike and pedestrian funding given to four communities in the 2005 transportation bill and the U.S. DOT's Transportation Enhancements initiative, which currently costs $833 million annually.

Margo Pedroso, deputy director of the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, was unruffled by the House GOP proposal (which took the form of a letter to Obama rather than a bill):

"Given the impact that Safe Routes to School initiatives can have on children’s physical activity levels, traffic safety and congestion, air quality around schools, and school budgets, we are confident that Safe Routes to School has bipartisan support in Congress."

The Virginia Bicycling Federation responded by asking Rep. Eric Cantor's constituents to ask him to stop bashing bicycling.

Tell Rep. Cantor how important biking and walking are to you personally — how badly your community needs crosswalks, sidewalks, and bike facilities; and how important these are to improve safety, provide affordable alternatives to driving, reduce congestion and road maintenance costs, improve air quality, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and grow local economies.

The bipartisan Congressional Bike Caucus - this is going to shock you - is supporting bike-friendly policies including Safe Routes to School.

[Earl Blumenauer said] "Bicycling and walking currently accounts for 10% of all trips made by Americans yet our current Federal investment is closer to 2% of transportation funds. Investing in these modes of transportation creates jobs, saves taxpayers money and helps raise our overall quality of life."

He then asks for committee support to:

1. Reauthorize the Safe Routes to School Program at a substantially higher level
2. Include a Complete Streets policy requirement to ensure that roads built using federal transportation dollars are available to all users, including bicyclists and pedestrians
3. Create a new Active Transportation Investment Fund
4. Require data collection of comparable frequency and scope for all modes of transportation

WABA is asking members to support three bills: Safe Routes to School, a law aimed at reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled and National Transportation Objectives Act which aims to triple bicycle miles.

LAB is "encouraged" by the Oberstar bill

The League and the America Bikes Coalition were quite encouraged by many of the elements contained in the authorization blueprint, such as establishing the Office of Livability, improving data and research, establishing the US Bike Route System, and emphasizing Comprehensive Street Design.

And, this is another shocker, it turns out the built environment (what Safe Routes to School works to change) has a big impact on childhood health.

Factors such as school location have played a significant role in the decreased rates of walking to school, and changes in policy may help to increase the number of children who are able to walk to school. Environment modification that addresses risks associated with automobile traffic is likely to be conducive to more walking and biking among children.

So you're updated on all that. Now I can get back to reporting on new bike rack installations in Petworth.

Comments

[ph]

i know i sound like a nerd here but it should be "affect," not "effect" in the title.

[Washcycle]

Yes. You're right. I have a terrible time with those. And there/their/they're. It's and its. And more. I'm an engineer. I need an editor.

[Electric bicycle]

There is really a big firght on the new bill, some republicans seem not to be supportive to the bill, the object that the bill might kill job growths, which in my view is really far from the truth.

[Froggie]

Complete Streets is a good concept, but I don't think I could support a blanket "ALL Federally funded projcts" requirement. For starters, how do you apply it to a freeway or Interstate (the latter of which by law prohibits bikes/peds)? Also would have little applicability to rural areas. I could support it in urban areas or within towns, but not a blanket application of it.

[Washcycle]

The National Complete Streets Coalition agrees: "Making a policy work in the real world requires developing a process to handle exceptions to providing for all modes in each project. The Federal Highway Administration’s guidance on accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel named three exceptions that have become commonly used in complete streets policies: 1) accommodation is not necessary on corridors where non-motorized use is prohibited, such as interstate freeways; 2) cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use; 3) a documented absence of current or future need. Many communities have included their own exceptions, such as severe topological constraints. In addition to defining exceptions, there must be a clear process for granting them, where a senior-level department head must approve them. Any exceptions should be kept on record and publicly-available."

I suspect the Bike Caucus does too.

[Kristen]

Froggie: Not all Interstates prohibit bikes/peds. I-84 through the Columbia Gorge east of Troutdale allows bikes and peds, and in some instances, is the only route up the gorge for bikes.

I-5 South of Wilsonville in Oregon also allows bikes and peds.

Of course, these are West Coast examples. Maybe on the East Coast, bikes and peds are prohibited on interstates?

[Washcycle]

I remember seeing a bike route sign on the shoulder of I-10 east of Tucson.

[Froggie]

Kristen: yes, I'm aware of some exceptions west of the Mississippi, mostly in wide-open states where the Interstate was built right on top of the old route, with no nearby parallel routes.

But by and large, and especially east of the Mississippi, bikes and peds are prohibited from the Interstate system, and in some cases freeways in general.