WABA disappointed with the Draft 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program.

And Also the TPB reviews SmartBike Expansion

Some background: the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG or sometimes just COG) is a regional organization of 21 Washington area local governments. It is a planning organization for a whole host of issues including the environment, affordable housing, economic development, health and family concerns, human services, population growth, public safety, and transportation. One part of COG, The Transportation Planning Board (TPB), an independent board associated with COG, serves as the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region, and defines the regional transportation plan. According to federal law, an MPO must be designated in every urbanized area with a population over 50,000. The TPB prepares plans and programs that the federal government must approve in order for federal-aid transportation funds to flow to the Washington region.  The TPB defines the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), a 6-year financial program that describes the schedule for obligating federal funds to state and local projects.  The TIP contains funding information for all modes of transportation including highways and HOV as well as transit capital and operating costs. 

The 2010-2015 TIP is open for comments and Eric Gilliland of WABA issued the following statement on it on July 10th.

Dear Members of the Transportation Planning Board:

I am writing today on behalf of the 7,000 members of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association to offer our comments on the Draft 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program or TIP.  WABA is a local non-profit bicycle safety and education organization established in 1972 that works to promote cycling for transportation and recreation throughout the DC area.

WABA is extremely disappointed with the Draft as it currently stands and urges the TPB to amend the TIP to include significant additional funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.  As the Draft clearly illustrates, the TPB continues to fund a transportation system which has led our region to the second worst traffic in the nation, and not the balanced, multi-modal system the TPB wishes to achieve for our region. 

It is the stated goal of the TPB to provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian access and to increase mode share for biking and walking throughout the DC area, yet of the more than $17 billion for transportation projects in the Draft TIP, less than 1% of TIP funds are allocated to bike and pedestrian projects.  Of the $168 million dollars in the bike/ped program, over 60% will be spent in DC alone and zero dollars have been allocated to bike and pedestrian projects in northern Virginia.  There are also zero dollars for such projects in Prince George’s County.

The chronic underfunding of these modes continues to prevent the region from making gains in biking and walking mode share.  According to the recently released Household Travel Survey, between 1994 and 2007/2008 the percentage of people driving alone has increased while walking and biking mode shares have decreased.  The study showed that together biking and walking modes make up 4% of commute trips and therefore, at a bare minimum, these modes should receive 4% of TIP funding.  The Draft TIP and the results of the Household Travel Survey clearly show that the Transportation Planning Board’s ability to guide regional transportation policy, and therefore impact air quality, congestion, and mode shift, is negligible at best.  If the TPB is committed to increasing the number of people walking and biking, and thereby reap the commensurate benefits in air quality, congestion mitigation, and carbon emission reduction, the TIP should fund these modes at a percentage of total funds above their current mode share.

The continued policy of auto-centric transportation planning is clearly displayed in the long list TIP amendments approved by the board for funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  In addition to creating local jobs, and fixing crumbling infrastructure, projects using ARRA transportation funds must be evaluated by their ability to reduce energy independence, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and foster smart growth development.  While some of the projects in the TIP amendment will work toward achieving these goals through their secondary benefits to cyclists and pedestrians, of the nearly $300 million dollars in TIP amendments funded through ARRA, only $7 million has been dedicated to bicycle or pedestrian specific projects, or .02% of allocated funds.  Further, bike and pedestrian projects on the current TIP in the out years can be funded with stimulus dollars now, and new priority unfunded projects can be added.  But this, too, has not happened. 

Given the scarcity of local dollars, the deadline on the use of ARRA funds, and the long backlog of unfunded priority bicycle and pedestrian projects, the region is missing a tremendous opportunity to build out the cycling and walking infrastructure in a way that would very effectively encourage more people to use these modes.  If the Transportation Planning Board is committed to the goal of a multi-modal transportation system, then it needs to encourage its members to put forth projects that will help move us in that direction.  We strongly urge the TPB to not adopt this draft until funds are shifted from projects that do not meet the goals of the TPB to ones that will make a positive impact on transportation in our region.

Sincerely

Eric Gilliland

Executive Director

Washington Area Bicyclist Association

One thing that the TPB will be reviewing on Wednesday is a package of projects which request Federal TIGER stimulus grant funds. One of these projects is a request for $10M for a regional bike-sharing program which would provide funding for bikes and stations in DC, Arlington, Alexandria, and Montgomery County (Bethesda and Silver Spring)(mentioned at the July DC BAC). This amount would provide about 1,600 bikes and stations which would be distributed amongst these jurisdictions. This funding would hasten the expansion of bike-sharing throughout the urban core of the region. If the TPB approves the package, then it goes to the Feds for approval and funding. Eric Cantor would love that. Some of the other projects seeking TIGER money are the K Street Transitway($95M), Priority Bus Corridors that extend the reach of the K Street Transitway($93M), improvements to two Metro Stations and a new transit center ($37M), HOT lanes ($170M), and additional bus priority treatments across two routes from suburban Virginia ($7M).

Regional Bike Sharing

1,600 bicycles at 160 bike stations in core urban areas of DC, Alexandria, Arlington,
Silver Spring and Bethesda.

$10 million (76% of $13.2 million total cost)

With the success of the District’s pilot bike-sharing and other urban core jurisdictions interested
in providing a similar service, the time is right for a regional bike-sharing service. This
component would provide a single bike sharing system for the region’s urban core. Bike-sharing
can effectively extend the reach of public transit, and is a low-cost and healthy manner of
improving mobility and accessibility.

The Capitol Hill BID is reporting that the Hill will get one of the new SmartBike kiosks.

Holben confirmed the stations could be installed as early as this fall or as late as Spring 2010. The Capitol Hill BID will be working with DDOT in its effort to find the best suitable locations for the SmartBike stations on Capitol Hill.

Also, the K Street Transitway above is supposed to make the street better for cyclists, but doesn't say how:

The K Street Transitway will enhance the performance for all modes of movement: pedestrian, bicycle, transit, vehicles (resident, commuter, and visitor), taxi, and delivery services. The goals of the project are to create a Great Street experience that is high-performing and safe for all modes, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and automobiles.

Comments

[JTS]

Re: K street transitway for cyclists - If they open the dedicated bus lanes to cyclists, then this will be great for us. Unlike the other dedicated bus/bike lanes in the city (7th street & 9th street), K street will be partitioned off, making it much safer as cyclists neednt worry about cars swerving in and out of the dedicated lanes.

Re: Bikeshare program - I'll believe it when I swipe my card at a kiosk in Rossyln. We've been getting the proverbial tugjob on this for quite some time (weren't we supposed to have 100 stations and nearly 1,000 bikes as of like two weeks ago?), and despite its usefulness, this will be ridiculed in congress. I give this a 2-3 percent chance of being realized with stimulus dollars in the next two years, and a 10-20 percent chance of being realized in the next five years if the core cities agreed on a joint plan. I'm sorry, but Americans just don't understand bikeshare (yet).

[ANon]

I might consider pitching these kinds of comments not so much about "smart growth" and reducing the influence of the car, but around creating the kinds of places that people want to go to. E.g., you, (the government) are fucking up because the way that you're developing will endsure no pedestrian traffic (e.g., no jobs--just strip malls). Make that your theme, and you'll find your communications to be more effective.

These are public relations documents. The bean counters will understand what you're saying; the avg WaPo reader will not.

[Edward]

I think that 7 million is closer to 2% of 300 million than it is to the 0.02% that the article claims. You are off by a factor of 100.

[Washcycle]

The letter is not by me. It's by Eric Gilliland of WABA. So it's not me saying it - it's WABA. I'm not a WABA employee.

[Allen Muchnick]

The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) is technically a distinct body from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG).

The connection is that the TPB uses MWCOG offices and facilities, is staffed by MWCOG employees, and *some* TPB members are also members of MWCOG boards and committees.

In other words, the TPB is an independent body and is not another MWCOG committee.

[Washcycle]

Well, that's confusing. Especially since their website has "MWCOG" on the top and in the name.

[Jordan Marcsse]

Don't we want to increase energy independence?

[Washcycle]

Yeah, but I think everyone knows what is meant. I doubt WABA's being graded on grammar.

[Froggie]

To say zero dollars have been allocated to Northern Virginia isn't completely true. If you look at

That said, the lack of projects on the Virginia side of the Potomac is disconcerting...

[Froggie]

That one got hacked up pretty good. Here's what it should have said:

If you look at this PDF:

http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/projects/tip/fy1015tip/DRAFT_FY_10-15_TIP.pdf

and PDF pages 156-157 in particular, you'll find a few projects, including a bridge across Four Mile Run and a bike path along Route 110 between the Pentagon and Memorial Bridge.

Also, keep in mind that bike/ped projects are much smaller in scale and don't require as much as a comparable road project to be effective. So you don't necessarily need "a full 4%" of the total to make an improvement in biking and walking.

That said, the lack of projects on the Virginia side of the Potomac is a bit disconcerting...

[Washcycle]

Froggie, you're right. And so is Eric. There are some projects in the plan that are bicycle and pedestrian projects. But there is nothing in the budget for "Bike/Ped" projects. Bicycle and pedestrian projects (in general) can be paid for through many different means. The projects you point to are paid for by "Transportation Enhancement" money, which can be used for many things including cycling enhancements. But if you look at page 185 where Northern Virginia's financial summary is, you'll see a goose egg for Bike/Ped spending - which is a different pool of money. There are probably bicycle and pedestrian projects that will be paid for with CMAQ, bridge, urban and other programs (breaking out the actual Bike/Ped money would be quite difficult), but nothing from Bike/Ped.

[Cephas]

One example of a project we should push for in NoVA is funding to increase bike presence on VRE. VRE currently can't handle more bikes because of outdated trains, but if a little VRE funding increases people being able to take their bikes on VRE, that would take stress off roads around VRE stations, off parking structures, and off the metro at the other end. Hey, I'd say throw money to metro to have them do the same thing, but with metro as it is, I don't see them improving any time soon. VRE at least has recently allowed bikes on some trains, but until they have a lot more bike room on a lot more trains, it won't be nearly enough.