TheWashCycle

DC Community supports the Transportation Benefit Equity Act

Back in September, the DC Council's Transportation & the Environment Committee held a hearing on the Transportation Benefit Equity Amendment Act of 2017.

this bill requires certain employers to provide alternate transit benefits (such as access to a commuter highway vehicle, transit, or bicycling benefits) in an amount equal to that of the market value of employer's currently offered parking benefit. Covered employers may opt out of compliance by paying a monthly fee for each employee who is offered parking benefits. The bill also establishes a Fund, the Transpiration Demand Management Fund.

This is basically a parking cash out bill. It would encourage more people to bike, walk and take transit by putting money in the pocket of those who do so. (It would also likely add to DC's tax revenue as any money paid to pedestrians, and most of what went to cyclists, would be taxable). This has been tried in California, on a much more limited scale, and it was found to decrease single occupancy vehicle commutes by 10-12%. There's reason to believe that because DC is so much more transit, bike and walk conducive that it would cause an even larger shift. 

A few years ago, when I was first chair of the legislative committee of the BAC, we made a list of all the legislation that we would change if we could. Then we ranked it all on two axes. One was importance and the other was viability. This ranked high on the importance - in that it would have a large impact - but low on the viability side because we didn't think it could garner Council support (same as we felt about the Contributory negligence fix). So I'm pleasantly surprised to see the bill proposed and supported. And even more pleased to see that t's not just supported by some council members, but at the hearing it was supported by most of the people who testified. 

The support came from transportation and environmental advocacy organizations as well as at least one ANC and several citizens. WABA, the DC BAC and PAC, the Coalition for Smarter Growth,  ANC4C and the US Green Building Council all strongly supported it because of the way it would encourage more walking, biking and transit use. During WABA's testimony, Greg Billing testified that the bill wouldn't cost any business any money - which was a theme and source of discussion throughout the hearing. CM Mary Cheh pushed back, asserting that that wasn't true; but Billing responded that the pay out was optional, in that a business was not required to offer anyone any benefit. This point was echoed by CM Charles Allen, who sponsored the bill and noted that the bill doesn't mandate a benefit. It mandates that when one is offered, that it be equitable. 

Giving commuters more choice in how to get to work has shown to decrease the number of drive-alone commutes by 10-12%, reduce traffic, improve air quality, and promote health and well-being.

Opposition came from two sources. Business organizations opposed it because it would increase the cost of doing business; and social justice organizations thought that most of the benefits would go to rich people who can afford to live close to work. Two positions that seem to be a little bit in contrast to one another. 

Will Handsfiled testified on behalf of the Georgetown BID and argued that it would create new regulatory and compliance burdens adding additional expense to businesses. He stated that the BID supported the goals, but that DC had not exhausted all of its other options for increasing transit and active transportation use. He also said that a better policy would be to get the federal government to end the policy of making parking benefits tax free. DC should do more and the federal government should reconsider the tax-free status of parking benefits by either lowering the maximum or getting rid of it altogether. But, neither of those things is really an argument against the cash out. There probably is an added regulatory burden, but from DC's perspective, it is probably worth it. 

The DC Chamber of Commerce made a similar argument to the BID's but then added some new ones.

They were concerned that some businesses would be burdened with fines, which I'm not too sympathetic with. I prefer it when auditors and enforcers work with out-of-compliance businesses to come into compliance before resorting to fines, but opposing a rule because some of your members will break it is not going to win a lot of supporters.

They tried to argue that it is redundant since the Sustainable DC Act of 2014, and the current state of transit parity in federal parking and transit benefits, already achieve these goals. But neither of those deals with bringing similar benefits to biking and walking.

They argued that it micromanages relationship between employers and employees and takes away employer choice. This is basically saying that this regulation is a regulation.  I mean that's what regulations do.

They argued that it harms those who have already signed leases, but CM Allen said that the law specifically has a carve out for existing leases.

Somehow they argue that it will have a disproportional impact on diverse businesses, small businesses and non-profits, but how they got to that conclusion is unclear. They also brought up customer parking, but Allen pointed out that this bill has nothing to do with customer parking. 

They said the law would run afoul of Cheh's moratorium on employer focused legislation, but Cheh countered that the bill doesn't mandate that employers give anything, only that if they give a benefit, they give it equitably. Allen said that this is about choice and flexibility for the employees, but that a handful of people are telling businesses that this is a mandate, which it is not. 

Finally, the Chamber argued that some people don't live close enough to walk or bike to work, but Allen said that this is why the bill also funds transit. Mic drop.

Another opponent, oddly enough, was the DC Policy Center. They believe that "The bill has good intentions (less congestion, better health, cleaner air), but social injustices will increase as a consequence." Their logic works like this: People who walk and bike are richer than people who drive and take transit. So a policy that gives more money to people who walk and bike will only be giving money to the wealthy, possibly at the expense of the poor. And it will lead to gentrification. Like the Georgetown BID they argue against this policy because it isn't the BEST policy choice (not because it is a bad policy). 

If we truly want to make D.C. a more walkable, bikeable, transit-friendly city, we should start with our broader housing and transportation policies. We should expand D.C.’s stock of affordable housing and promote dense, mixed-income developments along transit-accessible corridors; improve both Metro and bus networks so that they are an accessible and reliable option for all residents. And—in conjunction with these measures—we should continue to improve streets for pedestrians and cyclists, so that residents of all neighborhoods can safely access these healthier modes of transportation.

Those are all good policies, but creating more incentives for people to walk, bike and use transit is good policy too. 

They come dangerously close to adopting the line of attack of anti-bike lane forces - that bike lanes bring gentrification

While correlation is not causation, data show us that where you find walkable, bikeable communities, you also find gentrification.

 

Pardon me, but this position is bananas. I generally support the same goals as DC policy center (and Charles Allen noted that he and they were often allied too) but if they're going to become anti-active transportation because it causes gentrification, I suspect that will be less often true. 

Some of their arguments imply that they don't think this will benefit people who ride the bus. 

People who biked to work were also younger (median age 34), but earned more than the median salary ($60,000). Those who took the
bus, on the other hand, were at about the median age (35), but earned less ($32,000). Those who drive earned slightly more than the median
wage ($55,000), but were older (median age, 41). If we were to adjust for age differences, we would find that those who walk and bike to work are richer than those who drive or take the bus. That is why they can afford to live close to where they work.

But since this bill will require more employers to offer transit benefits, it will also help people currently riding the bus who are not getting a transit benefit but who have co-workers who are getting subsidized parking. 

Another line of reasoning they take is that most of the people who drive live in MD or VA and changing their mode of transportation simply isn't an option, and the same is true of reverse commuters or shift workers.

The bill would have little relevance to [drivers who commute from outside of the city]—unless their employers decide to eliminate the benefit—and will do little to change their behavior.

The bill is also irrelevant to the world of reverse commuters.

That's probably true, but to the extent that it reduces the number of solo drivers it will reduce congestion. And to the extent that it moves people to cleaner modes of transportation, it will improve their living conditions. People don't need to change their behavior to benefit. And I'm not sure that arguing that this will benefit DC residents to the detriment of out-of-District workers is a compelling case to make to the DC council. 

But here's where we really disagree.

But beyond investing in infrastructure and improving safety, D.C. Government does not need to favor those who walk or bike to work.

This is not the way DC (or most other governments) have seen it for at least a decade. There are good reasons to favor walking and biking (and transit, they keep forgetting that this is a pro-transit bill) over driving. They even mention the reasons in the beginning (less congestion, better health, cleaner air). It's like they forget all the thing they say up front when coming to their conclusions later on. 

Mary Cheh pushed back against them. She repeated their line that the DC Government "should not favor those who drive" by pointing out that the current system does exactly that by subsidizing parking. Charles Allen also disagreed with their analysis. He said that he'd been trying to meet with them and talk about it, because he disagrees and doesn't think it will lead to less economic justice. 

NspireGreen, a sustainability consulting firm, was mostly supportive, but also worried that the bill will reward rich people who can afford to live close to work. For that reason they specifically opposed the section which will give any benefit, beyond the Bicycle Commuter Benefit limit, to people who walk or bike. Which seems like an odd position for an organization dedicated to sustainability to take. 

DDOT testified last and they support it, but they want to discuss rulemaking, staffing and other important consequences of the bill. 

This bill is a big deal. I'm surprised it's not getting more attention nationally (I guess it's getting lost in the flurry of bigger news). If DC passes this, it will serve as a test case for the parking cash out idea that has been kicked around for years now (CA has one, but it has a lot of limitations). I would have expected national organizations who support or oppose this to get more involved. Maybe they are, but just not in public. But this bill has the potential to be a game changer. I think it's the most important piece of bike and walk commuting legislation to be proposed in the last 20 years; and it's important for transit users as well. If you haven't yet, a letter of support to your Council member or, better yet, to the at-large Council member of your choice can only do good. 

WABA's oversight hearing testimony

The DC Council has been holding its annual oversight hearings for the District's departments, agencies, councils and other organizations, and WABA has been going to select meeting to testify.

At the DPW oversight hearing they focused on parking in bike lanes and DPR's role in enforcement of parking. 

This is a problem with parking enforcement priorities. DPW is listed as a supporting agency in the Vision Zero Action Plan strategy to protect vulnerable users through “enhanced enforcement that focuses on . . . parking in [or] blocking bike lanes.” A central tenet of Vision Zero is that agencies prioritize safety over convenience. In general, the DPW enforcement data demonstrates a pervasive failure to do so. For example: combined tickets for blocking a bike lane, blocking a fire hydrant, or blocking a bus stop, all of which put people in actual danger, numbered just over 20,000 or 2.8% of total tickets. The District issued three times as many (or more than 60,000) tickets for residential parking permit violations, which are important, but ultimately a matter of convenience rather than safety.

WABA members have also reported a different barrier to effective bike lane parking enforcement: Currently, the city’s 311 system doesn’t have a clear way for residents to report blocked bike lanes.

At the DPR hearing they were interested in ways they can work with DPR to provide more bicycle programming and education.

In the past year, we have made numerous attempts to connect with DPR leadership at multiple levels, applied to their community partnership program, and offered to train their staff. We have received mixed messages at best, outright denials at worst. Truly, it should not be so difficult to connect the people of DC with services and opportunities they clearly want

And at the DDOT hearing they focused on "the agency’s progress on ensuring safe accommodations for bicyclists through construction work zones, and the pace at which bike infrastructure and other multi-modal safety projects are being implemented."  WABA raised concerns with how permits are issued and how they're enforced, damningly noting that

In the past year, a single dedicated WABA member has reported to the public space office nearly one hundred safe accommodation violations along his commute. This individual’s near daily documentation of violations, more than anything, has revealed the shortcomings of the public space office’s ability to take in complaints, rapidly respond to those complaints, or create a process for ensuring that permit violators are in compliance before they are allowed to resume work.

and, or course, about the pace

The 2014 Move DC two year action plan called for 15 miles of new on-street bicycle infrastructure. We are nowhere close to that pace, and never have been, as we point out every year.

They note that the Florida Avenue project seems to prioritize moving cars, that the Rhode Island project doesn't adequately address bicycling in the corridor, and that the East Capitol Street Bridge rehab will "move forward with the same substandard sidewalk which is stressful and dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists", etc... Basically, everything is behind schedule or off the pace of plans and this is pretty much how it has been for 15 years. Either there is a problem in goal setting or in 

we need a transportation agency that is clear about its goals and meeting them. We understand the projects are getting harder, require extensive public outreach and lengthy planning. This underscores the need for deeper buy-in and contribution from the full agency, and a powerful vision and approach that can galvanize citizen support for these projects

Meanwhile, the BAC testified at the MPD oversight hearing, bringing up issues of MPD involvement in the BAC, enforcement with respect to dangerous and distracted driving and bicycle theft.

Every year there are hundreds of reports of stolen bicycles and, since a 2014 study put the report rate at 35%, likely thousands more that are stolen and not reported. The same study found that about half of all cyclists will have a bicycle stolen in the next 10 years. So this is a serious problem and the BAC is interested in seeing more robust reporting of bicycle theft statistics, numbers which are hard or, in some cases impossible, to find. The recent Bicycle and Pedestrian safety bill had several provisions on reporting violation, crash, injury and fatality data on the premise that such reporting could shed a light on both problems and solutions. We believe the same is true of theft, and that reporting the numbers of bikes stolen, the number recovered and the clearance rate would serve the same utility. We’d like to know more about what MPD is doing to prevent bicycle theft and to recover and return stolen bikes.

DC Council passes contributory negligence fix bill, Bowser signals willingness to sign

In case you haven't heard yet, the DC Council unanimously approved the Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Amendment Act of 2015 yesterday and also passed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2016 and transmitted it to the Mayor (with a response due by July 26th). Pretty big day for DC bicycle law. Not to diminish the importance of other laws like the DC Commuter and Parking Act, Bicycle Safety Amendment Act, Bicycle Safety Enhancement Act, etc...to have passed since I started blogging, but from the standpoint of DC legislation, its hard to think of a bigger year. Lots of progress has been made this summer. 

The first time I heard of the contributory negligence bill was back in 2008, when then WABA Executive Director Erik Gilliland wrote the Bicycle Advisory Council (BAC) about it.

Please see the attached file [about the case WMATA v Young].  It’s an appeals court judgment on a case involving a cyclist that was struck and severely injured by a Metro bus driver.  We have been talking about how the contributory negligence policy of DC (and MD and VA) might hinder the ability of cyclists to recover damages in a civil suit if he or she is found to have contributed at least a little bit to a crash. 

Over the next 8 years WABA, BAC, (once they existed) the Pedestrian Advisory Council (PAC) and others have been working to change this law, with WABA doing most of the heavy lifting. Shane Farthing wrote a great piece making the case for the change. GreaterGreaterWashington has been hitting the issue pretty hard for years. In 2014, David Grosso with Tommy Wells and Mary Cheh introduced the first bill that tried to fix this, the Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Amendment Act of 2014, but even as it failed it set up yesterday's eventual success. Within months, Mary Cheh modified it to be more politically palatable (and frankly better for cyclists and pedestrians) and Kenyon McDuffie eventually moved it through committee. Even when he held up the bill last month, it appears to have been due to a general misunderstanding, not opposition. Finally the whole council has supported the change and it appears Mayor Bowser will sign it.

Success, they say, has a lot of fathers, and in this case it is absolutely true.

Council Passes the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015

Yesterday, in addition to the kerfuffle over the contributory negligence fix bill, the council quietly passed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015 in a unanimous vote.  I expect Mayor Bowser to sign it. 

this bill makes changes to District law regarding motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. It requires the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to publish certain statistical and geographical data on its website, establishes a safety program called the Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Area Program, orders DDOT to adopt an inclusive policy for accommodating all users of the District's roadways, and amends existing public safety laws by creating new motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle regulations.

Here is what the bill originally contained, and what it was later modified to contain. There's a lot of good stuff in this bill (even if that doesn't include the Idaho Stop or increased fines for repeat offenders). The mandatory use of interlock for everyone convicted of drunk driving and the revocation of licenses from repeat drunk drivers being among the most noteworthy.

Contributory Negligence fix bill is reportedly in big trouble

This post has been updated to reflect what McDuffie is proposing.

With a vote scheduled for today, the Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2016 (aka: the bill that will end the use of contributory negligence to deny coverage to a vulnerable road user (VRU) who was 50% or less responsible for her injuries) which seemed to be sailing along is now in trouble according to Martin Di Caro. 

In a series of tweets yesterday, Di Caro reported that Councilmember McDuffie "would rather not see [the] bike safety bill taken up without his amendment tomorrow. Could he move to table?" and that he would propose an amendment during the Council's legislative session, which Mary Cheh would oppose. 

The amendment, Di Caro reported today, would change the standard from the one Mary Cheh proposed in 2015 to a hybrid between that and what was proposed when Tommy Wells tried to fix this in 2014 (the bill Cheh helped kill). Here's that explained in one chart.

The red line is what is currently in place. The blue line is what Cheh's law would propose and the green line is what was proposed in 2014. McDuffie is proposing the purple line such that when the vulnerable road user (VRU) is less than 50% at fault they get a payment in proportion to the driver's fault, but when they're more than 50% at fault they get nothing. This is what the committee report calls the Modified Comparative <50%. [Update: The committee report does recommend that DC law institute a modified comparative negligence standard in the District, even though it passed the bill as written by Cheh. That report comes from McDuffie and I have no idea who writes them.]

This is a definite downgrade and Mary Cheh is right to fight the amendment. It means that when drivers are less than fully at fault but primarily at fault, they get to use comparative negligence, but when they're somewhat at fault but not primarily at fault they pay nothing. 51% at fault - only pay 51% of the damages. 49% at fault, pay nothing. It's definitely to the advantage of the drivers (if you doubt that ask yourself if they would be willing to reverse it). 

It's true that the standard the current bill is proposing would be novel and that no one in the country uses it (while 34 states use the Modified Comparative <50% standard), but that doesn't mean it isn't less fair. If the proposal is to go to pure comparative - that would be acceptable, but despite being better than the status quo, modified comparative still puts an undue burden on vulnerable road users.

Of course one could argue that even pure comparative (PC) isn't quite as good. If every VRU who is injured sued under both formats (PC and Cheh's) than - on average - you'd expect the same amount of money to flow from drivers/insurance companies to  (assuming that fault is evenly distributed) because the area under the curves is the same. It would just that more would go to VRUs who are a little bit at fault and none to VRUs who are a lot at fault. But not every VRU would sue under PC. VRUs who are primarily at fault wouldn't sue to get 5-10% compensation, since they'd be at higher risk of getting nothing. So the curve for comparative payouts would taper out at the lower numbers. This would mean that under PC, less money would flow from at-fault drivers to injured VRUs than under Cheh's bill. Driver's who were primarily at fault would only pay for some of the damage, and drivers who are little at fault would pay nothing - much as is the case in modified comparative. 

WABA had a rally this morning outside of the Wilson Building from 8:30 to 9:15 am.If you couldn't make it, write your CM 

How the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act has changed

As mentioned yesterday, the DC Council passed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Amendment Act of 2016, which is the post-hearing version of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Act of 2015. The two laws have many similarities but in a few key ways they differ.  At this link is a list of what the 2015 bill included. And the main differences are listed below (there are also some smaller differences like the exact data that needs to be reported or who is responsible for this task or that)

The 2016 bill

• Removes the provision to allow bicyclists to observe stop signs as yield signs
• Removes the provision to increase penalties for repeat offenders of traffic violations (including bike lane violations)
• Removes the provision that would expand distracted driving to include drivers sitting behind the wheel of a non-moving, but idling, motor vehicle.
• Adds language to enhance the penalties for operating and parking an all-terrain vehcile or dirt bike in the public right-of-way
• Adds a provision to require mandatory participation in the interlock program for all offenders that have a blood alcohol level above the legal limit 
• Adds a provision to impose a permanent license revocation for a third conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving while intoxicated, or operating a vehicle whole impaired
• Increase penalties for first time drunk driving offenders and offenders with blood alcohol content above .08 but less than .20
• Gives much greater details on bicycle insurance regulations - now a whole section instead of two lines.

So that's some good additions and some unfortunate removals. I'll note that everything AAA didn't like (increased fines for repeate offenders and the Idaho Stop) were removed from the bill - despite them officially supporting the 2015 bill. 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act passes without Idaho Stop

The city paper has the news that the e Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Administration Act of 2016 has been unanimously passed by the DC Council, but without Stop as Yield (also known as the Idaho Stop).

“Stop as yield” was added to the bill at the urging of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Working Group convened by Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh last summer. The provision faced early opposition from some members of the group like AAA Mid-Atlantic and the Metropolitan Police Department. [WABA Director Greg Billing] says he isn’t “entirely shocked” by its removal.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Administration Act of 2016, introduced by Cheh, would require the District to publish the locations of high crash intersections and create a pedestrian and bicyclist priority area program. The program will designate safety enhancement priority locations around D.C. in areas with heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The District Department of Transportation will also be required to adopt a “complete streets” policy among other changes to existing law.

The Council has to vote on the bill again for it to pass. 

There's a lot of good stuff in the bill that passed, but it's hard to not be disappointed by the removal of stop as yield.

There isn't even a clear explanation for why the stop as yield provision was removed from the bill. It isn't really mentioned in the committee report (where you can also fine a copy of the new bill) or in the article which speculates that it's due to the objections of the MPD and AAA. 

MPD's objections, frankly, were nonsensical. In the Working Group meetings they seemed to focus on how the Idaho law was passed - that it was sneakily added in at the last minute (a claim which I don't think can even be supported). And they claimed that there was no evidence that it made the roads safer, a claim that was repeatedly refuted as there are a few - admittedly limited - studies that provide some evidence that they do. MPD isn't safety experts and it is arguably not appropriate for them to weigh in on safety issues. What they know is enforcement and if they have an enforcement issue with this, they never mentioned it.

During the committee hearing in January,

As to the safety concern, when pressed by CM Elissa Silverman, Assistant Police Chief Lamar Greene said that he thought it was safer when all road users obey DC laws and regulations. His argument was, then, that the law shouldn't change because it's safer when everyone follows the law. But, of course, if this bill passed as is, then the laws and regulations would change so that cyclists who roll through stop signs when no one else has the right-of-way would be following the law. 

When Silverman (who clearly supports stop-as-yield) asked him what his belief that the "stop-as-yield" change would lead to more crashes was based on and what evidence he had, he offered none but said that some of his colleagues had talked to some in law enforcement in Idaho and that they had shared his concerns. That was it.

AAA's objection is even worse. Why exactly would a motorist organization oppose stop-as-yield?  It, in no way, harms drivers. If anything it should make traffic move more smoothly. AAA agreed to accept the provision in the working group, but then John Townsend set out to undermine it for what reason I don't know. He said during the January hearing that AAA had no opposition to it but then highlighted the fact that MPD was "diametrically opposed to it." Then they immediately went out and polled DC drivers to show that they opposed stop as yield.

In a survey of 1,085 D.C. drivers, conducted during the last week of January by Public Policy Polling for AAA Mid-Atlantic, they asked a question about the provision. 

Six of 10 drivers licensed in the District say they oppose a proposed change in city law that would allow bicyclists to roll through stop signs. The measure, part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Act of 2015, is in response to demands from an increasing number of bicyclists in the city seeking greater protections and access to the road. If approved, the District would join a handful of jurisdictions nationwide that allow bicyclists to roll through traffic signs– when safe.

I haven't written about this, but I already see several problems here. First of all is how the question was phrased, which is unknown. I emailed Mr. Townsend several times to get the question that was asked and - surprise surprise - he never responded. Does the question ask if cyclists should be "allowed to roll through stop signs" because I'd expect such phrasing to poll badly. In addition, it's only a poll of DC drivers. Fewer than half of all DC residents even have a license. Did AAA ask non-drivers this question, but only report the opinion of drivers? Again, Townsend didn't respond and AAA didn't report. Finally 40% approval among drivers is actually better than I would have expected. 

But since this provision was removed behind closed doors, we might never know why it was removed, or who wanted it gone and who wanted it to pass. 

The Vision Zero Action Plan: How DC plans to end road fatalities

Mayor Bowser released the Vision Zero Action Plan earlier this month as the administrations playbook for the first few years of Vision Zero, which is the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities by 2024. [I have a complimentary post at GGW about how the DC council and the administration are both pursuing policies towards safer streets for cyclists and pedestrians and how this represents the most significant effort in this regard that I know of]

The first part is about the process of putting the plan together and includes a lot of data visualization and raw data. For example, the vast majority of bike and pedestrian fatalities occur on roads with 25 mph speed limits, but this doesn't mean that drivers are going 25mph or slower at the time. 

And the 15 most deadly roads in DC accounted for more than half of all cyclist deaths.

The second part of the plan includes over 50 strategies, some of which echo other plans, from four categories, for making roads safer followed by specific actions to carry them out.

The strategies include

• Increase enforcement and protection for pedestrians and people on bikes in work zones and in parking garages. Educate development/construction stakeholders and develop green building code elements for safe transportation.  (Target Completion December 2016)
• Install or upgrade 20 miles of on-street bicycle facilities. Prioritize improvements using injury and crash data. Install five miles (of the 20) of separated/protected bikeways. (Target Completion December 2017)
• Protect people on bikes with enhanced enforcement that focuses on improper U-turns through bicycle facilities, parking in/blocking bike lanes, improperly entering mixing zones, dooring, and failure to observe three-foot passing law. Utilize subject-matter-expert police officers on bicycles. Publically report citations issued on a regular basis via open data on the Vision Zero website. (Target Completion October 2015)
• Compile and analyze pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety and injury data at all DCPS and DC public charter school locations. Complete improvements at no fewer than three locations per year, beginning FY17 (Target Completion June 2016)
• Specifically track Capital Bikeshare safety data and publish targets and trends on Vision Zero website. (Target Completion January 2016)
• Complete first full cohort of universal bicycle training for all DCPS 2nd graders in every traditional public school. Identify opportunities to expand bicycle education in public charter schools.(Target Completion June 2016)
• Deter dangerous parking behavior of commercial and delivery vehicles: parking in bicycle lanes, crosswalks, parking abreast / double parking. Publicly report violations monthly via open data on the Vision Zero website.(Target Completion October 2016)
• Develop region-wide special events, including “safe streets” events that promote the use and awareness of bicycles, and bicycle education. (Target Completion October 2016)
• Accelerate use of bicycle counting stations to determine the number of bike trips made in the District per year in key locations to better understand exposure rates. Establish pedestrian counting stations to determine the number of pedestrian trips made per year in key locations. Utilize private sector partnerships and smart-phone applications to enable crowdsourcing of data and encourage resident participation. Evaluate impact of new facilities. Make data publicly available on Vision Zero website.(Target Completion July 2017)
• Establish public repository on the Vision Zero website for crowd-sourced video of behaviors that are dangerous to pedestrians, people on bikes, transit users, and drivers. Disseminate safety education tools using videos, and inform enforcement and engineering strategies accordingly (Target Completion December 2016)
• On a weekly basis, target illegal loading/unloading and unauthorized vehicles in loading zones, erratic behavior, and dangerous interactions with bicycle facilities by drivers of public vehicles for hire. Focus on commercial corridors, entertainment areas, bike lanes, and areas near hotels. Specifically analyze crashes involving bicycles and vehicles for hire. Explore driver incentives for voluntary participation in vehicle cameras, data-recording devices, passenger facing speedometer pilot programs.(Target Completion October 2017)
• Every other year, continue updates to the DMV driver manual and test materials to refresh emphasis on dangerous driving and bicycle and pedestrian safety (Target Completion April 2017)
• Complete DCMR Title 31 Compliance Audit to address public-vehicle-for-hire driver misconduct that threatens motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. Conduct related education and outreach for all vehicle-for-hire drivers. (Target Completion October 2016)

In order to put these strategies into action, there are some real policy initiatives that go along with it.

There are regulatory changes that have already been proposed and for which there will be a hearing on January 8th.  This includes increased fines for striking a cyclist and for parking in a bike lane. 

There's the Vision Zero Enforcement Act which codifies a Complete Streets law, strengthens impaired and distracted driving rules, and addresses the safety concerns caused by On-Street ATVs and Dirt Bikes.

New to the plan is the announcement that the District’s FY16 budget will include a $500,000 Vision Zero Fund. This will spend $156,000 on side underride prevention devices for the DC fleet - something WABA pushed for and that became required, but unfunded, back in 2008; $103,000 on 50 workshops to increasing access to safe bicycles for underserved communities, conducted in conjunction with DCPS bicycle education; and $80,000 for an education program related to truck blind spots. 

All things considered, it represents a good start, especially when combined with everything in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act. Slower streets, more enforcement, more education, safer trucks, better laws. It probably won't get us to zero deaths, but it will save lives. Hopefully the initiative on side underride guards will encourage Maryland and Virginia to follow suit, since a large number (perhaps the majority) of trucks on DC roads are from out-of-state. 

See also, 

Greater Greater Washington coverage of Vision Zero. And coincidentally, WABA wrote about it between the time I wrote this and the time I published it. 

Several things about the Idaho Stop provision in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act

Last week DC's Committee on Transportation and the Environment held a hearing on several traffic safety bills, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act. One small part of that bill was a provision allowing cyclists to treat stop signs and steady red lights as yield signs. Of course if you watched or read media coverage of this, you might think it was the main change being proposed, or that it was a particularly controversial proposal. Neither is true.

The "stop-as-yield" provision of the 2015 Safety Act is a small part of the bills discussed. The bill is 19 pages long, and this provision is less than one page of it. It's not nearly as important as the complete streets provisions or the mandating of side-under run guards on all District-registered trucks, but it is the "telegenic" part since it allows news reporters - especially TV news reporters - to say "Whaaaat? Let cyclists run stop signs??"

It's also not that controversial - The provision came out of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Working Group, where it originally was approved with only token opposition, but then after the draft report came MPD expressed reservations about it (though Co-chair John Townsend disagrees with this, and says consensus was never reached). The "opposition" was limited to:

1. Wayne McOwen, executive director of the District of Columbia Insurance Federation when speaking for DCIF said only that they wanted to see it coupled with an education effort. But later when, coincidentally, the subject came up during the panel he was on, he said - speaking for himself - that he had concerns about it. That was it. He didn't show up to testify against it, and would not have had it not come up. Nonetheless, Mr. McOwen's testimony was widely covered by the media in part because he was on the first panel and, other than Martin DiCaro, the media had largely left before the hearing was over and MPD spoke against it.
2. AAA never said that they opposed it or were even concerned about it. Townsend, in his role as the Working Group co-chair, noted that MPD was "diametrically opposed to it" and gave MPDs reasons in an effort to clear up what he saw as an inconsistency in that this provision was in the bill even though it was not approved in the final report (the bill was based on the draft report). 
3. The main opposition to the provision came from MPD. They took the position that it was not about safety and was a matter convenience, and that "in fact, in a highly populated setting, this could lead to more bicyclist and more pedestrian injuries by them not stopping at stop signs and red lights" because it would confusing to motorists and other users when taking into consideration young and inexperienced riders.
4. When asked, Leif Dormsjo, said that having two sets of traffic rules for different users is problematic and that he obeys all the laws of the road. Which isn't really a statement against it.

MPD's opposition either isn't relevant or isn't based on any facts.

First of all, during the working group meetings and during the hearings it was repeatedly stated by others that MPD represented experts on traffic safety. No offense to MPD, but I'm not sure that this is true. They're experts on enforcement, and probably have a great deal of relevant field knowledge about safety, but I would not call them experts. DDOT is the experts, and within the working group they supported it. 

The criticism that it is only about making cycling more convenient was relevant on the working group, when we were charged with creating recommendations for ways to make DC roads safer and thus eliminated anything that wouldn't. But Council is not so limited. So, if this only makes cycling more efficient, and I believe that it is more than that, and it has no negative impacts, Council should still support it anyway, since making a more efficient transportation system is something they should support. This unsupported point, thus, is irrelevant. 

As to the safety concern, when pressed by CM Elissa Silverman, Assistant Police Chief Lamar Greene said that he thought it was safer when all road users obey DC laws and regulations. His argument was, then, that the law shouldn't change because it's safer when everyone follows the law. But, of course, if this bill passed as is, then the laws and regulations would change so that cyclists who roll through stop signs when no one else has the right-of-way would be following the law. 

When Silverman (who clearly supports stop-as-yield) asked him what his belief that the "stop-as-yield" change would lead to more crashes was based on and what evidence he had, he offered none but said that some of his colleagues had talked to some in law enforcement in Idaho and that they had shared his concerns. That was it. 

And just to respond to Wayne McOwen's criticism "“We teach our children when the light is red we stop. We teach them when they see a sign that says stop to stop. We teach them to look both ways before they cross the street. We teach them to cross at the crosswalk.  Now we are beginning to say follow those rules except if there’s no one around, you can run across the street anyway" Well, yeah. The only way if no one is coming is if they looked both ways. Basically stop-as-yield is how pedestrians already treat stop signs, since they aren't required to stop unless someone else has the right-of-way. I don't see where the problem is.

There are reasons to believe that it does make cycling safer.

Authorities in Idaho have conservatively said that they have perceived, at minimum, no impact on the number of crashes, injuries or deaths since the law was passed. Furthermore, the only study done showed that bike crashes dropped by 13% following introduction of the law. 

Determining why it makes things safer is somewhat more difficult, but there are several possible reasons. It could be that it makes riding on slower streets, with more stop signs, more appealing since cyclists can travel at a faster average speed, thereby getting them out of harms way. It could be that the safety-in-numbers effect comes into play once biking is more convenient and more people bike. It could be because bikes, unlike cars, are inherently instable at slow speeds and so forcing cyclists to slow to a stop and then restart creates wobbly cyclists at the most dangerous part of the road - intersections. Or that the Idaho Stop at red lights allows cyclists to get in front of traffic, the same way that bike boxes and Pedestrian Leading Interval lights do, where they're more easily seen. Or a combination of these, or something else.

Knowing how it works might be hard to tease out. But aspirin was developed in the late 19th century and had been used for nearly 80 years before researches figured out how it works, so maybe knowing how something works isn't as important as knowing whether or not it does. [I also use this analogy when talking about distracted driving. We may not know WHY talking on the phone is more distracting then talking to someone else in the car, but there is a lot of research indicating that it is nonetheless. So we'd be wise to not wait to figure out why.]

DC Council committee to consider three pieces of bike-related legislation today

From a WABA release:

On Tuesday, December 8th, the DC Council’s Committee on Transportation and the Environment will consider three pieces of bike legislation. Together, these bills include a host of safety improvements and policies that will make DC streets safer and friendlier for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers alike.

What does that mean specifically? Here’s a taste:

• Harsher penalties for distracted and drunk driving;
• Prioritization of heavy use bicycle / pedestrian areas to expedite safety upgrades where they are needed most urgently;
• Improved crash reporting and accessibility to data to inform safety improvements.

To learn more about the bills, read our detailed analysis here.

Over the past year, we’ve worked hard to bring these bills to the table. Now we need you to show your Councilmembers on the transportation committee that you support these bills and the bold vision they represent. Here are two ways you can help:

1. Testify in person at the Public Hearing next Tuesday, Dec 8th, 11:00 am

If you believe in Vision Zero and share our excitement for a more bike friendly city, join us at the hearing to tell your story. Public hearings are the best time to show our lawmakers the impact that bike friendly laws can have on our lives.

Want to testify? We’re here to help. First, email [email protected] or call (202) 724-8062 to get a place on the speaker’s list. Then, tell us you are coming with an email to[email protected]. We’ll have talking points, resources, and staff available to help you write and deliver your testimony. Stop by the WABA office on Monday, Dec 7, between 4 pm and 7 pm for help with testimony or call 202-518-0524 x 212.

2. If you cannot testify, submit written comments in support of the bills

We’ve prepared a template, but feel free to personalize it. Personal stories are great, and resolute support is helpful too! Please take a few minutes to submit comments here.