October 2014 - CalBike

Advice to Council submitted

October 31, 2014/by Zac

The California Bicycle Coalition has submitted two letters to the Strategic Growth Council with feedback on their proposed guidelines for administering the $130 million “Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities” grant program. The program is intended to support measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled and could play an important role in funding the infrastructure improvements we need to enable more bicycling throughout California.

One of our letters was submitted in coalition with other active transportation organizations. That letter is posted here. The other letter was submitted by us to clarify and expand on some of the points in the first letter. That letter is posted here, and included below:

October 31, 2014

Ken Alex, Chair
Strategic Growth Council
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: California Bicycle Coalition recommendations on the AHSC Program Guidelines

Dear Mr. Alex,

On behalf of our membership and affiliates’ membership of more than 30,000 bicycle advocates across California, we are writing to comment on the guidelines for the Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities greenhouse gas reduction program. We are excited about this program. We know that making our communities less dependent on automobile transportation will have cascading effects leading to vastly more sustainable communities and healthier, happier Californians. We support Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction as the primary greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategy for the AHSC Program.

We applaud the work of the SGC staff in getting us so far toward a great program. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this feedback on the program guidelines. We reaffirm the comments we made as part of the Coalition on Active Transportation Leadership (CATL) in its Oct 22 letter. We submit these comments as further clarification and refinement, especially with regard to the bicycle-related portions.

The following are suggestions for changes to the scoring criteria.

The first threshold requirement of ICP projects should not limit projects to those that increase transit use. An project that only increases walking and biking might help meet the goals of the AHSC program better than any other project but would be inelgible as the guildelines are currently drafted. Please change this threshold requirement.
Section 107 (e)(4) provides bonus points to projects that implement an element of a bicycle or pedestrian master plan. However, the AHSC will be stronger if projects are required to implement elements of such plans. Please refer to our comments in the CATL letter.
Section 107 (i) limits allowable parking to reasonable levels for most locations, but some locations in California impose even stronger limits. The AHSC guidelines should not provide bonus points to projects that provide parking in excess of the amount allowed in a jurisdiction, so this guideline should be revised to refer to the proposed limits or the maximum allowable parking according to local zoning, whichever is lower.
Section 107 (k) gives bonus points for bicycle features. This section should be reorganized in order to more effectively enable more bicycling.

- The single most important factor in the ability of people to bike is the degree to which their destinations are connected to each other via low-traffic-stress streets. The methodology to evaluate the degree of traffic stress is not complicated and widely available and could be employed to evaluate whether a project is located on a bicycle-friendly network of streets. Such a methodology is vastly superior to a simple measurement of miles of bike lanes and paths because a housing project or qualifying transit station could be surrounded by bike lanes but separated from them by dangerous high-traffic streets or intersections. We would be more than happy to meet with staff to help you devise an easy way of evaluating the bicycle-friendliness of a project and project area. This connectivity issue should be prioritized with the most points in the scoring matrix. Projects should get even more credit for contributing to improvements in connectivity.
- The next most important issue is bike parking. Housing projects should be required to provide secure, indoor, secure bike parking (protecting the bike and its components, such as provided by a bike cage accessed only by residents) at a ratio of 1 space per unit or in accordance with local regulations, whichever is higher. Transit stations should provide bike parking sufficient to meet demand, including a mix of racks and short-term lockers that protect the bike and its components.
- Permitting access to bikes on the transit vehicle should not be an acceptable alternative to secure bike parking as implied by subsection 107(k)1.(A).
- Providing points for the provision of a bike repair kiosk is a great, innovative idea. We would be happy to direct your staff to examples of very simple and affordable bike repair kiosks that provide self-service tools and pumps.
- Points for being in proximity of a bike sharing system should be minimal and limited to bike sharing programs that are accessible to low-income users.

The following are suggestions for changes to the definitions.

The “First Mile – Last Mile Strategy” definition should clarify the actual distance of trips in miles from a transit station that such a strategy is intended to serve. We support the definition of the Federal Transit Administration which has determined that the most appropriate planning radius for bike improvements is three miles, while for pedestrian improvements it’s a half-mile. Either the guidelines should refrain from using the jargon “first mile-last mile” and simply refer to bicycling and walking improvements a 3- and ½-mile radius of the transit station, or the definition of that straetgy should clarify that it’s really “First 3 Miles – Last 3 Miles” or “First ½-mile-Last ½-Mile.”
The definition of “complete streets” is too vague. Merely adding a striped bike lane to a high-speed arterial does not make that street a “completely bikeable” street from the point of view of most people. The definition of “complete street” ought to specify low-traffic stress bike routes and safe and comfortable pedestrian conditions.
The definition of “Active Transportation Program” should be broadened to include encouragement and enforcement programs, not just educational programs.
The list of economic co-benefits does not include the most important one for the purpose of the AHSC program: reduction in transportation costs due to reduced car use. Its example of reduced-cost transit passes neglects the reality that for many people transit is not a realistic option for their trips, but a bike could be. The list should be revised to add, “increased disposable income for families due to reduced automobile use.” Subsidies for bike purchases should be considered an eligible expense under the program.

Again, we are grateful for this opportunity to provide feedback on the AHSC guidelines. Please don’t hesitate to call me to follow up on any of these suggestions, or if you have questions about them.

Sincerely,

Dave Snyder

Executive Director

California Bicycle Coalition

New GHSA Report Gets It Wrong

October 29, 2014/by Zac

A recent report by the Governors Highway Safety Association attracted a great deal of attention, but the way they present the data is misleading. The report implies that riding a bike in California has gotten more dangerous in the past few years. In fact, bicycling is almost twice as safe in California as it was in 2010. And it’s getting safer.

The report highlights the increase in the total number of bicycle-related injuries and fatalities, noting that California has the most fatalities among the 50 states, with 138 fatal motor vehicle/bicycle collisions in 2012. The report fails to consider that these numbers are high because California is the most populous state, with more bicycle trips than any other state. In fact, he number of people riding bikes has nearly doubled since 2010. A review of the official numbers provided by the California Highway Patrol (including all bicycle injuries) in the context of the official transportation report provided by Caltrans, gives a very different picture of bicycle safety trends.

Trends from 2000 to 2012 in California (from our analysis of SWITRS data):
Bicycling is up 88{850a63fa8a72bae4d6bfa3f1eda9f619cddace10f9053ede128e2914f9ca5a15}.
The bicycle injury rate per trip is down 45{850a63fa8a72bae4d6bfa3f1eda9f619cddace10f9053ede128e2914f9ca5a15}.
The bicycle fatality rate per trip is down 39{850a63fa8a72bae4d6bfa3f1eda9f619cddace10f9053ede128e2914f9ca5a15}.

An LA Times article on the report didn’t catch any of these positive trends either. The report’s misinterpretation of the data can easily skew public perception of riding a bike as a risky activity.

First things first: riding a bike is not dangerous. The rate of bicycle accidents is on the decline throughout the United States, as emphasized in the strong reaction to the study from bicycling advocates around the country.

Once you dive into the details of the report, especially the calls to action, it starts to seem less anti-bike. “Roads were built to accommodate motor vehicles with little concern for pedestrians and bicyclists.”

The report’s intention seems to be to compel policy leaders to invest in better bike infrastructure and more encouragement of bicycling. They highlight some benefits of an increase in bicycle riding — health and environmental — but fail to recognize that more bikes on the road make our communities safer overall, or that the more people ride bicycles, the safer bike riding gets. It’s interesting to note that the economic benefits of biking, although highlighted in the sources they cite, have been completely ignored in the report.

Although the report’s call for more infrastructure is good, its specific prescriptions are outdated. Of course “cycle paths” (It’s unclear, but class I bikeways, we assume) are not always feasible because our communities have been built “to accommodate motor vehicles.” So building bikeways that give the same protection as off-street cycle paths built on existing roadways seems logical, right?

Here were the suggestions in the report:

Painted bike lanes are good, but often are not enough. Bicycle boulevards are pleasant, but often out of the way, and can have too many stop signs to be an efficient transportation route. Their last two suggestions, which would separate bicyclists from motor traffic at the intersections are good ones.

Personal safety is not the only reason to promote protected bike lanes, but they are essential to to make direct, efficient, welcoming bicycle infrastructure built for everyone ages 8-80. The report recognizes that protected bike lanes that are being implemented across the country both increase user safety and compel more people to ride a bike:

“Research indicates that bicyclists prefer separate street facilities over purely recreational paths (Nuworsoo & Cooper, 2013) and states are responding by attempting to improve on-road bike lane safety. For example, Illinois is piloting a barrier-protected bike lane. In Washington D.C., two innovative treatments have been instituted – a buffered center median bike lane and a two-way cycle track (Goodno et al., 2012). Both treatments, which involve dedicated road space with buffers between bicycles and motor vehicles, have increased bicycle use.”

This might be the first time that the GHSA has recognized that modern bikeways are imperative to get more people to ride bikes. California lawmakers know how important it is. Pledge your support today to win more protected bike lanes in your community at calbike.org.

10.29.14