MY TRIP TO THE DC BIKE SUMMIT, MARCH 3-5, 2004

• Strengthen and protect Enhancements, CMAQ and other TEA-21 programs.  Don't you just love government-speak?  TEA-21 is the big highway-spending bill that comes up once every six years or so.  Within it is funded just about anything and everything having to do with roads and, thus, cyclists.  "Enhancements" refers to things like recreational trails.  "CMAQ" stands for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, and is the rationale for all manner of programs to reduce auto traffic and improve our air.
   
• Safety Funding for Bicycling and Walking.  Cycling and pedestrian accidents account for 20% of all road fatalities in California, but get less than 5% of the funding set aside for addressing safety issues.  Clearly there is need for more work in this area!  Funds are used to help identify and fix road hazards, including better lighting, traffic medians that can serve as a refuge for pedestrians caught crossing a wide street by a changing light, installation of safer storm drains, etc.
   
• Safe Routes to Schools.  This one deserves an entire website all to itself!  Back in the day, 60% of the kids walked or rode bikes to school.  The number is now around 10%, with our schools becoming severely-congested transit stations, and our kids losing out on exercise opportunities at a time when we're getting daily news reports about the severity of childhood obesity.  Safe Routes to Schools will provide walkability and bikeability audits, installation of traffic calming (slowing) devices where appropriate, education to teach children how to safely ride or walk to school and encourage them to do so, increased traffic enforcement around schools and cooperation between school officials, law enforcement and transportation planners.
   
• Bicycle Commute Act.  This allows up to $100/month to employees who commute to work by bicycle, to be used to offset the costs of doing so.  There's a lot more to it than that; I'll provide more info soon.
   
• Complete Streets.  This is a great program; the idea is to require that all new road projects include bicycle & pedestrian consideration by default (which is not presently the case).  Justification would have to be provided for why there is not bicycle & pedestrian accommodation.  It will also create and enforce a uniform standard for how intersections and roadways are designed, which would preclude another abomination like the 280/Page Mill interchange.  Complete Streets can also save money, since it costs far more to retrofit bikes back into the mix (when a new project leaves bikes out, possibly severing a major bicycle artery, and has to be fixed).

Making life difficult is the massive federal budget deficit; President Bush has threatened to veto any highway appropriations bill that comes in at over $252 billion (although privately he's said he'd allow up to $271 billion), while the version that's passed the House (and incorporates our requests) stands at about $330 billion.  The fear is that, if things are cut back, they might eliminate some programs entirely.  We understand the need to control spending, but ask that any cuts made are proportional.  For example, the Safe Routes to Schools program is funded at $250 million in the House version of Tea-21.  The Senate could either eliminate it entirely, or cut it way back to just $70 million.  Given the obvious benefits of the program (healthier kids, less congestion, safer streets, friendlier communities), we feel we have a great program that deserves substantial funding... and, by and large, people agree.  Nobody is against the concept of Safe Routes to Schools.  It's like Apple Pie; it's un-American to be against it, and polls consistently show extraordinary support.  Plus, pilot programs in Marin have made exceptional progress... Safe Routes to Schools works!

Above and left are photos from our meeting with Barbara Boxer and her staffer in charge of transportation issues.  Something many don't realize is that, when you go to DC, you rarely meet with your actual congressperson, but rather with a staff member who specializes in a particular field.  That staff member is the expert and has the complete trust of the congressperson, who generally acts on their recommendations.  At first you may think you're getting short changed, but the reality is that there's no way a congressperson can possibly be "up" on all of the various issues in their district.

For me, this trip was wonderfully productive, and everything that my first trip (last year) wasn't.  I had six meetings, at the offices of Anna Eshoo, Tom Lantos, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Lee & Juanita Millender-McDonald.

In particular it was the meeting with Tom Lantos's Legislative Director, Ron Grimes, that made everything worthwhile.  Why?  Because I regarded last year's meeting with the same gentleman as a complete disaster, the sort of performance that actually harms the cause more than helps.  How bad was it?

I'd made an off-hand remark about France (something along the lines of "I feel more out-of-place in DC than I do in France" which was absolutely true, but meant to be funny... unfortunately, Mr. Grimes didn't seem to take it that way as he stood up slowly, looked around, and said "We don't mention France in this office."  This because it was a world in which Lantos had thought France, a supposed ally, had deserted the US regarding Iraq).

Keep in mind that I was alone, one-on-one with Mr. Grimes last year, and feeling incredibly nervous and unprepared.  So from that point on, I felt like I never really got going and, that being my final office visit, left DC on quite a low note.

But sometimes history does rewrite itself.  I had looked at my schedule and noted that, once again, I was meeting with Mr. Grimes, and approached the meeting with much fear & trepidation.  But everything quickly changed for the better.  Way better!

First, I had a partner, somebody far more experienced at lobbying efforts- Bert Hill of the BikeStation coalition.  Great guy.  Second, Ron Grimes immediately recognized me (which wasn't necessarily a good thing...) and told me that it was a direct result of my visit last year that convinced Tom Lantos to become a co-sponsor of the Commuter Bike Bill.  And from there things only got better.  So I not only had a great meeting today, but get to look back at my previous "failure" and turn it upside-down.

Long-term, my goal is to find a way to get local city planners back to the Bike Summit.  The message from other municipalities present is that incorporating cycling into the daily life of a city has made for a better community, with less traffic, healthier lifestyles, friendlier neighborhoods... in general, a more "livable" community.  A place people want to live.

In the end, if there's one thing that really strikes me, it's this.  It's not about what the city or government can do for bicycling.  It's what bicycling can do for them!

--Mike--