Posts, email, and ideas related to bicycling and bicycle advocacy.

RSS Feed

 
Subject: Re: BikeKC "Yellow Jersey" Presentation to City Council Thursday,
1:45PM

John,

It passed 11 to 1/2

The "1/2" was our favorite councilman, Ed Ford, who gave impassioned speeches about how dangerous bicycling was, then when it came time to vote, cheerily called out "Aye" when it was his turn.

The vote had proceeded through several more people before he had the presence of mind to yell out "NAY! I meant NAY!".

It went pretty well, altogether. We knew it had support but we thought there would be more "no" votes than just Ed's. Bonnie Sue Cooper voter for it, and she has always been in opposition & had some concerned-sounding questions in the meeting beforehand. But she voted "Yes".

I'll write up a longer piece about what happened Thursday when I get the time & send you a copy if I remember (remind me Monday or so if you haven't received it yet . . . )
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
sggoodri@mindspring.com (Steven Goodridge) wrote in message news:<99edd02a.0208080613.1c988e8b@posting.google.com>...
> bhugh@mwsc.edu (Brent Hugh) wrote
> > BikeKC, the plan for adding on-street bicycle facilities to Kansas
> > City, Missouri, streets, came up for the crucial committee meeting
> > vote today.
>
> You might want to consider re-wording some of your advocacy to
> describe the road modifications as "bicycling-related roadway
> improvements" and "improved passing facilities" rather than "adding
> on-street bicycle facilities", The latter wording may encourage the
> mindset that a facility for bicycling does not exist without them.
> It's my view, and the legal status quo, that every road is a bike
> facility, but some roads have better passing facilities than others.
>
> > TEA-21 requires consideration
> > of the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in all new construction and
> > re-construction.
>
> I think this is a better wording to advocate for cyclists' needs.
>
> Steve Goodridge
> http://www.humantransport.org


Thanks--that's good advice.

--Brent
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:57:21 -0700

The Kansas City, Missouri, City Council passed the BikeKC proposal
Thursday afternoon by a margin of 11 1/2 to 1/2.

We pretty much knew beforehand that there were enough votes on the
council to pass the measure. But we were very pleased and surprised
at the amount of support for BikeKC. Even the one councilwoman who
had a bad altercation with a bicyclist several years ago, and
throughout the committee hearings had been adamantly opposed to
bicyclists on the street, ended up voting for the BikeKC.

The home builders' association didn't even put up a fight. They gave
a short presentation in which they said they wanted to let the council
know that the proposal would raise housing prices a little (due to
increased right-of-way dedication). But the representative
specifically said the association was NOT opposing BikeKC.

The 1/2 vote against the proposal was from our "favorite" city
councilman, the fellow who chairs the committee that finally approved
BikeKC (after a year's delay because of this councilman's objections).

He ranted for quite some time, in two separate meetings that day,
about the terrible, mortal danger faced by bicyclists anywhere on any
city street, especially on arterial roads, argued forcefully that all
bicyclists should ride on "safe" off-road bike trails, waved around
lurid headlines (from Foresterite web pages, which he totally
misunderstood and misinterpreted) screaming BIKE LANES DANGEROUS FOR
BICYCLISTS, and handed out statistics showing that some number of
bicyclists were killed--yes, KILLED!--riding on arterials somewhere
(no effort to calculate accident *rate*, though, and no apparent
understanding of why that might be helpful to know).

After all that, when it came time for the roll call--which they zip
through in about 6 seconds flat--our councilcritter called out loud
and clear, "AYE", just like everybody else did.

A few seconds later he caught his mistake and hollered, "No, No, I
meant NAY! NAY! NAY!!"

Taking the average of the two separate votes given by his better and
worse natures, respectively, I must conclude that there was only 1/2
vote against.


Kansas City isn't exactly progressive. This is the first alternative
transportation proposal adopted here since the bus, and before that
(in the 1910s or so) the trolley.

But now we're well on the way to being a cool city.

Meet you there in about 40 years . . .


Kansas City Star article on the approval of BikeKC:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/3872600.htm


--Brent
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:44:22 -0700

Subject: Re: BikeKC Passed Thursday
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
> Huh? Bike lanes ARE dangerous. They collect all kinds of debris, they

Oh, dear. I've gone and mentioned the words "b*k* l*n*s" again,
setting the flamebots off on another automated feeding frenzy. I
should know better.

But let me throw out just one more little tidbit before standing firm
forever after in my resolve to Never Again Feed The Wild Animals (the
rangers assure me that although they look ferocious and smell yet
worse, when left alone in their native habitat they are actually quite
docile and survive well enough on a diet of bland native berries and
grubs, which they spend their day long collecting and digesting).

So let me expand on the following just a little, because it's kind of
funny and pathetic at the same time:

I wrote:

> He ranted for quite some time, in two separate meetings that day,
> about the terrible, mortal danger faced by bicyclists anywhere on any
> city street, especially on arterial roads, argued forcefully that all
> bicyclists should ride on "safe" off-road bike trails, waved around
> lurid headlines (from Foresterite web pages, which he totally
> misunderstood and misinterpreted) screaming B*K* L*N*S DANGEROUS FOR
> BICYCLISTS,

Mr. Ford handed out a printout of a web page that debated the relative
merits of bike lanes and wide curb lanes in a rather overexcited,
sensationalistic, and inflammatory way. Of course, the conclusion of
the thing was, "B*k* l*n*s = bad, unsafe; wide curb lanes = good,
safe".

First, before we all feel obligated to descend in a biting, clawing,
gouging, ripping, tearing, underhanded, underwear twisting attack on
my general intelligence, looks, and sexual interests, let me state for
the record that I personally agree with the general thrust of the
argument for wide curb lanes. But this particular web site, if it
really wished to be convincing and believable, could have been a
little more cautious and considered in its claims and a little less
lurid in its headlines.

At any rate, all that is moot because Mr. Ford obviously hadn't
understood the thrust of the argument on the web page at all.
Probably he hadn't even read it entirely. Because after he had
pointed to the headline of the page ("B*k* L*n*s Dangerous for
Cyclists" or something along those lines) as a lead-in to a long
speech about how b*k* l*n*s are the Spawn of Satan and anyone
promoting on-street cycling a merchant of death, one of the other
council members happened to ask a question about where cyclists would
ride on the routes without b*k* l*n*s.

Of course, the Public Works spokesman explained that on roads without
striped b*k* l*n*s, bicyclists would be sharing a lane with motorists.

Well, this set Mr. Ford off in a spluttering paroxysm of excitement.
"What!? Share a lane with a car? The very height of danger and
stupidity! Even worse than b*k* l*n*s!!!"

In other words, he exactly contradicting the argument of the web page
he had just distributed and heartily endorsed.


By the way, if you want to see some arguments for wide curb lanes that
are actually factually oriented and convincing, try

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/SellingWideLanes.htm

and

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm

as well as other interesting articles at

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/index.html


(By the way, in the story above, the quotes from Mr. Ford are not
exact--I don't have nearly the memory for that--but simply my general
recollection and re-construction of the thrust of his content and
tone. I'm sure I've exaggerated just a little. After all, what's the
point of telling a story about yourself if you can't make yourself
come off as a sainted figure personifying the wisdom of the ages,
while painting your opponent as the blustering pompous little ass you
wish he really were . . . )

posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:39:36 -0700

Subject: Re: "Bike-lanes do cyclists no good." Re: BikeKC Passed Thursday

> If most of those are used by kids, I'd guess a majority. They might ride up
> and down the same 2 or 3 blocks, but they do it all DAY...

I used to wonder about the bicycle mileage estimates, used to, for
instance, estimate accident risk. They seem awfully high. See, for
example, the section entitle "Accident Rate Per Hour" in

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

I live near a major street here in the "most bicycle un-friendly city
in the U.S.", and if we went by the proportion of autos to bicycles I
see there on a typical day, we would have to say that bicycles are
about .000001% of the vehicle-miles traveled in the U.S.

But every time I go cycling in the spring-summer-fall, I see *quite* a
number of groups of kids cycling in their neighborhoods. They never
*go* anywhere and they certainly never hit any major streets, but by
gad they ride and ride and ride and ride and ride up and down their
own neighborhood street for hours on end every day of summer vacation.

Add this up for every neighborhood in the country and there have got
to be some serious miles going on there.


BTW, around here they're invariably riding on the street, not the
sidewalk, since there is never a sidewalk to ride on.

Score one for teaching vehicular cycling to kids.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
[This is the letter that really got the ball rolling for me, in regards to BikeKC.]

There is an interesting column in today's KCStar by Mike Hendricks, about the latest developments in the Bike KC plan.

I hope everyone will take time to write KC council members in support of the plan--even just a short note, phone message, or email message would help.

By the way, I think we have to give Ed Ford a lot of credit. He doesn't favor the Bike KC proposals (see his comments at http://www.bikekc.org/), and could have used his influence as Chairman of the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Council to try to single-handedly squash the proposal. Yet, even though he has a strong opinion on the matter, he is open to discussion and opinions of other council members and Kansas City residents, and he wants to learn more about the issue. If only EVERY politician would work this way . . .

You can read the entire KCStar article at: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3588452.htm

Here are a few excerpts from the article:

The Kansas City Council agreed late last week to push ahead with Bike KC, otherwise known as the Kansas City Bicycle Transportation Initiative.

The plan wasn't approved, nor was it killed. The latter's significant. For when we last checked in on this back in November, Bike KC had collided head-on with a Ford, as in Ed Ford, the city councilman from up north.

. . .

By making the streets safe for cyclists, the city was encouraging more bikes on the streets, which was unsafe because of all the traffic. That's how Ford saw it, anyway.

And he could have stopped it right there. Instead, Ford allowed Bike KC to come before the full City Council on Thursday to see how others felt.

The message is that the rest of the council is open to hashing it out. So now it goes back before Ford's committee -- to be heard either July 24 or July 31 -- and then comes up for a vote of the full council, with or without a recommendation, sometime after that.

"I think it's better than `not dead,' " said Paul Mohr, the Housing and Community Development Department's representative on the committee that put together the bike plan.

But for Bike KC to succeed, it will take an enthusiastic, but polite, lobbying campaign.

That's where you bicyclists come in. Send letters in care of the City Council, 414 E. 12th St., 24th Floor, Kansas City, Mo. 64106. Or phone (816) 513-1368 to talk to a council member or find an e-mail address.

. . .
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
July 3rd, 2002

Councilman Ford,

I am very pleased that the Bike KC proposal has come before the full city council. I know that you have some disagreements with the proposal, and I am very pleased that you are broad-minded enough to realize the importance of the proposal and the necessity of discussing it in a larger context. I hope you will carefully study and consider the issues and that you will come to support Bike KC.

I live in the in Kansas City area, am a Kansas City taxpayer, and have bicycled thousands of miles on area roads (probably over 50% of them on KCMO roads) over the past few years. Over the same period of time, I have also driven many (more!) thousands of miles on Kansas City streets in my several motor vehicles, and so I believe I can see the issues of Bike KC from the perspective of both a bicyclist and a motor vehicle operator.

Here are some benefits of the Bike KC proposal as I see them:

�Bike KC's wider lanes will benefit motorists as well as bicyclists (KC's narrow lanes really scared me when I first drove my auto in the areaa lane just a few feet wider, possibly combined with some shoulder, increases motorist comfort and safety greatly).

�Bike KC encourages more bicycle traffic, and more bike traffic means less motor traffic, less congestion, less pollution.

�Bike KC's wider lanes/bike lanes will make motorists happy by getting bicyclists out of motorist's path on major streets (right now, the bicyclist's only alternative on MANY Kansas City streets is to "take the lane", as bicyclists are allowed and required to do under Missouri state law when the lane is too narrow to share with motor vehicles; this is safe for the bicyclist and motor vehicle, but mildly annoying to some drivers).

�Bicycling the streets is already safe (about as safe, per mile, as pedestrians, far safer than motorcyclists; see http://www.pacts.org.uk/statistics.htm). With Bike KC, we will create wider lanes, bicycle lanes, and other improvements that will make bicycling even safer. Mighk Wilson, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator of Orlando, Florida, reports that, over a 3-year period in three Florida counties, there were 644 bicycle-motorist collisions. Of the 644 accidents, 24 involved an overtaking motorist. None of these 24 overtaking accidents involved a fatality. None of the 24 overtaking motorist accidents took place on a road with wide curb lanes, bike lanes or paved shoulders. All 24 happened on streets with narrow lanesthe most common type of street in Kansas City today. These statistics (and many from other sources) show that the bike lanes and wide outside lanes prescribed by Bike KC really are indeed safe, and definitely safer for bicyclists than our present roads. (See http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html.)

�Making bicycling safer will encourage bicycle use. Greater bicycle use makes bicycling yet safer. Drivers who frequently see cyclists or are cyclists themselves are more aware of bicyclists and drive more safely around them (see ).
�Supporting Bike KC means supporting a more healthy KC, because health advantages of cycling outweigh risks by 20 to 1 (British Medical Association, Cycling towards Health & Safety, 1992, Oxford U. Press). Bicycling to work decreased overall risk of mortality approximately 40% (�All-Cause Mortality Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports, and Cycling to Work,� Archives of Internal Medicine, 160:1621-1628).

�Bike KC will create a wonderful recreation opportunity for Kansas City-area adults and children. With our increasingly sedentary lifestyle, we need easily available, safe, healthful recreation activities. Riding a bicycle doorstep-to-doorstep fits the bill here, and riders who can run errands or commute on their bicycles can "kill two birds with one stone".

�Bicycling as an alternate transportation/recreation opportunity makes the KC area much more attractive to businesses considering relocation here.

�Bike KC creates an inexpensive transportation alternative for all Kansas Citians. This helps the local economy, particularly for those at lower income levels, because it creates an inexpensive way to get to work, school, and shopping. People without motor vehicles are forced to look for work close to home (or close to bus transportation). With a bicycle and good bicycle-friendly streets, such workers can find jobs 6, 8, or 15 miles from home, commuting by bicycle or bicycle combined with public transportation.

�Bike KC has relatively low costs with high benefits per unit of cost. Many bicycle-friendly changes are simply a matter of signs and re-striping (it doesn't get any cheaper than that!). Major changes in street configuration will be phased in as streets are rebuilt for other reasons. The bicycle-specific components will add a relatively small percentage to the expense of these major projects. The bicycle-specific components benefit motorists as well as pedestrians and bicyclists.

�Bike KC represents good planning for the future. It is a transportation blueprint that creates standards and an overall, coherent master plan. It means money spent in the future will be better managed and better spent, because it is part of a master plan, rather than a hodge-podge of quick band-aid type fixes. Kansas City sorely needs such planning (if only politicians 20 or 40 years ago had been foresighted enough to create such a plan, we would all be reaping the benefits now . . . ).

�Bike KC or a similar plan is required for Kansas City to receive millions of dollars of federal transportation funding. This money requires bicycling and other alternatives to be supported as TRANSPORTATION alternatives. Please note that multi-use bicycle paths (off-street) are very fine RECREATION alternatives, but very rarely are they realistic TRANSPORTATION alternatives. There is no way we could possibly build a network of dedicated bicycle paths that would transport us anywhere and everywhere in the metro area, the way our present street network does. Bike KC is a coherent and well-thought-out bicycle TRANSPORTATION plan.

�Because Bike KC will bring in millions in federal funding, will create inexpensive transportation alternatives for area residents, and creates coherent standards and a master plan for future transportation projects, Bike KC is, in the short and the long term, a net financial positive for Kansas City government and the local economy.
�Bike KC leverages our many, many thousands of miles of pre-existing bicycle-friendly streets to create a coherent bicycle transportation system. Bike KC adds the final 5% that makes the pre-existing 95% of good bicycling roads work as a bicycle transportation system.

Let me expand a little on the last point:

I have been riding my bike for many local errands over the past years and have found that the KC area is actually surprisingly friendly for transportational and utility bicycling. Perhaps 90-95% of our roads are ALREADY bicycle-friendly. Quiet neighborhood streets are very conducive to bicycling, and when I am out riding in Spring-Summer-Fall I see dozens of riders out using them.

(Drivers often remark, �Where are the bicyclists? I never see any! Why should we waste money on bicycle facilities when there aren't any bicyclists?� The simple reason drivers don't see bicyclists is that most bicyclists drive where most automobiles don't.)

With many local bicycle-friendly streets, bicyclists have little trouble getting around their own neighborhoods, but have a good deal of trouble getting from, say, Waldo to Downtown (about 6 or 8 miles; a nice 30- or 40-minute ride) or from Bannister Mall to Indian Village (3 miles; 15 minutes) simply because the roads linking one neighborhood to another are often unfriendly to bicycles.

The Bike KC proposal will help "bridge the gap" for bicyclists, creating viable bicycle routes through between areas where the only through route currently has heavy, fast-moving traffic and narrow lanes. This is the point behind Bike KC's several east-west and north-south bicycle corridors.

In summary: Bicycling is a safe and viable transportation alternative in the Kansas City area. I urge you to help plan well for Kansas City's future by supporting the Bike KC proposal.

Sincerely yours,



Dr. Brent Hugh
Assistant Professor, Missouri Western State College
KC area driver, bicyclist, taxpayer, and voter
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
[The end result of this was, unfortunately, no improvement in Coal Mine Road (once concrete had been laid, it was pretty hard to get them to take it back . . . but they did extend the Blue River trail an additional approx. 20 miles. It will go from the River Market area along the Missouri River to the mouth of the Blue River (now off limits to riders and hikers), then 5 more miles down the Blue to the point they were going to end it. As a result of this input, they extended the trail down the Blue River all the way to Swope Park. There it will meet up with the existing Blue River Parkway, and you can ride all the way to the Blue River Park trail, which then takes you all the way to the Kansas state line. Along the way, this route will interconnect with the Indian Creek system of trails, mostly on the Kansas side, and eventually you'll be able to follow that all the way back around to the River Market again.]

Hi all,

If you ever ride on Coal Mine Road (connects Blue Parkway at Sni-a-bar with I-435 near the southwest entrance to the stadium complex) you know they have been doing a good deal of construction in the area over the past year or so.

I happened to ride that way again on July 4th and got a good look at the new roadway. They are entirely scrapping the old roadway and building a new four-lane road.

I have to say I was very disappointed and dismayed with what I saw. Here is what amounts to construction of a brand-new road from scratch in the year 2002 and, as near as I can tell, they haven't given a second's thought in the design to the needs of bicyclists or pedestrians. Lanes are exactly 12 feet in width and there is no shoulder or sidewalk (most modern roads--especially in a rural area with plenty of available right-of-way--are built with 14-foot lanes and minimum 3- or 4-foot shoulders, just for the convenience and safety of motorists, before they even *start* thinking about the needs of bicyclists).

I emailed several Kansas City council members with my thoughts about this project. I tried to make two points:

(1) this is a good example of poor transportation planning
(2) it is a good example of why we need Bike KC--so we can stop
wasting millions of dollars on poorly designed projects that don't
meet our needs

My message led to a very constructive dialogue with Councilman Charles Eddy. I was pleased to find that he supports Bike KC and alternative transportation standards in general. He is hopeful that there are enough votes to pass Bike KC when it comes before the city council.

Councilman Eddy thinks it is probably too late to change the Coal Mine Road project but absolutely agrees that we need Bike KC in place so that future projects are designed to better standards. He forwarded my comments to Larry Frevert in Public Works.

I responded by suggesting an inexpensive and easy design change (simply a different lane striping) that would better meet the needs of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

That is the executive summary--I've appended the email messages below so that you can read the details if you like. (My proposal for re-striping is near the end of the last message; scroll down to the end if you would like to see it.)

If you agree with me, I would appreciate it if you would take a moment this weekend to call or write a short email to:

* your city councilemembers--contact info can be found at
http://www.kcmo.org/council.nsf/council/home, (816) 513-1368

* the Public Works department--pubworks@kcmo.org, (816) 513-2627

If you write or call, you might (politely, of course) raise these points:

* Were interests of bicyclists and pedestrians considered in the
design of Coal Mine Road? The Federal Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and we as Kansas City bicyclists
require that

"Bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered,
where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and
reconstruction of transportation facilities except where bicycle
use and walking are not permitted. Transportation plans and projects
shall provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes
for bicyclists and pedestrians."

This does not necessarily mean special bicycle lanes--it could be as
simple as wider outside lanes.

* We realize that Coal Mine Road can't be totally re-designed at this
point, but we believe there are relatively simple and inexpensive
options still available that will make the road more bicycle- and
pedestrian-friendly. We support these options.

* We need the Bike KC plan in place so that future projects are designed
to standards that better meet our needs as motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians and so that we don't waste money building roads to
inadequate design standards that do not consider the needs of all
road users.

--Brent
bhugh@mwsc.edu


--------------------------Correspondence----------------------------


From: Brent Hugh
To: charles_eddy@kcmo.org
Subject: Coal Mine Road Construction Project, Bike KC


Councilman Eddy,

I am pleased to see that the Bike KC proposal will come up before the full
city council soon.

I am a Kansas City taxpayer, motorist, and bicyclist and I strongly support
the Bike KC plan. I recently sent you a letter detailing my reasons for
supporting the proposal (you will likely receive it in a day or two).

Today, though, an interesting issue came to my attention that strongly
illustrates the need for coherent, modern design standards for Kansas City
roadways. One point I make in my letter (which you will soon receive) is
that, although the Bike KC will certainly cost Kansas City a certain amount
of money, all in all it actually *saves* the city far more money than it
will cost.

The reason it saves money is because following modern design standards
across the board prevents Kansas City from wasting tens of millions of
dollars constructing brand-new but substandard roadways built according to
1920s-era design standards.

It only costs a little more to design and construct roads the right
way. Roads built to modern standards are friendlier and safer for vehicles
of all sizes, for pedestrians, and for bicyclists. Substandard roads are
less safe for all users and discourage pedestrians and bicyclists.

Substandard roads give a visitors and residents a poor image of our
metropolitan area, because people have seen and experienced well-designed
roadways and wonder why Kansas City is incapable of creating them.

We will have to live with newly built sub-standard roads for the next 20-40
years, so creating substandard roadways when we can do better is a very
expensive mistake with long-lasting consequences.

Until recent construction on Coal Mine Road, I was riding the road almost
every day on my bicycle (it provides a convenient alternative to busier
routes through this area, like 63rd Street, Blue Parkway, and Eastwood
Trafficway). Today I rode through the area again. I was able to survey
some of the new construction, and I have to say I was very dismayed at what
I saw.

Millions (perhaps tens of millions?) of dollars have been spent this
project (which, to be fair, includes extensive improvements to the drainage
around the Blue River as well as a new roadway). A new, four-lane road is
being constructed.

What standards is the road being constructed to?

I measured the lane width of the new construction. Each of the four lanes
is exactly 12 feet in width.

I measured the lane width of the old road, which looks as though it dates
to the 1940s or perhaps earlier. Its lane width is *also* exactly 12 feet.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) presents minimum standard guidelines for roadway construction that
are followed by states and communities across the country.

These guidelines are not new or controversial and have a solid basis in
experience and safety. The new Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) puts increased importance on the use of the bicycle
as a viable transportation alternative, and adherence to the AASHTO
guidelines would considered a *minimum* requirement for compliance with
this act.

The AASHTO guidelines state that "all new highways, except those where
bicyclists will be legally prohibited [i.e., except for freeways], should
be designed and constructed under the assumption that they will be used by
bicyclists."

I am pretty sure that no Kansas City designer ever even considered the
possibility that bicyclists might use this road. Yet I have bicycled the
road several times per week and plan to resume my riding there as soon as
the construction is finished. And (even with the relatively few minutes
per week I spent on the road) I have occasionally seen other bicyclists on
the road.

The AASHTO bicycle guidelines recommend a "usable" curb lane width of 14
feet (minimum!) on road segments where parking is not permitted in the curb
lane. Usable width generally cannot be measured from curb face to lane
stripe, because adjustments must be made for drainage grates (even the
"bicycle safe" ones) and longitudinal joints between pavement and gutter
sections. This is because vertical irregularities almost parallel with
the bicycle's line of travel are very dangerous to the bicyclist and can
cause almost instantaneous loss of balance and fall, possibly into the line
of traffic.

For instance, on those road segments where no parking is allowed but
drainage grates and the longitudinal joints are located 18 inches from the
curb face, the travel lane (from joint line to lane stripe) should be
(minimum) 14 feet in width.

Wide curb lanes are not striped or generally promoted as "bicycle routes",
but are often all that is needed to accommodate bicycle travel. 14 foot
usable lane width in the outside lane is the absolute minimum, but 15 1/2
foot or wider lanes are preferable.

Again, the outside lanes on the new sections of Coal Mine Road, from joint
line to lane stripe, is exactly 12 feet. This width is sub-standard and
will absolutely not allow the lane to be shared between a bicyclist and a
vehicle.

Why are we wasting millions of dollars constructing brand-new, sub-standard
roadways?

In this case, there is no obvious reason except lack of awareness of and adherence
to modern design standards. There is certainly no lack of right-of-way. There is
room here for six 25-foot lanes if that were desirable. There is certainly plenty of room for four or even six feet of additional width in each outside lane.

I would strongly recommend that before more money is wasted on the road
construction at Coal Mine Road, that construction be immediately halted and
the roadway re-designed to modern standards.

Again, a primary purpose of Bike KC is to prevent this sort of costly
blunder with far-reaching consequences. I urge the adoption of Bike KC at
the earliest possible time.

--Dr. Brent Hugh
Kansas City taxpayer, motorist, bicyclist, voter
Assistant Professor, Missouri Western State College
(816)356-1740
bhugh@mwsc.edu


[In describing the AASHTO standards I have heavily borrowed from Roadway
Design: Theory and Concepts, which can be found online at:
http://www.ets.uidaho.edu/niatt_labmanual/Chapters/roadwaydesign/theoryandconcepts/DesigningBikeLanes.htm]


--------------------------Correspondence----------------------------

From: Charles_Eddy@kcmo.org
To: bhugh@mwsc.edu

Thank you for your comments and concerns on our Bike plans for Kansas City.
I have copied your thoughts to Larry Frevert who is our Director of Streets
that is leading this issue. It may not be possible to change the
construction that is currently underway. I am very happy that this is will
be going to the full council and I believe we have the votes to pass this
important plan. I will continue to work for the implementation of our
Bicycle Master Plan for Kansas City and at MARC for the region.

Chuck

Dr. Charles A. Eddy
6th District City Councilmember
City of Kansas City, Missouri


--------------------------Correspondence----------------------------


From: bhugh@mwsc.edu
To: Charles_Eddy@kcmo.org
Subject: Re: Coal Mine Road Construction Project, Bike KC

Chuck,

I appreciate your prompt reply and your support of Bike KC and other bicycle-related issues.

I certainly realize that large construction projects like Coal Mine Road don't just happen "by accident"--they take years of planning and it may not be feasible at this point to make major changes to the project. Perhaps I was overreaching a little when I asked for that!

Of course, the Big Issue here is updating our transportation plans, policies, and standards to include better consideration for bicyclists and pedestrians. Then problems like this will not arise in the future. Getting this kind of framework in place is far more important than any particular project. It sounds like we are well on the way to getting these kind of standards in place. Public leaders who work for and support these policies get high marks in my book for leadership and farsightedness. I am *very* pleased to see Kansas City moving in this direction.


Coal Mine Road specifics
------------------------
As far as the Coal Mine Road project, I am a little worried that if federal funds were used for the project, the provisions of TEA-21 have not been complied with.

Section 1202 of TEA-21 says that "bicyclists and pedestrians shall be given due consideration in the comprehensive transportation plans developed by each metropolitan planning organization. . . . Bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities except where bicycle use and walking are not permitted [i.e., freeways]. Transportation plans and projects shall provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes for bicyclists and pedestrians" (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/).


Two possible solutions
----------------------
I would suggest two possible approaches for accommodations on the new Coal Mine Road construction project that would be very easy and inexpensive to implement, that would consider the needs of bicycles and pedestrians, increase their safety, and create a usable route for them. They also have the great advantage of requiring little or no basic re-design of the project:

1. Re-stripe the lanes to make the inside lanes a little narrower and the outside lanes a little wider. Many communities have taken this step to make existing 4-lane roads a little more bicycle friendly. A typical re-striping makes inside lanes 10 feet wide and outside lanes 14 feet. This is far better than the present configuration (12 foot lanes) but far from ideal (10-foot lane is minimal for vehicular traffic and 14-foot lane is minimal for bicycle accommodation).

2. A much more effective solution is to re-stripe the 4-lane road to create a 3-lane road with wide main lanes, a (narrower) center turn lane, and shoulders. Typically, such a re-striping will have 16-foot lanes in each direction, a 10-foot center turn lane, and 3-foot shoulders (or a 12-foot center lane and 2-foot shoulders):


PROPOSED LANE WIDTHS

'- --- ---------------- ---------- ---------------- --- -'
Curb 3ft 16 ft 10 ft 16 ft 3ft Curb


OR

'- -- ---------------- ------------ ---------------- -- -'
Curb 2ft 16 ft 12 ft 16 ft 2ft Curb



CURRENT LANE WIDTHS

'- ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -'
Curb 12 ft 12 ft 12 ft 12 ft Curb



The shoulders are narrowed to create right-turn areas at appropriate points. Such an approach has these advantages:

* Doesn't require any change in designed road width

* Wider lanes would be appropriate for the type of vehicle that often uses
Coal Mine Road (many cement trucks and large city maintenance vehicles)

* Motor traffic traveling opposite directions is separated by a much
greater margin, increasing motor vehicle safety

* Smoother flow for motorists because they need not slow or stop for
left- and right-turning vehicles ahead

* Very bicycle friendly

* More pedestrian friendly (the curb/shoulder gives pedestrians
a safer, though not ideal, place to walk if there is no sidewalk,
and increases the buffer between traffic and pedestrians if there is a
sidewalk)

* Because of the turn lanes and smoother-flowing traffic in the main
lanes, this type of 3-lane roadway can often handle the same amount of
traffic with less congestion than the 4-lane design. Certainly it can
handle the low to moderate traffic on Coal Mine Road.

Many cities have re-striped their 4-lane roads (particularly low-moderate traffic roads like Coal Mine Road) in this way to create friendlier 3-lane roads. They have reported the advantages I mention above. See, for instance

"Bicycle Program and Facilities Recommendations for the St. Louis Area",
John S. Allen,

"Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities", Jennifer L. Toole and Bettina Zimny,
p. 625,


Again, thank you for your consideration and your support of alternative transportation in Kansas City.

--Brent
bhugh@mwsc.edu
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Since I brought up the subject of Coal Mine Road, I might mention that there are some interesting "industrial bike touring" possibilities in the area. You can ride from Blue Parkway all the way to Winner Road along the Blue River valley, about 7-8 miles one way, along roads that generally have very little traffic. Starting at Coal Mine and Blue Parkway, go north on Coal Mine-Winchester Ave-Manchester Tfwy-17th-Winchester Ave-Independence Ave=Winner Rd.

If you go the other way from Blue Parkway and Coal Mine you can rather easily follow the Blue River valley about 10-12 miles south to the Grandview area. From Coal Mine Road, work your way west on Blue Parkway about 1/2 mile (I use the sidewalk . . . ), take the old road around the Blue River bridge to Brighton Ave, then south to 59th St, west to Elmwood, almost straight across 63rd into Swope Park, follow the road around the zoo until you come to Gregory, east on Gregory to Oldham, then Blue River Road all the way to Grandview.

Altogether there is maybe 20 miles of river valley that is pretty easily accessible for bicycling.

I've ridden the entire route (never all at once, though) and its quite a gas. North of 63rd street the area is very industrial in character (bring a tough-looking friend and go in daylight . . . although you might ride the entire distance without seeing more than a couple of other people) while south of 63rd it's park-like.

It's too bad our road designers and a few road users seem to think that even narrow, winding roads with poor sight lines in parkland need to be used as high-speed industrial expressways. Speed limits in some sections are as high as 45 MPH--why, in a recreational and beautiful area, is there any reason for them to be above 30 MPH or so?

(By the way, if you thought my ideas about Coal Mine Road were wild, you should hear them for Blue River Road--how about a 8-foot swath of the road for pedestrians, a marked 6-foot bicycle lane on each side of the roadway, and single central lane with whatever space is left, for motorists (by my calculation that leaves about 6 feet for autos--only really skinny cars will be allowed). 25 MPH max speed limit--nah, make it 20. Large signs for motorists everywhere saying, "HEY JERK! YOU'RE IN A PARK NOW! SLOW DOWN AND ENJOY THE SCENERY! GIVE WAY TO ONCOMING BICYCLES, PEDESTRIANS, PORCUPINES, AND SQUIRRELS! VIOLATORS WILL BE FINED $1,000,000 AND HAVE THEIR CAR KEYS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM AND WE'LL NEVER GIVE THEM BACK! AND WE'LL TIE YOU TO A TREE NEAR SOME NICE ANT HILLS! SO WATCH IT! PARKS ARE FOR PEOPLE, NOT MOTOR VEHICLES, SO WHY DON'T YOU TRY GETTING OUT OF THAT $#&*#(@ CAR AND ENJOYING YOURSELF FOR A CHANGE!" and such-like. Really, there are plenty of roads for cars to roar around on. It's remarkable to have a beautiful scenic drive like Blue River Road right within the city limits, and as near as I can tell the scenic and recreational possibilities are realized about 0.01%. All we can think about is, "Ugh. Me see nice fast shortcut. Me go fast. Beat other drivers. Yes. Fast. Ugh.")

Tirades aside, the "Blue River Route" provides some very interesting, relatively low-traffic ways to make your way across I-70 and (further south) across I-435. It provides easy access to many roads passing north-south across I-435 (Sni-a-bar, Raytown Rd, Stadium Dr., 40-Hwy, 23rd Street, Truman, Winner, in the north and many others southward), so is very helpful for getting around that obstacle, too.

If you like hill climbing, ride north along Manchester to, say, Truman and then back south along neighborhood streets just east of I-435 and west of Blue Ridge. You repeatedly dive into and then have the fun of climbing out of the Blue River Valley. Or try the little unmarked road (perhaps 1/2 mile east of the freeway interchange) going north from Truman into Lincoln Cemetery--nice view if you make it to the top.

--Brent
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 

Hi all,

Poking around on the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) web site, I see that they are working on "Transportation Outlook 2030, the region's Long-Range Transportation Plan, will be a blueprint for the development of our transportation system through the year 2030. MARC is currently conducting efforts to update the plan, which must be completed and approved by the Federal Highway Administration by the summer of 2002."

Does anyone know what's up with this plan, as far as bicycle & pedestrian issues go?

Web site is http://www.marc.org/transportation2030.htm



As part of the plan, they did a survey of area residents and found these interesting results:

Survey participants agreed with these statements:

* Transportation projects should support new styles of development that encourage transit, walking and biking, and that don�t require use of a car (81.6%)

* The region should support conversion of abandoned railroad rights-of-way to pedestrian and bike trails (79.9%)

* Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be included on new or widened roadways where possible (77.9%)

The disagreed with this statement:

* The region�s current transit services meet most citizens� basic mobility needs (68.9%)

More details at http://www.marc.org/transportation/lrtp/survey_results.htm
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 

Councilman Ford,

Today I came across the following interesting information that may be of interest to you in considering the Bike KC proposal:

"Transportation planners should not fail to provide a facility because of a concern that it would encourage walking and bicycling in a dangerous location. Pedestrian and bicycle travel will occur regardless, and the burden of responsibility is to accommodate that travel in the best way possible.

"Transportation planners should not fail to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements because of liability concerns. National standards clearly state that, when designing bike lanes and paved shoulders for bicycle use, any additional space for bicycles is better than none. ADA also provides a clear imperative to provide facilities for the disabled within the public right-of-way, facilities that will benefit all pedestrians."

Source: Jennifer L. Toole, AICP and Bettina Zimny, AICP, Federal Highway Administration, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.


--Dr. Brent Hugh
Kansas City taxpayer, motorist, bicyclist, voter
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
[to KC Public Works staff, about Coal Mine Road issue]

Today I started looking a little more carefully at the bicycle route maps on your website.

Today I happened to ride up on Manchester Trafficway and other points north along the Blue River, so I looked at that area more carefully on the bike route map. The first thing I have to say (again) is that the proposed routes in that area all make a lot of sense. For instance, I have ridden the Sni-a-bar to Blue-Parkway route many times (my wife worked in the area). The route is a bit frustrating right now because Blue Parkway is so unfriendly to bicycling . . . it's good to know that there is at least some hope that will change in the future.

Since I wrote previously about the construction project going on now on Coal Mine Rd (previous correspondence attached below, for your convenience), I examined that area on the Bike Route Map as well.

First, when I emailed before, I hadn't realized that Coal Mine Rd is a proposed bike route. This gives even a greater reason to "get Coal Mine Road right now" as long as the it is being re-built now--as opposed to building it "wrong" now and then going back in a few years to try to fix it . . .

Second, I happened to ride a short section of the Levee Rd. along the Blue River (near where it joins the Missouri). Of course my first thought was, "This is *already* a great 'Greenway'-type route--just add a few signs and a lot of it is already perfectly rideable. I wonder if it is on the Bike Route Plan?"

Sure enough, when I got home and checked the map, there it was. Great minds think alike!

I also noted that the proposed greenway trail follows the Blue River south past I-70 all the way to where the Blue River crosses Stadium Drive.

This brings up another interesting point that relates to the construction around Coal Mine Rd.: They have been extensively re-working the banks of the river and have them smoothed and landscaped pretty much all the way from Blue Pkwy to Stadium Drive.

With 99% of the work already done (area smoothed, access roads already in place, equipment in place), it seems as though it would be relatively easy and logical to make a greenway path along the Blue River from Stadium Dr. all the way to Blue Pkwy. This would be but a minor extension of the previous plan and could give the trail even better access and public visibility (via Blue Parkway). If *ever* such a path were going to be built in that area, it seems like now is the time to do it.

What about it? Is anything like this in the plans for the area? If not, could it be added now? At an absolute minimum, could preparations be made now so that finishing the route at a later time will be easy and inexpensive?

I really think the area will be very beautiful when finished. It could be considered a kind of a showcase for KC Public Works, because of the large Public Works facility on Coal Mine Rd., and for the city government as a whole, because of the large amount of land the city owns and the many public facilities in the area. Making Coal Mine Rd road bicycle & vehicle friendly and adding a greenway path along the river banks would only add to the general attractiveness of the area.

--Dr. Brent Hugh
Kansas City area motorist, bicyclist, taxpayer
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
KC Bicyclers,

I do hope you will take a moment to email Kansas City council members within the next few days and let them know that you support bicycling in Kansas City and the Bike KC plan.

As far as I know, Bike KC will come before the city council either this Thursday or next (July 18th or 25th, 2002--if anyone knows more precisely, please let us know). So the time to make your feelings known is now!

We really can help make Kansas City a more modern, bicycle-friendly city if we let the politicians know how we feel about the issue. They need to know that Kansas City area bicyclists support the proposal. A few of us who speak up really can have a positive influence, far out of proportion to our numbers.

Please forward this information to other interested bicyclists or bicycle-related groups in the area and encourage them to make their opinions known.

When writing city council members, you don't need to write a lengthy letter. A short email message or phone call saying "I support Bike KC" or "I support bicycling facilities in Kansas City" is really all it takes.

You don't necessarily need to be a Kansas City resident to let your voice be heard. Just point out that you live in city X but the Bike KC proposal affects you because [you pay KC Earnings Tax, you drive/ride many miles on Kansas City's roads, your city is surrounded on all sides by KC, . . . ]

For your convenience, here is a list of Kansas City council members and their email addresses. In many cases, the email address is to the council member's aide (thus the name in the email address is different than the council member's name).

Please write!

[snip email addresses]


You can also reach any of the city council members at:

24th floor, City Hall
414 E. 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 513-1625
Fax: (816) 513-1612


The mayor's office is

Mayor Kay Barnes
City Hall
414 E. 12th Street, 29th Floor
Kansas City, MO 64106
Fax: 816-513-3518
Phone: 816-513-3500


More information about the City Council, including a map of the six districts:

http://www.kcmo.org/council.nsf/council/home

More information about the Bike KC Plan (somewhat out of date now that the Bike KC plan is coming before the full council):

http://www.bikekc.org/

Bike KC summary from the KC Public Works Department:

http://www.kcmo.org/pubworks.nsf/web/kcbike1

Article by KC Star columnist Mike Hendricks about Bike KC:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3588452.htm

My own letter explaining the advantages of the Bike KC proposal:

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcadvantages.html

My letter responding to the safety concerns with on-street bicycle routes:

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcsafety.html
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 

[To Nick Haines, who heads a weekly program about Kansas City news on the public television station.]

Mr. Haines,

I appreciate your consideration of the BikeKC issue for your program.

I am enclosing a letter I wrote to the KCStar outlining my reasons for supporting the plan (see below). See http://www.bikekc.org/ for details about the BikeKC plan.

Matters will almost certainly come to a head at the City Council within a week or two, so the issue is timely. It is planned to come before the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development either July 24th or July 31st.

You may also be interested to know that there is an interesting and revealing political angle to the story. BikeKC is the result of years of effort, first under FOCUS Kansas City and then much planning and sweating of the details by KC Public Works staff.

It seems a natural and relatively non-controversial modern transportation plan, of the sort many other (better run . . . ) cities have had in place for years or even decades. Furthermore, as soon as BikeKC is in place we can start applying for millions in federal funds (usually 90% or 95% of the total project cost) to get much of the work done. By delaying, we are costing ourselves millions.

And, according to TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/), we are supposed to have a bicycle transportation plan in place in order to be eligible for federal transportation funds. Of course we *don't* have one in place--BikeKC is it.

Yet BikeKC has been on the table now for almost a year without going anywhere. Supporters have lobbied hard and, on one occasion, filled the City Council Chamber over 1/2 full for a simple committee meeting. There is a lot of grass-roots support for this issue.

So why hasn't it gone anywhere?

Apparently, developers (particularly in the Northland, where there is a lot of development going on) got wind of the proposal and didn't like the idea of giving up 10 feet or so extra right-of-way for roads in new developments. This, of course, is going to cost them money.

(Also, this sort of planning for the future is absolutely key to the proposal, because one reason we are in such a tremendous transportation mess right now is because city leaders 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago "forgot" to plan transportation infrastructure in any reasonable way. Only the short-term interests of developers was considered and the result is neighborhood after neighborhood with streets too narrow even for motor vehicles--with increasing population, some of these have even developed into high-speed arterials now--and no thought at all of the needs of pedestrians or bicyclists.)

Developers who learned of the right-of-way issue talked to a few City Council members and suddenly there was strong resistance to the plan among a few key council members.

BikeKC supporters describe the change as rather dramatic--polite interest but no strong opinions on the topic among city council members at one committee meeting, suddenly changing to strong opinions and many reservations at the next meeting.

The issue was tabled about last November. It is only being re-visited now at the special request of the Mayor.

Apparently there are still some negotiations going on, involving a reduction in the amount of right-of-way developers would have to give up. If the provisions for additional right-of-way are reduced or eliminated, certain key council members will support the measure, or, even if not "support", at least refrain from using parliamentary tactics to kill it.

So if BikeKC is killed or eviscerated, this could be seen as a fine example of business as usual in KC government. Money wins.

On the other hand, if it survives and passes it can be seen as a victory for grass-roots action and evidence of vision, leadership, and responsiveness to citizen concerns over moneyed narrow interests at city hall.

As you can see from the letter below, I am still hopeful that city hall can act with vision and leadership, especially with a little prodding from concerned citizens.

(By the way, a little mouse told me a number of the details mentioned above, in "off the record" mode, so take them for what they're worth. But the general outline of the problem is well known around city hall and much of it can even be found in Mike Hendricks's recent KCStar article at .)

Thank you again for your attention.

Dr. Brent Hugh
bhugh@mwsc.edu
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
[To Lenny Nuccio, producer of the Walt Bodine radio show on the local NPR station.]

Mr. Nuccio,

I appreciate your consideration of the BikeKC issue for your program.

I am enclosing a letter I wrote to the KCStar outlining my reasons for supporting the plan (see below). See http://www.bikekc.org/ for details about the BikeKC plan.

Matters will almost certainly come to a head at the City Council within a week or two, so the issue is timely. It is planned to come before the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development either July 24th or July 31st.

There has been a great deal of grass-roots interest in the BikeKC issue, so I think a show on the topic would be lively and of general interest. At one simple committee meeting on the issue they had the City Council Chambers over half full (I understand the place holds over 300 . . . ). It would be easy to find some interesting and knowledgeable bicyclists to be on the program.

Thank you again for your attention.

Dr. Brent Hugh
bhugh@mwsc.edu
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Subject: UMKC University News article

BikeKC is a proposal to create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes around the Kansas City area. Details about the plan can be found at www.bikekc.org.

Bicycle riders, groups, clubs, and shops around the area strongly support BikeKC and have worked hard to get it passed. BikeKC will come to a vote before the Kansas City Council in the next week or two.

If you would like to see KC become a more bikeable city, now is the time to let your City Council member know about your feelings.

Why should UMKC students support BikeKC?

* University communities like UMKC are an ideal setting for bicycle use. You need an easy and inexpensive way to get around, and biking can be part of the answer. The very first bicycle lanes and routes to be put in place cover the area around UMKC, the Plaza, and downtown. Imagine being able to easily and safely bike from your apartment to school, to work, to the grocery store. Think of the money you would save! That is the idea behind BikeKC.

* On-street bike paths and routes such as those proposed in BikeKC increase bicycle safety, reduce friction between bicycles and autos, and are effective in increasing bicycle use. You will be able to bicycle farther and feel safer while you're riding.

* Bicycling, even just a few miles a week to work, school, the store or the park, is a healthy and eco-friendly alternative. Bicycles don't pollute and they don't kill innocent bystanders like cars do (30,000 deaths/year from automobile pollution in the U.S. alone).

I urge UMKC students and staff to let the Kansas City Council members know that you support BikeKC. Some key City Council members oppose the plan. Grass-roots effort has been important in overcoming this opposition to BikeKC, and more is needed to push it over the top.

Please be polite and persuasive when you write the City Council, 24th Floor, 414 E. 12th St., KCMO 64106, call (816) 513-1625, or email (find email addresses at www.kcmo.org).

--Dr. Brent Hugh
UMKC Alumnus (MM 1995, DMA 2000)
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Subject: BikeKC Pitch Weekly Letter

BikeKC is a proposal to create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes and reserve a little more right-of-way in future developments for pedestrian and biking facilities. Details about the plan can be found at www.bikekc.org.

Bicycle riders, groups, clubs, and shops around the area strongly support BikeKC and have worked hard to get it passed. BikeKC has been tabled since November, but in the next week or two it will again come for consideration before the City Council.

If you would like to see KC become a more bikeable city, now is the time to let your City Council member know about your feelings.

Why should Kansas Citians support BikeKC?

* The availability of transportation alternatives will make Kansas City a more thriving, modern, liveable city.

* New developments will be planned from the beginning to allow for bicycle and pedestrian access. This sort of planning costs a little in the short run but makes development more attractive and ultimately, more valuable to those who live there. People like to live where they can bike and walk.

* Studies show that on-street bike paths and routes such as those proposed in BikeKC increase bicycle safety, reduce friction between bicycles and autos, and are effective in increasing bicycle use.

* Bicycling, even just a few miles a week to work, school, the store or the park, is a healthy and eco-friendly alternative. Example: People who switched from auto to bicycle commuting lowered their overall mortality rate by 40% (that's a lot!). BikeKC will make utility bicycling, like commuting, more practical for more people.

* Millions of federal dollars are available to smooth streets, replace grates, and repair curbs and gutters on bike routes. Let's get BikeKC in place use our fair share of those dollars before they're gone.

I urge Kansas City road users to let the Kansas City Council members know that you support BikeKC. Grass-roots effort has been important in getting BikeKC as far as it has, and more is needed to push it over the top.

Please be polite and persuasive when you write the City Council, 24th Floor, 414 E. 12th St., KCMO 64106, call (816) 513-1625, or email (find email addresses at www.kcmo.org).

--


Dr. Brent Hugh, pianist and professor of music at Missouri Western State College, has bicycled about 2000 miles on Kansas City-area roads in the past year. He can be reached at bhugh@mwsc.edu.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 

Hi all,

Are there any large bicycling events coming up in the next week or two?

It would be easy and interesting to have people fill out postcards support BikeKC at such an event, and have 50, 100, or 200 postcards show up at city council a few days later.

Any thoughts about events that might make this possible?

--Brent
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Councilman Ford,

Another idea about why the sort of street improvements proposed in Bike KC are a good idea for everyone, not just bicyclists:

" . . . road improvements that reduce car-bike friction are essentially capacity/level of service improvements.

"The bicycle facility is, according to law, already there, but desired motor vehicle speeds and volumes may not be compatible with full-lane occupation by bicyclists. Attempts to discourage cycling to increase convenience for motorists will be successfully challenged by cycling organizations on constitutional grounds, and will be unpopular with a significant portion of the electorate who support bicycling even if they don't do it themselves.

"Wide lanes improve capacity and convenience for motorists."

Source: Steve Goodrich, "Advocating Wide Lanes"


--Dr. Brent Hugh
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
KKFI,

You may know that the BikeKC initiative has been kicking around city hall for quite some time. It has been tabled in the Planning and Zoning Committee since last September. With support of Mayor Barnes and Councilman Charles Eddy, the P-Z Committee is *finally* reconsidering the BikeKC proposal in their meeting July 31st.

More details about the BikeKC proposal are in my informational letter below.

We are trying to get the word out to Kansas Citians that bicycling is a safe, healthy, and quick way to get around town, and that the best hope we have right now of promoting bicycling as a realistic and safe transportation alternative in Kansas City, is to get the BikeKC plan passed.

BikeKC has encountered some strong opposition in the Planning and Zoning Committee (evidently some deep pocketed developers don't like the idea of giving up a little more of their real estate in new developments for wider roadways that would include room for bicycle and pedestrian facilities).

Despite the opposition, one reason BikeKC has gotten as far as it has is that it has very strong grass-roots support around the metro area. Ordinary bicycle riders have turned out by the hundreds to committee meetings, evidently surprising committee members who assumed there wasn't much interest in alternative transportation issues in KC.

That is why I thought that KKFI might be a natural partner in spreading the word about BikeKC and helping us develop grassroots support for the issue.

Our best hope for getting BikeKC out of the Planning and Zoning Committee is if we can get hundreds of Kansas Citians to write, call, and email City Hall in support of the issue (contact information is in the letter below).

Please encourage people to be polite and persuasive when contacting City Hall (unfortunately, in the past some of our hot-headed bicycle advocates have done more harm than good by insulting and abusing opponents of BikeKC--we need to prevent this if possible).

We are also strongly encouraging supporters of BikeKC to attend the P-Z committee meeting when BikeKC will be considered. The meeting is July 31st, 2002, at 1:30PM, in the Council Chambers, 26th Floor of City Hall, 414 East 12th Street.

Again, I feel that this is a natural issue for KKFI to get involved with and support. Your support on this issue could make a real difference in increasing the kind of alternative transportation options that can make Kansas City a more vibrant and liveable city. From what I know about KKFI, it is exactly the sort of community-based issue that appeals to KKFI volunteers and listeners.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of help in any way. For instance, it would be easy to round up a small panel of interesting and knowledgable bicycle advocates for a round table discussion, call-in show, or something of that sort.

I appreciate your consideration and support!

--Dr. Brent Hugh
bhugh@mwsc.edu
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Fox4 News,

I hope you will consider giving the BikeKC issue some support and airtime (see informational press release below).

BikeKC has surprisingly strong grass-roots support in the Kansas City area--hundreds have shown up at City Council committee meetings discussing the issue (rather surprising city council members, who assumed there isn't much support for alternative transportation in Kansas City).

BikeKC doesn't have large corporate sponsors or big money behind it--the support really does come from the grass roots, from bicycle clubs and bicycle riders talking together on the internet. As you will see in the press release, the opposition does have some deep pockets. That's why some media coverage of this story could really help turn the tide and make difference.

We could easily find a visually interesting bike event in the area that would give you some visuals to help out a story--just let me know.

Bicycling is a safe, healthy, and quick mode of transportation even in today's Kansas City. With BikeKC, it will be even safer, healthier, and quicker.

Alternative transportation plans like BikeKC are vital in making Kansas City a more vibrant and liveable community. Other cities that are bigger, smaller, more spread out, hotter, colder, wetter, snowier, icier, busier, hillier, and have more of every other kind of -er than Kansas City, have tried bicycling and made it work. Now (with your help!) it can be Kansas City's turn.

--Dr. Brent Hugh
bhugh@mwsc.edu

---------------------

BikeKC Press Release
--------------------

BikeKC is a proposal to create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes and reserve a little more right-of-way in future developments for pedestrian and biking facilities. Details about the plan can be found at www.bikekc.org.

Bicycle riders, groups, clubs, and shops around the area strongly support BikeKC and have worked hard to get it passed. BikeKC has real grass-roots support.

BikeKC has been tabled since September. Apparently some deep-pocketed developers oppose the plan because they will have to reserve a little more of their real estate in new developments for wider roadways that will include space for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Thanks to a grass-roots effort and at the request of Mayor Barnes and Councilman Charles Eddy, on July 31st BikeKC will again come for consideration before the Kansas City Planning and Zoning Commission.

If you would like to see KC become a more bikeable city, now is the time to let your City Council member know about your feelings.

Why should Kansas Citians support BikeKC?

* The availability of transportation alternatives will make Kansas City a more thriving, modern, liveable city.

* New developments will be planned from the beginning to allow for bicycle and pedestrian access. This sort of planning costs a little in the short run but makes development more attractive and ultimately, more valuable to those who live there. People like to live where they can bike and walk.

* Studies show that on-street bike paths and routes such as those proposed in BikeKC increase bicycle safety, reduce friction between bicycles and autos, and are effective in increasing bicycle use.

* Bicycling, even just a few miles a week to work, school, the store or the park, is a healthy and eco-friendly alternative. Example: People who switched from auto to bicycle commuting lowered their overall mortality rate by 40% (that's a lot!). BikeKC will make utility bicycling, like commuting, more practical for more people.

* Millions of federal dollars are available to smooth streets, replace grates, and repair curbs and gutters on bike routes. Let's get BikeKC in place use our fair share of those dollars before they're gone.

I urge Kansas City road users to let the Kansas City Council members know that you support BikeKC. Grass-roots effort has been important in getting BikeKC as far as it has, and more is needed to push it over the top.

Please be polite and persuasive when you write the City Council, 24th Floor, 414 E. 12th St., KCMO 64106, call (816) 513-1625, or email (find email addresses at www.kcmo.org).

Please consider attending the meeting of the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee when BikeKC will be considered. The meeting is July 31st, 2002, at 1:30PM, in the Council Chambers, 26th Floor of City Hall, 414 East 12th Street.

Council members on the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee (who most need to hear from you on this issue) are Ed Ford, Troy Nash, Bonnie Sue Cooper, and Mary Williams-Neal.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
[this is the original version of the letter I sent to the Kansas City Star. Their edited version is posted here, also.]

Support BikeKC
--------------

Mike Hendricks' July 3rd column in the Kansas City Star, "It's Time to Cycle into Action" (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3588452.htm) outlined the issues surrounding BikeKC, a proposal to create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes and reserve a little more right-of-way in future developments for pedestrian and biking facilities. Details about the plan can be found at www.bikekc.org.

Bicycle riders, groups, clubs, and shops around the area strongly support BikeKC and have worked hard to get it passed.

Why should Kansas Citians support BikeKC?

* The availability of transportation alternatives will make Kansas City a more thriving, modern, liveable city. Developers lose a small amount of real estate to right-of-way in the short term, but the long-term payoff is a more attractive city with higher overall real estate values. People like to live in areas where walking and biking are options, and developers do well to keep that in mind.

* Bicycling, even just a few miles a week to work, school, the store or the park, is a healthy and eco-friendly alternative. Some choose to emphasize the (very minimal) risks of cycling, but the health *benefits* of cycling outweigh the risks by at least 20-to-1. Bicycle commuters have a 40% lower all-cause mortality risk. That's a *big* health benefit.

* In my own rides around the city, I see an astonishing number of bicyclists already. Bike KC will encourage more of these neighborhood cyclists to safely travel further from home: numerous studies show that on-street bike paths and routes increase bicycle safety, reduce friction between bicycles and autos, and are effective in increasing bicycle use. In fact, studies show that a well-designed on-street bike lane or route is even safer for bicyclists than a typical off-street urban bike path (such a path is likely to have many awkward intersections with city streets, and intersections are where 75% of car-bike accidents happen).

* Millions of federal dollars are available (up to 95% federal subsidy) to smooth streets, replace grates, and repair curbs and gutters on bike routes. These improvements benefit *all* road users, not just bicyclists. If we do not pass BikeKC and use these federal funds to improve our roads, other cities will.

I applaud the city council and staff for having the vision to bring BikeKC forward. I particularly applaud the statesman-like actions of Councilman Ed Ford, chair of the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee, who has kept an open mind and allowed discussion on BikeKC to progress, even though he personally has had serious reservations with the proposal.

And it does take vision and leadership for politicians to support a plan like BikeKC, because some short-term costs and pain are involved. But the experience of many other cities has shown that developing transportation alternatives is a key step in revitalizing the urban core.

BikeKC is an important step towards making our roads and our city friendlier, not just for bicyclists but for everyone.

I urge Kansas City road users to persuasively and politely let the city council know that you support the modern roadway standards and alternative transportation options of BikeKC. Write the City Council, 24th Floor, 414 E. 12th St., KCMO 64106, call (816) 513-1625, or find email addresses at www.kcmo.org.

Please consider attending the meeting of the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee when BikeKC will be considered. The meeting is July 31st, 2002, at 1:30PM, in the Council Chambers, 26th Floor of City Hall, 414 East 12th Street.

Council members on the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee (who most need to hear from you on this issue) are Ed Ford, Troy Nash, Bonnie Sue Cooper, and Mary Williams-Neal.


Dr. Brent Hugh, pianist and professor of music at Missouri Western State College, has bicycled about 2000 miles on Kansas City-area roads in the past year. He can be reached at bhugh@mwsc.edu.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Hi all,

I came up with a flyer about BikeKC, urging people to support it.

You can see the online version of the page at

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcsummary.html

You can see and download an (improved) printable version of the flyer at

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcsummary.pdf

The flyer prints out on a single sheet (both sides). The idea is that you can just print out copies and give them to people, put them in the local bike shop, etc.

Also, the flyer has the City Council Email Addresses (in case yours were mangled by Topica when I sent them earlier).

If you don't like the particular way I have done the flyer, you are more than welcome to borrow any bits or pieces of it and use it any way you want.

posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Rev. Kinerk, Dean Haefele, and Dean Logan,

I recently became aware of an issue that could be of interest to Rockhurst University faculty, staff, and students. I hope you will take a moment to learn a little more about it and consider supporting it, either in your official capacity or as private citizens.

Bicycling is traditionally a very common and useful transportation alternative for university communities. In the recent past it has not been very viable in Kansas City's urban core. The amount of bicycling around Rockhurst University is disappointingly small, and we pay the price in increased traffic congestion and overloaded parking facilities.

Now the BikeKC initiative has come before the Kansas City Council. BikeKC, which will create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes around the city, is designed to make bicycling a viable transportation option in Kansas City. BikeKC has been years in the making, but because of reservations about the plan by a few key city council members, it has been held in committee since September 2001.

Now, at the request of Mayor Barnes and because of a groundswell of grass-roots support, the committee will again consider the BikeKC proposal on August 7th, 2002. However, key committee members still oppose the BikeKC. It will take significant community support to overcome this opposition.

I hope Rockhurst University will consider coming out with an official announcement in support of BikeKC. I also hope that Rockhurst administration, faculty, staff, and students will support BikeKC on an individual basis.

Support from Rockhurst University would make a big difference in the effort to pass BikeKC. The opposition to BikeKC comes mostly from large companies with deep pockets (for example, large developers who don't want to give up real estate in their developments to create more right-of-way for bicycle and pedestrian facilities).

It would help the BikeKC cause immensely if a few large and respected institutions publicly supported it.

Here are some reasons Rockhurst University should support BikeKC:

* BikeKC will directly benefit Rockhurst's community by making bicycling
a viable transportation option for students and employees. Bicycling
is a natural for a university community. Students, faculty, and
staff need an inexpensive, safe, and quick way to get around campus and
the surrounding community. BikeKC helps make that happen.

* For students, living close by in the dorms and bicycling to school,
shopping, and work is a very inexpensive living arrangement. Availability
of the bicycling option helps make Rockhurst more affordable for students.

* The very first bike routes to be put in place by BikeKC will be
centered around Rockhurst. Rockhurst will see direct positive results
soon.

* Promoting bicycling is a VERY inexpensive way to help alleviate
congestion and parking problems around campus.

* BikeKC has a great deal of grass-roots and community group support.
Supporting BikeKC is a community-friendly move for Rockhurst.

Please email or call me if you have any questions about BikeKC.

Below is a letter I wrote urging Rockhurst students to support BikeKC, a list of web pages with further information about BikeKC, and a list of Kansas City Council email addresses.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Brent Hugh
bhugh@mwsc.edu
(816)356-1740
5916 Arlington Ave Raytown, MO 64133


----------------------------------------------
Letter to Rockhurst Students
----------------------------------------------
[If you have a way to promulgate this to Rockhurst students, I would appreciate it.]

BikeKC is a proposal to create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes around the Kansas City area. Details about the plan can be found at www.bikekc.org.

Bicycle riders, groups, clubs, and shops around the area strongly support BikeKC and have worked hard to get it passed. BikeKC will come to a vote before the Kansas City Council in the next week or two.

If you would like to see KC become a more bikeable city, now is the time to let your City Council member know about your feelings.

Why should Rockhurst students support BikeKC?

* University communities like Rockhurst are an ideal setting for bicycle use. You need an easy and inexpensive way to get around, and biking can be part of the answer. The very first bicycle lanes and routes to be put in place cover the area around Rockhurst, the Plaza, and downtown. Imagine being able to easily and safely bike from your apartment to school, to work, to the grocery store. Think of the money you would save! That is the idea behind BikeKC.

* On-street bike paths and routes such as those proposed in BikeKC increase bicycle safety, reduce friction between bicycles and autos, and are effective in increasing bicycle use. You will be able to bicycle farther and feel safer while you're riding.

* Bicycling, even just a few miles a week to work, school, the store or the park, is a healthy and eco-friendly alternative. Bicycles don't pollute and they don't kill innocent bystanders like cars do (30,000 deaths/year from automobile pollution in the U.S. alone).

I urge Rockhurst students and staff to let the Kansas City Council members know that you support BikeKC. Some key City Council members oppose the plan. Grass-roots effort has been important in overcoming this opposition to BikeKC, and more is needed to push it over the top.

Please be polite and persuasive when you write the City Council, 24th Floor, 414 E. 12th St., KCMO 64106, call (816) 513-1625, or email (find email addresses at www.kcmo.org).

--Dr. Brent Hugh
bhugh@mwsc.edu
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
I have uploaded a PDF version of the "On-street Bicycle Safety Fact Sheet":

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikesafetyfactsheet.pdf

Like the BikeKC flyer, it is designed to be printed out on both sides of a single sheet so that you can pass it around to anyone who has questions on this issue.

If you don't like the particular way I've put it together you're welcome to use any or all of it in any way you want, with or without attribution. (I care about getting the word out, not about who gets "credit" . . . )

You can find all the web pages I have put online about BikeKC, including printable flyer etc., at

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/index.html#bicycling
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
-quoting---
or Sunday-go-to church clothes (as long as you don't sit by me if you stink). If a large enough group wants to bike to the meeting, we may be able to arrange for a little police security for them, as there are usually police officers on duty around City Hall anyway. If not and we get the turnout we need, we can provide our own with volunteers willing to watch over them during meeting. They may even let us park them in the garage or even the main lobby (off to the side, of course) since there's not adequate bike parking at City Hall, especially for a group.
-end quote---

'Twould nice to have a large mass ride to the meeting, even if just for a mile or two (maybe from the riverfront park to city hall or something). Maybe it could arranged to follow one of the proposed bike routes, even if just for a few blocks?

If we could count on enough riders to look impressive, maybe we could get some TV coverage of it . . . that would help the cause--bicycle riders march on city hall, etc. . . .

Somebody experienced in organizing rides should volunteer to be in charge of it, though (that counts me out . . . ).

Moving the meeting back until August 7th gives us some more time to organize things like this.

--Brent
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
KCBicyclers,

One idea that can be very helpful in getting the word out about BikeKC is to write brief letters to your local area newspapers, school newspapers, neighborhood newsletters, and other such small publications.

They are almost sure to print (at least an edited version of) whatever you send them. When it appears in print, clip it out & forward it along to some of our KC councilmembers. (It always looks more impressive when it appears in print.)

(Of course, we can & should write to bigger papers like the KCStar--letters@kcstar.com--or Pitch Weekly--feedback@pitch.com or http://www.pitch.com/about/index.html)

For instance, at first I didn't think it would be worth the time to write to our local Raytown newspaper on a KC issue. But then I realized that the Raytown papers take in more than just Raytown proper--they cover Raytown school district, which takes in large areas of Kansas City. Many of the proposed routes are in the area of Raytown schools (some of which are in Kansas City), etc. Papers in Lees Summit, Independence, Grandview, etc., etc. would have similar overlapping coverage.

When I called the Raytown city hall, they even said, "Well, if KC ever gets its bike routes in place, I guess we'll have to get our plan in place to match them." Right now they don't seem to have much of a plan . . . if BikeKC passes, they'll get one.

So if your newspaper borders KC, just point out that the proposal will affect your area, too. And, of course, people who happen to live or work in KC can write the city council on that basis, so invite them to do so.

Local papers often come out only once a week and may have long lead times for letters. For instance, if you send a letter today, the first chance it may have to appear might be a week from Wednesday.

So get writing now or you'll miss your chance!
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Jonas, Craig, Sarah, Brendan, and Laura,

As a UMKC alumnus, I recently became aware of an issue that is of great interest to UMKC students.

Bicycling is traditionally a very common and useful transportation alternative for university students. In the recent past it has not been very viable in Kansas City's urban core. The amount of bicycling around UMKC is disappointingly small, and we pay the price in increased traffic congestion and overloaded parking facilities.

Now the BikeKC initiative has come before the Kansas City Council. BikeKC, which will create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes around the city, is designed to make bicycling a viable transportation option in Kansas City. BikeKC has been years in the making, but because of reservations about the plan by a few key city council members, it has been held in committee since September 2001.

Now, at the request of Mayor Barnes and because of a groundswell of grass-roots support, the committee will again consider the BikeKC proposal on August 7th, 2002. However, key committee members still oppose the BikeKC. It will take significant community support to overcome this opposition.

I hope SGA will consider coming out with an official announcement in support of BikeKC. I also hope that UMKC students will support BikeKC on an individual basis.

Support from UMKC would make a big difference in the effort to pass BikeKC. The opposition to BikeKC comes mostly from large companies with deep pockets (for example, large developers who don't want to give up real estate in their developments to create more right-of-way for bicycle and pedestrian facilities).

It would help the BikeKC cause immensely if a few large and respected organizations like SGA publicly supported it.

Here are some reasons SGA should support BikeKC:

* BikeKC will directly benefit UMKC students by making bicycling
a viable transportation option in the area around campus. Bicycling
is a natural for a university community. Students need an
inexpensive, safe, and quick way to get around campus and
the surrounding community. Most universities around the country
support large bicycling communities and UMKC could, too. BikeKC helps
make that happen.

* For students, living close by in the dorms and bicycling to school,
shopping, and work is a very inexpensive living arrangement. Availability
of the bicycling option helps make UMKC more affordable for students
in this time of budget crises and large tuition increases.

* The very first bike routes to be put in place by BikeKC will be
centered around UMKC. UMKC will see direct positive results soon.

* Promoting bicycling is a VERY inexpensive way to help alleviate
some of UMKC's parking problems. When I was a student at UMKC, I know
for a fact that MANY students living as close as Twin Oaks drove
autos to UMKC and used valuable on-campus parking. Most people
living so close could easily bicycle to UMKC many or most trips.

* BikeKC has a great deal of grass-roots and community group support.
Supporting BikeKC is a community-friendly move for SGA & UMKC.

Please email or call me if you have any questions about BikeKC.

Below is a letter I wrote to University News urging UMKC students to support BikeKC (before realizing University News doesn't publish in the summer . . . oh, well), a list of web pages with further information about BikeKC, and a list of Kansas City Council email addresses.

I do hope SGA will support the BikeKC initiative. Support could be as simple as writing an email to KC council members (addresses) below, saying that you as an SGA officer support the BikeKC initiative and think it would be beneficial to UMKC and to the community as a whole.

Please help!

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Brent Hugh
UMKC alumnus (MM 1995, DMA 2000)
(816)356-1740
5916 Arlington Ave Raytown, MO 64133


----------------------------------------------
Letter to UMKC Students
----------------------------------------------

BikeKC is a proposal to create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes around the Kansas City area. Details about the plan can be found at www.bikekc.org.

Bicycle riders, groups, clubs, and shops around the area strongly support BikeKC and have worked hard to get it passed. BikeKC will come to a vote before the Kansas City Council in the next week or two.

If you would like to see KC become a more bikeable city, now is the time to let your City Council member know about your feelings.

Why should UMKC students support BikeKC?

* University communities like UMKC are an ideal setting for bicycle use. You need an easy and inexpensive way to get around, and biking can be part of the answer. The very first bicycle lanes and routes to be put in place cover the area around UMKC, the Plaza, and downtown. Imagine being able to easily and safely bike from your apartment to school, to work, to the grocery store. Think of the money you would save! That is the idea behind BikeKC.

* On-street bike paths and routes such as those proposed in BikeKC increase bicycle safety, reduce friction between bicycles and autos, and are effective in increasing bicycle use. You will be able to bicycle farther and feel safer while you're riding.

* Bicycling, even just a few miles a week to work, school, the store or the park, is a healthy and eco-friendly alternative. Bicycles don't pollute and they don't kill innocent bystanders like cars do (30,000 deaths/year from automobile pollution in the U.S. alone).

I urge UMKC students and staff to let the Kansas City Council members know that you support BikeKC. Some key City Council members oppose the plan. Grass-roots effort has been important in overcoming this opposition to BikeKC, and more is needed to push it over the top.

Please be polite and persuasive when you write the City Council, 24th Floor, 414 E. 12th St., KCMO 64106, call (816) 513-1625, or email (find email addresses at www.kcmo.org).
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Since you are transportation reporter for the Star I thought you might want to know what is going on around the BikeKC issue.

You might know that BikeKC has been held in the P-Z committee since about last September.

Now, at the request of the Mayor and others the committee is re-hearing the issue and it looks as though it may come before the full city council. The P-Z committee hearing is set for August 7th at 1:30PM, 26th floor city hall.

Since I became interested in the BikeKC initiative just a few months ago I have been amazed at the citizen support for BikeKC. It seems to have real broad-based grass roots support from many sectors of the community.

A few loosely-knit individuals, bike clubs, and internet discussion forums are putting together a grass-root effort to let the city council know how much support bicycling issues have in Kansas City.

We're writing and email the city council, spreading the word via email lists and bicycle club newsletters, talking to friends and neighbors, writing letters to the editor, putting flyers in area bike shops, and so on. I think the city council will be rather amazed at the support for bicycling if we can really get the word out to Kansas Citians (we still hear, ALL too often, even from dedicated bicycle riders, the same old question, "What is BikeKC? I've never heard of it . . . ").

(By the way, I submitted an "As I See It" article to the Star about BikeKC & I understand it will be published some time soon.)

I thought you might want to know about this and also know about some of the materials we're putting together, just so you know how we see the issue.

Some of the material has been put together specifically to address objections brought forth by key members of the P-Z committee--they believe that on-street bicycling is dangerous, few people will use bicycle facilities, and that extra right-of-way required in new developments will cost developers money.

There are strong arguments and data to refute each of these points--you can find them in the web pages below.

Thanks for your attention!

--Brent Hugh
bhugh@mwsc.edu
(816)356-1740

----------------------------------------------
BikeKC-related Web Pages
----------------------------------------------

Printable Flyer Summarizing BikeKC & Appealing to Community Members to Support BikeKC:

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcsummary.pdf

More information about the Bike KC Plan:

http://www.bikekc.org/

Bike KC summary from the KC Public Works Department:

http://www.kcmo.org/pubworks.nsf/web/kcbike1

Article by KC Star columnist Mike Hendricks about Bike KC:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3588452.htm

My own letter explaining the advantages of the Bike KC proposal:

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcadvantages.html

My letter responding to the safety concerns with on-street bicycle routes:

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcsafety.html

On-street Bicycling Safety Fact Sheet:

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikesafetyfactsheet.html

The "Fact Sheet" was made to dispute the claim by some city council members that on-street bicycling is dangerous. This idea, although believed by many motorists and even many bicyclists, is demonstrably false. Here are some data points from the fact sheet:


On-street Bicycling is Safe
---------------------------
* Bicycling on-street (whether measured per hour, per mile, or per trip) is about as safe as driving. (*Many* studies back this up.)

* Bicycling on-street is at least 12 times safer than playing soccer, 22 times safer than basketball, 38 times safer than football. No one considers these activities terribly "dangerous", yet bicycling, which is actually safer than all of them, is somehow labeled "dangerous".

* Health benefits of bicycling outweigh risks by 20 times. Bicycle commuters have a 40% lower overall mortality rate.

* Experienced bicyclists are actually safer yet than the average--club cyclists, who ride a lot and practice vehicular cycling technics, are 5-10 times safer than the 'average' bicycle rider.


On-street Bicycling is Actually Somewhat Safer Than Cycling on
Off-Street Bicycle Paths
---------------------------------------------------------------
* Bicycling on the street is 2-3 times safer than riding on multi-use paths (for example, major roads with bicycle facilities are 3.4 times safer than multi-use paths).

* Bicycling on the street is >20 times safer than riding on the sidewalk (for example, cycling major roads with bicycle facilities is 40 times safer than sidewalk cycling).


On-street Bicycle Facilities Improve Safety Even Further
--------------------------------------------------------
* Major roads with bicycle facilities are safer than the same roads without such facilities (bicycle accidents are reduced by 38% on roads with facilities).


These are not just the wild-eyed claims of a bunch of cycling nuts. All of these conclusions are backed up by solid scientific studies, and many points have been verified by several studies. Complete background information with references and online links to articles (if available) is on the web page (http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikesafetyfactsheet.pdf).

posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
I just heard from the KCTV news people and they're going to try to have a camera crew at the BikeKC meeting next Wed, August 7th. Some of the other TV stations may be interested in covering it, as well. What they are particularly interested in covering is the "bike parade" to the meeting.

I think we should make a real effort to have as many people bicycling in the "parade" as possible.


No one else has suggested a route, so let me suggest this:

Meet at the new Berkley Riverfront Park. This is on the south bank of the Missouri River in between the Heart of America Bridge (Hwy 9) and the I-35 bridge. On the east end of the park is a parking lot and we could meet in that area.

Depart from the park at 12:45PM on Wednesday, August 7th.

We could ride west along the park, go up the Grand Avenue viaduct, make a few loops around the downtown area as the mood strikes us (perhaps something like Grand to 20th, 20th to Main, Main to 12th, 12th to Oak), and end up at city hall (12th and Oak) about 1:15PM.

It is only a bit over 2 miles from the park to City Hall by a direct route, but I assume that our pace would be slow and we wouldn't take a direct route.


Driving Directions to Berkley Riverfront Park:

From I-35, exit as though going to the Isle of Capri Casino. Take the road (E. Front Street?) that goes northwest past the casino and the west under I-35. After you pass under I-35, the park will be on your right and the parking lot on your left.

From downtown, take the Grand Avenue viaduct north; this leads directly to the park along the riverbank.

Parking lot is on the east end of the park, near Lydia Ave.

A map of the area is at http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcride.gif (the starting point is at the red star on the map).


I am open to any suggestions about the ride or route. I'm not experienced at organizing rides, so anyone who is, please step right up & take over!

I do think the ride would be helpful to BikeKC and to encourage bicycling in general in KC, to get some good TV coverage, and just to have some fun.

I am planning on riding to meeting myself, regardless.

Perhaps those who can't take time to attend the full committee meeting Wednesday afternoon could still arrange their lunch schedule to make the ride. (Probably less than 45 minutes total to ride with us to City Hall and then complete the loop back to the parking lot at the riverfront).
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
You might have seen that the KCStar was kind enough to print an opinion article in support of BikeKC by me.

Just in case you didn't see it, a copy is below.

I heard from Councilman Ford that the council members have been receiving quite number of emails and mails on this issue. I hope between now & next Wednesday this will become a verititable flood of mail. Please take time to write, call, or email, even if it's just a brief note, and please remind your friends to do the same. Contact info at the end of the message.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/opinion/3743825.htm

Posted on Sat, Jul. 27, 2002

AS I SEE IT: BikeKC needs your support

By BRENT HUGH
Special to The Star

Mike Hendricks' column, "It's Time to Cycle into Action" (7/3), outlined issues surrounding BikeKC. BikeKC is a proposal to create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes. It would reserve a little more right-of-way in future developments for pedestrian and biking facilities. Details about the plan can be found at www.bikekc.org.

Bicycle riders, groups, clubs and shops around the area strongly support BikeKC and have worked hard to get it passed.

Why should Kansas Citians support BikeKC?

� The availability of transportation alternatives will make Kansas City a more thriving, modern, livable city. Developers lose a small amount of real estate to right-of-way in the short term, but the long-term payoff is a more attractive city with higher overall real estate values. People like to live in areas where walking and biking are options, and developers and planners should bear this in mind.

� Bicycling, even just a few miles a week to work, school, the store or the park, is healthy and environmentally friendly. While some people choose to emphasize the (very minimal) risks of cycling, the health benefits outweigh the risks.

� In my own rides around the city, I see an astonishing number of cyclists already. BikeKC will encourage more of these neighborhood cyclists to safely travel farther from home.

Numerous studies show that on-street bike paths and routes like those proposed in BikeKC increase bicycle safety, reduce friction between bicycles and autos, and are effective in increasing bicycle use.

� We have many miles of wonderful off-street bike paths planned under the MetroGreen project. BikeKC's on-street bike routes are the natural complement to the off-street MetroGreen paths.

� Millions of federal dollars are available (up to 95 percent federal subsidy) to smooth streets, replace grates, and repair curbs and gutters on bike routes. These improvements benefit all road users, not just bicyclists. If we do not pass BikeKC and use these federal funds to improve our roads, other cities will.

I applaud the city council and staff for having the vision to bring BikeKC forward. I particularly applaud the integrity and statesman-like actions of Councilman Ed Ford. Ford has kept an open mind and allowed discussion on BikeKC to progress, even though he personally has had serious reservations about the proposal. Developing transportation alternatives is a key step in revitalizing the urban core.

BikeKC is an important step toward making our roads and our city friendlier, not just for bicyclists but for everyone.

I urge Kansas City road users to let the City Council know that you support the modern roadway standards and alternative transportation options of BikeKC. Write to: City Council, 24th Floor, 414 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO 64106. Or call (816) 513-1625. The Web site is www.kcmo.org.

The crucial committee hearing on BikeKC is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Aug. 7 on the 26th floor of City Hall. If you want to make Kansas City more bicycle-friendly, please plan to attend.

Brent Hugh is a pianist and professor of music at Missouri Western State College. He has bicycled about 2,000 miles on Kansas City-area roads in the past year. He lives in Raytown.

---------------------

City Council Contact Information

[snipped]
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Let me remind everyone, when sending your FLOOD of mail/email/calls to City Hall about BikeKC in the next several days, to PLEASE remember to be considerate, polite, and positive in discussing BikeKC with city council members, ESPECIALLY those who oppose it.

I have heard from several quarters (including a short note from Councilman Ford I received yesterday) that our messages are being received, read, and are having a positive impact. There may be the beginnings of some positive momentum developing at City Hall for BikeKC.

I praised Councilman Ford in my KCStar article (who you know is the key committee chair on this issue), and I think the praise is well deserved, particularly since he and other council members may be moderating their viewpoints somewhat due to the community feedback. There is a bit of a history in Kansas City politics of backroom deals made at the expense of the community and in disregard of community input. Politicians who reconsider their positions because of community feedback *deserve* high praise and we should give it to them. We need more such politicians in Kansas City!

So the way to increase the momentum that MAY be developing for BikeKC at City Hall is to continue to let your voices be heard in a positive and persuasive way.

It really is paying off. Keep it up!
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 

As far as I understand it, our plan is pretty basic & simple. In the first phase, they are choosing a few wide streets (KC has a "boulevard" plan dating from about 1900, so certain streets are already purposefully wider) and turning those into bike routes or striping them for bike lanes. Then other routes are designated bike routes in later phases & the idea is that as they are rebuilt over the next 10-15 years, they will be built to better standards that will allow room for bike lanes (and sidewalks . . . ).

The most important part, though, is simply that all new developments, new roads, and new or rebuilt bridges will have enough right-of-way reserved, and be built to specifications, that will allow for bicycle & pedestrian facilities.

Kansas City is a strange sort of a city. They have gulped up huge tracts of land and at least 50% (maybe more) of the city is still agricultural in character. Then, on the other hand, there is a very densely populated, and often neglected and ugly urban core.

Of the "open land", some is under development at a fast rate right now, and so at a minimum, we're hoping that all the new developments will be built to better & more modern standards. Many (most?) of the new neighborhoods that have been built in Kansas City in the past 40 or 50 years have been built to just terrible standards--no sidewalks and narrow streets with no shoulder. I live in such a neighborhood, and it is really ugly and unpleasant to live in. But there are places in KC where they are building NEW neighborhoods just as ugly and unpleasant even as we speak . . .

Thanks for writing!

--Brent

At 03:46 PM 08/01/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Brent,

Our city went as far as to hire a consulting firm (specialist in urban
transportation planning) and virtually remapped our entire city for
autos/walkers/bikers. We had received federal money to offset our budget.
We has the support of the major and the city council. (This was about 4 or
5 years ago).

We had the money... the plan... and were excited to go... *but* ...the
biggest obstacle was the people not wanting to give up the road right of
way. (Sounds like one of your greatest obstacles). When voted upon... the
winning vote was... NO.

I wish the folks in KC a lot of luck!

hth
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
I had an interesting chat with Heather Gordon (of The Wheel Cyclery) today.

She mentioned that at the KC council business meeting in June when they talked over BikeKC (and more or less got it rolling again, as I understand it), the main objection seemed to be the "developers don't want to give up more of their real estate" thing.

Someone mentioned that the developers they know realize that they must give up a little right-of-way, but that it is a "sacrifice" they willingly make because they realize that people want to live in neighborhoods with walking/biking facilities. So to stay competitive they basically need to do it.

Heather's response to this was, "Well then, let's get some of THOSE developers to talk to the city council."

It surely would be interesting to have some of those developers, who have "seen the light" so to speak, talk and/or write to the city council.

So my question to you is: Do any of you know any developers? Or even people involved in the process in any way? What would it take to track them down and get them to weigh in on this issue?
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Hi again,

Sorry for filling your mailboxes today, but with the BikeKC meeting next Wednesday, now really is the time to write/call/email before it's too late. If you've done it before, think about doing it again. I would really to see our stream of mail turn into a FLOOD of mail between now and Wednesday. I think it will make a real difference in getting BikeKC passed.

One issue that I keep hearing about in various ways through the grapevine might be worth mentioning in your final emails & calls to the city council.

Apparently much of the opposition to BikeKC is from developers. BikeKC is going to require them to give up 8-10 feet more right-of-way for roads in new developments. I think we can and should acknowledge that this is a real substantial issue for developers. But I think we can make an even stronger argument that people like to live where they can bike and walk.

Many neighborhoods built in the KC area in the last 30 or 40 years are very un-attractive because they lack walking and bicycling facilities (I live in such a neighborhood myself and it just drives me crazy . . . ). We should make it clear to developers and to city hall that in the 21st century, we expect walking and bicycling facilities in new developments, and that it is a win-win situation for developers and residents because such facilities make real estate more valuable and neighborhoods more liveable.

--Brent

posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Hi all,

Could I ask you to spend a few moments supporting a few things I've tried to get going with regard to BikeKC?

I think it might help getting some of these institutions to move, if a few people were to write in support. One person is easy to ignore; even 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 becomes much more difficult for them to dismiss.


1. I wrote to Chancellor Gilliland (head of UMKC) a while ago and asked her to support BikeKC, either to officially throw UMKC behind it if possible, or at least for her to support the proposal as a private citizen. *IF* you are a UMKC alumnus or have some other connection to the school, could you write Chancellor Gilliland and urge her to support BikeKC? Email is: gillilandm@umkc.edu

[below is the letter I wrote to Gilliland, just FYI.]


2. I similarly wrote Reverend Edward Kinerk, president of Rockhurst University (Edward.Kinerk@rockhurst.edu). If you have some connection with Rockhurst, would you mind emailing and asking for support.


It seems that these universities are natural allies in making KC more bicycle friendly. I have to say that I was sorely disappointed in the lack of bicycling & bicycle facilities at UMKC when I went to school there. They could do a lot better, and it would benefit their students.

Also these schools are smack in the middle of the first phase of BikeKC, so they will be among the first to feel real benefits from the plan.


3. I wrote KKFI (90.1, community radio) to see if they would support BikeKC. They seem a natural ally. I haven't had time to listen to radio much lately so I don't know if they have done much. If you happen to have any connection with KKFI, would you mind emailing or calling them & asking for some support? Email is kkfi901@aol.com


Thank you!

--Brent

[with apologies to those who have received this twice]

-------------------------------------


Chancellor Gilliland,

As a UMKC alumnus, I recently became aware of an issue that is of great interest to UMKC.

Bicycling is traditionally a very common and useful transportation alternative for university communities. In the recent past it has not been very viable in Kansas City's urban core. The amount of bicycling around UMKC is disappointingly small, and we pay the price in increased traffic congestion and overloaded parking facilities.

Now the BikeKC initiative has come before the Kansas City Council. BikeKC, which will create a network of on-street bike lanes and routes around the city, is designed to make bicycling a viable transportation option in Kansas City. BikeKC has been years in the making, but because of reservations about the plan by a few key city council members, it has been held in committee since September 2001.

Now, at the request of Mayor Barnes and because of a groundswell of grass-roots support, the committee will again consider the BikeKC proposal on August 7th, 2002. However, key committee members still oppose the BikeKC. It will take significant community support to overcome this opposition.

I hope UMKC will consider coming out with an official announcement in support of BikeKC. I also hope that UMKC administration, faculty, staff, and students will support BikeKC on an individual basis.

Support from UMKC would make a big difference in the effort to pass BikeKC. The opposition to BikeKC comes mostly from large companies with deep pockets (for example, large developers who don't want to give up real estate in their developments to create more right-of-way for bicycle and pedestrian facilities).

It would help the BikeKC cause immensely if a few large and respected institutions publicly supported it.

Here are some reasons UMKC should support BikeKC:

* BikeKC will directly benefit UMKC's community by making bicycling
a viable transportation option for students and employees. Bicycling
is a natural for a university community. Students, faculty, and
staff need an inexpensive, safe, and quick way to get around campus and
the surrounding community. Most universities around the country
support large bicycling communities and UMKC could, too. BikeKC helps
make that happen.

* For students, living close by in the dorms and bicycling to school,
shopping, and work is a very inexpensive living arrangement. Availability
of the bicycling option helps make UMKC more affordable for students
in this time of budget crises and large tuition increases.

* The very first bike routes to be put in place by BikeKC will be
centered around UMKC. UMKC will see direct positive results soon.

* Promoting bicycling is a VERY inexpensive way to help alleviate
some of UMKC's parking problems. When I was a student at UMKC, I know
for a fact that MANY students living as close as Twin Oaks drove
autos to UMKC and used valuable on-campus parking. Most people
living so close could easily bicycle to UMKC many or most trips.

* BikeKC has a great deal of grass-roots and community group support.
Supporting BikeKC is a community-friendly move for UMKC.

Please email or call me if you have any questions about BikeKC.

Below is a letter I wrote to University News urging UMKC students to support BikeKC (before realizing University News doesn't publish in the summer . . . oh, well), a list of web pages with further information about BikeKC, and a list of Kansas City Council email addresses.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Brent Hugh
UMKC alumnus (MM 1995, DMA 2000)
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Press Release

For immediate release

Contact: Dr. Brent Hugh




Bike KC Bike Parade, 12:45PM, Wed, August 7th, 2002

Join other Kansas City bicycle riders for a fun ride in support of the BikeKC proposal


Kansas City bicycle riders are invited to join a Bike Parade to City Hall in support of the BikeKC proposal. Riders of all ages and abilities are invited. The ride will depart from Berkley Riverfront Park (near the Isle of Capri Casino) at 12:45PM sharp on Wednesday, August 7th, 2002.

The ride will proceed south on Grand Avenue, west on Pershing, then north on Main/Walnut to 12th Street and then to City Hall. Length is about 4.5 miles.

The crucial Kansas City Council committee meeting that will decide the fate of the BikeKC proposal starts at 1:30PM on the 26th floor of City Hall. Many bicyclists will be riding to attend the meeting (although this is not required).

Those wishing a shorter ride can park at Union Station and join us as we pass by at about 1:00PM for the final 1.5 miles to City Hall.

For more information about the ride and BikeKC, see www.bikekc.org


###
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Planning and Zoning Committee Members,

Since the BikeKC issue is coming before the Planning and Zoning Committee Wednesday, I thought you might be interested in some of the upcoming media coverage of the issue.

* KMBC (Channel 9) interviewed some people today about BikeKC. KMBC will show a little bit of what many of our streets are like now and what they could be like if they were planned well for bicycles/pedestrians. I don't know yet when that segment will air, but presumably between now and Wednesday.

* The Walt Bodine show at 10-11AM Tuesday will be on BikeKC. It is on KCUR (89.3 FM).

* KCTV has indicated they plan to cover the Bike Parade leaving at 12:45PM Wednesday from Berkley Park and proceeding to the P-Z Committee Meeting at City Hall at 1:30.

This is the upcoming coverage that I know about now; there may be other coverage that I do not know about.

Again, thank you for your consideration of this issue.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Councilwoman Nace,

I am very pleased to hear that you support BikeKC and I appreciate your detailed response to my letter.


I do hope that you and the other council members will use their influence to make certain that BikeKC gets out of committee without having important parts of it cut. I keep hearing rumors (and I do hope they are just that, but I keep hearing them from different sources) that some developers want the BikeKC provisions for extra right-of-way in future developments watered down or removed.


By way of contrast, I also hear that other developers feel walking and biking facilities are vital to keep the KC area competitive with other metropolitan areas, which will have walking and biking facilities whether we do or not. I think the developers who realize the importance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities have a better vision of what Kansas City can and should be, and what, in the long run, will be most important and valuable to us as a community.

In my opinion, the provisions for future planning are the most important part of BikeKC. Poor planning over the last 50 years or so is one reason so many of our neighborhoods are unfriendly to walking and bicycling and unpleasant to live in.

On the other hand, the boulevard system is an example of good planning--many of the BikeKC routes on existing streets are built on these boulevards, planned by the far-sighted George Kessler over 100 years ago.

I think BikeKC, with its plan for good, well-designed roads in new developments, gives us a chance to be far-sighted and leave a legacy for those who live 100 years hence, similar to what the boulevard plan has given to us.

People like to live where they can bike and walk, and they don't like to live where they can't.

--Dr. Brent Hugh
Kansas City taxpayer
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
[Letter to the aide of Councilwoman Bonnie Sue Cooper, who opposed the plan initially but ended up voting for it in the final, full-council vote.]
I appreciate your response and willingness to listen. I know that Councilwoman Cooper has some valid and reasonable objections to the plan and so that makes me doubly pleased that she is still willing to listen to the other side and allow the plan to be brought up for consideration in the Planning and Zoning Committee again.

I wish all our politicians had the integrity and willingness to listen to the other side of the story, as does Councilwoman Cooper.

We may disagree on this issue, but perhaps we'll be in agreement on the next!

Regardless, I appreciate the fact that she takes the issue seriously is willing to carefully consider both sides of the issue.

I do believe BikeKC gives the City Council an opportunity to leave a legacy similar to the legacy we enjoy today from the creation of the Boulevard system. George Kessler's vision over 100 years ago allows us to have a network of wide, beautiful, pleasant boulevards around the city today.

I think BikeKC, in its plan for good, well-designed roads in new developments, gives us a chance to be far-sighted and leave a legacy for those who live 100 years hence, similar to what the boulevard plan has given to us.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
To: "KCTV Newsdesk"
Subject: Re: bike kc

When I wrote you earlier about the BikeKC Bike Parade (Aug. 7th at 12:45-1:15PM) I forgot to mention that there is a map of the route that you might find useful:

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikeride.gif

I rode the route yesterday and noticed that along the route are many "beautiful" examples of:

* manhole covers depressed 2-6 inches below the roadway
* small round holes missing covers altogether
* road cuts that are eroded and rough along the cuts
* gutters that are eroded along the seam of the gutter pan and road
* potholes
* missing drain grates
* "bike eating" drain grates (the kind with slats parallel to
the roadway that swallow bike tires, causing serious injury)

Showing these would give pretty dramatic visual evidence of the kind of thing that BikeKC will help fix. Fixing these problems helps ALL road users, not just bicyclists.

(If BikeKC is passed, there will be 90% federal funding to fix this kind of road-surface problem along designated bicycle routes.)
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
The 3rd guest for the Walt Bodine Show, along with Mike Hendricks and Aaron Bartlett, is Councilman Ed Ford.

So this will be a good chance for us to let Councilman Ford hear our viewpoint.

But let me just remind you to PLEASE be polite and considerate of his views, and please be sure to thank him for allowing the issue to come up for re-consideration in the Planning & Zoning Committee.

I keep hearing from various sources that our respectful and polite approach is having a good influence on those council members who oppose BikeKC. This will be a good chance to continue that.

The Walt Bodine Show is on KCUR, 89.3 FM, tomorrow (Tuesday) at 10-11AM. Listener line is (816) 235-2888.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
[Media update sent to KC Council members]


Since the BikeKC issue is coming before the Planning and Zoning Committee Wednesday, I thought you might be interested in some of the upcoming media coverage of the issue.

* KMBC (Channel 9) interviewed some people today about BikeKC. KMBC will show a little bit of what many of our streets are like now and what they could be like if they were planned well for bicycles/pedestrians. I don't know yet when that segment will air, but presumably between now and Wednesday.

* The Walt Bodine show at 10-11AM Tuesday will be on BikeKC. It is on KCUR (89.3 FM).

* KCTV has indicated they plan to cover the Bike Parade leaving at 12:45PM Wednesday from Berkley Park and proceeding to the P-Z Committee Meeting at City Hall at 1:30.

This is the upcoming coverage that I know about now; there may be other coverage that I do not know about.

Again, thank you for your consideration of this issue.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
[To Mike Hendricks, Kansas City Star Columnist, after he and others had appeared on the Walt Bodine radio show talking about BikeKC]

I heard the Walt Bodine Show today and it was great to hear so many people calling in to support bicycle facilities. I really appreciate your writing about these issues, taking to time appear on the show, and being an articulate representative of the "average" bicyclist. One reason we don't have more good bicycle facilities is because the average rider doesn't feel the need to speak out, and so those who do speak out are most often hard-core racers and so on. They can too easily be dismissed as "fringe". We need to hear more voices from the "typical" bicycle community.

I couldn't get through to on the call-in lines, but just for your amusement, I would like to point out that:

1. Just by chance, I happened to ride quite distance on N. Oak Trafficway last weekend. All that "shopping" traffic wasn't an issue at all. (I don't live near there and just happened to be passing through.)

2. The reason N. Oak and other arterials north of the river and east of Swope Park are on the BikeKC plan is because of poor planning of freeways/expressways (quiet neighborhood streets are cut, leaving arterials as the only through routes) and poor planning involved in creating the many "pocket neighborhoods" up north, with few through streets. The few through streets are, by necessity, busy.

In fact, as a rule the arterials are THE ONLY THROUGH ROUTES in these areas! On my pleasant Sunday ride, I like to avoid busy streets, but when I got north of the river, the only through route was N. Oak, and I took it. Going through Raytown, Raytown Road was the only through route, so I took that, too.

It is unfortunate that someone like Ed Ford, so involved with planning in KC, doesn't understand such elementary planning considerations.

3. During the spring/summer/autumn months, I often, by chance, see 10-15 other cyclists out as I take an hour or two ride. This Sunday I saw two separate riders, within two blocks of my home, travelling on Raytown Trafficway (a "dangerous" arterial . . . ).

- - - -

One thing I think was clear from the show is that we need to do a MUCH better job getting out the information about the safety of on-street bicycling. Even many bicyclists don't understand the data and the real risks, instead riding according to a set of "imaginary risks" that don't hold up under scrutiny.

Arguments about safety such as those made by Councilman Ford have been disproven by the hard data, long, long ago.

Let me summarize what is know by hard data:

1. Bicycling on-street is safer than cycling on off-road paths
or sidewalks.
2. Major roads are not necessarily more dangerous than minor roads.
In fact, major roads can be safer for bicycles for the same reason
they are safer for cars (better sight-lines; side-street traffic
must stop and yield; intersections better-controlled).
3. Well-designed on-road bicycle facilities can, in fact, slightly
increase safety of on-road cycling.
4. The dreaded "rear-overtaking" accident is, in fact, pretty uncommon
and we shouldn't let it dominate our discussion of on-road cycling
safety.

For more information, data, and sources to back up these "strange and wild" claims, read on . . .

- - - -

In _Effective Cycling_, John Forester tells the story of how motorist groups in California commissioned a study whose purpose was to demonstrate how dangerous on-road bicycling was, so they could ban cyclists from the streets and channel them into off-road bike paths--the very same type of argument made by Councilman Ford.

Their first study showed the exact opposite of what they wanted to hear. In fact, on-street bicycling, even on busy streets, was a couple of times safer then off-street bicycle paths.

Assuming that their small initial study must be wrong, the motorist groups commissioned a much larger, nationwide study. Again, the same conclusions were found--on-street bicycling is safe, and definitely safer than cycling on sidewalks, sidepaths, or off-street paths.

Here is a summary of results from a typical study:

Relative Danger Index Facility
---------------------- --------------------------------------------
(Safest) 0.41 major roads with bicycle facilities (marked
bicycle lanes)
. 0.51 signed bike routes (wide outside lanes &
signs only, no bike lanes)
. 0.66 major road without bicycle facilities

. 0.94 minor road without bicycle facilities

. 1.39 multi-use path

(Most dangerous) 16.34 sidewalk

"Relative Danger Index" basically tells you which facility is more or less dangerous per mile ridden.

- - - -

Three conclusions stand out:

1. Adding bike facilities increases safety. Probably most of
the safety increase comes from the increased road width, not
necessarily the little white stripes. But regardless, safety
does increase with BikeKC-style facilities.

2. Off-road paths are more dangerous than any on-street facilities.

3. Major streets can actually be safer than minor streets for
bicyclists.

None of these facts make any sense to the motorist, because the motorist believes, falsely, that the main danger to bicylists riding on the street is being hit from the rear.

In fact, being hit from the rear accounts for only about 5% of bicycle/motor-vehicle collisions and only about 0.3% of all daylight bicycle accidents in urban areas (remember that less than 50% of bicycle accidents involve motor vehicles, and these other types of accidents can be VERY dangerous).

In practical terms, this means that there are 8 or more accident types that are more common and more dangerous to bicyclists than the rear overtaking collision. All of these involve motorists that are to the front or sides of the bicycle.

Riding on the sidewalk, for instance, might decrease rear overtaking accidents but GREATLY increases all the other kinds (accidents at driveways, intersections, etc.).

By the same token, driving on "minor streets" might (or might not) decrease rear-overtaking accidents, but with poor sight-lines, more driveways, and intersections that are not controlled as well, it increases the other (more common) types of accidents.

- - - -

The statistics above come from William E. Moritz, �Adult Bicyclists in the U.S.�, Transportation Research Board, 1998. See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

Other studies, all of which come to the same essential conclusions:

Kaplan, Jerrold, Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User. FHWA,
1975. (NTIS Document PB 258-399)

Moritz, William E., Regular Adult Bicyclists in Washington State. ASCE
Transportation Congress, San Diego. 1995.

Kenneth Cross; Identifying Critical Behavior Leading to Collisions Between Bicycles and Motor Vehicles; Office of Traffic Safety, State of California; June, 1974

Cross, Kenneth D. & Gary Fisher; A Study of Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Accidents: Identification of Problem Types and Countermeasure Approaches; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Sept. 1977
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Subject: Positive & Persuasive

After my little diatribe about safety on the list today, a couple of people wrote to remind me that when people tried to debate these points with committee members last year they seemed to lose ground rather than gaining it.

It is probably worth reminding anyone who might be going to the meeting (including myself!)--and especially those who might want to speak--to:

Please be positive and persuasive when speaking, especially to those whom you might know who oppose the plan. Avoid debating; state what you feel the plan will do for you, your family, your neighborhood. State the positive benefits of Bike KC. Give committee members a reasons to support the plan and no reason to withdraw their support. Remember that some council members may have objections to the plan but not every council member shares those objections.

It might be better to just concede or avoid arguing certain points, perhaps losing that little skirmish but winning the overall war . . .


By the way, it seems to me that the best answer to the off-street path vs. on-street facilities debate is simply to say:

I like both and we need both. Each makes our community better
in a different way.


I'm looking forward to seeing many of you tomorrow!
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Here is my response to Mr. Ford on the issue of bike routes on arterials in BikeKC.

You notice I gave *some* of this when he asked me about it. I wasn't planning to bring it up if he didn't.

Issue: Bike Facilities on Arterials

Mr. Ford has raised a tough issue here. Most bicyclists would agree that arterials can be uncomfortable to ride on. Most would agree that if alternative routes exist, that are through routes and not much out of the way, these would be preferable.

I happen to live in between Raytown Trafficway and Blue Ridge Cutoff. These are the arterials I know best and they are both proposed bike routes. Speed limits are 35, 40, 45 and sometimes higher. I suggested to my wife that these aren't the ideal bike routes, and asked her to suggest alternatives. She couldn't think of any. I couldn't, either. I looked on a map, and there just aren't any.

So if anyone can suggest practical alternative routes to arterials, I suggest: work them out in detail and let's use them. But when I carefully examined the proposed bike routes in the area of town I know best, I couldn't find a way to replace any arterials and in fact suggested adding a few more key arterials to the plan.

I can see Raytown Trafficway from my front window, and I see bicyclists riding it most every day. They may not like it, but it is the only route that takes them where they need to go.

So, like it or not, we already have a bicycle route on Raytown Trafficway. The real question is: next time we re-build Raytown Trafficway, are we going to make it safer for bicycles and more comfortable for motorists passing them, or are we going to leave it in its present less safe, less comfortable configuration.

Regardless of BikeKC, when arterials are re-constructed, federal law (that's TEA-21 or its successor), will require that the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists be considered. Like it or not, we might as well have a plan in place to deal with this eventuality.

posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
To: "KCTV Newsdesk"
Subject: Re: bike kc; bicycler's reaction

Thanks for your coverage of the BikeKC issue today. I do think the good press coverage had a positive impact on the development of this issue.

You know that now that BikeKC has passed the P-Z committee, it has passed its major hurdle. It is virtually assured of passage in the city council.

Here are my reactions to the P-Z committee's actions today, passing BikeKC on to the full council:


This may be the most important day in the history of bicycling in Kansas City.


BikeKC gives the City Council a chance to leave the legacy of a more beautiful and liveable city, a legacy that will be enjoyed by our grandchildren's grandchildren.

It will leave for the Kansas City of 20, 50, and 100 years from now, the same sort of legacy that George Kessler's Boulevard Plan, envisioned over 100 years ago, left for the Kansas City of today.


I applaud the city council for its far-sighted leadership.



Dr. Brent Hugh
bhugh@mwsc.edu
(816) 356-1740 (home)
(816) 695-6736 (cell)
5916 Arlington Ave
Raytown, MO 64133

posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
The more I think about it, I think giving some kind of presentation to city council members is a good idea. Politicians eat this sort of stuff up.

I'm very open to ideas about the specifics of it. We would need 13 of whatever it is we would give them. The best idea would be if someone would realize they had 13 extra bicycle trophies (or something) sitting in their basement that they could just give us to use with practically no cash outlay.

Or maybe one of you bike shop owners can think of something you could give us a nice discount on 13 of, and then some bike clubs or individuals could make a few small donations to cover the rest of the cost?

Or maybe KCBC or some other club has 13 T-Shirts they could donate to a good cause?

But in the meanwhile, here is a possible plan:

Get 13 yellow T-Shirts printed up

They would say "Kansas City Rolls Forward -- BikeKC 2002"

Possibly include KC logo if we can figure out how at reasonable cost

Possible to say something on the other side (like "One Less Car" or
"Share the Road"--I would love to see either of those on Ed Ford's back!),
but costs more

It might be possible to make the money back if some enterprising person or group (bike club or bike shop?) wanted to print up more of them & sell them at events over a period of time.

To make 13 of these at All Star Awards & TShirts would be $217.35 without logo or $243.23 with logo (estimate from All Star). That's $16.71 or $18.70 each. That's front side only.

To make 36 would be $421.59 (with logo, one side only); that's $11.71 each. If 23 people would pay $18.50 for their own shirt, that would buy their shirts plus the 13 needed for City Council.

Additional copies of the same shirt would be $8.10 each (although they would add 15% because it' a rush order).

These are just their regular stock cotton Ts, so not really ideal for riding.



What say ye?
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Here is the best short summary of BikeKC I have been able to come up
with:

BikeKC is a plan to

* Add bicycle improvements to a network of already-existing streets.
This includes signs, bike lanes or wide curb lanes as appropriate,
hazard removal on these streets (grates, sunken manhole covers,
etc.), tuning the street lights, and other details.

* Create and encourage the creation of the infrastructure that
makes bicycling a viable transportation choice. Examples: bike
racks and bike lockers around town, showers in places of
employment.

* Encourage bicycling and educate bicycle riders and motorists about
safe practices.

* Reserve enough right-of-way in new developments so that new
streets will have enough room available for bicycle and pedestrian
improvements (improvements will not be added automatically,
unfortunately, but at least the right-of-way will be there).

* Put new Design Standards into Kansas City's Major Street Plan
specifying how roads with bicycle improvements will be designed.

* Create some off-street paths. BikeKC is a transportation
plan, though, so the (approx.) 10% of the routes that
are off-street are there only because they serve a
transportation purpose (and to placate the head of
the committee that had to pass BikeKC, who opposed on-street
improvements and vigorously lobbied to put all available
resources into off-road paths and also suggested banning
bicycles from certain "dangerous" streets).

You can find Kansas City's own summary of the plan (including street
grids and Design Standards) at

http://www.kcmo.org/pubworks.nsf/web/kcbike1

For easier-to-view (but slightly out-of-date) graphics of the street
grid and other info, see

http://www.bikekc.org

The plan is hard to summarize because it is a complex interlocking web
of legislation, amendments to legislation, policies, procedures,
plans, budget proposals, funding proposals, recommendations,
committees, and so on. You can see that even KCMO's web site just
lists different examples of what will happen and doesn't ever say
something like "here is the complete text of the Bike KC plan".
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
I'm sure you all know that there is some controversy in the bicycling community about bike lanes.

I don't think there is any controversy about the benefit of having some extra space on the right side of the road to make riding more comfortable and, possibly safer, for bicyclists and motorists who pass them. The controversy is simply about whether this extra space should be striped as a bicycle lane or simply as a wide curb lane.

Below is an interesting article I came across recently on the issue. It mentions several studies; unfortunately it doesn't give enough detail to know if these are really solid studies or not.

An interesting read nevertheless.

--Brent

------------------------------


Source: http://www.best.bc.ca/resources/spoke/paradigm.html
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
I heard the Walt Bodine Show today and it was great to hear so many people calling in to support bicycle facilities.

One thing I think was clear from the show is that we need to do a MUCH better job getting out the information about the safety of on-street bicycling.

Arguments about safety such as those made by Councilman Ford have been disproven by the hard data, long, long ago.

Let me summarize what is know by hard data:

1. Bicycling on-street is safer than cycling on off-road paths
or sidewalks.
2. Major roads are not necessarily more dangerous than minor roads.
In fact, major roads can be safer for bicycles for the same reason
they are safer for cars (better sight-lines; protected from cross-
traffic (the main cause of accidents); intersections better-controlled).
3. Well-designed on-road bicycle facilities can, in fact, slightly
increase safety of on-road cycling.
4. The dreaded "rear-overtaking" accident is, in fact, pretty uncommon
and we shouldn't let it dominate our discussion of on-road cycling
safety.

For more information, data, and sources to back up these "strange and wild" claims, read on . . .

- - - -

In _Effective Cycling_, John Forester tells the story of how motorist groups in California commissioned a study whose purpose was to demonstrate how dangerous on-road bicycling was, so they could ban cyclists from the streets and channel them into off-road bike paths--the very same type of argument made by Councilman Ford.

Their first study showed the exact opposite of what they wanted to hear. In fact, on-street bicycling, even on busy streets, was a couple of times safer then off-street bicycle paths.

Assuming that their small initial study must be wrong, the motorist groups commissioned a much larger, nationwide study. Again, the same conclusions were found--on-street bicycling is safe, and definitely safer than cycling on sidewalks, sidepaths, or off-street paths.

Here is a summary of results from a typical study:

Relative Danger Index Facility
---------------------- --------------------------------------------
(Safest) 0.41 major roads with bicycle facilities (marked
bicycle lanes)
. 0.51 signed bike routes (wide outside lanes &
signs only, no bike lanes)
. 0.66 major road without bicycle facilities

. 0.94 minor road without bicycle facilities

. 1.39 multi-use path

(Most dangerous) 16.34 sidewalk

"Relative Danger Index" basically tells you which facility is more or less dangerous per mile ridden.

- - - -

Three conclusions stand out:

1. Adding bike facilities increases safety. Probably most of
the safety increase comes from the increased road width, not
necessarily the little white stripes. But regardless, safety
does increase with BikeKC-style facilities.

2. Off-road paths are more dangerous than any on-street facilities.

3. Major streets can actually be safer than minor streets for
bicyclists.

None of these facts make any sense to the motorist, because the motorist believes, falsely, that the main danger to bicylists riding on the street is being hit from the rear.

In fact, being hit from the rear accounts for only about 5% of bicycle/motor-vehicle collisions and only about 0.3% of all daylight bicycle accidents in urban areas (remember that less than 50% of bicycle accidents involve motor vehicles, and these other types of accidents can be VERY dangerous).

In practical terms, this means that there are 8 or more accident types that are more common and more dangerous to bicyclists than the rear overtaking collision. All of these involve motorists that are to the front or sides of the bicycle.

Riding on the sidewalk, for instance, might decrease rear overtaking accidents but GREATLY increases all the other kinds (accidents at driveways, intersections, etc.).

By the same token, driving on "minor streets" might (or might not) decrease rear-overtaking accidents, but with poor sight-lines, more driveways, and intersections that are not controlled as well, it increases the other (more common) types of accidents.

- - - -

The statistics above come from William E. Moritz, �Adult Bicyclists in the U.S.�, Transportation Research Board, 1998. See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

Other studies, all of which come to the same essential conclusions:

Kaplan, Jerrold, Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User. FHWA,
1975. (NTIS Document PB 258-399)

Moritz, William E., Regular Adult Bicyclists in Washington State. ASCE
Transportation Congress, San Diego. 1995.

Kenneth Cross; Identifying Critical Behavior Leading to Collisions Between Bicycles and Motor Vehicles; Office of Traffic Safety, State of California; June, 1974

Cross, Kenneth D. & Gary Fisher; A Study of Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Accidents: Identification of Problem Types and Countermeasure Approaches; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Sept. 1977


posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
I came across the following interesting comment by Stephen Harding (harding@cs.umass.edu) in rec.bicycles.misc today:

---------------------------------
The state road entrance into my home town used to be four lanes with
extremely narrow shoulders. A tough ride for a bicyclist because
motorists used the straight four lanes as their big opportunity to
pass a car or two before a sharp turn and lane drop into town.

A bicyclist had to face speeding cars, and ones often pissed off because
you are now restricting their inside lane for passing, forcing them
to have to slow.

The state dropped a lane from each direction and painted in nice wide
shoulders. Not "bike lanes"; just wide shoulders. Too narrow to serve
as a lane, but nice and roomy for a bicycle.

Speed on that road has dropped, as have accidents, and the bike ride
into town on it is vastly more enjoyable!

I certainly don't have a problem with designated bike lanes along the
side of the road, but I definitely believe just providing the space
for each type of rider, without necessity of explicit markings, and
everyone will largely get along together on the same roadway.

But the space does have to be sized correctly. Too narrow and the path
doesn't help with bicyclist safety. Too wide and it becomes a de facto
car lane for impatient motorists.
---------------------------------

I think we ought to do more advocacy of this kind of re-striping around the Kansas City area. It probably is not appropriate for every single four-lane road in the metro area, but off the top of my head I can think of a dozen four-lane roads in my area that would be better off for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians with the kind of re-striping treatment outlined above.

With such a treatment, cars lose the opportunity to "go fast" by zooming around slower vehicles. But this is ADVANTAGE of this plan, not a disadvantage. Lower maximum speeds make safer roads for everyone (vehicle drivers most of all). Higher speeds (especially involving this sort of "zooming" behavior) equal more accidents and, because of the higher speeds involved, accidents with more serious injuries. This goes for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists who may have the misfortune to tangle with the "zoomers".

And, again on the plus side, many communities find that this type of re-striping actually increases average vehicle speed because traffic is smoothed and flows better. There is room for right- and left-turning cars (and stalled vehicles!) to pull out of the through lane, so the through lane tends to move at a much more constant, moderate speed. With our typical four-lane roads (four narrow lanes and no shoulder), right- and left-turners and stalled vehicles end up at a dead stop right in the middle of a traffic lane. This isn't a good situation for anyone.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Since we're thinking about bicycling planning in KC (and dare I ask everyone, again, if you haven't already done so, to write a short note to the city council, plan to attend the hearing August 7th at 1:30pm, and send a short letter to the editor of the Star, Pitch Weekly, and any local newspapers in your area?), I thought you might be interesting in this article that has some thoughts about making urban areas friendly to bicycling and walking:


Sprawl, Mega-Roads, Community, and Bicycling, by Mighk Wilson
http://www.living-room.org/bikepeople/mega.htm

---------------------------
[excerpts from the article]

Now is the time to develop strategies that team vehicular cycling concepts with those that curtail encouragement of unnecessary single-occupant motor vehicle trips. These concepts include increased densities that make walking, transit, and cycling more efficient; putting an end to subdivisions with access only via a major collector or arterial; transit-friendly development; and siting schools, shopping, and other community services in closer proximity to residential areas, and preferably within them. Once this type of community design becomes common, it becomes easier to justify roads with lower design speeds and capacity. The need for the higher capacity pedestrian- and bicyclist-unfriendly roadways mentioned earlier is reduced as people discover they are finally able to use modes other than the private automobile. Shade trees (which have often been removed to improve sight lines for high-speed driving) can be returned to our neighborhoods.

. . .

I won't presume to speak for other cyclists on this last point. But I myself want to live in a place where I can cycle on any road in town without a second thought. I'm a very confident vehicular cyclist, and think I can handle any situation the engineers throw at me, but I would prefer that my trips by bike be on roads with slower speeds, shade trees (especially important here in Florida), and intersections that are simple and straightforward to negotiate. I want the engineers to quit trying to make collectors and arterials into freeways.

------------------------

I second that last bit, particularly "quit trying to make collectors and arterials into freeways".

For instance, I live about 200 feet from Raytown Trafficway. I have been questioning more and more why it is necessary and why it is beneficial to our community to have three 40MPH+ "freeways" cutting right through the heart of Raytown. (Those would be Raytown Trafficway, Blue Ridge Cutoff, and 63rd street).

These "freeways" certainly scare off pedestrians (and, as a side effect, have killed the downtown area).

They certainly scare off most people from even attempting to cycle on those (main) streets.

It seems like traffic moving at 25-30MPH would be preferable to "freeways" from many points of view.

And a 25MPH or 30MPH speed limit would lengthen the typical motor vehicle trip scarcely at all. Many studies have shown that motorists' AVERAGE speed in urban areas, doorway to doorway, is something like 13MPH. All a high speed limit like 40 or 45MPH does is give motorists permission to briefly hit a HIGH speed of 50-55MPH in between stoplights. This makes motorists feel like they are really covering some ground fast. But in realistic terms, the two main effects of this high maximum speed are to scare off pedestrians and bicyclists and to get the motorists to the next red light quicker so they can wait there longer.

IMHO.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
I came across the following interesting article today. It gives an idea of how much federal funding is available for bicycle facilities (billions . . . ) and how all this came about.

Also it has some practical suggestions about what needs to be done to get the bicycle facilities done at the local level.

--Brent



------------------------------------------------


Complete article at http://www.bikeleague.org/mediacenter/medprs10.htm -- excerpts below from:

Outside Magazine
January 2000
AN UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITY: What gets the equivalent of 1,000 miles per gallon, doesn't pollute, will save the world, and transports you in breezy style? Your bike.

. . .

So why isn't our government investing in bicycling? Actually, it is. And much of it is because of one man, a Democratic Congressman from Minnesota named James Oberstar.

"In Washington, there are workhorses and there are show horses," says Jim Berard, Democratic communications director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "Oberstar is a workhorse. He's not here to get headlines; he's here to get work done." Son of an iron miner, Oberstar went to Haiti to teach English before there was a Peace Corps. When he returned, he worked in Washington as a staffer for 12 years before winning his seat in the House in 1974. But it wasn't politics that made Oberstar a leading bicycle advocate.

"As a kid I bicycled all the time, but I left bicycling for many years," says the 61-year-old Congressman. "Then, in 1984, my wife got breast cancer. She had chemotherapy, radiation, everything. The doctor suggested bicycling as a way for her to regain her strength."

Oberstar, a stocky, muscular man, and his wife, Jo, started bicycling together. Several years later, however, the cancer came back. Jo Oberstar passed away in July 1991.

"I was drained and exhausted," Oberstar recalls. "I didn't know what I was going to do with myself, so I went for a bike ride. You see, cycling had become a way of life for me. It's how I regained my energy, my strength, my focus."

That bike ride may have changed the course of history. At the time, Oberstar was a member of the Public Works and Transportation Committee. "After World War II, the federal government started the interstate highway system," says Oberstar. "Forty-five years, 42,000 miles, and $129 billion later, the project was completed. It's ironic. Bicyclists had started the push for paved roads, and in the end, they'd been pushed right off of them. It was time to re-envision transportation in America, and that's what our committee was up to."

In part as a tribute to his wife, Oberstar began to push hard for pro-cycling legislation. In late 1991, President Bush signed into law a new federal transportation program called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA, pronounced "ice tea"), which, among its many non-asphalt provisions, stipulated not only that bicycles must be considered in all transportation plans, but that bike paths must be funded. "Because of the enhancement provisions for bicycling in this bill," Oberstar says, "we spent $734 million dollars on bicycle paths in America in six years." In 1995, Oberstar became the ranking Democrat on the Transportation Committee. "a position of real power," says The Almanac of American Politics, "even in a Republican Congress." In 1998, ISTEA was updated and refunded under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Again, Oberstar pressed for and won federal funding for bicycle paths. "There is three to four billion available for bicycling in the next six years," he continues. "It's there; communities just have to come together--bicycle manufacturers, bicycle retailers, city planners, cyclists, everybody--and make a plan and ask for it. Bicycles can become a permanent part of the American transportation culture. The challenge is to make bicycling a serious means of commuting for as many people as possible."

Bicyclists and bicycle coalitions across the country are attempting to do just that. To go back to the future, back to the bicycle.

"We have just won TEA-21 funding to build a 2.5-mile bike path along the river in central LA," says Ron Milam, executive director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. "Another 1.8-mile section is on the drawing board. Within two years, people will be able to ride into downtown Los Angeles on bike paths." This in a city that is the urban paradigm for the ills of the car culture. Milam says that his organization's dream is to create a bicycle transportation corridor along the entire 51-mile length of the Los Angeles River. "It only makes sense. People should be bicycling to the video store, bicycling to the park, bicycling to a friend's house."

Philadelphia received $11.7 million from ISTEA and 300 miles of bike lanes were planned. Relentless pressure by the Bicycle Coalition of the Delaware Valley managed to get only 100 of those miles on the ground. "You can never go to sleep and let the city take care of it--they won't," says Sue McNamara, director of the Coalition. "It takes bicycle advocates to make it happen. There's a ton of money out there for bicycling, but you need visionary people to lead. You not only have to get your city to go after the money, but you have to stay on their ass to get the bike facilities actually built."

To reintroduce the bicycle as a legitimate means of transportation, McNamara led the Coalition in getting $424,000 to fund the nation's largest school bicycle education program. "We are creating a whole curriculum that teaches bicycle education," says McNamara. The Coalition will also be installing new bicycle racks at every high school and middle school in Philadelphia. We talk about how kids don't bike to school anymore, but they need bike racks for their bicycles. Even more important, they need to know that bicycling can change the world."

. . .


------------------------------------------------
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 


Came across this interesting post on usenet today, re: bike lanes:

-------------------



James Hodson wrote:

> The genreal feeling amongst the UK cyclists I've met or
> corresponded with is that cycle-specific lanes at the side
> of a road are more trouble than they're worth. I, myself,
> have several times been a target of similar comments to
> those you have mentioned. Or worse :-)
>
> My own opinion is that if everyone - cyclists, motorists,
> et al - were allowed to move in their own fashion along
> the highway, and if all the road users were aware of that
> fact, then there would be less friction between the various
> groups.

Hi James,

I think part of the reason people disagree so vehemently on this topic is
because bike lanes themselves vary so much from location to location. I
travel to London frequently and about a year ago I rented a bike for the
weekend and did a bit of riding -- the City to Greenwich, for example. The
experience was entirely different from that of riding in Chicago, and the
bike lanes in particular were far different. First, the "city of broad
shoulders" should really be called the city of broad curb lanes. There
tends to be room on most arterial roads to either share the lane or paint
a good, wide bike lane. In what I saw of London, there often wasn't room
for cyclists to do anything but take the lane with auto traffic, and the
narrow strips sometimes present that passed for bike lanes were alarming.
Second, in London it seemed impossible in many places to construct a bike
lane with any continuity. Streets are often quite short and the available
space changes as the route twists and turns. In Chicago, with its grid of
streets laid out when this was empty prairie, I often ride three or four
miles in a straight line. Where there's a bike lane on those streets, it
goes on and on with few or no difficult bits. In short, I did not care for
the bike lanes I tried in London, whereas I often find them useful at
home. (Obviously I don't mean to slam London with these observations. It's
all in the cities' differing histories, and in any event, I only saw a
tiny sample. I'm curious how the bike lanes I saw in tourist London
compare to those in the rest of the U.K.)

Similar differences exist within the U.S. I suspect that even the most
well traveled people nevertheless have in mind a picture formed by their
local environments when they comment on the pros and cons of bike lines. I
admit I do.

I don't want to sound like too much of an advocate because I don't think
bike lanes are all that important. I will certainly grant that a bad bike
lane is worse than none and an attempt to cram one in where it doesn't fit
is asking for trouble. Naturally I won't use a bike lane that places the
cyclist in the "door zone" or onto crumbling blacktop. I ride daily in
streets that have no bike lanes and where there is one I get out of the
lane to pass or turn or otherwise as needed. However, I really do think
they make cycling easier many of the places I ride, creating a laminar
flow of traffic with less turbulence in the boundary layer than wide curb
lanes alone. They act as a constant reminder to motorists that cyclists
are present, define a zone where cars are not permitted legally and few
venture in fact, and (on sufficiently wide streets) prevent auto traffic
from organizing itself into dual lanes of cars. They facilitate safely
bypassing long congested lanes of stopped cars, where some drivers would
otherwise try to squeeze through on the outside, others would pull over
enough to prevent them, and still others would drift over to try to get a
look ahead to see what the problem is. Where I have a choice of routes, I
often gravitate almost unconsciously to the streets with bike lanes. (I
suppose there is a chicken and egg issue there, as the characteristics
that caused the street to be selected for a bike lane are part of what
make it a pleasant ride, not just the striping itself.)

I'd be against bike lanes if I thought they were the first step down a
slippery slope, but I don't. That just doesn't seem to be where most
people draw the line. There is a big crowd out there that sees cycling as
a hobby or recreation to be pursued on bike paths, the way you ice skate
in a skating rink or play basketball on a basketball court, but those
folks don't want bikes in the street at all. The major demarcation is
between off-street mixed-use paths and the streets. The very existence of
bike lanes implies the sanctioning of transportation cycling, since such
lanes make no sense unless people are using the streets to get from place
to place by bicycle.

--

Paul Turner
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Hi all,

I just talked to John Stufflebean of Public Works about what would be most helpful for getting BikeKC passed Thursday.

I know we're all getting tired of hearing about this. Hopefully, it will be over soon (at least the first round--after it's passed we'll have to work to make sure it is implemented as planned!). But, once again . . .

John says that by far the most important thing is continue the flood of calls, emails, and letters to City Council members. So if you haven't written, now is the time, and if you have written before, it would not hurt a bit to write or call again. Emails/calls need not be long--mostly the idea is to register your opinion as a citizen in favor of BikeKC.

Another thing he says is quite helpful is having a good-sized group of people at the meeting Thursday. There is no public testimony, but we certainly can bring signs that might say things like "I like bikes", "I support BikeKC", "Vote for BikeKC", etc. John suggested that this can, indeed, be very helpful.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Kansas City, Missouri, is the country's 36th-largest city and the Kansas City metropolitan area is the 25th-largest metropolitan area in the U.S.

Kansas City has never had a bicycle transportation plan and the number of bicyclists in the city is quite low. Kansas City has been called "the most bicycle-unfriendly city in the U.S."

BikeKC is a plan to change that situation over the next 20 to 40 years. The plan has been in the works for over ten years, starting with a citizen-led policy guide entitled F.O.C.U.S Kansas City. The BikeKC proposal grew out of the citizen recommendations in F.O.C.U.S.

BikeKC has been held in the Kansas City Council's Planning and Zoning Committee since about last September. The committee chair has had serious reservations about the safety of on-street cycling as well as the cost of dedicating an increased amount of right-of-way in new developments for possible future bicycle improvements.

I am please to report that the Planning and Zoning Committee met last Wednesday, August 7th, 2002, and sent the BikeKC plan to the full City Council with a "Do Pass" recommendation.

A full report on the committee meeting and its aftermath follows.

What is BikeKC?
===============

BikeKC will:

� Add bicycle improvements to a network of already-existing streets, about 600 miles total in several phases. Improvements include signs, bike lanes or wide curb lanes as appropriate, hazard removal on these streets (grates, sunken manhole covers, etc.), tuning the street lights, and other details.

� Create and encourage the creation of the infrastructure that makes bicycling a viable transportation choice. Examples: bike racks and bike lockers around town, showers in places of employment.

� Encourage bicycling and educate bicycle riders and motorists about safe practices.

� Reserve enough right-of-way in new developments so that new streets will have enough room available for bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

� Place new Design Standards into Kansas City's Major Street Plan specifying how roads with bicycle improvements will be designed.

� Create some off-street paths. BikeKC is a transportation plan, so the (approx.) 10% of the routes that are off-street are there to serve a transportation purpose. There is a separate plan (MetroGreen) that deals more specifically with off-street facilities.


The Bike Parade
===============
Our "Bike Parade" to the committee meeting was a great success and a lot of fun. We estimated over 60 riders joined in--not bad for a ride on a Wednesday afternoon that had only been announced a few days before.

The ride showcased many typical features of Kansas City streets, such as potholes, sunken manhole covers, 8-inch round sunken "holes to hell" with their metal covers entirely missing, viaducts with narrow lanes, one-foot shoulders and no pedestrian facilities, and a monster bike-eating grate quite capable of gulping down four or five cyclists at a time.

There were no known casualties.

At the conclusion of the Bike Parade we circled around the City Hall block. We had enough bicyclists participating that we encircled the entire block. We pretty well overwhelmed bicycle parking facilities in the area (at least there *are* some facilities now; I understand that this is a recent improvement).

When I spoke to the committee, I informed them that we had them surrounded and invited them to immediately surrender, but there were no takers.

I noticed the Kansas City Star and Channels 4, 5, 9, and 41 covering the event.

Photos of the "Bike Parade" can be viewed at

http://65.64.114.185/CityHallRidePixAndFlyer.htm


The Committee Meeting
=====================
Over 50 bicycle supporters were present at the committee hearing, where they heard an excellent presentation about BikeKC by Public Works staff. Committee Chair Ed Ford directed and focused the discussion with considerable skill, asking all the right questions and not allowing important points to slide by without clarification.


Striped Bike Lanes vs. Wide Curb Lanes
--------------------------------------
Public Works staff proved to be very articulate and well-informed about cycling issues. During the public comment period, a bicyclist mentioned the controversy over striped bike lanes vs. wide curb lanes. Public Works staff seemed well informed about this issue. Under questioning by Ford, staff indicated that they feel bike lanes will be appropriate in some situations and wide curb lanes appropriate in others. The BikeKC proposal itself does not lock us in to either option, but allows discretion. At Councilman Ford's suggestion, Public Works indicated that they will outfit a few streets with improvements, seek input from the cycling community, make changes and refinements as necessary, and proceed in that fashion as more and more streets are added to the plan.

This is an issue of some importance to bicyclists. Let's communicate well with Public Works as BikeKC improvements hit the streets.


Developers Ask for a "Delay"
----------------------------
A representative of developer's interests spoke, and asked the committee for a further delay so that industry could study the problem. Cyclists found this request somewhat disingenuous, as developers' need for more time to "study the issue" is clearly the main reason BikeKC has been held in committee since last September.

Councilman Ford quite firmly indicated there would be no further delay in committee, but scheduled BikeKC's appearance before the full City Council for August 15th rather than August 8th, in deference to industry's need to "study".


The Right-of-Way Issue
----------------------
An excellent presentation by Public Works staff compared the right-of-way set asides in various cities in the metro area. Before BikeKC, Kansas City's right-of-way requirements were on the low end, compared to these other cities. With BikeKC, the width Kansas City developers will be required to set aside for right-of-way is about in the middle of the pack.

It is unfortunate that Kansas City cannot be the metro area's leader on the right-of-way issue, but BikeKC represents a huge step forward for the city.

Bicycle lanes or wide curb lanes will not automatically be built in this new right-of-way when new streets are built. Rather, developers will fund the "basic" street facilities and federal funding will be sought to add the extra paved area needed for bicycle improvements.

From the bicyclists' perspective, the ideal situation would be wide curb lanes as a minimum facility on all newly constructed or re-constructed streets (certainly on all arterials and collectors). Many cities around the country have made this their policy.

But BikeKC still represents a tremendous improvement over Kansas City's current situation. Until now, wide curb lanes, or even so basic a facility as a paved shoulder, have rarely or never been considered for Kansas City arterials and collectors.


Bicycle Proponents' Testimony
-----------------------------
Bicycle proponents talked about liveability issues, economic issues, economic benefits of bicycle tourism, how KC compares to other cities, safety issues, need for alternative transportation, funding issues, integration between bicycling and public transportation, off-road paths vs. on-street routes, and other issues (some of them detailed below). Public testimony was well-received by committee members and led to some lively discussion with committee members and Public Works staff.


Most U.S. Cities Have Bicycle Transportation Plans in Place
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Crawford of the Johnson County Bicycle Club talked about a recent study that looked at impediments to increasing bicycle use in cities across the U.S. He pointed out that "city lacked a bicycle transportation policy" was rarely a problem in U.S. cities (it was 13th of the 16 items on the list, as I recall). This indicates that most U.S. cities have a bicycle policy in place (in fact, as I understand it, such a policy has been required under ISTEA and now TEA-21).

Here, Kansas City is behind the curve--but with the passage of BikeKC, we'll at least be *on* the curve, and that's an improvement.


Kansas City is Currently Bicycle-Unfriendly
-------------------------------------------
Bob Albright, owner of Midwest Cyclery, talked about the bicycle friendliness of Kansas City as compared to several other cities he has lived in. In his experience, Kansas City is the most bicycle-unfriendly city. He has been in several auto-bicycle accidents cycling in Kansas City, far more than he has ever experienced in years of cycling in other cities. All of the accidents were the motorist's fault and were due to motorist inexperience with bicycle traffic.

In all cases (except the hit and run, when for obvious reasons Albright did not have chance to talk to the driver), the drivers indicated that they *thought* they would have plenty of time to pass the bicyclist and make a right turn, turn left in front of the bicyclist, make it through the intersection before the bicyclist arrived, and so on. The motorists simply did not comprehend the fast speeds at which bicycles can travel.

Albright's testimony indicates the need for motorist-safety education in Kansas City. Motorists often don't know how to deal with bicycle traffic because they have rarely encountered it and they have never learned about it.

Brent Hugh pointed out in his testimony that studies have shown that the bicycle accident rate drops when cycling increases. A 100% increase in bicycling leads to only about a 25% increase in accidents. Hugh pointed out two reasons for this:

* motorists who see bicycles often, expect to see them and
learn now to deal with them

* motorists who have recently ridden a bicycle treat other
bicycle riders with greater care

Larry Frevert of Public Works mentioned that as the plan moves forward there is provision for education of bicyclists and motorists and appropriate enforcement of laws applying to motorists and bicyclists, that help reduce unsafe practices.

According to many bicycle advocates, education is the single most important factor in increasing bicycle safety. Studies show approximately a 5-fold difference in accident rate between bicycles who follow known best practices and those who don't.


Federal Funding Now Requires Consideration of Bicyclist Needs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Both Hugh and bicycle advocate Randy Niere mentioned the fact that TEA-21 requires consideration of the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in any new construction and
re-construction of city streets that received federal funding. I think we as bicyclists need to press to receive this consideration more often and more vigorously. The work we have done to get BikeKC passed is a good step in that direction.


Advantages of BikeKC for Motorists
----------------------------------
Hugh pointed out the advantages of BikeKC for motorists. He mentioned the obvious advantages of less congestion, less road wear, more parking, and faster speeds because giving bicyclists some space means motorists will not have to wait for "those darn bicyclists". Hugh demonstrated that if the little figures of bicyclists are whited out of the diagrams, the roads proposed under BikeKC look an awful lot like good wide roads with a nice paved shoulder. Kansas City motorists often complain about the narrow lanes and lack of shoulders on major Kansas City arterials and collectors. BikeKC will improve that situation.

(Diagrams of the proposed street plans can be seen at www.bikekc.org)


Novice Bicyclists On Arterials
------------------------------
Chair Ed Ford voiced his concerns about the safety of bicycle lanes on major arterials. He is concerned that bicycle improvements will encourage novice cyclists to begin cycling on arterials with heavy traffic and high speed limits.

Hugh responded by telling his experience living near Raytown Trafficway. Like many arterials, it is the only through route in the area. This fact forces even novice bicyclists to use Raytown Trafficway already, even though it has no special bicycle improvements. It is very often the only route between Point A and Point B. Hugh frequently observes such cyclists on the trafficway; often they are extremely inexperienced and employ such dangerous techniques as wrong-way riding.

Hugh suggested that arterials are already bicycle facilities under state law; the only question is whether we are going to improve them to make them a little safer for the bicyclist and more comfortable for the motorist, or leave them in their present less safe, less comfortable configuration. On-street improvements might discourage unsafe practices such as wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding.


The Necessity of Transportation Alternatives
--------------------------------------------
Niere spoke eloquently about the need for bicycle improvements from the perspective of a cyclist who, because of disability, relies on cycling as basic transportation 365 days a year. He spoke of other cyclists he sees who daily ride busy streets filled with fast-moving heavy trucks, not for fun or exercise, but because it is the only way for them to get from home to work.

Another advocate mentioned the importance of bicycles as a way to extend the reach of Kansas City's mass transit system. She emphasized the importance of transportation alternatives to those for whom the automobile is not an alternative.


Conclusion of the Committee Hearing
-----------------------------------
In the end, BikeKC received a "Do Pass" recommendation from the committee, with Councilman Nash and Councilwoman Williams-Neal strongly in favor, and Councilman Ford opposed. Councilwoman Bonnie Sue Cooper, who has strongly opposed BikeKC in the past, was absent from the meeting.

Councilman Ford concluded by thanking BikeKC supporters for running a congenial and effective campaign. He asked those who had ridden to the meeting to stand (about 90% of those in attendance), and then asked those who supported the proposal, but hadn't come by bicycle, to stand with them. He joked that the only person left sitting was a reporter who was "trying to maintain his neutrality".

The meeting showed that Kansas City cyclists are willing to, literally, stand up and be counted when the heat is on.


The Next Step: The Full Council
===============================
Being passed out of committee was the crucial step; we are quite sure there are votes on the city council as a whole to pass the measure when it comes before them on Thursday, August 15th, 2002 at 3PM. The City Council meets on the 24th Floor of City Hall, 414 E. 12th St., Kansas City, Missouri.

Please plan to come out to the meeting if you can. There will be a ride (see below).

This is our chance to help the Kansas City Council remember for a LONG TIME that Kansas City has bicyclists who speak up and vote.

The next time they're trying to brush off the need for taking bicyclists' needs into consideration on newly constructed or re-constructed roads, by saying "Well, we don't think any bicyclists ever ride here", or "We can just go ahead and ignore the bicyclists, because they never speak up", they're going to have to think again. We can gain a lot of momentum down at City Hall, that will pay off for some time to come.


Please Write the Full City Council
==================================
If you support BikeKC and have a connection with the Kansas City area, we again invite you to write the Kansas City Council. In your letter or call, politely and persuasively express your opinion about BikeKC.

Our courteous and non-confrontational approach has really paid off in Kansas City. Let's continue it.

Committee members at the hearing today indicated that our flood of mail, email, and phone calls had a significant impact on them. Now we need to do it again for the full council.

Contact info for council members can be found at

http://griffon.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/bikekcsummary.html

The Kansas City Star's report on the ride and committee meeting are at

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3818950.htm

Info & updates about BikeKC are available at

http://www.bikekc.org


Another Ride
============
We are again planning to ride to City Hall for the meeting.

We will follow the same route as before (leave from Berkley Riverfront Park, near I-35 and E. Front Street, in the area of the Isle of Capri Casino).

We will depart about 2:00PM on Thursday, August 15th, 2002.

We're calling it a "Victory Lap".

A printable PDF flyer for the ride is at

http://65.64.114.185/city-hall-ride/CityHallRideVictoryLap.pdf


Thank You
=========
Thanks to all those who supported the effort by coming out to the ride and to the meeting, by being involved in any number of other ways, over a long haul (that is not *quite* over yet).
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 

KMBC had a story about a bicycle commuter Monday, and related this to BikeKC.

Fox4 news interviewed several people about BikeKC Monday, including Councilman Ford. The story will air Wednesday on the 9PM or 10PM news.

The four television stations and newspapers that covered the bike ride to City Hall last week have been informed about the ride to the full City Council meeting Thursday. At least one station has responded that they definitely will be there.

There is a long article about the BikeKC hearing last Wednesday, in Kansas City infoZine (http://www.infozine.com/). There is also an announcement of the upcoming ride to the City Council meeting Thursday.

You probably saw Mike Rice's article about the committee hearing in the Kansas City Star:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/3818950.htm

Thanks again for your interest in and support of this issue.

If you have any particular issues or concerns you would like me to address when I speak to the council at the business session, please let me know. Since we will only have a very limited amount of time, I would like to spend it addressing what would be most helpful to you.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
As soon as I sent the previous message about BikeKC media coverage I realized I had forgotten two items:

A letter to the editor in the Kansas City Star supporting bicycling:

(http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/3850529.htm)

An editorial brief from the Kansas City Star about the BikeKC hearing:

(http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/3838552.htm)
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
ress release
For immediate release

Contact: Dr. Brent Hugh
5916 Arlington Ave
Raytown MO 64133
(816) 356-1740
bhugh@mwsc.edu


BikeKC Supporters Present "Yellow Jerseys" to City Council

Presentation to take place at City Council Business Session, 1:45 PM, Thursday, August 15th, 2002, City Manager's Office, 29th floor of City Hall


The Tour de France is a long, grueling bicycle race in which the lead usually changes hands many times. At the conclusion of this year's Tour de France, Lance Armstrong received the coveted "yellow jersey" to symbolize his triumph over the many difficulties.

BikeKC is a proposal to integrate bicycling into the transportation mix of Kansas City, a city that has been called "the most bicycle-unfriendly city in the nation".

BikeKC has faced a long, grueling battle to come before the full Kansas City Council. It represents years of work by Public Works staff and by the Kansas City Council's Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee.

Because of questions of safety and cost, the fate of BikeKC has been in question many times. Only a strong grassroots campaign and strong support from several members of the City Council have rescued BikeKC from oblivion.

After being held in committee since last September, on August 7th BikeKC was passed along to the full City Council with a "Do Pass" recommendation from the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee.

Thursday, August 15th, at the City Council Meeting, BikeKC will come before the full City Council. Prospects for BikeKC in the City Council are quite good.

In recognition of the hard work put into BikeKC by Kansas City Council members and staff, and the long battle which has been fought and now appears to be ending in passage of BikeKC, Kansas City BikeKC supporters will present City Council Members with yellow "victory" jerseys.

The presentation will take place at the City Council Business Session, 1:45 PM, Thursday, August 15th, 2002, City Manager's Office, 29th floor of City Hall.

At 2:00PM, the BikeKC "Victory Lap" ride will leave from Berkley Riverfront Park, south on grand to Crown Center, north on Main/Walnut to 12th street and then to City Hall.

At 3:00PM, the full City Council will meet to vote on BikeKC. The City Council meets on 24th Floor of City Hall, 414 E. 12th St., Kansas City, Missouri. Best guess as to when BikeKC will come up on the agenda is 3:30PM.

With the passage of BikeKC, all Kansas Citians will be winners.

If BikeKC passes Thursday, it will be the most significant day in Kansas City bicycling since the invention of the bicycle.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 

* You've probably all heard that BikeKC passed the City Council today by a vote of 11 to 1/2 (the "1/2" being Ed Ford, who, in a hilarious slip, voted "aye" and then quickly caught himself and changed to "nay"--taking the average of these two, I conclude it is a 1/2 vote).

* Thanks to all who have contributed in any way to the LONG fight to get this proposal developed, get it out of the committee, and finally get it passed by the full council today. I know many, many people have been involved with this over a period of years, and ALL of them should be vigorously patting themselves on the back right now!

One way the "big guys" beat down grassroots movements like bicycling is by s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g things out with delay after delay. In a grassroots organization, people just start to lose steam after a while--there are only so many times in a row you can miss work (or whatever) to come to a boring meeting on a Wednesday afternoon. Meanwhile, the big guys just love delays because the more boring meetings they have to attend, the more they get paid.

So the fact that we outlasted them says something good about us!

* Special thanks to all those who have put up with my many, often repetitive, emails over the last weeks. I think things will return more to normal now.

But--I have to say that BikeKC is the BIGGEST thing ever to happen in Kansas City bicycling. Today I called it the biggest day in Kansas City cycling since the invention of the bicycle. I don't think that is an exaggeration.

And the KCBicycle email list has absolutely been ground zero for BikeKC. It is very fair to say that without KCBicycle, BikeKC *may* not have passed, may have been subject to further delay (in hopes of letting it die of obscurity), almost certainly would have been subject to amendments that would have diluted it greatly, and almost certainly would NOT have passed with such an overwhelming majority.

Our campaign of writing, calling, emailing, riding, attending, and notifying media really, really, REALLY paid off.

This has been an astonishing example of the power of the internet to organize. The only hard expenses have been a couple of mailings I did to bike shops, and the T-shirts. All the rest has been entirely organized online--something that simply could not have been done 15 or 20 years ago. Our type of campaign would have been MUCH more expensive or much more ineffective just a few years ago.

So let's remember what we HAVE DONE and what we CAN DO!

And thank you all again!

--Brent
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 

A Bicycling Column in the Kansas City Star
==========================================

Executive Summary
-----------------
The passage of BikeKC represents a watershed event in Kansas City bicycling, but increasing bicycle usage requires a change of culture. The Star is in a unique position to make that change happen. There is a large audience with moderate interest in cycling and a smaller--but still good-sized--audience with intense interest. Countless topics of interest to cyclists are available--easily enough interesting topics for a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly column. Coverage of current and upcoming cycling events would round out the column.


Detailed Explanation
--------------------
* Reason: The approval by the Kansas City Council of the BikeKC proposal this week is a watershed event in area cycling history. Now that the "big gorilla" of the metro area has a plan in place, other nearby cities like Independence, Lee's Summit, Grandview, Liberty, and Raytown will have the incentive to complete the routes and facilities that will match up with those in Kansas City, Missouri.

But as the BikeKC proposal was debated, Kansas City Councilwoman Becky Nace struck a fundamental theme when she emphasized that making the bicycle a viable transportation option in the metro area will require more than infrastructure. Far more than any kind of pavement, grates, or roadway stripes, it will require a change of culture.

Government can only do so much to change the culture. Business and media have a very important part to play in promoting bicycling and educating the public about it.

If bicycling is to become a truly viable transportation choice in the Kansas City area, it needs regularized, institutionalized, high-profile support and visibility. That is one place where the Star--and probably no other Kansas City institution--can help.


* Audience: Bicycle events in the metro area draw surprisingly large crowds. Many regular, weekly rides draw 20, 60, or 100 cyclists every single week. Occasional events, like last week's "Tour de Blue" or this weekend's "Summer Breeze", attract hundreds of riders. Such events often have a charge of $15-$30, so this is a serious, paying crowd.

Such large organized rides happen most weekends in the spring, summer, and autumn. These events regularly attract audiences as large as or larger than many cultural events featured in the Star.

These events typically attract riders from upper-middle income levels, with a considerable amount of income to spend at their discretion.

Area bicycle trails are often so crowded on weekends that they are dangerous to ride.

The metro area supports over 25 local bike shops. And general merchandise stores like Walmart, general sporting goods stores, and toy stores probably sell far more bicycles than the specialized bike shops.

Every one of the bike shops is the center of a small universe of bike-riding friends, groups, teams, and organized rides.

Online forums that cater to KC-area cyclists are very active and have hundreds of subscribers. When I was promoting rides in support of BikeKC, one area bike shop owner mentioned that she maintains an email list for important bicycle-related announcements with about 1000 subscribers. Then another bike shop owner happened to mention that she, too, maintained a (separate) event announcement list with around 1000 subscribers. Several other area shops probably maintain such lists, each with a thousand or more subscribers.

Area bicycle clubs have hundreds of paying members, and relatively few active cyclists bother to join an organized club.

A very large percentage of the general population owns a bicycle and bicycles occasionally. A smaller core group cycles several times a week for longer distances. So as far as potential readership goes, there is a general interest in bicycling among a large part of the general population, and a smaller, very committed core who will follow every word.

Cyclists tend to love cycling and become passionately interested in all things bicycle. Such passionate devotees may not be the largest audience but they would likely be engaged and loyal.

Area governments and transportation authorities are planning to greatly increase cycling over the next decade or so. So the audience will only increase.

Education is known to be the best way to increase bicycling safety. So the column would provide an important public service.


* Subject matter: The column would deal with any subjects related to cycling. It would center around subjects of interest to everyday cyclists in the metro area, as opposed to racing or other activities that are more "elite".

I would see the column as being very similar to the weekly columns by music or arts columnists. It could also be seen as similar to a computer or business column, in that it would address current equipment, developments, and trends. It would address a topic (or topics) of interest and also provide short briefs on current items such as upcoming rides, events, or projects.

A list of possible subjects is below.


* Frequency: I could see a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly column. John Forester's book _Effective Cycling_ is 577 pages long, and each page easily suggests one or two topics of interest to cyclists. So there is no shortage of material, even neglecting all the local issues, events, personalities, and locations.


* Author: In order to cover the wide range of bicycle-related areas, issues, and perspectives, I would suggest having a main author/editor who would write perhaps half the columns and deal with the topical listings in each column. The other half of the columns would be written by a wide variety of guest columnists. Such guest writers could be area bicycle coordinators, transportation engineers, trail coordinators, bicycle club officers, bicycle advocates, cycling instructors, and other notable personalities. Such guest authors could give perspectives on off-road biking, racing, touring, family riding, trail riding, commuting, utility riding, and other such topics.

The main author would have to be someone very knowledgeable about cycling, have many contacts in the area cycling community, preferably be well known and respected in the local cycling community, and, of course, be a good writer. (You are probably the leading candidate, Mike . . . )


Possible topic areas:
Focus on various trails or segments, such as Blue River Parkway
trail or Katy Trail.
Focus on big upcoming events or rides.
Personalities, such as local riders who tour cross-country,
participate in MS150, ride with disabilities, organize Bikes for
Kids, maintain trails, commute, etc.
Interviews with interesting cyclists or advocates.
Profiles of interesting local cycling groups, teams, organizations.
Cycling advocacy information.
Advocacy alerts; notice of important public hearings;
information about such events as the banning of
bicycles from 83rd street in DeSoto.
Promotion of good riding practices. Explanation of safest
riding techniques. Accident avoidance.
Driver education for motorists as related to bicycling.
Ride or tour reports.
General discussion of types of equipment, such as recumbents,
trikes, tandems, bike trailers, trailerbikes, etc.
Simple bike repair/tune up tips.
Issues of interest to cyclists, such as right to the road, cyclist
rights, legal issues, liability issues, best routes, places to ride
(on-street or off-street).
Recent research related to cycling.
Safety equipment.
Health issues.
Bicycling technique & practices.
Teaching children to ride; teaching them to ride safely around the
neighborhood.
Reviews of cycle-related books, software, web sites, other online
resources.
Recently installed cycle facilities and improvements.

posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Letter sent to the KCStar in response to and editorial cartoon about BikeKC:

Lee Judge's editorial cartoon (8/17) pointed out that now that Kansas City is fixing roads for bikes (Council approves addition of bike lanes to KC streets, 8/16), we should start thinking about fixing them for cars, too.

One of the little-known facts about BikeKC is that it includes the potential to create smoother, better roads for automobiles as well as bicycles.

To the motorist, BikeKC's plans for new roadways look an awful lot like good wide roads with paved shoulders (what you or I would call a "shoulder" is labeled as a "bike lane").

Bicycles are more sensitive than autos to rough roads, potholes, eroded street cuts, depressed manhole covers, deteriorating curbs and pans, and so on. Allowing that bicycles might occasionally ride anywhere on the road--for instance, when making a left turn into or out of a mid-block driveway--the Transportation Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides up to 90% federal funding for hazard elimination over the *entire* roadway, not just near the edge.

Such funding can be sought for any of our pre-existing streets that have been designated as BikeKC bike routes.

KC Public Works has received some federal grants for this purpose and, now that BikeKC has passed, should vigorously pursue more.

The only shame is that we cannot make *all* Kansas City roads signed bicycle routes and eliminate hazards from them all.

If bicyclists are the excuse we need to finally start building and maintaining good roads in Kansas City, then so be it.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Jeffrey Hiles has some very interesting ideas about marking bike lanes that seem to have the potential to solve some of the traditional problems with them.

Just for example, he suggests solid striping on streets with higher speeds, dashed striping on medium streets, and simple painted bike symbols with no striping on other streets.

You can read the specifics (my summary above simplifies considerably) at

http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch8.html

See especially the last section entitled "Bike lane design and mental models".
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
I hope you will all have a look at MARC's TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK 2030, particularly the chapter on bicycling. You can see it at http://www.marc.org/transportation2030.htm and send feedback to lrtp@marc.org.

I won't bore you with my lengthy ramblings to MARC, but here are the points I made about the plan:


1. Off-street bike paths seem to receive more space and emphasis in the document than on-street cycling. I think this should be reversed.

My points in regard to this:

1a. Each mile of Bike Route enables cycling on approximately 20 miles of nearby streets. Thus we will end up with a couple hundred miles of greenway routes but about 20,000 miles of on-street routes plus "enabled streets" connecting with them.

1b. The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connections it enables. Thus, the value of the on-street bicycling network is roughly 10,000 times the value of the greenway network.

1c. Greenways are shared-use facilities (in intent and fact) and thus should be listed in a separate section and not lumped together with bicycle facilities. I suggested something like "Pedestrian/bicycle element". With the Greenway section removed, the bicycling chapter starts to look pretty sparse . . .


2. It should be explicitly acknowledged that we already have an extensive network of bicycle facilities in every area city and county (they're commonly known as city streets).

One of the reasons encouraging vehicular cycling is such an attractive option is that so much of the needed infrastructure is ALREADY there.


3. It strikes me that AT LEAST as much of the impediment to cycling in our area is culture/education as infrastructure. (The plan does mention this.)


4. I would advocate a minimum facility of wide curb lanes on all newly constructed or re-constructed roadways. I wish MARC could/would explicitly recommend this but I am not sure if they can or will.


5. I especially like this: Encourage communities to "implement mixed-use developments and neighborhoods that are more conducive to bicycling."
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Here is the media coverage I know about concerning BikeKC, since the measure was passed.

* As far as I know, all local TV news programs covered the approval of BikeKC by the City Council. I saw a shot of the famous "Yellow Jerseys" on Channel 9.

* KMBZ radio interviewed some bicyclists and did a story on BikeKC.

* The KCStar's Mike Rice covered the BikeKC events in City Hall Thursday. See

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/3872600.htm

* The KCStar's Lee Judge drew an editorial cartoon related to BikeKC.

* The KCStar's Mike Hendricks wrote a complimentary column about BikeKC:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3891498.htm

There are probably many others that I missed.
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here

 
Press release
For immediate release

Contact:
Brent Hugh
5916 Arlington
Raytown MO 64133
(816) 356-1740
(representative of grassroots movement supporting BikeKC;
as I like to put it, a non-spokesman for a non-organization)


"Pedalling Towards Progress": BikeKC Hits Kansas City Streets

Kansas City, Missouri, is the namesake of the 25th largest metropolitan area in the United States. It also happens to be among the last of the large American cities to pass a bicycle transportation plan. Last week, after ten years of planning and a year-long political struggle, BikeKC finally passed the Kansas City council by a vote of 11 to 1.

The vote was the culmination of ten years of planning and at least a year of political struggle to get the plan passed.

Kansas City, MO, is better known as motorist's wonderland and industrial wasteland than progressive city. Light rail proposals have been defeated by large margins several times in recent years.

BikeKC is the first alternative transportation proposal to be approved in Kansas City since, in the 1980s, the bus, and before that, the trolleys.

BikeKC is a proposal to create a network of on-street routes around Kansas City, MO, with bicycle-related improvements, reserve a little more right-of-way in future developments for pedestrian and biking improvements, educate motorists and riders about bicycling, encourage bicycle-related infrastructure such as bike racks and showers at work, and upgrade the city's street design standards to consider the needs of bicyclists. The idea is to better integrate bicycles into the mix of Kansas City's transportation choices.


Held in Committee
-----------------
In September of 2001, BikeKC was brought before the Kansas City Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee.

A large group of cyclists attended the first meeting. The hearings were continued for several committee meetings; as discussion on the plan progressed, at least two of the four committee members, including Chairman Ed Ford, developed strong opposition to BikeKC based on cost and safety concerns.

After several meetings, BikeKC was put on hold indefinitely.


Out of Committee
----------------
In June, bicycle advocates spoke at a council business session, and Mayor Barnes and other council members asked Mr. Ford to send BikeKC to the full council, with a favorable recommendation or without.

A column by KC Star columnist Mike Hendricks alerted cyclists to this development, and a major grassroots campaign began, including many email messages, flyers, and media attention. On August 7th, over 60 cyclists rode to City Hall for the crucial committee hearing.

Bicycle proponents at the hearing talked about liveability issues, economic issues, how Kansas City compares to other cities (one speaker called Kansas City "the most bicycle-unfriendly city in the U.S."), safety issues, the need for alternative transportation, funding issues, integration between bicycling and public transportation, off-road paths vs. on-street facilities, and how BikeKC benefits motorists.

Public testimony was well-received by committee members and the final result was a "Do Pass" recommendation for BikeKC, by a vote of two to one.

Councilman Ford concluded the committee meeting by thanking BikeKC supporters for running a congenial and effective campaign. He asked those who had ridden to the meeting to stand (about 90% of those in attendance), and then asked those who supported the proposal, but hadn't come by bicycle, to stand with them. He joked that the only person left sitting was a reporter who was "trying to maintain his neutrality".


Before the City Council
-----------------------
BikeKC came before the full City Council eight days later, on August 15th, 2002.

Before the main council meeting, a few opponents and proponents spoke at the council's business session. We presented City Council members with yellow jerseys reading, "Kansas City Rolls Forward--BikeKC 2002", but told them that to keep the jersey's, they had to pass BikeKC.

That afternoon there was another ride to City Hall, this time for the full City Council meeting and the final vote on BikeKC.

Mr. Ford, as chair of the committee that dealt with BikeKC, introduced the proposal. Ford reviewed his objections of cost and safety, but (as he had at the committee meeting) spent at least half of his speech praising bicycle advocates for running a polite and courteous campaign. There is no doubt that bicycle advocate's continual admonitions to be "polite and persuasive" when contacting city council members paid off.

Councilwoman Nace and several other council members spoke eloquently in favor of BikeKC. Ms. Nace called this a historic moment in the history of Kansas City. She mentioned the several failed attempts to pass light rail proposals and pointed out that BikeKC is the first alternative transportation plan that has been adopted by Kansas City since the bus, and before that, the trolley.

She said, "We may not be travelling at the speed of light, but we are pedalling towards progress."

Throughout the meeting, Ms. Nace wore her yellow jersey. Councilwoman Williams-Neal, another strong supporter of BikeKC, displayed her shirt like a banner on the front of her desk.

The final vote was 11 for, 1 against. In a hilarious and perhaps Freudian slip, Mr. Ford first voted for BikeKC and then had to interrupt the proceeding to correct his vote.

BikeKC supporters knew they had a majority on the City Council. But the strength of the support and the lopsidedness of the vote was surprising.

Many thanks to all those who have supported BikeKC in any way. It has taken a major effort by many individuals over a *long* period to get BikeKC on the books.


What We Can Expect From BikeKC
------------------------------
I have called August 15th, 2002, the day BikeKC was passed by the KCMO City Council, the most important day for Kansas City cyclists since the invention of the bicycle. Finally, the bicycle is officially recognized as a legitimate transportation option in Kansas City, and design plans that take bicyclists' (and pedestrian's) needs into consideration have been entered into the city's Major Street Plan.

BikeKC is the lynchpin, not just of KCMO's, but of the entire metropolitan area's bicycle transportation plan. Now that BikeKC has been approved, we can expect to see Liberty, Independence, Raytown, Grandview, Lee's Summit, Kansas City, Kansas, and other neighboring cities complete bicycle routes that will interconnect with Kansas City's system.

Within about a year we will see the first phase of BikeKC's on-street routes hit the streets. This will include signed routes, striped bike lanes in some locations, placement of bike-safe grates, and other details. The first phase covers the area around downtown and the plaza south to 63rd street. The other phases may take as long as 20 or 30 years to complete.

From now on, any new or re-constructed streets should be built with bicyclists' needs in mind. Bicyclists (and pedestrians) should not be shy about asking that their needs be met in such construction, because federal law mandates it, regional transportation policy supports it, and now city policy encourages it.

BikeKC is a transportation plan (and complements the area's metrogreen program of recreational trails). A few off-street bike trails are part of the plan, including a 40+ mile route (including trails and on-street segments) from the River Market area, east along the Missouri River and southwest along the Blue River Valley to the Kansas State line.

Programs will be put into motion to educate bicyclists and motorists about bicycle transportation, to encourage businesses to provide things like bike racks for customers and showers for bike commuters, and in general to provide all the basics we take for granted when we drive our motor vehicles and have never yet considered for bicyclists.

Other cities have implemented ambitious plans like BikeKC and then never implemented them completely. So please stay tuned and keep the pressure on city government over the next 10-30 years as they work to execute plan they have finally approved.


For more information about BikeKC, visit http://www.bikekc.org
posted by Brent Hugh at Sunday, August 25, 2002 | permanently archived here