Some quick notes from Janet Miller's District VI coffee

This morning I attended Janet Miller's end-of-the-month coffee with constituents, held in its new venue of Mead's Corner. The chief order of business was to discuss the city's projected budgetary shortfall of $13 million for the next fiscal year and some of the measures being considered for dealing with it--some of which you may have read about here. Miller announced that on Wednesday, July 1 in the evening the Council will hold a public meeting in the council chambers. See this story in the Eagle for more information, including an e-mail address for sending your questions about the budget.

Given the subject matter, this wasn't among the cheeriest meetings I've ever attended. But after the meeting's official end, I spoke with Miller for a moment about my upcoming appearance before the Council and some admittedly-vague observations based on some things thought here about the Midtown path and the proposed path through the Delano District. It struck me the other day that, given the new central library's location and the potential for integrating activities between it and Exploration Place and other venues along the river, that might encourage the city to grant a higher priority to funding the Delano District path; when I mentioned this to Miller this morning, she agreed and gave me the impression that she had been thinking along those lines as well. When I mentioned that the path isn't quite in her district, she said that she is a strong advocate for that project and for the neighborhood. Good to know. It is, in fact, something of a shame (and with no offense intended toward the Delano District's other representative, District 4's Paul Gray) that the vagaries of district boundaries dictate that so little of Delano falls within District VI, given that strong advocacy (I think everyone there this morning was from Riverside--that includes the couple who self-identified as being from "North Riverside"). Regarding the Midtown path, she agreed with me that the potential is large for encouraging development and projects along its route that will make it an attractive space for residents. She mentioned to me that a couple of the schools along the route would be creating murals along the path, as well as other projects that would seek to integrate the path with the school's campus. For my part, I wondered aloud if some of the businesses along the path who, let's be honest, have sides facing the path that only a passing freight train could love, could be encouraged in some way to remodel their buildings so as to take the path into account--something along the lines of the Douglas Street streetscaping and facade improvements from McLean to Seneca.

In one way, talking with Janet Miller about such things is preaching to the choir: in each meeting I've had with her, she has never wavered in her commitment to cycling infrastructure and larger issues having to do with livable cities; today was no different, despite the fact that we had just been talking about a very large shortfall in the city's projected revenues for next year. That said, the city is not exactly awash in money just now . . . and even if it were, there's still the fundamental matter of changing hearts and minds so that the city (and the public) come to see that cycling infrastructure, if done right, can be a practical, long-term investment that will not only save the city money over time but also attract and keep people here as the city becomes a little more livable, a little less car-centric. Especially when money is tight, having this conversation becomes even more vital, even with those council people who already agree with you: they need to know their constituents' thinking so they can present--and represent--that thinking in their deliberations and voting.

Janet Miller's position on cycling-advocacy issues

As you may know, Tuesday, April 7 is election day for city council representatives in districts 1, 3 and 6. Janet Miller (link now fixed) is a candidate in the District 6 race, and last week I wrote her to ask her to speak to bicycle-advocacy issues and what if any measures she would support as a member of the council. This evening, I received her reply; it appears in full below. I should add that this isn't intended to serve as an endorsement of Miller's candidacy; I provide it here as a service to readers who plan to vote and/or for whom cycling issues are important:

Hi John –

Thank you for your inquiry about my position on making Wichita more bicycle-friendly. I am 100% behind efforts to move Wichita toward being a better place for cycling as an alternate mode of transportation. This includes supporting not only the addition of bike paths, but also moving toward the philosophy of “complete streets” that are bike/ped/car accommodating. As President of the Park Board, I have been actively advocating for this concept for a number of years. I think the City’s planning staff is moving more in this direction, but other City departments aren’t quite there yet. I am on a mission to help move us in this direction, which would include more bike paths, more on-road bike lanes, installing bike racks on public buses and in public spaces, and providing “share the road” education. Last fall, I participated in one of the local KDOT town hall meetings and advocated for the inclusion of bike/ped projects, funding, and incentives in the next 10-year transportation plan. I am also an advocate of the local annual “bike to work” event.

You certainly have my permission to print my answer on your blog, and I thank you for the opportunity to weigh-in on this important issue. My guess is that we have a number of acquaintances in common who enjoy cycling in Wichita (and who would enjoy it even more if we had the infrastructure to support it!) I look forward to meeting you in person one day soon. Let me know if I can answer other questions or clarify any of my answer.

Janet

Miller's opponent in District 6 is Bob Aldrich. I have sent him the same letter I sent to Miller; should I receive a reply from him before the election and have his permission to do so, I will post his reply here.

EDIT: In my District 6-centric frame of mind last week, it didn't occur to me that the candidates in the District 1 and 3 races might also have some thoughts on infrastructure as it applies to cyclists. Therefore, I'll be e-mailing those other candidates and posting their responses as I receive them, too.

Sharon Fearey responds

Some of you may remember this post, in which I posted some excerpts from an e-mail I sent to Sharon Fearey, the District 6 representative on the Wichita City Council. This afternoon, she e-mailed me a response. It appears below, in its entirety:

John,
First, let me congratulate you on becoming a bike-commuter. That is exciting. I agree that things in Wichita aren’t as bike friendly as they can and should be, but there are some things in the works that I hope will make it better. One of the big things we are doing in through our Park, Recreation and Open Space master planning project. Although this focuses on biking as recreation in a lot of ways, some of the suggested outcomes would work for commuting, too. The city is working toward connecting a lot of the bike paths we have so that they can be used to navigate through many parts of the city. We are also starting to focus much more on what we need to do to become a more pedestrian and bike friendly community through things like complete streets that are designed for all types of transportation. Although many of these things will still take years to implement, we are much further along in our discussions than we were when I first got elected to City Council in 2001. Finally, there is a plan to turn the abandoned rail corridor that runs along 17th Street into a bike path. Unfortunately, this plan does not have the backing of one of the Council Members, Vice Mayor Schlapp, who represent the area. The corridor also has a lot of utilities in it so a light rail system would be difficult in that location. I hope I have helped address your questions and concerns. Please let me know any time you need additional information.

Thank you,

Sharon

My initial response is it sounds as though some good things are in store for cyclists and pedestrians on down the road. As time permits, I'll do some poking around to see if I can find more specific information on the proposals she mentions. Time to get some education.

Also, I'll be interested in learning the nature of Ms. Schlapp's opposition to converting the 17th Street corridor into a bikepath. It goes without saying that if anyone reading this lives in Wichita's District 2 and has an interest in this subject, she'd be more likely to listen to a constituent than to some pedal-pushing blogger from near-downtown.

More to come on all this.

In which your correspondent finally confesses to have gotten religion . . .

. . . about this bike-commuting thing.

What follows are excerpts from an e-mail I sent this morning to Sharon Fearey, Wichita City Council's District Six representative (roughly, as this map shows, the northwest corner of downtown and points north and west):

Dear Ms. Fearey,

I write to you both out of ignorance and a desire not to take up too much of your valuable time.

[snip]

I was wondering if, in your contacts with other constituents or discussions with your colleagues on the council and at Visioneering Wichita meetings, you've had discussions about initiatives resulting in infrastructure improvements that would make streets safer and more amenable for cyclists, pedestrians, and public transportation. Some hasty searching didn't turn up any such discussions, but I could very well have just missed them. The Vision Document [pdf file here] does mention cycling, but within the context of recreation; it doesn't appear to address making streets bike-friendlier.

Many people in your district besides myself use bicycles not merely or only for recreation but as a practical mode of transportation, and I'm certain more would if they felt the streets were safer for them. The long-term health and economic benefits, not just for them but, indirectly, for all citizens (not to mention more local and global economic and environmental benefits), are indisputable, it seems to me. Thus, I respectfully ask you and your colleagues to consider bringing this issue up for discussion.

[snip]

One final question: to your knowledge, has there been any discussion of a future use for the abandoned railroad right-of-way between Wichita and Andover? I'd think that would be an ideal candidate for conversion to a trail or--may I dream a bit?--some sort of commuter rail route.

I'll post Ms. Fearey's response here when it arrives.