WAMPO meetings and WDDC doings

First, the WAMPO meetings: The next two will be on Tuesday, January 19th, at 1:00 pm., and Monday, January 25, at 1:30 p.m. Both will be held in the Large Conference Room on the 10th floor of City Hall. The initial list of projects to be discussed at these meetings is here (.pdf file). (Bike and pedestrian projects are on the first two pages; some of the bridge and road projects include bike and pedestrian accommodations as well, so be sure to look through the whole document.) I cannot say with certainty that all these are still being considered, but some of them are.

I will make the meeting on the 19th, but duties call on the 25th; I hope those of you with work schedules that permit such things will be able to attend. It's my understanding that warm bodies, there, being warm on behalf of these projects, count for a great deal. I would just make the quick observation that, yes, many of the road projects designed to expand capacity for cars will include 10-foot-wide multi-use paths, but it seems that the Powers That Be would save a great deal of money by building narrower sidewalks and making narrower lanes for cars that would then permit the addition of bike lanes on these streets. Assuming the same number of lanes for motorists and a modest amount of bike traffic, you'd actually increase the roads' capacity and save on construction costs as well. But maybe in these days of budget shortfalls, I'm deluded into thinking that more efficient use of transportation monies is a better idea than it in fact is. In any case, I plan to speak up on behalf of some bike lanes on the 19th, and I hope those of you in attendance will as well.

Now on to Wichita's downtown development. The overview for the downtown master plan--really more like a statement of principles and the justification for them--is here: as you can see in the presentation, the consultants the city has hired value walkability, which is, in the abstract, good news for us livable-city types. The next big public events will be on Thursday, February 25th from 5:30-8:30 p.m. at the Scottish Rite Temple, at which Jim Cloar will talk about the movement from planning to reality; and a charrette all day on Saturday, February 27th at the Wichita Art Museum. The gathering on the 27th sounds like it could be really fun. Thursday's, not so much, admittedly, but it's the people planting themselves in hard plastic chairs that get heard at these things. I'll actually be able to attend both of these, so I hope some of you will be there, too.

Front Porch Cycle Chic: A bicycle on every autarchist's front porch

[Welcome, visitors from Streetsblog(!), which was kind enough to honor this post with a plug on its current front page [update: and welcome to visitors from Carbon Trace, too]. I hope you enjoy your visit.]

The Roberts and Gregory families, Kentucky, early 20th century. Click on image to enlarge. Image found here.

What follows isn't exactly a continuation of yesterday's post. It's more like a picking up of another thread and unraveling a perfectly good idea from Front Porch Republic so as to hastily (and, no doubt, clumsily) re-weave it here in combination with other recent concerns of mine as a garment to hang in cycling's metaphysical closet. I'm not sure, incidentally, whether the following, famous injunction from Thoreau's Walden--"I say beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes"--implicitly condones or condemns that re-weaving. But if the latter, I take some presumptuous hope from George Bernard Shaw's statement, "All great truths begin as blasphemies."

Enough preambling. On with the ambling.

One of the central causes of what the writers of Front Porch Republic contend is our current cultural and political predicament is a perversion of our understanding of property and the resulting policies and politics arising from that perversion. This matter gets addressed directly in James Matthew Wilson's "The Need for Autarchy": Following Hannah Arendt, Wilson argues that that perversion is the result of "the specious conflation of the idea of private property (which Aquinas was right in defending as necessary to a good society) with that nefarious invention of modern usury, unlimited wealth accumulation." Here's Arendt, as quoted by Wilson:

Private property is not a euphemism for anything I happen to acquire, but a reference to the place in the world that is necessarily mine if I am not to be reduced to dependence on another. The way to secure such property is not usually to expand it and widen its frontiers (though that may sometimes be the case), but to fortify it, to fill it with the productive means necessary to maintain it and for it to maintain me. That kind of security and self-sufficiency-in a word, autonomy and autarchy-requires stewardship and conservation rather than expansion and avarice. Such virtues serve the purpose of having the property remain my property with a permanence approximating to the solidity of its literal foundations. [. . . ] [W]e reply to the capitalist that he does not defend private property but, instead, rationalizes endless wealth accumulation, and in so doing he does not defend the one, best hope for the wide distribution of private property. He advocates, rather, the source of its usurpation and dissolution.

Wilson then sums up Arendt's argument: Private property, once freed of market capitalism's co-opting of it, "is a public good but also provides for the individual household the basis for what is itself a great good, the foundation of a family’s liberty: autarchy [which literally translates from the Greek as "self-sufficiency" and thus is not to be confused with "autocracy"]. And the autarchy of the family household, I contend, is the analogous foundation, the microcosmic model, for still another public good: the sorely needed autarchic independence of our country." (Wilson's italics)

So: what does all this have to do with cycling in particular and, more broadly, issues of livability?

In the first "Front Porch Cycle Chic" post, I noted toward the end that "bicycles' practicality and portability create that version of independence that arises not from mere mobility but from self-reliance in all its senses." Surely one of those senses--or, perhaps, better put, that which is essential to self-reliance--is self-sufficiency. The automobile, while it evokes in the American psyche images of freedom and independence, in fact requires a massive, state- and corporate-maintained infrastructure in order to sustain those images on a mass scale; paradoxically, then, car culture has made us more dependent on both government and business, and less self-sufficient. Moreover--just to revisit the picture you see here within this slightly different context--car culture is both symptom and cause of our consumerist mindset: the automobile consumes and occupies those resources known as raw materials and not just the physical space it happens to occupy but, by extension, the physical space the automobile's infrastructure occupies as well: not just roads and parking lots, but car dealerships and repair shops, gas stations (and, for that matter, a goodly proportion of the petrochemical industry) and, in a more virtual way, the state bureaucracy devoted to the regulation of automobiles--even, indirectly, the space and resources occupied and consumed by the fast-food industry. Yet, as the events of the past year have made abundantly and painfully clear, if no one is interested in buying cars anymore--at least, not this country's current version of cars--suddenly they don't seem nearly as essential as they once did . . . even as their revenue-generating centrality to both commerce and the state has likewise become painfully clear via the loss of much of that revenue. The centrality of car culture to American life thus encroaches on the individual's access to private property as defined by Arendt; moreover, the direct and indirect expense of participating in that culture puts at risk our independence (both individual and national) from others--if not actively excluding many from autnomous participation in it by forcing them into dependence upon others.

As I have mentioned before, it was last summer, when I really paid attention to the fact that many of Wichita's street people and working-class folks use bicycles, that cycling revealed its practicality as transportation to me. Without at all meaning to suggest that we should not be concerned for the welfare of these people, clearly bicycles make their lives a little easier than they would be otherwise: they can cover more ground in search of work and shelter; and, as cheap as bus fare is, owning bicycles allows them to save that money for food and other expenses. A reorientation in our collective thinking in the direction of cycling as practical personal transportation and, at the governmental level, a rethinking of infrastructure (in the form of retrofitting existing streets, planning future streets, encouraging high-density, mixed-use development and discouraging suburban sprawl via zoning and mass transit) would, first of all, have the effect of freeing up some of the space and resources car culture demands. That freed-up space thus becomes more truly public in that greater numbers of people can utilize it. Granted, public space, very broadly defined, is not private property, but in its status as commonly-held property it enriches us, at its best, in a way best described as "aesthetic": culturally, intellectually, emotionally.

[Just a quick aside here: My misgivings about Critical Mass as a concept are connected to this idea. If it's an assumption of Critical Mass that motorists monopolize public roads at the expense (and to the endangerment) of cyclists and pedestrians and thus, in political terms, constitute a tyranny--one I don't necessarily disagree with--it's counterproductive to what should be cyclists' larger cause, gaining and earning the respect of motorists as equal users of those roads, when Critical Mass events in other areas (I cannot speak of Wichita's Critical Mass), at their worst, supplant the tyranny of motorists with a tyranny of cyclists. The fact that it occurs for a few hours on one Friday night a month doesn't make it any less tyrannical. Public space by definition should--and must--always be safely open and accessible to all who seek to use it.]

So, then, due to their lower costs and vastly-reduced demands for resources and infrastructure, the increased and encouraged ownership and use of bicycles presents itself as a means by which many, many more of us can enhance our holdings of private property as Arendt defines that term: that which frees us of dependency on others. At the same time, I'd like to suggest, larger numbers of folks going about their daily business by bicycle also fosters a stronger sense of and appreciation for place and, ideally, can lead to an enhancement of that place's self-sufficiency, its autarchy. In "Cycling in the rain" I try to make the case that cycling by its very nature shapes the cyclist's thinking according to a localist bent. By way of winding up that post's recognition of the Delano District's need of one/a few small full-service grocery store(s), I wrote:

No: cycling can't make corner markets appear in a neighborhood. But I think that cyclists, by being alert to and patronizing their neighborhoods' products and services, can play a role in affirming the community as a place unto itself, with a measure of (economic) sovereignty relative to the city that surrounds it. To tar with a broad brush: cars encourage us to leave the immediate area, to perhaps even see that space as in some way lacking, and don't encourage us to get to know the neighbors--they insulate us from a community's "weather," from its nature. Bicycles encourage their riders to take stock of that same area's resources and, at least in my own brief experience as a cyclist, to see it as richer than they once thought it to be. Far from being "flat" economically, the business topography of healthy communities is varied and often surprising.

Car culture, and all that car culture hath wrought, will not disappear any time soon. But it seems clear that in the decades to come it will not be as pervasive a presence as it currently is; it will no longer be the designated driver, as it were, of the thinking behind infrastructure decisions. Given the enormous individual and collective costs of car culture, I am far from mourning this. So, while I share much of the collective dismay of those over at Front Porch Republic regarding the enormous economic, political and cultural mess in which we find ourselves, I also see signs--and, via the seat of my bicycle, some of the means by which--we can begin to work our way out of those messes . . . and reinvigorate our understanding of and appreciation for community and, in the bargain, become more individually and collectively self-sufficient.

UPDATE: Here is Andy's Springfield-centric version of what I'm after and will pursue in a future post. Thanks again, Andy, for the plug and kind words.

Some new links you may be interested in

Pirates' Alley, in New Orleans' French Quarter. Imagine some spaces like this--a mix of shops, restaurants, and residences, through which automobile traffic is severely restricted--in Wichita's downtown, the Delano District, the 21st Street area, etc. A fella can dream, right? Image via the Project for Public Spaces, about which more below.

Over the past couple of days, I've run across various places and linked to them over in the right gutter. I don't have a real sense of how often those link lists even get looked at, much less used, so I wanted to round up a few of the more significant ones here.

First and foremost, I want to note for you the recent appearance of River City Cyclist in the still-small but expanding Wichita cycling-blog universe. Though it's still early in its existence, Robert, its creator, is thinking big: he even has a separate forum set up. I hope you'll link to him and pay him a visit.

As I mentioned a couple of days ago that I would do, the gutter now features a list of U.S. blogs in the style of the venerable Copenhagen Cycle Chic. Yes: the pretty-girls-on-bicycles aesthetic has its own immediate and obvious virtues; my larger intention in linking to them, though, as I said the other day, is to encourage Wichitans during these days of envisioning what a more livable city could look like to look at these images and ask ourselves, Why can't we have an urban core and a Delano District that foster this, too, along with paths and bike lanes from outlying areas into those areas--and not just on weekends? A city whose streets feel safe enough for women to ride bicycles in street clothes becomes a safer city, period [EDIT: Right on cue . . .]--and, not coincidentally, a city where people (and their employers) will want to live and work.

More imagination-candy: Take a gander at the Project for Public Spaces--a visual treat for those of us who look at all those wasted or underutilized lots and buildings in Downtown, the Delano District and elsewhere in the city and imagine what could be done with them. The concept is a simple one: Attractive, multi-use public spaces not only attract visitors; with the right planning, they attract businesses and residents, too. Located at or near transportation crossroads (in our city, that would be things like intersecting bus routes and bike lanes/paths), they can become the focal points for high-density development that, if done right, creates spaces where people genuinely live--like, for example, shop for food there and not have to leave the neighborhood to get groceries--and not just sleep in overpriced loft apartments.

At any rate, Project for Public Spaces is part of a small gathering of links over in the right gutter called "Community, Urbanism, Policy, Politics." If this sort of stuff is at all interesting to you, I hope you'll spend some time clicking and following links . . . and not forget to attend some meetings.

June 11: WAMPO (events) Gone Wild!

Thursday, June 11 has turned into a significant day for anyone interested in the future of Wichita's and Sedgwick County's transportation infrastructure--which is very likely you, if you're visiting this blog. On that day, the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WAMPO) will be hosting two events of major importance. I know I posted one of these in my previous post, but for convenience's sake I'll re-post it here.

As I already noted, on the 11th from 1:00-2:30 WAMPO will be hosting the Complete Streets webinar in the City Council chambers. You can learn more about Complete Streets here.

But as if that weren't enough transportation wonkiness in one day for you, this morning via Jane Byrnes I received the following announcement:

You are invited to attend a WAMPO Open House.

When: Thursday June 11, 2009

Where: Water Center, 101 E. Pawnee, Wichita, KS

Time: 4:30p.m. – 6:00p.m.

Stop in anytime between 4:30p.m. – 6:00p.m. and get the most up to date information regarding the 2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

A brief summary of the TIP can be found on the WAMPO website: [here]

As I noted in my post on the Delano Neighborhood Association meeting, the City's representatives could not have stated the matter more bluntly: People who speak up in favor of issues gain their collective ear (and money)--if enough people talk it up enough. Those of you in the area who, like me, want and envision for Wichita a transportation infrastructure more accommodating of alternate and public transportation--the 11th will be your day to be a warm body in support of that vision. As I've been saying in various ways in these last few days, I sense we are at or very near the point where we can tip the discussion in this city in the direction of gaining more attention and resources for alternate transportation and the larger issue of how to make Wichita a more livable city.

I'm planning to be at both events. I hope to meet some of you there. I'll be easy to spot--I'll be the one glassy-eyed with optimism.

"You better ride, ride, ride, ride/Ride, ride ride awaaaaay": David Byrne talks up cycling's future

The cover of Pedaling Revolution. Image found here.

Over at Front Porch Republic, fellow Wichitan (and bike-commuter) Russell Arben Fox posts an excerpt from David Byrne's recent New York Times book review of Jeff Mapes' book, Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists Are Changing American Cities. (Thanks, Russell, for plugging good old Cycling in Wichita in your post, and welcome, visitors from Front Porch Republic, to our front porch.) This is a new-to-me book, but it appears to be getting good reviews; furthermore, as Byrne reports, even though it at times appears to preach to the already-converted, it has material in it to ease the already-converted's efforts to evangelize to the whatever cycling's equivalent of the unchurched would be. And the price is right.

Of course, you should read the whole thing. But below, I've selected some passages in which Byrne, who says he has used a bicycle as his primary transportation in New York City for the past 30 years, surveys from his particular long view of things cycling's present and likely future:

Mapes finds the experience of riding around Portland [Oregon]— North America’s most bike-friendly city (though I think Vancouver is close) — so enjoyable that he takes as a given that it’s a positive thing, something that more communities should accommodate without question. But as he and I know, there’s a lot of opposition. The United States is as much a car culture as ever, even if the companies that helped make us that way are now in ruins. And governments and urban planners have all been in on the game, helping make the idea of cheap, effortless transportation and a car of one’s own a dream every American might aspire to.

[snip]

As Mapes points out, when more women begin riding, that will signal a big change in attitude, which will prompt further changes in the direction of safety and elegance. I can ride till my legs are sore and it won’t make riding any cooler, but when attractive women are seen sitting upright going about their city business on bikes day and night, the crowds will surely follow. [Aside: Anyone who has spent any length of time at Copenhagen Cycle Chic knows Byrne knows whereof he speaks.]

[snip]

Toward the end of the book, Mapes gets into debates over bike lanes (are they ­really safer?), safety rules (should cyclists have to obey stop signs?) and traffic ideologies (should cyclists claim a full space in a lane, or stick to the edge of the road?) that only an obsessive or an advocate (hello!) is likely to be interested in. But the debates he presents may end up helping us all. Greenways, safer bike lanes, pedestrian zones and bike parking places will make our cities not only more comfortable and enjoyable, but also, as Janette Sadik-Khan, the New York City transportation commissioner, said recently, more eco­nomically competitive as well, as more of them become places where people with ideas and creative ambitions want to both live and work. (Emphasis mine)

This last point may be the strongest argument cyclists and their allies have as they seek to gain the attention (and financial largess) of government officials: that bike-friendly cities are simply more desirable because more livable. I can't find it now, but a recent post at The Atlantic's website, Richard Florida noted an interesting correlation over the past year: the "greener" a city, the less the fall in housing values in that city. Translation: People want to live in places like that if at all possible. Property values remain higher in such places (translation: higher tax revenues). Relatively modest investments in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure are one way--and certainly not the only way--a city like ours can secure a brighter future in an economy that is going to change whether we're ready for it or not.

Another sort of Critical Mass?: Some observations regarding last night's Delano Neighborhood Association meeting

Image found here.

Thanks to Karen (she of Delano Wichita--her post on the meeting is here, by the way) and her kind note in a comment, I attended last night's meeting of the Delano Neighborhood Association (DNA), which had as guests two representatives of Wichita's planning commission to discuss progress on Delano's neighborhood revitalization plan (which, by the way, includes a rails-to-trails conversion that will cut an east-west route through about a third of the breadth of the neighborhood)--and surprise (to me) visitor, District 6 council member Janet Miller (An added bonus: a representative of the Wichita Public Library was in attendance, as well, ostensibly to talk about the library's summer reading program but who fielded questions about the new central library building, to be built in Delano). It was a pleasure to meet both Karen and Janet and, even though, as Karen phrased it, I actually live in "Greater Delano" and not in the actual neighborhood, I was made to feel welcome there. I look forward to attending future meetings.

Karen told me that last night's meeting was well attended--she'd done a good job of getting word out: all told, there were about 20 people there.

Some personal impressions later. First, though, a few words on the rail-to-trail project. Here's a summary description:

Convert vacated railroad right-of-way into a linear park with small plazas, water features and activity nodes; thus connecting neighborhood parks and expanded recreation opportunities in the neighborhood and the waterfront.

The route appears on the city's bike-route map as the tan line running about a block north of Douglas from the west bank of the river to two blocks west of Seneca.

As the description makes clear, this project would be very much in the mode of the recently-completed Midtown Bike Path--and will cost about the same amount of money to build ($1.7 million in all). And about that money: According to the handout given to us by the Planning Commission's Dave Barber, the money is currently in the city wish-list, but not until the 2013-2014 fiscal year. As I listened to the discussion, it was clear that everyone who spoke is in favor of getting this project done; indeed, the recurring question was, in essence, Why isn't this thing built already?--and one person mentioned the Midtown Bike Path by way of implying that Delano's wishes for something similar had been passed over in favor of the wishes of another part of town. Barber pointed out that the Midtown path had also been years in the making, from proposal to ribbon-cutting, and the solution to ensuring that the Delano project stays in the funding pipeline is to keep speaking up on its behalf in meetings and in letters to our representatives (Janet Miller and Paul Gray)

(Aside: as a first-time visitor to DNA, I'm afraid to say too much on this matter, but it seems clear that Delano folks don't feel that their wishes for their neighborhood always get acknowledged at City Hall.)

This project, it's clear, matters to Delano folks, not just in and of itself but also because it is the first step in the direction of achieving something larger, also mentioned in the Revitalization Plan:

Create a world-class multi-use neighborhood village, taking strategic advantage of proximity to Exploration Place, the Arkansas River, Downtown, and the Museum District. This will serve as a catalyst for additional fill-in and renovation.

A fuller description is here--scroll down about halfway to find it.

As I understand it, the linear park would run through that part of the Delano envisioned for this space and would itself serve as a catalyst for the development sought there. I will need to pick the brains of those in the DNA who are more knowledgeable about the initial discussions of the Urban Village, but it's clear from the description of the concept that it's very much in line with notions this blog has supported with regard to creating urban spaces that envision people actually living there--and not just in the Delano, either. Surely, there's space elsewhere for such a concept.

Some personal impressions, now, colored by both my usual optimism and by the fact that I'm going on first impressions. Last night felt like an important night for the Delano. On the one hand, there were folks who have lived in the community all their lives and who love it and its potential but who, well, have been at this for a very long time (some of these folks are in their seventies and eighties). The changes they want to see, they know they will not live to see completed--thus for them, to borrow a phrase, the fierce urgency of now: they know how bureaucracies work, that once some money actually gets spent on something it's hard to shut it down until it's completed. On the other hand, it seems equally clear, thanks to folks like Karen stirring the pot, that the chance to get these things started on is stronger than it has been in some time. She told me, in fact, that she'd Twittered so much about the meeting that Cindy Klose got in touch to ask her if the station should send a crew to the meeting. (I told Karen that she should have said, "Yes--there will be people there with hand-painted signs!!") And even better, there are friends of cycling and livable cities on both the council and in the Planning Office: Janet Miller, whom I immediately liked, is every bit as committed to cycling in person as she is in writing, and she passed on to me the word about cycling allies in Planning.

So, like, good, y'know? But, again: my big lesson and reminder from last night is that true governance at its best, especially at the local level, is not top-down but a dialogue among citizens, elected officials, and administrators. It seems clear to me that, in the Delano at least, there's strong interest among residents for something better for their section of the city and strong receptiveness among those city officials who were there. But the twain need to meet--and keep meeting.

Some food for thought for the WDDC, the Delano District, etc., etc.

No time to comment on this (I shouldn't even have been reading what I'm about to link to--Finals Week, you know), but via Matthew Yglesias this morning comes this post from the excellent urbanist blog Greater Greater Washington, DC, on results of the steps that city took in the '80s and '90s to revitalize a formerly-moribund part of their urban core.

A couple of paragraphs:

DC created the DD in 1991 to shape the revitalization of DC's downtown. The office center of gravity had moved to K Street and the Golden Triangle, but as that area filled up, developers began looking back at DC's historic downtown. Planners wanted to avoid reproducing the Golden Triangle's monoculture of law firm offices, low level of ground floor retail, inactive sidewalks, numerous garage entrances and repetition of boring boxes. What to do?

The 1981 "A Living Downtown" plan recommended retail on F, G, and 7th Streets; hotels around the Convention Center, Thomas Circle and "Downtown East" near Union Station; residential development in the Penn Quarter and Mount Vernon Square, and offices around Franklin Square and Judiciary Square. In 1991, DC implemented zoning rules requiring residential units and arts or retail in various areas throughout downtown. The zoning also required transparent glass over a majority of the ground floors on certain streets, with entrances no more than 40-50 feet apart and no garage entrances.

To create an incentive for desired development, the DD created a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Any residential, arts and retail, or historic preservation exceeding the requirements generated TDR "credits" that developers could sell to projects in various "receiving zones," including parts of downtown, NoMa, the western half of the Golden Triangle, the Southwest Federal Center, and what's now the Capitol Riverfront (ballpark) area. Buying those credits would allow new buildings in those areas to reach the maximum allowable heights, creating an economic incentive for more housing, arts, retail and historic preservation downtown.

[snip]

The DD was a great success. Counting buildings currently under development, there will be 12,580 residential units, especially in the Penn Quarter and Mount Vernon Triangle, exceeding the goal of 12,410. Museums and theaters comprise 1,218,000 square feet downtown, concentrated around Gallery Place, beating the goal of 900,000. There are 1,600,000 square feet of retail plus another 400,000 in the pipeline. That falls short of the DD's initial 5,600,000 goal, but planners now believe that goal was probably unreasonable. And many historic buildings remain downtown.

Once the dust settles from Finals Week, I plan to come back to this in combination with some comments over at Momentum, the WDDC's blog--where, by the way, more people need to visit and comment.

Changing "default assumptions" about cycling: The case for the need to do so

Two recent news stories, one from Oregon and one from yesterday's Eagle, are worth addressing, especially as, to my mind, they serve as a fairly accessible entrance into something more existential I've been giving some thought to of late regarding my sense of the status of cycling culture in Kansas--or, at least, in Wichita.

The Oregon story comes by way of U.S. News and World Report and is rather provocatively titled, "Do Bicyclists Deserve to be Taxed?" It concerns a proposal before the Oregon state legislature to require cyclists "to pay $54 every two years for a bike registration - the same price as a car's registration." The argument in favor of the proposal is pretty straightforward: cyclists use the roads, just like motorists; therefore, they should contribute monies toward their upkeep. The arguments in opposition are varied but equally straightforward: a bike's wear and tear on the roads is minuscule in comparison to that of a car; many cyclists own cars as well and so would be asked to in effect pay double into the system; would cyclists be assessed this same fee per bike?; etc. As you might imagine, in bike-friendly Oregon this proposal is getting a fair amount of discussion. As you'll see in the article, some make an argument that I find a bit surprising: that cycling contributes so positively to the welfare of both cyclists and those who choose to drive--and therefore should be encouraged--that they fear the tax could persuade some to stop commuting via bike and discourage others from taking it up. Others, though, counter that the tax will go toward the maintaining of cycling infrastructure (in Oregon, that's not a small investment, either) which, it stands to reason, cyclists should be willing to fund.

I'd just push that last statement a little harder: while one can quibble with proposed amount for the tax (it strikes me as a bit high, especially if it's the same amount at which a car is taxed) or method of assessment (maybe there could be small surcharges for bike purchases and on certain ordinary but necessary maintenance-related items, such as tires, tools, etc.), the state should feel no reluctance to ask cyclists to be asked to help maintain the infrastructure which makes their cycling safer. Though bike infrastructure is relatively cheap, it's not free; having it is a privilege and not a right. Speaking for myself, this blog's implicit assumption is not to presume that the city and other governments owe cyclists anything in the way of infrastructure. Sure: I keep harping on wanting to see one or two genuine, right-through-the-middle-of Wichita, east-to-west bike paths or dedicated bike-lanes, that request isn't exactly on the Founding Fathers' list of self-evident truths. Or, at least it's not on the Kansas version of that list.

That brings me to the Eagle article, "Bob Aldrich says Janet Miller's mailer could mislead voters." The chief issue in the piece is whether Aldrich, in not permitting public comment at a meeting of a planning commission subcommittee, was in violation of citizens' right to petition if not in violation of committee rules. However, the commenter forwarded me the link because in the piece Aldrich addresses Miller's mailer's noting of Aldrich's not approving a proposal to link the northern terminus of the K-96 Bike Path with the north end of the I-135 Canal Path. Aldrich "opposed the bike paths because he felt the money would be better spent on the city's crumbling roads." The commenter also speculates that because of that oppostion, Aldrich hadn't responded to the e-mail I sent him and Miller, in which I asked them to state their thinking on cycling's place in Wichita's transportation scheme.

Perhaps the commenter is right that Aldrich is reluctant to state such views here, but I would be disappointed if that were the case. It's obvious that this blog favors more and improved cycling infrastructure for the city, but neither cyclists nor motorists would argue with Aldrich's position that the city's streets are in a bad way and urgently need attention. His argument is not only perfectly legitimate, it's also pretty compelling--especially during a time when revenue for infrastructure will be reduced for some time to come. If by any chance you or someone on your campaign committee is reading this, Mr. Aldrich, I sincerely ask that you consider speaking to this issue via this forum. I promise that the full and unedited text of your response will appear on this page. I'm not at all hostile to reasoned, reasonable discourse and debate--the John Brown picture notwithstanding.

And here's the crux of the matter for cyclists in Wichita: if the right to free-to-cyclists bike infrastructure isn't a self-evident one in Oregon, of all places, it's considerably less self-evident here. This seems borne out by, if nothing else, the fact that, of the 6 people running for city council in next Tuesday's election, I have received responses from two of them. I hasten to add that I don't resent their not having responded--they have campaigns to run, after all; it's not as though I'm a potential donor or someone who commands a great deal of political clout (the Underserved Cyclist demographic is still pretty small in this town, you've got to admit). It does seem to suggest, though, that when candidates speak of their vision for the city, bicycle infrastructure is on the periphery, as it were. This means that our task here is a rather different one--and, frankly, a more a priori one--and thus a very difficult one: to begin to shift the default setting for thinking about cycling from where it presently sits in the minds of many policy-makers and politicians (not to mention many citizens--cyclists as well as motorists). Here's how I put the matter the other day in an e-mail to Randy of Kansas Cyclist:

If the default setting for assumptions about cycling in this state--or in Wichita, for that matter [. . . ]--remains "middle-class white people tooling around on Saturdays by the river" and "Spandex-wearing racers in the Flint Hills," we're not going to see much money for even something as simple as sharrows, much less true bike-lanes or "complete-streets" projects.

So: projects may get proposed but don't get funding because, well, the powers that be don't see any evident need for them--"Look at all those bike paths not getting used during the week!" (That's because many of the paths don't actually go where many people work.) In the meantime, people who'd like to bike-commute stay off the streets, and then when the issue of bike lanes gets raised again, there's still no apparent need for them because there's (still) no one cycling on the streets. In the collective mind's eye, cyclists remain recreationists first, almost to the exclusion of any other conception. It all becomes a vicious circle/self-fulfilling prophecy (take your pick).

I'm interested in exploring some ideas on how to begin breaking out of that cycle that incorporate both national trends and things I and others have observed here in Wichita. As I have said many times before here, it's difficult to imagine a city better suited to a thoughtfully-planned on-street cycling infrastructure, in terms of topography and present size, than Wichita is. (The wind is another matter entirely, of course, but . . . oh, well.) The problem is that the right people (and the right number of people) aren't seeing this potential, in large measure for the reasons I mentioned above. This is something I'll be returning to as my schedule permits, both here and at the KTOC Bike and Pedestrian forum (which you should also join); in the meantime, though, I encourage you to give this thought as well and post your responses at your own places--and be sure to leave links here in comments or e-mail them to me

More catching up . . .

The poster-art for Art of the Bicycle, to be held this year on July 31. Image found here.

Some links of possible interest, some cycling-related, some not:

Cycling in Wichita has now joined the Streetsblog network of blogs. Streetsblog is part of the Livable Streets Initiative, a grassroots movement comprised of bloggers interested in urban transportation and infrastructure issues. I think what joining means practically for this blog is that they'll link to the occasional post here. So, like, cool.

Sunday's Eagle had a nice story by Denise Neil on Wichita's one-man local-blog aggregator (and very good friend of this blog and my other blog), Bobby Rozzell of Douglas and Main. Go and read, and note the passing reference to a blog kept by "a passionate cyclist." Given my long hiatus, I confess to cringing a bit when i read that . . .

That same article also makes reference to "a pack of opinionated Delano residents." The leader of that particular pack would be Karen of Delano Wichita: the place to go for news about the Delano and discussions of Delano-specific issues. The big news from her blog is that she and others have plans to begin a Farmers' Market in the neighborhood with a tentative opening date of the first Tuesday in June. If you're in the area and would like to express your interest in participating as a vendor or a shopper, visit Delano Wichita and/or write Jill Houtz at "jill DOT houtz AT gmail DOT com"

Here are two great new-to-me resources for loftier discussions of urbanism and community. Via Cordelia over at The Phenomenal Field comes Where's "Introducing Urbanism: Top Books for Curious Novices". The titles are accompanied by paragraph-length assessments of their respective merits. Meanwhile, via my friend and local blogger Russell Arben Fox of In Medias Res comes news of Front Porch Republic, a group blog where really, really smart people (Russell among them) write out of the common assumption that "scale, place, self-government, sustainability, limits, and variety are key terms with which any fruitful debate about our corporate future must contend." A good place to start, and certainly a set of ideas this blog has come to take as givens.

Over at Carbon Trace, Andrew interviews two Springfield, Missouri, bicycle patrolmen. Pictures and Fun Facts, including--who knew?--the fact that Cannondale builds a bike they sell exclusively to police departments. They like their gig:

“Officers on bicycles, from a public perception angle, are far more approachable than an officer in a car,” [Carl] Schwartze says. The public even approaches bicycle patrolmen more readily than officers on foot. There’s something about a bicycle that makes them seem all warm and fuzzy, I guess.

Unless you’re a criminal, that is. Their attitude shifts in an interesting direction.

“There’s nothing more fun than a foot pursuit on a bicycle,” Schwartze says, grinning broadly.

Heh.

Finally, just a quick note to thank you for reading. I was gratified to see visits here jump dramatically when I resumed posting--indeed, and curiously, the jump actually occurred the day before I started up again. But all that has less to do with me than it does with the fact that this town's cycling community has grown just in the brief span of time this blog has existed. The vast majority of visitors here come from either Douglas & Main (thanks again, Bobby) or Google searches for, well, blogs about cycling in Wichita. This little blog, haphazard and inadequate, is where they land. Here's hoping that it'll become more worthy of their visits here.

The need for a grocery store in the Delano

Imagine a couple of places like this in the Delano District. What more timeless place of business than the corner grocery? Image found here.

I don't know if anyone in the Delano District reads this blog, much less cares what I might have to say about its neighborhood revitalization plan, but here goes (again).

I have said at various times that Delano would immensely benefit from having a true grocery store and that such a business would seem to be central to achieving its vision of itself. Here, in full, is their plan's statement regarding "Neighborhood Character," with a crucial passage italicized:

The Delano Neighborhood has a wealth of resources, as identified in the SWOT analysis. In this case, character and identity are easy to create by revealing the heritage and history of the area. Preserving the character of homes and removing false facades from commercial structures to expose the original historical architecture not only celebrates the area’s architectural heritage but establishes the neighborhood as "timeless". Many of the most pleasant tourist destinations in the world are those that have timeless qualities - old Paris, Rome, colonial Bermuda... or closer to home- historic Charleston, Austin, New Orleans, or San Francisco. They also contain the most sought after real-estate.

Delano is a unique area of the City, and has the resources to establish itself as a high quality, people oriented, multi-faceted urban community. Ultimately, the average daily needs for a resident will be found within walking distance, thus fostering a greater sense of community through pedestrian interaction. The challenge is preserving that character once it is uncovered. This plan identifies the specific objectives that will ultimately preserve and enhance the character and quality of the neighborhood.

All this is well and good--really--but: The last time I checked, eating was an "average daily need" for people; and while the plan goes on to mention that a goal is to attract businesses to the area that will enhance its neighborhood character, the sorts of businesses specifically mentioned are places like restaurants, specialty shops, office space, "light industry," and single- and multi-family housing (though, it seems clear from the plan's language, multi-family housing is something they are wary of). Not one word about attracting a full-service grocery store. But here is the list of businesses described as "Grocery Stores" that serve Delano. No knock against Quik Trip, but a neighborhood that wants to compare itself to places like New Orleans, Austin and Charleston wants its people's grocery needs served by gas stations? Really?

I want to see the Delano District succeed in achieving its vision of itself. But it strikes me that that vision, at its most specific, really addresses only literal and figurative cosmetic issues. The most basic of a community's needs--the need for close access to a variety of good-quality, reasonably-priced food for daily living--seems to be not at all a consideration. The result, as I put it elsewhere, is that Delano, as well as places like it in other cities seeking to encourage people to live downtown but don't seem to seek out grocery stores as tenants, is "something like a bedroom community turned inside-out: now, people have to leave the neighborhood not to work but to buy food to prepare and eat."

(I would just note in passing that in New Orleans both the French Quarter and the Garden District have several corner grocery stores.)

Via my bloggy friend Ariel in Kansas City comes this announcement about his new neighborhood, in which he is raising a family and establishing a church in KC's arts district:

On Tuesday [January 6?] at 8 a.m. a grocery store will open its doors to the public. Cosentino’s Market Downtown will be located at 13th and Main, within view of the Sprint Center and Power and Light District. The new 33,000-square-foot store will all the typical shopping cart staples like meat, seafood, produce, bakery, liquor and floral departments… The store hopes to meet the needs of people who live, work and entertain downtown. A seating area designed for more than 100 people is equipped with tables and WiFi for lunch or dinner breaks.

Ariel goes on to wonder if the 120 or so parking spaces will be sufficient for customers, but I'd simply reply that such a store, given its stated hopes, probably anticipates that people will visit a couple of times a week rather than the once-a-week visits people tend to make to suburban stores.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily argue that a 30,000 square-foot store would be in keeping with the Delano's self-image, but surely a couple or three stores that collectively approach that square footage would be--especially if the Delano's Powers That Be are serious about meeting its residents' "average daily needs." And as for fostering a sense of community, I cannot put it any more succinctly than this, from the president and chair of the company that landed the grocery store:

"There is no greater catalyst to creating a livable downtown than a great supermarket, and in Cosentino's Downtown Market we have found the ideal tenant."