Some comments on the WAMPO MTP 2035 list

As I posted last week, WAMPO has arrived at a final list of transportation projects eligible for federal funds from 2010-2035. Here is that list (bike/pedestrian projects lead it off); and here is a map showing the locations of the projects.

First, a quick reminder of what WAMPO does, because that will have a bearing on some of the comments that follow. The Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is comprised of municipality and county officials, as well as other groups of various sorts who are interested in/affected by transportation and its infrastructure. WAMPO looks at proposals for transportation projects from Sedgwick County and the municipalities therein, plus Andover, and through a combination of consultations of federal funding priorities and guidelines, public meetings in the area and surveys of citizens, it determines which of those projects a) are eligible for federal funds and b) have broad-based support for their funding. (If you're truly obsessed about this sort of thing, you won't want to miss these long posts on WAMPO meetings back in January, here and here.)

NB: Just because projects made the final list does not guarantee that they will be built. Municipalities and the county will build these, or not, based on interest the public shows in them. The NW By-pass, for example, has appeared in several of these project lists but has yet to be built. WAMPO's next public meeting will be Monday, June 28 (here is the agenda); the official acceptance of the project list will be in July; what lies ahead now will be WAMPO's functioning in an advisory capacity from here until 2035 and, in a few years, beginning work on the new master plan for the area.

So. What do we have in the MTP 2035? Well: from the standpoint of cycling/walking infrastructure a mixed bag to be sure, but one that is beginning to reflect a positive shift in prioritizing bike/ped facilities. Some of that shift is due to the change of administration in Washington, but some is due to local attitudinal shifts among the public and in several municipalities in the area. Also, as I've noted in a couple of older posts on WAMPO, it officially is a neutral arbitrator regarding a project's eligibility for funds, but because it also compiles the various lists of projects from which the final one is drawn up, it too can determine, in a passive-aggressive way, those projects that would have greater value in reducing traffic (and thus pollution). As just one example, in the middle stage of the selection process for these projects, there were four lists prioritizing a different traffic consideration, such as bridge repair, reducing congestion, etc. Each of those four lists contained all the eligible bike/ped projects and funding to allow Wichita Transit to expand bus service in the area. Also, a little reading between the lines of this overview document--in particular p. 4, which addresses land use and environmental issues--suggests (to me, anyway), that WAMPO would like to see municipalities address the issue of sprawl. Thoughtful land use, such as high-density, mixed-use development, makes for easier decision-making when it comes to transportation infrastructure. In short, in this MTP are some quiet but clear suggestions to the Powers That Be regarding future planning.

All that said, one could still wish that more (and/or other) bike/ped projects had been proposed besides the ones here. The primary objective with the bike/ped projects is to create some connectivity among already-existing paths to make them more useful as genuine travel routes for cyclists. Thus, on the list there's the path that will connect the southern terminus of the Arkansas River path with the Gypsum Creek path's Planeview Park terminus, and the path that will run from McAdams Park (the north end of the Canal path) to Grove Park (the north end of the K-96 path). Both these paths should encourage bike-commuting from outlying areas on the east side of town into the downtown area. There's also the conversion of the abandoned railroad right-of-way from the 8th/9th street and I-135 exit to 17th and Oliver, a much-needed in-town east-west route which should also encourage bike-commuting into the urban core. These are all important projects, and we should be glad that they are there. But, once again, the west side of Wichita (by which I mean everything west of downtown) will see no bike/ped projects; nor is there one east-west route that is anything like the length of the Canal path and the Ark River path. The first omission remains a mystery to me; the second would easily (and cheaply) be remedied by a simple re-striping of a street like Douglas. Re-striping, though, is not yet eligible for federal funding, as I found out at a WAMPO meeting back in January. That sort of thing is for the city to decide--and for us to encourage the city to decide it. Something else to keep an eye on: a total of almost $10.4 million not earmarked for any one project but to be used for bike/ped projects over the course of the 25 years covered by this MTP. That kind of money can build lots of bike paths . . . or, if Complete Streets legislation passes Congress, re-design and/or re-stripe a lot of streets.

I should note that in addition to the stand-alone bike/ped projects, several of the road and bridge projects also incorporate bike/ped-friendly improvements. These will be mostly unsexy things like new sidewalks and pedestrian crossings at intersections. Still, anything that can contribute to lowering our disproportionate share of Kansas' bike/ped fatalities is more than welcome. It's also very gratifying to see funds for expansion of Wichita Transit into a grid-route system with commuter routes to outlying towns.

So, in short, MTP 2035 doesn't do everything we should want to see a diversified transportation plan do; on the other hand, though, if we squint at it in the right way, it serves as a template for where we should want to go. But infrastructure is in its essence reactive rather than proactive: it goes where the people are and reflects their priorities regarding land use and their preferred means of getting around. The government entities WAMPO serves are the ones who can be--who should be--proactive.

Douglas Design District Streetscape Improvement Plan: Some comments

Image found here.

Yesterday, while bumping around the Wichita blogosphere looking for stuff that might be of interest for readers of this blog, I ran across the Douglas Design District's streetscape improvement plan, which was submitted last month. The plan amounts to a re-imagining of three miles of Douglas from Washington east to Glendale (one block east of Oliver), and much of it will look very familiar to those who know that stretch of Douglas that runs from the river to Seneca (the plan even comes with a "Lessons Learned from the Delano District" appendix): a reduced speed limit (from 35 to 30 mph); two-lane traffic each way with landscaped medians from Washington to I-135 and, east to Glendale, one lane of traffic each way with a dedicated left-turn lane; curb bulb-outs that create space for buses to pull over at stops; wide, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks. But the Design District's plan differs in a truly important way: It is a full embracing of the Complete Streets concept, with dedicated bike and bus/parking lanes on both sides of the street.

If and when it's built, Douglas will serve as an effective demonstration of the most counter-intuitive argument in favor of the complete street concept: that reducing the number of lanes dedicated to cars and adding dedicated bike and bus lanes actually increases a street's traffic-bearing capacity and efficiency. The Design District report states again and again that, based on their modeling, eliminating two car lanes and adding the bike and bus lanes will not appreciably slow traffic flow, and the reading I've done elsewhere regarding other cities' experiences confirms this. As genuinely nice as it is to have Mt. Vernon as a smaller-scale Complete Street from the river to Broadway, that stretch (almost exclusively residential) just doesn't have enough traffic to demonstrate the truth of that argument. Given Douglas' literal and figurative centrality in Wichita, the evidence will be if not unavoidable, then at least more evident to more people.

No: I will rarely if ever ride my bike on that stretch of Douglas. But the point of infrastructure is not to benefit the few but the many. Complete Streets don't benefit only cyclists and pedestrians at the expense of motorists; they're designed to make streets safer and more efficient for everyone who uses them. The even greater good, meanwhile, will be that other neighborhoods will see this and begin dreaming dreams for their own major thoroughfares. And you know the rest.

Lavonta Williams' position on bicycle-advocacy issues

What follows is the statement just sent me by Lavonta Williams, candidate for the District 1 seat on the Wichita City Council, the elections for which are this Tuesday, April 7:

John, I am sorry it took so long to respond - but I am very interested in increasing the opportunities of bike paths within our Wichita community. All of us should be intersted - no matter which district because I for one want to make the connections across the city. I sit on a Health & Wellness Coalition and we are looking at the possibilities of Wichita being involved in Complete Streets. It looks as if there might be 2 more paths created soon if funding becomes available. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Lavonta

As noted earlier, the appearance of this letter here should not be construed as an endorsement of this candidate.

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

Chuck Dahlem's postiion on bicycle-advocacy issues

Charley "Chuck" Dahlem (e-mail; no website) is a candidate in the race for District 3 (southeast Wichita). Today he e-mailed his response to the e-mail I sent to all the candidates for City Council; below is his response in full:

Thanks for the information. In my opinion, I think it is an excellent idea that should be vigorously pursued. I would suppport such a measure with great enthusiam, in that it would promote physical fitness, as well as savings of fuel costs.

Keep in touch and thanks again for the information!!!

Charley "Chuck" Dahlem

Again: my posting of the responses I receive is in no way intended as an endorsement of the candidates.

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.

Vamonos en bici! (ojalá pudieramos): Some comments on the state of cycling in Mexico City

UPDATE: I'm late in noting this because I've been away from the blog today, but: a big belated welcome to visitors from Urban Velo. I hope you'll enjoy your visit here.


The poster for the 1^er Congreso Nacional de Ciclismo Urbano, held this past June in Mexico City (image found here); and the logo for Bicitekas, a Mexican bicycle advocacy group (image found here).

The Spanish portion of this post's title reads, "Let's go by bike! (if only we could)." That pretty much sums up the matter for cyclists in Mexico's capital.

I'm not a big fan of the term "working vacation," but there's no other way to describe the 5-day trip to Mexico City that the Mrs. and I just returned from. The official reason for our going was so that I could get a look at some examples of colonial architecture and paintings for my sabbatical research. However, this was also the Mrs.' first trip to Mexico City, and so we made sure we got some sightseeing in as well. At any rate, while we were out and about in the city I also made some mental notes on the present state of cycling in what may be the world's largest city. Sorry: no pictures--we were having issues with cameras that affected the pictures I'd gone there to get in the first place.

The short version of this: Wichita cyclists have little to complain of, relatively speaking. As impoverished as we are here regarding cycling-infrastructure resources--to the point that, yes, Randy, we just kind of shrug at the absence of bike racks on buses here--cyclists in Mexico City have disadvantages that few of us can imagine. Envision a population 3 times that of New York living in an area about the size of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex. Imagine not the highways but the major thoroughfares of a city having the width, traffic load and almost the speed of the traffic on I-135 or I-235, but with roundabouts and traffic lights at those roundabouts. Fantasize, if you will, a city whose traffic laws, according to my friend and Mexico City native (and fellow blogger) René, "are more like gentle suggestions." And conceive of a city that has some very nice parks but no greenbelts linking them because a) the city is so densely-built up and b) it has no rivers or even creeks flowing through it. Oh--and do I even need to add that, at least downtown, there are no bike lanes to be found, and no guarantees that motorists would observe them or the police would enforce them even if they were there? Those are the challenges facing the serious cyclist in Mexico City--and, for that matter, cycling advocates and city planners who want to change the state of things there. You know things are pretty bad there when you run across things like this Reuters story about a nude-cyclist protest to gain attention for cyclist safety. Or another way to put it: one night we were walking along Insurgentes (one of the aforementioned thoroughfares) when a cyclist passed us on the street--wearing all-dark clothes and no helmet on a long-in-the-tooth one-speed with no rear light or even a reflector--and I shook my head in wonderment at his audacity. The Mrs. asked me if I'd be riding on this street if I had my bike; I said, "Are you crazy? I'm afraid to ride on Pawnee!"

The Mrs. and I spent most of our visit in the center of the city, so what follows is not necessarily true of some outlying areas. Where we were, though, we saw few cyclists: in our five days there, I saw as many cyclists as I see on one ordinary day in Wichita. Except for two skinny-tire types (cycling shorts and jerseys, helmets) we saw one night in the upscale Polanco district north of Chapultepec Park and some kids in the same park one day, most of the cyclists appeared to be using their bikes as transportation and, in one case, as an aid in his business (he had a milk crate filled with prepackaged snack foods that was strapped to his bike's rear rack). They reminded me a great deal, in fact, of the cyclists I've seen in the Hispanic neighborhood just north of downtown Wichita: folks who use for the exceedingly practical reason that they're cheaper than driving. These bikes we saw weren't exactly the latest in commuter bikes, either: most of them were old one-speeds like the one I described above. A couple of the bikes were in the Wal-Mart dirt-bike style, but with names in Spanish. Perhaps they were built in Mexico?

For all its massive problems, Mexico City has some features to it that, with some skillful planning and some laws firmer than "gentle suggestions," could make it a good place for cyclists. The city government is promoting cycling as transportation via posters that we saw in various places. It already has a marvelous and heavily-used mass-transit network consisting of a subway system and buses of various sorts, some with dedicated lanes that run counter to the flow of traffic that motorists seem to stay out of. Also, people there (and throughout Mexico) are naturally accustomed to walking to get from place to place, much more than we in the States are, and sidewalks, though crowded, are usually wide enough to accommodate pedestrians. But we shall see what happens there; and in any case, I suspect that changes benefiting cyclists will be long in coming there. As valid a concern as those of cyclists are, Mexico City has, I must admit, more essential problems to contend with. After all, this is also a city whose government feels the need to post reminders that women are people too and so should be treated with respect.

First things first. As I say, we in Wichita do have some things better than they do in other places.

News from the neighborhood(s): A mixed bag for bike-friendliness

Advance warning to non-residents of Wichita: what follow is pretty Inside (Wichita) Baseball, though one could make the case that our particulars may sound familiar to residents of other cities that are less than bike-friendly.

I'll preface all this by saying that it's not entirely proper of me to be critical of what follows. Many of the decisions were made early in my residency here; out of ignorance or sloth, I've not been involved in the decision-making that I could have been involved in; it is possible that infrastructure changes to streets to include bike lanes don't need to be stated in light of other, previously-made decisions (see, as one example, the WAMPO link over in the right gutter); and of course, pending the fate of The Complete Streets Act of 2008 (S. 2686), these plans may yet change in the future to conform to that act's requirements if they do not already. So, then, the more appropriate way to take this is as observation based on what I know and observe.

First of all, some good news for Riverside cyclists: I'd not been by North High School since work on the bridge was completed, so this morning I was pleased to see that the path that runs north along the Little Arkansas from Minisa Park now has a short southern extension that passes underneath the bridge and follows the river to the Bitting Street bridge. This allows cyclists to avoid the intersection at 13th and Bitting, which, especially when school is letting in/out, gets very busy. But for some reason there's no cutaway to allow cyclists to leave the path and get on to Bitting easily.

That last sentence is, in essence, the Wichita bike path system in a nutshell as it stands today. (Some of) the pieces are in place, but the other pieces that would link them up (some little, like the cutaway, or a bike path of a hundred yards or so that links the Arkansas River path to O. J. Watson Park; some much larger and more expensive, like east-west extensions and bike lanes that connect the north-south routes), either aren't there or aren't yet there (more about the latter later). Mind you, I say this as one speaking from the perspective of someone who uses his bike for transportation purposes in a city whose bike system conceives of cycling in primarily recreational terms. The absent cutaway has the effect, intentional or not, of discouraging cyclists from riding on the streets. I wish that that were otherwise.

Anyway, in a moment of serendipity I stopped by Riverside Perk for an iced latte (how elitist of me, I know: a bike-riding college-educated white boy stopping not for coffee but for an iced latte) and found an issue of the Riverside Citizens Association's October newsletter; it so happened that at the September meeting my council representative, Sharon Fearey, addressed the Association about some cycling concerns, as well as neighborhood-related matters that to my mind should be of concern to cyclists. The path that runs along the Little Arkansas doesn't have either an official name or its own map on the bike paths web page; according to the minutes though, "[w]ork has started on continuing the path going north of 13th street at Minisa and Bitting Street allowing access clear from 21st to the entire Riverside Park System." That path presently runs along the west bank of the river and stops just north of 18th in Woodland Park, so I assume that the path will be extended along that side of the river. But when I looked at the bike paths map just now, it shows, as already existing, a route that crosses the river at the 18th Street bridge ad then follows the east side of the river up to 21st. I hadn't realized this before; in the next couple of days I hope to have a chance to investigate it.

The other bike-path news concerns the one that runs right by my apartment complex--it follows the river's east bank from Nims Street to Murdock. It is in very poor condition: in places, it's hard even to walk it, much less ride a hybrid or road bike on it, and when the river rises (more than a few times a year after heavy rains), parts of it are impassable for days. The city's options are to spend the estimated $700,000 to make the needed repairs and modifications or to abandon it to the apartments' owners and let it be their responsibility. It's a real Hobson's choice, especially given that the landlords are not exactly proactive regarding maintenance of their property. So far as I can tell from the minutes, the city hasn't made a decision. Speaking as a cyclist who happens to live next to this path, I would prefer to see it repaired, whether by the city or the landlords; right now it's an eyesore that has more appeal to gang members and vagrants of various sorts than it does to the residents who live next to it. But I'm not blind to the cost involved, either. Moreover, even if the path were repaired and improved, it still wouldn't really "go" anywhere: it basically helps speed up downtown people's access to the Nims and Murdock Street bridges leading into Riverside Park, which is nice, but it's no one's idea of a path that improves the functionality of the city's infrastructure for cycling.

Ms. Fearey also announced that several neighborhood revitalization plans have been adopted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and the city council and are now officially part of the City and County Comprehensive Plan. Here is the list of all the various neighborhood plans; below, I've linked directly to the plans for the neighborhoods I live in or near or pass through on my commute route:

Delano Neighborhood Revitalization Plan

Midtown Neighborhood Plan

South Central

21st Street North Corridor Revitalization Plan

As I hinted at the beginning of this post, there's nothing in these plans that speaks specifically to bike-friendliness as part of their respective sections on improvements in infrastructure. The Delano District's plan does mention converting a railbanked easement into a combination bike/pedestrian path and greenbelt space. But, as I also said at the beginning, it may very well be that bike-friendliness is already included in these plans as part of larger, city-wide objectives and so isn't explicitly mentioned--at least, not in those sections I looked at today. But I don't know for sure. As time permits, I'll be sending out some e-mails to see what I can find out. Also as time permits, I would like to dig into these plans more deeply--especially the Delano plan: it differs from the others I've linked to because it operates from the proposition that it is less a neighborhood than a community, part of but, in its essence, distinct from Wichita. I'm very much in agreement with that sentiment, as I've stated before; what I'll be looking for and posting on will be how the Delano District plan proposes to develop and enhance its sense as a community unto itself.
__________

An addendum now: Back in July, you may remember, I posted a link to a WAMPO survey asking people to rank transportation priorities. If you're curious, here are the survey results.

50-state Bike-Friendliness Rankings

The League of American Bicyclists has just published a ranking of the states in terms of their bike-friendliness. Kansas ranks a surprising 25th, ahead of all its contiguous neighbors except for Colorado. That said, those of us who live anywhere west of Lawrence know that urban areas can do much more to improve that ranking.

Follow the link to an interactive map to get explanations for each state's ranking.

A Complete Street in DC

Via Matthew Yglesias (not just a well-known political blogger but also a cyclist and strong advocate of re-imagining urban spaces in ways that permit more and varied transportation uses) comes this post from Greater Greater Washington about the redesign of U Street to accommodate more pedestrians, bike lanes, and buses--both the good things and the could-be-better things. For those of us far away from DC, this post nevertheless offers up observations and ideas applicable to any metro area contemplating its future transportation needs . . . like a certain city in south-central Kansas . . .

The conversation begins

Something I've not commented on here but which deserves some mention is the fact that my commuting to work via bicycle has been the subject of many conversations involving not only me and my colleagues but also, I've learned, among my colleagues when I'm not around. They have questions about my route and whether I've had trouble with motorists; they mention that they've been dusting off their own bicycles and thinking about them as a way to get some exercise. I can only assume that those of you reading this who are also commuting to work have had similar conversations. This is all to the good, especially in a town like ours with a, shall we say, nascent cycling culture.

But I've also learned a bit anecdotally, here and there, about cycling's past here in Wichita. My colleague Larry the Movie Guy for some reason told me yesterday that when he worked for Cessna (about 20 years ago) "a few" of his co-workers cycled to work--"and one guy even ran to work!"

Our numbers are growing: I learned yesterday while I was out at McConnell that some students have asked about base regulations governing cycling onto the base. Some are choosing to cycle because of fuel costs; others have some problem or other with their cars' documentation (expired/no insurance?) that won't permit them to bring their cars on base. But no matter. The regulations for bikes are minimal; moreover, the base, as I've mentioned before, may be the bike-friendliest place in Wichita. Also, our building has a small bike rack by the entrance. While I don't expect to see it filled to overflowing any time soon, it'll be nice for my Fuji to have some company this coming semester.

As I was leaving our Rock Road office with my bike yesterday, a woman waiting to enroll said, "That there is the best transportation you can have."

So how about you other bike-commuters? Are you having these conversations as well?

Saturday-morning musings

A "Share the Road" sign from Marin County, California. Of course. Image found here.

Somehow, I don't see the City of Wichita adopting this sign any time soon. Now Lawrence, on the other hand . . . I do like it, though, because the yin-yang symbol does suggest something that I think is true about bike-friendliness and, more particularly, the Complete Streets movement: that at its best, transportation options should complement each other rather than conflict with each other. The usual Share the Road signs, though, tend to emphasize compartmentalization as the philosophical goal. Turf, territory, the notion of "special interests" seem implicit in such signs; and while, yes, bike lanes are de facto markings-off of space, re-imagined streets do feel more like a shared space than a segregated one.

Onward.

Blog Flux now has a Groups feature in which like-minded folks can arrange themselves into virtual collectives. It's a bit different from the usual directory listings in that the groups are more subject-specific than directory entries tend to be (this blog, for example, appears in "Local" in one listing and "Environment" in another because this isn't a "Sports" blog, and those directories didn't have any other options that worked as well). Anyway, as of this morning there is now a Cycling Blog Group which, as I type these words, has Yours Truly as its sole member. As others join, it's my hope that it will be a source of information and inspiration.

WAMPO Survey

Via Kansas Cyclist comes news of WAMPO's General Transportation Survey.

And please note, out-of-towners: "Incidentally, this survey is not limited to Wichita residents, so if you have a few minutes, please take the time to advocate for improved bicycle, pedestrian, and mass-transit on behalf of our friends in Wichita."

You know what to do.

In the news . . .

It's a few days old, but it's still good to see some local-media coverage of commuter-cyclists.

Jim Grawe of KWCH posted this story, "Wichita Bike Riders Running Out of Room," on July 25, 2008 on the KWCH website. Grawe interviews Erick Riedell, who apparently commutes into the downtown area. Some of what Riedell says will be familiar to local cyclists (on the city's bike-paths: "They're great if you're going where those paths go, but if you don't live near a bike path and you want to come to Old Town, there's no paths coming downtown."); some, less so--at least in my (admittedly-brief) experience (on impatient motorists: "They'll throw bottles and spit on you and throw trash out the windows."). The story concludes with a general statement about how the city plans to link bike-paths together and make some major streets bike-friendlier (as I've noted elsewhere, most recently here).

The chief value of such a story is not in informing those of us who get about town but in informing those who don't. We become a little more visible via this piece, which is to the good.

Sunday Ride #1: Canal Route and 21st Street

This is the first post in an occasional series in which I'll ride and report on the dedicated bike paths in the city.

The map of my entire route is here. I didn't note my exact departure time from the apartment, but I rode the entire route in a little over an hour.

To start things off for the Sunday Ride series, I chose to ride the length of the Canal Hike and Bike Trails (not sure why it's plural . . . ) and a return home via 21st Street. I chose this route for several reasons: 1) It's relatively close by, and the morning feels like it will be hot today; 2) Friends, curious about my route to work, have asked me if I know it, and I don't; 3) As I've mentioned in a couple of places in this blog, it's a goal of this blog to convey to visitors (and to my council representative) that bike-commuting should be seen as something more than the Yuppie Thing it is often presumed to be--indeed, for many in the Hispanic and Asian neighborhoods just to the north of downtown, as well as for many street people, cycling is the way to get to work and to run errands. North of Kellogg, the Canal Route runs through the heart of working-class Wichita, and I wanted to get a sense both of how practical it is as a commuter route and much it's used. As for 21st Street, it is a major artery through Wichita's Hispanic neighborhood, and I was curious to see how bike-friendly it is.

The Canal Route is, in one sense, a study in contrasts and, in another, a model of consistency. First, the contrasts: North of Kellogg, I-135 is elevated, and the bike-path takes advantage of that by being routed underneath the southbound side of the interstate. As a result, the scenery isn't much to brag about, and there's a fair amount of loose gravel on the pavement. The path has lights installed along it, but the lamps aren't in the best of shape. Something that impressed me about this part of the route is that, in addition to the through streets often being bike-friendly, a few pedestrian bridges also span the canal, allowing for convenient access to the path from the east side. Also, a couple of the street crossings have pedestrian-controlled traffic lights. All in all, I was pleasantly surprised by that portion of the route. South of Kellogg, meanwhile, I-135 is at ground level and so the path wends its way through residential areas, greenbelts and parks. Often, the path is fenced off from the residential areas as it runs along in the spaces between backyard fences and fences demarcating highway on-ramps. I have no idea how those portions of the route would feel after dark, but in the daytime the proximity of the houses made them feel safe.

Now to the consistency: For one thing, it's a rare stretch of the route that's exposed to full sun--something not to be dismissed lightly on a hot morning like today. This next part, though, strikes me as strange: It's as though whoever routed the path wanted it to be more entertaining than practical; thus, north of Kellogg, it slaloms around the bridge piers and, between piers, often curves for no practical reason. The same is true south of Kellogg. There's no way my route map can account for all those curves and, because I don't have an odometer on my bike, I can't say for sure, but I'd guess all those curves added well over a quarter-mile to the total length of my ride. There's no denying that, north of Kellogg, the curves make the route (emotionally) diverting to the point that you don't mind as much that pretty much all you have to look at is concrete and asphalt; on the other hand, though, the abundance of bike-tire tracks short-cutting across the bases of those loops suggests that many if not most people who use that stretch aren't there for fun but to get somewhere. South of Kellogg, meanwhile, some of those curves occur in the above-mentioned fenced-off stretches, creating a couple of blind corners that, if you're not cautions, could easily end up putting the "rec" in "recreation."

All in all, then, the Canal Route is shady and fun and, especially north of Kellogg, certainly has features intended to ease access to it. However, its slalom-y nature suggests that it was envisioned as serving primarily for recreation. That's not a bad thing, mind you; but as I imagined using it as part of my commute to McConnell (ultimately not practical, but it does head in the right general direction), I found myself thinking that the curves would cause me to feel as though I wasn't making good time. But that's just me.

21st Street, meanwhile, seemed surprisingly busy for a Sunday morning. Even so, people were patient with me to the point that, when I was waiting to turn left on to Waco (there's no dedicated left turn lane there), the motorist in the eastbound inside lane on 21st deferred to me to turn left. The street itself isn't particularly bike-friendly, but drivers seemed clear on the idea of sharing the road. Though I rarely have occasion to head that way, I'm glad to have made the trip there.

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.

"Anarchistic Urban Cyclists"

Over at The Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan (himself a cyclist) has some links to discussions of cyclists who don't obey the rules of the road: this one, in which he links to a post by Will Wilkinson, kicked things off yesterday. Today, he posts a couple of readers' responses to that post here, and links to an Ezra Klein response to Wilkinson here.

In that second post, one of Sullivan's readers gets things right:

Cyclists often seem to want to have it both ways: to ignore rules of the road, but then also to complain that cars don't give them no respect. It seems obvious that the rules of the road are a common language that in the end ensure the greatest safety for the greatest number of people.

I'd just amend that, based on almost being run down today on a sidewalk by two cyclists riding two abreast, to include pedestrians somewhere in all this.

All this echoes something I mentioned in a comment over here:

As for the idea of bike-friendliness: Probably more important than infrastructure changes, there also needs to occur a sort of consciousness-raising--and among cyclists (who need to observe the basic rules of the road) as much as among motorists.

What else to say? Bikers can't merely expect to be shown respect because they've asked for it loudly. They need to show through their own actions that they have earned and deserve that respect.

Some thoughts about Wichita State U's bike-friendliness

A Miró mural dominates the entrance to the Ulrich Art Museum on the WSU campus. Image found here.

Yesterday's trip took me to the library at WSU. Anyone who has biked at WSU knows that, as far as riding around is concerned, the campus is ideal for just such an activity: slow traffic, lots of shade, wide, wide sidewalks, and the added treat of passing by many of the school's fine collection of sculptures. For me personally, feeling more than a bit stressed from having ridden on a busy 13th Street and then Hillside, tooling about the campus provided an oasis-like physical and mental relief.

My mood changed a bit, though, when I arrived at the entrance to the library. Despite a wide-open layout there that would easily allow for the placement of bike-racks near the doors without at all causing crowding around or impeding access to them, there were none. I finally found a small (6-bike) rusting metal rack on the south side of the building, being used at the time by two other bikes but literally gathering leaves and other debris. While I was happy that I found a rack, it occurred to me that as I rode about the campus, I didn't recall seeing any other bike-racks at all. I'm sure they're there; they're just tucked away in inconspicuous places near the various buildings.

As I thought about why this is, I came up with a couple of ideas. WSU is predominantly a commuter school, and the campus itself is fairly compact and easily walkable; servicing cyclists isn't therefore, a pressing need the way it is at other, larger schools because not many students feel a need to use bikes there. However, the immediate neighborhoods provide lots of cheap housing to students, and if current trends about cycling continue as they are, it's not hard to guess that more students will begin biking to school. Perhaps, come the fall, the administration will feel the need to provide more--and more conspicuously-placed--bike-racks.