As with the previous BPAC meeting, NCTCOG offered a web seminar to interested parties prior to the general meeting. This month’s topic was “Safe Routes to School”. Due to work obligations, I was not able to make it to the seminar and can offer no summary. If the past is any indication, the accompanying documents will be available at the BPAC website in the next day or so.

The BPAC meeting began five minutes late and commenced with introductions. Though there was ample representation by the various municipalities, other governmental agencies and NGOs, the only group even remotely affiliated with bicycle advocacy in attendance was the Texas Trails Network. Though I was the only individual who identified themselves as cyclist, there were at least three others who simply gave their name and no affiliation. Both principals from Bowman-Melton Associates were in attendance as were representatives from TBG Partners and an ambiguous entity known as “SGK Associates”. There were also representatives from the Injury Prevention Center of Dallas and DART.

Topics discussed at this meeting were Safe Routes to School, the Cottonwood Trail and a Regional Veloweb update.

Safe Routes to School

The Safe Routes to School discussion began with an overview presentation by COG staff, followed by comments by TxDOT staff and a short Q&A session. Some highlights from my notes included comments by COG staff on the following subjects: pedestrian injuries third leading cause of death among children and mention that a large number of schools no longer “allow” children to bicycle to school; even going so far as to remove racks.

I challenged the comments by COG staff by posing a couple of questions. Though intended as rhetorical, they were couched in such a manner as to solicit a response to verify the obvious. Citing the statement pertaining to pedestrian injured being the third leading cause of death among children, I asked whether this statistic was specific to school zones or a general rate. Staff confirmed my suspicion that this was an overall rate and could not cite what proportion was specific to school zones. Since the discussion centered around the benefits of the Safe Routes to School program and its benefits, I offered that this would be the more pertinent statistic.

When asked to further explain the finding that many administrations no longer “allowed” students to bicycle to school and were actually removing racks, I posed it as a dichotomous inquiry: was the reasoning paternalistic oversight or a disuse/maintenance issue? The answer fit closer to the first. The justification cited dealt with the perception of liability on the part of the school district if a student were hit and injured while riding a bike on school property. I countered that the Safe Routes to School program deals primarily with providing enhancements to protect pedestrians and cyclists off-campus, en route to school. Implementing changes  on these fronts would do little to mitigate the potential for injury on school property.

During the course of the staff presentation, revenue generated by the sale of “God Bless Texas” and God Bless America” specialty plates was cited as a source for funding Safe Routes to School. Figures of $44 million dollars in infrastructure allocations and $2.4 million in non-infrastructure funding were mentioned. My final question was directed at the TxDOT staff.Citing SB161, I asked how non-infrastructure funding would be affected by the passage of this legislation given that the average annual distribution of funding for 2007 matched almost exactly the revenue cited during legislative testimony as being shifted from TxDOT to a “designated statewide nonprofit organization”. Admitting their ignorance of SB161 and after having explained its ramifications to them, the TxDOT staff indicated they had no knowledge of how the specialty plate revenue had been utilized in the past or how it would — being shifted, for all intents and purposes, to TBC — in the future. Don Koski, the committee chair, suggested this might better be answered by the statewide coordinator, who would be participating in a supplemental SRTS gathering at NCTCOG in September.

Cottonwood Trail

The Cottonwood Trail presentation offered little more information than is available through the coalition website (link above). A query from another attendee wondered about the meandering nature of the trail, if it is intended as a transportation facility. The presenter, Jonathan Toffer, acknowledged that issue, offered no real rationale, but cited other sections which were (or would be) more linear in nature.

Annie Melton rightfully criticized one section of the trail, running along Spring Valley and Coit, which is defined only by a seven foot sidewalk. Potential issues cited were concurrent use by cyclists and pedestrians. The only solution offered by the presenter was that cyclists could convert to pedestrians or make us of the roadway. Present company excepted, all involved in this aspect of the discussion seemed to think cyclist peril too great to consider the on-street option.

Regional Veloweb

The final segment of the meeting dealt with a summary and future survey of progress on the Regional Veloweb. Use of the phrase “transportation route” was repeated several times, as if the presenter was seeking to convince either themselves or others in attendance that this is the primary intent of the network.

During the Q&A period, I repeated my oft proposed suggestion that surveys be conducted to gauge the actual transportation sue of the Veloweb. Given that Federal air quality mitigation funds are being used in its construction as a alternative transportation network, it seems obvious that COG would have an interest in determining whether it is being used for its intended purpose. I cited The Katy Trail as an example of a failed implementation of this paradigm. This portion of the Regional Veloweb has been referred to as the “Central Expressway of bicycle commuting”. However, in truth, there are only a half dozen or so regular, documented transportation cyclists who make use of it in this manner. Furthermore, given the congestion created by pedestrians, travel upon The Katy Trail is rarely expedient — certainly approaching nowhere near the 25mph design speed. The millions of dollars in CMAQ funds spent to build this trail seems misplaced for the benefit of only a few cyclists. Those monies would have been better directed at education and training many more on vehicular cycling techniques.

Given the fact that bicycle advocacy groups have been disenfranchised from the BPAC process, it should be little surprise that so few representatives were in attendance. It is disappointing, nevertheless. Having been a decade+ member of its predecessor, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Task Force, I am disinclined to abandon the cause. I will continue to attend these gatherings, if only to hold the committee executives and COG staff accountable to the facts of the matters. As with today’s gathering, offering half-truths and engaging in disingenuous discourse — whether intentional or not — won’t escape unchallenged.

The author does and admirable and largely accurate job of defining hallmarks of the two sides. Vehicular cyclists do believe that the existing “road network [is sufficient to the task of accommodating competent, skilled cyclists] and [since] bicycles are already classified as vehicles, …all we need to do is maintain our rights as road users and educate [less experienced] bicyclists on the techniques of riding a bicycle as a vehicle.” This viewpoint has many decades of experience to back it. Knowing the law, knowing the rules of the road and applying both concepts to operation as a vehicle is a proven philosophy for competent vehicular cycling.

In the other camp are those who “[argue] that until we do more to separate bicyclists from motor vehicles we’ll never see the numbers of bicyclists in the U.S. that we see in some European countries.” This perception is accurate for the most part, but ignores the influence a lack of skill and timidity bring to the equation.

From this point forward, the argument begins to disintegrate. One cannot, in my opinion, have “thinking [which] falls somewhere in the middle between these two extremes.” Being fundamentally  incompatible, it is a sign of a conflicted mind to suggest that one can be an effective advocate with “one foot in each camp.” The very concept of conceding a need for separated facilities is incompatible with the tenets of vehicular operation. The misconception within the facilities community is that vehicular cycling is an inherent skill, learned primarily in one’s youth and which needs no specialized training to employ. Separated travel conduits — whether by grade or Magic Paint — serve only to protect the novice and timid, while providing a so-called “training ground” for future competence.

The truth is that these ideals are laced with irrational perceptions and goals. Few cyclists, once indoctrinated into the facilities paradigm, ever venture outside the perceived zone of protection and become fully fledged as competent vehicular cyclists. Instead, they become dependent upon the facilities crutch and demand ever more of these unsafe, segregated zones.

In the final two paragraphs of his discussion, the author reveals his true nature. By stating he, “fully agree[s] that the fear of auto traffic is one of the main obstacles we have to overcome before we’ll see a dramatic increase in bicycle use in the U.S.”, it is plain to see he is, in fact, not a competent or an experienced vehicular cyclist. Fear of motor vehicle traffic is irrational and reflects a lack of vehicular cycling skill. The idea that the US, with its penchant for urban sprawl and dependence on the motor vehicle will ever approach the adoption level of European cities is folly. The proponents of beliefs such as these are totally out of touch with reality.

The final paragraph is, perhaps the most salient.

Bicycling may be a relatively safe activity, but the perception that bicycling is dangerous is extremely pervasive in the U.S. and it’s unlikely we’ll change that perception through logical arguments or statistics.

As I cited and argued in a discussion on this issue elsewhere, stating that…

We must find a way to build more separated facilities to make bicycling less intimidating to beginners and non-enthusiasts. We also need more training in vehicular cycling techniques to build rider skill and confidence for dealing with the realities on the ground as we build those new facilities.

…is indicative of logical disconnect between reality and fantasy. Why does he feel facilities and education are equal imperatives? Likely because, deep down inside, despite his stated beliefs to the contrary, he is not particularly as competent or experienced as he believes  himself to be. Like many fearful cyclists, he cannot reconcile the psychological from the physical; discriminate the imagined from the real.

The realm of bicycle advocacy is plagued by those who have little or no credentials to support their work. They have been convinced by others that the issue is one of “butts on bikes” at any cost. That cost can be dear. As groups lobby legislators for special protections and facilities, they surrender — whether willingly or through ignorance — not only their rights, but those of others as well.

Be that as it may, the TBC was not totally unsuccessful during the 2009 session. They did manage to get two pieces of legislation signed into law. SB2041 adds language to sub-section 161 of Chapter 521 (“Drivers Licenses and Certificates”) of the Transportation Code mandating the inclusion of questions testing the “knowledge of motorist’s rights and responsibilities in relation to bicyclists” on the state driving test, while SB161 will amend sub-section 648 of Chapter 504 (“Specialty License Plates”) to, in their words, “provide funds through ‘God Bless Texas’ and ‘God Bless America’ special license plate sales to go to the BikeTexas Safe Routes to School program.”

SB2041 sounds, on initial consideration, to be a worthwhile accomplishment. The current version of the Texas Driver Handbook has an entire chapter devoted to “Bicycle Vehicle Law and Safety” – the whole of three pages. Under current statute, required elements of the license exam include a vision test, the ability to identify and understand highway signs in English, and knowledge of the state traffic laws. As of the first of September, added to this list of requirements will be “knowledge of motorist’s rights and responsibilities in relation to bicyclists.” Curious.

What rights do motorists have toward bicyclists? As a legally recognized vehicle, we are already afforded the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. Item three of the Texas Driver Handbook clearly states: “A bicycle is a vehicle and any person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle, unless it cannot, by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.” This being the case, what possible benefit will be realized by including specific exam questions related to cyclists? Following this logic there ought to be questions pertaining to motorists’ rights and responsibilities in relation to equestrians and the operators of farm implements.

SB161 is even more illogical. Instead of the more limited and focused beneficiary cited in the quote above, language in this statute actually reads,

the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the share the road account in the state treasury and may only be used by the Texas Education Agency to support  Program of a designated statewide nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is to promote bicyclist safety, education, and access through education and awareness programs and training, workshops, educational materials, and media events.

Hmmm, looks familiar, doesn’t it? It goes on to state,

Up to 25 percent of the amount in Subsection (b) may be used to support the activities of the nonprofit organization in marketing and promoting the Safe Routes to School Program.

The Legislature saw fit, in 2003, to create a specialty license plate modeled on the theme of “share the road” and featuring the likeness of Lance Armstrong in a “maillot jaune”. Proceeds from the sale of this plate were earmarked “to be used only by the Texas Education Agency to support the activities of a designated nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is to promote bicyclist safety, education, and access through education and awareness programs and training, workshops, educational materials, and media events.” It would appear TBC is to begin receiving funding for a program they no longer sponsor. How are these resources being allocated now within TxDOT? Why is it necessary to designate more monies be transferred to the TBC?

Is this really the type of organization we, as cyclists, want to have representing our interests to the legislators in Texas. They failed in their bid to get one specious and redundant law enacted which would have partially eviscerated our standing as a legally recognized vehicle, by equating us with various pedestrian classes; they succeeded in getting a specious and redundant law passed which mandates the inclusion of questions on the state licensing exam pertaining to one specific user class; and they are lying about the actual mechanics of the application of a third law they succeeded in getting passed.

If the Texas Bicycle Coalition really wants to be an advocate for vehicular cyclists, here are some legislative proposals which will go much further in promoting the safety and education of cyclists and motorists alike.

Remove the FTR rule

§551.103(a) is redundant. Since bicycles are legally recognized as legitimate vehicles, §545.05x covers all aspects of vehicular operation – including that of slow moving traffic.

Remove the MBL rule

Elimination of §551.103(a) will take care of this. However, in the event legislators cannot stomach the political fallout from removing this sub-section altogether, at the very least they can revert §551.103(a)(4)(A) to its original language. (The mandatory bike lane language was added as punishment for revising this subsection to define an unsharable lane.)

Define a “safe distance”

As explained in the SB844 summary, §545.053(a)(1) already stipulates that one vehicle overtaking another must do so “at a safe distance.” Apply the “Safe Passing” sentiment to the existing law by specifying buffer zones pertaining to all SMV classes.

These steps should define the primary mission of the TBC, if they truly wish to be seen as an advocate for the rights and safety of bicyclists in the State of Texas. Abandon the practice of pandering to novice and timid cyclists. Develop education programs to train inexperienced cyclists on proper vehicular cycling technique. Work with therapists to help treat those suffering from Cyclist Inferiority Complex to overcome their phobias and become competent cyclists. Protect the rights of experienced vehicular cyclists to operate on the roads in safety.

revision history
20090720: removed a paragraph regarding the distribution of SB161 funds due to a misread of the language. This subject is addressed in more detail elsewhere.

Michael Bluejay has compiled a competent summary of the pros and cons of bike lanes. Though it is, in my opinion, too heavily slanted toward advocacy, some valid points are made. On the other side of the fence are summaries by Fred Oswald and John Forester, which rely less on unscientific studies and more on logical analysis. No matter how you view the controversy, in the end, promotion of bike lanes is a means of shirking personal responsibility. Competency and skill are transferred from the vehicle operator to the government.

There have been no studies showing that those who are introduced to transport cycling through reliance on bike lanes to facilitate adoption ever graduate to become competent vehicular cyclists. Quite the contrary, several studies and media reports highlight the very real hazard that these infrastructure enhancements represent – particularly at intersections. The incidence of fatal right hooks increase as unskilled cyclists pass queued motorists and position themselves at the front of the line.

Other problems arise when cyclists need to make a left turn. Two options result: either the cyclist must make the counter-intuitive decision to cross the solid white line delineating the perceived safety of the bike lane and venture out into the proper traffic lanes or they must execute a pedestrian turn. Neither of these methods is intuitive and both lead to confusion and inconvenience.

We, as a society, do not provide special lanes for novice motorists, nor do we provide special facilities for motorcyclists taking to the roadway for the first time. Why is it that bicyclists are seen as needing special, designated lanes for travel from one point to another? The truth is, these facilities are not necessary.

Many municipalities already have a functional training grounds for novice and inexperienced cyclists. They are frequently referred to as bike routes. Often designed and implemented with input from experienced vehicular cyclists, these designated routes make use of relatively calm, quite side streets and residential roads to ease the inexperienced bicyclist from realm of the recreational to the world of the transportation cyclist. Because the roads chosen have relatively less traffic and, often, wide outside lanes, the cyclist is able to gain much needed confidence. As they gain experience, they can move on to busier and more efficient routes.

Competent, experienced vehicular cyclists are often chided for being closed minded and elitist when it comes to our abhorrence of bike lanes. These are interesting terms. It is more closed minded, in my opinion, to believe that special facilities are the only means of promoting transportation cycling. Proponents of these facilities seem to doubt their own ability to master proper vehicular technique, while at the same time projecting an irrational distrust of their motor propelled counterparts. They assume all cyclists must share this paranoia and consequently advocate for segregationist facilities and protective legislation.

Labeling vehicular cyclists as elitist is even more puzzling. To be among an elite is to be an exemplary representative of one’s group or class; to be superlative. That some fit that label, there is little doubt. Though the achievement has come with years of experience. Elitism is the act of promoting the best to the exclusion of the rest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competent, experienced vehicular cyclists seek only to protect our right to operate as a legally recognized vehicles and encourage others to adopt the same guiding principles in order to achieve the same level of ability. This is not accomplished by segregation within special facilities. It only comes as the result of application of proven technique and ability.

Designated bike routes facilitate the acquisition of knowledge and experience through operation on quieter, wider roads. As confidence builds, competence will follow. Many of the communities in North Texas have route systems which have either been fully implemented or are close to being so. Dallas leads the way with, perhaps, the oldest and most extensive route system. Fort Worth has a nascent system with additional enhancements on the drawing board. Garland, Richardson, Plano and others have signed, on-street routes to guide new cyclists. Unfortunately, few have published this information online. Careful study of the types of streets designated by Dallas or consulting with experienced commuters, however, will allow one to glean functional insight.

If cyclists are going to preserve their right to be recognized as vehicles and respected in that capacity by others, it is contingent upon them to ensure that privilege through action. Demanding special facilities or protective legislation serves only to jeopardize our standing in this regard. If we see ourselves a vulnerable and in need of special consideration, our peers and politicians will respond by removing us from the roadway for our own protection. Instead, we must acquire the knowledge and experience necessary to be competent self-propelled vehicle operators capable of claiming our right to the road and doing so safely, legally and effectively.

Prior to the beginning of the meeting proper, COG staff arranged for those interested to participate in a web-based seminar (note: I refuse to use the idiotic term webinar) on developing a Bicycle Master Plan. Initiation was delayed due to technical difficulties and, once resolved, we joined the session in progress.

The featured speaker was Peter Lagerwey, instructor with the National Center for Bicycling and Walking. Sponsored by the Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, “Bicycle Master Plans” provided an overview of what municipalities and transportation districts should consider when creating a BMP. Without going into to much detail, here are some interesting points to mention.

• Under the section entitled “Create a BAC” in part I, special note is made that any Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) should include a wide variety of cyclists with varying degrees of experience. Evidently, COG did not participate in this seminar prior to restructuring the BPTTF, as they have all but excluded the beneficiaries of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure from the BPAC (see below and earlier commentary.
• Under the section entitled “Objectives to support goals”, the presenter suggested the installation of at least twenty (20) miles of bike lanes, per year, for ten years will show the general public the project is progressing as desired.
• Under a section entitled “A Bicycle Facility Network for Everyone” and admittedly added in hindsight, the inclusiveness principle highlighted above was reiterated with a comment the audience should be identified and representatives included at all stages of the process.
• Toward the end of the presentation mention was made that “paint is your friend … put some of that down and there you go”; followed by “always be putting product on the ground …to show you are successful.” With comments like this, engineers will be laying something on the ground, alright.

A series of resources from this seminar is included with meeting documents at the NCTCOG website.

The BPAC meeting commenced pretty much on time, but immediately got off track when the agenda was modified. Introductions were initially scheduled to consume five minutes. However, the moderator, Karla Weaver, decided she wanted everyone in the room to introduce themselves and identify their affiliation. The additional seven to ten minutes lost were never recouped.

Attendance was among the most bountiful I have seen for a BPTTF/BPAC meeting in quite some time. While the room was not packed, it was more than three-fifths filled. There were a few familiar faces and a bevy of new ones. Notably missing were representatives from some regional advocacy groups. Present were two individuals from BikeDFW, one from DORBA, one from Lockheed Martin Recreation Association and one from Pegasus Flyers. Meanwhile, Greater Dallas Bicyclists, Friends of the Katy Trail, Bike Friendly Oak Cliff, Texas Trails Network and Texas Bicycle Coalition were all MIA.

A decent summary of meeting activity can be found in a post over at Cycle*Dallas. Thus I will not repeat that information here. Instead I will offer some comments and observations.

Several revisions to the committee composition have taken place since distribution of the last draft in January. The number of “potential members” has been shaved from 55 members to 49 members. That seems like a good change.  The seven “transportation providers” has been reduced to six; the thirty-six STTC Cities have been reduced to thirty-four (sorry Euless and North Richland Hills); and the number of STTC Counties remained unchanged at nine. Perhaps most notable was the fact the four Regional Focus Groups had been sliced from the committee structure altogether; removing any and all advocacy groups from official representation. They have now all been reclassified as “interested parties”. Don’t despair, though; “Interested Parties” are now “partners” and are “no less important”. Yeah, they just can’t vote and have no permanent seat at the table.

During the Regional Veloweb Update, the group was provided an update regarding progress of this recreational boondoggle. Following over a decade of work, only 200 of a planned 644 miles have been built or funded. The design speed is rated at 25mph. (I guess no one has ever attempted to use The Katy Trail as a commute route) Comments from earlier public meetings have been compiled and evaluated; additional public meetings for comments leading to final plan approval will take place this summer.

I will skip comment on the 2009 Sustainable Development Call For Projects (CFP), as this does not apply directly to bicycle transportation directly. The existing roadways are entirely sufficient for any support of vehicular cycling. Anything else is simply recreation or segregation.

The balance of the meeting was consumed with three show-and-tell presentations by the newly minted Chair and Vice-Chair.

Don Koski kicked things off with an overview of “Sidewalk Survey and ADA Pedestrian Curb Ramp Study”. Results indicated there is a need for 457 miles of sidewalks and 330 ADA ramp installations at estimated costs of $41,856,210 and $1,014,500, respectively. Despite Steve’s interpretation that “[Fort Worth] now considers 5 feet the minimum width for a sidewalk along an arterial/collector road”, that is only a recommendation and is unfunded according to the survey. Their “next steps” are to “develop a work plan” and “seek partnership and funding opportunities”. Basically, don’t look for anything anytime soon.

Koski next provided an overview of “A Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan [for the] City of Fort Worth”. Several photos throughout the presentation illustrated egregious examples of poorly implemented bike planning. One showed a door zone bike lane; another a cyclist riding between the fog line and the curb face. Actually, it could very well have been an eighteen inch bike lane. All but one or two appeared to be stock photos. One would think Fort Worth would make an effort to at least stage photos from around the city to promote their plan. Steve mentioned “the bullet about 295 miles of bike lanes by 2020 flashed out” at him. That did not strike me as jumping out so much as the notations that a) all of their funding is based upon 2008 dollars and b) maintenance costs are not included in the estimated financial burden. One final disappointment was Koski’s emphasis on the importance of “complete streets”.

It bears reiteration that all this talk of the Bike Fort Worth plan is both unfunded and unapproved. Many changes may exist down the road and there is no guarantee any of this will come to light – especially under the current economic climate. ‘Tis all much ado about nothing until approved  by the City Council and funded.

A comment from Paul Hakes (DORBA) after the presentation highlighted the propensity for bike lanes to become filled with debris and hazards. He then asked what would be done to ensure clear lanes. Koski simply stated his department had been conversing with Streets to ensure that would not be the case.

Another question came from Gordon Sander (Pegasus Flyers). He wanted to know how ordinances would be changed to legally accommodate inline skaters’ use of bike lanes, since they are now classified as toy vehicles. The response from the moderators was that this subject had never been considered. (This is actually a state issue. He will need to lobby the Legislature to revise the Transportation Code.)

Renée Burke-Jordan followed Koski and provided an overview of the “Plano Bicycle Transportation System”. Hers was at once slightly more encouraging and disappointing. Encouragement came from the standpoint that bike lanes were not mentioned at all. She illustrated plans to make use of sharrows to help guide cyclists with proper positioning on the roadway and educate motorists about the presence of these alternative vehicles.

The primary disappointment was the glacial pace at which Plano appears to be implementing its plan. Burke-Jordan showed three revisions through time. The first was dated 1985, another 2001 and the last 2009. I am not sure she intended this impression, but, in commenting on the final plan, she suggested there were still five revisions to the map in store. If it has taken twenty-four years to get through three revisions, one can only imagine how long the remaining five will take. She also mentioned that, of all the designated bike routes which exist on paper, only three of them have actually had signage installed. No explanation was offered as to why, but she indicated her group was working on resolving that deficit.

Overall, the presentations by the Chair and Vice-Chair left much to be desired. There was little in the way of inspiration conveyed to the audience. As Steve stated, it was pretty sterile and ho-hum. Status quo, unfortunately, in terms of BPTTF meetings of the past.

Following the presentations, Bill Hammond (BikeDFW) asked about resources the COG or BPAC might generate to help novice cyclists determine routes to commute between home and work. Furtive glances ensued among COG staff and the executive officers. Ultimately, no satisfactory response was forthcoming. Burke-Jordan quipped that following the five remaining revisions something would be available on the Plano website. Deborah Humphreys suggested using “BikeMap” (though there was no designation as to .org, .net or their own internal resource) to derive possible routes.

Of course the best resource for those residing in Dallas is the online version of the Dallas Bike Plan.

One Yahoo (whose name and affiliation I did not catch) wanted to know if ordinances would be changed to allow cyclists to perform rolling stops at traffic control devices so as to maintain momentum. The moderators responded, correctly, that all vehicles would be required to follow the rules of the road.

The final presentation ran right up to the designated 16:30 end of the meeting. Various individuals began leaving as soon as 16:25 and fully half had skipped out by 16:35. (This is a pet peeve of mine. It is especially aggravating at the opera and symphony. If you come, be prepared to stay until the end or do not come at all.) In keeping with past committee practice, the overpacked agenda left little time for questions or discussion; the belabored introductions did not help with this shortcoming. Karla Weaver mused with respect to the tight agenda, “maybe there will be a little more time on the agenda [in the future]; there was so much this time.”

Yeah, maybe.

The future of the BPAC is an open book. There was similar enthusiasm in the early years of the BPTTF. As time went on, meeting attendance diminished considerably. Unless COG staff can create a compelling agenda for each meeting and an overall, longterm plan of relevance, I see this group following the same path. Representatives will attend only when it serves their best interests to do so. Pedestrian and bicycle transportation issues are simply not a high priority for most governments in North Texas. They will certainly give it lip service, but little more.

Stay tuned for more information. Future meetings in 2009 have been slated for 14:00- 15:30 on 19 August and 21 October.

Unfortunately, in recent years the BPTTF became somewhat ineffective. Meetings were few and far between; often occurring only annually. As a result, the agenda became so packed that little room remained for discussion. It largely became a show-and-tell gathering wherein invited speakers or municipal representives simply presented study findings or project summaries. Any attempt to provide commentary or criticism was often stifled in the interest of keeping the meeting on track in order to ensure it did not exceed its ninety minute allocation. Platitiudes that ample opportunities would be extended in future meetings to accommodate feedback were offered to pacify questioners, but never realized. These meetings did not occur and necessary discussions were left in perpetual limbo.

Earlier this year, I was fortunate to receive surreptitious notification that regular meetings of an advisory committee would resume. However, it would not be the BPTTF of old. Renamed and restructured, the new entity would be known as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). [Actually, it was originally to be named the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Action Council (BP-TAC).]  No longer would the franchise members be comprised of knowledgeable members of the transportation and recreational cycling communities. Instead, the group will be comprised of seven transportation providers, 35 municipal representatives from the Surface Transportation Technical Committee (STTC), nine STTC county representatives and four regional focus groups. It is these four “focus groups” to which advocacy representatives will be relegated.

The Regional Focus Groups will be designated by COG staff and do not seen to be based upon merit or relevance. A single representative will be allowed from the Texas Bicycle Coalition (TBC), the Texas Trails Network (TTN), BikeDFW, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Of these groups, only two have any realistic experience directing bicycle transportation activity. The TTN is focused on recreational issues and TCEQ, while a legitimate voice for the RTC in general, has no bicycle related credentials. Having their voice filtered through a sub-committee designed to offer bicycle related input seems ridiculous.

Of course, “interested parties” have been assured that their presence and participation is still appreciated. They will simply not have a vote in any deciding poll and will be relegated to the sidelines.

Planning for this restructuring was apparently initiated last summer (July). A follow-up message distributed in January updated prospective members on the progress. Were it not for a friendly contact within one of the proposed municipal entities, I likely would not have received notice until the notice included below was distributed. This even though I have been a regular, active and cited member of the original BPTTF for over a decade.

With that introduction in mind, I present the following notice to interested parties and encourage you to make an effort to attend. This is especially true for those who have been dedicated participants of the BPTTF in the past. Get your ducks aligned and be prepared to express your dissatisfaction at this restructuring and demand equal representation by legitimate, experienced bicycle advocates.

Good Afternoon,

The North Central Texas Council of Governments’ (NCTCOG) newly restructured Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) is set to hold its first meeting on June 17, 2009 from 3:15 pm to 4:30 pm in the Transportation Council Room at the NCTCOG offices. I apologize for the inactivity of the BPAC in recent months, but with the emergence of many new bicycle and pedestrian projects, our goal is to become a more active body within the region. We are planning to hold three BPAC meetings for the year 2009; the dates for the last two meetings of the year will be announced at the BPAC meeting on June 17.

Representing the BPAC as Chair for the 2009 term will be Don Koski. He is a Senior Planner with the City of Fort Worth Transportation and Public Works Department, and is the principal planner for Bike Fort Worth, the City’s updated comprehensive bicycle transportation plan. Fulfilling the role of Vice Chair for the BPAC 2009 term is Ms. Renée Burke Jordan. Renée is the Trail System Planner for the City of Plano’s Parks and Recreation Department, and the planner responsible for the 2009 update to the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.

The agenda for this meeting will include a review of the restructuring of the BPAC, an update on the 2009 Sustainable Development Call for Projects funding program, status of the Regional Veloweb updates, and an update on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG). We are also designating time for presentations on bicycle and pedestrian initiatives and/or projects occurring throughout the region.  For this meeting we will focus on the Cities of Fort Worth and Plano.  Future meetings will include presentations on bicycle and pedestrian projects from other Cities.

In addition, NCTCOG is offering a FREE webinar hosted by Peter Lagerway on Bicycle Master Plans before the meeting from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm, also in the Transportation Council Room. Come early and learn the step-by-step process of how to create and implement a successful bicycle master plan in your city.  Please see the attached flyer for more details.

To RSVP for the meeting and webinar, please respond to this e-mail by June 12, 2009.

A map to the NCTCOG offices can be found here.

I look forward to seeing all of you there. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at anytime.

Thank you,

Deborah Humphreys

Transportation Planner | Bicycle and Pedestrian Program

North Central Texas Council of Governments

616 Six Flags Drive | Arlington, TX 76011

Direct: (817) 608-2394

Fax: (817) 640-3028

dhumphreys@nctcog.org

P please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Recognizing the success of a discount movie promotion they negotiated at a neighborhood theater in April, the group has extended their rewards program to businesses through out the Oak Cliff arts district. Individuals and families who ride their bicycle(s) to area businesses are eligible to discounts ranging from 10% to 50%. There are even a few freebies thrown in for good measure. It is this sort of imaginative, grassroots effort which just may revitalize the local living economies of decades past and encourage physical activity.

The media coverage has been mixed. An article appearing in the Dallas Morning News was, IMO, too superficial and glossed over the potential for similar initiatives in other parts of the Metroplex. Even worse was a piece airing on the local CBS affiliate, KTVT. Instead of focusing on the community and health benefits, their angle was to couch the program as a means to weather the economic downturn (text|video). In other words, a belt-tightening scheme, rather than a health incentive and community spirit endeavor. Even so, publicizing programs like this can only have a beneficial effect for utility cycling.

BFOC is blazing a new trail with this idea. Other North Texas advocacy groups should take heed and follow suit. Friends of the Katy Trail could solicit participation from Knox Street, Uptown and Victory Park businesses; BikeDFW, Greater Dallas Bicyclists and other regional groups could work with community centers and neighborhood groups. Expanding programs like this could encourage families to think about bicycles as an alternate mode of transportation and an activity families can do together. Fostering utility cycling at the family level may translate to wider adoption of vehicular cycling principles.

The article contains several quotes attributed to Armstrong. One stands out as seeming to confirm BFOC’s claims.

“There are times I ride in Austin, and I’m afraid of cars,” Armstrong said. “Imagine what the beginner cyclist must feel like?”

Sounds odd, doesn’t it. A seven time Tour de France winner being afraid of cars. I suppose it could be true. Viewing the following video, one comes away with a different take, however.

Fear? Where is the fear? Not only is Armstrong riding in the midst of normal traffic, in many of the shots he is doing so legally and confidently with good lane positioning and adhering to the two-abreast rule. It is the balance of the footage, which is most telling. One recognizes an unapologetic scofflaw who has no regard for the law or the other vehicles on the roadway.

More importantly, at no point within the article is there a quote from Armstrong indicating affection for bike lanes. Though there are several references to these on-street facilities, there is never a direct endorsement. The closest he comes is the following statement with respect to how Austin can reach a point where “biking is part of the culture”.

The (Lance Armstrong Bikeway) is a big start…

The author goes on to describe the “bikeway” in terms of being some sort of cycle track. Despite the inference in the article, a cycle track is not a bike lane. It is a facility designed to separate cyclists from motor vehicles and serves only to diminish the legitimacy of a bicycle as a vehicle.

In truth, all of the pandering language used by Armstrong and his partner is simply a vehicle for garnering the attention of prospective customers. It is branding; it’s advertising, pure and simple. “Advocates” in Austin, North Texas and elsewhere have relied upon fear, uncertainly and doom to build a following of inferior cyclists in order to drive their infrastructure plans. They have now enlisted a well-known cycling celebrity to help push their agenda. This same mentality has, unfortunately, been adopted by local advocacy groups.

North Texas has several organizations who call themselves bicycle advocates. Some are more honest than others when it comes to clearly stating intent. BFOC is the most vocal in their goal to see bike lanes become a part of the transportation infrastructure. A big problem with their tactics is the use of lies and subterfuge to achieve their desires. The example cited above is among many one can readily discover at their website. Perhaps less apparent is their fascist editorializing. The webmasters deny comments from those with dissenting views. On rare occasions when opposing information is approved, it is attacked with flawed arguments or criticized out of context.

Groups like BFOC capitalize on FUD to mobilize their base. Rather than present facts to support their position, some of these groups employ deceit and personal attacks. For those with knowledge and experience relative to the subject, these tactics are obvious. To the gullible and uneducated, actions like these appear to be legitimate arguments.

What I describe above is not limited to BFOC; they are only the most pronounced example. There are certainly voices from the vehicular cycling community who are also prone to hyperbole and bending the truth in order to spread their message. Some degree of hypocrisy creeps into all of these discussions. It is the responsibility of the audience to learn how to discriminate fact from fiction and hold the proponents of the latter to account.

The use of a bicycle for tranportation, in North Texas or anywhere else, is not inherently dangerous. Despite what some organizations would have you believe, when practiced according to the rules of the road, along with practical knowledge and technique, vehicular cycling is very safe and doable. The important point to emphasize is the need for education. Regardless of which side of the debate one finds themselves (pro-vehicular cycling or pro-facilities), become informed and do not allow succumb to the influence of disreputable individuals or groups. Learn to discern fact from fiction and arrive at an informed conclusion.