[Carfreeliving] RE: [SFBike] tube times index

[Dave Snyder]

Hi Deb and everyone,

Thanks, Deb, for explaining the strategy that the MCBC pursued to get 
such money. The reason for my post was exactly to elicit that kind of 
response: I want San Francisco bicycle advocates to realize how low 
we've set our sights, and to compare our success to yours makes it 
easy to see.

Yes, the competitive side in me bristles when I hear you say "make 
Marin the model" because that's what we set out to do for SF in 2000, 
when the DPT got funding to do a bicycle network plan (the one that's 
almost ready to be considered by the MTA Board.) But that doesn't 
mean there's any hatin' going on because you've been successful. 
We're just jealous! Isn't it obvious?

For the benefit of sfbike readers, our story is this: We were missing 
funding opportunities back then because we didn't have a backlog of 
plans, or a reliable cost estimate for our projects or the bike 
network. The current bike network plan did cost estimates for a 
subset of projects and mostly small projects. What we still have to 
do is what you indicate in part 3 of your strategy below -- "think in 
terms of the overall cost for building a complete network (this shows 
the vision)."

Nobody official has been asked to do this analysis, so it hasn't been 
done. We still don't know what a complete bicycle network would look 
like, and how much it would cost! It was my expectation that the 
recent bike plan would answer this question and disappointment that 
it didn't that fueled so much of my frustration, and frankly, anger, 
that I expressed in disrespectful ways for which I still have to 
apologize.

With your success to compare ourselves to, the new leadership at MTA 
Planning, the continued strength of the SFBC, and the growing 
dissatisfaction with the status quo, I have more hope than 
frustration that we can develop a consensus that the bicycle network 
should be considered a single capital project (as such, it's highly 
cost-effective compared to even the much-awaited Geary BRT project), 
planned as such, costed, and built with five to ten years. As Peter 
Tannen has agreed, it takes just as much time to apply for one $25 
million grant to "complete the bicycle network" as it does to apply 
for a $50,000 grant to paint one block of bike lanes. Maybe even 
less! It's time we stepped back just a moment from our incessant 
focus on the top 20 projects -- the trees -- and take a good look at 
the forest. It's a beautiful thing!

Please don't interpret my jealousy as hatin', aright? I think we can 
make SF the model for a dense urban city as much as Marin can be the 
model for a suburban county. We can find similar amounts of money 
from local and regional sources. And together, in cooperation with 
the other groups and the Bay Area Bicycle Coalition and the MTC, make 
the Bay Area the model for a metropolitan area!

Dave



At 5:17 PM +0200 8/25/05, debhub at igc.org wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>This analysis of expenditures on bike/ped infrastructure in SF and 
>Marin is interesting.  However, to be more fully accurate (in terms 
>of the use and cost of facilities), we would need to include 
>recreational bicycle trips (which are not included in the MTC data). 
>As you are aware, there are many, many cyclists from throughout the 
>Bay Area and the world who come to Marin to do cycling touring and 
>riding on the weekends.  This will largely boost the numbers of 
>users in Marin County.
>
>I  hope that we can look at this analysis in terms of "a rising tide 
>can lift all boats."  The funding coming to Marin County for bicycle 
>facilities is a "rising tide", and I hope that the fact that we are 
>receiving funds, from a variety of sources, will help SF advocates 
>to similarly convince the City to step up its investment in bike 
>facilities.  SFBC is very successful, and I'm sure that you can 
>devise ways to get further investment from the City in bike 
>infrastructure.
>
>It was Dave Snyder, former ED of the SFBC who inspired me in 1998 to 
>become the founding Executive Director of the Marin County Bicycle 
>Coalition (I recently shifted gears to be Advocacy Director of MCBC, 
>starting in March 2005 so that I can also focus on national level 
>policies).  I learned many of our advocacy techniques through Dave 
>and other advocates from around the nation.  MCBC also worked with 
>other advocates in Marin County such as Patrick Seidler, from 
>Transportation Alternatives from Marin, to decide what to focus on, 
>and when.  We took somewhat of a different focus -- of "following 
>the money."  Some of our strategies for getting funding have been:
>
>1.  To be involved in all large transportation planning projects so 
>that cycling can get a slide of the pie.  (This is where the large 
>majority of our bike/ped funding is coming from).
>2.  To envision that large scale ticket items, like opening tunnels 
>along the planned North-South Greenway, are possible -- and to go 
>for the funding. (This has helped because we have shown a "need.")
>3.  To think it terms of the overall cost for building a complete 
>network (this shows the vision).
>4.  To use international examples for what is possible, and to 
>create an opportunity for "pilot programs" in the United States, 
>with the intention of creating successes that can then be expanded 
>nationwide.
>
>By thinking this way, the funding we have secured has come from many 
>places, some unlikely.
>
>*  Regional Measure 2 ($15.5 million for bike/ped) the March 2004 
>ballot measure was planned to decrease traffic in the nexus of 
>bridges.  Marin County was planning to submit a project for redoing 
>the Greenbrae Interchange.  We proposed that they expand the 
>definition of the interchange to include the parallel North-South 
>Greenway components, the Cal Park Hill Tunnel and the Central Marin 
>Ferry Connection Project.  As a result, the Initial Project Study 
>reports (from 2004 and 2005) show $15.5 million in investment for 
>these two bike/ped projects!
>
>* Transportation Sales Tax, Measure A ($10 million over 5 years): 
>This was passed by Marin voters in November 2004.  I went to seven 
>years of meetings to ensure that this ballot measure would be 
>drafted properly. As a result we received:
>     - 11% for Safe Routes to School (which is $6 million over the 
>next five years, $2 million for infrastructure)
>     - A segment of the North-South Greenway parallel to the Highway 
>widening ($8 million)
>     - A policy for all roads to consider the needs of bicyclists and 
>pedestrians
>
>*  Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program ($25 million):  This 
>did not come easily or by accident.  Patrick Seidler and I proposed 
>this concept based on techniques used in Europe, and wrote a white 
>paper on Safe Routes to School and infrastructure Pilot Programs in 
>January of 2000 (see www.marinbike.org for details).  Congress saw 
>that Marin County knew how to make pilot programs suceed.  Marin 
>received the Safe Routes to School pilot in August 2000, and worked 
>hard to make it a success.   One of our deliverables was creating a 
>Toolkit to describe to others how to implement a program. This was 
>published by NHSTA and over 20,000 copies have been distributed -- 
>it's also available on the web.  This helped to spread the SR2S 
>concept throughout the USA, and our stats helped to lead to the $612 
>million in the federal bill for a new national program.  It is our 
>aim to work with the three other Nonmotorized Pilot Programs that 
>were selected to also make this pilot a success, leading to 
>important statistical data that can create cost effectiveness for 
>building a complete bike/ped network.  Then, in the next 
>reauthorization, hopefully we can get something like the Intra-State 
>Bikeway Act, as we'll show that bicycling is the most cost effective 
>means of transport.
>
>* Other Bike/Ped funding ($10 million):  There is an additional $10 
>million in other bike/ped funding that has already been received 
>(and planning for installation is taking place now), or the Marin 
>will receive through formula allocations (TDA, TFCA, etc).
>
>In addition to these secured funds, we have worked since 1999 to 
>influence the SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit) plan. Because 
>of our early influence in the plan, they have a goal for a bike/ped 
>pathway parallel to the rail for the entire length of the corridor 
>(75 miles, with 25 in Marin and 50 in Sonoma).  We worked to 
>influence the expenditure plan that will go to voters in November 
>2006, and this currently includes $40 million for the pathway.
>
>I hope that we can continue to all work together! For example, I've 
>been helping with the West Span strategies since 1998, as I feel 
>that a shore-to-shore facility on the Bay Bridge will be extremely 
>important for the entire region.
>
>Please don't hate us in Marin because we've been successful!  Let's 
>make the whole Bay Area a model.  We can do it!
>
>Thanks for listening.
>
>Deb Hubsmith, Advocacy Director
>Marin County Bicycle Coalition
>
>P.S. I'm writing from The University of Delft in The Netherlands, 
>where more than 50% of all trips are made by bike.  I'm at the 
>Childstreet conference, and then am going on a tour of various 
>facilities with Patrick Seidler and a full group that he is bringing 
>here through his non-profit Transportation Alternatives for Marin, 
>including a County Supervisor, planner, and community leaders.
>
>P.P.S.  If the previous messages were forwarded to a larger group 
>(including the SFBC bike list, please send my response message so 
>that everyone can get the expanded view.) 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Snyder <dave at livablecity.org>
>Sent: Aug 24, 2005 1:32 AM
>To: doug at rhaa.com, 'A P Thornley' <apt at thornley.com>
>Cc: sfbike at topica.com, Deb Hubsmith <deb at marinbike.org>
>Subject: RE: [SFBike]  tube timex index
>
>Provocative, moi?
>
>Yes, those Census numbers are off, for several reasons. One, they ask
>"how did you get to work last week?" in the early spring, when
>cycling rates are lower. Second, multimodal trips, i.e., biking to
>Caltrain, are counted only as a single mode, the longest, which is
>almost never the bike segment. Third, as the Census undercounts poor
>people and people living in unusual housing arrangements (I,
>personally, was not counted until I ran into a volunteer on the
>street, because my cottage house was hard to find), it also
>undercounts bicyclists. The SFBC and other surveys consistently find
>higher bicycle commute numbers than the Census, in the range of 2.5
>to 5.5 percent according to SF phone surveys.
>
>Finally, the Census only counts work trips, which account for only a
>third of all trips. Non-work trips, including recreational trips,
>surely have a higher bike use rate than work trips. For all these
>reasons, the SFBC's estimate of 3-4% of all trips being made by bike
>is accurate, and I hope people don't assume those Census numbers are
>the final word on bicycle mode split. However, they do make for an
>accurate comparison between Marin and San Francisco, as they use the
>same methodology, and therefore result in the same provocative
>insight.
>
>Deb Hubsmith, being the effective advocate that she is, uses numbers
>much more favorable to Marin bicycle advocacy: the MTC Household
>Transportation Survey (which counts all trips, not just work trips,
>but has a higher margin of error, but as we saw, the Census
>methodology creates a larger margin of error on this issue than a
>purely statistical analysis would indicate). To be fair, let's
>compare the numbers using Deb's data, and see how provocative it is.
>
>Marin to Marin, 1.76% * 247,289 population = 4,352 = $13,787 per rider
>SF to SF, 2.30% * 776,733 population = 17,864 = $560 per rider
>
>13787:560 = 24.6:1
>
>Please note, these are ten years' worth of dollars per today's rider,
>which is not the same as a measure of cost effectiveness, because the
>true denominator is the number of future riders after the investments
>are made.
>
>
>At 3:07 PM -0700 8/23/05, Douglas Nelson wrote:
>>I know that this is supposed to be provacative, but clearly the U.S. Census
>>numbers are way off.
>>
>>Doug.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Dave Snyder [mailto:dave at livablecity.org]
>  >Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:04 PM
>  >
>>
>>Amount of money San Francisco is planning to spend on bicycle
>>planning, education, and facilities in the next five years: $10
>>million **
>>
>>Amount Marin County is planning to spend in the next five years: $60
>>million  ***
>>
>>Number of residents who bicycle to work in San Francisco: 8,302 *
>>
>>In Marin: 1,233 *
>>
>>Ratio of expenditures per cyclist in Marin to San Francisco: 40.5 to 1
>>
>>*U.S. Census
>>**SF County Transportation Authority
>  >***MCBC's Advocacy Director Deb Hubsmith