A press release from the Mayor’s Office states:

Since 2006 when 4,862 bicycle riders were counted, San Francisco’s bike counts have increased an impressive 71 percent to 8,314 riders, and have increased 7 percent since 2010. Bike trips accounted for 3.5 percent of all trips in the City compared to two percent in 2000…

The 2011 Bicycle Count Report relied on a new methodology and more comprehensive approach which included American Community Survey findings, manual intersection counts, loop-detector automated corridor counts and Metropolitan Transportation Commission manual counts. The purpose of changing the methodology was to bring San Francisco’s data in line with national reporting standards.

“These counts back up what is apparent on our streets everyday — that San Franciscans love bicycling, and that bicycling has never been more popular,” San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Leah Shahum said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing to work with city leaders, neighbors and local businesses to help even more people bicycle by connecting the city with safe and inviting crosstown bikeways, helping the city reach its goal of 20 percent of trips by bicycle by 2020.”

New York City's Eighth Avenue protected bike lane. Photo: BicyclesOnly/Flickr

That could change under a state bill called AB 819, which would give California cities more flexibility to implement bikeway designs that are fast becoming the best practices in leading American cities.

“The goal of AB 819 is to free up communities to implement the kind of innovative facilities we’re seeing in use in other parts of the country and in Europe,” said Jim Brown, communications director for the California Bicycle Coalition.

Under current state law, facilities like protected bike lanes and bike boxes – which are not established within Caltrans guidelines — must go through an expensive and time-consuming approval process. Although some have been built in cities like San Francisco and Long Beach, they haven’t come easily.

“Cities can get permission to experiment through Caltrans, but it’s a really long decision process,” said Brown. Using “experimental” designs also leaves planners subject to greater legal liability. “It means that cities are less willing to install facilities that might actually increase bicycle ridership.”

AB 819 would allow planners to use guidelines that have already been developed outside the state, like the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, released last spring by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and approved by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, to help them plan and fund those projects.

But the bill’s reach could be limited by an amendment proposed by the California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABO), a smaller coalition which argues that using outside guidelines for bikeways could be problematic. Their alternative proposal, which will be considered at a State Assembly Transportation Committee hearing on Monday, would only allow new types of bike facilities to be established under an experimentation process within Caltrans.

“If you want to provide separate facilities for beginning cyclists, or for people who don’t want to ride in traffic, fine,” said CABO President Jim Baross. “Let’s do it right through an experimentation process and a design criteria that comes up that’s safe and actually works.”

A reliance on outside standards, Baross argued, could lead planners to build facilities that are inconsistent and don’t necessarily translate from other states. As an example, he pointed out that drivers in Oregon are taught to yield to bicycle riders passing on the right when making a right turn, whereas California drivers are instructed to merge into the bike lane. That, he said, could create problems within bikeway designs imported from Portland.

But Brown argued that city planners would still ultimately be responsible for the designs they choose, and repeating the work done by transportation planners in cities like New York would be superfluous.

Protected bike lanes have been proven to improve safety for all street users, and they’ve been credited with significant gains in bicycling rates, as more people become comfortable cycling on the street. Roughly twenty miles of on-street protected bike lanes have been implemented in New York in recent years. Traffic injuries have fallen by as much as 35 percent on some routes, and bike counts have soared since the city started using the new designs.

“They have thousands and thousands of people using these facilities every day,” said Brown. “Do we really think that we need to second-guess the judgment of the New York City Department of Transportation?”

In many US cities, Departments of Transportation are thinking about how biking fits in as a viable mode of transportation.  In this second video from the Bikes Belong delegation to the Netherlands, Streetfilms was able to talk one-on-one with US Consul General, Julie A. Ruterbories.  This American in Amsterdam learned to use a bicycle to commute in Amsterdam. She also values how cycling not only helps make people healthier but in cities where biking is prevalent, it has a positive effect on the health of the city. “It is great to see societies embracing the greater good,” says Julie Ruterbories, in reference to Dutch culture mainstreaming cycling.

Photo: Uberselektor/Flickr

Berlin is a hugely under-appreciated cycling city. Often overshadowed by the accomplishments of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, over the past two decades Berlin has quietly experienced what is perhaps the most striking cycling renaissance in the world. On any given day, more trips are now made by bicycle in Berlin than any other European city.

Berlin does not fit the mold of a typical bicycling paradise. The metropolis of 3.5 million people is as populous and expansive as Los Angeles. In contrast to Amsterdam and Copenhagen, Berlin boasts abundant road supply, minimal traffic congestion, and an extensive Metro system. Summers are hot and humid and winters are long and cold. In the capital of the nation that produced Mercedes, Volkswagen, BMW, and autobahns, one would not expect bicycling to flourish; yet, since German reunification in 1990, Berlin has undergone a cycling revolution.

According to Berlin’s 2010 Mobility Report, Berliners made approximately 1.4 million trips by bicycle every day in 2008, amounting to 13 percent of all trips citywide (and 14 percent of commute trips). This figure has more than doubled since 1990, yet it is likely already outdated, given rising gas prices ($8/gallon in Berlin) and an aggressive city initiative to raise cycling mode share to 15 percent by 2015.

While mode share figures are an imperfect measure of cycling rates, they allow for rough comparisons between cities. In Amsterdam and Copenhagen, about 35 percent of all trips are made by bicycle. In Portland, cycling captures 6-8 percent of commute trips, the largest total of any major American city. For a city the scale of Berlin, 13 percent mode-share is substantial — especially considering 30 percent of trips are already made by walking and 26 percent by public transportation.

The accomplishments of Berlin are even more outstanding at a district level. Substantially larger than Amsterdam (population 780,000), Copenhagen (541,000), and Portland (583,000), Berlin encompasses a wide range of neighborhood types, from dense urban to single family suburban. Outlying suburban districts like Spandau or Steglitz resemble Portland or Boulder, with bicycle trips composing around 6-12 percent of all trips.  Meanwhile, in Berlin’s dense urban core of Mitte, Tiergarten, Kreuzberg, Prenzlauer Berg, Schöneberg, and Fredrichshain—an area of 695,000 people with a population density 50 percent higher than San Francisco—bicycling comprises an outstanding 20 percent of all trips.

Berlin owes its success to equal parts bicycle culture and infrastructure. Bicycling education begins at an early age—every Berliner must pass a bicycle safety course in elementary school. This early education campaign feeds into what appears to be a surprisingly orderly movement of traffic—bicyclists tend to obey traffic laws and motorists tend to look out for bicyclists. Demographically, Berlin is Germany’s largest college town—it has three major universities and 135,000 college students, in addition to hundreds of thousands of 20-somethings who flock to Berlin from throughout Europe after graduating. Yet bicycling is not restricted to young urbanites. The ubiquitous grade-separated cycle tracks, bicycle boulevards, and other facilities make cycling attractive to schoolchildren and the elderly alike.

The recent snowball effect, however, has been the product of good long-range planning. Upon reunification, Berlin took a proactive stance to accommodate future growth in bicycling rather than simply meeting present demand. The city made a sustained long-term commitment to bicycling, currently investing approximately €5 million ($7 million) annually into bicycle infrastructure and programs. Whereas cities like San Francisco or Seattle seem to constantly be playing catch-up to bicycling demand, Berlin planned for success even when the demand was not there. The “if you build it, they will come” adage seems to ring true.

It is worth noting that Berlin still has plenty of room for improvement. Post-WWII redevelopment created many high-speed boulevards and mega-apartment complexes that eroded the livability of many neighborhoods of the city (especially in East Berlin). While the city has demonstrated a strong commitment toward encouraging bicycling citywide, these areas in particular have lagged behind in becoming bicycle-friendly. However, if there’s one constant in Berlin, it’s change: Its cityscape and culture are among the most dynamic in the world, and the city seems to reinvent itself every couple of years. With the rate of bicycle ownership (721 per 1,000 people) now more than twice the rate of car ownership (324 per 1,000 people), the role of bicycling in Berlin shows no signs of diminishing; further growth seems inevitable.

What is occurring in Berlin gives hope to metropolises across the world. Twenty years ago, Berlin faced the same challenges that countless cities face today: Bicycling was an afterthought, a niche transportation mode reserved for students and hipsters. However, the city’s sustained, long-term commitment to the 5 E’s of bicycling—Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation & Planning—has today produced a renaissance that’s pushed cycling into the mainstream. While New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles are too big to be the next Amsterdam or Copenhagen, they could be the next Berlin.

Daniel Jacobson is a senior at Stanford University studying urban planning. He studied abroad in Berlin for three months earlier this year.  His work is available at www.danielaaronjacobson.com.

Close passes like this one on Market Street would be explicitly illegal under the three-foot passing law, which is already in place in 20 states. Flickr photo: Richard Masoner / Cyclelicious

This article is re-published with permission from the California Bicycle Coalition blog.

Update: Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the 3-foot passing bill. His statement can be found here [PDF]. 

The California Bicycle Coalition has compiled evidence showing that 3-foot-passing laws haven’t had any negative impacts on traffic flows in other states that have enacted these laws, and that such laws are actually boosting bicycle ridership and changing driver behavior for the better.

CBC is responding to reports that the California Highway Patrol is conjuring up worst-case scenarios as part of its whispering campaign to persuade Gov. Jerry Brown to veto Senate Bill 910, the 3-foot-passing bill cosponsored by the CBC and the City of Los Angeles.

The CHP reportedly is telling Gov. Brown that SB 910 would cause an epidemic of rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes when they realize they don’t have space to pass bicyclists by at least three feet. Yet the CHP hasn’t produced any evidence of such problems in any of the 20 states that have 3-foot-passing laws on the books.

Andy Clarke, president of the League of American Bicyclists, the nation’s oldest bicycling advocacy organization, wrote this week in a letter to Gov. Brown, “In our experience working with the 19 [sic] other states that have passed three-foot passing laws, we have heard of no increases in the number of motor vehicle crashes due to the new requirements or any increased burden on law enforcement. In contrast, we have received nothing but positive responses to these laws.”

The Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin has seen no traffic problems in the 38 years since Wisconsin enacted the nation’s first 3-foot-passing law. “I’m not aware of any negative repercussions on traffic safety or capacity due to the passage of this law,” wrote Kevin Hardman, the federation’s executive director, in a letter to the CBC.

That’s also been Minnesota’s experience under the nation’s second 3-foot-passing law, enacted in the mid-1980s. “[The law] has, however, had a positive impact on bicycling,” wrote Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota Executive Director Dorian Grilley. “Over half of Minnesotans bicycle and they are bicycling more frequently.  Motor vehicle drivers seem to have noticed this fact and appear to be at the beginning stages of a significant cultural shift toward respecting bicyclists and pedestrians….”

Grilley’s observation is supported by the landmark 2003 study, Safety in Numbers, which demonstrates that increases in bicycle ridership reduce the incidence of all types of bike-car collisions.

Nothing like the CHP’s nightmare occurred in Arizona after it became the nation third state to enact a 3-foot-passing law. “With respect to any assertion that this kind of law may cause some major difficulties or ‘mayhem,’ we simply have not found that to be the case in Arizona, where the law has been in effect for approximately ten years,” wrote Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists President Robert Beane.

Same in Oklahoma, according to Mike Flenniken of the Oklahoma Bicycle Coalition: “No motorists have died or been injured because of the law, not one editorial or letter to the editor has been published against the law, [and] in fact, one municipality that I know of (Edmond, Oklahoma) acted at the request of their police officers to install an ordinance to add teeth to the State law which would make it enforceable even if there were no injuries incurred.”

Nor did anyone in Nevada raise the possibility of problems when that state’s bill was being debated. According to the Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada’s 3-foot-passing law, which took effect last Saturday, attracted no opposition at all. The Nevada Senate unanimously approved 3-foot-passing legislation in April 2011.

Originally CHP supported SB 910, a surprising sea change from five years ago, when it managed to get CBC’s earlier 3-foot-passing bill killed in its first legislative hearing.

Throughout the legislative debate over SB 910, CHP said it supported the idea of giving bicyclists at least three feet of space. And CHP actually wrote the portion of SB 910 that authorizes drivers to cross a solid double-yellow centerline – currently prohibited under CA law – to give bicyclists at least three feet when passing.

Dan Empfield, publisher of Slowtwitch, contacted the CHP’s legislative representative Capt. Avery Brown about the CHP’s opposition to the bill. Brown told Empfield the CHP prefers to see text in the bill that does not mandate a specific distance.

In effect, the CHP endorses the status quo in California, where existing state law leaves drivers to figure out what constitutes a “safe” passing distance and where more bicyclists are killed by drivers passing from behind than by any other single cause. CBC and the City of Los Angeles continue to insist that the situation is unfair to drivers and presents an unreasonable hazard for people who rely on bicycles for transportation.

Meanwhile, more than 1,500 Californians, including bicycle advocates, bicycling club officials and members, survivors and the families of victims of passing-from-behind collisions, parents, teachers, healthcare professionals and corporate leaders, have written to Gov. Brown to urge him to sign SB 910.

Bicyclists have to contend with a mess of taxis, delivery trucks and other vehicles obstructing the bike lane on Townsend Street near the entrance to the Caltrain station, to the right. This is why some ride on the sidewalk. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

San Francisco police returned to the Caltrain station at 4th, King and Townsend streets this morning to warn bike commuters not to ride on the sidewalk one day after a sting that resulted in a number of citations for people on bikes. Bike advocates complained, however, that Caltrain has known for years the station presents a challenge to bicyclists, and said the agency’s inaction has allowed conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians to continue.

Instead of seriously addressing flaws in the street and station design, the situation has led to the selective enforcement of bicyclists. Police told Streetsblog they have received complaints from pedestrians about bike commuters, and yesterday issued a number of citations to bicyclists for riding on the sidewalk. SFPD Lt. Troy Dangerfield said today it was part of a “month-long campaign on bicycle and pedestrian enforcement.” However, the officers did not target drivers obstructing the bike lane.

Shirley Johnson, a member of Caltrain’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and a longtime leader of the Bikes ONBoard program, said she’s been riding on the sidewalk for years.

“I just thought that’s how you’re supposed to get to the station. There’s a curb cut right there, on the sidewalk,” she told Streetsblog. “No one has ever said anything and people are getting ticketed. That seems very unfair.”

“I’m very careful. I ride really slow on the sidewalk,” she continued. “But I can only imagine if someone’s late for the train they’re probably coming along at a pretty good clip. I always got there early enough that I never had to do that but I can see that it’s a safety concern.”

A great many bicyclists walk their bikes into the station. The bike parking building is to the left.

Hundreds of daily bike commuters use this facility to park their bikes, and on many days it's over capacity. It's also the home of Warm Planet Bikes

The bike lanes installed on Townsend Street on the north side of the Caltrain station were ushered in with quite the fanfare, just days after the permanent injunction against bike facilities was lifted in August, 2010. But this morning, like any other typical weekday (according to bike commuters I spoke to), the bike lane was at various times blocked by taxis, a Bud Light delivery truck, a shuttle bus and private automobiles. Some taxi drivers like to make sudden u-turns out of the taxi station, endangering bicyclists riding in the bike lane.

Caltrain’s 2008 Bicycle Access and Parking Plan acknowledges the challenges for bicyclists here:

There is no clearly‐delineated routing for cyclists to transition from riding to walking their bike to reach the station entrance and platforms. Cyclists are frequently observed riding on the section of sidewalk between the taxi stand (where there is a curb cut and a signed bollard) and the station entrance. This exacerbates passenger flow issues, as there are also many pedestrians in this area.

The plan recommended working with the SFMTA to consider relocating the taxi stand but nothing has been done since it was adopted, according to Caltrain spokesperson Christine Dunn, who added that “none of the recommended projects in the plan are funded.”

Johnson said Caltrain needs to address the problem immediately. “They need to have a safe, clearly marked pathway for cyclists to get to the station that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic.”

This taxi driver begins making a dangerous u-turn.

Law enforcement vehicles are often parked on the sidewalk, even during rush times. Caltrain was ordered to install the black bollards as a security measure.

Bike commuter Jean Fraser, who happens to be the director of the San Mateo County Public Health Department, sent us this word about the sting:

This morning at the Caltrain station I discovered two officers ticketing bicyclists for riding on the sidewalk as they approached the Caltrain station. When I asked if the officers were also enforcing the traffic laws against the taxis and private cars that double park and block the bike lanes leading to the station, forcing people who ride bikes to have to move into the traffic lanes, the officers stated they had been given instructions only to focus on bicyclists.

Given the limited resources of the SFPD, the small risk that bicyclists pose compared to the risks of vehicles, as well as the fact that virtually every person who rides a bike to Caltrain represents one less car on our streets, this choice to enforce only one law against only one group seems to be a very poor one. Not only does it not promote public safety much, but it diminishes the credibility of the police department as a neutral enforcer of our laws. People who ride bikes and people who drive cars should all be required to obey the laws, with enforcement actions focused on the areas that pose the greatest risk to the public’s safety.

A spokesperson for the SFPD, Sgt. Michael Andraychak, claims the enforcement was based on “some complaints” from pedestrians about people on bikes and scooters riding on the sidewalk. The enforcement started yesterday morning with education and warnings “that it’s against the law and unsafe to ride bicycles on the sidewalk.”

“They returned out there today and I’m told that at least one repeat offender was issued a citation. I don’t have any specific citation numbers,” he said.

When I pointed out to Andraychak that his comments contradict the standard SFPD line that the agency is not conducting targeted enforcement against bicyclists, maintaining that it’s enforcement for all road users, he gave this response:

“We received complaints from citizens about bicyclists and motor scooters on the sidewalk that were compromising pedestrian safety. Now, if someone had raised concerns about motor vehicles double parking or blocking the bike lane, if the officers weren’t aware of it, then that’s something that they can, in turn, address. I don’t appreciate your characterization there that we’re targeting, and only going after bicyclists. That’s not the case.”

Next time, SFPD might want to consider encouraging cyclists to ride in the street by keeping the bike lane clear of obstructions.

Photo: Waltaar

The California Bicycle Coalition is hearing that Governor Jerry Brown is getting pressure from the California Highway Patrol and AAA to veto SB 910, the safe passage bill for bicyclists. Known as the “Give Me 3″ bill, it would require drivers to give people on bikes at least 3 feet of space when passing from behind. It cleared both houses of the Legislature with overwhelming support, and is awaiting the governor’s signature.

From the CBC:

CHP and AAA are recommending that Gov. Brown veto SB 910, yet neither one has produced any evidence of problems from the 19 other states with these laws, including Wisconsin, which has 38 years’ experience under its 3-foot-passing law.

Most CA drivers try give bicyclists enough space, but they get no guidance from CA’s vague and subjective passing law.

Many CA drivers also willingly cross the double-yellow line to pass bicyclists on narrow two-lane roads, but why is it reasonable to ask them to break the law in order to do the right thing?

More bicyclists die from being hit from behind than from any other type of vehicle collision — it’s the single biggest cause of adult bicyclist deaths. Is this the status quo CHP and AAA want to preserve?

The CBC is encouraging Streetsblog readers to email Governor Brown’s office asap and tell him: sign SB 910 into law! You can download a sample letter and get more instructions here.

In the increasingly heated competition to see who deserves the title of America’s most bike-friendly city, Minneapolis has plenty going for it. Last year Bicycling magazine anointed the city tops in the nation, knocking Portland off its long-held perch.

The Twin Cities are undergoing a steady transformation into a more bike-oriented region thanks to nearly 100 miles of greenways and off-street paths, giving residents safe and quick travel options. By far the best-known of those paths is the 5.7 mile long Midtown Greenway, which connects cyclists to destinations through the heart of Minneapolis, from east to west. As you’ll see, the path isn’t just giving people a great place to bike, walk, and run — it’s attracting development and new businesses as well.

Thanks to the Bikes Belong Foundation for funding this Streetfilm, our third in a series on innovations in Minneapolis. Check out the Nice Ride MN and Sabo Bridge Streetfilms if you haven’t already!

Cycling For Everyone from Dutch Cycling Embassy on Vimeo.

Last week, a team of Dutch experts led a series of Think Bike workshops in four U.S. cities, including San Francisco, to help advocates and planners design the bike infrastructure of the future. Cities across the globe continue to look to the Netherlands for inspiration, and guidance, and that demand is being embraced by a unique organization known as the Dutch Cycling Embassy.

The embassy is comprised of bike ambassadors from non-profits, private companies, bike manufacturers and local and national governments in the Netherlands. It recently released a new video that beautifully tells the story of how the bicycle became a part of everyday life in the Netherlands. It’s an inspirational seven minutes by Marc van Woudenberg and a must-see for elected officials and planners in the U.S.

The goal of the embassy, which has also launched a new website, is to “to support, facilitate, contribute to and inspire international cycling projects and policies helping countries, cities and its people to move forward in a safe and healthy way.”

As the video illustrates so well, cycling has always been popular in the Netherlands, but there was a time when cars ruled and the transformation to bike-friendly streets didn’t happen overnight. As the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Leah Shahum pointed out in her timely Streetsblog essay last week, “the arc that we are on in San Francisco right now is surprisingly akin to that of Amsterdam 40 years ago when engaged citizens led by passionate advocates convinced local leaders to solidly commit to making bicycling the easiest and most favored way to get around the city.”

In addition to the video, you can download this great brochure [pdf] from the embassy, which has a lot of important and fun facts about bicycling in the Netherlands, “where 16 million inhabitants own 18 million bicycles.”

Though it may seem like bicycling is booming, the data, puzzlingly, says otherwise. Photo: M.V. Jantzen / GGW

“The methodology will always work against us,” said Darren Flusche of the Bike League. The ACS question about commuting goes like this:

How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK? If this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark (X) the box of the one for most of the distance.

“As long as that’s the question, it’s going to undercut cycling,” Flusche said.

After all, someone who rides twice a week doesn’t get counted for any cycling. Someone who bikes to the train station doesn’t get counted. Someone who works too far away to bike but does everything else on two wheels doesn’t get counted.

A somewhat more useful survey is the National Household Travel Survey, but that has only been done twice, with an eight-year gap in between. It counts all trips, not just commuting, but it can’t be broken down geographically.

The .02 percent “drop” in the ACS isn’t statistically significant, but anyone following the huge gains in bicycling over the past couple years would have expected to see a jump, if anything. Major cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington are competing for bike-friendly gold, installing bike lanes, bike corrals, and cycletracks at a dizzying rate. Bike-share systems are proliferating. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declared bikes on an “equal footing” with other modes. Federal funding for bicycling has risen dramatically above what it was just five years ago.

So what gives with the low number?

Flusche emphasizes that we don’t really have to go looking for excuses to justify the dip. After all, in the 70 biggest cities in the U.S., cycling rates held steady. In cities dedicated to improving cycling, rates rose.

And sometimes, you just have to take the long view: Bike commuting is up 39 percent in the U.S. since 2000 – and up 63 percent in the 70 biggest cities. That’s news to celebrate.

John Romeo Alpha at network blog One Speed: GO! did an interesting analysis of the data as well, finding that population density tended to have a proportional effect on bike commuting. He found that Seattle managed to have a high bike mode share without density and New York had high density without correspondingly high mode share, but in general, the 25 most populous cities had cycling rates that corresponded with their mode share.

Source: One Speed GO!

That doesn’t necessarily offer an explanation of the numbers, but it does help illustrate how a city can increase its bicycle mode share. The Bike League also noted that its awarded “Bicycle Friendly Communities” just keep winning over new cyclists, but it’s harder to see year-over-year. Since 2005, “the 38 Bicycle Friendly Communities among the 70 largest cities saw a 95 percent average increase in bicycle commuting” compared to 46 percent growth for the rest of them. Numbers like that put a .02 percent drop, in a survey with questions stacked against cyclists, in perspective.

Bicyclists still have to contend with a mess of private auto traffic on Market Street, especially below 5th Street. Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

In a unanimous vote, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week passed Supervisor and mayoral candidate David Chiu’s resolution calling on the SFMTA to initiate more pilot projects on Market Street to further restrict private auto traffic and make it car-free on a trial basis in advance of the 2015 redesign. The 11 votes were a strong message to the SFMTA that it needs to take more immediate steps to calm private auto traffic on parts of Market Street that are a mess for Muni, and a danger to bicyclists and pedestrians.

The vote comes at a time when a growing of number electeds and mayoral candidates are backing a car-free Market Street. Asked to respond to the passage of the resolution, SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the agency “is committed to making Market Street more efficient for Muni, safer for pedestrians and even more user-friendly for cyclists.”

“We are currently exploring pilots that can be used to test concepts down the road,” he said. Those options include deploying a traffic control officer to New Montgomery to “help coordinate the flow of pedestrians and vehicles” and installing a green right-turn arrow signal at New Montgomery on eastbound Market Street “which alternate when cars and pedestrians have the right of way.”

Drivers turning left onto Market from Montgomery (which turns into New Montgomery) are an ongoing problem, because they use 2nd as a cut-through to the Bay Bridge, creating a backup on Market that sometimes delays Muni all the way up to 6th Street.

Yesterday, a number of parking control officers (PCOs) had already been deployed to Market Street, including the congested 3rd/Kearny/Geary and New Montgomery intersections. At New Montgomery, some drivers had trouble complying with the PCO’s orders. I witnessed an angry SUV driver hop out of his vehicle in the middle of the intersection, and confront the PCO in a threatening manner. He backed down after an SFPD unit pulled up, but then nearly ran over a cop, and was ordered to pull over. I wasn’t able to witness the conclusion.

On Third Street at Market, “drivers are constantly running the red light,” one of the PCOs told me. “This is one of the worst intersections on Market.”

The two back to back signal lights for northbound traffic crossing Market and then Geary are sometimes confusing for drivers. The first light for Market turns red, while the light for Geary just behind it remains green for a few seconds. Seeing only the green, drivers sometimes dart across Market when the signal they should be obeying is actually red.

While deploying PCOs may help, the SFMTA’s response thus far doesn’t fully address the resolution, which states: “Additional near-term pilot projects on Market Street should test further diversions of private automobiles from Market Street in both directions as well as other strategies to reduce Muni delays and improve the safety and attractiveness of Market Street for people walking and bicycling, while still supporting the business and cultural environment.”

The resolution also notes that other pilots the SFMTA is considering “are not poised to make significant impacts on Muni performance.”

“It’s good to see the SFMTA taking some steps, but we need to see more pilots more quickly,” said Judson True, an aide to Chiu.

In reality, it would seem that only Mayor Ed Lee has the power to make changes happen more quickly on Market. Without his support, the SFMTA lacks resources and political power. During last week’s question-and-answer period at the Board of Supervisors, Lee gave an ambiguous answer to a question by Chiu on whether he supports more private auto restrictions on Market.

Lee said he’s behind finding ways to improve Market “for all users” and “supportive of initial trials and pilots,” but skirted around the issue of more immediate private auto restrictions. A phone call and email to the Mayor’s Press Office were not returned.

The Think Bike rendering for Polk Street envisions curbside green bikeways with bus-bulbs and other improvements for Muni riders.

The delegation of Dutch experts who were in San Francisco this week for a series of Think Bike workshops with city officials, bike advocates, transportation planners and others honed in on three critical corridors: Market Street between 5th and 9th, Polk Street between Broadway and Union streets, and The Wiggle.

What resulted from the day-long workshops, survey rides and discussions was a series of recommendations based on feedback from the Dutch experts and workshop participants. The ideas were presented at the final session Tuesday night, which was hosted by SFMTA Transportation Director Ed Reiskin and ended with a speech from Supervisor David Chiu.

On Market Street, the vision was a green carpet of “continuous, safe, attractive” bike lanes that separate cyclists and motor vehicles while reducing the speed and volume of private autos. The recommendations could be incorporated into the Better Market Street planning process, said Kit Hodge, the deputy director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

The SFBC has been pushing for a continuous ribbon of bikeways on Market for awhile now. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Chiu’s resolution calling on the SFMTA to implement more immediate pilot projects on Market Street to make it car-free ahead of a 2015 makeover.

The suggestion for Polk Street was curbside protected bike lanes, bus bulbs and other enhancements that “improves the pedestrian experience and enhances transit access.” Polk Street, a major north-south connection for cyclists, is in dire need of improved bike facilities. The ideas could be implemented in 2013 as part of a planned repaving.

Along The Wiggle, on Scott Street, the focus was on converting a few blocks into a “slow shared street,” with a planted traffic circle at the Page Street intersection. This would deter the cut-through traffic on Scott. There would also be sidewalk plantings for more greenery.

“With the Wiggle, I think it’s a very exciting vision that draws on the community conversations that have been happening for awhile in those neighborhoods and has a lot more emphasis on greenery and neighborhood traffic calming,” said Hodge.

The Think Bike workshops are also happening in other cities across the U.S., including Los Angeles. Damien at Streetsblog L.A. notes that one Dutch official was pretty excited about San Francisco’s revolutionary parklets program.

“What’s heartening about these ideas is nothing is crazy new. It’s definitely fresh thinking, and it was wonderful that people from different worlds could collaborate so well together, but I think it’s also a testament that a lot of neighborhood and community groups have been proposing a lot of these ideas for awhile,” said Hodge. “To see them put on paper in an even more elegant way was fun to watch.”

Download the Tuesday night presentations here: Market [pdf], Polk [pdf] and The Wiggle [pdf]. And if you didn’t catch Leah Shahum’s Streetsblog essay reflecting on her sabbatical in the Netherlands, and how a “Dutch Touch” can help San Francisco bicycle to greatness, by all means do. It’s a great piece.

Photo: Amsterdamize

It’s not often that you get to take your idea of utopia out for a test ride. But that’s what I was lucky enough to do for seven months last year while on sabbatical in Amsterdam.

After more than a decade of helping to build the vision of San Francisco becoming a world-class bicycling city, I had the chance to find out how that vision actually functions on the ground. And, to assess whether we really have what it takes in San Francisco to earn the reputation of a great bicycling city.

What I learned – and what heartens me now – is how close we already are. Much like Berlin, Barcelona, and Paris, San Francisco is on a precipice today. We can choose to use the examples of places such as the Netherlands as a model, or we can continue business as usual.

This week, we are fortunate to welcome Dutch experts to town to show us how great bicycling environments help make great cities. Think Bike — an innovative two-day event co-sponsored by the Consulate General of the Netherlands in SF, the SF Municipal Transportation Agency, and the SF Bicycle Coalition — kicks off today to share the “Dutch Touch” with San Franciscans.

“Whether commuting to work, running errands or taking a family outing, more and more San Franciscans are choosing to bicycle,” said Mayor Edwin M. Lee, who this morning will welcome skilled Dutch transportation planners and interested locals at City Hall for the opening reception of Think Bike. This will kick off two days of intensive planning workshops with the Dutch and local community members. Tuesday evening, their design ideas for specific San Francisco on-street and policy improvements will be shared publicly.

“We know that improvements to San Francisco’s bike network encourage bicycling citywide,” said Edward D. Reiskin, SFMTA Director of Transportation. “We look forward to collaborating with our Dutch colleagues and City partners on creative solutions to help keep the number of bicyclists growing in the years ahead.”

This week’s Think Bike events, which are happening in cities around the U.S., are part of a growing interest among S.F. leaders to partner with experts from the Netherlands to find ways to keep up with the large and growing demand for better bicycling in San Francisco, where polls show that a majority of residents already bicycle occasionally and want to bicycle more often.

Last year, a group of city leaders from the Bay Area — including SF Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and SFMTA Director (then SF Dept. of Public Works Director) Ed Reiskin — traveled to the Netherlands on a study trip organized by Bikes Belong. There they had the chance to see first-hand how seamlessly the bicycle is incorporated into Dutch life, with bicycles routinely used for commuting, shopping, recreation and exercise.

As we embark on a week of benefiting from the Dutch Touch, and as I reflect back on my own bicycling experiences in the Netherlands, I am by no means calling for San Francisco to be just like Amsterdam. We cannot and should not try to replicate any other city completely.

But I learned that this surprisingly similar city offers a strikingly fitting model for us right now. The story of Amsterdam is proof that cities of San Francisco’s size, density and values can create communities that are more accessible, affordable, and family-friendly by dramatically increasing bicycling trips.

Photo: Amsterdamize

A Tale of Two Cities: Amsterdam & San Francisco

There is no city in the world where such a large portion of the population rides bicycles for transportation. Citywide, 38 percent of trips are made by bikes in Amsterdam. In the more compact city center, that number leaps to 57 percent.

Each day, the people of Amsterdam ride more than a million miles on their bicycles. They boast 250 miles of separated bike paths and 250,000 designated bike parking spaces. As bicycling has increased, car ownership has decreased. Today, only 37 percent of the population owns cars, a decrease from 42 percent in 1985. And, transit makes up about 25 percent of trips.

The real-life impacts of these statistics can be seen every day on the charming streets, where parents still allow kids to walk or bike home from school and the elderly pedal around confidently on errands. No doubt, the streets are just as bustling and serve just as many people moving around the city as in San Francisco – it is all just happening in a calmer, quieter, less disruptive way in Amsterdam.

Some may question, understandably, whether a centuries-old European city can be relevant to our situation. In fact, Amsterdam offers a surprising number of similarities to San Francisco, which is considered the most European of U.S. cities for good reason. A quick comparison sheds some light:

• Amsterdam’s population is 765,000. San Francisco is slightly more populous at 815,000. Both serve as hubs of far larger metropolitan regions.
• The two cities have similar population density: Amsterdam boasts 390,000 dwelling units; San Francisco 360,000.
• Unlike their suburban neighbors, most streets are narrow and space is at a premium.
• Finance and tourism are backbones of both cities’ economies.
• While Amsterdam’s regional transit far outpaces the Bay Area’s, neither has top-notch local transit systems.
• Citizens share similar cultural attitudes about the environment and general progressive values, relative to the rest of their own nations’.
• Both have higher-than-average citizen participation, which affects how changes are made in the communities.

The two cities’ most obvious difference is terrain. Amsterdam is as famous for flatness as San Francisco is for hilliness. Yet, I contend that in San Francisco we narrow that disadvantage with gears (almost non-existent in Amsterdam), bike racks on buses, and, the fact that most of us can choose to pedal around, instead of straight up, steep hills for many trips.

Another well-known difference is weather, but this one works in our favor. I was amazed that the number of people pedaling nonchalantly over freshly fallen snow in Amsterdam easily rivals our warmest day in San Francisco. The Bay Area’s near-ideal, temperate climate would surely win out over Amsterdam’s Boston-like winters and Portland-like rain for great bicycling.

Photo: Leah Shahum

Of course, there are other serious differences. These include forward-thinking Dutch laws that place greater liability in collisions on those driving, leveling the playing field for more vulnerable road users. Another difference is that far fewer individual garages and curb cuts exist in Amsterdam, which means fewer areas of conflict. And, of course, higher gas taxes across Europe demonstrate their commitment to showing the true cost of driving while also effectively encouraging more sustainable modes. This is a far cry from American gas subsidies.

Despite these advantages, I believe that none is absolutely critical to our own progress in San Francisco, given the strong demand for better bicycling.

But what about the historical and cultural differences? Haven’t the Dutch always been bicycling? If it is simply in their blood, how can we, as car-loving Americans, expect to learn from them?

This is where my eyes were opened the most during my time abroad, and what has me feeling most encouraged today.

Sure, it is true that the Netherlands boasts a deeper culture and longer history of bicycling for transportation, but it is also true that many of their bicycling innovations and successes have come relatively recently — and under quite similar circumstances that we are experiencing in San Francisco today.

The arc that we are on in San Francisco right now is surprisingly akin to that of Amsterdam 40 years ago when engaged citizens led by passionate advocates convinced local leaders to solidly commit to making bicycling the easiest and most favored way to get around the city. And they succeeded.

This is Amsterdam’s bicycling story. It’s a history we can and should relate to today if we want to make San Francisco more accessible, more family-friendly, and more welcoming for local businesses.

The Story of Amsterdam: You May Be Surprised

At the turn of the 20th century, bicycling for transportation was common through much of Europe. But after WW II, as automobiles gained popularity and more city-planning decisions favored driving, bicycling grew less common.

Even within Amsterdam, there was a shift toward car predominance. Streets were widened and sidewalks shrunk. On-street car parking was added nearly everywhere it could be squeezed in, even on some of the most picturesque and formerly thriving pedestrian areas.

For example, the large, historic square at Neiuwmarkt in front of the 17th-century Waag, which served over the centuries as a weighhouse and central meeting area was transformed into a surface parking lot during the 1960s.

A before shot of the Waag from the 1960s.

The Waag today is a thriving commercial and residential area, where tourists and locals alike enjoy a regular outdoor market, restaurants and shops, all thriving where once parking dominated.

Another poignant example is the well-known Museumplein. Today it is a grand and popular grassy commons boasting the grand Rijksmuseum and other world-famous museums, shops, and high-end residences.

I was shocked to learn that, until the 1970s, a major auto roadway ran directly under the Rijksmuseum (today, it is a bike-only pathway under a grand archway) and straight thru the now-grassy commons. It’s hard to imagine this today, considering how well-loved the pedestrian-only area is now.

A major roadway ran right through the green space and under the historic Museumplein up until the 70s.

At the Museumplein today, the roadway has been replaced by a grassy park loved by locals and visitors. Now a busy, two-way bikepath runs underneath the museum, connecting neighborhoods of Amsterdam.

As recently as the late 1970s throughout Amsterdam, the streets little-resembled the bike-friendly places we see now. Today, a walk over one of the famously quaint canal bridges offers picturesque views with unparalleled photo opportunities. Forty years ago, those same bridges were choked with car traffic and filled with car parking.

And in countless places where today you can ride on bike paths that are fully separated from car traffic and with bike-specific traffic lights, just 10 years ago there were no bike paths, no bike signals, far fewer bicycles, and significantly more cars.

Not surprisingly, this crumbling bicycle environment contributed to a precipitous drop in the number of people bicycling. In 1955, 75 percent of all trips in Amsterdam were made by bicycle. By 1970, that number had declined to only 25 percent.

Photo: Amsterdamize

Shifting the Paradigm Toward Sustainable Transportation

In the 1970s, Amsterdammers grew increasingly concerned about the environment and the oil crisis – as well as overall city livability, traffic, and noise. It all came to a tumultuous head as planners and government officials attempted to plow ahead with increasingly unpopular projects, including one to replace a beloved part of the historic city center with a new freeway.

Enough was enough. Starting in the 1970s, citizens and newly formed advocacy groups such as Fietsersbond, (a membership-based nonprofit similar to the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition), began to work to return their city streets to safety and community.

They stopped the unpopular freeway plan. They replaced car parking lots in public squares with pedestrian-only public squares. Today, for example, the Neiuwmarket boasts a buzzing outdoor market and dozens of restaurants and bars, popular with tourists and locals alike. Walking through the thriving, pedestrian-only area now, it is hard to imagine that it was once covered with parked cars and would have been wiped out by the proposed freeway.

Most notably to Amsterdam’s long-term progress, in 1978 a new City Council was elected who heard and responded to the citizens’ outcry for a more livable and environmentally responsible city. The Council began markedly prioritizing bicycling, walking, and transit trips over automobile trips.

On-street car parking was converted to new bike paths and wider sidewalks. Colored bike lanes were painted on streets that couldn’t fit separated pathways.  “Stop” lines for drivers were pushed back to make room for colored bike boxes. Bicycle-specific traffic lights were added at hundreds of intersections. Many dozens of “traditional” streets in shopping districts were turned into bike- and pedestrian-priority corridors, boosting business. Speed limits were lowered. Traffic-calming speed humps and traffic circles were added.

The City Council’s commitment continues today and is working. The number of people biking in the past 20 years alone has increased by more than 20 percent.

And this is the chief reason I contend that we should feel encouraged in San Francisco: Amsterdam’s reputation as a bicycling mecca is, largely, the result of work undertaken in just the past few decades. That is a tremendous amount of progress in a relatively small amount of time. That’s inspiring to me. Because if they could do it then, we most certainly can do it now … perhaps even better.

The Choices are the Same, Whether in Europe or America

But how did Amsterdam keep progress rolling beyond the early days of passionate rallies, of which San Francisco has experienced its fair share. How did the view that bicycling should take predominance over driving move from words to action? And how did it then develop into long-term, government-led commitment?

A key difference seems to be this: In Amsterdam, local elected leaders have not only explicitly acknowledged the tremendous health, environmental, equity, and livability benefits of biking over driving – as San Francisco leaders have too – but they have also gone a critical step further. Based on their commitment to these benefits, Dutch leaders across the nation have developed clear and consistent policy that it should be easier to bicycle, walk, and take transit in the city than to drive for most trips. And, they act based on that policy.

It is understood that the challenges to making the city more bicycle- and people-friendly are predominantly political challenges – not physical ones – and progress requires sometimes-tough political choices. This means that local electeds set the policy and direct transportation officials within the bureaucracy to carry that policy out, even if it means occasionally upsetting some people who will not be able to drive or park as easily as they once did.

And this is where San Francisco – and the rest of America – still have a lot to learn.

Photo: Amsterdamize

Photo: Amsterdamize

If We’re Really Serious About This….

Politically, it may be advantageous to talk about “balance” and to try to squeeze better biking, walking, and transit into the left-over margins, but to actually make our city more accessible and safe, and less traffic-choked, we need to adopt and stick to a policy that helps make it easier to bicycle, walk, and take transit in our city than to drive – at least for most people for most trips.

I was able to see example after example of Amsterdam planners and politicians making it easier and more convenient to ride a bicycle while making it just a little less convenient — though by no means impossible — for those who need to drive.

None of this means that people are not allowed to drive a car in Amsterdam. It just means that people may drive on streets that are narrower in order to make room for new bike paths, and that they must go slower (improving safety for all, including drivers). Sometimes they may need to travel a block or two out of the way, but can always get where they want to go.

An example is Staalstraat, a central street that runs directly in front of the shared City Hall/Opera/ Ballet building and along the beautiful Amstel River and near a major Metro station and outdoor market. This used to be a traditional, two-way street with cars until a few years ago, when it was converted to a two-way bicycle-only path with a wide sidewalk next to it.

Today it is a well-used and lovely part of the city, drawing far more people bicycling and walking than before. People who are driving can still reach the nearby underground garage but they take slightly different routes. It may take them a minute or three longer to drive there, but people are still attending operas and ballets and visiting City Hall.

Photo: Leah Shahum

How Do We Pedal Forward?

As in Amsterdam, it is clear that San Francisco, too, loves bicycling. Seven out of 10 San Franciscans ride a bicycle occasionally. And polls show they want to ride more often.

Most trips within San Francisco are 5 miles or less. These are eminently bikeable trips for many people. And we are seeing far more people choose to bicycle – lawyers and architects riding downtown to work, parents bicycling their kids to school or day care in the mornings, friends riding together to dinner or a show.

To improve, we need to build on our many successes and speed up the rate of change. Events like Think Bike this week highlight our political leaders’ growing interest to look outside of the American box for great transportation models.

I challenge our decision makers to take advantage of the growing public appetite to try new approaches on our streets and to not be constrained by American examples.

If San Francisco is to be the U.S. leader as a great bicycling city, we must hasten the pace of change. I urge the City to look to popular visions like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Connecting the City, as a way to make our streets welcoming for all who want to try bicycling, from ages 8 to 80.

Just as the Netherlands used a time of crisis in the 1970s to spur positive change, let us consider today’s urgent situation of shrinking government budgets and increasing strains on the transportation system as an opportunity to think differently.

Today, we are a good bicycling city. We have it in us to become a great bicycling city.

Harry Reid says nice things about bike lanes. Photo: Office of Harry Reid

From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended [Transportation Enhancements] on grounds that bicycle paths would help Americans consume less gasoline.

“The issue [Coburn] has presented is a little unusual,” said Reid on Thursday morning. “He says that he doesn’t like bicycle paths being part of the highway bill. Well, for most Americans, they are absolutely important. It’s good for purposes of allowing people to travel without burning all the fossil fuel on the highways.”

Reid added that he had taken his morning run in Washington and noticed “scores” of people commuting by bike or foot.

Sen. Boxer has been in rare form as well, standing up to defend federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs. The article quotes her as saying Transportation Enhancements are “about saving lives.” Take that, everybody who belittles TE as “beautification” projects.

Meanwhile, Sen. Coburn’s aides appear concerned that he and Boxer have two different ideas about the deal that was struck yesterday, allowing the bill to pass and the senators to go back home for the weekend instead of staying to fight it out. Next week, we should all have a clearer idea of exactly what is and what isn’t going to be in the final bill (if one is ever passed).

Image: James Yamasaki / The Stranger

Under the headline, “Okay, Fine, It’s War,” Seattle’s The Stranger blog this week published a manifesto “of and by the nondrivers themselves.” They’re sick of being called “militants” for caring about pedestrian safety, and they’re tired of the specter of a “war on cars.”

We heartily recommend that you read the whole thing, but here are some of our favorite parts. Like this, from the first plank of the manifesto: “The car-driving class must pay its own way!”

For cars we have paved our forests, spanned our lakes, and burrowed under our cities. Yet drivers throw tantrums at the painting of a mere bicycle lane on the street. They balk at the mere suggestion of hiking a car-tab fee, raising the gas tax, or tolling to help pay for their insatiable demands, even as downtrodden transit riders have seen fares rise 80 percent over four years.

No more! We demand that car drivers pay their own way, bearing the full cost of the automobile-petroleum-industrial complex that has depleted our environment, strangled our cities, and drawn our nation into foreign wars. Reinstate the progressive motor vehicle excise tax, hike the gas tax, and toll every freeway, bridge, and neighborhood street until the true cost of driving lies as heavy and noxious as our smog-laden air. Our present system of hidden subsidies is the opiate of the car-driving masses; only when it is totally withdrawn will our road-building addiction finally be broken.

They go on to demand better, more expansive transit, safer streets and sidewalks, and traffic calming. And this:

This antagonism [between car driver and nondriver] traces directly to the creation of the modern car driver, a privileged individual who, as noted, is the beneficiary of a long course of subsidies, tax incentives, and wars for cheap oil. But the same subsidies that created this creature (who now rages about the roads while simultaneously screaming of being a victim in some war) can—and must, beginning now—be used to build bike lanes, sidewalks, light rail, and other benefits to the nondriving classes.

That’s the kind of manifesto we can get on board with.

After the manifesto, The Stranger goes on to report on the rising numbers of crashes between cars and cyclists, the violent anti-bike rhetoric being spewed by car drivers that are the “victims” of some imagined war on cars, the massive disparity between funding for car infrastructure and everything else, and the heroes of the non-driver, beloved both for their advocacy and their tight asses. Read it, read it all.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has relented on his push to strip Transportation Enhancement funding from the six-month surface transportation extension, clearing the way for Senate passage last night and a White House signature today.

Sen. Barbara Boxer says dedicated funding for bike/ped projects is preserved, though Sen. Coburn appears satisfied that Transportation Enhancements is dead. Photo: AP

In exchange for releasing his stranglehold on the Senate (and the estimated 80,000 workers that could lose their jobs, at least temporarily, if the FAA bill lapsed) Coburn will get to insert his language into the long-term bill, when this latest extension expires.

According to CQ Today, Coburn said, “We’ve got an agreement that the next bill will be an opt-out for people on enhancements.” James Inhofe, the top Republican on the EPW committee which wrote the bill, “seems to have played a key role in brokering the deal,” CQ Today reports.

After the vote, Boxer quibbled with Coburn’s description of what will be in the next highway bill. Boxer said she and Inhofe had worked out “reforms” in the transportation enhancements section of the bill and met with Coburn to discuss them before the deal was worked out.

“We felt he would be pleased with the reforms,” she said. “It gives flexibility, without doing damage to the important programs in there.”

Boxer said Coburn made clear that he was “not going to vote for any more extensions” but allowed the current highway funding extension to move forward. “There’s not an opt-out,” she said. “You’ll see what we did. But no, there’s no opt-out. . . . There’s still dedicated funding. It gives more flexibility to the states as to how they will use that funding… It’s flexibility for the states within the transportation enhancements program.”

Clearly, Boxer is in a tight spot, having to placate some of the most conservative members of the Senate while also satisfying the active transportation advocates, in her state and around the country, who have held her feet to the fire on saving dedicated funds for bike/ped programs.

Sen. Coburn’s staff, meanwhile, is alarmed by Boxer’s comments. With the Senate out of session for the week, Coburn is back in Oklahoma and his aides are conferring with him. “Senator Boxer made an agreement with him to include the opt-out provision,” one staffer told Streetsblog. “The fact that she went on the record saying something that is in opposition to their agreement is concerning.”

Streetsblog could not reach the EPW Committee for comment before this story was posted, but we’ll update it if we hear more about exactly what was decided. It may just be a shuffling around of programs, with the essentials of bike/ped dedicated funding maintained, just in a different form.

Coburn was under intense pressure from senators on both sides of the aisle yesterday who wanted to avoid a weekend session, as well as the partial shutdown of the aviation system and the furlough of thousands of workers.

State DOTs and the transportation construction industry have been urging Congress for two years now to pass a long-term bill to restore some certainty to the business. They say the constant extensions create a chilling effect on new projects. Still, given the looming possibility of no extension at all, they are welcoming the six-month extension at current funding levels.

Voting against the extension last night were some of the most conservative members of the Senate. In addition to Sen. Coburn, Jim DeMint (R-SC), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Pat Toomey (R-PA).

Sen. Tom Coburn has an axe to grind with bicycle safety. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

It’s unclear how we went from a House determined to cut spending levels by more than 30 percent to a House unanimously committed to passing a bill with current spending levels. It’s unclear even that this unanimous vote plan will work. Republican party discipline isn’t what it used to be, what with the Tea Party revolt just loving to accuse House Speaker John Boehner of being a tax-and-spend liberal.

However, rumor has it that House Republicans are being told that the extension’s spending levels don’t change the appropriations levels the House is willing to approve, and that’s $27.7 billion for the year for highways and $5.2 billion for transit. So if the extension authorizes $19.8 billion for highways for the first six months and $4.2 billion for transit, that’s fine: It just means that for the whole second half of the year, highways would only get $7.9 billion and transit would only get $800 million. Those are deadly cuts, but it appears that transportation leaders are putting off that fight till later in order to pass an extension now.

Meanwhile, if the extension bill doesn’t pass the House by unanimous consent, the House will need to follow normal rules of order to pass it by majority vote. That means it’ll need to wait a full 72 hours between the posting of the bill and the vote, and that would mean a Wednesday vote. It could also open the door to a messy amendment process.

Speaking of amendments: In the Senate, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn is planning to file an amendment to cut Transportation Enhancements from the six-month extension. It’s good news that he’s doing it as an amendment and not a hold on the bill, since a hold is a unilateral move to force the Senate to utilize a much more time-consuming process to vote on the bill. His amendment will likely fail, since many senators who would normally vote with him to cut bike/ped funding are committed to passing a clean extension, with no amendments.

If Coburn’s amendment does fail, he can lose graciously — or he can try to filibuster. It’s unclear whether he plans to do that. While the House is hoping to have 100 percent support for the bill, insiders fear that in the Senate, the bill could fall short of the 60 percent majority it needs to overcome a filibuster.

The Senate hasn’t yet introduced a (six-month) surface transportation and (four-month) FAA extension bill to replace the four-month surface transportation extension passed by the EPW Committee last Thursday. It won’t go through the same process – the extension will be filed as an amendment attached to an enormously popular bill that House Majority Leader Harry Reid has reportedly been holding on to for just this purpose – as a vehicle to get more controversial measures passed by adding them as amendments. The bill itself deals with sanctions against Burma, a cause dear to Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s heart.

So, the transportation extension will be an amendment attached to the Burma bill, and Coburn’s TE cut will be an amendment to the transportation amendment. Clear enough?

Meanwhile, according to our sources, Sens. Boxer and Inhofe of EPW agree that any amendment – even to the six-month extension – would be a violation of their delicate bipartisan deal on the two-year reauthorization. They require a clean extension.

Sen. James Inhofe still wants to kill bike/ped funding — but later. Photo: TPM/wdcpix

And yesterday, as frazzled Senators rushed around the Capitol during their first day of legislative work after the August recess, the reality began to set in that the clock is ticking to pass an extension before the surface transportation programs expire on September 30.

In addition to passing the extension this morning, Boxer’s committee has also been crafting a two-year, $109 billion reauthorization that would keep spending at current levels.

Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, the ranking member on the committee, voted for the clean four-month extension, saying it will buy the time needed to craft the two-year bill. He says he won’t support Sen. Tom Coburn’s push to kill transportation enhancement funding, which includes bicycle and pedestrian projects – for now. But when it comes to the two-year bill, Inhofe would like to say goodbye to all bike/ped projects.

“I’m all for totally cutting the transportation enhancement funding,” he said in an interview with Streetsblog. “I’ve talked to Senator Boxer about it and I think we can come up with something where we do away with those enhancements.”

Boxer has pledged to maintain dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs in the bill.

Inhofe did acknowledge, however, that TE comprises “less than 2 percent [of the transportation program], instead of the 10 percent that some people think it is.” (Coburn is one of those people.)

“We’ve heard too many stories of people having close calls or worse caused by drivers not giving enough space as they pass someone on a bicycle. This new law will make it easier to educate drivers to give a little more space,” said California Bike Coalition Executive Director Dave Snyder. “Protecting people who want to bicycle – and making that choice an easier one for people to make – is an important step in making California a healthier and safer place to live.”

Assuming the Senate and then Governor Brown approve and sign S.B. 910, it will mark the end of a long road that began well before the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, had his elbow broken when forced off his bicycle by an inattentive cab driver. Following the crash, Villaraigosa made bike safety a legislative priority in Los Angeles. Safe passing laws have come and gone from the legislative docket in the past, but none have ever achieved passage by both houses.

Who would believe this poster contest would lead to a statewide campaign, that would lead to passage of California's 3-foot passing law?

While Bike Coalitions around the state made passage of S.B. 910 a priority, Los Angeles riders played a special role. It was a joint campaign of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, Midnight Ridazz and LAPD that adopted the “Give Me 3″ postering campaign that became the slogan for S.B. 910 supporters. The posters appeared at hundreds of locations around Los Angeles during the summer and fall of 2010 and caught the attention of campaign organizers with the California Bicycle Coalition.

When S.B. 910 becomes law, California will be the 21st state to pass a safe passing law that specifies a distance. Despite the rhetoric from AAA and their water carriers in Sacramento, none of these laws have been seriously challenged in the courts or have been shown to confuse drivers.

Streetsblog will let you know the moment S.B. 910 is vetoed or signed into law.