We should accept the criticisms and use them constructively to agitate for change within our organizations and to educate and prod decision makers to make decisions that are truly in the best interest of the public rather than the most politically expedient decisions that satisfy perhaps certain special interest groups with a vested financial stake.  

Irrespective of whatever good work that Bryan has personally been responsible for, the fact is that transportation engineers and planners have been largely dominated by the oil-automobile-highway construction lobby whose money really talks.  Generally speaking (now and historically), the transportation professionals have had very closed minds to other interests and concerns besides that aggressively influential (and very corrupt) lobby.  I find a great many engineers who have a very conservative mindset that only regards the established construction standards as valid for designing facilities, and has never considered re-looking at the basis of these “standards” and how well they actual serve all members of society.

Look, for instance, at the bitter opposition of transportation professionals and municipal officials across America to the implementation of curb ramps and other design refinements needed for handicapped accessibility.  It took a protracted legal fight to finally make curb ramps ubiquitous across the country.  Unfortunately, all too often, only well-funded lawsuits make many transportation officials “get it.”  Curb ramps have not only been narrowly beneficial to persons in wheelchairs, but also parents pushing their children in strollers, delivery people and movers with hand trucks, as well as many other less ambulatory persons in the community.  

Also, most importantly, we need to stop looking at the world only within the narrow confines of the boxes in which we categorize things.  We need to see the big picture, not just “transportation” as an end it itself.  Decisions made concerning the design of streets are not divorced from such concerns as global warming and pollution of our streams and oceans, for the design of streets impact them both.  The more we pave over the land with concrete and asphalt, the greater is the urban heat island effect and the more storm water carrying sediments and other pollutants is collected that needs to be dealt with.  We need to minimize the amount of pavement to what is really necessary.  

The street infrastructure carrying motor vehicles should be decoupled from that carrying pedestrians and bicyclists.  There is no reason except close minded thinking causing us to put these together always within the same public right-of-way.  There is also little reason for the vehicular network from crossing paths with pedestrians and bicycles.  Through the intelligent use of dead-end streets and grade separation, especially where the terrain is to our advantage, we can design networks in which pedestrians and bicyclists can travel long, continuous paths without ever encountering an automobile.   We don’t have to re-invent the wheel even.  These solutions have already been employed successfully (such as the Greenbelt towns, and at Village Homes in Davis, California) before the transportation and planning professions seemed to forget about them.

I think you missed Bryan’s entire point. He was not saying that your feelings do not matter. Rather he was saying bringing anger and emotion to the table and attacking people has accomplished very little for those on the advocacy side that utilize that approach. And maybe we should be listening to him to identify strategic ways that actually work within our local governments to facilitate change and be heard. We are all part of the solution. Raising your voice or attacking others does not establish an equal footing. Treating people with respect and working to create a relationship with the person will often result in an equal footing and actually having some credibility to be heard.

Bryan was recently appointed to the State of California Traffic Control Devices Committee, which oversees the CA MUTCD changes, as one of two new voting members representing bicycists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. This is how new active transportation treatments that enhance the environment for bicyclists and pedestrians are approved. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) working with the California Bicycle Coalition created these two new voting positions.

Here are just some videos from both Fresno and Carlsbad that I easily found on the web.

Carlsbad Livable Streets Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS9VFpVWTB8
Carlsbad Pedestrian Scramble Youtube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvDpk7J2zY8&list=UUEpvrViEk8vH3AzLg5lEo8A&index=8&feature=plcp I BIKE FRESNO Biking = Joyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=keeDi-2KUg0I BIKE FRESNO Revive your Bikehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cZuem_B-L2sI BIKE FRESNO May is Bike Month Sponsorship videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ohQfVJQ9a9A

The public facilities we have are a manifestation of the multiple opinions and concepts represented in our body politic.  There are plenty of angry  people.  Some of them ride bicycles. Some of them drive pickup trucks.  No matter what the benefits of any particular mode of transportation or energy production may exist in the minds of individuals,  the only way to make those benefits manifest in public works is to convince the majority of voters that they are in their best interest.  All the rest, all the posturing, all the outrage, serve only the self-image of the individuals expressing them. 

Our choices are to enter the public arena and make the best deal we can, or to go it alone and work what change we can by ourselves or with a cadre of like-minded individuals outside of the public, political arena.  Take your pick.  Except for your own motivation, I don’t think you’ll find your anger will do you much good in either venue.

Bruce Lierman

In the USA we have a habit of starting from square one instead of seeking out long established protocols in other parts of the world, evaluating their successes and applying them to our particular situations.We prefer, self centred as we are, to stumble along and, inevitably achieve far from adequate results. I offer as one significant example, the use of industrial sized wind turbines for electricity generation when 30 years of experience in Germany has brought them around to the realization that this source of power generation cannot even come close to realizing the goals required. Any intelligent person or group subsequently trying to initiate a response to the climate change issue would be wise to use the end point of Germany’s experience as their starting point instead of which it is our arrogant choice to go back to the stone age and ‘re-invent the wheel.’ Pride is the issue here.

The first thing the engineering community and politicians need to do is invite expression of the cycling community’s feelings without trying to water it down and, honestly and openly, they need to hear and acknowledge the anger and it’s sources. Otherwise what the political anfd engineering powers that be will end up imposing designs which do not necessarily meet the needs and aspirations of the cycling public.

Listening to and hearing how we feel about our experiences is, categorically, critical. All I see in this letter is a wordy attempt to squash the real feelings of the cycling public so it feels comfortable for the engineers and politicians. Describing conferencees as ‘shrill’ is insulting. What needs to be recognized is the level of anger,fear and frustration we feel as cyclists, people with basically similar goals as other travellers yet who have to endure far from acceptable transportation environments, ones which we have little or no voice in establishing.

I recently approached a local mall manager about having cycle racks available and was met with “We don’t have many people cycling to the mall !”. This in a situation where access to the mall is either legally banned or requires a lengthy, circuitous detour. His response reflects much of the present attitude to cycling as a means of transportation and subsequent need to make accomodations. Another mall, after being lobbied for years, provided an excellent bike rack for 5 bicycles (this in the middle of the city) and then proceeded to ignore/not monitor the problems that arose when emptied shopping carts continuously blocked access.

Without belaboring the details, of which there are a multitude, all I am wishing to establish is that ‘A car is a machine used in transporting a human and so is a bicycle !”. However, there are glaring differences such as; from a global warming situation the bicycle takes a fraction of the resources to build ; the cycle is propelled without the requirement of fossil fuels; the cycle acts as a continuous agent in form of health-giving exercize; the cycle requires a comparitively limited amount of parking area and, this age old device is a delight to ride, allowing much freedom and flexibility when the circumstances allow.

I urge future conferencees, both speakers to first encourage expression of what is driving these ‘shrill ‘ attendees and  to do some serious listening. Attendees from the cycling community need to keep raising their voices until they establish an equal footing. We will not and should not ‘come to the table’ until this is established.

Bernie Paquette
S.B. Vermont
http://litterwithastorytotell.blogspot.com/

When we talk about people based on their “position” we are not talking about a person but rather labeling them with a title and often a stereotype. Get to know those engineers on a personal level. They are often people just like you that live, work, and play in your community. They too have families and want a quality community.

Starting out or nurturing a relationship does not need to include words or attacks that make people feel unwelcomed or blamed. That just closes peoples ears to listening and you lose your audience. That creates more walls and barriers rather than bridges to finding a solution. We do not need to rehash the past or what has not been done…but rather on the future and what we can do together. We should be highlighting the GREAT behaviors of those traffic engineers and transportation planners that “get it” and are doing great things. Celebrate it! Change the language, the converstations, and then the culture will follow.

I would disagree that advocacy is positive no matter what form it takes. The form can lose a lot of credibility and confidence with those that can help facilitate the change. The messaging, communication, and relationships need to be strategic. Advocacy groups should read the book “Start with Why” by Simon Sinek and then figure out the “why” that they share with those they are seeking help from…speak their language or what matters to them and it is amazing the synergy that will result.

As my mom used to say, you can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar. So if advocates really want to be heard and change to occur for the better, I would strongly encourage the use of honey.

I was honestly pretty unhappy with the actions at some of the lunch and closing plenarys.  Inviting John Horsley (head of AASHTO) and then embarassing him on stage – someone who is a bike advocate but leads a state membership organization whose membership is still growing warmer to bike/ped.  It’s a hell of a lot harder for him to come to an conference like this than it is to have another feel good session by America Bikes or some other group.

And a closing speaker who proposed a ridiculous platform that included statements like “WE NEED TO BUILD NO MORE NEW ROADS”.  That may have made for good audience dynamics in the PWPB attendees, but I looked around and saw anyone that didn’t work in advocacy shaking their head.  That plays well to your bike and ped advocates in your city, but try selling that to the average citizen. Or the City Council.  The city or state department of transportation. It’s not a moderate or a realistic viewpoint and it sends a lot of advocates down the wrong path by proposing a more extreme, than collaborative method of doing things.

That said, you have to acknowledge reality.  Many of these advocates regularly experience small successes that prove hollow when megastructures insensitive to human scale and community context are pushed through the establishment anyway.

I was personally accosted at PWPB by an engineer when I critiqued a supposedly “pedestrian friendly” interchange treatment for being ignorant to empirical observation of desire lines and the minimum turning radii of the human body.  This engineer pointed out that the design had to be the way it was because this was the safest design according to published standards.  But how can a design be safe if 9 out of 10 users will behave in a way entirely different than the design intent?

There is a lot of personal and professional growth that all sides must undergo.

But in the weeks afterward, I also thought about the same issues as Bryan did. I certainly had no illusions about this conference – after attending 5 of them (and being verbally attacked by the attendees at at least one), I know that PWPB is of, by, and for the activist and advocate community, unlike ITE, AASHTO, or other technical meetings.

PPS/PWPB made very deliberate decisions in their choice of plenary & keynote speakers, and had a very good idea as to what they might be expected to say to such an audience. Some, like Jim Sayer, were excellent. But given this, I wasn’t very surprised at all to hear other high-profile speakers make extreme statements, such as laying the blame for our current situation directly on the shoulders of transportation engineering professionals, and that not providing certain facilities was a “human rights violation”. And the audience in general seemed to love every minute of it.

PPS/PWPB is free to structure their conference any way they see fit, and 800+ attendees is certainly not a mark of failure. But if I was a mid-to-high-level manager at an agency or transportation organization, and I was aware of the overall tone and content of some of the presentations, it would likely affect decisions on whether to send staff to future iterations of this conference.

Like Bryan, I was really disappointed with some of the tone of the advocates in the room, who didn’t understand that decrying the present situation in harsh terms and cutting down organizations who you need as allies – not enemies – isn’t helping the movement. 

 It’s very, very easy to be an advocate, surround yourself with allies, and to choose the audience who you speak to.  It’s harder to work inside an public organization (federal, state, or local) and push the sort of change you’re espousing even if we believe in it.  It doesn’t mean it doesnt happen but it takes a lot more effort and careful relationship building.  Angry advocates can undo in minutes what we have spent months or years to build momentum for change internally.