@Richard — I updated/fixed the title of this post to more accurately reflect what I was trying to say. I see how it was confusing as written — I originally tried to keep it short, but it didn’t work.

At this point, I feel like the amount of progress we make is mostly determined by our own vision (bike- and livable streets-advocates), not that of anyone else.

Our own vision is informed by how seriously we, as bike- and livable streets-advocates, take biking. Do we _just_ think that biking can be a fun thing to do once in a while — maybe even ride to work once a week?

Or, do we think biking should always be an option for everyone — as in, a way of life — a biking lifestyle — a no-car lifestyle if we so desired?

Practical politics may require that we initially settle for a lot less than we require and deserve, but I feel like we should all try to, as much as possible, be on the same page regarding where we want to get to — it will, I believe, allow us to advance much more quickly. Right now, I’d argue that there’s still a very small percentage of American-based bike- and livable streets-advocates (3%, maybe?) who actually believe — fully believe — that biking should be a legitimate choice of transportation for everyone — in cities, towns, suburbs, whereever. I’d like to see that change. If we get that percentage to 10% or so, we’ll be much better off.

And some (or all) of your advice may apply anyways — I know I’ve gone to meetings and I might say something that sounds provocative like, “Cars are going away in this city — they’re already on the way out,” and some people will be horrified, but for some bike advocates, this will be the first they’ve ever heard that cars are not an absolute necessity — that the City can and will go on even without cars, and that it will possibly even be a much better place.

I even think we might could use at least two bike advocacy organizations in each town — one ‘establishment’ organization, and one that talks about ‘The Vision’ — what actually needs to get done. I might have to look into that.

1. All politics are local.
2. Pay attention.
3. Show up for public meetings and hearings.

FOR EXAMPLE…

Cycling advocates have been campaigning for years for bike access through a Santa Cruz city park. A portion of the large city park has become overrun with drug dealers. The local police suggested one way to decrease the drug problem is increasing people traffic through this park. Local bike advocates seized this opportunity, met with city Parks & Rec staff to come up with a bike path proposal, then showed up at the Parks & Rec committee meeting for a major win (unanimous approval and money) just this week. Next step is to show up at the city council meeting and convince the city council this is a good idea. Since park staff and committee have already signed off on it, victory is likely.

This is an example of a proactive, positive initiative that was taken in the context of a bigger, strategic vision of what cycling should look like in Santa Cruz.

Bicycle accommodations remain aggressively minimal, even when they are supposedly cutting-edge (here in the US). “Bike” lane, next to parked cars? Standard width in the US is 5 feet, just right for a dooring.

Showers at work? Some of us have them, some don’t. Many of us bike to work and don’t use the showers, but LOTS of people don’t bike to work because they worry that they will be too sweaty, and they have no showers. So in workplaces above a certain size, a shower should be mandatory. What’s the cost of that, compared to fields of asphalt for excess parking spaces?

I was telling friends the other day that you are the person I know that “gets” the whole transportation picture most completely, accurately, and justly.

Keep up the good work!

GFD!