Transportation and Bike Lanes
The City Council has established the goal of reducing the “mode share”
of trips taken by car from 87% of all trips to 75%. Do you agree with
this goal? If no, what would you substitute? If yes, what do you
think are the three most important things the City can do to achieve
the goal? And what will you do to implement those steps?
Yes, and in fact the bar may be set even higher. My understanding is
that we may already be below 80% mode share for cars. As Werner
Brog’s detailed study showed us, a significant portion of trips taken
by Bellingham residents are short enough to be readily accomplished by
walking or bicycling. On top of this, additional opportunities come
with greater availability of high-frequency transit, such as the
successful “Go” lines.
In our daily lives, mode shift translates into just a few car trips
per week being taken by non-automotive means. In my personal life, I
have found this goal to be surprisingly easy to meet. I am fortunate
enough to be healthy and to live near bike routes and near stores,
parks, schools, and a branch library. I strongly believe in moving
Bellingham towards a different pattern of land use, more in line with
our older neighborhoods: a closer, smaller scale of land use, where
residential and commercial areas are separated by blocks rather than
miles, and where neighborhood parks and elementary schools help to
anchor local community life on a human and walkable scale. Local
government has a unique responsibility and authority over these kinds
of land use decisions.
Bellingham’s Comprehensive Plan is due for revision in 2011, with the
first efforts beginning much earlier. If elected, I will serve on the
City Council during this important process. Our current Comprehensive
Plan is a good one in a great many ways, and I imagine the revision
will represent evolutionary progress in the same directions. But the
Comprehensive Plan is a policy document, indicating goals and
directions and priorities; these are promises that must be kept
through new ordinances, land use rules, and programs.
Do you support establishing impact fees to fund pedestrian and bicycle paths?
Yes, or in the alternative, I support the use of existing
Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) for funding pedestrian and bicycle
paths. Since impact fees are authorized under state law, I suspect
that a new bike/ped impact fee would require authorizing legislation
from Olympia. For this reason, I favor exploring greater use of
existing TIF funds for bicycle and pedestrian routes.
The City’s recently revised transportation concurrency regulations,
which have yet to be tested in practice, represent an advance because
they give credit for “person trips” by complete bicycle and pedestrian
trails, and credit for nearby public transit service. Given that
private developers are now encouraged to expend resources for
pedestrian and bicycle paths, to meet citywide transportation goals,
it only makes sense that the City would use its own resources, such as
TIF monies, to provide these resources as well.