Pedaling for Dollars in Whatcom County

Ken Wilcox is a Bellingham environmental consultant and author of several local hiking guides.

Bicycling, as a legitimate form of transportation in Whatcom County, may be at a crossroads… so to speak. A fork in the road, perhaps? Yogi Berra might have had it right when he advised, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” When it comes to cycling, Whatcom County government may be at just such a decision point.

The county now has in its possession a brand new regional bicycle plan, and it’s time to put it to work. Not only are there many on- and off-street bicycle facilities to be built or improved, the top priority might actually be something a little different—which is immediately hiring a full-time bicycle planner and/or bicycle engineer to begin implementing the new bike plan. It’s important work, and it’s timely. And thanks to some key developments over the last dozen years we can even afford it. Here’s how.

Just about everywhere all the time, bicycling gets short shrift when it comes to doling out the public’s transportation dollars. On the brighter side, it used to be worse. Prior to the 1990s, the idea of funding bicycle facilities in Whatcom County was still something of a wacko-liberal fantasy, albeit less hair-brained than before since other fine cities around the Northwest were already doing it.

Seattle and Portland are notable standouts, throwing their money at bike lanes, multiuse trails and touring routes because they offered clean, quiet, practical, enjoyable, healthy, cheap, attractive and environmentally-friendly ways to get around in an increasingly car-clogged world. Civilized people, it seems, like bikes.

But in a cash-strapped place like Whatcom County, it would generally require a near-monumental effort and a triple planetary conjunction to make a particular bicycle project happen—like the Interurban Trail through the Chuckanuts some years ago.

In 1990, the only county money officially earmarked for the benefit of bikes was in a state-mandated fund for “paths and trails.” The fund represented a tiny fraction of the fuel-tax proceeds received by the county (doled out by the state) and amounted to several thousand dollars each year.

Yet these skimpy dollars often ended up being dumped back into the multi-million-dollar county road budget, supposedly to help pay for paved shoulders on rural road reconstruction projects, which supposedly benefited cyclists, even if their real needs were elsewhere—and even if the shoulders would be paved anyway as a matter of basic road safety.

For the most part, Whatcom County was out to lunch when it came to accommodating bicycling as a legitimate form of transportation. That seems to be changing.

At the same time, Bellingham trail planners, to our good fortune, happened to like bikes. They even rode them regularly. And they were instrumental in helping move the city toward a bike-friendly future amid broad public support, as evidenced by the passage of the Greenways Levy in 1990 and Beyond Greenways in 1997, both of which won by sizeable vote margins. Greenways planner, Tim Wahl, still pedals 10 miles to work and back each day, virtually all year long.

For cyclists and pedestrians in Whatcom County and throughout America, the two-wheeled world changed dramatically in 1991 with passage in Congress of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA (“iced tea”). Suddenly, the nation adopted a landmark policy that not only acknowledged the importance of bicycling and walking as legitimate and necessary transportation modes, but required states to spend a small, yet very significant, share of their federal transportation dollars on facilities to accommodate these forms of travel, along with transit and other modes. In the first six years, over $1 billion was distributed to the states for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Former Bellingham resident, Jay Taber, may have been the first local activist to get wise to the potential of ISTEA to begin funding some of the projects citizens had already identified as top priorities for our region. He proposed that the county apply for grants under ISTEA and that the Paths and Trails Fund provide the necessary matching money to qualify for federal funding.

The state-administered grant program was exceptionally friendly to smaller communities like ours. Under the program, $50,000 in local funds could bring up to $200,000 in federal money to Whatcom County for trails, bike lanes and the like—money that was simply not available before. Thanks to the enthusiastic support of former Whatcom County Parks Director, Roger DeSpain, an early-1990s bike-friendly County Council agreed to submit for grants. And with Jay’s prodding, the council even doubled the size of the Paths and Trails Fund. My own little planning firm, Osprey Environmental Services Inc. (OES), was hired to help prepare seven starry-eyed grant applications in the first round, three of which were funded.

The winning projects included development of a five-mile section of the Bay-to-Baker Trail between Maple Falls and Glacier, bikeway improvements at Birch Bay, and preparation of a comprehensive bicycle transportation plan for the entire county.

The Bay-to-Baker project (a 74-mile multiuse trail from Bellingham Bay to the ski area) has been stuck in limbo almost from the start and deserves an installment of its own just to explain the hang-up. Suffice it to say that, if a few residents in the Maple Falls and Glacier areas took the County Council to task on the lack of follow-through on that first five-mile chunk, their entire eight-mile section of the rail-trail could probably be built in fairly short order. The funding is still available, even if it takes another grant.

The bikeway improvements at Birch Bay, fortunately, went much more smoothly. Happily, OES was also contracted to prepare the Whatcom County Bike Plan (disclosure here, not boasting). And what a pleasure it was to work with many of the cycling movers, shakers and thinkers of our region in crafting a plan with such an ambitious outlook.

The steering committee met frequently, hosted workshops, and either drafted or reviewed and edited materials that would go into the region’s first bike plan. Serious people one and all, and knowledgeable of local needs and priorities. I recall one member, Jim Gooding, who clocked 10,000 miles in a year commuting by bike. Local naturopath and fellow bicyclist, Dr. Mark Steinberg, dedicated many hours to the project as well.

The plan was completed in 1994, incorporated by reference in the Rural Transportation Plan, then was promptly forgotten. No county staff was assigned to its implementation, nor to writing the simple grants that were needed to help fund new facilities. The 1993 fall local election brought with it a new and, some would say, a decidedly backwards-looking County Council. Local transportation policy essentially reverted to the old standard: build as many roads as possible and fill them up with cars.

Bellingham, the smaller cities, and the county all continued to apply for and receive ISTEA grants for bike/pedestrian facilities over the next several years, although most of the more noteworthy action occurred in Bellingham where Greenways dollars offered a more substantial match for larger projects. The South Bay Trail, including reconstruction of the old railroad trestle at Wharf Street, and a route through Cornwall Park from Peabody to Birchwood were funded this way.

In the mid-1990s, Bellingham Public Works was also bearing the contortions of involuntary evolution of its locally Carboniferous transportation policies, thanks in part to the gentle prodding of freshly sharpened meathooks by the Bellingham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (http://www.cob.org/mayor/source/htm/bicycle.htm.) The city’s Public Works Department now routinely includes bike lanes along new and improved arterial streets (Lakeway Drive and Meridian are among the more glaring pre-Cambrian nightmares for cyclists). Though statistics are scarce, bicycling in Bellingham has increased considerably thanks to major infrastructure improvements over the past decade.

In 1998, Congress through a similar law known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21 reauthorized ISTEA. Funding levels were maintained and even enhanced in some areas, and local agencies continued to receive funding for projects. TEA-21 expired at the end of September 2003. Debate is still underway over the next iteration, known as TEA3 or TEALU, the Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (see http://www.tea3.org for more). As always, there’s no shortage of right-wingers in Congress who would rather spend the money on paving more paradise for cars.

Locally, the largest TEA-21 grant awarded to date was for $1.2 million in 1999 to begin development of the 50-mile Coast Millennium Trail, or CMT, from Skagit County to White Rock, B.C., akin to an extension of the Interurban Trail that could some day connect from Seattle to Vancouver and beyond.

At the time, the CMT was the top-rated project in the state. OES prepared the master plan and preliminary design report. (I have since suggested we call the CMT the “Salish Coast Trail” instead, to honor those whose coast this was before our nonnative ancestors showed up uninvited.) In Bellingham, design work is currently underway for TEA-21-funded portions of the CMT at Arroyo Park and Little Squalicum Beach.

Outside Bellingham, the Whatcom Council of Governments (WCOG) has been eager to take the lead on this and other regional trail projects, although progress has been painfully slow. The coastal trail, for example, is an ambitious undertaking that deserves, but does not have, a full-time staff person to move it forward. (For info, see http://www.wcog.org/projects.)

Plans for another regional project, called “Chain of Trails,” was funded by a $126,000 grant to WCOG in 2000, yet after three years the volunteer committee is still wrestling with project goals and a vision statement—an indication that staff support is probably inadequate for the amount of work that’s on the table. WCOG’s distinguished trail bureaucrat and cycling queen, Ellen Barton, is the best nonmotorized transportation advocate one could ask for in a transportation agency, but she could sure use some help.

The WCOG also can’t do it alone. But without assigned staff at any Whatcom County department whose job it is to develop plans and write the grants that make trails and bikeways happen, or coordinate the volunteers who are willing to donate their labor, or provide the materials needed, little progress can occur. The county could make a heck of start simply by emulating, or partnering with, Bellingham’s outstanding Greenways volunteer program.

Providing facilities for cycling is not just about serving the needs of the most serious everyday riders—even if they are the ones who are frequently speaking out on the issue. Communities who work hard to encourage and facilitate more cycling—cities like Portland, Corvalis, Palo Alto, Denver, Missoula, Santa Barbara and Tempe (all 2003 award-winning bike-friendly communities)—inevitably find that the friendlier the place becomes to cyclists the more people will get out of their cars and ride.

Another key issue—providing safe routes for kids to bike to school—has become a major focus of many organizations across the nation (http://www.bikeleague.org/educenter/labsrts.htm.) Even the bicycle industry is throwing money at the cause, not just because they want to sell more bikes to kids, but because kids happen to be the only source of future adult riders (and bike purchasers). Outdated urban planning models, relentless car-based urban design, our lazy reliance on automobiles for even the shortest trips, and the lack of safe biking facilities all contribute to the problem.

A related challenge is the rise of childhood obesity. The number of kids who are overweight, according to the American Obesity Association (http://www.obesity.org) has more than doubled in younger kids, 6 to 11 years old, over the past two decades, and tripled among adolescents, 12 to 19 years of age. These aren’t just family concerns. Every community has a responsibility to understand the broader concerns and take reasonable action to address them.

Today’s bike-friendly (we hope) Whatcom County Council should take notice: no technical-level staff person’s job description at the Parks and Recreation or Public Works departments requires them to write the grants or take personal responsibility for implementing the county’s adopted plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It’s time to create that position. Funding should not be an obstacle since the position could virtually pay for itself. Because both recreational and transportation elements are involved, a split position between Parks and Public Works seems ideal.

If Whatcom County is somehow able to make serious strides in implementing some of the plans that are already on the table, the citizens would likely see tremendous value in return. A single, dedicated staff person could bring enormous benefits to the community by leveraging substantial state and federal grants, and volunteer labor, to address real needs, improve the quality of life, provide for clean transportation alternatives, reduce congestion, promote public health, provide safe bike routes for kids, stimulate sustainable development, enhance economic activity and property values (and tax revenues), and maybe even create a few decent paying jobs.

Very few opportunities exist for county government to create a staff position that actually generates new income—in this instance probably well in excess of the cost of funding the position—while also making Whatcom County a tangibly better place to live.

That new staff person could begin with the new and improved Whatcom County Bike Plan, adopted by the County Council on May 6, 2003. Foothills cyclist, Scott Thompson, led the effort by organizing and building support among diverse interests, and moving County Executive Pete Kremen to make this a priority for local government.

A Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee was formed in April 2001 to tackle local bicycle needs and opportunities, including an update of the 1994 plan. Thanks to Thompson’s friendly tenacity and Kremen’s apparent commitment to clean, affordable alternatives to the Meridian shoppers’ auto derby, the outlook for bicycling in Whatcom County is better than it has been for some time. (See also http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/boards/bpac/bpac_home.jsp.)

The new bike plan lays it all out. Let’s hope it doesn’t just sit on the shelf.

Over the past two years, increased state funding for bicycle transportation has also emerged as an important tool for reducing transportation impacts. Statewide, advocates for saner alternatives are taking the pave-paradise-first mindset to task.

In 2002, the Washington state legislature concocted a major gas tax increase and transportation package (Referendum 51) that was overwhelmingly tilted to new roads, highways and perpetual sprawl. It would have initiated enormous highway projects that could not be finished, and barely paid lip service to things like public transit, ferries, walking and bicycling. Opponents characterized the proposal as something akin to an undisguised rip-off. Voters rejected it by nearly a two-to-one margin.

The legislature took another shot in 2003, but this time agreed to cut some of the worst offending stuff, while reducing the size of the gas tax increase by almost half. They did not require a public vote for this version, and it was quickly signed by the governor. The new nickel gas tax increase went into effect July 1.

Transportation Choices Coalition in Seattle (http://www.transporationchoices.org) says the new gas tax package is less worse than before, but will nevertheless “increase incentives to drive alone.” Like the last one, it too “worsens traffic, air pollution, water pollution and sprawl.”

This year, bicyclists will once again be lobbying the state legislature for a few bones to gnaw on, including a new $5 million “Safe Routes to School Program” that targets “engineering, enforcement, education and advocacy” for the benefit of both school kids and nervous parents (see http://www.bicyclealliance.org.)

Finally, it occurred to me once that if bikes were as big and noisy as cars, we’d probably spend a lot more public money to accommodate them. They would fill up the roads more and not seem so insignificant to politicians who can’t quite tell the difference in infrastructure costs to the taxpayers between an SOV (single-occupant motor vehicle) and an SOB (single-occupant bicycle). Well, I think it’s time we gave those SOBs what they deserve.

Seriously, bicycling, as one of the most efficient means of transportation ever invented, should be actively encouraged by local government as a hedge against the pains of growth—not a save-all, fix-all solution, but a proven, viable and affordable alternative to the paved, car-based sprawl that is eating our little paradise, as a former county hearing examiner once told me, “like a cancer on the landscape.” §