bike count 18

Bike Count 2018

bike count 18

The annual Bike Count is around the corner, and we need your help to count bikes! By spending some time counting bicycles and recording some important data (like helmet use and direction), it can help TBAG and the City of Tempe to determine primary safety and transportation goals and needs.

Bike Count occurs on April 10, 11, and 12th. Shifts are either 7-9am or 4-6pm. And we celebrate with a post-party at Boulders on Broadway!

You can view available intersections and sign-up for your choice at

As our priority intersections are claimed we will open additional locations.
Help support efforts to record and improve bicycling infrastructure in Tempe!

Why all bicycles should be “Licensed”

In a previous post, I talked about the game changing $15 tax on new bicycles (over $500) that was just passed in Oregon. I argue that the persuasion factor of paying an excise tax drastically empowers the cycling lobby.

Normally, excise or ‘sin’ taxes are levied on items such as cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling. These are often considered superfluous or unnecessary goods and services. However, this is not always the case; Pittman-Robertson is a great example where an ad valorem excise taxes increased use and opportunity. While excise taxes do increase the cost of an item – we have to also look to see if the increased cost is high enough to reduce consumption; as well as its effect on the purchaser’s justification to continued use. I’d argue that, if someone is paying for something (even if it is not the full cost of use) they have a hugely persuasive argument to unlimited use of that thing (whatever it is).

I’ll use the vehicle license & registration excise tax (most DMV’s call it a ‘fee’) as an example.  Most of us own or have owned a car so we know that; here in AZ for example, we pay a vehicle license tax (VLT) of around 3%. This means that, for under $500 a year, you can drive your $30,000 car everywhere. And, by everywhere, I mean literally everywhere, every highway, paved road, lot or dirt path is open to you. Nobody blinks an eye because you paid for a nifty piece of “magic metal” on your bumper. The State of AZ has set up entire organizations designed to provide access and protect you. DOT’s, State and Local Law Enforcement, City Transportation Departments all work overtime to make sure you can get anywhere using your car. ALL BECAUSE YOU PAY A FEE!

pictured: car on tree in Lubczyna. Fed up neighbours put the brakes on a boy racer after months of being driven barking by his antics - by hoisting his car to the top of a tree. Road hog Zbigniew Filo, 24 - who doesn't even have a licence - woke to find his souped up white Ford Escort dangling from a huge willow tree in Lubczyna, Poland. Locals have refused to say who carried out the prank, but have revealed that one villager's mobile crane was borrowed for the night. Police spokesman Marta Pierko confirmed: "We received a call from a man saying his car was stuck in a tree, and that his neighbours had put it there." "After inspecting the site we instructed him to remove it from the tree," she added. One local explained: "Whoever, or whatever it was, it’s probably a good thing as he was a dangerous driver and could have killed someone. "Perhaps he’ll think twice about his hair-raising driving and about getting a licence or who knows where his next car might end up?" Now shamefaced Filo has promised to change his driving style. "I get the message, but I think it was a bit harsh," he said..Its ok – because “license”

GET IT? Your “license” is literally a persuasion tactic to legitimize use. You paid for it, your taxes go to supporting it and the government condones and encourages continued use. It even looks the other way for most everything besides the most egregious offenses.

Because of this I have to ask: Today, in your community, (outside of Portland proper) do you pay a special fee on your bicycle?


But, but..but… we already pay! You argue. I’ll argue back and tell you the drivers don’t care and, in case you need reminding, there are more of ‘them’ than ‘us’. They pay, they know they pay and they have magic metal on their bumper and a nifty plastic rune in their pocket. These are all issued by the state giving them full justification to put the “pedal to the metal”. Private corporations provide extensive services, including great insurance coverage…. Every business expects them to drive… There are thousands of design options and configurations…. There is an auto repair shop or parts store within a mile of your home right now….


Now – it looks like Portland (or maybe just the folks at Bike Portland) may be coming around, or maybe they are just at the bargaining stage. But the bike excise sales tax is and should only be the beginning.  I’d argue that, like motor vehicles, every bicycle should be licensed in some way.

>Insert outrage.jpg:


WAIT! PAUSE! Before you get your HR into Zone 5, hear me out.

Cars hate you, well at least the drivers, and, even then, they probably don’t hate you, they just feel like their license fees paid for the road… and here we cyclists come asking for 5’ of space and BTW please don’t kill/ maim us.

I mean, it’s not like cyclists don’t help pay for the roads. We know they (we) do. We just can’t explain in 15 words or less how we do it. Our most common argument is ‘I pay taxes too’. This is really a terrible argument because, really, who doesn’t pay taxes… and if everyone is paying, the mob rules. Their mob is bigger. A straight voter fight won’t cut it, and arguing over scraps of funding when your local schools are behind in repairs is, frankly, a poor strategy and morally questionable. But, the logic of “muh taxes” sounds great so that’s what the League of American Bicyclists, NBDA and transportation experts argue. The problem is that we cannot argue ‘logically’ with others who are driven by persuasion because ‘science’.

Drivers believe their taxes pay for their spaces. Everyone knows that vehicle fees don’t cover the total costs of driving but we all go along with the ruse. Cyclists need to counter this ploy with similarly designed schemes. A trivial $15 dollar tax and $15 dollar permanent registration fee becomes extremely powerful once the numbers are added up; In 2015 about 17 million bicycles were sold across the US. My fellow cyclists, if we simply had a $30 dollar per bike (Tax and License) we would generate $510 million dollars to be used for bicycle infrastructure….each year.

That $510 M also buys about 30 Trillion CRAP-tonnes of persuasion, and before you get up in arms about taxes, if my cycling Pittman-Robertson-esqe (C-PR) idea is implemented, this ad valorem money would directly benefit cyclists and only cyclists. Bicyclists need to stop looking exactly like economic free-riders to the “other guys”. C-PR fixes this for pennies on the dollar & kills the free-rider issue. What is ‘free-riding”? (Items following “*” are my comments):

  • Occurs when people can enjoy a good service without paying anything (or making a small or unknown contribution less than their benefit.)

*Cyclists cannot point to a specific dollar contribution or amount because we are not charged $ like drivers

  • If enough people can enjoy a good without paying for the cost then there is a danger that, in a free market, the good will be under-provided or not provided at all.

*Does any cyclist feel like we have enough infrastructure?

  • Another way to explain the free-rider problem is a slogan like “Let George do it” – where George stands for the other person.

*Cyclists: “Everyone else (the Georges) needs to give us space, money for lanes, etc.”

(Bullet points are courtesy of:

Persuasion-wise, a $30 excise tax on new bicycles (~6% on a $500 bike) is unbeatable because it eliminates every argument lobbied against us. Watch Portland closely, in less than 6 months, the bike industry there will have more power because they can now point to specific contributions. This is the fight for $15 they should have been supporting.

Locally, imagine how much more power TBAG and bicycle retailers would have been able to bring to the argument if we had a similar excise tax. The controversy over #BikeMcClintock may never have happened…


Up next time, I’ll tell you why I believe all bicyclists should be licensed …

NB – While the author is the President of TBAG, these comments are his own and not of TBAG supporters or the TBAG Board of Directors.

On Portland’s Bike Tax & Pittman-Robertson (But for Bicycling)

“Take a deep breath and consider this: Oregon is now the only state in America with a bicycle excise tax.”
-Jonathan Maus, editor of Bike Portland

– Patrick Valandra, Pres. Tempe Bicycle Action Group

Photo Credit:

There’s been biblical levels of fear mongering coming out of the Pacific Northwest and cycling commentators following the recent vote by the City of Portland to impose a flat tax on new bicycle purchases.  Arguments range from “the poor can’t afford it” to ‘the tax is so small that it won’t pay for anything. Mr. Maus even opined that the bill was “opposed by small business owners, advocacy groups, and by many voters.” 

After traveling spending the better part of Summer 2016 in Portland, watching my pal Tall Todd plug in Biketown, attending my professional conference, crushing BUCPDX along with riding around with the fine folks in Portland I can honestly say this:

  • Taxes affect everyone, with the poor seeing a greater ratio of their salary affected by taxes.
  • The annual tax is expected to generate about $1.2 million USD. This won’t pay for much using today’s NACTO design standards.
  • Many business owners, advocacy groups and voters are against this bill (now Law).

ALSO:  THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG (and should be ashamed for missing this opportunity)

Now, before you all run me out of town with your Italian brazed pitchforks, let me explain why I think that local groups such as Bike Portland and TBAG as well as national groups like the League of American Bicyclists and the National Bicycle Dealers Association should be spending every minute of their time lobbying local governments and Congress to pass a Pittman-Robertson (PR) type bill focused on bicycling. As an aside, the outdoor industry in general should be lobbying for such a bill but that is another post) 

What is this fool talking about you may ask. As I explain Pittman-Robertson (PR), let’s hop in the wayback machine to a period between late 1800’s and early 1930’s:
Many wildlife species faced extinction due to overhunting (both commercial and private) and habitat destruction. Many states didn’t allow hunting, there were almost no conservation efforts and outdoor activities were extremely limited. People saw these issues as a threat to future hunting and recreational opportunities and rightfully so. In 1937, Senators Pittman (NV) and Robertson (VA) wrote and passed a bill to move an existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition from the general treasury to the Dept. of the Interior. (This has been expanded to other hunting items but you get the idea; also if you feel tempted to post pro or con 2A arguments here; don’t – we’re a damn bike blog)

Now, instead of taking this money and putting it directly in the Treasury; PR created a separate account under the Department of the Interior. How is this money allocated..? well Wikipedia is actually helpfull here:

The Secretary (of the Interior) determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.

States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the states’s fish and game department.  Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.  Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of wildlife and/or habitat, and acquisition or lease of land.  Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through PR funds.  The 25% of the cost that the state must pay generally comes from its hunting license sales.  If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Now if you mind works like mine – you can see how this plays out for cyclists if such a “Cyclists Pittman-Robertson” (C-PR) bill were passed – (edits are mine)

The Secretary (of Transportation) determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of cyclists.

States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their cycling accessory sales may be used by anyone other than the state’s Transportation department (and only for cycling related projects).  Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Transportation.  Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of cycling infrastructure, and acquisition or lease of land for said infrastructure.  Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through C-PR funds.  The 25% of the cost that the state must pay generally comes from its cycling accessory sales.  If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to non-profits focused on cycling and used for training, education or tourism (etc)

Sounds good right!

What happened with wildlife as a result of Pittman-Robertson? I like pictures so let’s look at the growth of hunting opportunity

Hunting days

From:,  p33

The photo shows an increase in hunting days since 1930. As a hunter, I know you can’t hunt what isn’t there. PR Conservation dollars paid to improve habitat and, thus hunting opportunity. For example, In 1937, Missouri’s deer season was only three days long, and harvested 108 deer. Today hunters in Missouri can hunt deer for 123 days (a 4000% increase) During 2009, Missouri hunters took almost 300,000 deer. As a cyclist, I can imagine how a paltry (by comparison) 200% increase in cycling infrastructure would improve the cycling network and opportunity here in Tempe.

Many may say, that will never work for cycling, we already pay taxes and our mode of transport is less hard on roadways (maintenance). I’d say you are full of it because you don’t understand perception:  Drivers believe that, in general, their tax money should benefit them, because they pay a tax and establish the funding. The result is that little money is spent on things that do not improve motoring opportunities.

How do cyclists counter this perception that they don’t pay – you got it! By establishing a dedicated tax to pay for their infrastructure and immediately and forever dispel the myth that cyclists are freeloaders.  I thinking of purchasing a new bike soon – the bike I like will cost well over $2000. If I had to pay an extra $15 (a 0.0075% tax on $2K) – knowing that this money went to pay for improvements around cycling opportunities – I’d be ecstatic. I’d buy a $200 dollar helmet knowing that 11% of that purchase ($22) would stay local to pay for bike lanes and the like. Shoot! I’d buy local knowing that my new tires fund the bike lane I am riding on. And guess what, I’d also be 100% demanding that money to be used for what it was intended. Instead of fighting for transportation dollar scraps, I’d have the most powerful argument available: “because I paid for it out of my taxes”. And here’s the beautiful twist; unlike auto users, cyclists could point to a specific tax, singled out to pay for the stuff we want. Drivers simply could not do this because fuel, license and registration fees account for, at most, 50% of the cost of building and maintaining roads.

I’ve long thought that the cycling industry should employ the strategies and tactics that the hunting and firearm industries use. This is a simple persuasion play using their exact tactics – we pay for our own stuff and thus we deserve it. This is so powerful that it cannot be outflanked and there is no city department or politician who can say you don’t get use your ear marked tax dollars. It was so successfully in the hunting industry that, 13 years after it was passed, a similar law was passed to benefit fishing and the fishing industry begged for it to pass!

The cycling industry can lead the way here. However, it will take a leadership change along with advocates who understand that most of the arguments against cycling are based on perception. Instituting a C-PR type bill would immediately swing the tide in transportation funding and wipe out the largest perception: Cyclists don’t pay their way.

The recent tax on bikes in Portland has immediately put the cycling community on the same plane as motorists. Some say the the tax was instituted as a punitive measure by non-cyclist groups intended to punish cyclists – even it it is, it was a grave tactical error. We’ll soon see whether the business owners and advocates in PDX embrace their new found power or continue to look this gift horse in the mouth.


Up next:  I’ll tell you why I believe cyclists should be licensed… (hint – because persuasion)
NB – While the author is the President of TBAG, these comments are his own and not of TBAG supporters or the TBAG Board of Directors.


Grand Canalscape Project logo

Grand Canalscape Project Needs Your Feedback

The City of Phoenix has begun designing the first and second phase of the Grand Canalscape project, which creates a nearly 12-mile continuous trail system along the Grand Canal from I-17 to the Phoenix/Tempe border, and they want to hear from us!  Visit the project page at, and feel free to email any comments on their contact page:  Take a moment to either cut-and-paste our sample message we have crafted (below), or send your own comments.

“The Grand Canal is an important connector route from Tempe to Phoenix. As a cyclist and [parent/commuter/employee/student] I frequently bike this route, and can see two improvements that would greatly benefit this route.  The improvements are 1) paving and consistent upkeep (removing debris) of both the north and south side of the canal, and 2) adding crosswalk lights or other safety measures at key intersections.  These route improvements will ensure riders of all ages are safe and feel comfortable using these public routes.”

3 feet please

3 Feet Please: A traffic safety campaign

From collisions by bicycles with automobiles, there are approximately 700 Deaths per year in the United States. These deaths here are just a statistic; but to those 700 people, their friends, family, and community, each year these deaths, are a devastating blow that will leave a mark for the rest of their lives. For over the past 25 years this brings the total deaths to 18,000 people.

It can be scary to ride on the road–but in 24 states (5/16/2016) there is a law that mandates a 3 foot buffer between a bicyclist and the automobile that is ‘Overtaking’ the bicyclist. In Arizona, violation is a civil penalty (see this link for Arizona Statute ARS §28-735).

Heres the kicker…. You ready for this? …. I sure as hell nearly fell off my seat….

Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

I’m not a legal expert but that reads like its only $1,000 to perform vehicular homicide! And, as the Arizona statues reads, those punitive damages do not apply when there is a bicycle lane or path or the person is riding against traffic.

So, TBAG has started a new partnership with 3 Feet Please, and Arizona advocates: Denise Johnson <>, Stevie Milne <>. Please contact these advocates if you’d like to get involved.

The current Milestones for the team are to complete the following:

  1. DMV Tabling
  2. May 2016 Begin TBAG partnership
  3. August 2016 Billboard Campaign
  4. April 2017 Bike Month Billboard Campaign and Light Rail Ad
  5. May 2017 52 Social Media Posts
  6. March 2018 AZ Legislature amends, ARS 28-735 to include, steeper penalties
Counters and Crunchers

Counters n’ Crunchers

Counters n’ Crunchers is the most incredible group that has ever existed. We count bikes and then we crunch those bikes! Er…wait that data, crunch the data, not the bikes.

Envisioned as 21st century version of an 18th century Parisian cafe where science was performed, we are a group dedicated to understanding what is necessary and needed in order to create a more perfect union of people who ride bikes and people who are not currently riding bikes.

The next meeting is Saturday, April 9, at 3pm. Anyone interested should head to Boulders on Broadway, grab a beer, and join in on a data-crunching good time!

bike lanes

Bike McClintock



Email the Tempe City Council ( or call 480-350-8110 and tell them that you are support keeping bike lanes on McClintock Road.


The City of Tempe recently added a buffered and protected bike lane to McClintock Drive, using unnecessary and unused road width from the previous outdated road design. These lanes are consistent with both the General Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, approved by Tempe citizens as a statement that there is no space or desire to make Tempe’s roads wider or faster. Our community has come together to support these improvements, but the City Council is only hearing from a small vocal minority that opposes progress, change, and forward future thinking. Email them to let them know you stand with a progressive future for Tempe! Citizens from all over Tempe have written paragraphs below, which can serve as templates for you to let your voice be heard!

See below for suggested emails of support

Which Category do you identify with the most?

Suggested emails of support include information like the following:

  • I am very concerned
  • Why I need this bike lane and all bike lanes
  • What would happen to me if this bike lane or any bike lane was removed

General Concerned Citizen

Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. It has recently come to my attention that the Mayor and City Council are considering adding an additional car-only lane to McClintock Rd, as well as removing facilities that accommodate transportation options for people on bikes, pedestrians, and also improve public safety for everyone on the road. I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. I am extremely concerned that Tempe would consider reversing progress and years of planning so soon after a project’s completion, and delay the implementation of modern, accessible, world-standard roads. I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. Roads must be accessible to everyone so that they benefit everyone, and not force people to use one mode of travel. I rarely contact city council, but this issue is of great concern to me, given the rare opportunities to improve roads and bring them up to modern standards. I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. If these improvements are removed, I will not be able to safely get where I need to go by bike, and will be forced to use my car for most trips instead.

Recreational/fun cyclist

Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. I am a recreational cyclist who bikes occasionally to a restaurant or for fun with my friends and kids. Riding on Tempe streets that do not have bike lanes is scary and unsafe. Without bike lanes, I can’t bike on the roads because I will put myself in danger from cars behind, and turning in front of me. Plus, I can’t bike on the sidewalk because I will put myself in danger from cars crossing the sidewalks at each driveway. When the lanes on Mclintock were put in, I was given a sense of peace, knowing that I would have a much safer space to ride my bike without putting my life in danger. If the bike lane on McClintock is removed, I will no longer be safe or comfortable riding my bike, and will not be able to ride my bike to many places that I frequent.

Bike commuter

Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. I consider myself a bike “commuter,” and ride daily to work, to events, etc. Using the bike lanes, I feel safer because I know I am safer. Structured bicycle lanes can only have positive impacts for the residents and tourists of Tempe. The lanes connect the canals, Alameda, and the light rail which all connect with local businesses. Country Club Way ends at Alameda and does not connect to any businesses. Bike lanes on more major roads provide greater options for safer commuting, and encourage more than simply the growth of the bicycle community but elicit a healthier, more personable and desirable Tempe. If these lanes are removed, I will no longer be able to ride my bike to many local businesses, and will need to use my car for many of my trips and to commute to work. I will continue to commute our city by bicycle, as will so many others. Please support us by supporting reasonable long-term plans to improve the city of Tempe’s total transportation system.

Avid/Racing Cyclist

Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I am an avid cyclist and I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. I am a part of a few cycling clubs and groups and participate in rides from fast training rides to slower paced social bike rides that are focused on building community. The McClintock lanes and all bike lanes have improved the expansion of all of these groups. They have expanded the scale of businesses we can patronize on our slower social rides as well as how far we can go on our faster rides. I understand my rights as a cyclist and have no problem taking the lane to make myself safer. However, because of bike lanes like the ones on McClintock, that’s not something I have to do, which makes me more comfortable, as well as the drivers who are often thrown off by cyclists “taking the lane.” These bike lanes have improved the lives of all cyclists in the Tempe area and act as an accessible path to support all of these businesses on McClintock. If these lanes were removed, I would not be able to ride my bike to the businesses I would like to go to, nor would my training rides be able to take the most direct and fastest route.

Non-bike rider

Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I don’t usually ride a bike and I support the bike lanes on McClintock. Bike lanes allow everyone to complete their commuting needs from all areas of Tempe, may it be by wheel chair, skateboard, car or bicycle. A community should be respectful and share the road with everyone. I don’t have an issue sharing the road, and don’t feel like my personal commuting time has been negatively affected. However if the bike lane was removed in favor of a car-only lane, everyone in Tempe would be negatively effected.


Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:

I walk daily and run near my home several times a week. I feel most comfortable along streets that have a landscaped buffer and bike lane next to the sidewalks. It feels very scary to use sidewalks that are attached to the back of the curb with no bike lanes because cars seem so close. Even though the speed limit on the major streets is 40-45 MPH, the cars drive much faster so a buffer and bike lane help keep more separation between my body and the cars. When walking with my family members such as my 7 year old nephew and 86 year old father, their safety and comfort is even more important to me. A lot of older sidewalks are only 5 feet wide, so it is uncomfortable to share that space with bike riders. But I don’t blame them for riding on the sidewalk when there aren’t bike lanes on those streets, especially in my neighborhood near ASU.

Retired Citizen

Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I am writing to support keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. Since I have retired, I utilize my bike for the majority of local travel including doctors appointments, grocery shopping, and socializing. I have found that the McClintock bike lanes have increased my safety as well as the range of my travels, including trips to my physician as well as shopping at Sprouts. Being able to ride my bike benefits me as a retiree in two ways: it allows me to decrease my operating expenses as well as giving me daily exercise. I feel that should the City remove the bike lane on McClintock, that they will be affecting my quality of life and finances adversely.

Traffic Planner/Engineer

Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:

The research is clear, bike lanes improve safety for everyone. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists are vulnerable road users. As a traffic engineer, I know that vehicle lanes should be no more than 9 – 10′ wide to keep vehicle a speeds close to the posted limit. Speed is the number one factor in collision severity. It is irresponsible to encourage high speed vehicle travel. Bike lanes are necessary to encourage bicyclists to ride with traffic rather than against it. As a leading city in the metro area, Tempe continues to demonstrate its commitment to bicycling, light rail and other mass transit and transportation options. Additionally, bicycles are good for business. Bicyclists spend more money at local restaurants, bars and convenience stores than people who drive. Bicycling is good for a person’s health and builds community. Adding more car-only lanes simply induces demand. The more roads you build, and the wider those roads are, the more cars that come. Build bike lanes and bicycles will come. McClintock is now much safer because speeds are lower. Single occupancy vehicles take too much space from other road users. A modern sedan or SUV takes up more space that 9 bicycles. Why should they be entitled to 9 times as much space on the road? If this bike lane is removed, it will have to be implemented later which will be more difficult. Removing this facility would be one of the biggest mistakes Tempe has ever made, and would set transportation engineering in the city back by decades.


Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I own a home off of McClintock Drive, and I support the protected bike lanes on McClintock. The protected lanes increase safety for kids and families in the neighborhoods, pedestrians who walk along the sidewalks on McClintock, cyclists and drivers. Because McClintock’s speed limit is higher than the neighborhood limits, sometimes people forget that McClintock is actually a residential street: there are driveways and backyards that back right up to McClintock, and implementing some “traffic calming” strategies makes the Mcclintock neighborhoods all safer.


Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:

Shortly after becoming a parent, Our family moved from Scottsdale to Tempe. We did this because we believed that Tempe offered a lifestyle that fit ours. Tempe offered amenities and locations that allowed my wife and I to use our bicycles and commute to our offices. We even used the city bike map to look for homes and picked a house on a bike route, We did this because we see the writing on the wall. Cars fit cities for a while, they were beneficial and necessary to get people to work and play. But as Tempe becomes more dense, it must offer alternatives to the motor vehicle. Tempe offeres miles of bike lanes along residential streets and a plan to improve 5, 6 and 7 lane “super” streets to allow safe passage to stores and shops along the major north-south roads. The roads today, by and large run within 20 yards of thousands of homes and offer virtually NO way for anyone (driving, walking or riding) to safely cross due to unreasonable speeds. The improvement of McClintock by the removal of a single lane allows my children to easily reach markets, schools, parks and friends in other neighborhoods. This also creates a more reasonable crossing at lights. Thanks to this improvement, all road users now have FEWER lanes to cross and a LARGER buffer from aggressive and inattentive drivers. This has occurred with no or very little increase in travel times and has made a road I never cycled on into one I and my family are glad to ride in the last few months. Business such as Sprouts, Spokes, Sweet Tomatoes Goodwill, Outback Steakhouse, Great Clips, Subway, Walgreen’s, CVS, Joe’s Italian Ice, Ted’s Hot Dogs, UPS and many more are now easily accessible by bike. Walking has also been greatly improved since 3 tons of motor vehicle have been moved 6-10 feet away. Traffic has also SLOWED without lengthening the total commute time – I know because I have driven and timed McClintock north and south on my commute to work. It does not take me longer travel the new stretch where lanes have been improved – cars are no longer rushing between lights and jockeying for position. This should result in a decrease in traffic accidents (I am sure the city can gather data on this). Thank you Tempe for making my neighborhood better by adding infrastructure and improving safety for all road users.


Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I am a student at ASU, and I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. Sometimes the voices of ASU students are ignored because we are young, don’t vote, or don’t live here year-round, but Tempe is a “college town” and students make up a huge percentage of residents, consumers, and cyclists in this area. Personally, I use the bike lanes in Tempe, including the new and improved lanes on McClintock, to commute to school. Many students do not have cars, are unfamiliar with driving in Tempe, or can’t afford to drive/park at ASU, and the bike lanes are vital for us to continue to commute safely to school. The removal of these bike lanes will discourage the use of this alternative method of transportation, as well as make the commute more difficult, to those students who will then be then forced to depend their commute around the timing of public transportation.


Please use the following as a template for your email to the tempe city council, or click here:
I am writing in support of keeping the bike lanes on McClintock. Tempe markets itself as a young, vibrant, upcoming community. Marketing materials and planning images show cyclists on beach cruisers biking to coffee shops, and young families biking along Mill Ave. The City is trying to attract tech businesses, and between family growth and new businesses opening up, Tempe’s population is expected to grow 20% in the next ten years. With all of these pushes toward growing the community and creating a cool and fun “vibe,” the reality must match the vision. Tempe made a big, realistic step towards preparing for growth and fostering a bike-friendly, vibrant community. Removing the bike lanes on McClintock says “we will promise you one thing, but deliver another.” If we want Tempe to grow, we have to start following through on the visions presented by the City and leaders. Keeping the bike lanes on McClintock makes the bold statement that Tempe is ready to grow, we are ready for the future!