SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
For the past year powerful voices around Washington have singled out programs to improve biking and walking as prime examples of wasteful government spending.
For the past year powerful voices around Washington have singled out programs to improve biking and walking as prime examples of wasteful government spending.
Since last summer, Republican proposals have flown around the Capitol to eliminate all designated funds to make biking and walking safer--even though biking and walking account for 12 percent of all trip across America but receive only 1.6 percent of federal funding.
Last week (March 29) the U.S. House of Representatives--a hotbed of opposition to biking and walking as well as transit programs--voted to extend the current surface transportation bill for another three months, saving the funding of bike and ped programs. The Senate followed two hours later. (This marks the 9th extension of the existing transportation bill since 2009 and another victory for the growing movement to ensure federal support for biking and walking projects.)
The political forces that want to steer policies back to the 1950s--when cars and highways were seen as the only way to go--have consistently failed to muster enough votes to shift federal transportation funding into reverse. There are several reason for this, but one of the most surprising is the emergence of bicycle advocates--and to a smaller extent pedestrian advocates--as a persuasive political lobby.
Groups like the Alliance for Biking and Walking, the League of American Bicyclists, America Bikes, Bikes Belong, Rails to Trails Conservancy, People for Bikes, America Walks others emphasize how biking and walking benefit everyone, not just folks who ride and stroll frequently. They've earned the attention of a growing bi-partisan bloc of Congress members, which makes the prospects for continued federal support of bike and pedestrian improvements much more likely than anyone expected last year.
The core of their message is plain common sense: All Americans are better off because biking and walking foster improved public health (and savings in health care expenditures for households, businesses and government), stronger communities, less congestion, safer streets, lower energy use and a cleaner environment.
While some Congressional critics belittle bicyclists as a marginal, almost silly special interest group, others herald them as self-reliant citizens who get around without the need of imported oil and mega-highway projects that cost taxpayers billions. Instead of a boondoggle, continued funding to improve biking and walking conditions in the U.S. represents a sound investment that saves taxpayers money now and in the future.
Even if you will never ride a bike in your life, you still see benefits from increased levels of biking. More bicyclists and pedestrians mean less congestion in the streets and less need for expensive road projects that divert government money from other important problems. Off-road paths, bike lanes, sidwalks and other bike and ped improvement cost a fraction of what it takes to widen streets and highways. It's proven that bicycling and walking increases people's health and reduces obesity, which will translate into huge cost savings for government and a boost for our economy.
Policies that are help bicyclists actually benefit everyone else who uses the streets. Good conditions for bicycling also create good conditions for pedestrians. And what makes the streets safer for bikes, also makes them safer for motorists.
Higher gas prices (which have topped four bucks for the third time in four years) means more Americans are looking for other ways to get around. Bikes offer people more choices in transportation. This is especially true for people whose communities are not well served by mass transportation or where distances are too far to walk to work or shopping.
Bike advocates are also working hard to dispel the stereotype that all bicyclists are young, white, urban, male ultra athletes in lycra racing jerseys. Increased investment in safer, more comfortable bike facilities means that more women, children, families, middle-aged and senior citizens, minorities, immigrants, low-income, suburban and rural people will ride bikes.
The number of Americans who commute primarily by bike has leaped 43 percent since 2000 according to census data. The number of overall bike trips rose 25 percent.
But for those numbers to keep climbing--and the benefits for all Americans to continue accumulating--people need to feel safer on their bikes. Seventy-one percent of all Americans report that they would like to bike more than they do now, according to U.S. Highway Safety Administration data. But many of them fear riding on busy streets with speeding traffic.
A basic commons principle is the best way to help these people feel safer. By historical tradition and legal decree, streets are not for the exclusive use of moving and parked cars. They should be a shared space belonging to everyone.
The Green Lane Project, which will launch in May, is an initiative to reclaim a bit of streets for bicyclists. The goal is to pioneer 21st century streets in six cities where bike lanes on major routes will be protected from heavy traffic bycurbs, posts, parked cars or paint. This could do for bicyclists what asphalt roads did for cars a century ago.
But it's important to remember that biking and walking are not strictly an urban way to get around. A new report from the Rails to Trails Conservancy (which I helped to write) show that biking and walking in rural America is far more widespread than most people realize.
The report cites data from the U.S. Department of Transportation showing that rural Americans bike only slightly less than their urban counterparts, and much more than people living in newer suburbs. Here are two particularly surprising findings.
* In towns of 10,000 to 50,000, a higher percentage of overall trips are made by bike than in urban centers.
* In towns of 2500-10,000 twice as many work trips are made by bike than in urban centers.
Federal funding of biking and walking improvements play an important role in helping rural communities attract and retain young people, families and businesses. As the CEO of the Billings (Montana) Chamber of Commerce John Brewer told a Congressional hearing last year. "Talented people are moving to Billings in large part because of our trail system that creates the quality of life they are expecting....Trails are no longer viewed as community amenities; they're viewed as essential infrastructure for business recruitment."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
For the past year powerful voices around Washington have singled out programs to improve biking and walking as prime examples of wasteful government spending.
Since last summer, Republican proposals have flown around the Capitol to eliminate all designated funds to make biking and walking safer--even though biking and walking account for 12 percent of all trip across America but receive only 1.6 percent of federal funding.
Last week (March 29) the U.S. House of Representatives--a hotbed of opposition to biking and walking as well as transit programs--voted to extend the current surface transportation bill for another three months, saving the funding of bike and ped programs. The Senate followed two hours later. (This marks the 9th extension of the existing transportation bill since 2009 and another victory for the growing movement to ensure federal support for biking and walking projects.)
The political forces that want to steer policies back to the 1950s--when cars and highways were seen as the only way to go--have consistently failed to muster enough votes to shift federal transportation funding into reverse. There are several reason for this, but one of the most surprising is the emergence of bicycle advocates--and to a smaller extent pedestrian advocates--as a persuasive political lobby.
Groups like the Alliance for Biking and Walking, the League of American Bicyclists, America Bikes, Bikes Belong, Rails to Trails Conservancy, People for Bikes, America Walks others emphasize how biking and walking benefit everyone, not just folks who ride and stroll frequently. They've earned the attention of a growing bi-partisan bloc of Congress members, which makes the prospects for continued federal support of bike and pedestrian improvements much more likely than anyone expected last year.
The core of their message is plain common sense: All Americans are better off because biking and walking foster improved public health (and savings in health care expenditures for households, businesses and government), stronger communities, less congestion, safer streets, lower energy use and a cleaner environment.
While some Congressional critics belittle bicyclists as a marginal, almost silly special interest group, others herald them as self-reliant citizens who get around without the need of imported oil and mega-highway projects that cost taxpayers billions. Instead of a boondoggle, continued funding to improve biking and walking conditions in the U.S. represents a sound investment that saves taxpayers money now and in the future.
Even if you will never ride a bike in your life, you still see benefits from increased levels of biking. More bicyclists and pedestrians mean less congestion in the streets and less need for expensive road projects that divert government money from other important problems. Off-road paths, bike lanes, sidwalks and other bike and ped improvement cost a fraction of what it takes to widen streets and highways. It's proven that bicycling and walking increases people's health and reduces obesity, which will translate into huge cost savings for government and a boost for our economy.
Policies that are help bicyclists actually benefit everyone else who uses the streets. Good conditions for bicycling also create good conditions for pedestrians. And what makes the streets safer for bikes, also makes them safer for motorists.
Higher gas prices (which have topped four bucks for the third time in four years) means more Americans are looking for other ways to get around. Bikes offer people more choices in transportation. This is especially true for people whose communities are not well served by mass transportation or where distances are too far to walk to work or shopping.
Bike advocates are also working hard to dispel the stereotype that all bicyclists are young, white, urban, male ultra athletes in lycra racing jerseys. Increased investment in safer, more comfortable bike facilities means that more women, children, families, middle-aged and senior citizens, minorities, immigrants, low-income, suburban and rural people will ride bikes.
The number of Americans who commute primarily by bike has leaped 43 percent since 2000 according to census data. The number of overall bike trips rose 25 percent.
But for those numbers to keep climbing--and the benefits for all Americans to continue accumulating--people need to feel safer on their bikes. Seventy-one percent of all Americans report that they would like to bike more than they do now, according to U.S. Highway Safety Administration data. But many of them fear riding on busy streets with speeding traffic.
A basic commons principle is the best way to help these people feel safer. By historical tradition and legal decree, streets are not for the exclusive use of moving and parked cars. They should be a shared space belonging to everyone.
The Green Lane Project, which will launch in May, is an initiative to reclaim a bit of streets for bicyclists. The goal is to pioneer 21st century streets in six cities where bike lanes on major routes will be protected from heavy traffic bycurbs, posts, parked cars or paint. This could do for bicyclists what asphalt roads did for cars a century ago.
But it's important to remember that biking and walking are not strictly an urban way to get around. A new report from the Rails to Trails Conservancy (which I helped to write) show that biking and walking in rural America is far more widespread than most people realize.
The report cites data from the U.S. Department of Transportation showing that rural Americans bike only slightly less than their urban counterparts, and much more than people living in newer suburbs. Here are two particularly surprising findings.
* In towns of 10,000 to 50,000, a higher percentage of overall trips are made by bike than in urban centers.
* In towns of 2500-10,000 twice as many work trips are made by bike than in urban centers.
Federal funding of biking and walking improvements play an important role in helping rural communities attract and retain young people, families and businesses. As the CEO of the Billings (Montana) Chamber of Commerce John Brewer told a Congressional hearing last year. "Talented people are moving to Billings in large part because of our trail system that creates the quality of life they are expecting....Trails are no longer viewed as community amenities; they're viewed as essential infrastructure for business recruitment."
For the past year powerful voices around Washington have singled out programs to improve biking and walking as prime examples of wasteful government spending.
Since last summer, Republican proposals have flown around the Capitol to eliminate all designated funds to make biking and walking safer--even though biking and walking account for 12 percent of all trip across America but receive only 1.6 percent of federal funding.
Last week (March 29) the U.S. House of Representatives--a hotbed of opposition to biking and walking as well as transit programs--voted to extend the current surface transportation bill for another three months, saving the funding of bike and ped programs. The Senate followed two hours later. (This marks the 9th extension of the existing transportation bill since 2009 and another victory for the growing movement to ensure federal support for biking and walking projects.)
The political forces that want to steer policies back to the 1950s--when cars and highways were seen as the only way to go--have consistently failed to muster enough votes to shift federal transportation funding into reverse. There are several reason for this, but one of the most surprising is the emergence of bicycle advocates--and to a smaller extent pedestrian advocates--as a persuasive political lobby.
Groups like the Alliance for Biking and Walking, the League of American Bicyclists, America Bikes, Bikes Belong, Rails to Trails Conservancy, People for Bikes, America Walks others emphasize how biking and walking benefit everyone, not just folks who ride and stroll frequently. They've earned the attention of a growing bi-partisan bloc of Congress members, which makes the prospects for continued federal support of bike and pedestrian improvements much more likely than anyone expected last year.
The core of their message is plain common sense: All Americans are better off because biking and walking foster improved public health (and savings in health care expenditures for households, businesses and government), stronger communities, less congestion, safer streets, lower energy use and a cleaner environment.
While some Congressional critics belittle bicyclists as a marginal, almost silly special interest group, others herald them as self-reliant citizens who get around without the need of imported oil and mega-highway projects that cost taxpayers billions. Instead of a boondoggle, continued funding to improve biking and walking conditions in the U.S. represents a sound investment that saves taxpayers money now and in the future.
Even if you will never ride a bike in your life, you still see benefits from increased levels of biking. More bicyclists and pedestrians mean less congestion in the streets and less need for expensive road projects that divert government money from other important problems. Off-road paths, bike lanes, sidwalks and other bike and ped improvement cost a fraction of what it takes to widen streets and highways. It's proven that bicycling and walking increases people's health and reduces obesity, which will translate into huge cost savings for government and a boost for our economy.
Policies that are help bicyclists actually benefit everyone else who uses the streets. Good conditions for bicycling also create good conditions for pedestrians. And what makes the streets safer for bikes, also makes them safer for motorists.
Higher gas prices (which have topped four bucks for the third time in four years) means more Americans are looking for other ways to get around. Bikes offer people more choices in transportation. This is especially true for people whose communities are not well served by mass transportation or where distances are too far to walk to work or shopping.
Bike advocates are also working hard to dispel the stereotype that all bicyclists are young, white, urban, male ultra athletes in lycra racing jerseys. Increased investment in safer, more comfortable bike facilities means that more women, children, families, middle-aged and senior citizens, minorities, immigrants, low-income, suburban and rural people will ride bikes.
The number of Americans who commute primarily by bike has leaped 43 percent since 2000 according to census data. The number of overall bike trips rose 25 percent.
But for those numbers to keep climbing--and the benefits for all Americans to continue accumulating--people need to feel safer on their bikes. Seventy-one percent of all Americans report that they would like to bike more than they do now, according to U.S. Highway Safety Administration data. But many of them fear riding on busy streets with speeding traffic.
A basic commons principle is the best way to help these people feel safer. By historical tradition and legal decree, streets are not for the exclusive use of moving and parked cars. They should be a shared space belonging to everyone.
The Green Lane Project, which will launch in May, is an initiative to reclaim a bit of streets for bicyclists. The goal is to pioneer 21st century streets in six cities where bike lanes on major routes will be protected from heavy traffic bycurbs, posts, parked cars or paint. This could do for bicyclists what asphalt roads did for cars a century ago.
But it's important to remember that biking and walking are not strictly an urban way to get around. A new report from the Rails to Trails Conservancy (which I helped to write) show that biking and walking in rural America is far more widespread than most people realize.
The report cites data from the U.S. Department of Transportation showing that rural Americans bike only slightly less than their urban counterparts, and much more than people living in newer suburbs. Here are two particularly surprising findings.
* In towns of 10,000 to 50,000, a higher percentage of overall trips are made by bike than in urban centers.
* In towns of 2500-10,000 twice as many work trips are made by bike than in urban centers.
Federal funding of biking and walking improvements play an important role in helping rural communities attract and retain young people, families and businesses. As the CEO of the Billings (Montana) Chamber of Commerce John Brewer told a Congressional hearing last year. "Talented people are moving to Billings in large part because of our trail system that creates the quality of life they are expecting....Trails are no longer viewed as community amenities; they're viewed as essential infrastructure for business recruitment."
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."