Blog
Good news: AASHTO reverses position on bike/ped accommodation
Thousands of you acted on the AASHTO alert — and it worked!
BikePortland posted this letter from AASHTO this afternoon:
WITHDRAWAL OF AASHTO REGULATORY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING USDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GUIDANCE
In response to the concerns expressed by several members of AASHTO’s Board of Directors, President Martinovich has directed AASHTO for the time being to withdraw its request that FHWA rescind its guidance on the meaning of “due consideration” of bicycle and pedestrian needs. This will give AASHTO an opportunity to meet with bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups on May 19 to discuss this issue. It will also allow time for AASHTO’s Board of Directors at our annual meeting in October to discuss this issue and provide policy direction on how best to deal with it. Several state DOT CEOs have expressed the concern that this issue is not one that the Board was briefed on, or one on which they were asked to take a position. We will brief the Board more fully on this matter at our meeting May 6.
Background. April 1, 2011, I responded to a U.S.DOT notice asking for a review of regulations to identify those we found to be outmoded, ineffective, or excessively burdensome. After consultation and input from the states, AASHTO submitted a list of approximately 30 regulations that States wanted improved.
One of the recommendations states submitted was for a change to FHWA’s guidance on implementing the statutory requirements related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the planning and design of highway projects. Our intent in making the request that the guidance be changed is to streamline the effort and paperwork required to justify why bicycle or pedestrian facilities may or may not be appropriate on a given federal aid project.
The statutory language calls for bicyclists and pedestrians to be given “due consideration” in the development of comprehensive transportation plans, and to “be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities.” We have no problem with this requirement.
What we have objected to is FHWA guidance which increases the level of requirement from “consideration” to “accommodation.” The guidance says “that bicyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated” which is a much more expansive requirement in that states must prove exceptional circumstances when not providing for bicyclists and pedestrians as part of a federal aid highway project.
We reported on AASHTO’s recommendations regarding regulatory change in the AASHTO Journal April 8. The article contained links to AASHTO’s submittal letter and to a 15-page supplemental document which contained the text of our recommendations regarding the bicycle and pedestrian guidance.
Our comment on FHWA’s guidance has apparently caused concern in the bicycle community. When contacted in this regard by the League of American Bicyclists and the National Center for Bicycling and Walking, I offered to meet with them and others to hear their concerns and to explain what we recommended and why. A meeting has been scheduled for May 19 here at AASHTO.
You may receive similar contacts from bicycling and pedestrian interests in your state or community. We hope you will share with them our support for bicycling and pedestrian facilities, as well as our interest in limiting FHWA’s guidance to what was defined in the law.
Here is a link to the full explanation as submitted to USDOT, http://bit.ly/RegulatoryReviewRequest.
Transportation Issues Daily also helped break the story.
UPDATE: In an interview with BikePortland back on Tuesday (before the request was withdrawn,) AASHTO Director John Horsley defended AASHTO’s initial request:
Horsley said in many rural areas, making states pay for bicycling and walking facilities — and/or requiring them to explain to the FHWA why they can’t do them — doesn’t make fiscal or operational sense.
“This guidance [from the FHWA] is not practical or feasible,” he said, “While helpful to the bike community, it creates a burden on states that we feel fits into the President’s category of “excessively burdensome”… It forces you to justify the facilities even where it’s not appropriate.”
State DOTs already can’t afford bicycling and walking improvements Horsley said, so having to submit paperwork to the US DOT spelling that out would be a burden. “You shouldn’t be forced to do needless paperwork to justify why you can’t afford things you can’t afford to do,” is how he put it.
“When our members tell us a regulation defies common sense, and it does, we want to tell federal highways, improve your guidance.”
Clearly we will have lots to talk about in May in addition to National Bike Month.
Darren Flusche
League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Subscribe
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:36 pm
This is great news. However, is it a real withdrawal, or a temporary reprieve?
It looks like the May 19th meeting will be critical!
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:57 pm
[...] READ HERE: http://bit.ly/fldtpK [...]
April 24th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Thanks, Darren.
“When our members tell us a regulation defies common sense, and it does, we want to tell federal highways, improve your guidance.”
Unfortunately, common sense is an uncommon virtue in some transportation organizations. It is sensible in my worldview to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians in areas where one might expect them to exist in sufficient numbers to justify the costs of infrastructure (and yes, I realize this is a bit of a chicken vs. egg argument). Unfortunately, the attitude of many in the various DOT establishments is that bicyclists and pedestrians are a burden to them and they wish we WOULDN’T exist.
I keep going back to what the New Mexico DOT did to St. Francis Drive (US 84/285) in Santa Fe. This road bisects the city and connects many critical destinations. In order to stuff as much car and truck traffic as possible into that road, all other considerations were ignored. Even I would loath to ride that road (and those who know me know I am not afraid of mixing it up with cars, trucks, and eighteen wheelers). The late Dr. Gail Ryba, our past Bicycle Coalition of NM President, tried to fight DOT on this one. It was hopeless. Hence why NM ranks near the bottom of Bicycle-Friendly states.
As long as these travesties exist, we need more rather than less protection from downgradings. I would love to see less regulation and more discussion because regulation can be burdensome, but until the discussion gets serious, send us the lawyers, guns, and money.
April 25th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Good work, Darren. We’re watching / following with interest.