Blog
Senate passes bi-partisan transportation bill; changes to sidepath rule and protection of Rec Trails
This just in — Senate passes bi-partisan transportation bill
The big four leaders – Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Ranking Member Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and David Vitter (R-LA) – on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee included a 2nd ‘manager’s amendment’ that modifies their surface transportation bill, known as MAP-21. As we reported last week, the first manager’s amendment included the Cardin-Cochran Amendment, which ensured bicycling and walking projects had a fair shot to compete for funding. This second one includes two changes on issues of concern to cyclists: the amendment will modify the mandatory side path clause and reserve funds for Recreational Trails activities unless a state opts out.
Mandatory Side Path Clause
When the Senate initially released MAP-21 in November, we immediately noticed a clause (p. 226) that would force cyclists off of roads on federal lands with a speed limit over 30 miles per hour onto “an adjacent paved path,” if one was within 100 yards. Recognizing the terrible precedent that this would set, over 14,000 bicyclists and supporters signed a petition to have the clause removed. That was followed by an advocacy alert in February.
With the help of this grassroots outcry, the League of American Bicyclists and the Adventure Cycling Association have been working closely Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Al Franken (D-MN) to improve or remove the federal lands mandatory sidepath language. Both Senators introduced an amendment, which was not accepted, and Senator Merkley has continued to work with the EPW committee to improve the language.
The result is a compromise. The language in the Senate bill now says:
(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road unless the Secretary determines that the bicycle level of service on that roadway is rated B or higher.
While we are disappointed that the so-called ‘bicycle safety’ clause is still in the bill, this compromise means that states now have some ‘out’ to enforcing the law and a process by which bicyclists can demonstrate the restriction does not apply to their roads. (Here’s a little background on Bicycle Level of Service.)
This battle is not yet over. We will continue to work with both the House and Senate on this issue. Since this clause does not appear in the House bill, whatever that may look like, this issue will have to be resolved in conference. We hope to remove or further improve it at that time.
Recreational Trails Program
The International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) and the Coalition for Recreational Trails have been pushing aggressively to protect Recreational Trails funding in the Senate bill. While this protection was not included in the first manager’s amendment, it was addressed in this one.
The Recreational Trails program is written into Additional Activities – but state DOTs have an option to opt out.
- If the state does not opt out, $85 million comes out of Additional Activities for the Rec Trails program nationally.
- 1% of that is used to cover administrative costs
- The state must comply with the program’s existing regulations
Thank you again to everyone who has followed this with us and sent action alerts. Time and time again we hear from Congress that they hear from you more than almost any other transportation-related constituents. That makes a huge difference.
There is still plenty to do before the House and Senate agree on a transportation bill. We hope you will join us next week at the National Bike Summit to show Congress how important this bill is to bicyclists.
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
March 14th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
No amount of money in the bill for bicycling is worth a mandatory side path law in any form.
March 15th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Is it possible to track back who put that paved path language into the bill in the first place? Maybe it would help to apply pressure in that direction in the future.
March 15th, 2012 at 9:19 am
[...] Guide to Senate’s Changes to Sidepath Rule and Rec. Trails (BikeLeague) [...]
March 15th, 2012 at 9:29 am
Ed,
Yes, we were able to identify the source and we’re working with various folks to find a solution.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:36 am
[...] Senate passes bi-partisan transportation bill; changes to sidepath rule and protection of Rec Trails [...]
March 15th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
[...] LAB — The big four leaders – Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Ranking Member Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and David Vitter (R-LA) – on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee included a 2nd ‘manager’s amendment’ that modifies their surface transportation bill, known as MAP-21. As we reported last week, the first manager’s amendment included the Cardin-Cochran Amendment, which ensured bicycling and walking projects had a fair shot to compete for funding. This second one includes two changes on issues of concern to cyclists: the amendment will modify the mandatory side path clause and reserve funds for Recreational Trails activities unless a state opts out. [...]
March 15th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
“No amount of money in the bill for bicycling is worth a mandatory side path law in any form.”
Serge, I quite agree with you that the mandatory sidepath provision is odious, but there is no ‘trade’ between that and the funding provisions, as you imply. No one is saying “Take this money as a buy-off for the mandatory sidepath law!”
They are just two independent issues in a long & complicated bill developed through a long & complicated process. Hopefully the League and other groups can work to get the sidepath thing neutralized as the bill moves along. At least this is one positive step in that direction.
March 15th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Not to seem like a glass half empty guy, but I’m not convinced that the LOS based compromise on that mandatory sidepath provision is worth more than warm spit. Or, for that matter, worth more than a tire with a split in the sidewall.
The LOS A or B designations are the very best, and the assumption in this bill is that a road “fails” a cyclist at a LOS below B. I think, for example, that our Bandelier National Park road would fail that LOS A or B test (I roughly rate it a D based on the journal article linked here) but frankly, it is only the most serious and independent cyclists who ride it–we would be banned if there was a sidepath on such a road. Fortunately, there ain’t nowhere to put a path! But this sort of suggests the point–cyclists are treated like incompetents who should not be allowed to ride our bikes on all but the most milquetoast of roads.
By contrast, traffic engineers only consider that a road “fails” with a LOS of, I believe, E or F. So this really sells cyclists out. We need to keep pushing to get that damnable language out of there.
Also, as John Allen and others have commented, there is no laugh test on the safety or quality (dare I say “level of service”?) of the paved path present that we would be thrown onto. I have seen many paths designed by scenic walkway designers that are, emphatically, NOT designed for bicycling at more than a walking speed! We have some in Los Alamos as examples.
The MSP provision has gotta go. Thank you.
March 15th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
“there is no ‘trade’ between that and the funding provisions,”
Brent, of course there is a trade. LAB and others can decide whether to oppose the bill in its entirety as long it includes the sidepath provision. Or, they can decide it has too much “good stuff” to oppose even with the provision.
What I’m saying is it needs to be strongly opposed as long as the provision remains – no amount of money in the bill for bicycling is worth accepting a mandatory side path law in any form.
March 15th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
The problem I see with the MSP provision is that it could be precedent setting. We have fought enough battles at the local level against such discriminatory laws, including at least two instances in New Mexico. Last thing we need is for Congress to make it law on the Federal level. I suspect that is why some of us are zooming in on that particular provision. We need to chip away at that provision.
March 15th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
BLOS and BCI calculator:
discussion
http://www.bikelib.org/bike-planning/bicycle-level-of-service/
calculator
http://www.bikelib.org/roads/blos/blosform.htm
Sidepath Suitability Score Form:
http://www.bikelib.org/roads/blos/sidepathform.htm
March 15th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
[...] http://t4america.org/blog/ http://dc.streetsblog.org/category/issues-campaigns/reauthorization/ http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2012/03/modest-improvement-to-terrible-sidepath-rule-and-restoration… [...]
March 16th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
[...] the transportation bill recently passed by the US Senate, the follwing language remains, as reported on the League of American Bicyclists blog (d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall [...]
March 16th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
[...] the transportation bill recently passed by the US Senate, the follwing language remains, as reported on the League of American Bicyclists blog (d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall [...]
March 16th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
[...] passes a bi-partisan Transportation Bill while the House remains [...]
March 16th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Bikeway proponents have long conflated casual cyclist’s opinions of comfort with bicyclist safety in order to persuade politicians to build more paths and lanes. Now, predictably, those comfort-based metrics are coming back to harm cyclists who want to use the roads we have.
March 16th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
The point of the BLOS is to give bicyclists an opportunity to show that the restriction does not apply to their roads. The previous language had a blanket ban. Do you prefer that? There was no standard whatsoever before, now there would be an opportunity for agencies to ignore the ban. But let’s be clear: Mandatory side path laws are bad and we are working to get this language removed or further changed.
March 16th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
I think Mr. Goodridge makes a valid point. The original intent of BLOS may have been to define a metric that would indicate the kinds of roads that cyclists were more comfortable with. Its a useful metric for policy planners if not turned on its head. But as I like to remind people, no good deed goes unpunished.
In this instance BLOS has been turned against cyclists, to wit, if BLOS is low on an existing road, bicyclists should be banned from the road. Perhaps that is actually worse than a blanket ban. A blanket ban can be fought on its face as unfair and exclusionary. A BLOS based ban amounts to having hoisted ourselves with our own petard.
Those of us who live in areas with a lot of Federal land and therefore Federal land access are about to be royally screwed. I’m not trying to blame anyone for this (other than Congress) but it really has to be undone.
March 16th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
I agree with Khal’s reasoning.
Both versions are horrible and intolerable, but the BLOS-based version is more insidious and arguably worse in the long run. Not only does it set a precedent for banning cyclists from roads as does the original version, but it also sets a precedent for justifying a bike ban on a road based on a low BLOS rating.
March 17th, 2012 at 10:19 am
In considering a final position on the bill, I hope the league will consider something commonly attributed to Ben Franklin that applies here: “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
Looks to me like we have an unusual opportunity to come down against further wasteful highway spending that cyclists are mostly not allowed to use anyway. IMO, that is well worth giving up some recreational paths and poorly engineered facilities that would probably get chopped in the next installment anyway. Or we can go down the path Franklin warned against…
March 17th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
The “bicycle safety” language was, we believe, inspired by one or two powerful Senators (and/or their staff) here in the DC area being irritated by cyclists riding on one or two area roads that are on Federal land and happen to have popular trails alongside them. Not the best grounds upon which to create Federal policy, or justified in any way, but like it or not that’s reality of the situation.
The original language was a blanket restriction on bicyclists on higher speed Federal lands highways with a parallel path – no recourse, no process, no context.
Negotiations with Senate committee staff came up blank – there was no interest in facts and figures, whether there is an actual problem or issue to address, local control issues, Federal meddling, etc. No interest in a study to determine if there even is a bicycle safety issue on Federal lands.
Senators Merkley and Franken stepped up and introduced an amendment to remove or “improve” the provision but because of the way the bill was managed in the Senate, a super-majority of 60 votes was needed for any amendments to the bill that weren’t supported by the big four – the authors of the bill – who were very clearly working in lock-step with each other and not inclined to change this provision. The chance of getting 60 votes on this issue was, I am afraid to say, virtually zero.
At this point, it’s true that we could taken a stand. We could have decided to ignore the advice and support of our supporters in the Senate and persuade them to force a vote on the issue – which we would have almost certainly lost, cementing the provision in the Senate bill and letting the House know that they could do the same and/or happily agree to it in conference. Having angered our Senate supporters and lost a vote, we then could have removed any standing or negotiating room we had on the rest of the Bill by opposing passage of MAP-21. By opposing the bill we would have had to break ranks with every other cycling group, every other transportation reform group and ally of the last two decades.
We chose a different route. By continuing a dialog with Senate offices we were able to identify a way to at least establish some kind of objective process (and indeed a process, period) by which roadways with adequate conditions for cyclists could remain open for use. Our preference was for a process which required Federal land managers to show why cyclists should be restricted in certain situations; that was rejected and the onus would remain on cyclists to show why a road should remain open – hardly ideal, but at least there is a process and some expectation that Federal land managers go through a process to discover whether there is actually a problem or not.
By choosing this course, we can still have an influence on the eventual outcome of the legislation. We can encourage Senators to negotiate the level of service threshold down to C or D. We can try to change the burden of proof. We can try to strip it out completely in conference, if the House ever passes a bill. If we had fallen on our swords, as a matter of principle, we would be in a much worse position on this provision, let alone the rest of the bill. We don’t think that would have been in the best interests of the bicycling community.
We’re grateful for the help and support of Adventure Cycling in this campaign, and especially to the thousands of people that signed the petition, called, e-mailed and wrote their Senators on this issue. Without that voice behind us, we also would have a hard time being heard on Capitol Hill.
March 17th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
This disaster is a vivid reason why cyclists need to form a single powerful alliance along the lines of the National Rifle Association. I therefore support the notion of the three national bicycling organizations melding themselves into one powerful voice–with one powerful message–Protect the Right To Keep and Ride Our Bikes. One caveat–when we circle the wagons, we have to have the guns pointing out, not in.
Can anyone imagine Congress passing a bill that included a provision banning hunting and gun possession on vast tracts of public land on the whim of a couple of senators and not having all hell break loose? Wouldn’t happen. There would be a national outcry and mobilization and those responsible would be diving under their desks in terror. One example of how this would work: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands
Meanwhile, cyclists historically are as easy to mobilize and direct as a herd of cats. We have to get our act together and stop bickering about stuff. I was on the Board of Directors of the U of Hawaii state faculty union a decade ago when we had similar deep divisions among different faculty groups. We had to bury the hatchet, and not in each other, go get anything done. There is a lesson there and it was why I supported the community college faculty even more than my own folks–they were in more dire straits.
Another option–every cycling organization in the U.S. needs to send out a message to members to BOYCOTT purchasing of national park and similar passes. I buy an Eagle pass every year, in part because Bandelier National Park is part of my regular summer training ride and in part to suppport the parks. I won’t lose that road because it is built into a cliff so no chance of a sidepath being built any time soon. But should I support this travesty with my check?
March 18th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Andy,
I have to agree with Serge, Steven, and Khal that the Senate’s so-called mandatory sidepath “compromise” is WORSE than the original blanket ban, and that, in this instance, the League has been undermining the interests of America’s bicyclists by sanctioning this ridiculous and precedent-setting “compromise.”
If LAB were pushing to exempt all roadways with a BLOS above F, your comment above *might* be credible, but claiming that BLOS C or D is an acceptable threshold for writing a nationwide bicycling ban into Federal law is laughable.
March 18th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
You are going to have to explain to me again why having a blanket ban with no recourse is better than having a ban that can at least be lifted in certain places.
You are also going to have to wrap your head around the fact that this isn’t a provision that we proposed, instigated, supported, wanted, like, endorse, or have accepted as final. And until you or I are one of the senior Senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee, we’re going to have to work with those who are. Like it or not, supporting the principles of vehicular cycling isn’t on their priority list right now.
Andy
March 18th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Just to add to what Andy said, there are Senators who get it (see blog post)and we are working with them to address the problems you all have mentioned.
March 18th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Boxer and Inhofe, I presume, Andy?
I wrote to Udall on this–again. Hope he is still sympathetic, but the bottom line is we need more clout in order to fight these insults.
Uh…as for others on this list. Please take my advice at least this once–don’t form a circular firing squad.
As far as why I said such a ban is worse if it is BLOS based? What worries me is that this bill takes the concept of BLOS and viciously turns it against cyclists. I’ve often worried about such blowback. Rather than using BLOS as a planning tool to improve roads that were not built with multimodality in mind, it is here used as a pretext to ban us from roads with a less than optimal BLOS.
So rather than fighting an unjust ban that has no rational need or purpose, the Senators in question can claim that even bicycle planners agree these roads are not all that “safe” compared to riding on paths–but of course paths often have no safety parameters built into them. See John Allen’s examples.
Of course, this isn’t really about safety. Its about congressmen/women and their staffs having to slow down for a bicyclist. Too bad we could not have kept the discussion focused on such selfishness. Perhaps moving this BLOS down to a D or E will be sufficient for the sake of practicality, but until we have the strength to win these battles, we are going to come back with some serious damage and some less than thrilling compromises.
So rather than shooting at each other, I suggest we start hanging together. Or as this vividly demonstrates, Ben Franklin will be right: we will all hang separately.
March 18th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
“You are going to have to explain to me … why having a blanket ban with no recourse is better than having a ban that can at least be lifted in certain places.”
The advantage is simple. Faced with a civil disobedience campaign, the blanket ban with no recourse will attract far less public support than a more “reasonable” restriction. Further, those that proposed the blanket ban should be revealed for what they are. So voters can act on that knowledge. So far, I have seen no names named.
Ghandi and King both would agree. Neither compromised on the basics…
March 18th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Regardless, none of us should forget that even the advocates we disagree with are not the enemy…
March 19th, 2012 at 11:01 am
@ Steve A., et al.- Cyclists are not an oppressed population. Your human and civil rights have not been violated. When you make inferences as to such (i.e., King and Ghandi would not have stood for this) you undermine you own credibility and water down the message of these powerful leaders for people who are actually oppressed and are suffering. I would strongly encourage the League to delete yours and further messages that repeat such mistakes.
I am a staunch supporter of cyclists rights to the road and have long opposed MSP and MBL laws. I applaud the League, America Bikes, and Adventure Cycling for standing up to this attack. However, I can only thing of a handful of roads nationally where this will even be an issue. How many federal roads have nearby pathways to begin with? I can only think of a handful nationally and the BLOS is likely high. GIven the contentious status and spending levels of this bill, I can’t imagine a lot of side paths being built along federal land in order to kick cyclists off the road.
In the DC area, which were told caused the problem, there is George Washington and Clara Barton Parkways- where cyclists are already banned from riding- and Beach Drive in Rock Creek Park. Beach Dr. would score highly on a BLOS and local and Parks Police would likely never enforce such a rule.
It is clear you all are simply looking for another reason to needlessly attack the League. Enough already. If you don’t like there work, stop complaining and organize your own group. The overwhelming majority of members and cyclists as a whole support their work .
March 19th, 2012 at 11:52 am
1. It would be very unwise for anyone, especially a LAB supporter, to use this topic as a wedge issue to divide LAB (more than it already has been in the past). So politely telling someone to shut up or form their own club might not be too wise–it might actually happen, much to our own distress.
2. Censorship on a comment as innocuous as Steve’s would create more blowback to LAB and further the possibility of point one happening.
3. I’ve done it myself, but to be honest, I’m too not sure that politically speaking, cyclists should wrap themselves in the flag of the Indians vs. British or blacks vs. whites, having heard that criticism enough from my Punjabi wife, who has been called names I won’t repeat here. However, being victimized, sometimes violently, is in the eye of the beholder–cyclists are often treated as separate and unequal by motorists and sometimes meet the same fate as other unwelcome minorities. Perhaps the labor movement is a better analogy. An injury to one is an injury to all. Or, perhaps, “The only force that can break the tyrannical rule of bad law is the one big union of all the cyclists” (from an IWW slogan).
keep the rubber side down, folks.
4. One can disagree with LAB on an issue while being part of it. Let’s not create the LAB equivalent of that GOP slur, “RINO”.
Over on John Allen’s site are some examples of where this bill item would hurt us. I think it is a difficult issue and it may well be we can’t fix it entirely and I don’t blame Andy for that–a difference of opinion is not a difference in principle, to quote Jefferson. The lesson here is we have to organize better so this doesn’t happen again.
March 19th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Let’s all cool the rhetoric. Thank you.
March 19th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Andy,
In response to your reply after my comment, my focus is on getting LAB to effectively fight this mandatory sidepath restriction going forward (including at the Summit), not on blaming staff for not doing enough previously. Still, I’m disappointed that LAB–which claims to represent over 300,000 cyclists–only managed to solicit 14,000 petition signatures opposing this provision.
Steve A and Khal have already explained why a blanket, arbitrary and capricious, bike ban is better for us than one rationalized on the spurious “bicycle safety” criterion of BLOS being lower than B, but I’ll add that this “compromise” ban would have almost no practical difference, compared to the original provision: Hardly any federal-land roadways with a BLOS of A or B have sidepaths, and bicyclists would still have ZERO recourse if the BLOS is C or lower.
Since this bike ban may soon become the law of the land, we should consider how it could most readily be defeated in the courts. A “bike safety” metric publicly endorsed by LAB certainly doesn’t help.
Jeff is plainly wrong to imply that this bike ban would not significantly hurt cycling in the DC area. It would legally prevent the National Park Service (NPS) from reversing its relatively recent and unjustified regulatory bike bans on the Clara Barton Pkwy (which used to be used for weekend time trials) and for the lower-traffic, lower-speed portion of the George Washington Memorial Parkway south of the City of Alexandria. Moreover, it would require the NPS to establish new bike bans on a host of DC-area roads, including Rock Creek & Potomac Parkway, all of Beach Drive in Rock Creek Park, Arlington Memorial Bridge and Memorial Drive, 14th and 15th Sts NW across the National Mall, and Independence and Constitution Avenues NW. It would most definitely impede my routine bike commuting trips into DC.
Once we have prominent and federally mandated bike bans all over our Nation’s Capital, it won’t be long before state legislatures across the U.S. will pass similar legislation.
Allen Muchnick
Arlington VA
March 21st, 2012 at 7:52 pm
To Jeff, I fall back on comment 28. As for rights, the rights of public access to the public roads have been generally recognized since before the US became the US. In fact, such is often referred to as “the lost right.” Keeping comment 28 in mind, I simply do not agree that government restrictions on free movement without compelling justification is a less egregious restriction in itself than the British Government insisting on a salt-making monopoly. In both cases, the important aspect is the principle, not the magnitude of the particular offense. One last time – comment 28. Luckily for me, this particular restriction would not affect me at all personally unless and until it is embraced by other jurisdictions.
Andy has had a hot potato tossed at him and at all of us. Nobody likes to deal with such. It makes me glad I’m not in the advocacy business.