Blog
A Bad Bill for Bicycling
The new transportation bill is bad for bicycling and walking. There is no dancing around the issue: the bill will result in significant cuts to available funding for bicycling and walking programs and hands even more power to state departments of transportation for the allocation of the remaining “transportation alternatives” dollars.
The bill represents a fundamental step backwards in the way nonmotorized transportation is addressed. The bill is an old-school highway bill, a throw-back to a by-gone era at a time when we should have a future-oriented transportation bill that enables state and local government to expand transportation choices, improve the safety of all road users, and respond to the health, energy, and environmental challenges at the national and local level.
We expect House and Senate to vote on the transportation conference report by Saturday.
The horrible irony is that it could have been much worse. If it weren’t for the incredible outpouring of support for bicycling and walking programs from around the country; the voices of countless local elected officials; and the efforts of our supporters on Capitol Hill; we might be looking at a bill that eliminated bicycling and walking policies and programs entirely. That was the intent of House leadership and a handful of Senators who repeatedly attacked any and all provisions for bicycling and walking in the current law.
We also find it deplorable that a 600-page transportation bill, that is 1,000 days overdue, has been written behind closed doors, published in the dead of night with just hours remaining for members of Congress to look at the language before having to vote on a massive spending bill that also wraps in legislation completely unrelated to transportation. That’s not how good policy is created, and this bill is not good policy for the nation or for our communities.
The bill is a two-year bill. Together with our colleagues in the America Bikes coalition, we are committed to working at the state and local level to win a fair share for bicycling and walking programs despite the hurdles and disincentives that this bill puts in place. And we are committed to starting work immediately on a transportation bill in 2014 that reflects the wishes and needs of the American people in the 21st century — not the mid-20th century.
Click here to read the full statement on the bill from America Bikes and the Safe Routes to School National Partnership.
Carolyn Szczepanski
Communications Director
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
Subscribe
June 28th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
[...] « A Bad Bill for Bicycling [...]
June 28th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Who are the culprits. We should post the names of the representatives and senators so we know who vilify and (more importantly) fund against at election time.
June 28th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Yet another confirmation of our dysfunctional Congress. Ultimately, we the people must consider a fundamental change in the way we staff Congress. Perhaps it is time to consider a Congressional draft.
June 28th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
[...] League of American Bicyclists: A Bad Bill for Bicycling. [...]
June 28th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Maybe we should point out to the politicians that bike tires are made from petroleum. Betcha that might help it pass! Geez.
June 28th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Do you have a copy of the Bill posted or a link to the Bill posted?
June 28th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
I agree with Scott Gardner. Since we are a national organization. Those of us residing in states represented by members of congress opposed to the Cardin-Cochran amendment for example, should be aware of who those legislators are. Yes, we each have only one vote but being informed is still important.
June 28th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
I was a bit saddened when I first read Walter Finch’s email which prompted me to come here to read more. While it is quite treacherous the way this was passed it does have a bright side. I just heard on NPR that it was a bit of a trade where Congress agreed to drop the Keystone XL Canadian Tarsands Project in exchange for whittling away the funding for bike and ped options. I think that Keystone was a nightmare in the making. Just yesterday I heard how BP killed one of their employees with a pipelne explosion in Colorado. They are kidding themselves and trying to trick us to say that Keystone would have been safe and risk free. I guess they think most of us are pretty stupid. Big Oil has killed and spilled way too much for anyone who thinks about it for more than a moment to believe that nonsense. Maybe we can get Congress to repeal the 4 Billion $$$$ a year Big Oil gets a year in Tax Subsidies. What NPR said about this Bill was that some local governments will opt out of ped and bike ways in favor of more roads and highways. What that tells me that it is now encumbant to us to hit up our local governments and let them know how we feel about them just casting out bike and ped infrastructure. Maybe then we can still get them to do the right thing at the end of the day…Fund Transportation Choices!
June 28th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
As the victim of a hit and run bike accident in which the police let the only witness who was the woman that hit me leave with out taking any information leave the scene.This shows the complete disregard for bicyclist.now I have to spend many months recuperating,and thinking that if I am able to ride again it will not be on streets.
June 28th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
I am very disappointed to see that the Senate language prohibiting cycling on many roads on federal lands remained in the House/Senate Conference Committee Report:
‘‘(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.”
Chuck Smith, Ohio Bicycle Federation
June 29th, 2012 at 12:26 am
[...] on biking and walking policy,” says America Bikes. “A bad bill for bicycling,” reads a League of American Bicyclists’ headline. The Rails to Trails Conservancy says the bill is, [...]
June 29th, 2012 at 12:55 am
After 13 National Bike Summits, it’s time for the League and Bikes Belong to rethink its ineffective Congressional advocacy and political strategies.
Like my friend Chuck Smith, I’m especially disappointed with the new, unwarranted, and precedent-setting ban on cycling on federal land roadways. Apparently, the League and its allies did NOTHING to keep this odious provision out of the Conference Committee Report.
June 29th, 2012 at 6:47 am
Bipartisan badness…
June 29th, 2012 at 8:07 am
I read this blog post from Walter expecting to see whether or not the mandatory sidepath provision was still in the transportation bill. It was not even mentioned. When I attended the 2012 Summit, we were told by LAB staff NOT to discuss this issue with our representatives, but to focus on Transportation Enhancements. My senator, Pat Tiberi, once told me that we can’t keep borrowing from China to build bike trails. I didn’t expect that I would be able to convince him to continue to fund biking and walking projects, but I tried anyway. I think I COULD have convinced him to work on removing the mandatory sidepath provision, which costs NOTHING. Why did I listen to LAB, rather than following my own intuition?
June 29th, 2012 at 8:25 am
Correction, Pat Tiberi is my congressman, not senator.
June 29th, 2012 at 9:35 am
[...] from Rails to Trails Conservancy here, America Bikes here, and League of American Bicyclists here. Find commentary from Streets Blog here, The Hill here, and Transportation Issues Daily here. [...]
June 29th, 2012 at 11:05 am
It’s ashame that these politians don’t see the safety hazzards they are creating, by not passing this bill. Compaired to what’s going on out there, this is a small step to take to protect everyone that rides a bike or walks. How’s that law for texting while driving working out?I see that every day, i guess no one else does.
June 29th, 2012 at 11:43 am
No car left behind.
June 29th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Our focus seems distorted … ultimately, we (LAB, et al.) are asking taxpayers, most of whom are neither bikers nor walkers, to finance our bike lanes and our bike/walking paths. Small wonder that we experience resistance in our efforts to secure funding for our wants/needs.
Why not take the initiative and seek $$$ from the users; i.e, bicyclists and walkers?
And, concerning bicycling protocol: in my State (OR), there is informal talk about licensing bicyclists … talk spawned by bikers’ horrible road-use behavior. LAB, and other bicycling organizations, would perform great service by encouraging bikers to obey traffic rules and to display good, road-sharing etiquette.
In summary: let’s focus on being responsible (financially and behaviorally) for our own wants and needs; i.e., on those that possess the passion for bicycling (and walking.)
June 29th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
First, I ride 75+ miles per week as a commuter, and another 15-20 rolling around Chicago b/c I don’t like paying for cabs or the CTA.
I also happen to work in the public policy area…I work with legislators frequently, help craft law, and offer advice to high level public officials about policy X vs. Y, etc (in education, my area of expertise).
Maybe there is more stuff on another site you run, or something. I haven’t looked. But, and I apologize for how this will sound, you guys don’t seem to have a clue as to how to actually influence public policy.
Most important policies are crafted behind closed doors. Stop it w that nonsense. It’s not transparent. Get over it.
What you’ve got up there is essentially an impassioned letter to an editor. When was the last time that actually worked?
Put yourself in a legislator’s shoes, for a second. You’re a legislator. You want to do the right thing. But you also want to be re-elected, and will do the right thing only as long as it gets you re-elected. Read that again, pause for five minutes, read it again. Allow it to sink in. Because it’s the truth. Should it be? No. But it is. Denying that will solve no problems, at all.
Are you guys wrong in what you want to do? Of course not. Then why am I writing this? B/C you fail to frame the ‘need’ for this in terms of something a legislator can sell to his/her constituency.
What do I mean? Simply put: where’s the economic impact? Where’s the detail about how improving bike and foot access will save the nation/state/city/county any money? If there’s no savings of any kind to come from this, forget ever getting it passed, period. Sorry to be the fart in church, but it’s true. Legislators must be able to support their decisions to an audience. How much of America really gives a shit about bikers and walkers? I mean, really? Not many. So if you’re going to get a legislator to vote in favor of spending money on bike/walk instead of car stuff, you’re going to have to show them, very clearly, the economic benefit of doing so.
Without an economic benefit, you’re another voice in the crowd, arguing for more $ (when our nation has no extra $ laying around, this aint the 90′s) for something that’s deemed a bad investment from an economic perspective. I personally would LOVE to see more bike lanes, bike everything, foot stuff, etc. I’d LOVE it. But I don’t get the deciding vote, and if I did, you’d have to show me how it’s not only going to ‘make things better’ but it’s going to save them money. If not, sorry guys, but you’re going to be steamrolled by programs for drug addicts, the homeless, unwed teenage mothers, n other groups that have actually shown a real economic benefit to funding program X or Y.
I’m sorry if this sounds rude, which I’m sure it does. I don’t mean it to. But in nearly 8 years of doing public policy work, there are two avenues for making change: You write impassioned “think of the children” type letters, or you produce a factsheet talking about how doing program X will save the govt money. Legislators will vote in favor of saving money all day, and screw the kids. Sad but true.
June 29th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
On the question of the mandatory sidepath law…let me restate that we are also extremely disappointed to see that language in the legislation and that we did what we could, when the opportunity was there, to try and strip it out. Failing that, we tried to make the language less onerous and require at least some process rather than just an arbitrary [usually uninformed] across the board decision.
Let me also say that Rep. Tiberi, along with his colleagues in the House never had an opportunity to discuss or consider this provision because it was never in the House bill and the conference committee report was not published and details were not given to members before they signed the conference report…and what they sign in the conference report is what they vote on. And because the transportation bill is wrapped up with various other unrelated bills, there isn’t even an opportunity for members to vote just on the transportation bill, let alone amend it. So until late last night, Rep. Tiberi was in the same position as everyone else and didn’t have a clue whether this or any other particular provision was in the bill or not. It’s a pretty disgraceful way for major laws to be written and doesn’t give us much to work with.
June 29th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Adam – while we can always do better (clearly) I believe we did a pretty good job of making an economic and jobs case for continued investment in bicycling and walking: we compile all kinds of economic impact data on the value of bicycling and build that into every fact sheet, tip sheet, congressional visit background document, National Bike Summit ask etc etc. As part of the America Bikes coalition we commissioned research on the job creation benefits of investments in bicycling and walking projects – it’s better than for roads. We brought industry leaders and retailers to key congressional meetings, companies such as Trek focused their dealers on congressional meetings in their local districts…to no avail, yet.
June 29th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
This may be a premature question but are there any changes to existing policy requiring consideration of bike-ped in federally funded road and bridge projects? Or has that been stripped out?
June 29th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Pat Tiberi serves on the conference committee for the highway bill. Their mission was to work out the differences between each chamber’s version of the bill. Are you saying that he would not have any influence over the wording of the final bill?
June 29th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
OK, Andy, then I am perhaps wrong, and I apologize. Keep doing what you’re doing. And again, this is coming from a guy who would love nothing more than to see more money go towards increased cycling/walking infrastructure, everywhere.
I just work with a lot of advocacy organizations, and I see them over and over again write these impassioned letters, which do nothing b/c they contain no hard impacts, then they wonder why nothing is being accomplished.
So, sorry. I wish you guys the best of luck.
June 29th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Great Post. We will return again shortly to your site to check out all your updates.
June 29th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
For the new mandatory sidepath law, requiring the relevant federal agency to first certify that the roadway in question has a Bicycle Level of Service of C or worse is a trivial “process” or exception that will have almost no practical impact.
Did LAB and/or its allies ever urge sympathetic conferees to keep the mandatory sidepath provision out of the Conference Committee Report?
July 6th, 2012 at 9:15 am
[...] (MAP-21), weakens and cuts dedicated bicycle and walking programs. This is certainly going to slow progress towards a bicycle friendly [...]