Senate Transportation bill is bad for cyclists, bans biking where trail exists

The new Boxer/Inhofe bill making it's way through the Senate right now has a lot for cyclists to dislike. First of all it rolls three key bicycle programs into CMAQ, funds them at a lower level than all the programs combined got last year, and then allows states to spend that money on nothing but roads.

Among the casualties are three key bike-ped programs: Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails. Those programs would be consolidated and listed as “eligible uses” under an $833 million subset of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ). That would represent a sharp drop from the $1.15 billion devoted to those programs in 2010. That year, Transportation Enhancements was funded at $878 million, Safe Routes to School at $183 million, and Recreational Trails at $85 million.

States could also divert their share of the $833 million to projects that add traffic lanes or don’t involve bike and pedestrian infrastructure at all. The bike-ped sub-category of CMAQ spending would be broadened to allow new road construction as an eligible use if the project “enhances connectivity and includes public transportation, pedestrian walkways or bicycle infrastructure.”

But if the effective loss of federal funding isn't enough, there's also the loss of access to federal roads on federal lands (page 226):

(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.

Even if the trail is in very bad shape, and the road is perfectly safe, the Secretary will have no leeway to allow cyclists to continue to use the road if a trail is available. This is very bad policy.  Among other things it would end biking on portions of the Rock Creek Parkway where the speed limit is 35 mph.

Not that I think this rule is needed, but it's especially bad to set the limit at 30mph - which is far too low for banning cycling. And 100 yards is a very wide net. A trail that far away serves a very different purpose than a trail just off the road.

The upside is that with no more money for trail building, there won't be any more trails that cyclists will be required to use.

Comments

[charlie]

What perecent of TE money is funding bikes?

In terms of the road law, the problem with laws like that is they are accidentally broader than intended. I'd be much happier with a federal "no biking on GW parkway" law.

[Jim T]

I'll be to far into the weeds with state and local stuff to play any role in this. But if any of you talk to LAB, I suggest that the paragraph (d) may represent an opportunity for a friendly amendment. I suggest it be amended to say

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit OR ALLOW the use of bicycles on each federally owned road [snipped] CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE THROUGH WHICH THE ROAD RUNS.

Tea partiers should like deference to federalism.

[charlie]

@JimT; my understanding is that is the problem with the GW parkway. It already has a compact with Maryland and Virginia (BW parkway as well) to govern traffic law.

[GMB]

Anyone have a form letter than I can customize and send to my Senator?

[Mr. Carlin]

Good to know I can ask the cops parked in bike lanes to ticket the non-cops parked in bike lanes.

[oboe]

This makes bicycle advocates temporary allies with the Heritage Foundation.

Why? If we're going to see legislation banning cycling in roads where there's a multi-use path, then frankly I'd prefer to get rid of multi-use paths.

[Jonathan Krall]

This is seriously messed up. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the current programs and the proposed replacement: http://www.bikeleague.org/news/pdfs/sidexside_safetealu_boxer_inhofe.pdf

Allowed activities include "Redesign of a street to enhance connectivity
and increase the efficiency of network
performance." In other words, the money could all go to new pavement on roads. The proposed program pretty much kills Safe Routes to School by removing the requirement that states hire a SRTS coordinator to keep that program moving forward.

I hope the bicycling-advocacy orgs are working on a coordinated response.

[twk]

This "safety" bike ban could be a very slippery slope if other jurisdictions were to model after it.

If a "path" 300 feet removed from the road lack entry and exit points it could prevent a cyclist from getting where they need to go. This is a setup for conflict. Seems to be more blindness to the fact that cycling is not exclusively recreational.

What are the chances all federal roads get new 25mph speed limits?

[Geof Gee]

@charlie in reference to JimT ... I do not think I follow: Are you saying that in some way the compact with the states is what leads to cyclists being prohibited from GW Pkwy?

More generally, I see this as related to too many advocates conflating "safe" -- without any real clear definition and/or metric -- with "preferred" or "pleasurable".

[Jim T]

@charlie. Can you elaborate? You seem to be saying that NPS follows state law in allowing or prohibiting bikes. Not so. Both Suitland Parkway and the 35 mph Clara Barton from Glen Echo would allow bikes if MD SHA operated those roads.

I don't know VA law: Are you saying that if VDOT ran the GW-Pkwy along the Mt Vernon trail, bikes would be prohibited?

[SD]

Hey WC, just to be clear, the p.226 proviso only covers roads through federal lands, not "federal roads." So yes, it would cover GWP and a road through Yellowstone or other federal lands, parks, etc.

But this is not a blanket statement that would cover federal-aid roads or federal highways adjacent to the Capital Crescent or Met Branch or whatever path out there in the rest of the country. Only roads through federal lands, which is the section that p.226 is in (Federal Lands.)

Huge ramifications for us in DC, of course, but this isn't quite how I was seeing this characterized on twitter a little bit ago, (and the broad definition you use of "federal roads.") Hope that helps.

[Froggie]

I don't know VA law: Are you saying that if VDOT ran the GW-Pkwy along the Mt Vernon trail, bikes would be prohibited?

North of Old Town probably would be. South of Old Town probably wouldn't.

[twk]

Correction: What are the chances all roads on federal lands get new 25mph speed limits?

[washcycle]

SD, your correct. Perhaps my wording was inelegant, but that's what I meant. Roads on federal lands.

One thing I hate about this is that it works on the assumption that currently Secretaries are making the wrong decision when they allow cycling in these situations and that Congress, without reviewing each situation specifically, knows best.

[Jim T]

I'm trying to channel Contrarian...This provision is basically a warmed-over version of the widely discredited passage in the Uniform Vehicle Code circa 1970. It was put into the Maryland code in 1971 and removed in 1977. Many other states had it in the 1970s; all but a few have repealed it.

They can't possibly be serious if they are awake. This is an opportunity for a federal consistency provision, but it will probably just be struck.

[charlie]

@JimT; not at all; I am just saying feels the need to get rid of bikes there, and it might take an act of congress to do that. I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with overly broad laws that might accidently hit other "federal" roads. Not sure what they would be, and I'm sure NPS doesn't either.

SD's corrction is neccesary.

Of course, is the parkway even on federal land? ;-)

[Jack]

I was tempted to vote for the Republican congressman who stands to lose his seat in Maryland, as a protest of the extreme anti-minority, anti-democracy gerrymandering going on in the state. But thank you WashCycle for reminding me of the real world consequences of voting Republican. Friends (and blogs) don't let friends vote Republican.

[Contrarian]

I don't know VA law: Are you saying that if VDOT ran the GW-Pkwy along the Mt Vernon trail, bikes would be prohibited?

North of Old Town probably would be. South of Old Town probably wouldn't.

In Virginia only controlled access highways can be made off limits to bikes. The problem with the GW parkway south of Key Bridge is that while it has the character of a controlled access highway, it isn't truly controlled access -- it has all those pesky trail crossings at grade.

[Contrarian]

I'm trying to channel Contrarian...This provision is basically a warmed-over version of the widely discredited passage in the Uniform Vehicle Code circa 1970. It was put into the Maryland code in 1971 and removed in 1977. Many other states had it in the 1970s; all but a few have repealed it.

They can't possibly be serious if they are awake. This is an opportunity for a federal consistency provision, but it will probably just be struck.

I'm going to apply Occam's razor and say this has nothing to do with reverting to the 70's and everything to do with a congressman or staffer getting stuck behind a cyclist on Rock Creek Parkway on his morning commute.

I'm wondering how many miles outside of DC are even affected by this. In most of the country NPS, BLM and other stewards of federal land are the furthest thing imaginable from builders of bike paths.

[Purple Eagle]

NPS has been building multi-user trails in the heavily-used portions of many parks, in order to give peds and cyclists an alternative to busy roads. They also serve employees who are commuting to work from housing areas within the parks. I have seen such trails in Glacier National Park, Zion National Park, Yosemite, and others. There's also paved trail parallel to the road through Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, not far from DC. So the provision could have a wide impact.

[Rootchopper]

Grossly unfair. Bicycles are excluded but unicycles and tricycles would be allowed.

[John Allen]

"In most parts of the country NPS, BLM and other stewards of Federal land are the furthest things imaginable from builders of bike paths"

Au contraire, consider the Cape Cod National Seashore -- Map:

http://www.nps.gov/caco/planyourvisit/upload/CACOmapweb.pdf

A photo tour of the Province Lands paths (near the tip of the Cape):

http://bikexprt.com/massfacil/capecod/pland.htm

The Nauset path near the south end of the park also parallels a road. These paths were built long ago to a very low design standard. Roads paralleling these paths now have Share the Road signs, reflecting the reality that many bicyclists prefer to ride on them. With the proposed law, the NPS would have to take these signs down and replace them with bicycle prohibition signs, and the park rangers would have to busy themselves with chasing bicyclists off these roads, reflecting a prohibition which is inconsistent with traffic law elsewhere in Massachusetts.

[John Allen]

More examples of national parks with paths paralleling roads:

Yosemite National Park:

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/upload/yosevalley2008.pdf

Valley Forge National Historical Park:

http://www.nps.gov/pwr/customcf/apps/maps/showmap.cfm?alphacode=vafo&parkname=Valley%20Forge%20National%20Historical%20Park

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge:

http://www.nps.gov/pwr/customcf/apps/maps/showmap.cfm?alphacode=asis&parkname=Assateague%20Island%20National%20Seashore

Grand Teton National Park:

http://www.nps.gov/pwr/customcf/apps/maps/showmap.cfm?alphacode=grte&parkname=Grand%20Teton%20National%20Park%20%26%20John%20D%2E%20Rockefeller%2C%20Jr%2E%20Memorial%20Parkway

And quite a number more, I'm sure. Just search under the activity "Biking" on the page

http://www.nps.gov/findapark/index.htm

[Purple Eagle]

@John Allen, thanks for the list. And it's an important point that many of these paths are older and sub-standard. As I noted above, there are also parallel paths in Zion and Glacier National Parks. Grand Canyon has them too - on both rims. I am sure there are more. NPS often builds multi-user paths in order to reduce conflicts with auto traffic in heavily-visited portions of parks.

[Contrarian]

The federal government owns 30% of the land in the US. I don't think that pointing to five bike trails negates my point that most of the federal land is not bike-friendly.