Transportation for America called the plan “fundamental to the long-term health of
our economy.” Director James Corless issued this statement:
The Administration has recognized that the earmark-driven, unaccountable spending of the past
must end. The President today has promised to press for carefully targeted investments in those projects
that compete best in satisfying clearly articulated national goals for energy security, safety,
affordability, environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness.
Now one has to wounder what the impact will be in Maryland when the Gwynns Fall Trail, Great Allegheny
Passage and parts of the Jones Fall Trail were all paid for by Federal Earmarks. So while the rest of the
nation takes advantage of increased funding in Transportation Enhancements (TE) for bike/ped projects, will
Maryland remain steadfast in its rewritten policy governing bike/ped projects that is contrary to Federal
policy/guidelines that keep it dead last in using Federal TE money for bike/ped projects?
I seriously have to question the wisdom of MDOT that essentially rewrites the purpose of Federal
Law/Policy of mainstreaming bike/ped projects as well that put significant barriers into improving conditions for cycling.
Federal Law/Policy:
Policy: Mainstreaming Nonmotorized Transportation
Federal transportation policy is to increase nonmotorized transportation to at least 15 percent of all
trips and to simultaneously reduce the number of nonmotorized users killed or injured in traffic crashes by
at least 10 percent. This policy, which was adopted in 1994 as part of the National Bicycling and Walking
Study, remains a high priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). SAFETEA-LU continued to
provide the funding opportunities, planning processes, and policy language by which States and metropolitan
areas can achieve this ambitious national goal.Improving conditions and safety for bicycling and walking embodies the spirit and intent of Federal
surface transportation law and policy to create an integrated, intermodal transportation system which
provides travelers with a real choice of transportation modes. State and local agencies are challenged to
work together cooperatively with transportation providers, user groups, and the public to develop plans,
programs, and projects which reflect this vision. At the Federal level, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) is working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), and other agencies, to implement the bicycle and pedestrian provisions of
Federal surface transportation law. This guidance document provides additional information on this important
subject.SAFETEA-LU confirmed and continued the principle in Federal surface transportation law that the safe
accommodation of nonmotorized users shall be considered during the planning, development, and construction
of all Federal-aid transportation projects and programs. To varying extents, bicyclists and pedestrians will
be present on all highways and transportation facilities where they are permitted and it is clearly the
intent of Federal surface transportation law that all new and improved transportation facilities be planned,
designed, and constructed with this fact in mind.
- The long range metropolitan and statewide transportation plans, and the Metropolitan and Statewide
Transportation Improvement Programs shall “provide for the development and integrated management and
operation of transportation facilities (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation
facilities) that will function as an intermodal transportation system… (23 U.S.C 134
(c)(2) and 135
(a)(2))- The process in developing the long-range statewide and metropolitan transportation plans and
transportation improvement plans is to consider “…all modes of transportation…” (23 U.S.C.134(c)(3) and
135(a)(3))- The long-range metropolitan and statewide transportation plans are to “provide for the development and
implementation of the intermodal transportation system”. (23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2) and 135(f)(1))- SAFETEA-LU added “representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities”
to the list of ‘interested parties” with whom metropolitan areas and States must include in the development
of the long range metropolitan and Statewide transportation plans. (23 U.S.C 134(i)(5) and 135
(f)(3)(A))- Bicyclists and pedestrians shall be given due consideration in the comprehensive transportation plans
developed by each metropolitan planning organization and State…” (23 U.S.C. 217
(g)(1))- “Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in
conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction and transportation facilities, except where bicycle
and pedestrian use are not permitted.” (23 U.S.C. 217(g)(1))- “Transportation plans and projects shall provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes for
bicyclists and pedestrians.” (23 U.S.C. 217(g)(2))- “In any case where a highway bridge deck is being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal financial
participation, and bicyclists are permitted on facilities at or near each end of such bridge, and the safe
accommodation of bicyclists can be provided at reasonable cost as part of such replacement or
rehabilitation, then such bridge shall be so replaced or rehabilitated as to provide such safe
accommodations.” (23 U.S.C. 217(e))- “The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will
result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for
nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides
for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists.” (23 U.S.C. 109
(m))While these sections stop short of requiring specific bicycle and pedestrian accommodation in every
transportation project, Congress clearly intends for bicyclists and pedestrians to have safe, convenient
access to the transportation system and sees every transportation improvement as an opportunity to enhance
the safety and convenience of the two modes. “Due consideration” of bicycle and pedestrian needs should
include, at a minimum, a presumption that bicyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated in the design of
new and improved transportation facilities. In the planning, design, and operation of transportation
facilities, bicyclists and pedestrians should be included as a matter of routine, and the decision to not
accommodate them should be the exception rather than the rule. There must be exceptional circumstances for
denying bicycle and pedestrian access either by prohibition or by designing highways that are incompatible
with safe, convenient walking and bicycling.TEA-21 Section 1202(b) required FHWA to undertake a design study to “develop guidance on the various
approaches to accommodating bicycles and pedestrian travel” and to report back to Congress by December 9,
1999. The guidance clarified those “exceptional circumstances” where bicyclists and pedestrians may not be
accommodated. This Design Guidance language can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm. Supplementary guidance to clarify a
number of issues in the original design guidance can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/supdesgn.htm. Even where circumstances are
exceptional and bicycle use and walking are either prohibited or made incompatible, States, MPOs, and local
governments must still ensure that bicycle and pedestrian access along the corridor served by the new or
improved facility is not made more difficult or impossible. For example, there may be ways to provide
alternate routes on parallel surface streets that are still safe and convenient, or to provide shuttle bus
service on major bridge crossings.Maintaining access to the transportation system for nonmotorized users is not an optional activity.
Section 109
(m) of Title 23, United States Code, states that “The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any
regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have
significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles,
unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route
exists.”Bicyclists and pedestrians have the same origins and destinations as other transportation system users
and it is important for them to have safe and convenient access to airports, ports, ferry services, transit
terminals, and other intermodal facilities as well as to jobs, services, recreation facilities, and
neighborhoods. Federal surface transportation law places a strong emphasis on creating a seamless
transportation system that all users can enjoy and use efficiently and safely.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp-guid.htm#bp2oldId.20100909141847723