Via League of American Bicyclists: The U.S. House and Senate are negotiating right now to produce a final federal transportation bill and 20 years of gains on biking, walking and Safe Routes to School could be eliminated.

Only a strong show of support from people like you can make sure this doesn’t happen. Please act TODAY to protect federal funding for local biking and walking.

In March, the Senate passed a bill with bipartisan support that included the Cardin-Cochran agreement, which allows local governments and school systems to access much-needed funds to for biking and walking projects and programs. But the House would prefer to get rid of biking and walking funding by giving states the chance to ‘opt out’ of this funding pot completely — and take away local governments’ ability to access federal funds for small transportation projects.

If the House gets its way, your local governments won’t have access to funds to build the sidewalks, bike lanes and bikeways that make streets safer for all of us.

We can’t let Congress eliminate local control. We need the Senate conferees to stand strong behind their bi-partisan, bike-friendly agreement, and the House to stand down from their attempt to eliminate local access to these federal funds.

Click here to take action, it only takes a few minutes!


  1. “20 years of gains on biking, walking and Safe Routes to School could be eliminated.”…. wow, they are going to bring in backhoes and rip up the bike lanes in my town?

    That sucks.

    Or does the writer mean that funding will be stopped, temporarily, due to the worst economy in our lifetimes? Yeah, that is totally unreasonable.

  2. And by “opt out” they mean it’s voluntary? What a bunch of Draconian jerks giving options like that!!!

    Are these Federal “matching funds”? If so, many local gov’s, like every one around me, don’t have the matching funds that, in some cases, have been earmarked for these transportation projects, but are more seriously needed to fund schools and pay salaries.

    I love the bike paths around my house, but I am just as comfortable on the public roadways, where we belong.

  3. What part of the US deficit > $1.4T aren’t you getting? Pet projects like federally funded bike lanes are the type of things that MUST be defunded if we ever hope to lower it. If bicyclists want bicycle lanes they should raise the funds themselves.

    2 weeks ago my city wasted $1000s painting new bike lanes in the middle of town with their cashe of federal $. These new lanes will have exactly no effect upon the questionable social good of encouraging bicyle usage & only serve as an annoyance to drivers.

    Of course, the police will enjoy the opportunity of ticketing drivers who encroach on them though.

  4. Think we have some trolls searching the web for this news. Shame much of the deficit is due to buying oil and foreign cars. If we supported bike lanes and safe routes to school for kids we could put a small dent in that deficit.

  5. Nope…only been riding for about 50+ years.

    I guess to be a “real” cyclist requires having one’s first loyalty to cycling, before their pocketbook or country.

    Dogboy you “clearly” weren’t an economics major…newsflash..there are things more important than bicycles.

  6. Things like subsidizing the oil and automotive industries to keep costs for an expensive means of transport artificially low, thus perpetuating behavioral patterns that result in mountains of debt? Great priorities there, Joe. Great priorities.

  7. JoeKing how do bike lanes annoy drivers? Or does it just annoy them that someone might be on a bike getting somewhere faster? Your 50 years of “riding” don’t make you any less of a Troll. Think about this while yes there is major debit that government is in I’m willing to bet that this funding is less then the rounding error of some of the other funding they are pet projects/Pork to a well funded congressman/woman . So how about you get out of your high horse(car) and spend a little more time riding maybe your head will clear.

  8. dogboy – how does pointing out stupid and badly written statements in an article make me not a cyclist? I guess the dozen or so bikes that I have owned and, a podium finish or two, over the last 20 years don’t count.

    Or is it just that I don’t agree with you?

  9. “Or does the writer mean that funding will be stopped, temporarily, due to the worst economy in our lifetimes? Yeah, that is totally unreasonable.”

    Those are your words DaleC, not you merely pointing out “stupid” and badly written statements in an article.

    Yes, we disagree.

  10. See, I think it is stupid to say that 20 years of gains will be eliminated, because, they cannot. The bike paths that exist, the public awareness, viability of cyclists as a political special interest group, and many other very positive things will remain.

    I also think it is misleading (again poorly written or just stupid) because the proposed funding bill does not eliminate ANY funds. It permits local governments to opt-out of the program, which, by some pretzel logic, is the Federal government preventing access (congress eliminating) to those funds. Again poorly written or stupid.

    I was, albeit sarcastically, discussing what the writer actually meant to communicate, because what was written is either stupid (my opinion of inaccurate sky-is-falling hyperbole) or poorly worded.

What do you think?