The Trump administration has published a new National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS). It is 12 pages long. The previous one was 42 pages. It contains 15 key activities. The previous one had 43. It likely exists as a communications strategy more than a plan to accomplish its stated goals of making roadways safer, driving fatalities toward zero and delivering the Golden Age of Transportation to the American people.

If I knew nothing else about the Trump administration’s efforts related to traffic safety, it would be a very good sign that they chose to publish a new National Roadway Safety Strategy, a document that is not required by any law but rather based on precedent. When the Biden administration published its NRSS in 2022, it was a first-of-its-kind publication from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and brought a new perspective to how USDOT approaches traffic safety. Specifically, it focused on two new ideas: 1) a federal commitment to zero traffic deaths, and 2) “a Department-wide adoption of the Safe System Approach.” 

The Trump administration’s choice to publish a new NRSS that carries over some of the objectives of the previous NRSS, including “DOT’s commitment to drive fatalities toward zero,” shows that the Trump administration realizes the importance of the NRSS and reinforces that a NRSS should be an ongoing effort of USDOT. Though, it may be establishing a new precedent for publishing and producing the bare minimum.

A Safe System Approach: Mission Accomplished?

The Biden administration’s NRSS had a clear strategy centered around the adoption and promotion of the Safe System Approach. The Safe System Approach was explicitly recognized by USDOT as differing “significantly from a conventional safety approach in that it acknowledges both human mistakes and human vulnerability, and designs a redundant system to protect everyone.” Its difference from the typical American approach meant that significant time and resources were used to explain it, to identify six principles for it, and to create products and programs for the transportation community to drive alignment with it. 

If you look at the recommendations of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, John Hopkins School of Public Health, FIA Foundation, and two dozen experts participating in the Safe System Consortium, you’ll find an emphasis on policies and programs that drive culture change towards a Safe System Approach.

The Trump administration’s new NRSS says it will “continue to embrace a holistic approach … [that] draws from established practices in the transportation sector such as the Safe System Approach.” It is not an explicit change in strategy, but does reduce the Safe System Approach, which experts believe is still in its early adoption, to a footnote that needs no more nurturing. 

Safety without Speed Management

While it is not discussed, the new NRSS makes a substantial change in approach by eliminating the Safer Speeds objective present in the previous NRSS. While Post-Crash Care is also eliminated as an objective, it can be found in several of the key activities. Safer Speeds are missing as an objective, missing in key activities, and attacked by actions of the administration that are not discussed in the NRSS. In July, the Trump administration removed five countermeasures from its Proven Safety Countermeasures program. While the League of American Bicyclists, and media coverage, has focused on the elimination of bike lanes from that program, the greater change for safety is likely the elimination of all three Speed Management countermeasures.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, “[t]he management of speed through appropriate speed limits is an essential element of highway safety.” By eliminating speed management countermeasures and safer speeds from its NRSS, the Trump administration is expressing that it does not see speed management as essential. 

The case for speed management being essential is pretty straightforward based on the idea that “[h]uman injury tolerance has limits and Safe System strategies control the energy of moving vehicles.” Essentially, it’s basic physics. Whether a crash involves a person walking, biking, or in a vehicle, the force of a crash impacts the severity of the injury that occurs and whether a person survives. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has illustrated this concept with a “bright yellow, 54-foot ladder” at events because “[a]t just 40 mph, a pedestrian struck by a car experiences the same force” as someone falling off the top of that ladder. The League of American Bicyclists’ Slow Roads Save Lives campaign centered on the importance of slower speeds in traffic safety, and the role of speed limits in creating safer streets and roads.

The Trump administration, at least, has not made a case against speed management. In its NRSS, it recognizes that “[o]f the 39,254 fatalities on our roads in 2024, about one-third involved speeding.” One of the pathways in its Pathways to Safer Streets initiative is to “reduce excessive speeding” by promoting “the smart use of technology to augment traditional law enforcement.” The Trump administration has correctly identified high-speed arterials as a place where “over half of all traffic deaths occur.” For people biking and walking, the most common speed limit on the roads where they are killed is 45 miles per hour, with speeding reported in less than 10 percent of deaths. While speeding is deadly, it is the high speeds themselves that are foundational to the problem.

If speeding is bad and high-speed arterials are a priority, why has speed management disappeared? Why wouldn’t speed safety cameras, variable speed limits, and appropriate speed limits for all road users—the Proven Safety Countermeasures removed last month—be a part of the smart use of technology that reduces excessive speeding? The physics of crashes have not changed, the limits of human injury tolerance have not changed, and the effectiveness of these countermeasures have not changed. Based on the Trump administration’s NRSS, we are only left to wonder why speed management has been demoted from essential to unworthy of promotion. It’s hard to disagree with one summary that the “department also treats safer roads as faster roads” despite established science pointing toward the need to manage speeds.

Safety without People Biking and Walking

Also missing without explanation is any strategy for the safety of vulnerable road users—people who bike and walk, use wheelchairs and scooters, or who otherwise are endangered while navigating roads outside of vehicles. While people walking get two mentions—one about the importance of safety for a child walking to school and one about the inclusion of pedestrian safety in Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) technology—other vulnerable road users are absent.

In 2024, bicyclists and pedestrians accounted for more than 21% of traffic fatalities in the United States with over 8,000 people killed. In each of the most recent three years of available data, bicyclist deaths have been over 1,000—higher than at any time since 1975. While the Trump administration does not mention its strategy to save the lives of bicyclists in its NRSS, its actions have focused on eliminating support for bicycle lanes, urging Congress to restrict funding for bicycle lanes, and attempting to remove specific bicycle lanes on federally-administered property. Those are not actions that reflect a commitment to “drive fatalities toward zero.”

Even in the one singular mention of a concrete action to improve pedestrian safety, the deployment of AEB, the Trump administration chose to not address ongoing litigation related to the deployment of pedestrian-AEB and an announced but not yet published amendment to the rule that requires the deployment of pedestrian-AEB that would extend the compliance date for that rule until 2031.

Safety without Previously Announced Initiatives

Much of the new NRSS, like the initial one under the Biden administration, is a rehash of activities that the administration has done, is required to do based on laws passed by Congress, or activities that will occur during the normal administration of established programs. It may be notable that some administration efforts previously announced, in addition to the pedestrian-AEB amendment, are missing, such as:

• The SAFE ROADS initiative intended to address arterial safety and to target “political messages” of art on and along roadways. Under this initiative, states like Texas forced the removal of a crosswalk featuring a depiction of Buddy Holly’s glasses and Florida forced the removal of art on nearly 300 sidewalk panels depicting moments, scenes and figures important to Sarasota’s history. In 2024, Florida had the most bicyclists killed of any state, its fifth straight year with that distinction, while Texas infamously has had at least one traffic death every single day since November 7, 2000.
• This May, USDOT proudly announced that the Tesla Model Y was the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new benchmark for vehicles with advanced driver assistance systems through new tests added to the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). No mention of that positive result or the existence of NCAP appears in the NRSS, despite a 10-year roadmap required by Congress that anticipates eight new tests during the Trump administration.
• In September 2025, the USDOT Office of Inspector General published an audit of the Biden administration’s NRSS, calling on USDOT to establish “methods for measuring the impact of individual actions [that] would allow DOT’s Action Team to better target future priority actions to achieve effective results in substantially reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries.” In the newly published NRSS, the key activities provided appear to be less easy to measure. An activity like “encouraging the deployment of effective countermeasures to promote family safety” is certainly a worthy activity, but without knowing what countermeasures will be deployed, the baseline for current family safety, or how the impact on family safety will be measured, the Trump administration missed an opportunity to contrast its approach with the Biden administration and follow the recommendation of its Inspector General.
• Several of the key activities in the new NRSS involve some form of law enforcement, education, and outreach campaigns, the type of work typically funded by Highway Safety Grants. In the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress required a public website reporting on the use of those grants under 23 USC 402(n)(2). The Biden administration failed to produce the website required by Congress and the Trump administration missed an opportunity to show that it can deliver on this law that also would meaningfully improve transparency around whether or not its goals related education, outreach, and support for law enforcement are being realized.

At a high level, it is noteworthy and promising that the Trump administration’s NRSS draws inspiration from the Safe System Approach and reaffirms that “[z]ero is the only acceptable number of deaths on our highways, roads, and streets.” It is a good thing that having a National Roadway Safety Strategy is now expected and traffic safety is addressed as a cross-cutting priority for all administrations within USDOT. 

But at most other levels, I’m left wanting to hear more about how they hope to accomplish their goals, the specific actions that they will take, and how they will update the public on their progress. If they have a theory for how removing speed management practices and bicycle lanes will improve safety, then it would be interesting to hear it. Without more substance, this NRSS fulfills the goal of replacing the one of the Biden administration but has notable blind spots as it ventures forth on the road ahead.

The post A New National Roadway Safety Strategy…but Without the Bike Safety? appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Becoming a League Certified Instructor takes real dedication, but so does making the opportunity available in the first place. Hosting an LCI seminar is no small feat, and the organizations that do it year after year (aka Super Hosts) deserve a moment in the spotlight alongside the instructors we regularly celebrate in our Spotlight Series. 

Today, we’re shining that light on Ecology Action. Since 2022, this Santa Cruz-based organization has hosted an LCI seminar almost every year, steadily growing a community of certified cycling educators right in their own backyard.

Tell us a little about Ecology Action and the communities you serve. What role does cycling education play in your broader mission?

Ecology Action is a Santa Cruz-based nonprofit that advances equitable community climate solutions. We have deep roots in the Central Coast and work closely with local governments, schools, community-based organizations, regional agencies, businesses, and residents.

Transportation has been an important part of our work since we launched Santa Cruz County’s first Bike to Work Day in 1987. Today, our active transportation programs include bike and pedestrian safety education, Safe Routes to School activities, community rides, encouragement campaigns, planning, and infrastructure initiatives.

Cycling education connects directly to our broader mission because people are more likely to choose biking when they have the skills, confidence, and knowledge to do it safely. Education helps make active transportation more accessible while supporting healthier communities, cleaner air, lower emissions, and more connected neighborhoods.

What inspired Ecology Action to start hosting LCI seminars, and what has it meant to make that a yearly goal since 2022?

We saw a need to build a stronger local network of highly trained cycling educators. Our programs reach people of many ages, backgrounds, languages, and levels of riding experience, so the people leading those programs must have consistent, nationally recognized training. This training benchmark aligns with our drive to provide consistent and high-quality programming for our community.

Hosting an LCI seminar locally removes some of the travel and logistical barriers that can make certification difficult to pursue. It also allows us to strengthen not only our own team, but the larger community of educators, advocates, and transportation professionals working throughout the region. Making the seminar an annual commitment since 2022 reflects our belief that cycling education is not a one-time investment. Staff change, programs grow, and community needs evolve. Hosting each year helps us continually develop new leaders and keep that knowledge rooted in our community.

What have you been able to achieve by consistently developing new LCIs year after year? Are there outcomes or moments that stand out?

Consistently developing new LCIs has given us a deeper and more resilient bench of cycling educators. We are better able to staff programs, respond to new opportunities, and provide high-quality instruction across school, workplace, and community settings. It also creates a positive ripple effect. Newly certified instructors bring their own experiences, languages, relationships, and perspectives to the work. They can support youth safety programs, community rides, bike rodeos, learn-to-ride activities, adult workshops, and other events designed to help people feel more comfortable walking and rolling.

Because our instructors bring current best practices, new perspectives, and real-world teaching experience, we have been able to develop entirely new curriculum offerings, including e-bike safety education, to address emerging transportation trends and needs. We have also completely redesigned our bicycle rodeo course, grounding it in League Cycling Instructor principles, proven instructional methods, and hands-on learning strategies that help participants build skills and confidence over time. One of our intentional goals is to create a continuum of learning that supports people at every stage with elementary school students learning the foundational biking skills, to teens developing independent transportation habits, to adults using the knowledge and confidence to ride safely in their communities.

How has having multiple LCIs on staff shaped your organization’s culture and capacity?

Having multiple LCIs on staff has helped create a strong culture of safety, shared learning, and leadership. Cycling knowledge is not concentrated in one person; it is distributed across a team that can learn from one another, reinforce best practices, and step into different instructional roles as needed. That strengthens our organizational capacity in very practical ways. We can deliver more programs, support a wider range of participants, mentor newer instructors, and adapt our teaching to different settings and community needs. It also gives our staff a shared vocabulary and approach to cycling safety.

More broadly, LCI certification helps connect our program delivery with our values. We want people to feel welcomed, respected, and empowered—not simply told what to do. Having a team of trained instructors helps us create learning experiences that are supportive, inclusive, and grounded in real-world riding.

Is there anything else you’d like people to know about Ecology Action’s work or your vision for cycling education in Santa Cruz?

Our vision is a Santa Cruz County where people of all ages, abilities, backgrounds, and income levels can safely and comfortably choose to bike for everyday trips. Education is a critical part of that vision, but it must work alongside thoughtful infrastructure, community engagement, encouragement, and strong partnerships.

Through our Complete Streets Initiative work, we are collaborating with local leaders and transportation professionals to advance streets that are safer and more accessible for everyone. Our cycling educators play an important role in that greater effort by helping people understand how to navigate their communities today while also building support for a more people-centered transportation future.

Ultimately, we want cycling education to do more than teach technical skills. We want it to help people experience greater freedom, confidence, health, connection, and joy—and to see themselves as part of creating safer streets for the entire community.

The post Celebrating Ecology Action: LCI Seminar Super Hosts appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Washington, D.C. — The League of American Bicyclists today recognized 30 new and renewing Bicycle Friendly Businesses (BFBs), welcoming organizations from across the country into a growing network of more than 1,100 businesses committed to making biking better for their employees, customers, and communities.

This round includes 10 new Bicycle Friendly Businesses and 20 renewing awardees. Six renewing businesses moved up an award level, while 12 renewed at the same level and three moved down. National Geographic Society is among those moving up, earning a Gold-level Bicycle Friendly Business award after making significant improvements since their last application in 2018.

Find the full list of current BFBs here, and the latest round of awards and Honorable Mentions here.

“When businesses support biking, they strengthen the communities they serve,” said Bill Nesper, executive director of the League of American Bicyclists. “Across industries, from nonprofits cultivating more active workplaces to transportation planning firms designing inclusive streetscapes, Bicycle Friendly Businesses are building a healthier, more connected America.”

This round highlights a growing trend: when businesses invest in better biking, they inspire others to do the same. Rather than isolated success stories, many of this year’s awardees are part of broader local efforts where businesses, schools, nonprofits, and government agencies alike are working together to build stronger bike cultures.

That momentum is visible in communities of all sizes. In Fitchburg, Wisconsin, local advocates have used the Bicycle Friendly Business program to bring dozens of businesses together around better biking, resulting in four renewing Fitchburg-based BFBs in this round alone.

The same pattern shows up in Arkansas, where business leaders are forming coalitions across the state to encourage more BFBs. Their efforts are paying off, with Arkansas ranking second among states with the most Bicycle Friendly Businesses. Florida remains at the top of that list, with local advocates and groups like the Downtown Tampa Partnership (renewing Platinum BFB) helping build and sustain momentum.

Below, hear directly from some of this round’s Bicycle Friendly Businesses about the programs, partnerships, and people helping create stronger communities through biking:

“We want to be a positive force in a city that has not always prioritized bicycle transportation. We partner with a local non-profit bike shop (Queen City Bicycle Collective) which holds many gatherings at our brewery. We want our bike rack to be always full!” — Republic Brewing Co., new Bronze-level BFB in Manchester, NH

“To further support a diverse cycling community, we offer free Capital Bikeshare memberships, maintain a Bicycle Commuter Subsidy, and host city cycling classes in partnership with local organizations. Additionally, we serve as an official pit stop for Bike to Work Day to encourage new riders across the organization. — National Geographic Society, newly promoted Gold-level BFB in Washington, DC

“Tampa has come to expect and depend on our organization for thought leadership and action related to cycling for transportation… Advocacy‑centered feedback loops ensure our bicycle programs evolve based on real community needs. Our free bike valet program and event‑based outreach provide low‑pressure opportunities for community members to learn about safe riding and parking practices.” — Tampa Downtown Partnership, renewing Platinum BFB in Tampa, FL

“After engineers and elected officials have attended [our] professional development trainings, they have had a mind reset about active transportation and its importance in the inclusion into the transportation network. For example, elected officials have said they now e-bike to their council meetings, and a state DOT engineer has gone back to 60% plans and redesigned the project to make it more friendly for all ages and abilities.” — Crafton Tull, newly promoted Gold-level BFB in Rogers, AK

Want to join the movement and become a Bicycle Friendly Business? Applications for the next round are due October 28, 2026, at 11:59pm PT. Learn more and apply here.

About the League Of American Bicyclists

Since 1880, the League of American Bicyclists has been people-powered, with a goal to make bicycling safer and easier as a means of transportation and recreation. Today, the League continues to improve lives and strengthen communities through bicycling. We are more than 200,000 members and supporters strong with more than 1,000 state and local advocacy groups and bike clubs as well as thousands of businesses, universities, and communities together leading the movement to create a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone.

About the Bicycle Friendly Business Program

Bicycle Friendly Business awards reflect local leaders’ ongoing work to build better places to bike and evaluate those efforts as part of a national movement. Each of the five levels of the Bicycle Friendly Business award – diamond, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze, plus an honorable mention category – provides a clear path for businesses to continuously improve. Visit bikeleague.org/business to learn more about the BFB program.

The post League of American Bicyclists Recognizes 30 New and Renewing Bicycle Friendly Businesses appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Washington, D.C. — The League of American Bicyclists today recognized 30 new and renewing Bicycle Friendly Businesses (BFBs), welcoming organizations from across the country into a growing network of more than 1,100 businesses committed to making biking better for their employees, customers, and communities. 

This round includes 10 new Bicycle Friendly Businesses and 20 renewing awardees. Six renewing businesses moved up an award level, while 12 renewed at the same level and three moved down. National Geographic Society is among those moving up, earning a Gold-level Bicycle Friendly Business award after making significant improvements since their last application in 2018.

Find the full list of current BFBs here, and the latest round of awards and Honorable Mentions here.

“When businesses support biking, they strengthen the communities they serve,” said Bill Nesper, executive director of the League of American Bicyclists. “Across industries, from nonprofits cultivating more active workplaces to transportation planning firms designing inclusive streetscapes, Bicycle Friendly Businesses are building a healthier, more connected America.”

This round highlights a growing trend: when businesses invest in better biking, they inspire others to do the same. Rather than isolated success stories, many of this year’s awardees are part of broader local efforts where businesses, schools, nonprofits, and government agencies alike are working together to build stronger bike cultures.

That momentum is visible in communities of all sizes. In Fitchburg, Wisconsin, local advocates have used the Bicycle Friendly Business program to bring dozens of businesses together around better biking, resulting in four renewing Fitchburg-based BFBs in this round alone. 

The same pattern shows up in Arkansas, where business leaders are forming coalitions across the state to encourage more BFBs. Their efforts are paying off, with Arkansas ranking second among states with the most Bicycle Friendly Businesses. Florida remains at the top of that list, with local advocates and groups like the Downtown Tampa Partnership (renewing Platinum BFB) helping build and sustain momentum. 

Below, hear directly from some of this round’s Bicycle Friendly Businesses about the programs, partnerships, and people helping create stronger communities through biking:

“We want to be a positive force in a city that has not always prioritized bicycle transportation. We partner with a local non-profit bike shop (Queen City Bicycle Collective) which holds many gatherings at our brewery. We want our bike rack to be always full!”  — Republic Brewing Co., new Bronze-level BFB in Manchester, NH

“To further support a diverse cycling community, we offer free Capital Bikeshare memberships, maintain a Bicycle Commuter Subsidy, and host city cycling classes in partnership with local organizations. Additionally, we serve as an official pit stop for Bike to Work Day to encourage new riders across the organization. — National Geographic Society, newly promoted Gold-level BFB in Washington, DC

“Tampa has come to expect and depend on our organization for thought leadership and action related to cycling for transportation… Advocacy‑centered feedback loops ensure our bicycle programs evolve based on real community needs. Our free bike valet program and event‑based outreach provide low‑pressure opportunities for community members to learn about safe riding and parking practices.”  — Tampa Downtown Partnership, renewing Platinum BFB in Tampa, FL

“After engineers and elected officials have attended [our] professional development trainings, they have had a mind reset about active transportation and its importance in the inclusion into the transportation network.  For example, elected officials have said they now e-bike to their council meetings, and a state DOT engineer has gone back to 60% plans and redesigned the project to make it more friendly for all ages and abilities.” — Crafton Tull, newly promoted Gold-level BFB in Rogers, AK

Want to join the movement and become a Bicycle Friendly Business? Applications for the next round are due October 28, 2026, at 11:59pm PT. Learn more and apply here.

About the League of American Bicyclists

Since 1880, the League of American Bicyclists has been people-powered, with a goal to make bicycling safer and easier as a means of transportation and recreation. Today, the League continues to improve lives and strengthen communities through bicycling. We are more than 200,000 members and supporters strong with more than 1,000 state and local advocacy groups and bike clubs as well as thousands of businesses, universities, and communities together leading the movement to create a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone. 

About the Bicycle Friendly Business Program

Bicycle Friendly Business awards reflect local leaders’ ongoing work to build better places to bike and evaluate those efforts as part of a national movement. Each of the five levels of the Bicycle Friendly Business award—diamond, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze, plus an honorable mention category—provides a clear path for businesses to continuously improve. Visit bikeleague.org/business to learn more about the BFB program.

The post League of American Bicyclists Recognizes 30 New and Renewing Bicycle Friendly Businesses appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Federal legislation adopted a definition for e-bikes in 2003. Most states have adopted a 3-class system for e-bikes in the last decades. Despite these legal frameworks, it seems like every day brings a new story or proposed law that confuses legal e-bikes with illegal higher-speed e-motos, and e-scooters, one-wheels, and other devices continue to exist in grey areas of regulation.

In the League of American Bicyclists’ webinar, “E-bikes, E-motos, Oh My: Navigating New Devices and Laws for E-Bikes”, we welcomed advocates from Colorado, Massachusetts, and New Jersey to discuss how they have been navigating state legislation that regulates the safety of small electric vehicles. The webinar attendance and response was tremendous, with over 50 questions showing a great need for more clarity and communication on these issues. I encourage you to watch the webinar and download the slides to learn more about each state’s experience, but this blog will share some of the key information and insights.

Addressing E-bikes is Not Optional

E-bikes are bicycles with an electric assist triggered either by pedaling or by a throttle. At the federal level, low-speed electric bicycles cannot exceed 20 mph when powered solely by their motor with less than 750 watts of power, but can exceed 20 mph when motor power is combined with pedaling. Most states—at least 40—have adopted a 3-class system of regulation for e-bikes that is consistent with the federal definition and differentiates e-bikes based on top speed and how assistance is provided.

Each of the presenters talked about the large public interest in e-bikes; the increasing public concerns related to e-bikes, e-motos, and other devices; and ongoing efforts to create a durable and understandable regulatory framework. Engaging with legislators, motor vehicle administrators, law enforcement, medical professionals, and other interested groups early and often were keys to crafting better legislation, where it happened. Bicycle Colorado shared an analysis that showed e-bike related news articles increased from 588 articles in 2021 to 3,050 in 2026, with 23.1% of articles in 2026 having a negative sentiment towards e-bikes. In Massachusetts, legislators chose to pursue that engagement through a formal commission, which led to a holistic framework for all micromobility devices focused on top speeds as the primary means of differentiation. In contrast, New Jersey legislators quickly passed a restrictive bill with little consultation, with an outgoing governor signing it on their last day in office, avoiding political accountability.

While there is no guarantee that advocacy will lead to a good outcome, it is clear from the experience of each state that e-bikes must continue to be addressed by advocacy efforts as public concerns and confusion persist.

Differentiating E-bikes and E-motos is the primary battleground

E-bikes are defined and regulated. E-motos are not. E-motos, a term coined by PeopleforBikes last year, are any bike-shaped device with or without pedals that is advertised, sold, or otherwise presents itself as an e-bike despite not complying with e-bike laws. E-motos tend to be higher power than allowed under federal or state laws, with higher top speeds than allowed under federal or state laws, and often intentionally skirt regulation by saying they are for use on off-road areas or private property despite marketing their on-road use. In a more rational world, e-motos would be regulated and treated like mopeds or motorcycles but federal regulators, Congress, and state and local governments continue to conflate these faster unregulated vehicles with e-bikes rather than regulating them.

Governments and advocates are currently working hard, if unevenly, to define e-motos and differentiate them from e-bikes. At the federal level, the SAFE Speeds Act (HR 7839) would prohibit the sale of e-motos marketed as e-bikes and require a label for e-motos and e-bikes with relevant information to differentiate them. At the state level, Washington, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Colorado have adopted laws differentiating e-bikes and e-motos, often including restrictions on e-motos misrepresenting themselves as e-bikes. California is in the midst of strengthening its differentiation, but is already leading with its Attorney General issuing a consumer alert about e-motos. Advocates from Bike Colorado hope that when their labeling law goes into effect next year their Attorney General will similarly go after e-motos in violation of that law. Massachusetts chose to expand the 3-class system into four proposed tiers that would include motorcycles, providing a clearer differentiation of e-bikes and e-motos as part of a more expansive framework. Unfortunately, New Jersey’s law scrapped the 3-class system without fully addressing e-motos, providing strict regulation of low-speed electric bicycles while leaving e-motos without fully operable pedals unaddressed by regulation.

In questions from our webinar, most people appear to support differentiation but there are often disagreements about where differentiation should occur. Some people believe that anything above a Class 1 e-bike, with a top speed of 20 mph available only when pedaling, should be treated differently. Others see Class 2 e-bikes, with a top speed of 20 mph with a throttle, as important for people with disabilities or who use cargo e-bikes. And Class 3 e-bikes, with a top speed of 28 mph available only when pedaling, are often appreciated by people who have to use higher speed roads with limited bicycle infrastructure. 

At the very least, there is broad agreement that higher power and higher speed devices deserve more regulation and differentiation. The New Jersey Bike+ Walk Coalition showed advertisements for “e-bikes” with 3,000 or more watts of power and top speeds of 40 mph or more. Those e-motos are clearly not compliant with the federal definition of a low-speed electric bicycle and are often the “e-bikes” involved in highly reported crashes and deaths. Unfortunately, despite those facts, legislators in New Jersey chose to conflate e-bikes and e-motos, giving consumers little to no incentive to pick the slower and safer e-bike over the faster and more dangerous e-moto. Failing to differentiate does a disservice to people using low-speed e-bikes responsibly and, counterproductively, may encourage the use of e-motos.

Now Do Cars

In the moral panic about e-bikes it may be easy to get lost in the importance of differentiating between a 20 mph Class 2 e-bike and a 30 mph e-moto that weighs over 100 pounds. There are significant differences in how those devices operate, the regulations that govern their safety equipment, and the danger they pose to their riders. However, our streets are filled with vehicles of wide-ranging weights, horsepower, and top speeds. There is no class system for cars and trucks that differentiates between a Fiat 500e that weighs less than 3,000 pounds, has 118 horsepower, and a top speed of as low as 84 mph and a Tesla Cybertruck that weighs just under 7,000 pounds, has up to 845 horsepower, and a top speed of 130 mph. 

According to data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates e-bikes, since 2017 there have been 310 e-bike-related deaths. During that same time period, 315,900 people were killed in crashes involving a car or truck—1000 times more. Of the 310 e-bike-related deaths, a majority (170) were due to a crash with a motor vehicle.

Bike advocates want to engage productively in differentiating e-bikes and e-motos and ensuring that e-bikes are safe. But, regulation of e-bikes and e-motos alone cannot accomplish that goal. Too often, legislators are looking to restrict e-bikes rather than investing in safer streets or pursuing regulation of increasingly large, increasingly powerful, and increasingly fast cars and trucks. For legislators and safety advocates who are panicked about e-bikes, at some point they will have to confront the elephant-sized Cybertruck in the room or safety gains will remain elusive.

The post Webinar Recap: E-bikes, E-motos, Oh My: Navigating New Devices and Laws for E-Bikes appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Federal legislation adopted a definition for e-bikes in 2003. Most states have adopted a 3-class system for e-bikes in the last decades. Despite these legal frameworks, it seems like every day brings a new story or proposed law that confuses legal e-bikes with illegal higher-speed e-motos, and e-scooters, one-wheels, and other devices continue to exist in grey areas of regulation.

In the League of American Bicyclists’ webinar, “E-bikes, E-motos, Oh My: Navigating New Devices and Laws for E-Bikes”, we welcomed advocates from Colorado, Massachusetts, and New Jersey to discuss how they have been navigating state legislation that regulates the safety of small electric vehicles. The webinar attendance and response was tremendous, with over 50 questions showing a great need for more clarity and communication on these issues. I encourage you to watch the webinar to learn more about each state’s experience, but this blog will share some of the key information and insights.

Addressing E-bikes is Not Optional

E-bikes are bicycles with an electric assist triggered either by pedaling or by a throttle. At the federal level, low-speed electric bicycles cannot exceed 20 mph when powered solely by their motor with less than 750 watts of power, but can exceed 20 mph when motor power is combined with pedaling. Most states—at least 40—have adopted a 3-class system of regulation for e-bikes that is consistent with the federal definition and differentiates e-bikes based on top speed and how assistance is provided.

Slide from Bicycle Colorado.

Each of the presenters talked about the large public interest in e-bikes; the increasing public concerns related to e-bikes, e-motos, and other devices; and ongoing efforts to create a durable and understandable regulatory framework. Engaging with legislators, motor vehicle administrators, law enforcement, medical professionals, and other interested groups early and often were keys to crafting better legislation, where it happened. Bicycle Colorado shared an analysis that showed e-bike related news articles increased from 588 articles in 2021 to 3,050 in 2026, with 23.1% of articles in 2026 having a negative sentiment towards e-bikes. In Massachusetts, legislators chose to pursue that engagement through a formal commission, which led to a holistic framework for all micromobility devices focused on top speeds as the primary means of differentiation. In contrast, New Jersey legislators quickly passed a restrictive bill with little consultation, with an outgoing governor signing it on their last day in office, avoiding political accountability.

While there is no guarantee that advocacy will lead to a good outcome, it is clear from the experience of each state that e-bikes must continue to be addressed by advocacy efforts as public concerns and confusion persist.

Differentiating E-bikes and E-motos is the primary battleground

E-bikes are defined and regulated. E-motos are not. E-motos, a term coined by PeopleforBikes last year, are any bike-shaped device with or without pedals that is advertised, sold, or otherwise presents itself as an e-bike despite not complying with e-bike laws. E-motos tend to be higher power than allowed under federal or state laws, with higher top speeds than allowed under federal or state laws, and often intentionally skirt regulation by saying they are for use on off-road areas or private property despite marketing their on-road use. In a more rational world, e-motos would be regulated and treated like mopeds or motorcycles but federal regulators, Congress, and state and local governments continue to conflate these faster unregulated vehicles with e-bikes rather than regulating them.

Governments and advocates are currently working hard, if unevenly, to define e-motos and differentiate them from e-bikes. At the federal level, the SAFE Speeds Act (HR 7839) would prohibit the sale of e-motos marketed as e-bikes and require a label for e-motos and e-bikes with relevant information to differentiate them.

Massachusetts’ proposed four-tier system for classifying micromobility devices. Slide from MassBike.

At the state level, Washington, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Colorado have adopted laws differentiating e-bikes and e-motos, often including restrictions on e-motos misrepresenting themselves as e-bikes. California is in the midst of strengthening its differentiation, but is already leading with its Attorney General issuing a consumer alert about e-motos. Advocates from Bike Colorado hope that when their labeling law goes into effect next year their Attorney General will similarly go after e-motos in violation of that law. Massachusetts chose to expand the 3-class system into four proposed tiers that would include motorcycles, providing a clearer differentiation of e-bikes and e-motos as part of a more expansive framework. Unfortunately, New Jersey’s law scrapped the 3-class system without fully addressing e-motos, providing strict regulation of low-speed electric bicycles while leaving e-motos without fully operable pedals unaddressed by regulation.

In questions from our webinar, most people appear to support differentiation but there are often disagreements about where differentiation should occur. Some people believe that anything above a Class 1 e-bike, with a top speed of 20 mph available only when pedaling, should be treated differently. Others see Class 2 e-bikes, with a top speed of 20 mph with a throttle, as important for people with disabilities or who use cargo e-bikes. And Class 3 e-bikes, with a top speed of 28 mph available only when pedaling, are often appreciated by people who have to use higher speed roads with limited bicycle infrastructure. 

At the very least, there is broad agreement that higher power and higher speed devices deserve more regulation and differentiation. The New Jersey Bike+Walk Coalition showed advertisements for “e-bikes” with 3,000 or more watts of power and top speeds of 40 mph or more. Those e-motos are clearly not compliant with the federal definition of a low-speed electric bicycle and are often the “e-bikes” involved in highly reported crashes and deaths. Unfortunately, despite those facts, legislators in New Jersey chose to conflate e-bikes and e-motos, giving consumers little to no incentive to pick the slower and safer e-bike over the faster and more dangerous e-moto. Failing to differentiate does a disservice to people using low-speed e-bikes responsibly and, counterproductively, may encourage the use of e-motos.

Slide from New Jersey Bike+Walk Coalition. Now Do Cars

In the moral panic about e-bikes it may be easy to get lost in the importance of differentiating between a 20 mph Class 2 e-bike and a 30 mph e-moto that weighs over 100 pounds. There are significant differences in how those devices operate, the regulations that govern their safety equipment, and the danger they pose to their riders. However, our streets are filled with vehicles of wide-ranging weights, horsepower, and top speeds. There is no class system for cars and trucks that differentiates between a Fiat 500e that weighs less than 3,000 pounds, has 118 horsepower, and a top speed of as low as 84 mph and a Tesla Cybertruck that weighs just under 7,000 pounds, has up to 845 horsepower, and a top speed of 130 mph. 

According to data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates e-bikes, since 2017 there have been 310 e-bike-related deaths. During that same time period, 315,900 people were killed in crashes involving a car or truck—1000 times more. Of the 310 e-bike-related deaths, a majority (170) were due to a crash with a motor vehicle.

Slide from New Jersey Bike+Walk Coalition.

Bike advocates want to engage productively in differentiating e-bikes and e-motos and ensuring that e-bikes are safe. But, regulation of e-bikes and e-motos alone cannot accomplish that goal. Too often, legislators are looking to restrict e-bikes rather than investing in safer streets or pursuing regulation of increasingly large, increasingly powerful, and increasingly fast cars and trucks. For legislators and safety advocates who are panicked about e-bikes, at some point they will have to confront the elephant-sized Cybertruck in the room or safety gains will remain elusive.

The post Webinar Recap: E-bikes, E-motos, Oh My: Navigating New Devices and Laws for E-Bikes appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Federal legislation adopted a definition for e-bikes in 2003. Most states have adopted a 3-class system for e-bikes in the last decades. Despite these legal frameworks, it seems like every day brings a new story or proposed law that confuses legal e-bikes with illegal higher-speed e-motos, and e-scooters, one-wheels, and other devices continue to exist in grey areas of regulation.

In the League of American Bicyclists’ webinar, “E-bikes, E-motos, Oh My: Navigating New Devices and Laws for E-Bikes”, we welcomed advocates from Colorado, Massachusetts, and New Jersey to discuss how they have been navigating state legislation that regulates the safety of small electric vehicles. The webinar attendance and response was tremendous, with over 50 questions showing a great need for more clarity and communication on these issues. I encourage you to watch the webinar to learn more about each state’s experience, but this blog will share some of the key information and insights.

Addressing E-bikes is Not Optional

E-bikes are bicycles with an electric assist triggered either by pedaling or by a throttle. At the federal level, low-speed electric bicycles cannot exceed 20 mph when powered solely by their motor with less than 750 watts of power, but can exceed 20 mph when motor power is combined with pedaling. Most states—at least 40—have adopted a 3-class system of regulation for e-bikes that is consistent with the federal definition and differentiates e-bikes based on top speed and how assistance is provided.

Each of the presenters talked about the large public interest in e-bikes; the increasing public concerns related to e-bikes, e-motos, and other devices; and ongoing efforts to create a durable and understandable regulatory framework. Engaging with legislators, motor vehicle administrators, law enforcement, medical professionals, and other interested groups early and often were keys to crafting better legislation, where it happened.

Bicycle Colorado shared an analysis that showed e-bike related news articles increased from 588 articles in 2021 to 3,050 in 2026, with 23.1% of articles in 2026 having a negative sentiment towards e-bikes. In Massachusetts, legislators chose to pursue that engagement through a formal commission, which led to a holistic framework for all micromobility devices focused on top speeds as the primary means of differentiation. In contrast, New Jersey legislators quickly passed a restrictive bill with little consultation, with an outgoing governor signing it on their last day in office, avoiding political accountability.

While there is no guarantee that advocacy will lead to a good outcome, it is clear from the experience of each state that e-bikes must continue to be addressed by advocacy efforts as public concerns and confusion persist.

Differentiating E-bikes and E-motos is the primary battleground

E-bikes are defined and regulated. E-motos are not. E-motos, a term coined by PeopleforBikes last year, are any bike-shaped device with or without pedals that is advertised, sold, or otherwise presents itself as an e-bike despite not complying with e-bike laws. E-motos tend to be higher power than allowed under federal or state laws, with higher top speeds than allowed under federal or state laws, and often intentionally skirt regulation by saying they are for use on off-road areas or private property despite marketing their on-road use. In a more rational world, e-motos would be regulated and treated like mopeds or motorcycles but federal regulators, Congress, and state and local governments continue to conflate these faster unregulated vehicles with e-bikes rather than regulating them.

Governments and advocates are currently working hard, if unevenly, to define e-motos and differentiate them from e-bikes. At the federal level, the SAFE Speeds Act (HR 7839) would prohibit the sale of e-motos marketed as e-bikes and require a label for e-motos and e-bikes with relevant information to differentiate them. At the state level, Washington, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Colorado have adopted laws differentiating e-bikes and e-motos, often including restrictions on e-motos misrepresenting themselves as e-bikes. California is in the midst of strengthening its differentiation, but is already leading with its Attorney General issuing a consumer alert about e-motos. Advocates from Bike Colorado hope that when their labeling law goes into effect next year their Attorney General will similarly go after e-motos in violation of that law.

A slide from MassBike’s presentation, showing Massachusetts’ proposed four-tiered classification system.

Massachusetts chose to expand the 3-class system into four proposed tiers that would include motorcycles, providing a clearer differentiation of e-bikes and e-motos as part of a more expansive framework. Unfortunately, New Jersey’s law scrapped the 3-class system without fully addressing e-motos, providing strict regulation of low-speed electric bicycles while leaving e-motos without fully operable pedals unaddressed by regulation.

In questions from our webinar, most people appear to support differentiation but there are often disagreements about where differentiation should occur. Some people believe that anything above a Class 1 e-bike, with a top speed of 20 mph available only when pedaling, should be treated differently. Others see Class 2 e-bikes, with a top speed of 20 mph with a throttle, as important for people with disabilities or who use cargo e-bikes. And Class 3 e-bikes, with a top speed of 28 mph available only when pedaling, are often appreciated by people who have to use higher speed roads with limited bicycle infrastructure. 

At the very least, there is broad agreement that higher power and higher speed devices deserve more regulation and differentiation. The New Jersey Bike+Walk Coalition showed advertisements for “e-bikes” with 3,000 or more watts of power and top speeds of 40 mph or more. Those e-motos are clearly not compliant with the federal definition of a low-speed electric bicycle and are often the “e-bikes” involved in highly reported crashes and deaths. Unfortunately, despite those facts, legislators in New Jersey chose to conflate e-bikes and e-motos, giving consumers little to no incentive to pick the slower and safer e-bike over the faster and more dangerous e-moto. Failing to differentiate does a disservice to people using low-speed e-bikes responsibly and, counterproductively, may encourage the use of e-motos.

A slide from NJWBC’s presentation, providing context for crashes that have catalyzed e-bike legislation in New Jersey. Now Do Cars

In the moral panic about e-bikes it may be easy to get lost in the importance of differentiating between a 20 mph Class 2 e-bike and a 30 mph e-moto that weighs over 100 pounds. There are significant differences in how those devices operate, the regulations that govern their safety equipment, and the danger they pose to their riders. However, our streets are filled with vehicles of wide-ranging weights, horsepower, and top speeds. There is no class system for cars and trucks that differentiates between a Fiat 500e that weighs less than 3,000 pounds, has 118 horsepower, and a top speed of as low as 84 mph and a Tesla Cybertruck that weighs just under 7,000 pounds, has up to 845 horsepower, and a top speed of 130 mph. 

According to data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates e-bikes, since 2017 there have been 310 e-bike-related deaths. During that same time period, 315,900 people were killed in crashes involving a car or truck—1000 times more. Of the 310 e-bike-related deaths, a majority (170) were due to a crash with a motor vehicle.

A slide from NJBWC’s presentation, pointing out the larger safety crisis around roadway fatalities.

Bike advocates want to engage productively in differentiating e-bikes and e-motos and ensuring that e-bikes are safe. But, regulation of e-bikes and e-motos alone cannot accomplish that goal. Too often, legislators are looking to restrict e-bikes rather than investing in safer streets or pursuing regulation of increasingly large, increasingly powerful, and increasingly fast cars and trucks. For legislators and safety advocates who are panicked about e-bikes, at some point they will have to confront the elephant-sized Cybertruck in the room or safety gains will remain elusive.

The post Webinar Recap: E-bikes, E-motos, Oh My: Navigating New Devices and Laws for E-Bikes appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

I’ve recently gotten the question: Can the administration stop my community from building bike lanes?

No, they can’t. Despite the administration’s current war on bike lanes, it is Congress’ job to write the law. The current transportation law, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, includes significant funding for bicycling and walking thanks to the bike advocates who worked to secure those funds. 

How to Find Funding for Bike Projects

Here’s a link to the table showing which transportation programs fund which types of projects.

• If you are looking to build a bike lane, install bike parking, or fund bicycle education, you can search by type of project. 
• If your state or metropolitan planning organization just announced it is accepting applications for a specific program, you can search by type of project. 
• Here’s a link to the footnotes and program eligibility notes. 

Wondering what all those acronyms or terms mean? Explore these resources to find out:

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Program Glossary 
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Programs: Cross-Cutting Notes

A word on this data

This data is taken from the Federal Highway Administration’s website, and may be available here. As part of the administration’s mistaken belief that bike lanes cause congestion, the administration has removed data about bicycling and bike infrastructure from its website. The League is reproducing that data here, just in case it disappears from the official website. 

Turn around is fair play.

The first chart of this type was created by the League over a decade ago. At that time, staff at FHWA decided they should host something like this. We supported that and relied on their detailed data. Under current circumstances however, we thought we’d once again incorporate the data to our site.

The post Federal Funding for Bike Lanes (and other bike/ped infrastructure) appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

In testimony in front of Congress, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy often exclaims, “I love bikes!” If that is true, he must just not want them ridden anywhere!

Actions speak louder than words. We’ve written about Duffy saying he’s defunding “DEI bike lanes” and the priorities his department has put out for the next transportation bill: no funding for bike lanes, unless it’s to tear them out.  

US Department of Transportation officials say the issue isn’t bikes, it’s congestion. In a recent letter to Congress, Secretary Duffy asked legislators to restrict federal funding from bike lanes because he said they cause congestion. That doesn’t square with USDOT actions, since most of the RAISE grants cancelled in 2025 were trail projects!

March 2026: Summit attendees protest the administration’s threat to remove DC’s 15th Street bike lane

Side note: I’d also just challenge the idea that bike lanes cause congestion. When advocates sued the Trump administration to stop their removal of the 15th Street bike lane in DC, they used a DC DOT before-and-after study showing that travel times and congestion decreased after the bike lanes were installed. (The Washington Area Bicycle Association won the lawsuit and the bike lane remains in place.)

The administration doesn’t care about our safety. Last month, we highlighted how the USDOT removed bike lanes from their list of proven safety countermeasures (including language that confirms bike lanes don’t cause congestion), and this month they deleted all mention of bicyclists from the USDOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy (which also went from 98 pages to 12) and not one mention of the fact that over 80% of bicyclist fatalities occur on federal aid highways. 

But maybe it’s just “DEI Bike lanes” the administration hates. First… what? Second, bike lanes improve safety for everyone: people biking, walking and driving. The League is here to defend bike lanes that increase safety and access—and transportation equity—for everyone.

What’s coming next?

The League isn’t 100% sure what the administration will do, but here’s what we are doing: 

• More bicycle safety, planning and best practice resources are likely to disappear from the FHWA website. The League is downloading and archiving important resources and will make them available, starting with a resource showing which federal programs can fund different types of bike infrastructure. 

• The administration will lean on congressional Republicans to limit eligibility for bicycle facilities on major roads like urban arterials and collector roads. Their argument is that these roads should be focused on commerce and evacuations and adding bicycle facilities will slow traffic. The League will fight this. Before-and-after studies and other data shows the addition of bike lanes does not cause congestion. 

• The League will continue to work with Congress to ensure federal legislation maintains broad eligibility for bicycling and walking in transportation law. The House already produced a bipartisan transportation reauthorization bill that did just that. We will also offer technical assistance to communities interested in building places better for bicycling who may want some help navigating federal regulations. 

You can act by: 

• Speaking up. Use our action alerts to contact your senators and your representative about the war on bikes. Then, reach out to their district office to set up a local meeting
  • Two ways to engage with your member of Congress:
    • Consider scheduling a district meeting with your member of Congress while they’re working from their home district.
    • Try hosting a “Show Congress” event to help your elected officials see the importance of bicycling and understand local priorities. We even have funding to help you organize Show Congress events: apply here!

• Advocating for bicycling in your community and state through your local bicycle advocacy organization. You can find them on our Local Resources map. 

• Riding your bike! The more of us out there, the harder we are to ignore.   

The post The War on Bike Lanes!  appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Since 2008, the League has worked with state Departments of Transportation to collect data on state actions related to bicycling, producing a Bicycle Friendly State (BFS) report card for every state. This year, we’re adding your input. We’re taking a page from our Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) program and creating a public survey to find out what it’s like to bike in your state. 

To participate, simply click on this survey link and follow the step-by-step instructions. As with any survey, more feedback helps produce more powerful insights, so we encourage you to use this toolkit to share the BFS survey with others! You can even fill it out for different states, based on your experience biking there. Public survey data will be considered as part of our discretionary scoring, which makes up 10% of each state’s potential score.

We realize that it is difficult to collect data about bicycling statewide. Experiences may vary wildly from one side of a state to another, and it’s often difficult to disentangle choices and assign accountability among cities, counties, and the state DOT. States like Rhode Island can be ridden across in a day, while riding across a state like Texas may be more than a week-long endeavor. Because we know that detailed data is impossible, our survey is very high-level. Every question is based on a 1–to–5 thumbs-up scale, except for the question asking, “What one thing would you like to see your state do to improve bicycling?”

The Bicycle Friendly State survey will be open until September 1st. Your participation is vital in helping us create a Bicycle Friendly America. We believe when more people ride bikes, life gets better for everyone. Thank you in advance for your time and input—together, we can build a future where bicycling is safe, enjoyable, and accessible for all. 

The post We Want You… To Tell Us About Biking In Your State appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

The League of American Bicyclists is committed to empowering a growing movement of certified bike advocates across the country. That’s the motivation behind our League Cycling Advocacy (LCA) Workshop series: to give people the education, skills, and resources they need to effectively advocate for better biking in their communities.

Since 2025, we’ve hosted five LCA Workshops from coast to coast and certified over 130 advocates. Each city puts a unique spin on their workshop with local speakers and place-based insights, and each workshop is structured to provide expertly curated resources, networking opportunities, and practical skills. 

“The magic of the LCA workshop is that we got to meet with a wide range of people that are actively involved in successful advocacy. We’ve learned today we’ll be able to connect in the future. And we met people across the country, so we can learn from each other. We can lift each other up. And when we are tired, we can help each other so that we can stay in the fight and achieve our goals.” — LCA Workshop participant

Demand is growing, and we’ve answered the call in the Midwest with our next LCA Workshop in Chicago on September 17.

Registration closes on August 14th, and seats are going fast, so sign up before tickets are sold out!

Learn from the most recent LCA Workshop

With the background of social justice woven into the culture and history of the Bay Area, the most recent workshop in Oakland, CA, set the stage for one of the most robust and radical LCA Workshops yet.

Hosted this past April with our friends at Bike East Bay, the Oakland workshop brought together thirty-five advocates from across the country to hone their skills around policy, organizing, and effective communication. Attendees heard from six expert guest speakers and got real-world experience biking around Oakland, exploring the on-the-ground advocacy that locals have successfully implemented. Read Bike East Bay’s recap blog about it and then watch their video below to hear from attendees themselves!

“There’s just a wealth of knowledge in this group. The speakers were excellent. I wish I could have them on speed dial personally. Great networking. It’s also humbling being around all these very inspiring people doing incredible things. And it’s uplifting, too, to meet other like-minded folks who are trying to make their communities better.” — Oakland LCA workshop participant

“For me, having not been in this space very long, I was mostly looking to fill in knowledge gaps that I have because it’s not like I went through any formal training in advocacy or policy or finance and budgeting or government, and so this was really effective for me… I’m coming out of this with a lot of information to process, and it’s a lot to think about and apply.” — LCA Workshop participant

Register Today and Level Up Your Advocacy

Registration for the upcoming LCA Workshop in Chicago closes on August 14th. We hope to see you there! Email anna@bikeleague.org with any questions.

Sign up for the next LCA workshop

The post Ready to Take Your Bike Advocacy to the Next Level? Join Us in Chicago appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Last week, Secretary of Transportation Duffy sent a letter outlining the Administration’s priorities for the next Transportation Reauthorization bill to the Senate. In it, he asked Congress to restrict the ability to use any and all transportation funds for building bike lanes, and to instead make funds available to take out bike lanes. In both cases, his justification was that bike lanes contribute to congestion. 

I’d like to be able to point to the Federal Highway Administration’s proven safety countermeasure on bike lanes. That resource notes, “[s]tudies have found that roadways did not experience an increase in crashes or congestion when travel lane widths were decreased to add a bicycle lane.”

I can’t link to that Proven Safety Countermeasure though, because the administration has removed it from their website. 

In addition to bike lanes, the administration’s priorities also include removing transit from the Highway Trust Fund, which guarantees longer-term funding certainty for transit, ending complete streets funding in planning, not increasing advanced safety technology in cars, etc. It also includes priorities such as preserving daylight savings time permanently and renaming Penn Station in New York City. 

Duffy’s letter, which reads more like a messaging document than a serious set of policy recommendations, comes very late in the process. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee in charge of writing the bill, asked for priorities by May 2025. It also comes at a time when it’s clear the actual transportation reauthorization bill will be extended until December, and then almost definitely extended again into the next Congress. 

But it is still a threat. 

I read the priorities memo, not as a list of serious policy proposals the administration hopes to work with Congress to include in the next reauthorization bill, but rather a statement of their plans and purpose. This feels especially true when we know the administration is planning on implementing new rules on federal grants (all grants, not just transportation) starting October 1. 

Those new rules will put extreme burdens on grantees, remove the certainty that typically comes with grant funding, and allow the administration to cancel grants at any stage of the process if they are deemed outside of the administration’s priorities–like bike lanes. We’ve already heard that the administration may use these new rules to cancel a number of grants awarded under the Biden administration. 

A continuing war on bike lanes 

As many of you know, this is just the most recent escalation of the administration’s war on bike lanes. This fight dates back to Project 2025 and has been underway since the first day of the Trump administration when the president froze all federal grants. 

In 2025, multiple bike/ped grants were cancelled and even more grantees were directed to remove bike facilities from their grant proposals in order to secure funding. The FHWA human environment team, which housed many of their biking and walking experts, was dispersed, with several leaving and others reassigned, and guidance on requirements to include biking and walking access were removed from the website. 

This year, we saw the administration go after the 15th Street bike lane in Washington, DC. It was their first step in their plan to ban new bike lanes, and encourage the removal of existing bike lanes, on National Highway System (NHS) roads. NHS roads all have national importance for trade and during disasters, but many also serve as main streets in rural communities, as well as streets commonly used in downtown cities by people using all modes of transportation. The administration lost the court case, but I suspect the idea of disallowing bike lanes on NHS roads is still alive. 

For example, the administration released its Freedom to Drive initiative this summer, a tweet from Secretary Duffy about defunding “DEI bike lanes”, the removal of the Proven Safety Countermeasures and now this. 

What do we do

What we do is focus on Congress. It is Congress’s job to be a check on the administration, and they have a very powerful tool to do so: the next reauthorization bill. 

We must ensure Congress knows how important biking infrastructure is to their constituents (you) and ask them to ensure the USDOT follows the law. That means allowing the funding Congress intended for bicycling and walking to go to local priorities and local governments.

Congress is working from home in August and then again in October. This is a great time to meet with them in their district office, invite them for a bike ride or infrastructure tour, etc.  And we have resources to help you do that.

Two ways to engage with your member of Congress:

1. Consider scheduling a district meeting with your member of Congress while they’re working from their home district.
2. Try hosting a “Show Congress” event to help your elected officials see the importance of bicycling and understand local priorities. We even have funding to help you organize Show Congress events: apply here!

The post The real threat behind the Administration’s Transportation reauthorization recommendations appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

On behalf of the Amtrak Bike Task Force, the League is proud to release Bicycle Friendly Trains: a systematic, route-by-route benchmark of how well Amtrak accommodates cyclists and their bikes. 

In the report, we scored all 46 Amtrak lines on a 0–100 scale, looking at the things that actually matter when you’re traveling with a bike: how many bike spaces are on board, what it costs, whether you need a reservation, how easy booking is, and whether the stations along the way can actually get you and your bike on the train. The framework is adapted from the European Cyclists’ Federation’s Cyclists Love Trains reports, which have been grading Europe’s railways since 2021.

How Did the Rankings End Up?

The Cascades (87) and Gold Runner (86) earned the only “Excellent” scores in the country, with ratings in striking distance of the top-scoring railways in Belgium and Switzerland. The Hiawatha (78), Pacific Surfliner (75), and Wolverine (74) round out a strong top five. 

Looking below the top five, there’s quite a dramatic gap between the frontrunners and the rest of the country’s rail lines. Two-thirds of all bike-service lines land in the “Moderate” band, with the average line scoring in the low 50s. And seven lines, including the Acela and the Auto Train, offer no bike service at all. 

Despite the moderately low bar, here’s the good news: this is a snapshot taken right before things get better. Amtrak’s new Airo trainsets are rolling out starting this year, doubling bike capacity on many routes and finally retiring the dreaded front-wheel-removal requirement. The Vermonter alone is projected to jump 20 points once Airo arrives.

Read the report Who’s Keeping Amtrak on Track?

Whether you’re exploring the report or the accompanying map, it’s clear that Amtrak’s overall scores show plenty of room for improvement—and that we all have a role in making that happen. One major factor preventing more proactive changes is the fact that Amtrak owns just 13% of the stations it serves, 9% of the platforms, and 7% of the parking lots. Even the tracks themselves are primarily owned by freight railroads, with Amtrak owning only a mere 3% of its route mileage.

Since Amtrak doesn’t control much of its own footprint, local advocates play a powerful role in improving bike-train travel. Look no further than the report’s three case studies for proof of what’s possible when communities refuse to let institutional inertia slow them down: 

• In Anniston, Alabama, the city and a regional rail commission extended a too-short platform to connect the Crescent to the ~100-mile Chief Ladiga/Silver Comet trail corridor. 
• In Davis, California, a university, a micromobility operator, and a joint powers authority built a pilot program that links your purchase of a train ticket to a free bikeshare (or scooter-share) ride.
• In Columbia, South Carolina, a small bike co-op installed wayfinding signs directing riders straight from downtown to the Amtrak station.

Instead of waiting for Amtrak’s policy to shift, people in these communities took the initiative to make the train more useful for local riders, and we applaud their efforts. Making trains more accommodating for cyclists is a collaborative effort, and local organizations and advocates are key to accelerating momentum where it’s needed most. 

The report also includes the Amtrak Bike Task Force’s recommendations for Amtrak. This year, our top priorities for Amtrak are to improve the reservation system, so it is easier to see which routes have bike accommodations, add service at trail-adjacent stations like Anniston, AL, White Sulphur Springs, WV, and Greenville, SC; and create a bundled USA Rail + Bike pass to make it easier for long-distance riders to plan and arrange their trips. 

We hope you will join in this effort! We need your local advocacy to improve stations not owned by Amtrak, to work with communities to create safe routes to trains, and to support adequate funding for Amtrak as a key component of our transportation system. Learn more about how individuals can support this work by exploring the report’s recommendations for advocates, communities, and station owners to improve bike travel on Amtrak.

EXPLORE THE MAPIf you love bike-train travel, you probably enjoy a good map. That’s why we built an interactive map on ArcGIS Online, where you can see every Amtrak station across the network, and click any Amtrak line to see its score and the full breakdown behind it. You can also use the map to overlay long-distance bike routes from Amtrak Bike Task Force member organizations like Bikepacking Roots, the Adventure Cycling Association, and the East Coast Greenway, and see exactly where the rails meet the trails. WHAT OUR PARTNERS ARE SAYING“Bicycles and trains are a perfect match, whether in Europe or North America. The League of American Bicyclists has shown that measuring performance is a powerful catalyst for change. We are delighted that ECF’s Cyclists Love Trains approach has inspired this important benchmark, and we look forward to learning from each other as we work towards making rail travel with bicycles simple, reliable, and accessible on both sides of the Atlantic.”
— Fabian Küster, Director of Advocacy and European Union Affairs at the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF)

“Amtrak’s Northeast Regional corridor is one of its busiest routes and runs alongside some of the East Coast Greenway’s most complete and iconic sections. The ability to seamlessly combine train and bike travel unlocks countless opportunities for both commuting and recreation.”
— Allison Burson, East Coast Greenway Alliance’s National Greenway Director

“When Amtrak agreed to work with bike advocates in 2013 to form a bicycle task force, there were real questions about what we’d be able to accomplish. Fast forward to 2026: cyclists can now carry their bikes on trains to virtually every major market Amtrak serves. Last year alone, nearly 60,000 trips proved it and that number keeps growing. Thanks to the commitment of Amtrak and its state partners, many new trains will have expanded capacity to carry more bikes per trip, and bike service is expanding into smaller markets across America. Whether someone is thinking about taking Amtrak for a business trip and wants to use their bike for first/last-mile connectivity or is planning a multi-day, epic cycling adventure, in many cases, Amtrak now offers a viable connection to allow cyclists to make it happen.”
— Champe Burnley, long-time former president of the Virginia Bicycling Federation (VBF) and Amtrak Bike Task Force member

“Bikes extend the reach of passenger rail. As ridership continues to grow nationwide, the League’s Amtrak Bike Task Force is making sure it’s easy to combine the two. Even in South Carolina, where passenger rail is limited today, those connections matter.”
— Regan Freeman, Member of Palmetto Walk-Bike and the Amtrak Bike Task Force What Comes Next?

This report marks a milestone in bike-train travel, providing a quantitative baseline for assessing Amtrak’s current bike-inclusivity. The report is meant to help the Amtrak Bike Task Force and advocates across the country push for the changes that matter most, and we’ll be tracking progress as the network evolves. In the meantime, the full picture is in the report. Dive in here.

The post New “Bicycle Friendly Trains” Report Grades All 46 Amtrak Lines appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

BikeWalkBG Coordinator Natasha Smith fitting helmets at a youth bike education class

In Bowling Green, Kentucky, leaders have been working for decades to improve community design to better support biking and walking. In 2008, the city submitted its first application for a Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) award: a designation that helps a community benchmark itself against national standards as it works towards its bicycle infrastructure and programming goals. That application didn’t result in an award, but it did plant a seed for future growth. 

Over the next 15 years, that seed began to sprout:

• a Bicycle Friendly Community workshop in 2023, 
• multiple League-funded Community Spark Grants to support youth bike education, 
• and another application for a Bicycle Friendly Community award led by BikeWalkBG in 2025.  

In January 2026, the League announced that Bowling Green had finally earned Bronze-level recognition: a meaningful milestone for a community that had spent nearly two decades building toward it.  

Enter the Active Mobility Leadership Lab 

Natasha Smith, BikeWalkBG Coordinator, had been nurturing the city’s bicycling efforts for years. When she learned about the League’s Active Mobility Leadership Lab, she saw an opportunity to take that work further. 

ABOUT THE PROGRAM 
Active Mobility Leadership Lab 
The Active Mobility Leadership Lab is a 16-week training program, generously funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in support of their Active People, Healthy Nation℠ Initiative. Participants (local government agency staff in emerging and aspiring Bicycle Friendly Communities) form a working group, develop an Active Mobility Action Plan, and receive training, resources, and direct technical assistance from the League to implement it. 

Throughout the program, the League provided structured support through group training sessions, one-on-one coaching calls, and tailored resources designed to help planners like Smith think strategically about their goals and the partnerships needed to reach them. 

One of those tools, a partner opportunity inventory, asked participants to map their existing relationships and identify potential new partners they hadn’t yet engaged. For Smith, the exercise opened doors she hadn’t expected. 

“The partner opportunity inventory was so important,” she said. “My coworker and I talked through it, came up with a lot of [ideas] between the two of us, and got even more contacts as we got input from local groups. It helps you think outside of your known allies to expand your network and reach.” 

Smith says the most significant new partnership to emerge from the Leadership Lab process is with Western Kentucky University (WKU). Through the partner inventory exercise and subsequent outreach, the group connected with Dr. Jean Chen, Associate Professor of Physical Education at WKU, who has since become one of the project’s most active volunteers. She has since lent a hand at community bike education classes, offered to help local schools write grants, and contributed to data analysis efforts. 

Another key feature of the Leadership Lab was the formation of a local working group by each program participant. For Bowling Green’s working group, Smith rallied peers from a range of organizations: colleagues from the Metropolitan Planning Organization, volunteers from BikeWalkBG, university partners like Dr. Chen, community residents, and even a bicycle and pedestrian coordinator from the state’s department of transportation, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. 

A Shared Priority Emerges 

After conversations with the working group, one gap stood out: a 1.2-mile stretch along the Covington Street corridor. The corridor sits between two existing greenways, but currently lacks the infrastructure needed to connect them — representing a key missing link in the city’s active transportation network. Closing that gap would connect multiple neighborhoods with schools, parks, and businesses, creating a more complete, low-stress way for people of all ages and abilities to get around without a car.  

Working group members have begun referring to the concept as a “safety corridor.” This  framing emphasizes the Covington Street corridor’s role in improving transportation safety and access for people traveling to and from everyday locations in the outskirts of downtown Bowling Green, including an elementary school on one end of the corridor and a popular public park on the other. 

What’s Next 

The group is currently developing a public survey to gather input from residents who live and travel along the proposed corridor, including both people who use it for daily transportation and those who visit nearby parks and destinations for recreation.  

Neighborhood bike audits are also being planned throughout the summer, which Smith hopes will gather on-the-ground observations about conditions along the corridor at different times of day. That information will help the group build a stronger, more specific case as they continue conversations with city leadership and engineering staff. 

Left: Ribbon cutting by Chamber of Commerce for Bowling Green’s first-ever traffic garden, with Judge Executive Gorman. Right: BikeWalkBG facilitates bike education classes at the traffic garden.  A Foundation for the Future 

While the proposal for the Covington safety corridor is still taking shape, the Leadership Lab has already helped bring together new partners, recruit volunteers, and build consensus around a shared vision for a connected active transportation network in Bowling Green. 

“Everything that’s happened in the last few years has been building on all of that momentum,” Smith said. “The League has been a humongous resource for us to get all of these things kick-started.”

This project was made possible by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Cooperative Agreement CDC-RFA-PW-24-0080). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC. These efforts are part of the CDC’s Active People, Healthy NationSM Initiative that is working to help 27 million Americans become more physically active by 2027. 

The post Building Momentum in Bowling Green: Active Mobility Leadership in Action  appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Last week the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) removed bike lanes, road diets, and speed management from their Proven Safety Countermeasures website. Proven Safety Countermeasures are highly effective, data-driven strategies or physical modification implemented on roads and highways that keep us safe, and which the USDOT highly recommends states and local governments implement. 

Take Action Now!

For instance, if you were able to read the now-removed bike lanes one pager you would find that bicycle lane additions can reduce all crashes—not just bicyclist crashes—up to 49% for total crashes on urban 4-lane undivided collectors and local roads, and 30% for total crashes on urban 2-lane undivided collectors and local roads. That FHWA document from 2023 also notes studies and experience in cities has found that adding bike lanes to roads did not cause congestion.  

The same is true for speed management proven safety countermeasures. Research (and common sense) shows that high speed increases crashes, injuries, and fatalities. 

Proven safety countermeasures are lighthouses to guide officials towards safer roadway designs. They rest on a mountain of evidence. They are prominent and illuminating, suggesting the most effective infrastructure for solving our nation’s traffic death crisis. 

By taking down these strategies, the Federal Highway Administration is effectively telling states and local governments that they no longer encourage states and local governments to invest in safety! No extent of erasure will change the physics that make speed management critical to safer streets. Removing countermeasures is like turning the light off. Communities unaware of the guidance will see crashes—ones we know can be prevented through proven countermeasures—and lives will be lost as a result.

USDOT needs to explain why it is putting politics ahead of safety. 

On Friday, Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA), ranking Democrat on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee released a statement asking for a briefing from the USDOT about why these safety measures are no longer encouraged, adding that “It’s not political to say bike lanes and speed cameras improve safety; it’s a statement of fact.”

We need your help in amplifying Rep. Larsen’s message. Please ask your member of Congress to join Rep. Larsen in asking for a briefing. We deserve an explanation on why the administration is erasing protections for vulnerable road users. 

Take Action Now!

The post The evidence is (still) clear: bike lanes save lives appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Four years ago, the League relaunched its updated Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) application with revised questions, report cards, and a robust new “Equity & Accessibility” section. Over 300 communities have now applied using this updated application, representing communities as small as 900 residents and as large as 3 million. 

This week, with the opening of the 2027 BFC round, the Bicycle Friendly America (BFA) team enters our fifth year of the updated BFC application, and there are some new features and opportunities for applicants that we’re excited to announce. 

Simplified Renewal Application for Current Awardees

The biggest change in 2027 is that renewing applicants whose goal is to renew and maintain their existing Bronze or higher award level are now eligible to submit an abbreviated version of the BFC application. 

This Simplified Renewal Application is submitted using the same online form as the full BFC Application, but when a community indicates they are a “Current Renewal” at the beginning of the online form, nearly half of the BFC application questions become hidden.

To help hold these “Simplified Renewal” communities accountable to the standards that earned them their current award designation in the first place, the League has two additional requirements as part of their application and review process: 

1. The applicant and their local partners are committed to distributing the BFC public survey. (See Simplified preview document for minimum survey response rates expected.)
    
2. The community must demonstrate support from the mayor, or other high-ranking elected official or relevant government role, via a required Letter of Support upload field. (See Simplified preview document for the Letter of Support upload field questions.)

To begin a Simplified Renewal Application, we strongly recommend that returning applicants start by duplicating their most recent application into a new 2027 submission form using these instructions, which will make their renewal application process even simpler, by carrying over all their answers from their most recent submission form to be reviewed and updated. 

Preview the BFC ApplicationYou can read more about eligibility requirements, and preview which questions still appear on the 2027 Simplified Renewal BFC Application, here: https://bit.ly/BFC_2027_SimplifiedPreview. 

To preview the Full BFC Application questions for all other applicants, visit https://bit.ly/BFCapp2027.  Letter of Support 

While the Letter of Support is required for Simplified Renewal Applications, the option to upload a letter from the mayor or other high-ranking elected official or other government role (such as DOT Director) is available to all BFC applicants. Including a letter can be a great way for any community to show off the level of commitment and investment from their community’s leadership, to support their new or returning BFC application. 

The Letter of Support upload field is visible as an optional field in the “Supplementary Materials” section of the Full Application for all other new and renewal categories. 

AI Transparency Policy 

In recent years, BFA reviewers have noticed a steep increase in the number of applications using Artificial Intelligence (AI)- or Large Language Model (LLM)-written responses to open-ended questions. While we understand that these tools can be important time-savers for applicants, we also recognize that AI-generated text can include errors, exaggerations, and “hallucinations” created by the AI or LLM tool.  

Rather than asking applicants not to use these tools, the League has developed the BFA AI Transparency Policy, which asks applicants to acknowledge whether or not any AI or LLM tools or programs were used to complete their application, and if so, to report which tools, programs, or websites were used, and to confirm that all AI-/LLM-written text has been verified and corrected by a human. 

If the League or our BFA reviewers have any concerns about the validity or accuracy of information on a BFA application based on potential use of AI or LLM tools, the policy states that applicants may be asked to review, revise, and resubmit their application. See the full policy and timeline for implementation for the other BFA programs here. 

Other (Minor) BFC Application Updates

Other than the three updates listed above, the 2027 BFC application questions had only minor changes or revisions, including a few new answer options to existing questions, such as e-motos referenced in question E22, and adding the League’s Active Mobility Leadership Lab to question E29. The 2027 update of the B14 Bicycle Network Worksheet (available for download here) now includes updated guidance from NACTO’s 2025 Design Controls for Bicycle Facilities.

Both the simplified and full BFC application preview documents include a tab that lists ALL minor changes to the BFC application since the previous (2026) round.

2027 Application Now Open for Submissions!

The 2027 BFC application opened on Monday, July 13, 2026 and will close on Wednesday, June 16, 2027 at 11:59pm PT.  Communities that are looking to renew, move up, or apply to the BFC program for the first time, are now welcome to begin working on their 2027 submissions. 

Find the online BFA Application Portal at apply.bikeleague.org.

The post 2027 BFC Application Updates appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Last week, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy tweeted: 

“Remember when Biden and Boot-edge-edge used YOUR MONEY for DEI bike lanes and climate change? THAT’S OVER
I just redirected $1.73 billion in USDOT grants away from Biden-era DEI pet projects. 
Now this funding is officially locked in to fix America’s actual backbone: ROADS, BRIDGES, AND SHIPPING PORTS.” 

That sounds ominous… and some of it is true!

The $1.73 billion of funds likely refers to the $1.73 billion in BUILD grant awards the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced last week. There were 127 grants awarded to entities in 52 states, territories and DC. Let’s look at what really happened. 

• In 2025, the DOT cancelled several BUILD grants that were intended for biking, walking, and trails projects. They also required changes to other grants to remove bicycling elements. 
• When the grant applications for this round were opened, the notice of funding announced $1.5 billion was available. 
• We don’t know for sure, but it is possible that funds from the cancelled grants were repurposed for some of these grants. 
• Almost a third of the BUILD grants announced this week include facilities for vulnerable road users. 

I am not trying to make light of the fact that the administration is belittling bike lanes as pet projects and not core transportation. The damage is real. I am trying to clarify what we know is happening. 

A Few Takeaways State and local governments still see a need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities 

The BUILD grant program—formerly known as RAISE under the Biden administration—is meant to be a multimodal program covering ports, airports, rail, transit and highways, including bicycling and walking roadway projects. In the past, bicycling and walking have done reasonably well under this program (see graphic to the right). We do not expect that success to continue.

This year, I identified 42 of the 127 projects which include some bicycling, walking or complete streets element (highlighted in yellow in this file). There are a few other projects, particularly planning projects that may include or result in some bicycling and walking element, but the description wasn’t clear enough to tell (highlighted in grey). 

Recipients definitely have heard from the administration that bicycling facilities and projects that reduce road capacity are not favored. In the short descriptions made public by the USDOT, we see most references to biking and walking as related to safety improvements, or as incidental to the main projects. Some of the language used, such as “designated space for a shared-use path,” may be a way of indicating the project is out of the roadway and not reducing road capacity for cars. 

While the demand for funding is there, we also know that state and local governments are not applying for active transportation projects they want, or are downplaying the need for multimodal facilities in the projects for which they apply. 

Just because an awarded project includes multimodal facilities doesn’t mean the administration will fund it as written

As mentioned above, when the Trump administration froze awarded grants in early 2025, they required that the project be redesigned in order for the funding to move forward. In many cases that meant removing bicycle facilities. In some cases, grant recipients may be able to go back later and use their own funds to reinstate active transportation facilities, but in others it can compromise the project. 

The $1.7 billion designated for bike facilities was not rescinded this week, BUT formerly awarded grants remain in limbo. 

Even if the additional $200 million dollars added to this round of BUILD grants came from rescinded grants for bike projects, as far as we can tell it is not from newly rescinded projects. It may have come from the grants for bike/ped that were cancelled last year or from other grant awards that were downsized. 

There are still a number of grants, awarded under the Biden administration, that are in limbo.  

After freezing almost 3,300 grants in early 2025, in September the Trump administration said it would allow 2,998 to pursue grant agreements or contracts. After cancelling a handful, another 270 or more were left in limbo. 

Last month, Federal Highways Administrator McMaster stated at a congressional hearing that 1,500 were now under contract. The USDOT is moving on some (although in some cases requiring a reduction of funding and/or changes to the design). Others are still just in limbo. 

How Do We Respond? 

The problem with affecting grant awards is that these grants are considered “discretionary” grants. That discretion, legally, is in the hands of the administration. 

While cancelling grants awarded under a former administration is rare, it has happened before (Biden cancelled the Keystone Pipeline grant, Trump cancelled high-speed rail grants). However, the number of grants frozen, manipulated and cancelled by this administration is unprecedented. The most effective way to influence the current USDOT is to have elected officials push for specific projects to move forward. We have also seen grant recipients sue and win in court, but even those wins have not resulted in projects moving forward. 

Beyond that, our best option at the federal level is to look for legislative options. How can we influence Congress to make it harder for this to happen again? How can we ensure that there are limits on administrative ‘discretion’ while still offering opportunities for local governments to fund multimodal projects that don’t fall neatly under state-run transportation programs? 

The League will continue to look for opportunities within the next transportation reauthorization bill, the budget process, and other opportunities to safeguard funding opportunities that make bicycling and walking safe and accessible. 

The post What the Heck is a DEI Bike Lane? appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Today, we’re excited to introduce the newest member of the League’s team: Brianne Waldoch, our new Membership Manager. Brianne brings a deep well of bike joy and years of nonprofit experience to the role, where she’ll support our wide base of members and help invite new ones into the fold. She’s also a certified League Cycling Instructor and a longtime champion of the Bicycle Friendly Business program, so needless to say, she already knows her way around the League. We couldn’t be happier to have her officially on the team—welcome aboard, Brianne!

What’s your first memory of riding a bike?

I barely remember learning to ride a bike, but I’ll never forget watching the older neighborhood kids glide by, pedaling backward with ease while I sat on my coaster-brake bike dumbfounded and aching to do the same. 

What does your bike journey look like? What got you into biking as an adult?

Growing up, I rode my Jazz Voltage bike mostly on camping trips, since we lived in the country along a 50-mph road.

It wasn’t until college that I, a nonathlete with an adventurous spirit, saw a write-up in an email newsletter about a cross–United States tour and thought, “That’d be a perfect way to see the country!”, despite having never ridden on a bicycle more than 35 miles in a day. 

I can’t say that I recommend conquering the Appalachian Mountains with very little training—those first 10 or so days were rough—but by the time we reached Seattle, it felt like my momentum was just getting started.

Brianne on the Le Tour de Shore in 2016, rocking a League jersey!

Since then, bicycling has woven its way through my adulthood. I completed a promotional cross–United States tour two years later, led a group through the hills of the mid-Atlantic states two years after that, participated in several multi-day regional rides, and completed a sometimes-solo tour down the Atlantic coast of Florida. I’ve become a League Cycling Instructor and accomplished a variety of independent projects that helped a previous employer earn a Bicycle Friendly Business designation.

I’ve learned so much about myself while pedaling on two wheels. By struggling up a monster of a hill literally alongside a caterpillar, I proved to myself that I can do hard things and persevere. In the saddle, I feel powerful and capable. Riding has also changed how I see my body—when I’m in spandex, I don’t think about imperfections. 

Tell us a bit about your background. How did you get into mobility justice, and what excites you about joining the League?

My undergraduate major at the University of Washington was an interdisciplinary program called Comparative History of Ideas. I started out with philosophy, humanities, and religious studies courses and homed in on social and urban justice while riding through communities with such different economic realities. I began to think about equity and access to transportation infrastructure in a more holistic way. My bachelor’s degree culminated in a thesis evaluating Chicago’s Divvy Bike Share system through Susan Fainstein’s Just City framework.

Brianne riding in Florida in 2017 on her trusty Kona Sutra.

Besides getting to center my working life on expanding support for bicycling, I’m so happy to know that I’m working for an organization that values transparency, equity, inclusion, and access. I love that the League has publicly owned up to its complicated history of exclusion and has worked to reverse course.

What are some of your favorite routes and trails to explore?

Right now, it’s more who I’m with than where I’m headed. Now that my kids are getting faster on two wheels, I love any ride they join me on. There’s nothing quite like hearing their little voices yell “On your left!” as they vie to pull into the lead.

What bike are you riding now?

I ride a blue 2013 Kona Sutra. As a touring bike, it’s built to be fully loaded, so I can pack my panniers full of snacks and other parent gear and still feel comfortable and in control of the steering.

The post New League Staff: Meet Brianne Waldoch appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

Every year, the League puts out a call for applications to run for our Board of Directors. We ask our members, who are the lifeblood of our organization, to take the next step in their support of the League and volunteer to help lead it. And it’s those same members who then vote on which of their peers will take a seat on the Board.

Ahead of the 2026 Board election—more on that below—we’re pleased to introduce you to the people who raised their hand to be a Board candidate.

Their statements, supplied by the candidates and unedited, offer firsthand insights into their vision and commitment.

All League members are eligible to vote in our Board election. The deadline to become a member or renew a membership in time to vote is August 9, 2026. Voting will take place August 10–25, 2026. Learn more about our Board elections.

Join or Renew here!

Questions about your membership email? Contact us at membership@bikeleague.org.

John Bailey

Advancing safer, more accessible bicycling has been a central focus throughout my career in transportation advocacy. I have pursued this work nationally with organizations including Smart Growth America and my current employer, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), as well as at the state level as policy director for 1000 Friends of Minnesota.

I have also stayed engaged locally. For example, I moved to San Antonio to serve as the Transportation Climate Advisor for the American Cities Climate Challenge, a Bloomberg Philanthropies initiative managed by NRDC, where a key part of my role was advocating internally for policies and investments that support active transportation.

I co-founded ActivateSA, San Antonio’s first professionally staffed active transportation advocacy organization, and have served on its board since 2021. As a mayoral appointee, I also co-chaired the Streets, Sidewalks and Bridges Bond Committee for San Antonio’s 2022 municipal infrastructure bond. The committee approved more than $400 million in infrastructure investments for the successful May 2022 bond vote, many of which included bicycle accommodations. I also served on the Smart Growth America Board of Directors from 2007 to 2012.

Dan Bassett

Dan has been passionate about bikes for as long as he could remember. From biking with his family in the Netherlands and discovering mountain biking while still in elementary school, to riding all over the world, self-propelled travel has been a constant in his life. After college, he joined Americorps and spent 2 years leading trail crews across the Northern Rockies, inspiring his love for service, education, and being part of something bigger than oneself. This led him to obtaining a MS in Environmental Education from Antioch New England.

After running his own business, teaching after art classes, and working in bike shops, Dan joined the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance in Seattle, WA. There he led a statewide mountain bike education program, training over 100 instructors and redeveloping an certification program. He then worked for a small bicycle education and travel company where he helped launch an online mountain bike school, one of the first of its kind.

After nearly a decade living in the Pacific Northwest, Dan and his family came back home to New England where he joined the Bicycle Coalition of Maine as the Education Manager. During his time in that role, he created a bicycle safety instructor certification program, which reaches over 4,000 participants annually. Now as the Deputy Director, he helps lead the programming, operations, and advocacy efforts of the Bicycle Coalition of Maine. He also co-hosts a bi-weekly radio show on active transportation, “On The Go”. When not at work, Dan can be found scheming his next bikepacking adventure, discovering new trails, rooting for the Red Sox and Sea Dogs, and spending as much time as possible outside with his family.

Darren Buck

Darren Buck believes that the world can be a better place — in so many different ways — if more people were able to ride bikes more often. He has devoted his career to developing and promoting networks of bike facilities suitable for all ages and abilities, and for communities of all types and sizes. In his seven years as a program manager for walking and bicycling at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Darren led a variety of national-scale research and technical assistance projects, and helped implement policies that led to record spending on bicycling facilities. As a planner with the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Darren planned and delivered a variety of all-ages bicycling facilities for residents and visitors to Washington, DC.

As a board member of the League of American Bicyclists, Darren will help to ensure that the League is best positioned to fight for bicycling, at a time when it is under unprecedented attack at the Federal level. A solo dad who calls Cambridge, MA home, Darren leads the Bike Bus for his daughter’s elementary school, volunteers with the local ebike lending library, and advocates for continued development of the City’s all-ages bicycling network.

Erick Cedeño

Erick Cedeño is a cyclist, storyteller, community engagement professional, and advocate who has spent more than two decades using the bicycle to connect people with history, culture, and community. Known as “Bicycle Nomad,” he has bicycled across 49 U.S. states, giving him a unique perspective on the opportunities and challenges facing people who ride across America. Based in Santa Monica, California, Erick works in community engagement within the transportation industry, building partnerships between riders, communities, and transportation organizations.

Erick is perhaps best known for retracing the historic 1,900-mile route of the 1897 Buffalo Soldiers Bicycle Corps, bringing national attention to one of the most significant yet often overlooked stories in American cycling history. A member of The Explorers Club, he has dedicated his career to using storytelling to inspire more people to ride and to demonstrate how bicycling can strengthen communities, improve lives, and connect people across differences. 

If elected, Erick would bring the perspective of someone who has experienced America’s cycling landscape firsthand—from major cities to rural communities—a collaborative approach, and a deep commitment to advancing the League’s mission of creating a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone. 

Travis Counsell

Travis Counsell is the Executive Director of Hawai’i Bicycling League. Originally from Vermont, he has served as the Executive Director of the New England Mountain Bike Association, as well as owned Bikeadelic Bike Rentals in Waikiki. He has an Environmental Studies degree from Elon University and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Hawai’i. He has ridden across the country as part of Johns Hopkin’s 4k for Cancer program. He can now be found riding his cargo bike with his daughter to the beach or nearby errands, or commuting to work via abandoned highway! His passion for bicycles is both personal and professional.

Jarrett Stoltzfus

Jarret Stoltzfus works as the Director of Transportation at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropy focused on evidence based research and policy, where he leads the transportation portfolio. 

He has spent two decades in the transportation sector, including seven years in the research at the Federal Transit Administration (USDOT), three years on the executive team of Foothill Transit, a transit agency in Los Angeles County, and seven years in clean transportation, both at a vehicle and battery manufacturer and also electric charging companies.   

He currently lives in the City of Mount Rainier in Prince George’s County, where he served as the Councilmember for Ward 2 from 2021 to 2025 and served as the City’s Vice Mayor from 2022-2023.  During that time he led the city’s Vision Zero efforts, which included the lowering of the city’s speed limits to 20mph citywide, and the establishment of the city’s Vision Zero Plan, which led to the securing of a $9.7 million grant from the Safe Streets and Roads for All program from the US Department of Transportation.

Triny Willerton

It has been an incredible honor to serve on the Board of Directors of the League of American Bicyclists, and I would be deeply honored to earn the opportunity to serve another term.

My commitment to safer, more connected communities is rooted in both lived experience and public service. As the founder and president of It Could Be Me, I work alongside crash survivors, advocates, and community leaders to advance policies and education that make our roads safer for everyone.

I currently serve on the City of Boulder’s Transportation Advisory Board, the Board of Directors for Ride for Your Life 501c3, and previously served on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) under Secretary Pete Buttigieg. These roles have given me the opportunity to collaborate with local, state, and national leaders on transportation safety, active mobility, and equitable access.

If reelected to the League’s Board of Directors, I will continue to bring energy, collaboration, and a strong voice for people who bike. I remain committed to helping the League expand its impact, strengthen partnerships, and build a future where bicycling is safe, accessible, and welcoming for everyone.

I would be so grateful for your support and your vote.

The post Meet our 2026 Board of Directors candidates appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is proposing many changes to how federal funding is administered. Analysis of the OMB’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which is accepting comments through July 13, points to several possible changes as potentially problematic:

1. All grants would be subject to approval by a political appointee.
2. All grants would be permitted to be terminated, suspended, or modified at any time by a political appointee.
3. A grant could be cancelled based on an organization’s membership or affiliation with another organization that a political appointee sees as causing reputational damage.
4. All grant funding would come with new strings, restrictions, and federal processing requirements that could make payments less certain, slower, and burdensome.

The NPRM impacts many grants and other types of federal funding across many federal agencies. This has created a large number of comments: over 70,000 as of July 1. If you want to add your voice, here is some guidance on making an effective comment amongst the many already submitted:

• Make a unique comment, with a specific concern identified (rather than copy and paste a pre-written template); and
• Quantify the burden(s) imposed by a proposed change, although precision is not required.

For an example of the potential impact of this NPRM on federal funding for bike projects, we can look to the Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP). The ATIIP was created by Congress in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021 and grants were awarded under ATIIP in January 2025 before the transition to the Trump administration. Demand for ATIIP grants was incredible, and only 14 grants worth $44.5 million were awarded out of 352 applications requesting more than $1.8 billion in funding. 

One of those ATIIP grants was for the “East Nashville Spokes” project which was then “ghosted” by the Trump administration before the city of Nashville joined with other grantees to sue the Trump administration. In May 2025, a judge found that the Trump administration “failed to produce a single document showing any individualized review of the Plaintiffs’ grants or discussion of any basis for freezing or terminating the grants other than disapproval of the purposes of the funding.” As of June 29, 2026, despite a court order in favor of plaintiffs, such as the city of Nashville, the ATIIP grant and other grants frozen by the Trump administration have not been provided to the grantees. Under existing rules, grantees have enforceable rights to grants that they can pursue through legal processes.

If the NPRM becomes a final regulation, the freezing and termination of grants without any reason beyond disapproval of the purposes of funding provided by Congress could become routine and impossible to challenge. Rather than communities being able to rely upon federal grants awarded to make bicycling safer, each grant would be contingent on the whims of political appointees and subject to freezing or termination regardless of the project’s benefits or compliance with congressional intent. Infrastructure projects often take years or decades, and the NPRM would interject uncertainty into much needed funding awarded under an already incredibly competitive process.

To write an effective comment, the East Nashville Spokes project provides a specific example of a potentially affected federal grant. By noting a specific project, a commenter can quantify the types of benefits that are delayed or foregone due to the discretion given to political appointees to freeze or terminate grants for many vague or undefined reasons. Those foregone benefits may include reduced injuries and fatalities, economic benefits, health benefits, and air quality improvements. If your community has ever received a federal grant, then you should be able to identify a bike facility that could have been affected by a political decision if the proposal rules had existed when it was funded.

While infrastructure grants as discussed above are among the most important types of projects funded by the federal government to improve bicycling, this NPRM reaches many other types of funding. If you have experience with any federal funding subject to Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, your comment should discuss that specific experience. Examples may include:

• Research-related funding through the Transportation Research Board (TRB), University Transportation Centers (UTCs), or the Volpe Center;
• Traffic safety-related funding through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as distributed by state Highway Safety Offices; or
• Other infrastructure grant programs such as BUILD, RAISE, or Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A).

Comments are due by July 13, 2026. Submit your comments on Regulations.gov.

The post Protect Federal Grants from Political Interference appeared first on League of American Bicyclists.