Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB334

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/8/25
• Refer: 7/8/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 84.01 (35) (d) (intro.) and 2.; to renumber 84.01 (35) (d) 1.; to amend 84.01 (35) (b); to create 84.01 (35) (c) of the statutes; Relating to: requiring bicycle and pedestrian facilities in highway projects and granting rule-making authority. (FE)

Summary

AB334 would change Wisconsin’s highway planning law to require the Department of Transportation to include bikeways and pedestrian ways in all new highway construction and reconstruction projects that use state or federal funds, rather than merely giving those facilities “due consideration.” The bill is aimed at implementing a stronger “complete streets” policy so that bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are built into roadway projects as a default part of design. The bill also directs DOT to write rules defining limited exceptions to that requirement. Those exceptions could apply only in specified circumstances, including when the added facilities would be excessively costly relative to the project, would create excessive negative impacts in a constrained environment, when there is no meaningful need based on population or traffic conditions, or when the local community refuses to accept a maintenance agreement for pedestrian ways. The bill repeals existing statutory language that allowed broader discretion and renumbers related provisions to fit the new framework.

Impact

AB334 would amend s. 84.01(35) of the Wisconsin Statutes by replacing a discretionary standard with a mandatory one for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in state- and federally funded highway projects. It would also require DOT to promulgate implementing rules and would narrow the circumstances under which exceptions may be granted, thereby affecting transportation project design, local government coordination, and project costs for highway construction and reconstruction.

Sentiment

The bill appears to reflect generally supportive sentiment toward bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and complete streets planning, as shown by its introduction by a large bipartisan-leaning group of legislators and cosponsors. However, no committee transcript or recorded vote information is available here, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not secure final legislative approval.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the mandate itself and the limits it places on DOT discretion. Potential opponents may object to the added cost of required bikeways and pedestrian ways, the possibility of project delays, and the reduced flexibility for transportation planners in constrained or low-demand settings. The bill’s exception criteria suggest the sponsors anticipated concerns about cost, feasibility, and local maintenance responsibility, especially where municipalities may not want to assume upkeep obligations.