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)
SB343 would change Wisconsin’s highway planning requirements to make bicycle and pedestrian accommodations mandatory, rather than merely a matter of “due consideration,” in new highway construction and reconstruction projects funded in whole or in part with state or federal funds. The bill is aimed at implementing a “complete streets” approach by requiring the Department of Transportation (DOT) to ensure that bikeways and pedestrian ways are included in covered projects, subject to limited exceptions.
The bill also directs DOT to adopt rules defining when an exception may be used, but it tightly constrains those exceptions. Under the bill, exceptions could be allowed only in specified circumstances such as when the cost is excessively disproportionate to the project, when there are excessive negative impacts in a constrained environment, when there is no demonstrated need, or when the local community refuses to accept a maintenance agreement for pedestrian ways. The bill defines cost as excessively disproportionate if it exceeds 20 percent of total project cost and requires review by the transportation secretary or a knowledgeable designee before that exception can be applied.
In practical terms, SB343 would amend s. 84.01(35) of the Wisconsin statutes, repeal existing language that limited or conditioned the current policy, and renumber related provisions to fit the new structure. It would expand DOT’s obligations on state- and federally funded highway projects and could affect project design, budgeting, and local coordination for roads, bikeways, sidewalks, and other pedestrian facilities.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited, but the bill’s introduction by a large bipartisan-looking coalition of senators and representatives suggests support for safer and more multimodal transportation planning. At the same time, the bill’s failure to pass indicates it did not secure enough legislative support to become law during the session.
The main points of contention are likely to have centered on cost, project flexibility, and local control. The bill’s mandatory language and narrow exceptions could be viewed by opponents as increasing project costs or limiting DOT discretion, while supporters would likely see it as a necessary step to ensure consistent bicycle and pedestrian access and safer roadway design.
SB343 would have materially changed Wisconsin transportation law by converting DOT’s existing duty to give due consideration to bikeways and pedestrian ways into a requirement to include them in covered highway projects, unless a narrowly defined exception applies. It would have affected Wis. Stat. s. 84.01(35), repealed portions of the current exception framework, and required DOT rulemaking to implement the new standards. The bill would primarily affect DOT, local governments involved in project coordination or maintenance agreements, and users of state- and federally funded highway projects, including bicyclists and pedestrians.
The available context suggests generally favorable sentiment among the bill’s authors and cosponsors, who appear to support a complete-streets approach and expanded bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass, indicating that support was not sufficient to overcome concerns in the Legislature. No committee transcript or recorded vote data is available here, so the broader debate can only be inferred from the bill’s structure and outcome.
The likely areas of disagreement were whether DOT should be required, rather than merely encouraged, to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities; how much discretion DOT should retain to omit them; and whether the cost threshold and other exceptions were too restrictive. Opponents may have been concerned about added project expense, constrained design in limited right-of-way settings, and local maintenance obligations, while supporters likely argued that the bill would improve safety, connectivity, and transportation equity by making complete streets the default for state- and federally funded highway work.