The passing of SB1697 is expected to have notable implications on state laws regarding the planning and funding of transportation projects. By removing the requirement for bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways in conjunction with highway work, the bill could lead to a reduction in the integration of non-motorized transportation options into the state's infrastructure. This can potentially impact the safety and accessibility for cyclists and pedestrians in areas adjacent to highways, as well as influence community transportation planning initiatives.
Summary
Senate Bill 1697 aims to amend sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes concerning transportation planning, specifically addressing the acceptance of federal funding for highways. Under this legislation, the Arizona Department of Transportation is prohibited from accepting federal funds for any highway project if those funds come with conditions requiring the inclusion of bicycle paths or pedestrian walkways. This amendment reflects a significant shift in how state transportation projects might be planned and funded, explicitly detaching state highway infrastructure from mandated multi-use pathways.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB1697 appears to be divided among stakeholders. Proponents of the bill argue that it alleviates financial burdens on the state and allows for more focused highway development without the complications introduced by federal conditions. However, critics raise concerns that the bill prioritizes vehicular traffic over alternative transportation methods, which could facilitate a disregard for community needs regarding transportation safety and multi-modal infrastructure.
Contention
Debate over SB1697 centers around the tension between promoting vehicle infrastructure and ensuring safe and accessible transport options for all users. Some lawmakers express concern that the prohibition on bicycle paths and pathways removes important safety features and could contribute to higher risks for non-motorized users. The legislation has sparked discussions about local autonomy versus state regulation in transportation planning, highlighting differing visions of what modern infrastructure should accomplish.
Relating to the creation of and the powers of a comprehensive multimodal urban transportation authority, including the power to impose taxes, issue bonds, and exercise limited eminent domain authority.