Bill Overview
Title: Biking on Long-Distance Trails Act
Description: This bill establishes requirements related to long-distance bike trails. The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) shall identify not fewer than 10 long-distance bike trails that make use of existing trails and roads, and not fewer than 10 areas in which there is an opportunity to develop or complete a trail that would qualify as a long-distance bike trail. Interior and USDA shall develop a process to allow members of the public to comment regarding the identification of trails and areas; and consider the identification, development, and completion of long-distance bike trails in a geographically equitable manner. The Department concerned shall ensure that each identified long-distance bike trail or area does not conflict with the uses of any trail or road that is part of that long-distance bike trail; multiple-use areas where biking, hiking, horseback riding, or use by pack and saddle stock are existing uses; the purposes for which any trail was or is established under the National Trails System Act; and any area managed under the Wilderness Act. The Department concerned shall also ensure that each identified long-distance trail or area complies with land use and management plans of the federal recreational lands that are part of that long-distance bike trail.
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: People interested in biking on long-distance trails
Estimated Size: 45000000
- The bill focuses on long-distance biking trails, affecting bikers who are interested in using these trails.
- There are 45 million people in the US who participate in bicycling at least once a year, according to the Outdoor Foundation's reports.
- The bill requires public engagement, suggesting that local communities might be impacted by the changes in trail development.
- Developing long-distance trails can impact existing trail users, such as hikers, horseback riders, and others involved in multi-use areas.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets long-distance bikers and trail users, but it will also indirectly impact people who live near these trails or those interested in trail development and maintenance.
- A significant number of Americans engage in recreational biking, hence the potential high impact on their well-being, though not everyone will directly benefit from the specific trails developed.
- Budget constraints mean that not all potential trails can be developed immediately, and the focus will likely be on those with the highest use potential or existing infrastructure.
- The policy may have a moderate influence on local economies by potentially increasing tourism and creating maintenance opportunities.
- Since the policy includes public engagement, community members' opinions and input might influence the specific areas targeted and how the policy evolves.
Simulated Interviews
Graphic Designer (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's great that more long-distance trails are being considered. Colorado already has amazing trails, but more options are always good.
- I'm excited to see how this might bring more attention and resources to maintain existing trails.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Sales Manager (Portland, OR)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm generally supportive of anything that encourages more bike infrastructure.
- Long-distance trails sound appealing, especially for tourism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Rancher (Bozeman, MT)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't like the idea of more trails cutting through lands that border ranch areas.
- We need to be careful about how these trails affect wildlife and our land use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Professional Cyclist (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long-distance trails are superb for training and connecting with nature.
- It might help reduce the logistics of finding safe places to train.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Engineer (Boston, MA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's critical that the trails are accessible and well-marked for all levels of bikers.
- I'd love to see this enhance cross-country biking opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Park Ranger (Asheville, NC)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the environmental impact but also aware of the benefits of outdoor recreation.
- I'd support it as long as it prioritizes conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Marketing Executive (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long trails could bring the community together and raise awareness about cycling benefits.
- They should be implemented with good access for both urban and rural communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired School Teacher (Charlottesville, VA)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the focus on long-distance biking as it keeps people healthy, but also hope that seniors and differently-abled individuals are considered.
- It's important these initiatives offer rest areas and are inclusive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not a heavy user yet, but it's always nice to have more options for healthy activities.
- The focus should also be on maintaining existing trails.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
University Student (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could really push younger people and students to explore biking as not just a hobby but a lifestyle.
- The idea of utilizing existing infrastructure is strong, but communication with communities is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $3500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $4000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $5500000)
Year 10: $4500000 (Low: $3000000, High: $6000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Coordination among federal departments is crucial for the successful implementation of the policy.
- Geographically equitable development is emphasized, indicating a need for careful site selection and stakeholder engagement.
- Public input is a key component of the trail identification process, suggesting potential delays if there is significant opposition.
- Ensuring compliance with existing land use plans could complicate development efforts and increase costs.