The APBP Policy Committee regularly reviews and updates our statements. The original policy statement on Performance Measures was published in February 2020. This revision was approved by the Board of Directors in January 2025 and can be found here.

It is APBP’s position that:

Transportation agencies and governments consider the needs and desires of all users of the transportation system in line with a commitment to Complete Streets. To accomplish this, APBP recommends the use of multimodal performance measures that reflect community goals.

A holistic set of performance measures should derive from the goals of the community as determined through robust public engagement. Goals should consider the following themes and recognize the ways in which they are interconnected:

• Safety
• Public Health
• Access and Mobility
• Environment / Sustainability
• Economic vitality
• Equity
• Livable places

Performance measures should leverage both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Data collection and analysis methods should recognize that community engagement and qualitative information are valuable. Both types of information help decision makers and the public to understand trade-offs between alternatives and guide decisions that best align with community goals. Furthermore, performance measures and transportation data should be accessible to the public.

Goals and performance measures should apply to a wide variety of project types and at multiple tasks and checkpoints throughout the project.

The APBP Policy Committee regularly reviews and updates our statements. The original policy statement on Electric Bicycles was published in January 2019. This revision was approved by the Board of Directors in December 2023 and can be found here.

It is APBP’s position that:

1. E-bikes have the potential to unlock significant latent demand for cycling and should be considered an integral part of a more sustainable transportation strategy in the U.S. and Canada.
2. The U.S. and Canada should take legislative action at the federal level to better define e-bikes, create more uniformity in regulations, reduce regulatory burdens, and increase uptake of e-bikes across North America. In Canada, a harmonized legislative framework for e-bikes should be a national priority and the efficacy of devolving e-bike regulation to provinces should be subject to a full regulatory impact statement.
3. Further research and technical evaluation of the safety risks associated with e-bikes travelling at higher speeds is urgently needed. If sufficient evidence exists of a higher level of risk exposure arising from e-bikes with more powerful motors, then governments must act in the public interest to reduce risk through effective regulation of e-bike speed and/or motor power.
4. Further study of the interaction of e-bike riders, non-motorized bicyclists, and pedestrians is needed, particularly as it relates to existing and planned shared infrastructure such as sidewalks and shared use paths.
5. Widespread adoption of e-bikes has the potential to make a lasting and positive impact on major public health challenges, including diabetes and obesity across the continent.
6. Greater attention to the enforceability of e-bike legislation and regulation is needed, as is greater focus on the educational needs stemming from increasing e-bike adoption.
7. E-bikes have the potential to lower barriers to cycling for people with different transportation and physical activity needs, including people whose commute trip exceeds 15 to 18 minutes, and people who are reluctant or unable to use non-motorized bicycles due to the physical demands, but have the ability to handle an e-bike.

Read the full APBP Policy Statement on Electric Bicycles. Additional policy statements from APBP can be found here.

The APBP Policy Committee regularly reviews and updates our statements. The original policy statement on Automated Driving Systems was published in April 2018 with a first revision published in June 2019. This updated version of the policy statement can be found here.

Vision:
To ensure automated vehicle operations meet our shared goals for safe, efficient, and equitable transportation, vehicles with automated driving systems should meet or exceed core driving competencies of a human operator and all requirements of local, state, and national vehicle and transportation codes while consistently and safety operating around all roadway users, especially pedestrians, bicyclists, or other vulnerable road users.

Position:
APBP believes automated vehicles represent an emerging technology that carries great potential for both positive and negative outcomes and must be primarily designed and operated to ensure functional safety for all people using streets and highways. Beyond the specific responsibilities of AV manufacturers, APBP believes that an integrated safety management system must be put in place to properly collect, monitor, disseminate (in real-time where required and where appropriate) anonymized safety data from AVs and from other roadway, government, and user data sources. The anonymized data collected should be aggregated and shared with governmental agencies responsible for planning, building, operating, and maintaining transportation and safety systems.

Vehicles’ Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) must readily detect and protect all vulnerable road users including those walking, bicycling, and using a mobility device– regardless of age, race, ability, location, time of day, and other factors – from serious injury or death.

Read the full APBP Policy Statement on Automated Driving Systems. Additional policy statements from APBP can be found here.

The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) identifies reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a critical measure in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the transportation sector and the effects of climate change.

APBP believes that policies to make the use of active modes safer, easier, and more comfortable, or to promote the use of active modes, play a key role in shifting mode use away from passenger vehicles. While these policies have a quantifiable and positive effect to reduce GHG emissions, they are most effective when combined with direct disincentives for automobile use, such as charging the market rate cost for traffic congestion or vehicle parking and eliminating vehicular parking minimums or implementing vehicular parking maximums.

APBP supports policymakers to consider measures from a variety of spheres (e.g. land use policies, increasing access to bicycles and e-bikes through bikeshare programs and financial incentives, equitable roadway pricing strategies, etc.), a combination of measures both infrastructure and non-infrastructure, and level of scale (i.e. individual parcel level, corridor-level, or community–wide) in order to implement programs that will yield meaningful changes in VMT reduction.

Read the full APBP Policy Statement on Carbon Neutrality and VMT Reduction.

APBP believes safe and dignified mobility is a human right. Within this, equitable enforcement for people moving around public space is essential.

APBP believes the legacy practice of armed law enforcement officers enforcing traffic violations denies the communities we serve this right.

APBP supports the decisions made by several organizations to remove traffic enforcementas a component of safety initiatives.^[1] APBP endorses efforts to reinforce transportation safety with a more holistic definition that includes freedom from crash risk along with other forms of harm including harassment and racism.

APBP is supportive of alternatives to the traditional model of armed law enforcement of traffic laws. Such recent efforts include replacing armed law enforcement with other trained and unarmed staff to conduct traffic stops. Existing and emerging roadway and vehicle technology can also replace the safety function of traffic enforcement. APBP supports deployment of such technologies, provided that they are transparently and equitably planned and deployed.

APBP encourages an emphasis on self-reinforcing street designs which may reduce or eliminate the perceived need for enforcement (armed or otherwise) as a tool for roadway safety. Self-reinforcing design practices use geometric elements to encourage drivers to select speeds consistent with the posted speed limits and design intent of roadways.^[2]

APBP believes that any continued law enforcement related to traffic stops must be monitored and analyzed for bias and potential harm to Black people, Indigenous people, and people of color (BIPOC) and to the LGBTQ community.

APBP supports changes to federal funding programs related to safety that would improve transparency regarding expenditures and effectiveness, implement data reporting requirements related to racial and social equity impacts, and remove mandates for spending on enforcement activities.

Read the full APBP Equity and Traffic Enforcement Policy Statement.

The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) supports the Complete Streets movement and recommends that transportation agencies and governments adopt and implement Complete Streets policies. Agencies should modify their planning, design, prioritization, and project delivery practices and standards to institutionalize the Complete Streets approach so that all potential users and uses are adequately accommodated with safe, welcoming, and context-appropriate facilities and networks. Read APBP's full Complete Streets Policy Statement here that was recently updated in early spring 2021.

The Complete Streets Act was reintroduced in February 2021 by Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09), a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. View the press release here and Smart Growth America's blog post here which includes a call to action to send a message to your Congressional representatives urging them to support the legislation.

APBP supports the development of shared micromobility programs and supporting policies as a key element of a community’s comprehensive transportation system. APBP believes that shared micromobility programs have the potential to improve access and reduce barriers to schools, parks, libraries, food, services, and jobs; increase transportation options; reduce congestion on city streets; act as a catalyst for infrastructure that increases safety for all vulnerable users; improve air quality; and support local economic development. To ensure an effective, equitable, and sustainable program, communities must take a proactive approach to managing shared micromobility.

The APBP Policy Committee regularly reviews and updates our statements and the updated version of the Shared Micromobility Programs statement can be found here.

All of APBP's Policy Statements can be found on apbp.org under Resources > Policy Statements.

The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) recommends that transportation agencies and governments consider the needs and desires of all users of the transportation system in line with a commitment to complete streets. To accomplish this, APBP recommends the use of multimodal performance measures that reflect community goals.

A holistic set of performance measures should derive from the goals of the community as determined through robust public engagement. Goals should consider the following themes and recognize the ways in which they are interconnected:

• Safety
• Public Health
• Access and Mobility
• Environmental
• Economic vitality
• Equity
• Livable places

Performance measures should leverage both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Data collection and analysis methods should recognize that community engagement and qualitative information are valuable. Both types of information help decision makers and the public to understand trade-offs between alternatives and guide decisions that best align with community goals. Furthermore, performance measures and transportation data should be accessible to the public.

Goals and performance measures should apply to a wide variety of project types and at multiple tasks and checkpoints throughout the project.

We recently published our Performance Measures Policy Statement. The full statement can be accessed here.