Abstract Existing literature on bicycling policies and infrastructure in the United States is still somewhat limited in number and scope, with the majority of research framed by a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) framework of decision making; this has led studies to focus on the potential benefits of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, factors affecting the use of bicycles as a mode of transit, and the improvement of CBA analysis with regards to bike/ped programs. While the CBA framework may be accurately matched to the practical process of specific policy implementation for some governing organizations, and provide valid evidence for application under other frameworks, it does not account for the role of policy windows and policy entrepreneurs in policy decision making, or for the role of effective advocacy. After a review of the existing literature, I suggest the multiple streams framework as a more suitable framework for understanding decision making with regard to non-motorized transportation policies, and provides a useful structure for future research (particularly on the role of advocacy groups and policy entrepreneurs in the planning and policy process).

Graphical abstract Display Omitted

Highlights • I review past literature in bike/ped research for trends and common assumptions. • I identify a dominant set of assumptions about the policy and planning process. • Assumptions are rational-actor model of decision-making and cost–benefit analysis. • Suggest an alternative theory: the multiple streams framework. • Explicate areas for future research based on alternative theory.