Nine Reasons For Bike/Ped Advocates to Take Heart: The Senate Edition

Now that the dust has settled, we have a few more notes on the Senate transportation bill that passed the EPW committee yesterday. Bike and pedestrian advocates are understandably shaken at seeing some major changes to the primary programs that fund their work. But here are some reasons to take heart:

Important bike/ped projects, like the Hot Metal bridge in Pittsburgh, will still get funded, even with the changes to the TE program in the Senate bill. Photo: ##http://images.enhancements.org/1-Ped-Bike-Facilities/Hot-Metal-Bridge/16573946_nHpmCC#1248409966_LjTV2##National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse##
  • Getting Transportation Enhancements out of the Surface Transportation Program is not necessarily a bad thing. You know how Republicans love to say that Enhancements get an unfair “set-aside” of 10 percent of the surface transportation program? They just lost that talking point. Still, STP is now part of the new, broader Transportation Mobility Program, and bike/ped projects will still be eligible for funding under TMP, as well as under the dedicated TE pot.
  • We’ve written before that eligibility for funding isn’t the same as having your own pot of dedicated money, and that’s certainly true. After all, states that “get it” will invest in smart active transportation projects, while state DOTs still stuck in the highway era won’t spend a dime on cycling and walking if they’re not forced to. But the fact is, they were finding ways around it anyway. Dedicated funds for bike/ped projects often became “rescission fodder” when it came time for states to give some dough back to Washington. States like Inhofe’s Oklahoma knew rescission time was coming and they held on to that money just so they could give it away.
  • Give credit to Sen. Barbara Boxer and her staff, as well as other Democrats on the committee who fought hard for this. It’s kind of hard to believe that in a $109 billion bill, something as small as bike/ped funding nearly broke down negotiations, but it did, several times. A deal of some kind was necessary in order to get Republicans on the bill, and to placate people like Tom Coburn, who would stop at nothing to get rid of dedicated TE funding. Democrats fought hard to keep Republicans at the table and hold on to active transportation money in the bill. It could have been a lot worse: Republicans wanted TE out of the bill entirely and had to settle for “flexibility.”
  • One of the road-related uses that looked like it would be allowed under TE was removed yesterday – that money will not be available to build HOV and HOT lanes.
  • There’s still hope to make the bill better. Democrat Ben Cardin’s amendment [PDF] to leave transportation enhancement spending in the hands of local areas instead of states would have a huge impact, since cities and towns are much more likely to see the need for bike and ped infrastructure than states are.

  • And remember, dedicated funding for TE wasn’t exactly eliminated. (Dedicated funding for Safe Routes to School and the Recreational Trails Program was, however; though they can still get funded as eligible programs under CMAQ, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality improvement program.) TE still has a dedicated amount close to what it had before – although TE is now “under” CMAQ in the bill, the money isn’t commingled.
  • And if it makes you feel any better, when the committee collapsed 90 programs down to 30, lots of pots of funding were eliminated. So, don’t feel singled out.
  • In the end, getting a bill on its way to authorization is better than the alternatives. We’re now on the eighth extension of SAFETEA-LU, and everyone agrees it needs to be the last one. Without finding some more money to maintain current funding levels, as the Senate Finance Committee is currently doing, current transportation spending will bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund and make the 30 percent cuts in the original House bill nearly unavoidable. Meanwhile, even the House Republicans who proposed the 30 percent cut have distanced themselves from that position – though their current proposal to fill the gap with oil drilling revenue won’t do much to bring Democrats to their side.
  • It’s good the Senate is ahead of the House. For a while it seemed Boxer was waiting for the House to go first, and then it seemed she was waiting for the $12 billion to be resolved before coming forward with the bill – but the horse is out of the gate now and it’s good that the Senate bill will set the tone for the conversation from here on.

While the House works to get a bill out soon – Boehner promised one “in the coming weeks” about a week ago – Sen. Max Baucus and his Finance Committee will be working to find that elusive $12 billion. Politico is reporting that the Banking Committee could mark up the transit portion the week after Thanksgiving, and Commerce will move the rail section before year’s end.

  • Clutch J

    Well said! This could work out OK.

  • Kevin

    While you are right that it could have been worse– Senator Inhofe did want TE out, and progress was made this week with elimination of HOV lane eligibility– the picture painted in this article feels way too rosy. Reasons why include:
    — the deal adds several new eligibilities to TE under the banner of “environmental mitigation”, any one of which could soak up virtually all the funds available for biking and walking. Wetland mitigation, mowing and brush removal, sewage treatment plants and noise walls are all examples of new eligibilities that states are compelled to fund by regulation or practical necessity. Will your cash strapped state choose bike facilities or unavoidable “unfunded mandates” (Sen. Inhofe’s term)?
    — If states that “get it” will invest, then why do we see sub-par TE obligation rates and disproportionate rescissions from some of the most touted bike
    friendly states?
    — TMP funds are the most flexible dollars a state gets. Getting dollars for biking and walking from that pot means outcompeting everything else the state DOTs hold dear. We’ll try if those become the new rules of the game, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the impact on active transportation investment wouldn’t be profound.

    Let’s work for the helpful amendments, but be wary of the hostile ones that are also sure to come.

    Last point– I don’t read the bill to dedicate TE but not dedicate Safe Routes and Rec Trails. All three of these core walking and biking programs are thrown together in one new pot (along with the problematic new
    eligibilities). All of them together are expected to make do at the funding levels of TE alone.

    I’m not celebrating; I’m going to organize for a better outcome.

    Kevin Mills
    Vice President of Policy and Trail Development
    Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
    Vice president of

  • Anonymous

    The whole point of set-asides is to ensure a minimal amount of funding goes to bike/ped. And even if States do ask for lots of bike/ped projects, what will convince President Perry to approve the funding request?

  • John

    Drunk Engineer: 

    Statess have 100% discretion in how they spend their formula $ as long as they meet federal regs. President Perry doesn’t approve anything

  • Tracy

    I think you missed the real story, which is not what happened with the funding levels for bike/ped (though they did take a 25% cut with the consolidation of SRTS and Rec Trails under the TE set-aside).  The real issue is the amended TE eligible activities.

    Environmental compliance is 8 – 10% of the cost of a typical Federal-aid construction project – how convenient that NEPA and Clean Water Act compliance are now eligible for a funding pot equivalent to 10% of STP/TMP.  This is a huge change – do we accept that the only way to keep Republicans at the table is to allow them to redefine complying with the minimum federal environmental standards for construction as an “enhancement”?

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Two-Year Transpo Bill Moves on to Full Senate Without Bike/Ped Protections

|
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted unanimously this morning to pass a two-year transportation reauthorization bill, moving the bill one step closer to passage by the full Senate. Unlike in the House, where the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has full responsibility for the transportation bill, the Senate splits jurisdiction among several committees, so […]

What’s Lost When Transportation Enhancements Becomes “CMAQ-AA”?

|
This month’s bipartisan deal on the MAP-21 transportation bill in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hinged on a compromise to make major changes to the popular and successful Transportation Enhancements (TE) program, which primarily funds projects for biking and walking. The final deal eliminates dedicated funding for TE, instead making a smaller amount […]

House Attack on Safe Streets Makes Transpo Bill Ever More Elusive

|
We reported last week that the House had proposed allowing states to “opt out” of funding bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements in its counter-offer to the Senate during transportation bill negotiations. The House GOP essentially wants to reject the Cardin-Cochran amendment, which gave local governments control over half the “Additional Activities” funding set aside for […]

For House GOP, Safer Streets Are the New “Bridge to Nowhere”

|
Funding to make biking and walking safer has taken something of a beating in both the House and Senate transportation bills. The fate of the most significant federal bike-ped programs — Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancements, and Recreational Trails — is still very much in doubt. Under the Senate bill, passed Wednesday, local agencies would at […]