How Does Your State Stack Up on Prioritizing Transit and Street Safety?

This map shows roughly how much states are spending on bike and pedestrian projects that are not part of a larger road project. Click on the image to see the full interactive map.

How’s your state doing on bike and pedestrian investment? Transit? Bridge repair?

Congress just reauthorized the national law that funnels tens of billions of dollars each year to state departments of transportation, but tracking how these agencies spend all their federal money is notoriously difficult. A lack of uniformity in the way states report spending has made it difficult to compare these numbers, even though all states are required to abide by certain federal filing standards. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign recently sorted through piles of documents to establish a basis for comparison.

Their new report, “Tracking State Transportation Dollars” [PDF], breaks down the funding levels for each State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP, a document that lists all projects that states plan to fund with federal dollars. Although the STIP doesn’t account for all of a state’s transportation funding, it does reveal some interesting patterns.

Overall, states spend an average of 20 percent on transit, the report found. Bicycle and pedestrian programs made up an average of 2 percent. Meanwhile, states are spending an average of 38.5 percent of the STIP on maintenance, and about 22.5 percent to add or expand roads and bridges.

The results also reveal wide variations from state to state, made available in a handy interactive map.

Hawaii — thanks to its construction of a major passenger rail system — is the only state to best New York in transit spending, devoting 74 percent of its STIP budget to transit. The Empire State, with a much larger system to maintain, stands at a still-formidable 62 percent. Virginia is another standout at 49 percent, with Colorado (44 percent) and Utah (42 percent) not far behind. Meanwhile, Nebraska (1 percent), Mississippi and Kentucky (2 percent each) exemplify states on the lower end of the transit-spending spectrum.

Meanwhile, North Carolina is the worst sprawl-inducer, spending 58 percent of its STIP on expanding highways. Arizona and Arkansas also spend more than half of their STIP on adding roads, with Indiana (45 percent), Mississippi (also 45), and Texas (36 percent) especially prone to highway expansion as well. Not surprisingly, several of these states also devote a low proportion of their STIP to maintenance, with Texas and Arizona giving just a shred to upkeep of their existing transportation network.

You have to be cautious about making comparisons, however, says report author Renata Silberblatt.

Some states may be devoting a larger portion of their budget to a particular area because of a large ongoing project — as is the case with transit in Hawaii. Also, other funding sources are available to states that might not be recorded in the STIP — including public-private partnerships, toll authorities and infrastructure banks — and that money isn’t accounted for in this report.

The report also attempts to ascertain how much states spend on biking and walking. But again, it isn’t easy, even within the STIP. Tri-State measures both what states are spending on stand-alone bike and pedestrian projects and what states are spending on road projects that include some bike or pedestrian element. Many states do not report costs for sidewalk construction, for example, if it is part of a larger road project.

Oregon, Tennessee and Georgia lead in the percent of the STIP they spend on stand-alone biking and walking projects, each with 5 percent. California and Montana follow with 4 percent. Meanwhile, Washington State is by far the leader when it comes to complete streets-type projects, spending 28 percent of its STIP on road projects that incorporate infrastructure for walking or biking, well above the next-best state in this category, Vermont (13 percent).

Tri-State hopes the report will help build support for national reporting reforms that make it easier to see how state DOTs allocate billions of transportation dollars every year, and to analyze the impact of those decisions.

“Increasing the transparency and uniformity in each state will go a long way in helping state transportation agencies be more accountable to the people who are affected each day by the agencies’ decisions – the public,” Silberblatt writes. “But transparency and accountability need not be a one way street; giving the public a better grasp on the state’s transportation investments has been shown to increase support of the agency’s work.”

  • Nathanael

    The NY state DOT has been very insistent on dangerous road-widening upstate; it doesn’t want to fund road work unless it includes road-widening which encourages drivers to speed.   This has been happening repeatedly in Ithaca to the detriment of pedestrian safety; though a few times, the state money has simply been refused due to the “you must make the road more dangerous” strings which were attached.

    So be careful about generalizing.  NY does well in NYC, and poorly in upstate.

  • This is a great idea!  Uniform reporting on the breakdown of how transportation dollars are spent would be SO helpful!  An independent report by Policy Matters Ohio in 2009 found that the Ohio Department of Transportation dedicated just 0.25% (state dollars, not federal) of its funding to mass transit.  It shouldn’t take a private report to figure that out!  This should be public information provided by every state!  

  • *Actually the report said that mass transit was 0.77% of Ohio’s transportation budget.  

  • Why is there no information for Wisconsin?  Maybe because Walker tried to take transit funding out of WisDOT’s budget?  Well, that failed.  Here in Madison, Wisconsin our bus system’s annual report says that the state provided about 35% of its 2010 revenue.  

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

GAO: Transportation Spending an Investment With Uncertain Returns

|
Cross-posted from Mobilizing the Region, the official blog of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. A December study from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that, well, there’s not much government accountability when it comes to how states spend federal transportation funds. Despite the existence of a federally mandated transportation planning process, the federal government offers no clear goals […]

GAO: States “Flexing” Fewer Federal Dollars to Transit

|
Supporters of livable streets may hear about the “flexibility” of transportation dollars and cringe – after all, that word often refers to the ability of states to use bike/ped money for road building. But flexibility can work both ways. Between 2007 and 2011, states devoted $5 billion in surface transportation funds — known in some […]

Tell Congress: Don’t Waste Money on Highway Expansion

|
States should know better than to funnel more money into road expansion at the expense of maintenance. With President-elect Obama back in Washington, action is heating up again around the economic recovery package, which could total up to $850 billion over the next two years. As much as $100 billion may be at stake for […]

Wisconsin Over-Invests in New Roads Destined for Underuse

|
Scott Walker, maybe we would respect your decision to pull the plug on high-speed rail in your state a little more if you weren’t such a hypocrite about transportation spending. The Wisconsin governor refused to pony up an estimated $4.7 million a year to provide 21st century intercity rail service to his constituents. But he’s only […]

How MAP-21 Allocates Transpo Funds Where They’re Needed Least

|
Transportation reauthorizations have typically not been a time for major discussions about national policy goals. They’ve been a time for getting while the getting’s good, a time for deal-making and pork and a lot of back-room transactions to make sure every member of Congress could go home and talk about how much federal money they […]