GAO: States “Flexing” Fewer Federal Dollars to Transit

States have the ability to spend 29 percent of federal transportation funds on any mode, but they only "flex" 10 percent of that to transit. Image by GAO, using FHWA and FTA data

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 quarters as “highway money” — to transit programs, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO just issued its second report on state flexing of highway dollars for transit. In its first report, the GAO found that states used 13 percent of their flexible highway funds for transit. That share has declined to 10 percent. The GAO did not offer an explanation for the drop.

Since 29 percent of federal transportation dollars are available to states to spend on just about any surface mode, that means about 3 percent of all federal funding is getting “flexed” to transit. Between 2007 and 2011, the GAO found, “four states — California, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia — accounted for the majority of flexible funding transferred to FTA for transit projects.” Each of those four states used more than 25 percent of their flexible funds for transit. Meanwhile, 16 states sent transit less than 2 percent of their flexible funding, with Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Delaware, and Hawaii flexing nothing.

The variability between states highlights a rarely remarked upon aspect of transportation funding: There’s a lot of room for states to spend more on transit under current law, if they choose. In fact, transit dollars go farther when states use these funds, because they only have to pony up the same local match that’s required for highways – usually 20 percent. The local match for transit projects is typically upwards of 50 percent.

Some states set aside a certain proportion of these funds for transit every year, while others vary the amount. “For example, New Jersey transferred about $272 million in flexible funding to FTA in 2010 compared to $130 million in 2009, an increase of almost 110 percent,” the report said. The flexing authority is especially useful to states, like California, which have imposed prohibitions against using state gas tax revenues for transit.

About a third of the flexed funding gets used for vehicle purchases, and another quarter of it goes toward other capital expenses. New transit infrastructure accounts for 22 percent. The money can also help improve service or avoid service cuts.

Over time, some states make major adjustments to the amount of funding they flex to transit. In the 15 years before this GAO study, Pennsylvania was a big flexer but New Jersey and Virginia weren’t.

So states can change. While the GAO shows states are allocating somewhat less to transit than they used to, the pendulum could swing in the other direction. The longstanding formula is that federal funds are split 80/20 split between highways and transit, but states can ratchet up transit’s percentage on their own. If states spent more of their flexible funds on transit, the share of federal funding allocated to transit could climb even without any changes to national transportation law.

  • Any mode? So not only could this fund transit infrastructure, then; it could fund bike/ped infrastructure, too? That’s astounding. To retrofit one city of 50,000 I cover, Novato, with cycle tracks on every arterial would cost about $3 million. Imagine what California or another state could do with $1 billion of bike/ped funding…

  • shane phillips

    It says that $53 billion of flexible funding was apportioned to the states, and about $5 billion was transferred to the FTA for transit projects. Are these funds really 100% flexible, such that 100% of the money received could be devoted to transit (or any other mode) if the state chose to do so?

  • Would like to see a follow-up on why states aren’t flexing more to transit.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Six Lies the GOP Is Telling About the House Transportation Bill

|
The transportation-plus-drilling bill that John Boehner and company are trying to ram through the House is an attack on transit riders, pedestrians, cyclists, city dwellers, and every American who can’t afford to drive everywhere. Under this bill, all the dedicated federal funding streams for transit, biking, and walking would disappear, leading to widespread service cuts […]

The State of State Transit Funding

|
States increased their transit spending more than 5 percent between 2007 and 2011, reaching $13.9 billion annually, according to a recent report from the Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials. But that increase was concentrated in just a handful of states. Almost all of the elevated transit spending — 92 percent — is attributable to five […]

Yes, Transit Belongs in the Highway Trust Fund

|
As gas tax revenues wane, making it harder to finance a long-term transportation bill, ideas are beginning to circulate about how to save the (very poorly named) Highway Trust Fund. Some say the gas tax needs to rise. Others say fewer programs need to be financed out of the fund, which pays for all federal […]

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 […]