Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Federal Funding

What the Feds Giveth, the States Taketh Away — From Bike/Ped Programs

It’s rescission time again, folks. That Washington lingo for “gimme gimme.” We had a name for people who “rescinded” gifts back in elementary school but it’s ethnically insensitive so I won’t say it. Suffice it to say, if little kids call you a name for doing something, it’s probably not a super popular thing to be doing.

The Hammonton train station pedestrian link was funded by transportation enhancements, which could be cut as part of the latest round of rescissions. Photo courtesy of the ##http://enhancements.org/index.asp##National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse##

The FY2011 budget deal that Democrats and Republican finally agreed to recently requires states to send back to Washington $2.5 billion in unspent transportation funds. Who decides what programs to target for rescissions? Your state DOT.

Darren Flusche of League of American Bicyclists wrote this on the League’s blog:

Historically, some of the strongest programs for bicycle and pedestrian projects – Transportation Enhancements (TE), Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) – suffer dramatically higher rescission rates than other programs.

For example, TE and CMAQ made up just 7.3 percent of state DOTs' 2010 transportation apportionments, but they made up a much larger share of what a state sends back. In August 2010, out of the $2.2 billion rescinded, $968 million (44 percent) came from CMAQ and TE. Not all these funds would have gone to bicycling and walking, of course, but based on historic spending rates, some $330 million would have.

Flusche said that one reason that states often disproportionately target bike and ped projects for rescission is that they often spend those dollars slower than highway dollars – so come rescission time, when DOTs are looking around for unspent funds, they pull from bike projects they hadn’t started yet.

I asked RIDOT Director Michael Lewis what his state was going to rescind this time around. He said (as of this morning) they hadn’t decided yet, but “it shouldn’t have a real negative effect on our program.” He said they try to take rescission money from areas where it would have “the least impact on our needs,” so they won’t be taking from high-priority areas like “bridge rehabilitation and roadway reconstruction.” Lewis didn’t mention where transit and non-motorized modes fit into that.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Wednesday’s Headlines Stick With What Works

Forget robotaxis. Just make the bus come frequently and on time.

July 16, 2025

Can Colleges Do A Better Job of Fighting Car Dependency?

"How great would it be if kids graduated without the assumption that they must be completely dependent on a personal automobile?"

July 16, 2025

Commentary: The French City of Lyon Shows How to Connect Communities Without Cars

An amazing 24/7 bike-ped-transit connection can be made for pennies on the dollar.

July 15, 2025

America’s Kids Deserve Better Than a Waymo Subscription

What do America's young people lose when they have to buy independence from a corporation that rents out driverless cars?

July 15, 2025

Tuesday’s Headlines Aren’t Falling Fast Enough

Pedestrian deaths dropped by 4 percent last year, but remain well above pre-pandemic figures.

July 15, 2025

Advocates Fight To Prevent 40% Transit Service Cuts in Illinois

Public transit riders, workers, and advocates showed up in force for Saturday's Save Transit Rally at Daley Plaza, calling on state lawmakers to pass a bill to address Chicagoland's looming $771 million fiscal cliff.

July 14, 2025
See all posts