Why Is It Still So Hard to Find Out How States Are Spending Transpo Money?

Summary of Nationwide Findings for Bicycling and Walking Projects by Project Type. Image: Advocacy Advance
Based on available information, 88.7 percent of all state transportation projects include nothing for walking and biking. Image: Advocacy Advance

You would be lucky to get half as much information about a $5 million transportation project in your state as you can get from a toothpaste tube about how to brush.

That sad comparison comes from a new report by Advocacy Advance (a project of the League of American Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking and Walking). The report — “Lifting the Veil on Bicycle & Pedestrian Spending: An Analysis of Problems & Priorities in Transportation Planning and What to Do About It” [PDF] — compares bike/ped spending in State Transportation Improvement Programs, the spending plans state DOTs have to publish at least once every four years.

Advocacy Advance took a look at bike/ped spending in all 50 states. Here's part of Ohio's scorecard. The state got two As, a B- and a D for data transparency. Image: Advocacy Advance
Advocacy Advance took a look at bike/ped spending in all 50 states. Here’s part of Ohio’s scorecard. Image: Advocacy Advance

While toothpaste directions average six sentences, the average state DOT project description is just one sentence.

And when trying to decipher how your state is spending millions of dollars on a given transportation project, you shouldn’t be surprised to come across something like this: “SH 28, SALMON SB, SHARED USE PATHWAYS, PHS I.” That’s all Idaho tells the public about how its transportation dollars are being spent.

“Generally, state advocates know about the STIP but they don’t see it as a useful place to put their time because there are so many issues with it,” said Ken McLeod, the author of the Advocacy Advance report. “It’s hard to produce data from it that’s actionable for them or their constituents. So there’s some frustration at the state and local level, knowing that there’s this document with great potential that’s unrealized.”

McLeod dug deep to determine what projects involved bike/ped spending. He separated out bike-only, ped-only, and bike-and-ped projects, and then separately categorized larger road projects with a bike/ped element. And he looked beyond DOTs’ “bike/ped” coding to determine for himself when a project invested in infrastructure for walking and biking.

Advocacy Advance used the data to produce scorecards for each of the 50 states. (Since the District of Columbia isn’t a state and so doesn’t have to produce a STIP, it was left out of the analysis.)

The share of projects that include identifiable bicycle and pedestrian facilities ranged from 1.3 percent in Oklahoma to 27.1 percent in Washington state. When you look at costs, it breaks down like this: Oklahoma spent 98.3 percent of its transportation dollars on projects with absolutely nothing for people outside of cars. Washington spent 79.9 percent of its money that way.

The report goes beyond determining how much states are spending on bike/ped facilities and provides a detailed analysis of how DOTs present STIPs to the public — and what could make these documents more transparent.

Transparency criteria for STIPs. Image: Advocacy Advance
Advocacy Advance’s 10 transparency criteria for state transportation spending plans.

STIPs may include locally funded projects, so they may not add up to an accurate picture of how states spend the $37.7 billion in federal transportation funds they receive every year. Plus, as Smart Growth America reported in 2012, states can promise one thing in their STIPs and then do quite another in practice. So even the best STIP may not faithfully reflect how money is actually spent.

Working within those limitations, Advocacy Advance found that nationwide, states are planning to spend 1.3 percent of federal transportation dollars on projects that create only bicycling and walking facilities in 2014. Add in larger road projects with a bike/ped element and the average jumps to 5.4 percent — but that figure is inflated because you can’t separate the specific cost of bike/ped elements from the larger projects.

Overall, it seems clear states are spending some of their flexible federal funds on biking and walking — not just the small percentage specifically set aside for bike/ped by federal law — but it’s impossible to know just how much. Fortunately, including the total costs for those “mixed” projects doesn’t appear to wildly inflate the numbers — no $100 million road projects counted as “bike/ped” because a crosswalk or two was installed. It’s also possible there are more bike/ped projects out there than are being counted, since the inadequate project descriptions may simply leave out details like pedestrian islands or sidewalks.

The big question marks that remain, even after such an exhaustive analysis, point to the need for states to improve their reporting. “Given how much money is programmed through the STIP process, more than $37 billion in federal funds alone each year, clearly the veil of secrecy caused by the complexity and lack of information produced in the STIP process must be lifted,” McLeod writes. “Without better STIP documents there is little chance that the public can meaningfully assess the performance of transportation agencies and whether planned projects reflect stated policies and performance targets.”

5 thoughts on Why Is It Still So Hard to Find Out How States Are Spending Transpo Money?

  1. Ohio sucks partly because we have a law that says they can’t spend any gas tax money on anything other than roads. But even when the state of Ohio has money that’s not from the gas tax — bonding against the turnpike for example — they still chose to spend effectively zero dollars on anything but roads.

  2. Something that is not clear about this article is non-pedestrian, non-bicycle, non-automotive projects. Are these included in the analysis? I’m thinking of things like public transit systems, airports, transportation museums, highway teardowns, etc.

  3. Another issue that clouds accountability further is that expensive pedestrian grade separation projects are built that actually benefit automotive level of service. The simple and cheap solution is to install a grade level crosswalk. But a crosswalk delays car traffic so a pedestrian overcrossing is implemented instead which ironically causes pedestrians more work to climb up and over. All paid for out of funds earmarked for pedestrians.

    There’s a similar situation rail transit grade separations. Rail traffic can work just find with grade level protected crossings because they get signal priority. But since that delays car traffic, expensive grade separations are built. I’m not saying that these grade separations are the wrong thing to do but they are paid for out of funds earmarked for rail transit when the main beneficiary is car traffic. Build them but obtain monies at least partially from the general streets and highways funds.

  4. I’d guess Washington is doing so well due to one project: the 520 floating bridge replacement. It will finally have a bike lane, which is great, and fills a huge gap. But, it’s roughly one mile, and the total bridge project cost is now projected above $4B. That by itself catapults us into the top ranks here.

  5. This is a very good article about a very important topic. My co-workers and I at our MPO (Akron) are taking it to heart, and while I think we do a better job than most with transparency, we can always be better.

    Your article and the PDFs from Advocacy Advance are going to be catalyst for improving the way that we do things. Thanks for writing this, and drawing attention to the topic.

    The public deserves (and increasingly, expects) an easy-to-understand accounting of how its tax dollars are being spent on transportation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


FHWA Helps Cities and Towns Land Bike/Ped Funding

American cities and towns should get a leg up on using federal funds to make streets safer for biking and walking, thanks to rules enacted yesterday by the Federal Highway Administration. MAP-21, the current transportation law, was passed hurriedly enough that not all the i’s could be dotted and t’s could be crossed — and […]

Federal Bike-Ped Funding Sets New High, With Much More Room to Grow

Graph: FHWA [PDF] Federal funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects reached a new high last year, according to a report released yesterday by the Federal Highway Administration. In terms of dollars, federal investment in walking and biking more than doubled compared to the previous high, set in 2007, thanks largely to an infusion of $400 […]

A Bike-Ped State of the Union: 9.6% of Trips, 1.2% of Federal Funding

With the nation still digesting the State of the Union address, the Alliance for Biking & Walking picked an auspicious day to release their biennial Benchmarking report on America’s bike-ped behavior. The group’s bottom-line conclusion: federal transportation funding continues to disproportionately shortchange travelers powered by their own two feet. (Chart: Alliance for Biking & Walking) […]

Bike-Ped Funding Dips as Stimulus Spending Slows

Via the League of American Bicyclists, new information is out about how much the feds are spending on bike-ped  projects. While federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects is down a bit from last year’s all-time high, it still comes in at more than a billion dollars. A third of the money is from the American […]