1. No category

An interactive examination of
current methods in the U.S.
By Liz Rickles
A BIT OF BACKGROUND
How are highways and roads funded in the US?
is the main source of funding
for the Highway Transportation Fund, which supports
highway and mass transit improvement projects.
is typically raised each year for
the Highway Transportation Fund, with about $5 billion
directed towards mass transit projects.
is the current law that authorizes federal
transportation spending. Roughly $40 billion per year
supports roads and $10 billion per year supports transit.3
QUIZ TIME!
What percentage of
federal transportation
dollars are allocated to
bicycling and walking
infrastructure?
(answer on the next page)
ANSWER: just 2.1%.4
MAP-21 allocated roughly
annually for bike and ped
projects in 2013 and 2014.
Transportation Alternatives Program
MAP-21 designates $815 m. per year to states
for Transportation Alternative projects, Safe
Routes to School, and Recreational Trails.
MAP-21’s Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP) funds bike and ped projects through the
following federal programs:
funds the construction of on-road and offroad facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and non-motorized forms of transportation.
These projects make up the bulk of TAP funding.
Recreational Trails receives $84 million
Unless a state Governor chooses to opt out
• That’s less than the Oregon
University system brought in through
student tuition in 2013.5
• That’s roughly the amount the U.S.
Department of Defense spends in
14 hours.6
• A bike lane project typically costs
between $1-$4 million to construct.
.
here’s how it works:7
50%
State Dpt. of
Transportations
distribute half based
on population
50%
Competitive
grants are held for
the other half of
remaining funds
is 100% dedicated to funding projects that make biking
and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation choice. Since the
program’s launch in 2005, an average of $100 million has been distributed across the US
each year.8
funds the creation of trails for both motorized and nonmotorized use. The program was launched in 1991 and has been allocated roughly $84
million annually in 2013 and 2014.9 Each state receives a formula-based allocation and
develops its own procedures and criteria for project selection.
IN CLOSING:
Recommendations
for the future
1. RAISE THE GAS TAX
3. DESIGNATE FUNDS
The gas tax sufficiently funded the federal portion of US transportation system for 50
years, but those days have passed. Revenue from the gas tax has not kept up with
federal spending on transportation, and it’s time to raise the gas tax in order to support
our entire transportation system - including bike projects.
Federal funds should be specifically designated for bike infrastructure. When bike
projects compete with auto-oriented projects for the same funds, the auto-oriented
project will typically win because of the criteria used for project selection. Give bike
projects a fair shot by dedicating a set percentage of funds for bike projects.
2. MAKE FUNDING FLEXIBLE
4. IMPROVE GRANT CRITERIA
Federal transportation dollars are too often earmarked specifically for auto-oriented
road improvements. States need more power to spend federal dollars on the projects
their constituents seek, like bike infrastructure.
Grant criteria should give bike projects a fair shot. Many transportation grants place bike
projects and auto-oriented road projects into competition against each other for the
same funds. Bike projects are often posed for failure in these situations because they
don’t project the same number of users or have statistics about their economic impact
in the way that auto-oriented projects do. By placing a higher emphasis on air quality or
health impacts, bike projects can gain more access to federal dollars.
CITATIONS
1. Pucher, J. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 72
2. Pucher, J (2012), 357.
3. Federal Highway Administration (2013, January). MAP-21: Funding/Apportionments Questions and Answers.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qafunding.cfm
4. Alliance for Biking and Walking (2014). Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2014 Benchmarking
Report.
5. Oregon University System (2013). 2013 Annual Financial Report. Retrieved from http://www.ous.edu/sites/ous.
edu/files/cont-div/annual_financial_reptg/fy2013_ous_afs.pdf.
6. U.S. Department of Defense (2013, April). Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request. Retrieved from http://comptroller.
defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
7. America Bikes (2012, October). Analysis of New Transportation Bill MAP-21. Retrieved from http://www.
americabikes.org/map_21_analysis.
8. Federal Highway Administration (2014, December). Federal-Aid Highway Program Funding for Pedestrian
and Bicycle Facilities and Program, FY 1992 to 2014 Obligations. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/bipedfund.cfm.
9. Federal Highway Administration (2013). 2013 Recreational Trails Program Annual Report. Retrieved from
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/overview/report/2013/report_2013.pdf.
10. Federal Highway Administration (2014, December).
11. Federal Highway Administration (2013, September). CMAQ and MAP-21. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.
dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/cmaq_map21/index.cfm
12. Federal Highway Administration (2014, December).
13. Federal Highway Administration (2013, September). Surface Transportation Program. Retrieved from http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/stp.cfm.
14. Pucher, J (2012), 134.
15. Advocacy Advance. Success at the Ballot Box: Winning Bicycle-Pedestrian Ballot Measures. Retrieved from
http://www.advocacyadvance.org/site_images/content/ballot_measures_report_web_copy_2.pdf.
16. Advocacy Advance. How Communities are Paying for Innovative On-Street Bicycle Infrastructure. Retrieved
from http://www.advocacyadvance.org/docs/PayingForInnovativeInfrastructure.pdf.
17. Advocacy Advance. How Communities are Paying for Innovative On-Street Bicycle Infrastructure.