We've got a giant hole in the highway trust fund - let's blame bike trails.

In a recent report on government waste called "Federal Fumbles", Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma identifies "Federal Bike Trails" on his list of programs he believes are wasting American tax dollars. Actually the report is not just "examples of wasteful spending, but also federal departments or agencies that regulate outside the scope of the federal government’s constitutional role," and it seems the bike trails - actually the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) - falls more in the latter category according to Lankford.

It's an extensive list and while there are certainly some good examples of waste and over-regulation in there, TAP isn't one of them.

Lankford starts out by describing how the gas tax is used to fund the federal Highway Trust Fund.

This system allows individuals who use the roads and bridges to pay for them to be in good condition without charging those who do not use them. Or at least that is how user fee systems work in theory.

But it doesn't because the gasoline tax hasn't kept up with the rate of inflation and now taxpayers subsidize about 50% of it. So surely that's the problem Lankford latched on to and he's going to call for an increase in the gas tax, which everyone but people who run for office seems to know we need to do, right?

Instead the federally collected dollars in the highway trust fund are used to fund bike paths, scenic viewing areas, and the conversion of abandoned railroad routes into pedestrian paths, all while roads in many states continue to deteriorate.

Money is diverted to these other non-highway uses, that's true, but even if all diverted money (and most of that is transit) were allocated to roads, it wouldn't fix the problem Lankford is trying to solve - that people who don't use roads and bridges are having to pay for them. 

This is all happening because DOT requires states to spend about two percent of their highway funding on a program called Transportation Alternatives—infrastructure for non-motorized and non-gas tax contributing transportation infrastructure.

Yes. DOT requires them to do this - because Congress told them to, in bills that passed with wide majorities. 

Without these federal requirements, states could be empowered to take on more multi-year, significant projects that help shorten the commutes of thousands of people and ease the movement of goods through the vast economy

TAP projects aren't "significant" perhaps but they do help to shorten the commute of thousands of people and ease the movement of goods. For example, the two projects in DC that got the most TAP funding over 2013 and 2014 were the removal of hazardous trees along roadways and enhancements to the pedestrian walkway on the Bus Deck level of the Union Station Parking Garage. TAP money also paid to widen and repave the trail from the 14th St. Bridge to E.Basin Drive. Those are things that ease people's commutes, and by reducing congestion, ease the movement of goods.

Over the past few years, the highway trust fund has needed an influx of general revenue funding to continue to pay for road projects that are authorized under the law. However, the federal government can implement small changes to make it easier for states to patch potholes and build bridges.

Again, when there is a 50% hole in the budget, the 2% that goes to TAP isn't going to fix that. And fixing potholes, while a good idea and better than building new billion-dollar elevated highway through Oklahoma City, isn't exactly a "mutli-year, significant project."

Not requiring them to use highway money meant for roads to build bike paths would be a start.

That money is meant to build bike paths (or at least something allowed by TAP), and the reason why is that Congress said so. Is there some higher power than Congress that dictated that highway trust fund money had to go to roads? Was it Moses? This is not a moral outrage or a failure to follow rules; it's a decision with which Lankford disagrees.

The next step is to stop the constant expansion of the federal highway inventory. More miles of road are added each year to the interstate system; the U.S. cannot continue to expand the federal footprint with the same amount of money.

If only there were some way to get more money for roads...some way. Though Lankford is right that highway mile expansion needs to slow down, and possibly even reverse, if the system is to be sustainable.  

Perhaps there is an argument to be made that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of telling states how to spend their federal transportation dollars. I've heard them before and I think they're flawed, but Lankford doesn't make one here.

But even so, it's not clear that states would choose to do things much differently. Under current law, a state may transfer up to 50% of its TAP funds* to NHPP, STP, HSIP, CMAQ, and/or Metropolitan Planning - and most of those programs will allow the money to spent directly on roads. Despite this "just 10 percent of TAP funds have been transferred" in prior years. Clearly state DOT's see value in the projects that TAP funds are paying for.

One last point - not all TAP money (or even a majority of it) is spent on "federal bike trails." We're literally talking about a fraction of a percent of the highway trust fund. Oklahoma, for example, only puts 52% of it's TAP money towards Bike/Ped facilities and Rail Trails - and not even all of that is "trails," which are also used by pedestrians. The project that got the largest amount of funding in 201, for example, was the downtown Main Street Improvement Project. 

*The amount transferred must come from the portion of TAP funds available for use anywhere in the State (no transfers of suballocated TAP funds, or funds set aside for the RTP).

WC: This article has been updated because I originally included the following in reference to Oklahoma, but it's actually Ohio. "for example, is using it's money for a wide variety of uses - one of the largest of which is to help pay to replace the three-lane Mt Vernon Avenue Bridge over the Kokosing River (which will include a bike path)."

Comments

[dbb]

Any info on this " TAP money also paid to widen and repave the trail from the 14th St. Bridge to E.Basin Drive."? It would seem that this is an addition pot of money dedicated at that stretch of trail that hasn't yet been spent. The NPS got a grant as well.

[john]

I think that's Ohio, not Oklahoma, that's fixing the Mt. Vernon Avenue bridge.

[washcycle]

You're right. Google screwed me.

[SJE]

If he's worried about the budget, he could ask about the various tax subsidies to the oil and gas industries, and the subsidies to agriculture. But no Oklahoma politician is going to criticize those Federal programs, even though they dwarf all the money ever spent on bike trails.

I do agree that we need to reconsider the continued growth of Federal Highways. But, here again, its the South and West that are big beneficiaries.

[Bayley]

Don't forget we subdize our roads since gas tax, tolls, and property tax don't cover them.

Not surprised by his thoughts. The economics of building bike infrastructure has been proven but cycling just doesn't have as powerful of a lobby as the highway lobby.

I'm particularly concerned about our persistence in building more and wider roads. Is anyone following the I-66 tolling proposal right now? After 2020, there's a traffic analysis study and if it hits specific triggers, it will be widened. Several highway lobbies, funding largely by construction companies have been lobbying NOVA and the county boards for their own interests with no data to backup there assertions that widening 66 will alleviate congestion long term. It will only induce demand for more cars, bringing more traffic onto our local roads, making it even less safer for cyclists.

If anyone is interested in speaking more about this with me, please contact me.

[email protected]

[SJE]

Today the Congress passed a bill to return control of education to the states. Perhaps its time to do the same for highways.

[washcycle]

The problem with that is that highways are a national security issue that don't balance well without federal involvement. Highway needs are driven by both population and square miles. The first relates well to gas tax revenue, the 2nd does not. Wyoming is going to need a little help maintaining their highways, but NJ might not.

Rural dominated state legislatures might not be willing to invest in transit without federal aid.

Etc...

[JimT]

While we subsidize roads at the state and local level, we did not always subsidize the interstate highway system, which was entirely funded by user fees.

For a long time, the gas tax revenues were partly diverted to mass transit and other uses. But now we are close to a situation in which the diversions are about equal to the subsidy from the general fund. I have not checked to see whether the subsidies are greater than the diversions.

There is a separate issue. Some states (probably Oklahoma) are subsidized by states with less roads but more drivers, because the formula is based on lane miles. For practical purposes, the diversion for transit goes to states that are otherwise cheated by the formula.

So if we cut the federal gas tax, ended the diversions, and ended the subsidies, states like Maryland could raise their gas taxes more and fund their own transit and bike-ped programs anyway. If Oklahoma really does not want to have federal dollars for trails or transit, that's ok with me as long as we also stop subsidizing their roads.

[JimT]

There might be a federal interest in the interstate highway system and Amtrak, but much of the cost is for extra lanes that just service local commuting. So socialist MD and NJ have tolls for new lanes and provide OK with a subsidy so that that free-market OK can avoid paying tolls to use their extra lanes.

[DE]

Don't forget that the Interstates were built largely for national security reasons--to enable military equipment to travel quickly around the country in the event of a war. This is a federal interest.