Federal funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects reached a new high last year, according to a report released today 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 million in stimulus funds.

The share of all federal transportation spending devoted to bike-ped projects also rose to an unprecedented level -- all of two percent. Advocates for walking and biking applauded the trend while pointing out the potential for much greater federal commitment to active transportation.

"It continues to be an improvement, and it continues to be a tiny fraction of the money that's available to potentially be spent on biking and walking," said Andy Clarke of the League of American Bicyclists.

Subtracting the $400 million one-shot in stimulus funding, Clarke noted, yields a less impressive year-on-year increase. And part of the increase in reported bike-ped spending might also simply reflect better record keeping by state DOTs, as agencies document the construction of sidewalks and bike lanes as part of larger projects, according to Barbara McCann of the National Complete Streets Coalition.

The spending figures come from an update on the state of walking and biking that the feds release every five years. The original National Bicycling and Walking Study, released in 1994, set two major targets: to double walk and bike mode-share, from 7.9 percent of all trips to 15.8 percent; and to reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities by 10 percent.

Today, walking and biking account for 11.9 percent of all trips in the country, according to data from the National Household Travel Survey cited in the FHWA report. The safety target, meanwhile, has already been met, with pedestrian deaths down 22 percent and cycling deaths down 13 percent between 1994 and 2008.

In a post on the U.S. DOT Secretary's blog, Ray LaHood implied that the targets have to get more ambitious:

But, we are still talking about 4,378 pedestrians and 716 bicyclists killed in 2008. No matter how we look at the data, that is just too many.

One way to strengthen national goals for walking and biking, Clarke suggested, is to make them less open-ended and attach specific timeframes to achieve them by. "That performance metric is essential," he said, noting that the original 1994 targets were weakened by the lack of a deadline. "One could argue that we could have achieved [the mode-share target] years ago. We would say, let's recalibrate, so that by 2020 we need to reach 20 percent mode share for bike-walk."

The progress cited in today's report, said Clarke, highlights the need for a robust federal commitment to walking and biking in the next federal transportation bill. "States wouldn't have done this if left to their own devices," he said. "Without the federal leadership, without the funding and targets, we would not have seen movement voluntarily. We need that continued federal leadership in the next transportation bill moving forward. The states have not embraced it sufficiently for it to be left to chance."

The Natchez Trace Parkway, where trail construction is set to stall today thanks to inaction on federal transport law. (Photo: TheFunTimesGuide.com)

The
consequences of the delay could include forced furloughs for nearly
2,000 U.S. DOT employees, according to an agency release this morning,
as well as a shutdown of federal funding for road, bridge, bike-ped,
and transit projects. The processing of money for stimulus construction
work and state-based road safety groups such as Mothers Against Drunk
Driving (MADD) are also set for an interruption.

Nevertheless, the situation remains fluid. House transportation
committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) has secured a promise that
future Senate legislation will assuage his panel’s frustration with a provision in the pending jobs bill that would apply 2009 earmarks to $932 million in 2010 transportation grants.

That agreement helps pave the way for House passage of the Senate jobs bill,
perhaps as soon as Tuesday. If both chambers can agree quickly on that
jobs bill, which would extend the 2005 federal transport law until
2011, the flow of federal funding for local projects likely would turn
back on without senators having to break through Bunning’s one-man
filibuster.

"We hope Congress can move
this legislation as early in the week as possible so reimbursements to
the states can resume," John Horsley, executive director of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), said in a statement late Friday.

In
the meantime, Oberstar’s committee has released a rundown of how the
imperiled extension would affect U.S. infrastructure programs. Check it
out after the jump.

Consequences of Expiration of Federal Surface Transportation Programs

Highway Funding

-
No reimbursements to States for Federal highway funds. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) will not be able to approve any new
expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund beginning on Sunday, February
28th. This will prohibit FHWA from reimbursing States for any Federal
highway funds that they commit. Based on FHWA Trust Fund projections,
this will impact a total of $768 million in highway outlays for the
week ending March 5th.

Highway Safety Funding

-
No new MCSAP or New Entrant grants. The shutdown of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will prevent the agency from
entering into new obligations for its 11 grant programs and funding
vouchers for work performed during the duration of the lapsed
authority. In particular, two highly visible programs, the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants and the New Entrant
grants, would be greatly affected. The MCSAP program provides funding
to States to reduce the number and severity of crashes and hazardous
material incidents involving commercial motor vehicles. The New Entrant
program provides funds to States to prevent unsafe motor carrier
companies from entering the industry. Based on FHWA Trust Fund
projections, this will impact a total of $10 million in FMCSA outlays
for the week ending March 5th.

- All of NHTSA’s State
highway safety grant programs would shut down. In addition to the
furlough of its personnel, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) will shut down operations of Highway Safety
Research and Development, National Driver Register, and Highway Safety
Grants and will stop paying all bills for the programs under these
accounts. Based on FHWA Trust Fund projections, this will impact a
total of $16 million in NHTSA outlays for the week ending March 5th.

Transit Funding

-
No ability to commit additional Federal transit funds. The Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) will be unable to approve any new transit
grants from all transit programs that are funded out of the Highway
Trust Fund. This will prohibit States, transit agencies and
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) from receiving funds from
any of the following programs: Bus and Bus Facilities, Urban and Rural
Formula, Metropolitan and Statewide Planning, Fixed Guideway
Modernization, Formula Grants for Elderly and Disabled, Job Access and
Reverse Commute, New Freedom, and Transit in the Parks. Based on FHWA
Trust Fund projections, this will impact a total of $157 million in FTA
outlays for the week ending March 5th.

Furloughs

-
Shutdown of Federal agencies and furloughs of more than 4,000 Federal
employees. The entire FHWA, the entire FMCSA, some portions of NHTSA,
and some portions of the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA), will cease operations and furlough their
employees (totaling more than 4,000 employees) beginning on Monday,
March 1st.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

-
ARRA "Recovery Act" Impact: Due to the furlough of FHWA employees, any
remaining obligation of highway funds by States may not be processed.
This could cause States to lose some unspent ARRA funds, since on March
2nd ARRA requires the redistribution of any highway funds not obligated
by a State.

(Photo: UVA)

But how will Washington measure progress on transportation metrics such as safety, pollution reduction, and efficiency in states that are, as Paniatti put it gently, "starting from different places"?

Pete Rahn, the chief of Missouri's state DOT and past president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), had a simple answer: States should be in charge of the process.

"We believe there should be a state-driven performance management approach," Rahn told TRB attendees, in which "states establish targets which they can deliver given their unique circumstances."

At AASHTO, he added, "we don't envision a process in which the Secretary of the U.S. DOT will dole out a share of a target to each state ... U.S. DOT would establish targets and we'd certainly hope that the total cumulative balance of state targets would equal the national [goal]."

And if state-written targets don't meet national performance standards? "[T]hat means the national target is not realistic," Rahn said.

AASHTO's lack of interest in meeting transportation goals that are not written within their ranks could create a major headache for the Obama administration, should it pursue broader infrastructure reform that would hold state DOTs accountable for their spending.

Letting states craft performance measures internally would risk rigging the system to ensure that DOTs always meet their targets -- but if the federal government wanted to effect broader change on a state or regional level, such as lower emissions or fewer pedestrian deaths, where would it get leverage?

Both Paniatti and Rahn ruled out any attempt to threaten a loss of federal transportation funding if goals were not met, a tactic successfully used in the 1980s to set the national speed limit at 55 miles per hour.

In fact, Rahn fondly recalled his past work at a state DOT that successfully gamed the speed-limit system. "We chose to put our speed sensors in really sharp corners," he told the TRB audience, drawing sporadic chuckles. "That's why [the push for national transportation targets] has to be a project we work on together."

While state DOTs work to shape the Obama administration's progress on national transportation goals, it's unclear whether any advocacy or lobbying group exists to counter their influence.

Jay-Etta Hecker, an infrastructure specialist at the Bipartisan Policy Center's transportation project, countered the suggestion from one state DOT official that performance metrics ought to remain secret -- the data "has got to be available to the public," she said. But she also emphasized that "the states should be the ones to interpret [national performance goals] in a locally relevant way."

North
Carolina spent $5.7 million in stimulus cash repaving I-540, pictured
above, along with $4.4 million on bike-ped in the same county. (Photo: Triangle Biz Journal)

Distressingly
– but unsurprisingly — quite a lot is going to new roads rather than
repair of existing ones. Of the $26.6 billion sent to states under a
flexible transportation mandate, SGA found that $6.6 billion has gone
towards building new highway capacity.

Only $185 million of the flexible stimulus aid has been used on transit and non-motorized transportation, which was given about $8 billion in separate funding as well.

One
culprit behind this questionable use of taxpayer money, as SGA reports,
is a theme at risk of repeating itself during the upcoming debate over
broad transportation reform: the lack of accountability.

Most
states and localities reported the projects they selected for stimulus
aid only after the fact, allowing a privately run website to monitor
the process much faster than the Obama administration.

But inconsistent reporting is just the beginning of the problem, as SGA points out in its report:  

Most
states failed to educate, engage, and seek input from the public before
making decisions. … There is not a clear articulation of what project
portfolios should accomplish, no methods identified for evaluating
projects against these goals or against one another, and few
repercussions for achieving or failing to achieve these goals.

SGA
mined the stimulus itself, as well as comments by administration
officials, to produce a list of nine goals that can be used to evaluate
its transportation spending. But the lack of tangible consequences for
not meeting those goals has left states free to spend at will, often
focusing more on the report’s No. 1 objective ("create and save jobs")
than Nos. 5 ("improve public transportation"), 7 ("cut greenhouse gas
emissions"), and 8 ("not contribute to additional sprawl").

Like
the stimulus law, the House transportation bill introduced earlier this
month by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) outlines broad goals rather than
specific performance targets for projects — leaving the latter to be
drafted by individual states. Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), by contrast,
has offered a bill that would set hard targets for national policy.

It’s
easy to see how the lack of unified standards to govern project choice
could leave smarter states, such as Delaware and Iowa, using more than
90 percent of their stimulus money on repair of existing roads, while
Arkansas, Kansas, and Kentucky spend more than 80 percent of their aid
on new roads.

Will the Obama administration learn from its
stimulus experience and move to set stronger priorities for future
transportation spending? If its rush to demonstrate an economic turnaround is any guide — not to mention the lack of support for a "fix-it-first" requirement in the stimulus — the answer is, not without serious public pressure.

Current spending levels, to say nothing of the increases proposed in the bill, will be impossible to sustain in the absence of a new source of revenue. This is a huge obstacle to passage.

As currently written, STAA would significantly strengthen the Office of Intermodalism and work toward making DOT planning "mode neutral" -- that is, not operating under the assumption that highways will always get first priority in planning and funding.

It would create an Office of Livability, focused entirely on seeking balance in mode choice by boosting transit ridership, bicycling, and walking. The bill seeks to streamline the process by which new transit projects apply for funding, and it allows federal officials to consider likely changes in land-use from transit construction in considering whether a project deserves funding.

STAA aims to empower metropolitan planning organizations. It seeks to depoliticize funding decisions and support private investment in infrastructure by creating national and metropolitan infrastructure development banks. It lays the groundwork for significant new investments in high-speed rail in America (though it cuts the definition of high-speed to 110 miles per hour or higher).

The bill includes a push to support "complete streets" and a national bike route network. It establishes increased transit ridership and reduced carbon emissions as explicit goals. And of course, the bill is targeted to allocate a lot more money than in previous reauthorizations, with a lot more money for transit (though transit's share increases only modestly).

But as my colleague Elana Schor noted yesterday, what's missing from the bill is as telling as what's included. The 775-page length may suggest excessive comprehensiveness, but in fact much of the bill is little more than placeholders. "[To be supplied]" is in ample supply, as is "[$]." Ideally, actual numbers would follow immediately after the dollar sign.

These blanks hint at the challenge chairman Oberstar and fellow committee members John Mica (R-FL), Pete DeFazio (D-OR), and John Duncan (R-TN) will have in getting their bill through the legislative process any time soon. Time is scarce; Congress already has some substantial legislative challenges on its hands, and it may have to address the looming shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund before the August recess.

Political capital is also wanting. With most legislative eyes on health care and the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill, there may not be enough chits available to strike the necessary deals on this transportation bill.

This is especially true given the money issue. STAA, as written, simply does not address the fact that current spending levels, to say nothing of the increases proposed in the bill, will be impossible to sustain in the absence of a new source of revenue. This is a huge obstacle to passage, and a major reason for the administration's requested 18-month delay for the bill.

With the economy still in recession, the federal deficit approaching $2 trillion, a $1 trillion or so health bill in the works, and GOP legislators going all out to attack the climate bill under consideration as representing a major new energy tax, this is not a convenient time to be discussing transportation tax increases. If the funding issue cannot be resolved, and there is every indication that neither the administration nor a number of high priority legislators are anxious to solve it, then the reauthorization bill will probably not pass.

All hope for this particular bill is not yet lost, but a number of very difficult questions will have to be answered to turn this blueprint into a bold new transportation law.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) (Photo: SW Broward GOP)

The bill, offered yesterday by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and eight co-sponsors, has almost zero chance of passing in the Democratic-controlled Congress. But its appearance suggests that lawmakers whose sympathies generally lie with Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the House's transportation chief -- who is determined to pass a new federal bill this year -- are likely to be diverted by the immediate task of filling the trust fund by August.

In his endorsement of the Diaz-Balart bill, Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL) underscored the bipartisan appeal of Oberstar's quest for a new bill. Johnson lamented the business in his home district that would be lost if the Obama administration won its fight for a transportation funding patch:

As a member of the Transportation Committee as well as the Highway and Transit Subcommittee, I have been gearing up for the reauthorization for many months. Elected officials from throughout the District have spent time and energy preparing their plans and projects with me and my staff in anticipation of this important reauthorization. Now the administration is telling them to shelve it all.

The result of this ill-conceived decision will be the loss of jobs, critical infrastructure and economic development in [my] district and throughout the nation.

Let's forget for the moment that House Republicans voted against the stimulus en masse, which casts a dim light on their bid to take advantage of available economic recovery cash for highways. Here's why the Diaz-Balart proposal could have a significant political downside.

By separating the need to fill the trust fund from a broader debate over transportation reform, it undercuts the efforts of Rep. John Mica (FL), Oberstar's GOP counterpart, to pass a long-term bill that would tackle the nation's persistent infrastructure funding problems.

Senate leaders already are tipping towards the Obama administration's side, aligning with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's call for an 18-month extension of existing law and questioning whether anything can be done other than filling up the highway account.

"I do not oppose on principle the effort to improve federal transportation programs, but we cannot allow debates over these reforms to prevent us from saving the highway trust fund in a timely matter," Patty Murray (D-WA) the Senate's transportation spending chairwoman, told LaHood yesterday.

(Photo: National Association of Water Cos.)

This sounds a lot like the infrastructure bank proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 35 other House members -- indeed, Streetsblog Capitol Hill noted the similarity yesterday -- but in fact, Oberstar's proposal is likely to look different from his colleagues'.

Details on Oberstar's infrastructure bank plan are expected to be filled in after his legislation is officially introduced early next week, a Democratic committee source said yesterday. Yet the transportation panel's outline notes one crucial difference: Oberstar's infrastructure bank would be "located within" his proposed new DOT office of intermodalism, while the bank backed by DeLauro and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) would be independent of the government.

Why is this significant? An independent bank, backed nonetheless by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury, would be free to make funding decisions without being swayed by political ties or the ability to gain from managing any particular transportation project.

Take South Carolina, for example. It's home to an infrastructure bank that accounted for 55 percent of the nation's state-level transportation loan guarantees in 2006, according to the National Governors Association (NGA).South Carolina's bank has its own board, separate from the state DOT, and cannot own or manage any aspect of a project that is seeking its funding help.

A similar restriction is included in DeLauro's national bill. But Oberstar's infrastructure bank, as an arm of the federal DOT, easily could be tied to the agency's internal culture and priorities.

Many state infrastructure banks also evaluate projects using specific criteria. Arizona ranks its proposed projects based on "financial considerations, economic benefits and safety" while allowing applicants to choose between "mobility" and "air quality and environmental impacts" for theit final standard, the NGA found in its study of the issue last year.

DeLauro's bill asks the national bank to evaluate proposed transportation projects based on six factors: job creation, emissions reduction, congestion reduction, "poverty and inequality reduction," the furtherance of urban smart growth, public health benefits, and the use of "smart tolling" methods such as congestion pricing.

For Oberstar, then, the devil may be in the details. Will his bill's infrastructure bank use criteria similar to the DeLauro plan or to those used at existing state-level banks? Will his bill require that project sponsors repay the government using direct revenue from the projects that get funds (i.e. tolls)?

FHWA nominee Victor Mendez testified before the Senate today. (Photo: transportation1.org)

Sen.
Thomas Carper (D-DE) asked the nominee a simple question: What does
Mendez, a former Arizona state DOT director and ex-president of AASHTO, think of recent legislation codifying "complete streets" principles and expanding the "Safe Routes to School" program on childhood bike and pedestrian safety?

Mendez, whose legacy in Arizona
centers on a massive Phoenix freeway project, wavered a bit. Both ideas
"fit neatly into what I believe is Secretary LaHood’s livability
concept," Mendez replied, describing Safe Routes to School as a good
thing for his state but not addressing "complete streets" directly.

Though
Carper was openly dissatisfied with the answer, he moved on to an even
simpler question: Given that previous hikes in auto fuel-efficiency
standards have ultimately led to more driving (and increased
congestion), does Mendez think that lowering carbon emissions from the
transportation sector should be a goal of the upcoming climate change
bill?

Theoretically, it should have been easy for Mendez to endorse that concept, especially on the same day that his future boss blogged on the benefits
of transit. But if the future highways chief encouraged decreasing
transportation emissions, then — horrors! — he might be open to the
transit sector’s plea for a share of the emissions allocations in the climate bill.

So
Mendez wavered again, deferring to Transportation Secretary LaHood. "I
think he’s going to yield to you for advice on this," Carper said,
asking his question one more time.

One more time, Mendez
ducked the query. Finally, he asked the senator if reducing
transportation-related emissions implied endorsing a specific policy or
a general goal. When Carper replied that a general goal was all Mendez
would need to endorse, the nominee did so — in measured tones.

Perhaps
it’s too much to ask that a former leader of the highway-building lobby
be more openly committed to decreasing the environmental impact of
transportation, which accounts for a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

But if Mendez can’t bring himself to openly support the "complete streets" plan backed by President Obama,
and if he couldn’t sign on to a specific policy for reducing emissions,
it’s worth asking whether he supports national climate legislation in
the first place. And if he doesn’t, what’s he doing in the
administration?

Late Update: It’s worth noting that Mendez was first appointed to the Arizona DOT’s top spot by a Republican, then-Gov. Jane Dee Hull.