Blog
New Rules for the New Year — what they might mean
Let me say up front that this blog post isn’t trying to make a partisan point and it is going to be impenetrably wonky.
Still with me? OK, let’s dig into House rules and procedures… The incoming leadership team in the House of Representatives is proposing a raft of changes to the way the House is run; it’s part of the larger effort to rein-in government expenditures and get a grip on the deficit, as well as ushering in an era of transparency and allowing members to use their blackberry’s on the floor of the house.
In amongst the 11 pages of rule changes is a provision that would prevent any new, or extension of the existing, transportation program from exceeding the amount of money that is projected to be generated by the gas tax – on the face of it, not completely unreasonable. Right now, Congress can only extend the current bill at the current bill’s spending level regardless of whether or not there’s enough money in the trust fund (from the gas tax) to pay for it. At the moment, there is enough, but last year there wasn’t (and Congress had to use general funds to make up the difference) and there might not be in the future. We just don’t know.
That degree of uncertainty is a problem. For the state Departments of Transportation, concrete-pourers and bridge-builders it’s a problem because it’s hard to plan and program multi-year projects when you don’t know if there’s going to be enough money next year to carry on with the project you just started – and our experience over the last 20 years of ISTEA, TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU funding is that if there is any uncertainty it is bike and pedestrian projects that end up in that zone of uncertainty and don’t get funded. Look at the chart of Federal spending on bike/ped projects and you see a dip each time the transportation bill is about to expire and there is uncertainty over what will happen next. Look at what happens when “rescissions” come around…bike and pedestrian program funds make up a far larger proportion of the amount of money turned back to Washington.
So the new rule changes would set an upper limit – albeit an uncertain one – on the amount of transportation expenditures. Up until now, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has authorized programs and funding levels for five or six years at a time through the transportation bill. Another proposed change would allow the Chair of the Budget Committee, annually, to set overall spending ceilings that individual appropriation bills could not exceed. The next transportation appropriation, therefore, could set funding levels below the amount of money generated by the gas tax and well below current levels. At some future date, the Highway Trust Fund could be sitting there with a very attractive surplus. Although the new rules do continue to protect any such balances from being raided for deficit reduction (at least for now), it allows a return to the days when that surplus could be used to mask expenditures elsewhere in the budget. Plus, once again, massive uncertainty is created by making transportation funding subject to the whims of annual appropriations rather than more secure, multi-year funding.
Is this a direct attack on bike/ped funding? No. Does it make such an attack more likely – absolutely. Changing the rules, and allowing appropriators to wield significantly more influence over which portions of the transportation program gets funded each year, is a real challenge and will bring a level of excitement and anticipation to each annual appropriations cycle that we probably won’t come to cherish. Sometime before the beginning of March, we’ll get a taste of what this means. Under these new rules (assuming they pass, and there’s a three-line whip on to make sure they do), Congress must either pass a continuing resolution or a new transportation bill to keep highway and transit funding flowing…and at that point, we will need your help!
In the meantime, if you happen to be meeting with your members of Congress please put in a good word for popular, cost effective transportation investments that have a great economic return and dramatically improve the quality of life for businesses and middle-class taxpayers…if you know what I mean.
Andy Clarke
League President
Andy Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director. Before joining the League in February 2003, Clarke was on contract to provide technical assistance to the highly regarded Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center on site at the Federal Highway Administration. He is on the Board of Directors for America Bikes, and a member of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals.
Subscribe
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:58 pm
With government spending out of control everyone will have to accept cuts. Priorities must be made and frankly bicycle funding from the federal government should be on the bottom of the list. It just is not essential. I suggest you start focusing on the state and local governments to fund this. I would like to see the federal government get out of this business completely and return control to the states. I am an LCI.
January 4th, 2011 at 12:36 am
Tying Federal transportation funding to the Federal gas tax is flawed on its face. Congress doesn’t have the guts to raise the gas tax enough to pay for decades of deferred maintenance, and newer motor vehicles, including heavy trucks, are mandated to get higher mpg.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/business/26trucks.html?_r=1&ref=us
This means they increasingly put wear and tear on the road disproportionately with respect to how they are taxed, simply because they roll farther, and therefore impart more wear, per gallon of taxed gasoline.
At some point we will have to decide what classes of transportation should be managed at the Federal level and what should be managed at the state and local level. Having said that, tying these decisions to gasoline taxes is counterproductive. It rewards gas sales simply because this pays into the Highway Trust Fund (and state gas taxes into state coffers), not because its a good idea. This takes no heed of the unintended consequences that gas dependence brings.
Bottom line is we definitely have to live within our means. I’m not convinced the present Highway Trust Fund structure rewards such thinking. The Feds should have an interest in reducing oil dependence, increasing fuel efficiencies and goods/services hauled per gallon, and increasing physical fitness, all of which should improve our national situation. Whether this means managing these at the Federal level or passing on these mandates (while cutting Federal taxes) to states, is a good question.
I’m quite skeptical of all these uncritical calls to cut spending. We need to spend appropriately on strategic items while eliminating frills if we are to rebuild Uncle Sam. The public is going to have to suck it up and rebuild the nation. That means fewer toys and more durable goods and infrastructure improvements.
January 4th, 2011 at 1:40 am
Frankley, I see that short projects, as bike projects and simple repaving, will get cued up in the hopper more. With a higher percentage going to the shovel ready projects. The complex expensive new road constuctions that take years from start to finish, those will have a harder time.
Money will be more competive, and the project will have to show a real benefit and look for more frugal uses of money.
January 4th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
There is an opportunity here to now focus on some of the bicyclist advocacy issues that many of us have complained are under-supported by LAB. “Engineering” – the most costly, divisive, and controversial advocacy “E” – is the only one that is being jeopardized by transportation funding uncertainty. Enforcement, education, encouragement and evaluation can continue and increase through lower cost grassroots efforts.
There are some very effective grassroots efforts promoting the other “E’s” besides engineering. As our local Police chief recently reminded me, bicyclists are a minority of road users, and motorists will win if pitted against them. The right of competent and law-abiding cyclists to use our public roads is purely a civil rights issue.
January 4th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Andy: thanks for a nice, cogent explanation of the repercussions of the proposed rules change.
Stephen: I agree with you–in theory–about how everything should be fair game under our current fiscal and political reality. However, I have no confidence, nor any reason to believe that cuts will be fair and/or evenly distributed when it comes to transportation. Come March 2011, I have a gut feeling that STP will still be standing (largely intact), while HSIP, TE, CMAQ, and other “discretionary” programs will be zeroed-out.
As for the state DOTs: they’re the biggest problem, so I’m not sure how giving them more discretion is going to lead to wiser transportation investments. The fact that the biggest source of rescissions is TE funding just goes to show that DOTs are completely captured by the road builders.
January 4th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
I second Mr. Plotz’ comments about state DOT’s, at least with regard to New Mexico. I don’t know, but suspect strongly that one reason we rank 46th in Bicycle-Friendly States is due to our Transportation Dept. still thinking like it did under its old name, the New Mexico Highway “its all about moving trucks and cars” Department.
The U.S. ain’t Copenhagen, but our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to convince the public and our reps. that spending money on diversified transportation through Transportation funds, and even recreational projects under National Parks or Dept. of Health funds, is not a frivolity or a zero sum game, but instead a way to rebuild the economy of the U.S. Diversified transportation should mean more GNP per gallon. Recreational projects and human powered mobility mean fewer health care costs from sedentary living. With apologies to the pork barrel artists in the health care industry.
Put each project under that set of microscopes and make sure what we ask for is defensible. Maybe we will get some of them.
But the bottom line is that if Congress doesn’t up the borrowing limit the U.S. will default. The Great Recession will look like a walk in the park. Even if Congress ups the limit, that just kicks the can down the road. We have been living well beyond our means since I was a college student decades ago and face catastrophe if we don’t start earning our national keep. We will have to do more with less, period. We need to put on our heavier road tires. We will need them.
January 6th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Comments on “bike projects should be at bottom of the list because of budget problem” are fundamentally flawed. Portland saved more than $2 billion on road widening project during last decade. Instead a few millions dollar investment on cycling brought $800 million direct impact on Portland economy. It’s the unnecessary highway and arterial road widening should be on the bottom of list because of low return and creating more congestion. Every year 3700 people died on US roads because of road-only mode mentality. Look Europe and Asia who opened the door multi-modal system and Japan roadway is considered the safest in the world since they balanced budget by adopting cheaper option when needed. Know your fact before your post stereotype car-biased comments.
January 7th, 2011 at 10:03 am
[...] What the New House Rules Mean For Bicycling (LAB) [...]
January 7th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Bicycling funding is essentially a rounding error in our overall appropriations, so cutting it isn’t suddenly going to make our country solvent. It also represents a painfully small percentage of transportation spending. Why should our programs get cut even proportionally when they are already woefully underfunded? Anyone arguing that belt-tightening that includes cuts to bicycling transportation funding has no business pretending to call themselves a bicycling advocate.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
I’d be wary of throwing stones at good people in this forum, for both ethical and strictly political reasons (as Gen. Custer probably said, there just ain’t that many of us and there’s a whole lot of them).
There is a strong tendency in cycling advocacy circles to dismiss the point of view of cycling advocates who are “traditional conservatives”. I suggest that is not a good idea because our colleagues on the right have useful points of view.
Since very little interstate transportation is done by bicycle, it is not unreasonable for some to suggest that bike infrastructure funding should be a state or local issue. While I agree with Mark Plotz (hi, Mark) that some state DOTs are frustrating to deal with, that doesn’t mean it isn’t their job to change.
Those who disagree with an opinion should offer their own compelling opinions to the contrary (and I think there are some compelling arguments to suggest that a Federal interest in bike-ped issues should continue) rather than impugning the loyalty of others via ad hominem attacks.
Peace, Brothers and Sisters!
January 7th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
BTW, Dewan, do you have a reference for the economic impact study for Portland?
January 7th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
[...] Clarke, director of the League of American Bicyclists, wrote this week that when transportation funding is uncertain, bike and pedestrian projects most often end up not [...]
January 8th, 2011 at 5:47 am
[...] The U.S. Department of Transportation posted its 2010 Record of Accomplishment, and the WWBPA sees some good things in it. Highlights include anti-distracted driving regulations and encouragement for more transportation opportunities. In particular, it helped level the playing field for bicyclists and pedestrians. This is a big accomplishment, particularly as some think bicyclists and pedestrians could lose out in some of the new Congress’s budget battles (see this analysis from the League of American Bicyclists). [...]
January 8th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
[...] READ MORE [...]
January 9th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Khal,
Here are two useful studies of the economic impacts of bicycling in Portland.
http://www.ceosforcities.org/files/PGD%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=120617&c=34812
January 10th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Thanks, Darren!