Blog
Which States Invest the Most Federal Dollars on Bike/Ped Projects?
UPDATE: I’ve taken out the SRTS and Recreational Trails data since these programs should be 100% bicycle and pedestrian spending. Sorry for any confusion.
Now that requirements to dedicate federal funds to bicycling and walking projects have been weakened, we all need to make sure our state leaders prioritize active transportation rather than revert to road-only thinking.
So, which states are the best at using these funds now?
The League compiled federal bike/ped funding data reported by the states from 2007-11 (the data doesn’t separate out bicycles and pedestrians). We used this data to get a better picture of which states prioritize bike/ped projects that create transportation choices, make sure kids get to school safely, reduce congestion, improve air quality, and make our streets safer for everyone.
Below are the top states by program. Click here to download the entire spreadsheet.
The percentage of STP and HSIP funds spent on bicycle and pedestrian spending are generally fairly low. However, both of these sources offer a considerable amount of transportation funding. Even though a state may spend only a few percentages of these sources on bicycles and pedestrians, this can still constitute tens of millions of dollars and shouldn’t be overlooked. The states also deserve credit for having project funding criteria and processes that support spending these funds on bicycles and pedestrians.
All eyes are now on the states. If your state is on this list, now is the time to ensure it continues to dedicate resources to bicycling and walking. If your state does not appear on this list, it is more important than ever to make the case for bicycling and walking to your governor and department of transportation. We are here to help with that.
Elsewhere in cycling advocacy…
- Thanks to hundreds of vocal supporters and the leadership of the California Bicycle Coalition and CA State Sen. Alan Lowenthal, the California Assembly passed SB 1464 creating a three-foot safe passing law. The legislation was crafted to address the issues Governor Brown raised in his veto of a similar bill passed last year.
Matt Wempe
League State and Local Advocacy Coordinator
Mr. Wempe joined the League in September 2011. For the three years prior, he worked as a transportation planner and Safe Routes to School Coordinator in Fort Collins, Colo. He holds a BA in Economics from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Subscribe
June 28th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
It would seem that significant improvements have been made in a number of states with more positive changes on the way. Here in Georgia we have seen good proposals and lofty goals but not so much in terms of actual changes and implementation. If pressure could be brought on state lawmakers to encourage adding a “bike lane” near the right hand side of state and county roadways it would make a huge difference. We have a number of state and county roads here in Chatham County (Savannah) where road improvements include a wide strip of paved shoulder but then they negate this potential “bike lane” by addiding a 8 to 10 inch wide “rumble strip” effectively eliminating it’s usability by bicycles. Deeper but narrower “rumble strips” can produce the same safety gains as the wider ones and give us some place to ride!!!!
June 29th, 2012 at 10:53 am
Some of your Michigan numbers don’t make sense. I’ve been on the RTP committee during this timeframe and a majority of our funding is spent on projects benefiting biking and walking. How we obligated a negative funding amount makes little sense.
We’ve also used HSIP money for Complete Streets. Again, I’m not sure how you can obligate a negative dollar amount.
June 29th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Getting a 404 on your spreadsheet link. Could you please correct it? Thanks.
July 2nd, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Could you explain or give examples for each of the 4 categories? Also, could you explain how there could be negative numbers in the spreadsheet?
Thanks!
July 6th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Ah, no. The Recreational Trails Program is not “100% bicycle and pedestrian spending”. We spend some RTP funds on ORV trail repairs, ORV enforcement, XC ski grooming, snowmobile trail grooming in Michigan.
Also, your STP numbers are wrong for Michigan. The city of Detroit has spent more STP money during that time period than you show for the entire state.
And how did we spend a negative amount of HSIP funding?