This is what bicycle advocates fear: When Washington State essentially sends back $47.3 million in federal funds to Washington, DC on Friday, most of the money will come from programs that fund bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, while officials hold on to federal money for highway projects. That’s what happened last year. And this year—with only three days to go—state officials aren’t saying which federally funded programs they intend to sacrifice.
The issue stems from rescissions, a budget-balancing mechanism that requires states to return some unspent federal money that hasn’t been allocated to specific projects. This year, the Federal Highway Administration has asked the 50 states to return $2.5 billion. But while the federal government declares how much money it wants back from each state, our state officials get to decide which programs they’ll cut.
This is what they did in 2010:
The federal government needed to recoup $37 million from Washington. Of that, state officials siphoned $29 million (78 percent) of the rescission from enhancements to the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (CMAQ). Along with a recreational trails program, those are the three leading state-run conduits for federal funding to pay for bicycle improvements. But unallocated money for interstate maintenance, national highways, and other high-priced programs each were tapped for less than two percent of the rescission.
That’s got the Cascade Bicycle Club—which has this graphic on last year’s cuts—in a full-throated cry to its members today to tell state authorities to take money proportionately from all its programs, including national highway construction and maintenance. The group warns Washington could “be no different this time around.”
Cascade Bicycle Club director of policy, planning, and government affairs John Mauro says state officials simply don’t see the bicycle and pedestrian as a priority, when compared to building new highways, even though 37 percent of the population doesn’t drive. He notes that the programs cut in the past rescissions are the same that have previously been allocated to complete the Burke-Gillman Trail and the city’s Bicycle Master Plan.
Mauro warns that maintaining this disproportionate status quo “would be a big hit for the entire bike and ped progress of the state.”
What will the state do this year?
Steve Pierce, communications director of the Washington State Department of Transportation, says already 400 emails from the bicycle club’s members have arrived in Olympia. But Ann Briggs, a spokeswoman in his office, says, “We really don’t know” how much money will come from which programs. She says officials are going to meet tomorrow.
You can read Cascade Bicycle Club’s post on the subject—along with a link to contact state officals—here.
Good.
We have absolutely no business spending almost 50 million bucks on yuppie/antisocial bikers when we are gutting Basic Health and other programs that support the most vulnerable citizens of Seattle.
Time to put all corporate and non-profit tax exemptions up for a 2/3rds vote of the Citizens every 4 years.
Say bye bye farm fuel exemption …
@1.
You don’t get it. It’s not an either or proposition concerning health care. It’s allocated money going to transit. The state can’t use it for whatever it wants. It can only choose how to allocate it within the specific realm.
Don’t let that get in the way of a good yuppiebash though!!11
@1- @3 points out the stupidity of your statement pretty nicely, but allow me to add that I earn less than 30,000 a year, have a kid, and use a bicycle exclusively to get around. So go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut you asshole.
@3 so re-allocate it somewhere else. Like to not-pavement. Invest in people.
You’re starting to sound a bit like Tim Eyman’s Kemper Freeman-financed initiative that guts possible east-side light rail money by forcing toll money to only be spent where they are collected.
Get a clue. I saw that argument coming from a mile away. If we can’t reallocate money from pavement to people, the terrorists have won.
PS to dude above me… a steady 29k and only 1 kid is rich for the people I am talking about. Get some perspective.
@1: Considering the obesity epidemic in this country, I think an investment in bike infrastructure is an investment in basic health.
The state can’t do that retard. I agree with your overall ranking of funding priorities, the problem is you are a fucking moron with respect to what we are able to do and how we can address fixing the situation. The money came conditioned. At the federal level. It sucks. But it needs to be changed there, not at the state level.
Ps the terrorists already won.
@5- My kid is on Basic Health. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
37% of the population doesn’t drive? Really? I’m assuming you’re including people under 16 in that statistic.
if even half of the stuck-up fixie douchebikers in this city gave a rats ass about other people using the streets and sidewalks, I’d argue against these cuts. but they don’t, so I won’t.
this is the rudest bicycle town in the USA.
Hey look, the drivers hate the bicyclists. I had no idea.
The state can reallocate funds if it chooses to. The argument that it can’t is used when legislators or the governor need to use the argument; it’s not a constitutional argument.
Well isn’t the concern troll @1 & 5 just the most special precious santorumfleck to grace us with his frothy views on regional transit you’ve seen on Slog today, or what?
The problem with bikes in Washington is a problem with cars…this state hasn’t built enough highways so residential streets are used for heavy traffic. Anti-car policies that refuse to acknowledge the need for laneage make the problems worse. Build more roads, expressways, parkways, and the streets can go back to serving local traffic and pedestrians.
@4, you should really get a better job.
I came in to echo @9.
Anybody can come up with statistics to prove a point, Kent. Forfty percent of the people know that.
@15: Go fuck yourself, you stupid cunt.
They can start by ceasing the installation of those stupid Bike Boxes that cost 17,000$ per box to install. The one next to the police station near Cal Anderson Park, is already faded. Complete waste of money.
Let’s see — budget cuts to metro — possible budget cuts to cyclists. Why don’t we just fucking say it now, Here in Washington State, we only believe that rich people deserve to have transit options, and that option is a car.
@19 I look forward to voting against the $20 car tab hike to pay for an even larger share of public transit. Even though it will pass.
@20 Right, because its horrible if the rich have to pay more… *sigh*
@21, you and your class struggle are making me consider removing my monocle to the pocket of my waistcoat whenever I ride the bus. This is getting ridiculous. First I had to lose the spats, now this. I’m giving you such a frowning.
Suck it cyclists. Cars rule, bikes drool!
@10- You don’t spend much time in the North East, do you? The rudeness level of everyone on the streets is exponentially higher. A big exponent too, not just squared or cubed or some bullshit like that.
@14- How do streets without sidewalks serve pedestrians? That’s what I see in all the ‘burbs.
You do know that every time any city in the world has added highway lanes, they’ve ended up with worse congestion problems?
“…37 percent of the population doesn’t drive.”
Any citation for that absurd statistic? Are you including 2-year-olds? Maybe surveying just the 3-block-radius around the Stranger offices?
Or just again parroting whatever bullshit some organization that you support (in this case CBC) spews?
@22 LOL! Its only class war when the rich have to pay taxes, eh?
All you haters are just going to keep hating. I hope, for your sake, you never end up riding a bike and getting hit. I bet your ideas of funding will change then.
@10: And where the drivers of Seattle rank on the national rudeness scale? I’m sure you have a year’s living experience in each city that you’re comparing Seattle to, right?
What really kills me about all of this is, if you really want to reduce congestion on the roads for your precious cars, you want to make public transit and bikes a viable option, more people in bikes and in the busses/ light rail means less cars on the street.
Who cares if the 37% who don’t drive include kids. Shouldn’t kids have a safe way to walk on the streets? Or is it mandatory that they be driven everywhere?
@31: Way to miss the point.
@30
Light rail might be a viable option for those pissed off at 4-5$ per gallon gas, but majority will NEVER accept a bike as a means to getting to work and back, no matter how attractive you make it. At least light rail can be elevated or tunnel, bypassing gridlock, but cars compete with other cars, in addition to bikes. Vancouver BC is doing its best to make it more attractive to cyclists, its creating seperate bike lanes, with a concrete divider to encourage more cyclists who are afraid of biking side by side next to cars. But its done at the cost of car lanes and some parking slots and it costs alot more. Its basicall hit & miss with the store owners downtown.
Title 23 indicates that STP and CMAQ funds are used for a number of different types of transportation projects.
“The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities.”
CMAQ funds may be used on any of the following: Public transportation improvements, traffic flow improvements, demand management, bicycle and pedestrian projects, alternative fuel projects (including the favored diesel retrofits), freight transport, etc.
Each of the federal programs have different compliance requirements. For example, CMAQ funds may be limited in their use to non-attainment areas. STP funds may come with conditions (matching requirements, for example) that the state can not at that moment in time meet.
To say that the cuts are coming exclusively from these pots of money is an incomplete discussion. There are so many follow up questions to ask: which ped and bicycle projects are being cut/discontinued as a part of this exercise, if any? Which other projects that are being retained should be sacrificed instead?
Or is this where we remember that in issues of transportation policy, we remind ourselves that Dominic is a misinformed, lazy hack?
@33- “Light rail might be a viable option for those pissed off at 4-5$ per gallon gas, but majority will NEVER accept a bike as a means to getting to work and back, no matter how attractive you make it.”
Why not?
@35 “Why Not?”
Oh ok, so why people prefer to use mass transit over a bike. Hmmmmm.
#1) Dont have the energy. Out of shape, or single parent, no endurance, etc.
#2) Dont like showing up for work all sweaty. I personally sweat buckets after 10 minutes on a lifecycle.
#3) Have a ton of work to carry to ferry back and forth, wont fit or too heavy to shoulder, thats in addition to a laptop or suitcase . Homework isnt just for kids.
#4) Dont own a bike & dont have the money to buy one and the safety equipment needed.
#5) Semi-Safe. Similar risks of a car, disablement and possible death, but at a higher rate and now get to deal with bruises and scrapes.
#6) Just like a car, im always looking in every direction. Looking out for myself, as well as others. Why would I trade that for the same thing with a bike? Trading one frustration for another.
#7) Health benefits might not materialize if you spend alot of time mingling with other cars. The more you cycle, the more you inhale all that carbon/muffler exhaust from other cars.
So yeah, if people had to ditch their cars, most would consider the bus, light rail or sounder commuter.
So NO MATTER HOW ATTRACTIVE YOU MAKE IT….
1) I am a single parent, and as for the rest of it lazy people won’t like walking to commuter trains either.
2) Showers at work. I like sitting down at my desk freshly showered.
3) Not applicable to most jobs.
4) Can afford a car but can’t afford a bike? Does not compute.
5) Better infrastructure and more riders lower the risks dramatically.
6) So this is an advantage of mass transit.
7) You might be increasing you risk of cancer or exacerbating asthma, but it doesn’t mean you won’t be getting fitter.
Most people won’t consider biking because most people don’t consider biking. Making biking more attractive with infrastructure changes will increase the number of people who bike. Pretending biking is so hard and horrible drives people to cars. Bikes are vastly more convenient than mass transit (they’re not on a fixed route). I switched from bus ridership to biking when I was living in Boston because I was sick of waiting around, riding with a bunch of people, then having to walk a half mile anyway.
I agree about shower facilities and lockers/towels at work. Both for bikers and peds.
@14, You mean like what’s working so well in Los Angeles?
@33: “But its done at the cost of car lanes and some parking slots and it costs alot more. Its basicall hit & miss with the store owners downtown.”
Kinison, how can you expect anyone to take your opinions on costworthiness seriously when you’ve devoured enough lead chips to believe the Tunnel is going to be a cheap solution?
Your kneejerk contrarian nature is ridiculous, just another faux-fiscal conservative not interested in saving money but hippie-bashing.
Okay, I’ll bite and do a quick Google search…
Federal Highway Administration data says we have 4,407,269 licensed drivers in WA.
U.S. Census Bureau says our June 2009 population was 6,664,195.
That leaves around the 37% figure as unlicensed residents. And I’m with Cascadian @31, does it matter if those are mostly children? (Or seniors?) Isn’t that PRECISELY the population most in need of bike and pedestrian improvements?