Federal Transportation Funds Benefit Recreation

See:

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/bipedfund.cfm. Funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) raise funding to over $1 billion for FY 2009 and 2010.
• Transportation Enhancement Funding: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_enhancements/funding/.
• Recreational Trails Program Funding: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/funding/.
• NOTE: Over the life of the TE Activities, about one-third of TE project funding has been obligated for shared use paths, rail-trails, and other transportation trails.

* TAP/TE: TE funds available 1992-2015; TAP funds available beginning 2013.

See:

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/bipedfund.cfm.
• Funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) raised funding to over $1 billion for FY 2009 and 2010.
• Transportation Enhancement Funding: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_enhancements/funding/.
• Recreational Trails Program Funding: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/funding/.
  Note: Only a portion of RTP funds are counted as bicycle and pedestrian projects.

NOTE: Over the life of the TE Activities, about one-third of TE project funding has been obligated for shared use paths, rail-trails, and other transportation trails.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) provided $5.9 million for pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, or 0.35% of the $1.7 billion obligated in FY 2011 HSIP funds. Pedestrians and bicyclists are 14% of highway fatalities.

• Pedestrian/bicycle/trail projects using STP or CMAQ funds may be located anywhere. While 23 U.S.C 133(c) requires most STP projects to be located within Federal-aid highway rights-of-way, it exempts bicycle and pedestrian projects and safety projects from the highway requirement. The Secretary of Transportation issued an exemption for Transportation Enhancements projects.
• See STP Legislation: (HTML / PDF)
• See TE Exception: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_enhancements/guidance/gmemo_request.cfm.
• Pedestrian/bicycle/trail projects using HSIP or SRTS funds also can be located anywhere:
  • HSIP: 23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(A)
  • SRTS: SAFETEA-LU §1404(f)(1)(B)
• Planning Process. Projects must be consistent with metropolitan and statewide transportation plans. Prior to funding, projects must be included in a metropolitan area’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) [if in a metropolitan area] and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
• Earmarks. The best way to get funding for a project is to go through the normal application process through the metropolitan planning organization (if in a metropolitan area) and the State. Project sponsors that obtain earmarks generally work outside the normal process, which makes the process more difficult for everybody else. Many earmarked projects end up “bumping” other eligible projects that may have been of higher priority for a community or for the State. Some States “punish” communities that receive earmarks; that is, if a community receives an earmark for one project, then the State may decide not to fund other projects that normally would have been funded. Some States delay earmarked projects, so that the sponsor may have obtained a completed project sooner by going through the normal process.

Surface Transportation
Surface transportation means all elements of the intermodal transportation system, exclusive of aviation. For the purposes of TE eligibility, surface transportation includes water as surface transportation and includes as eligible activities related features such as canals, lighthouses, and docks or piers connecting to ferry operations, as long as the proposed enhancement otherwise meets the basic eligibility criteria.
Funds: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_enhancements/funding/

• The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse provides technical assistance for TE.
• The Corps Network developed a publication entitled Conservation Corps and Transportation: Making the Connection. (with FHWA support) to help States and Youth Corps work better together.

• States may allow funds from Federal agencies to match TE funds, but this conflicts with a requirement for States to meet their programmatic Federal share.
• States may allow a programmatic match.
• States may allow individual projects up to a 100% Federal share.
• See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_enhancements/guidance/1999guidance.cfm#summa.

• States should ensure that they choose high quality projects that clearly relate to surface transportation.
• The TE Activities have a lot of opposition, with claims that TE projects divert Federal Highway Trust Fund money away from essential highway projects by funding "frivolous" projects that don't benefit transportation. Attacks continue to the present, such as the Out of Gas report from July 2009 [see Historical Notes below]. The attackers often use selective facts, and ignore the transportation, community, economic, and safety benefits of most TE projects. However, TE Projects that don't benefit surface transportation are easy targets for people who oppose the TE Activities.
• Although TE projects must relate to surface transportation, nothing in Federal law prohibits TE funded trails from allowing recreational use. The restriction in 23 U.S.C. 217(i) requiring principally a transportation purpose only applies only bicycle projects, not to other uses. However, recreational park amenities are not eligible because they don't relate to or benefit transportation.
• Accessible trails must have a firm and stable surface, but this does not necessarily require paving. It is also possible to have dual tracks: one accessible (firm and stable) track, and one soft surface track. See www.fhwa.dot.go/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/allow_uses_eqnm.cfm#surfaces.
• The planning and project development processes require open public involvement for all possible stakeholders. Equestrians, mountain bicyclists, snowmobilers, historic preservation advocates, and others have a right to participate in any trail or highway project development process.
• See Equestrian and Other Nonmotorized Use on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/allow_uses_eqnm.cfm. States may have more restrictive requirements. Project sponsors can limit uses based on safety considerations.
• FHWA developed a Framework for Considering Motorized Use on Nonmotorized Trails and Pedestrian Walkways under 23 U.S.C. §217. See www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/framework.cfm.
• FHWA encourages States to use Youth Corps on TE projects. The Corps Network developed a publication entitled Conservation Corps and Transportation: Making the Connection. (with FHWA support) to help States and Youth Corps work better together.

Historical Notes: Congressional action specific to TE funding.
House of Representatives proposal to eliminate TE funds in Summer 2003: Failed: 327-90.
Senate proposal to cut TE funds on May 17, 2005: Failed 84-16.
Senator Coburn proposed three amendments to the FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill on September 15, 2009:

• S. Amendment 2370 would have prohibited funding for TE if the Highway Trust Fund does not contain amounts sufficient to cover unfunded highway authorizations (and the Fund is bankrupt). Amendment withdrawn.
• S. Amendment 2371 would have allowed States to opt out of the 10% set aside rule (10% of STP for TE). VOTED DOWN, 39 yes, 59 no votes. The amendment title stated "opt out", but the text was "None of the funds made available by the Act may be used to implement section 133(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code." This would have prevented any State from funding any TE projects with FY 2010 funds.
• S. Amendment 2372 would have stated that none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for a museum. VOTED DOWN, 41 yes, 57 no votes.
• There were several attacks in Summer/Fall 2011, with attempts to eliminate using any USDOT funds for some TE-eligible activities.
• The Senate proposal announced in November 2011 would eliminate specific funding for TE, and dilute it with other eligibilities, including calling any environmental mitigation a transportation enhancement.
  

Recreational Trails Program Funding: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/funding/.

FHWA encourages States to use Youth Corps on RTP projects. FHWA and the Corps Network developed Conservation Corps and Transportation: Making the Connection in 2008 to encourage States and Youth Corps to work better together.

• In general: 80% Federal share / sliding scale.
• Federal project sponsors may provide an additional Federal share up to 95% Federal.
• Funds from Federal programs can match RTP funds.
• RTP Funds may match other Federal funds.
• States may allow a programmatic match.

• The Corps Network developed a publication entitled Conservation Corps and Transportation: Making the Connection. (with FHWA support) to help States and Youth Corps work better together.
• See Manuals and Guides for Trail Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Operation, and for Signs at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/manuals.cfm.

Complete the project application completely.

• Fully explain what the project will involve.
• Include detailed cost estimates so that the reviewer can fully understand specific cost items, not only an overall cost "guesstimate". Make sure the numbers add up correctly.
• Make sure your project match is eligible, incorporated into the project, and readily available.
• Be honest! Don't try to cover up potential problems such as impacts on environmental, historic, or cultural resources, hazardous waste, design constraints, etc. It is better to be aware of problems and mitigate them correctly, rather than potentially lose the whole project.
• Make sure you have sufficient title or easement rights. Property right interests must comply with the Uniform Act: see www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/uniform_act/.
• Check your proposal before submitting, and make sure all sections are complete and accurate. A well-written, grammatically correct, and fully complete proposal is easier to read and evaluate, and an accurate application often indicates the ability to complete a quality project.
• Do not begin work prior to Federal approval to proceed. Costs incurred prior to Federal approval cannot be reimbursed.

However, please remember that project reviewers have limited time available to review your application. Provide the essential information necessary to determine if your project is eligible and beneficial. But please don't include information that is not relevant or necessary. Do not include:

• Historical anecdotes that don't directly relate to the project.
• Copies of supplemental reports that are not necessary to support the application.
• Costs and proposals for items that are not eligible or relevant: this may result in rejecting your entire project.
• Don't "pad" costs and don't "pad" donations or match: this may result in rejecting your entire project.
• Please don't start letter writing campaigns in support of the application. A few select letters of support may be helpful from key elected officials or high ranking decisionmakers--if required in the application process. But spam-style letter writing campaigns that don't provide useful information for the reviewer may only aggravate the reviewers.

After project approval:

• Get to work! States will rescind funds from projects that don't move forward, because funds expire if not used.
• Only perform work that is approved in the project agreement. If changes are needed, you must work with your State, and you may need Federal approval to amend the project agreement.
• You must submit an invoice if you want to get paid.
• You must not charge for ineligible items.
• You must not charge for work not covered in the project agreement.
• When the project is complete, make sure the State initiates project close out procedures.

Several organizations have thoughts about surface transportation authorization considerations related to trails and transportation enhancement activities. The list below focuses on viewpoints of interest to pedestrian, bicyclist, trail, and transportation enhancement advocates.

Disclaimer: This is not a comprehensive list. The links reflect the views of these organizations. Providing these links does not represent endorsement by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Federal Highway Administration: Draft Ideas for Consideration

• FHWA Summary from trail and enhancement related conferences
• Recreational Trails Program Ideas to Consider for Authorization (draft)
• Transportation Enhancement Activities Ideas to Consider for Authorization (draft)

National Organizations

• National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission
• House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
• Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
• Senate Environment and Public Works
• Senator Coburn, (PDF) July 2009
• Bipartisan Policy Center: Performance Driven: A New Vision for New Transportation Policy
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (represents State DOTs)
• American Highway Users Alliance
• Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Surface Transportation Policy Partnership
• Transportation for America, T4 America Campaign

Topics

• Active Transportation: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
• Bicyclists: Alliance for Biking and Walking; America Bikes; Bike Belong.
• Climate Change / Smart Growth
• Health: American Public Health Association, click on At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy.
• Pedestrians: America Walks
• Safe Routes to School: National Center for Safe Routes to School
• Safe Routes to School National Partnership
• Transit: American Public Transportation Association