Blog

Congress passed a new federal transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), in June of 2012.

While the new law significantly cuts available funding for biking and walking projects, this legislation presents an opportunity for Americans to encourage state and local governments to fully utilize available funds to make biking and walking safer and more convenient. 

This is America Bikes’ complete analysis of the biking and walking portions of MAP-21. Originally written shortly after the law’s release in June of 2012, it has been updated multiple times to reflect new information. Most recently, America Bikes updated this analysis to incorporate interim guidance from the Federal Highway Administration of the US Department of Transportation.

For more information on MAP-21 — including ways to get involved in your community — visit americabikes.org/map_21. 

Click here to download this analysis as a PDF. (Updated 10/26/12)

Table of Contents

Programs
Funding and State Opt-Out
Eligible Uses

• Transportation Enhancements
• Safe Routes to School
• Recreational Trails
• Other

Program Mechanics: Grant Program
Program Mechanics Flow Chart
Mandatory Sidepath Clause
Frequently Asked Questions

Programs

Analysis

By combining the three main programs that funded biking and walking projects, planners and local communities lose the specific mechanisms for funding. In order to take full advantage of these programs, applicants and advocates must learn the new system and nomenclature.

Because the funding mechanism will be completely new, it will take US DOT and State DOTs some time to get this new program up and running.

*Note: The new bill refers to both the overall funding program and the newly eligible uses for the former TE program by the same name — Transportation Alternatives. In this document, we refer to the overall program as the Transportation Alternatives Program and the smaller projects category as Transportation Alternatives projects.

This distinction is not in the law itself. 

Funding and State opt-out

The new bill represents a significant reduction in funding for biking and walking projects. 

Analysis

Overall, the amount of funding has been cut by 33%. If all states fully exercise their opt-out, the new bill will represent a 66% cut in funding.** 

The state opt-out provision is a major blow to funding levels. A state that chooses to opt out can use this funding for any program with no additional restrictions. Even a state DOT that cares about biking and walking may be tempted to have unrestricted funding for highway uses. 

Keeping this funding for biking and walking will require significant advocacy at the state level. 

Unfortunately, the US Department of Transportation’s interpretation of MAP-21 determined that Safe Routes to School projects will not continue to be 100% federally funded. This alteration is an especially harsh blow for low-income communities in need of safer streets around schools that have few local funds to support needed projects. 

The transferability of funds makes the Coburn opt-out virtually meaningless. 

**Note: In our original analysis, America Bikes had found that funding for Transportation Alternatives would come to $702 million per year, representing an overall funding cut of 42% and a 70% cut if all states exercise the opt out. Upon further review, America Bikes found that available funding will actually be $792 or $808 million, representing a 33% cut overall and a 66% cut if all states opt out. 

Eligible Uses: Transportation Enhancements 

Transportation Enhancements projects are now called Transportation Alternatives projects.  

Analysis

In the new program, the changes to the safety and education activities (numbers 1 and 2 above) remove eligibility for education and safety activities. However, non-infrastructure projects to encourage safe walking and bicycling to school for kindergarten through eighth grade are still eligible as Safe Routes to School projects.  

The eligibility for construction of turnouts is to make up for the loss of the Scenic Byways program, and some uses were covered under the original program. 

In the new law, eligibilities regarding scenic or historic highway programs, landscaping and beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation of transportation buildings, and preservation of historic railway corridors are reworded. Transportation Alternatives funds can now only be used for archaeological activities if the projects are transportation-related. 

Scenic easements and museums were deleted as eligibilities. Rehabilitation of historic buildings is now combined with historic preservation. 

Environmental mitigation — eligibility #6 in the new program — was expanded from the specific uses in current law to include ANY environmental mitigation, including NEPA compliance. Adding ANY environmental mitigation allows funding from the Transportation Alternatives Program to be directed towards federal environmental requirements previously not allowable under Transportation Enhancements. Because of the local control aspects of the bill, local governments are less likely to use this funding for NEPA compliance.

Eligible Uses: Safe Routes to School

Safe Routes to School is eliminated as a stand-alone program, but the program language is still in the bill. 

Analysis

We believe that a state can choose to run a state Safe Routes to School program as-is, but the funding would need to come from their overall transportation dollars. Because it references current Safe Routes to School law, the ability to fund both infrastructure and non-infrastructure is retained. The state Safe Routes to School Coordinator position is eligible, but not required. 

Eligible Uses: Recreational Trails Program

Analysis

If a governor does not opt out, this program will continue to function as it does in current law. It will be important for advocates to ask governors to keep the program. 

Governors have the option to opt out each year.

Eligible Activities: Other

Analysis

The new types of road projects that are eligible under the Transportation Alternatives Program could consume an entire state's budget for one or more years. 

The local control aspects of this transportation bill make it less likely that a project of this large scale could compete for the limited available funds. 

Program Mechanics: Grant Program

This is the part of the program amended by the Cardin-Cochran agreement. 

Analysis

While the final bill retains the half of Cardin-Cochran that suballocates half of funds to MPOs and local areas, it allows states to opt out of the half of TA funds that are made available to local entities through a state-run competitive grant program.

By requiring a competitive grant program and limiting the entities allowed to apply for that funding, this provision is written to limit the amount of funds going to large-scale state priorities like roads and NEPA compliance.

Suballocating 50% by population ensures that local communities of all sizes will get a share of TA funding. 

The MPO competition ensures that entities within an MPO area can apply for a share of MPO funding, and ensures the state DOT is not the sole decision-maker on funding priorities.

The 50% of funding distributed by a state-run grant competition is at significant risk given the full transferability of its funds.  Advocates will need to work to ensure that states retain these funds.

Eligible entities in the new bill were defined to ensure that current users of the three biking and walking programs could continue to benefit. State agencies are not eligible to apply for Transportation Alternatives Program funding.

The below chart illustrates how biking and walking funds will be distributed under the new law.

Mandatory Sidepath Clause

Analysis

Mandatory sidepath laws were once common in state vehicle codes. They said that when a road has a separate bike path or bike trail, bicyclists must use the path and not the road.

By moving to ban bicyclists on certain non-highway roads, this clause could set a dangerous precedent for federal bike policy.

This provision was first included in the Senate transportation bill without the addition of the Bicycle Level of Service clause. The addition of this clause now means that states can have some “out” to enforcing the law and that advocates have an opportunity to demonstrate that the restriction should not apply to their roads.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Are the bicycle and pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Coordinator positions still required?

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator positions are still required by law.

The Safe Routes to School Coordinator positions are eligible for funding under the Transportation Alternatives program, but are not required.

2. Is there funding for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Information Center, The Safe Routes to School National Center, and the National Transportation Clearinghouse?

The bill does not fund any of these. US DOT may be able to fund these.

3. Is there still a Mandatory Sidepath law for bicyclists on Federal Lands?

Yes. Unfortunately, the following provision was carried over from the Senate bill:

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY­ The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road unless the Secretary determines that the bicycle level of service on that roadway is rated B or higher.

The League of American Bicyclists and Adventure Cycling Association worked hard to get this removed. While the clause itself unfortunately remains, they were able to add the exception for roadways with bicycle level or service B or higher. 

4. Technical correction made to CMAQ

In the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) section of the original text published late Wednesday night/Thursday morning, the ban on using CMAQ funding for single-occupancy vehicle lanes was deleted. On Thursday, Congress published a new version with several technical corrections.

The new version includes a ban on using CMAQ funding for single occupancy vehicle lanes. It is a huge improvement to have that ban back in place.