By The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation<\/p>\n
[Highlights]
\n…
\nState policy\u2014on suballocation and matching funds\u2014plays a role in spending on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in metropolitan regions.
\nFor most federal transportation funding programs, states receive the majority of the money and decide how to spend it. The federal government recommends suballocation, allowing metropolitan planning organizations to directly control funding for transportation enhancements and congestion mitigation and air-quality programs, rather than having to apply to the state. However, many states do not do this. [Like Maryland]
\n…
\nMaryland, for example, requires local governments to provide a 50 percent match, making it more difficult for them to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects. In California and Florida, the state provides the required match.
\n…
\nIn Baltimore and Sacramento, spending on infrastructure resulted in a small although statistically significant positive effect on bicycling and walking.
\n\u2014 In Baltimore:
\n\u25cf Bicycling: Trails and improvements to the appearance of the street were modestly related to an increase in bicycling.
\n\u25cf Walking: Improvements to the appearance of the street were related to increased walking, but trail and sidewalk projects were not.
\n\u2014 In Sacramento:
\n\u25cf Bicycling: Bike lane projects were associated with an increase in bicycling, but trail projects were not.
\n[I’ll note that Baltimore is now seeing this with it’s bike lanes but the State is still over stressing trails over on-road accommodations.]<\/p>\n
\u25cf Walking: The limited data did not show any association between trail or sidewalk improvement and walking.
\n\u25cf Sacramento used about $5.5 million more of its federal funding on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure than did Baltimore:
\n\u2014 Sacramento spent 95 cents per resident and used about 2.4 percent of its federal transportation funding on bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure.
\n\u2014 Baltimore spent 59 cents per resident and used 1 percent of its federal transportation funding on bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure.
\n\u25cf The case studies show that support from local governments and advocacy groups is a key driver of metropolitan planning organization\u2013level support for bicycle and pedestrian investments. State policy also plays a role in encouraging and supporting bicycle and pedestrian spending at the regional level, both directly and through its influence on local governments. Other unique regional factors also have influenced spending.
\n…
\nRecommendations
\nThe research team reported the following recommendations for federal policy-makers in the report The Regional Response to Federal Funding for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects:
\n\u25cf Pass more funding directly to metropolitan planning organizations rather than routing it through the states, thereby reducing the effect of differences in suballocation.
\n\u25cf Design funding programs to achieve specific outcomes and develop outcome-oriented measures of success, or encourage states and regions to create their own programs that tie funding more tightly to local planning goals.
\n\u25cf Provide more tools to state and local governments to help bicycling and walking projects meet eligibility requirements such as demonstrated emissions reductions.<\/p>\n
[Yo Maryland, read this: vvvvvv]
\n\u25cf Prohibit states from requiring more than the federally specified local match.
\n[^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^]<\/p>\n
\u25cf Introduce more requirements for institutionalized non-motorized transportation planning to improve the ability of metropolitan planning organizations to meet their goals for bicycling and walking.
\n\u25cf Continue to emphasize public involvement in the planning process to ensure opportunities for local advocates to shed light on bicycling and pedestrian needs.<\/p>\n
More detail on:<\/p>\n TE RTP HSIP CMAQ
\nhttps:\/\/www.rwjf.org\/files\/research\/65386.final.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.enhancements.org\/Stateprofile.asp<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.baltimorespokes.org\/article.php?story=20100618153759192<\/a><\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.baltimorespokes.org\/article.php?story=20100430170721104<\/a><\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.baltimorespokes.org\/article.php?story=20101010111816491<\/a><\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.baltimorespokes.org\/article.php?story=20091023193627353<\/a><\/p>\n