“Local” Concerns

I’m seeing a few talking point trends on transportation funding in the next transportation bill reauthorization that are a bit concerning. First while many of us were focused on the birth rate/marriage rate funding discussion, there was another section piece in those initial memos that stood out to me that might be easier to slip through the cracks.

“DOT-supported or -assisted programs and activities, including without limitation, all DOT grants, loans, contracts, and DOT-supported or -assisted State contracts, shall not be used to further local political objectives or for projects and goals that are purely local in nature and unrelated to a proper Federal interest…”

This seems like boilerplate language but if you’ve been at this long enough you know what this means. No active transportation funding. Bike lanes, bus lanes, complete streets, pedestrian safety…all “local” concerns.

Of course if you put it that way, most federal funding that goes to State DOTs as formula funds or to MPOs is for “local” roads and highways that serve short “local” trips but that’s not how it will be portrayed or structured.

And now some state officials and senators are stating that some of the programs from IIJA might get rolled back into formula funds that they admit mostly would go for road building alone.

With states piling on with preemption like Utah telling Salt Lake City they can’t build roads that impede car travel without permission, it’s likely going to get tougher for sustainable transportation advocates moving forward.