Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Funding

I want parts of L.A. to become more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. However, I am not a transportation engineer.

When I think about getting what I want, I rarely envision specific projects. I only see an outcome: more pedestrians, more bicyclists, and more business. I also see less pollution, less traffic, and fewer transportation related deaths.

This attitude shapes the way I have been researching this issue. I don't have the experience or the expertise to advocate for any specific projects. Instead, I spend my time trying to answer two questions:

1. How are transportation projects funded?
2. Who makes transportation related decisions?

Both of these questions would be pretty dull topics of conversation at a dinner party. Yet, the power of these two simple questions continues to surprise me. This approach allows me to look at the entire picture of transportation funding and decision making - to find language and policies that can be re-interpreted to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects. I prefer this approach to the more traditional techniques of digging through the ghetto of bicycle and pedestrian projects, and praying that our culture will change to suit my opinion of what sorts of projects should get built.

As an example, I think I've found a revenue source that can be shifted to bicycle and pedestrian friendly projects with a minimal amount of pressure and almost no changes in transportation agency policy. Propositions A & C fund Transportation Demand Management (or TDM) programs. TDM programs are supposed to discourage single occupant car use. Building streets that support pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be a cheap, easy, and effective means of discouraging single occupant car use. Using the TDM funding source, we could open up several hundred million dollars for bicycle and pedestrian projects - a significant increase in what they are allocated currently.

Proposition A and C

I recently downloaded a copy of the 2006 Metro Funding Sources Guide, and quickly noticed Propositions A and C in a chart on page 9 of the guide. These two funding sources provide more than $1 billion to the MTA.

"The Proposition A and Proposition C programs are two one-half cent sales tax measures approved by Los Angeles County voters to finance a countywide transit development program. By ordinance, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is responsible for administering the programs and establishing guidelines. The Proposition A tax measure was approved in 1980 and the Proposition C tax measure was approved in 1990. Collection of the taxes began on July 1, 1982 and April 1, 1991, respectively. Each year, more than $1 billion is generated in local transportation revenue."

(from http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/local_return.htm)

The money derived from these two measures is split into many pieces, and dedicated to different purposes. Of course, bicycles and pedestrian transportation are barely mentioned in either Proposition A or Proposition C.


A large piece of the money from Propositions A and C goes towards the "Local Return Program". I downloaded the Local Return Guidelines and found a potential source of funding for projects that could benefit pedestrians and bicyclists (I hope).

Don't be discouraged by Appendix 1, on page 36 of the Local Return Guidelines! The guide states that bikeways and bike lanes are prohibited from receiving Proposition A funding. Pedestrian projects are so marginal to the MTA, they are mentioned only 5 times in the guidelines - mostly having to do with bike lanes serving as footpaths!

For pessimists, the search would be over after Appendix 1, as it seems the MTA cannot use these funds to improve bicycle and pedestrian transportation - or can it?

Transporation Demand Management

Transportation Demand Management, or TDM, is defined in Appendix IX on page 56 of the Local Return Guidelines as:

"A program designed to maximize the people-moving capability of the transportation system by increasing the number of people in each vehicle or by influencing the time of, or need to, travel. To accomplish these sorts of changes, TDM programs must rely on incentives or disincentives to make the shifts in behavior attractive. The term TDM encompasses both the alternatives to driving alone and the techniques or supporting strategies that encourage the use [of other] modes."

Take a second to re-read that definition, "The term TDM encompassess both the alternatives to driving alone and the techniques or supporting strategies that encourage the use [of other] modes." Traditionally, TDM has been used to implement van pools, shuttles, and ride-matching for commuters. Those modes of transportation are subsidized with Local Returns money. TDM programs are supposed to take people out of their single occupant cars, and make more efficient use our streets. Oh yes, I almost forgot, TDMs get bumped to the top of the funding list if they are better for our air quality.

In the Local Return Guidelines, on pages 14 and 15, TDM project applicants (cities and other transportation agencies) are asked to "... utilize regionally adopted standards, and demonstrate, for example, how [Air Quality Management District] trip reduction targets are addressed through the TDM measure."

TDM Questions for Transportation Advocates

1. Gentle reader, what forms of transportation are better for our air quality: buses, vans, and shuttles; or bicycles and walking?
2. What sorts of transportation projects truly disincentivise private automobile use? Projects that maintain the automobile's dominance over our roads, or projects that focus on liveable streets, with amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists?
   

When you come up with an answer keep the following facts in mind:

• In 2006, $269 million (see pages 9 and 10 of 2006 Metro Funding Sources Guide) was set aside for Local Return Projects in L.A. County. That money can go towards TDM projects, which are prominently named in the Funding Services Guide charts.
• There are two staffers at the MTA who are available for questions about TDM program funding:
  

Susan Richan
RichanS@metro.net
(213) 922-3017

Nalini Ahuja
AhujaN@metro.net
(213) 922-3088

Caveat

This is just one route pedestrian and bicycle advocates can use to pursue funding. There are many sources of transportation funds in the L.A. area. There are many transportation related agencies in the area too. I spent a few days researching this one funding source. With some creativity, pedestrian and bicycle projects can be coaxed out of these agencys' guidelines and policies.

However, there is a critical ingredient missing in the discussion above: political will. I am sure the MTA staffers listed above will brush off any proposals for pedestrian or bicycle projects at first. I have only answered the question "How are transporation projects funded?"

We need to know "Who makes transportation related decisions?"

Sadly, I am at a loss as to how to answer that question right now. Does anyone have a suggestion?