Funding for recreation paths at risk: NRPA members urged to contact their federal legislators to restore the Transportation Enhancements program.

On July 11, funding for the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program for Fiscal Year 2004 was eliminated by the House Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies. Thanks to a massive outpouring of support for the program, which improves public health and local economies by funding pedestrian, biking and rail trails, a "manager's amendment" was offered when the bill came up for a vote by the full Appropriations Committee on July 24. The Appropriations Committee approved the bill, but finding for the TE program wasn't restored. Thus, funding for the entire TE program effectively remains cut from the FY 2004 budget bill. The House leadership would like everyone to believe that they recognized there was a problem with these cuts, and that they took action to fix the problem, but they didn't fix the problem, and the cuts remain.

At press time, it looked likely that the House appropriations bill, H.R. 2989, would come up for a vote in the full House this month. Although the sponsor wasn't known at press time, a floor amendment that would restore funding is expected. Such an amendment will need to be approved by the entire House, and such an amendment will be approved only if there's widespread public support to restore funds to the TE program.

Ensuring the return of the guaranteed funding for Transportation Enhancements is of the highest importance for NRPA, and should be considered as one of the most important legislative priorities of supporters of parks and recreation during the 108th Congress.

NRAP urges all members to contact their House member and ask them to strike the language of Section 114, return guaranteed funding to the Transportation Enhancements program, and reject any amendments to change, reduce, or flex the funding for the Transportation Enhancements program.

Talking Points When Contacting Your Legislator 

Cuts mean few if any projects will be approved in the future: If Transportation Enhancement projects remain "eligible" for funding, but are stripped of funding and must compete with highway construction projects as is called for in the present bill, it's a virtual certainty that few TE projects will be approved for funding. From a historical perspective, between 1974 and 1991, only $40 million in bike-pedestrian trail projects were approved in the country. After the passage of ISTEA, the first of the multi-year modern transportation bills in 1991, the states were required to set aside up to 10 percent of federal transportation funds for Transportation Enhancements, namely bike-pedestrian trails; rails-to-trails conversion projects, restoration of historic transportation facilities; job access-reverse commute projects; and other projects in 12 categories of eligibility. From 1991 to 2003, more than $6 billion has been spent on 16,000 projects across the United States, with $3.3 billion on bike-pedestrian trail projects alone, which is almost 100 times the amount that was spent on bike-pedestrian trails when such projects had to compete with highway construction projects.

Cuts mean communities have no dedicated funds and few incentives to continue building balanced, integrated transportation systems: Congress established the TE program in 1991 to commit a minimal percentage of revenues from the gas tax to be put into small-scale, community-based, locally selected transportation enhancements. The original intent of the first Transportation Equity Act has been fulfilled in each reauthorization, namely, the compelling national interest in providing consistent federal support for balanced, integrated transportation networks.

If Transportation Enhancement funds are cut from the TE program, there will be almost no incentive for states and communities to continue to create balanced, integrated transportation systems. For more than 20 years, through the Transportation Enhancement program, communities across the nation have been developing and implementing alternative forms of transportation that promote livability, connectivity and quality of life. The vast majority of these projects are locally selected and of tremendous value to communities. There is no compelling reason to cut these programs, which are among the most effective and well-supported of the entire transportation funding bill.

The public truly supports Transportation Enhancement projects, and wants to see them funded: Arguments advanced to justify the re-direction of funds from Transportation Enhancements to other highway construction projects miss the essential point that most Americans want transportation dollars spent for trails and enhancement projects. Survey after survey shows public support for spending transportation funds on bike-pedestrian trails, rail-trail conversions, historic transportation preservation projects, landscaping, wetland loss mitigation and other Enhancement categories.

The TE program has supported more than 16,000 local transportation projects in almost every county and congressional district in the country. These projects have made American communities better places to live by inspiring community revitalization, creating safe places to walk and bicycle, restoring historic transportation infrastructure and sparking hometown pride.

Making these cuts is not about reducing spending: This is not a funding issue, although it has been portrayed as one by proponents of cuts. The funds for Transportation Enhancements were already authorized as part of a multi-year set-aside. In fact, H.R. 2829, the Appropriations Bill for FY 2004 approved by the House Appropriations Committee, actually proposes to increase the transportation budget by $4.5 billion over President Bush's request.

The purpose of these cuts is to redirect funds from a program that is extraordinarily popular across America and that has been successful in improving quality of life, health and livability in thousands of towns and cities in every state in the union into monolithic highway spending. Our assessment of public opinion is that the public does not want to go back to the old days of spending nearly every dollar of transportation funds on highway construction. Nor does the public want a block-grant approach to transportation funding that lilts highway construction in their community or state against needs for balanced transportation systems and popular bike-pedestrian trails and other enhancements that contribute to quality of life, personal health, and livability.

To contact your federal legislators on this issue, use NRPA's online advocacy tool. Go to http://gaO.org/nrpa/home.html.