Skip to Content
Streetsblog Los Angeles home
Streetsblog Los Angeles home
Log In
DC Streetsblog

What the Feds Giveth, the States Taketh Away — From Bike/Ped Programs

It’s rescission time again, folks. That Washington lingo for “gimme gimme.” We had a name for people who “rescinded” gifts back in elementary school but it’s ethnically insensitive so I won’t say it. Suffice it to say, if little kids call you a name for doing something, it’s probably not a super popular thing to be doing.

false

The FY2011 budget deal that Democrats and Republican finally agreed to recently requires states to send back to Washington $2.5 billion in unspent transportation funds. Who decides what programs to target for rescissions? Your state DOT.

Darren Flusche of League of American Bicyclists wrote this on the League’s blog:

Historically, some of the strongest programs for bicycle and pedestrian projects – Transportation Enhancements (TE), Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) – suffer dramatically higher rescission rates than other programs.

For example, TE and CMAQ made up just 7.3 percent of state DOTs' 2010 transportation apportionments, but they made up a much larger share of what a state sends back. In August 2010, out of the $2.2 billion rescinded, $968 million (44 percent) came from CMAQ and TE. Not all these funds would have gone to bicycling and walking, of course, but based on historic spending rates, some $330 million would have.

Flusche said that one reason that states often disproportionately target bike and ped projects for rescission is that they often spend those dollars slower than highway dollars – so come rescission time, when DOTs are looking around for unspent funds, they pull from bike projects they hadn’t started yet.

I asked RIDOT Director Michael Lewis what his state was going to rescind this time around. He said (as of this morning) they hadn’t decided yet, but “it shouldn’t have a real negative effect on our program.” He said they try to take rescission money from areas where it would have “the least impact on our needs,” so they won’t be taking from high-priority areas like “bridge rehabilitation and roadway reconstruction.” Lewis didn’t mention where transit and non-motorized modes fit into that.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog Los Angeles

SGV Connect 146: What’s Next for the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority

CEO Habib Balian joins SGV Connect to discuss the A Line’s steady ridership, transit-oriented development along the corridor, and the shift to a new delivery model for the long-anticipated Claremont extension.

March 3, 2026

Tuesday’s Headlines

ICE, Playa del Rey, L.A. City charter reform, World Cup, Pasadena, Culver City, car-nage, and more

March 3, 2026

New UCLA Report Looks into the High Cost to Build Parking

For new apartments, the research found that building required parking adds roughly $50,000 to $100,000 per unit, and disproportionately increases the cost to build smaller apartments

March 2, 2026

This Week In Livable Streets

Metro NoHo-Pasadena BRT meetings, Westwood Blvd. safety project, Chandler bikeway extension, Metro PSAC, and more

March 2, 2026

Monday’s Headlines

ICE, CicLAvia, Ride that D, large asphalt repair, Long Beach, car insurance, AQMD, Pasadena, Glendale, Wilmington, Black history, car-nage, and more

March 2, 2026

“Disrespectful” and “infuriating”: L.A.’s progress on making streets safe and accessible for disabled people stalled for decades

Curb ramps have been required when repaving a street since 1992. Why is L.A. only now saying it must follow the law?

February 27, 2026
See all posts