Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What are the differences between the three legislative examples offered in this package?

A. The first example is a bill that involves suballocation and seeks to free up more money for regional and local governments to implement transit and transportation alternatives. The second legislative example is a bill that highlights a way in which states can create a rail system to help alleviate traffic congestion. The third legislative option describes various ways in which states can diversify transportation trust fund programs and circumnavigate existing prohibitive laws that make it difficult to fund intermodal transportation alternatives other than highway construction. By supporting reforms intended to free up motor fuel tax revenues, states could then apply funds to transit, carpool and bike lanes, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements.

Q. Why should my state pass this legislation?

A. Many of the existing state transportation allocation plans were created shortly after World War II when our nation’s highway system was first created. Not many changes have been made since then to reflect changes in public demand, and many current policies are outdated. With 8 out of 10 Americans living in 300 federally designated metropolitan areas(1), state legislators need to respond to recent changes and reduce congestion and correct transportation infrastructure problems that have become increasingly prevalent with recent urban growth. By directly allocating money to the local and regional level, metropolitan areas will be able to address problems with greater efficiency and consideration of all solutions, including intercity bus and rail transit systems, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and park and ride lots. Local control will also increase the visibility of taxpayer money in ameliorating everyday problems.

Q. What is suballocation? Why is it important?

A. Suballocation refers to targeting funds specifically toward metropolitan and urban areas. The funds are allocated directly to regional planning organizations and bypass the state departments of transportation. The sample bill text included in this package directs 75 percent of funds directly toward regional planning and 25 percent to interregional planning.

Suballocation is important because regional and local planning organizations are more likely to adopt transit and other innovative transportation alternatives. Suballocation provides the resources necessary to support these initiatives.

Q. But, don’t we need statewide interstate funding?

A. Under the existing transportation funding system, states have designated the majority of transportation funds for expansion and maintenance of interstate highways. Additionally, statewide interstates are eligible for matching funds from the federal government. Under suballocation, statewide interstates would fall under interregional planning and would be entitled to funds according to the suballocation bill guidelines.

Q. But, aren’t we supposed to fight against robbing trust funds?

A. Yes, but this isn’t diverting money to non-transportation projects. Instead, it is opening up funds to multiple transportation modes. Carpool and bike lanes, for example, decrease congestion, which indirectly supports highways.

Q. What is an MPO?

A. MPOs are metropolitan planning organizations. They were originally created by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973, which required a minute portion of federal funds to be directed to regional entities containing urbanized areas with a population greater than 50,000. In a cooperative effort, MPOs create transportation plans in consultation with various local stakeholders, like local and regional transportation providers, transit and airport authorities, and maritime operators.

Q. How does transportation funding work?

A. States raise revenue for transportation projects through motor fuel taxes, highway and bridge tolls, motor vehicle registration and licensing fees, and from appropriated money from the general fund. States also receive a portion of funds from the federal government for transportation-related projects.

Q. Why do states have such varied funding mechanisms?

A. Different states have different transportation needs and they have a root in history. The majority of state transportation funding mechanisms across the country have not been altered since the post-World War II era when they were first introduced. Additionally, some states have constitutional provisions for allocating transportation funds whereas other states have statutory provisions. Statutory provisions tend to offer more flexibility for change.

Q. Why is local planning good? What’s wrong with letting the state experts do their jobs?

A. States can be too far removed from local communities to sufficiently address transportation problems. Eight out of ten Americans live in 300 federally designated metropolitan areas.(1) Studies have shown that local governments are most aware of their infrastructure problems and construction needs. At the same time local municipalities are more likely to spend funds on improving or expanding multi-modal forms of transportation including mass transit, and bike and carpool lanes. Decisions about the future form of local transportation systems are best left to those most affected and who are aware of day-to-day problems. Increasing the availability of funds directed toward metropolitan areas addresses local problems more efficiently.

Q. Why do we need a regional planning authority when we already have municipal and state planning authorities?

A. Regional planning authorities have the advantage of a broader perspective when dealing with transportation issues that overlap municipal boundaries and extend to commuting communities. As urban areas continue to grow and, in some cases, grow together, regional planning can offer an integrated approach to addressing transportation challenges. If elected locally, regional planning authorities can potentially be more accessible to local residents than state planning authorities.