Hi there, I work for AAA Mid-Atlantic and wanted to clarify AAA M-A’s position on the matter, given that they did not advocate cutting the program as Rails to Trails incorrectly implies.

• In Don’s July-August AAA World column entitled “Use The Highway Trust Fund to Pay Only for Highways”, Don discusses the huge annual shortfalls this trust fund is suffering–$89 billion just to maintain our existing roads and bridges.

• The gist of his comments are that since Congress has been unwilling to increase the gas tax to fund for all that is now being paid for by the trust fund, it time to consider limiting the things the Fund pays for–to stop making the federal highway trust funds “more flexible” and have them just pay for highways and related expenses as was originally intended.

• He does not say that other modes should not be funded, but suggests they should no longer be funded from the Highway Trust Fund, but should be funded from the general fund.

• He says:
What Rep. Oberstar’s (bill) version is expected to do, is further expand the scope of projects on which federal Highway Trust Fund money can be spent.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what each federal re-authorization since 1991 has done—make federal highway funds more “flexible.” That so-called flexibility means using gas taxes not just for highways, but for “non-motorized” transportation as well – including sidewalks, hiking and bike trails—as well as for transit and even completely unrelated projects such as museums.

All of this flexibility over the last two years dovetails—not coincidentally—with an increasingly deteriorating highway system…

He concludes this by asking: “So why not let the Highway Trust Fund pay for our highway as intended, and let general revenues address the other expenses.”

• Does he blame bikes for the $89 billion shortfall? No, bike trails are just part of a list along with several other things including transit, which is the huge non-highway expense.

• Do we think bike trails, hiking trails, sidewalks, museums and transit ought to be funded? Of course.

• Don did not in any ways suggest we should stop funding any of the list of items, but simply change the federal account from which they are paid to improve road conditions and motorist safety

• But Don’s column proposes a realistic answer to better fund our highways, given government’s steadfast refusal to increase gas taxes, which AAA has supported. If we’re not going to expand revenue, then let’s reduce the number of things the Highway Trust Fund is expected to pay for.

• It is critical to remember that when road and bridge conditions deteriorate, motorists die, bridges collapse, cars hit potholes causing billions of dollars in damage collectively, etc. Poor maintenance of highways is a very real contributing factor.

• To suggest Don’s comments represent an anti-bike tirade, or is anti-bike at all, is just patently not true. Over the years AAA has been a leading advocate for pedestrian and bike safety, with AAA School Safety Patrols, crossing guard training, bicycle rodeos for children, etc.

• In response to Keith Laughlin, president of Rails to Trails Conservancy, who wrote AAA President Bob Darbelnet about Don’s column, Darbelnet noted:

AAA’s positions are clear: seek support for a transportation system that provides choices and multi-modal opportunities, which is affordable and accessible for all users and facilitates personal travel needs.

• Don and AAA Mid-Atlantic completely concur. The question is, how to pay for them and, clearly we disagree with Mr. Laughlin’s proposed means of paying for bike trails, but we don’t disagree with building them at all.

Kati:

Nice of you to stop in. We are deeply disappointed that AAA continues to oppose mode-neutral flexible funding for transportation in America. With 40% of the nation’s trips being two-miles and less and with 68% of Americans wanting to drive less and walk and bike more – it makes sense to prioritize nonmotorized transportation investments.

While you argue that gas taxes should only benefit drivers, you also ignore the costs drivers impose on society.

Contrary to your suggestion that drivers pay their own way, and are being short-changed when gas taxes are used for non-automobile projects, America’s overreliance on cars for personal transportation is largely due to the fact that automobile use is an overwhelmingly subsidized activity in the United States.

Taxes and fees come nowhere close to covering the externalities associated with car use. At the low end of the spectrum, FHWA estimates that drivers fall $0.15 per mile short of covering their costs. More rigorous analysis, by Delucchi, Littman, Moffet, etc., puts the number closer to $1.00 per mile in subsidies.

The only ways to offset or balance the equation are pricing, such as VMT taxes, congestion pricing, or comprehensive system-wide tolling, and adequately supporting more cost-effective and less impactful modes.

Given the enormous subsidization of driving and, as you’ve acknowledged, our elected leader’s failure to establish pricing sufficient to mitigate the social costs the only alternative is to make flexible the funds generated from the one federal transportation fee program – the federal gas tax.

Cascade Bicycle Club, as a member of Transportation for America, is working hard to provide cities with truly flexible, mode-neutral fund sources – through a Metropolitan Mobility Fund or other mechanism. We’re also supporting Rep. Blumenauer’s (D-OR) Active Community Transportation Act to provide non-motorized project grants to cities where it will increase trip-making by bicycle and foot. While modest by automobile project standards, at $50m or so per city, grants from programs like the ACT Act will make a huge difference on the ground. (Seattle, by comparrison spends about $7m per year on stand alone bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Kati and our friends at Cascade Bicycle Club:
Kati, thanks for your response. A few reactions from RTC. I especially encourage you to follow the link below to see a fuller response.

“Simply change the federal account”? It isn’t that simple. Here is RTC’s take on what AAA is saying: http://www.railstotrails.org/ourWork/whereWeWork/national/news/AAA.html

Contrary to Mr. Gagnon’s letter, it is coincidental that flexibility dovetails with a deteriorating highway system. The main culprits are lack of political will to invest more in transportation or to prioritize maintenance over road building. Mr. Gagnon appears to assume that these dynamics cannot be changed, so he concludes that biking, walking and transit must be removed from the Trust Fund, completely missing that these investments can improve conditions for all users, including drivers.

Ms. Driscoll conveys Mr. Darbelnet’s sentence in his letter to RTC calling for multi-modal opportunities, which I whole-heartedly commend, but Mr. Darbelnet’s next sentence says: “Unfortunately, our overall infrastructure maintenance needs far exceed the available revenue.” I agree that maintenance is very important, but in a response to a request to disavow AAA Mid-Atlantic’s call to restrict the Highway Trust Fund to roads, this sentence implies support for that position. It sounds as though transportation choice is a luxury to be prioritized only during flush times.

“Anti-bike tirade”? We made no such claim. Our communications with AAA and the public have been uniformly respectful and professional. We only wish to highlight a critical difference on federal policy.