Transportation Alternatives Spending Report FY 2025
Executive Summary
The Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) is the largest dedicated source of funding for trails, walking and bicycling in the United States. Since 1991, this program, formerly known as Transportation Enhancements (TE), has transformed the landscape of the country. While projects in several categories (including eligibilities such as historic preservation and highway beautification) are eligible for funding from this program, the consistent leading priority in TE/Transportation Alternatives (TA) investment since the program’s inception has been the improvement of conditions for walking and bicycling. In large part due to this dedicated funding, the United States now boasts more than 42,500 miles of multiuse trails and thousands of improved street facility projects that support biking and walking. Investment in active transportation infrastructure—such as sidewalks, bike lanes and trail networks—increases mobility choices, improves safety and health, creates strong, connected communities, and provides economic opportunities and job creation.
The impact of TASA has grown substantially because of changes initiated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) passed by Congress in November 2021. In addition to increasing the funding for TASA by an average of 70% over the course of five years, this vital funding is less likely to be diverted to unrelated purposes as IIJA constrains inter-program transfers. This constraint restricts the loopholes that over the previous decade prevented TA funding from reaching its maximum potential.
Since the inception of TE, passed in 1991, through its transformation into TA in 2012, Rails to Trails Conservancy (RTC) has monitored for more than 30 years how these funds have been invested and the projects that have been built. This annual “Transportation Alternatives Spending Report” is an important tool for states, regions and active transportation professionals to understand and strengthen the program, thus improving the efficiency and impact of the investments made.
In this report, we provide a look at the history of TA programs and examine how recent changes are supporting state and local decision-makers and advocates in getting eligible projects funded.
- A total of $1.39 billion was apportioned to the states for the TA program in fiscal year 2025 (FY 2025), in contrast to $1.36 billion in FY 2024.
- A total of $1.08 billion was obligated to TA projects in FY 2025, with about 4.5 times as much funding requested as obligated based upon the most recent federal data.
- The FY 2025 inter-program transfer rate (TASA funds being moved away from the TASA program and into other projects) was 6.7%, demonstrating that under IIJA, inter-program transfers have found their new level and are consistently lower than pre-IIJA inter-program transfers.
- Obligation rates were 78% of apportioned funds, down from 80% in FY 2024. This level leaves room for improvement but continues in a typical range that is well above the 61.9% rate in FY 2023, before states hit their stride in implementing IIJA reforms.
- Approximately $844 million of TE/TA/TASA funds was reimbursed in FY 2025, marking the completion of projects and the return of spent funds to local communities.
Download TrADE FY 2025 Report
This report was written and produced by Kim Chesser and reviewed by Kevin Mills, J.D., edited by Amy Kapp, Sharon Congdon and Sharon Kaplan, and designed by Joe LaCroix. Data collection and table and figure production were undertaken by Tiffany Mulally, Ph.D. The report was produced for TrADE at RTC.
What We Mean By Transportation Alternatives (TA)
(A Note on the Difference Between TE, TAP and TASA)
Transportation Enhancements, or TE, was the first dedicated source of federal funding for walking and biking. When Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the legislation brought together roads, railroads, transit and other modes of
transportation—including walking and biking—under one umbrella. Under ISTEA, Congress created TE and ensured that funding would be available for bicycle and pedestrian transportation and for the preservation and enhancement of many of the nation’s scenic and historic assets.
The Transportation Alternatives Program, or TAP, was the next iteration of TE. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, known as MAP-21, was signed into law in 2012 with legislative language that recast many of the TE activities as Transportation Alternatives, or TA. MAP-21 also consolidated the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program and the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) to create TAP.
The Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside, or TASA, is the next iteration. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or FAST Act, was signed into law in 2015, the first long-term funding bill in more than a decade, covering FYs 2016–2020. Under the FAST Act, TAP evolved into the TASA. Eligible uses for these set-aside funds include all projects and activities previously eligible under TAP.
The difference between TAP and TASA is the structure by which funds are delivered. Under TAP, the funds came through a stand-alone program, and with TASA, the funds are a set-aside of the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program. This was a return to prior norms. Before MAP-21, TE had been funded as a Surface Transportation Program set-aside.
In this report, Transportation Alternatives, or the abbreviation TA, refers to the projects within the categories of eligibility, regardless of the delivery mechanisms for these funds. TA, therefore, encompasses both the stand-alone program (TAP) of MAP-21 and the set-aside (TASA), which began with the FAST Act.
Lessons from Transportation Alternative Spending Report FY25
- More Funding Represents More Progress But Still Falls Short of Demand
- Transfers Continue to Undermine Transportation Alternatives Funding
- Local Match Remains an Obstacle
- More Technical Assistance Needed
- Ambitious Connectivity Projects
Introduction
The passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in 2021 was an important milestone for trails, walking and biking infrastructure in the United States. The legislation restores funding that will help communities across the nation accelerate the progress of the last several decades in making our country a safer place to walk and bike. Building on the solid foundation of Transportation Alternatives (TA) funding and projects—including Transportation Enhancements (TE), the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA)—IIJA increases the amount of funding available in the program overall. In addition, IIJA attempts to mitigate the most problematic aspect of TASA, which has been inter-program transfers. These changes to TA restore funding and are vital to creating and completing active transportation networks, while also ensuring a broader distribution in the funding and development of TA projects. See Figure 1 for details.
Figure 1: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES KEY MILESTONES: FROM ISTEA TO IIJA
1991
Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The legislation brought together roads, railroads, transit and other modes of transportation—including walking and biking—under one umbrella. Under ISTEA, Congress created Transportation Enhancements (TE) to ensure that funding would be available for bicycle and pedestrian transportation as well as for the preservation and enhancement of many of the nation’s scenic and historic assets.
2012
Two decades and three reauthorizations after ISTEA was introduced, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was signed into law. The law included language that recast many of the TE activities as Transportation Alternatives (TA), and the law created the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) as a funding umbrella for TA, Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and the Recreational Trails Program (RTP).
There was a 30% decrease in overall funding in MAP-21. The legislation also allowed states to transfer up to 50% of their TA funding available for use across the state to other Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) projects, which doubled the percentage of transfers allowed under the preceding bills.
2021
After nine years under MAP-21 and its successor, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which largely maintained the status quo for the program, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was passed by Congress. This legislation provides states with a nearly 70% increase to TA on average over the next five years and a new opportunity to help meet the unprecedented demand for trails and other walking and biking infrastructure. IIJA also limits transferability out of TA; allows states to use up to 5% of their TA funds for technical assistance programs and program administration; and provides states with flexibility to average match requirements across the state, as opposed to requiring each project to meet the 20% federal match requirement.
Spending Analysis
From fiscal year 1992 (FY 1992) through FY 2025, Congress apportioned $26.32 billion to the states for TE, TAP and TASA projects, as shown in Figure 2. During that time, approximately $2.75 billion was lost to transfers, and another $3.02 billion was lost to rescissions. The Transportation Alternatives Data Exchange (TrADE) national project database shows that state departments of transportation (DOTs) have programmed a cumulative total of 41,704 TE/TAP/TASA projects from FY 1992 through FY 2025. (This does not include canceled projects or projects with no federal money.) In FY 2025, redistribution of Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program funds pursuant to the Fiscally Responsible Highway Funding Act of 2024 (FRHFA) distributed $180 million for Transportation Alternatives eligible projects. A financial summary for FY 2025 follows in Figure 3.
The federal aid project funding cycle is successfully completed when federal dollars are reimbursed to the project sponsor. Both the obligation and reimbursement rates are key performance measures for project implementation. The obligations demonstrate that states and regions have awarded funds to the projects of greatest merit and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has committed to reimburse states for the federal share of the cost of selected projects. Reimbursements are the final stage of the project funding cycle in which FHWA pays back project costs incurred. The cumulative obligation rate for TE/TAP/TASA (FY 1992 to FY 2025) is 88%. The cumulative reimbursement rate for TE/TAP/TASA (FY 1992 to FY 2025) is 63%. On average, more than 80% of obligations progressed to reimbursement.
LESSONS FROM FY 2025
FY 2025 was the fourth year of the IIJA implementation. States are using available remaining funds from previous funding bills while concurrently using available TASA funds. Because of the increase in overall funding available through IIJA, there is substantially more funding available within TASA. This report gives an indication of how states are responding to this increase in TA funding. One thing is clear: Because of the increased funding, many states are making significant progress on the backlog of active transportation projects. The increase in overall apportionment has enabled states to obligate funds at increased levels to respond to growing demand for safe and practical routes to move through communities.
One of the most notable changes is that inter-program transfers are restricted under IIJA. For FY 2022, the FHWA prohibited such transfers and, beginning in FY 2023, transfers are limited to instances where states demonstrate to FHWA that demand for TASA-eligible projects is insufficient. After nearly a decade of problematically high transfers, this policy change in IIJA dedicates TASA funds to the authorizing legislation’s intended beneficiaries, most notably trail, walking and biking projects.
During FY 2022, there was $0 in inter-program transfers due to the complete prohibition of such transfers. FY 2023 saw five states approved by FHWA for inter-program transfers, totaling $85 million. This is approximately 50% of the inter-program transfer rate from FY 2021, showing that IIJA is reducing the amount of this vital funding being diverted to unrelated purposes but does not completely restrict the loopholes that over the past decade have prevented TA funding from reaching its maximum potential. During FY 2024, 12 states were approved by FHWA for interprogram transfers totaling $250,317,066. This steep increase in FY 2024 transfers was largely due to a state transferring more than $100,000 under August redistribution’s reallocation of unspent federal highway funds, with the commitment to rededicate these funds to active transportation projects already selected for future years; otherwise, there is a consistent pattern of transfers at a reduced rate under IIJA. FY 2025 saw nine states approved by FHWA for inter-program transfers totaling $93,904,475, demonstrating that the reforms to transfers under IIJA are reducing transfers and should be strengthened going forward. We examine this trend in detail on page 29.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT AND UNMET DEMAND
Over more than 30 years, the TA program has obligated more than $18.86 billion to over 40,000 projects across the country, including creation of infrastructure for walking and biking; preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities such as rail trestles, tunnels and bridges; stormwater mitigation; and more.
Communities of all sizes and across diverse geographies are using the transformative power of these investments now more than ever. Rural communities seek more investment in active transportation projects as they plan multiuse trails and other facilities that improve economic development through recreation and tourism, and create more positive health outcomes in the communities. Streetscaping invites foot traffic and enlivens main streets, creating economic opportunities for small towns. In urban and suburban areas, there is burgeoning demand for safe streets, protected bicycle lanes, multiuse pathways, trails and other facilities that connect communities to essential resources such as food, health care, jobs and education, and help spur economic development and revitalization.
Despite the increase in overall apportionment through IIJA, the available funds are not keeping up with the demand. For comparison, roughly 4.5 times the amount of obligated funds was requested through TA applications.
AMBITIOUS PROJECTS FOR CONNECTIVITY
Communities across the country are eager to develop interconnected active transportation networks. By providing safe routes to the places people want to go, these projects transform communities by improving safety, public health, economic and mobility outcomes. Achieving active transportation network connectivity multiplies benefits but is ambitious, requiring focused and strategic investment that prioritizes filling critical gaps in existing infrastructure. Here’s the hitch: Even with the increase in funding through the IIJA, the pipeline of projects needed to complete these networks far exceeds current funding allocations, and the scale of gap filling needed to create functional routes to walk and bike points to a need for new approaches to funding to accelerate progress.
TA funding is foundational for trail, biking and walking projects. In fact, many of these active transportation networks are based on infrastructure that exists because of TA funding. But, for these networks to proceed from plans to reality, and for communities to reap the benefits, resources will increasingly need to be prioritized and strategically focused to ensure that people walking and biking can get where they want to go safely and conveniently. Since the passage of the IIJA in 2021, billions of dollars have been invested in trails and in linking these spaces to create robust, connected active-transportation networks. These investments are what is needed to realize the full potential of trails to bring transformative benefits to people who live in all types of communities.
In fiscal year 2025 (FY 2025), Michigan awarded $1,020,107 to the City of Fenton to construct a mixed-use path along Silver Lake Road from Jennings Road to Silver Lake Court. This project is part of a larger effort to create nonmotorized connections between the cities of Fenton and Linden, and Argentine and Fenton townships. This project is part of an overall effort to connect the Mike Levine Lakelands Trail with the Falling Waters Trail. These two systems form part of the Great Lake-to-Lake Trail, which connects Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, and the Iron Belle Trail, which will connect Belle Isle in Detroit with Ironwood in the Upper Peninsula.
Several states are increasing the maximum size of their project awards due to the increase in funding through IIJA and are focusing on connectivity in their project awards. Average award size is also increasing across states. The average award size is now $1.87 million. States should consider that a large-scale project category can contribute to connectivity.
Texas created a large-scale bicycle and pedestrian project category that has dominated its implementation of IIJA with impressive results. The awarded amounts are around $5 million to $25 million. Large-scale projects may include high-impact projects that substantively improve mobility options such as long-distance active transportation routes, comprehensive or areawide accessibility improvements, active transportation connections to intermodal hubs, shared-use paths along rail or utility corridors, and improvements that mitigate barriers to bicycling and walking. Large-scale projects may be composed of multiple elements that work together to create a connected network.
IIJA REVIEW
There were several impactful policy changes to TA in IIJA, which Congress passed in November 2021. IIJA authorizes significantly more money for TA over the course of five years, and the law contains several critical policy changes that will help to ensure program success and equitable access to funds.
MORE FUNDING AVAILABLE
IIJA provides states with a nearly 70% increase to TA on average over the next five years, restoring the buying power of the program after cuts nearly a decade prior and creating a new opportunity to help meet the unprecedented demand for trails and for other walking and biking infrastructure. A total of $1.38 billion was apportioned to TA projects, after the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) set-aside, in FY 2025, in contrast to $1.36 billion in FY 2024. With annual increases each year under IIJA, by FY 2026, the annual apportionment will be $1.42 billion.
State DOTs as well as metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have adjusted to increased funding levels and rules as evidenced by a 78% obligation rate in FY 2025. This is above the long-term obligation average rate from FY 2013–2025, since the inception of TAP, of 75%. However, obligation rates are a key metric for delivering on the program’s promise, and states should continue to strive to obtain higher obligations.
LIMITS ON TRANSFERS
IIJA requires states to conduct a competitive process before transferring funds out to other programs and did not allow for any inter-program transfers in FY 2022. TrADE data from previous years showed the negative impact of transfers, which resulted in $2.2 billion being transferred out of TA for other uses since FY 2012. This loophole, which hampered the program’s effectiveness for the decade prior to IIJA, was addressed by Congress in IIJA with process restrictions on transfers, promising a return to a clear expectation that TA funds should be used for TA eligibilities. States are now expected to run competitive grant programs to obligate TA funds for TA-eligible projects. There has been a marked decrease in transfers across all fiscal years under IIJA with a unique circumstance in FY 2024, where a large transfer of TA funds occurred from one state as part of the federal August redistribution, with a commitment to rededicate those dollars to TA projects already selected for future years, demonstrating that the reforms to transfers under IIJA are working. But in the next reauthorization, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that waivers from the restriction are not used to circumvent the core expectation that TA funds be used for eligible purposes.
INTERAGENCY VS. INTER-PROGRAM TRANSFERS
There are two types of transfers of Transportation Enhancements/Transportation Alternatives Program/ Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TE/TAP/TASA) funds: interagency and inter-program transfers.
Interagency transfers: Interagency transfers are a frequently used mechanism in which TE/TAP/ TASA funds from a state DOT are transferred to federal agencies to administer projects. In Western states, the federal government directly maintains a large amount of land; thus, transfers to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or National Park Service (NPS) to administer projects are not uncommon. Since interagency transfers must still be used for TE/TAP/ TASA-eligible projects, this type of transfer is encouraged because funding allocated for TE/TAP/ TASA is used in alignment with its intended purposes.
Inter-program transfers: In contrast, inter-program transfers allow funding to be transferred to another Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) and used for non-TE/TAP/TASA eligibilities. For example, a transfer of funds to the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) means that former TE/TAP/TASA funding could be used to build a freeway. Inter-program transfers are often problematic because the funds intended for TE/TAP/TASA use are redirected for a use that is out of alignment with the intended purposes. The IIJA narrowed this decade-old loophole, but concerns are growing about the sufficiency of that change. The IIJA reforms cut transfers in half but did not completely eliminate transfers. The next reauthorization should build on this progress with greater accountability. No inter-program transfers occurred in FY 2022 because the FHWA declared a moratorium. In FY 2023, the moratorium was lifted, and five states were approved by FHWA for inter-program transfers totaling $85,517,446. In FY 2024, 12 states were approved for inter-program transfers totaling $250,317,066. In FY 2025, nine states were approved for inter-program transfers totaling $93,904,475, which is a reduction in the inter-program transfer rate of 6.7% compared to 18.4% in FY 2024. An analysis of this trend is discussed further in the “Inter-Program Transfers” section of the report.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Under IIJA, states may now use up to 5% of their annual TA allocation to “provide technical and application assistance,” and to offset administrative costs of TA. As a result, some states are taking advantage of this and are implementing technical assistance using TA funds. TA implementation tends to be most successful in states that make the application process broadly accessible despite disparities in the capacity of applicants to compete for these funds.
As authorized by IIJA, Arizona has used technical assistance funds to hire a consultant team to develop TA program materials, including an online application and scoring platform, program guidebook, webinar and other supporting documents for the TA program website.
Pennsylvania provides TA funds to MPOs to provide technical assistance to applicants.
Idaho used TA technical assistance funds in FY 2025. These funds were used for the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC), which administers the TA program. LHTAC received 41 applications for funding from FY 2022 to FY 2025. With the increase in federal funds for these years and technical assistance provided, all 41 applications were funded.
Montana provides technical assistance for communities with a population of less than 5,000 or a Tribal community. The funding is available to hire an engineer to assist them with their application costs up to $5,000 as these are the communities that typically don’t have any engineers on staff to help them be competitive in developing an application.
More states are using the funds to develop TA program materials and provide assistance to eligible applicants in identifying projects, defining the scope and cost of projects, and preparing applications. These funds are providing essential resources to ensure applicants have the support they require to effectively address active transportation needs in their communities.
In addition, many states are providing technical assistance using other funds available and may not be tapping into the opportunity to use TA funds. In the next reauthorization, Congress should expand the opportunity for states to use TA funds for technical assistance to make the application process more broadly accessible.
MATCH ASSISTANCE
A change to the matching requirement has provided some relief for communities struggling to meet the often elusive matching dollars to unlock TA. Previously, states were required to meet a 20% match for all projects. The IIJA now allows states to average a 20% match across their full portfolio of TA projects.
In addition to taking advantage of the match flexibility to adjust match rates based upon community needs and access to capital, several states are providing match assistance, sometimes making the project 100% funded. Match is one of the most often cited barriers to successfully accessing federal funds for active transportation projects.
California, New Jersey and Florida are examples of states that require no matching funds for all TA projects. California uses a combination of state and toll credits to provide match assistance. New Jersey and Florida use toll credits as well.
Rural communities often struggle with match requirements. Alaska has a sliding scale for match. Over 50% of Alaska is unincorporated, and match waivers are provided to these communities on a case-by-case basis. This match waiver is typically paid with state funds. Kansas uses a dedicated state fund for pedestrian and bicycle transportation projects to assist rural and low-population communities with their required match.
By providing match assistance, more states are seeking to reduce the barriers to mobility, access, community connectivity and economic development that rural and small communities face.
The IIJA enabled states to use funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to match federal TA funding, and certain states are beginning to take advantage of this flexibility. In practice, this flexibility allows some projects to be funded with 100% federal funding. However, the law still requires the overall TA program in each state to have a 20% local match. States that use these funds as a match for Transportation Alternatives projects must capture a greater than 20% match on other projects to meet the 20% requirement.
For example, in Ohio, the Office of Local Programs, in its goal to offer this blended-funding option, partnered with the Office of Transportation and Economic Development to fund TAP projects that have eligible safety components at 80% federal TAP funding and 20% federal safety funding. Both sidewalk and multiuse trail projects are funded using this new opportunity.
Kansas uses HSIP funds as a match on projects that meet certain criteria, e.g., disadvantaged census tract, population of less than 5,000 people, located on a high-risk network, or includes crash-modification factors, etc., to improve safety.
Maine provides state funds for 10% of the match, reducing the local match requirement to 10%.
Combined with new or increased technical assistance programs, communities that may have previously struggled to meet the TA matching requirement may become more able to access funds to improve the safety, public health and economic benefits that active transportation provides to their residents.
Congress should lower match requirements, include provisions to make it easier for local governments to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians by expanding eligibilities for using these funds as a match and allow states to use these funds to cover the non-federal share for Transportation Alternatives projects without having to overmatch on other TA projects.
Match is discussed in more detail later in the report under the “Average Federal Awards and Match Rates” section.
ADDITIONAL TA CHANGES
Among additional policy changes in IIJA were updates to suballocations—the process through which MPOs serving populations of 200,000 or more people are given responsibility for a share of TA. This portion of funds increased from 50% to 59%. See Figure 4 for details.
The guidance also clarifies that TA may be used for trail maintenance in the same manner as the RTP. With many aging trails requiring maintenance, local communities struggling to fund maintenance and a 70% increase in TA funds, states should consider funding a specific category for maintenance.
There are multiple states using TA funds for trail maintenance. Examples include Montana’s Pavement Preservation category that is for maintaining existing bike paths.
While Arkansas does not have a specific maintenance category, the state will fund trail maintenance if the applicant applies for it. In FY 2025, Arkansas funded maintenance for the Timberwolf Recreational Trail Remediation.
In Delaware, a small funding measure helps underwrite trail planning, as well as trail crew, materials and exhibit planning, for the state’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) RTP projects.
Download TrADE FY 2025 Report
This report was written and produced by Kim Chesser and reviewed by Kevin Mills, J.D., edited by Amy Kapp, Sharon Congdon and Sharon Kaplan, and designed by Joe LaCroix. Data collection and table and figure production were undertaken by Tiffany Mulally, Ph.D. The report was produced for TrADE at RTC.
Donate
Everyone deserves access to safe ways to walk, bike, and be active outdoors.
