Advocates for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit are lamenting the federal funding their causes stand to lose under the state aid bill that Congress passed last week.

At issue is H.R. 1586, which offered $26 billion to states for teachers' salaries and Medicaid assistance, but rescinded $2.2 billion from highway contract authority formula balances.

The rescissions are bookkeeping procedures that allow the federal government to recoup unobligated funds, and they are not new. But boosters of alternative-transportation programs say they have felt the brunt of the cuts in the past and fear that this round could be even worse.

The rescissions come from a gap in apportionments in the 2005 transportation reauthorization bill, known as SAFETEA-LU, and the limitations set in annual appropriations bills. Because the spending bills cap cash for each program, states build up a surplus of unobligated funds, which affords them more flexibility to enter into long-term contracts or boost other programs. To even the funding, Congress periodically rescinds the money.

History shows the process tends to hurt alternative-transportation programs. The state aid bill does not require the cuts to be made proportionally, instead giving states the authority to determine what programs the funds will be drawn from.

"What many states tend to do is they'll spend out on highway expansion or highway maintenance and end up giving away the money for transportation enhancement, air quality, bike programs or in some cases, transit," said Colin Peppard, a transportation advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's a de facto transfer of money from one program to another."

According to the National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, rescissions have hit hard transportation enhancement funds, which are used to create multimodal and greener options. In every year since 2002, the percentage rescinded from transportation enhancements has dwarfed the overall percentage rescinded from the Federal Highway Administration, including a nearly four-fold difference in 2009, the federal information service says.

Similar complaints have been made about cuts to the Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality and the Safe Routes to Schools programs.

Travis Brower, the federal affairs adviser for the Oregon Department of Transportation, said the rescissions do not have a major impact on existing programs since they can plan for the unobligated dollars.

"Each year, we build up a surplus, unless we overprogram," Brower said. "You could say you're getting rid of money that could be used for bike paths, but that's apportionments above and beyond what we're spending."

Oregon faces more than $25 million in cuts, according to data from FHA, but Brower said he would not worry about cutting transportation enhancement programs. The state already fully funds those programs at 90 percent of apportionments, accounting for the funding gap. In fact, he said a proportional rescission might end up hurting those programs, since the state was not intending to cut there in the first place.

Likewise, Matt Rocco, a spokesman for the California DOT, said "a good portion" of funding for bikes and other alternative transportation measures would not be affected in the rescissions.

'Worrisome'

However, that has not eased the concerns of alternative transportation advocates, who say their programs are already underfunded compared with expensive highway projects. This round of rescissions is not necessarily too large: States faced $8.7 billion in rescissions last year (those funds were ultimately restored in March 2010 when SAFETEA-LU was extended as part of the HIRE Act.).

"We're never happy when we have to do rescissions," said Marianne Fowler, senior vice president of federal relations for the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. "Our concern about this particular one is that it does not include the proportionality clause. That is worrisome."

The bill not only allows states to apply the funds unevenly, but it also protects some programs, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Railway-Highway Crossings Program, the Safe Routes to School Program and some Surface Transportation Program funds that are suballocated by population. Furthermore, Fowler said she was worried about the tight deadline -- states must report their plans for cuts by Aug. 25.

The League of American Bicyclists is urging its members to call local politicians and governors to demand the cuts be applied equally. Ultimately, they say, their programs cannot afford to take the hit.

"There's a lot more money for highway construction and highway expansions ... than cleaner transportation, bike and pedestrian programs or even safety," Peppard said. "If they're viewed as non-core programs and they're hit with a rescission, it hurts more. They can stretch, but the remainder doesn't go as far as it might elsewhere."