Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) [Non]Improvement Program

From the League of American Bicyclists:
...
BACKGROUND

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) created the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program to fund transportation projects designed to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion. Bicycle and Pedestrian projects are explicitly recognized at the federal level as eligible. Eligible projects include new bike and walking facilities and promotion projects (FHWAa, 2008).

All CMAQ projects must be part of a state’s transportation plan and region’s transportation spending plan, called the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). As with other federal funding sources, states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) that have made cycling walking priorities in their planning will have an easier time using CMAQ funds on bike/ped projects. States disperse the funds -- sometimes allocating them directly, and sometimes suballocating to MPOs -- and are then reimbursed by the FHWA after the work is complete. CMAQ typically covers 80 percent of the project cost, with the remaining 20 percent coming from the state, MPO or public/private partners.

Where and how much

All 50 states and the District of Columbia receive CMAQ funds. Funds must be spent in regions that do not meet national air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide levels (“nonattainment” areas) or have recently become compliant (“maintenance” areas). [Baltimore is a non attainment area]. If a state does not have these areas, CMAQ funds are treated as part of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and can be used anywhere in the state.
...
Overcoming Barriers

While some MPOs are eager to spend CMAQ money on bike/ped projects, others are more resistant. According to a comparative case-study, almost 45 percent of the money spent on bike/ped in the Sacramento, Ca. area comes from the CMAQ program, while Baltimore, Md. did not spend any CMAQ funds on bike/ped projects as of spring 2009. Officials in the two locations saw bike projects very differently. In Sacramento, reviewers saw bike projects as the ideal use for CMAQ money, saying that the CMAQ program “almost earmarks money” for bike/ped projects. But in Baltimore, planners questioned the competitiveness of bicycling projects because they felt it was difficult to show their impact on air quality (McCann, 2009).
...
Nearly all states have under-spent their CMAQ funding. The money is there. It is a matter of priorities. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are a great choice because their cost benefit ratio is better than for other project types. [Maryland has underspent to the tune of $1.4M]
...
“You could spend your whole budget on a few miles of HOV lanes,” one planner said, or you could complete a number of different bicycle and pedestrian projects.
...
FY 2009 Baltimore, Maryland Application – November 4, 2008
Bicycling projects are grouped under ‘other’, with no bicycle specific instructions. They ask generally for the type and description of the project, how it will reduce emissions, an estimate of reductions, and cost effectiveness calculations.

http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/lab_cmaq.pdf