Kansas City News Blog

The relationship between cyclists and the Missouri Department of Transportation is marked with plenty of pot holes and dead ends. If you ask MoDOT, cyclists don't demand or use the roads enough to warrant the dollars they demand. If you ask bike advocates, they might complain that the state agency might as well be called the "Department of Single-Occupant Automobile Transportation" for all the attention they pay to alternative forms of transit.

The most notable divide over the past several years has been the passage of a Complete Streets bill in the Missouri Legislature. Such a measure would require MoDOT to dedicate a reasonable amount of funds in any road project to cycling and pedestrian accommodations, like crosswalks and "Share the Road" signs. Lawmakers have been warm to the idea. That is, until MoDOT officials dumped a whole bunch of cold water on the proposal, sinking Complete Streets during both the 2008 and 2009 legislative sessions.

Which raises an interesting question: Should state officials, working on the taxpayers' dime, be acting like lobbyists? The Missouri Bike Federation posted an online poll last week about the issue. But cyclists aren't the only ones who think MoDOT is treading a fine line.

This year, Missouri state lawmakers raised the red flag on MoDOT's activities in the halls and chambers of the Capitol. In March, legislators were apparently perturbed by a small army of MoDOT employee's, who urged policymakers to pass a primary seat-belt law. According to the Springfield News-Leader, Rep. Brian Yates, a Republican from Lee's Summit, was among the annoyed. "I wish these employees were working on making Missouri's roads better rather than lobbying legislators on a policy issue on state time," Yates said in a statement.

As the session progressed, legislators debated a measure that would have reined in MoDOT's political influence. A transportation bill, sponsored by state Sen. Chuck Purgason, included a "MoDOT Anti-Lobbying" clause, mandating that "no funds appropriated to or received by the Missouri Department of Transportation shall be available for any activity specifically designed to urge a state or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal." It didn't pass, but it got a decent amount of debate.

Then, just last month, Senate President, Charlie Shields, a Republican from St. Joseph, released a statement chastising MoDOT director, Pete Rahn, for his agency's very public opposition to loosening the state's motorcycle helmet law. "The last time I checked," Shields wrote, "laws are written by the people's elected representatives to the state House and Senate, and the governor then has the power to approve or veto the laws they pass that represent the will of the people. I am alarmed that an appointed bureaucrat would use taxpayer money to pay for polling and then hold a press conference while on the clock to oppose a specific piece of legislation."

MoDOT director, Pete Rahn

Add the Missouri Bike Federation to the list of groups that worry MoDOT is overstepping its bounds to inform, but not railroad, political debate. Just like 2008, cyclists were disappointed again this year when opposition from MoDOT brought down a Complete Streets measure. Last week, director Brent Hugh posted a commentary about the lobbying issue on the group's website.

"The question is whether it is appropriate for MoDOT to spend the taxpayer's money to engage in the political process -- to go beyond simply providing information and use taxpayer funds and taxpayer-funded employees to work to influence votes in the legislature or the governor in his official capacity," Hugh wrote.

Rahn thinks it is entirely appropriate. Earlier this week, I asked the MoDOT director about concerns from lawmakers and citizens that his agency is veering dangerously out of lane when it comes to lobbying. "I strongly believe it is the responsibility of the Missouri Department of Transportation and its employees to advocate for transportation issues and efforts that will save lives on our highways. It is part of our job, " Rahn responded in a statement. "Highway safety issues, such as wearing motorcycle helmets and safety belts, are as much a part of the department's mission as building roads and bridges. When an issue comes up that could increase fatalities on our highways, I believe we have an obligation to speak up and say it's not a good idea."

Many of the folks in the Missouri Bike Federation disagree. So far the online poll has drawn nearly 80 respondents. Almost 80 percent say MoDOT should be allowed to testify for informational purposes only. Another 14 percent say the department should butt out altogether.