transportation enhancements spending report fy 1992 - fy 2010
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
1/36
T
ESd RAnalysis of the States Use of Federal Funding
MAY Pp by
N Tp
E C
FY 1992 - FY 2010
Tis report supersedes all previously published editions
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
2/36
For transportation enhancement activities.In a fiscal year, the greater of 10 percentof the funds apportioned to a State under section
104(b)(3) for such fiscal year, or the amount set
aside under this paragraph with respect to the
State for fiscal year 2005, shall only be available
for transportation enhancement activities.
Suggested Citation or this Report:
2011. Transportation Enhancements Spending Report: Analysis o the States Use o Federal FundingFY1992 through FY2010. Washington, DC: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse.
List o Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Cumulative Transportation Enhancements Financial Summary ............................................3
Figure 2: Budget Breakdown or the Three Transportation Authorizing Legislations ...........................5
Figure 3: State Data Collection Participation during FY 2010 ...............................................................9
Figure 4: The Transportation Funding Lie-Cycle .................................................................................10
Table 1: State TE Program Benchmarks or FY 1992 to FY 2010 ..........................................................11
Table 2: Yearly Obligation Rates by Fiscal Year 2006 to 2010 ..............................................................13
Figure 5: How TE Funding Accumulates Year to Year ...........................................................................14
Figure 6: TE Funding Obligated Each Fiscal Year 1992 to 2010 ...........................................................15
Figure 7: Obligation, Apportionment, Available Balance, & Rescissions or each Fiscal Year 2002through 2010 ........................................................................................................................................15
Figure 8: Rescissions as a Rate o Apportionments: Overall FHWA vs. TE ...........................................17
Table 3: FHWA and TE Rescissions or FY 2010 ....................................................................................18
Figure 9: Distribution o Federal Funding by TE Activity.....................................................................20
Figure 10: Distribution o Funding across Projects with Designated Historic Preservation Subtypes .21
Figure 11: Distribution o Funding across Projects with Designated Bike & Pedestrian Subtypes ......22
Table 4: Cumulative Programmed Federal Awards and States Matching Funds .................................24
Table 5: Transer o TE Funds to Other Programs .................................................................................29
Table 6: Yearly Rescissions to TE by State .............................................................................................30
United States Code Title 23 Chapter 1 Paragraph 133(d)(2)
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
3/36
www.enhancements.org
Table of Contents
Executive Summary2
SpendingAnalysis2
NationwidePrioritiesorTransportationEnhancementFunding3
LessonsoFY103Structure of the TE Program4
AuthorizationoFundingortheProgram4
TransportationProjectsEligibleorFunding4
The12TransportationEnhancementActivities6
AdministrationoTEFundingandProjects8
Updating the NTEC Database9
The Federal Financing Life-Cycle10
AuthorizationoFunding10
ApportionedFunding10Programming12
Obligations:Background12
ObligationRatesbyFiscalYear14
RecentTrendsinObligation14
Reimbursements16
Transers16
Rescissions17
Programming Analysis19
TheProjectList19FindingsbyTransportationEnhancementActivity19
BicycleandPedestrianProjectSubtypes21
FutureProgramming22
AverageFederalAwardsandMatchRates22
Conclusion25
Appendix A: TE Obligations Explained26
Appendix B: Glossary28
Appendix C: Additional Tables29
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
4/36
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
5/36
www.enhancements.org
bestpracticestoimproveTEprojectdeliveryandincreasereimbursementrates
The2010scalyearwasachallengingoneorstatedepartmentsotransportation,duetotheuncer-tainstatusotheederaltransportationprogramasCongressnegotiatesanewspendingauthoriza-tion,andwidespreadstatebudgetcrises
Nationwide Priorities for Transportation Enhancement Funding
TheconsistentleadingpriorityinTEinvestmentsince1992hasbeentoimproveconditionsorwalkingandbicycling,ollowedbylandscapingandbeautication,andthenpreservationandrehabilitationohistorictransportationinrastructureBicycleandpedestrianacilities,combinedwithrail-trailsandbike/pedsaetyprograms,comprise57%oprogrammedundingbetweenFY1992andFY2010Landscapingandscenicbeauticationreceived19%oTEundingHistoricpreservationandrehabilitationohistorictransportationacilitiesreceived13%oTEundingTheothersixcategoriescombinedaccountortheremaining11%oprogrammedunding
Lessons of FY 2010The2010scalyearwasoneoextremesAnAugust2010rescissiono$22billionoverallimpactedTEdisproportionatelywith$500millionreturnedromthisprogramaloneThisrefectstheactionsoroughlyhalothestatesSomeothesesamestatessuspendedorscaledbackimplementationotheirTEprogramsduetoshitingpoliticalprioritiesanduncertaintysurroundingreauthorizationSpendingtrendsootherstatesdemonstrateacommitmenttotheprogramandevenincreasedundingortheseactivitiesGrowthintheTEprojectlist,obligationtrends,andmatchingundsleveragedshowthatthesestatesarearmingtheircommitmenttodeliveringthesmall-scale,large-impactlivableinrastructureprojectsrepresentedbyTE
Thereimbursementrateiscalculatedusingobligatedundsasthedenominator,sinceonlyobligatedundscanbereimbursed
Allotherratesarecalculatedusingapportionmentsasthedenominator
$9.87
79%$8.75
70%$7.58
60.8%
$0.22
1.7%
$12.47
100%
$2.63
21%
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
Apportioned Programmed Obligated Reimbursed Transfers Rescissions
Figure 1: Cumulative Transportation Enhancements Financial Summary, FY 1992 to FY 2010
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
6/36
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
Structure of the TE Program
Authorization of Funding for the Program
T
heUSCongressusuallycratsmulti-yearauthorizationlegislationorsuracetransportationtoenablestrategiclong-termprogramsandinvestmentsinthenationssuracetransportationinrastructureTheIntermodalSuraceTransportationEciencyActo1991(ISTEA)wasthe
authorizinglegislationthatestablishedadedicatedundingstreamorasetonewlydenedTEactivitiesundertheUSDOTsFederal-aidHighwayProgramTenpercentoSuraceTransportationProgram(STP)unding,plustenpercentotheportionoMinimumAllocationundingdistributedtotheSTP,weresetasideorTEactivitiesThededicationoFederal-aidhighwayundingspecicallyorTEdemonstratedasignicantshitinnationaltransportationpolicyPriortoISTEA,manyimportanttransportationneedshadbeenexcludedromthenormalroutineoplanning,unding,andbuildingtransportationinrastructureUnderISTEA,Congressensuredthatundingwouldbeavailableorbicycleandpedestriantransportation,orthepreservationandenhancementomanyothenationsscenicandhistoricassets,andtoaddressandprotectenvironmentalsystemsthatormthecontextormuchoAmericastransportationinrastructure
In1998,CongressreauthorizedtheUSDOTsFederal-aidsuracetransportationprogramsthroughtheTransportationEquityActorthe21stCentury(TEA-21)The10%set-asideorTE(romSTP)continuedwithminoradjustmentsUnderTEA-21,MinimumGuaranteeundingreplacedMinimumAllocationundingandanewconceptoRevenueAlignedBudgetAuthority(RABA)undingwasauthorized,withtenpercentotheRABAundingapportionedasSTPundingalsobeingsetasideorTEactivitiesThesechangesandoverallincreasesunderTEA-21meantthatTEundinglevelsincreasedby40%ThescopeoTEexpandedwithabroaderdenitionandtwoneweligibleTEactivities(seepages6and7orthelistoeligibleTEactivities)TEA-21alsoaddedthestipulationthatprojectsmustrelatetosuracetransportationinordertoreceiveTEundingTEA-21expiredattheendoFY2003TwelveextensionswereenactedoveraperiodotwoyearsatertheoriginalexpirationdateorTEA-21beorenewauthorizinglegislationwaspassed
OnAugust10,2005,CongressenactedtheSae,Accountable,Flexible,EcientTransportationEquityAct:ALegacyorUsers(SAFETEA-LU)SeveralsmallchangeswereincorporatedintothestatutorylanguagedeningtheeligibleactivitiesSAFETEA-LUarmedandcontinuedthe10%
set-asideorTEwithEquityBonusreplacingMinimumGuaranteeunding,anditstipulatedthatTEapportionmentsoreachscalyearmeetorsurpassthebaselinelevelestablishedinFY2005unding
SAFETEA-LUexpiredonSeptember30,2009,butundingauthorizationhascontinuedthroughaseriesosevenextensionstodateThecurrentextensionwillexpireonSeptember30,2011
Transportation Projects Eligible for Funding
ForaprojecttobeeligibleorTEunds,ederallawstatesthattheprojectmustrelatetosuracetransportationandmustqualiyunderoneormoreo12eligibleactivitiesshownonpages6and7StatesmayimposenarrowereligibilityrestrictionsATEprojectmustbeaccessibletothepublic,andmaybeastand-aloneprojectoranadditionalenhancementtoalargerhighwayproject
Accordingtotheauthorizinglegislation,TEactivitiesmustrelatetosuracetransportationEachstateDOTworkswithitsFHWADivisionocerepresentativestoensurethatprojectsdemonstrateasubstantialrelationshiptothesuracetransportationsystemTheollowingactorscanhelpestablishthisrelationship,thoughnoneothemnecessarilymakeorbreakthecase:
FunctionTheprojectserves,orhasserved,asaunctionalcomponentotheintermodalsuracetransportationsystem
ProximityTheprojectiscontiguoustoorclearlyvisibleromapubliclyaccessibletransportation
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
7/36
www.enhancements.org
Figure 2: Budget Breakdown or Three Transportation Authorizations
acilityHowever,proximityaloneisnotenough-itherelationshiptothetransportationsystemissolelybyproximity,theproposedactivitymustsignicantlyenhancetheoverallsuracetransportationsystem
ImpactTheprojecthasasignicantbenecialimpactonthesuracetransportationsystemoraddressesasignicantnegativeimpactosuracetransportationonaresource
TEundingmaynotbeusedorroutinemaintenanceorstandardenvironmentalmitigation,nororTEprogramadministrative,research,and/ortrainingcostsHowever,planningrelatedtoaspecicprojectiseligibleorunding
ThemajorityoprojectsthatuseTEundingarerelativelysmall-scaletransportationprojectswithanaverageederalshareo$379,584andprojectcosto$542,642Theyaremostoteninitiatedatthelocallevelbyprojectsponsorsromcityorcountygovernmentsorcommunity-basedorganizationsProjectsundedwithTEdollarscanalsobeinitiatedbystateDOTs,otherstateagencies,tribalgovernments,orederalagencies
ThisfgureisbasedonannualapportionmentsorFY1992(ISTEA),FY1998(TEA-21),andFY2006(SAFETEA-LU)
Datasources:wwwhwadotgov/legsregs/directives/noticeshtm;wwwhwadotgov/tea21/suptbl98xls;wwwhwadot
gov/saetealu/y06comptablesxls
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
ISTEA TEA-21 SAFETEA-LU
High Priority Projects
Safe Routes to School
Rail-Highway Crossing
Donor State Bonus/MinimumGuarantee/Equity Bonus
Appalachian Development
Border Infrastructure
Highway Safety
Recreational Trails
Metropolitan Planning
Congestion Mitigation & Air
QualityBridge Program
Transportation Enhancements
Surface TransportationProgram
National Highway System
Interstate Substitute
Interstate Maintenance
Interstate Construction
Billions
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
8/36
The 12 Transportation Enhancement Activities
ATransportationEnhancementisanyactivityrelatedtosuracetransportationthattsoneormoreothesetwelvecategories
Pedestrian and bicycle acilities:
New or reconstructed sidewalks, walkways,
curb ramps, bike lane striping, paved shoul-
ders, bike parking, bus racks, o-road trails,
bike and pedestrian bridges, and underpasses.
Saety and educational activities
or pedestrians and bicyclists: Pro-
grams designed to encourage walking and
bicycling by providing potential users with
education and saety instruction through
classes, pamphlets, and signs.
Acquisition o scenic easements a
scenic or historic sites, including
historic battlefelds: Acquisition o sc
land easements, vistas, and landscapes, inc
ing historic battlefelds; purchase o buildin
historic districts or historic properties.
Scenic or historic highway pro-
grams including tourist and wel-
come center acilities: Construction o
turnouts, overlooks, visitor centers, and view-
ing areas, designation signs, and markers.
Landscaping and other scenic
beautifcation: Street urniture, lighting,
public art, and landscaping along street, high-
ways, trails, waterronts, and gateways.
Historic preservation: Preservation o
buildings and aades in historic districts;
restoration and reuse o historic building o
transportation-related purposes; access im-
provements to historic sites and buildings.
5
3
64
1 3
54
VisittheNTECImageLibraryatwwwenhancementsorg/librarytoviewmorepicturesotheseprojectsaswellasothergreatTEprojects
2
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
9/36
Rehabilitation and operation o his-
toric transportation buildings, struc-tures, or acilities: Restoration o historic
railroad depots, bus stations, canals, canal tow-
paths, historic canal bridges, and lighthouses; re-
habilitation o rail trestles, tunnels, and bridges.
Preservation o abandoned railway
corridors and the conversion and useo the corridors or pedestrian or bi-
cycle trails: Acquiring railroad rights-o-way;
planning, designing and constructing multi-use
trails; developing rail-with-trail projects; purchas-
ing unused railroad property or reuse as trails.
Inventory, control, and removal o
outdoor advertising: Billboard inventories or removal o nonconorming billboards
Archeological planning and re-
search: Research, preservation planning, and
interpretation; developing interpretive signs,
exhibits, guides inventories, and surveys.
Environmental mitigation to address
water pollution due to highway runo
or to reduce vehicle-caused wildlie
mortality while maintaining habitat
connectivity: Runo pollution mitigation,
soil erosion controls, detention and sediment
basins, river cleanups, and wildlie crossings.
Establishment o transportation
museums: Construction o transportation
museums, including the conversion o railro
stations or historic properties to museums w
transportation themes and exhibits, or the
purchase o transportation related artiacts.
ThesephotosareactualTEprojectsundedwithinthe12categoriesStatesareresponsibleorselectingprojectsandmaychoosenottoundaparticularcategoryFHWAStateDivisionstaensurecompliancewithrequirementsintheobligationprocess
10
87
11 12
97
10 11 12
8
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
10/36
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
Administration of TE Funding and Projects
Federal Role
LikeothercomponentsotheFederal-aidHighwayProgram,TEactivitiesareederallyundedand
stateadministeredFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)divisionocestaprovideguidance,stewardship,andoversightortheuseoTEundingFHWAdisbursesederalundingtothestatesandtheDistrictoColumbiaviaormulaapportionmentsStateDOTsadministerapportionedTEundingandsolicitandselectprojectsorimplementationTheFHWAdivisionocesineachstateprovideFederaloversightaccordingtoguidancedevelopedbyFHWAHeadquartersOceoPlanning,Environment,andRealty
State Role
FederaltransportationlawprovidesfexibilitytostatesinregardtomanagingandadministeringTEundingStateDOTsuseawiderangeoapproachestothevariousaspectsoTEmanagement,includingsolicitingandselectingTEprojects;involvinglocalsponsors;engagingregionaltransportationplanningorganizations;administeringthevariousederaloptionsornancing
matchingunding;managingprojectdevelopment;andconstructioncontractingCollectively,theseapproachesandproceduresarenowcommonlyreerredtoasTEprogramsEverystatepublishesadocumentdescribingitsuniqueprogramguidelinesandpoliciesDetailedinormationaboutaparticularstatesTEprogramcanbeoundontheNTECwebsite,wwwenhancementsorg/stateproleasp,alongwithcontactinormationortheTEManagerineachstate
FY 2010 Summary o Nationwide Spending
TheNationalTransportationEnhancementsClearinghouse(NTEC)tracksthestatusoundingatboththestateandnationallevelsNTECsanalysisisupdatedannuallyandallowsanassessmentohowTEactivitiesarebeingundedandimplemented
ThedataandanalysisarereportedinoursectionsUpdatingtheNTECDatabasepresentsa
summaryoTEspendinggureswithanexplanationosourcesandmethodsordatacollection,andanexplorationostate-specicdataissuesTheFederalFundingLie-CyclepresentsananalysisoTEactivitiesattheendoscalyear(FY)2010basedonthetraditionalbenchmarksostatespendingRescissionsexplainsthisscalconceptandanalyzestheimpactorescissionsontheTEprogrambothhistoricallyandinFY2010ProgrammingAnalysiscoverstrendsobservedortheTEactivitiesthemselves,suchasdistributionoundingacrossthe12eligibleactivitiesThreeappendicesprovidesupplementalinormation
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
11/36
9
www.enhancements.org
Updating The NTEC Database
Figure 3: State Data Collection Participation During FY 2010
TheinormationinthisreportisbasedondatacollectedandmaintainedbytheNationalTransportationEnhancementsClearinghouse(NTEC)Beginningin1993,theRails-to-TrailsConservancydevelopedadatabaseoTEprojectsundedbyeachstateThisprojectlistinghas
beenmanagedandupdatedannuallybyNTECsince1998undersuccessivecooperativeagreements
withFHWADataorthiseditionwerecollectedbetweenNovember2010andApril2011DataareprovidedtoNTECromthreesources:FHWAsFiscalManagementInormationSystem(FMIS),stateDOTtrackingsystems,andthestateTECoordinatorsthemselves
FMISprovidesNTECwiththecumulativeandscalyearactivityorundingavailable,obligated,andreimbursedineverystateEverystateisrequiredtoreportitsobligationsandreimbursementsthroughtheFMISsystem
State DOTs provideNTECwithprogramming(selected/plannedproject)data,includingprojectname,TEactivitytype,location,andundinglevelsThisallowsNTECtoanalyzethedistributionoundingbyTEcategoryandstatematchratesorTEundingThoughstatesarenotcontractuallyrequiredtoprovideNTECwiththisinormation,theirvoluntaryparticipationindoingsohasbeenessentialtothesuccessotheclearinghouseincreatingopenness,transparency,andpromotingbestpractices
ThenationallistoprogrammedTEprojectsnowcontains25,999projectsselectedromFY1992toFY2010NTECsdatabasealsocontains755programmedprojectsoruturescalyears(FY2011toFY2015)and1,224ARRAprojectsAltogether,thelistcontains27,978programmedTEprojectsHowever,chartsandtablesinthisreportdonotincludeARRAoruture-yearprojectsunlessspecicallystatedThenationalTEprojectlistcanbeviewedontheNTECwebsiteatwwwenhancementsorgSinceNTECsdatabaseoprojectsistheonlyexistingcentralresourceorinormationonTEprojectsnationwide,theparticipationoeachstateDOTiscrucialortheaccuracyandcompletenessoNTECsinormationDuring the most recent data collection, 47states and the District o Columbia provided NTEC with programming inormation.
Complete update in FY 2010
Did not participate in FY 2010 Update
Incomplete update
No new projects in FY 2010
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
12/36
0
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
The Federal Financing Life-Cycle
ThissectionpresentsananalysisoalltransactionsinFMISorTEasothecloseothe2010s-calyearThesub-sectionsdenethestagesotheederalnancinglie-cycleanddiscussuniqueissuesrelatingtoTEprojectswithinthislie-cycleThediscussionincludessomenotesonthe
limitationsoFMISasadataoundationorevaluatingtheperormanceotheTEprogram
Authorization of Funding
Amulti-yearauthorizationactoCongresslikeSAFETEA-LUistherststepintheTEnancinglie-cycleThisisollowedbyapportionment,appropriations,programming,obligations,andreimbursementThesestages,andtherolesotheederallegislature,ederalexecutive,states,andlocalgovernmentsintheprocessareillustratedinFigure4
Apportioned Funding
TheauthorizinglegislationthatcreatestheFederal-aidHighwayProgramdenesormulasbywhichundsaredispersedtothestates,aprocesscalledapportionmentthatisadministeredbytheFederalHighwayAdministrationThecombinedtotaloallannualapportionmentsastatehasreceivedormstheinitialavailablebalanceoeachstateHowever,statesdonotactuallyspendthis
totalCongressannuallyappropriatesmoneyromtheHighwayTrustFundtoundtheFederal-aidHighwayProgramTheseappropriationsrepresenttheactualspendingpowerotheprogram,andthisspendingauthorityisdistributedbyormulatoeachstatetobeappliedtotheavailablebalanceTheavailablebalancedecreaseswhenstatesusetheirappropriatedauthoritytodirectundstospecicprojectsItalsodecreaseswhenundingexpires,isrescindedbytheederalgovernment,orwhenstatestranserundstootherallowabletransportationprogramsInFY2010,apportionmentsincreasedoreverystate,mostby15%orless,withtheexceptionsoAlaska(+35%),Nevada(+23%),Oregon(+16%),andVermont(+28%)FY2010apportionmentstotaledapproximately$886million
Overthe19years(FY1992throughFY2010)otheTEprogram,cumulativeapportionedundingprovidedtostatesstandsat$1247billionThedistributionamongstatesisshowninTable1,page
Figure 4: The Transportation Funding Lie-Cycle
ThisgureisadaptedinpartromFigure3inFinancingFederal-aidHighways,PublicationNoFHWA-PL-07-017,March2007,OceoLegislativeandGovernmentalAairs,FederalHighwayAdministration,USDepartmentoTransportation
Fe
deral
Region
Multi-yearauthorization act
State
Projec
t
Sponsor
Annualapportionment
Total Federal aidavailable or a
fscal year
Unobligated balanceso prior years
apportionments
Annualappropriations act
Limitation onobligations
Obligation
Project Application
Project
Selection
Project Work Submit Voucher
Process Voucher
ReimbursementRescissions
Transers
Matching unds
Canceled?
Programming(Add to STIP)
Programming(Add to TIP)
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
13/36
Table 1: State TE Program Benchmarks or FY 1992 through FY 2010 (in thousands o $)
*DenominatorisApportionedMinnesotaandWashingtonfgureshavebeenadjustedorSTPPilot
Reimbursementratesarecalculatedromobligatedunds
StateApportioned Rescinded* Available* Programmed* Obligated Reimbursed
FY92-10 FY92-10 Rate FY92-10 Rate FY92-10 Rate FY92-10 Apport Avail FY92-10 Rate
Alabama $254,830 -$69,938 -27% $185,492 73% $195,043 77% $185,266 73% 100% $157,194 85%
Alaska $158,542 -$15,870 -10% $139,446 88% $126,161 80% $137,889 87% 99% $127,595 93%
Arizona $229,095 -$22,306 -10% $209,536 91% $190,776 83% $197,625 86% 94% $137,823 70%
Arkansas $168,978 -$57,611 -34% $108,437 64% $97,456 58% $99,211 59% 91% $96,824 98%
Caliornia $1,110,836 -$282,141 -25% $821,681 74% $921,213 83% $ 812,974 73% 99% $714,822 88%
Colorado $178,099 -$41,200 -23% $145,959 82% $129,035 72% $127,201 71% 87% $116,425 92%
Connecticut $167,976 -$46,272 -28% $118,087 70% $115,548 69% $110,687 66% 94% $101,143 91%
Delaware $61,767 -$1,970 -3% $60,337 98% $46,168 75% $57,509 93% 95% $51,554 90%
DistOCol $52,331 -$15,008 -29% $38,555 74% $37,602 72% $37,691 72% 98% $25,710 68%
Florida $690,064 -$131,061 -19% $578,905 84% $536,702 78% $572,912 83% 99% $467,364 82%
Georgia $473,461 -$102,949 -22% $383,412 8 1% $351,841 7 4% $267,414 56% 70% $243,463 91%
Hawaii $84,597 -$10,441 -12% $75,253 89% $51,258 61% $62,463 74% 83% $52,730 84%
Idaho $92,714 -$28,937 -31% $59,366 64% $52,925 57% $59,366 64% 100% $54,130 91%
Illinois $454,658 -$65,465 -14% $413,161 91% $410,085 90% $267,040 59% 65% $251,157 94%
Indiana $328,438 -$24,356 -7% $316,340 96% $296,499 90% $274,494 84% 87% $245,612 89%
Iowa $163,103 -$9,142 -6% $156,103 96% $189,265 116% $145,806 89% 93% $127,628 88%
Kansas $163,618 -$7,607 -5% $158,858 97% $151,326 92% $143,820 88% 91% $138,103 96%
Kentucky $205,365 -$18,603 -9% $193,368 94% $196,429 96% $159,403 78% 82% $144,797 91%
Louisiana $183,912 -$69,708 -38% $106,392 58% $153,291 83% $98,509 54% 93% $81,358 83%
Maine $62,837 -$9,877 -16% $52,413 83% $65,895 105% $50,726 81% 97% $47,700 94%
Maryland $186,901 -$15,018 -8% $169,253 91% $185,417 99% $137,757 74% 81% $119,564 87%
Massachusetts $196,721 -$41,701 -21% $155,232 7 9% $81,636 4 1% $64,873 33% 42% $47,729 74%
Michigan $400,221 -$89,979 -22% $326,507 82% $336,642 84% $313,255 78% 96% $281,718 90%
Minnesota $238,723 -$27,579 -12% $189,485 79% $249,421 104% $202,607 85% 107% $187,187 92%
Mississippi $161,812 -$15,584 -10% $153,976 95% $141,912 88% $124,298 77% 81% $102,777 83%
Missouri $281,608 -$28,462 -10% $258,663 92% $215,254 76% $201,146 71% 78% $177,674 88%
Montana $104,168 -$7,551 -7% $98,311 94% $74,515 72% $77,877 75% 79% $64,717 83%
Nebraska $112,824 -$38,530 -34% $74,955 66% $86,703 77% $68,800 61% 92% $61,519 89%
Nevada $93,727 -$32,767 -35% $64,780 69% $78,046 83% $64,556 69% 100% $58,824 91%
NewHampshire $64,826 -$5,719 -9% $61,881 95% $77,235 119% $55,497 86% 90% $51,459 93%
NewJersey $267,849 -$56,362 -21% $199,140 74% $134,771 50% $164,716 61% 83% $141,768 86%
NewMexico $125,011 -$32,035 -26% $93,890 75% $145,069 116% $90,703 73% 97% $75,811 84%
NewYork $474,093 -$83,900 -18% $412,646 87% $410,486 87% $294,867 62% 71% $245,091 83%
NorthCarolina $360,779 -$87,700 -24% $296,678 82% $257,840 71% $ 268,762 74% 91% $234,050 87%
NorthDakota $81,122 -$15,829 -20% $66,978 83% $56,918 70% $65,598 81% 98% $61,705 94%
Ohio $424,277 -$61,636 -15% $330,111 78% $328,951 78% $306,826 72% 93% $282,176 92%
Oklahoma $216,790 -$57,704 -27% $164,235 76% $147,284 68% $ 142,001 66% 86% $125,069 88%
Oregon $146,213 -$50,799 -35% $99,066 68% $106,606 73% $91,090 62% 92% $82,926 91%
Pennsylvania $382,038 -$20,078 -5% $358,083 94% $436,926 114% $ 343,417 90% 96% $299,374 87%
RhodeIsland $57,762 -$2,096 -4% $56,444 98% $56,646 98% $52,835 91% 94% $49,522 94%
SouthCarolina $224,370 -$60,067 -27% $161,475 72% $98,930 44% $145,280 65% 90% $135,055 93%
SouthDakota $91,358 -$40,474 -44% $50,377 55% $43,420 48% $47,256 52% 94% $43,351 92%
Tennessee $273,994 -$55,831 -20% $235,368 86% $234,399 86% $177,268 65% 75% $149,840 85%
Texas $1,080,162 -$428,419 -40% $618,233 57% $647,660 60% $533,124 49% 86% $444,898 83%
Utah $95,495 -$7,683 -8% $87,785 92% $82,791 87% $85,428 89% 97% $82,008 96%
Vermont $56,970 -$1,766 -3% $56,251 99% $54,793 96% $45,077 79% 80% $40,838 91%
Virginia $310,932 -$33,443 -11% $274,131 88% $274,221 88% $260,080 84% 95% $162,367 62%
Washington $201,831 -$41,476 -21% $141,471 70% $179,690 89% $155,763 77% 110% $141,342 91%
WestVirginia $97,511 -$6,248 -6% $92,270 95% $90,011 92% $89,701 92% 97% $65,510 73%
Wisconsin $290,878 -$147,558 -51% $148,546 51% $187,794 65% $ 143,353 49% 97% $125,476 88%
Wyoming $66,193 -$966 -1% $66,149 100% $52,309 79% $63,808 96% 96% $58,479 92%
TotaltoStates $12,466,774 -$2,625,423 -21% $9,883,474 79% $9,868,813 79% $8,745,625 70% 88% $7,582,956 87%
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
14/36
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
11StatesarenotauthorizedtoobligateallapportionedundingbecausetheannualCongressionalappropriationistypicallylessthantheannualapportionment
ProgrammingFederallawrequiresthatstatesaddhighwayprojectsthatwillreceiveFederal-aidundingtotheStateTransportationImprovementProgram(STIP)TheSTIPisapublicdocumentthatprovidestransparencyincapitalexpendituresrelatedtotransportationona4-yearplanninghorizonTheollowingsectionothisreport(startingonpage19)isanin-depthanalysisoprogrammingdatacollectedromthestates
TheTransportationEnhancementprogramisamandatoryminimumset-asidewithintheSuraceTransportationProgram(STP)However,theTEactivitiesareeligibleoradditionalSTPundsbeyondtheminimum,atthediscretionothestateThereore,asshowninTable1,sixstatesprogrammedmorethan100%otheTEset-asideStatesintendingtosimplymaximizetheTEset-asidemayalsoprogrammorethan100%inanticipationthatsomeprojectswillbecanceledordelayedInact,morethansixstateshaveoverprogrammedTEactivities,becauseitisreasonable
toassumethattheavailablespendingauthoritywillbelessthantheapportionment
Obligations: Background
AnobligationisacommitmentbytheederalgovernmenttoreimbursestatesortheederalshareoaprojectseligiblecostsObligationoccurswhenaormalprojectagreementisexecutedbetweentheederalgovernment(throughFHWAdivisionoces)andthestateObligatedundingisthencommittedtoaparticularprojectWhileconsiderabletimeandmoneymayalreadyhavebeenexpendedplanningaproject,obligationiswhatmarksthebeginningoprojectcostsbeingeligibleorederalreimbursementStateDOTsarerequiredtoreportobligationstoFMIS
TheFederal-aidHighwayProgramisacollectionosmallerprograms(Figure2,page5)Theapportionmentoreachsub-programissetbyCongress,whichcreateshypotheticalmaximum
amountsoreachprogramCongressseparatelysetsanannuallimitonobligationsorFederal-aidhighwayprogramsasawhole,andstateshavetremendousfexibilityindetermininghowtospreadthislimitamongtransportationprogramsThisfexibilityallowsstateslatitudeinmeetingneedsthatariseonayear-to-yearbasisForexample,itmightbemorecost-eectivetoover-obligateaparticularprograminagivenyearinordertonishacomplex,largeprojectsuchasabridgeTocompensate,otherprogramsmustbeunder-obligatedOvertime,obligationscanbalanceoutHowever,balanceisnotalwaysreachedUnobligatedundingisaddedtotheavailablebalanceFigure5,page14,illustratestheaccumulationoTEundingandshowshowastatecouldobligatethesameamounteveryyearandrunupalargeavailablebalance
AsimpliedexamplemighthelptoexplainhowthisrelatestotheobligationrateLetssaythatintherstyearotheTEprogram,astatehad$10millionapportionedtoitandobligated$85millionTheobligationratewouldthenbe85%thatyearThisexamplealsoillustratestheact
thattheannualobligationlimitationdistributedbyCongressisalwayslessthantheapportionedunding
Inutureyears,however,theoutstandingbalanceo$15millionisnotlostItstillsitsonthebooksandisavailablethenextyear(thisiswhatgivesstatesfexibilityinwhentousetheseunds)Ithestateonceagainobligates$85million,theannualobligationratewouldremainconstantIthissameprocesscontinuesoverthecourseo6years,thestatescumulativeobligationratewouldbe85%andleave$9milliononthetableThis$9millionconceptuallyrepresentsanotheryearoTEundingHowever,becauseothelimitationonobligations,this$9millioncouldonlybespentbyprioritizingTEoverotherFederal-aidhighwayprogramsanddirectingadditionalspending
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
15/36
Table 2: Yearly Obligation Rates by Fiscal Year 20062010*
*Anegativerateindicatesanetde-obligation(seeglossaryordefnition)Limitationonobligationswasapproximately90%under
SAFETEA-LU(FY2005-2009)
State5-Year Average
AnnualApportionment
2006 2007 2008 2009 20105-Year Cumulative
Obligation/Apportioned
UnobligatedBalance
Alabama $17,310,159 47% 74% 70% 54% 69% 63% $226,148
Alaska $6,976,381 69% 7% 88% 26% 80% 56% $1,556,603
Arizona $16,936,800 95% 50% 82% 51% 266% 110% $11,911,490Arkansas $11,396,134 31% 37% 31% -1% 14% 22% $9,225,751
Caliornia $75,529,910 68% 77% 83% 85% 46% 72% $8,707,553
Colorado $11,943,616 70% 21% 25% 167% 58% 69% $18,757,940
Connecticut $8,838,173 42% 88% 35% 22% 15% 41% $7,400,127
Delaware $3,682,966 266% 61% 81% 122% 70% 118% $2,828,304
DistoColumbia $3,276,147 -114% 49% -37% 50% 245% 45% $863,821
Florida $50,055,972 64% 69% 64% 224% 86% 102% $5,992,717
Georgia $33,655,970 14% 40% 53% 51% 15% 35% $115,997,319
Hawaii $3,714,425 0% 163% 34% 9% 95% 60% $12,790,192
Idaho $5,609,642 72% 95% 91% 13% 51% 64% $0
Illinois $28,807,197 30% 58% 43% 27% 20% 35% $146,121,359
Indiana $22,527,955 105% 76% 130% 79% 87% 95% $41,845,626
Iowa $10,299,966 171% 100% 61% 89% 97% 103% $10,296,800Kansas $10,654,310 159% 166% 129% 78% 5% 107% $15,037,622
Kentucky $13,192,137 -16% 109% 55% 47% 39% 47% $33,964,541
Louisiana $12,055,345 43% 44% 48% 93% 82% 63% $7,883,750
Maine $3,498,891 104% 128% 200% 128% 86% 128% $1,687,295
Maryland $12,304,109 72% 137% 5% 68% 51% 67% $31,495,736
Massachusetts $11,917,734 25% -30% 16% 76% 23% 22% $90,359,003
Michigan $26,985,571 92% 127% 83% 72% 92% 93% $13,252,168
Minnesota $16,650,229 90% 68% 61% 58% 88% 73% $12,188,444
Mississippi $10,930,966 68% 42% 66% 81% 144% 82% $29,678,392
Missouri $19,787,476 60% 64% 120% 106% 47% 79% $57,517,399
Montana $6,027,585 70% 67% 100% 15% 121% 76% $20,434,042
Nebraska $6,882,657 10% 52% 29% 21% 51% 33% $6,154,662
Nevada $6,130,600 67% 105% 49% 68% 25% 60% $223,852NewHampshire $3,888,053 130% 111% 95% 25% 43% 81% $6,384,198
NewJersey $18,198,532 50% 52% 49% 47% 48% 49% $34,424,067
NewMexico $7,349,716 51% 61% 58% 76% 75% 64% $3,186,963
NewYork $28,947,976 43% 89% 16% 50% 20% 44% $117,779,474
NorthCarolina $23,885,010 52% 100% 21% 57% 84% 63% $27,915,698
NorthDakota $4,444,873 108% 86% 61% 105% 45% 80% $1,380,568
Ohio $28,762,465 51% 63% 87% 79% 66% 69% $23,284,778
Oklahoma $14,866,742 35% -25% 61% 64% 42% 35% $22,234,303
Oregon $9,414,303 73% 43% 62% 89% 67% 67% $7,976,487
Pennsylvania $27,996,402 142% 100% 172% 77% 131% 124% $14,666,407
RhodeIsland $3,318,810 131% 93% 86% 5% 82% 79% $3,609,671
SouthCarolina $15,746,503 29% 24% 115% 44% 17% 45% $16,194,973
SouthDakota $5,454,661 49% 107% 3% 55% 23% 46% $3,120,946Tennessee $18,903,630 72% 94% 54% 5% 71% 59% $58,099,980
Texas $78,234,339 40% 84% 21% 51% 46% 48% $85,108,977
Utah $6,502,160 253% 106% 86% 105% 68% 121% $2,356,430
Vermont $3,361,188 86% 149% 68% 19% 38% 70% $11,173,786
Virginia $22,547,412 90% 5% 46% 86% 99% 65% $14,051,087
Washington $12,838,086 107% 89% 103% 104% 55% 91% $3,966,833
WestVirginia $6,580,816 43% 139% 81% 124% 113% 102% $2,569,407
Wisconsin $19,070,722 51% 29% 23% 42% 55% 40% $5,192,948
Wyoming $3,679,729 122% 118% 63% 106% 79% 97% $2,340,795
Total $831,571,148 65% 71% 64% 74% 64% 68% $1,181,417,434
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
16/36
authoritytoTEIitremainsunobligated,theundsmaybereturnedtotheederalgovernmentintheeventoarescissionTable2showstheunobligatedbalanceoeachstateattheendoFY2010
AnotherissuenotillustratedinFigure5,whichmaycontributetoagrowingavailablebalance,isdeobligationIorsomereasonaprojectadvancestothestagewhereundingisobligated,buttheprojectislatercanceled,theundingassociatedwiththeprojectisdeobligatedandreturnedtotheavailablebalanceIastatecleansoutold,inactiveprojectsrommultiplepastscalyearsinonecurrentscalyear,thiscancauseastatetohaveanegativeyearlyobligationrate
Obligation Rates by Fiscal Year
ThisreportpresentsobligationratesinthreewaysMethodoneistocomparethecumulativedollaramountobligatedtothecumulativeavailableamount(apportionmentsminusrescissionsandtransers)ThisratehasbeenthebenchmarkgureNTEChasreportedpreviouslyandthatFHWAhasusedtomeasuretheeectivenessotheTEprogramThenationalcumulativeobligationrate
(FY1992FY2010)is88%(Table1,page11)ThesecondmethodistocompareobligationstotheoriginalapportionmentItisimportanttorecognizethattheentireapportionmentisnotavailableorobligationHowever,thisrategivesasenseotherateatwhichTEundsaredirectedtoTEprojectsbythestates,asopposedtotranserstootherprogramsorreturningtheundstotheederalgovernmentthroughrescissionsNationwide,overthecourseo19years,70%oapportionmentshavebeenobligatedtoactualTEprojects(Table1,page11)
ThenalmethodistocomparetheamountobligatedinaparticularscalyeartothescalyearapportionmentThisrateshowshowmuchotheyearsapportionmenthasbeenobligatedTable2onpage13showsthisrateorthepastveyearsThisrateshowshowtheTEprogramsoperateromyeartoyearThisratecanbequitevariablebetweenyearsItispossibleorastatetoobligatemorethanahundredpercentooneyearsapportionmentbecauseastatehastheabilitytoobligatepreviouslyunobligatedundinguptoanamountequaltotheavailablebalance
Recent Trends in Obligation
Thecumulativeobligationratecombinesthepast19yearsotheTEprogramandminimizeschangesromyeartoyearTable2,page13,providesscalyearobligationratescomparedtotheamountapportionedthatyearsince2006In2010,thenationalyearlyobligationratewas64%,comparabletoFY2008butadeclineromFY2009(74%)Itisnormalorobligationstofuctuateromyeartoyear,asshowninFigure6onpage15
Figure7onpage15plotstheTEprogramsyearlyobligationsnexttotheamountapportionedor
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
ApportionedTo State in
Year 1Obligated
Unobligated
State obligates majority o undsbut has some unds that are
unobligated
ApportionedTo State in
Year 2
State obligates the same amount asprevious year, which is the majority o
the unds apportioned in year 2
Unobligatedrolls intobalance
Obligated
Unobligated
ApportionedTo State in
Year 3
Unobligatedrolls intobalance
AvailableBalance
Obligated
State obligates the same amount asprevious year, which is the majorityo the apportioned unds in year 3
Unobligated
AvailableBalance
AvailableBalance
Figure 5: How TE Funding Accumulates rom Year to Year
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 1992 - 2010
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
17/36
Figure 6: TE Funding Obligated Each Fiscal Year 1992-2010
MillionsoDollars
Figure 7: Obligation, Apportionment, Available Balance, & Rescissions or each FY 2002-2010
ToseeFigure7oranindividualstate,pleasevisitwwwenhancementsorg/stateproleasp
($1,500)
($1,000)
($500)
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
MillionsofDollars
Available: Total funds available to be obligated for projects,accumulated from annual apportionment
Apportioned: Annual formula based on a 10% set aside of STP funds Rescinded: Reductions in previously apportioned funds
Obligated: Specific spending that has been authorized by the federalgovernment and committed to projects
ARRA
ARRA
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
18/36
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
theyear,theavailablebalanceandthetotalamountrescindedThisgraphandtheaccompanyingTable2(page13)showtheavailablebalance,thatis,theamountomoneyrompastyearsstillavailabletobeobligatedbythestatesThisnumberisthesumoallunobligatedunding
ManystateshavemadegreatstridesinmovingtheirprogrammedprojectstocompletionandhaveprioritizedobligatingTEundingForexample,Pennsylvania,whichin2004hadanunobligatedbalanceoover$70million,hasinthelastsixyearsobligatedmorethanitwasapportionedoreachyearexcept2009Today,Pennsylvaniasunobligatedbalanceisaround$10million,lessthanoneyearsapportionmentThenationalunobligatedbalancereachedapeakinFY2005atover$2billionWiththeenactmentoSAFETEA-LU,thisguredeclinedsignicantlyinFY2006MajorrescissionsinFY2009andFY2010havereducedthebalanceto$12billionUnobligatedbalancesatthecloseoFY10arereportedinTable2,page13
Reimbursements
ThenalstageoTEprojectundingisreimbursementTheFHWAreimbursesstatesorprojectsastheyarecompletedThisprocesscanbelongand,whenprojectsarestalledorarenotseparatedinto
phases,canbedelayedwhiletheprojectisimplemented
Thecumulative(FY92-FY10)reimbursementratenationallywas87%oobligations(Table1,page11)Statereimbursementratesrangeromalowo62%inVirginiatoahigho98%inArkansas
DierencesinreimbursementratescanbeexplainedanumberowaysAlowreimbursementrate,togetherwithahighobligationrateinrecentyears,couldindicatethatmanyTEprojectsinthatstateareongoingAhighreimbursementrate,togetherwithalowobligationrateinrecentyears,couldindicatethatewTEprojectsareimplementedbutthattheyaredoneecientlyReimbursementratesaloneareaninsucientbenchmarkorTEundingThesestatisticsshouldbeinterpretedinthecontextothewholeTEundingprocess,romapportionedtoobligated
Transfers
TheUniormTranserabilityProvision(23USC126)limitstheamountoundingthatcanbetranserredromTEtootherFederal-aidhighwayprogramsinagivenyearStatescantranserupto25%oeachyearsapportionmentthatisabovethestatesFY1997TEapportionmentlevelStatesarealsopermittedtotranserundstotheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)undertherequirementso49USC53ThereisnolimitontheamountthatcanbetranserredtoFTA;however,TEundingthatistranserredtoFTAmustbeusedorTE-eligibleactivities
Table5,inAppendixC,onpage29,showsalltransersromTEsinceFY2002Since2002,$217millionhavebeentranserredInFY2010,thirteenstatestranserredatotalo$283millionSeveralatypicaltransersoccurredinFY2010,includingtransersbyLouisianaandNevadatotheInterstateMaintenanceprogram,andtransersbyMinnesota,NewJersey,andSouthCarolinatothebridgeprogramThesetransersarepartoagrowingtrendsince2007olargetransersromTEtoother
programsornon-TErelatedprojectsTheFY2010scalyearmarksthersttimesince2002thattranserstotheFTAandRecreationalTrailsProgramarelessthan50%othetotaltranserred
Thetotaltranserredtodate,$217million,represents2%ocumulativeapportionmentsHowever,someindividualstateshavemadesubstantialtransersForexample,NewJerseyandSouthCarolinabothtranserredover$8millioninFY2010,roughly50%oeachstatestypicalannualapportionmentThisincreasedtranseractivityispotentiallyduetotheDepartmentoTransportationAppropriationsActo2010,whichallowedaone-timeredistributionbetweenstatesoobligationlimitationduetoexpirethatscalyearInordertoreceiveredistributedoblimit,stateshadtodemonstrateavailableundstoobligateorparticularprogramsThisrameworkcreatedanincentiveorstatestoconsolidateundstopriorityprograms
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
19/36
www.enhancements.org
Since2002,Congresshasenacted13rescissionsthathaveaectedtheFederal-aidHighwayProgramRescissionsaredirectionsromCongressorthestatestoreturnunobligatedundstotheederalgovernmentWhenundingisremovedinthismanner,itisdeductedrom
theavailablebalanceWhileCongresssetsatotalrescissionamountortheFederal-aidHighway
Program,FHWAcalculatestheshareeachstateisresponsibleorbasedontheoriginaldistributionoFederal-aidundingThestatesinturnarerequiredtoreturnthatunding
InFY2010,$580millionwasrescindednationallyromTE,asshowninFigure8,belowThisisequivalenttoa65%reductioninthe2010TEapportionmentIntheFY2010rescission,statesweregivencompletediscretiontoapplytherescissionacrosstheirFederal-aidhighwayprogramsastheydesiredTable3illustratesthedynamicsatworkatthestatelevelinrespondingtorescissionsTherstthreecolumnsshowthesizeotheFederal-aidHighwayProgram,thesizeotheTEprogram,andthesizeoTEwithinFederalhighwayaidGenerally,TErepresentsroughly2%ooverallapportionmentsromFHWAThethreecentralcolumnsoTable3showthatsomestates,suchasMontanaandVirginia,appliedtherescissionproportionatelytoTEForthesestates,thepercentageotherescissiontakenromTEisroughlyequaltothepercentageoTEwithinFHWAapportionmentsOtherstates,suchasDelawareandMinnesota,didnotrescindanyundsrom
TE,eitherbecausetheydidnothaveanyunobligatedbalancetorescind,orbecausetheychosetoprotecttheprogramMoststates,however,disproportionatelyusedTEundstomeettherescission,suchasNebraska,whichrescindedonlyTEunding
TheullhistoryorescissionsbyyearoreachstateisshowninAppendixC,Table6,page30
Thedisproportionateimpactopastrescissionshasrenderedthetraditionalprogrammeasureocumulativeobligationratesorthestateslessmeaningul,asitistheremovaloavailableundingthatleadstoanincreasedobligationrateThelastthreecolumnsoTable3illustratethiseectForthisreason,NTECprovidesyearlyobligationrateswhicharebasedonapportionmentsratherthantheavailablebalance,showninTable2,page13
Rescissions
$93.5 M
$993.2 M
$246.6 M
$601.8 M
$54.8 M
$21.4 M$18.2 M$9.3 M
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
% Rescinded Overal
% Rescinded from TE
$579.9 M
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Perce
ntofApportionedAmount
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
20/36
Table 3: FHWA and TE Rescissions or FY 2010 (in dollars)
State2010 Apportionment
%
8/13/10 Rescission% rom
TEOb. RateBeore
Ob. RateAter
ChangeFHWA TE FHWA TE
Alabama $759,489,511 $17,310,159 23% $36,760,232 $5,994,289 16% 97% 100% 3%
Alaska $412,211,423 $8,977,991 22% $23,640,506 $203,379 1% 99% 99% 0%
Arizona $749,060,035 $17,770,876 24% $45,130,552 $15,000,000 33% 88% 94% 6%
Arkansas $493,334,413 $12,316,672 25% $27,628,966 $15,056,325 54% 80% 91% 11%
Caliornia $3,537,430,782 $79,569,168 22% $204,757,984 $88,115,008 43% 89% 99% 10%
Colorado $527,374,735 $13,098,583 25% $30,446,020 $6,121,339 20% 84% 87% 4%
Connecticut $491,828,032 $8,838,173 18% $31,103,435 $6,939,956 22% 89% 94% 5%
Delaware $158,836,799 $4,214,257 27% $8,592,589 $38,420 0% 95% 95% 0%
DistrictoColumbia $153,363,171 $3,650,177 24% $8,507,622 $0 0% 98% 98% 0%
Florida $1,919,341,540 $52,856,355 28% $112,633,360 $24,700,000 22% 95% 99% 4%
Georgia $1,303,828,663 $33,864,189 26% $ 76,258,519 $34,008,527 45% 64% 70% 6%
Hawaii $163,444,615 $3,769,360 23% $10,680,309 $260,600 2% 83% 83% 0%
Idaho $284,623,704 $5,998,847 21% $17,024,352 $7,532,480 44% 89% 100% 11%
Illinois $1,369,021,783 $33,195,420 24% $76,424,382 $0 0% 65% 65% 0%
Indiana $965,911,957 $23,737,867 25% $58,758,140 $0 0% 87% 87% 0%Iowa $465,991,022 $11,935,114 26% $25,530,885 $0 0% 93% 93% 0%
Kansas $375,632,641 $10,819,419 29% $20,682,571 $629,108 3% 90% 91% 0%
Kentucky $659,818,964 $14,347,286 22% $36,652,357 $6,000,000 16% 80% 82% 2%
Louisiana $662,149,831 $13,447,191 20% $38,929,303 $5,000,000 13% 88% 93% 4%
Maine $175,412,411 $3,763,077 21% $8,779,960 $0 0% 97% 97% 0%
Maryland $596,353,633 $12,304,109 21% $35,372,721 $958,513 3% 81% 81% 0%
Massachusetts $606,268,058 $11,917,734 20% $38,113,703 $7,914,007 21% 40% 42% 2%
Michigan $1,056,502,309 $27,640,619 26% $59,689,106 $20,000,000 34% 90% 96% 6%
Minnesota $619,061,518 $18,640,105 30% $33,387,079 $22,889 0% 94% 94% 0%
Mississippi $462,347,529 $11,940,263 26% $25,246,182 $955,221 4% 80% 81% 0%
Missouri $903,925,061 $21,898,582 24% $51,812,722 $1,247,205 2% 77% 78% 0%
Montana $374,272,658 $6,741,426 18% $22,265,745 $5,000,000 22% 75% 79% 4%
Nebraska $285,044,945 $7,472,129 26% $16,060,962 $16,060,962 100% 76% 92% 16%
Nevada $336,248,046 $7,816,078 23% $17,641,807 $10,953,903 62% 85% 100% 14%
NewHampshire $165,950,962 $3,903,307 24% $9,923,891 $0 0% 90% 90% 0%
NewJersey $991,300,647 $19,305,557 19% $ 61,565,912 $6,841,604 11% 80% 83% 3%
NewMexico $357,580,382 $7,944,684 22% $ 21,308,142 $5,161,364 24% 92% 97% 5%
NewYork $1,669,276,905 $29,047,686 17% $101,709,641 $20,483,580 20% 68% 71% 3%
NorthCarolina $1,053,572,964 $24,795,920 24% $61,521,837 $19,484,270 32% 85% 91% 6%
NorthDakota $243,629,197 $4,764,343 20% $13,572,974 $4,101,754 30% 92% 98% 6%
Ohio $1,316,585,871 $30,228,666 23% $77,653,180 $10,000,000 13% 90% 93% 3%
Oklahoma $612,190,703 $16,256,988 27% $33,296,154 $8,000,000 24% 82% 86% 4%
Oregon $464,919,878 $10,779,623 23% $25,356,119 $10,056,260 40% 83% 92% 8%
Pennsylvania $1,644,104,964 $27,996,402 17% $96,758,262 $6,709,787 7% 94% 96% 2%
RhodeIsland $203,713,712 $3,685,888 18% $11,587,633 $409,363 4% 93% 94% 1%
SouthCarolina $629,722,101 $16,993,533 27% $35,603,848 $0 0% 90% 90% 0%
SouthDakota $265,227,468 $ 6,155,426 23% $14,727,478 $ 6,376,680 43% 83% 94% 11%
Tennessee $820,872,820 $20,193,370 25% $45,898,859 $21,750,506 47% 69% 75% 6%
Texas $3,217,724,800 $82,656,486 26% $190,367,982 $150,000,000 79% 69% 86% 17%
Utah $312,512,248 $7,419,375 24% $17,828,231 $0 0% 97% 97% 0%
Vermont $180,671,788 $4,101,844 23% $8,469,540 $0 0% 80% 80% 0%
Virginia $994,295,128 $23,896,188 24% $56,128,081 $1,836,738 3% 94% 95% 1%
Washington $645,855,110 $14,033,881 22% $37,537,831 $13,000,000 35% 90% 98% 7%
WestVirginia $419,724,480 $7,934,518 19% $22,290,077 $1,000,001 4% 96% 97% 1%
Wisconsin $742,717,176 $20,500,193 28% $42,656,615 $16,000,000 38% 87% 97% 9%
Wyoming $244,809,503 $3,896,734 16% $15,725,642 $0 0% 96% 96% 0%
Total $38,065,088,596 $886,341,838 2.3% $2,200,000,000 $579,924,036 26% 83% 88% 5%
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
21/36
9
www.enhancements.org
Programming Analysis
Thissectionpresentsmajorndingsromthesel-reportedprogrammingdatacollectedromeachstateDOTNTECsnationwidelistoprogrammedTEprojectsenablesanalysisostatesTEundingprioritiesacrossthe12eligibleactivitiesTheundinglevelsrepresentedinthis
sectionareprogrammingnumbers,notobligationsTheseprogrammingnumbersareobtained
throughavoluntarysurveyostateDOTs
The Project List
EachyearNTECasksstateDOTstoprovideinormationonprogrammedprojectsProgrammedprojectsarethoseapprovedtoreceiveTEundingbyindividualstatesAsaresult,NTECsdatabasenowspans19scalyearsoTEprogramming
Table1(page11)indicatesthatthecumulativeleveloprogrammingorFY1992throughFY2010is$987billion,whichrepresents79%oallapportionmentsand100%oallavailableundingThishighraterepresentsthecontinuingpopularityoTE-eligibleprojectsnationwide,withapprovedprojectsmaxingoutthecurrentlyavailableunding
NTECsdataalsoshowsthat17stateshaveselectedprojectsoruturescalyearsThedatabase
nowhas755uture-programmedprojectsworth$438millioninederalTEundingTheutureprogrammingdatasuggeststhattherearemorerequestsorprojectundingthancanbeaccommodatedeachyear
TherearesomeimportantissuestonoteregardingprogrammingdataWhileNTECmakeseveryeortpossibletoaccuratelyrefectstateprojectselection,itislikelythatsomeerrorsoccurbecauseodatareportingproblemsForexample,or16states,NTECsprogrammingguresarelowerthanactualobligationsThereasonsorthiscouldinclude:
Olderprojectdatawerenotcompletelyreviewedorupdated(somestatesreportaninabilitytotrackolder,ISTEA-eraprojects);
TheprojectdataprovidedtoNTECdidnotincludeallselectedprojects;
Dierencesinmethodologyortrackingprojects
Anotherissuetonoteisthat20stateshaveprogrammingtotalsthatarehigherthantheiravailablebalancesPossiblereasonsorthisinclude:
Statesprogrammorethantheirapportionmentswiththeexpectationthatsomeprojectswillbedroppedorsomebidswillcomeinlowerthantheinitialcostestimate;
Olderprojectdatawerenotupdated,soprojectsthathavebeendroppedorhadtheirundinglevelschangedarenotaccountedor;
Yearsassignedtoprojectsmaybeincorrect,andsomeuture-yearprogrammedprojectsmaybeincludedwithcurrentprojects;and
StatesmaycombineaTEprojectwithotherederalorstateunding,butnotdierentiatetheseintheirdatasubmissiontoNTEC
Findings by Transportation Enhancement Activity
Figure9illustratesthedistributionoundingacrossall12activitiesorFY2010Overall,thepercentageshaveshitedonlyslightlyrompreviousyearsTheoverallaverageundingawardwas$379,584,buttherearedierencesinthisstatisticacrossprojectundingcategoriesBicycleandpedestrianacilities(Activity1)receivedhaloallprogrammedundingat496%,withanaverage
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
22/36
0
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
projectundingawardo$367,773
Category5,landscapingandscenicbeautication,accountsorthesecondlargestsliceospending,189%Themajorityoprojectsinthelandscapingandscenicbeauticationcategoryinvolvelandscapingalonghighwaysandatinterchanges,includingnativewildfowerplantingStreetscapeprojectsarealsopopularinthiscategory,andtheirnumbershavebeenincreasingInresponsetotheprolierationothistypeoTEactivity,NTEChasbeguntrackingasub-classicationoCategory5projectstodistinguishpedestrianstreetscapesromotherbeauticationprojectsThisdivisionisrefectedinFigure9belowTheaverageCategory5projectundingawardorapedestrianstreetscapeis$407,488,one-thirdhigherthantheaverageprojectawardorotherlandscapingprojects,$302,648Thisrefectsthehighercostothesetypesoprojects,whichrequentlyinvolvecustompavingmaterials,historiclighting,streeturniture,andretrottingoexistingurbaninrastructureTheincreasedvalueotheseinvestmentsispreciselywhytheseprojectsareverypopularwithlocalcommunitiesortheircombinedimpactontransportationandeconomicdevelopmentOtherlandscapingandscenicbeauticationprojectsgenerallyrequirelesspreliminaryengineering,right-o-wayacquisition,andpermittingthanothertypesoTEprojectsandgenerallycanbecompletedmorequickly
Figure 9: Distribution o Federal Funding by TE Activity FY 1992 through FY 2010(in millions o dollars)
ToseeFigure9oranindividualstate,pleasevisitwwwenhancementsorg/stateproleasp
Project Count or Each Category:
1) Bike/Ped. Facilities$4,891 (49.6%)
8)Rail-Trails$713(72%)
2)Bike/PedSaetyEduc
$33(03%)
3)AcquisitionoScenic/HistEasements$218(22%)
4)Scenic/HistHwyPrograms$548(56%)5)Landscapingand
ScenicBeautication$1,265(128%)
6)HistoricPreservation$343(35%)
7)RehabHist
TranspFacilities$926(94%)
9)BillboardRemoval$40(04%)
10)ArchaeologicalPlanning/Research$47(05%)
11)EnvMitigation$100(10%)
12)TransportationMuseums$148(15%)
5)PedestrianStreetscapes$598(61%)
Total Programmed Funds:
$9.87 billion or 25,999
projects.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
13,298 189 370 1,034 5,649 1,104 2,004 1,369 66 204 416 296 25,999
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
23/36
www.enhancements.org
AverageundingorCategory4projects,scenicorhistorichighwayprograms,is$529,820Thevastmajority(85%)otheseprojectsarevisitorcentersSomealsopertaintosigning,interpretation,andplanningorscenicbywaysCategory4projectsaccountorlessthan6%oallTEspending
Categories6and7,historicpreservationandrehabilitationohistorictransportationacilitiestogetheraccountor13%oundingWhilethispercentagehascontinuedtodecreasesinceFY2000,undingorthesecategoriesllsacontinuingneedanddesireinmanystatestopreservethehistorictextureandmeaningoourlocal,state,andnationaltransportationinrastructureTheseprojectsincludebothoperationaltransportationacilities,aswellasbuildingsthatrelatetosuracetransportationbyenhancingthetravelexperience,butdonotserveprimarilyastransportationacilities,suchashistorichotels,gasstations,andstagecoachinnsFigure10,below,illustratesthedistributionoTEprogrammedundingtohistoricpreservationactivities(primarily,butnotexclusively,undedundercategories6and7)roughlycategorizedbytransportationacilitytypesThisgurealsoincludesTEprojectsoutsideocategories6and7thathaveastronghistoricpreservationcomponent
ThegrowthandnewdominanceohistoricstreetscapesinthisareaisanewtrendinFY10Thesehistoricstreetscapesmayincludetraditionalpavementmaterials,curbstyles,lighting,buildingacades,andpedestrianacilitiesMoretraditionally,preservingandrehabilitatingrailroaddepotscomposesthesecond-largestshareopreservation-relatedunding,ollowedbybridgesThecategorylabeledOtherincludesschools,cityhalls,andhistorichousesandencompassesa
signicantportionoTEhistoricpreservationprojectsandundingMaritimeacilitiesincludelighthouses,historiccanalboats,anderrylandings
Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Subtypes
BicycleandpedestrianacilitiesattractthelargestpercentageshareoprogrammedTEundingNTECtrackstheundingoprojectsubtypeswithintheseactivities,basedonstateDOTprojectlistsFigure11abovepresentsthedistributionoederalprogrammedundingtoTEprojectcategorieswithastrongbicycleandpedestriancomponent(primarily,butnotlimitedto,TE
Figure 10: Distribution o Funding Across Projects with Designated Historic PreservationSubtypes rom FY 1992 to FY 2010 (in millions o dollars)
RRDepot$350(23%)
OtherRailroad$110(73%)
Bridge$213(14%)
Canal$136(89%)Highway$57(37%)
HistStreetscape$364(24%)
Maritime$48(32%)
Transit$63(41%)
VisitorCenter$36(24%)
Other$144(95%)
Total Programmed Funds or identifed
preservation projects: $1.52 billion or
3,782 projects.
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
24/36
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
Categories1,2,and8)Category5landscapingprojectsthatarepedestrian-orientedstreetscapesareincludedinthisgurePedestrianacilitiesando-roadtrailsreceiveroughlyequalsharesoprogrammedTEundingacrossthesecategories,whilerespectively,rail-trailsandon-roadbicycleacilitiescomprisethethirdandourthlargestshares
Theaveragerail-trailprojectreceived$520,847inTEundingThisgureissignicantlylargerthanundingortheaverageTEprojectSeveraltheorieshavebeenproeredtoexplainthedeclineinthenumberorail-trailprojectsbeinginitiatedovertimeRail-trailsareotenlarger,morecomplex,andtakelongertorealizethanothertypesoTEprojectsMostothemorestraightorwardrail-trailprojectshavealreadybeendevelopedThoseprojectsthatremainmayacemorecomplexissues
withrespecttoownership,valuation,orliabilityInaddition,therateorailroadabandonmenthasdecreasedacrossthecountryasrailroadshavebeguntoretaincorridorsinhopesorestartingserviceNevertheless,manyextensionsandrails-with-trailsprojectsremain
Future Programming
Seventeenstatesprogrammed755projectsorutureyears(beyond2010)Bicycleandpedestrianacilitiesaccountor63%outureprogrammedunding,andlandscapingprojectswillreceive21%,trendingupwardromhistoricprogramminglevelsThepercentageoundingprogrammedorallothertypesoprojectsarecorrespondinglyslightlylowerthantheirhistoricprogramminglevels
WhiletheseguresshowashitacrossTEactivities,theyshouldnotbeinterpretedasapredictionowhereTEundingwillbeprogrammedbyallstatesintheuture,sincemoststatesdidnotreportutureprogrammingNonetheless,thesenumbersprovideaninterestingglimpseintoutureundingthathasbeenprogrammed
Average Federal Awards and Match Rates
NTECsnationalprojectlistprovidesundinginormationonaproject-by-projectbasisThese
Figure 11: Distribution o Funding across Projects with Designated Bike & PedestrianSubtypes or FY 1992 through 2010 (in millions o dollars)
Total Programmed Funds Across
Projects with Designated Bike &
Ped. Subtypes: $6.3 billion or
17,254 projects.
O-roadTrails$2,467(39%) On-RoadBike
$576(9%)
Pedestrian$2,369(38%)
Rail-Trails$713(11%)
Transit$103(2%)
Saety/Ed$33(1%)
Other$52(1%)
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
25/36
www.enhancements.org
dataallowNTECtoanalyzetheaverageprojectawardineachstateTable4,page24,illustratesthatasoFY2010,theaverageederalprojectawardwas$379,584nationwideAverageawardsbystatevariedrom$110,557inMontanato$1,385,341inHawaii
TheFederal-aidHighwayProgramrequiresthatederalhighwayundingbematchedwithundingromothersourcesTheseundsarecommonlyreerredtoasthenon-ederalshareoprojectcosts,evenithematchcameromanotherederalagencyusingtheinnovativenancingprovisionunder23USC133(e)(5)(C)Ingeneral,theundingisprovidedwithamaximumederalshareo80%,necessitatingthataminimumo20%otheundingcomeromnon-ederalsourcesSomestatesthathavelargeederallandholdingsareprovidedlargerederalsharesonaslidingscaleStatutoryprovisionsallowtheratiostovaryonaproject-by-projectbasisprovidedthatoragivenscalyear,theprogramasawholerefectsanaverage20%non-ederalshare,subjecttotheslidingscale
EachstateDOTestablishesitsownguidelinesandrequirementsorprovidingthenon-ederalshareoprojectcostsSomestatesrequirelocalsponsorstoprovideashareoprojectcostsTheamountrequiredvariesbystateArizona,orexample,withitslargeederallandholdingsandcorrespondinglyhigherederalshare,passesalongthesavingsinnon-ederalsharebyrequiringonlya57%matchototalprojectcostsbyprojectsponsorsMaryland,ontheotherhand,requiresa50%matchbyprojectsponsorsinordertospreadtheavailableederalundingacrossmoreprojectsSomestates(egFlorida,NewJersey,andPennsylvania)usetollcreditstosupplementsponsorcontributionsandmeetnon-ederalsharerequirementsAllstatesareallowedbylawtocountthevalueodonations(iecash,land,materials,orservices)towardsthenon-ederalshareSomestatesrecognizethesein-kinddonationsaspartothenon-ederalshare,othersdonotAnoverviewostate-specicpoliciescanbeoundontheNTECwebsite,wwwenhancementsorg/stateproleasp
Statesreportnon-ederalshareinormationtoNTECindierentwaysSomestatesreporttheentirenon-ederalshareoprojectcosts,whileothers(egFlorida)reportonlytheportionothenon-ederalsharethatthesponsoractuallypays,andnottheportionsuppliedbytollcreditsSomestatesreportthevalueoin-kinddonations,othersdonotTable4onpage24providesinormation
onmatchingundlevelsreportedbyeachstate
InFY2010,theaveragenationalmatchratewas29%Asinpreviousyears,thisratesurpassedtheederalsharerequiredunder23USC120Table4showsthat35stateshadamatchratehigherthan20%,and19othesestateshadaratehigherthanthenationalaverageOverall,thishighernationalmatchrateisattributabletostatepoliciesthatencourageorrequireahighernon-ederalshare,projectsponsorsvoluntarilyprovidingmoreundingthanrequired,orthestatechoosingnottouseederally-approvedproceduresorreducingoreliminatingtherequirednon-ederalshare
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
26/36
Table 4: Cumulative Programmed Federal Awards and Matching Funds, FY 1992 through FY2010 (in thousands o dollars)
*Matchrateiscalculatedromtotalprojectunding(Federalandmatch)
State Project Count Federal Awards Avg. Federal Award Matching Funds Match Rate*
Alabama 845 $195,043 $231 $52,090 21%
Alaska 262 $126,161 $482 $15,859 11%
Arizona 452 $190,776 $422 $57,430 23%
Arkansas 425 $97,456 $229 $47,334 33%
Caliornia 1,420 $921,213 $649 $482,490 34%
Colorado 580 $129,035 $222 $58,948 31%
Connecticut 175 $115,548 $660 $28,887 20%
Delaware 136 $46,168 $339 $40,101 46%
DistrictoColumbia 105 $37,602 $358 $9,364 20%
Florida 1,415 $536,702 $379 $24,607 4%
Georgia 809 $351,841 $435 $96,847 22%
Hawaii 37 $51,258 $1,385 $18,884 27%
Idaho 160 $52,925 $331 $12,261 19%
Illinois 630 $410,085 $651 $106,383 21%
Indiana 546 $296,499 $543 $133,179 31%
Iowa 674 $189,265 $281 $121,935 39%Kansas 310 $151,326 $488 $87,812 37%
Kentucky 818 $196,429 $240 $59,295 23%
Louisiana 443 $153,291 $346 $24,710 14%
Maine 300 $65,895 $220 $18,935 22%
Maryland 265 $185,417 $700 $272,606 60%
Massachusetts 236 $81,636 $346 $21,347 18%
Michigan 1,294 $336,642 $260 $156,359 32%
Minnesota 528 $249,421 $472 $169,359 40%
Mississippi 270 $141,912 $526 $27,347 16%
Missouri 853 $215,254 $252 $101,533 32%
Montana 674 $74,515 $111 $26,434 26%
Nebraska 608 $86,703 $143 $53,520 38%
Nevada 151 $78,046 $517 $19,162 20%NewHampshire 230 $77,235 $336 $25,816 25%
NewJersey 356 $134,771 $379 $78,228 37%
NewMexico 390 $145,069 $372 $48,123 25%
NewYork 526 $410,486 $780 $316,375 44%
NorthCarolina 912 $257,840 $283 $69,922 21%
NorthDakota 255 $56,918 $223 $24,490 30%
Ohio 721 $328,951 $456 $94,844 22%
Oklahoma 388 $147,284 $380 $40,717 22%
Oregon 199 $106,606 $536 $37,513 26%
Pennsylvania 1,017 $436,926 $430 $64,468 13%
RhodeIsland 209 $56,646 $271 $12,306 18%
SouthCarolina 649 $98,930 $152 $43,087 30%
SouthDakota 205 $43,420 $212 $21,896 34%Tennessee 600 $234,399 $391 $56,299 19%
Texas 541 $647,660 $1,197 $157,961 20%
Utah 196 $82,791 $422 $32,371 10%
Vermont 342 $54,793 $160 $15,592 22%
Virginia 627 $274,221 $437 $342,715 56%
Washington 715 $179,690 $251 $89,154 33%
WestVirginia 520 $90,011 $173 $22,532 20%
Wisconsin 632 $187,794 $297 $56,161 23%
Wyoming 348 $52,309 $150 $11,052 17%
TOTAL 25,999 $9,868,813 $380 $4,006,636 29%
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
27/36
www.enhancements.org
TransportationEnhancementundingcontinuestobeinhighdemandMoststatesreportthattheycannotundallothequaliedprojectsandmanysponsorsareprovidinglargerthantherequirednon-ederalshareoprojectcosts
In2010,the12TE-eligibleactivitieswereundedatsimilarpercentagesasinpastyearswithminorchangesCategory1,bicycleandpedestrianrelatedacilities,continuestocontainoverhaloallselectedprojectsandnearly50%othetotalundingortheTEprogramThepercentageound-ingorhistoricpreservationprojectsdeclinedslightlywhilethenumberolandscapingandscenicbeauticationprojectsincreased
Analyzingthestatesuseoederalundsusingthreemeasuresoobligationsprovidesthemostbal-ancedassessmentoTEnancialperormance
Cumulative Obligation Rate:FHWAsstatedgoalorthenationalcumulativeobligationrateotheTEprogramisatleast75%Thisyear,thecumulativenationalobligationratewas88%otheavailablebalance,butonly70%ooriginalapportionmentsIndividualstateratesrangeromalowo56%toahigho96%(page11)
Obligation of Yearly Apportionment:Statesobligatedonly64%otheFY2010annualap-portionmentIndividually,theanalysisshowedthatstatesrangedrom266%to5%inobligationotheyearlyapportionment(page13)
Unobligated Balances:Thereisstillasignicantaccumulationounobligatedundsatthena-tionallevel,abalanceoover$1billionAtthestatelevel,29haveunobligatedbalancesozeroorabalanceolessthanoneyearsapportionmentInact,just6statesreceivingonly17%onationalapportionmentsoverthepastveyearsareresponsibleorhalotheremainingnationalunobli-gatedbalance(seeTable2)
Onceprojectsbecomeobligated,statesaresupportingthemthroughcompletionandreimburse-mentNationwide,thecumulativereimbursementrateiswellabove80%Unobligatedunding,however,remainsaprobleminsomestatesandisdeprivingcommunitiesovaluableenhance-
mentsTEprojectsbringsocial,economic,andmobilitybenetstothousandsocommunitiesna-tionwideMoreremainstobedonetomakecertainthatTEprojectsareapriorityineverystateandtobringthoseremainingstatesobligationratesorTEuptothelevelootherFederal-aidhighwayprograms
AnalysisoclearinghousedatashowsthatastatesprioritiesandmanagementarethekeystoTEprogramsuccessHigherprogramsuccesscorrelateswithminimaldelaybetweenobligationandreimbursementThroughNTECsinteractionsandtechnicalassistancetothestates,ourcausesseemtocontributetodelays:(1)drawnoutprojectselectionandreviewprocesses,(2)unpreparedorinexperiencedprojectsponsors,(3)stateproceduresorobligatingTEprojects,and(4)lowpriorityoTEamongastatestransportationleadershipStatesndtheirprogramslanguishingwhentheydonotgrantobligatingauthorityorTEandtheDOThasnotcultivatedanever-growingcommu-nityoexperiencedprojectsponsors
WhenTEA-21expiredin2003,undingorhighwayprogramscontinuedthrough12short-termextensionsspanningalmosttwoyearsTheseshort-termextensionspreventedatotalshutdownotheFederal-aidHighwayProgrambutdisruptedtheorderlyandpredictablefowoundingManystateDOTswereunwillingtoplanorTEprojectsundertheseconditions,asrefectedinthedipinobligationsduringtheTEA-21extensionperiodSincetheendoFY2009,theTEprogramndsitselonceagaininthissituationFundingtransportationthroughextensionsindicatedthispatternodecliningTEobligationsandewernewTEprojectsinFY2010Thispatterncanbeexpectedtocontinueuntilanewauthorizationisenacted
Conclusion
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
28/36
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
Appendix A: TE Obligations Explained
Obligations
A
nobligationisaormalagreementbetweentheederalgovernmentandthestatepartnerthattheederalgovernmentwillreimbursethestateoruptothemaximumederalshareoeligibleprojectcostsTheagreementindicatesthattheederalgovernmentrecognizes
thattheprojectmeetsederalcriteria,andthatthestatewillcomplywithederalrulesandregula-tionsgoverningprojectworkItrepresentsahighlevelocommitmentonthepartoboththestateDOTandtheFHWAtoadvanceaprojectObligationsaretypicallymadewhenaprojectordiscreteprojectphaseisreadytohaveconsultantsorcontractorsbeginbillableworkObligationsaretrackedintheFHWAnancialaccountingsystemknownastheFiscalManagementInorma-tionSystem(FMIS)Itshouldbenotedthatobligationguresbydenitionincludeamixobothcompletedandsoon-to-becompletedwork
Obligation Limitation
Alongwithannualapportionments,CongresssetsalimitationonobligationsorthatyeartocontrolannualederalexpendituresotheFederal-aidHighwayProgramObligationauthority
isthendistributedamongthestatesObligationlimitationisarequirementappliedtotheentireFederal-aidHighwayProgramThoughsimpliedorthisreport,thenatureothelimitationisoneomacroproportions,andisnottrackedbyFHWAattheleveloprogramssuchasTEWithinthestatesoveralllimitation,eachstatehasdiscretiontochoosehowtouseundingamongthevariousFederal-aidhighwayprogramsaslongasthetotalobligationsdonotexceedthesetlimitThereore,whileitmayappearthatstatesarenotobligatingallotheirapportionment,notallothisundingmaybeaccessibleinagivenyearForexample,inFY2010Congressimposedanoverallobligationlimitationsuchthatonlyapproximately92%ototalapportionmentsnation-widecouldbeobligatedManystateDOTsciteobligationlimitationorrestrictingTEprogramsThatsaid,theDOTsarelargelyresponsible(23USC145)orhowtheydistributethelimitationamongFederal-aidprograms
SomestateDOTsevenlydistributetheobligationlimitationacrossallprograms,whileother
DOTsplacelowerlimitationsonsomeprogramsandhigheronesonothersSomestateTEmanagershavereportedthatintheirstatesDOTTEisconsideredalowerpriorityLimitationsonobligationsshouldbekeptinmindasthisreportdiscussesTEobligationrates
Interpreting Obligation Rates
ObligationratesaresuitedtotrackchangesatthenationalandstatelevelovertimeHowever,comparisonsacrossstatesneedtoconsiderseveralactorsthatcanaectobligationratesLowobligationratesdonotnecessarilyrefectalowcommitmenttoTEbyastateObligationratesarebestexplainedintermsostate-specicpoliciesandproceduresorimplementingTEprojects
Thereareseveralactorsthatcanleadtolowobligationrates:
Alternate funding.TherearemanyTE-eligibleprojectsbeingundedromederal,state,andlocalsourcesotherthanTEAttheederallevelalone,projectsmaybeundedbyarea-suballocatedSuraceTransportationProgramunding,SaeRoutestoSchool,ortheCongestionMitigationandAirQualityImprovementProgram
Obligation limitation.Congress,initsannualappropriationsacts,setstheannualobligationlimitationortheoverallamountoFederal-aidhighwayundingthatcanbeobligatedFHWAinormsthestatesotheselimitsandmonitorsorcomplianceStateDOTschoosehowtheywillmanagetherequiredobligationlimitationacrosstheirprogramsattheirdiscretion
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
29/36
www.enhancements.org
Accounting practices.StateproceduresorobligatingprojectsandvaryingaccountingpracticesimpacttheobligationrateSomestatesobligateprojectundinginstagesastheyarereadytoproceedSomestatespayoronlytheconstructionphaseoTEprojectsandreleaseullobligationauthorityonceconstructionisreadytooccurStateswithlowerobligationrates
otenuseoneothesemethodsStatesthatreleaseullprojectobligationorallstagesearlierintheprocesstendtohavehigherobligationrates
Level of design detail and environmental review.SomeDOTsreportedlytreatTEprojectsmorelikehighways,requiringalevelodesigndetailandenvironmentalreviewthatcanbeatoddswiththesmall-scalenatureomostTEprojectsandatoddswithederalrecommendationthatencouragesastreamlinedapproachSuchstrictrequirementsslowdowntheimplementationoprojects,thuscreatingabarrierbetweentheprogrammingandobligationstages
Inexperienced sponsors. ProblemsintheprojectdevelopmentprocessthathaveledtosignicantprojectdelayareotentheresultoinexperiencedprojectsponsorsthatlackthepreparationandsupporttoimplementprojectsinatimelymannerStatesdonotobligateundingwhenexpectedduetodelaysresultingrominaccuratecostestimates,theinabilitytoraisematchingunding,unamiliaritywithenvironmentalandhistoricpreservationreviewrequirements,andtheuseoinappropriatedesignstandardsSomestateshaveeectivelydealtwiththisproblembyprovidingmoresupporttoprojectsponsorsduringtheapplicationprocessaswellasduringimplementationbydevelopingtrainingprograms,increasingstaresources,andhiringconsultants
Right-of-way acquisition.Somestateshaveacedcostlylegalactionsduetoright-o-wayissuesandhavesubsequentlyadoptedmorestringentrequirementsTocombatthisproblem,somestatesrequireapplicantstoobtainawrittenright-o-wayagreementpriortoprojectselection
Thereareseveralactorsthatcanleadtohighobligationrates:
Priority.Insomestates,demandortheTEprogramatbothlocalandleadershiplevelshasmotivatedstatestoobligateclosetothemaximumallowableamount,whichistheapportionedamount
Rescissions.CongressoccasionallycallsonthestatestoreturnapportionedundstotheederalgovernmentthathavenotyetbeenobligatedWhenundsarerescinded,theavailablebalanceorobligationisreduced,andthustheobligationrateincreases,thoughnonewobligationshaveoccurredThisaectsonlytheobligationratecalculatedoutotheavailablebalanceObligationratescalculatedinreerencetohistoricapportionmentsarenotaectedbyrescissions
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
30/36
Transportation Enhancements Spending Report, 99 - 00
Appendix B: Glossary
Authorization isastatutoryprovisioncreatedbyCongressthatcreatesorextendsaederalprogram,suchastheFederal-aidHighwayProgramAnauthorizationcanbeopen-ended,buttypicallytrans-portationauthorizationsareorasetnumberoyears
ApportionmentsaretheundsdistributedamongthestatesbytheFHWAasprescribedbystatutoryormulaTransportationEnhancementundsareaminimum10%setasideromtheSuraceTranspor-tationProgram(STP)undingcategory,plus10%otheportionoEquityBonusProgramdistributedtotheSTP
Appropriations areannualactsoCongressthatsetalimitontheobligationsastatecanmakeromapportionedundsinagivenscalyear
ProgrammingistherststepintheormaltransportationspendingprocessProgrammedprojectsarethosethathavebeenapprovedatthestatelevelbytheappropriatejurisdiction,rulingbody,orocialThismaybetheTEadvisorycommittee,statetransportationcommission,legislature,stateSecretaryoTransportation,orGovernorUponapprovalTEprojectsarelistedintheStatewideTrans-portationImprovementProgram(STIP)and,i appropriate,inametropolitanareaTIPaswellThegurespresentedinthisreportasprogrammedarecumulativetotalsbeginningwiththerstscal
yearoISTEA,1992Asstatesmakerevisedundinglevelsavailableorprojectsprogrammedinearlieryears,thesechangesarerefectedintheNTECdatabase
Federal Aid areundsromtheederalgovernmentmadeavailabletothestatestobuildthehighwaysystemTheseundstraditionallycomeromtheHighwayTrustFund,whichdrawsrevenueromtheederalgasolinetaxandothersources
Matching Funds areundsromanynon-FederalHighwayAdministrationsource(excepttheRec-reationalTrailsProgram)thatareusedtocoverthecostsoaprojectTypically,onlyupto80%otheeligiblecostsoaFederal-aidhighwayproject,includingTEprojects,canbereimbursedbytheederalgovernmentMostwesternstatesareeligibleoraslidingscalethatallowsahigherederalshare(upto95%inNevada),basedontheproportionoFederallandswithinthestateTheremainingprojectcostsmustbecoveredbymatchingundsStatesalsohavetheoptiontoaccountormatchingundsacrosstheprogramasawhole,ratherthanattheprojectlevel
Obligations, Obligation Limitation, and Obligation Rates areaddressedinAppendixA
ReimbursementsaretheamountoundsFHWAhasreimbursedtothestatesorcompletedworkonTEprojects,regardlessowhethertheprojectisonlypartiallyorullycompleteReimbursementisessentiallythelaststepinthespendingprocessWhileitisnotnecessarilythemostaccuratemeasureocompletedprojects,itistheonlymeasurereadilyavailableonanationwidebasis
Rescissionsareundsremovedromunobligatedbalances,byActoCongressWhileCongresssetsthetotal rescission amount, FHWA calculates theshare each state is responsible orbased ontheoriginaldistributionoFederal-aidundsThestatesinturnarerequiredtoreturnthoseundsInthepast,stateshaddiscretionoverhowtoassigntherescissionsamongtheirFederal-aidprogramsFortheFY2008rescissionandonerescissioninFY2009,the2007EnergyIndependenceandSecurityActrequiredthatstatesdistributetherescissionproportionatelyovertheirFederal-aidprograms,withinamargino10%
TransfersindicatetheamountsomoneytranserredromtheTEprogramtoothertransportationprogramsTheUniormTranserability Provision (23USC126)limitsthe amountso unds thatcanbetranserredromTEtootherFederal-aidhighwayprogramsinagivenyearStatescantranserupto25%otheportionotheannualTEundingthatisabovethestatesFY1997TEapportion-mentlevelStatesarealsopermittedtotranserTEundstotheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)undertherequirementsoChapter53otitle49,USCThereisnolimitontheamountthatcanbetranserredtoFTA;however,thetranserredundsmustbeusedorTE-eligibleactivitiesTransersaretrackedbyFMIS
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
31/36
9
www.enhancements.org
Table5:TransfersofTEFunds(inthousandsofdollarstootherFederal-aidHighway
ProgramsandtheFederalTransit
Administration)
Appendix C: Additional Tables
State
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Tota
lTEFunds
Tra
nsferred
FY
2002-10
Arizona
$2,212(NHS)
$2,212
Caliornia
$2,677(FTA)
$7,883(FTA)
$4,561(FTA)
$3,426(FTA)
$476(FTA)
$8,204(FTA)
$1,352(FTA)
$229(FTA)
$917(FTA)
$29,725
Colorado
$257(FTA)
$325(FTA)
$28(FTA)
$227(FTA)
$197(FTA)
$179(FTA)
$504(FTA)
$132(FTA)
$1,849
Connecticut
$1,680(FTA)
$1,680
Florida
$168(FTA)
$500(FTA)
$600(FTA)
$432(FTA)
$300(FTA)
$1,388(FTA)
$3,388
Georgia
$20,025(NHS)
$20,025
Indiana
$284(RTP)
$284
Louisiana
$7,201(NHS)
$1,682(ISM)
$8,884
Michigan
$186(FTA)
$1,392(FTA)
$74(FTA)
$49(FTA)
$529(FTA)
$16(FTA)
$4,716
$2,470(NHS)
Minnesota
$2,215(B85)
$2,215
Missouri
$295(FTA)
$1,563(FTA)
$78(FTA)
$4,063
$1,340(NHS)
$787(NHS)
Nevada
$380(NHS)
$1,082(NHS)
$873(ISM)
$2,336
NewJersey
$1,000(FTA)
$1,000(FTA)
$1,000(FTA)
$1,850(FTA)
$1,000(FTA)
$1,000(FTA)
$1,000(FTA)
$15,397
$7,547(B85)
NewYork
$980(FTA)
$2,000(FTA)
$2,000(FTA)
$3,489(FTA)
$8,469
NorthCarolina
$1,700(NHS)
$1,700
Ohio
$196(FTA)
$185(FTA)
$326(FTA)
$31,809(FTA)
$32,515
Oregon
$625(RTP)
$1,636(NHS)
$2,261
Pennsylvania
$640(FTA)
$40(FTA)
$1,422(FTA)
$2,102
RhodeIsland
$89(FTA)
$89
SouthCarolina
$8,400(B85)
$8,400
Tennessee
$791(RTP)
$226(RTP)
$100(RTP)
$278(RTP)
$1,394
Texas
$2,752(FTA)
$1,805(FTA)
$180(NHS)
$24,884(NHS)
$35,318
$5,697(NHS)
Vermont
$311(FTA)
$311
Virginia
$6,351(NHS)
$10,428(NHS)
$2,035(NHS)
$160(FTA)
$18,974
Washington
$1,232(FTA)
$1,044(FTA)
$1,465(FTA)
$1,038(FTA)
$3,500(FTA)
$8,279
Wisconsin
$34(FTA)
$28(FTA)
$62
Subtotals
toFTA
$7,764
$12,150
$8,219
$4,518
$36,321
$17,359
$5,996
$9,410
$3,481
$105,218
toNHS
$7,691
$787
$5,697
$180
$10,428
$12,087
$47,691
$3,848
$88,409
toRecTrails
$791
$226
$100
$278
$625
$284
$2,303
toISM
$2,556
$2,556
toBridge85%
$18,162
$18,162
Total
$16,245
$13,163
$13,916
$4,698
$36,321
$27,886
$18,360
$57,727
$28,332
$216,648
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
32/36
0
Table6:YearlyRescissi
onsfromT
Ebystate(inthousa
ndsofdollars)
*Thispercentageshows
theproportionotherescission
takenromTEoverthetotalres
cissiontakenromthestateinthegivenfscal
yearWhenacellisblan
k,thestatedidnotrescindanyT
Eundsinthatfscalyear,andth
eundsrequiredtobereturnedtoFHWAmust
havebeenrescindedromotherFederal-aidprogramsIthepercentagecolumnshows100%,theentirerescissionorthatyearwastaken
romTEThefrstrowothetableshowsthesizeotheTEProgramnationallyrelativetotheFederal-aidHighwayProgram
asawhole,or
reerenceThistablesho
wsthatin2002and2009,FHWArequiredrescissionstobeproportionatelyadministeredamong
allFederal-aid
programs,andsothesta
tisticshowninthepercentageco
lumnsorthoseyearsisroughlyequivalenttothesizeotheTEpr
ogramrelative
totheFederal-aidHighw
ayProgramasawholeinthatfscalyear
State
2002
%
*
2003
%*
2004
%*
2005
%*
2006
%*
2007
%*
2008
%*
2009
%*
2010
%*
Total
Alabama
$189
3%
$8,1
02
35%
$13,186
18%
$25,225
31%
$2,195
4%
$15,048
6%
$5,994
16%
$69,938
Alaska
$94
3%
$7
28
7%
$3,001
10%
$6,220
18%
$738
2%
$4,886
4%
$203
1%
$15,870
Arizona
$178
3%
$2,138
3%
$4,990
2%
$15,000
33%
$22,306
Arkansas
$132
3%
$61
2%
$7,0
00
45%
$14,245
29%
$1,416
4%
$19,701
13%
$15,056
54%
$57,611
California
$848
3%
$23,862
7%
$9,675
2%
$9,448
3%
$150,193
14%
$88,115
43%
$282,141
Colorado
$134
3%
$9,414
18%
0%
$1,494
3%
$24,036
15%
$6,121
20%
$41,200
Connecticut
$103
2%
$3,410100%
$2,810100%
$7,1
44
42%
$9,967
18%
$5,000
8%
$1,121
2%
$9,778
6%
$6,940
22%
$46,272
Delaware
$45
3%
$257
1%
$410
3%
$1,220
3%
$38
0%
$1,970
Dist.OfCol.
$39
3%
$5,655
31%
$2,281
12%
$365
3%
$6,668
14%
$15,008
Florida
$496
3%
$838
7%
$10,809
6%
$27,327
13%
$6,207
4%
$60,683
10%
$24,700
22%
$131,061
Georgia
$369
3%
$5,682
4%
$3,873
3%
$59,018
14%
$34,009
45%
$102,949
Hawaii
$46
3%
$3,067
17%
$1,500
8%
$469
3%
$5,097
9%
$261
2%
$10,441
Idaho
$63
3%
$13,857
50%
$971
3%
$696
3%
$5,818
6%
$7,532
44%
$28,937
Illinois
$313
3%
$4,4
26
10%
$14,168
11%
$6,784
5%
$3,621
3%
$36,153
9%
$65,465
Indiana
$245
3%
$83
0%
$6,016
5%
$2,865
3%
$15,147
5%
$24,356
Iowa
$120
3%
$4,218
9%
$1,148
3%
$3,656
3%
$9,142
Kansas
$131
3%
$4,000
8%
$2,847
2%
$629
3%
$7,607
Kentucky
$154
3%
$257
6%
$1,473
3%
$10,719
5%
$6,000
16%
$18,603
Louisiana
$141
3%
$17,630
28%
$401
1%
$1,320
3%
$45,215
24%
$5,000
13%
$69,708
Maine
$48
3%
$1,376100%
$1,151100%
$5,689
28%
$435
3%
$1,178
2%
$9,877
Maryland
$142
3%
$1,560
3%
$12,357
6%
$959
3%
$15,018
Massachusetts
$146
2%
$25,228
32%
$1,511
3%
$6,902
3%
$7,914
21%
$41,701
Michigan
$341
3%
$12,750
11%
$7,000
5%
$3,400
4%
$46,488
13%
$20,000
34%
$89,979
Minnesota
$172
4%
$6,052
9%
$2,132
4%
$19,200
11%
$23
0%
$27,579
-
8/6/2019 Transportation Enhancements Spending Report FY 1992 - FY 2010
33/36
Table6(continued):Ye
arlyRescissionsfromT
E(inthousandsofdollars)
State
2002
%
2003
%
2004
%
2005
%
2006
%
2007
%
2008
%
2009
%
2010
%
Total
Mississippi
$130
3%
$2,0
16
13%
$1,349
4%
$11,133
8%
$955