USDOT TIGER Program: Discretionary Grant or

Political Tool

Baruch FeigenbaumAssistant Director—Transportation Policy

Reason FoundationSeptember 20, 2014

Outline

• Formula funding versus discretionary funding• Why TIGER Grants/what they are supposed to

accomplish• Sample projects• Issues with grants• Recommendations to improve

Formula Funding versus Discretionary Funding

• Typical projects are formula-funded Congress decides how much money to give to each state • Less selection of individual projects• Blunt and politically-motivated

• TIGER is discretionary-funded• USDOT chooses projects based on merit• In theory: less political, more targeted to achieve

objectives

Formula Funding can be Good

• GW Bush administration used discretionary program (Congestion Reduction and Urban Partnerships• FHWA, FTA fund highway express lanes and express

bus service in Atlanta, Chicago Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis

• Projects were suburban in nature they went to Democratic and Republican districts

• Clear rigorous evaluation process• Good communication between federal officials and

state/local entities

Origins of TIGER Grants Program

• Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act known as the Stimulus

• Started as “Stimulus” became an annual part of USDOT budget

• Create competitive, rigorous process that selects projects with excellent benefits

• 2009: $1.52B, 2010: $597M, 2011: $527M

2012: $500M, 2013: $474M, 2014: $600M

Guidelines for TIGER Grants Purpose

• Critical national objectives

• Related to transportation

• Preserve and create jobs

• Invest in transportation infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits

• Assist those most affected by the current economic downturn

• Equitable geographic balance of funds

• Accurate balance of funds between urban and rural communities

Criteria Used to Evaluate the Projects

• 2 sets of criteria to evaluate grants• Long-term outcomes• State of Good Repair• Economic Competitiveness• Livability• Sustainability• Safety• Job Creation and Economic Stimulus

• Secondary selection criteria• Innovation• Partnership

USDOT Also Considers Other Factors

• Tertiary Criteria• Project Schedule• Environmental Approvals• Legislative Approvals• State and Local Planning• Technical Feasibility• Financial Feasibility

How the Application Process Works

• Federal Register/USDOT Announcement of Grants

• Applicant (state DOT, county, city, transit agency) fills out grant forms that must show how project meets all criteria

• Evaluation Team provides initial review first individually and then as a group

• Higher scoring projects are advanced to a Review Team

• But Control and Calibration team analyzed rejected projects and advanced some of those to Review Team

• Review Team chooses both projects by Evaluation and Control and Calibration Teams for funding

Sample Projects from TIGER VI: Highway

• Highway: Sarah Mildred Long Bridge • New bridge US 1 Bypass, part of 3 bridge system

including I-95 between Maine and New Hampshire• TIGER grant $25M, total bridge cost $158.5M • Federal grant 1/6 of total project • National project

Sample Projects from TIGER VI: Transit

• M1 Fixed Rail Streetcar Project• New streetcar project, hope to expand transit 12

miles from downtown Detroit into suburbs• TIGER Grants $12.2M total project cost $187• Federal grant is for 7% of project cost• But project is local; no one outside of Michigan

will benefit • Project is non-transportation; it’s a hope that

development will come to area

Sample Projects from TIGER VI: Freight Rail

• New England Central Railroad Freight Rail Project• Upgrade 55 miles of weight and freight

restricted tract to Port of New London, CT• TIGER Grant is for $8.1M, total project cost is

$10.4M• Federal grant is for 80% of cost• While project is national, more local contribution

should have been required

Sample Projects from TIGER VI: Green

• Dahlonega, GA Complete Streets• Build bike paths and sidewalks in town of 2,500

residents• TIGER Grant $5.1M, total cost is $9.1M • Federal grant is for 58% of the cost• Project is not national; question whether it is related

to transportation• Why does town with little traffic even need these

facilities

Sample Projects from TIGER VI: Other

• Restoring Pathways to Economic Opportunities Birmingham, AL• Planning program that examines low income communities cut off

from job centers• TIGER Grant is for $125,000, total project cost is $300,000• Federal Grant is for 40% of cost• Project is not national• Project is not related to transportation Why does town with little

traffic even need these facilities• Understand issue of poor neighborhoods/race but if this is national

HUD issue

Sample Projects from TIGER VI: Multimodal

• Champaign-Urbana Multimodal Corridor Enhancement• Bus only lanes, bike lanes, services that will enhance

mobility for senior citizens/persons with disabilities bike lanes, protect farmland

• TIGER Grant is for $15.7M, total project cost $34.8M• Federal Grant is for 40% of cost• Project is not national• Project has limited transportation purposes

Issues with TIGER Grant Awards: Vague Metrics

• DOT focused on “rigorous” selection of projects but analysis shows limited rigor

• For example: Livability• DOT vague definition: Will significantly enhance

user mobility through the creation of more convenient transportation options for the traveler

• DOT better definition: Will provide missing links that reduce travel time by an average of five minutes

Issues with TIGER Grant Awards: Vague Metrics Part II• Economic Competitiveness• Internal confusion: • Measuring jobs versus job-years: 1 job for 20 years is 20 job-

years• USDOT was supposed to use job-years but in referring to

project cited 4000 jobs when they meant job-years instead of 467 temporary jobs

• Poor calculation methods:• DOTs method did not consider inflation or pay raises leading

to inflated number

• No analysis:• Unclear how USDOT arrived at calculations

Issues with TIGER Grant Awards: Confusing Review Process

• Control and Calibration Team’s Role• Evaluation Team at one level and Review Team at higher level what is

the purpose of Control and Calibration• No explanation how team ranked projects

• Review Team Composition• All political employees• Better solution: half political employees half career civil-servant

• Funding “Recommended” projects instead of “Highly Recommended”• 26 of 51 funded projects “highly recommended”, 25 recommended• Control and Calibration Team projects received lower ratings than

Evaluation Team yet 23% received funding while 50% of Control and Calibration Team projects received funding

Issues with TIGER Grant Awards: Poor Documentation• Team meetings• Documented Evaluation Team but not Control and

Calibration Team or Review Team Provides info via internet or mobile device

• Only notes are in draft form and never finalized• Notes show projects funded were no better than projects

not funded

• Policy• USDOT had official policy of requiring documentation when

lower rated projects were funded over higher rated projects • TIGER Grants process violated Obama Administration Policy

Issues with TIGER Grant Awards: Limited Information Available• Little explanation why certain project funded

• USDOT provided more information in “New Starts” (program since changed by Obama Administration)• Old New Starts publishes all scores • Uses scores in determining where to award grants

• USDOT will not provide more information because while it would increase transparency, show accountability, and improve application quality, some applicants may game system

• But currently seems to be picking certain types of projects so isn’t the system already rigged

Issues with TIGER Grants Awards: Democratic Congressional Districts

Receive More Funding • Democratic districts received 29% more

funding than Republican districts

Funding Round

Congressional Representation

No. ofProjects

% of Projects

Total Funding

% of Funding

T One Over 60% D 35 69% $1.1 B 72%

T One 40%<x<60% 3 6% $135.5M 9%

T One Over 60% R 13 25% $290.9M 19%

T Three

Over 60% D 28 61% $354.9M 69%

T Three

40%<x<60% 2 4% $19.8M 4%

T Three

Over 60% R 16 35% $136.6M 27%

Issues with TIGER Grant Awards: Democratic Congressional Districts

Receive More Funding

• Are other factors at play: Who controls which party, did Democratic districts apply for more funding

Body Dem. Rep. Other Body Dem. Rep.

09 House 256 178 1 09 Senate Appro

20 12

11 House 193 242 11 Senate Appro

16 14

09 Senate 58 40 2 09 T&I 45 31

11 Senate 51 47 2 11 T&I 26 33

09 Governor 25 25 09 EPW 11 8

11 Governor 20 29 1 11 EPW 10 8

09 State Leg 27 14 8 09 Banking 14 10

11 State Leg 15 26 8 11 Banking 12 10

09 House Appro

38 23 09 Commerce 15 12

11 House Appro

21 29 11 Commerce 13 12

Issues with TIGER Grant Awards: National Priorities• Stated goal is to meet critical national objectives

• But award process seems to favor certain modes and modal balance above all else

Mode Type Highway

Transit Rail Port Green Other

TIGER I No. 13 13 6 4 7 3

TIGER III No. 13 13 6 4 7 3

TIGER VI No. 18 20 2 0 4 8

TIGER I $ % 35% 40% 10% 5% 5% 5%

TIGER III $ % 34% 41% 5% 5% 9% 6%

TIGER VI $ %

32% 42% 7% 0% 17% 11%

Issues with TIGER Grant Process: Related to Transportation

• Many TIGER grants geared towards environmental or economic development gains

• Most of the non-motorized projects less than 3 miles in length; many are in suburban or rural areas with non-motorized commuter shares of less than 2%.

• Many multimodal transit hubs have economic development; they are located in downtown areas with a maximum of 2 modes of transit

Issues with TIGER Grant Process: Other

• Port experts reviewing highway project• In TIGER I review teams were multimodal so 1 FHWA, 1 FTA, 1

FRA, 1 Waterway and 1 Office of Secretary employee review a highway project when 4 of these folks have limited background

• Unwritten rule to include as much local funding as possible (leverage)• Good rule, but need to make it official

• Realistic deadlines• Time between date to apply for grant and when applicants

need to have all info together is very tight

What Other Reviews Found: General Accountability Office

• Poor documentation • “Because no internal documentation from review team meetings exists in

which final decisions to recommend or reject projects for award were made, DOT cannot definitely demonstrate the basis for its award selections particularly why recommended projects were selected over highly recommended projects

• Poor communication• “Disclosing additional information would give Congress a better basis to

assess the merits”• “Did not publish the reasons for the decisions of why some applicants were

selected while others were rejected

• Evaluation criteria• Does not appear to consistently be rigorous

• No consultation with Congress

What Other Reviews Found: Eno Foundation

• Preference for Shovel-ready unwise• “Unhelpful for discretionary grant programs where the aim is to

maximize investments.”

• Lack of congressional interaction: Use Transit New Starts as model

• Lack of transparency• “A lack of information led to criticism”• “Enabling USDOT to improve the selection process”

• Lack of experience (officials in administration do not know what they are doing)• Instead use “dedicated, experienced staff

10 recommendations to improve the process (1-5)

• Decrease the number of review metrics and improve the analytics of the remaining metrics (vague metrics)

• Increase the quality and quantity of documents explaining the decision making process (poor documentation)

• Improve the communication of the process and the scoring to applicants and the public (limited information available)

• Eliminate Control and Calibration team and split review teams 50/50 political and civil service appointees (confusing review process)

• Maintain political balance between D and R districts (D districts receive more funding)

10 recommendations to improve the process (6-10) • Fund programs in national interest only (national priorities)

• Show more flexibility in geographic requirements (national priorities)

• Reduce guaranteed funding to rural districts (national priorities)

• Eliminate modal requirements (related to transportation)

• Create an accurate system for determining economic benefits (vague metrics)

Administration Makes Small Changes Between TIGER I and TIGER II

• Made two changes• Detailed information on how to conduct a cost-

benefit analysis• But no penalty for deliberately conducting a bad

analysis (jobs versus job years)

• Separate project teams into modes (highway, transit, port)

Administration Does Not Make Other Changes

• Vague metrics

• Confusing review process

• Poor documentation

• Limited information to the public

• Democratic districts receive more funding

• National priorities

• Related to transportation

• Lack of congressional interaction

• Lack of experience

• Shovel ready

Get Rid of TIGER!• Administration will not revise based on feedback

from non-partisan source• Turned into a political program not policy program

where local officials with Democratic ties who are paperwork wizards get grants

• Republican House and Republican Senate likely to kill

• Call/mail representative to make sure he/she knows how you feel about program

• Your mayor/city manager/etc. may like this program

Questions

Baruch FeigenbaumAssistant Director of Transportation PolicyReason Foundationbaruch.feigenbaum@reason.org