Transportation funding in the ARRA must be evaluated in terms of its multiple goals
The ARRA and federal officials identify nine goals for ARRA transportation funding:
4 promote long-term economic growth
8 not contribute to additional sprawl
9 reduce commute times and congestion
States could use the stimulus to make progress on urgent needs
The ARRA gave states and urban areas
The allocation of $26.6 billion in flexible transportation funds offers a significant opportunity to address various transportation needs, including essential repairs for roads and bridges, expansion of public transportation systems, development of bicycle lanes, enhancement of traffic signals, improvement of pedestrian routes, and the addition of new highway capacity.
18,722 U.S bridges on state and Interstate systems are rated “structurally deficient” by U.S DOT, and are “unsafe” according to the American Society of Civil Engineers
A significant portion of the nation's infrastructure is in disrepair, with one-third of major roads classified as poor or mediocre, and over 25% of urban roads facing similar issues These rough road conditions can cost drivers up to $740 annually Investing in road maintenance is crucial, as every dollar spent can save between $6 to $14 in future reconstruction costs.
The backlog of bridge repairs is deep across all regions of the country.
States’ choices will have major impacts on the recovery and our transportation future
The choices that states and urban areas make matter Different projects have different impacts
In general, public transportation and road and bridge repairs produce 31% and 16% more jobs respectively than construction of new roads and bridges;
On average, repair and maintenance projects spend money and create jobs faster than projects that add new capacity
Smaller projects, such as bridge painting, are generally quicker to start than large new projects and are also generally more labor intensive
Economic rates of return for new-capacity road projects have been dropping for several years.
Major findings
1 States failed to make as much progress as possible on pressing transportation needs
States and regions had the chance to utilize ARRA funds to advance and invest in projects promising the highest returns, leading to a diverse array of decisions—some effective and others less so.
In 11 states, 100% of the money going to roads is going to road repair A total of 17 states are spending 90% or more on repair.
The ARRA funding comes at a critical moment, addressing the dual challenges of a recession and significant backlogs in road and bridge repairs Additionally, it aims to improve the inadequacies of underfunded public transportation systems and enhance the availability of convenient and affordable transportation options.
The States and the Stimulus
Seven states are spending more than 10% of funds to make progress on expanding choices: on public transportation, walking, and biking.
Of those, outstanding states that are doing both:
Of the $ they spend on roads,
% to public transportatio n and bike/ped
In Kentucky, 38.3% of lane miles are classified as being in "poor" condition, and 573 bridges are deemed "structurally deficient." Despite this urgent need for infrastructure repair, the state plans to allocate 88% of its $421 million in flexible funds towards new road construction instead of addressing the existing deteriorating transportation system.
And if the state can't afford to maintain what it has, how does it plan to maintain the new roads?
Other states spending less than half of road money on repair:
% of roads not in “good” condition
Number of structurall y deficient bridges
Despite a multi-trillion dollar backlog of road and bridge repairs, states committed almost a third of the ARRA STP money –
The allocation of $6.6 billion towards new road and bridge projects, rather than focusing on repair and preservation, raises concerns While the growing nation requires additional road capacity, the significant backlog of repairs, coupled with high costs and safety risks, suggests that prioritizing new construction may not align with the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), particularly regarding job creation and public safety.
Many states failed to utilize ARRA funding to address the significant backlog in public transportation investment With increasing demand for services, the necessity for upgrades, and the numerous advantages of public transportation, it is crucial to prioritize funding in this sector.
The $185 million allocated to public transportation is significantly insufficient, especially when considering the additional $8.4 billion from the ARRA dedicated to this sector Overall, the total funding for public transportation still fails to meet the critical demand.
2 By focusing STP funds on roads rather than a balanced set of investments, most states met only 2 of 9 ARRA objectives
Many states have made strides in closing the repair gap and generating jobs through a focus on road preservation However, by increasing their investment in the maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure, they could have accelerated job creation and made greater advancements in addressing the repair backlog.
States have made limited advancements in modernization, job creation, public transportation enhancement, and long-term economic growth by allocating only 3.7% of their funds to public and non-motorized transportation This lack of investment has hindered efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease oil dependency, and offer affordable transportation options.
3 Transparency of decisions is lacking, and accountability for results is weak
Reporting project choices post-decision offers limited transparency, as most states neglect to educate, engage, and involve the public beforehand Consequently, it becomes nearly impossible for the average citizen to discover and comprehend how their tax dollars are being utilized.
Project portfolios often lack clear objectives, established methods for evaluating projects against these goals, and mechanisms for comparing them with one another Additionally, there are few consequences for meeting or failing to meet these objectives.
Transportation, the Recovery Act, and the 120-day milestone
Through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Congress provided states and urban areas (officially, Metropolitan
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are set to receive a significant influx of federal funding for transportation projects, marking a one-time increase beyond the usual annual allocations Out of the nearly $50 billion designated for transportation, $26.6 billion has been allocated through the Surface Transportation program.
Program (STP) Under this program, states and
MPOs have substantial flexibility in deciding how to spend most of the federal stimulus funding for transportation
Are they making the best use of this money?
The purpose of the report
The ARRA requires states to commit at least the first fifty percent of their funding to
1 A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is a policy-making organization for urban areas made up of representatives from local governments and transportation agencies Among other functions,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are designated recipients of 30% of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds through state departments of transportation, as mandated by Congress As of 2005, there are a total of 385 MPOs across the United States Transportation projects must be committed by June 29th, with the remaining funds required to be allocated within one year.
—by March 1, 2010 MPOs have the full year to commit all of their portion This report looks at the decisions made by both states and MPOs
The June 29 deadline for states to allocate 50% of their ARRA STP funds serves as a crucial opportunity to assess progress and analyze the flexibility in the expenditure of these funds.
1 What are they buying with the money?
What is the likely impact of these investments? What could states and MPOs be buying instead?
2 How did they decide? Are state and MPO spending choices transparent and accountable, as intended in the ARRA?
We aim to generate millions of jobs through the largest investment in national infrastructure since the 1950s federal highway system Our approach will focus on strategic reforms and measurable outcomes rather than simply allocating funds.
President-Elect Obama on his goals for federal stimulus legislation in a December 6 th , 2008 radio address to the nation
These questions have particular resonance now for two reasons First, many states and
MPOs still have uncommitted flexible ARRA transportation funds, allowing them time to learn from others' experiences The rapid implementation of the stimulus required funding to flow through existing federal programs, emphasizing "shovel-ready" projects that were already planned or could be quickly prepared Consequently, the funded projects reflect the typical investments associated with the current federal transportation program This analysis offers valuable insights for the upcoming transportation bill, as the current program is set to expire in September.
Evaluating State and MPO Spending
To answer the first of this report’s questions
—are the states and MPOs making the best use of flexible transportation money?— requires that we know the goals these investments are meant to achieve
Accordingly, Chapter 3 gives an overview of the ARRA stimulus goals, breadth of investment opportunities, and the Act’s constraints
Chapter 4 provides the context for each state’s and MPO’s decisions by providing a data-rich view of the current state of transportation networks
Chapter 5 analyzes the allocation of flexible ARRA funds by states and MPOs towards various transportation infrastructures, including roads, bridges, highways, public transit, and non-motorized options like bike and pedestrian paths The effectiveness of these investments is subsequently assessed in relation to the objectives outlined in Chapter 3.
Chapters six and seven focus on the decision-making processes of state and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), emphasizing the importance of transparency and public involvement They question whether these processes allow for an informed public to understand and engage in the selection of projects prior to final decisions being made.
The ARRA funding is crucial as it comes during a recession, addressing significant backlogs in road and bridge repairs, as well as the challenges posed by underfunded public transportation systems and a lack of convenient, affordable transportation options.
The States and the Stimulus
3 The ARRA: An opportunity for recipients to create jobs and invest in a
Recovery Act funding for transportation
President Obama signed the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law on
On March 2nd, the Administration announced the allocation of stimulus funding for transportation projects, notifying each state of their respective amounts A total of $26.6 billion was made available through the Surface Transportation program.
Program (STP) Of that, states must “sub- allocate” 30% to Metropolitan Planning
Organizations must adhere to a "use it or lose it" requirement stipulated by legislation, which mandates that states commit to specific transportation projects within 120 days from March 2nd, or by June 29th This commitment must involve at least 50% of their allocated transportation funding For a visual representation of the money flow, refer to Appendix 1.
Infrastructure Investment Funds Pursuant to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n
4510705.htm received through the Surface Transportation Program States have one year, until March 1,
In 2010, states were required to fully utilize their allocated STP funding under the ARRA, as detailed in the state-by-state transportation funding levels announced on March 2nd These deadlines have driven states to prioritize specific projects.
“shovel-ready,” meaning they have all permits and reviews completed, or that the projects can be initiated without going through lengthy permitting processes.
The ARRA aims to preserve and create jobs while fostering economic recovery, alongside investing in transportation, environmental protection, and infrastructure projects that yield long-term economic benefits.
Since the legislation began moving through Congress, both the President and U.S
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood emphasized the significance of utilizing Recovery Act funds to not only generate employment but also to tackle the nation's urgent and long-term infrastructure issues.
On February 17 th , in a statement marking the signing of the ARRA, Secretary LaHood emphasized,
The transportation funding outlined in the Act will be utilized to create jobs and revitalize the nation's economy Our approach prioritizes sustainable investments, ensuring that our policies benefit individuals, businesses, and communities alike.
Seven communities rely on transportation systems, emphasizing the importance of environmental quality Our commitment is to enhance and revitalize transportation infrastructure, ensuring the American dream is restored for all.
At a March 12 th session of the U.S Senate
Banking, Housing and Urban Development
“To me, it is clear that our transportation system and the development it enables must be sustainable Climate change must be acknowledged as a reality
Funding for public transportation must increase to help out here Sustainability must permeate all we do, from highways and transit to aviation and ports.”
On April 16 th , in discussing the Recovery Act and the nation’s transportation needs,
To transition from recovery to prosperity, it is essential to establish a new foundation for future growth Our outdated transportation infrastructure, including highways, air routes, and rail lines, is obstructing this progress Traffic congestion on our highways results in an annual loss of $80 billion due to reduced productivity and wasted fuel, while our airports are overwhelmed by increasing demand Additionally, we are vulnerable to fluctuating gas prices and contribute excessively to greenhouse gas emissions Therefore, we urgently require a smart transportation system that meets the demands of the 21st century.
Finally, the legislation requires recipients to give priority to projects that are in
“economically distressed areas,” for reasons of both equity and effective recovery
In sum, the most important word in
“American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” is
The term "Recovery" highlights the necessity for prompt action, while "Reinvestment" underscores that such actions should yield long-term advantages Collectively, these concepts reflect the significance of the legislation and the President's role in fostering sustainable progress.
Transportation Secretary’s statements establish a set of outcome performance standards for states and regions as the states and regions spend $26.6 billion.
5 reduce the nation’s energy dependence;
6 promote long-term economic growth;
8 not contribute to additional sprawl; and
9 reduce commute times and congestion
Taken together, the legislation, the President, and the Transportation Secretary also set process performance standards: these nine
The most important word in
“American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” is “and” The
“Recovery” emphasizes the need for immediate action, and the
“Reinvestment” emphasizes that the immediate action must have long- term benefits
The States and the Stimulus goals are to be pursued through a process that is
The ARRA gives states and regions the flexibility to fulfill these goals
the flexibility to fulfill these goals
The ARRA sent the majority of its transportation funding through the Surface
Transportation Program (STP), which gives wide latitude in what kinds of transportation projects states and regions may fund Although the STP is sometimes referred to as “the
Highway Program,” that label is a misnomer
Under federal rules, recipients can use STP funding on a wide variety of roadway and non- roadway projects, including:
fixing deteriorating roads, highways and bridges;
investing in greater public transportation capacity;
expanding bicycle and pedestrian routes;
making safety improvements; and/or
3 For a cataloging and description of “flexible” transportation spending opportunities under the
STP, see Smart Growth America, Spending the
Stimulus, May 2009 http://stimulus.smartgrowthamerica.org/20ways.
States and MPOs have the opportunity to fund economically valuable projects
Not all projects eligible for STP funding provide equal value to taxpayers, especially during a recession when investments in transportation may not prioritize maximum economic returns However, the ARRA clearly emphasizes generating both short- and long-term economic benefits Identifying which projects yield the highest returns is essential for maximizing taxpayer investment.
The University of Utah’s Metropolitan Research Center conducted a review of the current research landscape and identified six key findings that are crucial for selecting effective stimulus projects Although these findings may not apply universally to every individual project, a diverse range of literature supports their relevance and significance in guiding project selection.
1 Public transportation and road and bridge repairs produce more jobs Public transportation investments generate
31 percent more jobs than new construction of roads and bridges, and repair work on roads and bridges generates 16 percent more jobs than new bridge and road construction.
Repair and maintenance projects generate jobs and utilize funds more efficiently than capacity-adding projects These initiatives engage a diverse workforce, allocate a larger portion of their budget to wages rather than equipment, and require less time for planning and permitting processes.
4 Arthur C Nelson et al., The Best Stimulus for the
Money: Briefing Papers on the Economics of Transportation Spending, University of Utah’s
The Metropolitan Research Center and Smart Growth America highlight that capacity projects necessitate additional funding for right-of-way acquisition, which often lacks significant stimulative or reinvestment value.
3 Economic returns on roads are falling
During the 1950s and 1960s, roadway spending yielded significant economic returns as it established the national highway network; however, recent investments have seen a sharp decline in these returns In contrast, investments in public transportation currently demonstrate generally high rates of return that decline at a much slower pace.
Investing in transportation in metropolitan areas significantly enhances multi-modal accessibility to regional hubs, leading to economic returns that can surpass those of other investments by over 100 times.
5 Fixing existing transportation infrastructure maintenance backlogs produces a higher return on investment than new construction because it:
prevents the need for reconstruction later, which costs 2-14 times as much as repair;
5 Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood gives this example: “In one study done in San Antonio, each
1% of regional travel shifted from auto-mobile to public transit increased regional income about
$2.9 million, resulting in 226 additional regional jobs Other economic benefits include increased productivity, employment, business activity, investment and redevelopment.” http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/06/public- transportation-delivers-public-benefits.html,
saves users money by reducing damage from potholes and vibrations; and
produces more jobs and more economic activity than building new roads.
Investing in regions with significant job demand accelerates employment growth more effectively than investments in other areas Establishing or maintaining transit services in communities experiencing high unemployment can generate up to 2.5 times more jobs compared to similar initiatives in low-unemployment areas.
The last ten years of transportation research has found high rates of return from two other classes of investment:
Coordinating transportation with land use enhances returns for both sectors by situating destinations closer together, alleviating pressure on transportation systems Housing located near essential services is increasingly sought after and has maintained its value during economic downturns Transportation departments can bolster this coordination by encouraging public involvement in planning, prioritizing funding for integrated transportation and land use projects, and investing in complete streets that enhance the value of surrounding neighborhoods.
Maximizing the efficiency of the existing transportation system yields greater returns than simply increasing its capacity Research across the nation indicates that it is significantly more cost-effective to address demand through employer-based transportation demand management strategies rather than expanding road infrastructure.
6 Per public dollar, a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) can accommodate seven times as many commuters as
The States and the Stimulus better managing the demand on the existing lanes, whether through transit,
Intelligent Transportation Systems, and/or pricing, has been proven across the country to help get more out of the system we have at lower cost
The findings indicate that projects focused on repairs and investments in public transportation are highly effective in achieving the objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
While expanding the nation's roadway system by adding more lane miles can generate jobs, this new capacity does not create as many jobs or do so as rapidly Additionally, it fails to effectively tackle the significant national backlog of repairs and maintenance needed for existing infrastructure.
Many citizens and policymakers assume that economic findings primarily pertain to large urban areas, as these regions have received more research attention However, the challenges faced by rural areas warrant further study, as they often experience the same economic principles—sometimes even more intensely For instance, rural residents may be disproportionately affected by rising gas prices and deteriorating road conditions due to their longer travel distances.
In the context of project selection for the stimulus, smaller-scale repair projects can be distributed more evenly across the state, providing benefits to rural areas Additionally, investments in new highways, along with ridesharing and public transportation initiatives, play a crucial role in enhancing connectivity and accessibility throughout Minnesota.
Transportation, Modal Options Identity Project,
States and MPOs have the opportunity to fund projects that meet multiple challenges
Economic goals are a primary focus of the stimulus, yet Congress and the President acknowledge the complexities of a changing world where transportation intersects with various issues These include access to economic opportunities for low-income communities, an aging population, energy security, climate change, and shifts in the housing market Notably, thirty-four state climate-change action plans emphasize the importance of reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled to address these challenges As a result, these realities create significant community needs, both economic and non-economic, shaping our future transportation requirements.
All of those changes will require a transportation system that offers more choice than it does in most places today
Adding lane miles to transportation projects aligns with the goals of the ARRA, as many metropolitan areas require enhanced connectivity New roads play a vital role in revitalizing brownfields and stimulating economic activity Implementing "complete streets" that accommodate all users, regardless of whether they drive, will provide increased options, value, and adaptability for future needs.
Nonetheless, the data are clear: an ARRA portfolio that spends most of its STP funding on increasing conventional roadway lane
7 www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/ in_the_states/action_plan_map.cfm
8 www.completestreets.org/complete-streets- fundamentals/complete-streets-faq/
Investing in the 11-mile stretch with limited public transportation and addressing the deteriorating infrastructure, as well as enhancing bike and pedestrian routes, would not provide the most significant economic stimulus in the short and long term for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Additionally, this approach would not meet the broader objectives set by the ARRA.
The lessons outlined in this article are largely uncontroversial, although some, despite being backed by experience, take longer to gain widespread acceptance It is universally acknowledged that postponing road repairs is less cost-effective than addressing them promptly Furthermore, these insights are not limited to advocacy groups; a report by global consultancy McKinsey & Co presented findings to the Governor of Georgia, reinforcing the importance of timely infrastructure maintenance.
Legislature that a portfolio of transportation investments projects in greater Atlanta containing no new lane miles would produce more than 100 times the economic return of a lane-mile expansion portfolio 9
This chapter outlines the objectives of the ARRA and highlights the types of investments that are most effective in achieving these goals However, it's important to recognize that specific projects may deviate from these general findings, as local conditions in each state, metropolitan area, or small town play a significant role Additionally, the current condition of transportation systems is a key factor influencing states' decision-making processes.
The next chapter provides that.
9 McKinsey and Company, “IT3 Scenario Results and Implications,” Briefing to the General
Assembly, State of Georgia, Discussion Document, December 3, 2008.
4 The state of states’ transportation systems: the need
The President's initiative to revitalize our transportation infrastructure is backed by research from federal agencies, civil engineers, and key transportation stakeholders There is a consensus that our transportation system requires immediate repairs, restoration, and enhanced investment in diverse transportation options.
Dangerous bridges
The American Society of Civil Engineers
Transportation (U.S DOT) data, gave the nation’s bridges a grade of “C” in its 2009
Report Card for America’s Infrastructure ASCE described the thousands of U.S bridges rated
“structurally deficient” by U.S DOT as “unsafe.”
The latest state-based data from U.S DOT show a deep backlog of bridge repairs in all parts of the country (See Table 1, below.)
Data from the American Association of State
(AASHTO) leaves little doubt about the state of our crumbling transportation infrastructure AASHTO’s Bridging the Gap:
Restoring and Rebuilding the Nation’s Bridges puts the price tag for repairing the nation’s structurally deficient bridges at $48 billion 10
10 July 28, 2008, www.transportation1.org/BridgeReport/front- page.html
Crumbling Roads
An equally compelling report from AASHTO paints a vivid picture of a massive repair backlog for our nation’s roadways The sobering findings of Rough Roads Ahead: Fix
Them Now or Pay for Them Later, include: 11
• One-third of the nation’s highways – interstates, freeways and major roads – are in poor or mediocre condition;
• More than one-quarter of major urban roads, which carry the brunt of national traffic, are in poor condition;
• Major urban areas have the roughest roads 60 percent of the roads in the greater Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, Honolulu, and Washington,
DC, areas are in poor condition;
• Rough roads are not a matter of inconvenience, but add an average of
$335 to the annual cost of owning a car – in some cities an additional $740 more – due to damaged tires, suspensions and reduced fuel efficiency (see Table 1); and
• Every $1 spent in keeping a good road in good repair saves $6-$14 necessary to rebuild it after it has deteriorated.
In summary, states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are confronted with significant road and bridge repair demands Addressing these issues not only reduces immediate costs for drivers but also leads to substantial long-term savings for transportation departments and taxpayers, ranging from six to fourteen times the initial investment.
11 May 8, 2009, http://roughroads.transportation.org/
Unmet public transportation needs
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) highlights that our public transportation systems require significant upgrades and repairs, alongside our roads and bridges To address these critical needs, both federal and state investments must see substantial increases.
U.S public transportation network a ‘D’ grade in its 2009 Report Card The Federal Transit
Administration says that the nation’s seven largest systems alone (Chicago’s CTA, Boston’s
MBTA, New York’s MTA, New Jersey Transit,
San Francisco’s BART, Philadelphia’s SEPTA, and Washington’s WMATA) have a $50 billion backlog of repairs necessary to reach a state of good repair 12
The FTA estimate addresses existing repair needs Measures of additional needs include:
• Lack of access Roughly 50% of U.S households lack reliable access to public transportation 13
12 US DOT/Federal Transit Administration, “Rail
Modernization Study: REPORT TO CONGRESS,” April,
In 2009, it was reported that over one-third of agency assets were in marginal or poor condition, suggesting they were approaching or had surpassed their expected useful life Additionally, there was an estimated backlog of approximately $50 billion (in 2008 dollars) needed to achieve a State of Good Repair for these agencies.
A 2005 Bureau of the Census survey revealed that only 54 percent of American households have access to public transportation for their daily travel needs This issue is even more pronounced in rural areas, where the available transit services often fall short in quality and amenities, making it difficult to attract choice riders.
Before The National Surface Transportation Policy
• Rising use In 2008, nearly 10.7 billion trips were taken on U.S public transportation, a four percent increase over 2007 and the highest level since 1956 Public transportation use has increased 38 percent since
1995, nearly triple the US population growth rate 14
• Public demand According to a January
2009 National Association of Realtors national opinion survey, a very strong majority of the public (80%) prefer that stimulus transportation funding be used for repairing roadways and bridges and for public transportation 15
Unmet needs for capacity of all kinds
The previous sections highlighted the urgent repair needs of bridges, roads, and public transportation, emphasizing that the demand for enhanced public transportation options is growing Additionally, the nation requires more roads, as the existing road infrastructure is overwhelmed in numerous areas.
We do not provide estimated costs for projected requirements related to additional bridge, road, or transit capacity Furthermore, every city across the nation has significant demands for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian mobility.
And Revenue Study Commission, July 25, 2007.
14 www.apta.com/media/releases/090309_ridership.cf m
15 www.realtor.org/press_room/news_releases/2009/01/smarter_transportation
The States and the Stimulus offer an estimated price tag for this needed expansion.
States and MPOs choosing how to spend
In considering the allocation of ARRA funds, it is crucial for taxpayers to address the competing demands for expansion amidst significant repair needs across all systems The key is to identify investments that effectively tackle multiple challenges, such as maximizing job creation, ensuring substantial economic returns, enhancing long-term competitiveness, and supporting objectives like energy security and climate mitigation A critical evaluation of these investment choices will reveal how they stack up against current funding efforts.
Table 1: Indicators of road and bridge conditions
Additional costs per driver due to roads in “poor” condition, 2007 17
Structurally deficient bridges, Interstate and state, 2008 18
16 Source: AASHTO, Rough Roads Ahead: Fix Them Now or Pay for Them Later, http://roughroads.transportation.org/ AASHTO reports road conditions in Poor, Mediocre, Fair, and Good condition
In the article "How Deficient and Obsolete Bridges Break Out in 2008," published in Better Roads on November 30, 2008, US DOT data reveals the alarming state of structurally deficient interstate and state bridges While many local bridges may qualify for Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), not all are included in this report due to insufficient data from Pennsylvania.
The States and the Stimulus
5 Are states and regions using stimulus money to create jobs quickly, maximize economic returns, and make progress toward a
This chapter explores the allocation of ARRA's flexible transportation funds by states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), assessing their effectiveness as job creators and economic investments It also evaluates how these funding decisions prepare the nation for the challenges of the 21st century, building on previous discussions about the goals of ARRA legislation and the current state of transportation systems.
Determining what projects are being funded
Section 1511 of the ARRA mandates state officials to certify their review of each infrastructure investment funded under the law, ensuring that these investments are deemed appropriate uses of taxpayer dollars Additionally, this section requires the disclosure of the estimated total cost and the specific amount of ARRA funds allocated Furthermore, the Surface Transportation Program (STP) stipulates that states must allocate 30% of their funding to Metropolitan Planning.
Organizations (MPOs), and Section 1511 reports also cover the spending commitments made by MPOs
Information about the transportation projects selected by the states, the District of
Columbia, and the MPOs to receive stimulus funding is available from U.S DOT at http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/ARRAcerts/
SGA reviewed all Section 1511 certifications, from states and MPOs, posted through June 15, 2009 Projects in these filings account for 80 percent of the available
The States and the Stimulus
$26.6 billion in STP ARRA funding 19 States and MPOs have until March 2, 2010 to commit the remaining 20%.
This report examines how states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are utilizing their flexibility under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), specifically focusing on projects funded through the flexible Surface Transportation Program (STP) It highlights that an additional $8.4 billion is designated for public transportation projects, and aims to analyze state decisions regarding the allocation of flexible STP funds to understand the types of projects being financed.
19 On June 23, 2009, the Transportation and Infra- structure Committee of the US House of
Representatives held a hearing on “Recovery Act:
120-Day Progress Report for Transportation
Programs.” The summary material for that hearing states “Of the $27.5 billion provided for highways and bridges, 50 States, three Territories, and the
District of Columbia have submitted to and received approval from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for 4,366 projects totaling
$14.4 billion, approximately 54 percent of the
Recovery Act highway formula funds.” http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearing
The SGA analysis uses project lists that states have certified to USDOT Under Section 1511 of
ARRA, states must submit these project lists to
The USDOT certifies projects in compliance with required procedures, allowing them to be obligated for funding Typically, there is a delay of several weeks between certification and obligation, resulting in a higher number of certified projects compared to obligated ones While USDOT has shared information on obligations with the Committee, detailed public data remains scarce Currently, the Section 1511 lists of certified projects represent the only comprehensive project-level data available, offering insight into state decision-making and priority setting.
SGA and our consultants began by reviewing the project lists from the Section 1511 certification materials provided by state and regional officials, which were also available on the U.S DOT website When these materials lacked clarity or completeness, SGA conducted further research, analyzing line items from the 1511 Certification letters and consulting state DOT websites In some instances, we made significant efforts to obtain official ARRA-certified project lists that were directly integrated into State Transportation Improvement Programs.
STP projects funded by the ARRA were classified by SGA into five categories:
3 Non-motorized transportation and related;
4 Public transportation and related; and
5 Other types of STP projects that do not fall within the other four categories.
Roadway system preservation projects encompass all roadway and bridge initiatives that do not fall under the category of "roadway new capacity." These projects align with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classifications, including safety and traffic management, pavement improvement, bridge replacement, and bridge enhancement Generally, this category consists of projects that maintain the existing roadway system without increasing lane miles Examples of such projects include safety upgrades, pavement repairs, and bridge refurbishments.
Highway resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction
Intelligent Transportation Systems, signing, traffic signals
(e.g., park-and-ride and ridesharing)
2 “Roadway new capacity” projects refer to projects that add lane miles to states’ highways, roads, and bridges Types of projects classified in this category include:
Roadway widening projects, including construction of passing lanes and weaving lanes
New bridge construction where the project is clearly being built for the purposed of adding capacity in a corridor through construction of a new facility
Most turning lanes at intersections counted as preservation, but continuous turning lanes counted as new capacity.
3 “Non-motorized and related” projects include all projects designed to facilitate
“active” or human-powered transportation that does not rely on cars, buses, trains or trucks Examples of the types of projects classified in this category include:
Transit and related projects encompass all initiatives funded by the STP aimed at enhancing public transportation capacity, improving safety, and preserving infrastructure These projects are essential for facilitating efficient transit systems and ensuring the overall effectiveness of public transport services.
5 “Other” transportation projects under the STP umbrella that do not fall within the other four classifications include the following:
‘Transportation enhancements’ other than those classified within the “Non- motorized Transportation” category, including, for example, historic preservation, outdoor advertising control, and landscaping that is not part of a streetscaping project.
The designation "Other" for this category should not imply any undervaluation of the projects it encompasses; each represents a vital area of expenditure Notably, activities such as "coordinating with land use" and "system management" are included in this classification A comprehensive evaluation of spending choices would further delineate these projects to highlight their significance.
The States and the Stimulus types in “Other,” but also subdivide the other main categories as well
Challenges in understanding states’ reporting
Not all states provided information about
STP-funded projects with their Section 1511 certification letters that could be used to assign projects accurately to one of the five types of project categories used in this analysis
Certain states did not submit the required project lists along with their Section 1511 certification letters as mandated by the ARRA Additionally, some states that did provide project lists did not include sufficient details for analysts to accurately classify the projects in accordance with the categories outlined in this report Furthermore, there were instances where states misclassified projects that expanded roadway capacity as retrofit or improvement projects, leading to potential misinterpretations without thorough examination.
“roadway system preservation” projects In each case, SGA had to gain access to other sources of information, including supplemental web resources and through special requests to state DOTs
The established patterns derived from the data are reliable, and with thousands of projects analyzed, the likelihood of significant mischaracterization affecting the findings is minimal.
Where states are spending ARRA’s flexible transportation money
Table 2 presents the data available as of
On June 15, an analysis was released detailing the various types of projects and their estimated costs for each state eligible for funding under the STP of the ARRA, utilizing Section 1511 certification data and additional sources The information is presented in both dollar amounts and percentage terms, with states organized alphabetically for convenient reference.
Table 2: ARRA Surface Transportation Program commitments per Section 1511 Certifications through 6/15/09, by state
The States and the Stimulus
Source: Analysis of state Section 1511 certifications by Charlier Associates, Inc and Mark Stout With rare exceptions, category totals are rounded.
* Arkansas’ 103 projects total $421.2M, which is greater than the $335.8M in ARRA funds available The $85.4M balance will be funded from other Federal-aid,
State and/or local funds as appropriate, but no break-outs of ARRA funds were provided per line item The figures in the table are pro-rated to total $335.8M.
From a national perspective, the commitments in Table 2 as of June 15, add up to 80% of the total STP funding available to the states under the ARRA.
With those funds, the states committed the following amounts
$ 6.6 billion (31%) Roadway new capacity projects
$417.7 million (2.0%) Other types of projects
This article evaluates whether the spending decisions made by various states and regions align with the objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) at a national level A detailed analysis is presented in Table 3, which assesses each of the nine ARRA goals based on the findings and knowledge discussed in Chapter 2.
This report provides an aggregate evaluation of federal spending across thousands of projects, aligning with the nine goals outlined for the stimulus While this broad approach may overlook individual project specifics, it offers a comprehensive overview of how taxpayer dollars—totaling $26.6 billion—are allocated to meet federal program objectives By focusing on the overall flow of resources, the study effectively assesses whether expenditures align with intended goals, similar to how a business analyzes its spending in relation to its strategic objectives.
The States and the Stimulus
Table 3: Will state and regional stimulus spending decisions fulfill the goals of the stimulus?
Stimulus performance measure Will the selected projects do that?
Investing an additional $2 billion in repairs could have generated 4,300 new jobs more rapidly, highlighting that while jobs can be created and saved, the pace and volume may be limited without adequate funding.
While the 60% allocation for repair and preservation is a crucial step toward improvement, it falls short of addressing the extensive maintenance needs States and regions now face the challenge of managing an additional $6 billion worth of roads, compounding their existing struggle to maintain current infrastructure.
No Less than 7% of spending is going to projects that will increase transportation choices for people and freight
The ARRA's allocation of $8.4 billion in capital grants for public transportation will significantly benefit the sector However, the minimal contribution of 0.9% of flexible funds from states for transit will have a negligible overall impact.
5 Reduce the nation’s energy dependence
Repaired roads offer slight efficiency improvements; however, the overwhelming allocation of 93% of spending to roads will not significantly lower oil consumption In fact, the 30% of funds directed toward new road construction is likely to lead to an increase in oil usage.
6 Promote long-term economic growth
Repairing roads and bridges not only saves money for drivers and society but also allows for reinvestment in productive ventures However, the allocation of 30% of funds for new road construction predominantly supports investments with declining economic returns, neglecting high-return opportunities in system management and public transportation that align with growth.
No, for the same reasons as #5
8 Not contribute to additional sprawl
The addition of new road capacity does not inherently lead to urban sprawl; however, the specific number, type, and location of proposed new and expanded roads are likely to exacerbate sprawl issues.
9 Reduce commute times and congestion
Mixed In the short run, additional lanes may ease congestion
In the long run, the congestion-reducing benefits of additional public transportation generally outweigh those of additional lane miles, which fill up again
An in-depth analysis of the performance of selected state projects reveals three significant conclusions regarding state and regional decision-making processes These insights highlight the effectiveness and implications of the chosen initiatives, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning in achieving desired outcomes.
Despite a staggering multi-trillion dollar backlog in roadway and bridge repairs nationwide, over $6.6 billion—nearly one-third of the funding—has been allocated to the construction of new capacity roads and bridges instead of prioritizing essential repair and preservation projects.
As the nation experiences growth, enhancing connectivity in various regions is essential, necessitating increased roadway capacity However, the significant backlog of roadway and bridge repairs poses challenges, including high vehicle repair costs, risks to public safety, and missed opportunities for job creation through preservation projects Therefore, focusing solely on new construction may not align with the objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
States largely missed the opportunity presented by the flexibility in the STP to address the significant public transportation backlog and to advance toward a more balanced transportation system.
The increasing demand for public transportation, highlighted in the ASCE report, underscores the inadequacy of the $189 million in STP funding allocated by states Even when including mandatory non-STP funding, the overall investment in transportation options remains insufficient to meet the growing needs of the community.
The $600 million allocated for non-motorized transportation through STP funding is a positive step; however, it does not adequately address the public's demand for affordable and healthy transportation alternatives This funding level is unlikely to significantly enhance the nation's bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure or improve individual mobility.
Across the country, a mixed record
It is beyond the scope of this report to evaluate the decision-making process in the fifty states and the District of Columbia, and the many Metropolitan Planning
Organizations spending ARRA funds Brief case studies from around the country illustrate the range of transparency in the processes.
The Transportation Committee in the legislature developed their project list largely in secrecy, lacking clear criteria and minimal stakeholder engagement They swiftly secured legislative approval, committing the entire transportation budget in a single action.
The Result: The allocated funding is heavy on highway projects, especially in outlying areas No money is being spent on local roads
The highly populated Seattle area was left without the anticipated $75 million in federal aid designated for street improvement projects, affecting both state and interstate initiatives.
The Puget Sound Regional Council, the largest Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), distinguishes itself from the state process by implementing an open and collaborative approach This MPO actively seeks public input to prioritize projects and develop its project list, ensuring community engagement in the planning process.
The Evaluation Committee, comprising local government planners and community members, convened six times from December to March to formulate recommendations Their project selection criteria emphasized geographic balance, inclusion of both rural and urban initiatives, and a diverse range of project types.
In March, the PSRC’s Transportation Policy Board unanimously adopted a final project list that includes a diverse allocation of funds: 20% for non-motorized projects, 3% for transit initiatives, 25% dedicated to safety and maintenance, 24% for complete streets projects, and 28% for capacity enhancements, including freight and general-purpose improvements.
It was not the case that the state process was driven by extra urgency; both processes finished at essentially the same time
MPO process: The MPO for the Minneapolis-
The Saint Paul region is governed by the Metropolitan Council, which oversees the allocation of STP funds Recently, the Transportation Advisory Board, a key committee of the Metropolitan Council, faced criticism for denying public comment on these allocations However, following pressure from the Minnesota division of the Federal Highway Administration, the Board allowed public input on transportation fund allocations for the first time in recent memory.
The stimulus funding created an opportunity for public participation; however, the resulting spending decisions seemed largely unaffected by this input One group expressed frustration over what they viewed as an unresponsive process and the Metropolitan Council's reluctance to allocate funds for mandated projects.
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, has begun legal action
In late 2008, Caltrans publicly disclosed a project list that prompted citizen groups to advocate for increased public transit and repair initiatives This advocacy led to an enhanced project list from Caltrans and initiated three statewide stakeholder calls aimed at shaping state legislation regarding the allocation of anticipated transportation stimulus funds Caltrans actively sought feedback on draft legislation and shared comprehensive charts detailing the spending and decision-making processes As the legislative process progressed, 30 organizations collectively urged lawmakers to prioritize a "fix-it-first" approach and provided revisions to Caltrans' draft legislation.
The Result: The legislature was largely responsive to the groups’ arguments and coalition proposals set the tone for debate
The resulting legislation incorporated the arguments put forth by the coalition, and
Caltrans embraced the enhanced provisions, facilitating public comments and organizational feedback that enabled stakeholders to actively engage and influence the discussions Ultimately, this transparency resulted in significant improvements.
This limited set of cases demonstrates the varying degrees of transparency achieved by state and MPO processes While some have successfully met transparency goals, others have fallen short Critics may view the rapid implementation of the ARRA as an exceptional circumstance, but this speed actually served to underscore the effectiveness of already robust processes in place.
Sound Regional Council), pushed others to improve (Caltrans), and highlighted a need for improvement (Washington State and the Metropolitan Council)
Our state did well/poorly
[For individual State reports, discuss that state’s process here.]
At the national level, “transparency” is about being able to find out
1 On what kinds of projects was money spent?
2 Did those projects contribute to progress on one or more national goals?
Assessing the challenges of using available data to answer critical questions has proven complex, as highlighted in Chapter 5's "Challenges understanding states’ reporting." Smart Growth America engaged experienced consultants, including Mark Stout, former Assistant Commissioner for Planning and Development at the New Jersey Department of Transportation, and a team from Charlier Associates, Inc., to analyze Section 1511 reports and categorize various projects This team dedicated several weeks to developing the data for the report but faced significant obstacles, such as locating certified project lists and comprehending project descriptions Currently, there is no effective method to determine the geographical locations of these projects.
The States and the Stimulus
If transportation planning professionals cannot easily answer the two transparency questions, then the process is not transparent
Transparency is clearly one key to accountability But it is only half of the picture
Accountability in transportation funding involves understanding how states utilized the allocated money and the intended outcomes of that spending While some may view accountability as simply ensuring that transit funds were spent on transit, this perspective is limited True accountability assesses whether the funds achieved broader objectives, such as enhancing access for low-income communities, improving energy security, and expanding employer access to a diverse labor pool.
In the case of ARRA’s flexible transportation funds, goals included rapid job creation, long- term economic outcomes, and progress toward a
The 21st-century transportation system is significantly influenced by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the federal transportation program, which do not mandate that states and regions prioritize projects yielding higher economic returns This lack of directive from the US Department of Transportation (DOT) raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of transportation investments in driving economic growth.
“Maximizing job creation and economic benefit” is a “project priority criteria” and
“shall be considered during project selection”
But there is no guidance on what is
The ARRA and standard federal transportation programs do not mandate states to tackle repair backlogs or enhance public transportation and non-motorized routes Although these programs outline general objectives, they lack enforceable requirements for systematically evaluating proposed projects against these goals, and there are no penalties for failing to meet them.
The ARRA and its associated federal transportation program lack accountability due to vague goals, unclear progress measures, and minimal consequences for achieving or deviating from these objectives.
Transportation Program funds are distributed
Adapted from US Department of Transportation, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Implementing Guidance (Updated April 1, 2009)”
Less Amounts Allocated Before Apportionment
Less Amounts Allocated Before Apportionment
Sub-Allocation for Areas Based on Population -30%
Sub-Allocation for Areas Based on Population -30%
For Any Area of State -67%
For Any Area of State -67%
For Any Area with Population
For Any Area with Population
For Individual Urbanized Areas over 200,000 by % of Population
For Individual Urbanized Areas over 200,000 by % of Population