transportation enhancements spending report fy 1992 - fy 2010

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


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)


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


4/36


5/36


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


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


7/36


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


8/36

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


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


10/36


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


11/36

9


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


12/36

0


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)


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%


14/36


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


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


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


Year 2

State obligates the same amount asprevious year, which is the majority o

the unds apportioned in year 2

Unobligatedrolls intobalance

Obligated

Unobligated


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



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


18/36


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


19/36


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


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%


21/36

9


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


22/36

0


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


23/36


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.


24/36


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%)


25/36


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


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%


27/36


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


28/36


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


29/36


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)


30/36


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


31/36

9


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


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


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

transportation enhancements spending report fy 1992 - fy 2010

Documents