Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
NCHRP 20-24(49) â Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs G-1 Appendix G State Level of Effort Analysis An analysis of state highway and transit funding was conducted to estimate funding lev- els based on four revenue measures: per capita, per 1,000 vehicle miles of travel (VMT), per $1,000 Personal Income, and per $1,000 Gross State Product (GSP). The funding level by measure for each state was compared to the national average. Data sources used for this analysis include: ⢠FHWA Highway Statistics, Tables SF-1: State highway funding by state for fiscal year 2004; ⢠BTS Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation, Table 1.1: State Funding of Public Transit for 2004; ⢠U.S. Bureau of Census: 2004 population by state; ⢠FHWA Highway Statistics, Table VM-2: Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by state for fis- cal year 2004; and ⢠U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Personal Income and GSP by state for 2004. After the four measures were calculated, we identified the states that fell below the national average for each criterion, and subsequently, we identified the states that fell below the national average for two or more of the criteria evaluated. Then, we estimated the additional revenue required to meet the national average of each criterion and calculate the average required revenue across the four criteria. The analysis showed that the following states did not meet the national average in all four criteria: California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Table G.1 summarizes the results of the level of effort analysis. The 27 states that fell below the national average on two or more criteria would have to increase current high- way funding levels by an additional $9.4 billion to achieve the average level of effort; additional funding requirements by state range from almost $15 million (New Hampshire) to almost $1.8 billion (California). Of course there are many factors other than the four measures we selected that affect a particular stateâs needs and revenue picture. So this can only be considered a crude indi- cator. It is suggested that states identify appropriate peers and further analyze level of effort based on criteria that are most significant for their states.
Ta bl e G .1 St at e H ig hw ay a nd T ra ns it Fu nd in g (P er C ap ita , P er 1 ,0 00 V M T, P er $ 1, 00 0 Pe rs on al In co m e, an d Pe r $ 1, 00 0 G SP ) St at e Tr an sp or ta tio n Fu nd s (T ho us an ds ) Pe r C ap ita R an k Pe r Th ou sa nd V M T R an k Pe r $ 1, 00 0 Pe rs on al In co m e R an k Pe r $1 ,0 00 G SP R an k St at es B el ow N at io na l A ve ra ge (2 o r m or e) A dd iti on al R ev en ue (2 00 4 D ol la rs ) A la ba m a 92 2, 84 8 $2 03 .9 3 41 $1 5. 63 45 $7 .3 6 31 $6 .5 3 25 X $2 31 ,6 86 ,4 98 A la sk a 19 9, 38 1 $3 03 .1 2 13 $3 9. 96 4 $8 .9 2 16 $5 .5 4 40 A ri zo na 1, 61 0, 77 2 $2 80 .6 3 18 $2 8. 09 19 $9 .7 9 10 $8 .2 9 9 A rk an sa s 61 7, 77 5 $2 24 .6 5 34 $1 9. 52 37 $8 .7 0 22 $7 .4 7 15 X $1 01 ,7 59 ,3 73 C al ifo rn ia 7, 09 5, 22 0 $1 97 .9 6 42 $2 1. 57 33 $5 .6 2 45 $4 .6 7 45 X $1 ,7 60 ,7 39 ,3 85 C ol or ad o 1, 24 6, 61 6 $2 70 .9 0 22 $2 7. 16 20 $7 .5 0 30 $6 .1 9 30 C on ne ct ic ut 89 3, 54 4 $2 55 .3 7 26 $2 8. 27 17 $5 .6 4 44 $4 .9 0 44 X $2 54 ,7 32 ,7 08 D el aw ar e 58 8, 85 2 $7 09 .4 0 2 $6 3. 31 3 $1 9. 86 1 $1 1. 26 3 D is tr ic t o f C ol um bi a 43 2, 04 3 $7 79 .5 2 1 $1 15 .4 6 1 $1 5. 24 2 $5 .5 7 39 Fl or id a 3, 59 7, 59 7 $2 06 .9 3 39 $1 8. 31 41 $6 .5 8 40 $5 .9 0 35 X $6 04 ,6 96 ,6 82 G eo rg ia 1, 06 1, 19 5 $1 18 .9 9 50 $9 .4 2 51 $4 .0 0 51 $3 .1 2 51 X $1 ,1 80 ,1 93 ,7 01 H aw ai i 21 2, 33 8 $1 68 .2 4 47 $2 1. 83 32 $5 .1 6 48 $4 .2 3 49 X $7 7, 19 0, 12 0 Id ah o 31 7, 23 8 $2 27 .3 9 31 $2 1. 54 34 $8 .4 6 25 $7 .2 9 19 X $3 1, 72 4, 58 6 Ill in oi s 3, 43 8, 79 1 $2 70 .5 1 23 $3 1. 51 11 $7 .7 9 28 $6 .4 4 26 In di an a 1, 04 1, 45 6 $1 67 .2 6 48 $1 4. 32 49 $5 .5 4 47 $4 .5 4 46 X $4 80 ,5 42 ,4 69 Io w a 1, 14 6, 30 4 $3 88 .2 0 4 $3 6. 35 6 $1 2. 50 5 $1 0. 40 4 K an sa s 75 0, 89 8 $2 74 .6 8 20 $2 5. 74 21 $8 .8 4 19 $7 .5 9 14 K en tu ck y 1, 12 7, 08 1 $2 72 .1 2 21 $2 3. 82 24 $9 .9 8 8 $8 .4 7 8 Lo ui si an a 94 9, 79 0 $2 10 .7 5 38 $2 1. 29 35 $7 .7 2 29 $5 .9 3 34 X $1 06 ,5 56 ,6 85 M ai ne 42 1, 05 1 $3 20 .1 9 10 $2 8. 17 18 $1 0. 66 7 $9 .7 3 5 M ar yl an d 1, 88 2, 49 6 $3 38 .5 0 6 $3 4. 05 9 $8 .5 4 23 $8 .1 6 10 M as sa ch us et ts 3, 75 0, 09 3 $5 85 .2 8 3 $6 8. 47 2 $1 3. 88 3 $1 1. 99 2 M ic hi ga n 2, 28 2, 89 4 $2 25 .9 4 32 $2 2. 09 29 $7 .0 4 35 $6 .2 3 29 X $1 74 ,0 68 ,4 61 M in ne so ta 1, 62 1, 20 1 $3 18 .1 0 11 $2 8. 66 15 $8 .7 9 20 $7 .2 2 21 M is si ss ip pi 56 7, 43 5 $1 95 .6 2 44 $1 4. 39 48 $7 .9 8 27 $7 .3 6 18 X $2 64 ,8 19 ,3 52 M is so ur i 1, 18 6, 58 5 $2 06 .0 2 40 $1 7. 20 42 $6 .7 6 38 $5 .7 6 37 X $2 24 ,8 18 ,4 94 M on ta na 21 7, 30 9 $2 34 .4 4 30 $1 9. 39 39 $8 .4 8 24 $7 .8 8 13 X $3 1, 75 6, 75 4 NCHRP 20-24(49) â Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs G-2 .
Ta bl e G .1 St at e H ig hw ay a nd T ra ns it Fu nd in g (c on tin ue d) (P er C ap ita , P er 1 ,0 00 V M T, P er $ 1, 00 0 Pe rs on al In co m e, an d Pe r $ 1, 00 0 G SP ) St at e Tr an sp or ta tio n Fu nd s (T ho us an ds ) Pe r C ap ita R an k Pe r Th ou sa nd V M T R an k Pe r $ 1, 00 0 Pe rs on al In co m e R an k Pe r $1 ,0 00 G SP R an k St at es B el ow N at io na l A ve ra ge (2 o r m or e) A dd iti on al R ev en ue (2 00 4 D ol la rs ) N eb ra sk a 54 4, 73 3 $3 11 .6 8 12 $2 8. 41 16 $9 .6 4 11 $8 .0 1 12 N ev ad a 65 6, 99 8 $2 81 .6 2 17 $3 3. 95 10 $8 .3 4 26 $6 .6 3 24 N ew H am ps hi re 31 2, 63 5 $2 40 .6 4 28 $2 3. 66 25 $6 .5 7 41 $6 .0 0 32 X $1 4, 96 7, 99 6 N ew Je rs ey 2, 62 3, 53 5 $3 02 .0 7 14 $3 6. 02 8 $7 .2 6 32 $6 .3 9 27 N ew M ex ic o 45 9, 33 7 $2 41 .3 7 27 $1 9. 19 40 $9 .2 2 13 $7 .2 2 22 X $6 3, 31 5, 75 2 N ew Y or k 5, 00 4, 83 8 $2 59 .5 8 25 $3 6. 29 7 $6 .7 8 37 $5 .5 2 42 X $5 15 ,7 74 ,5 22 N or th C ar ol in a 2, 35 5, 84 9 $2 75 .8 5 19 $2 4. 56 23 $9 .4 1 12 $7 .2 7 20 N or th D ak ot a 16 7, 04 2 $2 62 .5 2 24 $2 2. 00 30 $8 .9 0 18 $7 .3 6 17 O hi o 2, 52 1, 68 3 $2 20 .2 3 35 $2 2. 58 28 $7 .0 7 34 $5 .9 3 33 X $1 68 ,7 71 ,0 14 O kl ah om a 69 0, 69 7 $1 96 .0 2 43 $1 4. 87 47 $7 .0 4 36 $6 .1 8 31 X $2 13 ,3 60 ,2 52 O re go n 78 2, 59 0 $2 17 .9 1 36 $2 1. 98 31 $7 .1 3 33 $5 .8 1 36 X $6 2, 73 1, 72 7 Pe nn sy lv an ia 4, 07 9, 17 5 $3 29 .1 1 8 $3 7. 75 5 $9 .8 8 9 $8 .8 0 6 Rh od e Is la nd 17 7, 99 8 $1 64 .8 3 49 $2 1. 01 36 $4 .8 2 49 $4 .2 5 48 X $7 2, 05 4, 14 5 So ut h C ar ol in a 49 3, 57 3 $1 17 .5 8 51 $9 .9 6 50 $4 .3 2 50 $3 .7 5 50 X $4 76 ,5 97 ,4 10 So ut h D ak ot a 25 5, 21 6 $3 31 .1 8 7 $2 9. 05 14 $1 0. 96 6 $8 .5 9 7 Te nn es se e 1, 07 0, 91 3 $1 81 .7 2 45 $1 5. 10 46 $6 .0 9 43 $4 .9 4 43 X $3 77 ,9 45 ,9 03 Te xa s 3, 86 7, 72 0 $1 72 .1 2 46 $1 6. 74 43 $5 .6 0 46 $4 .2 8 47 X $1 ,5 72 ,4 87 ,8 29 U ta h 57 4, 07 2 $2 37 .1 5 29 $2 3. 25 26 $8 .9 1 17 $6 .9 5 23 X $2 0, 99 0, 48 1 V er m on t 17 9, 45 0 $2 88 .8 6 16 $2 2. 85 27 $9 .0 9 14 $8 .1 6 11 V ir gi ni a 2, 42 4, 32 7 $3 24 .0 5 9 $3 0. 74 13 $8 .9 6 15 $7 .4 1 16 W as hi ng to n 1, 39 9, 16 8 $2 25 .4 2 33 $2 5. 13 22 $6 .4 3 42 $5 .5 3 41 X $1 62 ,3 85 ,6 75 W es t V ir gi ni a 63 6, 62 6 $3 51 .2 3 5 $3 1. 36 12 $1 3. 62 4 $1 2. 76 1 W is co ns in 1, 17 5, 07 8 $2 13 .5 1 37 $1 9. 46 38 $6 .6 4 39 $5 .6 6 38 X $1 74 ,3 05 ,9 84 W yo m in g 15 0, 91 7 $2 98 .3 2 15 $1 6. 30 44 $8 .7 0 21 $6 .2 6 28 To ta l/ N at io na l A ve ra ge $7 1, 78 2, 97 3 $2 44 .4 5 $2 4. 23 $7 .4 0 $6 .1 6 $9 ,4 20 ,9 73 ,9 58 NCHRP 20-24(49) â Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs G-3
