Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 19-31
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 19... ...
19 Funding Transfer Among Federal-Aid Highway Program Categories This chapter documents the research findings on historical trends and driving factors with regard to use of FHWA fund transfers among FAHP categories. This provides baseline information about the scale of state actions.
|
From page 20... ...
20 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs FAHP Category Amount Transferred Funding Apportionment Percentage National Highway Performance Program $18,137,026,190 $172,821,110,890 10.49% Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality $2,332,187,163 $18,418,507,162 12.66% Highway Safety Improvement Program $1,860,183,045 $17,650,081,848 10.54% Transportation Alternatives $1,241,680,381 $6,007,825,752 20.67% Surface Transportation Block Grant (Surface Transportation Program FFY2013– FFY2016) $688,331,491 $82,037,442,031 0.84% National Highway Freight Program $425,905,068 $6,121,685,506 6.96% All FAHP Categories $24,685,313,338 $303,056,653,189 8.14% $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Bi lli on s 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 $20 NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT (STP from FY2013 to FY2016)
|
From page 21... ...
Funding Transfer Among Federal-Aid Highway Program Categories 21 However, funds have been transferred out of STBG, despite it being the most flexible FAHP category; $711 million was transferred out of STBG from FFY2013 to FFY2020. See Table 4-2 for a breakdown of the funds transferred out of STBG.
|
From page 22... ...
22 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs varies significantly across FAHP categories. See Figures 4-6 and 4-7.
|
From page 23... ...
Funding Transfer Among Federal-Aid Highway Program Categories 23 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E O RE G O N U TA H VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A O KL AH O M A W AS H IN G TO N M IC HI G AN AL AB AM A HA W AI I CA LI FO RN IA N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A G EO RG IA SO U TH D AK O TA O HI O N O RT H C AR O LI N A IN DI AN A N EW JE RS EY M AR YL AN D TE XA S M IN N ES O TA IL LI N O IS N EW Y O RK ID AH O FL O RI DA M IS SO U RI CO N N EC TI CU T M AS SA CH U SE TT S AL AS KA AR KA N SA S N EW M EX IC O AR IZ O N A CO LO RA DO DE LA W AR E IO W A KA N SA S KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A PE N N SY LV AN IA RH O DE IS L A N D TE N N ES SE E W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% AL AS KA G EO RG IA TE N N ES SE E W IS CO N SI N RH O DE IS LA N D IN DI AN A M AI N E CO N N EC TI CU T N O RT H C AR O LI N A KE N TU CK Y M IN N ES O TA N EW H AM PS H IR E TE XA S HA W AI I N EW JE RS EY CO LO RA DO AL AB AM A M O N TA N A LO U IS IA N A N EW Y O RK N EW M EX IC O U TA H M AR YL AN D ID AH O IL LI N O IS VI RG IN IA M IS SI SS IP PI O RE G O N W ES T VI RG IN IA AR KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S DE LA W AR E N EV AD A M IC HI G AN CA LI FO RN IA AR IZ O N A DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A FL O RI DA IO W A KA N SA S M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N O RT H D AK O TA O HI O O KL AH O M A PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A SO U TH D AK O TA VE RM O N T W AS H IN G TO N W YO M IN G Figure 4-6. Percentage of transfer authority used to transfer funds out of NHPP by state, FFY2013–FFY2020.
|
From page 24... ...
24 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs 4.2 Considerations That Drive Funding Transfer Decisions Among FAHP Categories From the survey, case studies, and industry group workshops, there are common considerations driving transfer decisions. This section documents and analyzes how these considerations affect fund transfer decisions by states and MPOs.
|
From page 25... ...
Funding Transfer Among Federal-Aid Highway Program Categories 25 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% W IS CO N SI N M AR YL AN D N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A AL AB AM A M IN N ES O TA U TA H N EW M EX IC O O RE G O N CO N N EC TI CU T AR KA N SA S N EW Y O RK KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A CO LO RA DO RH O DE IS LA N D SO U TH D AK O TA VE RM O N T ID AH O W AS H IN G TO N VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A TE XA S FL O RI DA N O RT H D AK O TA AL AS KA W YO M IN G TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S M O N TA N A AR IZ O N A CA LI FO RN IA DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A G EO RG IA HA W AI I IL LI N O IS IO W A LO U IS IA N A M AI N E M IC HI G AN M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E O HI O O KL AH O M A PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CO LO RA DO N EV AD A M AS SA CH U SE TT S AR IZ O N A N EW Y O RK U TA H IL LI N O IS DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A CA LI FO RN IA M IN N ES O TA AL AS KA M O N TA N A KA N SA S AL AB AM A AR KA N SA S CO N N EC TI CU T DE LA W AR E FL O RI DA G EO RG IA HA W AI I ID AH O IN DI AN A IO W A KE N TU CK Y LO U IS IA N A M AI N E M AR YL AN D M IC HI G AN M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E N EW JE RS EY N EW M EX IC O N O RT H C AR O LI N A N O RT H D AK O TA O HI O O KL AH O M A O RE G O N PE N N SY LV AN IA RH O DE IS LA N D SO U TH C AR O LI N A SO U TH D AK O TA TE N N ES SE E TE XA S VE RM O N T VI RG IN IA W AS H IN G TO N W ES T VI RG IN IA W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Bi lli on s Figure 4-10. Percentage of transfer authority used to transfer funds out of HSIP by state, FFY2013–FFY2020.
|
From page 26... ...
26 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs e survey results from the DOTs provide some context regarding transfers. DOTs have all employed transfer provisions to achieve key objectives: • Ninety-four percent of the respondents reported that transfers are used to fully obligate the federal program.
|
From page 27... ...
Funding Transfer Among Federal-Aid Highway Program Categories 27 4.2.1 Balancing National and State Policy Goals Federal formula programs are formulated to promote national policy goals for the country as a whole, but the application of those programs by states is speci c to the state's goals. e exibility to transfer a portion of federal funds allows states to allocate resources where they deem funding is most needed.
|
From page 28... ...
DOT Percent of FHWA Apportionment Transferred Extent State Uses Transfer Authority and Purpose Delivery of Program To Fully Obligate Federal Program To Meet Programmatic Goals High Medium Low Kansas DOT <5% Rarely if any. Cash management, advanced construction, good amount of state-funded construction, distribution of funding among FAHP categories is about right.
|
From page 29... ...
Funding Transfer Among Federal-Aid Highway Program Categories 29 in terms of its long-term programming and commitments. KDOT uses advanced construction to help manage its program.
|
From page 30... ...
30 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs 4.3.1 Trade-Offs: National Versus State Priorities The fund transfer authority provides the flexibility for states to decide whether they need to reallocate funds originally programmed for specific policy goals to fund other priorities. The need for flexibility is based on the recognition that one size does not fit all; each state has unique transportation needs and priorities.
|
From page 31... ...
Funding Transfer Among Federal-Aid Highway Program Categories 31 4.3.3 Administrative Ef ciency Federal funding programs tend to have more sophisticated compliance requirements and need more resources for administration than state and local funds. States, particularly those with signi cant non-federal transportation funding, have used local funding in some circumstances to avoid administrative burdens without compromising investments in local projects.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.