Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

FF 203TRFF

Authors

FF 203TRFF

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "FF_203TRFF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "683319" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(191978) "Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Federal Highway Programs Tim Ransdell Shervin Boloorian The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2003 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. About This Series Federal Formula Grants and California The federal government uses formula grants to distribute nearly $300 billion annually to state and local governments to help them implement federal policies in such areas as health, transportation, and education. How much each government receives is determined by complex formulas that consist of many factors such as state population growth and per capita income. This series of reports provides detailed information on California’s current and historical funding under the major federal grants and on the formulas used to determine California’s share of funding under various specific grants. All reports are posted on the PPIC website at www.ppic.org. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Federal Highway Programs Tim Ransdell and Shervin Boloorian February 2003 Overview California relies on safe, efficient, and smooth transportation of goods and people across the state’s vast network of highways, roads, and rail systems. As in the rest of the nation, a substantial portion of the state’s highway infrastructure was built and is partially maintained with federal support. During the 108th Congress, federal lawmakers will debate renewal of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the nation’s comprehensive surface transportation law that governs policy and funding for federal highway programs, as well as for transit. The act is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003. Pursuant to TEA-21’s directives, the U.S. Department of Transportation collects fuel and excise tax revenue and then distributes the money as federal highway grants to states and other local administering entities via funding formulas called apportionments. In fiscal year 2002, California received $2.7 billion in federal highway formula apportionments, slightly less than 9 percent of the nation’s $29.5 billion total apportionments.1 These federal highway programs are used to help support interstate and national highways, a number of bridge projects, air quality and congestion management efforts, transit ventures, and regional planning, as well as a variety of local projects. For decades, advocates and lawmakers have questioned the fairness and equity of highway formulas. Apportionment totals to some states far exceed their fuel tax payments; apportionments to other states—California included—are less than what is paid in. Some of these so-called donor states have pressed for greater funding equity, and a special TEA-21 provision addresses their concern. This report is part of an ongoing series of federal formula grant program reviews. It examines the mechanics of federal highway formulas that determine funding levels for California and other states, and it assesses the varying effect of factors contained in those formulas.2 It also posits a number of hypothetical 1To maintain analytical consistency, this report focuses primarily on funding levels in fiscal year 2002. Federal fiscal years run from October 1 through September 30. 2Many highway programs also allocate appropriated funding to states without formulas, but this report will not examine that process. Rather, this report examines all apportionments distributed by the Federal Highway Administration formula-change scenarios and analyzes the state-by-state effects of those changes.3 The text outlines the mechanics of each hypothetical formula change and lists the states most likely to gain or lose from each; the appendices provide detailed results for all states. This report seeks to enlighten the debate over changes in highway apportionment formulas as Congress prepares to reauthorize the nation’s principal transportation laws. It is meant to be an informational tool for congressional members and staff, state and local government entities, advocacy groups, news media, and other interested parties. (FHWA). Some federal highway funding apportionments divert significant amounts to transit programs, but this report does not examine these distinctions. Also beyond the scope of this report are the ways federal transportation law specifies how states must spend some of these dollars. By law, each state must use a portion of its formula grant share for specialpurpose activities for most of the major Federal-Aid Highway Programs (FAHPs). For instance, 2 percent of funds of the major TEA-21 programs must be used for state planning and research activities, with one-quarter of these funds used for research, development, and technology transfer. Further, some apportionments are calculated and then merged with other apportionments. This report focuses on aggregate federal funding amounts to each state and does not seek to identify specific suballocations. 3For apportionment purposes FAHPs consider the District of Columbia a state. 2 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Abbreviations and Acronyms ADHS Appalachian Development Highway System CAA Clean Air Act of 1990 Caltrans California Department of Transportation CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program CO Carbon monoxide FAHP Federal-Aid Highway Program FHWA Federal Highway Administration GAO General Accounting Office HBRRP Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program HPP High Priority Projects HTF IM Highway Trust Fund Interstate Maintenance IS Interstate ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 MG Minimum Guarantee MP Metropolitan planning MPO NHS Metropolitan Planning Organization National Highway System OBRA Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act OPAR Other principal arterial routes PAR Principal arterial routes PPM Parts per million RABA Revenue Aligned Budget Authority RTP Recreational Trails Program SMM Small-state minimum STP Surface Transportation Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century VMT Vehicle miles traveled FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 3 ISTEA and TEA-21 Congress began building, operating, and maintaining the nation’s highways and surface transportation system when it enacted the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 and the Federal Highway Act of 1921, and it committed to a nationwide interstate system with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. In recent years, Congress has folded these programs and their successors into multiyear legislation named with such acronyms as ISTEA and TEA-21. TEA-21 and its immediate predecessor, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), created a new structure and funding scheme for the FAHPs in existence today. ISTEA boosted overall funding levels for the FAHPs, provided greater flexibility, increased state equity in fund distribution, and gave greater authority for administering programs to state, local, and regional entities. The enactment of TEA-21 in 1998 retained and expanded this new structure—further augmenting funding for highways and transit—while making its own mark. The legislation ushered in a new era for transportation fiscal policy establishing minimum state funding guarantees and budgetary firewall protections to ensure smooth and stable levels of federal spending for surface transportation projects. TEA-21 authorized a $217 billion investment in highways and transit infrastructure to be distributed to the states over six years, a 40 percent increase above ISTEA’s levels. It also established guaranteed spending levels for most of its core programs through what is known as Highway Obligation Authority, directing all new federal fuel-tax revenues to the funding of surface transportation expenditures exclusively. The obligation authority construct leaves only $13 billion of TEA-21’s $217 billion total subject to annual approval by congressional appropriators. Nevertheless, Congress may alter year-to-year highway funding patterns by raising the baseline funding floor through the annual budget process. Funding may also shift as a result of variations in Highway Trust Fund (HTF) Highway Account revenues, controlled by a budgetary mechanism known as the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), discussed below. TEA-21 specifies a guaranteed annual funding floor for transit, supported by the HTF Mass Transit Account. For transit, the spending floor is based on the guaranteed funding level that covers 80 percent of transit costs, with the remaining 20 percent to be drawn down from the General Fund. Some FHWAapportioned funding underwrites transit projects via the Federal Transit Administration, but we make no distinction among the end uses of apportionments in this document. Apportionments that primarily fund TEA-21 transit programs will be examined separately. 4 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Contract Authority Normally, federal funds for domestic programs are subject to an annual appropriations process that often pits one project against another in a competition for scarce resources. Because many transportation projects are longterm in nature, taking many years to design, develop, and construct, such projects are prone to delay or abandonment without long-range assurances of federal obligations to pay for the federal government’s share of project costs. To ensure a steady flow of funds for FAHP, TEA-21 established more flexible budgetary controls through what is known as contract authority, a process that establishes minimum funding levels for specific programs over many years—six years in the case of TEA-21. In securing definitive long-range figures as baseline minimums, congressional committee leaders and transportation advocates sought to insulate transportation programs from often-unpredictable annual appropriations cycles. Whereas money already authorized for typical federal programs may be distributed annually only by a second piece of appropriations legislation, programs with contract authority are guaranteed a minimum appropriation. Federal law requires a fiscal funding pool (typically a trust fund) to support contract authority programs. Transportation contract authority derives its fiscal life from HTF. The HTF’s Highway Account is used to collect highway user taxes and distribute them via FAHP. Highway Trust Fund As noted above, HTF is the accounting mechanism that collects and redistributes federal highway user taxes. It is fed by revenue from the sale of gas, diesel, gasohol, and special fuels, as well as from retail sales taxes on tires, trucks, trailers, and heavy commercial vehicles. Fines levied from penalties for noncompliance with highway user safety laws are also directed to HTF. Originally conceived in 1956 as a source of funding for the nation’s highway system, the fund now serves as the lifeblood of federal highway and transit projects and the foundation of the firewalls that exempt these projects from competing with other domestic programs. The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93) set the standard tax on gasoline at 18.4 cents per gallon, a rate still in effect today. Diesel taxes are levied at a higher rate of 24.4 cents per gallon. FHWA attributes federal fuel tax receipts to states for use as a factor in formula apportionments FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 5 under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Minimum Guarantee (MG) provision of TEA-21.4 In 2000, the most recent year for which there are consistent data, the federal government collected $3.4 billion in fuel and vehicle taxes attributable to California, whereas state and local taxes and tolls collected $8.0 billion. Nationwide that year, the federal government collected $34.7 billion and state and local governments collected $65.4 billion.5 To stimulate the consumption of alternative fuels, Congress provides that purchasers of ethanol-based fuel (including ethanol and gasohol, which combines gasoline with ethanol) receive a partial fuel tax exemption of 5.3 cents per gallon, and OBRA-93 diverts another 2.5 cents per gallon of the ethanol-based fuel tax to the General Fund. These special concessions for ethanol fuels, which reduce pollutant emissions by increasing the fuel’s oxygen content, have led to concerns about prospective reductions in trust fund contributions. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that the ethanol subsidy and the 2.5 cents per gallon General Fund transfer cost the Highway Account of the HTF about $6.01 billion between 1998 and 2001 (in 2001 dollars).6 States in the Midwest have expressed concern about reduction in receipts from highway formulas that use HTF contributions as a factor for distributing federal funding among states. California’s ethanol fuel consumption rate increased significantly during this period and is expected to grow further over the next ten years as the state phases out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, which until recently had served as California’s alternative to ethanol as a fuel oxygenate. Obligation Limitations Obligation limits are the budgetary ceilings Congress imposes to control contract authority cash outlays. The obligation limitation on FAHPs determines the precise amount of apportioned funds that may in fact be distributed among the programs in a given annual budget cycle. This is to say, TEA-21 lays out 4FHWA adjusts state data to attribute on-highway tax revenues to states to account for state-by-state variations in state counting and reporting methods, including unequal reporting of off-highway uses, public uses, and varying definitions of gasohol. See Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Attribution and Apportionment of Federal Highway Tax Revenues: Process Refinements, February 2002, http://www-cta.ornl.gov/Publications/ FuelTaxProcess/index.html. 5Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 2001, Table HDF, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/hdf.htm. 6In contrast with the 18.4 cents per gallon tax rate on gasoline and the 24.4 cents tax on diesel fuel, federal taxes on gasohol made with ethanol are 13.1 cents on 10 percent blends, to 14.3 cents per gallon on blends between 7.7 percent and 10.0 percent alcohol, and 15.4 cents per gallon on blends between 5.7 percent and 7.7 percent alcohol. See Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 2001, Table FE-21B, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/fe21b.htm. 6 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California contract authority ceilings statutorily for its six-year lifetime for each of its core programs, but the obligation limit marks the combined funding available before it is assigned to the states by formula. Obligation limitation is not differentiated by program. On the other hand, transportation law gives Congress the authority to alter the limit on obligations through the RABA process. Further, special programs such as high-priority projects do not count against the overall obligation limitation. Revenue Aligned Budget Authority General obligation limits take effect after annual adjustments are incorporated under RABA. Created by TEA-21 and implemented for the first time in fiscal year 2000, the RABA mechanism computes the difference between projected receipts and actual HTF balances so that funding keeps pace with the health of the economy. Through dedicated HTF support, Congress designed RABA to shield FAHP money from being siphoned off to the General Fund for nontransportation purposes, as had been the case under prior law. Through the RABA mechanism, Congress also sought to preserve fiscal discipline by monitoring and adjusting state apportionments above or below the baseline in accordance with HTF funds that are actually available, rather than on strict adherence to long-range approximations that may be inaccurate and impracticable. The unique funding structure and guarantees of TEA-21 facilitated unprecedented growth in funds for transportation projects during its first three years, and the RABA firewall was initially considered a success. States received $9.1 billion in excess obligation authority beyond baseline funding amounts during the economic boom years of 2000 through 2002, of which California received $697.9 million. In fiscal year 2002 alone, RABA increased the state’s highway apportionment total by $315.8 million (Table K.1). But during fiscal year 2002, a recession and lower-than-estimated HTF fuel tax collections (blamed in part on reduced travel and commerce following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks) sent 2003 RABA adjustments, for the first time, moving in a negative direction. As a result, the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget proposed a $4.37 billion reduction in FAHP and highway safety construction programs from the TEA-21 baseline level—an $8.6 billion reduction from fiscal year 2002 FAHP obligations. According to the National Governors Association, such deep cuts would have cost 300,000 jobs nationwide. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) estimated that it would lose $613 million as a result of the shortfall and that the reduction would cost the state between 20,000 and 25,000 jobs. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 7 Despite numerous hearings and much call for Congress to restore the funds, the 107th Congress adjourned without completing work on a transportation spending bill. Still, House and Senate transportation leaders succeeded in a partial restoration of funds in the final continuing resolution, which maintained federal funding in the absence of a final agreement. The resolution provided obligation authority up to the TEA-21 2002 baseline level of $27.7 billion, which will fund California up to approximately $2.5 billion, an increase of $327 million over the proposed amount in the president’s budget. The fate of RABA and potential substitutes will be decided during the TEA-21 reauthorization process. Apportionments Employing a variety of factors and weights, FAHP apportionments distribute formula funds to states on an annual basis for nine programs: Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Appalachian Development Highway System, Recreational Trails, Metropolitan Planning, and Minimum Guarantee. The following sections examine the function and distribution to California and other states of funding from each program (except the Appalachian Development Highway System, as California is not among the 13 states funded by the program).7 It is important to note that TEA-21 specifies a number of setasides and other deductions from these apportionments before funds flow to states.8 Thus, some apportioned levels are actually larger than the amount ultimately available for state spending. Furthermore, TEA-21 affords states considerable latitude to transfer funds from one program to another.9 In addition to outlining California’s share of these nine formula programs, the following sections also posit a number of hypothetical formula changes and examine their effects on state apportionment levels. These changes are examined without regard to their political viability or whether any legislator or stakeholder has proposed them. 7In addition, the report will discuss, but not provide, extensive funding detail for the RABA program, which in essence is a modified apportionment. 8A particularly wide array of set-asides and deductions are subtracted from the Surface Transportation Program apportionment. 9A state may transfer up to 50 percent of its apportionment for one program into any of the others. 8 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Interstate Maintenance The Interstate Maintenance (IM) fund provides federal resources for the resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of most interstate routes. Federal IM funds are distributed to the states through a tripartite formula based 33-1/3 percent on interstate lane miles,10 33-1/3 percent on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the state’s portion of the interstate system, and 33-1/3 percent on the state’s share of contributions to the highway account of the HTF that are attributable to commercial vehicles (Figure 4.1a). TEA-21 set a 0.5 percent small-state minimum on combined IM and National Highway System (NHS) funds, but funds required to finance the minimum are deducted from larger states’ NHS accounts, leaving the IM apportionment unchanged by the process. In 2002, California received a federal apportionment of $346.5 million, 8.8 percent of the nation’s $3.9 billion total (Table C.1). California’s share of IM funds derives from its 7 percent share of interstate lane miles, 11.8 percent share of VMT, and 7.7 percent of commercial vehicle contributions to HTF, with each factor weighted equally. Commercial vehicle contributions 33% IS lane miles 33% IS miles traveled 33% Figure 4.1a—IM Funding Factors: Statutory Formula 10Lane mileage, or the physical amount of interstate roadway within each state, is calculated by multiplying the number of miles of interstate highways by the number of lanes for each mile. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 9 Hypothetical alternative apportionments using different weights for each factor would shift funding among states. As shown in Table C.2, increasing the relative weight of the interstate lane miles factor to 40 percent and reducing the other two factors to 30 percent (Figure 4.1b) would reduce IM funds to California by $4.4 million, or 1.3 percent (Table 4.1). Increasing the lane miles factor would increase IM funds for 23 states and reduce funds for 28 states. Commercial vehicle contributions 30% IS lane miles 40% IS miles traveled 30% Figure 4.1b—IM Funding Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Interstate Lane Miles Table 4.1 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Losses from Hypothetical Increases in IM Funding Factors Increased Weight to IS Lane Miles Increased Weight to IS Miles Traveled State Change ($) State Change ($) California Massachusetts Montana Utah Illinois Alaska South Dakota Connecticut Colorado New York –4,432,687 –2,004,044 –1,993,028 –1,618,003 –1,292,217 –1,155,019 –983,033 –859,784 –839,163 –814,195 Montana Wyoming New Mexico North Dakota South Dakota Iowa Oklahoma Mississippi Nebraska Kansas –2,781,563 –2,399,399 –1,620,392 –1,421,846 –1,411,952 –1,402,038 –1,378,283 –1,354,955 –1,248,537 –1,235,550 Increased Weight to Commercial Vehicle Contributions State Change ($) California Ohio Georgia New Jersey Texas Florida Maryland Virginia North Carolina Tennessee –7,157,325 –2,862,419 –2,609,561 –2,351,398 –2,061,108 –1,927,890 –1,459,059 –1,428,939 –1,279,423 –1,146,142 10 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Increasing the weight of the interstate VMT factor to 40 percent and reducing the other two factors to 30 percent (as in Figure 4.1c) would raise California’s IM funding by $11.6 million, an increase of 3.3 percent. A number of more densely populated states would also benefit considerably, including Massachusetts, Florida, Maryland, and Connecticut. States that would experience a substantial reduction in IM funds under an increase in the VMT factor include more sparsely populated states such as Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Increasing the VMT factor would increase IM funds for 22 states and reduce funds for 29 states. Finally, Table C.2 also shows that increasing the weight of the commercial vehicle contributions factor to 40 percent and reducing the other factors to 30 percent (Figure 4.1d) would result in a $7.2 million reduction in California’s IM funding, a 2.1 percent cut (Table C.2). States that would gain substantially if the commercial vehicle contributions factor weight were increased include primarily sparsely populated states with a large proportion of through-freight traffic, such as Montana and Wyoming. An increase in the commercial vehicle contributions factor would increase IM funds for 25 states and reduce funds for 26 states. Table 4.2 summarizes the effects of several hypothetical changes to IM formulas. In addition to formula funds, TEA-21 authorized $50 million in fiscal year 1998 and $100 million in IM discretionary funds to be dispersed by the secretary of transportation on any route or portion of the interstate system. Commercial vehicle contributions 30% IS lane miles 30% IS miles traveled 40% Figure 4.1c—IM Funding Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Interstate Vehicle Miles Traveled FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 11 Commercial vehicle contributions 40% IS lane miles 30% IS miles traveled 30% Figure 4.1d—IM Funding Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Highway Account Commercial Vehicle Contributions Table 4.2 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Gains from Hypothetical Increases in IM Funding Factors Increased Weight to IS Lane Miles State Change ($) Texas New Jersey Pennsylvania Arkansas Indiana Ohio Wisconsin Georgia Alabama Mississippi 3,238,792 2,016,423 1,824,914 1,823,959 1,743,822 1,706,217 1,498,604 1,375,940 1,227,902 1,177,906 Increased Weight to IS Miles Traveled State Change ($) California Massachusetts Florida Maryland Connecticut Georgia Virginia Washington Ohio Michigan 11,590,011 2,619,367 2,209,261 2,170,987 1,643,809 1,233,620 1,226,929 1,188,519 1,156,201 1,067,783 Increased Weight to Commercial Vehicle Contributions State Change ($) Montana Wyoming Utah South Dakota Alaska New Mexico North Dakota Kansas Idaho Colorado 4,774,591 2,948,163 2,401,065 2,394,985 2,387,284 2,251,607 2,009,040 1,764,166 1,599,499 1,339,506 National Highway System The National Highway System consists largely of rural and urban roads that require funding for improvements and maintenance projects. The NHS program also funds designated connections to major intermodal terminals and some transit improvements in NHS corridors. Funding apportioned for the NHS is distributed to the states according to a four-factor formula: 25 percent based on a state’s total lane miles of principal arterial routes other than interstate roads (OPAR), 35 percent based on vehicle 12 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California miles traveled on these routes, 30 percent based on the state’s diesel fuel consumption as a percentage of diesel fuel consumption in the nation, and 10 percent based on the total lane miles of principal arterial routes (PAR) in each state divided by the total state population—a per capita measure of population sparseness in a highway funding context (Figure 4.2a). A 0.5 percent small-state minimum is applied to the combination of NHS and IM funding, with additions and subtractions applied to the NHS component alone. As shown in Table D.1a, before application of the small-state minimum, California received $453.9 million, or 9.48 percent of the $4.8 billion U.S. total, from the NHS program in fiscal year 2002. This share reflected the fact that California represented 8.5 percent of the nation’s lane miles, 14.2 percent of miles traveled, 7.7 percent of diesel consumption, and 0.86 percent of highway population sparseness. Table D.2 explores funding variations resulting from changes in the NHS formula’s statutory 25/35/30/10 factor mix. Increasing from 25 percent to 40 percent the weight of the factor measuring lane miles on principal arterial routes other than interstate highways—and reducing the relative weight of the other three factors by 5 percentage points each (Figure 4.2b)—would increase California’s NHS apportionment by $5 million (1.1 percent) to a total of $448.3 million (Table 4.3).11 States that would experience a substantial funding reduction from a hypothetical relative increase in the lane miles factor include more rural states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, and Montana (Table 4.4). PAR miles per capita 10% OPAR lane miles 25% Diesel fuel usage 30% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 35% Figure 4.2a—NHS Factors: Statutory Formula 11Typically, lane miles factor increases do not benefit California; the state’s increase under this hypothetical has less to do with the lane miles factor than with the concurrent reduction in the lane miles per capita sparsity factor. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 13 14 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Table 4.3 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Gains from Hypothetical Increases in NHS Funding Factors Increased Weight to Other PAR Lane Miles State Change ($) Texas 19,456,836 Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT State Change ($) California 59,077,539 Florida 7,604,362 Florida 20,825,828 Wisconsin 5,131,516 Texas 16,570,515 California 4,998,724 New York 14,317,358 Minnesota 4,536,017 New Jersey 12,167,224 Michigan 4,447,347 Michigan 8,269,780 Iowa 3,700,895 Massachusetts 6,493,852 North Carolina 2,766,423 Pennsylvania 6,158,119 Kansas 2,712,806 Maryland 5,301,835 New York 2,629,349 North Carolina 3,577,972 Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage State Change ($) Ohio 15,924,806 Texas 12,151,830 Georgia 11,633,143 Pennsylvania 10,450,908 Illinois 10,406,918 Indiana 8,562,841 Virginia 6,420,525 Tennessee 4,733,116 Missouri 4,144,144 Alabama 3,961,397 Increased Weight to PAR Miles per Capita State Change ($) Wyoming 126,114,013 North Dakota 122,451,155 South Dakota 89,048,315 Montana 79,638,264 Alaska 44,568,042 Nebraska 40,002,558 Idaho 32,474,740 Kansas 24,388,925 Iowa 23,801,286 New Mexico 23,069,083 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table 4.4 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Losses from Hypothetical Increases in NHS Funding Factors Increased Weight to Other PAR Lane Miles State Change ($) Wyoming –16,967,481 North Dakota –9,615,914 Montana –8,411,435 South Dakota –7,437,289 New Jersey –3,987,587 Alaska –3,093,912 Utah –2,833,231 Idaho –2,717,459 Maine –2,552,863 New Mexico –2,362,868 Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT State Change ($) Wyoming –23,724,255 North Dakota –20,972,796 Montana –16,805,632 South Dakota –16,539,499 New Mexico –8,677,081 Nebraska –8,390,962 Iowa –7,921,927 Idaho –7,810,454 Kansas –6,478,999 Oklahoma –5,250,253 Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage State Change ($) North Dakota –19,454,220 Wyoming –17,960,635 South Dakota –14,940,112 Montana –14,819,629 Kansas –5,556,356 Idaho –5,376,728 Nebraska –4,661,286 New Mexico –3,950,543 Colorado –3,339,256 Alaska –3,093,912 Increased Weight to PAR Miles per Capita State Change ($) California –87,784,389 Illinois –73,695,040 Texas –72,687,335 Ohio –68,198,504 Georgia –49,621,084 Pennsylvania –44,251,225 New York –42,277,642 Virginia –34,451,409 Indiana –26,601,476 Michigan –23,132,030 15 Diesel fuel usage 25% PAR miles per capita 5% OPAR lane miles 40% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 30% Figure 4.2b—NHS Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to OPAR Lane Miles A hypothetical increase from 35 percent to 50 percent in the factor measuring VMT on other principal arterial routes (Figure 4.2c) would cause California’s NHS receipts to spike sharply upward by $59.1 million (13.3 percent) to a total of $515.2 million. This hypothetical would shift funds to states with larger populations, including Florida, Texas, and New York. States that would experience a reduction in NHS funding if the VMT factor weight were expanded include smaller states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, and Montana. The hypothetical change in factor weight would increase NHS funding for 19 states and reduce funding for 26 states. Diesel fuel usage 25% PAR miles per capita 5% OPAR lane miles 20% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 50% Figure 4.2c—NHS Factors: Increased Weight to OPAR Vehicle Miles Traveled 16 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Increasing the weight of the factor measuring diesel fuel usage on highways from 30 percent to 45 percent (Figure 4.2d) would reduce California’s NHS funding level by a relatively small amount: $3.1 million (0.7 percent). Several states near the nation’s northern border would experience substantial reductions, including North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana. The change in factor weight would increase NHS funding for 22 states and reduce funding for 23 states. Finally, a hypothetical increase in the weight of the factor weighing highway mileage per capita (Figure 4.2e) would shift funding, not surprisingly, from more populous states to sparsely populated states. Raising the factor weight from 10 percent to 25 percent (an admittedly disproportionate increase12) would reduce California’s NHS receipts by $87.8 million, or nearly 20 percent. States losing funding under this hypothetical would include Illinois, Texas, and Ohio, whereas states gaining funds would include Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas. The change in factor weight would increase NHS funding for 21 states and reduce funding for 26 states. The 0.5 percent small-state minimum reduces California’s NHS apportionment by $10.7 million, the largest reduction of any state. As shown in Table D.1c, the minimum also reduces funds to Texas (–$9.2 million), Florida (–$5.1 million), Ohio (–$4.4 million), and Illinois (–$4.4 million). The only PAR miles per capita 5% OPAR lane miles 20% Diesel fuel usage 45% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 30% Figure 4.2d—NHS Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage 12For simplicity, our hypothetical analysis raises and lowers factor weights in five-point increments, causing wider funding changes for factors with small initial statutory percentages. The sparsity factor began the analysis with the lowest percentage share (10 percent), and thus the increase to 25 percent results in greater median funding shifts than under any other simulation. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 17 PAR miles per capita 25% OPAR lane miles 20% Diesel fuel usage 25% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 30% Figure 4.2e—NHS Factors: Increased Hypothetical Weight to PAR Lane Miles per Capita beneficiaries of the small-state minimum on NHS funding are the District of Columbia (+$33.4 million), Hawaii (+$25.1 million), Delaware (+$19.0 million), Rhode Island (+$17.6 million), Vermont (+$12.6 million), and New Hampshire (+$6.6 million). Surface Transportation Program The STP supports all elements of the nation’s intermodal transportation system, excluding aviation. FHWA states that funds may be used for projects on any federal-aid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities, as well as environmental restoration and pollution abatement projects.13 The distribution of STP funds is determined by a formula based 25 percent on each state’s total lane miles of federal-aid highway divided by the national total, 40 percent based on the state’s VMT on federal-aid highways, and 35 percent on the state’s most recent annual contributions to the Highway Trust Fund, excluding 13In addition, a portion of funds reserved for rural areas may be spent on minor rural collector roads that feed larger highways. TEA-21 placed a number of restrictions on STP funds, including explicitly directing states to spend 10 percent of funds for safety improvements such as highway-rail crossings and 10 percent on transportation enhancements, and requiring that 50 percent of the funds be distributed within the state, based on population. For an examination of eligible STP activities and their use in California under ISTEA, see Paul G. Lewis and Mary Sprague, Federal Transportation Policy and the Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, April 1997, p. 79. 18 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California the mass transit account (Figure 4.3a). Regardless of size, every state is assured a minimum apportionment of 0.5 percent of total STP funds. In fiscal year 2002, California received a $539.8 million STP apportionment, 9.6 percent of the nation’s $5.6 billion total (Table E.1). California’s share reflects the state’s 6.3 percent share of federal-aid highway lane miles, 11.8 percent of VMT, and 9.8 percent of HTF Highway Account tax contributions. (The small-state minimum reduces the state’s STP funding by $9.6 million.) Table E.2 examines hypothetical alternative apportionments if the factorweighting mix were to change. A hypothetical increase from 25 percent to 35 percent in weight given to the factor measuring lane miles of federal-aid highways (Figure 4.3b) would reduce California’s STP receipts by $25.3 million (4.7 Highway Account contributions 35% Federal-aid lane miles 25% Federal-aid VMT 40% Figure 4.3a—STP Factors: Statutory Formula Highway Account contributions 30% Federal-aid lane miles 35% Federal-aid VMT 35% Figure 4.3b—STP Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Lane Miles FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 19 percent) to a total of $514.4 million. Larger states such as Florida, New Jersey, and New York would also receive reduced STP apportionments as a result of an increase in this factor weight (Table 4.5), whereas more rural states such as Kansas, South Dakota, and Oklahoma would receive larger apportionments (Table 4.6). The change would increase STP funding for 24 states and reduce it for 20 states. California would be the largest beneficiary of a hypothetical change to raise from 40 percent to 50 percent the weight of the federal-aid highways VMT factor (Figure 4.3c). California’s fiscal year 2002 apportionment would rise by Table 4.5 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Losses from Hypothetical Increases in STP Factors Increased Weight to Federal-Aid Lane Miles State California Florida New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Maryland Ohio Massachusetts North Carolina Tennessee Change ($) –25,294,381 –11,802,958 –8,358,112 –7,355,242 –5,822,686 –5,176,333 –4,408,760 –4,136,216 –4,028,373 –3,069,294 Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT State Kansas Oklahoma South Dakota North Dakota Iowa Nebraska Montana Mississippi Texas Arkansas Change ($) –6,392,666 –4,542,178 –4,209,518 –4,123,871 –4,118,409 –3,665,001 –3,250,909 –3,141,057 –2,995,165 –2,846,350 Increased Weight to Highway Account Contributions State Minnesota Kansas South Dakota Oklahoma North Dakota Iowa Nebraska Montana Wisconsin Illinois Change ($) –6,550,653 –5,546,873 –4,125,486 –3,726,550 –3,558,276 –3,546,772 –2,839,336 –2,354,309 –2,119,980 –1,633,212 Table 4.6 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Gains from Hypothetical Increases in STP Factors Increased Weight to Federal-Aid Lane Miles Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT State Kansas South Dakota Oklahoma Minnesota North Dakota Iowa Nebraska Montana Mississippi Wisconsin Change ($) 11,942,707 8,337,453 8,270,412 8,085,339 7,684,438 7,666,951 6,505,995 5,606,803 4,267,776 4,259,732 State California Florida New York Maryland Massachusetts New Jersey Illinois Ohio Connecticut North Carolina Change ($) 20,116,499 6,062,986 4,761,723 3,258,854 2,722,607 2,508,515 2,446,303 1,918,708 1,798,800 1,644,494 Increased Weight to Highway Account Contributions State New Jersey Florida California Pennsylvania Georgia New York Ohio North Carolina Tennessee Maryland Change ($) 5,845,516 5,733,006 5,162,103 4,292,928 2,895,976 2,588,397 2,486,338 2,380,794 1,984,063 1,914,586 20 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Highway Account contributions 30% Federal-aid lane miles 20% Federal-aid VMT 50% Figure 4.3c—STP Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Vehicle Miles Traveled $20.1 million, or 3.7 percent, to a total of $559.9 million. Other states that would see substantial increases from a VMT factor-weight increase include states with large numbers of vehicles. Increasing the VMT weighting would raise STP apportionments in 18 states and reduce them in 25 states. Increasing the weight of the HTF Highway Account contributions factor of the STP formula from 35 percent to 45 percent (Figure 4.3d) would increase California’s apportionment by $5.2 million (1 percent) to $544.9 million. An increase in the weight of the HTF Highway Account contributions factor would increase apportionments in 20 states and reduce them in 23 states. Highway Account contributions 45% Federal-aid lane miles 20% Federal-aid VMT 35% Figure 4.3d—STP Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to HTF Highway Account FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 21 Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program The HBRRP provides funding to states for the replacement and repair of highway bridges. Funds may also be used for seismic retrofitting of existing bridges. Funds are apportioned entirely according to each state’s relative share of FHWA’s estimate of the cost to repair or replace deficient highway bridges. A state may receive no less than 0.25 percent and no more than 10 percent of apportioned HBRRP funds. States are required to spend between 15 and 35 percent of funds on off-system bridges—bridges that are not part of the federalaid highway system. TEA-21 also authorized $25 million in discretionary funds for the bridge program in 1998 and $100 million for every year thereafter until TEA-21’s expiration. These funds are used for bridge projects at the Department of Transportation’s discretion, although $25 million must be set aside for retrofitting activities. As shown in Table F.1, California received $248.8 million (7.4 percent) of the nation’s $3.4 billion in total HBRRP apportionments for fiscal year 2002. In addition to its apportioned funding, California received $5.9 million in 2002 discretionary funds for bridge projects, 4.9 percent of the U.S. total, as well as $6,522,620 in discretionary seismic retrofit funds, 27.7 percent of the U.S. total. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program CMAQ was established under ISTEA to provide flexible federal funds for projects and programs that reduce transportation-related pollutant emissions and boost air quality. Eligible programs and projects include freeway management systems and various transit improvements, travel demand strategies, traffic flow improvements, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, bicycle facilities, and the conversion of government vehicle fleets to alternative fuels.14 Projects and programs should help state and local governments achieve and maintain national ambient air quality standards in metropolitan areas that are classified as maintenance or nonattainment air quality areas designated by the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA). Apportionment of CMAQ funds is determined annually by weighting the number of people in an area that the CAA classified as a nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone (smog), carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter (PC-10)—three nonpoint source air pollutants. The CAA subdivided noncompliance with safe ozone standards into five nonattainment subcategories 14For an examination of eligible CMAQ activities and their use in California under ISTEA, see Paul G. Lewis and Mary Sprague, Federal Transportation Policy and the Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, April 1997, p. 82. 22 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme).15 Each subcategory is tagged with its own formula-weighting factor, graduated based on the level of pollution severity. Population counts for areas with extreme ozone problems are weighted 1.4, meaning that their value is raised 40 percent for formula calculation. Severe areas are weighted at 1.3, serious areas 1.2, moderate areas 1.1, and marginal areas at 1.0 (or no factor-weight change). The factor weighting for CO nonattainment is fixed at 1.0, whereas the CMAQ formula provides for a special multiplier if areas experience pollution problems for both ozone and CO. Maintenance areas that were previously classified as nonattainment are weighted at a lower overall rate and thus receive less money. With few exceptions, states are generally required to use CMAQ funds for programs within the nonattainment or maintenance area boundaries. Before apportionments are distributed, up to 1.5 percent of CMAQ is taken for administration and another 1 percent is deducted for metropolitan planning costs. In addition, a $500,000 deduction is assessed from the annual total to fund a CMAQ evaluation study program. Each state is guaranteed a minimum apportionment of 0.5 percent of the total CMAQ funds available every year. Furthermore, up to 50 percent of a state’s CMAQ funds, minus the amount the state would have received at the minimum authorized level for the applicable year, may be transferred to other core programs. An 80/20 percent federal/state funding ratio applies to the program; that ratio is increased to 90 percent federal for projects involving the interstate highway system, and it may be raised higher still if other conditions are met. Conversely, local decisionmaking bodies responsible for local CMAQ projects have the authority to increase the local match requirement beyond the federal minimum. Greater Los Angeles remains one of the most polluted metropolitan regions in the country, still classified as an extreme ozone nonattainment area. But significant strides throughout the state signify overall progress in improved California air quality. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California’s smog-forming emissions from highway vehicles declined 36 percent between 1985 and 1999. Still, seven California areas retained CAA classification as nonattainment ozone areas during that period, and that total increased to 26 areas upon TEA-21’s incorporation of tighter 1997 air quality standards to determine apportionment eligibility. 15The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101-549) defined an ambient air quality standard methodology for classifying areas according to ozone pollution levels. Areas that did not comply were designated as marginal (0.121 to 0.138 parts ozone per million or ppm), moderate (0.138 to 0.160 ppm), serious (0.160 to 0.180 ppm), severe (0.180 to 0.280 ppm), or extreme (0.280 ppm and above). Areas designated under these standards were given a certain time period after November 15, 1990, in which to bring air quality levels into compliance. The periods ranged from three years for marginal areas to 20 years for extreme areas. See 42 U.S.C. §7511. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 23 With vast metropolitan populations residing in areas not in compliance with federal air quality standards, California receives by far the largest share of CMAQ funding. In fiscal year 2002, the state’s apportionment of $292.5 million was 21.3 percent of the $1.4 billion total U.S. CMAQ apportionment (Table G.1). As the recipient of the nation’s largest share of CMAQ funding, California loses more funding than any other state as a result of the program’s 0.5 percent small-state minimum. The apportionments of 22 states and the District of Columbia are increased, in many cases from zero, to ensure that no state receives less than 0.5 percent of funds (regardless of the fact that some states do not contain any nonattainment or maintenance areas). The apportionments of the remaining 28 states, including California, are reduced by 8.1 percent to accommodate the increases. As shown in Table G.2, California’s apportionment would increase by $15.3 million if Congress were to reduce the minimum to 0.25 percent, and by $26 million if it were to eliminate the minimum entirely. Other states whose apportionments decline substantially because of the minimum include New York ($12.1 million), Texas ($7.1 million), New Jersey ($6.9 million), Pennsylvania ($6.7 million), and Illinois ($6.1 million). Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) apportionment helps states develop and maintain motorized and nonmotorized recreational trails. Examples of recreational trails include those used by hikers, bikers, equestrians, cross-country skiers, and off-road vehicle riders. TEA-21 authorized $30 million in 1998, $40 million in 1999, and $50 million for each year thereafter in RTP funds. Program administration, trail-related research, and technical assistance are funded by a maximum 1.5 percent deduction from the total before distribution to the states. The formula for RTP bases half of apportioned funds on the state’s proportion of nonhighway recreational fuel use over the preceding year; the other half is distributed equally among the states regardless of population or other recreational trail–related factors. In essence, this creates a 1 percent small-state minimum for the program. States are obliged to use 30 percent of RTP funds for motorized trail expenditures, 30 percent for nonmotorized trail use, and 40 percent for diverse trail uses. Generally, the FAHP share of project funds is set at 80 percent, although other federal agencies may provide additional funds that are counted toward the matching share for this program as long as the total federal share does not exceed 95 percent of the total. 24 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California As shown in Table H.1, California received $3.3 million, 6.8 percent of the nation’s $49.3 million RTP total apportionments in 2002. Without the 1 percent small-state minimum, California would have received $5.7 million, reflecting the state’s 11.6 percent of U.S. off-road recreational fuel consumption. Metropolitan Planning The establishment of a metropolitan planning (MP) structure for project oversight and facilitation of transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas was a cornerstone of ISTEA’s pledge to improve local and regional flexibility in the approval and adoption of transportation planning. Several Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) exist in California, working in partnership with the state and transit operators to help administer and implement the governor’s long-term, federally certified Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. Funding for metropolitan planning is nontransferable and is drawn down from two sources: First, 1 percent is deducted from STP, HBRRP, CMAQ, IM, and NHS; second, funds are also deducted from transit authorizations originating from the Transit Account of HTF and the General Fund. Funds are apportioned to states based on their share of metropolitan area population, with a 0.5 percent small-state minimum assurance. California received $30 million in MP funding in fiscal year 2002, 15.4 percent of the $195.5 million total distributed to all states (Table I.1). Minimum Guarantee After funds are initially apportioned based on the program formulas discussed above, some states are entitled to additional federal money to ensure compliance with the MG provision of TEA-21. The provision ensures that each state is guaranteed no less than a specified percentage rate of return of its total funds contributed to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.16 Apportionment of MG funding requires TEA-21’s most complicated formula calculations. First, a table contained in TEA-21 explicitly demarks California’s guaranteed return percentage as 9.1962 percent of total aggregate program apportionments, and it lists a specific numeric share for each other state as well. 16A state’s rate of return is its percentage share of dollars received under the specified formula apportionment programs divided by a state’s percentage share of dollars contributed to the Highway Account of HTF. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 25 In addition, in separate language, TEA-21 also statutorily guarantees certain states a 90.5 percent aggregated minimum share return from contributions to the HTF Highway Account from two years prior for IM, NHS, HBRRP, CMAQ, STP, MP, High Priority Projects, Appalachian Development, Recreational Trails, and MG programs combined. Only 14 states are eligible for this secondary adjustment. California and 13 other states qualify for the adjustment because their statutorily prescribed percentage (California’s being 9.1962 percent) constituted 90.5 percent of their HTF Highway Account contributions in 1996, the most current available year for taxation data when TEA-21 was created. Adjustments in state-designated obligations may be recalculated to meet the 90.5 percent guarantee. For instance, if a state receives less money than the specified 90.5 percent return, an adjusted increase is calculated and apportioned to the MG account to qualify the state’s minimum guaranteed level. This adjustment requires that the share apportioned to other states be decreased as long as the result does not cause a state’s level to fall below its designated return on highway contributions. In addition to the primary and secondary percentage guarantees, TEA-21 also guarantees each state at least $1 million in MG funds per year. MG funds are subject to special rules and limitations. From the national total MG apportionment, $2.8 billion is distributed to the states as STP funds (STP program set-asides do not apply to these MG funds). The remainder of the MG funds are apportioned to the states, divided between IM, NHS, HBRRP, CMAQ, and STP, based on the state’s relative share of each program’s formulas. Each year, $639 million nationally in MG funds are precluded from obligation limitation controls, whereas $2 billion above that amount is subject to special obligation limitations that do not expire (typical obligation limitations remain in effect for four years). All remaining funds are treated under normal obligation limitation rules. California received $435.7 million in MG funding in fiscal year 2002, which was 7 percent of the nation’s $6.2 billion total distributed among all states in that year (Table J.1b). Various calculations are required to determine this apportionment. First, each state’s total apportionments from eight programs and a specified share of the High Priority Projects allocation are summed— California’s total for those combined programs in 2002 was $2.1 billion, and the nation’s total was $21.5 billion. Then, as shown in Table J.1a, an MG distribution requires calculation of each state’s rate of return in 1996 to the HTF Highway Account (California’s rate of return was 90.5 percent). The next calculation is of each state’s percentage of total contributions to the HTF Highway Account for the most recent data year, which in this instance is 2000 (California contributed 9.97 percent of the total that year). Because the MG formula guarantees each state a 90.5 percent of its current-year Highway Account 26 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California contributions, that share is then multiplied by 0.905, resulting in an initial minimum guaranteed rate of return to California of 9.02 percent,17 and a final rate of return on 2000 contributions of 90.6 percent. Final MG amounts for each state are shown in Table J.1b. It is interesting to note that, after these calculations, California’s final 90.6 percent rate of return is only slightly above the 90.5 percent MG level. As a result, California is one of two states18 least helped by TEA-21’s selection of the 90.5 percent level. In fact, no other rate of return level, whether higher or lower, would help California less. An increase to a 90.6 percent rate would raise California’s 2002 funds to $439.2 million, and a decrease to a 90.4 percent rate would not reduce the state’s MG apportionment below its $435.7 million level (but would reduce the overall cost of the nation’s MG program by $21.1 million).19 A number of states and advocacy groups have suggested changing the MG formula to ensure each state a higher rate of return on HTF contributions, and some have proposed a 95 percent rate of return. Tables J.2a and J.2b show the effect on fiscal year 2002 funding of several hypothetical increases in the MG rate of return percentage. As shown, the nation’s total MG funding required to guarantee a 95 percent rate of return would rise by $3.3 billion to $9.6 billion, of which California would receive $874 million (9.13 percent) of the total—more than twice its MG at the current 90.5 percent guarantee rate. Figure 4.4 and Tables J.2a and J.2b show the total MG funding effect of various hypothetical percentage increases in the rate of return (from 90.5 percent to 92, 93, 94, 95, and 96 percent), and Table J.3 compares the amount of MG funding increases required to fund each scenario. As shown, an increase from a 90.5 percent to a 92 percent rate of return would require an additional $602.8 million, of which California would receive $94.9 million (15.7 percent of the total increase). In achieving the 92 percent rate of return, California’s funding would rise by 21.8 percent, and the nation’s funding would rise by 9.7 percent. As shown, the other hypothetical increases in the rate of return would produce similar results, with California’s percentage growth in MG funding roughly twice that of other states. 17Several recalculation iterations result in a small increase to California, from 9.02 percent to 9.03 percent. For a number of other states, the recalculations and other formula rules result in considerably larger increases. 18The other state is Washington, with a final rate of return of 90.52 percent, compared to California’s 90.57 percent final rate of return. 19All subsequent hypothetical reductions below the 90.5 percent rate of return level would leave California’s MG funding unchanged but would reduce funding in other states. Ultimately, a reduction to or below an 81 percent rate of return would eliminate current-year rate increases for all states and would reduce total MG funding by $501 million, to $5.7 billion. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 27 1,200 18,000 MG Funds, California ($millions) MG Funds, United States ($millions) 1,100 1,000 900 California United States 16,000 14,000 800 12,000 700 10,000 600 8,000 500 400 6,000 90.5 92 93 94 95 96 Rate Figure 4.4—Effect on Fiscal Year 2002 Funding of Hypothetical Changes in Percentage Rate of Return for Minimum Guarantee, California and the United States Total Apportionments Finally, Table B.1 shows each state’s FAHP apportionments for fiscal year 2002. California’s apportionment from all ten formula programs20 was $2.66 billion, or slightly less than 9 percent of the nation’s $29.5 billion total. From fiscal years 1998 through 2002, the first five years of TEA-21’s existence, the nation’s highway formula apportionments increased by 37.3 percent, from $21.5 billion to $29.5 billion (Table B.6). During the same period, California apportionments for these programs increased at a slightly slower rate, 34.5 percent, from $1.97 billion to $2.66 billion. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the components of FAHP apportionment growth under TEA-21 in California and the United States, respectively. A primary component of growth for both California and the nation was the creation and expansion of RABA. In 2000, the first year of RABA’s existence, it added $125.1 million to California’s and $1.4 billion to the nation’s highway apportionments. In 2002, RABA represented $315.8 million for California and $3.5 billion nationwide, accounting for nearly half of highway formula program growth. All FAHP apportionments grew between 1998 and 2002 for both California and the United States. MG grew 15.7 percent nationwide, to $6.2 billion, whereas California’s rate was twice that: California’s MG receipts grew 31.8 20IM, NHS, HBRRP, CMAQ, STP, MP, High Priority Projects, Appalachian Development, Recreational Trails, MG, and RABA. 28 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California 3.0 $billions 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 RABA MG MP RTP ADHS CMAQ Bridge STP NHS IM Figure 4.5—Components of California TEA-21 Apportionments, Fiscal Years 1998–2002 $billions 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 RABA MG MP RTP ADHS CMAQ Bridge STP NHS IM Figure 4.6—Components of U.S. TEA-21 Apportionments, Fiscal Years 1998–2002 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 29 percent, from $330.4 million to $435.7 million, and the state’s share of MG funds increased from 6.1 percent of the nation’s total to 7.0 percent. As shown in Table B.6 and Figure 4.7, however, California’s share of total funding from all programs declined from 1998 to 2002. California represented 9.18 percent of FAHP apportionments in 1998 and 9.00 percent in 2002. Despite the state’s growing share of the nation’s MG funds, California’s portion of the four largest formulas—IM, NHS, STP, and HBRRP—declined somewhat during the period. For each program, the decline results from the rest of the nation’s highway apportionments rising faster than California’s. The state’s share of the nation’s IM funds declined from 9.04 percent to 8.81 percent, California’s NHS apportionment fell from 9.62 percent of the U.S. total to 9.26 percent, the state’s STP share declined from 9.93 percent to 9.60 percent, and its share of the HBRRP program declined from 8.15 percent to 7.40 percent. Percentage 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 1998 1999 2000 IM NHS STP Bridge CMAQ MG RABA 2001 2002 Figure 4.7—California Share of Major TEA-21 Apportionments, Fiscal Years 1998–2002 Conclusion Congress will soon revise TEA-21, and California legislators and advocates will face a number of challenges as the process moves forward.21 Whereas the 21In consultation with the state, a consortium of California MPOs, transportation organizations, and local governments met during 2002 to prepare a platform of TEA-21 reauthorization principles seeking a unified California position regarding TEA-21 renewal. Priorities identified include higher obligation limitations, retention of the RABA fiscal adjustment feature, increasing intermodal capacity (while recognizing California’s important role as a world trade corridor), assurance of equitable returns on the state’s support for HTF, better coordination across all levels of government, and expeditious agency review of environmental laws to accelerate delivery of projects. 30 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California state’s population of 35 million persons now represents 12.2 percent of the nation’s total, the state’s share of highway funding is considerably less. Over the life of TEA-21, from 1998 to 2002, highway funding to California from all programs rose by 34.5 percent, whereas total U.S. funding rose at a slightly faster 37.3 percent rate. When the TEA-21 era began in fiscal year 1998, California represented 9.2 percent of total funds; the state’s share in 2002 was just below 9 percent. The nation’s funding for highway programs rose from $21.5 billion in 1998 to $29.5 billion in 2002. (RABA adjustments may reduce the total for 2003 to account for sharp reductions in fuel tax revenues.) During the same period, California’s apportionments rose from $2 billion to $2.7 billion. From 1998 through 2002, California’s CMAQ funding rose slightly faster than in the nation as a whole, and the state’s MG funding increased at twice the national rate. But California’s growth in the other FAHP programs lagged the rest of the nation, resulting in a declining overall share for the state over the period. California’s share of federal highway funding varies across programs, as shown in Table B.6 and Figure 4.7. Notably, the state receives between one-fifth and one-fourth of the nation’s apportionments for CMAQ because of the formula’s reliance on air quality factors and the state’s relatively high levels of unhealthful air. California also receives a large share (15.4 percent) of the nation’s Metropolitan Planning apportionments because of the formula’s use of urbanized area population as the primary apportioning factor. For the remainder of the major apportionment programs, however, California’s share is considerably lower. For each major program, the size of California’s share is significantly related to the weight the program’s formula gives to a vehicle miles traveled factor. The IM formula weights VMT at 33-1/3 percent, and California’s share of the nation’s apportionments in 2002 was 8.81 percent. The NHS program weights VMT slightly more, at 35 percent, and California’s share of funding was 9.26 percent. And the STP program places the greatest weight on the VMT factor, 40 percent, and California’s apportionment from the STP program was 9.60 percent of the U.S. total in 2002. The state’s large population and heavy vehicle usage make VMT a stronger factor for the state—one likely to increase the state’s share of funding—than the lane mileage factors and tax contributions factors with which VMT is often paired. The primary component of the MG formula benefits California less than any other state except one. As such, any increase in the current-year rate of return FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 31 percentage would raise California’s apportionment, whereas any decrease would reduce other states’ apportionments, but not California’s. As California advocates and legislators prepare to participate in the congressional revision of TEA-21, we hope that these findings may help illuminate whether one policy approach or another will be most effective and appropriate for the state. 32 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Appendix A High Priority Projects Most federal highway funding is distributed to states via formula apportionment. A smaller portion (a total of $5.7 billion in fiscal year 2001, of which California received $610 million) is distributed without formula via a process known as allocation. Funding for a total of 30 programs is allocated without formula, but the largest of these is High Priority Projects (HPPs).1 TEA21 set aside $9.4 billion over its six-year life in designated funding for a list of 1,850 specific projects. Technically, HPP funds are neither discretionary allocations nor formula apportionments; rather, they are codified earmarks for predetermined highway, road, transit, and other transportation-related projects, each with its own specified amount of funding through the course of TEA-21’s lifespan. Nevertheless, FHWA classifies HPPs as allocations for funding distribution purposes. A distribution schedule spreads federal funding for each project over the TEA-21 era as follows: 11 percent in 1998, 15 percent in 1999, 18 percent in 2000, 18 percent in 2001, 19 percent in 2002, and 19 percent in 2003. An “Advance Construction” clause allows states to commence work on HPPs before funding is credited; the funds from the schedule are then drawn down and used as reimbursements when available. The maximum federal share of Californiabased projects is 80 percent; however, some projects designated as high priority bridge projects or state priority projects may also be eligible to receive funds from other core categories. For instance, the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit High Priority Project is eligible to receive funds from High Cost Bridge set-asides 1In addition to the $1.8 billion High Priority Projects program, other allocations include the Federal Lands Highways Program ($706 million in fiscal year 2002), Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge ($225 million), National Corridor Planning and Development and Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program ($140 million), Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation ($120 million), Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment ($120 million), Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts ($112 million), Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway Program ($110 million), ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, and Development ($105 million), Surface Transportation Research ($101 million), Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program ($100 million), Bridge Discretionary Program ($100 million), Technology Deployment Program ($45 million), Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities ($38 million), Territorial Highways ($36.4 million), Bureau of Transportation Statistics ($31 million), University Transportation Centers ($26.5 million), National Scenic Byways Program ($25.5 million), Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program ($25 million), Training and Education ($19 million), Alaska Highway ($18.8 million), Miscellaneous Studies-Reports-Projects ($18.8 million), Value Pricing Pilot Program ($11 million), Highway Skill Training ($10 million), On-the-Job Training Supportive Services ($10 million), and several programs at less than $10 million: Rail-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High Speed Rail Corridors, Highway Use Tax Evasion Program, Operation Lifesaver, Study of CMAQ Program Effectiveness, and Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA as well as formula funds from the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Obligation limitations for these projects are made available at the same pro rata share as other core highway programs although these funds are not subject to the typical four-year availability deadline as is the case with most other FAHPs. In 2002, California received $164.4 million, or 9.4 percent of the U.S. total of $1.8 billion, in HPP allocation. Congress initially identified 156 HPPs for California, for a total of $877 million over six years. In practice, only a handful of these have received approval for construction. The remaining projects continue to be assigned their yearly allocation percentages, and these committed funds are stored accordingly in the HTF. Assuming that these uninitiated projects gain state and local approval, the unspecified availability deadline component for HPPs under TEA-21 allows indefinite storage of unobligated project arrears until they are expended. 34 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Appendix B Data Tables for All Federal-Aid Highway Apportionment Programs FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 36 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio IM 78,994 20,779 81,081 50,036 346,535 63,394 42,784 6,812 2,393 155,262 149,091 7,092 30,742 171,753 105,066 53,750 51,829 74,783 68,992 21,982 66,940 66,314 117,678 71,656 51,091 104,816 42,600 34,619 33,646 15,856 74,252 55,335 142,829 99,936 23,329 169,461 NHS 88,985 25,914 86,578 70,020 443,257 80,565 39,594 36,786 41,206 219,349 145,214 36,506 40,586 149,810 108,572 76,777 70,627 83,267 67,530 25,383 73,742 65,939 142,083 87,300 70,431 108,873 58,083 60,016 38,493 27,742 109,766 60,593 164,454 119,478 64,621 156,441 Table B.1 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 ($000) STP 114,870 28,109 97,107 79,814 539,768 85,868 54,357 28,109 28,109 254,493 199,161 28,109 35,343 204,004 137,419 81,450 89,993 95,208 90,485 30,336 90,390 93,561 199,382 111,243 81,625 140,458 36,429 57,257 37,811 28,109 124,865 49,267 216,698 154,534 35,672 197,736 HBRRP 68,677 9,109 10,542 41,204 248,795 23,280 70,841 12,471 20,690 57,467 58,107 19,200 12,147 113,983 36,968 53,909 51,388 55,119 91,125 23,901 60,345 104,698 98,660 23,907 47,523 119,760 12,513 26,288 8,404 17,280 160,241 12,226 336,140 85,821 8,404 114,536 Appalachian CMAQ Highways 6,858 48,772 6,858 0 27,250 0 6,858 0 292,486 0 19,876 0 28,412 0 6,858 0 6,858 0 34,140 0 27,340 19,491 6,858 0 6,858 0 69,317 0 13,486 0 6,858 0 6,858 0 9,655 44,741 6,858 0 6,858 0 39,979 7,627 51,022 0 28,662 0 14,451 0 6,858 5,470 17,644 0 6,858 0 6,858 0 10,984 0 6,858 0 78,097 0 6,858 0 136,763 10,512 14,170 28,715 6,858 0 41,723 21,993 RTP 986 655 1,062 823 3,333 1,304 597 524 483 1,639 1,296 534 821 1,244 834 854 766 772 1,032 736 689 768 1,485 1,170 1,026 1,003 873 694 666 655 793 897 1,181 1,163 625 1,171 MP 2,171 978 3,133 978 30,044 2,805 2,897 978 978 12,007 3,847 978 978 10,003 3,177 1,112 1,202 1,506 2,629 978 4,225 5,581 6,857 2,797 978 3,283 978 978 1,075 978 7,821 978 16,654 2,965 978 7,854 MG 104,914 218,635 163,452 84,408 435,684 61,021 149,295 26,123 1,000 495,892 325,279 31,887 61,152 129,313 196,104 31,511 24,942 82,654 73,734 25,966 78,872 81,913 234,191 61,455 67,265 99,710 107,984 19,563 58,484 31,029 103,757 67,570 266,031 220,548 33,855 181,989 RABA 70,200 41,676 64,066 45,043 315,753 45,541 52,223 15,829 13,859 167,621 126,552 17,871 25,700 115,734 81,064 41,262 40,548 61,000 53,784 18,549 56,543 63,495 112,951 50,343 44,797 80,340 35,517 28,104 25,828 17,208 89,869 34,165 174,710 99,099 23,468 120,433 Program Total 585,427 352,712 534,272 379,182 2,655,655 383,654 441,000 134,491 115,575 1,397,870 1,055,378 149,034 214,326 965,161 682,689 347,484 338,152 508,704 456,169 154,689 479,352 533,291 941,950 424,322 377,064 675,889 301,834 234,376 215,390 145,716 749,461 287,888 1,465,972 826,428 197,808 1,013,338 % of Total 1.98 1.20 1.81 1.28 9.00 1.30 1.49 0.46 0.39 4.74 3.58 0.50 0.73 3.27 2.31 1.18 1.15 1.72 1.55 0.52 1.62 1.81 3.19 1.44 1.28 2.29 1.02 0.79 0.73 0.49 2.54 0.98 4.97 2.80 0.67 3.43 Table B.1 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 67,802 54,153 147,368 9,127 69,830 27,736 101,693 301,033 53,082 13,654 114,930 77,150 35,262 67,903 39,799 3,934,028 NHS 83,439 69,510 161,445 34,472 70,871 54,226 105,263 378,661 38,428 29,944 113,809 87,390 35,897 108,152 69,544 4,785,634 STP 108,982 75,839 201,226 28,109 98,964 38,956 127,451 458,294 46,256 28,109 149,757 110,067 44,385 120,232 28,109 5,621,889 HBRRP 81,677 48,030 336,140 39,406 48,292 12,724 66,122 131,250 24,219 18,713 64,257 90,920 48,241 27,339 8,404 3,361,404 Appalachian CMAQ Highways 6,858 0 9,711 0 75,245 119,253 7,749 0 6,858 2,389 6,858 0 12,157 54,679 79,957 0 8,843 0 6,858 0 27,197 11,493 20,945 0 6,858 67,816 16,578 0 6,858 0 1,371,569 442,950 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. RTP MP 904 1,598 856 1,675 1,168 8,503 521 978 776 1,683 625 978 918 2,617 2,221 13,417 820 1,557 599 978 898 4,518 1,129 3,793 720 978 1,172 2,908 767 978 49,250 195,510 MG 46,451 44,419 173,532 37,194 141,902 41,098 116,009 669,989 24,489 21,522 192,326 57,139 33,034 166,488 30,082 6,232,855 RABA 54,188 41,000 166,754 21,296 59,546 24,675 78,393 277,244 26,936 16,074 90,651 61,112 36,701 69,593 24,522 3,519,430 Program Total 451,899 345,193 1,390,635 178,851 501,111 207,877 665,302 2,312,067 224,630 136,451 769,837 509,645 309,892 580,366 209,063 29,514,519 % of Total 1.53 1.17 4.71 0.61 1.70 0.70 2.25 7.83 0.76 0.46 2.61 1.73 1.05 1.97 0.71 100 37 38 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio IM 77,704 20,466 78,203 50,637 342,528 61,703 40,465 7,042 2,306 151,736 147,389 6,947 29,564 164,189 105,456 53,773 51,522 75,147 67,641 20,427 65,903 65,799 117,295 71,069 50,081 105,724 41,847 34,919 32,233 15,712 73,092 55,120 131,219 100,541 23,526 164,394 NHS 87,673 25,308 83,353 69,954 437,644 76,881 37,643 35,875 40,611 215,395 140,914 35,970 39,233 141,518 110,924 75,702 70,303 83,094 65,725 24,204 71,873 66,183 140,741 85,621 68,322 109,548 56,756 60,217 37,436 27,205 107,471 60,514 166,404 119,165 63,849 152,504 Table B.2 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 2001 ($000) STP 113,709 27,676 93,800 78,841 536,184 82,063 52,910 27,676 27,676 249,759 195,132 27,676 34,099 196,875 138,693 80,497 88,462 94,031 89,471 29,018 88,769 93,848 196,159 108,816 80,343 141,590 35,624 56,592 36,535 27,676 124,788 48,554 214,421 152,258 35,382 194,453 HBRRP 66,152 10,118 10,244 41,513 245,409 20,151 68,117 13,535 21,789 56,110 60,189 19,272 10,581 111,325 38,149 52,714 48,429 50,196 91,893 20,738 54,106 104,388 98,606 24,609 47,227 120,678 13,045 26,484 8,271 17,952 155,033 10,823 330,825 86,886 8,271 115,173 CMAQ 6,753 6,753 27,520 6,753 310,431 20,516 29,687 6,753 6,753 35,155 27,714 6,753 6,753 72,912 14,230 6,753 6,753 10,168 6,753 6,753 42,340 20,839 30,047 15,135 6,753 18,815 6,753 6,753 10,265 6,753 78,794 6,753 123,725 14,394 6,753 44,627 Appalachian Highways 48,805 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,504 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,771 0 0 7,632 0 0 0 5,473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,519 28,735 0 22,008 RTP 992 694 922 901 2,959 1,012 587 525 483 1,439 1,323 533 865 1,347 880 846 805 872 1,124 697 698 752 1,559 1,201 1,085 1,118 768 630 632 614 926 754 1,203 1,123 589 1,357 MP 2,137 963 3,085 963 29,583 2,762 2,853 963 963 11,823 3,788 963 963 9,849 3,128 1,095 1,183 1,483 2,588 963 4,160 5,495 6,752 2,754 963 3,233 963 963 1,058 963 7,701 963 16,398 2,919 963 7,733 MG 110,918 218,402 156,728 84,420 443,530 43,801 156,081 25,882 1,000 519,152 325,953 32,974 66,820 151,307 221,035 34,578 29,937 101,454 83,762 33,117 80,598 112,347 230,793 64,865 68,444 110,048 109,640 19,104 62,714 31,680 125,169 69,924 296,677 220,349 34,477 165,323 RABA 58,617 34,458 49,615 38,215 267,044 34,188 43,917 12,794 11,441 137,872 103,871 14,972 22,320 97,804 71,571 34,762 33,885 52,172 47,059 15,220 46,937 53,901 93,662 43,359 37,304 69,938 28,714 22,465 20,961 14,931 77,416 28,584 149,307 81,837 18,951 99,070 Program Total 573,459 344,838 503,471 372,195 2,615,313 343,077 432,261 131,045 113,021 1,378,441 1,025,777 146,060 211,197 947,126 704,065 340,719 331,278 513,389 456,015 151,136 463,016 523,552 915,614 417,429 365,995 680,691 294,110 228,125 210,105 143,485 750,389 281,989 1,440,698 808,207 192,758 966,642 % of Total 1.99 1.19 1.74 1.29 9.06 1.19 1.50 0.45 0.39 4.77 3.55 0.51 0.73 3.28 2.44 1.18 1.15 1.78 1.58 0.52 1.60 1.81 3.17 1.45 1.27 2.36 1.02 0.79 0.73 0.50 2.60 0.98 4.99 2.80 0.67 3.35 Table B.2 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 66,398 53,463 144,979 8,604 68,775 27,611 100,089 297,009 53,154 14,427 114,411 73,166 36,146 68,480 42,070 3,872,100 NHS 81,951 69,005 160,752 34,313 69,913 53,727 102,773 369,741 38,806 28,490 111,608 82,560 36,552 107,373 72,022 4,711,320 STP 107,260 74,874 199,577 27,676 97,141 38,571 124,662 447,521 45,482 27,676 146,946 106,037 44,755 119,279 27,676 5,535,190 HBRRP 76,514 43,720 330,825 38,108 40,830 13,677 66,789 120,897 20,458 18,254 78,311 95,763 49,622 27,210 8,271 3,308,251 CMAQ 6,753 10,214 58,058 6,753 6,753 6,753 12,685 83,037 9,378 6,753 28,368 22,053 6,753 17,346 6,753 1,350,514 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. Appalachian Highways RTP 0 951 0 954 119,334 1,062 0 526 2,391 801 0 583 54,716 972 0 2,415 0 753 0 575 11,501 1,123 0 1,177 67,861 693 0 1,120 0 731 443,250 49,250 MP 1,573 1,650 8,373 963 1,657 963 2,577 13,211 1,533 963 4,449 3,734 963 2,863 963 192,508 MG 55,714 50,371 202,301 40,179 153,298 41,105 120,995 658,233 28,054 22,936 170,562 64,009 30,397 166,485 25,511 6,473,150 RABA 44,591 35,233 144,272 17,230 48,801 20,675 66,715 221,875 22,647 13,225 75,009 51,694 32,734 57,597 20,102 2,941,534 Program Total 441,706 339,483 1,369,533 174,351 490,360 203,663 652,972 2,213,939 220,264 133,298 742,288 500,194 306,475 567,753 204,098 28,877,066 % of Total 1.53 1.18 4.74 0.60 1.70 0.71 2.26 7.67 0.76 0.46 2.57 1.73 1.06 1.97 0.71 100 39 40 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio IM 75,733 19,423 76,872 49,608 335,221 59,722 40,913 7,249 2,263 149,683 144,268 6,932 30,842 163,375 105,315 52,881 51,530 72,829 66,551 20,468 64,974 64,944 113,769 68,704 47,730 106,413 41,950 32,803 31,789 16,277 71,340 52,829 128,955 96,777 23,156 163,892 NHS 85,231 24,312 81,884 68,368 437,310 74,006 38,191 34,823 39,809 210,180 138,451 35,140 40,474 140,499 110,421 76,834 69,726 80,539 63,857 24,238 69,444 65,194 138,110 83,536 64,971 109,944 56,914 57,247 37,501 25,795 104,793 58,225 164,527 116,056 62,684 151,724 Table B.3 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 2000 ($000) STP 110,977 27,138 90,428 78,068 529,354 78,540 52,465 27,138 27,138 244,741 190,672 27,138 34,120 193,906 135,362 78,686 87,049 91,598 86,286 29,269 87,283 92,801 192,983 105,934 77,668 139,831 35,370 54,131 36,161 27,138 122,312 47,136 214,299 147,842 34,338 193,728 HBRRP 62,170 12,940 8,751 36,687 239,065 19,773 59,578 13,865 22,556 59,157 61,097 17,153 10,014 106,665 39,229 49,123 51,842 47,583 79,484 20,027 50,797 97,173 108,266 25,071 50,442 113,385 13,521 28,322 8,106 17,159 145,736 10,953 324,230 88,829 8,106 115,109 Appalachian CMAQ Highways 6,619 48,805 6,619 0 26,361 0 6,619 0 300,955 0 20,433 0 29,155 0 6,619 0 6,619 0 34,150 0 26,521 19,504 6,619 0 6,619 0 71,221 0 13,961 0 6,619 0 6,619 0 10,564 44,771 6,619 0 6,619 0 41,392 7,632 20,502 0 29,481 0 18,149 0 6,619 5,473 18,468 0 6,619 0 6,619 0 9,704 0 6,619 0 77,320 0 6,619 0 121,421 10,519 13,920 28,735 6,619 0 46,740 22,008 RTP 958 708 967 890 3,229 1,093 601 526 483 1,374 1,254 531 866 1,170 862 796 799 863 1,103 714 691 736 1,417 1,175 1,077 1,094 789 629 646 593 940 911 1,320 1,119 593 1,248 MP 2,096 944 3,026 944 29,011 2,709 2,797 944 944 11,594 3,715 944 944 9,659 3,067 1,074 1,160 1,455 2,538 944 4,080 5,389 6,621 2,701 944 3,170 944 944 1,038 944 7,552 944 16,081 2,863 944 7,584 MG 118,315 215,982 149,049 90,230 499,214 46,323 161,694 26,227 1,000 535,399 328,306 35,625 63,500 156,258 192,776 37,610 26,390 107,243 92,950 32,615 92,712 119,293 238,644 65,888 62,124 131,628 107,359 23,457 62,792 33,026 141,493 73,866 300,011 225,344 36,095 181,593 RABA 26,999 15,871 22,199 17,601 125,129 15,549 20,228 5,893 5,269 64,244 47,786 6,896 10,281 45,048 31,643 16,011 15,607 24,017 21,358 7,010 21,920 24,826 43,815 19,971 16,729 33,098 13,226 10,347 9,654 6,877 35,841 13,166 68,770 37,724 8,729 46,756 Program Total 537,904 323,937 459,538 349,015 2,498,488 318,147 405,622 123,284 106,081 1,310,522 961,574 136,978 197,659 887,801 632,635 319,634 310,724 481,461 420,746 141,904 440,924 490,857 873,107 391,129 333,778 657,031 276,693 214,499 197,391 134,428 707,326 264,650 1,350,133 759,208 181,263 930,380 % of Total 1.98 1.19 1.69 1.28 9.20 1.17 1.49 0.45 0.39 4.82 3.54 0.50 0.73 3.27 2.33 1.18 1.14 1.77 1.55 0.52 1.62 1.81 3.21 1.44 1.23 2.42 1.02 0.79 0.73 0.49 2.60 0.97 4.97 2.79 0.67 3.42 Table B.3 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 66,548 52,909 142,528 8,281 66,336 27,394 97,451 285,242 52,590 14,352 110,056 72,999 34,910 66,465 39,216 3,795,260 NHS 81,334 67,713 159,365 33,791 67,927 52,487 99,813 355,287 37,957 27,719 110,677 81,548 34,874 104,921 62,745 4,619,112 STP 106,252 74,907 193,951 27,138 94,548 37,633 121,835 436,412 45,089 27,138 143,219 105,994 43,975 113,357 27,138 5,427,614 HBRRP 67,283 52,452 303,722 30,493 38,642 11,893 68,874 119,467 17,065 19,031 85,425 109,971 53,910 34,006 8,106 3,242,299 Appalachian CMAQ Highways RTP 6,619 0 963 9,597 0 961 57,240 119,334 1,079 6,619 0 527 6,619 2,391 801 6,619 0 586 12,352 54,716 985 80,340 0 2,474 9,118 0 771 6,619 0 566 27,457 11,501 1,134 21,470 0 1,147 6,619 67,861 698 17,032 0 1,060 6,619 0 739 1,323,888 443,250 49,250 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. MP 1,543 1,618 8,211 944 1,625 944 2,527 12,955 1,503 944 4,363 3,662 944 2,808 944 188,784 MG 64,814 45,927 230,141 48,170 155,366 44,044 125,650 675,597 39,416 22,815 175,452 48,237 27,750 166,641 37,139 6,719,189 RABA 20,600 16,436 66,451 7,936 22,278 9,523 30,848 101,729 10,798 6,091 34,897 23,810 15,077 26,529 9,259 1,358,350 Program Total 415,956 322,519 1,282,021 163,900 456,534 191,122 615,050 2,069,503 214,306 125,276 704,181 468,838 286,619 532,817 191,905 27,166,997 % of Total 1.53 1.19 4.72 0.60 1.68 0.70 2.26 7.62 0.79 0.46 2.59 1.73 1.06 1.96 0.71 100 41 42 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio IM 74,889 20,208 74,706 48,922 336,416 56,575 39,920 6,991 2,538 144,000 142,484 6,590 29,531 170,154 106,674 52,795 50,517 70,455 65,934 20,465 63,864 63,077 113,349 68,122 47,085 105,824 41,155 34,040 32,393 13,864 68,521 52,623 131,061 95,301 22,684 161,410 NHS 85,449 25,167 79,610 66,886 438,478 69,644 37,751 34,679 39,132 205,447 138,500 35,080 39,037 147,022 111,156 73,442 68,864 77,778 64,335 24,189 68,542 64,584 137,662 81,438 63,561 110,121 56,080 58,056 37,355 27,806 101,571 57,797 168,849 114,371 61,692 149,829 Table B.4 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 1999 ($000) STIP 109,903 26,883 89,142 77,280 530,519 75,845 51,909 26,883 26,883 238,167 187,793 26,883 33,298 199,250 136,300 78,331 86,792 87,349 88,004 28,536 85,585 91,392 191,491 104,769 76,187 139,394 35,196 54,405 37,074 26,883 118,811 47,357 215,190 145,171 34,020 198,455 Bridge 61,717 13,503 9,258 36,525 253,894 20,783 63,016 14,008 21,801 51,362 57,916 18,047 10,396 113,654 40,237 48,822 55,959 40,710 78,588 22,370 51,718 106,614 87,103 27,433 46,297 101,363 13,856 27,951 8,027 17,980 146,982 10,086 321,098 86,453 8,027 112,627 Appalachian Recreational CMAQ Highways Trails 6,557 48,805 806 6,557 0 487 25,149 0 723 6,557 0 741 279,690 0 2,755 19,718 0 683 29,535 0 486 6,557 0 429 6,557 0 386 32,724 0 1,571 25,304 19,504 1,073 6,557 0 450 6,557 0 584 68,775 0 1,013 13,726 0 707 6,557 0 603 6,557 0 709 10,332 44,771 684 6,557 0 930 6,557 0 548 40,425 7,632 615 51,686 0 609 30,088 0 1,077 17,675 0 804 6,557 5,473 704 18,501 0 871 6,557 0 523 6,557 0 491 9,145 0 508 6,557 0 473 75,560 0 855 6,557 0 733 118,718 10,519 908 13,428 28,735 935 6,557 0 447 48,119 22,008 1,057 MP 2,076 935 2,997 935 28,740 2,683 2,771 935 935 11,486 3,680 935 935 9,569 3,039 1,064 1,150 1,441 2,514 935 4,042 5,338 6,560 2,676 935 3,140 935 935 1,028 935 7,482 935 15,931 2,836 935 7,513 MG 113,570 208,848 138,713 89,207 416,980 51,156 154,234 24,383 1,000 495,661 328,399 33,788 65,516 123,041 218,353 37,662 20,493 99,612 111,847 29,075 74,379 76,800 234,337 64,080 55,945 128,180 103,475 17,580 58,821 31,664 114,708 71,540 284,267 222,430 34,652 225,004 Program Total 503,773 302,588 420,297 327,053 2,287,472 297,089 379,622 114,866 99,232 1,180,419 904,653 128,330 185,854 832,476 630,192 299,276 291,041 433,132 418,710 132,676 396,801 460,100 801,667 366,997 302,746 607,393 257,777 200,016 184,353 126,162 634,488 247,628 1,266,542 709,660 169,015 926,021 % of Total 1.99 1.20 1.66 1.29 9.05 1.17 1.50 0.45 0.39 4.67 3.58 0.51 0.73 3.29 2.49 1.18 1.15 1.71 1.66 0.52 1.57 1.82 3.17 1.45 1.20 2.40 1.02 0.79 0.73 0.50 2.51 0.98 5.01 2.81 0.67 3.66 Table B.4 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 64,764 52,674 140,125 8,569 63,721 27,532 96,793 283,715 51,294 15,209 108,924 73,632 32,450 65,975 38,254 3,758,769 NHS 79,707 67,177 158,378 33,101 65,307 52,606 99,510 347,568 36,385 26,462 108,779 82,490 31,961 103,473 61,455 4,575,322 STIP 103,662 72,760 193,117 26,883 91,499 37,888 120,818 422,473 43,804 26,883 143,095 105,328 41,824 112,283 26,883 5,376,526 Bridge 59,056 57,649 315,208 26,878 35,284 10,551 61,608 122,955 15,253 19,416 80,469 97,293 59,901 35,249 8,027 3,210,979 Appalachian Recreational CMAQ Highways Trails MP 6,557 0 663 1,528 9,670 0 652 1,603 56,450 119,334 1,056 8,134 7,675 0 442 931 6,557 2,391 716 1,610 6,557 0 465 935 12,052 54,716 747 2,503 77,593 0 1,852 12,834 8,825 0 574 1,489 6,557 0 443 935 22,506 11,501 1,144 4,322 20,740 0 781 3,628 6,557 67,861 603 935 16,853 0 771 2,782 6,557 0 515 935 1,311,481 443,250 39,400 187,015 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. Program MG Total 73,060 388,997 37,450 299,634 213,196 1,204,998 48,426 152,905 137,780 404,865 42,313 178,847 124,319 573,066 640,274 1,909,264 35,945 193,570 21,007 116,911 162,810 643,551 65,258 449,150 27,753 269,847 161,183 498,568 36,337 178,963 6,386,511 25,289,255 % of Total 1.54 1.18 4.76 0.60 1.60 0.71 2.27 7.55 0.77 0.46 2.54 1.78 1.07 1.97 0.71 100 43 44 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Table B.5 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 1998 ($000) IM 68,768 17,663 64,338 43,528 297,832 50,326 34,488 6,394 2,276 126,906 124,674 5,695 25,403 148,143 90,627 45,986 44,545 62,188 57,633 17,963 54,233 55,923 99,310 59,451 40,959 90,271 36,565 29,451 26,992 12,359 61,234 46,055 116,227 83,848 20,481 140,538 NHS 74,253 21,804 69,182 58,141 380,442 60,385 30,842 29,860 33,979 178,291 120,492 30,560 33,879 125,188 94,761 63,785 59,766 67,622 55,949 21,000 58,353 56,031 119,521 70,725 55,218 92,828 48,582 50,420 32,456 23,179 88,190 49,787 146,567 99,213 53,915 128,713 STP 96,461 23,275 76,227 67,480 462,008 67,663 44,416 23,275 23,275 206,684 161,787 23,275 28,442 172,432 115,787 66,957 74,866 78,019 74,719 24,567 73,134 79,307 165,276 90,774 65,853 119,060 30,625 46,840 30,526 22,577 102,514 40,926 188,274 127,518 29,773 167,585 HBRRP 51,958 9,335 7,112 31,509 231,714 24,410 44,287 7,112 18,078 56,202 46,918 18,755 7,112 104,530 34,921 46,754 44,293 32,394 66,626 19,248 37,975 128,636 74,885 24,728 40,729 93,482 13,934 28,447 7,112 14,198 155,297 8,212 284,481 75,497 7,112 100,924 CMAQ 5,818 5,818 21,292 5,818 244,430 16,694 25,005 5,818 5,818 27,706 21,423 5,818 5,818 58,227 11,621 5,818 5,818 8,747 5,818 5,818 34,225 43,760 25,474 14,965 5,818 15,663 5,818 5,818 8,078 5,643 66,530 5,818 114,564 11,368 5,818 40,512 RTP 604 365 542 556 2,067 512 365 322 290 1,179 805 337 438 759 530 452 531 513 697 411 461 456 808 603 528 653 392 368 381 355 641 549 681 702 335 793 MP 1,802 812 2,602 812 24,945 2,329 2,405 812 812 9,969 3,194 812 812 8,305 2,638 923 998 1,251 2,182 812 3,508 4,634 5,694 2,322 812 2,726 812 812 892 812 6,494 812 13,827 2,461 812 6,521 MG 135,112 181,235 102,348 74,587 330,494 33,182 145,533 24,895 1,000 400,111 278,720 25,545 59,271 101,918 156,260 27,551 20,379 122,877 74,383 24,439 62,890 28,744 184,168 53,907 51,382 89,127 84,317 9,572 52,115 27,600 67,611 61,289 230,602 211,030 26,814 147,667 Program Total 434,776 260,307 343,643 282,429 1,973,932 255,502 327,341 98,489 85,527 1,007,048 758,015 110,797 161,176 719,503 507,145 258,226 251,196 373,610 338,008 114,258 324,780 397,492 675,135 317,474 261,299 503,809 221,043 171,728 158,553 106,723 548,511 213,449 1,095,224 611,638 145,060 733,252 % of Total 2.02 1.21 1.60 1.31 9.18 1.19 1.52 0.46 0.40 4.69 3.53 0.52 0.75 3.35 2.36 1.20 1.17 1.74 1.57 0.53 1.51 1.85 3.14 1.48 1.22 2.34 1.03 0.80 0.74 0.50 2.55 0.99 5.10 2.85 0.67 3.41 Table B.5 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 57,074 46,160 126,359 7,586 56,813 24,165 85,177 243,133 45,571 12,165 93,982 64,790 30,205 58,451 32,962 3,293,868 NHS 69,239 58,330 137,632 28,669 56,744 45,574 86,511 297,614 31,610 24,089 94,552 71,625 27,730 89,306 53,298 3,956,404 STP HBRRP 89,657 48,398 62,767 37,979 169,308 284,481 23,275 18,337 79,821 31,183 32,800 9,884 104,469 54,329 361,813 112,880 38,235 10,897 23,275 14,307 125,179 63,616 90,652 71,570 37,979 56,307 99,644 24,620 23,275 7,112 4,654,326 2,844,815 CMAQ 5,818 8,187 65,338 6,498 5,818 5,818 10,204 65,693 7,752 5,818 23,978 17,560 5,818 14,268 5,818 1,163,398 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. RTP 497 489 792 331 537 349 560 1,389 431 332 858 586 452 578 386 29,550 MP 1,327 1,391 7,060 812 1,398 812 2,173 11,140 1,293 812 3,751 3,149 812 2,414 812 162,327 MG 62,073 42,846 253,521 45,828 115,868 34,804 142,084 475,300 31,400 19,687 148,645 60,112 75,081 140,540 29,984 5,386,451 Program Total 334,082 258,149 1,044,491 131,336 348,182 154,204 485,507 1,568,962 167,187 100,486 554,561 380,043 234,383 429,821 153,646 21,491,138 % of Total 1.55 1.20 4.86 0.61 1.62 0.72 2.26 7.30 0.78 0.47 2.58 1.77 1.09 2.00 0.71 100 45 46 Table B.6 California Share of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Years 1998–2002 Year IM 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 297,832 336,416 335,221 342,528 346,535 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 3,293,868 3,758,769 3,795,260 3,872,100 3,934,028 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 9.04 8.95 8.83 8.85 8.81 NHS 380,442 438,478 437,310 437,644 443,257 3,956,404 4,575,322 4,619,112 4,711,320 4,785,634 9.62 9.58 9.47 9.29 9.26 STIP 462,008 530,519 529,354 536,184 539,768 4,654,326 5,376,526 5,427,614 5,535,190 5,621,889 9.93 9.87 9.75 9.69 9.60 Bridge 231,714 253,894 239,065 245,409 248,795 2,844,815 3,210,979 3,242,299 3,308,251 3,361,404 8.15 7.91 7.37 7.42 7.40 Appalachian Recreational CMAQ Highways Trails California Total 244,430 2,067 279,690 0 2,755 300,955 0 3,229 310,431 0 2,959 292,486 0 3,333 U.S. Total 1,163,398 29,550 1,311,481 443,250 39,400 1,323,888 443,250 49,250 1,350,514 443,250 49,250 1,371,569 442,950 49,250 California Share of U.S. Total 21.01 6.99 21.33 6.99 22.73 6.56 22.99 6.01 21.32 6.77 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. MP 24,945 28,740 29,011 29,583 30,044 162,327 187,015 188,784 192,508 195,510 15.37 15.37 15.37 15.37 15.37 MG 330,494 416,980 499,214 443,530 435,684 5,386,451 6,386,511 6,719,189 6,473,150 6,232,855 6.14 6.53 7.43 6.85 6.99 RABA Program Total 125,129 267,044 315,753 1,973,932 2,287,472 2,498,488 2,615,313 2,655,655 1,358,350 2,941,534 3,519,430 21,491,138 25,289,255 27,166,997 28,877,066 29,514,519 9.18 9.05 9.21 9.20 9.08 9.06 8.97 9.00 Appendix C Data Tables for the Interstate Maintenance Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table C.1 Apportionment of IM and NHS Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Initial IM Component Derivation—Statutory Formula 48 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina IS Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 3,874 1.87 2,355 1.14 4,887 2.36 2,266 1.09 14,502 6.99 4,050 1.95 1,843 0.89 253 0.12 80 0.04 7,172 3.46 6,487 3.13 337 0.16 2,465 1.19 9,484 4.57 5,015 2.42 3,193 1.54 3,664 1.77 3,428 1.65 3,751 1.81 1,493 0.72 2,761 1.33 3,173 1.53 5,967 2.88 3,941 1.90 2,788 1.34 5,291 2.55 4,765 2.30 1,977 0.95 2,323 1.12 989 0.48 2,676 1.29 4,106 1.98 7,672 3.70 4,596 2.22 IS Miles Traveledb: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 11,818 1.84 1,383 0.21 11,339 1.76 6,357 0.99 75,633 11.75 9,550 1.48 9,686 1.51 1,402 0.22 481 0.07 29,007 4.51 26,402 4.10 1,773 0.28 3,121 0.49 28,885 4.49 15,964 2.48 6,498 1.01 6,456 1.00 11,975 1.86 10,440 1.62 2,934 0.46 14,499 2.25 15,130 2.35 20,993 3.26 11,411 1.77 6,140 0.95 17,675 2.75 2,418 0.38 3,620 0.56 3,982 0.62 2,636 0.41 12,692 1.97 6,400 0.99 24,261 3.77 17,099 2.66 Commercial Contributionsc: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 270,871 2.32 27,387 0.23 241,144 2.07 202,620 1.74 896,860 7.68 163,230 1.40 101,454 0.87 20,974 0.18 8,072 0.07 452,419 3.88 483,289 4.14 12,010 0.10 78,367 0.67 471,360 4.04 363,553 3.11 180,973 1.55 138,124 1.18 255,625 2.19 213,746 1.83 58,461 0.50 177,529 1.52 137,326 1.18 331,020 2.84 209,148 1.79 186,578 1.60 314,759 2.70 67,276 0.58 131,286 1.12 96,591 0.83 37,690 0.32 280,197 2.40 145,484 1.25 399,709 3.42 320,863 2.75 IM Factord (before SSM) 2.0080 0.5282 2.0610 1.2719 8.8087 1.6114 1.0875 0.1732 0.0608 3.9466 3.7898 0.1803 0.7814 4.3658 2.6707 1.3663 1.3174 1.9009 1.7537 0.5588 1.7016 1.6857 2.9913 1.8214 1.2987 2.6644 1.0829 0.8800 0.8553 0.4031 1.8874 1.4066 3.6306 2.5403 IM Component ($) 78,994,347 20,778,586 81,081,402 50,035,755 346,535,049 63,394,022 42,784,030 6,812,168 2,392,571 155,261,942 149,090,863 7,092,334 30,742,071 171,752,813 105,065,510 53,750,436 51,828,764 74,783,120 68,992,193 21,981,967 66,939,892 66,314,154 117,677,536 71,655,521 51,090,731 104,816,403 42,599,765 34,618,768 33,646,328 15,856,283 74,251,654 55,334,793 142,828,894 99,935,622 Table C.1 (continued) 49 State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IS Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 2,290 1.10 7,428 3.58 3,898 1.88 3,089 1.49 7,380 3.56 387 0.19 3,526 1.70 2,726 1.31 4,759 2.29 14,790 7.13 4,066 1.96 1,281 0.62 5,308 2.56 3,824 1.84 2,254 1.09 3,204 1.54 3,654 1.76 207,488 100.00 IS Miles Traveledb: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 1,490 0.23 29,607 4.60 8,835 1.37 8,294 1.29 22,335 3.47 2,162 0.34 11,425 1.78 2,227 0.35 17,894 2.78 47,309 7.35 7,401 1.15 1,564 0.24 20,804 3.23 14,562 2.26 5,046 0.78 9,825 1.53 2,585 0.40 643,425 100.00 Commercial Contributionsc: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 51,806 0.44 553,543 4.74 223,999 1.92 157,818 1.35 491,501 4.21 20,251 0.17 215,989 1.85 53,138 0.46 312,915 2.68 989,491 8.48 109,513 0.94 21,104 0.18 347,073 2.97 207,472 1.78 95,549 0.82 245,990 2.11 101,826 0.87 11,674,973 100.00 IM Factord (before SSM) 0.5930 4.3076 1.7235 1.3765 3.7460 0.2320 1.7750 0.7050 2.5850 7.6520 1.3493 0.3471 2.9214 1.9611 0.8963 1.7261 1.0117 100.0000 IM Component ($) 23,328,616 169,461,056 67,801,776 54,152,725 147,368,266 9,126,783 69,829,604 27,735,841 101,693,333 301,033,441 53,081,801 13,653,989 114,930,489 77,149,767 35,261,706 67,903,367 39,799,188 3,934,028,039 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. aLane miles on the interstate highway system. bMillions of vehicle miles traveled on the interstate highway system. cAnnual contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund attributable to commercial vehicles. dCombined factor-weighting of interstate lane miles at one-third, interstate VMT at one-third, and commercial vehicle contributions at one-third. Table C.2 Comparison of Alternative Factor-Weighting Mixes on Initial IM Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 50 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Current Statutory Formula Weight, 33/33/33% Amount ($) Factor 78,994,347 20,778,586 81,081,402 50,035,755 346,535,049 63,394,022 42,784,030 6,812,168 2,392,571 155,261,942 149,090,863 7,092,334 30,742,071 171,752,813 105,065,510 53,750,436 51,828,764 74,783,120 68,992,193 21,981,967 66,939,892 66,314,154 117,677,536 71,655,521 51,090,731 104,816,403 42,599,765 34,618,768 33,646,328 15,856,283 74,251,654 55,334,793 142,828,894 99,935,622 2.0080 0.5282 2.0610 1.2719 8.8087 1.6114 1.0875 0.1732 0.0608 3.9466 3.7898 0.1803 0.7814 4.3658 2.6707 1.3663 1.3174 1.9009 1.7537 0.5588 1.7016 1.6857 2.9913 1.8214 1.2987 2.6644 1.0829 0.8800 0.8553 0.4031 1.8874 1.4066 3.6306 2.5403 Increased Weight to Interstate Lane Miles,a 40/30/30% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 80,222,249 2.0392 1,227,902 19,623,567 0.4988 –1,155,019 81,098,911 2.0615 17,508 51,859,714 1.3182 1,823,959 342,102,362 8.6960 –4,432,687 62,554,859 1.5901 –839,163 41,924,247 1.0657 –859,784 6,837,697 0.1738 25,528 2,425,310 0.0616 32,739 154,980,571 3.9395 –281,371 150,466,803 3.8248 1,375,940 6,787,793 0.1725 –304,541 30,308,538 0.7704 –433,533 170,460,596 4.3330 –1,292,217 106,809,332 2.7150 1,743,822 54,473,504 1.3847 723,068 51,300,149 1.3040 –528,616 75,918,412 1.9298 1,135,292 69,295,413 1.7614 303,219 21,753,687 0.5530 –228,280 66,227,964 1.6835 –711,928 64,310,110 1.6347 –2,004,044 117,063,915 2.9757 –613,621 71,537,472 1.8184 –118,049 52,268,637 1.3286 1,177,906 104,940,961 2.6675 124,557 40,606,738 1.0322 –1,993,028 35,580,737 0.9044 961,969 33,536,450 0.8525 –109,878 15,540,666 0.3950 –315,617 76,268,077 1.9387 2,016,423 54,703,579 1.3905 –631,214 142,014,699 3.6099 –814,195 100,753,939 2.5611 818,318 Increased Weight to Interstate Miles Traveled,b 30/40/30% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 78,320,672 1.9909 –673,675 19,546,321 0.4969 –1,232,265 79,906,152 2.0312 –1,175,251 48,918,976 1.2435 –1,116,780 358,125,060 9.1033 11,590,011 62,893,679 1.5987 –500,343 44,427,840 1.1293 1,643,809 6,988,162 0.1776 175,994 2,447,407 0.0622 54,836 157,471,203 4.0028 2,209,261 150,324,483 3.8211 1,233,620 7,467,148 0.1898 374,814 29,576,105 0.7518 –1,165,966 172,238,394 4.3782 485,580 104,319,665 2.6517 –745,845 52,348,399 1.3307 –1,402,038 50,593,214 1.2860 –1,235,550 74,626,561 1.8970 –156,560 68,476,197 1.7406 –515,996 21,577,676 0.5485 –404,291 69,110,879 1.7567 2,170,987 68,933,520 1.7522 2,619,367 118,745,319 3.0184 1,067,783 71,466,881 1.8166 –188,640 49,735,776 1.2642 –1,354,955 105,141,608 2.6726 325,205 39,818,202 1.0121 –2,781,563 33,370,231 0.8482 –1,248,537 32,716,369 0.8316 –929,959 15,882,357 0.4037 26,074 74,586,629 1.8959 334,975 53,714,401 1.3654 –1,620,392 143,379,661 3.6446 550,767 100,396,727 2.5520 461,106 Increased Weight to Commercial Vehicle Contributions,c 30/30/40% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 78,440,120 1.9939 –554,227 23,165,871 0.5889 2,387,284 82,239,145 2.0905 1,157,743 49,328,577 1.2539 –707,179 339,377,724 8.6267 –7,157,325 64,733,528 1.6455 1,339,506 42,000,005 1.0676 –784,026 6,610,646 0.1680 –201,522 2,304,996 0.0586 –87,575 153,334,052 3.8976 –1,927,890 146,481,302 3.7234 –2,609,561 7,022,062 0.1785 –70,272 32,341,570 0.8221 1,599,499 172,559,450 4.3863 806,637 104,067,533 2.6453 –997,977 54,429,406 1.3836 678,970 53,592,930 1.3623 1,764,166 73,804,388 1.8761 –978,732 69,204,971 1.7591 212,777 22,614,539 0.5748 632,571 65,480,833 1.6645 –1,459,059 65,698,831 1.6700 –615,322 117,223,374 2.9797 –454,162 71,962,211 1.8292 306,689 51,267,780 1.3032 177,050 104,366,641 2.6529 –449,763 47,374,356 1.2042 4,774,591 34,905,337 0.8873 286,568 34,686,165 0.8817 1,039,837 16,145,825 0.4104 289,542 71,900,256 1.8276 –2,351,398 57,586,400 1.4638 2,251,607 143,092,322 3.6373 263,428 98,656,198 2.5078 –1,279,423 Table C.2 (continued) 51 State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Current Statutory Formula Weight, 33/33/33% Amount ($) Factor 23,328,616 169,461,056 67,801,776 54,152,725 147,368,266 9,126,783 69,829,604 27,735,841 101,693,333 301,033,441 53,081,801 13,653,989 114,930,489 77,149,767 35,261,706 67,903,367 39,799,188 3,934,028,039 0.5930 4.3076 1.7235 1.3765 3.7460 0.2320 1.7750 0.7050 2.5850 7.6520 1.3493 0.3471 2.9214 1.9611 0.8963 1.7261 1.0117 100 Increased Weight to Interstate Lane Miles,a 40/30/30% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 22,741,422 0.5781 –587,194 171,167,274 4.3509 1,706,217 68,569,525 1.7430 767,749 54,055,327 1.3740 –97,398 149,193,180 3.7924 1,824,914 8,896,487 0.2261 –230,296 70,124,663 1.7825 295,059 26,752,808 0.6800 –983,033 102,068,061 2.5945 374,729 304,272,233 7.7344 3,238,792 51,463,799 1.3082 –1,618,003 12,999,715 0.3304 –654,273 115,132,499 2.9266 202,010 76,425,819 1.9427 –723,948 34,955,178 0.8885 –306,528 69,401,971 1.7641 1,498,604 39,250,424 0.9977 –548,764 3,934,028,039 100 0 Increased Weight to Interstate Miles Traveled,b 30/40/30% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 21,906,770 0.5569 –1,421,846 170,617,258 4.3370 1,156,201 66,423,493 1.6884 –1,378,283 53,808,569 1.3678 –344,156 146,287,501 3.7185 –1,080,765 9,535,994 0.2424 409,211 69,832,115 1.7751 2,511 26,323,889 0.6691 –1,411,952 102,464,746 2.6046 771,413 299,855,758 7.6221 –1,177,683 52,298,739 1.3294 –783,062 13,244,850 0.3367 –409,138 116,157,418 2.9526 1,226,929 78,338,286 1.9913 1,188,519 34,820,760 0.8851 –440,946 67,120,230 1.7061 –783,137 37,399,789 0.9507 –2,399,399 3,934,028,039 100 0 Increased Weight to Commercial Vehicle Contributions,c 30/30/40% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 25,337,656 0.6441 2,009,040 166,598,638 4.2348 –2,862,419 68,412,311 1.7390 610,535 54,594,279 1.3877 441,554 146,624,117 3.7271 –744,149 8,947,867 0.2274 –178,916 69,532,034 1.7675 –297,570 30,130,826 0.7659 2,394,985 100,547,191 2.5558 –1,146,142 298,972,333 7.5996 –2,061,108 55,482,866 1.4103 2,401,065 14,717,400 0.3741 1,063,411 113,501,550 2.8851 –1,428,939 76,685,197 1.9493 –464,570 36,009,180 0.9153 747,474 67,187,900 1.7079 –715,467 42,747,351 1.0866 2,948,163 3,934,028,039 100 0 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. aLane miles on the interstate highway system. bMillions of vehicle miles traveled on the interstate highway system. cAnnual contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund attributable to commercial vehicles. Appendix D Data Tables for the National Highway System Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table D.1a Apportionment of IM and NHS Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Initial NHS Component Derivation—Statutory Formula 54 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota OPAR Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 25% No. % 9,133 1.91 1,855 0.39 7,972 1.67 7,600 1.59 40,629 8.49 9,380 1.96 3,172 0.66 1,344 0.28 526 0.11 23,434 4.89 14,426 3.01 871 0.18 4,544 0.95 14,880 3.11 9,813 2.05 10,812 2.26 9,828 2.05 8,676 1.81 6,544 1.37 2,129 0.44 6,247 1.30 5,662 1.18 15,458 3.23 11,363 2.37 7,975 1.67 10,970 2.29 5,987 1.25 7,572 1.58 4,075 0.85 1,636 0.34 7,675 1.60 6,738 1.41 15,944 3.33 12,699 2.65 7,100 1.48 OPAR VMTb: Factor Weight, 35% No. % 13,372 1.65 735 0.09 15,884 1.97 8,870 1.10 114,840 14.21 15,000 1.86 7,997 0.99 3,239 0.40 1,336 0.17 50,843 6.29 22,794 2.82 2,539 0.31 3,296 0.41 26,075 3.23 17,396 2.15 8,271 1.02 8,695 1.08 11,918 1.47 10,085 1.25 3,047 0.38 16,354 2.02 16,003 1.98 29,337 3.63 13,246 1.64 9,464 1.17 18,470 2.29 2,899 0.36 5,833 0.72 4,484 0.55 3,392 0.42 26,781 3.31 5,947 0.74 36,894 4.56 22,104 2.73 2,240 0.28 Diesel Fuel Usagec: Factor Weight 30% No. % 745,713 2.32 75,400 0.23 663,876 2.07 557,820 1.74 2,469,082 7.68 449,375 1.40 279,303 0.87 57,741 0.18 22,223 0.07 1,245,526 3.88 1,330,511 4.14 33,061 0.10 215,746 0.67 1,297,666 4.04 1,000,871 3.11 498,225 1.55 380,258 1.18 703,740 2.19 588,447 1.83 160,944 0.50 488,744 1.52 378,060 1.18 911,306 2.84 575,792 1.79 513,653 1.60 866,541 2.70 185,212 0.58 361,436 1.12 265,918 0.83 103,763 0.32 771,389 2.40 400,522 1.25 1,100,407 3.42 883,343 2.75 142,621 0.44 PAR Miles Per Capitad: Factor Weight, 10% No. % 1.1994 1.55 2.7537 3.56 1.0278 1.33 1.5133 1.95 0.6675 0.86 1.2804 1.65 0.6039 0.78 0.8357 1.08 0.4344 0.56 0.7853 1.01 1.0476 1.35 0.4089 0.53 2.2212 2.87 0.8045 1.04 1.0000 1.29 1.9625 2.53 2.0580 2.66 1.2281 1.59 0.9447 1.22 1.1650 1.50 0.6974 0.90 0.5706 0.74 0.8840 1.14 1.2757 1.65 1.5515 2.00 1.1918 1.54 4.8871 6.31 2.2882 2.95 1.3130 1.70 0.8711 1.12 0.5045 0.65 2.4446 3.16 0.5103 0.66 0.8811 1.14 5.9959 7.74 NHS Factore Initialf NHS (before SSM) Component ($) 1.9069 91,255,044 0.5547 26,544,507 1.8565 88,843,601 1.4970 71,642,013 9.4852 453,928,598 1.7241 82,509,850 0.8506 40,706,732 0.3723 17,814,837 0.1622 7,760,316 4.6893 224,410,751 3.1175 149,190,523 0.2391 11,441,818 0.8682 41,549,406 3.2212 154,155,010 2.3290 111,458,620 1.6412 78,541,039 1.5104 72,281,257 1.7846 85,402,165 1.4496 69,374,796 0.5438 26,023,182 1.5806 75,642,865 1.4152 67,726,019 3.0423 145,593,147 1.8691 89,447,878 1.5060 72,073,286 2.3353 111,760,312 1.2421 59,443,363 1.2808 61,295,086 0.8247 39,467,293 0.4416 21,135,528 2.3456 112,252,274 1.2989 62,159,442 3.5232 168,605,752 2.5585 122,442,320 1.3751 65,809,047 Table D.1a (continued) 55 State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total OPAR Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 25% No. % 14,531 3.03 10,062 2.10 8,613 1.80 15,229 3.18 1,410 0.29 7,008 1.46 5,969 1.25 10,734 2.24 44,075 9.21 3,391 0.71 1,007 0.21 11,047 2.31 9,605 2.01 3,409 0.71 13,376 2.79 4,652 0.97 478,787 100.00 OPAR VMTb: Factor Weight, 35% No. % 24,881 3.08 10,877 1.35 10,415 1.29 30,138 3.73 3,137 0.39 10,638 1.32 2,264 0.28 17,302 2.14 71,838 8.89 4,469 0.55 1,317 0.16 19,668 2.43 16,563 2.05 4,176 0.52 18,830 2.33 2,049 0.25 808,242 100.00 Diesel Fuel Usagec: Factor Weight 30% No. % 1,523,918 4.74 616,674 1.92 434,475 1.35 1,353,117 4.21 55,754 0.17 594,622 1.85 146,292 0.46 861,463 2.68 2,724,099 8.48 301,493 0.94 58,101 0.18 955,500 2.97 571,177 1.78 263,051 0.82 677,219 2.11 280,329 0.87 32,141,519 100.00 PAR Miles Per Capitad: Factor Weight, 10% No. % 0.7932 1.02 1.6590 2.14 1.4025 1.81 0.7549 0.97 0.7029 0.91 1.0767 1.39 4.7236 6.10 1.1167 1.44 1.1576 1.49 1.3693 1.77 1.5411 1.99 0.9475 1.22 0.9343 1.21 1.2842 1.66 1.2676 1.64 6.8979 8.91 77.4375 100.00 NHS Factore Initialf NHS (before SSM) Component ($) 3.3610 160,844,722 1.7862 85,482,357 1.4874 71,180,852 3.4607 165,617,802 0.3523 16,858,893 1.5206 72,772,007 1.1562 55,333,652 2.2580 108,059,363 8.1043 387,844,167 0.8288 39,664,294 0.3628 17,364,662 2.4427 116,899,311 1.8725 89,612,999 0.7702 36,858,827 2.3096 110,530,616 1.4841 71,021,445 100.0000 4,785,633,646 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. aLane miles of principal arterial routes other than on the interstate highway system. bMillions of vehicle miles traveled on principal arterial routes other than on the interstate highway system. cDiesel fuel used on highways. dTotal lane miles of all principal arterial routes divided by state population (increases funds to states with sparse populations). eCombined factor weighting OPAR lane miles at 25 percent, OPAR VMT at 35 percent, diesel fuel usage at 30 percent, and PAR sparsity at 10 percent. fExcludes reduction for small-state minimum. Table D.1b Apportionment of IM and NHS Funding, with 0.5 Percent Small-State Minimum Applied, Fiscal Year 2002 56 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina IM Component ($) 78,994,347 20,778,586 81,081,402 50,035,755 346,535,049 63,394,022 42,784,030 6,812,168 2,392,571 155,261,942 149,090,863 7,092,334 30,742,071 171,752,813 105,065,510 53,750,436 51,828,764 74,783,120 68,992,193 21,981,967 66,939,892 66,314,154 117,677,536 71,655,521 51,090,731 104,816,403 42,599,765 34,618,768 33,646,328 15,856,283 74,251,654 55,334,793 142,828,894 99,935,622 Initial NHS Component ($) 91,255,044 26,544,507 88,843,601 71,642,013 453,928,598 82,509,850 40,706,732 17,814,837 7,760,316 224,410,751 149,190,523 11,441,818 41,549,406 154,155,010 111,458,620 78,541,039 72,281,257 85,402,165 69,374,796 26,023,182 75,642,865 67,726,019 145,593,147 89,447,878 72,073,286 111,760,312 59,443,363 61,295,086 39,467,293 21,135,528 112,252,274 62,159,442 168,605,752 122,442,320 Initial Combined IM/NHS ($) 170,249,391 47,323,094 169,925,003 121,677,769 800,463,647 145,903,872 83,490,762 24,627,005 10,152,887 379,672,693 298,281,386 18,534,153 72,291,477 325,907,823 216,524,130 132,291,475 124,110,021 160,185,285 138,366,989 48,005,150 142,582,757 134,040,172 263,270,683 161,103,399 123,164,017 216,576,716 102,043,129 95,913,854 73,113,621 36,991,811 186,503,928 117,494,236 311,434,646 222,377,942 Adjusted Initial Share with IM/NHS SSM Non-SSM 0.5% Funding IM Adjusted NHS Initial % Additions % Minimum Combined ($) Component ($) Component ($) 1.9525 0.0000 1.9525 1.9264 167,979,763 78,994,347 88,985,416 0.5427 0.0000 0.5427 0.5355 46,692,220 20,778,586 25,913,634 1.9488 0.0000 1.9488 1.9228 167,659,700 81,081,402 86,578,298 1.3954 0.0000 1.3954 1.3768 120,055,659 50,035,755 70,019,904 9.1800 0.0000 9.1800 9.0576 789,792,512 346,535,049 443,257,463 1.6733 0.0000 1.6733 1.6510 143,958,800 63,394,022 80,564,778 0.9575 0.0000 0.9575 0.9447 82,377,731 42,784,030 39,593,700 0.2824 0.2176 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 6,812,168 36,786,140 0.1164 0.3836 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 2,392,571 41,205,738 4.3542 0.0000 4.3542 4.2962 374,611,203 155,261,942 219,349,261 3.4208 0.0000 3.4208 3.3752 294,304,939 149,090,863 145,214,076 0.2126 0.2874 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 7,092,334 36,505,974 0.8291 0.0000 0.8291 0.8180 71,327,745 30,742,071 40,585,675 3.7376 0.0000 3.7376 3.6878 321,563,083 171,752,813 149,810,270 2.4832 0.0000 2.4832 2.4501 213,637,605 105,065,510 108,572,095 1.5172 0.0000 1.5172 1.4969 130,527,872 53,750,436 76,777,436 1.4233 0.0000 1.4233 1.4044 122,455,487 51,828,764 70,626,722 1.8371 0.0000 1.8371 1.8126 158,049,824 74,783,120 83,266,704 1.5868 0.0000 1.5868 1.5657 136,522,392 68,992,193 67,530,199 0.5505 0.0000 0.5505 0.5432 47,365,184 21,981,967 25,383,216 1.6352 0.0000 1.6352 1.6134 140,681,959 66,939,892 73,742,067 1.5372 0.0000 1.5372 1.5167 132,253,257 66,314,154 65,939,103 3.0193 0.0000 3.0193 2.9790 259,760,971 117,677,536 142,083,435 1.8476 0.0000 1.8476 1.8230 158,955,699 71,655,521 87,300,177 1.4125 0.0000 1.4125 1.3937 121,522,094 51,090,731 70,431,363 2.4838 0.0000 2.4838 2.4507 213,689,490 104,816,403 108,873,086 1.1703 0.0000 1.1703 1.1547 100,682,772 42,599,765 58,083,007 1.1000 0.0000 1.1000 1.0853 94,635,208 34,618,768 60,016,440 0.8385 0.0000 0.8385 0.8273 72,138,930 33,646,328 38,492,602 0.4242 0.0758 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 15,856,283 27,742,026 2.1389 0.0000 2.1389 2.1104 184,017,608 74,251,654 109,765,954 1.3475 0.0000 1.3475 1.3295 115,927,897 55,334,793 60,593,104 3.5716 0.0000 3.5716 3.5240 307,282,851 142,828,894 164,453,957 2.5503 0.0000 2.5503 2.5163 219,413,379 99,935,622 119,477,757 Table D.1b (continued) State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM Component ($) 23,328,616 169,461,056 67,801,776 54,152,725 147,368,266 9,126,783 69,829,604 27,735,841 101,693,333 301,033,441 53,081,801 13,653,989 114,930,489 77,149,767 35,261,706 67,903,367 39,799,188 3,934,028,039 Adjusted Initial Initial Share with IM/NHS Initial NHS Combined SSM Non-SSM 0.5% Funding IM Adjusted NHS Component ($) IM/NHS ($) Initial % Additions % Minimum Combined ($) Component ($) Component ($) 65,809,047 89,137,663 1.0223 0.0000 1.0223 1.0086 87,949,352 23,328,616 64,620,736 160,844,722 330,305,779 3.7881 0.0000 3.7881 3.7376 325,902,409 169,461,056 156,441,352 85,482,357 153,284,133 1.7579 0.0000 1.7579 1.7345 151,240,673 67,801,776 83,438,897 71,180,852 125,333,577 1.4374 0.0000 1.4374 165,617,802 312,986,068 3.5894 0.0000 3.5894 1.4182 3.5416 123,662,731 54,152,725 69,510,006 308,813,591 147,368,266 161,445,324 16,858,893 25,985,675 0.2980 0.2020 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 9,126,783 34,471,526 72,772,007 142,601,611 1.6354 0.0000 1.6354 1.6136 140,700,562 69,829,604 70,870,958 55,333,652 83,069,492 0.9527 0.0000 0.9527 0.9400 81,962,077 27,735,841 54,226,236 108,059,363 209,752,696 2.4055 0.0000 2.4055 2.3734 206,956,442 101,693,333 105,263,110 387,844,167 688,877,608 7.9003 0.0000 7.9003 7.7950 679,694,048 301,033,441 378,660,607 39,664,294 92,746,095 1.0636 0.0000 1.0636 1.0495 91,509,679 53,081,801 38,427,878 17,364,662 31,018,650 0.3557 0.1443 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 13,653,989 29,944,320 116,899,311 231,829,800 2.6587 0.0000 2.6587 89,612,999 166,762,766 1.9125 0.0000 1.9125 2.6233 1.8870 228,739,232 114,930,489 113,808,744 164,539,620 77,149,767 87,389,852 36,858,827 72,120,533 0.8271 0.0000 0.8271 0.8161 71,159,080 35,261,706 35,897,374 110,530,616 178,433,982 2.0463 0.0000 2.0463 2.0191 176,055,245 67,903,367 108,151,878 71,021,445 110,820,633 1.2709 0.0000 1.2709 1.2540 109,343,262 39,799,188 69,544,074 4,785,633,646 8,719,661,685 100.0000 1.3106 98.3106 100.0000 8,719,661,685 3,934,028,039 4,785,633,646 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. 57 Table D.1c Apportionment of NHS Totals With and Without Small-State Minimum, Fiscal Year 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Initial NHS Component ($) with No SSM 91,255,044 26,544,507 88,843,601 71,642,013 453,928,598 82,509,850 40,706,732 17,814,837 7,760,316 224,410,751 149,190,523 11,441,818 41,549,406 154,155,010 111,458,620 78,541,039 72,281,257 85,402,165 69,374,796 26,023,182 75,642,865 67,726,019 145,593,147 89,447,878 72,073,286 111,760,312 59,443,363 61,295,086 39,467,293 21,135,528 112,252,274 62,159,442 168,605,752 122,442,320 65,809,047 160,844,722 85,482,357 71,180,852 165,617,802 16,858,893 72,772,007 55,333,652 108,059,363 387,844,167 39,664,294 17,364,662 116,899,311 89,612,999 36,858,827 110,530,616 71,021,445 4,785,633,646 Adjusted NHS Component ($) with Difference with 0.5 % SSM SSM of 0.5 % $ % 88,985,416 (2,269,627) –2.49 25,913,634 (630,873) –2.38 86,578,298 (2,265,303) –2.55 70,019,904 (1,622,110) –2.26 443,257,463 (10,671,135) –2.35 80,564,778 (1,945,073) –2.36 39,593,700 (1,113,031) –2.73 36,786,140 18,971,303 106.49 41,205,738 33,445,422 430.98 219,349,261 (5,061,490) –2.26 145,214,076 (3,976,447) –2.67 36,505,974 25,064,155 219.06 40,585,675 (963,732) –2.32 149,810,270 (4,344,740) –2.82 108,572,095 (2,886,525) –2.59 76,777,436 (1,763,603) –2.25 70,626,722 (1,654,535) –2.29 83,266,704 (2,135,461) –2.50 67,530,199 (1,844,597) –2.66 25,383,216 (639,966) –2.46 73,742,067 (1,900,798) –2.51 65,939,103 (1,786,915) –2.64 142,083,435 (3,509,712) –2.41 87,300,177 (2,147,700) –2.40 70,431,363 (1,641,923) –2.28 108,873,086 (2,887,226) –2.58 58,083,007 (1,360,357) –2.29 60,016,440 (1,278,646) –2.09 38,492,602 (974,692) –2.47 27,742,026 6,606,498 31.26 109,765,954 (2,486,320) –2.21 60,593,104 (1,566,338) –2.52 164,453,957 (4,151,795) –2.46 119,477,757 (2,964,563) –2.42 64,620,736 (1,188,311) –1.81 156,441,352 (4,403,370) –2.74 83,438,897 (2,043,460) –2.39 69,510,006 (1,670,846) –2.35 161,445,324 (4,172,478) –2.52 34,471,526 17,612,633 104.47 70,870,958 (1,901,050) –2.61 54,226,236 (1,107,415) –2.00 105,263,110 (2,796,254) –2.59 378,660,607 (9,183,560) –2.37 38,427,878 (1,236,416) –3.12 29,944,320 12,579,658 72.44 113,808,744 (3,090,568) –2.64 87,389,852 (2,223,147) –2.48 35,897,374 (961,453) –2.61 108,151,878 (2,378,738) –2.15 69,544,074 (1,477,371) –2.08 4,785,633,646 0 0.00 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. 58 Table D.2 Comparison of Alternative Factor-Weighting Mixes on NHS Funding, with 0.5 Percent Small-State Minimum Applied, Fiscal Year 2002 59 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Statutory Formula Weight, 25/35/30/10% Amount ($) 88,985,416 25,913,634 86,578,298 70,019,904 443,257,463 80,564,778 39,593,700 36,786,140 41,205,738 219,349,261 145,214,076 36,505,974 40,585,675 149,810,270 108,572,095 76,777,436 70,626,722 83,266,704 67,530,199 25,383,216 73,742,067 65,939,103 142,083,435 87,300,177 70,431,363 108,873,086 58,083,007 60,016,440 38,492,602 27,742,026 109,765,954 60,593,104 164,453,957 Initial NHS Component, Including 0.5 Percent SSM, Assuming: Increased Weight to OPAR Lane Miles,a 40/30/25/5% Amount ($) Change ($) 89,162,115 176,699 22,819,722 –3,093,912 85,430,973 –1,147,325 69,751,288 –268,616 448,256,187 4,998,724 82,599,792 2,035,015 37,916,560 –1,677,140 36,786,140 0 41,205,738 0 226,953,623 7,604,362 146,413,547 1,199,471 36,505,974 0 37,868,216 –2,717,459 151,656,626 1,846,357 107,235,859 –1,336,236 80,478,331 3,700,895 73,339,529 2,712,806 83,430,353 163,649 66,825,348 –704,850 22,830,353 –2,552,863 72,246,902 –1,495,165 64,894,602 –1,044,501 146,530,781 4,447,347 91,836,195 4,536,017 70,748,359 316,996 109,333,547 460,461 49,671,572 –8,411,435 59,717,973 –298,467 37,131,193 –1,361,408 27,742,026 0 105,778,367 –3,987,587 58,230,236 –2,362,868 167,083,306 2,629,349 Increased Weight to OPAR VMT,b 20/50/25/5% Amount ($) Change ($) 86,801,491 –2,183,926 22,819,722 –3,093,912 88,286,832 1,708,535 65,150,363 –4,869,541 502,335,002 59,077,539 81,648,555 1,083,778 41,011,255 1,417,554 36,786,140 0 41,205,738 0 240,175,090 20,825,828 144,640,210 –573,867 36,505,974 0 32,775,220 –7,810,454 152,820,961 3,010,692 108,237,070 –335,025 68,855,509 –7,921,927 64,147,723 –6,478,999 80,271,998 –2,994,706 65,723,786 –1,806,413 22,199,077 –3,184,140 79,043,902 5,301,835 72,432,956 6,493,852 150,353,215 8,269,780 84,936,387 –2,363,790 66,102,205 –4,329,158 109,309,472 436,386 41,277,375 –16,805,632 51,625,477 –8,390,962 34,347,993 –4,144,609 27,742,026 0 121,933,178 12,167,224 51,916,023 –8,677,081 178,771,315 14,317,358 Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage,c 20/30/45/5% Amount ($) Change ($) 92,946,813 3,961,397 22,819,722 –3,093,912 89,102,418 2,524,120 71,074,398 1,054,494 440,198,808 –3,058,655 77,225,522 –3,339,256 39,812,748 219,047 36,786,140 0 41,205,738 0 217,117,671 –2,231,591 156,847,220 11,633,143 36,505,974 0 35,208,947 –5,376,728 160,217,188 10,406,918 117,134,936 8,562,841 73,725,268 –3,052,168 65,070,366 –5,556,356 86,890,041 3,623,337 71,114,440 3,584,241 23,331,365 –2,051,852 74,195,832 453,765 64,755,112 –1,183,991 142,664,794 581,360 86,254,771 –1,045,407 70,037,659 –393,705 113,017,230 4,144,144 43,263,378 –14,819,629 55,355,154 –4,661,286 36,864,162 –1,628,440 27,742,026 0 113,177,496 3,411,542 56,642,561 –3,950,543 167,776,204 3,322,247 Increased Weight to PAR Miles Per Capita,d 20/30/25/25% Amount ($) Change ($) 80,999,008 –7,986,409 70,481,676 44,568,042 72,467,631 –14,110,667 86,030,828 16,010,925 355,473,074 –87,784,389 85,014,285 4,449,507 30,187,985 –9,405,715 36,786,140 0 41,205,738 0 199,254,959 –20,094,303 95,592,993 –49,621,084 36,505,974 0 73,060,415 32,474,740 76,115,229 –73,695,040 81,970,618 –26,601,476 100,578,722 23,801,286 95,015,648 24,388,925 76,846,540 –6,420,164 53,305,700 –14,224,498 39,005,683 13,622,467 60,813,671 –12,928,396 47,175,680 –18,763,423 118,951,405 –23,132,030 86,685,291 –614,886 86,336,479 15,905,115 86,175,426 –22,697,660 137,721,270 79,638,264 100,018,997 40,002,558 50,237,773 11,745,172 32,370,591 4,628,565 105,895,993 –3,869,961 83,662,187 23,069,083 122,176,314 –42,277,642 Table D.2 (continued) 60 State North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Initial NHS Component, Including 0.5 Percent SSM, Assuming: Statutory Formula Weight, 25/35/30/10% Increased Weight to OPAR Lane Miles,a 40/30/25/5% Increased Weight to OPAR VMT,b 20/50/25/5% Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage,c 20/30/45/5% Amount ($) Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) 119,477,757 64,620,736 156,441,352 83,438,897 69,510,006 161,445,324 34,471,526 70,870,958 54,226,236 105,263,110 378,660,607 38,427,878 29,944,320 113,808,744 87,389,852 35,897,374 108,151,878 69,544,074 4,785,633,646 122,244,180 55,004,822 156,488,377 85,291,585 71,522,170 162,388,717 34,471,526 70,235,683 46,788,947 105,993,064 398,117,443 35,594,647 29,944,320 114,098,543 89,425,689 33,752,611 113,283,394 52,576,593 4,785,633,646 2,766,423 –9,615,914 47,025 1,852,688 2,012,165 943,393 0 –635,275 –7,437,289 729,955 19,456,836 –2,833,231 0 289,800 2,035,837 –2,144,763 5,131,516 –16,967,481 0 123,055,729 43,647,940 156,947,500 78,188,644 66,729,599 167,603,443 34,471,526 68,866,129 37,686,737 105,070,214 395,231,121 34,143,650 29,944,320 115,322,633 89,857,824 31,921,381 108,936,198 45,819,819 4,785,633,646 3,577,972 123,013,195 –20,972,796 45,166,516 506,148 172,366,159 –5,250,253 83,474,921 –2,780,406 67,232,789 6,158,119 171,896,232 0 34,471,526 –2,004,829 73,790,145 –16,539,499 39,286,124 –192,896 109,996,225 16,570,515 390,812,437 –4,284,228 37,705,484 0 29,944,320 1,513,890 120,229,268 2,467,972 87,166,471 –3,975,994 34,713,155 784,320 106,703,143 –23,724,255 51,583,439 0 4,785,633,646 3,535,438 –19,454,220 15,924,806 36,023 –2,277,217 10,450,908 0 2,919,187 –14,940,112 4,733,116 12,151,830 –722,394 0 6,420,525 –223,381 –1,184,219 –1,448,735 –17,960,635 0 Increased Weight to PAR Miles Per Capita,d 20/30/25/25% Amount ($) Change ($) 101,451,489 –18,026,268 187,071,890 122,451,155 88,242,848 –68,198,504 91,689,351 8,250,454 79,134,915 9,624,909 117,194,099 –44,251,225 34,471,526 0 60,041,369 –10,829,589 143,274,551 89,048,315 82,240,503 –23,022,606 305,973,271 –72,687,335 32,253,290 –6,174,588 41,292,970 11,348,650 79,357,335 –34,451,409 75,630,745 –11,759,107 44,219,458 8,322,084 122,316,025 14,164,147 195,658,087 126,114,013 4,785,633,646 0 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. NOTE: For simplicity, this analysis raises and lowers factor weights in five-point increments, causing wider funding changes for factors with small initial statutory percentages. For example, raising the sparsity factor from 10 percent to 25 percent results in greater median funding shifts than under any other simulation. aLane miles of principal arterial routes other than on the interstate highway system. bVehicle miles traveled on principal arterial routes other than on the interstate highway system. cDiesel fuel used on highways. dTotal lane miles of all principal arterial routes divided by state population (increases funds to states with sparse populations). Appendix E Data Tables for the Surface Transportation Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 62 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Table E.1 Apportionment of STP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: STP Component Derivation—Statutory Formula Federal-Aid Highway Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 25% No. % 53,919 8,808 32,556 44,938 141,506 39,500 14,366 3,897 1,817 67,552 72,274 3,758 22,872 80,351 50,776 56,693 73,279 34,550 35,342 13,819 20,897 25,375 78,600 69,733 46,459 65,953 32,065 43,299 16,126 7,517 25,525 24,845 65,639 50,689 2.39 0.39 1.44 1.99 6.28 1.75 0.64 0.17 0.08 3.00 3.21 0.17 1.01 3.56 2.25 2.51 3.25 1.53 1.57 0.61 0.93 1.13 3.49 3.09 2.06 2.93 1.42 1.92 0.72 0.33 1.13 1.10 2.91 2.25 Federal-Aid VMTb: Factor Weight, 40% No. % 42,338 3,685 41,188 26,568 267,923 35,689 26,397 6,971 2,910 117,434 81,419 6,768 10,254 90,214 59,104 24,926 23,689 38,373 36,244 11,837 44,322 44,516 85,219 44,057 26,614 53,529 8,072 15,821 14,622 10,365 55,698 17,373 99,688 66,858 1.86 0.16 1.81 1.17 11.78 1.57 1.16 0.31 0.13 5.17 3.58 0.30 0.45 3.97 2.60 1.10 1.04 1.69 1.59 0.52 1.95 1.96 3.75 1.94 1.17 2.35 0.36 0.70 0.64 0.46 2.45 0.76 4.38 2.94 Highway Account Tax Contributionsc: Factor Weight, 35% No. % 638,977 65,940 583,068 415,571 3,025,732 423,763 312,507 79,594 33,728 1,554,162 1,189,533 69,351 178,492 1,053,743 767,408 353,281 346,783 577,037 527,753 162,787 541,915 545,690 1,074,219 403,760 428,679 754,241 140,430 241,167 215,455 137,452 865,079 269,496 1,249,954 918,638 2.11 0.22 1.92 1.37 9.97 1.40 1.03 0.26 0.11 5.12 3.92 0.23 0.59 3.47 2.53 1.16 1.14 1.90 1.74 0.54 1.79 1.80 3.54 1.33 1.41 2.49 0.46 0.79 0.71 0.45 2.85 0.89 4.12 3.03 Initial STP Factord 2.0797 0.2386 1.7581 1.4450 9.7724 1.5546 0.9841 0.2577 0.1102 4.6076 3.6058 0.2407 0.6399 3.6935 2.4880 1.4746 1.6293 1.7237 1.6382 0.5492 1.6365 1.6939 3.6098 2.0140 1.4778 2.5430 0.6595 1.0366 0.6846 0.4242 2.2607 0.8920 3.9233 2.7978 Initial SSM Additions 0.0000 0.2614 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2423 0.3898 0.0000 0.0000 0.2593 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non-SSM Adjusted Factor State Totals with 0.5% SSM 2.0797 0.0000 1.7581 1.4450 9.7724 1.5546 0.9841 0.0000 0.0000 4.6076 3.6058 0.0000 0.6399 3.6935 2.4880 1.4746 1.6293 1.7237 1.6382 0.5492 1.6365 1.6939 3.6098 2.0140 1.4778 2.5430 0.6595 1.0366 0.6846 0.0000 2.2607 0.8920 3.9233 2.7978 2.0433 0.5000 1.7273 1.4197 9.6012 1.5274 0.9669 0.5000 0.5000 4.5268 3.5426 0.5000 0.6287 3.6287 2.4444 1.4488 1.6008 1.6935 1.6095 0.5396 1.6078 1.6642 3.5465 1.9787 1.4519 2.4984 0.6480 1.0185 0.6726 0.5000 2.2211 0.8763 3.8545 2.7488 STP Appor- tionment 114,870,261 28,109,446 97,106,755 79,813,753 539,767,529 85,868,181 54,357,355 28,109,446 28,109,446 254,493,361 199,160,595 28,109,446 35,343,272 204,004,010 137,418,777 81,449,899 89,992,570 95,208,404 90,485,162 30,336,287 90,389,723 93,561,417 199,382,058 111,242,711 81,625,047 140,458,209 36,428,866 57,256,690 37,810,648 28,109,446 124,865,034 49,266,676 216,698,475 154,534,037 Table E.1 (continued) 63 State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Federal-Aid Highway Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 25% No. % 38,093 67,117 69,775 39,511 64,361 4,088 40,831 41,397 42,600 192,615 19,999 8,528 53,943 44,602 22,571 62,030 17,139 2,254,495 1.69 2.98 3.09 1.75 2.85 0.18 1.81 1.84 1.89 8.54 0.89 0.38 2.39 1.98 1.00 2.75 0.76 100.00 Federal-Aid VMTb: Factor Weight, 40% No. % 6,054 85,270 35,331 28,116 85,295 7,508 39,764 7,363 54,497 181,530 18,626 5,457 63,259 46,582 17,001 45,131 6,122 2,273,591 0.27 3.75 1.55 1.24 3.75 0.33 1.75 0.32 2.40 7.98 0.82 0.24 2.78 2.05 0.75 1.99 0.27 100.00 Highway Account Tax Contributionsc: Factor Weight, 35% No. % 101,377 1,158,013 500,974 381,740 1,238,907 82,095 554,376 101,194 759,820 2,573,239 249,715 70,411 867,264 588,415 220,408 602,560 151,317 30,347,210 0.33 3.82 1.65 1.26 4.08 0.27 1.83 0.33 2.50 8.48 0.82 0.23 2.86 1.94 0.73 1.99 0.50 100.00 Initial STP Factord 0.6458 3.5800 1.9731 1.3731 3.6432 0.2721 1.7917 0.7053 2.3075 8.2974 0.8375 0.2718 2.7113 1.9928 0.8036 2.1768 0.4723 100.0000 Initial SSM Additions 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2279 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2282 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0277 1.7124 Non-SSM Adjusted Factor STP Appor- State Totals with 0.5% SSM tionment 0.6458 3.5800 1.9731 1.3731 3.6432 0.0000 1.7917 0.7053 2.3075 8.2974 0.8375 0.0000 2.7113 1.9928 0.8036 2.1768 0.0000 97.7124 0.6345 3.5173 1.9385 1.3490 3.5793 0.5000 1.7603 0.6929 2.2670 8.1520 0.8228 0.5000 2.6638 1.9578 0.7895 2.1386 0.5000 100.0000 35,672,186 197,736,312 108,981,732 75,838,961 201,225,709 28,109,446 98,963,557 38,956,186 127,450,921 458,294,463 46,256,085 28,109,446 149,757,130 110,066,928 44,385,397 120,232,358 28,109,446 5,621,889,254 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. aTotal lane miles of federal-aid highways. bMillions of total vehicle miles traveled on federal-aid highways. cEstimated tax payments ($000) attributable to highway users paid into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. dCombined factor weighting federal-aid lane miles at 25 percent, VMT at 40 percent, and HTF Highway Account contributions at 35 percent. 64 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Table E.2 Comparison of Alternative Factor-Weighting Mixes on STP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 Current Statutory Formula Weight, 25/40/35% Amount ($) 114,870,261 28,109,446 97,106,755 79,813,753 539,767,529 85,868,181 54,357,355 28,109,446 28,109,446 254,493,361 199,160,595 28,109,446 35,343,272 204,004,010 137,418,777 81,449,899 89,992,570 95,208,404 90,485,162 30,336,287 90,389,723 93,561,417 199,382,058 111,242,711 81,625,047 140,458,209 36,428,866 57,256,690 37,810,648 28,109,446 124,865,034 49,266,676 216,698,475 Surface Transportation Program Apportionment, Assuming: Increased Weight to Federal-Aid Lane Miles,a 35/35/30% Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT,b 20/50/30% Increased Weight to Highway Account Contributions,c 20/35/45% Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) 117,149,041 28,109,446 94,795,149 83,833,301 514,473,147 87,373,799 51,838,393 28,109,446 28,109,446 242,690,403 196,196,848 28,109,446 38,085,537 203,188,079 135,726,466 89,116,850 101,935,277 93,781,901 89,958,930 30,809,613 85,213,390 89,425,201 198,556,487 119,328,050 85,892,822 143,282,884 42,035,668 63,762,684 38,033,229 28,109,446 116,506,922 50,802,304 209,343,233 2,278,781 0 –2,311,606 4,019,548 –25,294,381 1,505,618 –2,518,962 0 0 –11,802,958 –2,963,746 0 2,742,265 –815,931 –1,692,311 7,666,951 11,942,707 –1,426,503 –526,231 473,326 –5,176,333 –4,136,216 –825,570 8,085,339 4,267,776 2,824,674 5,606,803 6,505,995 222,582 0 –8,358,112 1,535,628 –7,355,242 112,715,260 28,109,446 97,800,794 76,967,403 559,884,027 85,827,613 56,156,155 28,109,446 28,109,446 260,556,347 199,225,279 28,109,446 33,402,146 206,450,313 138,548,354 77,331,490 83,599,905 95,029,712 90,141,636 30,032,228 93,648,576 96,284,024 200,644,114 109,709,246 78,483,990 138,494,121 33,177,957 53,591,688 37,419,917 28,109,446 127,373,550 47,982,490 221,460,198 –2,155,001 0 694,039 –2,846,350 20,116,499 –40,568 1,798,800 0 0 6,062,986 64,685 0 –1,941,127 2,446,303 1,129,577 –4,118,409 –6,392,666 –178,692 –343,526 –304,060 3,258,854 2,722,607 1,262,057 –1,533,465 –3,141,057 –1,964,089 –3,250,909 –3,665,001 –390,730 0 2,508,515 –1,284,186 4,761,723 114,746,106 28,109,446 98,722,488 78,641,153 544,929,632 84,402,593 55,075,964 28,109,446 28,109,446 260,226,366 202,056,571 28,109,446 34,542,757 202,370,798 137,979,342 77,903,127 84,445,698 96,812,148 91,353,796 30,166,852 92,304,309 94,972,460 198,942,932 104,692,058 80,499,013 139,597,089 34,074,557 54,417,353 37,978,483 28,109,446 130,710,550 49,015,276 219,286,872 –124,155 0 1,615,734 –1,172,600 5,162,103 –1,465,588 718,610 0 0 5,733,006 2,895,976 0 –800,515 –1,633,212 560,565 –3,546,772 –5,546,873 1,603,744 868,634 –169,436 1,914,586 1,411,042 –439,126 –6,550,653 –1,126,034 –861,120 –2,354,309 –2,839,336 167,836 0 5,845,516 –251,400 2,588,397 Table E.2 (continued) 65 State North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Current Statutory Formula Weight, 25/40/35% Amount ($) 154,534,037 35,672,186 197,736,312 108,981,732 75,838,961 201,225,709 28,109,446 98,963,557 38,956,186 127,450,921 458,294,463 46,256,085 28,109,446 149,757,130 110,066,928 44,385,397 120,232,358 28,109,446 5,621,889,254 Surface Transportation Program Apportionment, Assuming: Increased Weight to Federal-Aid Lane Miles,a 35/35/30% Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT,b 20/50/30% Increased Weight to Highway Account Contributions,c 20/35/45% Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) 150,505,664 43,356,624 193,327,552 117,252,144 78,647,593 195,403,023 28,109,446 99,114,326 47,293,639 124,381,627 460,120,918 46,631,343 28,109,446 147,429,949 110,006,104 45,854,688 124,492,090 28,170,235 5,621,889,254 –4,028,373 7,684,438 –4,408,760 8,270,412 2,808,632 –5,822,686 0 150,769 8,337,453 –3,069,294 1,826,454 375,257 0 –2,327,181 –60,824 1,469,292 4,259,732 60,789 0 156,178,531 31,548,314 199,655,020 104,439,555 74,341,817 202,751,367 28,109,446 98,558,962 34,746,668 128,533,713 455,299,298 46,050,284 28,109,446 150,597,234 110,544,774 43,736,889 118,092,726 28,109,446 5,621,889,254 1,644,494 –4,123,871 1,918,708 –4,542,178 –1,497,143 1,525,657 0 –404,595 –4,209,518 1,082,793 –2,995,165 –205,801 0 840,104 477,846 –648,508 –2,139,632 0 0 156,914,831 32,113,910 200,222,649 105,255,182 74,527,600 205,518,638 28,109,446 99,216,363 34,830,699 129,434,984 459,458,912 46,086,241 28,109,446 151,241,758 109,648,588 43,564,610 118,112,377 28,109,446 5,621,889,254 2,380,794 –3,558,276 2,486,338 –3,726,550 –1,311,360 4,292,928 0 252,806 –4,125,486 1,984,063 1,164,449 –169,845 0 1,484,628 –418,340 –820,787 –2,119,980 0 0 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. NOTE: For simplicity, this analysis raises and lowers factor weights in five-point increments, causing wider changes for factors with smaller statutory percentages. aTotal lane miles of federal-aid highways. bMillions of total vehicle miles traveled on federal-aid highways. cThousands of dollars of estimated tax payments attributable to highway users paid into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Appendix F Data Tables for the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and Appalachian Development Highway System Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table F.1 Apportionment of HBRRP and Appalachian Development Highway Program Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 Bridge Program Appalachian Development State Factora Apportionment Factorb Apportionment Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 2.0431 0.2710 0.3136 1.2258 7.4015 0.6926 2.1075 0.3710 0.6155 1.7096 1.7287 0.5712 0.3614 3.3909 1.0998 1.6038 1.5288 1.6398 2.7109 0.7110 1.7952 3.1147 2.9351 0.7112 1.4138 3.5628 0.3723 0.7820 0.2500 0.5141 4.7671 0.3637 10.0000 2.5531 0.2500 3.4074 2.4299 1.4289 10.0000 1.1723 1.4367 0.3785 1.9671 3.9046 0.7205 0.5567 1.9116 2.7048 1.4351 0.8133 0.2500 100.0000 68,676,838 9,109,207 10,541,859 41,204,332 248,794,639 23,279,963 70,841,200 12,471,253 20,690,298 57,466,563 58,107,151 19,199,935 12,146,695 113,982,503 36,967,563 53,909,379 51,388,022 55,119,143 91,125,243 23,900,828 60,344,827 104,698,163 98,660,446 23,907,488 47,522,697 119,760,275 12,513,321 26,287,554 8,403,511 17,280,123 160,241,244 12,226,315 336,140,407 85,821,130 8,403,511 114,535,690 81,677,170 48,029,759 336,140,407 39,406,345 48,291,901 12,724,257 66,121,623 131,250,406 24,218,792 18,713,185 64,257,386 90,919,899 48,241,017 27,339,098 8,403,511 3,361,404,072 11.0107 — — — — — — — — — 4.4003 — — — — — — 10.1006 — — 1.7218 — — — 1.2348 — — — — — — — 2.3732 6.4827 — 4.9652 — — 26.9225 — 0.5394 — 12.3443 — — — 2.5946 — 15.3100 — — 100.0000 48,771,798 — — — — — — — — — 19,491,090 — — — — — — 44,740,518 — — 7,626,698 — — — 5,469,536 — — — — — — — 10,512,068 28,715,062 — 21,993,309 — — 119,253,418 — 2,389,268 — 54,678,968 — — — 11,492,758 — 67,815,509 — — 442,950,000 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration. aFactor is set by FHWA as a measure of state needs. States may receive a maximum of 10 percent and a minimum of 0.25 percent of total bridge program funds. bFactor is set by FHWA as a measure of state needs. 68 Appendix G Data Tables for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 70 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Table G.1 Apportionment of CMAQ Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 Weighted Population No. 805,340 343,123 4,423,895 0 47,483,210 3,226,800 4,612,469 971,689 755,118 5,542,395 4,438,415 0 0 11,253,179 2,189,376 0 487,174 1,567,357 928,529 930,337 6,490,392 8,283,012 4,653,074 2,346,056 0 2,864,456 95,802 0 1,783,148 1,060,745 12,678,475 620,024 % 0.39 0.17 2.16 0.00 23.22 1.58 2.26 0.48 0.37 2.71 2.17 0.00 0.00 5.50 1.07 0.00 0.24 0.77 0.45 0.45 3.17 4.05 2.28 1.15 0.00 1.40 0.05 0.00 0.87 0.52 6.20 0.30 SSM, Iteration 1 Non-SSM Adjusted % SSM States States Share 0.11 0.00 0.50 0.33 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.16 1.99 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 23.22 21.33 0.00 1.58 1.45 0.00 2.26 2.07 0.02 0.00 0.50 0.13 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.71 2.49 0.00 2.17 1.99 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 5.50 5.06 0.00 1.07 0.98 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.26 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.77 0.70 0.05 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.00 0.50 0.00 3.17 2.92 0.00 4.05 3.72 0.00 2.28 2.09 0.00 1.15 1.05 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.40 1.29 0.45 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.87 0.80 0.00 0.52 0.48 0.00 6.20 5.70 0.20 0.00 0.50 SSM, Iteration 2 Non-SSM Adjusted % SSM States States Share 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.99 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 21.33 21.32 0.00 1.45 1.45 0.00 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.49 2.49 0.00 1.99 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 5.06 5.05 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.92 2.91 0.00 3.72 3.72 0.00 2.09 2.09 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.29 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.02 0.00 0.50 0.00 5.70 5.69 0.00 0.00 0.50 Base CMAQ Apportionment 6,857,847 6,857,847 27,250,213 6,857,847 292,486,077 19,876,375 28,411,792 6,857,847 6,857,847 34,139,930 27,339,654 6,857,847 6,857,847 69,317,098 13,486,072 6,857,847 6,857,847 9,654,575 6,857,847 6,857,847 39,979,381 51,021,523 28,661,905 14,451,186 6,857,847 17,644,415 6,857,847 6,857,847 10,983,799 6,857,847 78,096,602 6,857,847 71 Table G.1 (continued) State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Weighted Population No. 22,202,531 2,300,447 0 6,773,430 0 1,576,538 12,215,525 1,257,983 42,030 0 1,973,649 12,980,420 1,435,667 0 4,415,271 3,400,361 411,030 2,691,304 0 204,509,774 % 10.86 1.12 0.00 3.31 0.00 0.77 5.97 0.62 0.02 0.00 0.97 6.35 0.70 0.00 2.16 1.66 0.20 1.32 0.00 100.00 SSM, Iteration 1 Non-SSM Adjusted % SSM States States Share 0.00 10.86 9.97 0.00 1.12 1.03 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 3.31 3.04 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.77 0.71 0.00 5.97 5.49 0.00 0.62 0.57 0.48 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.97 0.89 0.00 6.35 5.83 0.00 0.70 0.64 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.16 1.98 0.00 1.66 1.53 0.30 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.32 1.21 0.50 0.00 0.50 7.88 96.88 100.00 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. SSM, Iteration 2 Non-SSM Adjusted % SSM States States Share 0.00 9.97 9.97 0.00 1.03 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 3.04 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 5.49 5.49 0.00 0.57 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 5.83 5.83 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.98 1.98 0.00 1.53 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.21 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.02 88.52 100.00 Base CMAQ Apportionment 136,762,681 14,170,243 6,857,847 41,722,835 6,857,847 9,711,123 75,244,936 7,748,896 6,857,847 6,857,847 12,157,241 79,956,517 8,843,393 6,857,847 27,197,091 20,945,473 6,857,847 16,577,838 6,857,847 1,371,569,338 Table G.2 Comparison of Alternative Small-State Minimum Levels on CMAQ Funding, FY 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Current Hypotetical CMAQ Funds Hypotetical CMAQ Funds ($) Weighted Population Statutory SSM ($) Assuming SSM of 0.25% Assuming SSM Eliminated No. % of 0.5% Total Change Total Change 805,340 0.39 6,857,847 5,220,269 (1,637,578) 5,401,109 (1,456,737) 343,123 0.17 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 2,301,196 (4,556,651) 4,423,895 2.16 27,250,213 28,675,988 1,425,775 29,669,380 2,419,167 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 47,483,210 23.22 292,486,077 307,789,419 15,303,342 318,451,843 25,965,765 3,226,800 1.58 19,876,375 20,916,339 1,039,964 21,640,921 1,764,547 4,612,469 2.26 28,411,792 29,898,343 1,486,551 30,934,079 2,522,287 971,689 0.48 6,857,847 6,298,552 (559,295) 6,516,746 (341,100) 755,118 0.37 6,857,847 4,894,726 (1,963,121) 5,064,289 (1,793,558) 5,542,395 2.71 34,139,930 35,926,186 1,786,256 37,170,738 3,030,809 4,438,415 2.17 27,339,654 28,770,109 1,430,455 29,766,761 2,427,107 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 11,253,179 5.50 69,317,098 72,943,879 3,626,782 75,470,797 6,153,700 2,189,376 1.07 13,486,072 14,191,685 705,613 14,683,312 1,197,240 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 487,174 0.24 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 3,267,294 (3,590,553) 1,567,357 0.77 9,654,575 10,159,718 505,143 10,511,670 857,095 928,529 0.45 6,857,847 6,018,787 (839,059) 6,227,290 (630,557) 930,337 0.45 6,857,847 6,030,506 (827,340) 6,239,415 (618,432) 6,490,392 3.17 39,979,381 42,071,166 2,091,785 43,528,593 3,549,212 8,283,012 4.05 51,021,523 53,691,051 2,669,528 55,551,014 4,529,491 4,653,074 2.28 28,661,905 30,161,542 1,499,637 31,206,396 2,544,491 2,346,056 1.15 14,451,186 15,207,296 756,109 15,734,106 1,282,920 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 2,864,456 1.40 17,644,415 18,567,599 923,184 19,210,817 1,566,402 95,802 0.05 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 642,508 (6,215,339) 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 1,783,148 0.87 10,983,799 11,558,489 574,690 11,958,897 975,099 1,060,745 0.52 6,857,847 6,875,819 17,973 7,114,011 256,164 12,678,475 6.20 78,096,602 82,182,741 4,086,140 85,029,711 6,933,110 620,024 0.30 6,857,847 4,019,041 (2,838,806) 4,158,268 (2,699,579) 22,202,531 10.86 136,762,681 143,918,324 7,155,643 148,903,935 12,141,254 2,300,447 1.12 14,170,243 14,911,653 741,410 15,428,222 1,257,979 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 6,773,430 3.31 41,722,835 43,905,841 2,183,006 45,426,824 3,703,989 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 1,576,538 0.77 9,711,123 10,219,224 508,102 10,573,238 862,115 12,215,525 5.97 75,244,936 79,181,872 3,936,936 81,924,886 6,679,950 1,257,983 0.62 7,748,896 8,154,331 405,435 8,436,813 687,917 42,030 0.02 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 281,877 (6,575,970) 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 1,973,649 0.97 12,157,241 12,793,328 636,086 13,236,514 1,079,272 12,980,420 6.35 79,956,517 84,139,971 4,183,453 87,054,743 7,098,226 1,435,667 0.70 8,843,393 9,306,093 462,701 9,628,474 785,082 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 4,415,271 2.16 27,197,091 28,620,086 1,422,995 29,611,542 2,414,451 3,400,361 1.66 20,945,473 22,041,374 1,095,901 22,804,930 1,859,457 411,030 0.20 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 2,756,625 (4,101,222) 2,691,304 1.32 16,577,838 17,445,217 867,379 18,049,553 1,471,715 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 204,509,774 100.00 1,371,569,338 1,371,569,338 0 1,371,569,338 0 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 72 Appendix H Data Table for the Recreational Trails Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table H.1 Apportionment of RTP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Off-Road Recreational Fuel Usage Amount % Component ($) 36,713,672 2.04 502,832 12,551,596 0.70 171,907 42,318,546 2.35 579,596 24,800,543 1.38 339,669 208,121,492 11.58 2,850,439 59,934,247 3.33 820,861 8,301,633 0.46 113,699 3,009,427 0.17 41,217 — 0.00 — 84,431,892 4.70 1,156,382 59,405,368 3.30 813,618 3,709,097 0.21 50,800 24,668,260 1.37 337,857 55,540,939 3.09 760,691 25,640,511 1.43 351,173 27,082,356 1.51 370,921 20,658,558 1.15 282,940 21,113,132 1.17 289,166 40,087,771 2.23 549,043 18,484,419 1.03 253,163 15,077,808 0.84 206,506 20,823,728 1.16 285,202 73,146,275 4.07 1,001,814 50,150,274 2.79 686,860 39,689,575 2.21 543,590 37,956,123 2.11 519,848 28,511,818 1.59 390,499 15,422,664 0.86 211,229 13,385,263 0.74 183,325 12,600,180 0.70 172,572 22,672,657 1.26 310,525 30,228,097 1.68 414,005 50,961,838 2.83 697,975 49,648,522 2.76 679,988 10,398,151 0.58 142,413 50,236,555 2.79 688,042 30,781,827 1.71 421,589 27,263,715 1.52 373,405 50,031,658 2.78 685,235 2,799,898 0.16 38,347 21,415,362 1.19 293,306 10,405,205 0.58 142,510 31,789,781 1.77 435,394 126,921,933 7.06 1,738,327 24,628,486 1.37 337,313 8,493,861 0.47 116,332 30,339,551 1.69 415,532 47,176,605 2.62 646,132 17,335,546 0.96 237,428 50,342,632 2.80 689,494 20,756,687 1.15 284,284 1,797,965,734 100.00 24,625,000 Equal Amount to All States’ Component ($) 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 24,625,000 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. Total RTP % of Apportionment U.S. 985,675 2.00 654,750 1.33 1,062,439 2.16 822,512 1.67 3,333,282 6.77 1,303,705 2.65 596,543 1.21 524,060 1.06 482,843 0.98 1,639,225 3.33 1,296,461 2.63 533,643 1.08 820,700 1.67 1,243,534 2.52 834,016 1.69 853,764 1.73 765,783 1.55 772,009 1.57 1,031,887 2.10 736,006 1.49 689,349 1.40 768,046 1.56 1,484,657 3.01 1,169,703 2.38 1,026,433 2.08 1,002,691 2.04 873,342 1.77 694,072 1.41 666,168 1.35 655,416 1.33 793,369 1.61 896,848 1.82 1,180,818 2.40 1,162,831 2.36 625,257 1.27 1,170,885 2.38 904,432 1.84 856,248 1.74 1,168,078 2.37 521,191 1.06 776,149 1.58 625,353 1.27 918,237 1.86 2,221,170 4.51 820,156 1.67 599,175 1.22 898,375 1.82 1,128,976 2.29 720,271 1.46 1,172,338 2.38 767,127 1.56 49,250,000 100.00 74 Appendix I Data Table for the Metropolitan Planning Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table I.1 Apportionment of MP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 Urbanized Population SSM, Iteration 1 SSM, Iteration 2 SSM at Non-SSM Adjusted SSM at Non-SSM Adjusted MP Appor- State No. % 0.5 State % Factor 0.5 State % Factor tionment Alabama Alaska 1,839,966 1.16 0 221,883 0.14 0.3598 1.16 0.00 1.11 0.50 0 1.11 0 0.00 1.11 2,170,742 0.50 977,549 Arizona 2,655,997 1.68 0 1.68 1.60 0 1.60 1.60 3,133,474 Arkansas 591,420 0.37 0.1263 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 California 25,466,131 16.09 0 16.09 15.37 0 15.37 15.37 30,044,254 Colorado 2,377,820 1.50 0 1.50 1.43 0 1.43 1.43 2,805,288 Connecticut 2,455,697 1.55 0 1.55 1.48 0 1.48 1.48 2,897,165 Delaware 458,749 0.29 0.21013 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 District of Columbia 606,900 0.38 0.11651 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Florida Georgia 10,177,624 6.43 3,260,674 2.06 0 6.43 0 2.06 6.14 1.97 0 6.14 0 1.97 6.14 12,007,286 1.97 3,846,855 Hawaii 747,109 0.47 0.02792 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Idaho 278,200 0.18 0.32421 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Illinois 8,478,687 5.36 0 5.36 5.12 0 5.12 5.12 10,002,926 Indiana 2,692,676 1.70 0 1.70 1.62 0 1.62 1.62 3,176,746 Iowa 942,653 0.60 0 0.60 0.57 0 0.57 0.57 1,112,117 Kansas 1,018,604 0.64 0 0.64 0.61 0 0.61 0.61 1,201,722 Kentucky 1,276,855 0.81 0 0.81 0.77 0 0.77 0.77 1,506,399 Louisiana Maine 2,228,018 1.41 0 266,732 0.17 0.33146 1.41 0.00 1.34 0.50 0 1.34 0 0.00 1.34 2,628,556 0.50 977,549 Maryland 3,581,461 2.26 0 2.26 2.16 0 2.16 2.16 4,225,311 Massachusetts 4,730,382 2.99 0 2.99 2.85 0 2.85 2.85 5,580,777 Michigan 5,812,473 3.67 0 3.67 3.51 0 3.51 3.51 6,857,399 Minnesota 2,370,935 1.50 0 1.50 1.43 0 1.43 1.43 2,797,165 Mississippi 617,412 0.39 0.10987 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Missouri 2,782,738 1.76 0 1.76 1.68 0 1.68 1.68 3,282,999 Montana 208,883 0.13 0.36801 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Nebraska Nevada 687,875 0.43 0.06535 911,095 0.58 0 0.00 0.58 0.50 0.55 0 0.00 0 0.55 0.50 977,549 0.55 1,074,885 New Hampshire 339,454 0.21 0.28551 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 New Jersey 6,629,540 4.19 0 4.19 4.00 0 4.00 4.00 7,821,352 New Mexico 649,793 0.41 0.08941 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 New York 14,116,042 8.92 0 8.92 8.52 0 8.52 8.52 16,653,725 North Carolina 2,512,866 1.59 0 1.59 1.52 0 1.52 1.52 2,964,611 North Dakota 202,334 0.13 0.37215 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Ohio 6,656,974 4.21 0 4.21 4.02 0 4.02 4.02 7,853,718 Oklahoma Oregon 1,354,343 0.86 1,420,059 0.90 0 0.86 0 0.90 0.82 0.86 0 0.82 0 0.86 0.82 1,597,817 0.86 1,675,347 Pennsylvania 7,207,497 4.55 0 4.55 4.35 0 4.35 4.35 8,503,210 Rhode Island 824,534 0.52 0 0.52 0.50 0.00243 0.00 0.50 977,549 South Carolina 1,426,739 0.90 0 0.90 0.86 0 0.86 0.86 1,683,228 South Dakota 163,986 0.10 0.39638 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Tennessee 2,218,007 1.40 0 1.40 1.34 0 1.34 1.34 2,616,745 Texas 11,372,246 7.19 0 7.19 6.86 0 6.86 6.86 13,416,669 Utah 1,319,551 0.83 0 0.83 0.80 0 0.80 0.80 1,556,771 Vermont Virginia 87,088 0.06 0.44497 3,829,739 2.42 0 0.00 2.42 0.50 2.31 0 0.00 0 2.31 0.50 977,549 2.31 4,518,223 Washington 3,214,738 2.03 0 2.03 1.94 0 1.94 1.94 3,792,661 West Virginia 388,840 0.25 0.2543 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Wisconsin 2,464,721 1.56 0 1.56 1.49 0 1.49 1.49 2,907,811 Wyoming 114,138 0.07 0.42788 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Total 158,258,878 100.00 4.31016 95.81 100.00 0.00243 91.00 100.00 195,509,842 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 76 Appendix J Data Tables for the Minimum Guarantee Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table J.1a Apportionment of MG Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Assuming Statutory 90.5 Percent Guarantee Level: Initial Calculations 78 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Eligibleb for Minimum Rate of Return Initial Level to 1996 HTF Adjustment Due FY 2000 HTF Highway Specifieda Highway to 90.5% Account Contributions in TEA-21 Account Return in 1996 $ (000) % 2.0269 0.9185 638,977 2.1056 1.1915 5.1362 65,940 0.2173 1.5581 0.9050 X 583,068 1.9213 1.3214 0.9184 415,571 1.3694 9.1962 0.9050 X 3,025,732 9.9704 1.1673 0.9185 423,763 1.3964 1.5186 1.5247 312,507 1.0298 0.4424 1.5422 79,594 0.2623 0.3956 3.1475 33,728 0.1111 4.6176 0.9050 X 1,554,162 5.1213 3.5104 0.9050 X 1,189,533 3.9197 0.5177 2.0105 69,351 0.2285 0.7718 1.4122 178,492 0.5882 3.3819 0.9239 1,053,743 3.4723 2.3588 0.9050 X 767,408 2.5288 1.2020 1.0434 353,281 1.1641 1.1717 1.0187 346,783 1.1427 1.7365 0.9050 X 577,037 1.9014 1.5900 0.9061 527,753 1.7390 0.5263 1.0111 162,787 0.5364 1.5087 0.9050 X 541,915 1.7857 1.8638 1.0141 545,690 1.7982 3.1535 0.9050 X 1,074,219 3.5398 1.4993 1.0565 403,760 1.3305 1.2186 0.9234 428,679 1.4126 2.3615 0.9185 754,241 2.4854 0.9929 2.0827 140,430 0.4627 0.7768 0.9669 241,167 0.7947 0.7248 1.1375 215,455 0.7100 HTF 90.5% Rate Initial Equalized to Final Final Rate 2000 % of Return Adjusted %c 100%d Adjusted %e of Return 2.1056 1.9055 0.2173 0.1966 2.0269 1.99830609 1.99025349 0.9452 1.1915 1.17469126 1.16995759 5.3844 1.9213 1.7388 1.3694 1.2393 1.7388 1.73879754 1.73879754 0.9050 1.3214 1.30275873 1.29750898 0.9475 9.9704 9.0232 1.3964 1.2637 9.1962 9.06646725 9.02993197 0.9057 1.1673 1.15083265 1.26372578 0.9050 1.0298 0.9319 0.2623 0.2374 1.5186 1.49717679 1.49114359 1.4480 0.4424 0.43615897 0.43440137 1.6563 0.1111 0.1006 5.1213 4.6347 0.3956 0.39001919 0.38844752 3.4951 4.6347 4.63474768 4.63474768 0.9050 3.9197 3.5474 0.2285 0.2068 3.5474 3.54736849 3.54736849 0.9050 0.5177 0.51039670 0.50833994 2.2244 0.5882 0.5323 3.4723 3.1424 0.7718 0.76091205 0.75784579 1.2885 3.3819 3.33419082 3.32075498 0.9564 2.5288 2.2885 1.1641 1.0535 2.3588 2.32552391 2.31615271 0.9159 1.2020 1.18504313 1.18026774 1.0139 1.1427 1.0342 1.9014 1.7208 1.1717 1.15517058 1.15051557 1.0068 1.7365 1.71200283 1.72081218 0.9050 1.7390 1.5738 0.5364 0.4855 1.5900 1.56756953 1.57383979 0.9050 0.5263 0.51887537 0.51678445 0.9634 1.7857 1.6161 1.7982 1.6273 1.6161 1.61607303 1.61607303 0.9050 1.8638 1.83750698 1.83010235 1.0178 3.5398 3.2035 1.3305 1.2041 3.2035 3.20348459 3.20348459 0.9050 1.4993 1.47814906 1.47219254 1.1065 1.4126 1.2784 2.4854 2.2493 1.2186 1.20140895 1.27838604 0.9050 2.3615 2.32818582 2.31880389 0.9330 0.4627 0.4188 0.7947 0.7192 0.9929 0.97889295 0.97494829 2.1069 0.7768 0.76584152 0.76275539 0.9598 0.7100 0.6425 0.7248 0.71457509 0.71169556 1.0024 Table J.1a (continued) 79 Eligibleb for Minimum Rate of Return Initial Level to 1996 HTF Adjustment Due FY 2000 HTF Highway Specifieda Highway to 90.5% Account Contributions HTF 90.5% Rate Initial Equalized to Final Final Rate State in TEA-21 Account Return in 1996 $ (000) % 2000 % of Return Adjusted %c 100%d Adjusted %e of Return New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 0.5163 2.5816 0.9884 5.1628 2.8298 0.6553 3.4257 1.5419 1.2183 4.9887 0.5958 1.5910 0.7149 2.2646 7.2131 0.7831 0.4573 2.5627 1.7875 1.1319 1.9916 0.6951 100.0000 1.2705 0.9375 1.1442 1.1895 0.9050 1.8308 0.9050 0.9184 0.9246 1.2058 2.1766 0.9050 2.0104 0.9050 0.9050 0.9194 1.7625 0.9050 0.9154 1.4111 0.9929 1.5011 137,452 0.4529 0.4529 0.4099 0.5163 0.50901645 0.50696525 1.1193 865,079 2.8506 2.8506 2.5798 2.5816 2.54518082 2.57979727 0.9050 269,496 0.8880 0.8880 0.8037 0.9884 0.97445643 0.97052965 1.0929 1,249,954 4.1188 4.1188 3.7276 5.1628 5.08996728 5.06945617 1.2308 X 918,638 3.0271 3.0271 2.7395 2.8298 2.78987941 2.77863699 0.9179 101,377 0.3341 0.3341 0.3023 0.6553 0.64605554 0.64345212 1.9262 X 1,158,013 3.8159 3.8159 3.4534 3.4534 3.45337105 3.45337105 0.9050 500,974 1.6508 1.6508 1.4940 1.5419 1.52014809 1.51402233 0.9171 381,740 1.2579 1.2579 1.1384 1.2183 1.20111318 1.19627304 0.9510 1,238,907 4.0824 4.0824 3.6946 4.9887 4.91832335 4.89850391 1.1999 82,095 0.2705 0.2705 0.2448 0.5958 0.58739492 0.58502789 2.1626 X 554,376 1.8268 1.8268 1.6532 1.6532 1.65323363 1.65323363 0.9050 101,194 0.3335 0.3335 0.3018 0.7149 0.70481475 0.70197455 2.1052 X 759,820 2.5038 2.5038 2.2659 2.2659 2.26589891 2.26589891 0.9050 X 2,573,239 8.4793 8.4793 7.6738 7.6738 7.67379042 7.67379042 0.9050 249,715 0.8229 0.8229 0.7447 0.7831 0.77205264 0.76894149 0.9345 70,411 0.2320 0.2320 0.2100 0.4573 0.45084877 0.44903198 1.9353 X 867,264 2.8578 2.8578 2.5863 2.5863 2.58631327 2.58631327 0.9050 588,415 1.9389 1.9389 1.7547 1.7875 1.76228336 1.75518186 0.9052 220,408 0.7263 0.7263 0.6573 1.1319 1.11593205 1.11143516 1.5303 602,560 1.9856 1.9856 1.7969 1.9916 1.96350408 1.95559171 0.9849 151,317 0.4986 0.4986 0.4513 0.6951 0.68529408 0.68253254 1.3688 14 30,347,210 100.0000 100.0000 90.5000 100.9677 100.0000 100.0000 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. aAmount explicitly listed for each state in TEA-21 (23 U.S.C. §105(b)) for initial Minimum Guarantee calculation. bPursuant to TEA-21 provisions (23 U.S.C. §105(f)(2)), states for which the initial Minimum Guarantee amount (column 2) equaled 90.5 of 1996 HTF Highway Account receipts. cGreater of guaranteed rate of return percentage for 2000 or statutory table amount for eligible states; statutory table amount for other states. 23 U.S.C. §105(f)(1). dAdjusted percentage reduced pro rata to sum to 100 percent, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §105(f)(3). eRecalculated iterations to reach guaranteed rate of return percentage and reduce sums to 100 percent. 23 U.S.C. §105(f)(4). Table J.1b Apportionment of MG Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Assuming Statutory 90.5 Percent Guarantee Level: Final Calculations 80 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Subtotal from All Apportionments 446,464,984 105,489,360 318,263,880 275,053,902 2,065,965,531 289,081,501 263,810,905 94,223,384 106,615,364 788,117,308 657,482,425 108,943,739 148,801,309 790,667,516 445,562,519 295,470,277 293,796,651 394,079,453 362,282,035 117,203,701 368,844,538 425,097,534 653,300,835 346,400,620 286,898,702 542,690,370 162,115,647 191,750,760 138,683,830 109,420,189 610,949,459 201,305,633 1,138,409,275 549,244,394 144,406,921 Initial Guaranteed Minimum 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Minimum Subtotal 447,464,984 106,489,360 319,263,880 276,053,902 2,066,965,531 290,081,501 264,810,905 95,223,384 107,615,364 789,117,308 658,482,425 109,943,739 149,801,309 791,667,516 446,562,519 296,470,277 294,796,651 395,079,453 363,282,035 118,203,701 369,844,538 426,097,534 654,300,835 347,400,620 287,898,702 543,690,370 163,115,647 192,750,760 139,683,830 110,420,189 611,949,459 202,305,633 1,139,409,275 550,244,394 145,406,921 Target % 1.9902535 1.1699576 1.7387975 1.2975090 9.0299320 1.2637258 1.4911436 0.4344014 0.3884475 4.6347477 3.5473685 0.5083399 0.7578458 3.3207550 2.3161527 1.1802677 1.1505156 1.7208122 1.5738398 0.5167845 1.6160730 1.8301023 3.2034846 1.4721925 1.2783860 2.3188039 0.9749483 0.7627554 0.7116956 0.5069653 2.5797973 0.9705296 5.0694562 2.7786370 0.6434521 Target Program Total 22,482,813,708 9,101,984,634 18,361,187,709 21,275,683,311 22,890,156,172 22,954,465,813 17,758,913,801 21,920,599,220 27,703,964,638 17,026,111,522 18,562,560,587 21,627,995,242 19,766,726,963 23,839,985,820 19,280,357,368 25,118,900,246 25,623,004,003 22,958,894,542 23,082,529,659 22,872,921,293 22,885,385,233 23,282,716,077 20,424,659,994 23,597,499,040 22,520,482,402 23,447,018,170 16,730,697,264 25,270,324,071 19,626,907,705 21,780,622,665 23,720,835,211 20,844,868,846 22,475,966,616 19,802,672,867 22,597,939,359 Base Target Subtotal 551,379,122 324,124,636 481,715,855 359,461,430 2,501,649,161 350,102,142 413,105,893 120,346,403 107,615,364 1,284,008,857 982,761,712 140,830,318 209,953,331 919,980,785 641,666,127 326,980,959 318,738,427 476,733,197 436,016,018 143,169,782 447,716,300 507,010,907 887,492,237 407,855,700 354,163,615 642,400,610 270,099,329 211,313,485 197,167,886 140,449,475 714,706,123 268,875,191 1,404,440,343 769,792,609 178,261,749 Minimum Guarantee 104,914,138 218,635,276 163,451,975 84,407,528 435,683,630 61,020,641 149,294,988 26,123,019 1,000,000 495,891,549 325,279,287 31,886,579 61,152,022 129,313,269 196,103,608 31,510,681 24,941,776 82,653,744 73,733,982 25,966,081 78,871,762 81,913,374 234,191,402 61,455,080 67,264,913 99,710,240 107,983,683 19,562,725 58,484,055 31,029,286 103,756,664 67,569,558 266,031,068 220,548,216 33,854,828 % Share 1.683 3.508 2.622 1.354 6.990 0.979 2.395 0.419 0.016 7.956 5.219 0.512 0.981 2.075 3.146 0.506 0.400 1.326 1.183 0.417 1.265 1.314 3.757 0.986 1.079 1.600 1.732 0.314 0.938 0.498 1.665 1.084 4.268 3.538 0.543 Table J.1b (continued) 81 State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Subtotal from All Apportionments 774,731,407 372,993,201 286,996,418 1,183,547,900 124,882,406 316,109,102 153,376,349 511,734,597 1,455,954,993 188,537,876 102,877,431 524,185,695 429,116,346 274,877,270 375,288,127 159,006,203 21,471,109,771 Initial Guaranteed Minimum 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 51,000,000 Minimum Subtotal 775,731,407 373,993,201 287,996,418 1,184,547,900 125,882,406 317,109,102 154,376,349 512,734,597 1,456,954,993 189,537,876 103,877,431 525,185,695 430,116,346 275,877,270 376,288,127 160,006,203 21,522,109,771 Target % 3.4533711 1.5140223 1.1962730 4.8985039 0.5850279 1.6532336 0.7019746 2.2658989 7.6737904 0.7689415 0.4490320 2.5863133 1.7551819 1.1114352 1.9555917 0.6825325 100.00000 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. Target Program Total 22,463,019,349 24,701,960,806 24,074,472,027 24,181,830,261 21,517,334,134 19,181,142,748 21,991,730,099 22,628,308,585 18,986,119,152 24,649,193,491 23,133,637,614 20,306,344,955 24,505,514,577 24,821,715,245 19,241,650,723 23,443,014,671 27,703,964,638 Base Target Subtotal 956,720,695 419,444,210 331,415,060 1,357,079,790 162,075,919 458,011,259 194,474,781 627,743,832 2,125,944,186 213,027,278 124,399,661 716,511,314 486,254,961 307,911,603 541,776,437 189,088,573 27,703,964,638 Minimum Guarantee 181,989,287 46,451,008 44,418,642 173,531,890 37,193,514 141,902,157 41,098,433 116,009,235 669,989,192 24,489,403 21,522,230 192,325,620 57,138,615 33,034,333 166,488,310 30,082,370 6,232,854,867 % Share 2.920 0.745 0.713 2.784 0.597 2.277 0.659 1.861 10.749 0.393 0.345 3.086 0.917 0.530 2.671 0.483 Table J.2a Apportionment of MG Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Assuming Statutory Formula and Hypothetical Guarantee Levels 82 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Statutory 90.5% Rate of Return Minimum % of Target % Guarantee ($) Total 1.990 1.170 104,914,138 218,635,276 1.68 3.51 1.739 163,451,975 2.62 1.298 84,407,528 1.35 9.030 435,683,630 6.99 1.264 61,020,641 0.98 1.491 149,294,988 2.40 0.434 26,123,019 0.42 0.388 1,000,000 0.02 4.635 3.547 495,891,549 325,279,287 7.96 5.22 0.508 31,886,579 0.51 0.758 61,152,022 0.98 3.321 129,313,269 2.07 2.316 196,103,608 3.15 1.180 31,510,681 0.51 1.151 24,941,776 0.40 1.721 82,653,744 1.33 1.574 0.517 73,733,982 25,966,081 1.18 0.42 1.616 78,871,762 1.27 1.830 81,913,374 1.31 3.203 234,191,402 3.76 1.472 61,455,080 0.99 1.278 67,264,913 1.08 2.319 99,710,240 1.60 0.975 107,983,683 1.73 0.763 0.712 19,562,725 58,484,055 0.31 0.94 0.507 31,029,286 0.50 2.580 103,756,664 1.66 0.971 67,569,558 1.08 5.069 266,031,068 4.27 2.779 220,548,216 3.54 0.643 33,854,828 0.54 Assuming 92% Rate of Return Minimum % of % Target % Guarantee ($) Total Change 1.948 1.145 104,914,138 1.53 218,635,276 3.20 0.00 0.00 1.768 182,090,601 2.66 11.40 1.270 84,407,528 1.23 0.00 9.173 530,538,758 7.76 21.77 1.285 74,566,848 1.09 22.20 1.459 149,294,988 2.18 — 0.425 26,123,019 0.38 0.00 0.380 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.712 3.606 545,572,622 7.98 10.02 363,304,458 5.31 11.69 0.498 31,886,579 0.47 0.00 0.742 61,152,022 0.89 0.00 3.250 129,313,269 1.89 — 2.326 212,981,649 3.12 8.61 1.155 31,510,681 0.46 0.00 1.126 24,941,776 0.36 — 1.749 101,099,580 1.48 22.32 1.600 0.506 90,604,383 1.33 22.88 25,966,081 0.38 0.00 1.643 96,194,872 1.41 21.96 1.791 81,913,374 1.20 — 3.257 268,530,392 3.93 14.66 1.441 61,455,080 0.90 0.00 1.300 80,968,267 1.18 20.37 2.287 104,554,658 1.53 4.86 0.954 107,983,683 1.58 — 0.747 0.697 19,562,725 58,484,055 0.29 0.86 0.00 — 0.496 31,029,286 0.45 — 2.623 131,410,186 1.92 26.65 0.950 67,569,558 0.99 — 4.962 266,031,068 3.89 0.00 2.785 239,076,419 3.50 8.40 0.630 33,854,828 0.50 0.00 Assuming 93% Rate of Return Minimum % of % Target % Guarantee ($) Total Change 1.958 1.119 120,585,669 218,635,276 1.61 14.94 2.92 0.00 1.787 199,171,161 2.66 21.85 1.274 93,738,412 1.25 11.05 9.272 619,175,412 8.27 42.12 1.299 86,980,682 1.16 42.54 1.427 149,294,988 1.99 — 0.416 26,123,019 0.35 0.00 0.372 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.763 3.645 591,100,686 398,150,976 7.89 19.20 5.32 22.40 0.486 31,886,579 0.43 0.00 0.725 61,152,022 0.82 0.00 3.229 144,461,065 1.93 11.71 2.352 235,462,317 3.14 20.07 1.129 31,510,681 0.42 0.00 1.101 24,941,776 0.33 0.00 1.768 118,003,466 1.58 42.77 1.617 0.499 106,064,529 27,259,205 1.42 43.85 0.36 4.98 1.661 112,069,884 1.50 42.09 1.751 81,913,374 1.09 — 3.292 299,998,869 4.01 28.10 1.408 61,455,080 0.82 0.00 1.314 93,526,112 1.25 39.04 2.311 126,649,608 1.69 27.02 0.933 107,983,683 1.44 — 0.739 0.681 22,269,314 58,484,055 0.30 13.84 0.78 0.00 0.485 31,029,286 0.41 — 2.651 156,752,056 2.09 51.08 0.928 67,569,558 0.90 0.00 4.850 266,031,068 3.55 0.00 2.815 265,987,261 3.55 20.60 0.616 33,854,828 0.45 0.00 Table J.2a (continued) 83 State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Statutory 90.5% Rate of Return Minimum % of Target % Guarantee ($) Total 3.453 1.514 181,989,287 46,451,008 2.92 0.75 1.196 44,418,642 0.71 4.899 173,531,890 2.78 0.585 37,193,514 0.60 1.653 141,902,157 2.28 0.702 41,098,433 0.66 2.266 116,009,235 1.86 7.674 669,989,192 10.75 0.769 0.449 24,489,403 21,522,230 0.39 0.35 2.586 192,325,620 3.09 1.755 57,138,615 0.92 1.111 33,034,333 0.53 1.956 166,488,310 2.67 0.683 30,082,370 0.48 100.000 6,232,854,867 Assuming 92% Rate of Return Minimum % of % Target % Guarantee ($) Total Change 3.511 1.519 219,006,875 3.20 20.34 56,913,062 0.83 22.52 1.171 44,418,642 0.65 — 4.794 173,531,890 2.54 0.00 0.573 37,193,514 0.54 0.00 1.681 159,623,601 2.34 12.49 0.687 41,098,433 0.60 — 2.303 140,297,998 2.05 20.94 7.801 752,246,559 11.00 12.28 0.757 0.439 25,752,772 21,522,230 0.38 0.31 5.16 0.00 2.629 220,048,988 3.22 14.41 1.784 75,826,614 1.11 32.71 1.088 33,034,333 0.48 0.00 1.914 166,488,310 2.44 — 0.668 30,082,370 0.44 0.00 100.000 6,835,608,896 9.67 Assuming 93% Rate of Return Minimum % of % Target % Guarantee ($) Total Change 3.549 1.535 252,930,038 71,588,737 3.38 38.98 0.96 54.12 1.170 51,773,077 0.69 16.56 4.686 173,531,890 2.32 0.00 0.560 37,193,514 0.50 — 1.699 175,863,649 2.35 23.93 0.672 41,098,433 0.55 0.00 2.328 162,556,382 2.17 40.12 7.886 827,627,755 11.05 23.53 0.765 0.430 33,067,994 21,522,230 0.44 35.03 0.29 0.00 2.658 245,454,867 3.28 27.62 1.803 93,063,810 1.24 62.87 1.063 33,034,333 0.44 0.00 1.871 166,488,310 2.22 0.00 0.653 30,082,370 0.40 0.00 100.000 7,487,149,345 20.12 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 84 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Table J.2b Apportionment of MG Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Assuming Hypothetical Guarantee Levels Assuming 94% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change 1.979 144,029,438 1.72 37.28 1.086 218,635,276 2.61 0.00 1.806 220,563,655 2.64 34.94 1.287 108,985,519 1.30 29.12 9.372 730,188,116 8.73 67.60 1.313 102,528,350 1.23 68.02 1.385 149,294,988 1.79 0.00 0.403 26,123,019 0.31 0.00 0.361 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.814 648,122,168 7.75 30.70 3.685 441,794,390 5.28 35.82 0.472 31,886,579 0.38 0.00 0.704 61,152,022 0.73 0.00 3.264 183,122,407 2.19 41.61 2.377 263,618,161 3.15 34.43 1.096 31,510,681 0.38 0.00 1.074 26,674,082 0.32 6.95 1.787 139,174,686 1.66 68.38 1.635 125,427,542 1.50 70.11 0.504 33,231,784 0.40 27.98 1.679 131,952,494 1.58 67.30 1.699 81,913,374 0.98 0.00 3.327 339,411,465 4.06 44.93 1.367 61,455,080 0.73 0.00 1.328 109,254,146 1.31 62.42 2.336 154,322,360 1.85 54.77 0.905 107,983,683 1.29 — 0.747 31,117,619 0.37 59.07 0.667 60,423,455 0.72 3.32 0.471 31,029,286 0.37 — 2.680 188,491,404 2.25 81.67 0.901 67,569,558 0.81 0.00 Assuming 95% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change 2.000 174,567,138 1.82 66.39 1.044 218,635,276 2.28 0.00 1.825 248,429,377 2.59 51.99 1.301 128,846,301 1.35 52.65 9.472 874,792,531 9.14 100.79 1.327 122,780,639 1.28 101.21 1.331 149,294,988 1.56 — 0.388 26,123,019 0.27 — 0.347 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.865 722,397,976 7.54 45.68 3.724 498,644,013 5.21 53.30 0.454 31,886,579 0.33 0.00 0.676 61,152,022 0.64 0.00 3.299 233,482,416 2.44 80.56 2.402 300,293,777 3.14 53.13 1.106 47,889,261 0.50 51.98 1.086 43,247,376 0.45 73.39 1.806 166,752,177 1.74 101.75 1.652 150,649,675 1.57 104.32 0.510 41,011,627 0.43 57.94 1.696 157,851,450 1.65 100.14 1.708 105,267,435 1.10 28.51 3.363 390,750,054 4.08 66.85 1.314 61,455,080 0.64 0.00 1.342 129,741,379 1.35 92.88 2.361 190,368,705 1.99 90.92 0.870 107,983,683 1.13 — 0.755 42,643,363 0.45 117.98 0.674 70,720,381 0.74 20.92 0.452 31,029,286 0.32 — 2.708 229,834,868 2.40 121.51 0.866 67,569,558 0.71 0.00 Assuming 96% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change 2.021 209,634,556 1.91 99.82 0.999 218,635,276 1.99 (0.00) 1.844 280,428,478 2.55 71.57 1.315 151,653,071 1.38 79.67 9.572 1,040,846,409 9.47 138.90 1.341 146,036,992 1.33 139.32 1.273 149,294,988 1.36 (0.00) 0.371 26,123,019 0.24 (0.00) 0.332 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.916 807,691,263 7.35 62.88 3.763 563,926,255 5.13 73.37 0.434 31,886,579 0.29 — 0.647 61,152,022 0.56 (0.00) 3.333 291,312,426 2.65 125.28 2.428 342,409,561 3.12 74.61 1.118 67,277,494 0.61 113.51 1.097 62,279,024 0.57 149.70 1.825 198,420,293 1.81 140.06 1.669 179,613,057 1.63 143.60 0.515 49,945,469 0.45 92.35 1.714 187,592,051 1.71 137.84 1.726 135,215,168 1.23 65.07 3.398 449,703,799 4.09 92.02 1.277 68,178,823 0.62 10.94 1.356 153,267,524 1.39 127.86 2.386 231,761,876 2.11 132.44 0.832 107,983,683 0.98 0.00 0.763 55,878,744 0.51 185.64 0.682 82,544,674 0.75 41.14 0.435 31,715,073 0.29 2.21 2.737 277,310,891 2.52 167.27 0.853 75,411,976 0.69 11.61 Table J.2b (continued) 85 State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Assuming 94% Rate of Return Assuming 95% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change % Guarantee ($) Total Change 4.707 266,031,068 3.18 0.00 4.524 266,031,068 2.78 0.00 2.845 299,691,663 3.58 35.88 2.876 343,594,795 3.59 55.79 0.597 33,854,828 0.40 — 0.574 33,854,828 0.35 0.00 3.587 295,416,997 3.53 62.33 3.625 350,760,231 3.66 92.74 1.552 89,969,241 1.08 93.69 1.568 113,911,564 1.19 145.23 1.182 65,778,941 0.79 48.09 1.195 84,022,886 0.88 89.16 4.549 173,531,890 2.07 0.00 4.371 173,531,890 1.81 0.00 0.543 37,193,514 0.44 0.00 0.522 37,193,514 0.39 0.00 1.717 196,203,448 2.35 38.27 1.735 222,697,935 2.33 56.94 0.652 41,098,433 0.49 — 0.626 41,098,433 0.43 0.00 2.354 190,433,825 2.28 64.15 2.379 226,746,799 2.37 95.46 7.971 922,038,700 11.02 37.62 8.055 1,045,017,774 10.91 55.98 0.773 42,229,921 0.50 72.44 0.782 54,164,188 0.57 121.17 0.417 21,522,230 0.26 0.00 0.401 21,522,230 0.22 0.00 2.686 277,274,380 3.32 44.17 2.715 318,722,269 3.33 65.72 1.823 114,652,483 1.37 100.66 1.842 142,773,747 1.49 149.87 1.032 33,034,333 0.39 0.00 0.992 33,034,333 0.34 — 1.866 181,552,446 2.17 9.05 1.886 210,349,721 2.20 26.35 0.634 30,082,370 0.36 0.00 0.609 30,082,370 0.31 0.00 100.000 8,363,577,497 34.19 100.000 9,576,201,987 53.64 Assuming 96% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change 4.327 266,031,068 2.42 — 2.906 394,010,167 3.59 78.65 0.549 33,854,828 0.31 0.00 3.663 414,312,637 3.77 127.66 1.585 141,405,299 1.29 204.42 1.208 104,972,993 0.96 136.33 4.181 173,531,890 1.58 0.00 0.499 37,193,514 0.34 — 1.754 253,122,402 2.30 78.38 0.599 41,098,433 0.37 (0.00) 2.404 268,446,149 2.44 131.40 8.140 1,186,238,581 10.80 77.05 0.790 67,868,688 0.62 177.13 0.383 21,522,230 0.20 0.00 2.743 366,318,207 3.33 90.47 1.861 175,066,294 1.59 206.39 0.949 33,034,333 0.30 (0.00) 1.906 243,418,554 2.22 46.21 0.583 30,082,370 0.27 (0.00) 100.000 10,987,659,151 76.29 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. Table J.3 Comparison of MG Funding Increases in Statutory Formula Assuming Hypothetical Guarantee Levels, Fiscal Year 2002 86 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota 92% Increase Required ($) % Change 0 0.00 0 0.00 18,638,626 11.40 0 0.00 94,855,128 21.77 13,546,207 22.20 —— 0 0.00 0 0.00 49,681,073 38,025,171 10.02 11.69 0 0.00 0 0.00 —— 16,878,041 8.61 0 0.00 —— 18,445,836 22.32 16,870,400 0 22.88 0.00 17,323,110 21.96 —— 34,338,989 14.66 0 0.00 13,703,354 20.37 4,844,417 4.86 —— 0 — 0.00 — —— 27,653,522 26.65 —— 0 0.00 18,528,203 8.40 0 0.00 93% Increase Required ($) % Change 15,671,530 0 14.94 0.00 35,719,186 21.85 9,330,884 11.05 183,491,783 42.12 25,960,041 42.54 —— 0 0.00 0 0.00 95,209,137 72,871,689 19.20 22.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 15,147,796 11.71 39,358,709 20.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 35,349,722 42.77 32,330,547 43.85 1,293,124 4.98 33,198,122 42.09 —— 65,807,466 28.10 0 0.00 26,261,199 39.04 26,939,368 27.02 —— 2,706,589 13.84 0 0.00 —— 52,995,392 51.08 0 0.00 0 0.00 45,439,046 20.60 0 0.00 94% Increase Required ($) % Change 39,115,300 37.28 0 0.00 57,111,680 34.94 24,577,992 29.12 294,504,486 67.60 41,507,709 68.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 152,230,619 30.70 116,515,103 35.82 0 0.00 0 0.00 53,809,138 41.61 67,514,553 34.43 0 0.00 1,732,305 6.95 56,520,942 68.38 51,693,560 70.11 7,265,703 27.98 53,080,732 67.30 0 0.00 105,220,063 44.93 0 0.00 41,989,233 62.42 54,612,120 54.77 —— 11,554,894 59.07 1,939,399 3.32 —— 84,734,739 81.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 79,143,447 35.88 —— 95% Increase Required ($) % Change 69,653,000 66.39 0 0.00 84,977,402 51.99 44,438,773 52.65 439,108,901 100.79 61,759,999 101.21 —— —— 0 0.00 226,506,427 45.68 173,364,726 53.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 104,169,147 80.56 104,190,169 53.13 16,378,580 51.98 18,305,600 73.39 84,098,433 101.75 76,915,692 104.32 15,045,546 57.94 78,979,688 100.14 23,354,062 28.51 156,558,652 66.85 0 0.00 62,476,465 92.88 90,658,465 90.92 —— 23,080,639 117.98 12,236,326 20.92 —— 126,078,204 121.51 0 0.00 0 0.00 123,046,579 55.79 0 0.00 96% Increase Required ($) % Change 104,720,418 99.82 0 0.00 116,976,503 71.57 67,245,544 79.67 605,162,779 138.90 85,016,351 139.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 311,799,714 62.88 238,646,968 73.37 —— 0 0.00 161,999,157 125.28 146,305,953 74.61 35,766,813 113.51 37,337,248 149.70 115,766,549 140.06 105,879,075 143.60 23,979,389 92.35 108,720,289 137.84 53,301,794 65.07 215,512,396 92.02 6,723,743 10.94 86,002,611 127.86 132,051,636 132.44 0 0.00 36,316,020 185.64 24,060,619 41.14 685,788 2.21 173,554,227 167.27 7,842,417 11.61 —— 173,461,951 78.65 0 0.00 Table J.3 (continued) State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Required ($) % Change Required ($) % Change Required ($) % Change Required ($) % Change Required ($) % Change 37,017,588 20.34 70,940,750 38.98 113,427,710 62.33 168,770,943 92.74 232,323,350 127.66 10,462,054 22.52 25,137,729 54.12 43,518,233 93.69 67,460,556 145.23 94,954,291 204.42 — — 7,354,436 16.56 21,360,299 48.09 39,604,245 89.16 60,554,351 136.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 — — 0 0.00 0 0.00 — — 17,721,444 12.49 33,961,492 23.93 54,301,290 38.27 80,795,777 56.94 111,220,245 78.38 —— 0 0.00 — — 0 0.00 0 0.00 24,288,763 20.94 46,547,146 40.12 74,424,590 64.15 110,737,564 95.46 152,436,914 131.40 82,257,367 12.28 157,638,563 23.53 252,049,508 37.62 375,028,582 55.98 516,249,389 77.05 1,263,369 5.16 8,578,591 35.03 17,740,519 72.44 29,674,785 121.17 43,379,285 177.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 27,723,369 14.41 53,129,247 27.62 84,948,761 44.17 126,396,650 65.72 173,992,587 90.47 18,687,998 32.71 35,925,195 62.87 57,513,868 100.66 85,635,132 149.87 117,927,679 206.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 — — 0 0.00 —— 0 0.00 15,064,136 9.05 43,861,411 26.35 76,930,244 46.21 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 602,754,029 9.67 1,254,294,478 20.12 2,130,722,630 34.19 3,343,347,120 53.64 4,754,804,284 76.29 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 87 Appendix K Data Table for the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table K.1 Apportionment of RABA Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Grand Total Less High Priority Projects 515,227,074 305,880,605 470,206,425 330,589,977 2,317,454,178 334,249,196 383,287,264 116,178,103 101,716,294 1,230,249,144 928,826,053 131,163,311 188,625,835 849,426,442 594,968,265 302,843,613 297,603,214 447,704,627 394,745,753 136,139,785 414,991,603 466,017,920 828,998,856 369,489,696 328,789,230 589,654,981 260,672,575 206,271,649 189,562,000 126,300,327 659,591,888 250,753,467 1,282,274,565 727,329,526 172,241,805 883,915,169 397,710,688 300,921,386 1,223,881,269 156,298,443 437,035,220 181,101,190 575,358,729 2,034,822,510 197,694,283 117,970,817 665,329,211 448,532,182 269,364,832 510,773,008 179,978,957 25,830,713,140 % Share of Grand Total 1.994629692 1.184174062 1.820338534 1.279832946 8.971700338 1.293999102 1.483843136 0.449767308 0.393780433 4.762737820 3.595820402 0.507780448 0.730238588 3.288435892 2.303336581 1.172416771 1.152129298 1.733225965 1.528203077 0.527046173 1.606582059 1.804123322 3.209353344 1.430427778 1.272861606 2.282766944 1.009157485 0.798551894 0.733862820 0.488954085 2.553517917 0.970757043 4.964146975 2.815754726 0.666810103 3.421954184 1.539681409 1.164975138 4.738085481 0.605087603 1.691920845 0.701107976 2.227421000 7.877531290 0.765345819 0.456707549 2.575729162 1.736429728 1.042808344 1.977386397 0.696763407 100.000000000 Distribution of RABA 70,199,591 41,676,174 64,065,536 45,042,822 315,752,693 45,541,390 52,222,817 15,829,245 13,858,826 167,621,213 126,552,374 17,870,976 25,700,234 115,734,192 81,064,313 41,262,385 40,548,382 60,999,671 53,784,034 18,549,020 56,542,527 63,494,853 112,950,937 50,342,901 44,797,470 80,340,379 35,516,589 28,104,473 25,827,787 17,208,396 89,869,270 34,165,112 174,709,666 99,098,510 23,467,913 120,433,274 54,188,006 41,000,482 166,753,591 21,295,633 59,545,966 24,675,003 78,392,518 277,244,181 26,935,809 16,073,501 90,650,979 61,112,425 36,700,907 69,592,726 24,522,099 3,519,429,770 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 90 Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves Vice Chancellor, Physical Planning University of California, Merced Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director, California Policy Research Center University of California, Berkeley, Office of the President Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor of Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND California Institute for Federal Policy Research 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Basement Level Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202/546-3700 Fax: 202/546-2390 www.calinst.org Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415/291-4400 Fax: 415/291-4401 www.ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(106) "

FF 203TRFF

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(92) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/federal-formula-grants-federal-highway-programs/ff_203trff/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8364) ["ID"]=> int(8364) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:59" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3554) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(10) "FF 203TRFF" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(10) "ff_203trff" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "FF_203TRFF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "683319" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(191978) "Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Federal Highway Programs Tim Ransdell Shervin Boloorian The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2003 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. About This Series Federal Formula Grants and California The federal government uses formula grants to distribute nearly $300 billion annually to state and local governments to help them implement federal policies in such areas as health, transportation, and education. How much each government receives is determined by complex formulas that consist of many factors such as state population growth and per capita income. This series of reports provides detailed information on California’s current and historical funding under the major federal grants and on the formulas used to determine California’s share of funding under various specific grants. All reports are posted on the PPIC website at www.ppic.org. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Federal Highway Programs Tim Ransdell and Shervin Boloorian February 2003 Overview California relies on safe, efficient, and smooth transportation of goods and people across the state’s vast network of highways, roads, and rail systems. As in the rest of the nation, a substantial portion of the state’s highway infrastructure was built and is partially maintained with federal support. During the 108th Congress, federal lawmakers will debate renewal of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the nation’s comprehensive surface transportation law that governs policy and funding for federal highway programs, as well as for transit. The act is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003. Pursuant to TEA-21’s directives, the U.S. Department of Transportation collects fuel and excise tax revenue and then distributes the money as federal highway grants to states and other local administering entities via funding formulas called apportionments. In fiscal year 2002, California received $2.7 billion in federal highway formula apportionments, slightly less than 9 percent of the nation’s $29.5 billion total apportionments.1 These federal highway programs are used to help support interstate and national highways, a number of bridge projects, air quality and congestion management efforts, transit ventures, and regional planning, as well as a variety of local projects. For decades, advocates and lawmakers have questioned the fairness and equity of highway formulas. Apportionment totals to some states far exceed their fuel tax payments; apportionments to other states—California included—are less than what is paid in. Some of these so-called donor states have pressed for greater funding equity, and a special TEA-21 provision addresses their concern. This report is part of an ongoing series of federal formula grant program reviews. It examines the mechanics of federal highway formulas that determine funding levels for California and other states, and it assesses the varying effect of factors contained in those formulas.2 It also posits a number of hypothetical 1To maintain analytical consistency, this report focuses primarily on funding levels in fiscal year 2002. Federal fiscal years run from October 1 through September 30. 2Many highway programs also allocate appropriated funding to states without formulas, but this report will not examine that process. Rather, this report examines all apportionments distributed by the Federal Highway Administration formula-change scenarios and analyzes the state-by-state effects of those changes.3 The text outlines the mechanics of each hypothetical formula change and lists the states most likely to gain or lose from each; the appendices provide detailed results for all states. This report seeks to enlighten the debate over changes in highway apportionment formulas as Congress prepares to reauthorize the nation’s principal transportation laws. It is meant to be an informational tool for congressional members and staff, state and local government entities, advocacy groups, news media, and other interested parties. (FHWA). Some federal highway funding apportionments divert significant amounts to transit programs, but this report does not examine these distinctions. Also beyond the scope of this report are the ways federal transportation law specifies how states must spend some of these dollars. By law, each state must use a portion of its formula grant share for specialpurpose activities for most of the major Federal-Aid Highway Programs (FAHPs). For instance, 2 percent of funds of the major TEA-21 programs must be used for state planning and research activities, with one-quarter of these funds used for research, development, and technology transfer. Further, some apportionments are calculated and then merged with other apportionments. This report focuses on aggregate federal funding amounts to each state and does not seek to identify specific suballocations. 3For apportionment purposes FAHPs consider the District of Columbia a state. 2 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Abbreviations and Acronyms ADHS Appalachian Development Highway System CAA Clean Air Act of 1990 Caltrans California Department of Transportation CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program CO Carbon monoxide FAHP Federal-Aid Highway Program FHWA Federal Highway Administration GAO General Accounting Office HBRRP Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program HPP High Priority Projects HTF IM Highway Trust Fund Interstate Maintenance IS Interstate ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 MG Minimum Guarantee MP Metropolitan planning MPO NHS Metropolitan Planning Organization National Highway System OBRA Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act OPAR Other principal arterial routes PAR Principal arterial routes PPM Parts per million RABA Revenue Aligned Budget Authority RTP Recreational Trails Program SMM Small-state minimum STP Surface Transportation Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century VMT Vehicle miles traveled FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 3 ISTEA and TEA-21 Congress began building, operating, and maintaining the nation’s highways and surface transportation system when it enacted the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 and the Federal Highway Act of 1921, and it committed to a nationwide interstate system with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. In recent years, Congress has folded these programs and their successors into multiyear legislation named with such acronyms as ISTEA and TEA-21. TEA-21 and its immediate predecessor, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), created a new structure and funding scheme for the FAHPs in existence today. ISTEA boosted overall funding levels for the FAHPs, provided greater flexibility, increased state equity in fund distribution, and gave greater authority for administering programs to state, local, and regional entities. The enactment of TEA-21 in 1998 retained and expanded this new structure—further augmenting funding for highways and transit—while making its own mark. The legislation ushered in a new era for transportation fiscal policy establishing minimum state funding guarantees and budgetary firewall protections to ensure smooth and stable levels of federal spending for surface transportation projects. TEA-21 authorized a $217 billion investment in highways and transit infrastructure to be distributed to the states over six years, a 40 percent increase above ISTEA’s levels. It also established guaranteed spending levels for most of its core programs through what is known as Highway Obligation Authority, directing all new federal fuel-tax revenues to the funding of surface transportation expenditures exclusively. The obligation authority construct leaves only $13 billion of TEA-21’s $217 billion total subject to annual approval by congressional appropriators. Nevertheless, Congress may alter year-to-year highway funding patterns by raising the baseline funding floor through the annual budget process. Funding may also shift as a result of variations in Highway Trust Fund (HTF) Highway Account revenues, controlled by a budgetary mechanism known as the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), discussed below. TEA-21 specifies a guaranteed annual funding floor for transit, supported by the HTF Mass Transit Account. For transit, the spending floor is based on the guaranteed funding level that covers 80 percent of transit costs, with the remaining 20 percent to be drawn down from the General Fund. Some FHWAapportioned funding underwrites transit projects via the Federal Transit Administration, but we make no distinction among the end uses of apportionments in this document. Apportionments that primarily fund TEA-21 transit programs will be examined separately. 4 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Contract Authority Normally, federal funds for domestic programs are subject to an annual appropriations process that often pits one project against another in a competition for scarce resources. Because many transportation projects are longterm in nature, taking many years to design, develop, and construct, such projects are prone to delay or abandonment without long-range assurances of federal obligations to pay for the federal government’s share of project costs. To ensure a steady flow of funds for FAHP, TEA-21 established more flexible budgetary controls through what is known as contract authority, a process that establishes minimum funding levels for specific programs over many years—six years in the case of TEA-21. In securing definitive long-range figures as baseline minimums, congressional committee leaders and transportation advocates sought to insulate transportation programs from often-unpredictable annual appropriations cycles. Whereas money already authorized for typical federal programs may be distributed annually only by a second piece of appropriations legislation, programs with contract authority are guaranteed a minimum appropriation. Federal law requires a fiscal funding pool (typically a trust fund) to support contract authority programs. Transportation contract authority derives its fiscal life from HTF. The HTF’s Highway Account is used to collect highway user taxes and distribute them via FAHP. Highway Trust Fund As noted above, HTF is the accounting mechanism that collects and redistributes federal highway user taxes. It is fed by revenue from the sale of gas, diesel, gasohol, and special fuels, as well as from retail sales taxes on tires, trucks, trailers, and heavy commercial vehicles. Fines levied from penalties for noncompliance with highway user safety laws are also directed to HTF. Originally conceived in 1956 as a source of funding for the nation’s highway system, the fund now serves as the lifeblood of federal highway and transit projects and the foundation of the firewalls that exempt these projects from competing with other domestic programs. The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93) set the standard tax on gasoline at 18.4 cents per gallon, a rate still in effect today. Diesel taxes are levied at a higher rate of 24.4 cents per gallon. FHWA attributes federal fuel tax receipts to states for use as a factor in formula apportionments FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 5 under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Minimum Guarantee (MG) provision of TEA-21.4 In 2000, the most recent year for which there are consistent data, the federal government collected $3.4 billion in fuel and vehicle taxes attributable to California, whereas state and local taxes and tolls collected $8.0 billion. Nationwide that year, the federal government collected $34.7 billion and state and local governments collected $65.4 billion.5 To stimulate the consumption of alternative fuels, Congress provides that purchasers of ethanol-based fuel (including ethanol and gasohol, which combines gasoline with ethanol) receive a partial fuel tax exemption of 5.3 cents per gallon, and OBRA-93 diverts another 2.5 cents per gallon of the ethanol-based fuel tax to the General Fund. These special concessions for ethanol fuels, which reduce pollutant emissions by increasing the fuel’s oxygen content, have led to concerns about prospective reductions in trust fund contributions. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that the ethanol subsidy and the 2.5 cents per gallon General Fund transfer cost the Highway Account of the HTF about $6.01 billion between 1998 and 2001 (in 2001 dollars).6 States in the Midwest have expressed concern about reduction in receipts from highway formulas that use HTF contributions as a factor for distributing federal funding among states. California’s ethanol fuel consumption rate increased significantly during this period and is expected to grow further over the next ten years as the state phases out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, which until recently had served as California’s alternative to ethanol as a fuel oxygenate. Obligation Limitations Obligation limits are the budgetary ceilings Congress imposes to control contract authority cash outlays. The obligation limitation on FAHPs determines the precise amount of apportioned funds that may in fact be distributed among the programs in a given annual budget cycle. This is to say, TEA-21 lays out 4FHWA adjusts state data to attribute on-highway tax revenues to states to account for state-by-state variations in state counting and reporting methods, including unequal reporting of off-highway uses, public uses, and varying definitions of gasohol. See Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Attribution and Apportionment of Federal Highway Tax Revenues: Process Refinements, February 2002, http://www-cta.ornl.gov/Publications/ FuelTaxProcess/index.html. 5Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 2001, Table HDF, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/hdf.htm. 6In contrast with the 18.4 cents per gallon tax rate on gasoline and the 24.4 cents tax on diesel fuel, federal taxes on gasohol made with ethanol are 13.1 cents on 10 percent blends, to 14.3 cents per gallon on blends between 7.7 percent and 10.0 percent alcohol, and 15.4 cents per gallon on blends between 5.7 percent and 7.7 percent alcohol. See Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 2001, Table FE-21B, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/fe21b.htm. 6 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California contract authority ceilings statutorily for its six-year lifetime for each of its core programs, but the obligation limit marks the combined funding available before it is assigned to the states by formula. Obligation limitation is not differentiated by program. On the other hand, transportation law gives Congress the authority to alter the limit on obligations through the RABA process. Further, special programs such as high-priority projects do not count against the overall obligation limitation. Revenue Aligned Budget Authority General obligation limits take effect after annual adjustments are incorporated under RABA. Created by TEA-21 and implemented for the first time in fiscal year 2000, the RABA mechanism computes the difference between projected receipts and actual HTF balances so that funding keeps pace with the health of the economy. Through dedicated HTF support, Congress designed RABA to shield FAHP money from being siphoned off to the General Fund for nontransportation purposes, as had been the case under prior law. Through the RABA mechanism, Congress also sought to preserve fiscal discipline by monitoring and adjusting state apportionments above or below the baseline in accordance with HTF funds that are actually available, rather than on strict adherence to long-range approximations that may be inaccurate and impracticable. The unique funding structure and guarantees of TEA-21 facilitated unprecedented growth in funds for transportation projects during its first three years, and the RABA firewall was initially considered a success. States received $9.1 billion in excess obligation authority beyond baseline funding amounts during the economic boom years of 2000 through 2002, of which California received $697.9 million. In fiscal year 2002 alone, RABA increased the state’s highway apportionment total by $315.8 million (Table K.1). But during fiscal year 2002, a recession and lower-than-estimated HTF fuel tax collections (blamed in part on reduced travel and commerce following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks) sent 2003 RABA adjustments, for the first time, moving in a negative direction. As a result, the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget proposed a $4.37 billion reduction in FAHP and highway safety construction programs from the TEA-21 baseline level—an $8.6 billion reduction from fiscal year 2002 FAHP obligations. According to the National Governors Association, such deep cuts would have cost 300,000 jobs nationwide. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) estimated that it would lose $613 million as a result of the shortfall and that the reduction would cost the state between 20,000 and 25,000 jobs. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 7 Despite numerous hearings and much call for Congress to restore the funds, the 107th Congress adjourned without completing work on a transportation spending bill. Still, House and Senate transportation leaders succeeded in a partial restoration of funds in the final continuing resolution, which maintained federal funding in the absence of a final agreement. The resolution provided obligation authority up to the TEA-21 2002 baseline level of $27.7 billion, which will fund California up to approximately $2.5 billion, an increase of $327 million over the proposed amount in the president’s budget. The fate of RABA and potential substitutes will be decided during the TEA-21 reauthorization process. Apportionments Employing a variety of factors and weights, FAHP apportionments distribute formula funds to states on an annual basis for nine programs: Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Appalachian Development Highway System, Recreational Trails, Metropolitan Planning, and Minimum Guarantee. The following sections examine the function and distribution to California and other states of funding from each program (except the Appalachian Development Highway System, as California is not among the 13 states funded by the program).7 It is important to note that TEA-21 specifies a number of setasides and other deductions from these apportionments before funds flow to states.8 Thus, some apportioned levels are actually larger than the amount ultimately available for state spending. Furthermore, TEA-21 affords states considerable latitude to transfer funds from one program to another.9 In addition to outlining California’s share of these nine formula programs, the following sections also posit a number of hypothetical formula changes and examine their effects on state apportionment levels. These changes are examined without regard to their political viability or whether any legislator or stakeholder has proposed them. 7In addition, the report will discuss, but not provide, extensive funding detail for the RABA program, which in essence is a modified apportionment. 8A particularly wide array of set-asides and deductions are subtracted from the Surface Transportation Program apportionment. 9A state may transfer up to 50 percent of its apportionment for one program into any of the others. 8 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Interstate Maintenance The Interstate Maintenance (IM) fund provides federal resources for the resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of most interstate routes. Federal IM funds are distributed to the states through a tripartite formula based 33-1/3 percent on interstate lane miles,10 33-1/3 percent on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the state’s portion of the interstate system, and 33-1/3 percent on the state’s share of contributions to the highway account of the HTF that are attributable to commercial vehicles (Figure 4.1a). TEA-21 set a 0.5 percent small-state minimum on combined IM and National Highway System (NHS) funds, but funds required to finance the minimum are deducted from larger states’ NHS accounts, leaving the IM apportionment unchanged by the process. In 2002, California received a federal apportionment of $346.5 million, 8.8 percent of the nation’s $3.9 billion total (Table C.1). California’s share of IM funds derives from its 7 percent share of interstate lane miles, 11.8 percent share of VMT, and 7.7 percent of commercial vehicle contributions to HTF, with each factor weighted equally. Commercial vehicle contributions 33% IS lane miles 33% IS miles traveled 33% Figure 4.1a—IM Funding Factors: Statutory Formula 10Lane mileage, or the physical amount of interstate roadway within each state, is calculated by multiplying the number of miles of interstate highways by the number of lanes for each mile. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 9 Hypothetical alternative apportionments using different weights for each factor would shift funding among states. As shown in Table C.2, increasing the relative weight of the interstate lane miles factor to 40 percent and reducing the other two factors to 30 percent (Figure 4.1b) would reduce IM funds to California by $4.4 million, or 1.3 percent (Table 4.1). Increasing the lane miles factor would increase IM funds for 23 states and reduce funds for 28 states. Commercial vehicle contributions 30% IS lane miles 40% IS miles traveled 30% Figure 4.1b—IM Funding Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Interstate Lane Miles Table 4.1 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Losses from Hypothetical Increases in IM Funding Factors Increased Weight to IS Lane Miles Increased Weight to IS Miles Traveled State Change ($) State Change ($) California Massachusetts Montana Utah Illinois Alaska South Dakota Connecticut Colorado New York –4,432,687 –2,004,044 –1,993,028 –1,618,003 –1,292,217 –1,155,019 –983,033 –859,784 –839,163 –814,195 Montana Wyoming New Mexico North Dakota South Dakota Iowa Oklahoma Mississippi Nebraska Kansas –2,781,563 –2,399,399 –1,620,392 –1,421,846 –1,411,952 –1,402,038 –1,378,283 –1,354,955 –1,248,537 –1,235,550 Increased Weight to Commercial Vehicle Contributions State Change ($) California Ohio Georgia New Jersey Texas Florida Maryland Virginia North Carolina Tennessee –7,157,325 –2,862,419 –2,609,561 –2,351,398 –2,061,108 –1,927,890 –1,459,059 –1,428,939 –1,279,423 –1,146,142 10 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Increasing the weight of the interstate VMT factor to 40 percent and reducing the other two factors to 30 percent (as in Figure 4.1c) would raise California’s IM funding by $11.6 million, an increase of 3.3 percent. A number of more densely populated states would also benefit considerably, including Massachusetts, Florida, Maryland, and Connecticut. States that would experience a substantial reduction in IM funds under an increase in the VMT factor include more sparsely populated states such as Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Increasing the VMT factor would increase IM funds for 22 states and reduce funds for 29 states. Finally, Table C.2 also shows that increasing the weight of the commercial vehicle contributions factor to 40 percent and reducing the other factors to 30 percent (Figure 4.1d) would result in a $7.2 million reduction in California’s IM funding, a 2.1 percent cut (Table C.2). States that would gain substantially if the commercial vehicle contributions factor weight were increased include primarily sparsely populated states with a large proportion of through-freight traffic, such as Montana and Wyoming. An increase in the commercial vehicle contributions factor would increase IM funds for 25 states and reduce funds for 26 states. Table 4.2 summarizes the effects of several hypothetical changes to IM formulas. In addition to formula funds, TEA-21 authorized $50 million in fiscal year 1998 and $100 million in IM discretionary funds to be dispersed by the secretary of transportation on any route or portion of the interstate system. Commercial vehicle contributions 30% IS lane miles 30% IS miles traveled 40% Figure 4.1c—IM Funding Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Interstate Vehicle Miles Traveled FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 11 Commercial vehicle contributions 40% IS lane miles 30% IS miles traveled 30% Figure 4.1d—IM Funding Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Highway Account Commercial Vehicle Contributions Table 4.2 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Gains from Hypothetical Increases in IM Funding Factors Increased Weight to IS Lane Miles State Change ($) Texas New Jersey Pennsylvania Arkansas Indiana Ohio Wisconsin Georgia Alabama Mississippi 3,238,792 2,016,423 1,824,914 1,823,959 1,743,822 1,706,217 1,498,604 1,375,940 1,227,902 1,177,906 Increased Weight to IS Miles Traveled State Change ($) California Massachusetts Florida Maryland Connecticut Georgia Virginia Washington Ohio Michigan 11,590,011 2,619,367 2,209,261 2,170,987 1,643,809 1,233,620 1,226,929 1,188,519 1,156,201 1,067,783 Increased Weight to Commercial Vehicle Contributions State Change ($) Montana Wyoming Utah South Dakota Alaska New Mexico North Dakota Kansas Idaho Colorado 4,774,591 2,948,163 2,401,065 2,394,985 2,387,284 2,251,607 2,009,040 1,764,166 1,599,499 1,339,506 National Highway System The National Highway System consists largely of rural and urban roads that require funding for improvements and maintenance projects. The NHS program also funds designated connections to major intermodal terminals and some transit improvements in NHS corridors. Funding apportioned for the NHS is distributed to the states according to a four-factor formula: 25 percent based on a state’s total lane miles of principal arterial routes other than interstate roads (OPAR), 35 percent based on vehicle 12 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California miles traveled on these routes, 30 percent based on the state’s diesel fuel consumption as a percentage of diesel fuel consumption in the nation, and 10 percent based on the total lane miles of principal arterial routes (PAR) in each state divided by the total state population—a per capita measure of population sparseness in a highway funding context (Figure 4.2a). A 0.5 percent small-state minimum is applied to the combination of NHS and IM funding, with additions and subtractions applied to the NHS component alone. As shown in Table D.1a, before application of the small-state minimum, California received $453.9 million, or 9.48 percent of the $4.8 billion U.S. total, from the NHS program in fiscal year 2002. This share reflected the fact that California represented 8.5 percent of the nation’s lane miles, 14.2 percent of miles traveled, 7.7 percent of diesel consumption, and 0.86 percent of highway population sparseness. Table D.2 explores funding variations resulting from changes in the NHS formula’s statutory 25/35/30/10 factor mix. Increasing from 25 percent to 40 percent the weight of the factor measuring lane miles on principal arterial routes other than interstate highways—and reducing the relative weight of the other three factors by 5 percentage points each (Figure 4.2b)—would increase California’s NHS apportionment by $5 million (1.1 percent) to a total of $448.3 million (Table 4.3).11 States that would experience a substantial funding reduction from a hypothetical relative increase in the lane miles factor include more rural states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, and Montana (Table 4.4). PAR miles per capita 10% OPAR lane miles 25% Diesel fuel usage 30% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 35% Figure 4.2a—NHS Factors: Statutory Formula 11Typically, lane miles factor increases do not benefit California; the state’s increase under this hypothetical has less to do with the lane miles factor than with the concurrent reduction in the lane miles per capita sparsity factor. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 13 14 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Table 4.3 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Gains from Hypothetical Increases in NHS Funding Factors Increased Weight to Other PAR Lane Miles State Change ($) Texas 19,456,836 Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT State Change ($) California 59,077,539 Florida 7,604,362 Florida 20,825,828 Wisconsin 5,131,516 Texas 16,570,515 California 4,998,724 New York 14,317,358 Minnesota 4,536,017 New Jersey 12,167,224 Michigan 4,447,347 Michigan 8,269,780 Iowa 3,700,895 Massachusetts 6,493,852 North Carolina 2,766,423 Pennsylvania 6,158,119 Kansas 2,712,806 Maryland 5,301,835 New York 2,629,349 North Carolina 3,577,972 Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage State Change ($) Ohio 15,924,806 Texas 12,151,830 Georgia 11,633,143 Pennsylvania 10,450,908 Illinois 10,406,918 Indiana 8,562,841 Virginia 6,420,525 Tennessee 4,733,116 Missouri 4,144,144 Alabama 3,961,397 Increased Weight to PAR Miles per Capita State Change ($) Wyoming 126,114,013 North Dakota 122,451,155 South Dakota 89,048,315 Montana 79,638,264 Alaska 44,568,042 Nebraska 40,002,558 Idaho 32,474,740 Kansas 24,388,925 Iowa 23,801,286 New Mexico 23,069,083 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table 4.4 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Losses from Hypothetical Increases in NHS Funding Factors Increased Weight to Other PAR Lane Miles State Change ($) Wyoming –16,967,481 North Dakota –9,615,914 Montana –8,411,435 South Dakota –7,437,289 New Jersey –3,987,587 Alaska –3,093,912 Utah –2,833,231 Idaho –2,717,459 Maine –2,552,863 New Mexico –2,362,868 Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT State Change ($) Wyoming –23,724,255 North Dakota –20,972,796 Montana –16,805,632 South Dakota –16,539,499 New Mexico –8,677,081 Nebraska –8,390,962 Iowa –7,921,927 Idaho –7,810,454 Kansas –6,478,999 Oklahoma –5,250,253 Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage State Change ($) North Dakota –19,454,220 Wyoming –17,960,635 South Dakota –14,940,112 Montana –14,819,629 Kansas –5,556,356 Idaho –5,376,728 Nebraska –4,661,286 New Mexico –3,950,543 Colorado –3,339,256 Alaska –3,093,912 Increased Weight to PAR Miles per Capita State Change ($) California –87,784,389 Illinois –73,695,040 Texas –72,687,335 Ohio –68,198,504 Georgia –49,621,084 Pennsylvania –44,251,225 New York –42,277,642 Virginia –34,451,409 Indiana –26,601,476 Michigan –23,132,030 15 Diesel fuel usage 25% PAR miles per capita 5% OPAR lane miles 40% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 30% Figure 4.2b—NHS Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to OPAR Lane Miles A hypothetical increase from 35 percent to 50 percent in the factor measuring VMT on other principal arterial routes (Figure 4.2c) would cause California’s NHS receipts to spike sharply upward by $59.1 million (13.3 percent) to a total of $515.2 million. This hypothetical would shift funds to states with larger populations, including Florida, Texas, and New York. States that would experience a reduction in NHS funding if the VMT factor weight were expanded include smaller states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, and Montana. The hypothetical change in factor weight would increase NHS funding for 19 states and reduce funding for 26 states. Diesel fuel usage 25% PAR miles per capita 5% OPAR lane miles 20% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 50% Figure 4.2c—NHS Factors: Increased Weight to OPAR Vehicle Miles Traveled 16 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Increasing the weight of the factor measuring diesel fuel usage on highways from 30 percent to 45 percent (Figure 4.2d) would reduce California’s NHS funding level by a relatively small amount: $3.1 million (0.7 percent). Several states near the nation’s northern border would experience substantial reductions, including North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana. The change in factor weight would increase NHS funding for 22 states and reduce funding for 23 states. Finally, a hypothetical increase in the weight of the factor weighing highway mileage per capita (Figure 4.2e) would shift funding, not surprisingly, from more populous states to sparsely populated states. Raising the factor weight from 10 percent to 25 percent (an admittedly disproportionate increase12) would reduce California’s NHS receipts by $87.8 million, or nearly 20 percent. States losing funding under this hypothetical would include Illinois, Texas, and Ohio, whereas states gaining funds would include Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas. The change in factor weight would increase NHS funding for 21 states and reduce funding for 26 states. The 0.5 percent small-state minimum reduces California’s NHS apportionment by $10.7 million, the largest reduction of any state. As shown in Table D.1c, the minimum also reduces funds to Texas (–$9.2 million), Florida (–$5.1 million), Ohio (–$4.4 million), and Illinois (–$4.4 million). The only PAR miles per capita 5% OPAR lane miles 20% Diesel fuel usage 45% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 30% Figure 4.2d—NHS Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage 12For simplicity, our hypothetical analysis raises and lowers factor weights in five-point increments, causing wider funding changes for factors with small initial statutory percentages. The sparsity factor began the analysis with the lowest percentage share (10 percent), and thus the increase to 25 percent results in greater median funding shifts than under any other simulation. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 17 PAR miles per capita 25% OPAR lane miles 20% Diesel fuel usage 25% OPAR vehicle miles traveled 30% Figure 4.2e—NHS Factors: Increased Hypothetical Weight to PAR Lane Miles per Capita beneficiaries of the small-state minimum on NHS funding are the District of Columbia (+$33.4 million), Hawaii (+$25.1 million), Delaware (+$19.0 million), Rhode Island (+$17.6 million), Vermont (+$12.6 million), and New Hampshire (+$6.6 million). Surface Transportation Program The STP supports all elements of the nation’s intermodal transportation system, excluding aviation. FHWA states that funds may be used for projects on any federal-aid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities, as well as environmental restoration and pollution abatement projects.13 The distribution of STP funds is determined by a formula based 25 percent on each state’s total lane miles of federal-aid highway divided by the national total, 40 percent based on the state’s VMT on federal-aid highways, and 35 percent on the state’s most recent annual contributions to the Highway Trust Fund, excluding 13In addition, a portion of funds reserved for rural areas may be spent on minor rural collector roads that feed larger highways. TEA-21 placed a number of restrictions on STP funds, including explicitly directing states to spend 10 percent of funds for safety improvements such as highway-rail crossings and 10 percent on transportation enhancements, and requiring that 50 percent of the funds be distributed within the state, based on population. For an examination of eligible STP activities and their use in California under ISTEA, see Paul G. Lewis and Mary Sprague, Federal Transportation Policy and the Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, April 1997, p. 79. 18 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California the mass transit account (Figure 4.3a). Regardless of size, every state is assured a minimum apportionment of 0.5 percent of total STP funds. In fiscal year 2002, California received a $539.8 million STP apportionment, 9.6 percent of the nation’s $5.6 billion total (Table E.1). California’s share reflects the state’s 6.3 percent share of federal-aid highway lane miles, 11.8 percent of VMT, and 9.8 percent of HTF Highway Account tax contributions. (The small-state minimum reduces the state’s STP funding by $9.6 million.) Table E.2 examines hypothetical alternative apportionments if the factorweighting mix were to change. A hypothetical increase from 25 percent to 35 percent in weight given to the factor measuring lane miles of federal-aid highways (Figure 4.3b) would reduce California’s STP receipts by $25.3 million (4.7 Highway Account contributions 35% Federal-aid lane miles 25% Federal-aid VMT 40% Figure 4.3a—STP Factors: Statutory Formula Highway Account contributions 30% Federal-aid lane miles 35% Federal-aid VMT 35% Figure 4.3b—STP Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Lane Miles FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 19 percent) to a total of $514.4 million. Larger states such as Florida, New Jersey, and New York would also receive reduced STP apportionments as a result of an increase in this factor weight (Table 4.5), whereas more rural states such as Kansas, South Dakota, and Oklahoma would receive larger apportionments (Table 4.6). The change would increase STP funding for 24 states and reduce it for 20 states. California would be the largest beneficiary of a hypothetical change to raise from 40 percent to 50 percent the weight of the federal-aid highways VMT factor (Figure 4.3c). California’s fiscal year 2002 apportionment would rise by Table 4.5 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Losses from Hypothetical Increases in STP Factors Increased Weight to Federal-Aid Lane Miles State California Florida New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Maryland Ohio Massachusetts North Carolina Tennessee Change ($) –25,294,381 –11,802,958 –8,358,112 –7,355,242 –5,822,686 –5,176,333 –4,408,760 –4,136,216 –4,028,373 –3,069,294 Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT State Kansas Oklahoma South Dakota North Dakota Iowa Nebraska Montana Mississippi Texas Arkansas Change ($) –6,392,666 –4,542,178 –4,209,518 –4,123,871 –4,118,409 –3,665,001 –3,250,909 –3,141,057 –2,995,165 –2,846,350 Increased Weight to Highway Account Contributions State Minnesota Kansas South Dakota Oklahoma North Dakota Iowa Nebraska Montana Wisconsin Illinois Change ($) –6,550,653 –5,546,873 –4,125,486 –3,726,550 –3,558,276 –3,546,772 –2,839,336 –2,354,309 –2,119,980 –1,633,212 Table 4.6 States Experiencing Greatest Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Gains from Hypothetical Increases in STP Factors Increased Weight to Federal-Aid Lane Miles Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT State Kansas South Dakota Oklahoma Minnesota North Dakota Iowa Nebraska Montana Mississippi Wisconsin Change ($) 11,942,707 8,337,453 8,270,412 8,085,339 7,684,438 7,666,951 6,505,995 5,606,803 4,267,776 4,259,732 State California Florida New York Maryland Massachusetts New Jersey Illinois Ohio Connecticut North Carolina Change ($) 20,116,499 6,062,986 4,761,723 3,258,854 2,722,607 2,508,515 2,446,303 1,918,708 1,798,800 1,644,494 Increased Weight to Highway Account Contributions State New Jersey Florida California Pennsylvania Georgia New York Ohio North Carolina Tennessee Maryland Change ($) 5,845,516 5,733,006 5,162,103 4,292,928 2,895,976 2,588,397 2,486,338 2,380,794 1,984,063 1,914,586 20 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Highway Account contributions 30% Federal-aid lane miles 20% Federal-aid VMT 50% Figure 4.3c—STP Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to Vehicle Miles Traveled $20.1 million, or 3.7 percent, to a total of $559.9 million. Other states that would see substantial increases from a VMT factor-weight increase include states with large numbers of vehicles. Increasing the VMT weighting would raise STP apportionments in 18 states and reduce them in 25 states. Increasing the weight of the HTF Highway Account contributions factor of the STP formula from 35 percent to 45 percent (Figure 4.3d) would increase California’s apportionment by $5.2 million (1 percent) to $544.9 million. An increase in the weight of the HTF Highway Account contributions factor would increase apportionments in 20 states and reduce them in 23 states. Highway Account contributions 45% Federal-aid lane miles 20% Federal-aid VMT 35% Figure 4.3d—STP Factors: Hypothetical Increased Weight to HTF Highway Account FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 21 Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program The HBRRP provides funding to states for the replacement and repair of highway bridges. Funds may also be used for seismic retrofitting of existing bridges. Funds are apportioned entirely according to each state’s relative share of FHWA’s estimate of the cost to repair or replace deficient highway bridges. A state may receive no less than 0.25 percent and no more than 10 percent of apportioned HBRRP funds. States are required to spend between 15 and 35 percent of funds on off-system bridges—bridges that are not part of the federalaid highway system. TEA-21 also authorized $25 million in discretionary funds for the bridge program in 1998 and $100 million for every year thereafter until TEA-21’s expiration. These funds are used for bridge projects at the Department of Transportation’s discretion, although $25 million must be set aside for retrofitting activities. As shown in Table F.1, California received $248.8 million (7.4 percent) of the nation’s $3.4 billion in total HBRRP apportionments for fiscal year 2002. In addition to its apportioned funding, California received $5.9 million in 2002 discretionary funds for bridge projects, 4.9 percent of the U.S. total, as well as $6,522,620 in discretionary seismic retrofit funds, 27.7 percent of the U.S. total. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program CMAQ was established under ISTEA to provide flexible federal funds for projects and programs that reduce transportation-related pollutant emissions and boost air quality. Eligible programs and projects include freeway management systems and various transit improvements, travel demand strategies, traffic flow improvements, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, bicycle facilities, and the conversion of government vehicle fleets to alternative fuels.14 Projects and programs should help state and local governments achieve and maintain national ambient air quality standards in metropolitan areas that are classified as maintenance or nonattainment air quality areas designated by the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA). Apportionment of CMAQ funds is determined annually by weighting the number of people in an area that the CAA classified as a nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone (smog), carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter (PC-10)—three nonpoint source air pollutants. The CAA subdivided noncompliance with safe ozone standards into five nonattainment subcategories 14For an examination of eligible CMAQ activities and their use in California under ISTEA, see Paul G. Lewis and Mary Sprague, Federal Transportation Policy and the Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, April 1997, p. 82. 22 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme).15 Each subcategory is tagged with its own formula-weighting factor, graduated based on the level of pollution severity. Population counts for areas with extreme ozone problems are weighted 1.4, meaning that their value is raised 40 percent for formula calculation. Severe areas are weighted at 1.3, serious areas 1.2, moderate areas 1.1, and marginal areas at 1.0 (or no factor-weight change). The factor weighting for CO nonattainment is fixed at 1.0, whereas the CMAQ formula provides for a special multiplier if areas experience pollution problems for both ozone and CO. Maintenance areas that were previously classified as nonattainment are weighted at a lower overall rate and thus receive less money. With few exceptions, states are generally required to use CMAQ funds for programs within the nonattainment or maintenance area boundaries. Before apportionments are distributed, up to 1.5 percent of CMAQ is taken for administration and another 1 percent is deducted for metropolitan planning costs. In addition, a $500,000 deduction is assessed from the annual total to fund a CMAQ evaluation study program. Each state is guaranteed a minimum apportionment of 0.5 percent of the total CMAQ funds available every year. Furthermore, up to 50 percent of a state’s CMAQ funds, minus the amount the state would have received at the minimum authorized level for the applicable year, may be transferred to other core programs. An 80/20 percent federal/state funding ratio applies to the program; that ratio is increased to 90 percent federal for projects involving the interstate highway system, and it may be raised higher still if other conditions are met. Conversely, local decisionmaking bodies responsible for local CMAQ projects have the authority to increase the local match requirement beyond the federal minimum. Greater Los Angeles remains one of the most polluted metropolitan regions in the country, still classified as an extreme ozone nonattainment area. But significant strides throughout the state signify overall progress in improved California air quality. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California’s smog-forming emissions from highway vehicles declined 36 percent between 1985 and 1999. Still, seven California areas retained CAA classification as nonattainment ozone areas during that period, and that total increased to 26 areas upon TEA-21’s incorporation of tighter 1997 air quality standards to determine apportionment eligibility. 15The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101-549) defined an ambient air quality standard methodology for classifying areas according to ozone pollution levels. Areas that did not comply were designated as marginal (0.121 to 0.138 parts ozone per million or ppm), moderate (0.138 to 0.160 ppm), serious (0.160 to 0.180 ppm), severe (0.180 to 0.280 ppm), or extreme (0.280 ppm and above). Areas designated under these standards were given a certain time period after November 15, 1990, in which to bring air quality levels into compliance. The periods ranged from three years for marginal areas to 20 years for extreme areas. See 42 U.S.C. §7511. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 23 With vast metropolitan populations residing in areas not in compliance with federal air quality standards, California receives by far the largest share of CMAQ funding. In fiscal year 2002, the state’s apportionment of $292.5 million was 21.3 percent of the $1.4 billion total U.S. CMAQ apportionment (Table G.1). As the recipient of the nation’s largest share of CMAQ funding, California loses more funding than any other state as a result of the program’s 0.5 percent small-state minimum. The apportionments of 22 states and the District of Columbia are increased, in many cases from zero, to ensure that no state receives less than 0.5 percent of funds (regardless of the fact that some states do not contain any nonattainment or maintenance areas). The apportionments of the remaining 28 states, including California, are reduced by 8.1 percent to accommodate the increases. As shown in Table G.2, California’s apportionment would increase by $15.3 million if Congress were to reduce the minimum to 0.25 percent, and by $26 million if it were to eliminate the minimum entirely. Other states whose apportionments decline substantially because of the minimum include New York ($12.1 million), Texas ($7.1 million), New Jersey ($6.9 million), Pennsylvania ($6.7 million), and Illinois ($6.1 million). Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) apportionment helps states develop and maintain motorized and nonmotorized recreational trails. Examples of recreational trails include those used by hikers, bikers, equestrians, cross-country skiers, and off-road vehicle riders. TEA-21 authorized $30 million in 1998, $40 million in 1999, and $50 million for each year thereafter in RTP funds. Program administration, trail-related research, and technical assistance are funded by a maximum 1.5 percent deduction from the total before distribution to the states. The formula for RTP bases half of apportioned funds on the state’s proportion of nonhighway recreational fuel use over the preceding year; the other half is distributed equally among the states regardless of population or other recreational trail–related factors. In essence, this creates a 1 percent small-state minimum for the program. States are obliged to use 30 percent of RTP funds for motorized trail expenditures, 30 percent for nonmotorized trail use, and 40 percent for diverse trail uses. Generally, the FAHP share of project funds is set at 80 percent, although other federal agencies may provide additional funds that are counted toward the matching share for this program as long as the total federal share does not exceed 95 percent of the total. 24 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California As shown in Table H.1, California received $3.3 million, 6.8 percent of the nation’s $49.3 million RTP total apportionments in 2002. Without the 1 percent small-state minimum, California would have received $5.7 million, reflecting the state’s 11.6 percent of U.S. off-road recreational fuel consumption. Metropolitan Planning The establishment of a metropolitan planning (MP) structure for project oversight and facilitation of transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas was a cornerstone of ISTEA’s pledge to improve local and regional flexibility in the approval and adoption of transportation planning. Several Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) exist in California, working in partnership with the state and transit operators to help administer and implement the governor’s long-term, federally certified Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. Funding for metropolitan planning is nontransferable and is drawn down from two sources: First, 1 percent is deducted from STP, HBRRP, CMAQ, IM, and NHS; second, funds are also deducted from transit authorizations originating from the Transit Account of HTF and the General Fund. Funds are apportioned to states based on their share of metropolitan area population, with a 0.5 percent small-state minimum assurance. California received $30 million in MP funding in fiscal year 2002, 15.4 percent of the $195.5 million total distributed to all states (Table I.1). Minimum Guarantee After funds are initially apportioned based on the program formulas discussed above, some states are entitled to additional federal money to ensure compliance with the MG provision of TEA-21. The provision ensures that each state is guaranteed no less than a specified percentage rate of return of its total funds contributed to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.16 Apportionment of MG funding requires TEA-21’s most complicated formula calculations. First, a table contained in TEA-21 explicitly demarks California’s guaranteed return percentage as 9.1962 percent of total aggregate program apportionments, and it lists a specific numeric share for each other state as well. 16A state’s rate of return is its percentage share of dollars received under the specified formula apportionment programs divided by a state’s percentage share of dollars contributed to the Highway Account of HTF. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 25 In addition, in separate language, TEA-21 also statutorily guarantees certain states a 90.5 percent aggregated minimum share return from contributions to the HTF Highway Account from two years prior for IM, NHS, HBRRP, CMAQ, STP, MP, High Priority Projects, Appalachian Development, Recreational Trails, and MG programs combined. Only 14 states are eligible for this secondary adjustment. California and 13 other states qualify for the adjustment because their statutorily prescribed percentage (California’s being 9.1962 percent) constituted 90.5 percent of their HTF Highway Account contributions in 1996, the most current available year for taxation data when TEA-21 was created. Adjustments in state-designated obligations may be recalculated to meet the 90.5 percent guarantee. For instance, if a state receives less money than the specified 90.5 percent return, an adjusted increase is calculated and apportioned to the MG account to qualify the state’s minimum guaranteed level. This adjustment requires that the share apportioned to other states be decreased as long as the result does not cause a state’s level to fall below its designated return on highway contributions. In addition to the primary and secondary percentage guarantees, TEA-21 also guarantees each state at least $1 million in MG funds per year. MG funds are subject to special rules and limitations. From the national total MG apportionment, $2.8 billion is distributed to the states as STP funds (STP program set-asides do not apply to these MG funds). The remainder of the MG funds are apportioned to the states, divided between IM, NHS, HBRRP, CMAQ, and STP, based on the state’s relative share of each program’s formulas. Each year, $639 million nationally in MG funds are precluded from obligation limitation controls, whereas $2 billion above that amount is subject to special obligation limitations that do not expire (typical obligation limitations remain in effect for four years). All remaining funds are treated under normal obligation limitation rules. California received $435.7 million in MG funding in fiscal year 2002, which was 7 percent of the nation’s $6.2 billion total distributed among all states in that year (Table J.1b). Various calculations are required to determine this apportionment. First, each state’s total apportionments from eight programs and a specified share of the High Priority Projects allocation are summed— California’s total for those combined programs in 2002 was $2.1 billion, and the nation’s total was $21.5 billion. Then, as shown in Table J.1a, an MG distribution requires calculation of each state’s rate of return in 1996 to the HTF Highway Account (California’s rate of return was 90.5 percent). The next calculation is of each state’s percentage of total contributions to the HTF Highway Account for the most recent data year, which in this instance is 2000 (California contributed 9.97 percent of the total that year). Because the MG formula guarantees each state a 90.5 percent of its current-year Highway Account 26 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California contributions, that share is then multiplied by 0.905, resulting in an initial minimum guaranteed rate of return to California of 9.02 percent,17 and a final rate of return on 2000 contributions of 90.6 percent. Final MG amounts for each state are shown in Table J.1b. It is interesting to note that, after these calculations, California’s final 90.6 percent rate of return is only slightly above the 90.5 percent MG level. As a result, California is one of two states18 least helped by TEA-21’s selection of the 90.5 percent level. In fact, no other rate of return level, whether higher or lower, would help California less. An increase to a 90.6 percent rate would raise California’s 2002 funds to $439.2 million, and a decrease to a 90.4 percent rate would not reduce the state’s MG apportionment below its $435.7 million level (but would reduce the overall cost of the nation’s MG program by $21.1 million).19 A number of states and advocacy groups have suggested changing the MG formula to ensure each state a higher rate of return on HTF contributions, and some have proposed a 95 percent rate of return. Tables J.2a and J.2b show the effect on fiscal year 2002 funding of several hypothetical increases in the MG rate of return percentage. As shown, the nation’s total MG funding required to guarantee a 95 percent rate of return would rise by $3.3 billion to $9.6 billion, of which California would receive $874 million (9.13 percent) of the total—more than twice its MG at the current 90.5 percent guarantee rate. Figure 4.4 and Tables J.2a and J.2b show the total MG funding effect of various hypothetical percentage increases in the rate of return (from 90.5 percent to 92, 93, 94, 95, and 96 percent), and Table J.3 compares the amount of MG funding increases required to fund each scenario. As shown, an increase from a 90.5 percent to a 92 percent rate of return would require an additional $602.8 million, of which California would receive $94.9 million (15.7 percent of the total increase). In achieving the 92 percent rate of return, California’s funding would rise by 21.8 percent, and the nation’s funding would rise by 9.7 percent. As shown, the other hypothetical increases in the rate of return would produce similar results, with California’s percentage growth in MG funding roughly twice that of other states. 17Several recalculation iterations result in a small increase to California, from 9.02 percent to 9.03 percent. For a number of other states, the recalculations and other formula rules result in considerably larger increases. 18The other state is Washington, with a final rate of return of 90.52 percent, compared to California’s 90.57 percent final rate of return. 19All subsequent hypothetical reductions below the 90.5 percent rate of return level would leave California’s MG funding unchanged but would reduce funding in other states. Ultimately, a reduction to or below an 81 percent rate of return would eliminate current-year rate increases for all states and would reduce total MG funding by $501 million, to $5.7 billion. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 27 1,200 18,000 MG Funds, California ($millions) MG Funds, United States ($millions) 1,100 1,000 900 California United States 16,000 14,000 800 12,000 700 10,000 600 8,000 500 400 6,000 90.5 92 93 94 95 96 Rate Figure 4.4—Effect on Fiscal Year 2002 Funding of Hypothetical Changes in Percentage Rate of Return for Minimum Guarantee, California and the United States Total Apportionments Finally, Table B.1 shows each state’s FAHP apportionments for fiscal year 2002. California’s apportionment from all ten formula programs20 was $2.66 billion, or slightly less than 9 percent of the nation’s $29.5 billion total. From fiscal years 1998 through 2002, the first five years of TEA-21’s existence, the nation’s highway formula apportionments increased by 37.3 percent, from $21.5 billion to $29.5 billion (Table B.6). During the same period, California apportionments for these programs increased at a slightly slower rate, 34.5 percent, from $1.97 billion to $2.66 billion. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the components of FAHP apportionment growth under TEA-21 in California and the United States, respectively. A primary component of growth for both California and the nation was the creation and expansion of RABA. In 2000, the first year of RABA’s existence, it added $125.1 million to California’s and $1.4 billion to the nation’s highway apportionments. In 2002, RABA represented $315.8 million for California and $3.5 billion nationwide, accounting for nearly half of highway formula program growth. All FAHP apportionments grew between 1998 and 2002 for both California and the United States. MG grew 15.7 percent nationwide, to $6.2 billion, whereas California’s rate was twice that: California’s MG receipts grew 31.8 20IM, NHS, HBRRP, CMAQ, STP, MP, High Priority Projects, Appalachian Development, Recreational Trails, MG, and RABA. 28 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California 3.0 $billions 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 RABA MG MP RTP ADHS CMAQ Bridge STP NHS IM Figure 4.5—Components of California TEA-21 Apportionments, Fiscal Years 1998–2002 $billions 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 RABA MG MP RTP ADHS CMAQ Bridge STP NHS IM Figure 4.6—Components of U.S. TEA-21 Apportionments, Fiscal Years 1998–2002 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 29 percent, from $330.4 million to $435.7 million, and the state’s share of MG funds increased from 6.1 percent of the nation’s total to 7.0 percent. As shown in Table B.6 and Figure 4.7, however, California’s share of total funding from all programs declined from 1998 to 2002. California represented 9.18 percent of FAHP apportionments in 1998 and 9.00 percent in 2002. Despite the state’s growing share of the nation’s MG funds, California’s portion of the four largest formulas—IM, NHS, STP, and HBRRP—declined somewhat during the period. For each program, the decline results from the rest of the nation’s highway apportionments rising faster than California’s. The state’s share of the nation’s IM funds declined from 9.04 percent to 8.81 percent, California’s NHS apportionment fell from 9.62 percent of the U.S. total to 9.26 percent, the state’s STP share declined from 9.93 percent to 9.60 percent, and its share of the HBRRP program declined from 8.15 percent to 7.40 percent. Percentage 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 1998 1999 2000 IM NHS STP Bridge CMAQ MG RABA 2001 2002 Figure 4.7—California Share of Major TEA-21 Apportionments, Fiscal Years 1998–2002 Conclusion Congress will soon revise TEA-21, and California legislators and advocates will face a number of challenges as the process moves forward.21 Whereas the 21In consultation with the state, a consortium of California MPOs, transportation organizations, and local governments met during 2002 to prepare a platform of TEA-21 reauthorization principles seeking a unified California position regarding TEA-21 renewal. Priorities identified include higher obligation limitations, retention of the RABA fiscal adjustment feature, increasing intermodal capacity (while recognizing California’s important role as a world trade corridor), assurance of equitable returns on the state’s support for HTF, better coordination across all levels of government, and expeditious agency review of environmental laws to accelerate delivery of projects. 30 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California state’s population of 35 million persons now represents 12.2 percent of the nation’s total, the state’s share of highway funding is considerably less. Over the life of TEA-21, from 1998 to 2002, highway funding to California from all programs rose by 34.5 percent, whereas total U.S. funding rose at a slightly faster 37.3 percent rate. When the TEA-21 era began in fiscal year 1998, California represented 9.2 percent of total funds; the state’s share in 2002 was just below 9 percent. The nation’s funding for highway programs rose from $21.5 billion in 1998 to $29.5 billion in 2002. (RABA adjustments may reduce the total for 2003 to account for sharp reductions in fuel tax revenues.) During the same period, California’s apportionments rose from $2 billion to $2.7 billion. From 1998 through 2002, California’s CMAQ funding rose slightly faster than in the nation as a whole, and the state’s MG funding increased at twice the national rate. But California’s growth in the other FAHP programs lagged the rest of the nation, resulting in a declining overall share for the state over the period. California’s share of federal highway funding varies across programs, as shown in Table B.6 and Figure 4.7. Notably, the state receives between one-fifth and one-fourth of the nation’s apportionments for CMAQ because of the formula’s reliance on air quality factors and the state’s relatively high levels of unhealthful air. California also receives a large share (15.4 percent) of the nation’s Metropolitan Planning apportionments because of the formula’s use of urbanized area population as the primary apportioning factor. For the remainder of the major apportionment programs, however, California’s share is considerably lower. For each major program, the size of California’s share is significantly related to the weight the program’s formula gives to a vehicle miles traveled factor. The IM formula weights VMT at 33-1/3 percent, and California’s share of the nation’s apportionments in 2002 was 8.81 percent. The NHS program weights VMT slightly more, at 35 percent, and California’s share of funding was 9.26 percent. And the STP program places the greatest weight on the VMT factor, 40 percent, and California’s apportionment from the STP program was 9.60 percent of the U.S. total in 2002. The state’s large population and heavy vehicle usage make VMT a stronger factor for the state—one likely to increase the state’s share of funding—than the lane mileage factors and tax contributions factors with which VMT is often paired. The primary component of the MG formula benefits California less than any other state except one. As such, any increase in the current-year rate of return FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 31 percentage would raise California’s apportionment, whereas any decrease would reduce other states’ apportionments, but not California’s. As California advocates and legislators prepare to participate in the congressional revision of TEA-21, we hope that these findings may help illuminate whether one policy approach or another will be most effective and appropriate for the state. 32 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Appendix A High Priority Projects Most federal highway funding is distributed to states via formula apportionment. A smaller portion (a total of $5.7 billion in fiscal year 2001, of which California received $610 million) is distributed without formula via a process known as allocation. Funding for a total of 30 programs is allocated without formula, but the largest of these is High Priority Projects (HPPs).1 TEA21 set aside $9.4 billion over its six-year life in designated funding for a list of 1,850 specific projects. Technically, HPP funds are neither discretionary allocations nor formula apportionments; rather, they are codified earmarks for predetermined highway, road, transit, and other transportation-related projects, each with its own specified amount of funding through the course of TEA-21’s lifespan. Nevertheless, FHWA classifies HPPs as allocations for funding distribution purposes. A distribution schedule spreads federal funding for each project over the TEA-21 era as follows: 11 percent in 1998, 15 percent in 1999, 18 percent in 2000, 18 percent in 2001, 19 percent in 2002, and 19 percent in 2003. An “Advance Construction” clause allows states to commence work on HPPs before funding is credited; the funds from the schedule are then drawn down and used as reimbursements when available. The maximum federal share of Californiabased projects is 80 percent; however, some projects designated as high priority bridge projects or state priority projects may also be eligible to receive funds from other core categories. For instance, the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit High Priority Project is eligible to receive funds from High Cost Bridge set-asides 1In addition to the $1.8 billion High Priority Projects program, other allocations include the Federal Lands Highways Program ($706 million in fiscal year 2002), Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge ($225 million), National Corridor Planning and Development and Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program ($140 million), Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation ($120 million), Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment ($120 million), Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts ($112 million), Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway Program ($110 million), ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, and Development ($105 million), Surface Transportation Research ($101 million), Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program ($100 million), Bridge Discretionary Program ($100 million), Technology Deployment Program ($45 million), Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities ($38 million), Territorial Highways ($36.4 million), Bureau of Transportation Statistics ($31 million), University Transportation Centers ($26.5 million), National Scenic Byways Program ($25.5 million), Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program ($25 million), Training and Education ($19 million), Alaska Highway ($18.8 million), Miscellaneous Studies-Reports-Projects ($18.8 million), Value Pricing Pilot Program ($11 million), Highway Skill Training ($10 million), On-the-Job Training Supportive Services ($10 million), and several programs at less than $10 million: Rail-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High Speed Rail Corridors, Highway Use Tax Evasion Program, Operation Lifesaver, Study of CMAQ Program Effectiveness, and Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA as well as formula funds from the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Obligation limitations for these projects are made available at the same pro rata share as other core highway programs although these funds are not subject to the typical four-year availability deadline as is the case with most other FAHPs. In 2002, California received $164.4 million, or 9.4 percent of the U.S. total of $1.8 billion, in HPP allocation. Congress initially identified 156 HPPs for California, for a total of $877 million over six years. In practice, only a handful of these have received approval for construction. The remaining projects continue to be assigned their yearly allocation percentages, and these committed funds are stored accordingly in the HTF. Assuming that these uninitiated projects gain state and local approval, the unspecified availability deadline component for HPPs under TEA-21 allows indefinite storage of unobligated project arrears until they are expended. 34 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Appendix B Data Tables for All Federal-Aid Highway Apportionment Programs FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 36 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio IM 78,994 20,779 81,081 50,036 346,535 63,394 42,784 6,812 2,393 155,262 149,091 7,092 30,742 171,753 105,066 53,750 51,829 74,783 68,992 21,982 66,940 66,314 117,678 71,656 51,091 104,816 42,600 34,619 33,646 15,856 74,252 55,335 142,829 99,936 23,329 169,461 NHS 88,985 25,914 86,578 70,020 443,257 80,565 39,594 36,786 41,206 219,349 145,214 36,506 40,586 149,810 108,572 76,777 70,627 83,267 67,530 25,383 73,742 65,939 142,083 87,300 70,431 108,873 58,083 60,016 38,493 27,742 109,766 60,593 164,454 119,478 64,621 156,441 Table B.1 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 ($000) STP 114,870 28,109 97,107 79,814 539,768 85,868 54,357 28,109 28,109 254,493 199,161 28,109 35,343 204,004 137,419 81,450 89,993 95,208 90,485 30,336 90,390 93,561 199,382 111,243 81,625 140,458 36,429 57,257 37,811 28,109 124,865 49,267 216,698 154,534 35,672 197,736 HBRRP 68,677 9,109 10,542 41,204 248,795 23,280 70,841 12,471 20,690 57,467 58,107 19,200 12,147 113,983 36,968 53,909 51,388 55,119 91,125 23,901 60,345 104,698 98,660 23,907 47,523 119,760 12,513 26,288 8,404 17,280 160,241 12,226 336,140 85,821 8,404 114,536 Appalachian CMAQ Highways 6,858 48,772 6,858 0 27,250 0 6,858 0 292,486 0 19,876 0 28,412 0 6,858 0 6,858 0 34,140 0 27,340 19,491 6,858 0 6,858 0 69,317 0 13,486 0 6,858 0 6,858 0 9,655 44,741 6,858 0 6,858 0 39,979 7,627 51,022 0 28,662 0 14,451 0 6,858 5,470 17,644 0 6,858 0 6,858 0 10,984 0 6,858 0 78,097 0 6,858 0 136,763 10,512 14,170 28,715 6,858 0 41,723 21,993 RTP 986 655 1,062 823 3,333 1,304 597 524 483 1,639 1,296 534 821 1,244 834 854 766 772 1,032 736 689 768 1,485 1,170 1,026 1,003 873 694 666 655 793 897 1,181 1,163 625 1,171 MP 2,171 978 3,133 978 30,044 2,805 2,897 978 978 12,007 3,847 978 978 10,003 3,177 1,112 1,202 1,506 2,629 978 4,225 5,581 6,857 2,797 978 3,283 978 978 1,075 978 7,821 978 16,654 2,965 978 7,854 MG 104,914 218,635 163,452 84,408 435,684 61,021 149,295 26,123 1,000 495,892 325,279 31,887 61,152 129,313 196,104 31,511 24,942 82,654 73,734 25,966 78,872 81,913 234,191 61,455 67,265 99,710 107,984 19,563 58,484 31,029 103,757 67,570 266,031 220,548 33,855 181,989 RABA 70,200 41,676 64,066 45,043 315,753 45,541 52,223 15,829 13,859 167,621 126,552 17,871 25,700 115,734 81,064 41,262 40,548 61,000 53,784 18,549 56,543 63,495 112,951 50,343 44,797 80,340 35,517 28,104 25,828 17,208 89,869 34,165 174,710 99,099 23,468 120,433 Program Total 585,427 352,712 534,272 379,182 2,655,655 383,654 441,000 134,491 115,575 1,397,870 1,055,378 149,034 214,326 965,161 682,689 347,484 338,152 508,704 456,169 154,689 479,352 533,291 941,950 424,322 377,064 675,889 301,834 234,376 215,390 145,716 749,461 287,888 1,465,972 826,428 197,808 1,013,338 % of Total 1.98 1.20 1.81 1.28 9.00 1.30 1.49 0.46 0.39 4.74 3.58 0.50 0.73 3.27 2.31 1.18 1.15 1.72 1.55 0.52 1.62 1.81 3.19 1.44 1.28 2.29 1.02 0.79 0.73 0.49 2.54 0.98 4.97 2.80 0.67 3.43 Table B.1 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 67,802 54,153 147,368 9,127 69,830 27,736 101,693 301,033 53,082 13,654 114,930 77,150 35,262 67,903 39,799 3,934,028 NHS 83,439 69,510 161,445 34,472 70,871 54,226 105,263 378,661 38,428 29,944 113,809 87,390 35,897 108,152 69,544 4,785,634 STP 108,982 75,839 201,226 28,109 98,964 38,956 127,451 458,294 46,256 28,109 149,757 110,067 44,385 120,232 28,109 5,621,889 HBRRP 81,677 48,030 336,140 39,406 48,292 12,724 66,122 131,250 24,219 18,713 64,257 90,920 48,241 27,339 8,404 3,361,404 Appalachian CMAQ Highways 6,858 0 9,711 0 75,245 119,253 7,749 0 6,858 2,389 6,858 0 12,157 54,679 79,957 0 8,843 0 6,858 0 27,197 11,493 20,945 0 6,858 67,816 16,578 0 6,858 0 1,371,569 442,950 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. RTP MP 904 1,598 856 1,675 1,168 8,503 521 978 776 1,683 625 978 918 2,617 2,221 13,417 820 1,557 599 978 898 4,518 1,129 3,793 720 978 1,172 2,908 767 978 49,250 195,510 MG 46,451 44,419 173,532 37,194 141,902 41,098 116,009 669,989 24,489 21,522 192,326 57,139 33,034 166,488 30,082 6,232,855 RABA 54,188 41,000 166,754 21,296 59,546 24,675 78,393 277,244 26,936 16,074 90,651 61,112 36,701 69,593 24,522 3,519,430 Program Total 451,899 345,193 1,390,635 178,851 501,111 207,877 665,302 2,312,067 224,630 136,451 769,837 509,645 309,892 580,366 209,063 29,514,519 % of Total 1.53 1.17 4.71 0.61 1.70 0.70 2.25 7.83 0.76 0.46 2.61 1.73 1.05 1.97 0.71 100 37 38 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio IM 77,704 20,466 78,203 50,637 342,528 61,703 40,465 7,042 2,306 151,736 147,389 6,947 29,564 164,189 105,456 53,773 51,522 75,147 67,641 20,427 65,903 65,799 117,295 71,069 50,081 105,724 41,847 34,919 32,233 15,712 73,092 55,120 131,219 100,541 23,526 164,394 NHS 87,673 25,308 83,353 69,954 437,644 76,881 37,643 35,875 40,611 215,395 140,914 35,970 39,233 141,518 110,924 75,702 70,303 83,094 65,725 24,204 71,873 66,183 140,741 85,621 68,322 109,548 56,756 60,217 37,436 27,205 107,471 60,514 166,404 119,165 63,849 152,504 Table B.2 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 2001 ($000) STP 113,709 27,676 93,800 78,841 536,184 82,063 52,910 27,676 27,676 249,759 195,132 27,676 34,099 196,875 138,693 80,497 88,462 94,031 89,471 29,018 88,769 93,848 196,159 108,816 80,343 141,590 35,624 56,592 36,535 27,676 124,788 48,554 214,421 152,258 35,382 194,453 HBRRP 66,152 10,118 10,244 41,513 245,409 20,151 68,117 13,535 21,789 56,110 60,189 19,272 10,581 111,325 38,149 52,714 48,429 50,196 91,893 20,738 54,106 104,388 98,606 24,609 47,227 120,678 13,045 26,484 8,271 17,952 155,033 10,823 330,825 86,886 8,271 115,173 CMAQ 6,753 6,753 27,520 6,753 310,431 20,516 29,687 6,753 6,753 35,155 27,714 6,753 6,753 72,912 14,230 6,753 6,753 10,168 6,753 6,753 42,340 20,839 30,047 15,135 6,753 18,815 6,753 6,753 10,265 6,753 78,794 6,753 123,725 14,394 6,753 44,627 Appalachian Highways 48,805 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,504 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,771 0 0 7,632 0 0 0 5,473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,519 28,735 0 22,008 RTP 992 694 922 901 2,959 1,012 587 525 483 1,439 1,323 533 865 1,347 880 846 805 872 1,124 697 698 752 1,559 1,201 1,085 1,118 768 630 632 614 926 754 1,203 1,123 589 1,357 MP 2,137 963 3,085 963 29,583 2,762 2,853 963 963 11,823 3,788 963 963 9,849 3,128 1,095 1,183 1,483 2,588 963 4,160 5,495 6,752 2,754 963 3,233 963 963 1,058 963 7,701 963 16,398 2,919 963 7,733 MG 110,918 218,402 156,728 84,420 443,530 43,801 156,081 25,882 1,000 519,152 325,953 32,974 66,820 151,307 221,035 34,578 29,937 101,454 83,762 33,117 80,598 112,347 230,793 64,865 68,444 110,048 109,640 19,104 62,714 31,680 125,169 69,924 296,677 220,349 34,477 165,323 RABA 58,617 34,458 49,615 38,215 267,044 34,188 43,917 12,794 11,441 137,872 103,871 14,972 22,320 97,804 71,571 34,762 33,885 52,172 47,059 15,220 46,937 53,901 93,662 43,359 37,304 69,938 28,714 22,465 20,961 14,931 77,416 28,584 149,307 81,837 18,951 99,070 Program Total 573,459 344,838 503,471 372,195 2,615,313 343,077 432,261 131,045 113,021 1,378,441 1,025,777 146,060 211,197 947,126 704,065 340,719 331,278 513,389 456,015 151,136 463,016 523,552 915,614 417,429 365,995 680,691 294,110 228,125 210,105 143,485 750,389 281,989 1,440,698 808,207 192,758 966,642 % of Total 1.99 1.19 1.74 1.29 9.06 1.19 1.50 0.45 0.39 4.77 3.55 0.51 0.73 3.28 2.44 1.18 1.15 1.78 1.58 0.52 1.60 1.81 3.17 1.45 1.27 2.36 1.02 0.79 0.73 0.50 2.60 0.98 4.99 2.80 0.67 3.35 Table B.2 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 66,398 53,463 144,979 8,604 68,775 27,611 100,089 297,009 53,154 14,427 114,411 73,166 36,146 68,480 42,070 3,872,100 NHS 81,951 69,005 160,752 34,313 69,913 53,727 102,773 369,741 38,806 28,490 111,608 82,560 36,552 107,373 72,022 4,711,320 STP 107,260 74,874 199,577 27,676 97,141 38,571 124,662 447,521 45,482 27,676 146,946 106,037 44,755 119,279 27,676 5,535,190 HBRRP 76,514 43,720 330,825 38,108 40,830 13,677 66,789 120,897 20,458 18,254 78,311 95,763 49,622 27,210 8,271 3,308,251 CMAQ 6,753 10,214 58,058 6,753 6,753 6,753 12,685 83,037 9,378 6,753 28,368 22,053 6,753 17,346 6,753 1,350,514 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. Appalachian Highways RTP 0 951 0 954 119,334 1,062 0 526 2,391 801 0 583 54,716 972 0 2,415 0 753 0 575 11,501 1,123 0 1,177 67,861 693 0 1,120 0 731 443,250 49,250 MP 1,573 1,650 8,373 963 1,657 963 2,577 13,211 1,533 963 4,449 3,734 963 2,863 963 192,508 MG 55,714 50,371 202,301 40,179 153,298 41,105 120,995 658,233 28,054 22,936 170,562 64,009 30,397 166,485 25,511 6,473,150 RABA 44,591 35,233 144,272 17,230 48,801 20,675 66,715 221,875 22,647 13,225 75,009 51,694 32,734 57,597 20,102 2,941,534 Program Total 441,706 339,483 1,369,533 174,351 490,360 203,663 652,972 2,213,939 220,264 133,298 742,288 500,194 306,475 567,753 204,098 28,877,066 % of Total 1.53 1.18 4.74 0.60 1.70 0.71 2.26 7.67 0.76 0.46 2.57 1.73 1.06 1.97 0.71 100 39 40 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio IM 75,733 19,423 76,872 49,608 335,221 59,722 40,913 7,249 2,263 149,683 144,268 6,932 30,842 163,375 105,315 52,881 51,530 72,829 66,551 20,468 64,974 64,944 113,769 68,704 47,730 106,413 41,950 32,803 31,789 16,277 71,340 52,829 128,955 96,777 23,156 163,892 NHS 85,231 24,312 81,884 68,368 437,310 74,006 38,191 34,823 39,809 210,180 138,451 35,140 40,474 140,499 110,421 76,834 69,726 80,539 63,857 24,238 69,444 65,194 138,110 83,536 64,971 109,944 56,914 57,247 37,501 25,795 104,793 58,225 164,527 116,056 62,684 151,724 Table B.3 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 2000 ($000) STP 110,977 27,138 90,428 78,068 529,354 78,540 52,465 27,138 27,138 244,741 190,672 27,138 34,120 193,906 135,362 78,686 87,049 91,598 86,286 29,269 87,283 92,801 192,983 105,934 77,668 139,831 35,370 54,131 36,161 27,138 122,312 47,136 214,299 147,842 34,338 193,728 HBRRP 62,170 12,940 8,751 36,687 239,065 19,773 59,578 13,865 22,556 59,157 61,097 17,153 10,014 106,665 39,229 49,123 51,842 47,583 79,484 20,027 50,797 97,173 108,266 25,071 50,442 113,385 13,521 28,322 8,106 17,159 145,736 10,953 324,230 88,829 8,106 115,109 Appalachian CMAQ Highways 6,619 48,805 6,619 0 26,361 0 6,619 0 300,955 0 20,433 0 29,155 0 6,619 0 6,619 0 34,150 0 26,521 19,504 6,619 0 6,619 0 71,221 0 13,961 0 6,619 0 6,619 0 10,564 44,771 6,619 0 6,619 0 41,392 7,632 20,502 0 29,481 0 18,149 0 6,619 5,473 18,468 0 6,619 0 6,619 0 9,704 0 6,619 0 77,320 0 6,619 0 121,421 10,519 13,920 28,735 6,619 0 46,740 22,008 RTP 958 708 967 890 3,229 1,093 601 526 483 1,374 1,254 531 866 1,170 862 796 799 863 1,103 714 691 736 1,417 1,175 1,077 1,094 789 629 646 593 940 911 1,320 1,119 593 1,248 MP 2,096 944 3,026 944 29,011 2,709 2,797 944 944 11,594 3,715 944 944 9,659 3,067 1,074 1,160 1,455 2,538 944 4,080 5,389 6,621 2,701 944 3,170 944 944 1,038 944 7,552 944 16,081 2,863 944 7,584 MG 118,315 215,982 149,049 90,230 499,214 46,323 161,694 26,227 1,000 535,399 328,306 35,625 63,500 156,258 192,776 37,610 26,390 107,243 92,950 32,615 92,712 119,293 238,644 65,888 62,124 131,628 107,359 23,457 62,792 33,026 141,493 73,866 300,011 225,344 36,095 181,593 RABA 26,999 15,871 22,199 17,601 125,129 15,549 20,228 5,893 5,269 64,244 47,786 6,896 10,281 45,048 31,643 16,011 15,607 24,017 21,358 7,010 21,920 24,826 43,815 19,971 16,729 33,098 13,226 10,347 9,654 6,877 35,841 13,166 68,770 37,724 8,729 46,756 Program Total 537,904 323,937 459,538 349,015 2,498,488 318,147 405,622 123,284 106,081 1,310,522 961,574 136,978 197,659 887,801 632,635 319,634 310,724 481,461 420,746 141,904 440,924 490,857 873,107 391,129 333,778 657,031 276,693 214,499 197,391 134,428 707,326 264,650 1,350,133 759,208 181,263 930,380 % of Total 1.98 1.19 1.69 1.28 9.20 1.17 1.49 0.45 0.39 4.82 3.54 0.50 0.73 3.27 2.33 1.18 1.14 1.77 1.55 0.52 1.62 1.81 3.21 1.44 1.23 2.42 1.02 0.79 0.73 0.49 2.60 0.97 4.97 2.79 0.67 3.42 Table B.3 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 66,548 52,909 142,528 8,281 66,336 27,394 97,451 285,242 52,590 14,352 110,056 72,999 34,910 66,465 39,216 3,795,260 NHS 81,334 67,713 159,365 33,791 67,927 52,487 99,813 355,287 37,957 27,719 110,677 81,548 34,874 104,921 62,745 4,619,112 STP 106,252 74,907 193,951 27,138 94,548 37,633 121,835 436,412 45,089 27,138 143,219 105,994 43,975 113,357 27,138 5,427,614 HBRRP 67,283 52,452 303,722 30,493 38,642 11,893 68,874 119,467 17,065 19,031 85,425 109,971 53,910 34,006 8,106 3,242,299 Appalachian CMAQ Highways RTP 6,619 0 963 9,597 0 961 57,240 119,334 1,079 6,619 0 527 6,619 2,391 801 6,619 0 586 12,352 54,716 985 80,340 0 2,474 9,118 0 771 6,619 0 566 27,457 11,501 1,134 21,470 0 1,147 6,619 67,861 698 17,032 0 1,060 6,619 0 739 1,323,888 443,250 49,250 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. MP 1,543 1,618 8,211 944 1,625 944 2,527 12,955 1,503 944 4,363 3,662 944 2,808 944 188,784 MG 64,814 45,927 230,141 48,170 155,366 44,044 125,650 675,597 39,416 22,815 175,452 48,237 27,750 166,641 37,139 6,719,189 RABA 20,600 16,436 66,451 7,936 22,278 9,523 30,848 101,729 10,798 6,091 34,897 23,810 15,077 26,529 9,259 1,358,350 Program Total 415,956 322,519 1,282,021 163,900 456,534 191,122 615,050 2,069,503 214,306 125,276 704,181 468,838 286,619 532,817 191,905 27,166,997 % of Total 1.53 1.19 4.72 0.60 1.68 0.70 2.26 7.62 0.79 0.46 2.59 1.73 1.06 1.96 0.71 100 41 42 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio IM 74,889 20,208 74,706 48,922 336,416 56,575 39,920 6,991 2,538 144,000 142,484 6,590 29,531 170,154 106,674 52,795 50,517 70,455 65,934 20,465 63,864 63,077 113,349 68,122 47,085 105,824 41,155 34,040 32,393 13,864 68,521 52,623 131,061 95,301 22,684 161,410 NHS 85,449 25,167 79,610 66,886 438,478 69,644 37,751 34,679 39,132 205,447 138,500 35,080 39,037 147,022 111,156 73,442 68,864 77,778 64,335 24,189 68,542 64,584 137,662 81,438 63,561 110,121 56,080 58,056 37,355 27,806 101,571 57,797 168,849 114,371 61,692 149,829 Table B.4 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 1999 ($000) STIP 109,903 26,883 89,142 77,280 530,519 75,845 51,909 26,883 26,883 238,167 187,793 26,883 33,298 199,250 136,300 78,331 86,792 87,349 88,004 28,536 85,585 91,392 191,491 104,769 76,187 139,394 35,196 54,405 37,074 26,883 118,811 47,357 215,190 145,171 34,020 198,455 Bridge 61,717 13,503 9,258 36,525 253,894 20,783 63,016 14,008 21,801 51,362 57,916 18,047 10,396 113,654 40,237 48,822 55,959 40,710 78,588 22,370 51,718 106,614 87,103 27,433 46,297 101,363 13,856 27,951 8,027 17,980 146,982 10,086 321,098 86,453 8,027 112,627 Appalachian Recreational CMAQ Highways Trails 6,557 48,805 806 6,557 0 487 25,149 0 723 6,557 0 741 279,690 0 2,755 19,718 0 683 29,535 0 486 6,557 0 429 6,557 0 386 32,724 0 1,571 25,304 19,504 1,073 6,557 0 450 6,557 0 584 68,775 0 1,013 13,726 0 707 6,557 0 603 6,557 0 709 10,332 44,771 684 6,557 0 930 6,557 0 548 40,425 7,632 615 51,686 0 609 30,088 0 1,077 17,675 0 804 6,557 5,473 704 18,501 0 871 6,557 0 523 6,557 0 491 9,145 0 508 6,557 0 473 75,560 0 855 6,557 0 733 118,718 10,519 908 13,428 28,735 935 6,557 0 447 48,119 22,008 1,057 MP 2,076 935 2,997 935 28,740 2,683 2,771 935 935 11,486 3,680 935 935 9,569 3,039 1,064 1,150 1,441 2,514 935 4,042 5,338 6,560 2,676 935 3,140 935 935 1,028 935 7,482 935 15,931 2,836 935 7,513 MG 113,570 208,848 138,713 89,207 416,980 51,156 154,234 24,383 1,000 495,661 328,399 33,788 65,516 123,041 218,353 37,662 20,493 99,612 111,847 29,075 74,379 76,800 234,337 64,080 55,945 128,180 103,475 17,580 58,821 31,664 114,708 71,540 284,267 222,430 34,652 225,004 Program Total 503,773 302,588 420,297 327,053 2,287,472 297,089 379,622 114,866 99,232 1,180,419 904,653 128,330 185,854 832,476 630,192 299,276 291,041 433,132 418,710 132,676 396,801 460,100 801,667 366,997 302,746 607,393 257,777 200,016 184,353 126,162 634,488 247,628 1,266,542 709,660 169,015 926,021 % of Total 1.99 1.20 1.66 1.29 9.05 1.17 1.50 0.45 0.39 4.67 3.58 0.51 0.73 3.29 2.49 1.18 1.15 1.71 1.66 0.52 1.57 1.82 3.17 1.45 1.20 2.40 1.02 0.79 0.73 0.50 2.51 0.98 5.01 2.81 0.67 3.66 Table B.4 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 64,764 52,674 140,125 8,569 63,721 27,532 96,793 283,715 51,294 15,209 108,924 73,632 32,450 65,975 38,254 3,758,769 NHS 79,707 67,177 158,378 33,101 65,307 52,606 99,510 347,568 36,385 26,462 108,779 82,490 31,961 103,473 61,455 4,575,322 STIP 103,662 72,760 193,117 26,883 91,499 37,888 120,818 422,473 43,804 26,883 143,095 105,328 41,824 112,283 26,883 5,376,526 Bridge 59,056 57,649 315,208 26,878 35,284 10,551 61,608 122,955 15,253 19,416 80,469 97,293 59,901 35,249 8,027 3,210,979 Appalachian Recreational CMAQ Highways Trails MP 6,557 0 663 1,528 9,670 0 652 1,603 56,450 119,334 1,056 8,134 7,675 0 442 931 6,557 2,391 716 1,610 6,557 0 465 935 12,052 54,716 747 2,503 77,593 0 1,852 12,834 8,825 0 574 1,489 6,557 0 443 935 22,506 11,501 1,144 4,322 20,740 0 781 3,628 6,557 67,861 603 935 16,853 0 771 2,782 6,557 0 515 935 1,311,481 443,250 39,400 187,015 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. Program MG Total 73,060 388,997 37,450 299,634 213,196 1,204,998 48,426 152,905 137,780 404,865 42,313 178,847 124,319 573,066 640,274 1,909,264 35,945 193,570 21,007 116,911 162,810 643,551 65,258 449,150 27,753 269,847 161,183 498,568 36,337 178,963 6,386,511 25,289,255 % of Total 1.54 1.18 4.76 0.60 1.60 0.71 2.27 7.55 0.77 0.46 2.54 1.78 1.07 1.97 0.71 100 43 44 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Table B.5 Apportionment of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Year 1998 ($000) IM 68,768 17,663 64,338 43,528 297,832 50,326 34,488 6,394 2,276 126,906 124,674 5,695 25,403 148,143 90,627 45,986 44,545 62,188 57,633 17,963 54,233 55,923 99,310 59,451 40,959 90,271 36,565 29,451 26,992 12,359 61,234 46,055 116,227 83,848 20,481 140,538 NHS 74,253 21,804 69,182 58,141 380,442 60,385 30,842 29,860 33,979 178,291 120,492 30,560 33,879 125,188 94,761 63,785 59,766 67,622 55,949 21,000 58,353 56,031 119,521 70,725 55,218 92,828 48,582 50,420 32,456 23,179 88,190 49,787 146,567 99,213 53,915 128,713 STP 96,461 23,275 76,227 67,480 462,008 67,663 44,416 23,275 23,275 206,684 161,787 23,275 28,442 172,432 115,787 66,957 74,866 78,019 74,719 24,567 73,134 79,307 165,276 90,774 65,853 119,060 30,625 46,840 30,526 22,577 102,514 40,926 188,274 127,518 29,773 167,585 HBRRP 51,958 9,335 7,112 31,509 231,714 24,410 44,287 7,112 18,078 56,202 46,918 18,755 7,112 104,530 34,921 46,754 44,293 32,394 66,626 19,248 37,975 128,636 74,885 24,728 40,729 93,482 13,934 28,447 7,112 14,198 155,297 8,212 284,481 75,497 7,112 100,924 CMAQ 5,818 5,818 21,292 5,818 244,430 16,694 25,005 5,818 5,818 27,706 21,423 5,818 5,818 58,227 11,621 5,818 5,818 8,747 5,818 5,818 34,225 43,760 25,474 14,965 5,818 15,663 5,818 5,818 8,078 5,643 66,530 5,818 114,564 11,368 5,818 40,512 RTP 604 365 542 556 2,067 512 365 322 290 1,179 805 337 438 759 530 452 531 513 697 411 461 456 808 603 528 653 392 368 381 355 641 549 681 702 335 793 MP 1,802 812 2,602 812 24,945 2,329 2,405 812 812 9,969 3,194 812 812 8,305 2,638 923 998 1,251 2,182 812 3,508 4,634 5,694 2,322 812 2,726 812 812 892 812 6,494 812 13,827 2,461 812 6,521 MG 135,112 181,235 102,348 74,587 330,494 33,182 145,533 24,895 1,000 400,111 278,720 25,545 59,271 101,918 156,260 27,551 20,379 122,877 74,383 24,439 62,890 28,744 184,168 53,907 51,382 89,127 84,317 9,572 52,115 27,600 67,611 61,289 230,602 211,030 26,814 147,667 Program Total 434,776 260,307 343,643 282,429 1,973,932 255,502 327,341 98,489 85,527 1,007,048 758,015 110,797 161,176 719,503 507,145 258,226 251,196 373,610 338,008 114,258 324,780 397,492 675,135 317,474 261,299 503,809 221,043 171,728 158,553 106,723 548,511 213,449 1,095,224 611,638 145,060 733,252 % of Total 2.02 1.21 1.60 1.31 9.18 1.19 1.52 0.46 0.40 4.69 3.53 0.52 0.75 3.35 2.36 1.20 1.17 1.74 1.57 0.53 1.51 1.85 3.14 1.48 1.22 2.34 1.03 0.80 0.74 0.50 2.55 0.99 5.10 2.85 0.67 3.41 Table B.5 (continued) State Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM 57,074 46,160 126,359 7,586 56,813 24,165 85,177 243,133 45,571 12,165 93,982 64,790 30,205 58,451 32,962 3,293,868 NHS 69,239 58,330 137,632 28,669 56,744 45,574 86,511 297,614 31,610 24,089 94,552 71,625 27,730 89,306 53,298 3,956,404 STP HBRRP 89,657 48,398 62,767 37,979 169,308 284,481 23,275 18,337 79,821 31,183 32,800 9,884 104,469 54,329 361,813 112,880 38,235 10,897 23,275 14,307 125,179 63,616 90,652 71,570 37,979 56,307 99,644 24,620 23,275 7,112 4,654,326 2,844,815 CMAQ 5,818 8,187 65,338 6,498 5,818 5,818 10,204 65,693 7,752 5,818 23,978 17,560 5,818 14,268 5,818 1,163,398 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1997–2001. RTP 497 489 792 331 537 349 560 1,389 431 332 858 586 452 578 386 29,550 MP 1,327 1,391 7,060 812 1,398 812 2,173 11,140 1,293 812 3,751 3,149 812 2,414 812 162,327 MG 62,073 42,846 253,521 45,828 115,868 34,804 142,084 475,300 31,400 19,687 148,645 60,112 75,081 140,540 29,984 5,386,451 Program Total 334,082 258,149 1,044,491 131,336 348,182 154,204 485,507 1,568,962 167,187 100,486 554,561 380,043 234,383 429,821 153,646 21,491,138 % of Total 1.55 1.20 4.86 0.61 1.62 0.72 2.26 7.30 0.78 0.47 2.58 1.77 1.09 2.00 0.71 100 45 46 Table B.6 California Share of FAHP Funding, Fiscal Years 1998–2002 Year IM 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 297,832 336,416 335,221 342,528 346,535 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 3,293,868 3,758,769 3,795,260 3,872,100 3,934,028 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 9.04 8.95 8.83 8.85 8.81 NHS 380,442 438,478 437,310 437,644 443,257 3,956,404 4,575,322 4,619,112 4,711,320 4,785,634 9.62 9.58 9.47 9.29 9.26 STIP 462,008 530,519 529,354 536,184 539,768 4,654,326 5,376,526 5,427,614 5,535,190 5,621,889 9.93 9.87 9.75 9.69 9.60 Bridge 231,714 253,894 239,065 245,409 248,795 2,844,815 3,210,979 3,242,299 3,308,251 3,361,404 8.15 7.91 7.37 7.42 7.40 Appalachian Recreational CMAQ Highways Trails California Total 244,430 2,067 279,690 0 2,755 300,955 0 3,229 310,431 0 2,959 292,486 0 3,333 U.S. Total 1,163,398 29,550 1,311,481 443,250 39,400 1,323,888 443,250 49,250 1,350,514 443,250 49,250 1,371,569 442,950 49,250 California Share of U.S. Total 21.01 6.99 21.33 6.99 22.73 6.56 22.99 6.01 21.32 6.77 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. MP 24,945 28,740 29,011 29,583 30,044 162,327 187,015 188,784 192,508 195,510 15.37 15.37 15.37 15.37 15.37 MG 330,494 416,980 499,214 443,530 435,684 5,386,451 6,386,511 6,719,189 6,473,150 6,232,855 6.14 6.53 7.43 6.85 6.99 RABA Program Total 125,129 267,044 315,753 1,973,932 2,287,472 2,498,488 2,615,313 2,655,655 1,358,350 2,941,534 3,519,430 21,491,138 25,289,255 27,166,997 28,877,066 29,514,519 9.18 9.05 9.21 9.20 9.08 9.06 8.97 9.00 Appendix C Data Tables for the Interstate Maintenance Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table C.1 Apportionment of IM and NHS Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Initial IM Component Derivation—Statutory Formula 48 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina IS Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 3,874 1.87 2,355 1.14 4,887 2.36 2,266 1.09 14,502 6.99 4,050 1.95 1,843 0.89 253 0.12 80 0.04 7,172 3.46 6,487 3.13 337 0.16 2,465 1.19 9,484 4.57 5,015 2.42 3,193 1.54 3,664 1.77 3,428 1.65 3,751 1.81 1,493 0.72 2,761 1.33 3,173 1.53 5,967 2.88 3,941 1.90 2,788 1.34 5,291 2.55 4,765 2.30 1,977 0.95 2,323 1.12 989 0.48 2,676 1.29 4,106 1.98 7,672 3.70 4,596 2.22 IS Miles Traveledb: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 11,818 1.84 1,383 0.21 11,339 1.76 6,357 0.99 75,633 11.75 9,550 1.48 9,686 1.51 1,402 0.22 481 0.07 29,007 4.51 26,402 4.10 1,773 0.28 3,121 0.49 28,885 4.49 15,964 2.48 6,498 1.01 6,456 1.00 11,975 1.86 10,440 1.62 2,934 0.46 14,499 2.25 15,130 2.35 20,993 3.26 11,411 1.77 6,140 0.95 17,675 2.75 2,418 0.38 3,620 0.56 3,982 0.62 2,636 0.41 12,692 1.97 6,400 0.99 24,261 3.77 17,099 2.66 Commercial Contributionsc: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 270,871 2.32 27,387 0.23 241,144 2.07 202,620 1.74 896,860 7.68 163,230 1.40 101,454 0.87 20,974 0.18 8,072 0.07 452,419 3.88 483,289 4.14 12,010 0.10 78,367 0.67 471,360 4.04 363,553 3.11 180,973 1.55 138,124 1.18 255,625 2.19 213,746 1.83 58,461 0.50 177,529 1.52 137,326 1.18 331,020 2.84 209,148 1.79 186,578 1.60 314,759 2.70 67,276 0.58 131,286 1.12 96,591 0.83 37,690 0.32 280,197 2.40 145,484 1.25 399,709 3.42 320,863 2.75 IM Factord (before SSM) 2.0080 0.5282 2.0610 1.2719 8.8087 1.6114 1.0875 0.1732 0.0608 3.9466 3.7898 0.1803 0.7814 4.3658 2.6707 1.3663 1.3174 1.9009 1.7537 0.5588 1.7016 1.6857 2.9913 1.8214 1.2987 2.6644 1.0829 0.8800 0.8553 0.4031 1.8874 1.4066 3.6306 2.5403 IM Component ($) 78,994,347 20,778,586 81,081,402 50,035,755 346,535,049 63,394,022 42,784,030 6,812,168 2,392,571 155,261,942 149,090,863 7,092,334 30,742,071 171,752,813 105,065,510 53,750,436 51,828,764 74,783,120 68,992,193 21,981,967 66,939,892 66,314,154 117,677,536 71,655,521 51,090,731 104,816,403 42,599,765 34,618,768 33,646,328 15,856,283 74,251,654 55,334,793 142,828,894 99,935,622 Table C.1 (continued) 49 State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IS Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 2,290 1.10 7,428 3.58 3,898 1.88 3,089 1.49 7,380 3.56 387 0.19 3,526 1.70 2,726 1.31 4,759 2.29 14,790 7.13 4,066 1.96 1,281 0.62 5,308 2.56 3,824 1.84 2,254 1.09 3,204 1.54 3,654 1.76 207,488 100.00 IS Miles Traveledb: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 1,490 0.23 29,607 4.60 8,835 1.37 8,294 1.29 22,335 3.47 2,162 0.34 11,425 1.78 2,227 0.35 17,894 2.78 47,309 7.35 7,401 1.15 1,564 0.24 20,804 3.23 14,562 2.26 5,046 0.78 9,825 1.53 2,585 0.40 643,425 100.00 Commercial Contributionsc: Factor Weight, 33% No. % 51,806 0.44 553,543 4.74 223,999 1.92 157,818 1.35 491,501 4.21 20,251 0.17 215,989 1.85 53,138 0.46 312,915 2.68 989,491 8.48 109,513 0.94 21,104 0.18 347,073 2.97 207,472 1.78 95,549 0.82 245,990 2.11 101,826 0.87 11,674,973 100.00 IM Factord (before SSM) 0.5930 4.3076 1.7235 1.3765 3.7460 0.2320 1.7750 0.7050 2.5850 7.6520 1.3493 0.3471 2.9214 1.9611 0.8963 1.7261 1.0117 100.0000 IM Component ($) 23,328,616 169,461,056 67,801,776 54,152,725 147,368,266 9,126,783 69,829,604 27,735,841 101,693,333 301,033,441 53,081,801 13,653,989 114,930,489 77,149,767 35,261,706 67,903,367 39,799,188 3,934,028,039 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. aLane miles on the interstate highway system. bMillions of vehicle miles traveled on the interstate highway system. cAnnual contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund attributable to commercial vehicles. dCombined factor-weighting of interstate lane miles at one-third, interstate VMT at one-third, and commercial vehicle contributions at one-third. Table C.2 Comparison of Alternative Factor-Weighting Mixes on Initial IM Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 50 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Current Statutory Formula Weight, 33/33/33% Amount ($) Factor 78,994,347 20,778,586 81,081,402 50,035,755 346,535,049 63,394,022 42,784,030 6,812,168 2,392,571 155,261,942 149,090,863 7,092,334 30,742,071 171,752,813 105,065,510 53,750,436 51,828,764 74,783,120 68,992,193 21,981,967 66,939,892 66,314,154 117,677,536 71,655,521 51,090,731 104,816,403 42,599,765 34,618,768 33,646,328 15,856,283 74,251,654 55,334,793 142,828,894 99,935,622 2.0080 0.5282 2.0610 1.2719 8.8087 1.6114 1.0875 0.1732 0.0608 3.9466 3.7898 0.1803 0.7814 4.3658 2.6707 1.3663 1.3174 1.9009 1.7537 0.5588 1.7016 1.6857 2.9913 1.8214 1.2987 2.6644 1.0829 0.8800 0.8553 0.4031 1.8874 1.4066 3.6306 2.5403 Increased Weight to Interstate Lane Miles,a 40/30/30% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 80,222,249 2.0392 1,227,902 19,623,567 0.4988 –1,155,019 81,098,911 2.0615 17,508 51,859,714 1.3182 1,823,959 342,102,362 8.6960 –4,432,687 62,554,859 1.5901 –839,163 41,924,247 1.0657 –859,784 6,837,697 0.1738 25,528 2,425,310 0.0616 32,739 154,980,571 3.9395 –281,371 150,466,803 3.8248 1,375,940 6,787,793 0.1725 –304,541 30,308,538 0.7704 –433,533 170,460,596 4.3330 –1,292,217 106,809,332 2.7150 1,743,822 54,473,504 1.3847 723,068 51,300,149 1.3040 –528,616 75,918,412 1.9298 1,135,292 69,295,413 1.7614 303,219 21,753,687 0.5530 –228,280 66,227,964 1.6835 –711,928 64,310,110 1.6347 –2,004,044 117,063,915 2.9757 –613,621 71,537,472 1.8184 –118,049 52,268,637 1.3286 1,177,906 104,940,961 2.6675 124,557 40,606,738 1.0322 –1,993,028 35,580,737 0.9044 961,969 33,536,450 0.8525 –109,878 15,540,666 0.3950 –315,617 76,268,077 1.9387 2,016,423 54,703,579 1.3905 –631,214 142,014,699 3.6099 –814,195 100,753,939 2.5611 818,318 Increased Weight to Interstate Miles Traveled,b 30/40/30% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 78,320,672 1.9909 –673,675 19,546,321 0.4969 –1,232,265 79,906,152 2.0312 –1,175,251 48,918,976 1.2435 –1,116,780 358,125,060 9.1033 11,590,011 62,893,679 1.5987 –500,343 44,427,840 1.1293 1,643,809 6,988,162 0.1776 175,994 2,447,407 0.0622 54,836 157,471,203 4.0028 2,209,261 150,324,483 3.8211 1,233,620 7,467,148 0.1898 374,814 29,576,105 0.7518 –1,165,966 172,238,394 4.3782 485,580 104,319,665 2.6517 –745,845 52,348,399 1.3307 –1,402,038 50,593,214 1.2860 –1,235,550 74,626,561 1.8970 –156,560 68,476,197 1.7406 –515,996 21,577,676 0.5485 –404,291 69,110,879 1.7567 2,170,987 68,933,520 1.7522 2,619,367 118,745,319 3.0184 1,067,783 71,466,881 1.8166 –188,640 49,735,776 1.2642 –1,354,955 105,141,608 2.6726 325,205 39,818,202 1.0121 –2,781,563 33,370,231 0.8482 –1,248,537 32,716,369 0.8316 –929,959 15,882,357 0.4037 26,074 74,586,629 1.8959 334,975 53,714,401 1.3654 –1,620,392 143,379,661 3.6446 550,767 100,396,727 2.5520 461,106 Increased Weight to Commercial Vehicle Contributions,c 30/30/40% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 78,440,120 1.9939 –554,227 23,165,871 0.5889 2,387,284 82,239,145 2.0905 1,157,743 49,328,577 1.2539 –707,179 339,377,724 8.6267 –7,157,325 64,733,528 1.6455 1,339,506 42,000,005 1.0676 –784,026 6,610,646 0.1680 –201,522 2,304,996 0.0586 –87,575 153,334,052 3.8976 –1,927,890 146,481,302 3.7234 –2,609,561 7,022,062 0.1785 –70,272 32,341,570 0.8221 1,599,499 172,559,450 4.3863 806,637 104,067,533 2.6453 –997,977 54,429,406 1.3836 678,970 53,592,930 1.3623 1,764,166 73,804,388 1.8761 –978,732 69,204,971 1.7591 212,777 22,614,539 0.5748 632,571 65,480,833 1.6645 –1,459,059 65,698,831 1.6700 –615,322 117,223,374 2.9797 –454,162 71,962,211 1.8292 306,689 51,267,780 1.3032 177,050 104,366,641 2.6529 –449,763 47,374,356 1.2042 4,774,591 34,905,337 0.8873 286,568 34,686,165 0.8817 1,039,837 16,145,825 0.4104 289,542 71,900,256 1.8276 –2,351,398 57,586,400 1.4638 2,251,607 143,092,322 3.6373 263,428 98,656,198 2.5078 –1,279,423 Table C.2 (continued) 51 State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Current Statutory Formula Weight, 33/33/33% Amount ($) Factor 23,328,616 169,461,056 67,801,776 54,152,725 147,368,266 9,126,783 69,829,604 27,735,841 101,693,333 301,033,441 53,081,801 13,653,989 114,930,489 77,149,767 35,261,706 67,903,367 39,799,188 3,934,028,039 0.5930 4.3076 1.7235 1.3765 3.7460 0.2320 1.7750 0.7050 2.5850 7.6520 1.3493 0.3471 2.9214 1.9611 0.8963 1.7261 1.0117 100 Increased Weight to Interstate Lane Miles,a 40/30/30% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 22,741,422 0.5781 –587,194 171,167,274 4.3509 1,706,217 68,569,525 1.7430 767,749 54,055,327 1.3740 –97,398 149,193,180 3.7924 1,824,914 8,896,487 0.2261 –230,296 70,124,663 1.7825 295,059 26,752,808 0.6800 –983,033 102,068,061 2.5945 374,729 304,272,233 7.7344 3,238,792 51,463,799 1.3082 –1,618,003 12,999,715 0.3304 –654,273 115,132,499 2.9266 202,010 76,425,819 1.9427 –723,948 34,955,178 0.8885 –306,528 69,401,971 1.7641 1,498,604 39,250,424 0.9977 –548,764 3,934,028,039 100 0 Increased Weight to Interstate Miles Traveled,b 30/40/30% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 21,906,770 0.5569 –1,421,846 170,617,258 4.3370 1,156,201 66,423,493 1.6884 –1,378,283 53,808,569 1.3678 –344,156 146,287,501 3.7185 –1,080,765 9,535,994 0.2424 409,211 69,832,115 1.7751 2,511 26,323,889 0.6691 –1,411,952 102,464,746 2.6046 771,413 299,855,758 7.6221 –1,177,683 52,298,739 1.3294 –783,062 13,244,850 0.3367 –409,138 116,157,418 2.9526 1,226,929 78,338,286 1.9913 1,188,519 34,820,760 0.8851 –440,946 67,120,230 1.7061 –783,137 37,399,789 0.9507 –2,399,399 3,934,028,039 100 0 Increased Weight to Commercial Vehicle Contributions,c 30/30/40% Amount ($) Factor Change ($) 25,337,656 0.6441 2,009,040 166,598,638 4.2348 –2,862,419 68,412,311 1.7390 610,535 54,594,279 1.3877 441,554 146,624,117 3.7271 –744,149 8,947,867 0.2274 –178,916 69,532,034 1.7675 –297,570 30,130,826 0.7659 2,394,985 100,547,191 2.5558 –1,146,142 298,972,333 7.5996 –2,061,108 55,482,866 1.4103 2,401,065 14,717,400 0.3741 1,063,411 113,501,550 2.8851 –1,428,939 76,685,197 1.9493 –464,570 36,009,180 0.9153 747,474 67,187,900 1.7079 –715,467 42,747,351 1.0866 2,948,163 3,934,028,039 100 0 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. aLane miles on the interstate highway system. bMillions of vehicle miles traveled on the interstate highway system. cAnnual contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund attributable to commercial vehicles. Appendix D Data Tables for the National Highway System Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table D.1a Apportionment of IM and NHS Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Initial NHS Component Derivation—Statutory Formula 54 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota OPAR Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 25% No. % 9,133 1.91 1,855 0.39 7,972 1.67 7,600 1.59 40,629 8.49 9,380 1.96 3,172 0.66 1,344 0.28 526 0.11 23,434 4.89 14,426 3.01 871 0.18 4,544 0.95 14,880 3.11 9,813 2.05 10,812 2.26 9,828 2.05 8,676 1.81 6,544 1.37 2,129 0.44 6,247 1.30 5,662 1.18 15,458 3.23 11,363 2.37 7,975 1.67 10,970 2.29 5,987 1.25 7,572 1.58 4,075 0.85 1,636 0.34 7,675 1.60 6,738 1.41 15,944 3.33 12,699 2.65 7,100 1.48 OPAR VMTb: Factor Weight, 35% No. % 13,372 1.65 735 0.09 15,884 1.97 8,870 1.10 114,840 14.21 15,000 1.86 7,997 0.99 3,239 0.40 1,336 0.17 50,843 6.29 22,794 2.82 2,539 0.31 3,296 0.41 26,075 3.23 17,396 2.15 8,271 1.02 8,695 1.08 11,918 1.47 10,085 1.25 3,047 0.38 16,354 2.02 16,003 1.98 29,337 3.63 13,246 1.64 9,464 1.17 18,470 2.29 2,899 0.36 5,833 0.72 4,484 0.55 3,392 0.42 26,781 3.31 5,947 0.74 36,894 4.56 22,104 2.73 2,240 0.28 Diesel Fuel Usagec: Factor Weight 30% No. % 745,713 2.32 75,400 0.23 663,876 2.07 557,820 1.74 2,469,082 7.68 449,375 1.40 279,303 0.87 57,741 0.18 22,223 0.07 1,245,526 3.88 1,330,511 4.14 33,061 0.10 215,746 0.67 1,297,666 4.04 1,000,871 3.11 498,225 1.55 380,258 1.18 703,740 2.19 588,447 1.83 160,944 0.50 488,744 1.52 378,060 1.18 911,306 2.84 575,792 1.79 513,653 1.60 866,541 2.70 185,212 0.58 361,436 1.12 265,918 0.83 103,763 0.32 771,389 2.40 400,522 1.25 1,100,407 3.42 883,343 2.75 142,621 0.44 PAR Miles Per Capitad: Factor Weight, 10% No. % 1.1994 1.55 2.7537 3.56 1.0278 1.33 1.5133 1.95 0.6675 0.86 1.2804 1.65 0.6039 0.78 0.8357 1.08 0.4344 0.56 0.7853 1.01 1.0476 1.35 0.4089 0.53 2.2212 2.87 0.8045 1.04 1.0000 1.29 1.9625 2.53 2.0580 2.66 1.2281 1.59 0.9447 1.22 1.1650 1.50 0.6974 0.90 0.5706 0.74 0.8840 1.14 1.2757 1.65 1.5515 2.00 1.1918 1.54 4.8871 6.31 2.2882 2.95 1.3130 1.70 0.8711 1.12 0.5045 0.65 2.4446 3.16 0.5103 0.66 0.8811 1.14 5.9959 7.74 NHS Factore Initialf NHS (before SSM) Component ($) 1.9069 91,255,044 0.5547 26,544,507 1.8565 88,843,601 1.4970 71,642,013 9.4852 453,928,598 1.7241 82,509,850 0.8506 40,706,732 0.3723 17,814,837 0.1622 7,760,316 4.6893 224,410,751 3.1175 149,190,523 0.2391 11,441,818 0.8682 41,549,406 3.2212 154,155,010 2.3290 111,458,620 1.6412 78,541,039 1.5104 72,281,257 1.7846 85,402,165 1.4496 69,374,796 0.5438 26,023,182 1.5806 75,642,865 1.4152 67,726,019 3.0423 145,593,147 1.8691 89,447,878 1.5060 72,073,286 2.3353 111,760,312 1.2421 59,443,363 1.2808 61,295,086 0.8247 39,467,293 0.4416 21,135,528 2.3456 112,252,274 1.2989 62,159,442 3.5232 168,605,752 2.5585 122,442,320 1.3751 65,809,047 Table D.1a (continued) 55 State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total OPAR Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 25% No. % 14,531 3.03 10,062 2.10 8,613 1.80 15,229 3.18 1,410 0.29 7,008 1.46 5,969 1.25 10,734 2.24 44,075 9.21 3,391 0.71 1,007 0.21 11,047 2.31 9,605 2.01 3,409 0.71 13,376 2.79 4,652 0.97 478,787 100.00 OPAR VMTb: Factor Weight, 35% No. % 24,881 3.08 10,877 1.35 10,415 1.29 30,138 3.73 3,137 0.39 10,638 1.32 2,264 0.28 17,302 2.14 71,838 8.89 4,469 0.55 1,317 0.16 19,668 2.43 16,563 2.05 4,176 0.52 18,830 2.33 2,049 0.25 808,242 100.00 Diesel Fuel Usagec: Factor Weight 30% No. % 1,523,918 4.74 616,674 1.92 434,475 1.35 1,353,117 4.21 55,754 0.17 594,622 1.85 146,292 0.46 861,463 2.68 2,724,099 8.48 301,493 0.94 58,101 0.18 955,500 2.97 571,177 1.78 263,051 0.82 677,219 2.11 280,329 0.87 32,141,519 100.00 PAR Miles Per Capitad: Factor Weight, 10% No. % 0.7932 1.02 1.6590 2.14 1.4025 1.81 0.7549 0.97 0.7029 0.91 1.0767 1.39 4.7236 6.10 1.1167 1.44 1.1576 1.49 1.3693 1.77 1.5411 1.99 0.9475 1.22 0.9343 1.21 1.2842 1.66 1.2676 1.64 6.8979 8.91 77.4375 100.00 NHS Factore Initialf NHS (before SSM) Component ($) 3.3610 160,844,722 1.7862 85,482,357 1.4874 71,180,852 3.4607 165,617,802 0.3523 16,858,893 1.5206 72,772,007 1.1562 55,333,652 2.2580 108,059,363 8.1043 387,844,167 0.8288 39,664,294 0.3628 17,364,662 2.4427 116,899,311 1.8725 89,612,999 0.7702 36,858,827 2.3096 110,530,616 1.4841 71,021,445 100.0000 4,785,633,646 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. aLane miles of principal arterial routes other than on the interstate highway system. bMillions of vehicle miles traveled on principal arterial routes other than on the interstate highway system. cDiesel fuel used on highways. dTotal lane miles of all principal arterial routes divided by state population (increases funds to states with sparse populations). eCombined factor weighting OPAR lane miles at 25 percent, OPAR VMT at 35 percent, diesel fuel usage at 30 percent, and PAR sparsity at 10 percent. fExcludes reduction for small-state minimum. Table D.1b Apportionment of IM and NHS Funding, with 0.5 Percent Small-State Minimum Applied, Fiscal Year 2002 56 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina IM Component ($) 78,994,347 20,778,586 81,081,402 50,035,755 346,535,049 63,394,022 42,784,030 6,812,168 2,392,571 155,261,942 149,090,863 7,092,334 30,742,071 171,752,813 105,065,510 53,750,436 51,828,764 74,783,120 68,992,193 21,981,967 66,939,892 66,314,154 117,677,536 71,655,521 51,090,731 104,816,403 42,599,765 34,618,768 33,646,328 15,856,283 74,251,654 55,334,793 142,828,894 99,935,622 Initial NHS Component ($) 91,255,044 26,544,507 88,843,601 71,642,013 453,928,598 82,509,850 40,706,732 17,814,837 7,760,316 224,410,751 149,190,523 11,441,818 41,549,406 154,155,010 111,458,620 78,541,039 72,281,257 85,402,165 69,374,796 26,023,182 75,642,865 67,726,019 145,593,147 89,447,878 72,073,286 111,760,312 59,443,363 61,295,086 39,467,293 21,135,528 112,252,274 62,159,442 168,605,752 122,442,320 Initial Combined IM/NHS ($) 170,249,391 47,323,094 169,925,003 121,677,769 800,463,647 145,903,872 83,490,762 24,627,005 10,152,887 379,672,693 298,281,386 18,534,153 72,291,477 325,907,823 216,524,130 132,291,475 124,110,021 160,185,285 138,366,989 48,005,150 142,582,757 134,040,172 263,270,683 161,103,399 123,164,017 216,576,716 102,043,129 95,913,854 73,113,621 36,991,811 186,503,928 117,494,236 311,434,646 222,377,942 Adjusted Initial Share with IM/NHS SSM Non-SSM 0.5% Funding IM Adjusted NHS Initial % Additions % Minimum Combined ($) Component ($) Component ($) 1.9525 0.0000 1.9525 1.9264 167,979,763 78,994,347 88,985,416 0.5427 0.0000 0.5427 0.5355 46,692,220 20,778,586 25,913,634 1.9488 0.0000 1.9488 1.9228 167,659,700 81,081,402 86,578,298 1.3954 0.0000 1.3954 1.3768 120,055,659 50,035,755 70,019,904 9.1800 0.0000 9.1800 9.0576 789,792,512 346,535,049 443,257,463 1.6733 0.0000 1.6733 1.6510 143,958,800 63,394,022 80,564,778 0.9575 0.0000 0.9575 0.9447 82,377,731 42,784,030 39,593,700 0.2824 0.2176 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 6,812,168 36,786,140 0.1164 0.3836 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 2,392,571 41,205,738 4.3542 0.0000 4.3542 4.2962 374,611,203 155,261,942 219,349,261 3.4208 0.0000 3.4208 3.3752 294,304,939 149,090,863 145,214,076 0.2126 0.2874 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 7,092,334 36,505,974 0.8291 0.0000 0.8291 0.8180 71,327,745 30,742,071 40,585,675 3.7376 0.0000 3.7376 3.6878 321,563,083 171,752,813 149,810,270 2.4832 0.0000 2.4832 2.4501 213,637,605 105,065,510 108,572,095 1.5172 0.0000 1.5172 1.4969 130,527,872 53,750,436 76,777,436 1.4233 0.0000 1.4233 1.4044 122,455,487 51,828,764 70,626,722 1.8371 0.0000 1.8371 1.8126 158,049,824 74,783,120 83,266,704 1.5868 0.0000 1.5868 1.5657 136,522,392 68,992,193 67,530,199 0.5505 0.0000 0.5505 0.5432 47,365,184 21,981,967 25,383,216 1.6352 0.0000 1.6352 1.6134 140,681,959 66,939,892 73,742,067 1.5372 0.0000 1.5372 1.5167 132,253,257 66,314,154 65,939,103 3.0193 0.0000 3.0193 2.9790 259,760,971 117,677,536 142,083,435 1.8476 0.0000 1.8476 1.8230 158,955,699 71,655,521 87,300,177 1.4125 0.0000 1.4125 1.3937 121,522,094 51,090,731 70,431,363 2.4838 0.0000 2.4838 2.4507 213,689,490 104,816,403 108,873,086 1.1703 0.0000 1.1703 1.1547 100,682,772 42,599,765 58,083,007 1.1000 0.0000 1.1000 1.0853 94,635,208 34,618,768 60,016,440 0.8385 0.0000 0.8385 0.8273 72,138,930 33,646,328 38,492,602 0.4242 0.0758 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 15,856,283 27,742,026 2.1389 0.0000 2.1389 2.1104 184,017,608 74,251,654 109,765,954 1.3475 0.0000 1.3475 1.3295 115,927,897 55,334,793 60,593,104 3.5716 0.0000 3.5716 3.5240 307,282,851 142,828,894 164,453,957 2.5503 0.0000 2.5503 2.5163 219,413,379 99,935,622 119,477,757 Table D.1b (continued) State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total IM Component ($) 23,328,616 169,461,056 67,801,776 54,152,725 147,368,266 9,126,783 69,829,604 27,735,841 101,693,333 301,033,441 53,081,801 13,653,989 114,930,489 77,149,767 35,261,706 67,903,367 39,799,188 3,934,028,039 Adjusted Initial Initial Share with IM/NHS Initial NHS Combined SSM Non-SSM 0.5% Funding IM Adjusted NHS Component ($) IM/NHS ($) Initial % Additions % Minimum Combined ($) Component ($) Component ($) 65,809,047 89,137,663 1.0223 0.0000 1.0223 1.0086 87,949,352 23,328,616 64,620,736 160,844,722 330,305,779 3.7881 0.0000 3.7881 3.7376 325,902,409 169,461,056 156,441,352 85,482,357 153,284,133 1.7579 0.0000 1.7579 1.7345 151,240,673 67,801,776 83,438,897 71,180,852 125,333,577 1.4374 0.0000 1.4374 165,617,802 312,986,068 3.5894 0.0000 3.5894 1.4182 3.5416 123,662,731 54,152,725 69,510,006 308,813,591 147,368,266 161,445,324 16,858,893 25,985,675 0.2980 0.2020 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 9,126,783 34,471,526 72,772,007 142,601,611 1.6354 0.0000 1.6354 1.6136 140,700,562 69,829,604 70,870,958 55,333,652 83,069,492 0.9527 0.0000 0.9527 0.9400 81,962,077 27,735,841 54,226,236 108,059,363 209,752,696 2.4055 0.0000 2.4055 2.3734 206,956,442 101,693,333 105,263,110 387,844,167 688,877,608 7.9003 0.0000 7.9003 7.7950 679,694,048 301,033,441 378,660,607 39,664,294 92,746,095 1.0636 0.0000 1.0636 1.0495 91,509,679 53,081,801 38,427,878 17,364,662 31,018,650 0.3557 0.1443 0.0000 0.5000 43,598,308 13,653,989 29,944,320 116,899,311 231,829,800 2.6587 0.0000 2.6587 89,612,999 166,762,766 1.9125 0.0000 1.9125 2.6233 1.8870 228,739,232 114,930,489 113,808,744 164,539,620 77,149,767 87,389,852 36,858,827 72,120,533 0.8271 0.0000 0.8271 0.8161 71,159,080 35,261,706 35,897,374 110,530,616 178,433,982 2.0463 0.0000 2.0463 2.0191 176,055,245 67,903,367 108,151,878 71,021,445 110,820,633 1.2709 0.0000 1.2709 1.2540 109,343,262 39,799,188 69,544,074 4,785,633,646 8,719,661,685 100.0000 1.3106 98.3106 100.0000 8,719,661,685 3,934,028,039 4,785,633,646 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. 57 Table D.1c Apportionment of NHS Totals With and Without Small-State Minimum, Fiscal Year 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Initial NHS Component ($) with No SSM 91,255,044 26,544,507 88,843,601 71,642,013 453,928,598 82,509,850 40,706,732 17,814,837 7,760,316 224,410,751 149,190,523 11,441,818 41,549,406 154,155,010 111,458,620 78,541,039 72,281,257 85,402,165 69,374,796 26,023,182 75,642,865 67,726,019 145,593,147 89,447,878 72,073,286 111,760,312 59,443,363 61,295,086 39,467,293 21,135,528 112,252,274 62,159,442 168,605,752 122,442,320 65,809,047 160,844,722 85,482,357 71,180,852 165,617,802 16,858,893 72,772,007 55,333,652 108,059,363 387,844,167 39,664,294 17,364,662 116,899,311 89,612,999 36,858,827 110,530,616 71,021,445 4,785,633,646 Adjusted NHS Component ($) with Difference with 0.5 % SSM SSM of 0.5 % $ % 88,985,416 (2,269,627) –2.49 25,913,634 (630,873) –2.38 86,578,298 (2,265,303) –2.55 70,019,904 (1,622,110) –2.26 443,257,463 (10,671,135) –2.35 80,564,778 (1,945,073) –2.36 39,593,700 (1,113,031) –2.73 36,786,140 18,971,303 106.49 41,205,738 33,445,422 430.98 219,349,261 (5,061,490) –2.26 145,214,076 (3,976,447) –2.67 36,505,974 25,064,155 219.06 40,585,675 (963,732) –2.32 149,810,270 (4,344,740) –2.82 108,572,095 (2,886,525) –2.59 76,777,436 (1,763,603) –2.25 70,626,722 (1,654,535) –2.29 83,266,704 (2,135,461) –2.50 67,530,199 (1,844,597) –2.66 25,383,216 (639,966) –2.46 73,742,067 (1,900,798) –2.51 65,939,103 (1,786,915) –2.64 142,083,435 (3,509,712) –2.41 87,300,177 (2,147,700) –2.40 70,431,363 (1,641,923) –2.28 108,873,086 (2,887,226) –2.58 58,083,007 (1,360,357) –2.29 60,016,440 (1,278,646) –2.09 38,492,602 (974,692) –2.47 27,742,026 6,606,498 31.26 109,765,954 (2,486,320) –2.21 60,593,104 (1,566,338) –2.52 164,453,957 (4,151,795) –2.46 119,477,757 (2,964,563) –2.42 64,620,736 (1,188,311) –1.81 156,441,352 (4,403,370) –2.74 83,438,897 (2,043,460) –2.39 69,510,006 (1,670,846) –2.35 161,445,324 (4,172,478) –2.52 34,471,526 17,612,633 104.47 70,870,958 (1,901,050) –2.61 54,226,236 (1,107,415) –2.00 105,263,110 (2,796,254) –2.59 378,660,607 (9,183,560) –2.37 38,427,878 (1,236,416) –3.12 29,944,320 12,579,658 72.44 113,808,744 (3,090,568) –2.64 87,389,852 (2,223,147) –2.48 35,897,374 (961,453) –2.61 108,151,878 (2,378,738) –2.15 69,544,074 (1,477,371) –2.08 4,785,633,646 0 0.00 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. 58 Table D.2 Comparison of Alternative Factor-Weighting Mixes on NHS Funding, with 0.5 Percent Small-State Minimum Applied, Fiscal Year 2002 59 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Statutory Formula Weight, 25/35/30/10% Amount ($) 88,985,416 25,913,634 86,578,298 70,019,904 443,257,463 80,564,778 39,593,700 36,786,140 41,205,738 219,349,261 145,214,076 36,505,974 40,585,675 149,810,270 108,572,095 76,777,436 70,626,722 83,266,704 67,530,199 25,383,216 73,742,067 65,939,103 142,083,435 87,300,177 70,431,363 108,873,086 58,083,007 60,016,440 38,492,602 27,742,026 109,765,954 60,593,104 164,453,957 Initial NHS Component, Including 0.5 Percent SSM, Assuming: Increased Weight to OPAR Lane Miles,a 40/30/25/5% Amount ($) Change ($) 89,162,115 176,699 22,819,722 –3,093,912 85,430,973 –1,147,325 69,751,288 –268,616 448,256,187 4,998,724 82,599,792 2,035,015 37,916,560 –1,677,140 36,786,140 0 41,205,738 0 226,953,623 7,604,362 146,413,547 1,199,471 36,505,974 0 37,868,216 –2,717,459 151,656,626 1,846,357 107,235,859 –1,336,236 80,478,331 3,700,895 73,339,529 2,712,806 83,430,353 163,649 66,825,348 –704,850 22,830,353 –2,552,863 72,246,902 –1,495,165 64,894,602 –1,044,501 146,530,781 4,447,347 91,836,195 4,536,017 70,748,359 316,996 109,333,547 460,461 49,671,572 –8,411,435 59,717,973 –298,467 37,131,193 –1,361,408 27,742,026 0 105,778,367 –3,987,587 58,230,236 –2,362,868 167,083,306 2,629,349 Increased Weight to OPAR VMT,b 20/50/25/5% Amount ($) Change ($) 86,801,491 –2,183,926 22,819,722 –3,093,912 88,286,832 1,708,535 65,150,363 –4,869,541 502,335,002 59,077,539 81,648,555 1,083,778 41,011,255 1,417,554 36,786,140 0 41,205,738 0 240,175,090 20,825,828 144,640,210 –573,867 36,505,974 0 32,775,220 –7,810,454 152,820,961 3,010,692 108,237,070 –335,025 68,855,509 –7,921,927 64,147,723 –6,478,999 80,271,998 –2,994,706 65,723,786 –1,806,413 22,199,077 –3,184,140 79,043,902 5,301,835 72,432,956 6,493,852 150,353,215 8,269,780 84,936,387 –2,363,790 66,102,205 –4,329,158 109,309,472 436,386 41,277,375 –16,805,632 51,625,477 –8,390,962 34,347,993 –4,144,609 27,742,026 0 121,933,178 12,167,224 51,916,023 –8,677,081 178,771,315 14,317,358 Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage,c 20/30/45/5% Amount ($) Change ($) 92,946,813 3,961,397 22,819,722 –3,093,912 89,102,418 2,524,120 71,074,398 1,054,494 440,198,808 –3,058,655 77,225,522 –3,339,256 39,812,748 219,047 36,786,140 0 41,205,738 0 217,117,671 –2,231,591 156,847,220 11,633,143 36,505,974 0 35,208,947 –5,376,728 160,217,188 10,406,918 117,134,936 8,562,841 73,725,268 –3,052,168 65,070,366 –5,556,356 86,890,041 3,623,337 71,114,440 3,584,241 23,331,365 –2,051,852 74,195,832 453,765 64,755,112 –1,183,991 142,664,794 581,360 86,254,771 –1,045,407 70,037,659 –393,705 113,017,230 4,144,144 43,263,378 –14,819,629 55,355,154 –4,661,286 36,864,162 –1,628,440 27,742,026 0 113,177,496 3,411,542 56,642,561 –3,950,543 167,776,204 3,322,247 Increased Weight to PAR Miles Per Capita,d 20/30/25/25% Amount ($) Change ($) 80,999,008 –7,986,409 70,481,676 44,568,042 72,467,631 –14,110,667 86,030,828 16,010,925 355,473,074 –87,784,389 85,014,285 4,449,507 30,187,985 –9,405,715 36,786,140 0 41,205,738 0 199,254,959 –20,094,303 95,592,993 –49,621,084 36,505,974 0 73,060,415 32,474,740 76,115,229 –73,695,040 81,970,618 –26,601,476 100,578,722 23,801,286 95,015,648 24,388,925 76,846,540 –6,420,164 53,305,700 –14,224,498 39,005,683 13,622,467 60,813,671 –12,928,396 47,175,680 –18,763,423 118,951,405 –23,132,030 86,685,291 –614,886 86,336,479 15,905,115 86,175,426 –22,697,660 137,721,270 79,638,264 100,018,997 40,002,558 50,237,773 11,745,172 32,370,591 4,628,565 105,895,993 –3,869,961 83,662,187 23,069,083 122,176,314 –42,277,642 Table D.2 (continued) 60 State North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Initial NHS Component, Including 0.5 Percent SSM, Assuming: Statutory Formula Weight, 25/35/30/10% Increased Weight to OPAR Lane Miles,a 40/30/25/5% Increased Weight to OPAR VMT,b 20/50/25/5% Increased Weight to Diesel Fuel Usage,c 20/30/45/5% Amount ($) Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) 119,477,757 64,620,736 156,441,352 83,438,897 69,510,006 161,445,324 34,471,526 70,870,958 54,226,236 105,263,110 378,660,607 38,427,878 29,944,320 113,808,744 87,389,852 35,897,374 108,151,878 69,544,074 4,785,633,646 122,244,180 55,004,822 156,488,377 85,291,585 71,522,170 162,388,717 34,471,526 70,235,683 46,788,947 105,993,064 398,117,443 35,594,647 29,944,320 114,098,543 89,425,689 33,752,611 113,283,394 52,576,593 4,785,633,646 2,766,423 –9,615,914 47,025 1,852,688 2,012,165 943,393 0 –635,275 –7,437,289 729,955 19,456,836 –2,833,231 0 289,800 2,035,837 –2,144,763 5,131,516 –16,967,481 0 123,055,729 43,647,940 156,947,500 78,188,644 66,729,599 167,603,443 34,471,526 68,866,129 37,686,737 105,070,214 395,231,121 34,143,650 29,944,320 115,322,633 89,857,824 31,921,381 108,936,198 45,819,819 4,785,633,646 3,577,972 123,013,195 –20,972,796 45,166,516 506,148 172,366,159 –5,250,253 83,474,921 –2,780,406 67,232,789 6,158,119 171,896,232 0 34,471,526 –2,004,829 73,790,145 –16,539,499 39,286,124 –192,896 109,996,225 16,570,515 390,812,437 –4,284,228 37,705,484 0 29,944,320 1,513,890 120,229,268 2,467,972 87,166,471 –3,975,994 34,713,155 784,320 106,703,143 –23,724,255 51,583,439 0 4,785,633,646 3,535,438 –19,454,220 15,924,806 36,023 –2,277,217 10,450,908 0 2,919,187 –14,940,112 4,733,116 12,151,830 –722,394 0 6,420,525 –223,381 –1,184,219 –1,448,735 –17,960,635 0 Increased Weight to PAR Miles Per Capita,d 20/30/25/25% Amount ($) Change ($) 101,451,489 –18,026,268 187,071,890 122,451,155 88,242,848 –68,198,504 91,689,351 8,250,454 79,134,915 9,624,909 117,194,099 –44,251,225 34,471,526 0 60,041,369 –10,829,589 143,274,551 89,048,315 82,240,503 –23,022,606 305,973,271 –72,687,335 32,253,290 –6,174,588 41,292,970 11,348,650 79,357,335 –34,451,409 75,630,745 –11,759,107 44,219,458 8,322,084 122,316,025 14,164,147 195,658,087 126,114,013 4,785,633,646 0 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. NOTE: For simplicity, this analysis raises and lowers factor weights in five-point increments, causing wider funding changes for factors with small initial statutory percentages. For example, raising the sparsity factor from 10 percent to 25 percent results in greater median funding shifts than under any other simulation. aLane miles of principal arterial routes other than on the interstate highway system. bVehicle miles traveled on principal arterial routes other than on the interstate highway system. cDiesel fuel used on highways. dTotal lane miles of all principal arterial routes divided by state population (increases funds to states with sparse populations). Appendix E Data Tables for the Surface Transportation Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 62 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Table E.1 Apportionment of STP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: STP Component Derivation—Statutory Formula Federal-Aid Highway Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 25% No. % 53,919 8,808 32,556 44,938 141,506 39,500 14,366 3,897 1,817 67,552 72,274 3,758 22,872 80,351 50,776 56,693 73,279 34,550 35,342 13,819 20,897 25,375 78,600 69,733 46,459 65,953 32,065 43,299 16,126 7,517 25,525 24,845 65,639 50,689 2.39 0.39 1.44 1.99 6.28 1.75 0.64 0.17 0.08 3.00 3.21 0.17 1.01 3.56 2.25 2.51 3.25 1.53 1.57 0.61 0.93 1.13 3.49 3.09 2.06 2.93 1.42 1.92 0.72 0.33 1.13 1.10 2.91 2.25 Federal-Aid VMTb: Factor Weight, 40% No. % 42,338 3,685 41,188 26,568 267,923 35,689 26,397 6,971 2,910 117,434 81,419 6,768 10,254 90,214 59,104 24,926 23,689 38,373 36,244 11,837 44,322 44,516 85,219 44,057 26,614 53,529 8,072 15,821 14,622 10,365 55,698 17,373 99,688 66,858 1.86 0.16 1.81 1.17 11.78 1.57 1.16 0.31 0.13 5.17 3.58 0.30 0.45 3.97 2.60 1.10 1.04 1.69 1.59 0.52 1.95 1.96 3.75 1.94 1.17 2.35 0.36 0.70 0.64 0.46 2.45 0.76 4.38 2.94 Highway Account Tax Contributionsc: Factor Weight, 35% No. % 638,977 65,940 583,068 415,571 3,025,732 423,763 312,507 79,594 33,728 1,554,162 1,189,533 69,351 178,492 1,053,743 767,408 353,281 346,783 577,037 527,753 162,787 541,915 545,690 1,074,219 403,760 428,679 754,241 140,430 241,167 215,455 137,452 865,079 269,496 1,249,954 918,638 2.11 0.22 1.92 1.37 9.97 1.40 1.03 0.26 0.11 5.12 3.92 0.23 0.59 3.47 2.53 1.16 1.14 1.90 1.74 0.54 1.79 1.80 3.54 1.33 1.41 2.49 0.46 0.79 0.71 0.45 2.85 0.89 4.12 3.03 Initial STP Factord 2.0797 0.2386 1.7581 1.4450 9.7724 1.5546 0.9841 0.2577 0.1102 4.6076 3.6058 0.2407 0.6399 3.6935 2.4880 1.4746 1.6293 1.7237 1.6382 0.5492 1.6365 1.6939 3.6098 2.0140 1.4778 2.5430 0.6595 1.0366 0.6846 0.4242 2.2607 0.8920 3.9233 2.7978 Initial SSM Additions 0.0000 0.2614 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2423 0.3898 0.0000 0.0000 0.2593 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non-SSM Adjusted Factor State Totals with 0.5% SSM 2.0797 0.0000 1.7581 1.4450 9.7724 1.5546 0.9841 0.0000 0.0000 4.6076 3.6058 0.0000 0.6399 3.6935 2.4880 1.4746 1.6293 1.7237 1.6382 0.5492 1.6365 1.6939 3.6098 2.0140 1.4778 2.5430 0.6595 1.0366 0.6846 0.0000 2.2607 0.8920 3.9233 2.7978 2.0433 0.5000 1.7273 1.4197 9.6012 1.5274 0.9669 0.5000 0.5000 4.5268 3.5426 0.5000 0.6287 3.6287 2.4444 1.4488 1.6008 1.6935 1.6095 0.5396 1.6078 1.6642 3.5465 1.9787 1.4519 2.4984 0.6480 1.0185 0.6726 0.5000 2.2211 0.8763 3.8545 2.7488 STP Appor- tionment 114,870,261 28,109,446 97,106,755 79,813,753 539,767,529 85,868,181 54,357,355 28,109,446 28,109,446 254,493,361 199,160,595 28,109,446 35,343,272 204,004,010 137,418,777 81,449,899 89,992,570 95,208,404 90,485,162 30,336,287 90,389,723 93,561,417 199,382,058 111,242,711 81,625,047 140,458,209 36,428,866 57,256,690 37,810,648 28,109,446 124,865,034 49,266,676 216,698,475 154,534,037 Table E.1 (continued) 63 State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Federal-Aid Highway Lane Milesa: Factor Weight, 25% No. % 38,093 67,117 69,775 39,511 64,361 4,088 40,831 41,397 42,600 192,615 19,999 8,528 53,943 44,602 22,571 62,030 17,139 2,254,495 1.69 2.98 3.09 1.75 2.85 0.18 1.81 1.84 1.89 8.54 0.89 0.38 2.39 1.98 1.00 2.75 0.76 100.00 Federal-Aid VMTb: Factor Weight, 40% No. % 6,054 85,270 35,331 28,116 85,295 7,508 39,764 7,363 54,497 181,530 18,626 5,457 63,259 46,582 17,001 45,131 6,122 2,273,591 0.27 3.75 1.55 1.24 3.75 0.33 1.75 0.32 2.40 7.98 0.82 0.24 2.78 2.05 0.75 1.99 0.27 100.00 Highway Account Tax Contributionsc: Factor Weight, 35% No. % 101,377 1,158,013 500,974 381,740 1,238,907 82,095 554,376 101,194 759,820 2,573,239 249,715 70,411 867,264 588,415 220,408 602,560 151,317 30,347,210 0.33 3.82 1.65 1.26 4.08 0.27 1.83 0.33 2.50 8.48 0.82 0.23 2.86 1.94 0.73 1.99 0.50 100.00 Initial STP Factord 0.6458 3.5800 1.9731 1.3731 3.6432 0.2721 1.7917 0.7053 2.3075 8.2974 0.8375 0.2718 2.7113 1.9928 0.8036 2.1768 0.4723 100.0000 Initial SSM Additions 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2279 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2282 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0277 1.7124 Non-SSM Adjusted Factor STP Appor- State Totals with 0.5% SSM tionment 0.6458 3.5800 1.9731 1.3731 3.6432 0.0000 1.7917 0.7053 2.3075 8.2974 0.8375 0.0000 2.7113 1.9928 0.8036 2.1768 0.0000 97.7124 0.6345 3.5173 1.9385 1.3490 3.5793 0.5000 1.7603 0.6929 2.2670 8.1520 0.8228 0.5000 2.6638 1.9578 0.7895 2.1386 0.5000 100.0000 35,672,186 197,736,312 108,981,732 75,838,961 201,225,709 28,109,446 98,963,557 38,956,186 127,450,921 458,294,463 46,256,085 28,109,446 149,757,130 110,066,928 44,385,397 120,232,358 28,109,446 5,621,889,254 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. aTotal lane miles of federal-aid highways. bMillions of total vehicle miles traveled on federal-aid highways. cEstimated tax payments ($000) attributable to highway users paid into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. dCombined factor weighting federal-aid lane miles at 25 percent, VMT at 40 percent, and HTF Highway Account contributions at 35 percent. 64 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Table E.2 Comparison of Alternative Factor-Weighting Mixes on STP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 Current Statutory Formula Weight, 25/40/35% Amount ($) 114,870,261 28,109,446 97,106,755 79,813,753 539,767,529 85,868,181 54,357,355 28,109,446 28,109,446 254,493,361 199,160,595 28,109,446 35,343,272 204,004,010 137,418,777 81,449,899 89,992,570 95,208,404 90,485,162 30,336,287 90,389,723 93,561,417 199,382,058 111,242,711 81,625,047 140,458,209 36,428,866 57,256,690 37,810,648 28,109,446 124,865,034 49,266,676 216,698,475 Surface Transportation Program Apportionment, Assuming: Increased Weight to Federal-Aid Lane Miles,a 35/35/30% Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT,b 20/50/30% Increased Weight to Highway Account Contributions,c 20/35/45% Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) 117,149,041 28,109,446 94,795,149 83,833,301 514,473,147 87,373,799 51,838,393 28,109,446 28,109,446 242,690,403 196,196,848 28,109,446 38,085,537 203,188,079 135,726,466 89,116,850 101,935,277 93,781,901 89,958,930 30,809,613 85,213,390 89,425,201 198,556,487 119,328,050 85,892,822 143,282,884 42,035,668 63,762,684 38,033,229 28,109,446 116,506,922 50,802,304 209,343,233 2,278,781 0 –2,311,606 4,019,548 –25,294,381 1,505,618 –2,518,962 0 0 –11,802,958 –2,963,746 0 2,742,265 –815,931 –1,692,311 7,666,951 11,942,707 –1,426,503 –526,231 473,326 –5,176,333 –4,136,216 –825,570 8,085,339 4,267,776 2,824,674 5,606,803 6,505,995 222,582 0 –8,358,112 1,535,628 –7,355,242 112,715,260 28,109,446 97,800,794 76,967,403 559,884,027 85,827,613 56,156,155 28,109,446 28,109,446 260,556,347 199,225,279 28,109,446 33,402,146 206,450,313 138,548,354 77,331,490 83,599,905 95,029,712 90,141,636 30,032,228 93,648,576 96,284,024 200,644,114 109,709,246 78,483,990 138,494,121 33,177,957 53,591,688 37,419,917 28,109,446 127,373,550 47,982,490 221,460,198 –2,155,001 0 694,039 –2,846,350 20,116,499 –40,568 1,798,800 0 0 6,062,986 64,685 0 –1,941,127 2,446,303 1,129,577 –4,118,409 –6,392,666 –178,692 –343,526 –304,060 3,258,854 2,722,607 1,262,057 –1,533,465 –3,141,057 –1,964,089 –3,250,909 –3,665,001 –390,730 0 2,508,515 –1,284,186 4,761,723 114,746,106 28,109,446 98,722,488 78,641,153 544,929,632 84,402,593 55,075,964 28,109,446 28,109,446 260,226,366 202,056,571 28,109,446 34,542,757 202,370,798 137,979,342 77,903,127 84,445,698 96,812,148 91,353,796 30,166,852 92,304,309 94,972,460 198,942,932 104,692,058 80,499,013 139,597,089 34,074,557 54,417,353 37,978,483 28,109,446 130,710,550 49,015,276 219,286,872 –124,155 0 1,615,734 –1,172,600 5,162,103 –1,465,588 718,610 0 0 5,733,006 2,895,976 0 –800,515 –1,633,212 560,565 –3,546,772 –5,546,873 1,603,744 868,634 –169,436 1,914,586 1,411,042 –439,126 –6,550,653 –1,126,034 –861,120 –2,354,309 –2,839,336 167,836 0 5,845,516 –251,400 2,588,397 Table E.2 (continued) 65 State North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Current Statutory Formula Weight, 25/40/35% Amount ($) 154,534,037 35,672,186 197,736,312 108,981,732 75,838,961 201,225,709 28,109,446 98,963,557 38,956,186 127,450,921 458,294,463 46,256,085 28,109,446 149,757,130 110,066,928 44,385,397 120,232,358 28,109,446 5,621,889,254 Surface Transportation Program Apportionment, Assuming: Increased Weight to Federal-Aid Lane Miles,a 35/35/30% Increased Weight to Other PAR VMT,b 20/50/30% Increased Weight to Highway Account Contributions,c 20/35/45% Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) Amount ($) Change ($) 150,505,664 43,356,624 193,327,552 117,252,144 78,647,593 195,403,023 28,109,446 99,114,326 47,293,639 124,381,627 460,120,918 46,631,343 28,109,446 147,429,949 110,006,104 45,854,688 124,492,090 28,170,235 5,621,889,254 –4,028,373 7,684,438 –4,408,760 8,270,412 2,808,632 –5,822,686 0 150,769 8,337,453 –3,069,294 1,826,454 375,257 0 –2,327,181 –60,824 1,469,292 4,259,732 60,789 0 156,178,531 31,548,314 199,655,020 104,439,555 74,341,817 202,751,367 28,109,446 98,558,962 34,746,668 128,533,713 455,299,298 46,050,284 28,109,446 150,597,234 110,544,774 43,736,889 118,092,726 28,109,446 5,621,889,254 1,644,494 –4,123,871 1,918,708 –4,542,178 –1,497,143 1,525,657 0 –404,595 –4,209,518 1,082,793 –2,995,165 –205,801 0 840,104 477,846 –648,508 –2,139,632 0 0 156,914,831 32,113,910 200,222,649 105,255,182 74,527,600 205,518,638 28,109,446 99,216,363 34,830,699 129,434,984 459,458,912 46,086,241 28,109,446 151,241,758 109,648,588 43,564,610 118,112,377 28,109,446 5,621,889,254 2,380,794 –3,558,276 2,486,338 –3,726,550 –1,311,360 4,292,928 0 252,806 –4,125,486 1,984,063 1,164,449 –169,845 0 1,484,628 –418,340 –820,787 –2,119,980 0 0 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. NOTE: For simplicity, this analysis raises and lowers factor weights in five-point increments, causing wider changes for factors with smaller statutory percentages. aTotal lane miles of federal-aid highways. bMillions of total vehicle miles traveled on federal-aid highways. cThousands of dollars of estimated tax payments attributable to highway users paid into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Appendix F Data Tables for the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and Appalachian Development Highway System Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table F.1 Apportionment of HBRRP and Appalachian Development Highway Program Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 Bridge Program Appalachian Development State Factora Apportionment Factorb Apportionment Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 2.0431 0.2710 0.3136 1.2258 7.4015 0.6926 2.1075 0.3710 0.6155 1.7096 1.7287 0.5712 0.3614 3.3909 1.0998 1.6038 1.5288 1.6398 2.7109 0.7110 1.7952 3.1147 2.9351 0.7112 1.4138 3.5628 0.3723 0.7820 0.2500 0.5141 4.7671 0.3637 10.0000 2.5531 0.2500 3.4074 2.4299 1.4289 10.0000 1.1723 1.4367 0.3785 1.9671 3.9046 0.7205 0.5567 1.9116 2.7048 1.4351 0.8133 0.2500 100.0000 68,676,838 9,109,207 10,541,859 41,204,332 248,794,639 23,279,963 70,841,200 12,471,253 20,690,298 57,466,563 58,107,151 19,199,935 12,146,695 113,982,503 36,967,563 53,909,379 51,388,022 55,119,143 91,125,243 23,900,828 60,344,827 104,698,163 98,660,446 23,907,488 47,522,697 119,760,275 12,513,321 26,287,554 8,403,511 17,280,123 160,241,244 12,226,315 336,140,407 85,821,130 8,403,511 114,535,690 81,677,170 48,029,759 336,140,407 39,406,345 48,291,901 12,724,257 66,121,623 131,250,406 24,218,792 18,713,185 64,257,386 90,919,899 48,241,017 27,339,098 8,403,511 3,361,404,072 11.0107 — — — — — — — — — 4.4003 — — — — — — 10.1006 — — 1.7218 — — — 1.2348 — — — — — — — 2.3732 6.4827 — 4.9652 — — 26.9225 — 0.5394 — 12.3443 — — — 2.5946 — 15.3100 — — 100.0000 48,771,798 — — — — — — — — — 19,491,090 — — — — — — 44,740,518 — — 7,626,698 — — — 5,469,536 — — — — — — — 10,512,068 28,715,062 — 21,993,309 — — 119,253,418 — 2,389,268 — 54,678,968 — — — 11,492,758 — 67,815,509 — — 442,950,000 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration. aFactor is set by FHWA as a measure of state needs. States may receive a maximum of 10 percent and a minimum of 0.25 percent of total bridge program funds. bFactor is set by FHWA as a measure of state needs. 68 Appendix G Data Tables for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 70 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Table G.1 Apportionment of CMAQ Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 Weighted Population No. 805,340 343,123 4,423,895 0 47,483,210 3,226,800 4,612,469 971,689 755,118 5,542,395 4,438,415 0 0 11,253,179 2,189,376 0 487,174 1,567,357 928,529 930,337 6,490,392 8,283,012 4,653,074 2,346,056 0 2,864,456 95,802 0 1,783,148 1,060,745 12,678,475 620,024 % 0.39 0.17 2.16 0.00 23.22 1.58 2.26 0.48 0.37 2.71 2.17 0.00 0.00 5.50 1.07 0.00 0.24 0.77 0.45 0.45 3.17 4.05 2.28 1.15 0.00 1.40 0.05 0.00 0.87 0.52 6.20 0.30 SSM, Iteration 1 Non-SSM Adjusted % SSM States States Share 0.11 0.00 0.50 0.33 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.16 1.99 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 23.22 21.33 0.00 1.58 1.45 0.00 2.26 2.07 0.02 0.00 0.50 0.13 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.71 2.49 0.00 2.17 1.99 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 5.50 5.06 0.00 1.07 0.98 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.26 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.77 0.70 0.05 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.00 0.50 0.00 3.17 2.92 0.00 4.05 3.72 0.00 2.28 2.09 0.00 1.15 1.05 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.40 1.29 0.45 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.87 0.80 0.00 0.52 0.48 0.00 6.20 5.70 0.20 0.00 0.50 SSM, Iteration 2 Non-SSM Adjusted % SSM States States Share 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.99 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 21.33 21.32 0.00 1.45 1.45 0.00 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.49 2.49 0.00 1.99 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 5.06 5.05 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.92 2.91 0.00 3.72 3.72 0.00 2.09 2.09 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.29 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.02 0.00 0.50 0.00 5.70 5.69 0.00 0.00 0.50 Base CMAQ Apportionment 6,857,847 6,857,847 27,250,213 6,857,847 292,486,077 19,876,375 28,411,792 6,857,847 6,857,847 34,139,930 27,339,654 6,857,847 6,857,847 69,317,098 13,486,072 6,857,847 6,857,847 9,654,575 6,857,847 6,857,847 39,979,381 51,021,523 28,661,905 14,451,186 6,857,847 17,644,415 6,857,847 6,857,847 10,983,799 6,857,847 78,096,602 6,857,847 71 Table G.1 (continued) State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Weighted Population No. 22,202,531 2,300,447 0 6,773,430 0 1,576,538 12,215,525 1,257,983 42,030 0 1,973,649 12,980,420 1,435,667 0 4,415,271 3,400,361 411,030 2,691,304 0 204,509,774 % 10.86 1.12 0.00 3.31 0.00 0.77 5.97 0.62 0.02 0.00 0.97 6.35 0.70 0.00 2.16 1.66 0.20 1.32 0.00 100.00 SSM, Iteration 1 Non-SSM Adjusted % SSM States States Share 0.00 10.86 9.97 0.00 1.12 1.03 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 3.31 3.04 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.77 0.71 0.00 5.97 5.49 0.00 0.62 0.57 0.48 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.97 0.89 0.00 6.35 5.83 0.00 0.70 0.64 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.16 1.98 0.00 1.66 1.53 0.30 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.32 1.21 0.50 0.00 0.50 7.88 96.88 100.00 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. SSM, Iteration 2 Non-SSM Adjusted % SSM States States Share 0.00 9.97 9.97 0.00 1.03 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 3.04 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 5.49 5.49 0.00 0.57 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 5.83 5.83 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.98 1.98 0.00 1.53 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.21 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.02 88.52 100.00 Base CMAQ Apportionment 136,762,681 14,170,243 6,857,847 41,722,835 6,857,847 9,711,123 75,244,936 7,748,896 6,857,847 6,857,847 12,157,241 79,956,517 8,843,393 6,857,847 27,197,091 20,945,473 6,857,847 16,577,838 6,857,847 1,371,569,338 Table G.2 Comparison of Alternative Small-State Minimum Levels on CMAQ Funding, FY 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Current Hypotetical CMAQ Funds Hypotetical CMAQ Funds ($) Weighted Population Statutory SSM ($) Assuming SSM of 0.25% Assuming SSM Eliminated No. % of 0.5% Total Change Total Change 805,340 0.39 6,857,847 5,220,269 (1,637,578) 5,401,109 (1,456,737) 343,123 0.17 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 2,301,196 (4,556,651) 4,423,895 2.16 27,250,213 28,675,988 1,425,775 29,669,380 2,419,167 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 47,483,210 23.22 292,486,077 307,789,419 15,303,342 318,451,843 25,965,765 3,226,800 1.58 19,876,375 20,916,339 1,039,964 21,640,921 1,764,547 4,612,469 2.26 28,411,792 29,898,343 1,486,551 30,934,079 2,522,287 971,689 0.48 6,857,847 6,298,552 (559,295) 6,516,746 (341,100) 755,118 0.37 6,857,847 4,894,726 (1,963,121) 5,064,289 (1,793,558) 5,542,395 2.71 34,139,930 35,926,186 1,786,256 37,170,738 3,030,809 4,438,415 2.17 27,339,654 28,770,109 1,430,455 29,766,761 2,427,107 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 11,253,179 5.50 69,317,098 72,943,879 3,626,782 75,470,797 6,153,700 2,189,376 1.07 13,486,072 14,191,685 705,613 14,683,312 1,197,240 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 487,174 0.24 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 3,267,294 (3,590,553) 1,567,357 0.77 9,654,575 10,159,718 505,143 10,511,670 857,095 928,529 0.45 6,857,847 6,018,787 (839,059) 6,227,290 (630,557) 930,337 0.45 6,857,847 6,030,506 (827,340) 6,239,415 (618,432) 6,490,392 3.17 39,979,381 42,071,166 2,091,785 43,528,593 3,549,212 8,283,012 4.05 51,021,523 53,691,051 2,669,528 55,551,014 4,529,491 4,653,074 2.28 28,661,905 30,161,542 1,499,637 31,206,396 2,544,491 2,346,056 1.15 14,451,186 15,207,296 756,109 15,734,106 1,282,920 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 2,864,456 1.40 17,644,415 18,567,599 923,184 19,210,817 1,566,402 95,802 0.05 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 642,508 (6,215,339) 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 1,783,148 0.87 10,983,799 11,558,489 574,690 11,958,897 975,099 1,060,745 0.52 6,857,847 6,875,819 17,973 7,114,011 256,164 12,678,475 6.20 78,096,602 82,182,741 4,086,140 85,029,711 6,933,110 620,024 0.30 6,857,847 4,019,041 (2,838,806) 4,158,268 (2,699,579) 22,202,531 10.86 136,762,681 143,918,324 7,155,643 148,903,935 12,141,254 2,300,447 1.12 14,170,243 14,911,653 741,410 15,428,222 1,257,979 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 6,773,430 3.31 41,722,835 43,905,841 2,183,006 45,426,824 3,703,989 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 1,576,538 0.77 9,711,123 10,219,224 508,102 10,573,238 862,115 12,215,525 5.97 75,244,936 79,181,872 3,936,936 81,924,886 6,679,950 1,257,983 0.62 7,748,896 8,154,331 405,435 8,436,813 687,917 42,030 0.02 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 281,877 (6,575,970) 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 1,973,649 0.97 12,157,241 12,793,328 636,086 13,236,514 1,079,272 12,980,420 6.35 79,956,517 84,139,971 4,183,453 87,054,743 7,098,226 1,435,667 0.70 8,843,393 9,306,093 462,701 9,628,474 785,082 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 4,415,271 2.16 27,197,091 28,620,086 1,422,995 29,611,542 2,414,451 3,400,361 1.66 20,945,473 22,041,374 1,095,901 22,804,930 1,859,457 411,030 0.20 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) 2,756,625 (4,101,222) 2,691,304 1.32 16,577,838 17,445,217 867,379 18,049,553 1,471,715 0 0.00 6,857,847 3,428,923 (3,428,923) — (6,857,847) 204,509,774 100.00 1,371,569,338 1,371,569,338 0 1,371,569,338 0 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 72 Appendix H Data Table for the Recreational Trails Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table H.1 Apportionment of RTP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Off-Road Recreational Fuel Usage Amount % Component ($) 36,713,672 2.04 502,832 12,551,596 0.70 171,907 42,318,546 2.35 579,596 24,800,543 1.38 339,669 208,121,492 11.58 2,850,439 59,934,247 3.33 820,861 8,301,633 0.46 113,699 3,009,427 0.17 41,217 — 0.00 — 84,431,892 4.70 1,156,382 59,405,368 3.30 813,618 3,709,097 0.21 50,800 24,668,260 1.37 337,857 55,540,939 3.09 760,691 25,640,511 1.43 351,173 27,082,356 1.51 370,921 20,658,558 1.15 282,940 21,113,132 1.17 289,166 40,087,771 2.23 549,043 18,484,419 1.03 253,163 15,077,808 0.84 206,506 20,823,728 1.16 285,202 73,146,275 4.07 1,001,814 50,150,274 2.79 686,860 39,689,575 2.21 543,590 37,956,123 2.11 519,848 28,511,818 1.59 390,499 15,422,664 0.86 211,229 13,385,263 0.74 183,325 12,600,180 0.70 172,572 22,672,657 1.26 310,525 30,228,097 1.68 414,005 50,961,838 2.83 697,975 49,648,522 2.76 679,988 10,398,151 0.58 142,413 50,236,555 2.79 688,042 30,781,827 1.71 421,589 27,263,715 1.52 373,405 50,031,658 2.78 685,235 2,799,898 0.16 38,347 21,415,362 1.19 293,306 10,405,205 0.58 142,510 31,789,781 1.77 435,394 126,921,933 7.06 1,738,327 24,628,486 1.37 337,313 8,493,861 0.47 116,332 30,339,551 1.69 415,532 47,176,605 2.62 646,132 17,335,546 0.96 237,428 50,342,632 2.80 689,494 20,756,687 1.15 284,284 1,797,965,734 100.00 24,625,000 Equal Amount to All States’ Component ($) 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 482,843 24,625,000 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. Total RTP % of Apportionment U.S. 985,675 2.00 654,750 1.33 1,062,439 2.16 822,512 1.67 3,333,282 6.77 1,303,705 2.65 596,543 1.21 524,060 1.06 482,843 0.98 1,639,225 3.33 1,296,461 2.63 533,643 1.08 820,700 1.67 1,243,534 2.52 834,016 1.69 853,764 1.73 765,783 1.55 772,009 1.57 1,031,887 2.10 736,006 1.49 689,349 1.40 768,046 1.56 1,484,657 3.01 1,169,703 2.38 1,026,433 2.08 1,002,691 2.04 873,342 1.77 694,072 1.41 666,168 1.35 655,416 1.33 793,369 1.61 896,848 1.82 1,180,818 2.40 1,162,831 2.36 625,257 1.27 1,170,885 2.38 904,432 1.84 856,248 1.74 1,168,078 2.37 521,191 1.06 776,149 1.58 625,353 1.27 918,237 1.86 2,221,170 4.51 820,156 1.67 599,175 1.22 898,375 1.82 1,128,976 2.29 720,271 1.46 1,172,338 2.38 767,127 1.56 49,250,000 100.00 74 Appendix I Data Table for the Metropolitan Planning Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table I.1 Apportionment of MP Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 Urbanized Population SSM, Iteration 1 SSM, Iteration 2 SSM at Non-SSM Adjusted SSM at Non-SSM Adjusted MP Appor- State No. % 0.5 State % Factor 0.5 State % Factor tionment Alabama Alaska 1,839,966 1.16 0 221,883 0.14 0.3598 1.16 0.00 1.11 0.50 0 1.11 0 0.00 1.11 2,170,742 0.50 977,549 Arizona 2,655,997 1.68 0 1.68 1.60 0 1.60 1.60 3,133,474 Arkansas 591,420 0.37 0.1263 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 California 25,466,131 16.09 0 16.09 15.37 0 15.37 15.37 30,044,254 Colorado 2,377,820 1.50 0 1.50 1.43 0 1.43 1.43 2,805,288 Connecticut 2,455,697 1.55 0 1.55 1.48 0 1.48 1.48 2,897,165 Delaware 458,749 0.29 0.21013 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 District of Columbia 606,900 0.38 0.11651 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Florida Georgia 10,177,624 6.43 3,260,674 2.06 0 6.43 0 2.06 6.14 1.97 0 6.14 0 1.97 6.14 12,007,286 1.97 3,846,855 Hawaii 747,109 0.47 0.02792 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Idaho 278,200 0.18 0.32421 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Illinois 8,478,687 5.36 0 5.36 5.12 0 5.12 5.12 10,002,926 Indiana 2,692,676 1.70 0 1.70 1.62 0 1.62 1.62 3,176,746 Iowa 942,653 0.60 0 0.60 0.57 0 0.57 0.57 1,112,117 Kansas 1,018,604 0.64 0 0.64 0.61 0 0.61 0.61 1,201,722 Kentucky 1,276,855 0.81 0 0.81 0.77 0 0.77 0.77 1,506,399 Louisiana Maine 2,228,018 1.41 0 266,732 0.17 0.33146 1.41 0.00 1.34 0.50 0 1.34 0 0.00 1.34 2,628,556 0.50 977,549 Maryland 3,581,461 2.26 0 2.26 2.16 0 2.16 2.16 4,225,311 Massachusetts 4,730,382 2.99 0 2.99 2.85 0 2.85 2.85 5,580,777 Michigan 5,812,473 3.67 0 3.67 3.51 0 3.51 3.51 6,857,399 Minnesota 2,370,935 1.50 0 1.50 1.43 0 1.43 1.43 2,797,165 Mississippi 617,412 0.39 0.10987 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Missouri 2,782,738 1.76 0 1.76 1.68 0 1.68 1.68 3,282,999 Montana 208,883 0.13 0.36801 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Nebraska Nevada 687,875 0.43 0.06535 911,095 0.58 0 0.00 0.58 0.50 0.55 0 0.00 0 0.55 0.50 977,549 0.55 1,074,885 New Hampshire 339,454 0.21 0.28551 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 New Jersey 6,629,540 4.19 0 4.19 4.00 0 4.00 4.00 7,821,352 New Mexico 649,793 0.41 0.08941 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 New York 14,116,042 8.92 0 8.92 8.52 0 8.52 8.52 16,653,725 North Carolina 2,512,866 1.59 0 1.59 1.52 0 1.52 1.52 2,964,611 North Dakota 202,334 0.13 0.37215 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Ohio 6,656,974 4.21 0 4.21 4.02 0 4.02 4.02 7,853,718 Oklahoma Oregon 1,354,343 0.86 1,420,059 0.90 0 0.86 0 0.90 0.82 0.86 0 0.82 0 0.86 0.82 1,597,817 0.86 1,675,347 Pennsylvania 7,207,497 4.55 0 4.55 4.35 0 4.35 4.35 8,503,210 Rhode Island 824,534 0.52 0 0.52 0.50 0.00243 0.00 0.50 977,549 South Carolina 1,426,739 0.90 0 0.90 0.86 0 0.86 0.86 1,683,228 South Dakota 163,986 0.10 0.39638 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Tennessee 2,218,007 1.40 0 1.40 1.34 0 1.34 1.34 2,616,745 Texas 11,372,246 7.19 0 7.19 6.86 0 6.86 6.86 13,416,669 Utah 1,319,551 0.83 0 0.83 0.80 0 0.80 0.80 1,556,771 Vermont Virginia 87,088 0.06 0.44497 3,829,739 2.42 0 0.00 2.42 0.50 2.31 0 0.00 0 2.31 0.50 977,549 2.31 4,518,223 Washington 3,214,738 2.03 0 2.03 1.94 0 1.94 1.94 3,792,661 West Virginia 388,840 0.25 0.2543 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Wisconsin 2,464,721 1.56 0 1.56 1.49 0 1.49 1.49 2,907,811 Wyoming 114,138 0.07 0.42788 0.00 0.50 0 0.00 0.50 977,549 Total 158,258,878 100.00 4.31016 95.81 100.00 0.00243 91.00 100.00 195,509,842 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 76 Appendix J Data Tables for the Minimum Guarantee Program FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table J.1a Apportionment of MG Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Assuming Statutory 90.5 Percent Guarantee Level: Initial Calculations 78 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Eligibleb for Minimum Rate of Return Initial Level to 1996 HTF Adjustment Due FY 2000 HTF Highway Specifieda Highway to 90.5% Account Contributions in TEA-21 Account Return in 1996 $ (000) % 2.0269 0.9185 638,977 2.1056 1.1915 5.1362 65,940 0.2173 1.5581 0.9050 X 583,068 1.9213 1.3214 0.9184 415,571 1.3694 9.1962 0.9050 X 3,025,732 9.9704 1.1673 0.9185 423,763 1.3964 1.5186 1.5247 312,507 1.0298 0.4424 1.5422 79,594 0.2623 0.3956 3.1475 33,728 0.1111 4.6176 0.9050 X 1,554,162 5.1213 3.5104 0.9050 X 1,189,533 3.9197 0.5177 2.0105 69,351 0.2285 0.7718 1.4122 178,492 0.5882 3.3819 0.9239 1,053,743 3.4723 2.3588 0.9050 X 767,408 2.5288 1.2020 1.0434 353,281 1.1641 1.1717 1.0187 346,783 1.1427 1.7365 0.9050 X 577,037 1.9014 1.5900 0.9061 527,753 1.7390 0.5263 1.0111 162,787 0.5364 1.5087 0.9050 X 541,915 1.7857 1.8638 1.0141 545,690 1.7982 3.1535 0.9050 X 1,074,219 3.5398 1.4993 1.0565 403,760 1.3305 1.2186 0.9234 428,679 1.4126 2.3615 0.9185 754,241 2.4854 0.9929 2.0827 140,430 0.4627 0.7768 0.9669 241,167 0.7947 0.7248 1.1375 215,455 0.7100 HTF 90.5% Rate Initial Equalized to Final Final Rate 2000 % of Return Adjusted %c 100%d Adjusted %e of Return 2.1056 1.9055 0.2173 0.1966 2.0269 1.99830609 1.99025349 0.9452 1.1915 1.17469126 1.16995759 5.3844 1.9213 1.7388 1.3694 1.2393 1.7388 1.73879754 1.73879754 0.9050 1.3214 1.30275873 1.29750898 0.9475 9.9704 9.0232 1.3964 1.2637 9.1962 9.06646725 9.02993197 0.9057 1.1673 1.15083265 1.26372578 0.9050 1.0298 0.9319 0.2623 0.2374 1.5186 1.49717679 1.49114359 1.4480 0.4424 0.43615897 0.43440137 1.6563 0.1111 0.1006 5.1213 4.6347 0.3956 0.39001919 0.38844752 3.4951 4.6347 4.63474768 4.63474768 0.9050 3.9197 3.5474 0.2285 0.2068 3.5474 3.54736849 3.54736849 0.9050 0.5177 0.51039670 0.50833994 2.2244 0.5882 0.5323 3.4723 3.1424 0.7718 0.76091205 0.75784579 1.2885 3.3819 3.33419082 3.32075498 0.9564 2.5288 2.2885 1.1641 1.0535 2.3588 2.32552391 2.31615271 0.9159 1.2020 1.18504313 1.18026774 1.0139 1.1427 1.0342 1.9014 1.7208 1.1717 1.15517058 1.15051557 1.0068 1.7365 1.71200283 1.72081218 0.9050 1.7390 1.5738 0.5364 0.4855 1.5900 1.56756953 1.57383979 0.9050 0.5263 0.51887537 0.51678445 0.9634 1.7857 1.6161 1.7982 1.6273 1.6161 1.61607303 1.61607303 0.9050 1.8638 1.83750698 1.83010235 1.0178 3.5398 3.2035 1.3305 1.2041 3.2035 3.20348459 3.20348459 0.9050 1.4993 1.47814906 1.47219254 1.1065 1.4126 1.2784 2.4854 2.2493 1.2186 1.20140895 1.27838604 0.9050 2.3615 2.32818582 2.31880389 0.9330 0.4627 0.4188 0.7947 0.7192 0.9929 0.97889295 0.97494829 2.1069 0.7768 0.76584152 0.76275539 0.9598 0.7100 0.6425 0.7248 0.71457509 0.71169556 1.0024 Table J.1a (continued) 79 Eligibleb for Minimum Rate of Return Initial Level to 1996 HTF Adjustment Due FY 2000 HTF Highway Specifieda Highway to 90.5% Account Contributions HTF 90.5% Rate Initial Equalized to Final Final Rate State in TEA-21 Account Return in 1996 $ (000) % 2000 % of Return Adjusted %c 100%d Adjusted %e of Return New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 0.5163 2.5816 0.9884 5.1628 2.8298 0.6553 3.4257 1.5419 1.2183 4.9887 0.5958 1.5910 0.7149 2.2646 7.2131 0.7831 0.4573 2.5627 1.7875 1.1319 1.9916 0.6951 100.0000 1.2705 0.9375 1.1442 1.1895 0.9050 1.8308 0.9050 0.9184 0.9246 1.2058 2.1766 0.9050 2.0104 0.9050 0.9050 0.9194 1.7625 0.9050 0.9154 1.4111 0.9929 1.5011 137,452 0.4529 0.4529 0.4099 0.5163 0.50901645 0.50696525 1.1193 865,079 2.8506 2.8506 2.5798 2.5816 2.54518082 2.57979727 0.9050 269,496 0.8880 0.8880 0.8037 0.9884 0.97445643 0.97052965 1.0929 1,249,954 4.1188 4.1188 3.7276 5.1628 5.08996728 5.06945617 1.2308 X 918,638 3.0271 3.0271 2.7395 2.8298 2.78987941 2.77863699 0.9179 101,377 0.3341 0.3341 0.3023 0.6553 0.64605554 0.64345212 1.9262 X 1,158,013 3.8159 3.8159 3.4534 3.4534 3.45337105 3.45337105 0.9050 500,974 1.6508 1.6508 1.4940 1.5419 1.52014809 1.51402233 0.9171 381,740 1.2579 1.2579 1.1384 1.2183 1.20111318 1.19627304 0.9510 1,238,907 4.0824 4.0824 3.6946 4.9887 4.91832335 4.89850391 1.1999 82,095 0.2705 0.2705 0.2448 0.5958 0.58739492 0.58502789 2.1626 X 554,376 1.8268 1.8268 1.6532 1.6532 1.65323363 1.65323363 0.9050 101,194 0.3335 0.3335 0.3018 0.7149 0.70481475 0.70197455 2.1052 X 759,820 2.5038 2.5038 2.2659 2.2659 2.26589891 2.26589891 0.9050 X 2,573,239 8.4793 8.4793 7.6738 7.6738 7.67379042 7.67379042 0.9050 249,715 0.8229 0.8229 0.7447 0.7831 0.77205264 0.76894149 0.9345 70,411 0.2320 0.2320 0.2100 0.4573 0.45084877 0.44903198 1.9353 X 867,264 2.8578 2.8578 2.5863 2.5863 2.58631327 2.58631327 0.9050 588,415 1.9389 1.9389 1.7547 1.7875 1.76228336 1.75518186 0.9052 220,408 0.7263 0.7263 0.6573 1.1319 1.11593205 1.11143516 1.5303 602,560 1.9856 1.9856 1.7969 1.9916 1.96350408 1.95559171 0.9849 151,317 0.4986 0.4986 0.4513 0.6951 0.68529408 0.68253254 1.3688 14 30,347,210 100.0000 100.0000 90.5000 100.9677 100.0000 100.0000 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. aAmount explicitly listed for each state in TEA-21 (23 U.S.C. §105(b)) for initial Minimum Guarantee calculation. bPursuant to TEA-21 provisions (23 U.S.C. §105(f)(2)), states for which the initial Minimum Guarantee amount (column 2) equaled 90.5 of 1996 HTF Highway Account receipts. cGreater of guaranteed rate of return percentage for 2000 or statutory table amount for eligible states; statutory table amount for other states. 23 U.S.C. §105(f)(1). dAdjusted percentage reduced pro rata to sum to 100 percent, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §105(f)(3). eRecalculated iterations to reach guaranteed rate of return percentage and reduce sums to 100 percent. 23 U.S.C. §105(f)(4). Table J.1b Apportionment of MG Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Assuming Statutory 90.5 Percent Guarantee Level: Final Calculations 80 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Subtotal from All Apportionments 446,464,984 105,489,360 318,263,880 275,053,902 2,065,965,531 289,081,501 263,810,905 94,223,384 106,615,364 788,117,308 657,482,425 108,943,739 148,801,309 790,667,516 445,562,519 295,470,277 293,796,651 394,079,453 362,282,035 117,203,701 368,844,538 425,097,534 653,300,835 346,400,620 286,898,702 542,690,370 162,115,647 191,750,760 138,683,830 109,420,189 610,949,459 201,305,633 1,138,409,275 549,244,394 144,406,921 Initial Guaranteed Minimum 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Minimum Subtotal 447,464,984 106,489,360 319,263,880 276,053,902 2,066,965,531 290,081,501 264,810,905 95,223,384 107,615,364 789,117,308 658,482,425 109,943,739 149,801,309 791,667,516 446,562,519 296,470,277 294,796,651 395,079,453 363,282,035 118,203,701 369,844,538 426,097,534 654,300,835 347,400,620 287,898,702 543,690,370 163,115,647 192,750,760 139,683,830 110,420,189 611,949,459 202,305,633 1,139,409,275 550,244,394 145,406,921 Target % 1.9902535 1.1699576 1.7387975 1.2975090 9.0299320 1.2637258 1.4911436 0.4344014 0.3884475 4.6347477 3.5473685 0.5083399 0.7578458 3.3207550 2.3161527 1.1802677 1.1505156 1.7208122 1.5738398 0.5167845 1.6160730 1.8301023 3.2034846 1.4721925 1.2783860 2.3188039 0.9749483 0.7627554 0.7116956 0.5069653 2.5797973 0.9705296 5.0694562 2.7786370 0.6434521 Target Program Total 22,482,813,708 9,101,984,634 18,361,187,709 21,275,683,311 22,890,156,172 22,954,465,813 17,758,913,801 21,920,599,220 27,703,964,638 17,026,111,522 18,562,560,587 21,627,995,242 19,766,726,963 23,839,985,820 19,280,357,368 25,118,900,246 25,623,004,003 22,958,894,542 23,082,529,659 22,872,921,293 22,885,385,233 23,282,716,077 20,424,659,994 23,597,499,040 22,520,482,402 23,447,018,170 16,730,697,264 25,270,324,071 19,626,907,705 21,780,622,665 23,720,835,211 20,844,868,846 22,475,966,616 19,802,672,867 22,597,939,359 Base Target Subtotal 551,379,122 324,124,636 481,715,855 359,461,430 2,501,649,161 350,102,142 413,105,893 120,346,403 107,615,364 1,284,008,857 982,761,712 140,830,318 209,953,331 919,980,785 641,666,127 326,980,959 318,738,427 476,733,197 436,016,018 143,169,782 447,716,300 507,010,907 887,492,237 407,855,700 354,163,615 642,400,610 270,099,329 211,313,485 197,167,886 140,449,475 714,706,123 268,875,191 1,404,440,343 769,792,609 178,261,749 Minimum Guarantee 104,914,138 218,635,276 163,451,975 84,407,528 435,683,630 61,020,641 149,294,988 26,123,019 1,000,000 495,891,549 325,279,287 31,886,579 61,152,022 129,313,269 196,103,608 31,510,681 24,941,776 82,653,744 73,733,982 25,966,081 78,871,762 81,913,374 234,191,402 61,455,080 67,264,913 99,710,240 107,983,683 19,562,725 58,484,055 31,029,286 103,756,664 67,569,558 266,031,068 220,548,216 33,854,828 % Share 1.683 3.508 2.622 1.354 6.990 0.979 2.395 0.419 0.016 7.956 5.219 0.512 0.981 2.075 3.146 0.506 0.400 1.326 1.183 0.417 1.265 1.314 3.757 0.986 1.079 1.600 1.732 0.314 0.938 0.498 1.665 1.084 4.268 3.538 0.543 Table J.1b (continued) 81 State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Subtotal from All Apportionments 774,731,407 372,993,201 286,996,418 1,183,547,900 124,882,406 316,109,102 153,376,349 511,734,597 1,455,954,993 188,537,876 102,877,431 524,185,695 429,116,346 274,877,270 375,288,127 159,006,203 21,471,109,771 Initial Guaranteed Minimum 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 51,000,000 Minimum Subtotal 775,731,407 373,993,201 287,996,418 1,184,547,900 125,882,406 317,109,102 154,376,349 512,734,597 1,456,954,993 189,537,876 103,877,431 525,185,695 430,116,346 275,877,270 376,288,127 160,006,203 21,522,109,771 Target % 3.4533711 1.5140223 1.1962730 4.8985039 0.5850279 1.6532336 0.7019746 2.2658989 7.6737904 0.7689415 0.4490320 2.5863133 1.7551819 1.1114352 1.9555917 0.6825325 100.00000 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. Target Program Total 22,463,019,349 24,701,960,806 24,074,472,027 24,181,830,261 21,517,334,134 19,181,142,748 21,991,730,099 22,628,308,585 18,986,119,152 24,649,193,491 23,133,637,614 20,306,344,955 24,505,514,577 24,821,715,245 19,241,650,723 23,443,014,671 27,703,964,638 Base Target Subtotal 956,720,695 419,444,210 331,415,060 1,357,079,790 162,075,919 458,011,259 194,474,781 627,743,832 2,125,944,186 213,027,278 124,399,661 716,511,314 486,254,961 307,911,603 541,776,437 189,088,573 27,703,964,638 Minimum Guarantee 181,989,287 46,451,008 44,418,642 173,531,890 37,193,514 141,902,157 41,098,433 116,009,235 669,989,192 24,489,403 21,522,230 192,325,620 57,138,615 33,034,333 166,488,310 30,082,370 6,232,854,867 % Share 2.920 0.745 0.713 2.784 0.597 2.277 0.659 1.861 10.749 0.393 0.345 3.086 0.917 0.530 2.671 0.483 Table J.2a Apportionment of MG Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Assuming Statutory Formula and Hypothetical Guarantee Levels 82 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Statutory 90.5% Rate of Return Minimum % of Target % Guarantee ($) Total 1.990 1.170 104,914,138 218,635,276 1.68 3.51 1.739 163,451,975 2.62 1.298 84,407,528 1.35 9.030 435,683,630 6.99 1.264 61,020,641 0.98 1.491 149,294,988 2.40 0.434 26,123,019 0.42 0.388 1,000,000 0.02 4.635 3.547 495,891,549 325,279,287 7.96 5.22 0.508 31,886,579 0.51 0.758 61,152,022 0.98 3.321 129,313,269 2.07 2.316 196,103,608 3.15 1.180 31,510,681 0.51 1.151 24,941,776 0.40 1.721 82,653,744 1.33 1.574 0.517 73,733,982 25,966,081 1.18 0.42 1.616 78,871,762 1.27 1.830 81,913,374 1.31 3.203 234,191,402 3.76 1.472 61,455,080 0.99 1.278 67,264,913 1.08 2.319 99,710,240 1.60 0.975 107,983,683 1.73 0.763 0.712 19,562,725 58,484,055 0.31 0.94 0.507 31,029,286 0.50 2.580 103,756,664 1.66 0.971 67,569,558 1.08 5.069 266,031,068 4.27 2.779 220,548,216 3.54 0.643 33,854,828 0.54 Assuming 92% Rate of Return Minimum % of % Target % Guarantee ($) Total Change 1.948 1.145 104,914,138 1.53 218,635,276 3.20 0.00 0.00 1.768 182,090,601 2.66 11.40 1.270 84,407,528 1.23 0.00 9.173 530,538,758 7.76 21.77 1.285 74,566,848 1.09 22.20 1.459 149,294,988 2.18 — 0.425 26,123,019 0.38 0.00 0.380 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.712 3.606 545,572,622 7.98 10.02 363,304,458 5.31 11.69 0.498 31,886,579 0.47 0.00 0.742 61,152,022 0.89 0.00 3.250 129,313,269 1.89 — 2.326 212,981,649 3.12 8.61 1.155 31,510,681 0.46 0.00 1.126 24,941,776 0.36 — 1.749 101,099,580 1.48 22.32 1.600 0.506 90,604,383 1.33 22.88 25,966,081 0.38 0.00 1.643 96,194,872 1.41 21.96 1.791 81,913,374 1.20 — 3.257 268,530,392 3.93 14.66 1.441 61,455,080 0.90 0.00 1.300 80,968,267 1.18 20.37 2.287 104,554,658 1.53 4.86 0.954 107,983,683 1.58 — 0.747 0.697 19,562,725 58,484,055 0.29 0.86 0.00 — 0.496 31,029,286 0.45 — 2.623 131,410,186 1.92 26.65 0.950 67,569,558 0.99 — 4.962 266,031,068 3.89 0.00 2.785 239,076,419 3.50 8.40 0.630 33,854,828 0.50 0.00 Assuming 93% Rate of Return Minimum % of % Target % Guarantee ($) Total Change 1.958 1.119 120,585,669 218,635,276 1.61 14.94 2.92 0.00 1.787 199,171,161 2.66 21.85 1.274 93,738,412 1.25 11.05 9.272 619,175,412 8.27 42.12 1.299 86,980,682 1.16 42.54 1.427 149,294,988 1.99 — 0.416 26,123,019 0.35 0.00 0.372 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.763 3.645 591,100,686 398,150,976 7.89 19.20 5.32 22.40 0.486 31,886,579 0.43 0.00 0.725 61,152,022 0.82 0.00 3.229 144,461,065 1.93 11.71 2.352 235,462,317 3.14 20.07 1.129 31,510,681 0.42 0.00 1.101 24,941,776 0.33 0.00 1.768 118,003,466 1.58 42.77 1.617 0.499 106,064,529 27,259,205 1.42 43.85 0.36 4.98 1.661 112,069,884 1.50 42.09 1.751 81,913,374 1.09 — 3.292 299,998,869 4.01 28.10 1.408 61,455,080 0.82 0.00 1.314 93,526,112 1.25 39.04 2.311 126,649,608 1.69 27.02 0.933 107,983,683 1.44 — 0.739 0.681 22,269,314 58,484,055 0.30 13.84 0.78 0.00 0.485 31,029,286 0.41 — 2.651 156,752,056 2.09 51.08 0.928 67,569,558 0.90 0.00 4.850 266,031,068 3.55 0.00 2.815 265,987,261 3.55 20.60 0.616 33,854,828 0.45 0.00 Table J.2a (continued) 83 State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Statutory 90.5% Rate of Return Minimum % of Target % Guarantee ($) Total 3.453 1.514 181,989,287 46,451,008 2.92 0.75 1.196 44,418,642 0.71 4.899 173,531,890 2.78 0.585 37,193,514 0.60 1.653 141,902,157 2.28 0.702 41,098,433 0.66 2.266 116,009,235 1.86 7.674 669,989,192 10.75 0.769 0.449 24,489,403 21,522,230 0.39 0.35 2.586 192,325,620 3.09 1.755 57,138,615 0.92 1.111 33,034,333 0.53 1.956 166,488,310 2.67 0.683 30,082,370 0.48 100.000 6,232,854,867 Assuming 92% Rate of Return Minimum % of % Target % Guarantee ($) Total Change 3.511 1.519 219,006,875 3.20 20.34 56,913,062 0.83 22.52 1.171 44,418,642 0.65 — 4.794 173,531,890 2.54 0.00 0.573 37,193,514 0.54 0.00 1.681 159,623,601 2.34 12.49 0.687 41,098,433 0.60 — 2.303 140,297,998 2.05 20.94 7.801 752,246,559 11.00 12.28 0.757 0.439 25,752,772 21,522,230 0.38 0.31 5.16 0.00 2.629 220,048,988 3.22 14.41 1.784 75,826,614 1.11 32.71 1.088 33,034,333 0.48 0.00 1.914 166,488,310 2.44 — 0.668 30,082,370 0.44 0.00 100.000 6,835,608,896 9.67 Assuming 93% Rate of Return Minimum % of % Target % Guarantee ($) Total Change 3.549 1.535 252,930,038 71,588,737 3.38 38.98 0.96 54.12 1.170 51,773,077 0.69 16.56 4.686 173,531,890 2.32 0.00 0.560 37,193,514 0.50 — 1.699 175,863,649 2.35 23.93 0.672 41,098,433 0.55 0.00 2.328 162,556,382 2.17 40.12 7.886 827,627,755 11.05 23.53 0.765 0.430 33,067,994 21,522,230 0.44 35.03 0.29 0.00 2.658 245,454,867 3.28 27.62 1.803 93,063,810 1.24 62.87 1.063 33,034,333 0.44 0.00 1.871 166,488,310 2.22 0.00 0.653 30,082,370 0.40 0.00 100.000 7,487,149,345 20.12 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 84 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Table J.2b Apportionment of MG Funding, Fiscal Year 2002: Assuming Hypothetical Guarantee Levels Assuming 94% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change 1.979 144,029,438 1.72 37.28 1.086 218,635,276 2.61 0.00 1.806 220,563,655 2.64 34.94 1.287 108,985,519 1.30 29.12 9.372 730,188,116 8.73 67.60 1.313 102,528,350 1.23 68.02 1.385 149,294,988 1.79 0.00 0.403 26,123,019 0.31 0.00 0.361 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.814 648,122,168 7.75 30.70 3.685 441,794,390 5.28 35.82 0.472 31,886,579 0.38 0.00 0.704 61,152,022 0.73 0.00 3.264 183,122,407 2.19 41.61 2.377 263,618,161 3.15 34.43 1.096 31,510,681 0.38 0.00 1.074 26,674,082 0.32 6.95 1.787 139,174,686 1.66 68.38 1.635 125,427,542 1.50 70.11 0.504 33,231,784 0.40 27.98 1.679 131,952,494 1.58 67.30 1.699 81,913,374 0.98 0.00 3.327 339,411,465 4.06 44.93 1.367 61,455,080 0.73 0.00 1.328 109,254,146 1.31 62.42 2.336 154,322,360 1.85 54.77 0.905 107,983,683 1.29 — 0.747 31,117,619 0.37 59.07 0.667 60,423,455 0.72 3.32 0.471 31,029,286 0.37 — 2.680 188,491,404 2.25 81.67 0.901 67,569,558 0.81 0.00 Assuming 95% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change 2.000 174,567,138 1.82 66.39 1.044 218,635,276 2.28 0.00 1.825 248,429,377 2.59 51.99 1.301 128,846,301 1.35 52.65 9.472 874,792,531 9.14 100.79 1.327 122,780,639 1.28 101.21 1.331 149,294,988 1.56 — 0.388 26,123,019 0.27 — 0.347 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.865 722,397,976 7.54 45.68 3.724 498,644,013 5.21 53.30 0.454 31,886,579 0.33 0.00 0.676 61,152,022 0.64 0.00 3.299 233,482,416 2.44 80.56 2.402 300,293,777 3.14 53.13 1.106 47,889,261 0.50 51.98 1.086 43,247,376 0.45 73.39 1.806 166,752,177 1.74 101.75 1.652 150,649,675 1.57 104.32 0.510 41,011,627 0.43 57.94 1.696 157,851,450 1.65 100.14 1.708 105,267,435 1.10 28.51 3.363 390,750,054 4.08 66.85 1.314 61,455,080 0.64 0.00 1.342 129,741,379 1.35 92.88 2.361 190,368,705 1.99 90.92 0.870 107,983,683 1.13 — 0.755 42,643,363 0.45 117.98 0.674 70,720,381 0.74 20.92 0.452 31,029,286 0.32 — 2.708 229,834,868 2.40 121.51 0.866 67,569,558 0.71 0.00 Assuming 96% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change 2.021 209,634,556 1.91 99.82 0.999 218,635,276 1.99 (0.00) 1.844 280,428,478 2.55 71.57 1.315 151,653,071 1.38 79.67 9.572 1,040,846,409 9.47 138.90 1.341 146,036,992 1.33 139.32 1.273 149,294,988 1.36 (0.00) 0.371 26,123,019 0.24 (0.00) 0.332 1,000,000 0.01 0.00 4.916 807,691,263 7.35 62.88 3.763 563,926,255 5.13 73.37 0.434 31,886,579 0.29 — 0.647 61,152,022 0.56 (0.00) 3.333 291,312,426 2.65 125.28 2.428 342,409,561 3.12 74.61 1.118 67,277,494 0.61 113.51 1.097 62,279,024 0.57 149.70 1.825 198,420,293 1.81 140.06 1.669 179,613,057 1.63 143.60 0.515 49,945,469 0.45 92.35 1.714 187,592,051 1.71 137.84 1.726 135,215,168 1.23 65.07 3.398 449,703,799 4.09 92.02 1.277 68,178,823 0.62 10.94 1.356 153,267,524 1.39 127.86 2.386 231,761,876 2.11 132.44 0.832 107,983,683 0.98 0.00 0.763 55,878,744 0.51 185.64 0.682 82,544,674 0.75 41.14 0.435 31,715,073 0.29 2.21 2.737 277,310,891 2.52 167.27 0.853 75,411,976 0.69 11.61 Table J.2b (continued) 85 State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Assuming 94% Rate of Return Assuming 95% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change % Guarantee ($) Total Change 4.707 266,031,068 3.18 0.00 4.524 266,031,068 2.78 0.00 2.845 299,691,663 3.58 35.88 2.876 343,594,795 3.59 55.79 0.597 33,854,828 0.40 — 0.574 33,854,828 0.35 0.00 3.587 295,416,997 3.53 62.33 3.625 350,760,231 3.66 92.74 1.552 89,969,241 1.08 93.69 1.568 113,911,564 1.19 145.23 1.182 65,778,941 0.79 48.09 1.195 84,022,886 0.88 89.16 4.549 173,531,890 2.07 0.00 4.371 173,531,890 1.81 0.00 0.543 37,193,514 0.44 0.00 0.522 37,193,514 0.39 0.00 1.717 196,203,448 2.35 38.27 1.735 222,697,935 2.33 56.94 0.652 41,098,433 0.49 — 0.626 41,098,433 0.43 0.00 2.354 190,433,825 2.28 64.15 2.379 226,746,799 2.37 95.46 7.971 922,038,700 11.02 37.62 8.055 1,045,017,774 10.91 55.98 0.773 42,229,921 0.50 72.44 0.782 54,164,188 0.57 121.17 0.417 21,522,230 0.26 0.00 0.401 21,522,230 0.22 0.00 2.686 277,274,380 3.32 44.17 2.715 318,722,269 3.33 65.72 1.823 114,652,483 1.37 100.66 1.842 142,773,747 1.49 149.87 1.032 33,034,333 0.39 0.00 0.992 33,034,333 0.34 — 1.866 181,552,446 2.17 9.05 1.886 210,349,721 2.20 26.35 0.634 30,082,370 0.36 0.00 0.609 30,082,370 0.31 0.00 100.000 8,363,577,497 34.19 100.000 9,576,201,987 53.64 Assuming 96% Rate of Return Target Minimum % of % % Guarantee ($) Total Change 4.327 266,031,068 2.42 — 2.906 394,010,167 3.59 78.65 0.549 33,854,828 0.31 0.00 3.663 414,312,637 3.77 127.66 1.585 141,405,299 1.29 204.42 1.208 104,972,993 0.96 136.33 4.181 173,531,890 1.58 0.00 0.499 37,193,514 0.34 — 1.754 253,122,402 2.30 78.38 0.599 41,098,433 0.37 (0.00) 2.404 268,446,149 2.44 131.40 8.140 1,186,238,581 10.80 77.05 0.790 67,868,688 0.62 177.13 0.383 21,522,230 0.20 0.00 2.743 366,318,207 3.33 90.47 1.861 175,066,294 1.59 206.39 0.949 33,034,333 0.30 (0.00) 1.906 243,418,554 2.22 46.21 0.583 30,082,370 0.27 (0.00) 100.000 10,987,659,151 76.29 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. Table J.3 Comparison of MG Funding Increases in Statutory Formula Assuming Hypothetical Guarantee Levels, Fiscal Year 2002 86 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota 92% Increase Required ($) % Change 0 0.00 0 0.00 18,638,626 11.40 0 0.00 94,855,128 21.77 13,546,207 22.20 —— 0 0.00 0 0.00 49,681,073 38,025,171 10.02 11.69 0 0.00 0 0.00 —— 16,878,041 8.61 0 0.00 —— 18,445,836 22.32 16,870,400 0 22.88 0.00 17,323,110 21.96 —— 34,338,989 14.66 0 0.00 13,703,354 20.37 4,844,417 4.86 —— 0 — 0.00 — —— 27,653,522 26.65 —— 0 0.00 18,528,203 8.40 0 0.00 93% Increase Required ($) % Change 15,671,530 0 14.94 0.00 35,719,186 21.85 9,330,884 11.05 183,491,783 42.12 25,960,041 42.54 —— 0 0.00 0 0.00 95,209,137 72,871,689 19.20 22.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 15,147,796 11.71 39,358,709 20.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 35,349,722 42.77 32,330,547 43.85 1,293,124 4.98 33,198,122 42.09 —— 65,807,466 28.10 0 0.00 26,261,199 39.04 26,939,368 27.02 —— 2,706,589 13.84 0 0.00 —— 52,995,392 51.08 0 0.00 0 0.00 45,439,046 20.60 0 0.00 94% Increase Required ($) % Change 39,115,300 37.28 0 0.00 57,111,680 34.94 24,577,992 29.12 294,504,486 67.60 41,507,709 68.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 152,230,619 30.70 116,515,103 35.82 0 0.00 0 0.00 53,809,138 41.61 67,514,553 34.43 0 0.00 1,732,305 6.95 56,520,942 68.38 51,693,560 70.11 7,265,703 27.98 53,080,732 67.30 0 0.00 105,220,063 44.93 0 0.00 41,989,233 62.42 54,612,120 54.77 —— 11,554,894 59.07 1,939,399 3.32 —— 84,734,739 81.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 79,143,447 35.88 —— 95% Increase Required ($) % Change 69,653,000 66.39 0 0.00 84,977,402 51.99 44,438,773 52.65 439,108,901 100.79 61,759,999 101.21 —— —— 0 0.00 226,506,427 45.68 173,364,726 53.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 104,169,147 80.56 104,190,169 53.13 16,378,580 51.98 18,305,600 73.39 84,098,433 101.75 76,915,692 104.32 15,045,546 57.94 78,979,688 100.14 23,354,062 28.51 156,558,652 66.85 0 0.00 62,476,465 92.88 90,658,465 90.92 —— 23,080,639 117.98 12,236,326 20.92 —— 126,078,204 121.51 0 0.00 0 0.00 123,046,579 55.79 0 0.00 96% Increase Required ($) % Change 104,720,418 99.82 0 0.00 116,976,503 71.57 67,245,544 79.67 605,162,779 138.90 85,016,351 139.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 311,799,714 62.88 238,646,968 73.37 —— 0 0.00 161,999,157 125.28 146,305,953 74.61 35,766,813 113.51 37,337,248 149.70 115,766,549 140.06 105,879,075 143.60 23,979,389 92.35 108,720,289 137.84 53,301,794 65.07 215,512,396 92.02 6,723,743 10.94 86,002,611 127.86 132,051,636 132.44 0 0.00 36,316,020 185.64 24,060,619 41.14 685,788 2.21 173,554,227 167.27 7,842,417 11.61 —— 173,461,951 78.65 0 0.00 Table J.3 (continued) State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Required ($) % Change Required ($) % Change Required ($) % Change Required ($) % Change Required ($) % Change 37,017,588 20.34 70,940,750 38.98 113,427,710 62.33 168,770,943 92.74 232,323,350 127.66 10,462,054 22.52 25,137,729 54.12 43,518,233 93.69 67,460,556 145.23 94,954,291 204.42 — — 7,354,436 16.56 21,360,299 48.09 39,604,245 89.16 60,554,351 136.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 — — 0 0.00 0 0.00 — — 17,721,444 12.49 33,961,492 23.93 54,301,290 38.27 80,795,777 56.94 111,220,245 78.38 —— 0 0.00 — — 0 0.00 0 0.00 24,288,763 20.94 46,547,146 40.12 74,424,590 64.15 110,737,564 95.46 152,436,914 131.40 82,257,367 12.28 157,638,563 23.53 252,049,508 37.62 375,028,582 55.98 516,249,389 77.05 1,263,369 5.16 8,578,591 35.03 17,740,519 72.44 29,674,785 121.17 43,379,285 177.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 27,723,369 14.41 53,129,247 27.62 84,948,761 44.17 126,396,650 65.72 173,992,587 90.47 18,687,998 32.71 35,925,195 62.87 57,513,868 100.66 85,635,132 149.87 117,927,679 206.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 — — 0 0.00 —— 0 0.00 15,064,136 9.05 43,861,411 26.35 76,930,244 46.21 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 602,754,029 9.67 1,254,294,478 20.12 2,130,722,630 34.19 3,343,347,120 53.64 4,754,804,284 76.29 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 87 Appendix K Data Table for the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table K.1 Apportionment of RABA Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Grand Total Less High Priority Projects 515,227,074 305,880,605 470,206,425 330,589,977 2,317,454,178 334,249,196 383,287,264 116,178,103 101,716,294 1,230,249,144 928,826,053 131,163,311 188,625,835 849,426,442 594,968,265 302,843,613 297,603,214 447,704,627 394,745,753 136,139,785 414,991,603 466,017,920 828,998,856 369,489,696 328,789,230 589,654,981 260,672,575 206,271,649 189,562,000 126,300,327 659,591,888 250,753,467 1,282,274,565 727,329,526 172,241,805 883,915,169 397,710,688 300,921,386 1,223,881,269 156,298,443 437,035,220 181,101,190 575,358,729 2,034,822,510 197,694,283 117,970,817 665,329,211 448,532,182 269,364,832 510,773,008 179,978,957 25,830,713,140 % Share of Grand Total 1.994629692 1.184174062 1.820338534 1.279832946 8.971700338 1.293999102 1.483843136 0.449767308 0.393780433 4.762737820 3.595820402 0.507780448 0.730238588 3.288435892 2.303336581 1.172416771 1.152129298 1.733225965 1.528203077 0.527046173 1.606582059 1.804123322 3.209353344 1.430427778 1.272861606 2.282766944 1.009157485 0.798551894 0.733862820 0.488954085 2.553517917 0.970757043 4.964146975 2.815754726 0.666810103 3.421954184 1.539681409 1.164975138 4.738085481 0.605087603 1.691920845 0.701107976 2.227421000 7.877531290 0.765345819 0.456707549 2.575729162 1.736429728 1.042808344 1.977386397 0.696763407 100.000000000 Distribution of RABA 70,199,591 41,676,174 64,065,536 45,042,822 315,752,693 45,541,390 52,222,817 15,829,245 13,858,826 167,621,213 126,552,374 17,870,976 25,700,234 115,734,192 81,064,313 41,262,385 40,548,382 60,999,671 53,784,034 18,549,020 56,542,527 63,494,853 112,950,937 50,342,901 44,797,470 80,340,379 35,516,589 28,104,473 25,827,787 17,208,396 89,869,270 34,165,112 174,709,666 99,098,510 23,467,913 120,433,274 54,188,006 41,000,482 166,753,591 21,295,633 59,545,966 24,675,003 78,392,518 277,244,181 26,935,809 16,073,501 90,650,979 61,112,425 36,700,907 69,592,726 24,522,099 3,519,429,770 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on Federal Highway Administration data. 90 Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves Vice Chancellor, Physical Planning University of California, Merced Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director, California Policy Research Center University of California, Berkeley, Office of the President Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor of Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND California Institute for Federal Policy Research 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Basement Level Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202/546-3700 Fax: 202/546-2390 www.calinst.org Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415/291-4400 Fax: 415/291-4401 www.ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:59" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(10) "ff_203trff" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:59" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:59" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(52) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/FF_203TRFF.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }