Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
E-1Â Â Case Study Summary A P P E N D I X E The project included case studies of five state departments of transportation (DOTs)âKansas, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utahâand two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)âAlbany, New York, and Memphis, Tennessee. This appendix provides summaries of the case studies. The studies identified several consistent themes and practices, principally that transfers are a tool to meet their respective funding and programmatic priorities while avoiding funding lapses or rescissions. The states and MPOs expressed high levels of satisfaction with their ability to transfer Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) funds but also expressed a desire for increased flexibility to pursue their priorities, particularly the need to address transit and infrastructure maintenance needs. E.1 Case Study Summary of Kansas Department of Transportation This is a summary of the key findings from the case study of the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). The summary is organized into two parts: transfer among FAHP categories, and transfer from FHWA to the FTA. For each of the two parts, the case study focuses on the historical trend of funding transfer, the considerations that drive KDOTâs transfer decisions, and the trade-offs, barriers, and opportunities of the transfer authority. E.1.1 Funding Transfer Among FAHP Categories FAHP funds that Kansas receives are mainly used for highway maintenance. State funds are used for capital improvement projects, in particular for system preservation and modernization. Kansas rarely transfers funds between FAHP categories. Historical Federal Highway Fund Transfers Kansas is one of several states that transferred less than 2 percent of FAHP funds among FAHP categories between FFY2013 and FFY2020.
E-2 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs Figure E-1. Funds transferred among highway program categories as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Figures E-2, E-3, and E-4 show KDOTâs funding transfers from Transportation Alternatives (TA), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) to other FAHP categories between FFY2013 and FFY2020. KDOT did not transfer funds from National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) during this same period. Figure E-2. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for TA funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E U TA H VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A O RE G O N DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A N EW H AM PS H IR E W AS H IN G TO N O KL AH O M A VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A AL AB AM A M IC HI G AN HA W AI I N O RT H D AK O TA CA LI FO RN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A G EO RG IA N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A M O N TA N A W ES T VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A M AR YL AN D SO U TH D AK O TA RH O DE IS LA N D N EW Y O RK CO N N EC TI CU T M IN N ES O TA TE XA S O HI O AL AS KA W IS CO N SI N IL LI N O IS M AS SA CH U SE TT S CO LO RA DO N EW M EX IC O ID AH O AR KA N SA S M IS SO U RI FL O RI DA TE N N ES SE E KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A AR IZ O N A IO W A KA N SA S W YO M IN G DE LA W AR E PE N N SY LV AN IA Funds Transferred among Highway Program Categories as a % of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% O KL AH O M A TE XA S G EO RG IA N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A SO U TH D AK O TA M IS SO U RI N EW Y O RK U TA H AR IZ O N A KE N TU CK Y AR KA N SA S W IS CO N SI N N O RT H C AR O LI N A LO U IS IA N A N EW H AM PS H IR E AL AS KA N EV AD A N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E HA W AI I M AR YL AN D M O N TA N A M IS SI SS IP PI CO LO RA DO N EW JE RS EY O HI O IL LI N O IS VE RM O N T VI RG IN IA AL AB AM A N EB RA SK A M IN N ES O TA ID AH O RH O DE IS LA N D O RE G O N W ES T VI RG IN IA KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S CA LI FO RN IA DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A FL O RI DA IN DI AN A M AI N E M IC H IG AN PE N N SY LV AN IA W AS H IN G TO N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (TA) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
Case Study Summary E-3 Figure E-3. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for HSIP funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Figure E-4. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for NHFP funding from FFY2016 to FFY2020. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions KDOT has rarely used transfers. The major reasons for transfer actions relate to avoiding fund lapses. E.1.2 Funding Transfer from FHWA to FTA Transfers to FTA are done yearly by MPOs for both STBG and CMAQ funds, and the state transfers metropolitan planning funds every year to FTA. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% W IS CO N SI N M AR YL AN D N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A AL AB AM A M IN N ES O TA U TA H N EW M EX IC O O RE G O N CO N N EC TI CU T AR KA N SA S N EW Y O RK KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A CO LO RA DO RH O DE IS LA N D SO U TH D AK O TA VE RM O N T ID AH O W AS H IN G TO N VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A TE XA S FL O RI DA N O RT H D AK O TA AL AS KA W YO M IN G TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S M O N TA N A AR IZ O N A CA LI FO RN IA DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A G EO RG IA HA W AI I IL LI N O IS IO W A LO U IS IA N A M AI N E M IC HI G AN M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E O HI O O KL AH O M A PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA % of Transfer Authority Used (HSIP) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CO LO RA DO N EV AD A M AS SA CH U SE TT S AR IZ O N A N EW Y O RK U TA H IL LI N O IS DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A CA LI FO RN IA M IN N ES O TA AL AS KA M O N TA N A KA N SA S AL AB AM A AR KA N SA S CO N N EC TI CU T DE LA W AR E FL O RI DA G EO RG IA HA W AI I ID AH O IN DI AN A IO W A KE N TU CK Y LO U IS IA N A M AI N E M AR YL AN D M IC HI G AN M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E N EW JE RS EY N EW M EX IC O N O RT H C AR O LI N A N O RT H D AK O TA O HI O O KL AH O M A O RE G O N PE N N SY LV AN IA RH O DE IS LA N D SO U TH C AR O LI N A SO U TH D AK O TA TE N N ES SE E TE XA S VE RM O N T VI RG IN IA W AS H IN G TO N W ES T VI RG IN IA W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (NHFP) by State FFY2016 - FFY2020
E-4 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs Historical Trends of Funding Transfer KDOT transferred approximately 1 percent of its federal highway funds to FTA between FFY2013 and FFY2020. Figure E-5. Funds transferred from federal highway programs to FTA as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned, FFY2013âFFY2020. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions Fund transfers to FTA sometimes occur when MPOs fail to meet project schedules and choose to transfer their funding rather than lose formula limitation. Scheduled transfers of the MPO funding category to FTA allow the MPOs to carry out the Unified Planning Work Program. Occasionally, TA funds are transferred to FTA. Types of projects funded by transfers include bus stop/shelter projects and bike share projects that meet the requirements for FTA. Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities of the Authority to Transfer Funds from FHWA to FTA Sometimes a last-minute transfer of funds may cause an imbalance in future yearsâ programs and may require adjustments between MPO programs, thereby affecting planned projects in the region. 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% N EW JE RS EY CA LI FO RN IA M AR YL AN D O RE G O N VE RM O N T N EW Y O RK AR IZ O N A W AS H IN G TO N N EV AD A M IN N ES O TA VI RG IN IA O HI O HA W AI I RH O DE IS LA N D M AS SA CH U SE TT S IL LI N O IS PE N N SY LV AN IA N EW H AM PS H IR E CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A CO LO RA DO TE XA S M IC HI G AN G EO RG IA FL O RI DA U TA H N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S N O RT H C AR O LI N A W IS CO N SI N M AI N E M IS SO U RI IN DI AN A AL AS KA LO U IS IA N A KE N TU CK Y ID AH O AR KA N SA S AL AB AM A W YO M IN G N EB RA SK A N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A DE LA W AR E O KL AH O M A DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A M I S SI SS IP PI SO U TH D AK O TA Funds Transferred from Federal Highway Programs to FTA as a Percentage of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned, FFY2013 - FFY2020
Case Study Summary E-5 E.2 Case Study Summary of Oregon Department of Transportation This is a summary of the key findings from the case study of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The summary is organized into two parts: transfer among FAHP categories and transfer from FHWA to FTA. For each of the two parts, the case study focuses on the historical trend of funding transfer, the considerations that drive ODOTâs transfer decisions, and the trade-offs, barriers, and opportunities of the transfer authority. E.2.1 Funding Transfer Among FAHP Categories Historical Trends of Funding Transfer Oregon is among the several states that transferred over 20 percent of their FAHP funds among FAHP categories between FFY2013 and FFY2020. Figure E-6. Funds transferred among highway program categories as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Figures E-7 through E-12 show Oregonâs funding transfers from each FAHP category to other FAHP categories. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E U TA H VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A O RE G O N DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A N EW H AM PS H IR E W AS H IN G TO N O KL AH O M A VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A AL AB AM A M IC HI G AN HA W AI I N O RT H D AK O TA CA LI FO RN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A G EO RG IA N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A M O N TA N A W ES T VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A M AR YL AN D SO U TH D AK O TA RH O DE IS LA N D N EW Y O RK CO N N EC TI CU T M IN N ES O TA TE XA S O HI O AL AS KA W IS CO N SI N IL LI N O IS M AS SA CH U SE TT S CO LO RA DO N EW M EX IC O ID AH O AR KA N SA S M IS SO U RI FL O RI DA TE N N ES SE E KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A AR IZ O N A IO W A K A N SA S W YO M IN G DE LA W AR E PE N N SY LV AN IA Funds Transferred among Highway Program Categories as a % of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-6 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs Figure E-7. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for NHPP funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Figure E-8. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for CMAQ funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E O RE G O N U TA H VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A O KL AH O M A W AS H IN G TO N M IC HI G AN AL AB AM A HA W AI I CA LI FO RN IA N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A G EO RG IA SO U TH D AK O TA O HI O N O RT H C AR O LI N A IN DI AN A N EW JE RS EY M AR YL AN D TE XA S M IN N ES O TA IL LI N O IS N EW Y O RK ID AH O FL O RI DA M IS SO U RI CO N N EC TI CU T M AS SA CH U SE TT S AL AS KA AR KA N SA S N EW M EX IC O AR IZ O N A CO LO RA DO DE LA W AR E IO W A KA N SA S KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A PE N N SY LV AN IA RH O DE IS L A N D TE N N ES SE E W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (NHPP) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% AL AS KA G EO RG IA TE N N ES SE E W IS CO N SI N RH O DE IS LA N D IN DI AN A M AI N E CO N N EC TI CU T N O RT H C AR O LI N A KE N TU CK Y M IN N ES O TA N EW H AM PS H IR E TE XA S HA W AI I N EW JE RS EY CO LO RA DO AL AB AM A M O N TA N A LO U IS IA N A N EW Y O RK N EW M EX IC O U TA H M AR YL AN D ID AH O IL LI N O IS VI RG IN IA M IS SI SS IP PI O RE G O N W ES T VI RG IN IA AR KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S DE LA W AR E N EV AD A M IC HI G AN CA LI FO RN IA AR IZ O N A DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A FL O RI DA IO W A KA N SA S M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N O RT H D AK O TA O HI O O KL AH O M A PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A SO U TH D AK O TA VE RM O N T W AS H IN G TO N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (CMAQ) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
Case Study Summary E-7 Figure E-9. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for STBG funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Figure E-10. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for TA funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% RH O DE IS LA N D W AS H IN G TO N U TA H VI RG IN IA M AS SA CH U SE TT S CA LI FO RN IA AL AB AM A O RE G O N M IC HI G AN N O RT H D AK O TA IO W A N EW M EX IC O SO U TH D AK O TA TE XA S AR KA N SA S LO U IS IA N A IL LI N O IS FL O RI DA O KL AH O M A N O RT H C AR O LI N A AL AS KA AR IZ O N A CO LO RA DO CO N N EC TI CU T DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A G EO RG IA HA W AI I ID AH O IN DI AN A KA N SA S KE N TU CK Y M AI N E M AR YL AN D M IN N ES O TA M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI M O N TA N A N EB RA SK A N EV AD A N EW H AM PS H IR E N EW JE RS EY N EW Y O RK O HI O PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A TE N N ES SE E VE RM O N T W ES T VI RG IN IA W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (STBG) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% O KL AH O M A TE XA S G EO RG IA N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A SO U TH D AK O TA M IS SO U RI N EW Y O RK U TA H AR IZ O N A KE N TU CK Y AR KA N SA S W IS CO N SI N N O RT H C AR O LI N A LO U IS IA N A N EW H AM PS H IR E AL AS KA N EV AD A N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E HA W AI I M AR YL AN D M O N TA N A M IS SI SS IP PI CO LO RA DO N EW JE RS EY O HI O IL LI N O IS VE RM O N T VI RG IN IA AL AB AM A N EB RA SK A M IN N ES O TA ID AH O RH O DE IS LA N D O RE G O N W ES T VI RG IN IA KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S CA LI FO RN IA DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A FL O RI DA IN DI AN A M AI N E M IC H IG AN PE N N SY LV AN IA W AS H IN G TO N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (TA) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-8 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs Figure E-11. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for HSIP funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Figure E-12. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for NHFP funding from FFY2016 to FFY2020. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions ODOT performs a review at the beginning of each year to determine which projects are slated for obligation and the funding eligibility. Based on that analysis, funding has been shifted from one program category to another to provide the state with the most flexible options to fund projects. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% W IS CO N SI N M AR YL AN D N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A AL AB AM A M IN N ES O TA U TA H N EW M EX IC O O RE G O N CO N N EC TI CU T AR KA N SA S N EW Y O RK KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A CO LO RA DO RH O DE IS LA N D SO U TH D AK O TA VE RM O N T ID AH O W AS H IN G TO N VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A TE XA S FL O RI DA N O RT H D AK O TA AL AS KA W YO M IN G TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S M O N TA N A AR IZ O N A CA LI FO RN IA DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A G EO RG IA HA W AI I IL LI N O IS IO W A LO U IS IA N A M AI N E M IC HI G AN M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E O HI O O KL AH O M A PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA % of Transfer Authority Used (HSIP) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CO LO RA DO N EV AD A M AS SA CH U SE TT S AR IZ O N A N EW Y O RK U TA H IL LI N O IS DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A CA LI FO RN IA M IN N ES O TA AL AS KA M O N TA N A KA N SA S AL AB AM A AR KA N SA S CO N N EC TI CU T DE LA W AR E FL O RI DA G EO RG IA HA W AI I ID AH O IN DI AN A IO W A KE N TU CK Y LO U IS IA N A M AI N E M AR YL AN D M IC HI G AN M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E N EW JE RS EY N EW M EX IC O N O RT H C AR O LI N A N O RT H D AK O TA O HI O O KL AH O M A O RE G O N PE N N SY LV AN IA RH O DE IS LA N D SO U TH C AR O LI N A SO U TH D AK O TA TE N N ES SE E TE XA S VE RM O N T VI RG IN IA W AS H IN G TO N W ES T VI RG IN IA W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (NHFP) by State FFY2016 - FFY2020
Case Study Summary E-9 ODOT does not use specific funding categories as a driver for setting performance targets or project selection for the majority of the FAHP funding. The state works to pick the best projects, and funding is matched based on eligibility. ODOT tries to maintain maximum flexibility in its use of FHWA funding. Oregon does use funding categories for project selection in select areas. Administrative Efficiency ODOT has high levels of transfers from TA. Projects administered by local governments often are not adequately scoped in time, which causes major delays in project delivery and obligation of funding. Otherwise, ODOT has established a mechanism that gives the state maximum flexibility and efficient use of its available FHWA dollars without putting the stateâs resources in jeopardy. Overall, the fund transfer authority provides the state with the ability to help the administrative functions within the agency to ensure compliance with the use of federal funds Fully Utilizing Federal Funds In general, performance goals do not impact fund transfers. Transfers are used mainly for financial management. Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities to Transfer Funds Among FAHP Categories ODOT transfers funds to fully obligate the federal program, to facilitate meeting programmatic goals. E.2.2 Funding Transfer from FHWA to FTA ODOT transfers FHWA funding to FTA to help facilitate transit projects. It transfers CMAQ, NHPP, and STBG funds to FTA (e.g., Section 5307, 5309, and 5311 programs). ODOT frequently works with FTA and Western Federal Lands. The transfer of funds to these entities is a common practice in Oregon. Historical Trends of Funding Transfer Oregon is one of the states that transferred the highest percentage (over 8 percent) of its federal highway funds to FTA between FFY2013 and FFY2020. Flexibility to Meet State Goals and Needs
E-10 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs Figure E-13. Funds transferred from federal highway programs to FTA as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned, FFY2013âFFY2020. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions Transfers to FTA are done to ensure transit projects have consistent administrative and implementation requirements. The projects are delivered through the same process as regular FTA funds. Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities to Transfer Funds from FHWA ODOT did not identify any issues with fund transfers. 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% N EW JE RS EY CA LI FO RN IA M AR YL AN D O RE G O N VE RM O N T N EW Y O RK AR IZ O N A W AS H IN G TO N N EV AD A M IN N ES O TA VI RG IN IA O HI O HA W AI I RH O DE IS LA N D M AS SA CH U SE TT S IL LI N O IS PE N N SY LV AN IA N EW H AM PS H IR E CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A CO LO RA DO TE XA S M IC HI G AN G EO RG IA FL O RI DA U TA H N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S N O RT H C AR O LI N A W IS CO N SI N M AI N E M IS SO U RI IN DI AN A AL AS KA LO U IS IA N A KE N TU CK Y ID AH O AR KA N SA S AL AB AM A W YO M IN G N EB RA SK A N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A DE LA W AR E O KL AH O M A DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A M I S SI SS IP PI SO U TH D AK O TA Funds Transferred from Highway Programs to FTA as a Percentage of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned, FFY2013 - FFY2020
Case Study Summary E-11 E.3 Case Study Summary of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation This is a summary of the key findings from the case study of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The summary is organized into two parts: transfer among FAHP categories and transfer from FHWA to FTA. For each of the two parts, the case study focuses on the historical trend of funding transfer, the considerations that drive PennDOTâs transfer decisions, and the trade-offs, barriers, and opportunities of the transfer authority. E.3.1 Funding Transfers Among FAHP Categories PennDOT was selected for a case study because PennDOT did not transfer any FAHP funds to other highway fund categories from FFY2013 to FFY2020. All transfers of FAHP funds were to FTA. Historical Federal Highway Fund Transfers As shown in Figure E-14, Pennsylvania did not transfer FAHP funds among FAHP categories between FFY2013 and FFY2020. Figure E-14. Funds transferred among highway program categories as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned from FFY2013 to FFY2020. PennDOT recently transferred $38 million of CMAQ funds to the STBG program. These funds were from the previous yearâs apportionment and allowed PennDOT to balance its obligation needs with its project portfolio. This helped PennDOT to close out the fiscal year and have a successful August redistribution. CMAQ funds are distributed to MPOs and rural planning organizations (RPOs) based on a formula allocation. The spending priorities are set locally. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E U TA H VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A O RE G O N DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A N EW H AM PS H IR E W AS H IN G TO N O KL AH O M A VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A AL AB AM A M IC HI G AN HA W AI I N O RT H D AK O TA CA LI FO RN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A G EO RG IA N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A M O N TA N A W ES T VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A M AR YL AN D SO U TH D AK O TA RH O DE IS LA N D N EW Y O RK CO N N EC TI CU T M IN N ES O TA TE XA S O HI O AL AS KA W IS CO N SI N IL LI N O IS M AS SA CH U SE TT S CO LO RA DO N EW M EX IC O ID AH O AR KA N SA S M IS SO U RI FL O RI DA TE N N ES SE E KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A AR IZ O N A IO W A K A N SA S W YO M IN G DE LA W AR E PE N N SY LV AN IA Funds Transferred among Highway Program Categories as a % of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-12 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs However, local agencies are often challenged to obligate and spend federal funds, so PennDOT decided to transfer the CMAQ funds to avoid lapses. FHWA performance requirements have not been driving any transfer decisions. The most significant concern relates to air quality targets. The historic practice of transfers to FTA achieved positive air quality benefits. Historically, PennDOT transferred almost 50 percent of bridge funding to the Surface Transportation Program (STP). This provided flexibility in the construction program and helped to fiscally manage projects that had both highway and bridge components. However, given Pennsylvaniaâs high number of poor bridges, the transfers drew criticism, including from the Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, so PennDOT ended the practice of transferring bridge funding. No funds are transferred from NHFP, since all funding is spent on the Interstate network. Priorities for these funds are set through agreements with the MPOs/RPOs and included in the Pennsylvania Freight Plan. Needs far exceed resources, and typically only one project is funded per year. PennDOT does not transfer TA funding. Priorities for spending those funds are set locally and regionally. PennDOT tracks obligation progress to ensure the funds do not lapse. PennDOT does not transfer funds from Off-System Bridges. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions Fully Utilizing Federal Funds Consistent with other states that participated in the research, PennDOT prepares a program of FAHP transfers to avoid rescission threats. Performance Impacts FHWA performance requirements have not driven transfer decisions. MPO Roles in Transfers Project priorities are established based on asset condition and performance. Projects are then programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The MPOs do not approve the actual transfers. The transfers are managed directly by PennDOT. Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities of the Authority to Transfer Funds Among FAHP Categories PennDOT historically transferred funds among FAHP programs but encountered criticism ranging from advocacy groups to investigations by the Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Government Accountability Office related to bridge condition and funding.
Case Study Summary E-13 E.3.2 Funding Transfer from FHWA to FTA PennDOT transferred FAHP funds to FTA from 1997 through 2020. This was driven by a policy set by the Financial Guidance Working Group that directed $25 million/year of FAHP funds be transferred to FTA. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and the Port Authority received 95 percent of those funds. The remaining 5 percent was distributed to the Pennsylvania Public Transit Association for local transit support. Historical Trends of Funding Transfer Pennsylvania transferred approximately 2 percent of its federal highway funds to FTA between FFY2013 and FFY2020. Figure E-15. Funds transferred from federal highway programs to FTA as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned, FFY2013âFFY2020. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions MPOs typically identify additional funds to transfer that lead to Pennsylvania regularly transferring highway funding to FTA, averaging about $45 million per year over the past 5 years. That allowed funding and projects to be administered by the modal agency that is most familiar with certain project types. Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities of the Authority to Transfer Funds from FHWA to FTA A trade-off is that once funds have been transferred from FHWAâs control, it becomes more difficult for states to track fund usage directly. 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% N EW JE RS EY CA LI FO RN IA M AR YL AN D O RE G O N VE RM O N T N EW Y O RK AR IZ O N A W AS H IN G TO N N EV AD A M IN N ES O TA VI RG IN IA O HI O HA W AI I RH O DE IS LA N D M AS SA CH U SE TT S IL LI N O IS PE N N SY LV AN IA N EW H AM PS H IR E CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A CO LO RA DO TE XA S M IC HI G AN G EO RG IA FL O RI DA U TA H N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S N O RT H C AR O LI N A W IS CO N SI N M AI N E M IS SO U RI IN DI AN A AL AS KA LO U IS IA N A KE N TU CK Y ID AH O AR KA N SA S AL AB AM A W YO M IN G N EB RA SK A N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A DE LA W AR E O KL AH O M A DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A M I S SI SS IP PI SO U TH D AK O TA Funds Transferred from Federal Highway Programs to FTA as a Percentage of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned, FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-14 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs E.4 Case Study Summary of South Carolina Department of Transportation This is a summary of the key findings from the case study of the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). The summary is organized into two parts: transfer among FAHP categories and transfer from FHWA to FTA. For each of the two parts, the case study focuses on the historical trend of funding transfer, the considerations that drive SCDOTâs fund transfer decisions, and the trade-offs, barriers, and opportunities of the fund transfer authority. E.4.1 Funding Transfers Among FAHP Categories SCDOT was selected as a case study for several reasons. SCDOT maintains low to average transfers from the FAHP categories compared to the other states; has a low rate of transfers of federal highway funds to FTA; transfers a large percentage of TA funds to the STBG program; and has a relationship with the stateâs MPOs. SCDOT uses fund transfers to provide greater use and flexibility of federal funding, using all tools provided by FHWA to prevent a lapse of funding while achieving its investment and Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) goals. SCDOT is required to suballocate approximately $43 million to transit management associations (TMAs) annually out of the STBG program. SCDOT also suballocates an additional $67 million in STBG funds to non-TMAs. SCDOT does not transfer suballocated funds because the suballocation is a required distribution based on population. Historical Federal Highway Fund Transfers SCDOT transferred approximately 9 percent of FAHP funds among FAHP categories between FFY2013 and FFY2020. Among all states, the percentage of FAHP funds transferred ranges widely from over 25 percent to 0 percent.
Case Study Summary E-15 Figure E-16. Funds transferred among highway program categories as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Figures E-17 and E-18 show South Carolinaâs funding transfer from each FAHP category to the other categories. Figure E-17. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for TA funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. SCDOT used 100 percent of its authority to transfer funds out of TA to STBG between FFY2013 and FFY2020. This transfer percentage is in the top five of all states. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E U TA H VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A O RE G O N DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A N EW H AM PS H IR E W AS H IN G TO N O KL AH O M A VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A AL AB AM A M IC HI G AN HA W AI I N O RT H D AK O TA CA LI FO RN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A G EO RG IA N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A M O N TA N A W ES T VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A M AR YL AN D SO U TH D AK O TA RH O DE IS LA N D N EW Y O RK CO N N EC TI CU T M IN N ES O TA TE XA S O HI O AL AS KA W IS CO N SI N IL LI N O IS M AS SA CH U SE TT S CO LO RA DO N EW M EX IC O ID AH O AR KA N SA S M IS SO U RI FL O RI DA TE N N ES SE E KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A AR IZ O N A IO W A KA N SA S W YO M IN G DE LA W AR E PE N N SY LV AN IA Funds Transferred among Highway Program Categories as a % of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% O KL AH O M A TE XA S G EO RG IA N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A SO U TH D AK O TA M IS SO U RI N EW Y O RK U TA H AR IZ O N A KE N TU CK Y AR KA N SA S W IS CO N SI N N O RT H C AR O LI N A LO U IS IA N A N EW H AM PS H IR E AL AS KA N EV AD A N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E HA W AI I M AR YL AN D M O N TA N A M IS SI SS IP PI CO LO RA DO N EW JE RS EY O HI O IL LI N O IS VE RM O N T VI RG IN IA AL AB AM A N EB RA SK A M IN N ES O TA ID AH O RH O DE IS LA N D O RE G O N W ES T VI RG IN IA KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S CA LI FO RN IA DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A FL O RI DA IN DI AN A M AI N E M IC HI G AN PE N N SY LV AN IA W AS H IN G TO N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (TA) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-16 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs Figure E-18. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for NHPP funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. SCDOT also transferred some funds out of NHPP between FFY2013 and FFY2020. During the same period, SCDOT did not transfer funds out of the other FAHP categories, including CMAQ, STBG, HSIP, and NHFP. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions SCDOTâs objectives are to use appropriated funds effectively based on planned projects by using the flexibility allowed by FHWA to transfer to certain funds. These transfers help SCDOT avoid lapsing funds and ensure that SCDOT investment and TAMP objectives are met. SCDOT maintains a 10-year investment plan that includes federal and state revenues that coincide with its TAMP goals and objectives. Projects are planned and executed based on budgeted investment for each program. SCDOT has monthly review meetings and bimonthly authorization meetings to ensure that projects and programs are on track to meet investment goals. This visibility provides SCDOT the opportunity to remain on target by managing its programs. Compared to most other state DOTs, SCDOT has a higher reliance on federal highway funds (as opposed to state and local sources), with nearly 40 percent of its total highway funds coming from the federal government. Availability of non-federal highway funds plays a limited role in SCDOTâs decisions to transfer FAHP funds. Transfer decisions are mainly based on the need to keep the planned program of projects on schedule for authorization of the federal funds. Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities of the Authority to Transfer Funds Among FAHP Categories States are permitted to transfer up to 50 percent of their TA funds to NHPP, STBG, HSIP, CMAQ, or NHFP. SCDOT consistently transfers TA funds to STBG or NHPP, which allows 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E O RE G O N U TA H VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A O KL AH O M A W AS H IN G TO N M IC HI G AN AL AB AM A HA W AI I CA LI FO RN IA N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A G EO RG IA SO U TH D AK O TA O HI O N O RT H C AR O LI N A IN DI AN A N EW JE RS EY M AR YL AN D TE XA S M IN N ES O TA IL LI N O IS N EW Y O RK ID AH O FL O RI DA M IS SO U RI CO N N EC TI CU T M AS SA CH U SE TT S AL AS KA AR KA N SA S N EW M EX IC O AR IZ O N A CO LO RA DO DE LA W AR E IO W A KA N SA S KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A PE N N SY LV AN IA RH O DE IS L A N D TE N N ES SE E W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (NHPP) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
Case Study Summary E-17 greater flexibility of use. Since SCDOT does not have enough TA projects planned to authorize the TA program funds, the funds are transferred to avoid a funding lapse and help SCDOT assist other transportation investment goals. During the time of the case study interview, SCDOT had TA funds that were about to lapse, and this strategy helped SCDOT achieve its TAMP goals. E.4.2 Funding Transfers from FHWA to FTA In South Carolina, decisions to transfer FHWA funds to FTA are made by individual local MPOs or Council of Governments boards. Historical Trends of Funding Transfer Compared to other states, SCDOT transfers a very small amount of FAHP funds (approximately 0.10 percent) to FTA. Figure E-19. Funds transferred from federal highway programs to FTA as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned, FFY2013âFFY2020. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions Transfers are used to allow subrecipients to participate in FTA initiatives. STBG funds are transferred to FTA to facilitate administration and oversight of specific grant programs. Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities to Transfer Funds from FHWA to FTA SCDOT did not identify trade-offs or barriers related to fund transfers from FHWA to FTA. E.5 Case Study Summary of Utah Department of Transportation This is a summary of the key findings from the case study of Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). The summary is organized into two parts: transfer among FAHP categories and transfer 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% N EW JE RS EY CA LI FO RN IA M AR YL AN D O RE G O N VE RM O N T N EW Y O RK AR IZ O N A W AS H IN G TO N N EV AD A M IN N ES O TA VI RG IN IA O HI O HA W AI I RH O DE IS LA N D M AS SA CH U SE TT S IL LI N O IS PE N N SY LV AN IA N EW H AM PS H IR E CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A CO LO RA DO TE XA S M IC HI G AN G EO RG IA FL O RI DA U TA H N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S N O RT H C AR O LI N A W IS CO N SI N M AI N E M IS SO U RI IN DI AN A AL AS KA LO U IS IA N A KE N TU CK Y ID AH O AR KA N SA S AL AB AM A W YO M IN G N EB RA SK A N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A DE LA W AR E O KL AH O M A DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A M I S SI SS IP PI SO U TH D AK O TA Funds Transferred from Federal Highway Programs to FTA as a Percentage of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned, FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-18 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs from FHWA to FTA. For each of the two parts, the case study focuses on the historical trend of funding transfer, the considerations that drive UDOTâs transfer decisions, and the trade-offs, barriers, and opportunities of the transfer authority. E.5.1 Funding Transfer Among FAHP Categories Federal highway funds that UDOT receives are mainly used for maintenance, whereas state funds are typically used for capital improvement projects. Utah provides significant state funds for highways, ranging from $800 million to $1.2 billion a year. State funds are mainly from fuel tax and vehicle-related sales tax. The department also receives dedicated sales tax revenues that are specifically programmed to these capacity projects. The state legislature may also authorize additional ongoing funding streams for significant capital projects like highways and earmarked for specific projects through these funds and general funds. Federal-aid highway funds flow through the MPOs to counties and municipalities. UDOT works with the four MPOs in the state in administering FAHP funds. The state shares additional FAHP funds with the MPOs in addition to the suballocated formula funds. Historically, an additional $60 million to $88 million out of a total $370 million to $390 million FAHP apportionment received by the state is shared with the MPOs. For the rural and small urban areas, the Joint Highway Committee Rural, made up of representatives from Utah counties and cities, selects projects for which federal funds will be allocated. UDOT transfers funds among FAHP categories on a regular basis as part of its annual programming activities. Fund transfer benefited many statewide projects, such as pavement, safety, and TA projects. Historical Trends of Funding Transfer Utah is one of the most active states in using the fund transfer authority to transfer funds among FAHP categories. Utah transferred over 25 percent of its FAHP funds among FAHP categories between FFY2013 and FFY2020 (Figure E-20).
Case Study Summary E-19 Figure E-20. Funds transferred among highway program categories as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Figures E-21 through E-26 show UDOTâs funding transfers from each FAHP category to other FAHP categories between FFY2013 and FFY2020. Starting from FFY2017, Utah has transferred 50 percent of funds out of NHPP every year to the general STBG program. Figure E-21. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for NHPP funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. In Utah, transfers from CMAQ to other FAHP categories occurred occasionally but not on a regular basis. CMAQ funds are programmed by the MPOs. When used for transit projects, CMAQ funds were sometimes transferred to FTA for administration. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E U TA H VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A O RE G O N DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A N EW H AM PS H IR E W AS H IN G TO N O KL AH O M A VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A AL AB AM A M IC HI G AN HA W AI I N O RT H D AK O TA CA LI FO RN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A G EO RG IA N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A M O N TA N A W ES T VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A M AR YL AN D SO U TH D AK O TA RH O DE IS LA N D N EW Y O RK CO N N EC TI CU T M IN N ES O TA TE XA S O HI O AL AS KA W IS CO N SI N IL LI N O IS M AS SA CH U SE TT S CO LO RA DO N EW M EX IC O ID AH O AR KA N SA S M IS SO U RI FL O RI DA TE N N ES SE E KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A AR IZ O N A IO W A KA N SA S W YO M IN G DE LA W AR E PE N N SY LV AN IA Funds Transferred among Highway Program Categories as a % of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M IS SI SS IP PI M AI N E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A VI RG IN IA N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E O RE G O N U TA H VE RM O N T LO U IS IA N A O KL AH O M A W AS H IN G TO N M IC HI G AN AL AB AM A HA W AI I CA LI FO RN IA N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A G EO RG IA SO U TH D AK O TA O HI O N O RT H C AR O LI N A IN DI AN A N EW JE RS EY M AR YL AN D TE XA S M IN N ES O TA IL LI N O IS N EW Y O RK ID AH O FL O RI DA M IS SO U RI CO N N EC TI CU T M AS SA CH U SE TT S AL AS KA AR KA N SA S N EW M EX IC O AR IZ O N A CO LO RA DO DE LA W AR E IO W A KA N SA S KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A PE N N SY LV AN IA RH O DE IS LA N D TE N N ES SE E W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (NHPP) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-20 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs Figure E-22. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for CMAQ funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. UDOT does not usually transfer funds out of STBG. Between FFY2013 and FFY2020, Utah only transferred funds out of STBG in FFY2018 and FFY2019 to HSIP and CMAQ on a one- time basis. Off-System Bridges funds are managed by the Joint Highway Committee. Utah almost never transfers the Off-System Bridges funds. The Joint Highway Committee selects projects, and the state manages those projects. Figure E-23. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for STBG funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Starting from FFY2017, UDOT transferred 50 percent of the remaining TA funds, after subtracting the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) set-aside, to STBG every year. It then swapped state funds between the TA program and the state-funded pavement programs to provide the same amount of funding for TA projects while maximizing funding flexibility. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% AL AS KA G EO RG IA TE N N ES SE E W IS CO N SI N RH O DE IS LA N D IN DI AN A M AI N E CO N N EC TI CU T N O RT H C AR O LI N A KE N TU CK Y M IN N ES O TA N EW H AM PS H IR E TE XA S HA W AI I N EW JE RS EY CO LO RA DO AL AB AM A M O N TA N A LO U IS IA N A N EW Y O RK N EW M EX IC O U TA H M AR YL AN D ID AH O IL LI N O IS VI RG IN IA M IS SI SS IP PI O RE G O N W ES T VI RG IN IA AR KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S DE LA W AR E N EV AD A M IC HI G AN CA LI FO RN IA AR IZ O N A DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A FL O RI DA IO W A KA N SA S M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N O RT H D AK O TA O HI O O KL AH O M A PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A SO U TH D AK O TA VE RM O N T W AS H IN G TO N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (CMAQ) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% RH O DE IS LA N D W AS H IN G TO N U TA H VI RG IN IA M AS SA CH U SE TT S CA LI FO RN IA AL AB AM A O RE G O N M IC HI G AN N O RT H D AK O TA IO W A N EW M EX IC O SO U TH D AK O TA TE XA S AR KA N SA S LO U IS IA N A IL LI N O IS FL O RI DA O KL AH O M A N O RT H C AR O LI N A AL AS KA AR IZ O N A CO LO RA DO CO N N EC TI CU T DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A G EO RG IA HA W AI I ID AH O IN DI AN A KA N SA S KE N TU CK Y M AI N E M AR YL AN D M IN N ES O TA M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI M O N TA N A N EB RA SK A N EV AD A N EW H AM PS H IR E N EW JE RS EY N EW Y O RK O HI O PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A TE N N ES SE E VE RM O N T W ES T VI RG IN IA W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (STBG) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
Case Study Summary E-21 Figure E-24. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for TA funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. UDOT does not regularly transfer HSIP funds. Figure E-25. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for HSIP funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. The National Highway Freight Network is limited in Utah. The state has converted some National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) funds for non-freight network highway projects. For example, US-6, part of the National Highway Freight Network, ends approximately 45 miles from the nearest Interstate; the state converted some NHFP funds for projects in the portion between US-6 and the Interstate. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% O KL AH O M A TE XA S G EO RG IA N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A SO U TH D AK O TA M IS SO U RI N EW Y O RK U TA H AR IZ O N A KE N TU CK Y AR KA N SA S W IS CO N SI N N O RT H C AR O LI N A LO U IS IA N A N EW H AM PS H IR E AL AS KA N EV AD A N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E HA W AI I M AR YL AN D M O N TA N A M IS SI SS IP PI CO LO RA DO N EW JE RS EY O HI O IL LI N O IS VE RM O N T VI RG IN IA AL AB AM A N EB RA SK A M IN N ES O TA ID AH O RH O DE IS LA N D O RE G O N W ES T VI RG IN IA KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S CA LI FO RN IA DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A FL O RI DA IN DI AN A M AI N E M IC HI G AN PE N N SY LV AN IA W AS H IN G TO N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (TA) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% W IS CO N SI N M AR YL AN D N EW JE RS EY IN DI AN A AL AB AM A M IN N ES O TA U TA H N EW M EX IC O O RE G O N CO N N EC TI CU T AR KA N SA S N EW Y O RK KE N TU CK Y N EV AD A CO LO RA DO RH O DE IS LA N D SO U TH D AK O TA VE RM O N T ID AH O W AS H IN G TO N VI RG IN IA N O RT H C AR O LI N A TE XA S FL O RI DA N O RT H D AK O TA AL AS KA W YO M IN G TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S M AS SA CH U SE TT S M O N TA N A AR IZ O N A CA LI FO RN IA DE LA W AR E DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A G EO RG IA HA W AI I IL LI N O IS IO W A LO U IS IA N A M AI N E M IC HI G AN M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E O HI O O KL AH O M A PE N N SY LV AN IA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA % of Transfer Authority Used (HSIP) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-22 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs Figure E-26. Percentage of transfer authority used by state for NHFP funding from FFY2013 to FFY2020. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions UDOTâs fund transfer decisions help meet state specific goals and needs, administrative efficiency, and the ability to fully use federal funds. The state transfers up to 50 percent of NHPP and TA funds to STBG, as the STBG program provides more flexibility in terms of project eligibility. STBG funds are also used to bridge any funding gaps due to increased project costs. In contrast to some other state practices, UDOT begins its programming cycles with the intention of transferring funds from other FAHP categories into STBG. Those funds are programmed for projects that the state prioritizes and deems most cost-effective. Funding flexibility helps UDOT to program the right projects at the right time. UDOT believes that the fund transfer authority also enhances the stateâs ability to meet the performance targets. As much of the Interstate improvements in the past decade have involved capacity funding from the state, most of the federal funds have been used on non-Interstate projects. When possible, UDOT looks for opportunities to use NHPP on Interstate projects to increase the amount of federal share on projects. UDOT swaps state funds with TA funds to fund TA-eligible projects. Those projects are required to meet TA program standards and are enforced by local governments. The fund swapping removes costly federal oversight requirements on projects that often range from $75,000 to $80,000. UDOT also uses transfer authority to avoid lapsing and rescission. UDOT had no funding lapse between FFY2013 and FFY2020. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CO LO RA DO N EV AD A M AS SA CH U SE TT S AR IZ O N A N EW Y O RK U TA H IL LI N O IS DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A CA LI FO RN IA M IN N ES O TA AL AS KA M O N TA N A KA N SA S AL AB AM A AR KA N SA S CO N N EC TI CU T DE LA W AR E FL O RI DA G EO RG IA HA W AI I ID AH O IN DI AN A IO W A KE N TU CK Y LO U IS IA N A M AI N E M AR YL AN D M IC HI G AN M IS SI SS IP PI M IS SO U RI N EB RA SK A N EW H AM PS H IR E N EW JE RS EY N EW M EX IC O N O RT H C AR O LI N A N O RT H D AK O TA O HI O O KL AH O M A O RE G O N PE N N SY LV AN IA RH O DE IS LA N D SO U TH C AR O LI N A SO U TH D AK O TA TE N N ES SE E TE XA S VE RM O N T VI RG IN IA W AS H IN G TO N W ES T VI RG IN IA W IS CO N SI N W YO M IN G % of Transfer Authority Used (NHFP) by State FFY2013 - FFY2020
Case Study Summary E-23 Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities of the Authority to Transfer Funds Among FAHP Categories UDOT did not identify barriers to fund transfers. E.5.2 Funding Transfer from FHWA to FTA Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is the major transit operator in the state. Most of the state population is covered by UTAâs service area. UTA receives approximately $60 million to $70 million annually from FTAâs formula programs. Transfer of federal highway funds to FTA is directed by the MPOs. After the transfer, the MPOs manage the projects, with minimal state involvement. Historical Trends of Funding Transfer As shown in Figure E-27, UDOT transferred less than 2 percent of its federal highway funds to FTA between FFY2013 and FFY2020. Figure E-27. Funds transferred from federal highway programs to FTA as a percentage of total FHWA funding apportioned, FFY2013âFFY2020. Considerations That Drive Transfer Decisions UDOT stated that it transfers FHWA funds to FTA for administrative efficiency. Transit agencies implementing the projects are more familiar with FTA requirements. Trade-Offs, Barriers, and Opportunities of the Authority to Transfer Funds from FHWA to FTA UDOT did not identify trade-offs or barriers to fund transfers from FHWA to FTA. 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% N EW JE RS EY CA LI FO RN IA M AR YL AN D O RE G O N VE RM O N T N EW Y O RK AR IZ O N A W AS H IN G TO N N EV AD A M IN N ES O TA VI RG IN IA O HI O HA W AI I RH O DE IS LA N D M AS SA CH U SE TT S IL LI N O IS PE N N SY LV AN IA N EW H AM PS H IR E CO N N EC TI CU T IO W A CO LO RA DO TE XA S M IC HI G AN G EO RG IA FL O RI DA U TA H N EW M EX IC O TE N N ES SE E KA N SA S N O RT H C AR O LI N A W IS CO N SI N M AI N E M IS SO U RI IN DI AN A AL AS KA LO U IS IA N A KE N TU CK Y ID AH O AR KA N SA S AL AB AM A W YO M IN G N EB RA SK A N O RT H D AK O TA SO U TH C AR O LI N A W ES T VI RG IN IA M O N TA N A DE LA W AR E O KL AH O M A DI ST RI CT O F CO LU M BI A M I S SI SS IP PI SO U TH D AK O TA Funds Transferred from Federal Highway Programs to FTA as a Percentage of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned, FFY2013 - FFY2020
E-24 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs E.6 Case Study Summary of Albany, New York, MPO This case study provides an example of an MPO that has been successful in getting NHPP and STBG-Flex funds programmed to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects, a regional priority. This was done in an intensely competitive funding environment and where the state DOT considered NHPP and STBG-Flex funding to be solely for highways and roads. The MPO successfully made the case that since the BRT is being constructed on the National Highway System (NHS), it would be appropriate to use NHPP and STBG-Flex funds. E.6.1 Background The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) is the MPO for three full counties (Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady) and parts of Saratoga County, New York. There are 11 cities, towns, and villages, with a total regional population of just over 1 million. The host agency for the MPO is the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA), the regional transit agency. E.6.2 NYSDOT Transfers from FFY2013 to FFY2020 As shown in Table E-1, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) transferred 7.5 percent of all FHWA apportioned funds among the six key highway programs during the 8-year period. Six percent of apportioned funds were transferred to FTA for transit properties in New York State, the sixth highest percentage of funds transferred to transit in the nation. Except for Vermont, the other five states have extensive transit systems and funding needs. Therefore, transfer to transit are not surprising. Another notable aspect of NYSDOT transfers is that 40 percent of its Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) apportionment was transferred out, the 10th highest in the nation. NYSDOT also transferred 30 percent of its NHFP apportionment out from FFY2013 to FFY2020 and 20 percent of its CMAQ apportionment out during this period. NYSDOT did not use any of its STBG fund transfer authority. Table E-1. NYSDOTâPercentage of FHWA Apportionment Transferred, FFY2013âFFY2020. From FAHP Program to Another FAHP Program 7.5% of FHWA Apportionment Transferred Funds transferred from TA 40% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from NHFP 30% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from CMAQ 20% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from HSIP 20% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from NHPP 5% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from STBG 0% of apportionment transferred From FAHP to FTA 6% of FHWA Apportionment Transferred
Case Study Summary E-25 E.6.3 CDTC Role in NHPP and STBG-Flex Funds Programmed for BRT The CDTC has no direct role in the fund transfer decisions that NYSDOT makes. However, CDTC policy priorities that are established in the regional planning process have been funded in part through NHPP and STBG-Flex funds. The MPO has been effective in building the coalition of elected officials and others needed to support, and fund, regional priorities. Discussed below is how the CDTC has been involved with supporting transit investments in the region and has been successful in getting some NHPP and STBG-Flex funds for BRT projects and other transit investments. The need to advocate for what NYSDOT had considered road funds to fund transit emerged due to a discontinuance of annual CMAQ funds to the regionâs transit agency. CMAQ funds are provided to states based on the air quality status of the MPO regions in the state and the population affected in each region. In 2004, the CDTC region was classified as a nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone standard. The CDTC region is still considered a marginal nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard even though the region was classified as an attainment area for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards. So, the CDTC region brings CMAQ funds to the state (due to its 1997 ozone status) based on regional population and other factors. New York State received over $196 million in CMAQ funds in FFY2021 (FHWA, 2020a). Historically, NYSDOT supported annual transfers of CMAQ funds to FTA to support CDTAâs capital program. Due to statewide funding constraints, in recent years the CDTC region no longer receives CMAQ funds annually from NYSDOT to support transit. (Note: CMAQ funds were used for operating expenses for the new BRT line for the first year of service and for the Capital District Bikeshare Program.) This left a significant gap in what had been relatively stable transit funding in the CDTC region. The only other source of funds that CDTC controls is a portion of STBG funding. Currently the transit funding gap is being addressed by using STBG- Flex funds and NHPP funds for some projects. The CDTC also competed successfully for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant funds for an $18.8 million computer-aided dispatch, automatic vehicle location system for the CDTA fleet. CDTC has also been a strong advocate for supporting funding for road projects and other elements of the non-NHS. Because of executive leadership and a high-caliber staff, the CDTC has consistently made the case that local funding needs are important to the operation of the entire regional transportation network. This includes projects like regional collectors that feed into the NHS. A strong case was made in support of the implementation of the regional BRT system using NHPP and STBG-Flex funds for some of the costs, since the BRT routes are on the NHS. This was a challenge for the CDTC because, as noted above, the NYSDOT considers NHPP funds to be road funds, not funds for transit investments. The CDTC noted that the transportation funding situation in New York is extremely competitive and transportation funding needs far exceed revenues. Historically, local needs could be met, but this is no longer the case. This is a statewide problem with no near-term solution expected. The
E-26 Federal Funding Flexibility: Use of Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transfers by State DOTs state has borrowed up to its maximum limit for transportation, and the legislature would need to adopt a new bond act to increase borrowing or adopt a new revenue source for transportation. E.6.4 Summary While the CDTC has no direct role in FHWA fund transfers by NYSDOT, the MPO has been successful in getting agreement from NYSDOT on using some NHPP and STBG-Flex funds for its BRT projects and certain other transit and transportation demand management projects that operate on the NHS. E.7 Case Study Summary of Memphis MPO This case study provides an example of a process, established by the Memphis Urban Area MPO working in collaboration with federal and state partners, to better understand the fund transfer process from FHWA to FTA and to enable the MPO to track fund obligation levels and project status throughout the life of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The project showed that 47 states transferred FHWA funds to FTA from FFY2013 to FFY2020; this process may be of interest to others. E.7.1 Background The Memphis Urban Area MPO is the MPO for two of the three states that make up the Memphis Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas Urbanized Area (UZA). (The Arkansas portion of the UZA falls within the West Memphis MPO Planning Area.) The MPO regional population is 1.15 million. This includes Shelby County and a portion of Fayette County in Tennessee and DeSoto County and a portion of Marshall County in Mississippi. There are 18 cities and towns in the MPO region. Tennessee and Mississippi DOTs are members of the MPO as are the Memphis- Shelby County Airport Authority and Memphis-Shelby County Port Commission. Transit in the region is provided by the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), which serves 280 square miles. E.7.2 Tennessee DOT Transfers from FFY2013 to FFY2020 The Tennessee DOT (TDOT) uses fund transfer authority almost every year and strives to fully use all available federal funds. TDOT finds transfers useful for fully obligating the federal program, facilitating programmatic goals, and collaborating with local and regional entities. As Table E-2 shows, the only source of funds that TDOT tends to transfer at high levels is the CMAQ program where about 40 percent of the apportionment was transferred out, more than any state other than Georgia and Alaska. TDOT transfers funds from CMAQ and TA to NHPP, STBG- Metropolitan, and FTA for MATA projects. From FFY2013 to FFY2020 TDOT did not transfer any funds at all from three programs: STBG-State, NHPP, and NHFP.
Case Study Summary E-27 Table E-2. Tennessee DOTâPercentage of FHWA Apportionment Transferred, FFY2013âFFY2020. Funds Transferred from One FAHP Category to Another FAHP Category 3% of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned Funds transferred from CMAQ 40% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from TA 20% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from HSIP 7.5% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from STBG 0% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from NHPP 0% of apportionment transferred Funds transferred from NHFP 0% of apportionment transferred Funds Transferred from FAHP to FTA 2% of Total FHWA Funding Apportioned E.7.3 MPO Establishes Process for Fund Transfers Of the different funding sources included in the TIP, the Memphis MPO is responsible for selecting and programming projects under the STBG-Metropolitan and TA programs. The selection and programming of projects funded by the NHPP, HSIP, STBG-State, CMAQ, and TA-State are the responsibility of TDOT and the Mississippi DOT. In addition, projects using the advanced construction technique are identified in the TIP, which allows a state to initiate a project using non-federal funds while preserving eligibility for future federal-aid funds. The MPO has been transferring funds from FHWA to FTA for the past several TIP cycles, and the Memphis Urban Area MPO wanted to better understand how the transfer process works along with a timeline for each step in the process. They are also responsible for tracking status of projects and obligations throughout the life of the TIP and needed a better way to perform this task. The MPO reached out to FHWA with the goal of understanding the transfer timeline and how FHWA and FTA systems work. This was a collaborative process with all partners (federal, state, MPO, transit agency) involved. All agreed on the process, and the MPO documented it in Figure E-28. FHWA was very helpful and coordinated with FTA. E.7.4 Summary The Memphis Urban Area MPO has been effective in documenting the process for fund transfers from FHWA to FTA that all MPO partners in the process use. The Memphis MPO interview revealed four main points relating to transfers: (1) the MPO supports transit funding, (2) the MPO has made the fund transfer process more transparent, (3) the MPO tracks obligation levels and project status throughout the life of the TIP, and (4) a collaborative effort was used to develop, describe, and document the transfer process.
Figure E-28. Memphis MPO flex funding process (source: Memphis MPO).
