Before moving on to other facets of transportation stimulus funding, here’s one more post about the formula for determining what share of those funds go to each state. (Earlier posts are here and here.) Let me pass along a few of the perceptive comments made by readers. To refresh your memories, the formula is:
* 25 percent based on total lane miles of federal-aid highways.
* 40 percent based on vehicle miles traveled on lanes on federal-aid highways.
* 35 percent based on estimated tax payments (e.g. from fuel taxes) attributable to highway users in the states into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund (often referred to as “contributions” to the Highway Account).
* No state can receive less than one half of one percent of the spending.
Readers Jeff, Peggy, William, Mike D., PaulK, and Swashbuckler all gave some version of:
If you have received the benefit of massive pork in the past you have a higher percentage of federal highways in the present.
Jeff, Mike D. and Ben D. further noted its corollaries:
Rather than spending federal aid to repair roads, build new ones — which increases future aid-allocations based on criterion A.
and
Under-allocate funds to local roads, thus encouraging additional [federal-aid] highway usage which increases aid-allocations based on criterion B.
Matt points out that:
The gas tax [point C] benefits areas with large urban centers, where many people drive without using federal highways.
This is true, though you could make the opposite point: cities with lots of travel on non-federal aid highways are punished unfairly by criteria A and B.
Matt goes on:
States with very few roads (that are under the 0.5 percent minimum) have incentives to spend aid intended for transportation elsewhere rather than on roads, given that they won’t increase aid by spending more on roads given criterion D.
This is true, and it also touches on the “money is fungible” argument. Simply put, when we give states money earmarked for transportation, they can in effect transfer that money to elsewhere in the budget by diverting funds they would have spent on transportation anyway. Federal dollars simply replace state and local ones. Thus net transportation spending would increase less than advertised.
Peter seemed to be missing out on the splendor that is transportation finance:
In case you didn’t think the economic issues with this are boring enough on there [sic] own…
But he did have some valid points:
Allow me to point out the technical engineering flaws. … The formula doesn’t take into account regional differences in gradation, soils, and sub-grade. These factors all effect [sic] the cost of road construction …” (James and Jane had similar arguments.)
And finally:
Different roads have a different ratio of commercial and passenger traffic, so simple vehicle-miles are inefficient for determining wear and tear. … Virtually all road damage is caused by trucks rather than passenger cars due to their greater weight (this is why trucks are required to have so many wheels — to better distribute the load).
Last of all, Gary eloquently sprung to the defense of Delaware, which I maintained will receive disproportionate benefits from the formula:
Besides, Delaware is home of The Fightin’ Blue Hens! Fear the Bird!
This is a subtle, yet elegant and powerful argument, though if special disbursements for cities with terror-inducing bird mascots were incorporated into the formula, it could also be used to justify special funding for St. Louis, Baltimore, Phoenix, Atlanta, Seattle, etc.
Congrats to all of you who came up with such perceptive answers. Given your proven valor, I hereby deputize you junior U.C.L.A. transportation scholars, with a mandate to ruthlessly hunt down and right transportation finance wrongs wherever they rear their ugly heads. Considering that we have come up with no fewer than 12 inequities or inefficiencies in a 4-point formula, it doesn’t look like you’ll be lacking in opportunities to demonstrate your mettle.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Fascinating incentives in that formula. Sorry I missed the earlier posts.
Starteng from a map wihout federally aided roads, this formula would lead to:
In most states, the building of sinuous (maximizing lane miles) roads to somewhere (not to nowhere, up to 75% of the money goes to road usage) which are designed to block off alternative routes (which don’t qualify for usage payments). Once built, the states would be expected to minimize maintenance spending (the traffic is captive) in order to spend on other objectives (or cut state taxes).
In states without much in the way of somewheres to build a road to, the formula would effectively discourage building federally aided roads to the few somewheres that the state has. If the state would qualify for under 1/2% of the formula if it built the roads, the state gets the money anyway and has no benefit from building them. In fact it probably wold not pay to build federally-aided roads unless the state expected to get something close to 1% of the total take.
The incentives built into central formuae for distrbuting funds to regions, states and localities are often bizarre; but this formula is well up in that league.
What about
50% matching funds for reducing fares of existing buss and metro systems
50% matching of revenues collected from parking, and road user charges
ThomasH – I so agree with you, that making buses cheaper would change the whole equation for the better. Though I’d add more buses & drivers, so they’d come more often. A 15-minute wait is entirely different from a 40 minute wait.
Buses are not sexy. Our light(ish) rail system, BART, wants to put in a fancy elevated shuttle from the closest station to the airport. My husband and I calculated yesterday that to have half-hour bus shuttles 24×7 would cost about a million dollars a year. So would be cost-effective for the first 400 years…
old habits die hard and our obsession with individual transportation will continue killing our quality of life, economy, ecology and political stability. There is no cheaper way to transport people or cargo than the rail. I cannot believe we are still giving stimulus to build highways instead of trains.
60% of our energy usage goes to transportation (= 15% of all energy produced in the world), solar panels will not solve the problem, hybrids won, nudging the population into trains will.
Conmute time (and the tension of driving in heavy traffic destroy our quality of life, shortening conmute by half and hour a day will give the average citizen over 100 hours x year to spend with family, kids, read, have sex, exercise and create. We will be a lot happier and more productive.
We will cut emissions (I’m not an enviromentalist, so I will not talk a lot about it)
We will stop billions of dollars from escaping our economy, and more important it will not make our enemies any richer. Do not complain about Iran and Hugo Chavez if you still fueling your gas guzzler.
Why is there no funding in this formula for public transportation needs? Obviously the only sound solution for reducing congestion and oil usage is the development of mass transit for commuters, getting them OUT OF their cars entirely.
I have yet to see a bus system that’s more practical for general commuting than a bicycle. From where I live, I can hop on my bike and be downtown and to my destination in 20-30 minutes (depending on where exactly I’m going, and traffic), or I could go stand on the corner for 10-20 minutes, then sit on a bus for the next half hour after that. And then I’d have to walk, or hop on another bus to get me where I was going. So from point A to B, I could spend 60-90 minutes suffering on the bus system, or I could have a fun and relaxing 20-30 bike ride. Tough choice.
U.S. Senator Patty Murray requests funding for the Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project
Moses Lake, Wash. – U.S. Senator Patty has requested $5 million in funding in her Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriation request for the Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project in Moses Lake, Washington (http://murray.senate.gov/approps/requests.cfm#thud).
On her website, Senator Murray states, “An important part of my job as your U.S. Senator is to help Washington state communities and businesses get federal support for projects that will create jobs, get our economy moving and make a difference for Washington’s families. My staff and I have taken a look at all of the project requests that have come in this year. We put a priority on those projects that have broad-based local support and will create jobs and generate economic growth.”
The $5 million in funding requested for the Port of Moses Lake will provide for the construction of Segments 2 and 3 (of the Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project), which is a trunk-line extension serving the Grant County International Airport’s east industrial area and the rehabilitation of existing track and upgraded crossings.
“Extending a line to the airport’s east industrial area will provide for further economic growth and facilitate the operations of over five existing companies that employ over 1,000 workers, and the additional developments of crossings along the line will significantly enhance the safety and flow of commuters and pedestrians in the region”, said Murray.