Transportation/Highways Recovery Act Transportation Spending: ‘Summer of Recovery’ Becomes Fall of Discontent By Sean Slone The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $48 billion to states for transportation infrastructure projects. States achieved significant successes in 2010 in meeting deadlines associated with the legislation, starting and completing projects on time and under budget, creating jobs and doing it all with little fraud or waste. Still, some questions have been raised about whether the stimulus could have had a greater impact, which types of projects were funded and which states received the most funding. Despite its political unpopularity in 2010, the Recovery Act proved its worth to state transportation officials around the country.

2010’s ‘Summer of Recovery’ The Obama administration dubbed the summer line to obligate 100 percent of their Recovery of 2010 the “Summer of Recovery” because it highway funds.4 The Federal Highway Admin- expected to see many of the infrastructure proj- istration met a Sept. 30 deadline for awarding ects funded by 2009’s American Recovery and $27.5 billion for highway and bridge projects Reinvestment Act finally come to fruition. As the and the Federal Transit Administration met the summer got under way, President Obama and U.S. deadline for awarding $8.8 billion for transit Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood traveled projects.5 The U.S. House Transportation and to Columbus, Ohio, to celebrate the groundbreak- Infrastructure Committee reported in Decem- ing of the 10,000th Recovery Act road project1 and ber that 44 states had begun work on at least 90 work was completed on the nation’s first Recovery percent of their Recovery Act highway projects. Act-funded project, a bridge near Tuscumbia, Mo.2 Of the $38 billion available for highway, transit A Jacksonville, Fla., road project stalled for 30 and wastewater infrastructure formula program years was among the projects finally able to move projects, $35.6 billion—or 94 percent—had been forward with Recovery Act funding as well.3 put out to bid on 20,132 projects as of the end But despite all the orange barrels and Recov- of October. Within that total, 92 percent were ery Act project signs visible on the nation’s roads under contract.6 in 2010 and despite the many administrative suc- . Savings—The U.S. Department of Transportation cesses achieved by state government officials and was able to fund an additional 2,500 projects others around the country in getting those projects because contract bids on funded projects came up and running, the Recovery Act did not prove in $7.5 billion less than expected.7 to be a politically popular program in midterm elections and in the post-election environment . Speed of Completion—In addition to coming of Washington, D.C., and state capitals. That lack in under budget, a slight majority of projects of popularity can be traced to the depth of the were completed earlier than estimated, produc- nation’s economic funk as well as to how the legis- ing additional savings. The investigative website lation was structured and the choices states made ProPublica reported in November that of the along the way. 12,932 projects listed in a Federal Highway Ad- ministration database, 5,752—or 45 percent— The Successes of Recovery Act were marked as completed. Of those, 51 percent Transportation Spending were completed earlier than the estimated date.8 By many measures and according to many differ- . Management—Despite the speed with which ent Recovery Act watchdogs, the implementation the money has been allocated and spent, gov- of transportation spending has been a success. ernment watchdogs reported that stimulus con- . Deadlines Met—In March, Vice President Joe tracts and grants have been relatively free of Biden and LaHood announced that every state fraud and waste compared to many government and the District of Columbia had met the dead- programs.9

The Council of State Governments 403 Transportation/Highways

. Job Creation—The President’s Council of Eco- of criticism. That focus meant many of the proj- nomic Advisers estimated that construction of ects were short-term fixes, like repaving roads transportation infrastructure helped save or and painting bridges, rather than major trans- create 321,900 jobs during the first three quar- formative projects that might have produced a ters of 2010.10 greater impact both economically and in terms of investing in a transportation system for the Obstacles to Success 21st century. Some shovel-ready projects took But some believe there were a number of factors longer than anticipated to get going, providing that may have limited the impact of Recovery Act more evidence to Recovery Act detractors.13 In transportation spending in 2010. Among them: October, as President Obama prepared for what . The Government Accountability Office reported turned out to be a bruising election for his party, in September that state departments of trans- even he sounded disappointed when he told The portation were slower in obligating regular New York Times Magazine, despite significant federal-aid highway funds during the last fis- evidence to the contrary, “there’s no such thing cal year because they’ve been so busy trying to as shovel-ready projects.”14 spend Recovery Act dollars. That raises ques- . But Recovery Act funding for more transforma- tions about whether the Recovery Act money tional transportation projects was heavily scru- is having the full economic stimulative effect tinized as well. Fifty-one projects around the intended because it was supposed to be in ad- country were awarded Recovery Act funding as dition to and on top of the highway money part of the TIGER (Transportation Investment states already had available to spend. GAO said Generating Economic Recovery) discretionary staffing shortages in states dealing with budget grants program. The program was intended to challenges may have been partially to blame provide funding for innovative freight rail, high- for some of the slowness in obligating regular way, transit and port projects expected to pro- funding. But uncertainty about future program duce significant economic and environmental funding levels and federal inaction on the next benefits. Many of them were multimodal, regional long-term authorization of federal programs projects that have proved difficult to fund and clearly prompted many states to spend more build under other programs.15 At a hearing in cautiously as well. At the end of June, states had February marking the one year anniversary of $19.7 billion in regular funds remaining to be the Recovery Act, U.S. Rep. John Mica, then the obligated, 63 percent more funds than they did ranking member on the House Transportation at the same time for the three previous years.11 and Infrastructure Committee, questioned why . An analysis of federal data by McClatchy News- more of the TIGER funds did not go to states papers showed that a number of states suffering with higher unemployment. About 60 percent of from some of the nation’s highest unemploy- the funding went to economically distressed ment rates were among those slowest to spend areas.16 Mica also complained that his own state stimulus money intended for highway projects. of received no TIGER funds. He said the California, with the nation’s third worst unem- project selection process lacked transparency ployment rate, had yet to start on 41 percent of and the program represented, in effect, an exec- its highway projects in September. The state had utive earmarks program.17 By year’s end, Mica spent just 26 percent of its highway money, one was the incoming chairman of the committee of the lowest rates of those states monitored and the TIGER program, which was once seen by the GAO. The delay in spending there was as a potential model for future federal trans­ blamed on the involvement of more levels of portation funding, appeared likely to fall out government in planning processes. Virginia had of favor as earmarks of any kind were scorned an even higher percentage of projects it hadn’t by the new Republican Congress. started—52 percent. Transportation officials in . Year’s end also brought a power struggle over Virginia blamed an emphasis on more projects Recovery Act funds intended for the intercity expected to have a long-term impact and the passenger rail program. Ohio and Wisconsin, collaborative process of choosing projects for two states hit hard by the economic downturn, causing the delay.12 were among states that were awarded a portion . The Recovery Act’s focus on funding “shovel- of $8 billion in Recovery Act funding to build ready projects” also came in for a fair amount new high-speed rail lines. But both states elected

404 the Book of the States 2011 Transportation/Highways

Table A: Recovery Act Funds for Highway Infrastructure Investment (Data Reported as of October 31, 2010)

Direct jobs Direct jobs created or created or Projects Projects sustained sustained Funds Funds Funds put out under Completed during during State allocated obligated outlayed to bid contract projects July 2010 October 2010 Alabama...... $511,924,313 $513,692,083 $339,136,034 251 250 125 727 1,680 ...... 175,461,487 178,520,994 147,479,134 28 28 8 571 265 Arizona...... 520,884,655 521,394,538 275,179,127 184 184 95 1,503 1,305 Arkansas...... 351,544,468 351,894,468 174,533,417 123 123 55 715 916 California...... 2,537,626,450 2,540,826,450 940,700,736 912 825 619 8,023 3,319 Colorado...... 385,324,130 385,324,130 275,222,170 109 108 51 1,029 782 Connecticut...... 298,903,956 302,053,956 114,243,851 151 136 63 469 505 Delaware...... 121,828,650 121,828,650 60,122,259 40 38 3 514 192 Florida...... 1,344,471,413 1,349,735,003 551,621,045 641 615 268 3,073 3,017 Georgia...... 901,585,680 903,008,364 369,421,375 390 376 193 1,398 unavailable Hawaii...... 125,746,380 125,746,380 29,500,647 22 20 3 85 84 Idaho...... 178,878,631 178,878,631 131,157,795 83 80 23 705 372 Illinois...... 935,592,704 935,590,765 713,760,878 972 946 453 1,288 1,315 Indiana...... 657,967,707 672,625,386 538,521,683 1,105 1,105 906 0 990 Iowa...... 357,623,007 357,623,007 323,123,401 244 242 130 780 507 Kansas...... 347,817,167 347,817,167 180,455,012 150 145 82 1,338 967 Kentucky...... 419,899,347 420,139,347 283,325,473 106 106 17 1,548 873 Louisiana...... 429,859,427 429,859,427 148,830,992 117 116 19 708 1,010 Maine...... 130,752,032 130,752,032 120,274,022 72 72 59 319 172 Maryland...... 413,934,777 413,934,777 230,100,987 170 170 36 842 511 Massachusetts...... 378,205,755 378,205,755 179,227,960 94 90 21 596 432 Michigan...... 846,598,715 855,873,754 669,422,076 744 735 634 3,037 1,858 Minnesota...... 502,284,177 506,463,421 423,113,315 223 220 155 1,364 996 Mississippi...... 354,564,343 354,564,343 288,702,292 173 172 98 1,050 14 Missouri...... 637,121,984 637,121,984 420,275,806 329 327 246 999 1,310 Montana...... 211,793,391 212,835,558 174,917,017 86 85 43 639 593 Nebraska...... 231,926,771 231,016,489 176,256,448 129 124 46 676 624 Nevada...... 201,352,460 201,352,460 108,386,168 71 69 35 470 403 New Hampshire...... 129,440,556 129,440,556 97,693,283 34 34 27 365 171 New Jersey...... 651,774,480 651,774,480 320,150,776 173 163 22 950 975 New Mexico...... 252,644,377 252,644,377 167,788,812 96 92 1 826 1,110 New York...... 945,218,723 943,468,723 518,732,379 426 413 180 1,928 1,610 North Carolina...... 730,409,684 730,409,684 461,235,450 461 459 66 2,021 2,410 North Dakota...... 170,126,497 170,126,497 149,641,232 164 164 93 617 81 Ohio...... 935,677,030 919,945,446 427,190,394 426 400 208 5,022 2,062 Oklahoma...... 464,655,225 464,655,225 422,889,280 274 274 176 195 734 Oregon...... 280,088,100 275,293,522 212,280,209 319 318 177 797 395 Pennsylvania...... 1,026,429,012 1,026,429,012 718,602,931 354 354 179 2,714 2,077 Rhode Island...... 137,095,725 137,095,725 93,547,883 62 62 37 310 295 South Carolina...... 463,081,483 463,519,259 275,749,159 187 185 107 774 23 South Dakota...... 186,689,867 186,689,867 168,421,517 52 52 17 605 450 Tennessee...... 569,511,063 569,511,063 375,494,523 421 404 214 1,262 1,372 Texas...... 2,233,015,146 2,240,957,908 1,036,709,084 848 847 317 3,225 204 Utah...... 213,545,653 213,545,653 180,120,389 127 122 103 0 106 Vermont...... 125,791,291 125,791,291 112,638,788 73 73 61 257 77 Virginia...... 678,670,823 632,910,364 131,205,755 123 124 39 551 735 Washington...... 490,542,853 490,542,853 367,350,916 218 214 169 3,214 1,016 West Virginia...... 210,852,204 211,342,557 170,465,509 154 147 104 88 178 Wisconsin...... 529,111,915 529,111,422 439,003,147 418 416 341 1,498 845 Wyoming...... 157,616,058 157,616,058 147,228,506 69 69 56 590 60 Dist. of Columbia...... 123,507,842 123,507,842 50,603,407 18 18 1 319 460 American Samoa...... 4,500,000 4,500,000 0 1 1 0 0 6 Guam...... 18,000,000 19,560,000 0 7 6 0 0 101 No. Mariana Islands... 4,500,000 4,500,000 115,413 1 1 0 1 20 Puerto Rico...... 105,000,000 105,000,000 30,110,787 23 23 5 218 559 U.S. Virgin Islands..... 18,000,000 10,729,584 450,561 3 3 0 0 0

Source: U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Funds%20by%20State%20and%20Program%20as%20of%20October “State by State Formula Program Table.” Accessed from: http://trans %2031%202010.pdf. portation.house.gov/Media/file/ARRA/20101202/Recovery%20Act%20

The Council of State Governments 405 Transportation/Highways

new Republican governors who campaigned on 5 U.S. Department of Transportation. “DOT meets Re- pledges to kill rail projects, arguing they would covery Act deadlines; more good jobs, more good projects.” become a financial burden their states could not Fast Lane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Trans- afford.18 Both governors-elect sought to hold portation. September 30, 2010. Accessed from: http://fastlane. dot.gov/2010/09/dot-meets-recovery-act-deadlines-more-good- onto the money and divert it to road projects. jobs-more-good-projects-.html#more. But in December, LaHood announced that the 6 U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infra- $1.2 billion of rail funds originally designated structure. “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for those states would be redirected to 13 other of 2009 Transportation and Infrastructure Provisions Im- states for their high-speed rail projects.19 plementation Status as of November 12, 2010.” Accessed In the fall Congressional campaigns, many from: http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/ARRA/2010 1202/Recovery%20Act%2012-2-10%20Report.pdf. challengers were able to tar incumbents with hav- 7 Recovery.gov. “2010 Fiscal Year End Report to the ing voted for “the failed stimulus” in campaign President on Progress Implementing the American Re- ads. After all, when President Obama signed the covery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” September 2010. Recovery Act into law in February 2009, the unem- Accessed from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ ployment rate was 8.1 percent and 12.5 million recovery_act_report_9-30-2010.PDF. people were unemployed. In November 2010, the 8 Rob Farley and Michael Grabell. “ProPublica and rate was 9.8 percent and more than 14 million were PolitiFact Test Obama Claims on Stimulus.” ProPublica/ PolitiFact November 10, 2010. Accessed from: http://www. unemployed.20 propublica.org/article/propublica-and-politifact-test-obama- But many state officials said the impact of the claims-on-stimulus. infrastructure projects funded with Recovery Act 9 Recovery.gov. dollars shouldn’t be dismissed or taken lightly. 10 Executive Office of the President. Council of Eco- Things could have been much worse without them. nomic Advisers. “The Economic Impact of the American “I’ve heard naysayers talk about how the federal Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Fifth Quarterly stimulus program didn’t do what it was supposed Report.” November 18, 2010. Accessed from: http://www. to do here and there,” said Kentucky Transporta- whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_5th_arra_report.pdf. 11 Government Accountability Office. “Recovery Act: tion Secretary Mike Hancock. “We would have Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen had an incredibly weak year in terms of our ability Accountability over States’ and Localities’ Uses of to put projects on the street without that stimulus Funds.” September 2010. Accessed from: http://www.gao. program. ... I feel very good about the projects that gov/new.items/d10999.pdf. we were able to do. The only regret that I have is 12 Chris Adams. “Stimulus spending on highways isn’t that we couldn’t do more.” delivering on job promises.” McClatchy. September 26, 2010. Accessed from: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/ 09/26/101055/stimulus-spending-on-highways.html. Notes 13 Blair Kamin. “Obama’s stimulus package, one year 1 U.S. Department of Transportation. “President Obama later: Too much quick fix; too little long-term infrastruc- breaks ground on 10,000th Recovery Act road project; let ture.” Chicago Tribune. February 18, 2010. Accessed from: the Summer of Recovery begin!” Fast Lane: The Official http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2010/ Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. June 18, 2010. 02/heres-something-you-probably-havent-heard-lately-a- Accessed from: http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/06/welcome-every stimulus-story-where-democrats-and-republicans-arent- one-to-the-summer-of-recovery-and-what-better-way-to-kick- hurling-ac.html. off-a-season-of-renewed-american-infrastructure-and.html 14 Peter Baker. “Education of a President.” The New York #more. Times Magazine. October 12, 2010. Accessed from: http:// 2 Kathie Sutin. “Nation’s First ARRA Funded Projects www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html? Nears Completion.” Construction Equipment Guide.com _r=4&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all%22. May 1, 2010. Accessed from: http://www.constructionequip 15 Kent Hoover. “Washington Recovery Report: Stimulus mentguide.com/Nations-First-ARRA-Funded-Project-Nears- to fund 23,500 projects this year.” Phoenix Business Jour- Completion/14343/. nal. February 26, 2010. Accessed from: http://www.bizjour 3 American Association of State Highway and Trans- nals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/02/22/daily45.html?t= portation Officials (AASHTO). “Florida 9B Construction printable. Underway in Jacksonville.” AASHTO Journal. July 9, 2010. 16 AASHTO. “House T&I Committee Reviews One Year Accessed from: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/070910 of Recovery Act Spending.” AASHTO Journal. February florida.aspx. 26, 2010. Accessed from: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages 4 AASHTO. “All States Meet Deadline for 100% Obli- /022610oneyear.aspx. gation of Recovery Funds.” AASHTO Journal. March 5, 17 Josh Voorhees. “TRANSPORTATION: Boxer wants 2010. Accessed from: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/ TIGER to roar in next highway bill.” Environment & En- 030510deadline.aspx. ergy Daily. March 25, 2010.

406 the Book of the States 2011 Transportation/Highways

18 Michael Cooper. “More U.S. Rail Funds for 13 States as 2 Reject Aid.” . December 9, 2010. Accessed from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/10 rail.html?_r=2. 19 AASHTO. “USDOT Redirects $1.2 Billion from Ohio and Wisconsin to 13 Other States.” December 10, 2010. Ac- cessed from: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/121010re directed.aspx. 20 Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population.” Accessed from: http://www. bls.gov/cps/.

About the Author Sean Slone is a transportation policy analyst at the Council of State Governments. He staffs CSG’s Transpor- tation Policy Task Force and writes about transportation policy for CSG publications, such as Capitol Ideas maga- zine, the Capitol Comments blog and Capitol Research policy materials. He is the author of two CSG national reports: Transportation and Infrastructure Finance (2009) and Shovel-Ready or Not? State Stimulus Successes on the Road to Recovery (2010).

The Council of State Governments 407