United States Department of Transportation
i
Effectiveness of Transportation Funding Mechanisms for Achieving National, State and Metropolitan Economic, Health and Other Livability Goals
-
2018-02-01
-
[PDF-5.24 MB]
Details:
-
Alternative Title:Effectiveness of Transportation Funding Mechanisms for Achieving National, State and Metropolitan Economic, Health and Other Livability Goals: Final Report
-
Creators:
-
Corporate Creators:
-
Corporate Contributors:
-
Subject/TRT Terms:
-
Publication/ Report Number:
-
Resource Type:
-
Geographical Coverage:
-
Edition:Final Report
-
Corporate Publisher:
-
Abstract:Federal, state and local governments spent approximately $320 billion on transportation in 2012. These public monies buy outputs: facilities and services for highways, transit, air, water, rail and pipelines (BTS, 2016, 110–114, table 5-5). But how effectively do these investments deliver desired outcomes: reducing commute times, improving the economy, supporting community development, enhancing public health, providing cleaner air, and advancing other livability goals? The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), adopted in 2012, established national performance goals, called for the development of performance measures and targets, required that targets be incorporated into plans and programs, and required reporting on progress in meeting targets (FHWA, 2013a). MAP-21 directs states and MPOs to use performance measures and targets. But little has been written about how to integrate performance measures, especially outcomes measures, into all phases of transportation decision-making. In particular, little attention has been given to how existing governance and finance structures can frustrate efforts to achieve desired outcomes cost effectively. States and MPOs have different mechanisms for allocating funding from various sources to transportation projects and programs: the Federal Highway Trust Fund, state gas and sales taxes, etc. Many funding sources are dedicated to particular uses. For example, 27 states limit the use of gas and other motor vehicle taxes to just investments in roads. In some states, transportation commissions allocate funding; in others, the legislature or governor decides bridges (AASHTO, 2016, 52–69). Though performance measures are becoming more pervasive because of federal policy, and each state has goals in long-range plans, we sought to understand how planning, governance and finance, programming and reporting on performance were integrated. Essentially, we sought to understand how states and MPOs were spending transportation funding in alignment with goals in transportation plans, and how states and MPOs report outcomes to citizens. We looked closely at six case study states, as well as a selected MPO in each state. While we found good practices in some states, we found little evidence of states clearly linking planning, governance and finance, and programming systematically. Further, we found that states report outputs rather than outcomes. We provide recommendations for better linking planning, governance and finance, programming, and reporting to improve accountability and transparency.
-
Format:
-
Funding:
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Download URL:
-
File Type:
