North Carolina

[architect77]

If funding is a major concern, I'm not sure why NCDOT does not split the project. Build one interchange at a time, starting with the highest needs, such as the intersection you mentioned.

That is what the state has been doing with Independence Boulevard for decades now. It has gone so long now, you can see the style changes of each segment depending which decade it was completed in. They are still another couple of decades from completing the transition from Uptown to I-485.

So, while they could do the same in Raleigh, it will become a continuous construction project for generations to come.

It seems like Independence Blvd. was converted to limited access decades ago that led to some unintended consequences, such as hurting the businesses along the thoroughfare. Perhaps it was a learning experience that led to them rethinking the best solution. I know that the "Superstreet" design that would implemented at several spots across the state is the brainchild of NCDOT and it too seems to now have been revised. Some of its best advantages now known as "Reduced conflict intersections" have been applied to many highways across the state. Not only are intersections less prone to t-bone collisions, left turn signal phases are eliminated and in many cases traffic signals are eliminated all together with intersecting roads making rights, u-turns and another right turn to traverse main highway.

US1 North of Raleigh's main construction will be grade separations and additional lanes. Just as Gov. Bev Perdue scraped together/found $400 million to rebuild the Yadkin River Bridge during the Great Recession I hope that US1 can begin construction before the 2030s because it's really bad for over 130,000 residents in that corner of the Triangle.

[Strider]

When I was clinching US 220 in NC earlier this month, I noticed this Bike Route PL sign in Ellerbe.  Does anyone know what this is for?

US 220 NORTH AT PAGE ST by Mark Moore, on Flickr

PL means "Pottery Loop". It only exists in Randolph, Montgomery, Richmond and Moore countries.

[brian440i]

Pottery was an important industry in NC since 1750's?

When you were clinching 220 - you drove through the small town of Seagrove, NC and passed near the NC Pottery Center.
https://www.ncpotterycenter.org/

Though as a North Carolinian - I register Pottery more when going down US 1 through Sanford, NC on the way to PineHurst.

I was an early immigrant to NC from NY so my family was more modern having our Corningware.. and everyone now just get cheap bowls from Walmart...  but I recall in the 1970's most of my friends (Generational North Carolinians) still ate their breakfast out of Ceramic Bowls/Glazed Pottery.

[nerdom]

If funding is a major concern, I'm not sure why NCDOT does not split the project. Build one interchange at a time, starting with the highest needs, such as the intersection you mentioned.

That is what the state has been doing with Independence Boulevard for decades now. It has gone so long now, you can see the style changes of each segment depending which decade it was completed in. They are still another couple of decades from completing the transition from Uptown to I-485.

So, while they could do the same in Raleigh, it will become a continuous construction project for generations to come.

It seems like Independence Blvd. was converted to limited access decades ago that led to some unintended consequences, such as hurting the businesses along the thoroughfare. Perhaps it was a learning experience that led to them rethinking the best solution. I know that the "Superstreet" design that would implemented at several spots across the state is the brainchild of NCDOT and it too seems to now have been revised. Some of its best advantages now known as "Reduced conflict intersections" have been applied to many highways across the state. Not only are intersections less prone to t-bone collisions, left turn signal phases are eliminated and in many cases traffic signals are eliminated all together with intersecting roads making rights, u-turns and another right turn to traverse main highway.

US1 North of Raleigh's main construction will be grade separations and additional lanes. Just as Gov. Bev Perdue scraped together/found $400 million to rebuild the Yadkin River Bridge during the Great Recession I hope that US1 can begin construction before the 2030s because it's really bad for over 130,000 residents in that corner of the Triangle.

The Yadkin River Bridge was funded by Obama's big infrastructure bill that funded projects that were "shovel ready" to help jump start the economy after the housing crisis. The longtime bottleneck had plans on the books but no funding and was built with little to no state funding at all. Needless to say, this is highly unlikely today.

[architect77]

If funding is a major concern, I'm not sure why NCDOT does not split the project. Build one interchange at a time, starting with the highest needs, such as the intersection you mentioned.

That is what the state has been doing with Independence Boulevard for decades now. It has gone so long now, you can see the style changes of each segment depending which decade it was completed in. They are still another couple of decades from completing the transition from Uptown to I-485.

So, while they could do the same in Raleigh, it will become a continuous construction project for generations to come.

It seems like Independence Blvd. was converted to limited access decades ago that led to some unintended consequences, such as hurting the businesses along the thoroughfare. Perhaps it was a learning experience that led to them rethinking the best solution. I know that the "Superstreet" design that would implemented at several spots across the state is the brainchild of NCDOT and it too seems to now have been revised. Some of its best advantages now known as "Reduced conflict intersections" have been applied to many highways across the state. Not only are intersections less prone to t-bone collisions, left turn signal phases are eliminated and in many cases traffic signals are eliminated all together with intersecting roads making rights, u-turns and another right turn to traverse main highway.

US1 North of Raleigh's main construction will be grade separations and additional lanes. Just as Gov. Bev Perdue scraped together/found $400 million to rebuild the Yadkin River Bridge during the Great Recession I hope that US1 can begin construction before the 2030s because it's really bad for over 130,000 residents in that corner of the Triangle.

The Yadkin River Bridge was funded by Obama's big infrastructure bill that funded projects that were "shovel ready" to help jump start the economy after the housing crisis. The longtime bottleneck had plans on the books but no funding and was built with little to no state funding at all. Needless to say, this is highly unlikely today.

Well I'm glad they were able to find that huge chunk of change during those lean times. I mean, the highway trust fund was being raided to balance NC's state budget at that time.

During that time Gov. Bev Perdue spent a few days in Charlotte every month, and the lion's share of funding went to I-485 and other projects in Charlotte. They chose a deluxe I-485 and I-85 which meant I-77 would have to wait 20-25 years before it was up for major funding. I-85 is spectacular North of Charlotte.

But I don't know why you think major federal funding isn't going towards mega projects around the country right now including I-95 rebuilding, and 60,000 road, bridge and airport upgrades nationwide. Half of the 1 Trillion has been given for projects underway now, and the other half will be doled out in the next 7 years unless it's cut. CLT's getting a 4th runway paid for and RDU is getting its main runway rebuilt and extended from the infrastructure law. And of course $1B for Raleigh to Richmond/D.C. rail line shortcut.

I-95 was included in top 25 most urgent infrastructure needs by Trump in his 1st term. $150 million was granted back then, and more since then for I-95 rebuilding.

The old Yadkin Bridge would surprise you heading South on I-85 when in an instant you go from trees and land to being on a narrow bridge over water with no room for error. Scary.

[nerdom]

the 1 billion allocated for Raleigh to Richmond rail, frozen. and yes, "unless it gets cut," is the crucial phrase. 80 million worth of grants for electric, water, and wastewater in Fayetteville, on hold. not to mention cuts to social, research, disaster relief, clean energy funding and grants that NC relies on heavily. the other projects you've highlighted were fortunately under construction before trump took office. and this administration is nothing like his first term. he seems to be primarily focused on undoing most of biden's accomplishments. on the bright side, highway funding/projects likely wont be affected as much,because it would be political suicide, especially in red states. but another big infrastructure bill, the likes of the last two, not gonna happen.

[LM117]

"NC Quick Pass now available at 52 retail locations statewide"

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2025/2025-04-23-ncqp-expands-retail.aspx

[architect77]

the 1 billion allocated for Raleigh to Richmond rail, frozen. and yes, "unless it gets cut," is the crucial phrase. 80 million worth of grants for electric, water, and wastewater in Fayetteville, on hold. not to mention cuts to social, research, disaster relief, clean energy funding and grants that NC relies on heavily. the other projects you've highlighted were fortunately under construction before trump took office. and this administration is nothing like his first term. he seems to be primarily focused on undoing most of biden's accomplishments. on the bright side, highway funding/projects likely wont be affected as much,because it would be political suicide, especially in red states. but another big infrastructure bill, the likes of the last two, not gonna happen.

Ask the republican state legislature to refund those programs that are important. NC does apply and take as much federal funding as it can. It probably receives more than residents contribute to federal taxes which is fine. Beat other states to the punch.

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I do see some broken promises with this administration. Months after promising so much Helene assistance it seems like once the spotlight is off they are denying what was promised and of course was blamed on previous administration.

Biden got the infrastructure law passes, and $500 billion is making improvements already. A success for this country's frail and fragile utilities, aged infrastructure.

[Rothman]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

[roadman65]

Where is the exact point that US 64 and US 158 actually end?

I see the intersection has a cut off on its NW side and from US 64 EB that cutoff is signed US 158 WB and from US 158 EB the same road is signed as US 64 WB.

Better yet what does NCDOT inventory the cutoff as?

[The Ghostbuster]

Both US 64 and US 158 end at this intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9073654,-75.6003484,652m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQyNy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D. Although there used to be an End US 64 sign (and an End US 264 sign when 264 also ended at this intersection), neither 64 nor 158 has end signs now, which is disappointing: https://www.usends.com/nags-head.html.

[fillup420]

Both US 64 and US 158 end at this intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9073654,-75.6003484,652m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQyNy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D. Although there used to be an End US 64 sign (and an End US 264 sign when 264 also ended at this intersection), neither 64 nor 158 has end signs now, which is disappointing: https://www.usends.com/nags-head.html.

I have always wondered why US 158 isn't a US x64. It terminates at 64 on both ends...

[froggie]

I have always wondered why US 158 isn't a US x64. It terminates at 64 on both ends...

Because when it was first created in 1932, the eastern end was at US 58 in Franklin, VA.

[architect77]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

All I meant was that as I travel through Deeper Southern states like SC, GA, AL I don't see as much new construction of highways or expansions of the highway network in additional mileage. For the past 15 years I've seen on NCDOT's website all of the dozens of grants the state applied for and received to fund improvements across the state.

During that same time, there was a long lull in Georgia as far as rebuilding interchanges, and almost no new highways built through undeveloped land. Now with Atlanta's race towards 8 million residents, they are actively expanding capacity using existing right of way which is awesome.

I know that that federal funding is allocated to states based on population, but also with such a low federal gas tax not increased since 1993, it begs the question of how much help is the federal allocation these days? I say that state gas taxes are the most heavily relied upon by each state for local improvements.

I see the logic in saying that less populated red states are more reliant on fed. gov't reallocation of federal gas taxes, I just meant I don't see the condition of roads in many less affluent red states as a priority.

The red State of Florida though, in my opinion, has the best DOT that builds the highest quality infrastructure, and it spends a lot too, $20B a year currently. Imagine what NC could do with $10B a year.

YouTube videos on NC's growth claim that its highway system ranks 2nd nationally for the most cost-effective and 5th in planning and design.

[architect77]

the 1 billion allocated for Raleigh to Richmond rail, frozen. and yes, "unless it gets cut," is the crucial phrase. 80 million worth of grants for electric, water, and wastewater in Fayetteville, on hold. not to mention cuts to social, research, disaster relief, clean energy funding and grants that NC relies on heavily. the other projects you've highlighted were fortunately under construction before trump took office. and this administration is nothing like his first term. he seems to be primarily focused on undoing most of biden's accomplishments. on the bright side, highway funding/projects likely wont be affected as much,because it would be political suicide, especially in red states. but another big infrastructure bill, the likes of the last two, not gonna happen.

Hopefully this has already been transferred to NC's bank account since some construction is underway.

I hate that after Duffy and Trump both visited Western NC Helene damage, however then, as I understand it, some reimbursement for costs of debris removal was rejected recently. I've tried to give current admin. the benefit of the doubt for taking on the $2T annual overspending, but tangible infrastructure in this country is worthwhile spending, even with borrowed money. At least we can use it for the next 50-75 years.

[Rothman]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

All I meant was that as I travel through Deeper Southern states like SC, GA, AL I don't see as much new construction of highways or expansions of the highway network in additional mileage. For the past 15 years I've seen on NCDOT's website all of the dozens of grants the state applied for and received to fund improvements across the state.

During that same time, there was a long lull in Georgia as far as rebuilding interchanges, and almost no new highways built through undeveloped land. Now with Atlanta's race towards 8 million residents, they are actively expanding capacity using existing right of way which is awesome.

I know that that federal funding is allocated to states based on population, but also with such a low federal gas tax not increased since 1993, it begs the question of how much help is the federal allocation these days? I say that state gas taxes are the most heavily relied upon by each state for local improvements.

I see the logic in saying that less populated red states are more reliant on fed. gov't reallocation of federal gas taxes, I just meant I don't see the condition of roads in many less affluent red states as a priority.

The red State of Florida though, in my opinion, has the best DOT that builds the highest quality infrastructure, and it spends a lot too, $20B a year currently. Imagine what NC could do with $10B a year.

YouTube videos on NC's growth claim that its highway system ranks 2nd nationally for the most cost-effective and 5th in planning and design.

Federal transportation funding is not allocated based upon population.  For the past 12 years or so, core apportionments have been just a mathematical percentage going back to MAP-21 apportionments.  And, back then, the by-program funding formulas were much more complex than just population.  Each formula had multiple factors to calculate the apportionments.

At least in NY, borrowing funds through bonding, rather than through gas taxes, has supplemented available funding.  However, that does not diminish the fact that federal funds are still a very significant portion of the funding.  Still up there at about half of the capital program, keeping in mind we're talking about NYSDOT.

I find the idea that state funding crowding out federal funds in state budgets nationwide to be totally unfounded and you seem to be making broad statements based upon narrow perceptions or evidence.  I'll put it this way:  Be more careful of what you don't really know, because transportation funding is much more of a complex topic that justifies more familiarity than gathering a few questionable stats from YouTube...

[architect77]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

All I meant was that as I travel through Deeper Southern states like SC, GA, AL I don't see as much new construction of highways or expansions of the highway network in additional mileage. For the past 15 years I've seen on NCDOT's website all of the dozens of grants the state applied for and received to fund improvements across the state.

During that same time, there was a long lull in Georgia as far as rebuilding interchanges, and almost no new highways built through undeveloped land. Now with Atlanta's race towards 8 million residents, they are actively expanding capacity using existing right of way which is awesome.

I know that that federal funding is allocated to states based on population, but also with such a low federal gas tax not increased since 1993, it begs the question of how much help is the federal allocation these days? I say that state gas taxes are the most heavily relied upon by each state for local improvements.

I see the logic in saying that less populated red states are more reliant on fed. gov't reallocation of federal gas taxes, I just meant I don't see the condition of roads in many less affluent red states as a priority.

The red State of Florida though, in my opinion, has the best DOT that builds the highest quality infrastructure, and it spends a lot too, $20B a year currently. Imagine what NC could do with $10B a year.

YouTube videos on NC's growth claim that its highway system ranks 2nd nationally for the most cost-effective and 5th in planning and design.

Federal transportation funding is not allocated based upon population.  For the past 12 years or so, core apportionments have been just a mathematical percentage going back to MAP-21 apportionments.  And, back then, the by-program funding formulas were much more complex than just population.  Each formula had multiple factors to calculate the apportionments.

At least in NY, borrowing funds through bonding, rather than through gas taxes, has supplemented available funding.  However, that does not diminish the fact that federal funds are still a very significant portion of the funding.  Still up there at about half of the capital program, keeping in mind we're talking about NYSDOT.

I find the idea that state funding crowding out federal funds in state budgets nationwide to be totally unfounded and you seem to be making broad statements based upon narrow perceptions or evidence.  I'll put it this way:  Be more careful of what you don't really know, because transportation funding is much more of a complex topic that justifies more familiarity than gathering a few questionable stats from YouTube...

North Carolina publishes documents like MOPAR to the state legislature every 2 years that they use to allocate funding. They also publish graphs showing how the highways are funded down to the last penny.

You initially stated that politics and legislators in congress imperiled the future of the infrastructure law. I follow the infrastructure law's already funded allocations and I know that half of it is funding thousands of projects right now and half is supposed to be awarded to projects over the next 5-7 years.

I know that the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is collected from all states, sent to the Feds, and then they reallocate it to projects nationwide, some states receive more back than they contributed, some less. That's probably a function of how many projects were submitted for partial funding, how many miles of roads are in poor condition, and how diligent/eager/determined each state DOT is in applying for funding.

The federal component of 18.4 cents per gallon is much lower than what each state collects per gallon, and it doesn't have much buying power these days. That's why I said state gas taxes provide the bulk of individual state annual DOT spending.

I know that every few years Congress has had to contribute one-time chunks of funding up to $300B to supplement federal funding of roads, bridges, etc. because of the miniscule 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax not being raised since 1993.

You introduced bonds such as GARVEE, etc. into the conversation, and I say that's not relevant. State DOTs borrow money or sell bonds and pay them back over time with projected revenue to be collected in future years. That is contained within each state's budgeting and has nothing to do with politics or the $1T infrastructure law.

States submit projects to the feds to receive infrastructure law funding. This funding goes to projects deemed worthy and it's a rigorous and competitive process, but it's also outside of the normal system of highway funding that's remained for decades.

I didn't cite a YouTube video as part of any debate, it was merely an added acknowledgement of a good DOT, the NCDOT.

I don't know how old you are, but you made a lot of condescending remarks based on assumptions from not reading fully. You sound like someone young who stumbled upon an "induced demand" article, saw the logic, and now applies it to every proposed highway project adding capacity without learning how and why the project is needed.

Jumping to conclusions without the facts is part of our government's dysfunction which is unseating us from the top of the world quickly.

I didn't introduce politics into this thread, and I don't believe it's much of a factor outside of a president playing political payback. Hardworking and effective DOTs apply for and get the help they need for infrastructure in their respective states.

NCDOTfunding by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr

[roadman65]

I was noticing that the US 70 and US 70 ALT intersection in Selma is been relocated further east of I-95.   


Looks like more sprawl is coming to that side of I-95.  Already a shopping center was built anchored by Academy Sports and Marshalls.


Also Google maps has I-42 signed on US 70 Bypass and all of US 70 West to I-40.   Don't know if it's official as Google maps does suck and they do happen to sign wrong things.

[architect77]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

All I meant was that as I travel through Deeper Southern states like SC, GA, AL I don't see as much new construction of highways or expansions of the highway network in additional mileage. For the past 15 years I've seen on NCDOT's website all of the dozens of grants the state applied for and received to fund improvements across the state.

During that same time, there was a long lull in Georgia as far as rebuilding interchanges, and almost no new highways built through undeveloped land. Now with Atlanta's race towards 8 million residents, they are actively expanding capacity using existing right of way which is awesome.

I know that that federal funding is allocated to states based on population, but also with such a low federal gas tax not increased since 1993, it begs the question of how much help is the federal allocation these days? I say that state gas taxes are the most heavily relied upon by each state for local improvements.

I see the logic in saying that less populated red states are more reliant on fed. gov't reallocation of federal gas taxes, I just meant I don't see the condition of roads in many less affluent red states as a priority.

The red State of Florida though, in my opinion, has the best DOT that builds the highest quality infrastructure, and it spends a lot too, $20B a year currently. Imagine what NC could do with $10B a year.

YouTube videos on NC's growth claim that its highway system ranks 2nd nationally for the most cost-effective and 5th in planning and design.

Federal transportation funding is not allocated based upon population.  For the past 12 years or so, core apportionments have been just a mathematical percentage going back to MAP-21 apportionments.  And, back then, the by-program funding formulas were much more complex than just population.  Each formula had multiple factors to calculate the apportionments.

At least in NY, borrowing funds through bonding, rather than through gas taxes, has supplemented available funding.  However, that does not diminish the fact that federal funds are still a very significant portion of the funding.  Still up there at about half of the capital program, keeping in mind we're talking about NYSDOT.

I find the idea that state funding crowding out federal funds in state budgets nationwide to be totally unfounded and you seem to be making broad statements based upon narrow perceptions or evidence.  I'll put it this way:  Be more careful of what you don't really know, because transportation funding is much more of a complex topic that justifies more familiarity than gathering a few questionable stats from YouTube...

New York State and City are an outlier regarding funding from the federal gov't. The city is a world terror target, and the US $1 has very different amount of buying power. The city's infrastructure is a looming crisis and the feds have a long contentious relationship over the decades like when it went bankrupt in 70's and the feds said,
"You're on your own." I want more help for NYC which isn't as sparkling right now as it was from 2000-2020.

This year the top 10 most populous states' operating budgets will be $30-$40 Billion. New York City proper will operate with over $100 Billion and NY State's budget will be over $225 Billion or whatever despite having only 2x the population of most other most populous states. It's America's front door and it's a monument to American capitalism.

[Rothman]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

All I meant was that as I travel through Deeper Southern states like SC, GA, AL I don't see as much new construction of highways or expansions of the highway network in additional mileage. For the past 15 years I've seen on NCDOT's website all of the dozens of grants the state applied for and received to fund improvements across the state.

During that same time, there was a long lull in Georgia as far as rebuilding interchanges, and almost no new highways built through undeveloped land. Now with Atlanta's race towards 8 million residents, they are actively expanding capacity using existing right of way which is awesome.

I know that that federal funding is allocated to states based on population, but also with such a low federal gas tax not increased since 1993, it begs the question of how much help is the federal allocation these days? I say that state gas taxes are the most heavily relied upon by each state for local improvements.

I see the logic in saying that less populated red states are more reliant on fed. gov't reallocation of federal gas taxes, I just meant I don't see the condition of roads in many less affluent red states as a priority.

The red State of Florida though, in my opinion, has the best DOT that builds the highest quality infrastructure, and it spends a lot too, $20B a year currently. Imagine what NC could do with $10B a year.

YouTube videos on NC's growth claim that its highway system ranks 2nd nationally for the most cost-effective and 5th in planning and design.

Federal transportation funding is not allocated based upon population.  For the past 12 years or so, core apportionments have been just a mathematical percentage going back to MAP-21 apportionments.  And, back then, the by-program funding formulas were much more complex than just population.  Each formula had multiple factors to calculate the apportionments.

At least in NY, borrowing funds through bonding, rather than through gas taxes, has supplemented available funding.  However, that does not diminish the fact that federal funds are still a very significant portion of the funding.  Still up there at about half of the capital program, keeping in mind we're talking about NYSDOT.

I find the idea that state funding crowding out federal funds in state budgets nationwide to be totally unfounded and you seem to be making broad statements based upon narrow perceptions or evidence.  I'll put it this way:  Be more careful of what you don't really know, because transportation funding is much more of a complex topic that justifies more familiarity than gathering a few questionable stats from YouTube...

*snip*

You initially stated that politics and legislators in congress imperiled the future of the infrastructure law.

Well, no, I didn't -- at least, not exactly.  I was talking about the discretionary grant portion of the law, where I didn't see a red/blue state divide on who was awarded which grants. 

And, we're now definitely seeing the retraction of federal transportation grant funds play out by the GOP, as unobligated grants, despite existing agreements, are being taken back.

For example:

https://www.syracuse.com/politics/cny/2025/05/house-gop-moves-to-cancel-funding-to-revitalize-poor-neighborhood-near-i-81-in-syracuse.html

I follow the infrastructure law's already funded allocations and I know that half of it is funding thousands of projects right now and half is supposed to be awarded to projects over the next 5-7 years.

Sorta.  The bill establishes annual apportionments up front over the time of its period.  Apportionments are not based upon or tied to projects in the bill.

I know that the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is collected from all states, sent to the Feds, and then they reallocate it to projects nationwide, some states receive more back than they contributed, some less. That's probably a function of how many projects were submitted for partial funding, how many miles of roads are in poor condition, and how diligent/eager/determined each state DOT is in applying for funding.

This shows a misunderstanding of the point I made earlier about the actual calculation of the apportionments in the federal transportation bills going back to MAP-21.  My clarification on this is still in my previous post.

The federal component of 18.4 cents per gallon is much lower than what each state collects per gallon, and it doesn't have much buying power these days. That's why I said state gas taxes provide the bulk of individual state annual DOT spending.

And you're still incorrect on that conclusion.  Come to think of it, you may not be understanding how federal funding is based upon reimbursement and States must come up with first-instance funding, which you may be taking to be the final percentage of 100% State funding, when it is not.

Ah, I also see what's going on in the graphic.  It's combining operations and maintenance funding with capital projects.  That muddies the waters considerably, since federal funds cannot be used for operations and maintenance.  Operations and maintenance are therefore sort of a constant that shouldn't be part of a determination to see if state funds are an increasing portion of transportation funding.  Because the variance is always on the capital side of the funding, in terms of the federal/state split, that's where the split should be focused.

So, the real split that should be looked at is just between the state and federal funds devoted towards capital projects.

And, dang, it looks like the "general fund" entry for federal funds in the graphic includes the state match to such.  Those little entries there are a strange way for presenting the information, but hey, every State DOT messes around with this kind of thing.  Complexity enables obfuscation.

Anyway, taking the graphic and narrowing it down to the capital program and then the state match to federal funds, you get more of a 50/50 split between state and federal, which is much more believable than the shown improper 73/27 (at least for purposes of our conversation; NCDOT's intents were probably quite different).  Again, it's not like federal funds could ever be applied towards ops and maintenance.

I know that every few years Congress has had to contribute one-time chunks of funding up to $300B to supplement federal funding of roads, bridges, etc. because of the miniscule 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax not being raised since 1993.

This fact doesn't affect federal apportionments as defined in the transportation bill.  The transportation bill gets funded one way or another, including through federal borrowing.

You introduced bonds such as GARVEE, etc. into the conversation, and I say that's not relevant. State DOTs borrow money or sell bonds and pay them back over time with projected revenue to be collected in future years. That is contained within each state's budgeting and has nothing to do with politics or the $1T infrastructure law.

The only word I can think of to describe these statements is "absurd."  DOTs treat funding provided through bonds as a separate state fund source -- sometimes behind the scenes, combining them into their general state transportation funding (as NCDOT may have also done in its graphic).  Therefore, you cannot assume that all state funding is based upon gas taxes or other tax revenue.  In NY, bonds have been a windfall for NYSDOT, but people are eyeing debt service costs, of course.  And this is totally relevant in the discussion about how fed/state splits have changed over time for capital programs.

So, you can't exclude bonds when discussing the effects of gas tax rates on available funding.

States submit projects to the feds to receive infrastructure law funding. This funding goes to projects deemed worthy and it's a rigorous and competitive process, but it's also outside of the normal system of highway funding that's remained for decades.

This is also an unsupported statement.  Saying federal funding is "outside of the normal system of highway funding" is denying the long history of federal funding of state capital programs -- going back decades.  It's like you got it exactly backward.  Federal funding, especially through apportionments, is as normal as it can be when it comes to funding.

States also don't submit projects to the Feds in quite the exact manner you state for federal apportionments.  There are certainly eligibility rules States must follow to get federal authorization and reimbursement, but there is broad flexibility in States and MPOs within those eligibility rules to come up with the State's capital program.  It's not like the Feds are going to turn down one bridge replacement and demand another bridge replacement be done instead.  All the Feds do is make sure the project is eligible and that the project development and design requirements have been met (including NEPA), along with being generally concerned about fiscal constraint.

(Of course, Feds do pick discretionary grant award recipients, but as those programs come and go, apportionments are the bread-and-butter of a State's federally-funded program)

What I'm seeing is that you're looking at the result, like with NCDOT's graphic, but coming up with incorrect speculation about how that result came to be and understandably not totally understanding the information that you're looking at (if only possibly because the presentation is meant to gloss over complexities...)

I don't know how old you are, but you made a lot of condescending remarks based on assumptions from not reading fully.

Jumping to conclusions without the facts is part of our government's dysfunction which is unseating us from the top of the world quickly.

Couldn't agree with you more about how you've jumped to your own conclusions about how funding of state capital programs is established.

My patience has simply worn thin with roadgeeks spouting speculation and assumption as fact and dismissing the opinions of those of us that have actually had long, direct, first-hand experience in the transportation realm.  Just as you accuse me of not reading your material, you have not understood mine.

I didn't introduce politics into this thread, and I don't believe it's much of a factor outside of a president playing political payback.

Um:  See the top of the thread where you're the one that made the broad assumption about red versus blue states.  That's what started this whole conversation! And, that definitely counts as bringing politics into this thread.

Hardworking and effective DOTs apply for and get the help they need for infrastructure in their respective states.

...which was exactly my much earlier point about savvy DOTs retaining consultants and applying for discretionary grants! 

So hey, we've come full circle and we now agree!

[architect77]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

All I meant was that as I travel through Deeper Southern states like SC, GA, AL I don't see as much new construction of highways or expansions of the highway network in additional mileage. For the past 15 years I've seen on NCDOT's website all of the dozens of grants the state applied for and received to fund improvements across the state.

During that same time, there was a long lull in Georgia as far as rebuilding interchanges, and almost no new highways built through undeveloped land. Now with Atlanta's race towards 8 million residents, they are actively expanding capacity using existing right of way which is awesome.

I know that that federal funding is allocated to states based on population, but also with such a low federal gas tax not increased since 1993, it begs the question of how much help is the federal allocation these days? I say that state gas taxes are the most heavily relied upon by each state for local improvements.

I see the logic in saying that less populated red states are more reliant on fed. gov't reallocation of federal gas taxes, I just meant I don't see the condition of roads in many less affluent red states as a priority.

The red State of Florida though, in my opinion, has the best DOT that builds the highest quality infrastructure, and it spends a lot too, $20B a year currently. Imagine what NC could do with $10B a year.

YouTube videos on NC's growth claim that its highway system ranks 2nd nationally for the most cost-effective and 5th in planning and design.

Federal transportation funding is not allocated based upon population.  For the past 12 years or so, core apportionments have been just a mathematical percentage going back to MAP-21 apportionments.  And, back then, the by-program funding formulas were much more complex than just population.  Each formula had multiple factors to calculate the apportionments.

At least in NY, borrowing funds through bonding, rather than through gas taxes, has supplemented available funding.  However, that does not diminish the fact that federal funds are still a very significant portion of the funding.  Still up there at about half of the capital program, keeping in mind we're talking about NYSDOT.

I find the idea that state funding crowding out federal funds in state budgets nationwide to be totally unfounded and you seem to be making broad statements based upon narrow perceptions or evidence.  I'll put it this way:  Be more careful of what you don't really know, because transportation funding is much more of a complex topic that justifies more familiarity than gathering a few questionable stats from YouTube...

*snip*

You initially stated that politics and legislators in congress imperiled the future of the infrastructure law.

Well, no, I didn't -- at least, not exactly.  I was talking about the discretionary grant portion of the law, where I didn't see a red/blue state divide on who was awarded which grants. 

And, we're now definitely seeing the retraction of federal transportation grant funds play out by the GOP, as unobligated grants, despite existing agreements, are being taken back.

For example:

https://www.syracuse.com/politics/cny/2025/05/house-gop-moves-to-cancel-funding-to-revitalize-poor-neighborhood-near-i-81-in-syracuse.html

I follow the infrastructure law's already funded allocations and I know that half of it is funding thousands of projects right now and half is supposed to be awarded to projects over the next 5-7 years.

Sorta.  The bill establishes annual apportionments up front over the time of its period.  Apportionments are not based upon or tied to projects in the bill.

I know that the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is collected from all states, sent to the Feds, and then they reallocate it to projects nationwide, some states receive more back than they contributed, some less. That's probably a function of how many projects were submitted for partial funding, how many miles of roads are in poor condition, and how diligent/eager/determined each state DOT is in applying for funding.

This shows a misunderstanding of the point I made earlier about the actual calculation of the apportionments in the federal transportation bills going back to MAP-21.  My clarification on this is still in my previous post.

The federal component of 18.4 cents per gallon is much lower than what each state collects per gallon, and it doesn't have much buying power these days. That's why I said state gas taxes provide the bulk of individual state annual DOT spending.

And you're still incorrect on that conclusion.  Come to think of it, you may not be understanding how federal funding is based upon reimbursement and States must come up with first-instance funding, which you may be taking to be the final percentage of 100% State funding, when it is not.

Ah, I also see what's going on in the graphic.  It's combining operations and maintenance funding with capital projects.  That muddies the waters considerably, since federal funds cannot be used for operations and maintenance.  Operations and maintenance are therefore sort of a constant that shouldn't be part of a determination to see if state funds are an increasing portion of transportation funding.  Because the variance is always on the capital side of the funding, in terms of the federal/state split, that's where the split should be focused.

So, the real split that should be looked at is just between the state and federal funds devoted towards capital projects.

And, dang, it looks like the "general fund" entry for federal funds in the graphic includes the state match to such.  Those little entries there are a strange way for presenting the information, but hey, every State DOT messes around with this kind of thing.  Complexity enables obfuscation.

Anyway, taking the graphic and narrowing it down to the capital program and then the state match to federal funds, you get more of a 50/50 split between state and federal, which is much more believable than the shown improper 73/27 (at least for purposes of our conversation; NCDOT's intents were probably quite different).  Again, it's not like federal funds could ever be applied towards ops and maintenance.

I know that every few years Congress has had to contribute one-time chunks of funding up to $300B to supplement federal funding of roads, bridges, etc. because of the miniscule 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax not being raised since 1993.

This fact doesn't affect federal apportionments as defined in the transportation bill.  The transportation bill gets funded one way or another, including through federal borrowing.

You introduced bonds such as GARVEE, etc. into the conversation, and I say that's not relevant. State DOTs borrow money or sell bonds and pay them back over time with projected revenue to be collected in future years. That is contained within each state's budgeting and has nothing to do with politics or the $1T infrastructure law.

The only word I can think of to describe these statements is "absurd."  DOTs treat funding provided through bonds as a separate state fund source -- sometimes behind the scenes, combining them into their general state transportation funding (as NCDOT may have also done in its graphic).  Therefore, you cannot assume that all state funding is based upon gas taxes or other tax revenue.  In NY, bonds have been a windfall for NYSDOT, but people are eyeing debt service costs, of course.  And this is totally relevant in the discussion about how fed/state splits have changed over time for capital programs.

So, you can't exclude bonds when discussing the effects of gas tax rates on available funding.

States submit projects to the feds to receive infrastructure law funding. This funding goes to projects deemed worthy and it's a rigorous and competitive process, but it's also outside of the normal system of highway funding that's remained for decades.

This is also an unsupported statement.  Saying federal funding is "outside of the normal system of highway funding" is denying the long history of federal funding of state capital programs -- going back decades.  It's like you got it exactly backward.  Federal funding, especially through apportionments, is as normal as it can be when it comes to funding.

States also don't submit projects to the Feds in quite the exact manner you state for federal apportionments.  There are certainly eligibility rules States must follow to get federal authorization and reimbursement, but there is broad flexibility in States and MPOs within those eligibility rules to come up with the State's capital program.  It's not like the Feds are going to turn down one bridge replacement and demand another bridge replacement be done instead.  All the Feds do is make sure the project is eligible and that the project development and design requirements have been met (including NEPA), along with being generally concerned about fiscal constraint.

(Of course, Feds do pick discretionary grant award recipients, but as those programs come and go, apportionments are the bread-and-butter of a State's federally-funded program)

What I'm seeing is that you're looking at the result, like with NCDOT's graphic, but coming up with incorrect speculation about how that result came to be and understandably not totally understanding the information that you're looking at (if only possibly because the presentation is meant to gloss over complexities...)

I don't know how old you are, but you made a lot of condescending remarks based on assumptions from not reading fully.

Jumping to conclusions without the facts is part of our government's dysfunction which is unseating us from the top of the world quickly.

Couldn't agree with you more about how you've jumped to your own conclusions about how funding of state capital programs is established.

My patience has simply worn thin with roadgeeks spouting speculation and assumption as fact and dismissing the opinions of those of us that have actually had long, direct, first-hand experience in the transportation realm.  Just as you accuse me of not reading your material, you have not understood mine.

I didn't introduce politics into this thread, and I don't believe it's much of a factor outside of a president playing political payback.

Um:  See the top of the thread where you're the one that made the broad assumption about red versus blue states.  That's what started this whole conversation! And, that definitely counts as bringing politics into this thread.

Hardworking and effective DOTs apply for and get the help they need for infrastructure in their respective states.

...which was exactly my much earlier point about savvy DOTs retaining consultants and applying for discretionary grants! 

So hey, we've come full circle and we now agree!

Dude, all of that response contains nothing of any substance. If you know so much, then take one state, one year, and list the total budget and break down what's maintenance versus capital expenditures, which many states aren't building much of anything new.

All you've done is contest everything and act like you know better so let's see it listed, how wrong I am, and the national news outlets that report this stuff every few years when Congress has to shore up the federal component of highway funding.

The interstate system is pretty much finished. There is a huge backlog of bridges, etc. needing replacement. You keep hinting that there's a system of federal funding going to all states that's not based on redistribution of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax collected, nor is it based on population.

That graphic doesn't muddy up the info. It states the total annual budget, how much went to maintenance, and how much went to capital, or new construction/improvements, by the way which is way more than most states. Texas and Florida are the only other states aways building new highways constantly, every year for decades.

You are trolling from timbuktu. List complete hard facts for one year or nothing please. I won't reply any further.

[NE2]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

All I meant was that as I travel through Deeper Southern states like SC, GA, AL I don't see as much new construction of highways or expansions of the highway network in additional mileage. For the past 15 years I've seen on NCDOT's website all of the dozens of grants the state applied for and received to fund improvements across the state.

During that same time, there was a long lull in Georgia as far as rebuilding interchanges, and almost no new highways built through undeveloped land. Now with Atlanta's race towards 8 million residents, they are actively expanding capacity using existing right of way which is awesome.

I know that that federal funding is allocated to states based on population, but also with such a low federal gas tax not increased since 1993, it begs the question of how much help is the federal allocation these days? I say that state gas taxes are the most heavily relied upon by each state for local improvements.

I see the logic in saying that less populated red states are more reliant on fed. gov't reallocation of federal gas taxes, I just meant I don't see the condition of roads in many less affluent red states as a priority.

The red State of Florida though, in my opinion, has the best DOT that builds the highest quality infrastructure, and it spends a lot too, $20B a year currently. Imagine what NC could do with $10B a year.

YouTube videos on NC's growth claim that its highway system ranks 2nd nationally for the most cost-effective and 5th in planning and design.

Federal transportation funding is not allocated based upon population.  For the past 12 years or so, core apportionments have been just a mathematical percentage going back to MAP-21 apportionments.  And, back then, the by-program funding formulas were much more complex than just population.  Each formula had multiple factors to calculate the apportionments.

At least in NY, borrowing funds through bonding, rather than through gas taxes, has supplemented available funding.  However, that does not diminish the fact that federal funds are still a very significant portion of the funding.  Still up there at about half of the capital program, keeping in mind we're talking about NYSDOT.

I find the idea that state funding crowding out federal funds in state budgets nationwide to be totally unfounded and you seem to be making broad statements based upon narrow perceptions or evidence.  I'll put it this way:  Be more careful of what you don't really know, because transportation funding is much more of a complex topic that justifies more familiarity than gathering a few questionable stats from YouTube...

*snip*

You initially stated that politics and legislators in congress imperiled the future of the infrastructure law.

Well, no, I didn't -- at least, not exactly.  I was talking about the discretionary grant portion of the law, where I didn't see a red/blue state divide on who was awarded which grants. 

And, we're now definitely seeing the retraction of federal transportation grant funds play out by the GOP, as unobligated grants, despite existing agreements, are being taken back.

For example:

https://www.syracuse.com/politics/cny/2025/05/house-gop-moves-to-cancel-funding-to-revitalize-poor-neighborhood-near-i-81-in-syracuse.html

I follow the infrastructure law's already funded allocations and I know that half of it is funding thousands of projects right now and half is supposed to be awarded to projects over the next 5-7 years.

Sorta.  The bill establishes annual apportionments up front over the time of its period.  Apportionments are not based upon or tied to projects in the bill.

I know that the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is collected from all states, sent to the Feds, and then they reallocate it to projects nationwide, some states receive more back than they contributed, some less. That's probably a function of how many projects were submitted for partial funding, how many miles of roads are in poor condition, and how diligent/eager/determined each state DOT is in applying for funding.

This shows a misunderstanding of the point I made earlier about the actual calculation of the apportionments in the federal transportation bills going back to MAP-21.  My clarification on this is still in my previous post.

The federal component of 18.4 cents per gallon is much lower than what each state collects per gallon, and it doesn't have much buying power these days. That's why I said state gas taxes provide the bulk of individual state annual DOT spending.

And you're still incorrect on that conclusion.  Come to think of it, you may not be understanding how federal funding is based upon reimbursement and States must come up with first-instance funding, which you may be taking to be the final percentage of 100% State funding, when it is not.

Ah, I also see what's going on in the graphic.  It's combining operations and maintenance funding with capital projects.  That muddies the waters considerably, since federal funds cannot be used for operations and maintenance.  Operations and maintenance are therefore sort of a constant that shouldn't be part of a determination to see if state funds are an increasing portion of transportation funding.  Because the variance is always on the capital side of the funding, in terms of the federal/state split, that's where the split should be focused.

So, the real split that should be looked at is just between the state and federal funds devoted towards capital projects.

And, dang, it looks like the "general fund" entry for federal funds in the graphic includes the state match to such.  Those little entries there are a strange way for presenting the information, but hey, every State DOT messes around with this kind of thing.  Complexity enables obfuscation.

Anyway, taking the graphic and narrowing it down to the capital program and then the state match to federal funds, you get more of a 50/50 split between state and federal, which is much more believable than the shown improper 73/27 (at least for purposes of our conversation; NCDOT's intents were probably quite different).  Again, it's not like federal funds could ever be applied towards ops and maintenance.

I know that every few years Congress has had to contribute one-time chunks of funding up to $300B to supplement federal funding of roads, bridges, etc. because of the miniscule 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax not being raised since 1993.

This fact doesn't affect federal apportionments as defined in the transportation bill.  The transportation bill gets funded one way or another, including through federal borrowing.

You introduced bonds such as GARVEE, etc. into the conversation, and I say that's not relevant. State DOTs borrow money or sell bonds and pay them back over time with projected revenue to be collected in future years. That is contained within each state's budgeting and has nothing to do with politics or the $1T infrastructure law.

The only word I can think of to describe these statements is "absurd."  DOTs treat funding provided through bonds as a separate state fund source -- sometimes behind the scenes, combining them into their general state transportation funding (as NCDOT may have also done in its graphic).  Therefore, you cannot assume that all state funding is based upon gas taxes or other tax revenue.  In NY, bonds have been a windfall for NYSDOT, but people are eyeing debt service costs, of course.  And this is totally relevant in the discussion about how fed/state splits have changed over time for capital programs.

So, you can't exclude bonds when discussing the effects of gas tax rates on available funding.

States submit projects to the feds to receive infrastructure law funding. This funding goes to projects deemed worthy and it's a rigorous and competitive process, but it's also outside of the normal system of highway funding that's remained for decades.

This is also an unsupported statement.  Saying federal funding is "outside of the normal system of highway funding" is denying the long history of federal funding of state capital programs -- going back decades.  It's like you got it exactly backward.  Federal funding, especially through apportionments, is as normal as it can be when it comes to funding.

States also don't submit projects to the Feds in quite the exact manner you state for federal apportionments.  There are certainly eligibility rules States must follow to get federal authorization and reimbursement, but there is broad flexibility in States and MPOs within those eligibility rules to come up with the State's capital program.  It's not like the Feds are going to turn down one bridge replacement and demand another bridge replacement be done instead.  All the Feds do is make sure the project is eligible and that the project development and design requirements have been met (including NEPA), along with being generally concerned about fiscal constraint.

(Of course, Feds do pick discretionary grant award recipients, but as those programs come and go, apportionments are the bread-and-butter of a State's federally-funded program)

What I'm seeing is that you're looking at the result, like with NCDOT's graphic, but coming up with incorrect speculation about how that result came to be and understandably not totally understanding the information that you're looking at (if only possibly because the presentation is meant to gloss over complexities...)

I don't know how old you are, but you made a lot of condescending remarks based on assumptions from not reading fully.

Jumping to conclusions without the facts is part of our government's dysfunction which is unseating us from the top of the world quickly.

Couldn't agree with you more about how you've jumped to your own conclusions about how funding of state capital programs is established.

My patience has simply worn thin with roadgeeks spouting speculation and assumption as fact and dismissing the opinions of those of us that have actually had long, direct, first-hand experience in the transportation realm.  Just as you accuse me of not reading your material, you have not understood mine.

I didn't introduce politics into this thread, and I don't believe it's much of a factor outside of a president playing political payback.

Um:  See the top of the thread where you're the one that made the broad assumption about red versus blue states.  That's what started this whole conversation! And, that definitely counts as bringing politics into this thread.

Hardworking and effective DOTs apply for and get the help they need for infrastructure in their respective states.

...which was exactly my much earlier point about savvy DOTs retaining consultants and applying for discretionary grants! 

So hey, we've come full circle and we now agree!

Dude, all of that response contains nothing of any substance. If you know so much, then take one state, one year, and list the total budget and break down what's maintenance versus capital expenditures, which many states aren't building much of anything new.

All you've done is contest everything and act like you know better so let's see it listed, how wrong I am, and the national news outlets that report this stuff every few years when Congress has to shore up the federal component of highway funding.

The interstate system is pretty much finished. There is a huge backlog of bridges, etc. needing replacement. You keep hinting that there's a system of federal funding going to all states that's not based on redistribution of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax collected, nor is it based on population.

That graphic doesn't muddy up the info. It states the total annual budget, how much went to maintenance, and how much went to capital, or new construction/improvements, by the way which is way more than most states. Texas and Florida are the only other states aways building new highways constantly, every year for decades.

You are trolling from timbuktu. List complete hard facts for one year or nothing please. I won't reply any further.

The only relevant fact is: the longer the quote, the happier the goat.

[Rothman]

But federal support in funding highway improvements isn't really a priority for most red states. They aren't prolific road builders like NC or Texas. In fact, I would say most Southern states don't really apply for many grants or extra funding for infrastructure improvements.

I find this statement untrue.  Red states get federal apportionments like any other states (TX isn't red?).  One could also say that NY doesn't apply for many federal transportation grants as well, considering its size, so I don't see a red/blue state divide on that particular issue.

Applying for grants is a labor intensive process.  The number of discretionary grants in the IIJA/BIL exceeded any other federal transportation bill before it.  Previously savvy states retained consultants to handle the grantwriting process, while those that were bureaucratically slower to adjust to the change didn't have the in-house resources to either apply for the grant programs or deal with the extensive reporting requirements once a grant was awarded.  Of course now, the new Republican Administration has threatened all previous discretionary grant funds, so that's why I said "previously savvy"...their aptitude to getting grants has resulted in an unexpectedly large liability due to our fickle system of government.

I just don't see a red/blue divide in reviewing the awards of the various grant programs under the IIJA/BIL.

All I meant was that as I travel through Deeper Southern states like SC, GA, AL I don't see as much new construction of highways or expansions of the highway network in additional mileage. For the past 15 years I've seen on NCDOT's website all of the dozens of grants the state applied for and received to fund improvements across the state.

During that same time, there was a long lull in Georgia as far as rebuilding interchanges, and almost no new highways built through undeveloped land. Now with Atlanta's race towards 8 million residents, they are actively expanding capacity using existing right of way which is awesome.

I know that that federal funding is allocated to states based on population, but also with such a low federal gas tax not increased since 1993, it begs the question of how much help is the federal allocation these days? I say that state gas taxes are the most heavily relied upon by each state for local improvements.

I see the logic in saying that less populated red states are more reliant on fed. gov't reallocation of federal gas taxes, I just meant I don't see the condition of roads in many less affluent red states as a priority.

The red State of Florida though, in my opinion, has the best DOT that builds the highest quality infrastructure, and it spends a lot too, $20B a year currently. Imagine what NC could do with $10B a year.

YouTube videos on NC's growth claim that its highway system ranks 2nd nationally for the most cost-effective and 5th in planning and design.

Federal transportation funding is not allocated based upon population.  For the past 12 years or so, core apportionments have been just a mathematical percentage going back to MAP-21 apportionments.  And, back then, the by-program funding formulas were much more complex than just population.  Each formula had multiple factors to calculate the apportionments.

At least in NY, borrowing funds through bonding, rather than through gas taxes, has supplemented available funding.  However, that does not diminish the fact that federal funds are still a very significant portion of the funding.  Still up there at about half of the capital program, keeping in mind we're talking about NYSDOT.

I find the idea that state funding crowding out federal funds in state budgets nationwide to be totally unfounded and you seem to be making broad statements based upon narrow perceptions or evidence.  I'll put it this way:  Be more careful of what you don't really know, because transportation funding is much more of a complex topic that justifies more familiarity than gathering a few questionable stats from YouTube...

*snip*

You initially stated that politics and legislators in congress imperiled the future of the infrastructure law.

Well, no, I didn't -- at least, not exactly.  I was talking about the discretionary grant portion of the law, where I didn't see a red/blue state divide on who was awarded which grants. 

And, we're now definitely seeing the retraction of federal transportation grant funds play out by the GOP, as unobligated grants, despite existing agreements, are being taken back.

For example:

https://www.syracuse.com/politics/cny/2025/05/house-gop-moves-to-cancel-funding-to-revitalize-poor-neighborhood-near-i-81-in-syracuse.html

I follow the infrastructure law's already funded allocations and I know that half of it is funding thousands of projects right now and half is supposed to be awarded to projects over the next 5-7 years.

Sorta.  The bill establishes annual apportionments up front over the time of its period.  Apportionments are not based upon or tied to projects in the bill.

I know that the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is collected from all states, sent to the Feds, and then they reallocate it to projects nationwide, some states receive more back than they contributed, some less. That's probably a function of how many projects were submitted for partial funding, how many miles of roads are in poor condition, and how diligent/eager/determined each state DOT is in applying for funding.

This shows a misunderstanding of the point I made earlier about the actual calculation of the apportionments in the federal transportation bills going back to MAP-21.  My clarification on this is still in my previous post.

The federal component of 18.4 cents per gallon is much lower than what each state collects per gallon, and it doesn't have much buying power these days. That's why I said state gas taxes provide the bulk of individual state annual DOT spending.

And you're still incorrect on that conclusion.  Come to think of it, you may not be understanding how federal funding is based upon reimbursement and States must come up with first-instance funding, which you may be taking to be the final percentage of 100% State funding, when it is not.

Ah, I also see what's going on in the graphic.  It's combining operations and maintenance funding with capital projects.  That muddies the waters considerably, since federal funds cannot be used for operations and maintenance.  Operations and maintenance are therefore sort of a constant that shouldn't be part of a determination to see if state funds are an increasing portion of transportation funding.  Because the variance is always on the capital side of the funding, in terms of the federal/state split, that's where the split should be focused.

So, the real split that should be looked at is just between the state and federal funds devoted towards capital projects.

And, dang, it looks like the "general fund" entry for federal funds in the graphic includes the state match to such.  Those little entries there are a strange way for presenting the information, but hey, every State DOT messes around with this kind of thing.  Complexity enables obfuscation.

Anyway, taking the graphic and narrowing it down to the capital program and then the state match to federal funds, you get more of a 50/50 split between state and federal, which is much more believable than the shown improper 73/27 (at least for purposes of our conversation; NCDOT's intents were probably quite different).  Again, it's not like federal funds could ever be applied towards ops and maintenance.

I know that every few years Congress has had to contribute one-time chunks of funding up to $300B to supplement federal funding of roads, bridges, etc. because of the miniscule 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax not being raised since 1993.

This fact doesn't affect federal apportionments as defined in the transportation bill.  The transportation bill gets funded one way or another, including through federal borrowing.

You introduced bonds such as GARVEE, etc. into the conversation, and I say that's not relevant. State DOTs borrow money or sell bonds and pay them back over time with projected revenue to be collected in future years. That is contained within each state's budgeting and has nothing to do with politics or the $1T infrastructure law.

The only word I can think of to describe these statements is "absurd."  DOTs treat funding provided through bonds as a separate state fund source -- sometimes behind the scenes, combining them into their general state transportation funding (as NCDOT may have also done in its graphic).  Therefore, you cannot assume that all state funding is based upon gas taxes or other tax revenue.  In NY, bonds have been a windfall for NYSDOT, but people are eyeing debt service costs, of course.  And this is totally relevant in the discussion about how fed/state splits have changed over time for capital programs.

So, you can't exclude bonds when discussing the effects of gas tax rates on available funding.

States submit projects to the feds to receive infrastructure law funding. This funding goes to projects deemed worthy and it's a rigorous and competitive process, but it's also outside of the normal system of highway funding that's remained for decades.

This is also an unsupported statement.  Saying federal funding is "outside of the normal system of highway funding" is denying the long history of federal funding of state capital programs -- going back decades.  It's like you got it exactly backward.  Federal funding, especially through apportionments, is as normal as it can be when it comes to funding.

States also don't submit projects to the Feds in quite the exact manner you state for federal apportionments.  There are certainly eligibility rules States must follow to get federal authorization and reimbursement, but there is broad flexibility in States and MPOs within those eligibility rules to come up with the State's capital program.  It's not like the Feds are going to turn down one bridge replacement and demand another bridge replacement be done instead.  All the Feds do is make sure the project is eligible and that the project development and design requirements have been met (including NEPA), along with being generally concerned about fiscal constraint.

(Of course, Feds do pick discretionary grant award recipients, but as those programs come and go, apportionments are the bread-and-butter of a State's federally-funded program)

What I'm seeing is that you're looking at the result, like with NCDOT's graphic, but coming up with incorrect speculation about how that result came to be and understandably not totally understanding the information that you're looking at (if only possibly because the presentation is meant to gloss over complexities...)

I don't know how old you are, but you made a lot of condescending remarks based on assumptions from not reading fully.

Jumping to conclusions without the facts is part of our government's dysfunction which is unseating us from the top of the world quickly.

Couldn't agree with you more about how you've jumped to your own conclusions about how funding of state capital programs is established.

My patience has simply worn thin with roadgeeks spouting speculation and assumption as fact and dismissing the opinions of those of us that have actually had long, direct, first-hand experience in the transportation realm.  Just as you accuse me of not reading your material, you have not understood mine.

I didn't introduce politics into this thread, and I don't believe it's much of a factor outside of a president playing political payback.

Um:  See the top of the thread where you're the one that made the broad assumption about red versus blue states.  That's what started this whole conversation! And, that definitely counts as bringing politics into this thread.

Hardworking and effective DOTs apply for and get the help they need for infrastructure in their respective states.

...which was exactly my much earlier point about savvy DOTs retaining consultants and applying for discretionary grants! 

So hey, we've come full circle and we now agree!

Dude, all of that response contains nothing of any substance. If you know so much, then take one state, one year, and list the total budget and break down what's maintenance versus capital expenditures, which many states aren't building much of anything new.

All you've done is contest everything and act like you know better so let's see it listed, how wrong I am, and the national news outlets that report this stuff every few years when Congress has to shore up the federal component of highway funding.

The interstate system is pretty much finished. There is a huge backlog of bridges, etc. needing replacement. You keep hinting that there's a system of federal funding going to all states that's not based on redistribution of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax collected, nor is it based on population.

That graphic doesn't muddy up the info. It states the total annual budget, how much went to maintenance, and how much went to capital, or new construction/improvements, by the way which is way more than most states. Texas and Florida are the only other states aways building new highways constantly, every year for decades.

You are trolling from timbuktu. List complete hard facts for one year or nothing please. I won't reply any further.

I'm not hinting, I'm stating outright that federal apportionments to the states are not totally based upon the gas tax.  Congress decides what level of funding is apportioned to FHWA in their transportation bill and that level is definitely not supported solely by gas tax revenues and it is shored up by federal borrowing due to the flat federal gas tax.  The overall amount set by Congress is, of course, not based upon population.  Like I said, the federal apportionments to the states are not either, and haven't been for quite some time.  See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/apportionment.cfm for the formulas that support what I said a long time ago about them being based upon former percentages.

You seem to be forgetting the points you are arguing.  When you are arguing that state gas taxes are supplementing state budgets to account for federal funds being tightened due to the gas tax, and then you add in operations and maintenance funding, which are not federal funds eligible and haven't been ever, you're actually arguing against yourself.  That's because, if you go back in time with that large 100% state chunk in there, you're going to find that, sure, state funds are a majority of what's spent in states no matter the level of federal funding (obviously, given the fact that there's never been zero federal transportation funding to the states in the modern era).  And, if you can't replace the ops and maint with federal funding, such a combined look is not that revealing of the effect of federal funds on state transportation expenditures.  That's why adding in operations and maintenance is inappropriate in making the argument.  To really see the effect of federal funding, you look at the capital program and what the split is there, since that's where federal funding can replace state funding.

That graphic doesn't muddy up the info. It states the total annual budget, how much went to maintenance, and how much went to capital, or new construction/improvements, by the way which is way more than most states.

Again, it was about the points you're making.  Sure, it shows the total annual budget.  But that information in of itself doesn't support what you were saying, for the points I already mentioned.

And North Carolina is a big state that had a lot of center-lane miles back in FFY 2009, so of course it's going to have a budget larger than most states...Then again, since we're looking at total budgets now, NYSDOT's budget for FY 2023 was nearly twice that of North Carolina's, so the statement about the absolute size of its budget isn't that illuminating.

[Plutonic Panda]

Strong arguments can be made that the interstate system is not anywhere near finished. What metrics are you using to come to that conclusion?

[architect77]

I thought that it was completed about 15 years ago when they put up the signs on interstates nationwide that read, "Eisenhower Interstate System".

I might be incorrect, but I thought the basic extents were complete, and I don't know if small additional spurs, etc. are considered the same as the basic system connecting points nationwide.

Here is my last post regarding the nonsense above. It clearly shows funding for 2025, and most of NCDOT's website explains quite well where the funding comes from.

This link has many pdfs of spending over the last few years for NCDOT, of note it says 3.1% of the total budget last year went to debt service. Don't know if that's good or bad but it doesn't sound too bad:

https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/how-we-operate/finance-budget/Pages/default.aspx


NCDOT2025 by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr