Funding Rail

Abstract

Local funds for transportation infrastructure are increasingly necessary, even though the U.S. federal government provides billions for urban rail projects. Through analysis of a competitive federal rail program (New Starts), this research tests the hypothesis that local financing decisions—as a demand-side factor in funding allocations—can drive federal rail spending. The analysis also considers alternative explanations for funding outcomes: transportation benefits and political clout. Based on a statistical analysis of 60 projects and 2 brief project profiles, findings indicate that local financial commitment—more than other factors—explains federal awards. Rail expansions that most advance federal transportation goals, as captured by program evaluation criteria, are not more likely to receive New Starts awards, but funded projects all met a minimum threshold for benefits. As a result, local decisions on transit funding both rely on and affect the allocation of federal monies.

Value Capture In Situ: Participation, Evaluation, and Signaling in Kansas City, MO

“…Since 1991, U.S. federal transportation bills (i.e., Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]; Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA-21]; Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU]; Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century [MAP-21]; and Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act [FAST]) and planning programs (i.e., Livable Communities and Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities) have pushed for the integration of land use and transportation planning. In the wake of declining federal funding for urban transportation (Wachs 2003), local governments have sought new transport revenue-raising strategies (Goldman and Wachs 2003) and federal grant programs have placed a higher emphasis on local funding matches (Lowe 2013). Value capture strategies are a response to both these trends.…”

Rethinking Competition in TIGER

“…The first round of TIGER funding is not the only example of competition seeming to widen disparities. A multiyear study of a competitive mass transit program (New Starts) showed the importance of local capacity and a limited impact from quantitative evaluation of benefits (Lowe, 2013). Likewise, in education, Manna and Ryan (2011) found that state capacity correlated with the receipt of competitive federal education awards.…”