The vast majority of the Recovery Act funding for transportation programs went to FHWA, FRA, and FTA for highway, road, bridge, rail, and transit projects. More than half of all Recovery Act transportation funds were designated for the construction, rehabilitation, and repair of highways, roads, and bridges (see fig. 1). The remaining funds were allocated among other DOT operating administrations. DOT administered most Recovery Act funds through existing transportation programs. For example, highway funds were distributed under rules governing the Federal-Aid Highway Program generally and the Surface Transportation Program in particular. As a result, officials at state departments of transportation were familiar with project eligibility and other federal requirements. Similarly, transit funds were primarily distributed through established transit programs, and project sponsors (typically transit agencies) were familiar with federal grant application processes. FAA distributed airport funds through the established Airport Improvement Program structure, and MARAD awarded grants through its existing Assistance to Small Shipyards Program. DOT established new grant processes to award high speed intercity passenger rail and TIGER grants. For these programs, DOT published selection criteria, solicited and reviewed applications, and awarded grants to applicants that it judged best met the criteria and complied with legislative and regulatory requirements. The Recovery Act provided 100 percent federal funding for most programs, which is a departure from the typical federally funded transportation programs. On the other hand, the Recovery Act did not alter the 75 percent of project cost the federal government would typically pay under the Assistance to Small Shipyards program administered by MARAD. The Recovery Act also included short deadlines for obligating most transportation funds, and it required preference be given to projects that could be started and completed expeditiously. Obligating funds in a timely manner is an important feature of the Recovery Act, as an economic stimulus package should, as we have previously reported, include projects that can be undertaken quickly enough to provide a timely stimulus to the economy. For example, Recovery Act highway and transit funds were to be obligated within 1 year of the date of apportionment and highway projects which could be completed within 3 years were to be given priority. After the March 2010 1-year obligation deadline for highway funds, states requested that FHWA deobligate $1.25 million of these funds. We reported that deobligations from March 2 to June 7, 2010, were requested primarily because contracts were awarded for less than the original cost estimates. All of these funds were obligated by the September 2010 deadline. All TIGER funds must be obligated by September 30, 2011, and all high speed intercity passenger rail funds must be obligated by September 30, 2012. The Recovery Act also introduced new requirements for existing programs to help ensure that funds add to states’ and localities’ overall economic activity, and are targeted to areas of greatest need. For example, the Recovery Act required state governors to certify that their states would maintain their planned levels of spending for the types of transportation projects funded by the act, from the date of enactment—February 17, 2009—through September 30, 2010. The Recovery Act also required that states give priority to highway projects in economically distressed areas. State and local agencies, contractors, and others that receive Recovery Act funds are also required to submit quarterly reports on the number of jobs created or retained, among other data. These job calculations are based on the total hours worked divided by the number of hours in a full-time schedule, expressed in FTEs—but they do not account for the total employment arising from the expenditure of Recovery Act transportation funds. That is, the data recipients report do not include employment at suppliers (indirect jobs) or in the local community (induced jobs). In addition to reporting quarterly on the numbers of jobs created, states and other recipients are required to submit periodic reports on the amount of funds obligated and expended and the number of projects put out to bid, awarded, or for which work has begun or been completed, among other things. DOT is required to collect and compile this information for its reports to Congress that began in May 2009. Because it had not previously collected and reported this type of information, FHWA established the Recovery Act Data System (RADS) to allow for better oversight and tracking of Recovery Act transportation projects. FHWA uses RADS to compile data from states and existing DOT databases and generates reports to assist states in meeting their Recovery Act reporting requirements. According to DOT data, as of May 31, 2011, DOT had obligated nearly $45 billion (about 95 percent) on over 15,000 projects and had expended more than $28 billion (about 63 percent) of the $48.1 billion it received under the Recovery Act (see table 1). More than 9,200 of the approximately 15,100 transportation projects have been completed, including more than 8,100 highway projects and most of the aviation projects. The rate of expenditure for Recovery Act transportation funds has varied among programs and states, for several reasons, according to federal and state officials: First, obligation deadlines for newly funded competitive grant programs such as high speed intercity passenger rail and TIGER are later, so as of May 31, 2011, a much smaller percentage of those program funds had been obligated and expended. Second, as we have previously reported, the obligation and subsequent expenditure of highway funds suballocated for metropolitan, regional, and local use have lagged behind rates for state projects in some states. FHWA data as of May 31, 2011, indicated that this trend continued for reimbursements in 24 states, including two of the states we visited— Virginia and Texas. According to federal and state transportation officials, federal reimbursement can only occur after costs are incurred; however, localities varied in their approach to billing for reimbursement. For example, in California some localities choose to seek reimbursement for project costs after project completion in an effort to reduce the administrative costs of frequent invoicing. In comparison, localities in Indiana and Washington State bill regularly as expenses are incurred. Third, according to FHWA and state officials, northern states typically tend to have a reduced period of construction activity during the winter. Finally, large or new infrastructure projects may require additional reviews, such as environmental clearances, prolonging project time frames. States and other recipients continue to report using Recovery Act funds to improve the condition of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, as well as invest in new infrastructure. For example, according to DOT data, 68 percent of highway funds have been used for pavement improvement projects, such as resurfacing, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of existing roadways, and almost 75 percent of transit funds have been used for upgrading existing facilities and purchasing or rehabilitating buses (see fig. 2). According to FAA officials, Recovery Act funding was used to rehabilitate and reconstruct airport runways and taxiways, as well as to upgrade or purchase air navigation infrastructure such as air traffic control towers, engine generators, back-up batteries, and circuit breakers. The Recovery Act grant provided to Amtrak has been used to make infrastructure improvements and return cars and locomotives to service. New bridge construction ($0.5 billion) Operating assistance ($0.2 billion) Bridge improvement ($1.2 billion) Rail car purchase and rehab ($0.3 billion) Bridge replacement ($1.4 billion) New construction ($1.8 billion) Preventive maintenance ($0.8 billion) Other capital expenses ($1.0 billion) Other ($3.3 billion) Vehicle purchase and rehab ($2.0 billion) Pavement widening ($4.7 billion) Pavement improvement: resurface ($6.1 billion) Transit infrastructure ($4.5 billion) Pavement improvement: reconstruction/rehabilitation ($7.1 billion) The highway category “other” includes safety projects, such as improving safety at railroad grade crossings, engineering, right-of-way purchases, and transportation enhancement projects, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Highway data are as of June , 2011. Transit obligations include Recovery Act funds that were transferred from FHWA to FTA. “Transit infrastructure” includes engineering and design, acuisition, construction, and rehabilitation and renovation activities. “Other capital expenses” includes leases, training, finance costs, mobility management project administration, and other capital programs. Usually, operating assistance is not an eligible expense for transit agencies within urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more. Most recipients did not use as high a percentage of funds for operating expenses, in part, because funds had already been obligated to projects before the Supplemental Appropriations Act was enacted, according to FTA officials. Transit data are as of May 6, 2011. The high speed intercity passenger rail and TIGER programs were newly funded grant programs, and the Recovery Act allowed additional time for DOT to develop criteria, publish notices of funding availability, and award grants. As a result, projects selected for high speed intercity passenger rail and TIGER were announced about a year after enactment, and DOT has been making progress obligating Recovery Act funds for these programs. For example, DOT selected one intercity passenger rail project to rehabilitate track and provide service from Portland to Brunswick, Maine, at speeds up to 70 miles per hour. Another project was selected to initiate the first part of California’s high speed rail system, which envisions service at more than 200 miles per hour between Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the Central Valley, and eventually San Diego. DOT TIGER grants funded projects across different surface transportation modes, including highways, transit, rail, and ports. For example, the California Green Trade Corridor/Marine Highway Project is a collaborative effort of three regional ports in California to develop and use a marine highway system as an alternative to existing truck and rail infrastructure for transporting consumer goods and agricultural products. According to DOT data, a variety of Recovery Act projects have been completed. For example, FHWA reported that many of the completed highway projects involve pavement improvement. Completed transit projects generally included preventive maintenance activities, some bus purchases, and facility construction, according to FTA.