Skip to main content

When the TIGER Discretionary Grants are awarded, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people

Tonight I was curious in knowing what other projects have other state's applied for the $1.5 billion in TIGER Discretionary Funds that will be awarded next month.  My original thinking was that it was only one project per state, and it would be a neat idea to maybe research and blog about them  Bzzzztttt, was I wrong!

The USDOT received 1380, yes 1380, applications from all 50 states, plus Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.  The total amount of requests total $56.5 billion.  That is nearly 38 times the amount that will be awarded!!!!  No wonder why the final decisions have been delayed.

Texas led with 125 applications - followed closely by California (117), and Florida (115).  The least amount of applications came from Hawaii with only 1. New Hampshire, South Dakota, and North Dakota only had two applications.

It appears that any organization could apply for the TIGER Grants - and that would explain why SCDOT encouraged Horry County to put in an application for upgrading SC 22 to Interstate standards a number of months ago.

The amount of money asked for in each applications was varied also. 514 of the 1380 (37.2%) applications were asking for amounts of less than $20 million.  Over 56% (785) were applications for $20-100 million in funds.  The rest, 81 applications, were from $100 billion to the maximum of $300 billion.

Applications came in for highway improvements, transit improvements, rail improvements, and other.  (Most likely pedestrian and bike projects.)

Check out the USDOT's two page summary of the TIGER Grant applications here.

I'm going to start looking into what projects applied for grant money and what they are for.

One of the first ones I did find was an application by NYSDOT for completing the final upgrades for the US 15/I-99 project.  The amount of the application was for $38 million.

Exit question: What are some of the projects being applied for in your state?  And which of them are the most pressing? So leave a comment.

Comments

Unknown said…
Adam,

I linked to this item on my Inside Lane page.

http://www.inside-lane.com/2010/01/28/blog-tiger-grant-applications-1380-requests-totaling-56-5-billion-for-only-1-5-billion-available-colorado-total-requests-1-1-billion/

Kevin Flynn
Adam said…
Kevin,

Thanks! I find it amazing how many applications were made for such few funds. It will be interesting to see what projects are awarded the grants and for how much.

If one project gets the maximum of $300 million, that's 20% of the total money available. It will be interesting to see the reactions.

Here in NC, local leaders near the I-85 Yadkin River Project are not as optimistic as they were a few months ago. And NCDOT is already trying to come up with alternative funding plans based on how much if any grant dollars they receive.
Matt Salek said…
Colorado DOT submitted 7 projects totaling $463M. Here's a list: http://milepost61.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/cdot-pursuing-7-tiger-grants/
Arnold said…
I thought the exact same thing!

Here in Ann Arbor, we applied for $22 million for a Bridge that goes over a train track in conjunction with one that goes over a residential street.

I wrote the Tiger Grant people to inform them that the train is used twice a day - between 10pm and 6am, and that the residential road is typical to many in the city that never - ever have had any discussion about putting up a bridge to avoid a stoplight.

Instead of replacing the current bridges, I asked the Tiger Group to reject the application due to the waste. Ann Arbor could put in at grade roads at a cost less than $10 million. They just don't want to.

The interesting part in my discussions with the Tiger Group is there seems to be little puclic input. Nor does there appear to be much investigation into the need / honesty of the applications.

I hope they - The Tiger Grant people - can weed out the pork and give the money to the truly needy.

www.theannarborbridgetonowhere.com
Brian said…
@Arnold:

Unfortunately, there's just no decent way to possibly make Stadium and State at-grade without significantly encroaching upon adjacent property, as the city's letter points out. This is just one of those cases where the original bridges were built to address the traffic issues of that time, development was allowed in the adjacent areas, and thus no good way to just remove the overpasses. And as one of my friends points out, construction is well under way. I admire you for wanting to speak out, though.

Popular posts from this blog

Winnemucca to the Sea Highway

The Winnemucca to the Sea Highway was conceived as an idea to establish a continuous, improved route branching from what was then US Highway 40 (now I-80) in Winnemucca, Nevada to the Pacific Coast in Crescent City, California . This highway was to span 494 miles as it crossed through deserts, mountains and forests on its way to the Pacific Ocean. Community leaders from points along this proposed highway formed the Winnemucca to the Sea Highway Association, which worked with state and local governments to obtain funding for the planning, construction and upgrade of the highway. The original proposal was to create one highway, numbered 140, which was to be applied to the complete route as the parent major US highway was coast-to-coast US-40, the Victory Highway. However, this idea never fully came to fruition. Currently, a traveler driving on the Winnemucca to the Sea Highway actually follows seven different highway numbers, which are US 95, NV 140, OR 140, US 395, OR 62, I-5, US 19...

Route 66 Wednesdays; Pasadena to Cajon Pass

This week I look back at the old section of US Route 66 from the city of Pasadena east to Cajon Pass. Essentially the historic routing of US 66 from Pasadena in Los Angeles County east through to Cajon Pass in San Bernardino County was the following: Pasadena -  East on Colorado Boulevard. Arcadia -  East on Colorado Boulevard, Colorado Place, and Huntington Drive. Monrovia -  East on Huntington Drive Duarte -  East on Huntington Drive Azusa -  East on Foothill Boulevard Glendora -  East on Foothill Boulevard San Dimas -  East on Foothill Boulevard La Verne -  East on Foothill Boulevard Claremont -  East on Foothill Boulevard to the San Bernardino County Line Upland -  East on Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga -  East on Foothill Boulevard Fontana -  East on Foothill Boulevard Rialto -  East on Foothill Boulevard San Bernardino -  East on 5th Street -...

Petroleum Club Road (former California State Route 33 and US Route 399 past the Lakeview Gusher)

Petroleum Club Road is an approximately 5.3-mile rural highway located in the Sunset Oil Field of western Kern County.  This corridor was constructed as a frontage road of the Sunset Railroad and would be the site of the Lakeview Gusher in 1910.  Petroleum Club Road was the original alignment of California State Route 33 and US Route 399 between 1934-1938.  In 1938 the West Side Highway was constructed west of Lakeview Gusher and still serves as the current alignment of California State Route 33.   Part 1; the history of Petroleum Club Road Petroleum Club Road is the original highway which linked the oil communities of Maricopa and Taft.  Both cities were developed around the early boom of the Sunset Oil Field.  The early Sunset Oil Field can be seen centered along Cienega Canyon Road southwest of Buena Vista Lake in Township 11 North, Range 23 West on the 1898 Kern County Surveyors map .  In 1901 Post Office Service would be established at the Su...