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

The Dummy Lights of New York

  A relic of the early days of motoring, dummy lights were traffic lights  that  were  placed  in the middle of a street intersection. In those early days, traffic shuffled through busy intersections with the help of a police officer who stood on top of a pedestal. As technology improved and electric traffic signals became commonplace, they were also  originally  positioned on a platform at the center of the intersection. Those traffic signals became known as  " dummy lights "  and were common until  traffic lights were moved  onto wires and poles that crossed above the intersection.  In New York State, only a handful of these dummy lights exist. The dummy lights  are found  in the Hudson Valley towns of Beacon and Croton-on-Hudson, plus there is an ongoing tug of war in Canajoharie in the Mohawk Valley, where their dummy light has been knocked down and replaced a few times. The dummy light in Canajoharie is currently out of commission, but popular demand has caused the dummy

Former US Route 101 and California State Route 41 through Paso Robles

Paso Robles is a city located on the Salinas River of San Luis Obispo County, California.  As originally configured the surface alignments of US Route 101 and California State Route 41 converged in downtown Paso Robles.  US Route 101 originally was aligned through Paso Robles via Spring Street.  California State Route 41 entered the City of Paso Robles via Union Road and 13th Street where it intersected US Route 101 at Spring Street.  US Route 101 and California State Route 41 departed Paso Robles southbound via a multiplex which split near Templeton.   Pictured above is the cover of the September/October 1957 California Highways & Public Works which features construction of the Paso Robles Bypass.  Pictured below is the 1935 Division of Highways Map of San Luis Obispo County which depicts US Route 101 and California State Route 41 intersecting in downtown Paso Robles.   Part 1; the history of US Route 101 and California State Route 41 in Paso Robles Paso Robles ("Pass of the

Colorado Road (Fresno County)

Colorado Road is a rural highway located in San Joaquin Valley of western Fresno County.  Colorado Road services the city of San Joaquin in addition the unincorporated communities of Helm and Tranquility.  Colorado Road was constructed between 1910 and 1912 as a frontage road of the Hanford & Summit Lake Railway.  The roadway begins at California State Route 145 near Helm and terminates to the west at James Road in Tranquility.   Part 1; the history of Colorado Road Colorado Road was constructed as frontage road connecting the sidings of the Hanford & Summit Lake Railway.  The Hanford & Summit Lake Railway spanned from South Pacific Railroad West Side Line at Ingle junction southeast to the Coalinga Branch at Armona.  The Hanford & Summit Lake Railway broke ground during August 1910 and was complete by April 1912. The Hanford & Summit Lake Railway established numerous new sidings.  From Ingle the sidings of the line were Tranquility, Graham, San Joaquin, Caldwell, H