50 State Review Nov16 PDF

Transportation
Governance and Finance

A 50-State Review of State Legislatures
and Departments of Transportation
November 2016
Acknowledgments
This study was conducted with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Project 20-24. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state departments of transportation
(DOTs). Project 20-24 is intended to fund quick response studies that address specific needs of chief executive officers and other
top managers of these departments. The work was guided by an NCHRP project panel composed of Travis L. Brouwer, Oregon
Department of Transportation; Karen S. Doyle, Maine Department of Transportation; Linda T. Hull, Utah Department of
Transportation; David Kuhn, New Jersey Department of Transportation; Humberto A. Tasaico, North Carolina Department
of Transportation; Lorie Tudor and Gill Rogers, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and Daniel Yeh,
Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Liaisons to the panel included J. Woody Stanley, Federal Highway Administration;
Douglas Shinkle and Kevin Pula, National Conference of State Legislatures; and Joung H. Lee and Jennifer Brickett, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The project was managed by Andrew Lemer, NCHRP
Senior Program Officer.
In addition, this report represents substantial work by more than 200 legislative staff members and DOT personnel in all 50
states and the District of Columbia (see Table 1 on page 10 for a full list of organizations that participated in the project’s survey
research). Without the invaluable survey responses, follow-up information, and review comments from these experts in the
states, the report could not exist. Thanks, too, to the Transportation Research Board’s state representatives, many of whom as-
sisted with the survey research in their respective states, and to the hundreds of state legislators, legislative staff, DOT officials,
and others who contributed to and gave meaningful feedback about the 2011 edition of this report.
Special thanks to author and principal investigator Jaime Rall of J.R. Rall Consulting LLC, Roseland, Indiana.
Disclaimer
This publication relies heavily on reported data, both from the original 2011 edition and the current research. Although consid-
erable efforts were made to verify the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in this report, errors or omissions
may exist.
© 2016 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
TGF-2-OL | ISBN 978-1-56051-668-2
2 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

AASHTO Executive Committee | 2015–2016
President
Paul Trombino, Iowa
Vice President
David Bernhardt, Maine
Secretary-Treasurer
Carlos Braceras, Utah
Executive Director
Bud Wright, Washington, DC
Regional Representatives
Region I
Leslie Richards, Pennsylvania
Pete Rahn, Maryland
Region II
Paul Mattox, West Virginia
Charles Kilpatrick, Virginia
Region III
Charles A. Zelle, Minnesota
Randall S. Blankenhorn, Illinois
Region IV
Brian Ness, Idaho
Carlos Braceras, Utah
Immediate Past President

Vacant
Transportation Governance and Finance • 3

AASHTO Standing Committee on
Finance and Administration | 2016
Chair Kansas Oregon

John C. Schroer, Tennessee Chris Herrick Tracy Wroblewski
Vice Chair Kentucky Pennsylvania
Mike Patterson, Oklahoma Asa Swan James Ritzman
Secretary Louisiana South Carolina
Lee A. Wilkinson, Iowa Barry Keeling Brian Keys
Don Johnson South Dakota
Liaison
Joung Lee, AASHTO Maine Ben Orsbon
Karen Doyle Tennessee
Maryland John Schroer
Members
Betty Conners Joseph Galbato
Alabama
Massachusetts Texas
Bill Flowers
William Betts Brian Ragland
Arizona James Bass
Michigan
John Bogert,
Laura Mester Utah
Kristine Ward
Myron Frierson Becky Bradshaw
Arkansas Trudy Schutte Vermont
Lorie Tudor
Minnesota Faith Brown
Scott Bennett
Tracy Hatch Leonard LeBlanc
California
Mississippi Virginia
Norma Ortega
Byron Flood John Lawson
Colorado Janet Lee Washington State
Heidi Humphreys Lisa Hancock Amy Arnis
Maria Sobota
Missouri West Virginia
Connecticut Melissa Black Keith Chapman
Pamela Sucato Roberta Broeker Robert Watson
Robert Card
Montana Robert Pennington
Delaware Lawrence Flynn Wisconsin
Huhg Curran
Nebraska Daniel Yeh
Lanie Thornton
Michael Keays Paul Hammer
District of Columbia
Nevada Wyoming
Eric Stults
Robert Nellis David Stearns
Kathryn Valentine
Rudy Malfabon
Associate Members
Florida
New Hampshire
Lisa Saliba Alberta Transportation
Carol Macuch
Rachel Cone Dave Bentley
Robin Naitove New Jersey
Federal Highway Administration
Gary Brune
Georgia Brian Bezio
Angela Whitworth New Mexico
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Marcos Trujillo
Hawaii Transportation Authority
Gerald Dang New York David Yale
Ronald Epstein
Idaho New York State Bridge Authority
David Tolman North Carolina Brian Bushek
David Tyeryar
Illinois Saskatchewan Ministry of
Jeff Heck North Dakota Highways and Infrastructure
Norlyn Schmidt David Stearns
Indiana
Daniel Brassard Ohio
Mark Ratliff Matt Downs
Iowa Oklahoma
Lee Wilkinson Mike Patterson
Russell Hulin

AASHTO Subcommittee on
Transportation Finance Policy | 2016
Chair Iowa Ohio

Lorie Tudor, Arkansas Dan Franklin Matt Downs
Kansas Richard Winning
Vice Chair
Laura Mester, Michigan Chris Herrick Oklahoma
Kentucky Chelley Hilmes
Secretary
Ron Rigney Russell Hulin
James M. Bass, Texas
Louisiana Oregon
Liaison John Baker
Jennifer Brickett, AASHTO Barry Keeling
Don Johnson Travis Brouwer
Maine Pennsylvania
Members James Ritzman
Karen Doyle
Alabama South Carolina
Maryland
Bill Flowers Brian Keys
David Fleming
Alaska Steven Watson South Dakota
Peter Christensen Ben Orsbon
Massachusetts
Arizona Beth Pellegrini Tennessee
Kristine Ward Kostandin Theodhori Jennifer Herstek
Lisa Danka William Betts Joseph Galbato
Arkansas Michigan Texas
Gill Rogers Laura Mester James Bass
Jared Wiley Myron Frierson Utah
Jessie Jones Trudy Schutte Becky Bradshaw
Kevin Thornton
Minnesota Linda Hull
Lorie Tudor
Sergius Phillips Vermont
Scott Bennett
Tracy Hatch Leonard LeBlanc
California
Mississippi Virginia
Norma Ortega
Byron Flood John Lawson
Colorado Janet Lee Laura Farmer
Ron Papsdorf Lisa Hancock
Washington State
Connecticut Missouri Amy Arnis
Patricia Hustus Roberta Broeker Doug Vaughn
Robert Card
Montana West Virginia
Delaware James Skinner Karen Zamow
Brian Motyl Lynn Zanto Robert Watson
District of Columbia Nebraska Robert Pennington
Eric Stults Michael Keays Wisconsin
Florida Nevada Daniel Yeh
Lisa Saliba David Olsen Wyoming
Rachel Cone Felicia Denney John Davis
Robin Naitove Robert Nellis
Associate Members
Georgia New Mexico
Angela Whitworth Marcos Trujillo Federal Highway Administration
Brian Bezio
Hawaii New York
Clarita Hironaka Ronald Epstein Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
Idaho North Carolina
David Yale
David Tolman Calvin Leggett
Kahlieh Honish
Illinois Humberto Tasaico
Joanne Woodworth North Dakota
Roxy Heck Norlyn Schmidt
Indiana Robert Fode
Daniel Brassard Steve Salwei

Notes on Usage
“Legislatures” and “DOTs” are used throughout as general terms for these institutions across the states. In the tables and state
profiles, the capitalized, proper name is used for the legislature or department of transportation in a particular state.
All statutory citations are formatted according to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ 2010 Style Guide, except those
for Arkansas, Georgia, and Illinois, which are cited as requested by survey respondents.
“Fiscal year” (abbreviated FY) refers to the fiscal year of the specific state being described. State fiscal years begin on July 1
except in Alabama (Oct. 1), Michigan (Oct. 1), New York (April 1), Texas (Sept. 1), and the District of Columbia (Oct. 1). The
fiscal year is identified by the year in which it ends.
Abbreviations have mostly been avoided. Exceptions include DMV (division [or department] of motor vehicles), DOT (depart-
ment of transportation), FY (fiscal year), GARVEE (grant anticipation revenue vehicle), HOT lane (high-occupancy toll lane),
MPO (metropolitan planning organization), STIP (statewide [or state] transportation improvement program), TIP (transporta-
tion improvement program), and the preferred acronym for each state’s department of transportation.
All data is assumed to be current as of July 2016 unless otherwise noted.

Table of Contents
1 | Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Project Overview.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Report Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 | Participants in State Transportation Governance and Finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
State Legislatures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
State Departments of Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Stakeholders.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 | Communication and Collaboration Between State Legislatures and DOTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 | State Transportation Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Laws and Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Legislative Proposals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Advocacy and Lobbying. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Fiscal Notes and Policy Impact Statements for Legislative Use.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Legislative Oversight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Legislative Committees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Leadership Appointments and Removals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Legislative Review of Administrative Rules and Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Legislative Audits and Sunset Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Reporting Requirements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Legislative Roles in DOT Performance Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Other Legislative Oversight Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Resources Provided to DOTs to Support Compliance with Oversight Requirements .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5 | State Transportation Funding and Finance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Budgeting and Appropriations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
State Budget Cycles and Processes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Allocation of Federal Revenues to State DOTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Allocation of State Revenues to State DOTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Planning and Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
State Revenue Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Revenue Sources for Transportation Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Restrictions on State Transportation Revenues and Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Revenue Sources Prohibited in State Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
State Finance Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Finance Mechanisms for Transportation Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Restrictions on State Transportation Finance Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Finance Mechanisms Prohibited in State Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Other State Funding and Finance Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Retention and Expenditure of Excess Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Movement of Funds Between Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Legislative Actions to Control DOT Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
State Involvement in Local Transportation Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Allocation of State Transportation Revenues to Local Entities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Authorization of Local Revenue Sources in State Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6 | State Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Participants in State Transportation Governance and Finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Transportation System Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Transportation Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
Transportation Funding and Finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
Tables
Table 1. Responding Organizations for the 2016 Survey Research.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 2. Names and Characteristics of State Legislatures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3. Categorization of States by Levels of Legislative Professionalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4. Names and Characteristics of State DOTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 5. Sizes of State DOTs in Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 6. Major Stakeholders in Transportation Governance and Finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 7. State Transportation Officials that Serve on the Governor’s Cabinet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 8. State Transportation Boards, Councils, and Commissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 9. Names and Types of Other State-Level Transportation Entities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 10. O
ther State-Level Transportation Entities for Which a Secretary, Director, or
Commissioner of Transportation Serves as a Member or on the Board Ex Officio.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 11. State Agencies that Perform DMV and Highway Patrol Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 12. S
election of Respondents’ Views Concerning Communication and Collaboration between
State Legislatures and DOTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 13. State Legislative Standing Committees with Jurisdiction over Transportation-Related Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 14. Appointment of DOT Leaders .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 15. Appointments to State Transportation Boards, Councils, and Commissions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 16. Legislative Review of Administrative Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 17. State DOTs That Are Subject to Legislative Audits or Sunset Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 18. Selection of Respondents’ Views Concerning State Approaches to Transportation Funding and Finance. . . . . . . . 49
Table 19. State Budget Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 20. State Legislative Roles in Allocating Federal Transportation Revenues to State DOTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 21. State Legislative Roles in Allocating State Transportation Revenues to State DOTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 22. Range of Legislative Roles in Transportation Planning and Capital Project Selection.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 23. Revenue Sources Currently Used by States for Roads and Bridges.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 24. State Fuel Tax Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 25. Dedications of State Fuel Taxes in State Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 26. Finance Mechanisms Currently Used by States for Roads and Bridges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 27. States That Do Not Currently Use Bonds for Transportation Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

1 | Introduction
In the United States, state governments bear much of the responsibility for the transportation systems within their borders.
States own and maintain transportation assets, plan and build new infrastructure, manage billions of Federal and state dollars
each year, and collaborate with and support local governments. In recent years, states have faced greater challenges in meeting
these obligations than ever before. Confronted with aging infrastructure, constrained resources, changing demographics, and
growing demand, states have developed a remarkable array of approaches to providing transportation options that get people and
goods to their destinations safely and effectively.
This report is intended to serve as a comprehensive, up-to-date reference tool for state governments, as well as for other interest-
ed stakeholders, about how all 50 states and the District of Columbia govern and pay for their transportation systems. It ad-
dresses the institutional context for state-level transportation decision making, and explores how state legislatures and executive
departments of transportation (DOTs)—the most active players in state-level transportation governance and finance—work
together, and balance one another, in the development of transportation programs and policies. It also provides extensive in-
formation about state transportation funding and finance, including how state transportation budgets and plans are developed,
what revenue sources and finance mechanisms are currently in use, and the roles states play in local transportation funding. By
providing a nationwide comparative analysis, the report illustrates the rich diversity of states’ efforts to serve the public good,
despite challenging circumstances and within complex intergovernmental arrangements.
Project Overview
This report is an updated and revised edition of the groundbreaking 2011 report of the same name, which was published by
AASHTO and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Since 2011, the legislative and political environment for trans-
portation governance and finance has evolved nationally and in the states. New Federal laws have been enacted, and many states
have made changes to how their transportation systems are managed and paid for. This edition integrates these developments,
and also expands on the original effort by adding a number of topics of recent interest in the states, including DOTs’ relation-
ships with other state entities and the authorization of local transportation revenues in state law. Further, substantial efforts
have been made to clarify and enhance the information provided—for example, by identifying the specific transportation modes
for which each revenue source or finance mechanism is used and by adding extensive statutory citations throughout the state
profiles.
Methodology
To produce this edition, the material from the 2011 report was first thoroughly updated to reflect current law or practice and
edited for clarity and comparability across states. The edited information was integrated into state-specific surveys, one on state
DOTs and legislatures and one on transportation funding and finance, and e-mailed to DOT personnel and legislative staff in
all 50 states and the District of Columbia to be confirmed or corrected. Each survey also included open-ended questions on new
topics of interest and a confidential section on recommendations and lessons learned. Responses were received for both surveys
from all 51 jurisdictions, for a total of 132 completed surveys (see Table 1 for a full list of participating organizations). The survey
information was then reviewed, compiled, analyzed, and re-edited into the draft state profiles, which were sent back to the sur-
vey respondents for their review. This multi-stage process offered several opportunities for state experts to improve the accuracy
and presentation of their states’ information in the final report.

Table 1. Responding Organizations for the 2016 Survey Research
State Responding Organizations

Alabama Legislative Reference Service, Alabama Legislature
Alabama Department of Transportation
Alaska Division of Legislative Finance, Alaska Legislature
Legislative Research Services, Alaska Legislature
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, Arizona Legislature
House Research Staff, Arizona Legislature
Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research, Arkansas General Assembly
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department
Arkansas Governor’s Office [supplemental details only]
California Legislative Analyst’s Office, California Legislature
Colorado Colorado Legislative Council, Colorado General Assembly
Colorado Department of Transportation
Connecticut Office of Fiscal Analysis, Connecticut General Assembly
Office of Legislative Research, Connecticut General Assembly
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Delaware Office of the Controller General, Delaware General Assembly
Florida Florida Department of Transportation
Georgia House Budget and Research Office, Georgia General Assembly
Georgia Department of Transportation
Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau, Hawaii Legislature
House Committee on Finance, Hawaii Legislature
Hawaii Department of Transportation
Idaho Legislative Services Office, Idaho Legislature
Idaho Transportation Department
Illinois Legislative Research Unit, Illinois General Assembly
Illinois Department of Transportation
Indiana Legislative Services Agency, Indiana General Assembly
Indiana Department of Transportation
Iowa Legislative Services Agency, Iowa General Assembly
Kansas Kansas Legislative Research Department, Kansas Legislature
Kansas Department of Transportation
Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, Kentucky General Assembly
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Louisiana Senate Legislative Services, Louisiana Legislature
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
Maine Office of Fiscal and Program Review, Maine Legislature
Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, Maine Legislature
Maine Department of Transportation
Maryland Department of Legislative Services, Maryland General Assembly
Maryland Department of Transportation
Massachusetts Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Michigan House Fiscal Agency, Michigan Legislature
Michigan Department of Transportation
Minnesota House Fiscal Analysis Department, Minnesota Legislature
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Mississippi Legislative Budget Office, Mississippi Legislature
Mississippi Department of Transportation

Missouri Senate Committee on Appropriations, Missouri General Assembly
Missouri Department of Transportation
Montana Legislative Fiscal Division, Montana Legislature
Montana Department of Transportation
Nebraska Legislative Council, Nebraska Legislature
Nebraska Department of Roads
Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, Nevada Legislature
Nevada Department of Transportation
New Hampshire New Hampshire Department of Transportation
New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, New Jersey Legislature
New Jersey Department of Transportation
New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee, New Mexico Legislature
Legislative Council Service, New Mexico Legislature
New Mexico Department of Transportation
New York Senate Finance Committee, New York Legislature
New York State Department of Transportation
North Carolina North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Dakota Legislative Council, North Dakota Legislative Assembly
North Dakota Department of Transportation
Ohio Ohio Department of Transportation
Oklahoma House Fiscal Division, Oklahoma Legislature
House Research Division, Oklahoma Legislature
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission [supplemental details only]
Oregon Legislative Revenue Office, Oregon Legislative Assembly
Committee Services Office, Oregon Legislative Assembly
Oregon Department of Transportation
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Rhode Island House Fiscal Advisory Staff, Rhode Island General Assembly
Rhode Island Department of Transportation
South Carolina Senate Finance Committee, South Carolina General Assembly
South Carolina Department of Transportation
South Dakota Legislative Research Council, South Dakota Legislature
South Dakota Department of Transportation
South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation
Tennessee Office of Legislative Budget Analysis, Tennessee General Assembly
Tennessee Department of Transportation
Texas Texas Department of Transportation
Utah Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Utah Legislature
Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, Utah Legislature
Utah Department of Transportation
Vermont Joint Fiscal Office, Vermont General Assembly
Office of Legislative Council, Vermont General Assembly
Vermont Agency of Transportation
Virginia Senate Finance Committee, Virginia General Assembly
House Appropriations Committee, Virginia General Assembly
Virginia Department of Transportation

Washington Senate Transportation Committee, Washington Legislature
Washington State Department of Transportation
Office of the Code Reviser, Washington Legislature [supplemental details only]
West Virginia Legislative Services Division, West Virginia Legislature
West Virginia Department of Transportation
Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Wyoming Legislative Service Office, Wyoming Legislature
Wyoming Department of Transportation
District of Office of the Budget Director, Council of the District of Columbia
Columbia District Department of Transportation
Report Organization
Together, Chapters 2 through 5 form a nationwide synthesis that summarizes the research findings. These chapters contain brief
explanatory material concerning key topics, as well as tables that illustrate the diverse approaches across the states. They are
followed by state-by-state profiles that provide in-depth information, including statutory citations, for each of the 50 states and
the District of Columbia.

2 | Participants in State Transportation
Governance and Finance
How each state governs and pays for its transportation system is influenced by the distinctive balance of roles and responsibilities
between its legislature and its department of transportation—the institutions that are the focus of this report—as well as the
involvement of other Federal, state, local, tribal, and private stakeholders.
State Legislatures
Every state has a legislative body that is made up of elected representatives that represent legislative districts. Typically, these
bodies are responsible for lawmaking, establishing and overseeing state programs, and appropriating funds. The legislative role
also includes the often forgotten but vital function of convening stakeholders to develop ideas and aid the decision-making pro-
cess. Legislatures vary by structure, size, session length and frequency, the volume of proposed legislative measures they consider
each session, and even what they are called (Table 2), as well as many other factors. In terms of structure, all state legislatures are
bicameral and partisan except for Nebraska’s, which is a unicameral, nonpartisan legislature that calls all of its members sena-
tors. The Council of the District of Columbia is a unicameral, partisan body.
Table 2. Names and Characteristics of State Legislatures
Characteristics
State Legislature Chambers (with Number of Members ) Annual or Biennial Session Legislative Measures
Introduced in 2016
Alabama Legislature Senate (35) House of Representatives (105) Annual 1,005
Alaska Legislature Senate (20) House of Representatives (40) Annual 268
(see state
profile)
Arizona Legislature Senate (30) House of Representatives (60) Annual 1,247
Arkansas General Assembly Senate (35) House of Representatives (100) Annual (regular session 278
in odd years, fiscal ses- (see state
sion in even years) profile)
California Legislature Senate (40) Assembly (80) Annual 2,600*
Colorado General Assembly Senate (35) House of Representatives (65) Annual 800*
Connecticut General Assembly Senate (36) House of Representatives (151) Annual 1,115
Delaware General Assembly Senate (21) House of Representatives (41) Annual 500*
Florida Legislature Senate (40) House of Representatives (120) Annual 1,800*
Georgia General Assembly Senate (56) House of Representatives (180) Annual 4,800*
Hawaii Legislature Senate (25) House of Representatives (51) Annual 3,200*
Idaho Legislature Senate (35) House of Representatives (70) Annual 557
Illinois General Assembly Senate (59) House of Representatives (118) Annual (year-round) 5,100*
Indiana General Assembly Senate (50) House of Representatives (100) Annual 1,800*
Iowa General Assembly Senate (50) House of Representatives (100) Annual 1,500*
Kansas Legislature Senate (40) House of Representatives (125) Annual 514
Kentucky General Assembly Senate (38) House of Representatives (100) Annual 1,550*
Louisiana Legislature Senate (39) House of Representatives (105) Annual 2,882*
Maine Legislature Senate (35) House of Representatives (151) Annual 400*
Maryland General Assembly Senate (47) House of Delegates (141) Annual 2,800*

Characteristics
State Legislature Chambers (with Number of Members ) Annual or Biennial Session Legislative Measures
Introduced in 2016
Massachusetts General Court Senate (40) House of Representatives (160) Annual (year-round) 1,069
(see state
profile)
Michigan Legislature Senate (38) House of Representatives (110) Annual (year-round) 1,650*
Minnesota Legislature Senate (67) House of Representatives (134) Annual 2,800*
Mississippi Legislature Senate (52) House of Representatives (122) Annual 3,600*
Missouri General Assembly Senate (34) House of Representatives (163) Annual 2,000*
Montana Legislature Senate (50) House of Representatives (100) Biennial (odd years only) None
Nebraska Legislature Legislature** (49, all called senators) Annual 446
Nevada Legislature Senate (21) Assembly (42) Biennial (odd years only) None
New Hampshire General Court Senate (24) House of Representatives (400) Annual 850*
New Jersey Legislature Senate (40) Assembly (80) Annual (year-round) 6,600*
New Mexico Legislature Senate (42) House of Representatives (70) Annual 932
New York Legislature Senate (63) Assembly (150) Annual (year-round) 3,783
North Carolina General Assembly Senate (50) House of Representatives (120) Annual 1,100*
North Dakota Legislative Assembly Senate (47) House of Representatives (94) Biennial (odd years only) None
Ohio General Assembly Senate (33) House of Representatives (99) Annual (year-round) 725*
Oklahoma Legislature Senate (48) House of Representatives (101) Annual 2,400*
Oregon Legislative Assembly Senate (30) House of Representatives (60) Annual 283
Pennsylvania General Assembly Senate (50) House of Representatives (203) Annual (year-round) 1,700*
Rhode Island General Assembly Senate (38) House of Representatives (75) Annual 2,600*
South Carolina General Assembly Senate (46) House of Representatives (124) Annual 1,600*
South Dakota Legislature Senate (35) House of Representatives (70) Annual 419
Tennessee General Assembly Senate (33) House of Representatives (99) Annual 1,200*
Texas Legislature Senate (31) House of Representatives (150) Biennial (odd years only) None
Utah Legislature Senate (29) House of Representatives (75) Annual 800*
Vermont General Assembly Senate (30) House of Representatives (150) Annual 600*
Virginia General Assembly Senate (40) House of Delegates (100) Annual 3,286
Washington Legislature Senate (49) House of Representatives (98) Annual 1,301
West Virginia Legislature Senate (34) House of Delegates (100) Annual 1,896
Wisconsin Legislature Senate (33) Assembly (99) Annual (year-round) 1,830*
Wyoming Legislature Senate (30) House of Representatives (60) Annual 300*
Council of the District of Columbia Council** (13) Annual (year-round) 1,200*
* Estimated
** The Nebraska Legislature is unicameral and nonpartisan. The Council of the District of Columbia is unicameral and partisan.
Note: See state profiles for additional details. For more information about legislative session lengths, see the National Conference of State
Legislatures and the state profiles at the end of this report. “Legislative measures introduced in 2016” includes all bills, resolutions, memo-
rials, and other legislative initiatives introduced in 2016, but not measures that were carried over from 2015 in states with 2015–16 biennial
sessions.
As just one way to conceptualize some of the differences among state legislatures, the National Conference of State Legislatures
has developed categories to illustrate degrees of legislative professionalization, or policy-making capacity, based on legislators’
time on the job, legislator compensation, and legislative staff sizes (Table 3). “Professional” (or “full-time”) legislatures tend to
have longer sessions and bigger staffs, are often found in states with larger populations, and overall are more similar to Congress

than other state legislatures. “Citizen” (or “part-time”) legislatures, also known as “traditional” legislatures, tend to have shorter
sessions and smaller staffs and are often found in rural states with smaller populations. In these states, legislators often have jobs
in their local communities in addition to their legislative duties. “Hybrid” legislatures fall somewhere in between.
Table 3. Categorization of States by Levels of Legislative Professionalization
Professional Citizen
Hybrid
(Full-Time) (Part-Time)
California Alabama Georgia
Florida Alaska Idaho
Illinois Arizona Indiana
Massachusetts Arkansas Kansas
Michigan Colorado Maine
New Jersey Connecticut Mississippi
New York Delaware Montana
Ohio Hawaii Nevada
Pennsylvania Iowa New Hampshire
Wisconsin Kentucky New Mexico
Louisiana North Dakota
Maryland Rhode Island
Minnesota South Dakota
Missouri Utah
Nebraska Vermont
North Carolina West Virginia
Oklahoma Wyoming
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Source: Kurtz and Erickson, 2013. The District of Columbia was not included in the original source.
A legislature’s overall capacity may influence, but does not determine, its level of involvement in transportation decision making.
Vermont, for example, has a part-time legislature with limited staff support, but because of the small size of the state and the
legislature’s detailed annual transportation budget process, legislative committees are able to review progress on nearly all active
transportation projects.
State Departments of Transportation

The executive branch of state government, under the leadership of the governor, typically carries out the programs and policies
that have been authorized and funded by the legislature, as well as having other powers and duties. Every state executive branch
contains an agency that is responsible for roads, bridges, and, in most states, other transportation modes such as public transit,
rail, aviation, or ports. Known collectively as “departments of transportation” (or DOTs), these agencies vary by structure, size,
and many other factors (Tables 4 and 5). In terms of structure, for example, most state DOTs are organized primarily by the
functional activities each division performs, such as administration, finance, planning, engineering, operations, or construc-
tion. A few are organized mainly by the modes of transportation each division serves, although in many states, at least some
non-highway modes are handled by entities that are separate from the DOT (see also page 22). Some state DOTs are organized
by both functional activity and transportation mode. Texas’ DOT, for example, is organized into a number of divisions, some
based on functional activities and others dedicated to aviation, maritime transportation, public transit, and rail.

Table 4. Names and Characteristics of State DOTs
DOT Structure Modes Over Which DOT Has Jurisdiction

Organized Organized Roads and Public Rail Aviation Ports and Pedestrian Other
State DOT Mainly by Mainly by Bridges Transit Waterways and Bicycle
Functional Transporta-
Activity tion Mode
Alabama Department of • • F, P • • •
Transportation (ALDOT)
Alaska Department of • • • • • • Ferries
Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT&PF)
Arizona Department of • • •
Transportation (ADOT)
Arkansas State Highway and • • • F, P • Ferries
Transportation Department
(AHTD)
California Department of • • • P • • •
Transportation (Caltrans)
Colorado Department of • • • F, P • •
Transportation (CDOT)
Connecticut Department of • • • F, P See state •
Transportation (CTDOT) profile
Delaware Department of • • • P • •
Transportation (DelDOT)
Florida Department of • • • F, P • • • Spaceports
Transportation (FDOT)
Georgia Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (GDOT)
Hawaii Department of • • • • •
Transportation (DOT)
Idaho Transportation • • • F, P • • •
Department (ITD)
Illinois Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (IDOT)
Indiana Department of • • • F, P • •
Transportation (INDOT)
Iowa Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (Iowa DOT)
Kansas Department of • • • F, P • • Unmanned
Transportation (KDOT) aircraft
systems
Kentucky Transportation • • • F • • •
Cabinet (KYTC)
Louisiana Department • • • F, P • • • Flood
of Transportation and control
Development (DOTD)
Maine Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (MaineDOT)
Maryland Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (MDOT)
Massachusetts Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (MassDOT)

Activity tion Mode
Michigan Department of Trans- • • • • F, P • • • Limousine
portation (MDOT) regulation
Minnesota Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (MnDOT)
Mississippi Department of • • • • •
Transportation (MDOT)
Missouri Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (MoDOT)
Montana Department of Trans- • • • • F, P • •
portation (MDT)
Nebraska Department of Roads • • See state See state Multimodal
(NDOR) profile profile freight plan
Nevada Department of • • See state See state See state • •

Transportation (NDOT) profile profile profile
New Hampshire Department of • • • F, P • •

Transportation (NHDOT)
New Jersey Department of • • See state F • See state •
Transportation (NJDOT) profile profile
New Mexico Department of • • • P • •

Transportation (NMDOT)
New York State Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (NYSDOT)
North Carolina Department of • • • F, P • • • Ferries
Transportation (NCDOT)
North Dakota Department of • • • See state •
Transportation (NDDOT) profile
Ohio Department of • • • See state • • •

Transportation (ODOT) profile
Oklahoma Department of • • F, P •
Transportation (ODOT)
Oregon Department of • • • • F, P •
Transportation (ODOT)
Pennsylvania Department of • • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (PennDOT)
Rhode Island Department of • • P • • Ferries
Transportation (RIDOT)
South Carolina Department of • • • •
Transportation (SCDOT)
South Dakota Department of • • • F • •
Transportation (SDDOT)
Tennessee Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (TDOT)
Texas Department of • • • See state F, P See state • •
Transportation (TxDOT) profile profile
Utah Department of • • See state See state See state Ferries

Transportation (UDOT) profile profile profile

Activity tion Mode
Vermont Agency of • • • F, P • See state •
Transportation (VTrans) profile
Virginia Department of • • • Ferries

Transportation (VDOT)
Washington State Department • • • F, P • • • Ferries
of Transportation (WSDOT)
West Virginia Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (WVDOT)
Wisconsin Department of • • • F, P • • •
Transportation (WisDOT)
Wyoming Department of • • • See state • •
Transportation (WYDOT) profile
District Department of • • • •
Transportation (DDOT)*
* District of Columbia | F: Freight rail; P: Passenger rail

Note: See state profiles for additional details.
Table 5. Sizes of State DOTs in Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
2,500 or less 2,501 to 5,000 5,001 to 7,500 7,501 or more

Delaware Alabama Florida California
Hawaii Alaska Illinois Maryland
Idaho Arizona Minnesota Massachusetts
Maine Arkansas Missouri New York
Montana Colorado Virginia North Carolina
Nebraska Connecticut Washington Pennsylvania
Nevada Georgia West Virginia Texas
New Hampshire Indiana
New Mexico Iowa
North Dakota Kansas
Oklahoma Kentucky
Rhode Island Louisiana
South Dakota Michigan
Utah Mississippi
Vermont New Jersey*
Wyoming Ohio
District of Columbia Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Wisconsin
* Not including the Motor Vehicle Commission and NJ Transit

Note: See state profiles for specific numbers.
Other Stakeholders
A complex network of public and private organizations finances, plans, builds, and operates the nation’s transportation system
(Table 6). This section describes some of the other key stakeholders in state transportation governance and finance, which pro-

vide much of the institutional context for the work of state legislatures and DOTs. The private sector also has a growing role in
delivering transportation projects through public-private partnerships (see also Chapter 5).
Table 6. Major Stakeholders in Transportation Governance and Finance
Federal State Regional Local Other

• Congress • Governors • Metropolitan • Counties • Federally rec-
• U.S. Department • State legislatures planning organi- • Municipalities ognized tribal
of Transportation zations governments
• State DOTs • Townships
(U.S. DOT) • Regional planning • Private sector
• State transpor- • Special districts
• Land manage- organizations, ru- companies
tation boards, • Local toll
ment agencies ral transportation • Rural and urban
councils, and authorities
(see note) planning organiza- transit agencies,
commissions
tions, and councils including nonprof-
• Environmental • Other state and of governments it organizations
protection agen- quasi-state entities
cies (see note) • Regional toll • Academic and re-
with transpor-
or mobility search institutions
• Other Federal tation-related
authorities
entities with trans- responsibilities • Operators, users,
portation-related • Regional airport and their repre-
responsibilities or port authorities sentative interest
groups
• Voters and the
general public
Note: This table is an updated version of Table 2 in the 2011 edition of this report, the main source for which was Intergovernmental Forum
on Transportation Finance, 2008. The 2008 source lists six major Federal land management agencies (U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service) and three primary
Federal environmental protection agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
National Resources Conservation Service) that are stakeholders in surface transportation programs.
Federal Entities
“Construction and maintenance of the National Highway System, inland water navigation facilities, aviation facilities, and
other Federally regulated interstate commerce or transportation systems,” notes a 2014 National Cooperative Highway Research
Program report, “have been largely delegated to the states, with financial support and technical assistance provided through the
U.S. Department of Transportation and other Federal agencies.” In addition, state DOTs are subject to Federal mandates, such
as planning and performance requirements, when carrying out their responsibilities for all transportation systems under their
jurisdiction.
For decades, Federal funding has been provided to states for highway, intermodal, and public transit programs through the
Federal Highway Trust Fund, which receives Federal fuel taxes and other highway-user revenues. Revenues from the fund are
allocated to states under the provisions of Federal surface transportation legislation—currently the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94), signed into law in December 2015—and annual appropriations bills. Federal revenues
account for a significant portion of state spending on surface transportation. As of 2014, for example, about 24 percent of reve-
nues used by states for highways were from Federal sources. Over the last several years, however, Federal fuel taxes have not kept
up with spending (see also page 64), and short-term transfers of general funds and other revenues have been necessary to keep
the Highway Trust Fund solvent. In part as a result of such transfers, the FAST Act provides more than $305 billion for surface
transportation programs through FY 2020, but “reform of the way highway programs are funded,” states the Federal Highway
Administration, “remains a challenge for the future.”

Within the executive branch, the U.S. Department of Transportation, a cabinet-level department under the U.S. secretary of
transportation, administers Federal funding and programs for the nation’s multimodal transportation system. Other Federal
stakeholders include Congress and the president, who both play a role in transportation-related legislation, as well as land man-
agement and environmental protection agencies and other Federal entities with transportation-related responsibilities.
State Governors
State DOTs, as executive branch agencies, fall under the authority of state governors. Governors therefore play a significant role
in transportation governance and oversight. Among other powers, they typically prepare state budgets and can approve or veto
legislative initiatives. They also often appoint the heads of state agencies (see also page 41), and in most states, the secretary,
director, or commissioner of transportation serves on the governor’s cabinet (Table 7).
Table 7. State Transportation Officials that Serve on the Governor’s Cabinet
State Serves on Governor’s Cabinet

Alabama Director of Transportation
Alaska Commissioner of Transportation and Public Facilities
Arizona ADOT Director
Arkansas None (see note)
California Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency
Colorado CDOT Executive Director
Connecticut None (see note)
Delaware DelDOT Secretary
Florida None (see note)
Georgia None (see note)
Hawaii DOT Director
Idaho Director of ITD
Illinois Secretary of Transportation
Indiana Commissioner of INDOT
Iowa Director of Transportation
Kansas Secretary of Transportation
Kentucky Secretary of the KYTC
Louisiana Secretary of Transportation and Development
Maine Commissioner of Transportation
Maryland Secretary of Transportation
Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation
Michigan MDOT Director
Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation
Mississippi None (see note)
Missouri MoDOT Director
Montana MDT Director
Nebraska NDOR Director
Nevada NDOT Director
New Hampshire None (see note)
New Jersey Commissioner of Transportation
New Mexico Secretary of Transportation
New York Commissioner of Transportation

State Serves on Governor’s Cabinet
North Carolina Secretary of Transportation
North Dakota NDDOT Director
Ohio Director of Transportation
Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation
Oregon None (see note)
Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation
Rhode Island Director of Transportation
South Carolina Secretary of Transportation
South Dakota Secretary of Transportation
Tennessee Commissioner of Transportation
Texas None (see note)
Utah Executive Director of UDOT
Vermont Secretary of VTrans
Virginia Secretary of Transportation
Washington Secretary of Transportation
West Virginia Secretary of Transportation
Wisconsin Secretary of Transportation
Wyoming Director of WYDOT
District of Columbia DDOT Director*
* Serves on mayor’s cabinet

Note: Of the eight states in which no transportation official serves on the governor’s cabinet, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oregon,
and Texas have no formal cabinet system. In Arkansas, the governor has a cabinet but it does not include a DOT official. In Connecticut, the
governor directs department heads through “commissioners’ meetings” rather than through a cabinet. In Florida, uniquely, the governor’s
cabinet consists of just three elected officials: the attorney general, the chief financial officer, and the commissioner of agriculture (Fla. Const.
art. IV, §4).
In practice, however, the division of roles and responsibilities between governors and DOTs varies from state to state. In Mich-
igan and Oklahoma, for example, the governors are less actively involved with transportation oversight and have chosen to del-
egate much of the responsibility to the DOT, while in Nevada, the governor serves as an ex officio member of the DOT’s board
of directors. In Oregon and Pennsylvania, the governors employ liaisons who maintain active communication with the DOT on
transportation issues.
State Transportation Boards, Councils, and Commissions

State DOTs in about half the states are governed or advised by a state transportation board, council, or commission. Most of
these are independent oversight bodies with decision-making authority. Some, however, are structurally within the DOT, and
some have only advisory or very limited roles. Utah and Washington’s transportation commissions, for example, have no direct
authority over the DOT. In Utah, the commission’s chief duties are to prioritize projects and to decide how available funds are
spent, and the role of Washington’s commission is to set ferry fares and toll rates and to develop the four-year policy plan. In five
states, the secretary of transportation is a member of the board or commission ex officio (Table 8).

Table 8. State Transportation Boards, Councils, and Commissions
State Transportation Board, Council, or Commission

State Structure
Name
Independent Body Within DOT
Arizona State Transportation Board •
Arkansas Highway Commission •
California California Transportation Commission •
Colorado Transportation Commission •
Delaware Council on Transportation (advisory only) •
Florida Florida Transportation Commission •
Georgia State Transportation Board •
Idaho Idaho Transportation Board •
Iowa Transportation Commission •
Massachusetts MassDOT Board of Directors* •
Michigan State Transportation Commission •
Mississippi Mississippi Transportation Commission •
Missouri Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission •
Montana Transportation Commission •
Nebraska State Highway Commission (advisory only) •
Nevada NDOT Board of Directors •
New Mexico State Transportation Commission •
North Carolina Board of Transportation* •
Oklahoma Transportation Commission •
Oregon Oregon Transportation Commission •
Pennsylvania State Transportation Commission* •
South Carolina SCDOT Commission •
South Dakota Transportation Commission •
Texas Texas Transportation Commission •
Utah Utah Transportation Commission (advisory only, limited role) •
Vermont Transportation Board (advisory and quasi-judicial only) •
Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board* •
Washington Washington State Transportation Commission* (limited role) •
Wyoming Transportation Commission •
* Secretary of transportation is a member ex officio. In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, the secretary serves as chair, while in North Carolina, Virginia,
and Washington, the secretary is a non-voting member. In Virginia, other ex officio, non-voting members include the commissioner of the DOT and the
director of the state’s Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
Note: See state profiles for additional details and statutory citations.
Other State and Quasi-State Entities

A diverse array of other state government agencies and quasi-state entities influence state transportation governance and finance.
Many states, for example, have separate government agencies that oversee non-highway modes of transportation, including
mode-specific state departments in Arkansas, Nebraska, Oregon, and Virginia. In addition, states have created a remarkable
assortment of quasi-public entities to carry out transportation-related responsibilities. These include instrumentalities and public
benefit corporations that are established in state statute and perform governmental functions, but have some level of structural
or financial independence from the state. These include authorities that manage toll facilities, airports, and ports (Table 9). For

many of these state and quasi-state entities, a secretary, director, or commissioner of transportation serves as a member or on the
board ex officio (Table 10).
Table 9. Names and Types of Other State-Level Transportation Entities
Other State-Level Transportation Entities

Type
State
Name Corporation, Instru-
State Governmental
mentality, or Other
Agency or Entity
Quasi-State Entity
Alabama Alabama State Port Authority •
Alabama Toll Road, Bridge, and Tunnel Authority •
Alaska Alaska Railroad Corporation •
Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority •
Arizona Arizona Corporation Commission •
Arkansas Arkansas Waterways Commission •
Arkansas Department of Aeronautics •
California California State Transportation Agency •
Board of Pilot Commissioners •
California High-Speed Rail Authority •
Office of Traffic Safety •
Colorado None
Connecticut Connecticut Port Authority •
Connecticut Airport Authority •
Delaware Delaware Transportation Authority* See state profile
Delaware Transit Corporation* See state profile
Delaware River and Bay Authority Bi-state
Florida Space Florida •
Dept. of Environmental Protection—Recreational Trails Program •
Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority •
Georgia Ports Authority •
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority •
Georgia Rail Passenger Authority •
Hawaii None
Idaho None
Illinois Illinois State Toll Highway Authority See state profile
Indiana Ports of Indiana •
Indiana Finance Authority •
Iowa None
Kansas Kansas Turnpike Authority •
Kentucky Turnpike Authority of Kentucky •
Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority •
Bond-issuing commissions •
Louisiana None
Maine Maine Turnpike Authority •
Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority •
Maine Port Authority •

Type
State
State Governmental
mentality, or Other
Agency or Entity
Quasi-State Entity
Maryland Maryland Transportation Authority •
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Interstate
Massachusetts Massachusetts Port Authority •
Michigan Michigan Aeronautics Commission •
Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety—Office of Pipeline Safety •
Mississippi Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport •
Yellow Creek State Inland Port •
Missouri None
Montana Montana Aeronautics Board •
Rail Service Competition Council •
Nebraska Nebraska Department of Aeronautics •
Nevada Nevada Dept. of Business and Industry—Nevada Transportation •
Authority and Nevada Taxicab Authority
Public Utilities Commission of Nevada—Railroad Safety Program and •
Pipeline Safety Program
New Hampshire Pease Development Authority—Division of Ports and Harbors •
New Jersey New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority •
New Jersey Turnpike Authority •
South Jersey Transportation Authority •
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) •
South Jersey Port Corporation •
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Bi-state
Waterfront Commission of the New York Harbor Bi-state
Delaware River Port Authority Bi-state
Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission Bi-state
Delaware River and Bay Authority Bi-state
New Mexico None
New York New York Thruway Authority •
New York State Bridge Authority •
Metropolitan Transportation Authority •
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Bi-state
Waterfront Commission of the New York Harbor Bi-state
Albany Port District Commission •
Odgensburg Bridge and Port Authority •
Port of Oswego Authority •
Upstate transportation authorities •
North Carolina None
North Dakota North Dakota Aeronautics Commission •
Public Service Commission •
Ohio Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission •
Ohio Public Works Commission •
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio •

Type
State
State Governmental
mentality, or Other
Agency or Entity
Quasi-State Entity
Oklahoma Oklahoma Turnpike Authority •
Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission •
Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority •
Oregon Oregon Department of Aviation •
Oregon State Marine Board •
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission •
Delaware River Port Authority Bi-state
Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission Bi-state
Rhode Island Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority •
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority •
Rhode Island Airport Corporation •
South Carolina State Fiscal Accountability Authority—South Carolina Aeronautics •
Commission
South Carolina Dept. of Commerce—Palmetto Railways •
South Carolina Ports Authority •
South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank •
South Dakota None
Tennessee None
Texas None
Utah None
Vermont None
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation •
Department of Aviation •
Motor Vehicle Dealer Board •
Virginia Port Authority •
Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority •
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Interstate
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission •
Washington State Traffic Safety Commission •
Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board •
Transportation Improvement Board •
County Road Administration Board •
Board of Pilotage Commissioners •
West Virginia None
Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Railroads •
Wyoming None
District of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Interstate
Columbia
* Although they are separate corporations and instrumentalities, the Delaware Transportation Authority functions as a component unit, and Delaware
Transit Corporation as an operating division, of the state’s DOT.
Note: This table relies heavily on reported data and should be considered illustrative rather than exhaustive. See state profiles for additional
details and statutory citations.

Table 10. Other State-Level Transportation Entities for Which a Secretary, Director, or Commissioner of Transportation
Serves as a Member or on the Board Ex Officio

State
Name Serves as Member or on Board
Alabama Alabama Toll Road, Bridge, and Tunnel Authority Director of Transportation
Alaska Alaska Railroad Corporation Commissioner of Transportation and Public Facilities
California Board of Pilot Commissioners Secretary of the California State Transportation
Agency**
Connecticut Connecticut Port Authority Commissioner of Transportation or designee
Connecticut Airport Authority Commissioner of Transportation or designee
Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority Commissioner of Transportation
Illinois Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Secretary of Transportation
Kansas Kansas Turnpike Authority Secretary of Transportation
Kentucky Turnpike Authority of Kentucky Secretary of the KYTC
Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority Secretary of the KYTC*
Maine Maine Turnpike Authority Commissioner of Transportation or designee
Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority Commissioner of Transportation
Maine Port Authority Commissioner of Transportation*
Maryland Maryland Transportation Authority Secretary of Transportation*
Massachusetts Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Secretary of Transportation
Michigan Michigan Aeronautics Commission MDOT Director
Montana Rail Service Competition Council MDT Director
New Jersey New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority Commissioner of Transportation*
New Jersey Turnpike Authority Commissioner of Transportation or designee
South Jersey Transportation Authority Commissioner of Transportation
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) Commissioner of Transportation*
Ohio Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission Director of Transportation or designee
Ohio Public Works Commission Director of Transportation**
Oklahoma Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority ODOT Director
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Secretary of Transportation
Rhode Island Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority Director of Transportation
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority Director of Transportation or designee
South Carolina South Carolina Ports Authority Secretary of Transportation or designee**
Virginia Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority Secretary of Transportation
Washington Washington State Traffic Safety Commission Secretary of Transportation
Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board Secretary of Transportation
* Serves as chair, per state statute. In addition, although not required by statute, New Jersey’s commissioner of transportation has been appointed by the
governor to serve as chair of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and the South Jersey Transportation Authority.
** Non-voting
Note: This table relies heavily on reported data and should be considered illustrative rather than exhaustive. In addition to the entities listed
above, in Delaware, the secretary of the DOT has a defined leadership role for both the Delaware Transportation Authority and the Dela-
ware Transit Corporation, and in Washington, the DOT has two statutory seats on the state’s Transportation Improvement Board. See state
profiles for additional details and statutory citations.
In addition, nearly all states have a state agency that registers vehicles and issues driver’s licenses, most often called a division or
department of motor vehicles (DMV), and a police unit that enforces traffic laws and promotes highway safety, often known as
a highway patrol. Some DMVs and highway patrols are located entirely within state DOTs, but most are separate state agencies

(Table 11). In several states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New
York, and Vermont, a separate agency performs most highway patrol functions, while the DOT carries out commercial vehicle
enforcement or other limited duties.
Most DMVs and highway patrols are separate from the DOT and have their own revenue streams. Many states, though, have a
DMV or highway patrol that is a separate entity, but receives at least a portion of its funding for its operations from tax revenues
or state transportation funds that also support the DOT (see state profiles for details). In recent years, the use of limited trans-
portation funds for highway patrols in particular has, in some states, come into question.
Because of its geography, Hawaii is the only state in which no part of state government registers vehicles, issues driver’s licenses,
or operates a state highway patrol. Instead, counties do most of these functions. The state does, however, reimburse counties for
direct costs related to DMV functions, coordinate federal grants for certain commercial driver’s license programs, and oversee
and fund the enforcement of laws related to motor carriers and hazardous materials transportation.
Table 11. State Agencies that Perform DMV and Highway Patrol Functions
Responsible State Agencies

State Performs DMV Functions Performs Highway Patrol Functions
DOT Other DOT Other
Alabama Alabama Law Enforcement Agency See Alabama Law Enforcement Agency
Motor Vehicle Division, Alabama Department state Alabama Department of Environmental Man-
of Revenue profile agement
Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles, Alaska Depart- See Alaska State Troopers, Alaska Department of
ment of Administration state Public Safety
profile
Arizona • See Arizona Department of Public Safety
state
profile
Arkansas Office of Driver Services and Office of Motor See Highway Patrol, Arkansas State Police
Vehicles, Arkansas Department of Finance state
and Administration profile
Arkansas State Police
California Department of Motor Vehicles California Highway Patrol
Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles, Colorado Depart- Colorado State Patrol, Colorado Department
ment of Revenue of Public Safety
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles Connecticut State Police, Department of
Emergency Services and Public Protection
Department of Motor Vehicles
Delaware • Delaware State Police, Department of Safety
and Homeland Security
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Florida Highway Patrol, Department of High-
Vehicles way Safety and Motor Vehicles
Georgia Georgia Department of Driver Services Georgia State Patrol, Georgia Department of
Motor Vehicle Division, Georgia Department Public Safety
of Revenue
Hawaii See See
state state
profile profile
Idaho • Idaho State Police

DOT Other DOT Other
Illinois Driver Services Department and Vehicle Ser- Illinois State Police
vices Department, Illinois Secretary of State’s
Office
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Indiana State Police
Iowa • See Iowa Department of Public Safety
state
profile
Kansas Division of Vehicles, Kansas Department of Kansas Highway Patrol
Revenue
Kentucky • See Kentucky State Police, Kentucky Justice and
state Public Safety Cabinet
profile
Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles, Louisiana Depart- Louisiana State Police, Louisiana Department
ment of Public Safety and Corrections of Public Safety and Corrections
Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Maine Department Maine State Police, Department of Public
of Secretary of State Safety
Maryland • Maryland State Police
Maryland Transportation Authority Police
Massachusetts • Massachusetts State Police, Executive Office
of Public Safety and Security
Michigan Michigan Secretary of State Michigan State Police
Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services, Minnesota Minnesota State Patrol, Minnesota Depart-
Department of Public Safety ment of Public Safety
Mississippi Mississippi Department of Public Safety See Mississippi Department of Public Safety
Mississippi Department of Revenue state
profile
Missouri Missouri Department of Revenue See Missouri State Highway Patrol, Missouri
state Department of Public Safety
profile
Montana Motor Vehicle Division, Montana Department Montana Highway Patrol, Montana Depart-
of Justice ment of Justice
Nebraska Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles Nebraska State Patrol
Nevada Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public
Safety
New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles, New Hampshire New Hampshire State Police, New Hampshire
Department of Safety Department of Safety
New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission New Jersey State Police and Division of High-
way Traffic Safety, New Jersey Department of
Law and Public Safety
New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division, New Mexico Taxation New Mexico State Police, New Mexico
and Revenue Department Department of Public Safety
New York New York Department of Motor Vehicles See New York State Police
state
profile
North Carolina • North Carolina State Highway Patrol, North
Carolina Department of Public Safety
North Dakota • North Dakota Highway Patrol

DOT Other DOT Other
Ohio Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Department Ohio State Highway Patrol, Department of
of Public Safety Public Safety
Oklahoma Oklahoma Department of Public Safety Oklahoma Highway Patrol, Department of
Motor Vehicle Division, Oklahoma Tax Com- Public Safety
mission Oklahoma Corporation Commission
Oregon • Oregon State Police
Pennsylvania • Pennsylvania State Police
Rhode Island Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Rhode Island State Police, Department of
Revenue Public Safety
South Carolina South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles Highway Patrol and State Transport Police,
South Carolina Department of Public Safety
South Dakota South Dakota Department of Public Safety South Dakota Highway Patrol, South Dakota
Division of Motor Vehicles, South Dakota Department of Public Safety
Department of Revenue
Tennessee Driver Services Division, Tennessee Depart- Tennessee Highway Patrol, Tennessee Depart-
ment of Safety and Homeland Security ment of Safety and Homeland Security
Tennessee Department of Revenue
Texas Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Texas Highway Patrol, Texas Department of
Texas Department of Public Safety Public Safety
Utah Division of Motor Vehicles, Utah State Tax Utah Highway Patrol, Utah Department of
Commission Public Safety
Driver License Division, Utah Department of
Public Safety
Vermont • See Vermont State Police, Department of Public
state Safety
profile
Virginia Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Virginia State Police
Washington Washington State Department of Licensing Washington State Patrol
West Virginia • West Virginia State Police
Wisconsin • •
Wyoming • •
District of District of Columbia Department of Motor Metropolitan Police Department
Columbia Vehicles
Note: See state profiles for additional details, including funding sources for these agencies and the limited highway patrol duties
carried out by some state DOTs.
Lastly, it should not be forgotten that many other state agencies that do not oversee transportation as their primary function may
still provide or pay for transportation services for some people with mobility challenges as part of their overall duties. These may
include state departments of health, human services, labor, education, veterans’ affairs, disabilities, or aging. Although outside
the scope of this report, states’ efforts to coordinate human service-related transportation policies, programs, and services among
such agencies and other stakeholders are a perennial topic of interest (see, for example, a 2015 National Conference of State
Legislatures report on the subject) that adds another layer of complexity to state transportation governance and finance.

Tribal, Regional, and Local Entities
Tribal, regional, and local entities with transportation responsibilities include:
• Federally recognized tribal governments, which must be consulted concerning state transportation plans and any actions that
may affect tribal lands;
• More than 400 Federally-mandated metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) nationwide, which are responsible for
regional transportation planning in urbanized areas with populations of more than 50,000 people;
• Other urban and rural regional organizations that are involved in transportation planning or coordination, such as regional
planning organizations (RPOs), rural transportation planning organizations (RTPOs), and councils of governments (COGs),
which may also be known as regional councils or planning districts;
• Regional or local authorities with jurisdiction over toll facilities, airports, ports, or other transportation infrastructure; and
• Counties, townships, municipalities, and special-purpose local government units (such as special districts), which often have
a substantial role in providing and paying for local streets, public transit, or other transportation facilities.
It should be noted that, although all states share transportation responsibilities with local entities to some extent, they also vary
in terms of the balance between state and local roles. Michigan, for example, has a highly devolved transportation system, in
which the state has jurisdiction over just 8.1 percent of the state’s road miles and 616 local road agencies control the rest. At
the other end of the spectrum, North Carolina has a highly centralized system, in which the state DOT builds and maintains
secondary roads and there are no county road departments.
Other Stakeholders
Many other stakeholders are involved in transportation governance and finance, including project development, planning, and
decision making processes. Private sector companies build, operate, and finance transportation assets and provide transportation
services for passengers and freight across modes. Public transit agencies operate in both rural and urban areas, many of them
nonprofit organizations that serve older adults or people with disabilities. Academic and other research institutions produce
critical information about transportation topics. Innumerable interest groups represent diverse transportation providers and
users. Perhaps most importantly, the general public is involved in transportation governance and finance in countless ways. From
giving feedback in public hearings and other forums, to electing transportation decision makers, to voting on bond measures and
other initiatives, the same public that uses the transportation system is also a key player in providing and overseeing it.

3 | Communication and Collaboration
Between State Legislatures and DOTs
In their responses to the survey research for this report, state experts agreed that proactive, accurate, and transparent communi-
cation between state legislatures and DOTs is central to effective transportation decision making. Encouragingly, many respon-
dents described strong relationships between these institutions in their states, characterized by positive and frequent communi-
cation. Several legislative respondents, in particular, praised their state’s DOT for its robust efforts in this regard. Respondents
also identified some of the key challenges they have observed to effective communication and collaboration between state
legislatures and DOTs and offered recommendations about what has worked well—and less well—in their states (Table 12).
Table 12. Selection of Respondents’ Views Concerning Communication and Collaboration between
State Legislatures and DOTs
Responding Organizations
Legislative Entities DOTs
Challenges to • Loss of institutional knowledge due to legisla- • Legislative turnover and changes of executive
Effective tive term limits and DOT staff turnover leadership
Communication • A divided government, which has hindered • The size of the legislature
and Collaboration effective information-sharing between the • DOT staff, time, and resource constraints
executive and legislative branches
• Ensuring that information remains accurate
• Lack of willingness on the part of key legisla- and reliable
tive leaders to engage with the DOT
• Complex jurisdictional and funding issues that
• Funneling legislative information requests are difficult for legislators to navigate
through one DOT division, which effectively
• Overcoming past issues
directs questions but also creates a bottleneck
• Addressing regional and local tensions, such as
• Communication delays due to the DOT’s com-
those between urban and rural areas
plexity and breadth of operations
• The fast pace of the legislative session
• The DOT is highly responsive when informa-
tion is requested, so the challenge is providing • Proactive, strategic communications can
clear requests to ensure the desired informa- become muted by the need for the DOT
tion is forthcoming to defend its actions against individual
constituents’ complaints to their legislators
• Interactions between specific individuals in the
administration and the legislature • High expectations for DOT performance
• A divided government, which has mainly made
it harder for legislative committee members to
communicate with one another
• Expectations that DOT leaders are familiar
with a multitude of projects in development
• The public’s overall distrust in government

Most Successful in • Ongoing, timely, and accurate information • Consistent, clear, timely, and accurate com-
Achieving Effective • Forums that get legislators and DOT officials to munication, both throughout the legislative
Communication and work together, such as interim committees session and during the interim
Collaboration • Regular briefings for legislators and staff
• Legislative task forces on special topics
• Having a DOT legislative liaison who acts as a • Meeting with transportation committee mem-
point person for legislators and staff bers before the session begins
• A website with current project information • One-on-one meetings, site visits, and other
interactions with legislators in their districts
• Personal contact with legislators and staff,
especially transportation committee chairs • Finding ways to work with individual legisla-
tors on specific issues important to them and
• DOT tools, such as relevant spreadsheets, that
their constituents
are shared with legislative staff to help them
understand policy options • Informing legislators when something is taking
place in their district
• Constant DOT presence at the legislature
• Professional, thorough, and nonpartisan
• A clear, multi-year transportation plan
responses to legislative queries and constituent
• Tours of state and local transportation needs concerns
conducted by legislative committees and
• A DOT newsletter specifically for legislators
developed in collaboration with the DOT, legis-
lative staff, and local officials • Regularly inviting legislators to tours and
special events, including ground-breaking and
ribbon-cutting ceremonies
• The DOT’s development and ongoing com-
munication of key performance measures that
demonstrate system needs
• Project selection and funding processes that
foster transparency
• Web-based tools for sharing information
• Using outside consultants to ensure DOT
messaging to legislators conveys accurate in-
formation, is easy to understand, and provides
the type of information policy makers need to
make informed decisions
• Executive outreach to individual legislators
• Persistence in sharing DOT success stories
Least Successful in • Trying to stall legislative initiatives • Efforts to explain the complexities of DOT
Achieving Effective • Not providing specific information about programs, priorities, and funding streams
Communication and projects affected by funding reductions or • Town hall meetings
Collaboration diversions • Not responding to legislators with relevant
• Public statements information in a timely manner
• Untimely, restrictive, and last minute contact • Sharing statistical information
on issues or response to inquiries • Not reaching out to legislators to give them
the opportunity to tour transportation infra-
structure first-hand
• Making controversial decisions without legisla-
tive input or guidance
• “Generic” communications, like newsletters
• Being reactive, rather than proactive, when
sharing information with the legislature and
the public

Other • Ensure that unexpected information is made • Communicate early and often with legislators,
Recommendations known to the legislature as soon as possible legislative staff, and the public
• Maintain a good working relationship with • Time in the field with legislators, in their own
trust and respect for other, and understand districts, is usually very valuable
that we are all working for the greater good • Develop champions that can sustain policy
• Provide specific project information, including initiatives across election cycles
start dates and any scope changes • Be prepared to make the business case for stat-
• DOT staff who interact with the legislature utory changes or flexibility to demonstrate the
should be knowledgeable and have working benefit to citizens and the state’s bottom line
experience within the department • Often review your outreach practices and poli-
• Have the DOT provide tools for estimating cies to determine if they deliver the desired result
changes in transportation taxes • Prompt responses to information requests, a
• The more transportation officials at the state scientific approach to project selection, and
and local levels can inform the legislature and consistent application of policies throughout
the public about transportation needs and the state help maintain good relationships
have a realistic plan to address those needs, with the legislature
the better their chance is of getting funding • Create an organization-wide culture of
for those needs “busting the barriers of bureaucracy” when
communicating with the legislature
• When asking for more funding, show exactly
where the dollars would go, district by district,
and demonstrate the DOT’s past efficiencies
and good stewardship
• Provide continuous educational information on
a website that can be used as a reference by
all elected officials
• Continually focus on growing positive working
relationships with legislators
• Keep lines of communication open
Note: This is a partial list of survey responses to these questions. Comments have been edited for clarity and length. Similar responses have
been combined, and identifying information has been removed to maintain confidentiality.
In practice, the ways in which legislatures and DOTs engage in communication and collaboration vary widely across jurisdic-
tions, from informal, ad hoc interactions to more formal, structured engagements focused on reporting requirements or the
budget process, to ongoing, proactive communication that extends beyond the legislative session and pervades all levels of both
organizations. Most states have a combination of formal and informal means by which communication is maintained, which
typically include legislative committee oversight activities and requests for information from the DOT. One-on-one meetings,
legislative briefings, written updates, DOT websites, direct phone calls or e-mails, and other activities are also used as forums
for communication (see state profiles).
As another way to facilitate communication and collaboration, most state DOTs have a dedicated “legislative liaison” position or
governmental affairs office that acts as a primary point of contact for the legislature. These designated contacts can help maintain
active, engaged relationships with legislators and legislative staff, and can provide a single point of entry for navigating a DOT’s
complexities. They also may be responsible for responding to legislative inquiries, coordinating DOT reports or testimony,
tracking relevant bills, or developing and advancing the department’s legislative agenda. Frequently, whether a DOT has a
dedicated legislative liaison or not, the department’s executive leadership and other staff also serve as important contacts and
sources of information for the legislature (see state profiles).

4 | State Transportation Governance
The American system of government is characterized by a “separation of powers,” in which governmental responsibilities are
generally divided “into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent,”
explains the National Conference of State Legislatures, “is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and
balances.” In practice, the powers and duties of state DOTs (located in the executive branch) and state legislatures overlap and
intersect in many ways, which creates possibilities for both tension and collaboration.
This chapter explores how different state legislatures and DOTs interact concerning the development of state laws and legislative
oversight of state programs. The next chapter looks at how these institutions make decisions about transportation funding and
finance, in particular, and the current outcomes of those decisions in the states.
Laws and Legislation

The main responsibility of the legislative branch of government is to enact laws. State legislatures must authorize the activities
of the executive branch through legislation, including many laws that govern DOTs and transportation systems. State laws
establish and define DOT powers, activities, structures, priorities, funding, and, at times, specific projects. Some laws endure
until they are repealed or amended, while others are created to be temporary, with built-in expiration dates for certain programs
or authorizations.
In general, the legislature’s lawmaking power is balanced by the governor’s constitutional authority to formally reject, or veto, a
law that the legislature has passed. In some cases, an executive agency such as a DOT may ask the governor to exercise this au-
thority if it has concerns about a particular piece of legislation. State DOTs also may participate more directly in the legislative
process in a variety of ways. These include roles in developing legislative proposals, advocating for or against legislative measures,
and providing fiscal or policy analyses of proposed bills for legislative use.
Legislative Proposals
The process of creating a new law, or changing an existing law, begins with the development of a legislative proposal. The pro-
posal is then formally introduced into the legislative process, with the possibility of being eventually enacted by the legislature
and signed into law by the governor.
State DOTs have various roles in developing and introducing legislation. In most states, only legislators can request bills to be
drafted by legislative agencies, or formally sponsor and introduce legislation. In many such states, however, the executive branch
submits its own proposals to the legislature, even if only legislators (or, in some cases, legislative committees) may introduce
them. In some of these states, including Arizona, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, South Dakota, Washington, and West Virgin-
ia, the requesting state agency is clearly identified on the bill. Also, many DOTs that have no formal role in requesting legisla-
tive bill drafts or introducing legislation may still be actively involved in developing new laws through regular consultation with
legislators—especially bill sponsors—and legislative staff.
Other examples of DOT roles in legislative proposals include the following (see state profiles for additional examples, details,
and statutory citations):
• In Alabama, the DOT must recommend any legislation it deems advisable in its annual report to the governor. The governor,
in turn, may directly request legislative bill drafts, although only legislators may sponsor and introduce bills.

• In Alaska, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon, the governor can directly sponsor, introduce, or file bills, including those
relevant to (or developed with) the DOT.
• In Iowa, state agencies may pre-file legislative proposals, which are introduced as “study bills” early in the legislative session
and referred to the appropriate standing committee for consideration. If the bill is approved, its sponsorship changes to the
committee. The DOT regularly pre-files such bills addressing both policy and technical matters. A process also exists in
South Dakota by which standing committees introduce bills that are pre-filed by state agencies, but there, the committee
chair must give permission before an agency bill is pre-filed.
• In Louisiana (with approval from the legislative floor leader), Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, state
agencies can directly request legislative bill drafts, although legislators must still introduce each proposal.
• In Nevada, the governor may request bill drafts for up to 110 measures each session, including those approved on behalf
of executive departments. After getting feedback from staff and leadership, the DOT submits bill draft requests that are
approved by the governor. These bills, however, must still be introduced by a legislator or a standing committee to advance
through the legislative process.
• In North Dakota, although bills may only be introduced by legislative entities, executive agencies can have bills automatically
introduced in the name of the standing committee to which the bill will be referred, and the DOT is allowed to introduce
legislation relating to any transportation topic.
• In Vermont, the DOT typically submits legislative proposals to the legislature each year for consideration, and then depart-
ment officials testify before the House and Senate transportation committees about each proposal. Only legislators, however,
can request legislative bill drafts and formally sponsor and introduce bills.
• In Wyoming, only legislators can request legislative bill drafts and formally sponsor and introduce legislation, but the process
of drafting transportation-related legislation is collaborative. Legislative attorneys work directly with the DOT during the
legislative interim to draft legislation for the Joint Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs Committee to consider.
Advocacy and Lobbying

After transportation-related legislation is introduced into the legislative process, state DOTs frequently provide informational
resources or testify before a legislative body to aid it in making an informed decision. Beyond this neutral stance, some state
DOTs explicitly work to promote or oppose specific legislative measures. Many DOTs advocate for or against legislation of
interest to the department, and Florida and Missouri have registered lobbyists on staff that fulfill this role. Also, some DOTs
work specifically to advance legislation that originated with the department or the governor.
State laws in Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Texas, on the other hand, prohibit state agencies from lobbying the legislature,
although exceptions are made for providing relevant factual information. Utah law only prohibits state entities from hiring
contract lobbyists, but in practice, state agencies generally refrain from trying to influence legislative action. Such agencies do,
however, educate and provide relevant information to lawmakers as appropriate (see state profiles for additional examples, de-
tails, and statutory citations).
Fiscal Notes and Policy Impact Statements for Legislative Use

To aid lawmakers in making informed decisions about legislation that may have a fiscal impact on the state, nearly every state
legislature has a process by which some or all bills are accompanied by cost estimates called “fiscal notes.” Fiscal notes are most
often prepared by legislative entities, frequently using information or assistance from state agencies such as DOTs. In some cas-
es, though, state agencies produce the notes themselves. In Alaska, Illinois, and Nevada, for example, state agencies are required

by law to prepare fiscal notes for certain bills that affect them. In Connecticut and New York, state agencies must provide fiscal
notes on their own bill proposals specifically. In addition, some DOTs, including those in North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia,
and Wisconsin produce analyses for legislative use that outline the policy implications of proposed legislation. State DOTs in
Arkansas, Florida, and Pennsylvania prepare their own fiscal notes or policy impact statements, which they then share with the
legislature (see state profiles for additional examples, details, and statutory citations).
Legislative Oversight
Another key role of the legislative branch is providing oversight for the operations of the executive branch. “The legislative
branch conducts oversight activities,” states the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “because it not only enacts new programs
for the state, but also has a duty to ensure that existing programs are implemented and administered efficiently, effectively, and
in a manner consistent with legislative intent.” Legislative oversight of state DOTs takes many forms, including ongoing review
by legislative committees, legislative roles in leadership appointments and removals, review of administrative rules and regula-
tions, evaluations and audits, reporting requirements, and other performance management activities. The budget process—dis-
cussed in the next chapter—is also an important forum for legislative oversight.
Legislative Committees
Much of the work of state legislatures, including oversight of the executive branch, is accomplished through the work of legisla-
tive committees. Committees allow their members to develop deeper expertise in their assigned issue areas and to more closely
monitor state agencies and programs that fall under their jurisdiction—for example, by holding oversight hearings or reviewing
agency reports and other materials. Legislative committees can include standing committees with continuing responsibility in
general issue areas, interim committees that meet between legislative sessions, or select committees (sometimes called special
or study committees) that form for a limited time to consider a particular topic. Legislatures also may form commissions or
task forces to explore important issues or provide policy recommendations, or direct existing committees to study special topics
during the interim in preparation for the next legislative session.
Most state legislatures have standing committees in both chambers that have transportation as one of their key issue areas, some
of which also oversee energy, utilities, infrastructure, public safety, technology, housing, land use, defense, environment, or
other matters. Exceptions include Nebraska and the District of Columbia’s unicameral legislatures and the three New England
states—Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts—that operate exclusively with joint committees for all legislation (Table 13).
Appropriations committees and other fiscal committees also frequently provide oversight over state transportation programs. In
addition, many legislatures have established relevant interim or select committees, task forces, or commissions (see state profiles).
Table 13. State Legislative Standing Committees with Jurisdiction over Transportation-Related Issues
State Standing Committees with Jurisdiction Over Transportation-Related Issues

Alabama* Senate Committee on Transportation and Energy
House Committee on Transportation, Utilities, and Infrastructure**
Alaska Senate Committee on Transportation
Senate Committee on Finance**
House Committee on Transportation
House Committee on Finance**
Arizona* Senate Committee on Transportation
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
All bills must also pass through both chambers’ standing committees on rules.
Arkansas* Senate Committee on Transportation, Technology, and Legislative Affairs**
House Committee on Public Transportation**
Legislative Council**

California* Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing
Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review**
Assembly Committee on Transportation
Assembly Committee on Budget**
Colorado* Senate Committee on Transportation
House Committee on Transportation and Energy
Joint Committee on Transportation
Connecticut Joint Committee on Appropriations**
Joint Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding**
Delaware Senate Committee on Energy and Transit
Senate Committee on Highways and Transportation
Senate Committee on Public Safety
House Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
House Committee on Transportation/Land Use and Infrastructure
Florida Senate Committee on Appropriations**
Senate Committee on Transportation
House Committee on Appropriations**
House Committee on Economic Affairs**
Georgia Senate Committee on Appropriations**
House Committee on Motor Vehicles
Joint Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Overview Committee (MARTOC)
Hawaii Senate Committee on Public Safety, Intergovernmental, and Military Affairs
Senate Committee on Transportation and Energy
Senate Committee on Ways and Means
House Committee on Finance
Idaho Senate Committee on Transportation
House Committee on Transportation and Defense
Illinois Senate Committee on Transportation**
House Committee on Appropriations—Public Safety
House Committee on Intermodal Infrastructure
House Committee on Revenue and Finance**
House Committee on Tollway Oversight
House Committee on Transportation—Regulation, Roads, and Bridges**
House Committee on Transportation—Vehicles and Safety**
Indiana* Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Transportation
House Committee on Roads and Transportation
Iowa* Senate Committee on Transportation
House Committee on Public Safety
Joint Transportation, Infrastructure, and Capitals Appropriations Subcommittee

Kansas* Senate Committee on Transportation
Senate Committee on Ways and Means**
House Committee on Transportation and Public Safety Budget
Joint Committee on State Building Construction
The speaker of the House or president of the Senate may assign a bill to any committee (see state profile).
Kentucky* Senate Committee on Appropriations and Revenue**
House Committee on Appropriations and Revenue**
Louisiana Senate Committee on Finance
Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs
Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Public Works
House Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Public Works
House Committee on Ways and Means
Joint Committee on Capital Outlay
Joint Highway Priority Construction Committee (see state profile)
Maine Joint Committee on Transportation
Maryland Senate Committee on Budget and Taxation**
Senate Committee on Judicial Proceedings
House Committee on Environment and Transportation**
House Committee on Ways and Means**
House Judiciary Committee
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Transportation
Michigan Senate Committee on Appropriations**
Minnesota* Senate Committee on Capital Investment
Senate Committee on Transportation and Public Safety
House Committee on Capital Investment
House Committee on Transportation Policy and Finance
House Subcommittee on Metropolitan Council Accountability and Transparency
Mississippi Senate Committee on Energy
Senate Committee on Finance
Senate Committee on Highways and Transportation
Senate Committee on Judiciary, Division A
Senate Committee on Ports and Marine Resources
Senate Committee on Public Property
House Committee on Judiciary A
House Committee on Ports, Harbors, and Airports
House Committee on Public Property
House Committee on Public Utilities

Missouri* Senate Committee on Appropriations
Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Public Safety
House Committee on Appropriations—Revenue, Transportation, and Economic Development
House Committee on Budget
Joint Committee on Legislative Research**
Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight
Montana* Senate Committee on Highways and Transportation
Senate Committee on Finance and Claims/House Committee on Appropriations**
Nebraska Committee on Transportation and Telecommunications
Nevada* Senate Committee on Transportation
Senate Committee on Finance/Assembly Committee on Ways and Means**
New Hampshire* Senate Committee on Finance
Senate Committee on Ways and Means
House Committee on Public Works and Highways
Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds
New Jersey Senate Committee on Law and Public Safety
Assembly Committee on Law and Public Safety
Assembly Committee on Transportation and Independent Authorities
New Mexico* Senate Committee on Corporations and Transportation
Senate Committee on Finance
House Committee on Appropriations and Finance
House Committee on Transportation and Public Works
New York* Senate Committee on Infrastructure and Capital Investment
Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions**
North Carolina* Senate Appropriations Committee on Department of Transportation
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Capital Improvements
Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee
North Dakota* Senate Committee on Transportation
Ohio Senate Committee on Transportation, Commerce, and Labor
Oklahoma Senate Committee on Appropriations**
House Committee on Appropriations and Budget**

Oregon* Senate Committee on Business and Transportation
Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue
House Committee on Revenue
House Committee on Transportation and Economic Development
Joint Committee on Ways and Means**
Pennsylvania Senate Committee on Transportation
House Committee on Transportation**
Rhode Island* Senate Committee on Finance
Joint Committee on Highway Safety
South Carolina* Senate Committee on Finance**
House Committee on Education and Public Works
House Committee on Legislative Oversight
House Committee on Ways and Means**
Joint Transportation Review Committee
South Dakota Senate Committee on Transportation
Tennessee Senate Committee on Finance, Ways, and Means
Senate Committee on Government Operations
Senate Committee on Transportation and Safety
House Committee on Finance, Ways, and Means
House Committee on Government Operations
Joint Committee on Fiscal Review
Texas* Senate Committee on Finance
House Committee on Appropriations
House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety
Utah* Senate Committee on Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology
Senate Confirmation Committee on Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology
Joint Committee on Executive Appropriations**
Vermont Senate Committee on Transportation
Joint Transportation Oversight Committee
Virginia* Senate Committee on Finance**
Senate Committee on Transportation**
Washington* Senate Committee on Transportation
West Virginia* Senate Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House Committee on Roads and Transportation
Wisconsin* Senate Committee on Transportation and Veterans Affairs
Wyoming* Senate Committee on Revenue
Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs
House Committee on Revenue
House Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs

District of Columbia Committee on Finance and Revenue
Committee on Transportation and the Environment
* Legislature also has interim, special, or select committees, or task forces or commissions, with relevant jurisdiction (see state profiles)
** Standing committee has subcommittees with relevant jurisdiction (see state profiles)
Leadership Appointments and Removals

State legislatures can also exercise oversight by sharing responsibility for the appointment of key transportation decision mak-
ers. Governors have the power to appoint many of the officials who serve as the heads of executive agencies, and in most states
this power extends to a secretary, director, or commissioner of transportation. Frequently, however, these appointments require
the advice and consent of the state legislature, often through the Senate. Exceptions include states in which a DOT head is
appointed by the governor with no legislative involvement, and those in which an appointment is made by a state transportation
commission (Table 14).
Table 14. Appointment of DOT Leaders
How Appointed
Appointed by Appointed by
State DOT Leader Governor with Governor with
Other
No Legislative Legislative
Involvement Approval
Alabama Director of Transportation •
Alaska Commissioner of Transportation •
and Public Facilities
Arizona ADOT Director •
Arkansas AHTD Director Appointed by Highway Commission
California Caltrans Director •
Secretary of the California State •
Transportation Agency
Colorado CDOT Executive Director •
Connecticut Commissioner of Transportation •
Delaware DelDOT Secretary •
Florida Secretary of Transportation • Nominated by Florida Transportation Com-
mission
Georgia Director of Planning •
Commissioner of Transportation Appointed by State Transportation Board
Hawaii DOT Director •
Idaho ITD Director Appointed by Idaho Transportation Board
Illinois Secretary of Transportation •
Indiana Commissioner of INDOT •
Iowa Director of Transportation •
Kansas Secretary of Transportation •
Kentucky Secretary of the KYTC •
Louisiana Secretary of Transportation and •
Development
Maine Commissioner of Transportation •
Maryland Secretary of Transportation •
Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation •
Michigan MDOT Director •

How Appointed
Appointed by Appointed by
State DOT Leader Governor with Governor with
Other
Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation •
Mississippi Executive Director of MDOT Appointed by Mississippi Transportation
Commission, with advice and consent of the
Senate
Missouri MoDOT Director Appointed by Missouri Highways and Trans-
portation Commission
Montana MDT Director •
Nebraska NDOR Director •
Nevada NDOT Director Appointed by NDOT Board of Directors
New Hampshire NHDOT Commissioner • Appointed by governor with consent of the
Executive Council
New Jersey Commissioner of Transportation •
New Mexico Secretary of Transportation • Also requires approval of State Transportation
Commission
New York Commissioner of Transportation •
North Carolina Secretary of Transportation •
North Dakota NDDOT Director •
Ohio Director of Transportation •
Oklahoma ODOT Director Elected by Transportation Commission
Secretary of Transportation •
Oregon Director of Transportation •
Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation •
Rhode Island Director of Transportation •
South Carolina Secretary of Transportation Hired by SCDOT Commission, with advice and
consent of the Senate
South Dakota Secretary of Transportation •
Tennessee Commissioner of Transportation •
Texas Executive Director of TxDOT Elected by Texas Transportation Commission
Utah Executive Director of UDOT • Appointed by governor after consultation
with Transportation Commission and with
consent of the Senate
Vermont Secretary of VTrans •
Virginia Commissioner of VDOT •
Washington Secretary of Transportation •
West Virginia Commissioner of Highways •
Wisconsin Secretary of Transportation •
Wyoming Director of WYDOT • Nominated by Transportation Commission
District of DDOT Director • Appointed by mayor with advice and consent
Columbia of the Council
Note: See state profiles for additional details—including how and by what bodies any legislative approvals are given—and statutory citations.

In addition, governors and legislatures also frequently share the responsibility for appointing members of a state transportation
board, council, or commission (Table 15). Exceptions again include states in which the members are appointed by the governor
with no legislative involvement. Other notable exceptions include bodies in California and Georgia, for which some or all mem-
bers are selected by legislators, and the Mississippi Transportation Commission, which is unique in being elected by the people.
In addition, four legislative leaders serve on Pennsylvania’s Transportation Commission by virtue of their office. This commis-
sion provides greater oversight of the state DOT than any other legislative body and creates a venue for an unusually direct inter-
action between the legislature and the DOT concerning transportation matters.
Table 15. Appointments to State Transportation Boards, Councils, and Commissions
How Appointed
State Transportation Board, Appointed by Appointed by
State Governor with Governor with
Council, or Commission Other
Arizona State Transportation Board •
Arkansas Highway Commission •
California California Transportation Com- 9 out of 13 Four members are appointed by the speaker
mission members of the Assembly and the Senate Committee
on Rules
Colorado Transportation Commission •
Delaware Council on Transportation (advi- •
sory only)
Florida Florida Transportation Commis- •
sion
Georgia State Transportation Board Elected by state legislators in their respective
congressional districts
Idaho Idaho Transportation Board •
Iowa Transportation Commission •
Massachusetts MassDOT Board of Directors 10 out of 11 Secretary of transportation serves ex officio
members as chair
Michigan State Transportation Commission •
Mississippi Mississippi Transportation Com- Elected by the people
mission
Missouri Missouri Highways and Transpor- •
tation Commission
Montana Transportation Commission •
Nebraska State Highway Commission (advi- •
sory only)
Nevada NDOT Board of Directors 4 out of 7 Governor, lieutenant governor, and state
members controller serve ex officio
New Mexico State Transportation Commission • May be appointed by the Senate under some
conditions (see state profile)
North Carolina Board of Transportation All 19 voting Secretary of transportation serves as an ex
members officio, non-voting member
Oklahoma Transportation Commission •
Oregon Oregon Transportation Commis- •
sion
Pennsylvania State Transportation Commission 10 out of 15 Four legislators serve ex officio; secretary of
members transportation serves ex officio as chair
South Carolina SCDOT Commission •

How Appointed
State Transportation Board, Appointed by Appointed by
State Governor with Governor with
Council, or Commission Other
South Dakota Transportation Commission •
Texas Texas Transportation Commission •
Utah Utah Transportation Commission •
(advisory only, limited role)
Vermont Transportation Board (advisory •
and quasi-judicial only)
Virginia Commonwealth Transportation All 14 voting Secretary of transportation, commissioner of
Board members VDOT, and director of the Department of Rail
and Public Transportation serve as ex officio,
non-voting members
Washington Washington State Transportation All 7 voting Governor or governor's designee and sec-
Commission (limited role) members retary of transportation serve as ex officio,
non-voting members
Wyoming Transportation Commission •
Note: See state profiles for additional details—including these entities’ respective numbers of members, term lengths, eligibility requirements,
and how and by what bodies any legislative approvals are given—and statutory citations.
The legislature can play another role in key transportation appointments by establishing statutory conditions for eligibility. States
have set requirements in law related to citizenship, residency, taxpayer status, geographic representation, knowledge, experience,
education, overall partisan balance, conflicts of interest, and other criteria. Montana’s commission, for example, must include at
least one member with specific knowledge of Indian culture and tribal transportation needs, who is to be selected by the gover-
nor after consultation with the Montana members of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council. Colorado law encourages
but does not require the governor to include at least one member on the Transportation Commission who is a person with a dis-
ability, has a family member with a disability, or is a member of an advocacy group for people with disabilities (see state profiles).
In addition to their involvement in the appointment process, some state legislatures also share the authority to remove transpor-
tation leaders from office. Under certain circumstances, legislatures in Maine, Texas, and Vermont can remove an agency head,
and the Arkansas Senate can remove a member of the Highway Commission. In Georgia, where members of the State Trans-
portation Board are elected by state legislators in their respective congressional districts, they can also be recalled by those same
legislators. In Ohio, New Mexico, and South Carolina, governors must have legislators’ approval to remove certain appointees
(see state profiles).
Legislative Review of Administrative Rules and Regulations

Administrative rules, also known as regulations, are official statements of law adopted by executive branch agencies to put
statutes into practice. Because lawmaking is generally a legislative function, every legislature in theory has the power to veto
administrative rules by passing new laws. But some states have gone further by putting additional legislative reviews in place to
ensure that administrative rules comply with statutory authority and legislative intent. Some of these states require legislative
committees or offices to review all proposed rules, while others allow for optional or selective review only. Some legislative enti-
ties can reject or suspend a rule, and others have a mainly advisory role. In Colorado, Idaho, Tennessee, and Utah, rules expire
annually unless they are reauthorized or enacted into statute by the legislature (Table 16). Arkansas law requires state agencies to
submit proposed rules for review and approval if requested to do so, but in general, the DOT is not considered a “state agency”
subject to review and approval and does not submit rules for review (see state profiles for additional examples, details, and statu-
tory citations).

Table 16. Legislative Review of Administrative Rules
Comprehensive Optional or Selective No Formal

Legislative Review Legislative Review Legislative Review
Alabama Arizona California
Alaska Arkansas (see note) Hawaii
Colorado* Delaware Indiana
Connecticut Iowa Massachusetts
Florida Nebraska Mississippi
Georgia Virginia New Mexico
Idaho* Washington Rhode Island
Illinois District of Columbia (see note)
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Texas
Utah*
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
* Agency rules expire annually unless they are reauthorized or enacted into statute by the legislature
Note: In general, the DOT in Arkansas is not considered to be subject to rules review. The exception is that, under new legislation enacted
in 2016, the Highway Commission is now required to submit, for review by the Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommit-
tee of the Legislative Council only, rules regarding the criteria for distribution of funds and the spending priority designated for highway
construction contracts and public road construction projects. Also, in most instances, the Council of the District of Columbia does not review
administrative rules or regulations. For a very few specific categories of rules, however, the Council has reserved the right to either a passive
or active review of specific rules or regulations. These primarily include the imposition of new fees or fines. See state profiles for additional
details and statutory citations.
Legislative Audits and Sunset Reviews

To support their oversight role, most state legislatures conduct program evaluations, performance audits, or financial audits of
state agencies and programs, often through a specialized legislative office. These evaluations generally review the effectiveness,
efficiency, and legality of state agencies, and the extent to which they are following legislative intent. State DOTs in nearly all

states are subject to legislative audits (Table 17), and even in some of the states where they are not, such as Georgia and North
Dakota, legislative committees or individual legislators may still request audits to be conducted by non-legislative entities (see
state profiles).
In addition, some state DOTs are subject to special evaluations that assess the need for the department’s continued existence,
conducted as part of a “sunset review” process in which a state agency is regularly scheduled for automatic termination unless
it is affirmatively continued by the legislature. Most states with sunset review processes apply them to smaller boards, commis-
sions, and regulatory agencies rather than large executive departments. In Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, however,
state DOTs are subject to recurring sunset reviews (Table 17; see state profiles for details and statutory citations). Sunset reviews
add another layer of legislative oversight by providing regular opportunities for thorough legislative evaluation of an agency’s
performance and recommendations for improvements.
Table 17. State DOTs That Are Subject to Legislative Audits or Sunset Reviews
Subject to Neither
Subject to Legislative Subject to Legislative Audits
Legislative Audits
Audits Only and Sunset Reviews
nor Sunset Reviews
Alabama Nebraska Arizona Delaware
Alaska Nevada Louisiana Georgia
Arkansas New Hampshire Tennessee Michigan
California New Jersey Texas North Dakota
Colorado New Mexico Ohio
Connecticut New York Oregon
Florida North Carolina
Hawaii Oklahoma
Idaho Pennsylvania
Illinois Rhode Island
Indiana South Carolina
Iowa South Dakota
Kansas Utah
Kentucky Vermont
Maine Virginia
Maryland Washington
Massachusetts West Virginia
Minnesota Wisconsin
Mississippi Wyoming
Missouri District of Columbia
Montana
Note: Some other legislatures, such as those in Nevada and West Virginia, also regularly review state agencies or transportation boards to de-
termine whether they should be continued, consolidated, or terminated. These are not “true” sunset reviews as defined here, however, because
the entity under review is not automatically abolished if there is no legislative action. Also, Ohio’s legislative Sunset Review Committee con-
ducts a sunset review process that does not include the DOT, but does include the Transportation Review Advisory Council, which oversees
the DOT’s selection process for major new transportation capacity projects. See state profiles for additional details and statutory citations.
Reporting Requirements
A key technique for legislative oversight is to require state DOTs to submit certain reports to the full legislature or a legislative
committee. Common reporting requirements in state law concern DOT operations, revenues and expenditures, transportation
needs, project updates, and performance measures. State legislatures have also required a multitude of reports on topics of special
interest in their respective states, such as bikeways, design-build contracts, ignition interlock programs, commute trip reduction,
disadvantaged business enterprises, the use of recycled materials, job satisfaction for DOT personnel, and transportation for
older adults and people with disabilities, to name just a few. Reports may be required by state statute or other legislative acts on

an annual, quarterly, conditional, or one-time basis, or for a limited time until a particular task or activity is complete
(see state profiles).
Legislative Roles in DOT Performance Management

As states seek to achieve results that matter to the public, and rebuild the public’s trust in government, the approach known as
“performance management” continues to gain ground. In general, performance management refers to an organization-wide fo-
cus on the achievement of meaningful results through evidence-based decision making, and encompasses activities that include
setting clear goals and objectives, developing strategic plans, identifying effective practices, and measuring performance over
time.
State DOTs have taken steps to integrate performance management into their operations, congruent with Federal and, often,
state mandates. At the Federal level, for example, a key feature of surface transportation legislation since the enactment of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012, and continued under the FAST Act in 2015 (see page
19), has been a focus on performance management characterized by national transportation policy goals and performance-related
requirements for state DOTs.
State legislatures, consistent with their oversight function, have also put various requirements in place concerning DOT perfor-
mance management. Many states have enacted laws that establish transportation performance goals and targets, or that direct
DOTs to create their own. Some states, including Vermont and Virginia, require the DOT to include performance measures in
a transportation plan. State statutes also frequently mandate regular performance reporting from DOTs (see also page 46). In
some states, including Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia, state legislatures review
DOT performance goals or progress as part of the budget process.
Other examples of state legislative roles in DOT performance management include Oklahoma, where legislative appropriations
subcommittees must establish budget performance measurements for all agencies under their jurisdiction, and Maryland and
Massachusetts, where state statute establishes advisory bodies to advise the DOT concerning certain aspects of performance
management (see state profiles for additional examples, details, and statutory citations).
Other Legislative Oversight Mechanisms

Many other mechanisms support legislative oversight of state DOTs. These include legislative requests for information from the
DOT, legislative review of non-legislative audits or evaluations, transportation-related reviews or studies conducted by legislative
staff offices, DOT presentations or tours for legislative committees, special legislative reviews of specific DOT funds or pro-
grams, mandates for what information a DOT must share online, requirements that a DOT give the legislature notice before a
particular action is taken, and other activities (see state profiles). All of these actions can give the legislature additional insight
into department operations and performance.
Resources Provided to DOTs to Support Compliance with Oversight Requirements

State DOTs often devote significant resources to complying with legislative oversight requirements. DOT staff must draft and
submit numerous reports, prepare for and participate in legislative hearings, respond to requests for information, and take part
in the budget process. In general, DOTs perform these activities using existing agency resources and pay for them out of their
normal operating budgets. In some states, however, including Hawaii, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, and Wisconsin,
DOTs have in some cases received separate funding allocations to provide required reports to the legislature or to meet other
oversight requirements (see state profiles).

5 | State Transportation Funding and Finance
When state experts were asked in the survey research for this report to identify their greatest challenges to effective transpor-
tation policy and planning, a single theme dominated their responses: funding constraints. For years, states have struggled with
chronic gaps between transportation revenues and investment needs for reasons that include aging infrastructure, cost inflation,
and declining gas tax revenues. In particular, survey respondents identified uncertainties in Federal funding, especially past
the end of the FAST Act (see page 19), shortfalls in state transportation revenues, and the challenges of ensuring that limited
resources are allocated efficiently, wisely, and well. What may be more surprising, in light of this widely agreed-upon problem, is
the rich diversity in what respondents’ reported as having been most and least successful in their states’ responses to it (Table 18).

Table 18. Selection of Respondents’ Views Concerning State Approaches to Transportation Funding and Finance
Most • Constitutional safeguards on trans- • Dependability of dedicated state revenues

Successful in State portation-related taxes, fees, and • Diversification of state revenues beyond gas taxes and
Approaches to funds vehicle-related fees
Transportation • Successful efforts to raise fuel taxes • Temporary increases of state tax revenues allocated to
Funding and
• Indexed and percentage-of-price transportation purposes
Finance
fuel taxes • Allowing revenue ideas to come from independent
• Dedicated state sales taxes sources, not the DOT
• Temporary increases of state tax • Increasing revenues through a vote of the people
revenues allocated to transportation • Using operating revenues to self-fund projects
purposes
• Bonding, including general obligation bonds and federal
• Bonding, including temporary bond GARVEE bonds
programs and federal GARVEE
• Design-build contracting
bonds
• Creative financing tools including TIFIA
• Minimizing or eliminating debt
financing • Fighting the temptation to view “innovative” federal
financing options as free cash and forcing those projects
• The legislature’s recognition of
to co-exist with the rest of the highway program
transportation system needs
• A governor and legislature willing to look at alternative
• Using quality-based contractor se-
funding sources including supplementation from the
lection rather than lowest bidder
general fund
• The flexibility granted to the DOT for
• Federal discretionary grants
project selection, while prioritizing
preservation of current infrastruc- • Use of toll credits on federal projects
ture • Sending staff to as many trainings as possible to get ideas
• Using local funds through a state/ about how to stretch dollars, get the most “bang for our
local cost-share program buck,” and lengthen the useful life of our projects
• Redirecting revenues from existing • Ability to cash manage project spending

sources to infrastructure improve- • Partnerships with municipalities, developers, and other
ments stakeholders
• Leaving the legislature out of the • Use of practical design
process for determining highway • Using an asset management approach to make the best
projects use of the resources we have
• Use of regional funding arrange- • Educating legislators and leadership over the long term
ments about funding needs
• Use of a numerical project prioritiza- • Building trust with the legislature through demonstrated
tion system and annual performance performance
metrics
• Quantitatively demonstrating the relationship between
funding and condition ratings
• Leveraging state matching funds for federal transporta-
tion programs
• Ongoing focus on preservation and maintenance rather
than new construction
• Effective project prioritization
• Processes that maximize federal funds
• Accurate forecasting tools

Least • Unsuccessful efforts to raise fuel • Limited resources and the perception that more can be
Successful in State taxes done with less
Approaches to • Heavy reliance on fuel tax revenues • No consensus on where a consistent revenue stream for
Transportation transportation will come from
• Stagnant fuel tax rates, which are
Funding and
not keeping up due to increasing • Inability to get a consistent source of state funding for
Finance
fuel efficiency the maintenance program
• Unsuccessful applications to toll • Unsuccessful efforts to raise fuel taxes, either through
interstates the legislature or a vote of the people
• Inability of revenues to keep up • Unsuccessful efforts to generate or access other reve-
with growing demand and aging nues for transportation
infrastructure • Unsuccessful applications for Federal grants
• Prior reliance on fuel tax revenue • Uncertain Federal funding in the long term
bonds, which eroded future revenue
• Difficulties advancing toll projects, despite a lack
availability and flexibility
of alternative funding options for mega-projects
• Attempting to charge special regis-
• Using general obligation bonds for state match, which
tration fees on hybrid vehicles
accelerated debt and limited resources available for debt
• Not placing protections on transpor- service payments
tation revenues beyond fuel taxes,
• Too much focus on “innovative” financing options rather
resulting in transfers to non-trans-
than on the need to increase Federal and state revenues
portation purposes
• Limited innovative contracting tools such as design-build
• An undercapitalized and underused
state infrastructure bank • Too much time and money spent exploring a public-pri-
vate partnership that was more expensive than tradition-
• Using general funds for baseline
al procurement
transportation programs at the ex-
pense of general fund programs
• Not finding a way for local entities
to adequately fund local transporta-
tion needs
• Legislative earmarking of specific
projects
• Uncertain Federal funding in the
long term

Other Recommen- • Legislative oversight of all DOT • Maintain existing infrastructure first
dations operations and its capital plan are • Make certain that all potential financing options avail-
essential for fiscal oversight able to the state are explored and maximized
• Large amounts of legislative input • Stick with pay-as-you-go, and if you have to go with
into the project selection process bonds, back them with a sufficient revenue stream to
has good and bad points. While leg- keep them from cannibalizing the rest of your program
islators can get a better idea of what or the state’s general funds
local residents want to be built, it
• Be able to demonstrate, not only how more funding will
also opens up the process to be po-
improve performance, but in the same conversation,
liticized. Combined with the lengthy
exactly how asset performance will deteriorate without it
amount of time larger projects can
take, this can result in one adminis- • It is important that we learn and get ideas from one
tration prioritizing certain projects, another as states, and learn from each others’ mis-
which the next one then abandons takes—it will allow all states to operate more effectively
and efficiently
• If transportation programs are to be
funded with “user fees,” those fees, • Develop partnerships with other advocates to tell the
i.e. taxes, must be set to generate story and progress the conversation about transporta-
sufficient revenue to maintain and tion funding with stakeholders
operate the system • There has to be trust that the DOT will use additional
• Current partisan bickering over low revenues efficiently and effectively, get the work out in
taxes ensures that our transporta- a timely manner, and put the bulk of the funding into
tion system will be in decline bricks and mortar
• Don’t establish too many funds and • Be honest with the public about infrastructure needs
subsidiary funds and earmarks. All and don’t let the politicians control the messaging
these do is create “silos” (for bridg- • Debt financing is an important and useful tool as long as
es, forest roads, wetland mitigation, a state maintains a reasonable cap on the debt-to-reve-
etc.). Each little fund builds up a nue ratio and has a policy in place supporting this
balance. It’s an extremely inefficient • New and expanded transportation facilities provide
method of public finance for economic growth and increase state and local tax
• Be open and transparent with details bases—communicating the return on infrastructure in-
about financing and projects vestment is important to providing the basis for funding
• Use local funds if available • Educate the public on the cost of having a reliable trans-
• Develop a transportation strategy portation system
and performance measures that, • Educate, educate, educate. It’s always a matter of find-
coupled with effective messaging, ing champions and allies. Build coalitions. Don’t be afraid
help policy makers understand to ask!
transportation needs and how trans-
portation supports quality of life and
economic vitality and development
Note: This is a partial list of survey responses to these questions. Comments have been edited for clarity and length. Similar responses have
been combined, and identifying information has been removed to maintain confidentiality.
The rest of this chapter explores how states make decisions concerning transportation funding and finance, including how they
develop transportation plans and prioritize projects. It also identifies the many different revenue sources and finance mechanisms
in current use and the roles states play in local transportation funding.

Budgeting and Appropriations
In addition to enacting laws, legislatures are also broadly responsible for appropriating state money for government purposes,
and few if any bills on which the legislature acts are as vital as the budget bill. Unlike other areas of state budgeting, however,
most revenues for state transportation programs come from special sources outside of state general funds, including Federal
aid as well as constitutionally or statutorily dedicated state taxes and fees. For this reason, the actual role of state legislatures in
allocating funding to state DOTs varies from state to state.
State Budget Cycles and Processes

In many states, the budget process is seen as the main mechanism for legislative oversight of state agencies. It typically provides
for a thorough legislative review of an agency’s past performance, goals and objectives, proposed activities, and overall spending,
and allows the legislature to adjust an agency’s budget accordingly. As part of this oversight, a state DOT may be required to
attend legislative hearings, provide reports to the legislature (see page 46), or establish new performance goals or objectives (see
page 47). These activities can also afford the DOT an opportunity to present its achievements and explain its programs to the
legislature and the public.
In general, the legislature, the governor, and state agencies participate in different stages of a state budget process. Typically,
state agencies such as DOTs prepare their budget requests and submit them to the governor, who then puts together an overall
budget proposal and sends it to the legislature. The legislature then reviews, amends, and passes the budget as one or more bills,
which are returned to the governor for approval. The governor may veto a budget bill, and the legislature may override the veto.
Once a budget becomes law, implementing it is generally an executive function, and overseeing it, a legislative one.
Many variations exist in state budget processes. For example, in most states, the governor creates the initial budget proposal,
and the executive branch tends to set the terms of the discussion. In Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas,
however, a legislative entity produces a comprehensive budget as an alternative to the governor’s proposal. Some states also place
specific limits on the legislature’s power over the budget. In Maryland, for example, the legislature can reduce but not add fund-
ing for specific projects in the governor’s budget. It can, though, add expenditures through a supplementary appropriations bill if
matched with new revenues, or require the next year’s executive budget to include certain expenditures (see state profiles).
In addition, state budget cycles vary. Some states enact 12-month budgets each year, while others enact a 24-month budget, or
two 12-month budgets, every other year. Further, although most state fiscal years begin on July 1, those in Alabama, Michigan,
New York, Texas, and the District of Columbia do not (Table 19).

Table 19. State Budget Cycles
Biennial Enactment of Biennial Enactment of

Annual Budget
One 24-Month Budget Two 12-Month Budgets
Alabama* North Dakota Connecticut
Alaska Oregon Hawaii (see note)
Arizona Washington (see note) Indiana
Arkansas Wyoming Kentucky
California Maine
Colorado Minnesota
Delaware Montana
Florida Nebraska
Georgia Nevada
Idaho New Hampshire (see note)
Illinois North Carolina
Iowa Ohio
Kansas (see note) Texas*
Louisiana Virginia (see note)
Maryland Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Michigan*
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York*
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
District of Columbia*
* Fiscal year begins on a date other than July 1 (see state profiles)
Note: In Hawaii, the state constitution and statutes prescribe a biennial budget, but in practice, a budget is submitted each year. Kansas has
an annual budget for most state agencies, including the DOT. In New Hampshire, the biennial operating budget consists of two 12-month
budgets, but the capital budget is enacted as one 24-month budget. In Virginia, the budget is adopted for a biennium, but is amended in the
second year of the biennium. Likewise, in Washington, supplemental transportation budgets frequently are enacted in each of the two years
following the adoption of the biennial budget to account for technical and workload updates, make corrections, or address emerging issues.
See state profiles for additional details.
Allocation of Federal Revenues to State DOTs

States receive significant Federal aid for transportation programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal
government provides about a quarter of all funding for highways and transit systems each year, with states and local govern-
ments supplying the rest. States vary, however, in how much control the legislature has over the allocation of Federal transporta-
tion revenues to DOTs. In several states, Federal funds flow directly to the state DOT, with no legislative involvement, whereas
in others, the legislature appropriates some or all of these revenues as part of the state budget process. In some cases, a DOT’s
use of these funds must also be authorized by the legislature’s approval of a transportation plan or program (Table 20).

Table 20. State Legislative Roles in Allocating Federal Transportation Revenues to State DOTs
Legislatively Legislatively
No Legislative Role Other
Appropriated Appropriated in Part
Alabama* Illinois Arizona Delaware* (see note)
Alaska Maryland* Colorado
Arkansas Minnesota (see note) Connecticut
California Missouri Iowa
Florida* New Mexico* Kansas
Georgia Pennsylvania Massachusetts
Hawaii* (see note) Washington North Carolina
Idaho Oklahoma
Indiana Wyoming
Kentucky District of Columbia
Louisiana*
Maine
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska (see note)
Nevada
New Hampshire*
New Jersey*
New York*
North Dakota
Ohio (see note)
Oregon (see note)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota (see note)
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
* Allocation of Federal revenues to the DOT also involves legislative approval of a transportation program or plan
Note: In Delaware, Federal transportation funds are allocated through legislative approval of the DOT’s capital transportation plan and
operating budget. In Hawaii, the DOT, via a budget proviso, is allowed to increase Federal appropriation ceilings when the legislature is not
in session, but all such actions must be reported to the Legislature with details about why the appropriation was not sought during the normal
legislative budgeting cycle. In Minnesota, federal funds that flow through the state’s Trunk Highway Fund are appropriated through the
biennial budget process, while federal funds that do not flow through that fund require legislative approval to be spent. In Nebraska, appro-
priations of Federal transportation funds reflect a cash flow estimate that the DOT can exceed without legislative involvement. In Ohio, the
legislative Controlling Board must approve the use of certain funds for rail purposes. In Oregon, Federal formula funds flow directly to the
DOT, but are subject to an expenditure limit in the biennial appropriations bill. Also, legislative approval is required for Oregon’s DOT to
apply for non-formula Federal grants. In South Dakota, transportation revenues are allocated to the DOT through appropriations that are for
informational purposes only, and budgetary control lies with the Transportation Commission, so in effect the funds flow directly to the DOT.
Allocation of State Revenues to State DOTs

In general, state legislatures tend to have more control over the allocation of state transportation revenues than they do over
Federal aid. In every state, for example, at least some state transportation revenues are legislatively appropriated. In a handful
of states, however, some revenues that are allocated to certain purposes or funds by state law flow directly to the DOT with-

out further legislative involvement (Table 21). At the same time, several states noted that although certain state transportation
revenues are distributed by statutory formulas, the authority to spend them is still given through legislative appropriations (see
state profiles). As with Federal funds, some allocations of state revenues also require legislative approval of a transportation plan
or program.
Table 21. State Legislative Roles in Allocating State Transportation Revenues to State DOTs
Legislatively Appropriated Legislatively Appropriated in Part Other
Alabama* Colorado (see note) Delaware* (see note)

Alaska Hawaii*
Arizona Iowa (see note)
Arkansas Missouri
California Pennsylvania
Connecticut Wisconsin (see note)
Florida* Wyoming
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas (see note)
Kentucky
Louisiana*
Maine (see note)
Maryland*
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska (see note)
Nevada
New Hampshire*
New Jersey*
New Mexico*
New York*
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio (see note)
Oklahoma
Oregon (see note)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota (see note)
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
* Allocation of state revenues to the DOT also involves legislative approval of a transportation program or plan
Note: In Colorado, most state transportation revenues flow to the DOT without legislative involvement, except that the entire DOT budget
is reflected in the budget bill for informational purposes. In Delaware, Federal transportation funds are allocated through legislative approval

of the DOT’s capital transportation plan and operating budget. In Iowa, in addition to the legislative appropriation of some state funds, the
DOT’s operating budget must go through the legislature each year before the governor approves it. In Kansas, state transportation funds for
capital improvements and preservation projects mainly come from the State Highway Fund, which is legislatively appropriated to KDOT
with no limit on expenditure authority, but other expenditures do have limits or specific legislative oversight. In Maine, in addition to legisla-
tive appropriations, the budget for the Highway Fund must be legislatively approved. In Nebraska, most transportation appropriations reflect
a cash flow estimate that the DOT can exceed without legislative involvement. In Ohio, the legislative Controlling Board must approve the
use of certain funds for rail purposes. In Oregon, state transportation funds flow directly to the DOT, but are subject to an expenditure limit
in the biennial appropriations bill. In South Dakota, transportation revenues are allocated to the DOT through appropriations that are for
informational purposes only, and budgetary control lies with the Transportation Commission, so in effect the funds flow directly to the DOT.
In Wisconsin, with a few minor exceptions, there are no automatic or formula-based appropriations of state funds to transportation programs.
Planning and Projects

States choose how to invest limited Federal and state dollars through structured planning processes in which they select and
prioritize transportation projects. State DOTs take the lead in transportation planning, subject to both Federal and state re-
quirements. Under Federal law, for example, each state DOT must prepare a multimodal, long-range transportation plan and
a shorter-term list of Federally funded surface transportation projects called a statewide transportation improvement program
(STIP), according to certain guidelines and in consultation with various stakeholders. DOTs must also meet state mandates for
transportation planning, such as required timeframes, content, criteria, or approvals. In some states, DOTs must prepare state
plans or programs in addition to those that are Federally required (see state profiles).
State legislatures have widely varying levels of involvement in transportation planning and capital project selection, from those
that routinely select or approve specific projects to those with no role beyond making overall appropriations to the DOT (Table
22). At one end of the spectrum, for example, Delaware’s legislature annually approves the DOT’s capital plan and operating
budget, and the state has a Community Transportation Fund from which individual legislators can annually authorize funds for
road and drainage projects in their districts. At the other end, Nebraska constitutionally prohibits the legislature from prioritiz-
ing specific road or highway projects. In many states, the legislature actively reviews or approves DOT plans or programs, often
as part of the budget process (see also pages 53–56). Other legislative roles can include earmarking funds for specific projects,
setting guidelines for the planning process, or establishing broad project selection criteria in state law (see state profiles).

Table 22. Range of Legislative Roles in Transportation Planning and Capital Project Selection
Substantial Legislative Role Moderate Legislative Role Limited Legislative Role No Legislative Role
Alabama Alaska Arizona Montana
Delaware Connecticut Arkansas Nebraska
Florida Illinois California Nevada
Hawaii Massachusetts Colorado Ohio
Kentucky Oregon Georgia South Dakota
Louisiana Rhode Island Idaho
Maryland Tennessee Indiana
New Hampshire Virginia Iowa
New Jersey West Virginia Kansas
New Mexico District of Columbia Maine
New York Michigan
Pennsylvania Minnesota
Vermont Mississippi
Washington Missouri
Wisconsin North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Wyoming
Note: This table illustrates a subjective categorization developed by the author. In general, legislatures identified as having a “substantial” role
include those that must approve transportation plans or routinely select specific projects. Those with a “moderate” role may be able to make
substantive changes to plans, or advance some specific projects. Those with a “limited” role include those that select only a few earmarked
projects, review but cannot change transportation plans, affect overall investment priorities through appropriations to non-highway modes, or
influence the planning process through general statutory guidelines. Those with “no” role may approve overall appropriations, but not at the
project-specific level. See state profiles for additional details and statutory citations.
State Revenue Sources

States provide nearly half of all funding for highways and public transit, as well as revenues for aviation, rail, and other transpor-
tation modes. As states continue to face transportation funding shortfalls, interest has grown in the broad diversity of revenues
that are authorized and in use across the states, as well as how states are ensuring that those revenues are being spent on trans-
portation purposes.
Revenue Sources for Transportation Uses

States use a remarkable variety of taxes and fees to support roads and bridges (Table 23) as well as other transportation modes
such as public transit, rail, aviation, ports, and pedestrian and bicycle projects (see state profiles). These revenue sources include
state fuel taxes, vehicle fees, sales taxes, tolls, mode-specific revenues, and an assortment of other sources such as congestion
pricing, cigarette taxes, and state lotteries. In addition to revenues used by DOTs and other state agencies, a number of qua-
si-public entities, such as turnpike or port authorities, collect and use specific revenues to support some elements of the overall
transportation system (see state profiles; see also pages 22–26).

Table 23. Revenue Sources Currently Used by States for Roads and Bridges
Revenue Sources
State Fuel Passenger Truck Tolls General General Interest Other
Taxes Vehicle Registration Sales Funds Income
Fees Fees Taxes
Alabama F R • Alternative fuel vehicle fees
Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
Outdoor advertising revenues
Alaska* F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Industrial use highway permit fees
Sales taxes on rental vehicles
Property leases or sales
Legislative appropriations (budget reserve fund)
Arizona F R, T • • • Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
Other truck permit fees
Vehicle license taxes
Driver’s license fees
Arkansas F R, T • • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Other truck- and commercial driver-related fees
Severance taxes on natural gas
Rail regulation fees
Pine timber sales
Rainy Day Fund (one-time transfer in 2016)
California F, V • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Cap-and-Trade Program revenues
Colorado F R • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Special fees on electric vehicles
Fees on rental vehicles
Oversize/overweight truck permit surcharges
Congestion pricing/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes
Property sales
Connecticut F, V R, T • • • Sales taxes on motor vehicle sales
Property leases and sales
Pilot license fees (watercraft)
Misc. DMV and DOT fees and fines
Delaware F R, T • See • Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
note Property leases and sales
Florida F, V R, T • • • Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
Surcharge on rental vehicles
Documentary stamp revenues
Georgia V See • • Taxes on alternative fuels
note Special fees on heavy vehicles
Oversize truck permit fees
Hotel fees

Revenue Sources
Fees Fees Taxes
Hawaii F R, T • Taxes on alternative fuels
State vehicle weight tax
Property rentals and leases
Fines for use of mobile devices while driving
Idaho F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Fuel taxes for certain non-highway use (used for
grade crossings)
Special fees on hybrid and electric vehicles
Cigarette taxes
Illinois F R, T • See • Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
note Outdoor advertising revenues
Indiana F R, T • See • • Use taxes on gasoline
note Taxes on alternative fuels
Driver’s license and state ID card fees
Iowa V R, T • • Taxes on alternative fuels
One-time registration fee on vehicle sales/leases
Special license plate fees
Rest area sponsorship
Misc. fees and taxes
Kansas F R, T • See • • Taxes on alternative fuels
note Sales of confiscated fuel
Special license plate fees
Motor carrier license fees
Misc. fees and fines
Property sales
Kentucky F, V R, T • See • Taxes on alternative fuels
note Sales taxes on motor vehicle sales
Weight-distance taxes (trucks)
Louisiana F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Other DOT-generated revenues

Revenue Sources
Fees Fees Taxes
Maine* F R, T • See • Taxes on alternative fuels
note Special license plate fees
Vehicle inspection fees
Fines for truck size and weight violations
Traffic fines
Wholesale liquor revenues
Maryland V R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Taxes on aviation fuels
Revenue-sharing: rest area food/fuel concessions
Corporate income taxes
Massachusetts F R, T • • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Sales taxes on motor vehicle sales
Gaming revenues
Property leases and sales
Michigan F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Vehicle dealer license fees
Minnesota F Registra- • • Taxes on alternative fuels
tion Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
taxes Commercial vehicle inspection fees
Fees on rental vehicles
Traffic fines
Mississippi F • • Taxes on alternative fuels
License tag fees
Vehicle dealer tag fees
Overweight truck taxes
Contractor’s taxes
Lubricating oil taxes
Casino taxes (see state profile)
Missouri F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Special fees on electric/some alternative fuel vehicles
Sales taxes on motor vehicle sales/leases

Revenue Sources
Fees Fees Taxes
Montana F Gross • Taxes on alternative fuels
vehicle Gross vehicle weight fees on light trucks
weight Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
fees on
heavy
trucks
Nebraska F, V R • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Special fees on electric/some alternative fuel vehicles
Property leases and rentals
Train-mile taxes (used for grade crossings)
Nevada F R, T • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Passenger carrier excise taxes
Petroleum cleanup fees
Occupational and business licensing fees
Governmental services taxes
New F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Hampshire Rest area food/fuel concessions
New Jersey F, V See • Taxes on alternative fuels
note Sales taxes on motor vehicle sales
New Mexico F R, T • Taxes on alternative fuels
Sales taxes on motor vehicle leases/rentals
Trip taxes (foreign-based motor carriers)
New York F, V R, T • See • • Taxes on aviation fuels
note Weight-distance taxes (trucks)
Franchise taxes on transmission and transportation
companies
Misc. fees and fines
North Carolina F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Oversize/overweight truck permit fees (under some
circumstances—see state profile)
Business license fees
North Carolina Rail Company dividends
(used for rail crossings)

Revenue Sources
Fees Fees Taxes
North Dakota F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Ohio F, V See • Taxes on alternative fuels
note Leases of rights-of-way
Outdoor advertising revenue
Oklahoma F R, T • See • Taxes on alternative fuels
note Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
Income taxes
Oregon F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Special fees on some hybrid and electric vehicles
Road usage charges
Pennsylvania V R, T • See • Taxes on alternative fuels
note Oversize/overweight truck permit fees
Driver’s license and other fees
Rhode Island V R • See • Emission inspection fees
note Rental vehicle surcharges
Property sales
South Carolina F • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Misc. DMV fees and fines
Electric power taxes
South Dakota F • Taxes on alternative fuels
Tennessee F R • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Oversize/overweight truck permit fees (under some
circumstances—see state profile)
Off-road vehicle fees
Texas F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes/managed lanes
Sales taxes on motor lubricants
Driver record information fees
Oil and gas production taxes

Revenue Sources
Fees Fees Taxes
Utah V R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes
Vermont F, V R, T • • Sales taxes on motor vehicle sales/leases/rentals
Transportation impact fees
Virginia V R • • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Rest area sponsorship
Washington* F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Vehicle weight fees
License plate retention fees
Sales taxes on motor vehicle sales and rental vehicles
Studded tire fees
Congestion pricing/variable tolling/high-occupancy
toll (HOT) lanes
Property sales
West Virginia F, V R, T • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Sales taxes on motor vehicle sales/leases/rentals
Wisconsin F R, T • • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Taxes on aviation fuels
Fines for truck size and weight violations
State rental vehicle fees
Railroad property taxes
Airline property taxes
Aircraft registration fees
Passenger rail station sponsorship
Driver and vehicle record information fees
Property sales
Petroleum Inspection Fund revenues
Wyoming F R, T • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Mineral royalties
Mineral severance taxes
District of V • • Taxes on alternative fuels
Columbia Rights-of-way user fees
Public space rental and use fees
Public inconvenience fees
Utility marking fees

* Alaska, Maine, and Washington also use ferry fares for state ferries that are considered to be part of those states’ highway systems
F: Fixed-rate fuel taxes
V: Variable-rate fuel taxes, including those that are periodically adjusted based on inflation or fuel prices
R: Registration fees
T: Title fees
Note: In general, this chart identifies revenue sources used by state government agencies or departments (including but not limited to DOTs),
but not those used solely by quasi-public entities such as public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. Toll facilities in Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, for example, are operated by state-level, quasi-public authorities or
commissions. Tolls collected by Pennsylvania’s Turnpike Commission, however, are allocated in part to funds administered by the DOT
under state law, and New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund receives allocations from contracts with quasi-public toll road authorities and
other entities. Toll roads in Delaware are under the Delaware Transportation Authority, a corporation and instrumentality of the state that
functions as a component unit of the DOT. Georgia, Indiana, and Kentucky plan to open toll facilities in the next year. See state profiles for
additional details and statutory citations, revenues used for other modes, and revenues that are authorized in law but not currently in use.
State taxes on motor fuels are the largest single source of state revenues for highways, representing more than 30 percent of such
revenues nationwide. Taxes on gasoline and diesel are also used by many states to pay for other kinds of transportation projects
(see page 66). Also, the bulk of the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which provides critical aid to states for highway and transit
programs, comes from Federal fuel taxes. This dependence on fuel tax revenues has contributed to the current transportation
funding crisis. Over the past decade, fuel tax revenues have fallen in real terms due to changing driving habits and ever more
fuel-efficient vehicles. Further, the Federal fuel tax and many state fuel taxes have remained at static, fixed cents-per-gallon rates
that have declined in purchasing power as construction costs have risen.
To combat this, many states have structured their taxes to change over time. Some of these “variable-rate” taxes are periodically
adjusted based on a measure of inflation such as a consumer or producer price index, while others are calculated as a percentage
of wholesale or retail fuel prices, or by some other criterion. In some states, one or more variable components are assessed in
addition to a fixed-rate tax, and in others, the entire tax on fuel is regularly recalculated (Table 24).
Table 24. State Fuel Tax Models
State Fuel Tax Model

State Has a Variable-Rate Tax
Has a Fixed-Rate Tax
Indexed to Inflation Percentage of Price Other
Alabama •
Alaska •
Arizona •
Arkansas •
California • •
Colorado •
Connecticut • •
Delaware •
Florida • •
Georgia Until July 1, 2018 Based on average vehicle fuel economy
(see note) (see note)
Hawaii •
Idaho •
Illinois •
Indiana •
Iowa Until July 1, 2020; based on fuel distri-
bution percentage formulas; intended
to be revenue-neutral (see note)

State Fuel Tax Model
State Has a Variable-Rate Tax
Has a Fixed-Rate Tax
Indexed to Inflation Percentage of Price Other
Kansas •
Kentucky • •
Louisiana •
Maine •
Maryland • •
Massachusetts •
Michigan Until Jan. 1, 2022 Starting Jan. 1, 2022
(see note) (see note)
Minnesota •
Mississippi •
Missouri •
Montana •
Nebraska • • Adjusted to provide for legislative
appropriations and debt service (see
note)
Nevada •
New Hamp- •
shire
New Jersey • •
New Mexico •
New York • • •
North Carolina Until Jan. 1, 2017 Starting Jan. 1, 2017 Starting Jan. 1, 2017; based on popula-
(see note) (see note) tion (see note)
North Dakota •
Ohio • •
Oklahoma •
Oregon •
Pennsylvania •
Rhode Island •
South Carolina •
South Dakota •
Tennessee •
Texas •
Utah Begins the year after •
the actual price of fuel
reaches the statutory
price floor (see note)
Vermont • •
Virginia •
Washington •
West Virginia • •
Wisconsin •
Wyoming •
District of •
Columbia

Note: This categorization focuses on special taxes on motor fuels and does not reflect those states in which fuels are subject to a general sales
tax. These states include Hawaii (where general excise taxes on motor fuel sales, like such taxes on all other transactions, are deposited to the
state general fund) and Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan (where sales or use taxes on fuels are treated differently, including special allocations
to transportation purposes; see state profiles). In Georgia, as of July 1, 2016, fuel taxes are annually adjusted based on the average fuel econ-
omy of all new vehicles registered in the state the previous year and, until July 1, 2018, the Consumer Price Index. Until July 1, 2020, Iowa’s
fuel taxes are to be adjusted annually based on fuel distribution percentage formulas, but these adjustments are intended to be revenue-neu-
tral. The formula must be reviewed by a legislative interim committee at least every six years, with the next review due by Jan. 1, 2020.
Michigan’s fuel taxes will be indexed starting on Jan. 1, 2022, and North Carolina’s fuel taxes will be annually adjusted based on population
and the Consumer Price Index for energy costs starting on Jan. 1, 2017. Nebraska’s fuel taxes include a variable component that is adjusted
as a percentage of price, and another that is adjusted annually to provide for legislative appropriations and debt service. Utah’s fuel taxes are
annually adjusted based on the average rack price, and will also be indexed to the Consumer Price Index starting the year after the actual
average rack price reaches the statutory price floor of $2.45 per gallon. See state profiles for additional details and statutory citations.
Fuel taxes are not the only transportation revenues that states have structured to keep up with inflation. In Maryland, transit
fares are indexed to the Consumer Price Index, as are some toll revenues in Florida. Pennsylvania indexes a number of transpor-
tation-related fees, and as of July 1, 2020, so will North Carolina (see state profiles).
Other state revenue sources have also been pursued in response to advances in vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of alternative
fuels, which further reduce traditional fuel tax revenues. Most states tax at least some alternative fuels, such as propane or natu-
ral gas fuels, and several states assess special fees on electric, hybrid, or alternative fuel vehicles (see Table 23 and state profiles).
States have also shown great interest in the possibility of charging drivers based on the number of miles they drive, rather than
the gallons of fuel they consume. Many states have studied these kinds of “mileage-based user fees,” and in July 2015, Oregon
launched the nation’s first real road usage charge. Oregon’s program is designed to collect 1.5 cents per mile from up to 5,000
cars and light commercial vehicles, and to deposit the revenues to the state’s highway fund. In addition, the Federal FAST Act
(see page 19) created a $95 million grant program for states to “demonstrate user-based alternative revenue mechanisms that uti-
lize a user fee structure to maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.” This program may aid states in further
exploring the potential of mileage-based fees.
Restrictions on State Transportation Revenues and Funds

Nearly every state has laws that restrict the use of state fuel taxes and other revenues to transportation purposes. These laws can
take the form of limiting the use of the revenues themselves (for example, by requiring all fuel tax proceeds to be used for certain
transportation purposes) or restricting use of the funds and accounts into which the revenues are deposited (for example, by
creating a trust fund into which fuel taxes are placed, and prohibiting use of the fund for any purpose other than transportation).
Just over half the states use one of these methods to dedicate their fuel tax revenues to roads and bridges only, either in the state
constitution or in statute, sometimes with limited exceptions. Most of the rest dedicate their fuel taxes—again, sometimes with
exceptions—to transportation purposes more broadly. States with other approaches include Texas, which directs one-fourth of
its fuel taxes to the state’s Available School Fund, and Alaska, which constitutionally prohibits the dedication of state revenues
to any special purpose, unless Federally required or dedicated prior to statehood (Table 25; see state profiles for details and statu-
tory citations).

Table 25. Dedications of State Fuel Taxes in State Law
Dedications of State Fuel Taxes

State To Roads and Bridges Only To Transportation Purposes
Other
Constitutional Statutory Constitutional Statutory
Alabama •
Alaska No restrictions
Arizona •
Arkansas Constitutional and statutory
California Roads and
bridges, fixed
guideway
transit
Colorado With a limited
exception for
local entities
Connecticut •
Delaware • Session law, constitutional restric-
tion pending
Florida With exceptions
Georgia With an
emergency
exception
Hawaii Includes
bikeways and
trails
Idaho •
Illinois Roads and
bridges, public
transit
Indiana •
Iowa •
Kansas Constitutional and statutory
Kentucky •
Louisiana •
Maine •
Maryland Constitutional and statutory,
with exceptions
Massachusetts Roads and
bridges, public
transit, with
exceptions
Michigan At least 90
percent must
be used for
roads, streets,
and bridges
Minnesota •
Mississippi With exceptions
Missouri •
Montana With exceptions

Dedications of State Fuel Taxes
State To Roads and Bridges Only To Transportation Purposes
Other
Constitutional Statutory Constitutional Statutory
Nebraska Roads and
bridges, public
transit
Nevada •
New Hampshire •
New Jersey •
New Mexico With exceptions
New York •
North Carolina With exceptions
North Dakota •
Ohio •
Oklahoma •
Oregon •
Pennsylvania •
Rhode Island •
South Carolina •
South Dakota •
Tennessee With exceptions
Texas State constitution dedicates three-
fourths of fuel tax revenues to
roads and bridges and one-fourth
to the Available School Fund
Utah •
Vermont With exceptions
Virginia •
Washington •
West Virginia •
Wisconsin •
Wyoming •
District of Columbia •
Note: See state profiles for additional details and statutory citations.
States have placed restrictions, not just on fuel taxes, but on a broad range of other transportation revenues. Common provisions
in state laws include that vehicle-related taxes and fees must be used for roads and bridges, tolls must be spent on toll facilities,
or certain revenues derived from rail, waterways, or aviation must be reinvested in those same modes (see state profiles). States
must also align their restrictions with a 2014 Federal Aviation Administration ruling that airport-related revenues, including
state taxes on aviation fuels, must be used for aviation purposes.
In part because restrictions in state law have not always prevented the diversion of transportation revenues to other areas of
the budget, states have taken various actions to further protect them. In 2014, for example, voters in Maryland and Wisconsin
approved constitutional protections (or “lockbox” measures) on those states’ multimodal transportation funds. Since then, leg-
islatures in Connecticut, Delaware, and Illinois have also taken steps in this direction. As a different approach, under Virginia’s
2013 transportation funding legislation, any provisions of the act that generate additional funding through state taxes or fees

will expire if any of the revenues are appropriated for, or transferred to, a non-transportation-related purpose (see state profiles
for additional examples, details, and statutory citations).
At the same time, some states’ protections on transportation revenues or funds include a kind of “escape clause” by which they
can be overridden. Montana’s constitution, which generally dedicates fuel taxes to road-related purposes, allows the legislature
to appropriate them elsewhere upon a three-fifths vote of each chamber. Maryland’s constitution now allows the state’s mul-
timodal Transportation Trust Fund to be used for other purposes only if the governor declares a fiscal emergency by executive
order and, similar to Montana’s law, if the transfer is approved by a three-fifths vote of each legislative chamber. Virginia statute
allows the budget bill to divert revenues from the state’s Transportation Trust Fund, but only if language is included that sets out
a plan for repayment of the funds within three years (see state profiles).
Revenue Sources Prohibited in State Law

State laws not only authorize and define, but also in some cases expressly prohibit, certain transportation revenue sources. Ala-
bama’s constitution, for example, prohibits taxes, tolls, and other wharfage fees on the navigable waterways of the state. Also, a
number of states, including Minnesota, Nevada, and Rhode Island, do not allow some or all uses of tolls, while certain uses of
tolls in Illinois, Indiana, Tennessee, and Utah are prohibited unless the legislature specifically approves them.
Beyond transportation-specific revenues, the Council of the District of Columbia may not tax the personal income of commut-
ers, or any individual not a resident of the District, and Tennessee’s constitution generally prohibits the use of lottery revenues,
with limited exceptions, as well as any state income taxes except those in effect on Jan. 1, 2011. And, although it does not explic-
itly prohibit specific revenue sources aside from a statewide property tax, the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” (TABOR) in the Colora-
do constitution does require the state to obtain voter approval to create, increase, or extend taxes, or to change tax policy in any
way that causes a net tax revenue gain (see state profiles for additional examples, details, and statutory citations).
State Finance Mechanisms

As transportation funding has become more constrained, states have turned to an array of finance mechanisms to stretch public
dollars and support costly transportation infrastructure investments. As with revenue sources, state laws authorize, restrict, and
sometimes expressly prohibit certain finance mechanisms for transportation uses.
Finance Mechanisms for Transportation Uses

States currently use a variety of finance mechanisms for roads and bridges (Table 26) as well as for other transportation modes (see
state profiles). These mechanisms, which borrow against or otherwise leverage state and Federal revenues, include the following:
• Bond issuances, by which states borrow money from investors with a promise of future repayment. These include general obli-
gation bonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the state and revenue bonds that are guaranteed by specific state
revenue streams such as tolls.
• Federal debt financing tools, including Build America Bonds, Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (also known as
GARVEEs or GARVEE bonds), and private activity bonds. Build America Bonds provided a mechanism in 2009 and 2010
by which states could elect to have the interest on certain bonds be taxable in return for a Federal interest subsidy. GARVEEs
allow states to borrow against anticipated future Federal-aid receipts. Private activity bonds allow a state to issue tax-exempt
debt on behalf of a private entity that is financing and delivering a transportation project.
• Federal credit assistance through the Transportation Innovation Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which
provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects of national and
regional significance.

• Mechanisms that leverage Federal aid, including cash flow management tools that allow states to begin projects using
non-Federal funds while remaining eligible to be reimbursed with Federal aid at a later date (such as advance construction
and partial conversion of advance construction) and strategies that give states more flexibility in how they provide their re-
quired match on Federal-aid projects (such as flexible match, tapered match, and toll credits).
• State infrastructure banks, which are revolving infrastructure investment funds that can offer loans or other credit assistance
to public and private sponsors of transportation projects, including state agencies such as DOTs. The initial capital for these
banks can come from state or Federal sources.
In recent years, states have also explored innovative project delivery methods, such as public-private partnerships and de-
sign-build, for their potential to facilitate transportation improvements in lean times. In public-private partnerships, private
sector companies contract with the public sector to take on greater risks and responsibilities for delivering or financing infra-
structure projects.
Depending on the project, public-private partnership arrangements may provide access to additional financing opportunities or
create cost savings, but do not provide new revenues for states. Rather, the public still must repay any private investment in these
projects with money that typically comes from traditional sources such as taxes or tolls. More than half the states have enacted
laws that authorize public-private partnerships, and many have active projects (see state profiles).
Design-build, in which design and construction services are combined into a single fixed-fee contract, is sometimes considered
a form of public-private partnership that can streamline project delivery and create efficiencies. Although design-build does not
itself involve private financing, it may be used as a component of projects that do.
Table 26. Finance Mechanisms Currently Used by States for Roads and Bridges
Finance Mechanisms
Innovative Project
State Bonding Federal Tools
Delivery Methods
State
Public- Other
General Build Private TIFIA
Revenue GARVEE Design- Private
Obligation America Activity Credit As-
Bonds Bonds Build Partner-
Bonds Bonds Bonds sistance
ships
Alabama • • Advance construction
State infrastructure bank
Alaska • • • Advance construction
Arizona • • See • Advance construction
state
profile
Arkansas • • • Advance construction
California • • • • • • Advance construction
Colorado • • See note • • • • Advance construction
Federal-aid matching: tapered
match, toll credits (“soft
match”)
Connecticut • • • Advance construction
Delaware • See note See note • • • Advance construction

Finance Mechanisms
Innovative Project
Delivery Methods
State
Public- Other
ships
Florida • • • • • • Advance construction
Federal-aid matching: toll credits
(“soft match”)
Land swaps or donations from
land owners
Georgia • • • • • • Advance construction
Hawaii • • Advance construction
Idaho • • • Advance construction
Partial conversion of advance
construction
Federal-aid matching: flexible
match, tapered match, toll
credits (“soft match”)
Illinois • • • Advance construction
(“soft match”)
Indiana See note • • • Advance construction
construction
land owners
Iowa See note See note Advance construction
match
Kansas • • • Advance construction
construction
match”)
Kentucky See note • • • • Advance construction
(“soft match”)
Louisiana • • • • • Advance construction
match”)
Maine • • • • • Advance construction
(“soft match”)

Finance Mechanisms
Innovative Project
Delivery Methods
State
Public- Other
ships
Maryland • • • • • See note Advance construction
(“soft match”)
Certificates of participation
Massachusetts • • • • • • Advance construction
construction
(“soft match”)
Michigan • • See note • • Advance construction
construction
Minnesota • • Advance construction
construction
match
Mississippi • • • • • Advance construction
Missouri • • See note • Advance construction
Montana • • Advance construction
construction
match
land owners
Nebraska Advance construction
Nevada • • Advance construction
New Hamp- • • • • • • Advance construction
shire Federal-aid matching: toll credits
(“soft match”)
New Jersey • • “Appropriation credit” bonds
(see note)
Advance construction
(“soft match”)
New Mexico • • • Advance construction
match
New York • • • Advance construction

Finance Mechanisms
Innovative Project
Delivery Methods
State
Public- Other
ships
North Carolina • • • • • • • • Advance construction
construction
match
North Dakota • Advance construction
Ohio • • • • • • Advance construction
(“soft match”)
Oklahoma See note See note • Advance construction
Oregon • • • • Advance construction
match
Pennsylvania • See note See note • • • Advance construction
construction
(“soft match”)
Rhode Island • • • Advance construction
(“soft match”)
South Carolina • • • • Advance construction
construction
South Dakota Advance construction
construction
land owners
Tennessee • Advance construction
Texas • • • • • • • Advance construction
match”)

Finance Mechanisms
Innovative Project
Delivery Methods
State
Public- Other
ships
Utah • • • Advance construction
Vermont • • • Advance construction
match
Virginia • • • • • • • Advance construction
(“soft match”)
Washington • • • • • Advance construction
West Virginia • • • • Advance construction
Wisconsin • • • Advance construction

construction
Wyoming Advance construction
District of • • • • Advance construction
Columbia
Note: In general, this chart identifies finance mechanisms used by state government agencies or departments (including but not limited to
DOTs), but not those used solely by quasi-public entities such as public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. Exceptions include finance
mechanisms used by the Delaware Transportation Authority, which functions as a component unit of the DOT; bonds issued by the Indiana
Finance Authority, which acts as the finance authority (for bonding purposes) for the state of Indiana, including the DOT; bonds issued by
the Kentucky Turnpike Authority and the Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority, which are used specifically to finance
projects under the DOT’s jurisdiction; bonds issued by the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, which exists in part to finance
the DOT’s capital program; bonds issued by the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, which exists in part to issue bonds for state
highway infrastructure that are retired by payments made to the authority by the DOT; and bonds issued by the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission, the proceeds of which have been used in part to make payments to the DOT for road purposes. The Colorado DOT’s GAR-
VEE bonds will be fully repaid in FY 2017, and any further issuances will require new voter approval. Although the Iowa DOT received
a one-time appropriation from revenue bonds (including Build America Bonds) for bridge repair in 2009, the debt was part of a large bond
issue at the state level which was backed by wagering taxes, used for many purposes, and is not considered a DOT debt (see also page 75). In
Maryland, public-private partnerships are currently in use for three projects, including travel plazas on an interstate. Michigan and Missouri
have issued indirect GARVEE bonds only. New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund Authority issues bonds that are considered “appropriation
credit” bonds rather than revenue bonds because actual yields from each of the revenue sources do not automatically flow to the Authority.
Instead, the Legislature must appropriate specific revenue amounts each year. See state profiles for additional details and statutory citations,
financing used for other modes, and mechanisms that are authorized in law but not currently in use (including state infrastructure banks that
were established but are now inactive).
Bonds are among the most common finance mechanisms used by states to finance road and bridge projects, representing billions
of dollars in outstanding debt nationwide. Five states, however, do not currently use bonding of any kind for transportation
purposes, and their DOTs are debt-free. Three more states have issued only GARVEE bonds, and no others, for transportation
purposes (Table 27).

Table 27. States That Do Not Currently Use Bonds for Transportation Purposes
Use of Grant Anticipation Revenue

No Use of Bonds for Transportation Purposes
Vehicle (GARVEE) Bonds Only
Iowa (see note) Idaho
Nebraska Montana
South Dakota North Dakota
Tennessee
Wyoming
Note: Although the Iowa DOT received a one-time appropriation from revenue bonds for bridge repair in 2009, the debt was part of a large
bond issue at the state level which was backed by wagering taxes, used for many purposes, and is not considered a DOT debt. The Iowa DOT,
therefore, is currently debt-free. See state profiles for additional details and statutory citations.
Restrictions on State Transportation Finance Mechanisms

As with revenue sources, states have enacted many laws that place restrictions on transportation finance mechanisms. Many
states, for example, have laws that limit the amount of debt that can be incurred, either up to a maximum dollar amount or as
a percentage of total revenues. These limits vary across the states, and may apply to overall debt, general obligation debt, trans-
portation-related debt, debt for specific purposes, or certain kinds of bonds. State statutes in Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
Florida, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia limit GARVEE bonding
specifically. Also, many states require approval from the legislature or from voters for general obligation or revenue bonds,
which are then restricted to the purposes and amounts detailed in the authorizing law (see state profiles for additional examples,
details, and statutory citations).
In addition, some states have placed restrictions on the use of innovative project delivery methods such as design-build or pub-
lic-private partnerships. Use of design-build is limited to a total number of projects in California and Kansas, and to an annual
number of projects in Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas. Georgia, Minnesota, and Missouri cap its use as a percent-
age of the total construction contracts awarded in a year, and Ohio and West Virginia set a maximum annual dollar amount.
Statutory restrictions on the use of public-private partnerships vary widely across the states, from what kinds of facilities and
arrangements are authorized to how projects must be approved. All public-private partnerships in Delaware, Florida, Maine,
and Missouri, for example, and some in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, require some form of legislative approval. In Mis-
souri, public-private partnerships for any mode of transportation not explicitly identified in the authorizing statute must also be
approved by a vote of the people (see state profiles).
Finance Mechanisms Prohibited in State Law

Again, as with revenue sources, state laws in some cases explicitly prohibit certain finance mechanisms. Some state constitutions,
in particular, proscribe certain forms of debt. For example, Colorado and Idaho’s constitutions disallow general obligation debt
generally, while Kansas prohibits its use for highways. In Georgia, where the constitution bars state agencies (but not authorities)
from entering into any contract that constitutes a state of indebtedness, all funds must be available to the agency and encum-
bered when the contract is executed. The Nebraska constitution generally prohibits extending the credit of the state, although
it does allow for bonds backed by specific revenues, including highway bonds, in limited cases (see state profiles for details and
constitutional citations).
Other State Funding and Finance Issues

State legislatures and DOTs interact around a number of other state transportation funding and finance issues, including the
retention of excess transportation funds, the movement of funds between projects, and legislative efforts to control DOT costs.

Retention and Expenditure of Excess Funds
At the end of a fiscal period, a state DOT may have unspent balances of transportation revenues in a state fund or account. In
many cases, these revenues are retained in the fund, but the DOT’s authority to spend them lapses and must be given again
through new legislative appropriations. In others, the spending authority may carry forward automatically from year to year. In
Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Jersey, some transportation appropriations have been accompanied by specific provisions in the
budget bill that allow them to be carried forward, and Missouri’s budget bill notates that some appropriations to the State Road
Fund are estimated, which allows the DOT to spend revenues in excess of those appropriations without further legislative action
(see state profiles for additional examples, details, and statutory citations).
Movement of Funds Between Projects

States vary in how and when legislative approval is required for the DOT to move funds from one transportation project to
another. In many states, the DOT can transfer funds between projects in the same program or expenditure category without
the legislature's approval, but not between projects in different programs. DOTs also may need legislative approval to repurpose
funds that the legislature has allocated to specific projects. Other examples of state approaches include the following (see state
profiles for additional examples, details, and statutory citations):
• In Florida, the DOT must submit any work program amendments to affected counties, the governor, and the legislature. The
governor may not approve the amendment until 14 days after legislative notification. The amendment is approved after the
14-day period if there is no legislative objection.
• In Georgia, state funds cannot be moved between budget programs without legislative approval. Beginning in FY 2017, how-
ever, the DOT will have additional flexibility over the funding of three programs—capital construction, capital maintenance,
and local road assistance—with the authority to transfer up to 10 percent of state funds between these programs with the
approval of the governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.
• In Maryland, the annual budget bill requires the DOT to notify legislative budget committees of proposed changes to the
transportation capital program that will add a new project or increase a project’s total cost by more than 10 percent or $1
million due to a change in scope, but legislative approval is not required.
• In Tennessee, the annual appropriations bill requires the DOT to notify select legislative committees, legislative leaders, and
the individual senator and representative of the affected district concerning any approved project that is canceled.
• In Vermont, no approved project may be canceled without legislative approval. The DOT is, however, authorized to reallocate
funds without further legislative approval in the event of cost overruns or emergency projects, although it is required to notify
the relevant legislative committees in most such cases.
• In Washington, the DOT may shift funding between earmarked projects with approval from the governor’s budget office.
This process includes review by legislative staff. Also, under the biennial transportation appropriations bill, the state’s director
of financial management can authorize a transfer of appropriation authority between projects that are funded with certain
appropriations, up to $250,000 or 10 percent of the total project cost. These transfers must be reported to the legislature.
Legislative Actions to Control DOT Costs

In addition to setting DOT expenditure limits in budget bills, legislatures have taken a number of other actions to control DOT
costs. Many state laws, for example, set guidelines for the procurement process. These often require a DOT to award contracts
based on the lowest and best bid, and may call for value engineering studies or life-cycle cost analyses for certain projects. Also,
Michigan and South Dakota have placed statutory caps on DOT administrative expenses, as has New Jersey for salaries and

overhead, as a percentage of overall funding. Other state approaches include the following (see state profiles for additional exam-
ples, details, and statutory citations):
• In Michigan, state statute tasks the Transportation Asset Management Council with putting a pavement management sys-
tem in place to prevent a disproportionate share of pavement on Federal-aid eligible roads from becoming due for replacement
or major repair at the same time. Also, although not required, state law allows for pavement projects to evaluate the cost-ef-
fectiveness and performance of new construction methods, materials, or design.
• In Minnesota, for certain transportation contracts over $100,000, state statute requires the DOT to prepare a comprehensive
written estimate of the cost of having the same work done by department employees. For contracts of $250,000 or more, the
estimated contract costs—including DOT contract monitoring—must be lower than the costs of completing the project in-
house for the contract to go forward.
• Under Missouri law, if any county, civil subdivision, or interested persons desire a road of a higher type, more expensive con-
struction, or that is better in any way than the road the DOT proposes, those parties are responsible for the additional cost.
• In 2006, New Jersey’s legislature created the Financial Policy Review Board “to assure fiscal discipline” for the Transporta-
tion Trust Fund Authority, which exists in part to finance the DOT’s capital program. The board must certify annually that
the authority adheres to statutory caps on bonding and permitted maintenance expenditures, as well as a statutory $1.6 billion
annual limit on total appropriations of state funds for project costs.
• North Carolina’s 2015 appropriations act required the DOT to establish a baseline unit pricing structure for transportation
goods used in highway maintenance and construction and prohibits any highway division from going over a baseline unit
price set for that year by more than 10 percent. As part of a larger study, the act also required the DOT to develop a plan to
eliminate at least 10 percent of its job positions that perform administrative, managerial, supervisor, or oversight functions.
• Although not required, Ohio law allows for contract clauses by which a contractor may propose a project change that, with-
out impairing the project’s essential functions and characteristics, saves the DOT time or money. If the proposal is adopted,
at least half the resulting savings must go to the contractor.
• In Oregon, competitive bidding must be used for public improvement contracts, but the director of transportation may
exempt transportation projects from this requirement if an alternative method results in cost savings or other public benefits.
After completing a public improvement project over $100,000 for which competitive bidding was not used, the contracting
agency must evaluate the project, including a comparison of actual project costs with original cost estimates.
State Involvement in Local Transportation Funding

Paying for transportation systems is a complex, intergovernmental process, in which states play a critical part. States direct
significant amounts of the revenues they raise to local governments for road projects and other transportation uses, and enact
legislation that allows local entities to assess their own taxes and fees to support infrastructure. These actions influence the over-
all state-local balance in transportation funding, which in turn can affect the demands placed on state transportation budgets.
Because state-local issues are especially complex and detailed, and differ greatly from state to state, only general overviews have
been provided below. More extensive state state-by-state details and statutory citations are available in the state profiles.
Allocation of State Transportation Revenues to Local Entities

Local governments own more than 75 percent of the nation’s public road miles, and also have responsibilities for public transit
systems and other transportation modes. To support local road and bridge projects, notes the 2012 Oxford Handbook of State

and Local Government Finance, “substantial portions of state transportation budgets are often dedicated as formula payments to
localities, or channeled into specific grant programs that seek to stimulate statewide goals and criteria.”
Nearly every state distributes a portion of its fuel taxes or other state transportation revenues to counties or municipalities
according to statutory formulas that are based on each jurisdiction’s population, road miles, land area, number of registered ve-
hicles, or other criteria. Exceptions include Alaska and Hawaii, which allocate state revenues to local entities through legislative
appropriations, and Rhode Island, which does not currently have a state aid program. State legislatures have also appropriated
funds to localities for specific purposes, including local matches for Federal projects, and a number of state DOTs award discre-
tionary grants for project costs.
Many states also direct revenues to local governments for other modes of transportation besides roads and bridges. Some states
allow their state aid formula distributions to be used for public transit or other projects as well as roads, while several states have
separate statutory formulas or discretionary grant programs for providing transit assistance. In Mississippi, statutorily estab-
lished committees, with DOT involvement, award discretionary grants to local entities for rail, port, airport, and transit projects
through the state’s Multi-Modal Transportation Improvement Program (see state profiles for additional examples, details, and
statutory citations).
Authorization of Local Revenue Sources in State Law

Local governments use a wide range of revenue sources for transportation projects, such as general revenues, tolls, and a diverse
array of local-option taxes and fees that have been authorized in state law. Local fuel taxes, registration fees, development impact
fees, dedicated property and sales taxes, special assessment districts, severance taxes, and other sources have all been used for
local transportation projects and services. In Nevada, counties with a population of 100,000 or more must allocate a portion of
their property taxes to the state's highway fund for highway projects in that county, and those with a population of 700,000 or
more (currently Clark County) must, at the DOT’s request, issue bonds for up to $300 million to assist with highway projects in
that county.
Some states, including Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island, do not authorize local revenue sources
specifically for transportation, although other local revenues may be used for that purpose. In Alaska, most local taxes (like
state taxes) cannot be dedicated to any special purpose. Municipalities may, however, adopt local vehicle registration taxes that,
in practice, are typically used for transportation investments. They may also create special assessment districts to finance local
capital improvements. In Rhode Island, state law directs towns to annually appropriate a portion of their general revenues to
highway and bridge maintenance, and to include the appropriated amount in their annual tax levies. Rhode Island municipali-
ties may also charge developers impact fees to pay for development-related capital improvements (see state profiles for additional
examples, details, and statutory citations).

6 | State Profiles
Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Nebraska.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Nevada.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Connecticut.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
Delaware.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Rhode Island.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 South Carolina.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 South Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Texas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466
Maine.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Washington.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Wisconsin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 District of Columbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529
Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Alabama
Statewide Transportation System Statistics

Roads and Bridges Total lane miles 213,075 (155,300 rural, 57,775 urban)
Bridges 16,095
Toll facilities Yes (roads: 3.1 miles; bridges: 3)
High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, vanpool, demand response
Urban transit trips in 2013 7.5 million
Rail Freight rail route miles 3,194
Aviation Total airports 184
Public-use airports 89
Passengers boarded in 2013 2.3 million
Ports and Waterways Waterborne cargo tonnage in 2014 81.7 million
Note: These statistics refer to all transportation facilities and services in the state, not just those under state jurisdiction. Airport
statistics only include airports, not heliports or other types of landing facilities. Bridges include all public bridges, but not tun-
nels or culverts, that are over 20 feet long and carry vehicular traffic. All statistics were first drawn from Federal or other sources
(see references), and then presented to survey respondents to verify or amend.
Organizational Facts
Legislature
Name Alabama Legislature
Structure Bicameral, partisan
Chambers Senate (35 members), House of Representatives (105 members)
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Feb. to May
Legislative Measures 1,005
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Transportation and Energy
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Transportation, Utilities, and Infrastructure
tion-Related Issues • Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[Interim] Permanent Joint Transportation Committee
Note: “Type” refers to categories that were developed at the National Conference of State Legislatures to illustrate degrees of
legislative professionalization, based on legislators’ time on the job, legislator compensation, and legislative staff sizes (Kurtz and
Erickson, 2013). “Legislative measures introduced in 2016” includes all bills, resolutions, memorials, and other legislative initia-
tives introduced in 2016, but not measures that were carried over from 2015 in states with 2015–16 biennial sessions.
80 • State Profiles

Department of Transportation
Alabama
Name Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT)
Structure Organized mainly by functional activity
Leadership Director of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Staff Size in Full-Time 4,301
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, freight and passenger rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle
DOT Has Jurisdiction
Includes DMV? No. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency has jurisdiction over driver’s licensing functions, which are
funded by driver’s license fees. The Motor Vehicle Division of the Alabama Department of Revenue
has jurisdiction over vehicle registration, and retains portions of registration fees to cover its costs.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes and no. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency is responsible for highway patrol functions
relating to traffic safety and motor carrier laws. These functions are funded by a portion of vehicle
registration fees, driver’s license fees, motor carrier fees, a $28.5 million annual transfer from ALDOT’s
budget, and various cost reimbursement agreements with ALDOT to perform weight enforcement
and project safety activities. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, and ALDOT share jurisdiction over hazardous materials transportation.
Jurisdiction Over No. Jurisdiction over toll roads is vested in the Alabama Toll Road, Bridge, and Tunnel Authority (Ala.
Toll Facilities? Code §§23-2-140 et seq.).
Other
Other State-Level Alabama State Port The Alabama State Port Authority oversees the management and
Transportation Entities Authority (state agency) operation of the Alabama State Docks and is funded through reve-
nues generated by port activities (Ala. Code §§33-1-1 et seq.). ALDOT
collaborates with the port authority as necessary.
Alabama Toll Road, Bridge, The Alabama Toll Road, Bridge, and Tunnel Authority, a quasi-public
and Tunnel Authority entity, is authorized to collect tolls but does not currently do so. The
(corporation/ instrumentality) director of transportation is a member of the authority (Ala. Code
§23-2-143).
Communication and Collaboration

Overall Communication Mainly formal. ALDOT interacts with the Legislature mostly in the context of legislative committee
and Collaboration oversight activities that are required by statute. Each year, for example, the Legislature’s Joint Trans-
portation Committee must review and concur in the five-year highway plan, review the ALDOT bud-
get, and issue reports about ALDOT performance (Ala. Code §29-2-4).
DOT Legislative Liaison The head of ADOT’s Media and Community Relations Bureau also acts as the government relations
manager and, among other duties, serves as the main point of contact between the department and
the Legislature.

Transportation Governance
alabama

Transportation Laws Ala. Code §§29-2-1 et seq.; Ala. Code tit. 4, 23, 32, and 33; portions of Ala. Code tit. 37; Ala. Const. art.
IV, §111.06 (revenue restrictions); Ala. Const. art. XI, §§213.38 et seq. (bonding); portions of Ala. Code
tit. 40 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. In Alabama, the governor may directly request legislative
Legislative Process bill drafts, but only legislators may sponsor and introduce legislation.
ALDOT must recommend any legislation it deems advisable in its
annual report to the governor (Ala. Code §23-1-35 and §29-7-6).
Advocacy and Lobbying ALDOT advocates for the passage of certain bills and resolutions of
interest to the department.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact ALDOT may provide information to the Legislative Fiscal Office for
Statements for Legislative Use inclusion in fiscal notes prepared by the office.
Appointment of The director of transportation is appointed by the governor, with no legislative involvement (Ala.
DOT Leadership Code §23-1-21).
Legislature Able to No. The director of transportation serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review reviews all proposed rules. The
Administrative Rules committee may approve or reject a rule. If the committee does not object within 35 days, the rule
is automatically approved (Ala. Code §§41-22-1 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. ALDOT is subject to legislative audits conducted by the legislative Depart-
or Sunset Reviews ment of Examiners of Public Accounts. That department also conducts sunset reviews, but not of
ALDOT.
Required DOT Reports ALDOT makes an annual report to the governor, not to the Legislature. In this report, however,
to the Legislature ALDOT must make legislative recommendations to the governor and the Legislature and furnish
any information about road and bridge improvements that the governor and the Legislature deem
expedient (Ala. Code §23-1-35). In addition, the Department of Finance submits quarterly reports
to the Legislature concerning the operations of each state department (Ala. Code §41-19-10).
These reports include information from ALDOT, mainly comparing budgeted expenditures to actual
costs.
Legislative Role in DOT None besides the legislative audits and reporting requirements listed above.
Performance Management
Other Legislative Oversight None.
Mechanisms
Resources Provided to DOT No.
to Support Compliance with
Oversight Requirements?

Transportation Funding and Finance
Alabama
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins Oct. 1.
ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. ALDOT spending levels are set
tion Revenues to the DOT by the Legislature in the annual appropriation act. Federal transportation
funds are allocated to ALDOT as lump sum appropriations to the depart-
ment. The Joint Transportation Committee also approves the long-range
highway plan, including the use of Federal funds.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. As with Federal funds, state
transportation funds are allocated to ALDOT as lump sum appropriations
and their use is authorized through legislative approval of the long-range
highway plan.
State Transportation Budget

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2016 (approved)
Transportation Budget
Authorized Expenditures Capital outlay $762,540,908
Personnel costs, benefits, and travel $199,925,655
Repairs and maintenance $62,525,500
Rentals and leases $37,934,439
Utilities and communication $6,244,100
Professional fees and services $79,714,556
Supplies, materials, and operating expenses $115,506,527
Transportation equipment operations $4,297,595
Grants and benefits $32,147,975
Equipment purchases $9,329,999
Miscellaneous $121,475,000
Total $1,431,642,254
Revenue Sources Bond proceeds (ATRIP) $200,000,000
Federal aid receipts $720,000,000
Public road and bridge fund $488,721,573
Federal aviation receipts $22,920,681
Total $1,431,642,254

Transportation Planning ALDOT develops a five-year highway plan and is primarily responsible for determining investment
and Capital Project Selec- priorities and selecting projects.
tion Process
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The Legislature’s permanent Joint Transportation Committee reviews
Planning Process and concurs in a long-range (five-year) highway plan, and must review and concur in any devia-
tion from the intent of that plan.

alabama
Authorization
Eligible Transportation Activities
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Revenue Authorized In Roads Public Rail Airports Ports and Pedestrian Other
by state current and transit and waterways and bicycle Additional Details
Source
constitution use bridges aviation projects
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Ala. Code §40-17-325
gasoline
and diesel,
highway use
(fixed rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • Dedicated to marine activities (Ala.
marine use Code §40-17-359)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on aviation gasoline
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Ala. Code §40-17-325,
§40-17-360)
Alternative • • • Annual fees for vehicles that use liq-
fuel vehicle uefied natural gas or liquefied petro-
fees leum gas (Ala. Code §§40-17-160 et
seq.); out-of-state vehicle operators
that buy these fuels may pay either
the annual fee or the current motor
fuel tax rate
Vehicle regis- • • • Ala. Code §40-12-242; a portion of
tration fees registration fees are also used for
traffic enforcement activities
Truck regis- • • • Ala. Code §40-12-248
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Ala. Code §32-9-29
overweight
truck permit
fees
Outdoor • • • • Includes permit fees, credited to the
advertising Public Road and Bridge Fund (Ala.
revenues Code §§23-1-270 et seq.); a portion
of logo sign fees are allocated to
supplement the aviation fuel tax
revenues used for general aviation
grants
State port • • • Alabama State Port Authority (Ala.
and dock Code tit. 33)
revenues
Airport prop- • • • Ala. Code §23-1-358
erty leases or
sales
Notes:
• In general, throughout this report, this chart includes revenue sources authorized for or used by state government
agencies or departments (including but not limited to DOTs), but not those used solely by quasi-public entities such as
public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” signifies that the item is

specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible transportation
Alabama
activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not in-
clude administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education programs,
or distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail are
included under “public transit.”
• Alabama does not provide state-level revenues for public transit.
• State law authorizes the Alabama Toll Road, Bridge, and Tunnel Authority, a quasi-public agency, to collect tolls (Ala.
Code §§23-2-140 et seq.), but it does not currently do so. The only toll roads in Alabama are four privately operated
roads that do not generate revenues for the state.
• Ferry fares are neither specifically authorized in state law nor currently in use as state revenues, but they could pro-
vide funds to ALDOT under certain conditions. ALDOT contracts with a private company for ferry operation and
maintenance. Under this contract, any fare revenues that the company collects above its costs are remitted to ALDOT,
whereas any costs incurred above revenues are reimbursed to the firm by ALDOT. So far, costs have exceeded revenues.
State Fuel Tax Model Fixed rate (cents per gallon)

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts the use of fuel tax revenues
State Fuel Taxes from highway users, except pump taxes, to public highways and bridges, including the enforce-
ment of state traffic and vehicle laws (Ala. Const. art. IV, §111.06).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related revenues, except a vehicle-use tax that
Transportation Revenues is imposed in lieu of a sales tax, to public highways and bridges, including the enforcement of
state traffic and vehicle laws (Ala. Const. art. IV, §111.06). State statute dedicates taxes on fuels
used for marine and aviation purposes to those modes (Ala. Code §40-17-359 and §40-17-360).
No currently levied state taxes or fees may be used for transit. Attempts to change the constitu-
tion to allow funds to be used for transit have been unsuccessful.
Dedicated or Restricted Use of the State Highway Fund, which receives highway bond proceeds and other revenues
Transportation Funds appropriated to ALDOT, is restricted to transportation purposes (Ala. Code §23-1-62).
Revenue Sources Taxes, tolls, and other wharfage fees on the navigable waterways of the state are prohibited by
Prohibited in State Law the state constitution (Ala. Const. art. I, §24).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Finance Authorized In Roads Public Rail Airports Ports and Pedestrian Other
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • Road Bonds; capped at $25 million
bonds (Ala. Const. art. XI, §§213.38 et
seq.)
GARVEE • • Most recently issued in 2015
bonds
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • See • Authorized in statute (Ala. Code
notes §§23-2-140 et seq.; 2016 Ala. Acts,
Act 2016-257); not yet in use (see
notes)

alabama
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Public-private • See • Authorized in statute for toll roads,
partnerships notes bridges, tunnels, or ferries (Ala.
Code §23-1-81, §§23-2-140 et seq.;
2016 Ala. Acts, Act 2016-257); not
yet in use (see notes)
State infra- • • • • Established in 2015; capitalized with
structure state funds only; may be used for
bank highway or transit projects (Ala.
Code §§23-7-1 et seq.; 2015 Ala.
Acts, Act 2015-50)
Notes:
• In general, throughout this report, this chart includes finance mechanisms authorized for or used by state government
agencies or departments (including but not limited to DOTs), but not those used solely by quasi-public entities such
as public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” signifies that the item
is specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible transpor-
tation activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do
not include administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education
programs, or distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light
rail are included under “public transit.”
• The only known public-private partnership in Alabama, the Foley Beach Express, was sponsored by a local entity. It
was completed in 2000, including design-build components, and continues to be privately operated. No state-level de-
sign-build or public-private partnership projects were found. New state-level authorization was enacted into law in 2016
(2016 Ala. Acts, Act 2016-257).
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. Alabama mainly uses pay-as-you-go financing, but has done some bonding over the
years.
Restrictions on Transportation-related bonds are issued under various funding authorities that have specifica-
Finance Mechanisms tions for the issuance and use of bonds and bond proceeds. The state constitution caps road
bonds at $25 million (Ala. Const. art. XI, §§213.38 et seq.). State statutes establishing the
state infrastructure bank also cover the issuance and use of debt or loans for transportation
purposes (Ala. Code §§23-7-1 et seq.).
Finance Mechanisms None.
Prohibited in State Law

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. No other approval beyond any material change in the five-year plan is needed to spend any
Spend Excess Funds funds.
Legislative Approval No.
Required for DOT to Move
Funds Between Projects
Legislative Actions to None.
Control DOT Costs

Alabama
Allocation of State Statutory formulas. As of Oct. 1, 2016, after set-asides, 55 percent of state gas tax revenues and 22 percent
Transportation of supplemental gas taxes are distributed to counties by a statutory formula based on population. Ten percent
Revenues to Local of each county’s share must be further distributed among its municipalities based on population (Ala. Code
Entities §40-17-359). In addition, revenues from 4.69 percent of an additional diesel tax, 13.87 percent of motor fuel
inspection fees, and a portion of an additional gas tax are divided equally among the counties, while revenues
from 0.93 percent of an additional diesel tax, 2.76 percent of motor fuel inspection fees, and a portion of an
additional gas tax are distributed to municipalities based on population (Ala. Code §40-17-361 and §8-17-91).
All these allocations must be used for road projects, per constitutional restrictions on the use of transpor-
tation revenues (Ala. Const. art. IV, §111.06). A county cannot use its allocations from additional taxes on
gasoline and diesel on new construction unless its existing roads meet certain maintenance standards (Ala.
Code §40-17-362).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to assess local fuel taxes and impact fees (Ala. Code tit. 45) as well as special
Sources Autho- property taxes for roads and bridges (Ala. Code §11-14-11). Cities with a population of 300,000 or more may
rized in State Law adopt a 0.25 percent sales tax for public transit (Ala. Code §11-49B-22). Baldwin County and its constituent
municipalities may charge developers impact fees to pay for development-related capital improvements (Ala.
Code §§45-2-243.80 et seq.). Although not in statute, the Legislature has enacted special “local acts” that
allow some counties to assess sales taxes for roads or transit.

Alaska

Bridges 1,493
Toll facilities Yes (tunnels: 1)
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, vanpool, demand response
Rail Freight rail route miles Freight rail route miles: 506
Aviation Total airports 747 (249 of which are state-owned)
Legislature
Name Alaska Legislature
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Apr.
Legislative Measures 268 (out of 602 bills total introduced during the 2015-16 biennium)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Transportation
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Finance
tion-Related Issues • Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Facilities
• Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Facilities

alaska
Name Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Structure Organized mainly by transportation mode
Leadership Commissioner of Transportation and Public Facilities (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle, passenger and vehicle
DOT Has Jurisdiction ferry service
Includes DMV? No. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of the Alaska Department of Administration, and is
funded by fees the department collects.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes and no. The Alaska State Troopers, a division of the Department of Public Safety, is responsible
for most highway patrol functions. These functions are funded by state general funds and Federal
funds that are received through the DOT&PF. The DOT&PF oversees commercial vehicle enforcement
functions, supported by state general funds and commercial vehicle enforcement fees.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. The Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel (also known as the Whittier Tunnel) and the Alaska
Toll Facilities? Marine Highway ferry service, an integral part of the state’s highway system, are both under the
DOT&PF.
Other
Other State-Level Alaska Railroad Corporation The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) is a corporation and instru-
Transportation Entities (corporation/ instrumentality) mentality of the state located within the Department of Commerce
but with a separate and independent legal existence (Alaska Stat.
§§42.40.010 et seq.). Transferred to the state from the Federal govern-
ment in 1982, the ARRC was intended to be a self-sufficient, prof-
it-making entity that would be run like a business, responsible for all
its financial and legal liabilities. It carries both passengers and freight;
the land is managed as an endowment; and under the transfer act,
all revenue generated by that entity must be used for railroad-related
purposes. The ARRC receives no state funding and no regular Federal
funding. The commissioner of transportation and public facilities serves
on the ARRC’s board.
Knik Arm Bridge and Toll The Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) is a corporation and
Authority (corporation/ instrumentality of the state within the DOT&PF, but with a separate
instrumentality) and independent legal existence (Alaska Stat. §§19.75.011 et seq.).
KABATA will operate and maintain the Knik Arm Crossing and collect
tolls for the DOT&PF once the facility is built and open to the public.
The commissioner of transportation and public facilities serves on
KABATA’s board.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, proactive. The DOT&PF provides briefings to groups of legislators before con-
and Collaboration struction season and before the legislative session. The DOT&PF also responds to legislative requests
for information and provides educational sessions to House and Senate transportation committees.
The DOT&PF employs a dedicated legislative liaison who acts as the main point of contact between
the department and the Legislature.
DOT Legislative Liaison The DOT&PF’s legislative liaison, who reports directly to the commissioner of transportation, acts as
the main point of contact between the department and the Legislature.

alaska

Transportation Laws Alaska Stat. tit. 2, 19, 28, 30, and 35; portions of Alaska Stat. tit. 42; Alaska Stat. §§44.42.010 et seq.;
portions of Alaska Stat. tit. 36 (procurement); portions of Alaska Stat. tit. 37 and 43 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. The governor, however, can directly introduce bills
Legislative Process through the legislative Rules Committees, including bills that are rele-
vant to the DOT&PF.
Advocacy and Lobbying DOT&PF representatives regularly give factual testimony and share
their perspective on legislative measures, and department leader-
ship advocate and provide information to the Legislature concerning
bills proposed by the governor that relate to transportation or public
facilities. The DOT&PF, however, has no formal lobbyist, and state law
prohibits all executive officers and state employees from appearing
before the Legislature to present requests or information pertaining
to appropriations or revenue bills unless called upon to do so by the
Legislature or a legislative committee (Alaska Stat. §44.17.080).
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, state agencies such as DOT&PF must prepare fiscal notes for
Statements for Legislative Use bills that affect them (Alaska Stat. §24.08.035).
Appointment of Heads of state departments—including the commissioner of transportation and public facilities—
DOT Leadership are appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the majority of the members of the
Legislature in joint session. Each department head is constitutionally required to be a U.S. citizen
(Alaska Const. art. III, §25).
Legislature Able to No. The commissioner of transportation and public facilities serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Administrative Regulation Review Committee reviews all proposed rules. The com-
Administrative Rules mittee’s role is mainly advisory, although state law allows it to suspend a rule under some circum-
stances (Alaska Stat. §§44.62.010 et seq. and §§24.20.400 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. The DOT&PF is subject to legislative audits conducted by the Division of
or Sunset Reviews Legislative Audit, and any legislator can request a special audit through the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee. The state conducts sunset reviews, but not of the DOT&PF.
Required DOT Reports The DOT&PF is required to submit an annual report to the Legislature concerning energy efficiency
to the Legislature (Alaska Stat. §44.42.067). The Alaska Marine Highway System, a division of the DOT&PF, must
submit an annual revenue report (Alaska Stat. §19.65.070). The commissioner of transportation
and public facilities must submit an annual report of expenditures and projections for the Inter-
national Airports Construction Fund (Alaska Stat. §37.15.420). The Office of Management and
Budget, in coordination with the Department of Administration, must annually report on unex-
pended capital appropriations, including for DOT&PF projects (Alaska Stat. §37.25.020). Legislative
language in the FY 2017 capital budget also requires the DOT&PF to submit quarterly obligation
reports for Federally-funded highway and airport projects.
Legislative Role in DOT The Legislature does not determine what the DOT&PF establishes as performance goals, but Alaska
Performance Management statute does require all state agencies including the DOT&PF to create such goals and to report
on them annually to the Legislature (Alaska Stat. §37.07.050). The annual legislative session offers
opportunities for deeper discussions on the department’s performance.
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from the DOT&PF. As
Mechanisms desired, the Legislature may also review non-legislative audits that the Department of Revenue
conducts of the DOT&PF’s International Airport System, Marine Highway System, and State Equip-
ment Fleet.

alaska
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1.
ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to the
tion Revenues to the DOT DOT&PF as state legislative appropriations to departmental programs, broad
spending categories, and specific projects.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. As with Federal funds, state transportation funds are
allocated to the DOT&PF as appropriations to departmental programs, broad
spending categories, and specific projects.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2017 (enacted), separate capital and operating budgets
Authorized Expenditures Capital projects (all projects listed individually) $1,378,278,250
(Capital Budget) Total $1,378,278,250
Revenue Sources Unrestricted general funds $39,500,000
(Capital Budget) Designated general funds $33,000,000
Other $91,192,000
Federal $1,214,586,250
Total $1,378,278,250
Authorized Expenditures Administration and support $52,791,800
(Operating Budget) Design, engineering, and construction $114,661,300
State equipment fleet $33,841,700
Highways, aviation, and facilities $159,654,600
International airports $83,441,200
Marine highway system $140,897,200
Total $585,287,800
Revenue Sources Unrestricted general funds $218,336,100
(Operating Budget) Designated general funds $63,904,300
Other $301,013,500
Federal $2,033,900
Total $585,287,800

Transportation Planning The DOT&PF develops long-range transportation and area plans that are used to develop the State-
and Capital Project Selec- wide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). There is a robust public involvement process for the
tion Process STIP and area plans. The DOT&PF prepares the annual capital budget (for both Federal and non-Fed-
eral projects) for inclusion in the governor’s budget request to the Legislature.
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. The Legislature may modify or make changes to the governor’s requested
Planning Process budget based on available funding and legislative priorities. The Legislature is also included in the
public involvement process for the STIP and other transportation plans.

alaska
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Alaska Stat. §43.40.010
gasoline
and diesel,
highway use
(fixed rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on all alternative
alternative fuels for highway use except liq-
fuels uefied petroleum gas (Alaska Stat.
§43.40.010)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on aviation gas-
aviation fuels oline and jet fuel (Alaska Stat.
§43.40.010)
Fuel taxes: • • • Alaska Stat. §43.40.010
watercraft
Fuel taxes: • • • May be appropriated for trails and
snow shelters (Alaska Stat. §43.40.010)
vehicles
and other
non-highway
use
Vehicle reg- • • • Alaska Stat. §§28.10.411 et seq.
istration and
title fees
Industrial • • Authorized in state administrative
use highway code, not statute (Alaska Admin.
permit fees Code tit. 17, §§35.010 et seq.)
Sales taxes • • • Alaska Stat. §§43.52.010 et seq.
on rental
vehicles
Tolls • • • Anton Anderson Memorial Tun-
nel (Whittier Tunnel) (Alaska Stat.
§19.05.040, §37.05.146, §37.15.720)
Alaska • • See Used for Alaska Marine Highway
Marine High- notes only (Alaska Stat. §§19.65.050 et
way revenues seq.)
Property • • • • Alaska Stat. §02.15.070, §19.05.070
leases or
sales
Legislative • • • • • • • The budget reserve fund receives
appropria- revenues from mineral-related court
tions (from proceedings and investment income
budget and may be appropriated for any
reserve fund) public purpose for which appropria-
tions are otherwise less than in the
previous fiscal year (Alaska Const.
art. IX, §17); has been used for
transportation purposes

alaska
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
General • • • • Legislative appropriations; transit
funds uses include the Alaska Marine
Highway (the state ferry program)
Interest • • • • • Interest earned on accounts in
income the general fund (Alaska Stat.
§§37.10.070 et seq.)
Notes:
• The state constitution prohibits dedication of any state revenues (Alaska Const. art. IX, §7). This chart represents how
the state is known to be using these revenues in practice as of July 2016.
• The Alaska Marine Highway ferry service is considered to be an integral part of the state’s highway system.
• The Alaska Railroad Corporation, a quasi-public, self-sustaining entity with a separate legal existence, receives reve-
nues from train and real estate services (Alaska Stat. §§42.40.010 et seq.) that it is required to use for railroad-related
purposes.

Restrictions on No restrictions. The state constitution prohibits the dedication of state revenues to any special
State Fuel Taxes purpose, unless Federally required or dedicated prior to statehood (Alaska Const. art. IX, §7).
Thus, all state revenues are available for appropriation. State statute does direct fuel tax reve-
nues to a special highway fuel tax account in the general fund, which may be appropriated for
highways and ferries (Alaska Stat. §43.40.010).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution prohibits dedication of any state revenues (Alaska Const. art. IX, §7).
Transportation Revenues State statute does direct revenues from taxes on aviation fuel to a special aviation fuel tax
account in the general fund, which may be appropriated for airport purposes. The same law
directs revenues from taxes on fuel used in boats and watercraft to a special account that may
be appropriated for water and harbor facilities, and directs fuel tax revenues from snow vehicles
and other non-highway uses to a special fund that may be appropriated for trails and shelters
(Alaska Stat. §43.40.010).
Dedicated or Restricted Alaska has no transportation-dedicated trust funds or accounts. Legislative efforts to create
Transportation Funds a new, dedicated transportation fund, fed by state gas taxes and registration fees, have been
unsuccessful.
Revenue Sources None.

alaska
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
General • • • • • • • Generally authorized in the constitu-
obligation tion (Alaska Const. art. IX, §8); may
Pas-
bonds senger be issued for any purpose, subject
and to legislative and voter approval;
freight currently in use for transportation
projects in several modes
Federal credit • • Authorized for highway construc-
assistance: tion and the Knik Arm Bridge, but
TIFIA not currently in use (Alaska Stat.
§19.15.020, §37.15.225)
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Alaska Stat. §36.30.200
Public-private See notes • • See notes
partnerships
State infra- • • • Capitalized with Federal funds
structure in 1997 under the NHS Act pilot
bank program; not authorized in state
statute; one loan was issued to the
Whittier Tunnel, which is currently in
repayment status
Notes:
• Alaska previously used GARVEE bonds, but closed its program with the Federal Highway Administration in 2016.
The most recent issue had been in 2003.
• State law solely authorizes public-private partnerships for the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, which is an
instrumentality of the state, not a state agency (Alaska Stat. §§19.75.111 et seq.), and which, further, is no longer
seeking to enter into such partnerships. The Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel (also known as the Whittier Tunnel),
however, is currently run by a private entity under an operations and maintenance (O&M) concession agreement with
the DOT&PF.
• The Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority was allocated private activity bonds (PABs) in 2007, but does not now plan to
issue them.

alaska
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes.
Restrictions on General obligation bonds must be authorized by law and ratified by the voters (Alaska Const.
Finance Mechanisms art. IX, §8).

DOT Able to Retain and No. Funds are authorized for expenditure until a project is completed. Any unspent funding upon
Spend Excess Funds project completion is administratively lapsed or re-appropriated by the Legislature.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. Legislative approval is required to move project funds from one appropriation to another.
Required for DOT to Move The commissioner of transportation and public facilities has the authority to approve moving funds
Funds Between Projects between projects within a single appropriation.
Control DOT Costs

Allocation of State Legislative appropriations. Alaska has no formal statutory program for allocating state revenues to local enti-
Transportation ties for transportation projects. Some legislative appropriations for local transportation projects are included
Revenues to Local in the DOT&PF budget. Other relevant appropriations, such as for locally-owned roads or road maintenance
Entities areas, are established in the budgets for other state departments.
Local Revenue As with state taxes, most local taxes in Alaska cannot be dedicated to any special purpose. State statutes
Sources Autho- allow municipalities to adopt local vehicle registration taxes (Alaska Stat. §28.10.431), which in practice are
rized in State Law typically used for transportation investments. Municipalities may also create special assessment districts to
finance local capital improvements (Alaska Stat. §29.46.020).

Arizona

Bridges 8,035
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, vanpool, demand response
Ports and Waterways Waterborne cargo tonnage in 2014 0
Legislature
Name Arizona Legislature
Type Hybrid
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
tion-Related Issues [Task Force] Surface Transportation Funding Task Force (2016–17)
All bills must also pass through both chambers’ standing committees on rules.
Name Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
Leadership ADOT Director (serves on governor’s cabinet), State Transportation Board (within ADOT)
Equivalents (FTEs)

Arizona
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, aviation
Includes DMV? Yes. The Motor Vehicle Division is a division of ADOT and is supported by the State Highway Fund as
part of the ADOT budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? In general, no. The majority of highway patrol functions are handled by the Department of Public
Safety. These functions are funded by vehicle-related taxes and fees that are not part of ADOT’s bud-
get, including appropriations from the Highway User Revenue Fund (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-6537
and §41-1752), as well as general funds and Federal funds. In addition, however, the director of ADOT
is statutorily permitted to designate regular peace officers with like authority to other peace officers
in Arizona or specialty peace officers whose powers are limited to the enforcement of motor vehicle
laws and rules (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-369). These officers must meet the minimum requirements
for peace officers established by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board.
Jurisdiction Over No. Arizona has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Arizona Corporation Com- Among other duties, the Arizona Corporation Commission, an elected
Transportation Entities mission (state entity) state body (Ariz. Const. art. XV), oversees railroad safety. It is funded
mostly by state general funds.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, ongoing. ADOT gives formal testimony to committees about relevant legislation
and Collaboration and participates in formal meetings with legislators and staff. Various legislative staff and ADOT com-
municate about transportation-related legislation before, during, and after it is introduced. Legislators
and ADOT also have ongoing, informal interactions.
DOT Legislative Liaison The deputy director for policy in ADOT’s Government Relations Office also acts as the government
relations specialist and, among other duties, serves as the main point of contact between the depart-
ment and the Legislature.
Transportation Laws Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 28; Ariz. Const. art. IX, §11 and 14 to 16 (revenues and revenue restrictions);
portions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 42 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. In Arizona, only legislators may request legislative bill
Legislative Process drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation. An executive agency can
propose a legislative measure, however, which may be sponsored and
introduced by any legislator. The sponsor may note that the bill is “by
request” of the agency.
Advocacy and Lobbying ADOT does not “lobby” for certain legislation, but will testify in
committee hearings on bills that directly affect the department. During
these meetings ADOT may sign in “for” a bill (especially if it was a bill
run by the department’s request), but often will sign in “neutral” on a
bill and speak to the bill’s potential affect on the department.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact ADOT prepares bill analyses for legislation that may affect the depart-
Statements for Legislative Use ment. These often contain an estimate of the fiscal impact. Fiscal notes
for official legislative use, however, can only be prepared by the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §41-1272).

Arizona
Appointment of Both the ADOT director and the State Transportation Board are appointed by the governor and
DOT Leadership confirmed by the Senate. The State Transportation Board consists of one member from each
transportation district with a population of less than 2.2 million and two members from each
district with a population of 2.2 million or more. The current board has seven members. Members
are appointed to staggered six-year terms and must meet statutory requirements for geographic
representation, state residency, and taxpayer status (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-302, §28-361, and
§38-211).
Legislature Able to No. The ADOT director and the State Transportation Board both serve at the pleasure of the gov-
Remove DOT Leaders? ernor.
Legislative Review of Yes (optional). The Joint Administrative Rules Oversight Committee may review any proposed or
Administrative Rules final rule. The committee’s role is mainly advisory (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§41-1046 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Both legislative audits and sunset reviews. ADOT is subject to legislative audits conducted by the
or Sunset Reviews Office of the Auditor General, which includes substantial follow-up on an agency’s progress on
meeting recommendations made in prior audits. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee may also
direct the Auditor General or a joint legislative committee of reference to conduct a performance
audit or special performance audit of any state agency (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §41-2953). In addi-
tion, Arizona state agencies, including ADOT, are scheduled for termination at least every 10
years unless affirmatively continued by the Legislature; this makes Arizona one of four states that
conduct regular sunset reviews of its department of transportation. Sunset reviews are based on
audits conducted by either the Office of the Auditor General or a joint legislative committee of
reference, under the oversight of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. ADOT was most recently
reviewed in 2016, at which time it was continued until July 1, 2024 (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§41-
2951 et seq. and §41-3016.27; 2016 Ariz. Senate Bill 1207). The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
is required to meet quarterly to oversee all audit functions of the Legislature and state agencies—
including sunset, performance, special, and financial audits—and the preparation and introduction
of legislation resulting from audit report findings. The committee is also charged with requiring
state agencies to comply with its findings and directions regarding audits (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§41-1279).
Required DOT Reports The ADOT director is required to submit an annual report concerning controlled access highways
to the Legislature (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-363). ADOT’s Motor Vehicle Division must deliver annual reports to the
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, which in turn must report to the Legislature, on the number
of ignition interlock devices in current use (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-1442). ADOT is required to
submit a report on any attempt by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to secure implemen-
tation of the Real ID Act of 2005 or the enhanced driver’s license program (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§28-336 and §28-338). ADOT is also required by capital appropriations acts and other legislation
to report annually on highway construction expenses from all sources, debt principal balance and
debt service payment, capital outlay information, and Motor Vehicle Division wait times.
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, the Legislature has
Performance Management also enacted requirements for ADOT performance measurement and established some specific
measures in state law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-304, §28-306, §§28-503 et seq., and §28-6954).
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from ADOT. In addition,
Mechanisms the Joint Legislative Budget Committee is statutorily required to ascertain facts and make recom-
mendations to the Legislature relating to the state budget, revenues and expenditures of the state,
future fiscal needs, and the organization and functions of state agencies or their divisions (Ariz.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §41-1272).

Arizona
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. Arizona is one of five states in which a legislative entity—in
ations Overview this case, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee—produces a comprehensive budget as an alterna-
tive to the governor’s proposal.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to ADOT from
tion Revenues to the DOT the U.S. DOT with no state legislative involvement.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State transportation funds are allocated to ADOT
as lump sum appropriations to the department.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2017 (approved), separate capital and operating budgets (see note)
Authorized Expenditures Building renewal $4,232,300
(Capital Budget) Individual projects $381,724,900
Non-appropriated fund expenditures $1,012,601,000
Total $1,398,558,200
Revenue Sources General fund $86,500,000
(Capital Budget) State Aviation Fund $19,312,200
State Highway Fund $280,145,000
Other non-appropriated funds $342,567,000
Federal funds $670,034,000
Total $1,398,558,200
Authorized Expenditures Personal services, employee-related expenditures, and travel $154,284,300
(Operating Budget) Professional and outside services $5,100,500
Equipment $3,695,400
Other operating expenditures $40,937,600
Attorney General legal services [special line item] $3,577,700
Highway maintenance [special line item] $140,593,200
Vehicles and heavy equipment [special line item] $18,474,600
Other special line items $7,196,600
Non-appropriated fund expenditures $108,889,800
Total $482,749,700
Revenue Sources General fund $50,400
(Operating Budget) Other appropriated funds $373,809,500
Other non-appropriated funds $107,448,800
Total $482,749,700
Note: The numbers in this chart are drawn from the capital and operating appropriations reports provided by Arizona’s Joint
Legislative Budget Committee, which detail legislative appropriations and estimated non-appropriated expenditures.

Arizona
Transportation Planning ADOT administers the state highway system and coordinates transportation planning. ADOT develops
and Capital Project Selec- an annual priority program of capital improvements for highway and aviation and a Five-Year Highway
tion Process Construction Program based on extensive public participation and technical evaluation, which are
approved by the State Transportation Board. The Multimodal Planning Division facilitates multimodal
planning in cooperation with MPOs, Federal agencies, tribes, counties, cities, the public, and other
stakeholders.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The Legislature generally appropriates funds to the department as a lump sum
Planning Process and does not approve the capital program, although it can appropriate funds for specific transporta-
tion projects. The Legislature can amend statutes to conform state transportation planning processes
to Federal requirements.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-5606
gasoline and
diesel (fixed
rate)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§28-8344, §§42-5351 et seq.); used
for aviation purposes pursuant to
Federal Aviation Administration rules
Vehicle reg- • • • Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-2003
istration and
title fees
Truck regis- • • • Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-5433
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Allocated in part to the State
overweight Highway Fund (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
truck permit §28-1143)
fees
Truck permit • • • Includes single-trip permits (Ariz.
fees, other Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-2325, §28-
5863) and special 30-day permits
(Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-5864)
Vehicle • • • In lieu of ad valorem taxes (Ariz. Rev.
license taxes Stat. Ann. §28-5801)
Sales taxes • • • Rental vehicle surcharge (Ariz. Rev.
on rental Stat. Ann. §28-5810)
vehicles
Driver’s • • • Allocated to the Highway User
license fees Revenue Fund (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§28-3002)

Arizona
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Rest area • • Authorized but not currently in use;
sponsorship authority expires July 1, 2019; reve-
nues may be used for rest areas only
Flight prop- • • • Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §42-14255
erty taxes
Aircraft reg- • • • Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-8321 et

istration fees seq.
and license
taxes
Watercraft • • • Allocated to the State Lake Improve-
registration ment Fund and the Law Enforce-
fees ment and Boating Safety Fund (Ariz.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §§5-321 et seq.)
General • • Legislative appropriations for high-
funds way projects in FY 2017
Interest • • • • Highway User Revenue Fund, State

income Highway Fund, State Aviation Fund
(Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-6546,
§28-6996, §28-8202)
Notes:
• In general, Arizona does not provide state-level revenues for public transit. The exception to this is the Arizona State
Lottery Commission’s annual distribution of multi-state Powerball proceeds to Maricopa County. Legislation enacted in
1993 (1993 Ariz. Sess. Laws, Chap. 1 [6th Spec. Sess.]) allocated at least 31.5 percent of Powerball proceeds to local pub-
lic transit programs. This allocation was capped at $18 million and was contingent upon the general fund receiving $45
million in lottery revenues. These revenues were redirected to the general fund in 2010 (2010 Ariz. Sess. Laws, Chap. 12
[7th Spec. Sess.]). In 2011, however, the U.S. District Court ruled that the Legislature had to restore the distribution of
public transit monies to Maricopa County because the distribution was part of the state’s implementation plan to ensure
compliance with the Clean Air Act. As a result, the state must calculate Maricopa County’s share of 31.5 percent of
statewide Powerball proceeds and distribute those monies to the county. This share was $11.4 million in FY 2016.

Arizona

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts the use of fuel tax revenues from
State Fuel Taxes highway users to highway and street purposes, including administration, traffic enforcement, traf-
fic safety programs, and Arizona Highways magazine (Ariz. Const. art. IX, §14).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution dedicates revenues from vehicle-related taxes and fees, except a vehicle
Transportation Revenues license tax that is imposed in lieu of ad valorem taxes, to highway and street purposes, including
administration, traffic enforcement, traffic safety programs, and Arizona Highways magazine (Ariz.
Const. art. IX, §14). State statute does dedicate a portion of vehicle license taxes to the Highway
User Revenue Fund (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-5801).
Dedicated or Restricted Constitutionally restricted revenues are deposited into the Highway User Revenue Fund, from
Transportation Funds which ADOT receives most of its funding for highway projects via the State Highway Fund. Dis-
tribution of both funds is governed by state statute (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-6533 et seq. and
§28-6993). Use of the Aviation Fund, which receives various aviation-related revenues, is restricted
to publicly owned and operated airports (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-8202).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • State Highway Fund Bonds (Ariz.
bonds Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-7501 et seq.)
GARVEE • • • Authorized in state statute (Ariz.
bonds Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-7611 et seq.);
most recent issue for new money
was in 2011
Federal credit • • • • • Authorized for public-private part-
assistance: Pas- nerships; not restricted by mode
senger
TIFIA and (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-7706); not
freight currently in use
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • See • Authorized in statute through Dec.
Notes 31, 2025 (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§§28-7361 et seq.); currently in use
as a component of a public-private
partnership (see notes)
Public-private • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for various
partnerships Pas- transportation modes (Ariz. Rev.
senger
and Stat. Ann. §§28-7701 et seq.); used
freight for one highway project (currently
under construction) (see notes)
State infra- • • • Highway Expansion and Extension
structure Loan Program (HELP) (Ariz. Rev. Stat.
bank Ann. §§28-7671 et seq.); capitalized
with Federal funds in 1996 and 1997
under the NHS Act pilot program;
currently inactive

Arizona
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Board fund- • • Short-term obligations to be pur-
ing obliga- chased by the State Treasurer and
tions paid back from ADOT program
funds; authorized in statute through
2019–20, but not currently in use
Notes:
• ADOT’s South Mountain Freeway project, which is currently under construction, is a design-build-maintain project in
which the design-build partners will also maintain the freeway for 30 years after construction. Although design-build
is a component of this project, it is more commonly thought of as Arizona’s first highway public-private partnership. No
other current design-build projects were found, but there have been at least two such projects in the last five years.

Restrictions on The state constitution limits general obligation debt to $350,000 (Ariz. Const. art. IX, §5).
Finance Mechanisms

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Unspent operating budget appropriations revert to the State Highway Fund or Aviation Fund,
Spend Excess Funds each of which is administered by ADOT. No further authorization is required to spend these funds.
Legislative Approval Generally, no.
Legislative Actions to State procurement law includes low-bid requirements (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§41-2501 et seq.). Also,
Control DOT Costs the capital outlay bill prohibits the use of capital monies for state employee expenses.

Arizona
Allocation of State Statutory formulas. After set-asides, 19 percent of the revenues in the state Highway User Revenue Fund
Transportation go to counties and 27.5 percent to cities and towns. These funds are distributed using statutory formulas
Revenues to Local based on population and fuel sales. A further 3 percent of the fund is distributed to cities with a population
Entities of 3,000 or more, based on population (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-6538 and §28-6540). A portion of vehicle
license taxes and rental car surcharges is also distributed to counties, cities, and towns, using statutory formu-
las based on population (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-5808).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to adopt property taxes and excise taxes on retail sales for road purposes
Sources Autho- (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-6712 and §§42-6105 et seq.). Cities and counties may establish special transpor-
rized in State Law tation-related taxing districts (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 48) or charge development fees to pay for capital
improvements that can include streets (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9-463.05 and §11-1102).

Arkansas

Bridges 12,668
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, streetcar, demand response
Legislature
Name Arkansas General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Mar. (regular session, odd years), approx. Feb. to Mar. (fiscal session, even
years)
Legislative Measures 278 (2016 fiscal session only; 2,061 bills were introduced in the 2015 regular session)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Transportation, Technology, and Legislative Affairs
diction Over Transporta- • Motor Vehicle and Highways Subcommittee
tion-Related Issues • Waterways and Aeronautics Subcommittee
House Committee on Public Transportation
• Motor Vehicle and Highways Permanent Subcommittee
• Public Transportation and Rail Permanent Subcommittee
• Waterways and Aeronautics Permanent Subcommittee
Legislative Council
• Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommittee
[Task Force] Legislative Task Force on Intermodal Transportation and Commerce

arkansas
Name Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD)

Leadership AHTD Director (does not serve on governor’s cabinet), Highway Commission (independent body). The
Highway Commission, although structurally separate from the AHTD, administers the department and
appoints its director.
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, pedestrian/bicycle, ferries (AHTD operates
DOT Has Jurisdiction one free vehicle ferry, the Peel Ferry on Bull Shoals Lake)
Includes DMV? No. The Office of Driver Services and the Office of Motor Vehicles are divisions of the Arkansas
Department of Finance and Administration and are supported by general funds, driver’s license fees,
and license plate fees, not out of AHTD’s budget. Driver’s license testing is conducted by the State
Police.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes, in part. Arkansas has both a Highway Patrol, which is a division of the State Police, and a High-
way Police, which is a division of AHTD. The Highway Patrol is supported by Federal funds, general
funds, and special revenues that are not part of the AHTD budget. The Highway Police is responsible
for, among other duties, motor carrier safety and hazardous materials enforcement and is funded out
of AHTD’s main operating fund.
Jurisdiction Over Yes (in law but not in practice). State law authorizes the Highway Commission to levy tolls on turnpike
Toll Facilities? projects (Ark. Code Ann. §27-90-203), but it does not currently do so. Arkansas has no toll facilities at
present.
Other
Other State-Level Arkansas Waterways Com- The Arkansas Waterways Commission is an independent statutory
Transportation Entities mission (state agency) body (Ark. Code Ann. §§15-23-201 et seq.), supported by general
funds and property taxes, that develops, promotes, and protects
waterborne transportation in Arkansas. The Highway Commission,
however, has the authority to develop and coordinate a balanced
statewide unified transportation plan for all modes (Ark. Code Ann.
§27-65-107).
Arkansas Department of The Arkansas Department of Aeronautics is an independent statutory
Aeronautics (state agency) body (Ark. Code Ann. §§27-115-101 et seq.), supported by Federal
funds, aviation fuel taxes, and other special revenues, that promotes
and develops aviation projects. The Highway Commission, however,
has the authority to develop and coordinate a balanced statewide uni-
fied transportation plan for all modes (Ark. Code Ann. §27-65-107).

Overall Communication Formal and informal, ongoing. A governmental relations office was established for AHTD in FY 2017.
and Collaboration This office is responsible for legislative communication, development of legislation, and coordination
of AHTD legislative activities with the legislature. The AHTD governmental relations officer, AHTD
administration, and the General Assembly interact in person at transportation committee meetings.
They also meet or communicate directly by phone or e-mail as needed. The governmental relations
officer consults with AHTD administration, the Highway Commission, and legislators on policy issues,
and with legislative staff about bill drafting or meetings. The governmental relations officer, who also
acts as the state legislation specialist, monitors legislative activities and compiles data for required
reports to the legislature.
DOT Legislative Liaison The governmental relations officer is the main point of contact between the department and the
General Assembly.

Arkansas
Transportation Laws Ark. Const. amend. 42; Ark. Code Ann. tit. 27; Ark. Code Ann. §19-5-1126 (Arkansas Public Transit Trust
Fund); Ark. Const. amend. 91 (revenues); portions of Ark. Code Ann. tit. 19 and 26 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. In Arkansas, only legislators may sponsor and introduce
Legislative Process legislation. The Legislative Council, however, can authorize the Bureau
of Legislative Research to assist state agencies in preparing legislation
(Ark. Code Ann. §10-2-129). AHTD administration and the Highway
Commission consult with legislative staff about bill drafting.
Advocacy and Lobbying No role.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact AHTD often prepares policy impact statements for proposed legisla-
Statements for Legislative Use tion for distribution to the General Assembly and interested parties.
In addition, fiscal impact statements may be prepared and distributed
as well. The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration is
statutorily charged with preparing fiscal impact statements, and AHTD
is directed to assist as needed (Ark. Code Ann. §10-3-1405).
Appointment of The five members of the Highway Commission are appointed to ten-year terms by the governor,
DOT Leadership by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and within constitutional and statutory require-
ments for geographic representation. All members must be qualified electors in Arkansas (Ark.
Const. amend. 42; Ark. Code Ann. §27-65-104). The commission appoints the AHTD director, who
must be “a practical business or professional person” (Ark. Const. amend. 42; Ark. Code Ann.
§27-65-122).
Legislature Able to Yes, for some leaders. A commissioner may be removed by the governor for cause, following a
Remove DOT Leaders? prescribed process, or by a majority vote of the Senate after a hearing. The AHTD director can be
removed by the commission.
Legislative Review of Yes and no. State law requires state agencies to submit proposed rules for review and approval
Administrative Rules by the Administrative Rules and Regulations Subcommittee of the Legislative Council, if requested
(Ark. Const. amend. 92; Ark. Code Ann. §10-3-309). In general, however, AHTD is not consid-
ered a “state agency” subject to review and approval and does not submit rules for review. The
exception is that, under new legislation enacted in 2016, the Highway Commission is now required
to submit, for review by the Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommittee of the Leg-
islative Council only, rules regarding the criteria for distribution of funds and the spending priority
designated for highway construction contracts and public road construction projects (2016 Ark.
Acts, 3rd. Ex. Sess., Act 1).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. AHTD is subject to audits conducted by the Division of Legislative Audit.
or Sunset Reviews Arkansas does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports The Highway Commission must submit a biennial report to the General Assembly responding to
to the Legislature legislative questions and making recommendations for the improvement of the road system (Ark.
Code Ann. §27-65-110). It must also provide the Highway Commission Review and Advisory Sub-
committee of the Legislative Council with a report on the progress of each project of $10 million
or more, at least quarterly or as required by the subcommittee (2016 Ark. Acts, 3rd. Ex. Sess., Act
1). Special language in the annual highways and transportation appropriation act requires quarterly
reporting of AHTD’s financial activities to the legislature.
Legislative Role in DOT None besides the reporting requirements listed above.
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from AHTD.
Mechanisms

arkansas

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. Expenditures and agency requests are reviewed in biennial
ations Overview budget hearings, after which the Budget Committee recommends detailed appropriation levels to the
General Assembly. The General Assembly enacts annual appropriation acts specific to the AHTD.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are appropriated to
tion Revenues to the DOT the AHTD through the annual highways and transportation appropriation act,
which assigns funds at the level of departmental programs and broad spending
categories.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. As with Federal funds, state transportation
funds are allocated to the AHTD through appropriations to departmental
programs and broad spending categories. The General Assembly enacts
appropriation authority by category to allow the AHTD to spend revenues,
including any state revenue. State motor fuel taxes are earmarked as special
revenues.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2016 (allotted) (see note)
Authorized Expenditures Employees Retirement $250,000,000
NOAA Weather Warning Radio System $4,000
Arkansas Public Transit Trust Fund $4,600,000
Highway—Operations $1,987,031,616
State Aid Roads $34,000,000
Public Transportation Programs $346,393
Roads/Bridges Maintenance and Grants $5,000,000
State Aid Streets $30,000,000
Arkansas Four-Lane Highway Construction $200,000,000
Commercial Truck Safety and Education Program $3,000,000
Regional Intermodal Transportation Authorities $25,000
Total $2,514,007,009
Revenue Sources [No data]
Note: The numbers in this chart are drawn from AHTD’s FY 2016 monthly expenditure summary by appropriation. They
reflect the final allotted amounts, including any adjustments made after the original legislative appropriations.

Transportation Planning The AHTD is responsible for all transportation planning processes and develops the Statewide Long-
and Capital Project Selec- Range Intermodal Transportation Plan and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
tion Process The Highway Commission has final approval over both plans and projects to be funded, and solicits
comments from other stakeholders. Projects are identified by various means, including by MPO plans
and transit providers. Projects are selected based on an AHTD review of proposed needs and available
funding.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The General Assembly has generally been minimally involved except that,
Planning Process at times, it has identified and earmarked state funds for desired projects. New legislation enacted
in 2016, however, established the Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommittee of
the Legislative Council, and tasked it with reviewing and publishing rules to be proposed by the
Highway Commission regarding criteria for distribution of funds and the spending priority desig-
nated for highway construction contracts and public road construction projects (2016 Ark. Acts,
3rd. Ex. Sess., Act 1).

Arkansas
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Ark. Code Ann. §19-6-301, §26-55-
gasoline and 205, §26-55-1002, §26-55-1006,
diesel (fixed §26-55-1201, §26-56-201, §26-56-
rate) 502, §26-56-601
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on liquefied natural
alternative gas, hydrogen, electricity, and others
fuels (Ark. Code Ann. §19-6-301, §26-
55-1201, §26-56-301, §26-56-502,
§26-56-601, §26-62-109, §§26-62-
201 et seq.)
Vehicle reg- • • • Ark. Code Ann. §27-70-202
istration and
title fees
Truck regis- • • • Ark. Code Ann. §27-14-601
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Allocated to the State Highway and
overweight Transportation Department Fund
truck permit (Ark. Code Ann. §27-35-210)
fees
Truck-related • • • Includes motor carrier registration
fees, other processing fees, insurance filing
fees, and temporary license plate
fees; all allocated at least in part to
the State Highway and Transporta-
tion Department Fund (Ark. Code
Ann. §23-13-265, §27-14-1306)
Commercial • • • Includes commercial driving record
driver-related fees, allocated to the State Highway
fees Fund (Ark. Code Ann. §§27-23-117
et seq.) and penalties for employers
who knowingly fail to check the
Commercial Driver Alcohol and Drug
Testing Database, allocated in part
to the State Highway and Transpor-
tation Department Fund (Ark. Code
Ann. §27-23-209)
Sales taxes • • • 75 percent of revenues are used for
on rental public transit (Ark. Code Ann. §19-
vehicles 5-1126, §26-63-302)
Severance • • • 95 percent of revenues are used for
taxes on highways and roads (Ark. Code Ann.
natural gas §26-58-111, §27-70-202)

arkansas
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Sales taxes • • • Includes sales taxes on aviation gas-
on aviation oline and jet fuel (Ark. Code Ann.
fuel, services, §§26-52-101 et seq., §27-115-110)
and parts
Rail regula- • • • Allocated in part to the State High-
tion fees way and Transportation Department
Fund (Ark. Code Ann. §23-16-105)
Pine timber • • • 50 percent of net proceeds from the
sales sale of pine grown on state highway
rights-of-way and other highway-re-
lated areas are credited to the
State Highway and Transportation
Department Fund (Ark. Code Ann.
§22-5-101)
Tolls • • State law authorizes the Highway
Commission to levy tolls on turnpike
projects (Ark. Code Ann. §27-90-
203), but it does not currently do so
State general • • • Temporary 0.5 percent sales and
sales taxes use tax; supports the $1.3 billion
Connecting Arkansas bond program
(Ark. Const. amend. 91)
Rainy Day • • One-time $40 million transfer in
Fund 2016 to the Arkansas Highway
Transfer Fund; authorized in session
law, not statute (2016 Ark. Acts,
3rd. Ex. Sess., Act 1)
General • • • • Typically $350,000 per year (derived
funds from corporate franchise taxes) is
legislatively appropriated for public
transit; also, as of July 1, 2016, 25
percent of annual surplus general
revenue collections will be deposited
to the Arkansas Highway Transfer
Fund (Ark. Code Ann. §19-5-406
and §19-6-832)
Interest • • • • Interest on all AHTD-administered
income funds (Ark. Code Ann. §27-70-204)
Notes:

• Ad valorem taxes on water transportation companies in excess of $2.5 million are credited to the Arkansas Port, Inter-
Arkansas
modal, and Waterway Development Grant Program Fund, which is administered by the Arkansas Waterways Com-
mission (Ark. Code Ann. §15-23-205, §19-5-906, and §26-26-1616), This program’s grants, however, are awarded to
port and intermodal authorities, not used for the kind of state-level transportation activities described in this chart.
• State highway revenues are also used to support a state-operated vehicle ferry, the Peel Ferry on Bull Shoals Lake,
which is considered part of the state highway system.

Restrictions on Constitutional and statutory, roads and bridges. The state constitution dedicates a portion of
State Fuel Taxes motor fuel tax revenues to the State Aid Street Fund (Ark. Const. amend. 91, §20). In addition,
various provisions in state statute dedicate motor fuel tax revenues to public highways, includ-
ing retiring highway indebtedness (Ark. Code Ann. §26-55-206, §26-55-1004, §26-56-109,
§26-56-221, §26-56-504, §26-56-602, §26-56-804, §26-62-109, and §§27-70-201 et seq.).
Restrictions on Other State statute designates vehicle registration and licensing fees, alternative fuel taxes, and 95
Transportation Revenues percent of the revenues from severance taxes on natural gas (in addition to motor fuel taxes)
as special highway revenues to be used for roads and bridges (Ark. Code Ann. §§27-70-201 et
seq.). State statute also requires 75 percent of revenues from a rental vehicle tax to be depos-
ited into the Public Transit Trust Fund and used for public transit (Ark. Code Ann. §19-5-1126).
Dedicated or Restricted The Public Transit Trust Fund must be used for transit, and the State Highway and Transporta-
Transportation Funds tion Department Fund for highways and bridges (Ark. Code Ann. §19-5-1126 and §27-70-207).
The Department of Aeronautics Fund, which receives various aviation-related revenues, must be
used for aviation (Ark. Code Ann. §27-115-110) and the new Arkansas Highway Transfer Fund,
derived mostly from 25 percent of annual surplus general revenue collections, for highway
construction and maintenance (Ark. Code Ann. §19-5-406 and §19-6-832).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • Connecting Arkansas program; up
obligation to $1.3 billion authorized for four-
bonds lane highway construction (Ark.
Const. amend. 91)
GARVEE • • • Authorized in statute until Dec. 31,
bonds 2017, for up to $1.1 billion total;
voter approval required (Ark. Code
Ann. §27-64-504); most recently
issued in 2014
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Ark. Code Ann. §27-67-206

arkansas
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Public-private • • The State Highway Commission is
partnerships authorized to enter into some kinds
of partnerships (Ark. Code Ann.
§27-67-206; 2015 Ark. Acts, Act
704); not currently in use
State infra- • • Capitalized with Federal funds
statute; currently inactive
Note: In general, throughout this report, this chart includes finance mechanisms authorized for or used by state government
agencies or departments (including but not limited to DOTs), but not those used solely by quasi-public entities such as public
benefit corporations or instrumentalities. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” signifies that the item is specifically au-
thorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible transportation activities” include the
state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not include administrative costs, DMV
or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education programs, or distributions to local governments. The
“rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail are included under “public transit.”

Restrictions on By state statute, GARVEE bonding is capped at a total of $1.1 billion and may only be issued
Finance Mechanisms until Dec. 31, 2017, pending voter approval (Ark. Code Ann. §27-64-504). General obligation
bonds are restricted as described in the ballot measures needed to authorize them.

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Balances remain in most AHTD funds at the end of the fiscal year, because they are special
Spend Excess Funds revenues that can only be used for the purposes authorized in state statute. No further approval is
required to spend these funds other than the annual appropriation authority enacted by the General
Assembly, which authorizes all expenditures.
Legislative Approval In general, no. Legislative approval is not required for the AHTD to move funds between projects.
Required for DOT to Move Legislative approval is required, however, to transfer funds from the Arkansas Highway Transfer Fund,
Funds Between Projects which was established in 2016 to provide additional funding for highway construction and mainte-
nance, to the Highway Account (Ark. Code Ann. §19-6-832).
Legislative Actions to Actions include low-bid requirements for the Highway Commission in state law (Ark. Code Ann. §27-
Control DOT Costs 65-111 and §27-67-206).

Arkansas
Allocation of State Trans- Statutory and other formulas, grants. After set-asides, 15 percent of state fuel taxes and other special
portation Revenues to highway revenues are distributed to counties by a statutory formula based on land area, population,
Local Entities and vehicle license fees. An additional 15 percent are distributed to cities and towns based on popu-
lation. Funds can be used for roads, public transit, and other transportation projects (Ark. Code Ann.
§§27-70-206 et seq.). Most severance taxes on natural gas are distributed to counties for according
to the same formula, except for a small set-aside that must be used to make grants to counties for
damages resulting from trucks and other heavy machinery used in the extraction of natural gas. These
grants are distributed based on the number of active unconventional natural gas wells in each county
(Ark. Code Ann. §26-58-124). Through the State Aid Road Fund, another portion of state fuel taxes
is allocated to counties by a statutory formula based on land area and rural population (Ark. Code
Ann. §27-72-305 and §27-72-309). A similar fund, the State Aid Street Fund, is distributed to cities by
formulas that are set by a committee of mayors (Ark. Const. amend. 91, §20; Ark. Code Ann. §§27-
72-401 et seq.).
Local Revenue Sources State statute authorizes cities and counties to adopt local vehicle registration taxes for road purposes
Authorized in State Law (Ark. Code Ann. §§26-78-101 et seq.), form improvement districts to finance road or bridge projects
(Ark. Code Ann. §14-86-802), or assess special sales taxes to fund public transit or capital improve-
ments (Ark. Code Ann. §14-164-327, §14-164-338, §14-174-101, §26-73-112, §§26-74-201 et seq.,
and §§26-75-201 et seq.). Counties may levy property taxes for roads and bridges (Ark. Code Ann.
§§26-79-101 et seq.). Municipalities may assess development impact fees to pay for public facilities
that can include transportation systems (Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-103). Regional mobility authorities
may collect tolls (Ark. Code Ann. §§27-76-101 et seq.) and intermodal authorities may form improve-
ment districts with local assessments (Ark. Code Ann. §14-143-109).

California

Bridges 25,318
High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes Yes
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, cable car,
ferry boat, streetcar, vanpool, demand response
Urban transit trips in 2013 1.4 billion
Legislature
Name California Legislature
Chambers Senate (40 members), Assembly (80 members)
Type Professional/full-time
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Sept. (odd years), Jan. to Aug. (even years)
Legislative Measures 2,600 (estimated)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review
tion-Related Issues • Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation
Assembly Committee on Budget
• Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources and Transportation
[Select] Senate Select Committee on Passenger Rail
[Select] Senate Select Committee on Ports and Goods Movement
[Select] Assembly Select Committee on Improving Bay Area Transportation Systems
[Select] Assembly Select Committee on Ports
[Select] Assembly Select Committee on Rail
[Select] Assembly Select Committee on Regional Transportation and Interconnectivity Solutions

California
Name California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Leadership Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (serves on governor’s cabinet), Caltrans
Director, California Transportation Commission (independent body). The California Transportation
Commission is one of several state entities under the California State Transportation Agency, and is
structurally separate from Caltrans.
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, passenger rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? No. The Department of Motor Vehicles is a separate state entity that is also under the California
State Transportation Agency. It is funded by vehicle registration and driver’s license fees, not out of
Caltrans’ budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The California Highway Patrol is a separate state entity that is also under the California State
Transportation Agency. It is funded by vehicle registration and driver’s license fees, not out of Cal-
trans’ budget.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. Caltrans owns and operates seven toll bridges.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Board of Pilot Commis- The Board of Pilot Commissioners is a separate state entity under the Cal-
Transportation Entities sioners (state entity) ifornia State Transportation Agency, funded by user fees. The secretary of
the California State Transportation Agency serves as an ex officio non-vot-
ing member (Cal. Harbors and Navigation Code §§1150 et seq.).
California High-Speed Rail The California High-Speed Rail Authority is a separate state entity under
Authority (state entity) the California State Transportation Agency (Cal. Public Utilities Code
§§185000 et seq.), funded by a voter-approved bond, revenue from the
Cap-and-Trade Program, and Federal funds.
Office of Traffic Safety The Office of Traffic Safety is a separate state entity under the California
(state entity) State Transportation Agency that was created to administer the state’s
traffic safety program (Cal. Vehicle Code §§2900 et seq.). It is funded by
Federal funds.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. Through the budget process, legislators and legislative staff make formal
and Collaboration requests to Caltrans for information and discuss budget issues in committee hearings. The Legisla-
tive Analyst’s Office works with Caltrans to understand its budget each year, and then publishes its
budget recommendations for the Legislature. Members of relevant legislative committees and other
legislators frequently communicate directly with Caltrans about specific issues of interest. Caltrans’
Office of External Affairs analyzes bills and can request bill proposals through the governor’s office.
DOT Legislative Liaison The assistant deputy director of legislative affairs in Caltrans’ Office of External Affairs, among other
duties, is the main point of contact between the department and the Legislature.

California

Transportation Laws Cal. Streets and Highways Code; Cal. Vehicle Code; portions of Cal. Public Utilities Code and Cal. Gov-
ernment Code; Cal. Const. art. XIX, §2 and §3 (revenue restrictions), art. XIXa (Public Transportation
Account), and art. XIXb (Transportation Investment Fund); portions of Cal. Revenue and Taxation Code
(revenues); numerous other state statutes and portions of the state constitution
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. In California, the governor’s office can submit “admin-
Legislative Process istrative proposals” to the Legislature. Caltrans’ Office of External
Affairs can request such proposals through the governor’s office. Bills
must be sponsored and introduced by legislators.
Advocacy and Lobbying [No data]
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact [No data]
Statements for Legislative Use
Appointment of Nine of the 13 members of the California Transportation Commission are appointed by the
DOT Leadership governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The governor must “make every effort” to
ensure geographic representation among the members he appoints, but all members represent
the state at large. The remaining four members are appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and
the Senate Committee on Rules, each of whom appoints one voting citizen member and one ex
officio legislator member. All but ex officio members are appointed to staggered four-year terms
and may not hold simultaneous elected office or serve on a public board or commission with
business before the commission (Cal. Government Code §§14500 et seq.). The Caltrans director is
appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate (Cal. Government Code §14003).
Caltrans is one of several entities that make up the California State Transportation Agency, under
the oversight of a cabinet-level secretary. The secretary is appointed by the governor, subject to
confirmation by the Senate (Cal. Government Code §13976).
Legislature Able to No. The Caltrans director and secretary of the California State Transportation Agency hold office
Remove DOT Leaders? at the pleasure of the governor. No process is specified for removing members of the California
Transportation Commission before the end of their respective terms of office.
Legislative Review of No. The executive Office of Administrative Law reviews proposed and existing rules (Cal. Govern-
Administrative Rules ment Code §§11340 et seq.). This office may sometimes be asked to submit reports to the Legisla-
ture, however, and the Legislature may also study and make recommendations regarding existing
or proposed rules.
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. Caltrans is subject to audits conducted by the State Auditor’s Office which,
or Sunset Reviews although not a legislative entity, generally conducts audits at the request of the Joint Legislative
Audit Committee. The state conducts sunset reviews, but not of Caltrans.
Required DOT Reports Caltrans is required to submit annual performance reports to the Legislature concerning State
to the Legislature Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) project costs and delivery (Cal. Government Code
§14524.16 and §14525.5), business signs near rural freeway exits (Cal. Streets and Highways Code
§101.7), safety roadside rest areas (Cal. Streets and Highways Code §226.5), non-motorized trans-
portation facilities (Cal. Streets and Highways Code §887.4), and any active design-build projects
(Cal. Public Contract Code §6821). The California Transportation Commission submits an annual
report of transportation capital outlay appropriations and transportation issues facing the state. It
must include materials with this report that address bond-funded projects, the California Transpor-
tation Financing Authority, the Transportation Facilities Account, and local transportation construc-
tion (Cal. Government Code §14535, §64110, §8879.23, §8879.54, and §14529.7). Every year, the
commission must also submit reports concerning Federal GARVEE bonds (Cal. Government Code
§§14553.10) and, every six months, a report concerning the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund
(Cal. Government Code §8879.52). The secretary of transportation must submit a report every four
years concerning transportation fees (Cal. Vehicle Code §42276). A number of other reports are
required intermittently or one-time as needed.

California
Performance Management enacted some requirements for Caltrans performance measurement in state law (Cal. Government
Code §14526.4) and occasionally determines specific targets or goals for Caltrans to achieve.
Other Legislative Oversight Legislative oversight of Caltrans occurs mainly through the budget committee process, which
Mechanisms includes public hearings and an annual budget review, conducted by the California Legislative Ana-
lyst’s Office. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also periodically reviews Caltrans programs in depth,
informs the Legislature of any concerns, and makes recommendations. In addition, policy commit-
tees often hold oversight hearings related to specific issues.

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. Transportation programs receive state funding from several
ations Overview dedicated revenue sources. The Legislature can make some changes to the mix of transportation pro-
grams that are funded, but within various formulas, requirements, and restrictions on funding certain
programs or the uses of certain revenues.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Although Federal transportation funds flow directly
tion Revenues to the DOT to Caltrans, the department needs a budget appropriation in order to have
the authority to spend the funds. Appropriation authority is given in the state
budget act under broad categories (e.g., support, local assistance, capital outlay,
and others).
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. As with Federal funds, state transportation funds
essentially flow directly to Caltrans, but authority to spend the funds is given
in the state budget act under broad categories. The governor and Legislature
typically include some more specific budget bill language each year regarding
the use of some state funds.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2017 (enacted)
Authorized Expenditures Aeronautics $7,524,000
Capital outlay support $1,772,543,000
Capital outlay projects $2,881,169,000
Local assistance $2,244,032,000
Program development $81,349,000
Legal $128,029,000
Operations $258,347,000
Maintenance $1,567,599,000
State and Federal mass transit $151,538,000
Intercity rail passenger program $394,491,000
Statewide planning $139,857,000
Regional planning $92,718,000
Total $9,719,196,000

California
Revenue Sources State Transportation Fund (various accounts) $3,270,584,000

Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of $133,041,000
2006 (various accounts)
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund $234,293,000
Other state funds $108,692,000
Federal trust fund $4,811,888,000
Reimbursements $1,160,698,000
Total $9,719,196,000
Note: The California State Transportation Agency oversees and coordinates the activities of several state entities, including
Caltrans, the California Transportation Commission, the High-Speed Rail Authority, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the
California Highway Patrol, and the Board of Pilot Commissioners. Each entity has its own detailed budget. This chart shows
the budget for Caltrans only.

Transportation Planning Caltrans develops the long-range plan for state highway repairs and expansion of the state’s interre-
and Capital Project Selec- gional network—and selects projects for the State Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP)
tion Process and interregional projects for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)—with input from
local agencies (counties and MPOs). Local agencies develop long-range plans for their regions and
select projects for the regional portion of the STIP with input from transit operators, other local gov-
ernments, and sometimes Caltrans. Caltrans selects all state highway repair and rehabilitation projects
and 25 percent of capacity expansion projects; county transportation agencies select 75 percent of
capacity expansion projects. The California Transportation Commission is responsible for approving an
entire program of projects, but cannot approve or reject individual projects. Occasionally, the gover-
nor’s office or the secretary of transportation will request that Caltrans select certain projects.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. Funds are appropriated on a program rather than project basis, so the Legis-
Planning Process lature has no role in planning or selecting specific projects. In some cases, the Legislature has had an
indirect role by enacting policies that guide the transportation planning process.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Cal. Revenue and Taxation Code
gasoline and Pas- §6201.8, §7360, §60050; Cal.
senger
diesel, excise only Streets and Highways Code §2103
taxes (fixed
rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Additional tax on gasoline only;
gasoline, Pas- California’s “fuel tax swap” replaced
senger
excise taxes only a 6 percent sales tax on gasoline
(variable with an excise tax that is annually
rate—per- adjusted to be revenue-neutral
centage of with the former sales tax (2011 Cal.
price) Stats., Chap. 6; Cal. Revenue and
Taxation Code §7360), which was
intended to give the state more
flexibility, as excise taxes can be
used for debt service but sales taxes
cannot

California
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • Used for public transit and passen-
diesel, sales Pas- ger rail (Cal. Revenue and Taxation
senger
taxes only Code §6051.8, Cal. Public Utilities
Code §99312, §99315)
Fuel taxes: • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied and
alternative compressed natural gas, liquefied
fuels petroleum gas, and others (Cal.
Revenue and Taxation Code §§8651
et seq., §9301)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Cal. Revenue and Taxa-
tion Code §7392, §8352.3, §8651)
Fuel taxes: • • • Allocated to the Harbors and Water-
watercraft craft Revolving Fund (Cal. Revenue
and Taxation Code §8352.4)
Truck regis- • • • • • Cal. Vehicle Code §§9400 et seq.,
tration fees Pas- Cal. Streets and Highways Code
senger
(based on only §2103
gross vehicle
weight)
Boat launch • • • Used for boating safety, enforce-
fees ment, operation, and maintenance
programs (Cal. Public Resources
Code §5010)
Off-highway • • • Dedicated to off-highway motor
motor vehi- vehicle activities until Jan. 1, 2018
cles service (Cal. Vehicle Code §38225; Cal. Pub-
fees lic Resources Code §5090.61)
Tolls • • • Revenues from state-owned toll
bridges are used for work on those
bridges (Cal. Streets & Highways
Code §188.62)
Cap-and- • • • • See See See notes • See Used for public transit, passenger
Trade notes notes notes rail, pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
Program and traffic light synchronization (see
revenues notes) (Cal. Streets and Highways
Code §2581; Cal. Health and Safety
Code §38570, §39719; Cal. Public
Utilities Code §§99312 et seq.; Cal.
Public Resources Code §75221,
§75230)
Property • • • • • Cal. Streets and Highways Code
leases or Pas- §§104 et seq.
senger
sales only
Interest • • • • • • State Highway Account (Cal. Streets
income Pas- and Highways Code §207); used for
senger
only highways, transit, passenger rail,
and active transportation

Notes:
California
• Revenues from vehicle registration fees, title fees, and driver’s license fees are used for the California Highway Patrol,
the Department of Motor Vehicles, and environmental mitigation (Cal. Vehicle Code §§9250 et seq. and §14900), and
pilotage fees and surcharges are allocated to the Board of Pilot Commissioners (Cal. Harbors and Navigation Code
§§1190 et seq.). None of these revenue sources are used for the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart.
• The high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes that are operated in California do not generate revenues at the state level.
• In 2013, the California Superior Court ruled that the Cap-and-Trade Program is a user fee and the proceeds must be
used to further greenhouse gas reductions. This decision is currently under appeal. Revenues from the program are cur-
rently used for public transit, passenger rail, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and traffic light synchronization, although
it could be argued that other transportation-related activities are also eligible.
• State law requires the implementation of a Road Charge Pilot Program by Jan. 1, 2017 (Cal. Vehicle Code §§2090 et
seq.), but no actual payments will be collected.
State Fuel Tax Model Fixed rate (cents per gallon) and variable rate (percentage of price)
Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges, fixed guideway transit. The state constitution restricts the use of
State Fuel Taxes fuel excise tax revenues from highway users to public streets and highways, including related facilities
for non-motorized traffic, and fixed guideway transit projects (Cal. Const. art. XIX, §2). As amended
by Proposition 22 in 2010, the constitution also prohibits the state from borrowing, diverting, or
appropriating these revenues for any other purpose, either temporarily or permanently, and restricts
the state’s authority to use fuel taxes to pay debt service on transportation bonds (Cal. Const. art.
XIX, §4 and §6).
Restrictions on Other The constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related revenues, except vehicle sales taxes and vehicle
Transportation Revenues license fees, to the same purposes as fuel taxes, as well as to state administration and enforcement
of traffic and vehicle laws and mitigation of the environmental effects of vehicle operation (Cal.
Const. art. XIX, §3 and §8). State statute directs most of the diesel sales tax to public transit and mass
transportation (Cal. Revenue and Taxation Code §6051.8 and §7102). State statute directs the use of
various other transportation-related revenues to transportation purposes and, in some cases, to the
general fund.
Dedicated or Restricted The constitution dedicates the Highway Users Tax Account to roads and fixed guideway transit proj-
Transportation Funds ects (Cal. Const. art. XIX, §2) and the Public Transportation Account to transportation planning and
public transit (Cal. Const. art. XIXa). As amended by Proposition 22 in 2010, the constitution declares
these accounts to be trust funds and prohibits the state from borrowing or diverting revenues from
them. Other special accounts are dedicated in statute to aeronautics (Cal. Public Utilities Code
§21680) and other transportation purposes.

California
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • Proposition 1B of 2006; authorized
obligation Pas- $19.925 billion total (Cal. Govern-
senger
bonds and ment Code §§8879.20 et seq.)
freight
Build Amer- • • Issued in 2009
ica Bonds
GARVEE • • • Authorized in statute; may only be
bonds issued if total debt service is not
more than 15 percent of Federal
funding received (Cal. Govern-
ment Code §§14550 et seq.); most
recently issued in 2008
Federal credit See • • Active loan(s), used for highway
assistance: notes projects; authorized in state statute
TIFIA for seismic bridge retrofit projects
(see notes) (Cal. Streets and High-
ways Code §31070)
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized for up to 10 highway
projects; statute expires Jan. 1, 2024
(Cal. Public Contracts Code §§6820
et seq.); used for several projects
Public-private • • • • Authorized in statute for highway,
partnerships Pas- street, rail, or related facilities (Cal.
senger
and Streets and Highways Code §143);
freight used by Caltrans for three highway
projects
State infra- • • • • Transportation Finance Bank (Cal.
structure Government Code §64000); capi-
bank talized with Federal and state funds,
now self-sustaining; authorized
uses include highway, transit, or rail
projects
Notes:
• In general, throughout this report, this chart includes finance mechanisms authorized for or used by state government agen-
cies or departments (including but not limited to DOTs), but not those used solely by quasi-public entities such as public
benefit corporations or instrumentalities. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” signifies that the item is specifically
authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible transportation activities” in-
clude the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not include administrative
costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education programs, or distributions to local
governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail are included under “public transit.”
• The only explicit authorization for Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) cred-
it assistance that was found in state statute is for seismic bridge retrofit projects (Cal. Streets and Highways Code
§31070). Actual state use of TIFIA has been for highway projects.

California
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. California mainly uses pay-as-you-go financing, but voters have approved several general
obligation bonds over the years.
Restrictions on Finance General obligation bonds are restricted as described in the ballot measures needed to autho-
Mechanisms rize them. GARVEE bonds may only be issued if their annual debt service is not more than 15
percent of Federal transportation funding received (Cal. Government Code §14553.4). Design-
build contracting may only be used for up to 10 highway projects, and the authorization
expires Jan. 1, 2024 (Cal. Public Contracts Code §§6820 et seq.).
Finance Mechanisms [No data]

DOT Able to Retain and Yes and no, depending on the type of appropriation. Support appropriations expire after one year.
Spend Excess Funds The budget bill specifies how long Caltrans has to encumber and then liquidate capital appropri-
ations. Caltrans cannot spend appropriations for which the budget authority has expired and the
designated project has been de-obligated unless additional authority is granted in the state budget
act. Unspent dedicated transportation funds remain in state transportation accounts and are available
for future transportation purposes.
Legislative Approval No. Although no legislative approval is required, however, the California Transportation Commission
Required for DOT to Move must approve certain changes. Specifically, for capital allocations and project development work
Funds Between Projects performed by an agency other than Caltrans, the commission is required to de-program funds on
one project and reprogram them on another. For support allocations for project development work
performed by Caltrans, the department has authority to move funds between projects without any
approval.
Legislative Actions to Actions include low-bid requirements for Caltrans in state law (Cal. Public Contract Code §10106 and
Control DOT Costs §10180).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and grants. Both a portion of the base excise and variable excise taxes on motor fuels
Transportation are distributed to cities and counties for road projects by a statutory formula based on population, vehicle
Revenues to Local registrations, and county road miles (Cal. Streets and Highways Code §§2103 et seq.). Another portion of
Entities the variable excise tax revenues go to the State Transportation Improvement Program, of which 75 percent is
distributed to counties for regional transportation improvements by a statutory formula based on population
and state highway miles (Cal. Streets and Highways Code §188.8). For transit assistance, local entities receive
half the revenues from a state base sales tax on diesel, and all of an additional sales tax on diesel, by statutory
formulas based on population and transit fare revenues (Cal. Public Utilities Code §§99312 et seq.; Cal. Rev-
enue and Taxation Code §6051.8 and §7102). Additional transit capital and operations assistance is provided
through grant programs that are funded by the state’s greenhouse gas reducing Cap-and-Trade Program (Cal.
Health and Safety Code §39719; Cal. Public Resources Code §75221 and §75230). Local transportation funds,
which can be used for transit or roads, receive 0.25 percent of state general sales tax revenues. These funds
are further distributed to local entities within counties based on population (Cal. Government Code §29530;
Cal. Public Utilities Code §§99230 et seq.). The California Transportation Commission awards state funds to
local entities through discretionary grants for active transportation projects such as pedestrian, bicycling, and
Safe Routes to School projects. At least 25 percent of these funds must benefit disadvantaged communities
(Cal. Streets and Highways Code §§2380 et seq.). Caltrans also may make allocations to local entities from the
state’s Aeronautics Account for airport projects (Cal. Public Utilities Code §§21680 et seq.).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties, transit districts, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to levy
Sources Autho- local option fuel taxes (Cal. Revenue and Taxation Code §8502 and §9501; Cal. Public Utilities Code §99500).
rized in State Law Counties may also assess county sales taxes and locally implemented state sales taxes for transportation
purposes (Cal. Public Utilities Code §§180000 et seq.; Cal. Government Code §§29530 et seq.). A number of
transit districts or transportation authorities are authorized to levy property and sales taxes (Cal. Public Utili-
ties Code div. 10), and some of them are authorized to operate high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes (Cal. Streets
and Highways Code §§149.4 et seq.). Cities, counties, and local agencies may charge development impact
fees to pay for capital improvements (Cal. Government Code §§66000 et seq.).

Colorado

Bridges 8,624
Toll facilities Yes (roads: 84.0 miles)
Legislature
Name Colorado General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to May
Legislative Measures 800 (estimated)
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Transportation and Energy
tion-Related Issues Joint Committee on Transportation
[Interim] Transportation Legislation Review Committee

Colorado
Name Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)

Structure Organized mainly by functional activity. Two of CDOT’s divisions are, however, dedicated to specific
transportation modes (one to public transit and rail and one to aeronautics).
Leadership CDOT Executive Director (serves on governor’s cabinet), Transportation Commission (independent
body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit (including a state-run bus service), freight and passenger rail, aviation,
DOT Has Jurisdiction pedestrian/bicycle. CDOT’s Division of Transit and Rail is responsible for the planning, development,
operation, and integration of transit and rail into the statewide transportation system. In general,
however, freight rail is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission in the Department of Regulatory
Affairs and commuter rail and light rail are regulated by the Denver metro area’s Regional Transporta-
tion District.
Includes DMV? No. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of the Colorado Department of Revenue that is mostly
funded by fee revenues and, for capital improvement projects such as the replacement of the driver’s
license and title and registration systems, general fund appropriations through the Capital Construc-
tion Fund. In FY 2017, the division will get a $2 million “off the top” deduction from the Highway
Users Tax Fund, some of which would ordinarily go to CDOT.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Colorado State Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety. More than 90 percent
of its funding, however, comes from the Highway Users Tax Fund as an expense related to the super-
vision of public highways (Colo. Const. art. X, §18; Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-33.5-220 and §43-4-201),
which reduces the amount of revenue CDOT may receive from that fund. Other funding comes from
user fees and revenue transfers from other state agencies.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. CDOT controls and operates some high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, and has entered into a pub-
Toll Facilities? lic-private partnership for a state-owned corridor in which the private entity will collect toll revenues
to maintain the road for 50 years.
Other
Other State-Level None. Colorado has no state-level transportation entities outside of CDOT, the Transportation Com-
Transportation Entities mission, and those that perform DMV and highway patrol functions. Under CDOT, however, are two
“enterprises,” or quasi-private government-owned businesses: the Statewide Bridge Enterprise and
the High-Performance Transportation Enterprise. Both have revenue streams that are exempt from the
state’s constitutional spending limit. The Transportation Commission is the board of directors for the
Bridge Enterprise, and three commissioners serve on the board of the High-Performance Transporta-
tion Enterprise (Colo. Const. art. X, §20; Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-805 and §43-4-806).

Colorado
Overall Communication Mainly formal. The General Assembly has formal, statutorily mandated interactions with CDOT
and Collaboration through making required presentations and reports before legislative committees. CDOT’s state legis-
lative liaison serves as an information resource for legislators and legislative staff, coordinates statuto-
rily required reports to legislative committees, advises CDOT and the Transportation Commission on
pending issues before the legislature, represents CDOT in the capitol during legislative sessions, and is
a key player in developing and advancing CDOT’s legislative agenda.
DOT Legislative Liaison The state legislative liaison in CDOT’s Office of Policy and Government Relations acts as the main
point of contact between the department and the legislature.
Transportation Laws Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-1-128.7; Colo. Rev. Stat. tit. 41 to 43; portions of Colo. Rev. Stat. tit. 40; Colo. Const.
art. X, §18 (revenue restrictions); portions of Colo. Rev. Stat. tit. 39 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. CDOT’s state legislative liaison develops the department’s
Legislative Process legislative agenda in close coordination with the governor’s office,
with the input of CDOT’s executive management team and approval
of the Transportation Commission. The state legislative liaison also
works with legislators to develop legislative proposals. Only legislators,
however, may sponsor and introduce bills.
Advocacy and Lobbying CDOT’s state legislative liaison formally communicates CDOT’s legisla-
tive needs and positions to legislators.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, a state agency such as CDOT must provide information to the
Statements for Legislative Use Legislative Council about the fiscal impact of a legislative proposal,
when requested to do so in support of the council’s preparation of a
fiscal note (Colo. Rev. Stat. §2-2-322).
Appointment of The 11 members of the Transportation Commission are appointed by the governor with the
DOT Leadership consent of the Senate. The members are appointed to four-year terms and must meet statutory
requirements for geographic representation and residency (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-1-106). The gov-
ernor must consider appointment of one or more people with knowledge or experience in transit
and at least one person with knowledge or experience in engineering. The governor is encour-
aged to include at least one member who is a person with a disability, has a family member with
a disability, or is a member of an advocacy group for people with disabilities. The CDOT executive
director also is appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-1-
103).
Legislature Able to No. The CDOT executive director serves at the pleasure of the governor. Members of the Transpor-
Remove DOT Leaders? tation Commission may be removed by the governor for cause (Colo. Const. art. 14, §6).
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Committee on Legal Services reviews all new and amended rules. Each rule expires
Administrative Rules on May 15 of the year after it is adopted, unless the General Assembly continues it in the annual
legislative rule reviews bill (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§24-4-101 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. CDOT is subject to financial or performance audits conducted by the Office
or Sunset Reviews of the State Auditor, an agency within the state’s legislative branch, at the request of legislative
committees or individual legislators. The state conducts sunset reviews, but not of CDOT.

Colorado
Required DOT Reports Each year, CDOT must submit a transportation deficit report (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-813) and other
to the Legislature reports concerning highway revenues and expenditures (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-206), the Law
Enforcement Assistance Fund (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-404), the Statewide Bridge Enterprise (Colo.
Rev. Stat. §43-4-805), the High-Performance Transportation Enterprise (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-
806), motorcycle safety training (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-5-506), and the Aviation Fund (Colo. Rev.
Stat. §43-10-109). CDOT must also submit an annual joint report with the Colorado State Patrol
concerning accidents in state highway work areas (Colo. Rev. Stat. §42-4-1612). CDOT’s executive
director is required to submit a comprehensive annual report of the department’s operations (Colo.
Rev. Stat. §43-1-103 and §24-1-136), an annual report concerning transportation revenue antici-
pation notes (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-713), and a report at least once per year on the activities and
recommendations of the Transportation Commission’s Efficiency and Accountability Committee
(Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-1-106).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, CDOT and other
Performance Management state agencies are required by Colorado’s State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive and
Transparent (SMART) Government Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§2-7-200.1 et seq.) to submit an annual
performance plan that includes one- and three-year targets for metrics related to key department
initiatives, and to present performance data on these metrics at various times throughout the year
(currently, quarterly data is required). Metrics in CDOT’s plan include bridge condition, pavement
condition, fatalities on Colorado roadways, Maintenance Levels of Service and more.
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from CDOT. In addition,
Mechanisms the General Assembly assigns topics to interim committees to study between legislative sessions.
In 2015, for example, the Transportation Legislation Review Committee, which consists of the
members of the House and Senate transportation committees and meets throughout the legisla-
tive interim, was directed to study strategic transportation projects, tire traction and congestion on
I-70, and taxicab service (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-2-145). CDOT also delivers several presentations to,
and tours with, the Transportation Legislation Review Committee. Temporary interim committees
can also be created to study special topics, such as the 2015 Off-Highway Vehicle Interim Commit-
tee.
Resources Provided to DOT No. CDOT does not receive resources to specifically support its compliance with legislative over-
to Support Compliance with sight requirements. These activities are covered under other budget line items, such as allocations
Oversight Requirements? to the executive director’s office.

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. Colorado is one of five states in which a legislative entity—in
ations Overview this case, the Joint Budget Committee—produces a comprehensive budget as an alternative to the
governor’s proposal. CDOT’s portion of the governor’s budget request is developed by the Transpor-
tation Commission, subject to approval by the governor.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to CDOT from the
tion Revenues to the DOT U.S. DOT with no state legislative involvement.
State Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. Most state transportation funds flow directly
to CDOT with no legislative involvement, except that the entire CDOT budget is
reflected in the budget bill for informational purposes. The General Assembly
does make a few category-level appropriations for CDOT administration and
other limited uses.

Colorado
Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2017 (approved) (see note)
Authorized Expenditures “Maintain—Maintaining What We Have” (includes snow and ice control, $588,080,815
road maintenance, traffic services, and safety projects)
“Maximize—Safely Making the Most of What We Have” (includes trans- $108,625,928
portation systems management and operations projects)
“Expand—Increasing Capacity” $159,141,535
“Deliver—Program Delivery/Administration” $79,788,266
Pass-through funds/multi-modal grants: aeronautics $17,773,097
Pass-through funds/multi-modal grants: highway $133,071,075
Pass-through funds/multi-modal grants: transit $59,525,739
Pass-through funds/multi-modal grants: infrastructure bank $420,804
Transportation commission contingency/debt service $286,486,209
Total $1,432,913,468
Note: The numbers in this chart are drawn from CDOT’s final annual budget for FY 2017, updated June 2016. The State Bridge
Enterprise and High Performance Transportation Enterprise have their own detailed budgets that are not included here.

Transportation Planning Key priority decisions are made by the Transportation Commission, which sets budgetary priorities
and Capital Project Selec- for and gives policy direction to CDOT. The commission declares and adopts transportation construc-
tion Process tion and program budgets and has the authority to change its short-term and long-term priorities,
thus shifting funding among projects and regions within the state (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-1-106). CDOT
carries out an extensive planning process that includes local governments and other stakeholders in
project selection and planning. State law requires CDOT, in cooperation with the state’s five metropol-
itan planning organizations and 10 rural transportation planning regions, to produce a 20-year plan,
updated every five years (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-1-1103). Every four years, CDOT also updates its six-year
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which identifies short-term project needs and
priorities.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The General Assembly determines statutory funding formulas and overall
Planning Process authority, gives some direction regarding priorities, and enacts some project-specific appropriations.
Specific project planning and approval, however, are delegated to the Transportation Commission.

Authorization
State- Eligible Transportation Activities
and Use
Level Citations and
Authorized In Roads Public Rail Airports and Ports and Pedestrian Other
Revenue by state current and transit aviation waterways and bicycle Additional Details
Source constitution use bridges projects
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • See • Colo. Rev. Stat. §39-27-102
gasoline notes
and diesel
(fixed rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • See • Includes taxes on liquefied and
alternative notes compressed natural gas and lique-
fuels fied petroleum gas (Colo. Rev. Stat.
§39-27-102)

Colorado
Authorization
and Use
Level Citations and
or statute
aviation and jet fuel (Colo. Rev. Stat. §39-27-
fuels 102)
Vehicle • • • • • Includes registration and license
registration plate fees and surcharges; $15 mil-
fees lion of the road safety surcharge is
allocated to transit, including bicycle
and pedestrian facilities (Colo. Rev.
Stat. §§42-3-211 et seq., §§42-3-
301 et seq., §43-4-206, §43-4-804,
§43-4-805, §43-4-811)
Special fees • • • See • Allocated in part to the Highway
on electric notes Users Tax Fund (Colo. Rev. Stat. §42-
vehicles 3-304)
Fees on • • • See Deposited to the Highway Users Tax
rental vehi- notes Fund (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-804)
cles
Truck regis- • • • See Colo. Rev. Stat. §42-3-306
tration fees notes
(based on
gross vehi-
cle weight)
Oversize/ • • • See Deposited to the Highway Users Tax
overweight notes Fund (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-804)
truck
permit sur-
charges
Congestion • • • • Revenues are used for the HOT lanes
pricing/ facilities (Colo. Rev. Stat. §42-4-
high-occu- 1012)
pancy toll
(HOT) lanes
Tolls • • State law authorizes the state to col-
lect tolls (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-3-202,
§43-4-808), but, aside from HOT
lanes, it does not currently do so; all
other toll facilities in Colorado are
privately operated
Outdoor • • • • Allocated to the State Highway Fund
advertising (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-1-401 et seq.)
revenues

Colorado
Authorization
and Use
Level Citations and
or statute
Property • • • • • Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-1-211 allows
sales CDOT to buy and sell land and
buildings; Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-206
allows CDOT to use its appropriated
transportation funding as necessary;
through these statutes, CDOT is
allowed to use revenues generated
by land sales for transportation-
related purposes
Misc. fines • • See • Allocated to the Highway Users Tax
and penal- notes Fund (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-205)
ties
General • • • See Transfers to the Highway Users Tax
funds notes Fund until FY 2020, under certain
circumstances (see notes) (Colo. Rev.
Stat. §24-75-219; 2009 Colo. Sess.
Laws, Chap. 410; 2016 Colo. Sess.
Laws, Chap. 88)
Interest • • • See • • Highway Users Tax Fund, Aviation
income notes Fund (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-203,
§43-10-109)
Notes:
• Local entities may use up to 15 percent of their Highway User Tax Fund allocations, which include fuel taxes and other
revenues, on transit operations (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-207, §43-4-208).
• Revenues from vehicle title fees are deposited to the Highway Users Tax Fund, but are then placed into the State Ti-
tling and Registration System (Colo. Rev. Stat. §42-1-211) and moved to the Division of Motor Vehicles. As of 2016,
driver’s license fees are also allocated fully to the Division of Motor Vehicles (2016 Colo. Sess. Laws, Chap. 139).
• Under state law, transfers from the general fund are linked to the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) surplus.
Senate Bill 228, enacted in 2009, requires that when Colorado personal income growth reaches at least 5 percent, it
triggers a five-year block of transfers from the general fund to the Highway Users Tax Fund and certain other funds.
These transfers continue throughout the five years even if personal income growth drops below 5 percent, but the
amounts can be reduced or eliminated depending on the size of the TABOR surplus as a percentage of general fund
revenue collections. A five-year block of transfers began in FY 2016 and is scheduled to continue through FY 2020
(Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-75-219; 2009 Colo. Sess. Laws, Chap. 410 [Senate Bill 09-228]; 2016 Colo. Sess. Laws, Chap. 88
[House Bill 16-1416]).

• State statute still includes references to transfers to CDOT from a sales and use tax holding fund (Colo. Rev. Stat.
Colorado
§39-26-123), but these diversions only take place if the General Assembly chooses to allocate revenues to that fund. At
present, transfers from the general fund are instead taking place under Senate Bill 228, enacted in 2009 (see above).
• Colorado does not currently provide state funding for ports/waterways or rail.

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges (with local exception). The state constitution restricts the use
State Fuel Taxes of excise taxes on liquid motor fuels, except aviation fuel, to public highways (Colo. Const. art.
X, §18). State statute does, however, allow local entities to use up to 15 percent of their High-
way User Tax Fund allocations, which include fuel tax revenues, on transit operations (Colo. Rev.
Stat. §43-4-207 and §43-4-208).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related fees or charges to highways (Colo.
Transportation Revenues Const. art. X, §18). State statute does, however, direct $10 million of the road safety surcharge
to public transit, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-206), and
allows local entities to use up to 15 percent of their Highway User Tax Fund allocations, which
include vehicle-related revenues, on transit operations (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-207 and §43-4-
208). The constitution also restricts the use of aviation fuel taxes to aviation purposes (Colo.
Const. art. X, §18).
Dedicated or Restricted Constitutionally restricted highway revenues are deposited into the Highway Users Tax Fund,
Transportation Funds distribution of which is directed by state statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-4-201 et seq.).
Revenue Sources Although it does not explicitly prohibit specific revenue sources, aside from a statewide prop-
Prohibited in State Law erty tax, the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” (TABOR) in the Colorado constitution does require the
state to obtain voter approval to create, increase, or extend taxes, or to change tax policy in a
way that causes a net tax revenue gain (Colo. Const. art. X, §20).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • Statewide Bridge Enterprise and
bonds High-Performance Transportation
Enterprise (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-
807)
GARVEE See notes See • Authorized in 1999, up to certain
bonds notes limits (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-4-701
et seq.; 1999 Colo. Referendum A;
See notes); most recent issue for
new money was in 2004; to be fully
repaid in FY 2017
Private activ- • • Issued
ity bonds
Build Amer- • • Issued by the Colorado Bridge Enter-
ica Bonds prise in 2010
Federal credit • • Active loan(s), used for highway and
assistance: bus rapid transit projects
TIFIA

Colorado
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Advance • • • Also used on pedestrian and bicycle
construction projects that use Federal Transpor-
tation Alternatives Program (TAP)
funds
Federal-aid • • • Also used on pedestrian and bicycle
matching: projects that use Federal Transpor-
tapered tation Alternatives Program (TAP)
match funds
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for highways,
Pas- transit, or other transportation proj-
senger
and ects (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-1-1401 et
freight seq., §§43-4-801 et seq.); used for
state road and transit projects
Public-private • • • • • Authorized in statute for highways,
partnerships Pas- bridges, tunnels, and other surface
senger
and transportation projects (Colo. Rev.
freight Stat. §§43-1-1201 et seq., §§43-3-
202 et seq., §§43-3-401 et seq.,
§§43-4-801 et seq.); used by the
state for a highway/transit project;
See notes for other use
State infra- • • • • • • Capitalized with state and Federal
structure Pas- funds; may be used for highway,
senger
bank and transit, aviation, and rail projects
freight (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-1-113.5)
Notes:
• In 1999, Colorado voters authorized CDOT’s executive director to issue GARVEE bonds, up to a maximum principal
amount of $1.7 billion and a maximum repayment cost of $2.3 billion (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-4-701 et seq.; 1999 Colo.
Referendum A). These bonds will be fully repaid in FY 2017. Any further GARVEE issuances will require new voter
approval.
• A division within CDOT, the Colorado High Performance Transportation Enterprise, is the project sponsor for a man-
aged lanes and bus rapid transit public-private partnership on U.S. 36. In addition, CDOT has been a project partner

or ex officio member, if not the project sponsor, for other public-private partnerships that include Denver Union Station
Colorado
and the E-470 Tollway.

Restrictions on After the GARVEE bonds that were approved in 1999 (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-4-701 et seq.;
Finance Mechanisms 1999 Colo. Referendum A). are fully repaid in FY 2017, any further GARVEE issuances will
require new voter approval.
Finance Mechanisms General obligation debt is prohibited by the state constitution (Colo. Const. art. XI, §1).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes and no. Some funds automatically carry forward each fiscal year. In other cases, unexpended
Spend Excess Funds appropriations expire at the end of each fiscal year unless otherwise authorized. Roll-forward autho-
rizations are approved by the state controller. When CDOT is authorized to retain excess funds, no
further authorization is required to spend them.
Legislative Approval In general, no. The General Assembly does not have control over CDOT project lists, and so legislative
Required for DOT to Move approval is not required to move funds between projects in most circumstances (especially between
Funds Between Projects highway projects). CDOT cannot move funds between some specific funding sources (such as rail to
highway and vice versa) or between some projects that have specific authorizations, but neither has it
sought authorization from the legislature to do so.
Legislative Actions to Actions include statutory requirements that professional services be compensated at “fair and rea-
Control DOT Costs sonable” rates (Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-30-1401 and §24-30-1404) and low-bid requirements for the
construction of public projects, including highways and bridges (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§24-92-101 et seq.).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and grants. After set-asides, counties receive 26 percent, and municipalities 9 percent, of
Transportation Highway User Tax Fund revenues for transportation projects. Revenues for counties are distributed by a statu-
Revenues to Local tory formula based on historical ratios, rural vehicle registrations, total vehicle registrations, county road lane
Entities miles, and bridge deck area. Distributions to cities and towns are based on urban vehicle registrations and
street miles. Each local entity may spend up to 15 percent of their payment on transit operations (Colo. Rev.
Stat. §43-4-207 and §43-4-208). CDOT awards discretionary grants to local entities for airport improvements
(Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-10-108.5) and drunk driving prevention and law enforcement programs (Colo. Rev. Stat.
§§43-4-401 et seq.).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes regional transportation authorities to assess hotel, property, and sales taxes, and to
Sources Autho- establish special assessment districts. Local highway authorities may collect building permit fees. Either may
rized in State Law adopt local option vehicle registration fees (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-4-506, §43-4-605, and §43-4-608). Coun-
ties may collect property taxes for roads and bridges (Colo. Rev. Stat. §43-2-203) and, except for Regional
Transportation District counties, sales taxes for transit uses (Colo. Rev. Stat. §29-2-103.5). The Regional Trans-
portation District is authorized to assess its own sales tax (Colo. Rev. Stat. §32-9-119). Local improvement
districts may assess sales taxes for street improvements (Colo. Rev. Stat. §30-20-604.5). Local governments
may charge developers impact fees or similar charges to pay for capital improvements (Colo. Rev. Stat. §29-
20-104.5).

Connecticut

Bridges 7,406
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, commuter rail, ferry boat, vanpool, demand
response
Rail Freight rail route miles 616
Legislature
Name Connecticut General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to June (odd years), Feb. to May (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Joint Committee on Appropriations
diction Over Transporta- • Subcommittee on Transportation
tion-Related Issues Joint Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding
• Transportation Bonding Subcommittee

Connecticut
Name Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT)

Structure Organized mainly by functional activity. One of CTDOT’s five bureaus, however, is dedicated to a
specific transportation mode (public transportation).
Leadership Commissioner of Transportation (does not serve on governor’s cabinet; the governor directs depart-
ment heads through “commissioners’ meetings”)
Staff Size in Full-Time 3,352 authorized, 3,073 actual
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, pedestrian/bicycle. The Connecticut Airport
DOT Has Jurisdiction Authority has jurisdiction over aeronautics, except that the commissioner of transportation has juris-
diction over any takings of property connected with airports (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-39).
Includes DMV? No. The Department of Motor Vehicles is an independent state agency and receives its own appropri-
ations from the state’s Special Transportation Fund, not out of CTDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Connecticut State Police is a division of the Department of Emergency Services and Public
Protection and is funded by general funds. The Department of Motor Vehicles oversees law enforce-
ment related to weigh station fines and safety. CTDOT’s budget does not include appropriations for
law enforcement.
Jurisdiction Over No. Connecticut has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Connecticut Port Authority As of July 1, 2016, the state established the Connecticut Port Authority,
Transportation Entities (corporation/ instrumentality) a quasi-public agency, to which CTDOT will transfer ownership, jurisdic-
tion, and authority over the state’s ports and harbors (Conn. Gen. Stat.
Ann. §§15-31a et seq.). The commissioner of transportation or designee
serves on the authority’s board of directors. The authority has its own
revenue stream, as well as partial assistance from the state Special
Transportation Fund that is appropriated through CTDOT’s budget.
Connecticut Airport Author- The Connecticut Airport Authority, a quasi-public agency, has jurisdic-
ity (corporation/ instrumen- tion over aeronautics, including Bradley International Airport and five
tality) general aviation airports, except that the commissioner of transporta-
tion has jurisdiction over any takings of airport-related property (Conn.
Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-39). The commissioner of transportation or des-
ignee serves on the authority’s board of directors. The authority has its
own revenue stream, as well as partial assistance from the state Special
Transportation Fund that is appropriated through CTDOT’s budget.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. Communication between the General Assembly and CTDOT is open and trans-
and Collaboration parent. CTDOT regularly briefs elected officials on department projects, programs, policies, and initia-
tives. The department submits statutorily required reports and testifies on legislation with an impact
on transportation. CTDOT’s legislative director advances the department’s yearly legislative proposals,
responds to legislative inquiries, and is in direct, frequent contact and communication with elected
officials, their staff, and other administrative agencies on various issues throughout the year.
DOT Legislative Liaison CTDOT’s legislative director, who reports directly to the commissioner of transportation, is the main
point of contact between the department and the General Assembly.

Connecticut
Transportation Laws Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. tit. 13a to 15; portions of Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. tit. 12 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. CTDOT’s legislative director annually solicits, develops,
Legislative Process drafts, and submits legislative proposals for approval by the current
administration. With administration approval, the department has bills
introduced by the committee of cognizance. Bills must be sponsored
and introduced by legislators.
Advocacy and Lobbying Yes. The department actively engages at the state and Federal level
on legislation, regulations, and resolutions. CTDOT has two legislative
liaisons who are the department’s principal lobbyists. The commis-
sioner of transportation and other staff members also may advocate
for particular legislation.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact All bills in Connecticut must be accompanied by fiscal notes. State
Statements for Legislative Use agencies are responsible for the fiscal notes on their own bill proposals
(Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §2-17). State agencies must also, upon request,
assist the Office of Fiscal Analysis in carrying out its duties, which
include the preparation of fiscal notes (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §2-71c).
Appointment of The commissioner of transportation is appointed to a four-year term by the governor, with the
DOT Leadership advice and consent by resolution of either house of the General Assembly. State law requires each
department head to be qualified by training and experience for the duties of the office (Conn.
Gen. Stat. Ann. §§4-6 to 4-8).
Legislature Able to No. The commissioner of transportation serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Legislative Regulation Review Committee reviews all proposed rules. The committee
Administrative Rules may approve or reject a rule. If the committee does not object within 65 days, the rule is automati-
cally approved (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§4-170 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. CTDOT is subject to audits conducted by the legislative office of the Audi-
or Sunset Reviews tors of Public Accounts (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §2-90). The state conducts sunset reviews (Conn.
Gen. Stat. Ann. §§2c-1 et seq.), but not of CTDOT.
Required DOT Reports All state agencies are required to submit a comprehensive annual report of their activities to the
to the Legislature governor, copies of which are distributed to all legislators (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §4-60). In addi-
tion, the commissioner of transportation must submit annual reports about state-operated ferries
(Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13a-252) and reductions in the number of consultants (Conn. Gen. Stat.
Ann. §13b-20p).
Legislative Role in DOT No formal role besides the reporting requirements listed above. The Joint Committee on Transpor-
Performance Management tation may ask CTDOT to testify on its progress in meeting the department’s internally-determined
performance goals. In practice, CTDOT generally presents an update on its performance measures
during its annual oversight hearing with the committee. CTDOT may also share other performance
updates with the committee as the latest data becomes available.
Other Legislative Oversight The Joint Committee on Transportation holds an oversight hearing at the beginning of each
Mechanisms legislative session during which the commissioner of transportation provides a comprehensive
review of CTDOT’s budget, operations, major projects and initiatives, and a “state of the DOT” for
committee members. CTDOT regularly provides briefings of various projects, programs, and issues
at the request or in anticipation of legislative inquiries in both formal and informal settings. Also,
CTDOT annually provides the legislature its updated five-year capital plan that includes projects in
all modes of transportation. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for informa-
tion from CTDOT.

Connecticut

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. CTDOT submits budget
ations Overview requests to the executive branch Office of Policy and Management, which prepares the governor’s
budget proposal and submits it to the General Assembly for review and approval.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to CTDOT from the
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State transportation funds are allocated to CTDOT as
appropriations to departmental programs and broad spending categories.

Most Recently Enacted [No data]
Authorized Expenditures [No data]

Transportation Planning CTDOT assesses existing transportation facilities biennially and since 2010 has been required to
and Capital Project Selec- develop a master transportation plan every five years. CTDOT uses a structured planning process that
tion Process requires the participation of regional entities and provides opportunities for public input.
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. The General Assembly enacts laws that identify specific projects or pro-
Planning Process grams for CTDOT to implement (see Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-57h). The General Assembly also
approves the five-year State Plan of Conservation and Development, which includes a transportation
component. It does not, however, approve the master transportation plan. The legislature also has
an indirect role inasmuch as state statute provides general guidelines for the planning process and
conditions for approving projects.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • • The gasoline tax includes a fixed-
gasoline Pas- rate component and the variable
senger
(fixed rate and Petroleum Products Gross Receipts
and variable freight Tax, which is based on the whole-
rate—per- sale price; allocated to the Special
centage of Transportation Fund (Conn. Gen.
price) Stat. Ann. §12-458, §12-587, §§13b-
61 et seq.)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • • The diesel tax is a variable tax that
diesel (vari- Pas- is annually adjusted based on the
senger
able rate— and wholesale price; allocated to the
percentage freight Special Transportation Fund (Conn.
of price) Gen. Stat. Ann. §12-458, §12-458h,
§12-587, §13b-61)

Connecticut
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • • • Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-59, §14-
istration and Pas- 49, §14-49b, §14-192
senger
title fees and
freight
Sales taxes • • • • • • • • • Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §12-431,
on motor Pas- §13b-61b
senger
vehicle sales and
freight
Truck regis- • • • • • • • • • Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-59,
tration fees Pas- §14-47
senger
(based on and
gross vehicle freight
weight)
Property • • • • • • • • • Includes highway and airport prop-
leases and Pas- erty (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-59,
senger
sales and 13b-42, §13a-80)
freight
Pilot license • • • • • • • • • Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-59,
fees (water- Pas- §15-13
senger
craft) and
freight
Misc. DMV • • • • • • • • • “License, permit, and fee” (LPF)
and DOT fees Pas- revenues (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.
senger
and fines and §13b-59, §14-41, §14-50)
freight
State general • • • • • • • • • A percentage goes to the Special
sales taxes Pas- Transportation Fund (Conn. Gen.
senger
and Stat. Ann. §12-408; 2015 Conn.
freight Acts, P.A. 15-244)
Interest • • • • • • • • • Special Transportation Fund (Conn.
income Pas- Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-68)
senger
and
freight
Notes:
• All transportation-related revenues go into the multimodal Special Transportation Fund, which in part supports state-
run public transit, the DMV, and the Transportation for Employment Independence Program.

Connecticut
Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation. By state statute, motor fuel tax revenues are deposited
State Fuel Taxes into the Special Transportation Fund (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§13b-59 et seq.), which is directed
to be used for multimodal transportation purposes. In general, state statute directs the use of
the fund into which the revenues are deposited, rather than the revenues themselves.
Restrictions on Other State statute directs various transportation-related revenues to the Special Transportation Fund,
Transportation Revenues to be used for multimodal transportation purposes (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-59).
Dedicated or Restricted The multimodal Special Transportation Fund receives revenues from various sources, primarily
Transportation Funds fuel taxes. State statute directs the use of the fund to transportation uses including CTDOT,
debt service, the Department of Motor Vehicles, boating regulation and enforcement, and the
state’s Transportation for Employment Independence Program (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-69).
Fund revenues, however, have often been transferred to the general fund. In 2013, a further
statutory restriction on the fund’s use was enacted, but it was repealed before it took effect
(2013 Conn. Acts, P.A. 13-277; 2015 Conn. Acts, P.A. 15-5 [Spec. Sess.]). In 2015, the General
Assembly adopted a resolution to propose a constitutional amendment that would restrict the
fund’s use (2015 Conn. House Joint Resolution 304), but not with enough votes to place the
question on the 2016 ballot. As of July 2016, another resolution to place the question on the
2016 ballot was under consideration (2016 Conn. House Joint Resolution 1).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • • Authorized by session law (e.g.,
obligation Pas- 2015 Conn. Acts, P.A. 15-1 [Spec.
senger
bonds and Sess.])
freight
Revenue • • • Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §15-101l,
bonds §15-120ff
Build Amer- • • • • • • • Issued in 2009 and 2010 as special
ica Bonds Pas- tax obligation bonds for transporta-
senger
and tion infrastructure
freight
GARVEE • • Authorized in state statute for up to
bonds $1.3 billion (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.
§13b-79r); not issued
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized in statute (Conn. Gen.
Stat. Ann. §13a-95b, §13a-95c);
used by the state for one pilot road
project (in progress)
Public-private • • • • • • Authorized as part of a multi-sector
partnerships Pas- law; eligible transportation projects
senger
and include ports; legislative approval
freight required for highway tolls (Conn.
Gen. Stat. Ann. §§4-255 et seq.);
not currently in use

Connecticut

Restrictions on The General Assembly must approve the use of highway tolls as part of a public-private
Finance Mechanisms partnership (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §4-259). GARVEE bonding is capped at $1.3 billion (Conn.
Gen. Stat. Ann. §13b-79r).
Finance Mechanisms [No data]

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. The Connecticut Special Transportation Fund maintains a cumulative surplus that is carried for-
Spend Excess Funds ward each year.
Legislative Approval Yes, inasmuch as bond acts must be revised to reflect changes in state-funded capital projects.
Legislative Actions to [No data]
Control DOT Costs

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. State law requires an annual allocation to the Town Aid
Transportation Road program for highway, public transit, or other approved purposes, to be distributed to towns by statu-
Revenues to Local tory formulas based on improved road miles, unimproved road miles, and population (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.
Entities §§13a-175a et seq.). The General Assembly appropriated $60 million to the program for FY 2015. CTDOT also
awards discretionary grants to towns for local bridge projects (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§13a-175p et seq.) and
local transportation capital improvements in urban areas (2013 Conn. Acts, P.A. 13-239). Connecticut does
not have organized county governments.
Local Revenue State statute does not authorize local revenue sources specifically for transportation. Most locally-generated
Sources Autho- transportation funds are drawn from general revenue sources such as local property taxes.
rized in State Law

Delaware

Bridges 875
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, streetcar, vanpool, demand response
Passengers boarded in 2013 52,752
Legislature
Name Delaware General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to June
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Energy and Transit
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Highways and Transportation
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Public Safety
House Committee on Transportation/Land Use and Infrastructure

Delaware
Name Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT)
Structure Organized mainly by functional activity. Operating as a division of DelDOT, however, is a subsidiary
corporation dedicated to a specific transportation mode (the Delaware Transit Corporation).
Leadership DelDOT Secretary (serves on governor’s cabinet), Council on Transportation (independent body, advi-
sory only)
Staff Size in Full-Time 1,509 operating, 309 capital
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, passenger rail, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle. The Delaware Transit Corpo-
DOT Has Jurisdiction ration functions as an operating division of DelDOT.
Includes DMV? Yes. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of DelDOT and is funded by the Transportation Trust
Fund.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Delaware State Police is a division of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security, and is
funded by general funds.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. The state’s toll roads are under the authority of the Delaware Transportation Authority, which
Toll Facilities? functions as a component unit of DelDOT.
Other
Other State-Level Delaware Transportation The Delaware Transportation Authority is a corporation and instru-
Transportation Entities Authority (corporation/ mentality of the state that was established to create an economical,
instrumentality) efficient, and unified multimodal state transportation system (Del.
Code Ann. tit. 2, §§1301 et seq.). The authority’s principal role is to
provide financing to DelDOT and, as a result, it functions as a blended
component unit of the department. The authority’s actions, including
the issuance of debt, are taken by resolution of the DelDOT secretary,
the department’s director of finance, and the Transportation Trust
Fund administrator.
Delaware Transit Corpora- The Delaware Transit Corporation (DTC) is a quasi-public subsidiary
tion (corporation/ instrumen- corporation of the Delaware Transportation Authority and instrumen-
tality) tality of the state (Del. Code Ann. tit. 2, §1307). Although a legally
separate entity, DTC functions as an operating division of DelDOT, with
the DTC’s chief executive officer reporting directly to the DelDOT sec-
retary. The DTC is funded by transit operating revenues and through
the Transportation Trust Fund.
Delaware River and Bay The Delaware River and Bay Authority, a bi-state government agency
Authority (bi-state agency) of Delaware and New Jersey (Del. Code Ann. tit. 17, §§1701 et seq.),
maintains and operates five regional airports, the Cape-May Lewes
Ferry, and the Delaware Memorial Bridge Twin Span. It is funded by
operating revenues and investments.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. DelDOT uses the budget process to communicate its goals and project direc-
and Collaboration tions to the General Assembly. DelDOT attends executive and legislative budget meetings. Ongoing
communication occurs as issues arise and projects proceed, through public and one-on-one meetings,
letters, e-mails, and phone calls. DelDOT employs a dedicated legislative liaison.
DOT Legislative Liaison DelDOT’s legislative liaison acts as the main point of contact between the department and the Gen-
eral Assembly. Senior leadership within the department is heavily involved as well.

Delaware

Transportation Laws Del. Code Ann. tit. 2, 17, 21, and 23; Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, ch. 84; portions of Del. Code Ann. tit. 30
(revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. DelDOT and other state agencies can work with the
Legislative Process Department of Justice to draft bills (Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §2504).
Draft bills are then typically released to a legislator or to legislative
staff to be advanced through the legislative process.
Advocacy and Lobbying No.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact DelDOT provides information to the Office of the Controller General,
Statements for Legislative Use so that office can prepare the notes or statements.
Appointment of The DelDOT secretary is appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate
DOT Leadership and within statutory requirements for qualifications. Preference must be given to a state resident
provided such person is acceptable and equally qualified (Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §8403). The nine
members of the advisory Council on Transportation are appointed to staggered three-year terms
by the governor, within statutory requirements for partisan balance, state residency, and geo-
graphic representation. Members cannot work for or own more than 1 percent of the stock of any
public carrier or be engaged in any other business that is incompatible with their council duties
(Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §8409).
Legislature Able to No. The DelDOT secretary and members of the Council on Transportation serve at the pleasure of
Remove DOT Leaders? the governor.
Legislative Review of Yes (optional). The chair of a standing committee may call a committee meeting to review a rule
Administrative Rules during the interim, and the Joint Sunset Committee may choose to review an agency’s rules during
legislative session (Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §910 and §10212). These reviews are optional, mainly
advisory, and typically cover only a handful of agencies per year.
Legislative Audits Neither. The Office of Auditor of Accounts, an elected office within the executive branch, is
or Sunset Reviews responsible for financial audits in the state. The legislative Joint Sunset Committee has the power
to initiate a sunset review of any state entity (Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §§10201 et seq.), but has not
reviewed DelDOT.
Required DOT Reports State law requires the secretary of transportation and the Council on Transportation to submit
to the Legislature annual reports to the General Assembly (Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §8410 and §8415). DelDOT must
submit one annual report with the Capital Transportation Plan (Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §8419) and
another concerning real property (Del. Code Ann. tit. 17, §137).
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from DelDOT.
Mechanisms

Delaware
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. The governor outlines priorities in an annual recommended
ations Overview budget, which must be approved by the General Assembly.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative approval of plan and budget. Federal transportation funds are allo-
tion Revenues to the DOT cated through legislative approval of DelDOT’s Capital Transportation Plan and
operating budget.
State Revenues Legislative approval of plan and budget. State transportation revenues are
dedicated to the Transportation Trust Fund to support DelDOT’s operations and
capital plan. Legislative approval of the department’s Capital Transportation
Plan and operating budget, however, are still required.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2017 (enacted), separate capital and operating budgets
Authorized Expenditures Road system $352,303,585
(Capital Budget) Grants and allocations $22,680,000
Transit system $63,292,322
Support system $70,616,449
Total $508,892,356
Revenue Sources State authorization $265,147,698
(Capital Budget) Federal authorization $238,630,880
Other funding $5,113,778
Total $508,892,356
Authorized Expenditures Office of the Secretary $13,903,100
(Operating Budget) Technology and innovation $15,773,600
Planning $5,223,500
Maintenance and operations $65,748,600
Delaware Transportation Authority $183,745,600
Transportation solutions $17,685,900
Motor vehicles $40,414,300
Total $342,494,600
Revenue Sources (Operat- General fund $5,000,000
ing Budget) Transportation Trust Fund $337,494,600
Total $342,494,600

Transportation Planning DelDOT annually updates its Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which also is the
and Capital Project Selec- state’s six-year Capital Transportation Plan. The STIP is adopted by the Council on Transportation.
tion Process
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. Each year, DelDOT’s updated Capital Transportation Plan and operating
Planning Process budget must be approved by the legislative Joint Capital Improvement Committee and Joint Finance
Committee, then by the full legislature. In addition, the state has a Community Transportation Fund
from which individual legislators can annually authorize funds for road and drainage projects in their
districts. This fund allows lawmakers to address small transportation projects that may not meet
DelDOT priorities.

Delaware
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, §5110, §5132
gasoline and Pas-
senger
diesel (fixed and
rate) freight
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, §307, §2151,
istration and Pas- §2305
senger
title fees and
freight
Truck regis- • • • • • • • Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, §307, §2151
tration fees Pas-
senger
(based on and
weight)
Oversize/ • • • • • • • Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, §4504
overweight Pas-
senger
truck permit and
fees freight
Tolls • • • • • • • Collected by Delaware Transporta-
Pas- tion Authority (Del. Code Ann. tit. 2,
senger
and §§1301 et seq.) (see notes), allocated
freight in part to the Transportation Trust
Fund; also authorized for public-pri-
vate partnerships (Del. Code Ann.
tit. 2, §2006)
Transit fares/ • • • Delaware Transit Corporation (Del.
operating Code Ann. tit. 2, §§1301 et seq.)
revenues (see notes)
Property • • • • • • • Del. Code Ann. tit. 17, §148
leases and Pas-
senger
sales and
freight
Interest • • • • • • • Any funds of the Delaware Transpor-
income Pas- tation Authority (Del. Code Ann. tit.
senger
and 2, §1309) (see notes)
freight
Notes:
as public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. For Delaware, however, revenues of the Delaware Transportation
Authority, which functions as a component unit of DelDOT, and the Delaware Transit Corporation, which functions
as an operating division of DelDOT, are included. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” signifies that the item

Delaware
• The Delaware River and Bay Authority, a bi-state government agency of Delaware and New Jersey (Del. Code Ann. tit.
17, §§1701 et seq.) maintains and operates five regional airports, the Cape-May Lewes Ferry, and the Delaware Memo-
rial Bridge Twin Span. It is funded by operating revenues and investments.

Restrictions on Session law (constitutional pending), multimodal transportation. By state statute, fuel tax reve-
State Fuel Taxes nues from highway users must go solely to the Transportation Trust Fund and may not be trans-
ferred to the general fund (Del. Code Ann. tit. 2, §1415). Other restrictions have been placed on
the fund into which the revenues are deposited, rather than on the revenues themselves.
Restrictions on Other State statute prohibits motor carrier registration fees from being transferred to the general fund
Transportation Revenues (Del. Code Ann. tit. 2, §1416). Toll revenues must be used first for the toll facility (Del. Code
Ann. tit. 2, §2006).
Dedicated or Restricted In 2015, the General Assembly enacted two measures to limit the use of the multimodal
Transportation Funds Transportation Trust Fund, which receives various highway and transit revenues, including fuel
taxes. Senate Bill 167 restricts the fund’s use to roads, public transit, and other transportation
purposes through Nov. 8, 2016, unless another use is approved by a three-fourths vote in each
legislative chamber through a bill that is not an annual budget act, bond and capital improve-
ment act, or grants-in-aid act. Senate Bill 166 would add a similar restriction to the constitution
(Del. Const. art. VIII, §12, pending). Unlike in any other state, Delaware’s legislature can amend
the constitution without a vote of the people if two consecutive General Assemblies pass the
amendment. Senate Bill 166 was the first passage.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • • General authorization given in stat-
obligation Pas- ute (Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §§7401
senger
bonds and et seq.); specific authorizations given
freight in the annual “Bond Bill”
Revenue • • • • • • • General authorization given in stat-
bonds Pas- ute (Del. Code Ann. tit. 2, §1405);
senger
and issued by the Delaware Transpor-
freight tation Authority (see note); specific
authorizations given in the annual
“Bond Bill”
Build Amer- • • • • • • Issued in 2010 by the Delaware
ica Bonds Pas- Transportation Authority (see note)
senger
and
freight
GARVEE • • Authorized for a specific project by
bonds 2009 session law, not statute (Vol.
77 Del. Laws, Chap. 223); issued in
2010

Delaware
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Federal credit • • Active loan(s), used for a highway
assistance: project
TIFIA
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for Transporta-
Pas- tion Trust Fund projects (Del. Code
senger
and Ann. tit. 29, §6970A; Vol. 80 Del.
freight Laws, Chap. 107) and public-private
partnership projects (Del. Code Ann.
tit. 2, §2003); currently in use for a
highway project
Public-private • • • • • • Authorized in statute for various
partnerships Pas- transportation modes; legislative
senger
and approval required (Del. Code Ann.
freight tit. 2, §§2001 et seq.); not currently
in use
benefit corporations or instrumentalities. For Delaware, however, finance mechanisms used by the Delaware Transportation
Authority, which functions as a component unit of DelDOT, are included. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” sig-
nifies that the item is specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible
transportation activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not
include administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education programs, or
distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail are included under
“public transit.”

Restrictions on The General Assembly must approve all public-private partnership projects (Del. Code Ann. tit.
Finance Mechanisms 2, §2003).

Delaware
DOT Able to Retain and Yes, with legislative approval. DelDOT can roll over any excess funds to the next fiscal year with
Spend Excess Funds approval of the Capital Transportation Plan. DelDOT requires additional legislative approval to spend
excess funds.
Legislative Approval Yes. Once changes are approved by the legislative Bond Bill Committee, they go to the full legislature
Required for DOT to Move for approval.
Legislative Actions to DelDOT is bound by state procurement laws, including those related to life-cycle cost analyses and
Control DOT Costs low-bid requirements (Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §6909A and §6962).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. The General Assembly annually appropriates a portion of
Transportation the Delaware Transportation Trust Fund to Municipal Street Aid. DelDOT distributes these revenues to munici-
Revenues to Local palities by a statutory formula based on population and road mileage (Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, §§5161 et seq.).
Entities
Local Revenue State statute does not authorize local revenue sources specifically for transportation. Cities and counties may,
Sources Autho- however, levy real estate transfer taxes for capital improvements and infrastructure, which can include trans-
rized in State Law portation projects (Del. Code Ann. tit. 9, §8102; Del. Code Ann. tit. 22, §1601).

Florida

Bridges 12,225
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, monorail,
streetcar, vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name Florida Legislature
Session Annual, approx. Mar. to May
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Appropriations
diction Over Transporta- • Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Transportation
• Transportation and Economic Development Appropriations Subcommittee
House Committee on Economic Affairs
• Highway and Waterway Safety Subcommittee
• Transportation and Ports Subcommittee

Florida
Name Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (does not serve on governor’s cabinet), Florida Transportation Commission
(independent body)

Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation/spaceports, ports/waterways, pedes-
DOT Has Jurisdiction trian/bicycle. The Florida Rail Enterprise is housed within FDOT.
Includes DMV? No. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, an independent state agency, performs
driver’s licensing and vehicle registration functions. These functions are funded by driver’s license fees
and other fee revenues.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Florida Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
Highway patrol functions are funded by state general funds, Federal funds, and fee revenues.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise is housed under FDOT. Expressway authorities, however, are sepa-
Toll Facilities? rate regional entities.
Other
Other State-Level Space Florida (corporation) Space Florida is an independent special district, corporation, and
Transportation Entities subdivision of the state with jurisdiction over aerospace activities (Fla.
Stat. Ann. §§331.301 et seq.). It is funded by general funds and other
minor sources.
Department of Environmen- Recreational trails are managed in part by a program within the state
tal Protection—Recreational Department of Environmental Protection, funded out of the state
Trails Program (state agency) Transportation Trust Fund and various trust fund sources.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through leadership. Members of FDOT’s leadership team—which
and Collaboration includes the secretary, chief of staff, director of legislative programs, communications director, and
director of the Office of Work Program and Budget—interact with legislators and committee staff
during the interim, appear before committees during session, and pursue the department’s policy and
funding issues. FDOT’s Office of Legislative Programs also provides information to legislators and staff.
DOT Legislative Liaison The FDOT leadership team and the Office of Legislative Programs serve as the main points of contact
between the department and the Legislature.
Transportation Laws Fla. Stat. Ann. §20.23; Fla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 to 26; portions of Fla. Stat. Ann. tit. 27; Fla. Const. art. VII,
§17 (bonding); portions of Fla. Stat. Ann. tit. 14 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In Florida, only legislators may request legislative bill
Legislative Process drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying Eight members of FDOT’s leadership team are registered lobbyists who
can actively advocate for FDOT initiatives.

florida
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact FDOT prepares its own bill analyses, each of which includes a state-
Statements for Legislative Use ment of policy and fiscal impact on the Federal, state, and local levels.
These are sent to the Florida Legislature for review and shared with the
public online. Legislative committee staff use these analyses to formu-
late the official legislative analysis for each piece of transportation-re-
lated legislation. However, FDOT’s analyses represent the department’s
official position on a piece of legislation.
Appointment of The nine members of the Florida Transportation Commission are appointed to four-year terms
DOT Leadership by the governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate and within statutory requirements for
geographic representation, state citizenship, and voter registration. Each member must possess
business managerial experience in the private sector and cannot have any interest in FDOT awards
up to two years after their service. The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor
from among three people nominated by the commission, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
The secretary must meet statutory requirements for qualifications (Fla. Stat. Ann. §20.23).
Legislature Able to No. The secretary of transportation serves at the pleasure of the governor. No process is specified
Remove DOT Leaders? for removing members of the Florida Transportation Commission before the end of their respective
terms of office.
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee reviews all proposed rules and may examine
Administrative Rules any existing rule. The committee’s role is mainly advisory (Fla. Stat. Ann. §120.545).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. FDOT is subject to audits and other accountability activities conducted by
or Sunset Reviews the Auditor General and the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability
(OPPAGA), both within the legislative branch. From 2006 to 2011, Florida also had a legislative
sunset review process, but FDOT was not reviewed before the enacting statute was repealed (2006
Fla. Laws, Chap. 2006-146; 2007 Fla. Laws Chap. 2007-161; 2011 Fla. Laws, Chap. 2011-34).
Required DOT Reports FDOT must submit annual reports to the Legislature concerning claims settlements (Fla. Stat.
to the Legislature Ann. §337.221), turnpike projects (Fla. Stat. Ann. §338.2275), and debt and debt-like contractual
obligations (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.139). At least every five years, the department must complete an
updated state rail plan, accompanied by a report to the Legislature regarding the status of the plan
(Fla. Stat. Ann. §341.302). In addition, the Florida Transportation Commission must submit annual
reports about implementation of the Strategic Intermodal System Plan (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.64)
and FDOT performance and productivity (Fla. Stat. Ann. §334.045).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements listed above, the Legislature has enacted requirements in
Performance Management state law for the Florida Transportation Commission to establish objectives and measures for, and
evaluate, FDOT’s performance and productivity (Fla. Stat. Ann. §334.045; this statute also requires
the related report to the Legislature that is listed above). Also, state law requires each state exec-
utive agency to develop an annual long-range program plan to achieve state goals. The five-year
plan must include program objectives, standards to measure progress, prior year performance
data, and other performance measurement information, and must be posted online (Fla. Stat. Ann.
§216.013).
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from FDOT.
Mechanisms

Florida
Budgeting and Appropria- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1.
tions Overview
Allocation of Transportation Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and program approval. Federal transportation funds
Revenues to the DOT are allocated to FDOT as state legislative appropriations to departmental pro-
grams. They are also allocated through approval of the FDOT work program,
which is submitted to the Legislature as part of the legislative budget request.
Occasionally, a legislative proviso may direct how Federal funding may be used.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and program approval. As with Federal funds, state
transportation funds are allocated to FDOT as appropriations to departmental
programs and through approval of the FDOT work program.

Authorized Expenditures Transportation systems development $2,887,880,446
Florida Rail Enterprise $222,217,699
Highway operations $5,605,425,520
Executive direction and support services $89,364,410
Information technology $45,220,788
Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise $1,241,254,498
Total $10,091,363,361
Revenue Sources Trust funds (various) $10,091,363,361
Total $10,091,363,361

Transportation Planning FDOT is responsible for coordinating and preparing statewide and local government transportation
and Capital Project Selec- plans. FDOT collaboratively develops the regularly updated Florida Transportation Plan, which estab-
tion Process lishes long-range transportation goals and objectives, and a five-year work program. Projects are
selected from priority lists provided by MPOs, transportation planning organizations, and counties.
Funding selections are based on project readiness, scope, and eligible available funding. The selec-
tions are also communicated to Florida’s citizens through public hearings with opportunities to pro-
vide feedback. The Florida Transportation Commission performs an in-depth evaluation of the Florida
Transportation Plan. The Legislature approves the five-year work program.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The Legislature has defined various planning requirements in statute,
Planning Process including principles to be considered in planning and developing an integrated, balanced state trans-
portation system (Fla. Stat. Ann. §334.046), the roles of MPOs, transportation planning organizations,
and public participation in the planning process (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.155), and the development of
a fiscally balanced five-year work program (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.135). The Legislature does not play a
significant role in project selection, inasmuch as projects are selected based on local and statewide
priorities. The Legislature does have a significant role in the review and approval of the five-year work
program and appropriation of funds.

florida
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Allocated to multimodal State Trans-
gasoline and Pas- portation Trust Fund; taxes on both
senger
diesel (fixed and gasoline and diesel include a fixed-
rate and vari- freight rate component and two variable
able rate— components that are indexed to the
indexed) Consumer Price Index, a “fuel sales
tax” and the State Comprehensive
Enhanced Transportation System Tax
(Fla. Stat. Ann. §206.41, §206.608,
§206.87)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Starting Jan. 1, 2019, natural gas
alternative Pas- fuels will be taxed, including a fixed-
senger
fuels (fixed and rate component and two variable
rate and vari- freight components that are indexed to the
able rate— Consumer Price Index (Fla. Stat. Ann.
indexed) §206.9955)
aviation fuels and jet fuel; allocated to State Trans-
(fixed rate) portation Trust Fund; (Fla. Stat. Ann.
§206.9825, §206.9845); set aside
for aviation programs in compliance
with Federal Aviation Administration
rules
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • • Fla. Stat. Ann. §319.32, §320.08,
istration and Pas- §320.20
senger
title fees and
freight
Truck regis- • • • • • • • • Fla. Stat. Ann. §320.08, §320.20
tration fees Pas-
senger
(based on and
weight)
Oversize/ • • • • • • • • Fla. Stat. Ann. §316.550
overweight Pas-
senger
truck permit and
fees freight
Surcharge • • • • • • • • Fla. Stat. Ann. §212.0606
on rental Pas-
senger
vehicles and
freight
Tolls • • • Used by FDOT and the Florida
(indexed) Turnpike for highway purposes and
related debt; tolls from non-turnpike
facilities are indexed to the Con-
sumer Price Index (Fla. Stat. Ann.
§338.165, §338.231)

Florida
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Congestion • • • • Revenues can be used for specified
pricing/ highway purposes or express bus
high-occu- service on the HOT lanes facility (Fla.
pancy toll Stat. Ann. §338.166)
(HOT) lanes
Passenger • • • Fla. Stat. Ann. §341.838
rail fares Pas-
senger
only
Documen- • • • • • • • • Portions allocated to transit, inter-
tary stamp Pas- modal projects (including space-
senger
revenues and ports), and the Florida Rail Enterprise
freight (Fla. Stat. Ann. §201.15)
Interest • • • • • • • • State Transportation Trust Fund (Fla.
income Pas- Stat. Ann. §339.08)
senger
and
freight
Notes:
• Revenues from license plate fees and driver’s license fees are used for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles (Fla. Stat. Ann. ch. 320 and 322), not for the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart.
State Fuel Tax Model Fixed rate (cents per gallon) and variable rate (indexed)
Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation (with exceptions). Most fuel tax revenues for state use are
State Fuel Taxes deposited into the State Transportation Trust Fund, which is dedicated by statute to multimodal
transportation purposes, by way of the Fuel Tax Collection Trust Fund. Exceptions include
transfers to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Environmen-
tal Protection, and the Agricultural Emergency Eradication Trust Fund. At least 10 percent of
specified fuel and diesel tax revenues that are deposited in the State Transportation Trust Fund
must be used for public transit and rail capital projects (Fla. Stat. Ann. §206.606, §206.608,
and §206.9945).

florida
Restrictions on Other Shares of vehicle registration fee revenues are directed to highway and port projects (Fla. Stat.
Transportation Revenues Ann. §320.20). After set-asides, a portion of documentary stamp proceeds are directed to the
State Transportation Trust Fund, then distributed to various transportation purposes includ-
ing small county programs, major projects, and $60 million to the Florida Rail Enterprise, as
required by state statute (Fla. Stat. Ann. §201.15). Toll revenues from state highways must be
used for the toll facility, related debt, or state highway projects in the same county (Fla. Stat.
Ann. §338.165). Toll revenues from the Florida Turnpike must be used for turnpike projects or
debt (Fla. Stat. Ann. §338.231). Revenues from high-occupancy toll lanes must be used for the
toll facility, related debt, express bus service on those lanes, or other specified purposes (Fla.
Stat. Ann. §338.166).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute directs that all revenues in the State Transportation Trust Fund must be used for
Transportation Funds transportation purposes. All modes including roads and bridges, transit, aviation, rail, ports,
and bicycle and pedestrian facilities are supported by revenues that flow through this fund from
various transportation-related sources. At least 15 percent of the fund’s revenues must be used
for public transit (Fla. Stat. Ann. §206.46, §339.08, §311.07, §320.20, and §339.81). The Leg-
islature does, however, occasionally transfer money from the State Transportation Trust Fund
to non-transportation purposes. The last time this occurred was in FY 2011–12, when a portion
was transferred to the State School Trust Fund.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • Includes right-of-way acquisition
obligation and bridge construction bonds (Fla.
bonds Const. art. VII, §17; Fla. Stat. Ann.
§215.605, §337.276)
Revenue • • • • • • Fla. Const. art. VII, §11; includes
bonds Pas- turnpike revenue bonds (Fla. Stat.
senger
and Ann. §338.227), toll revenue bonds
freight for FDOT facilities (Fla. Stat. Ann.
§338.165), toll revenue bonds for
high-occupancy toll (HOT)/express
lanes (Fla. Stat. Ann. §338.166),
seaport bonds (Fla. Stat. Ann.
§339.0801), fixed guideway bonds,
which have not been used (Fla. Stat.
Ann. §215.615), and bonds issued by
the Florida Department of Transpor-
tation Financing Corporation (see
notes)
Build Amer- • • Issued in 2009 as turnpike revenue
ica Bonds bonds
GARVEE • • Authorized in state statute; debt ser-
bonds vice capped at 10 percent of Federal
highway aid apportionments (Fla.
Stat. Ann. §215.616); not issued

Florida
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Federal credit See notes • • • • See See notes Active loan(s), used for highway and
assistance: Pas- notes intermodal projects (see notes)
senger
TIFIA only
Advance See notes • • •
construction Freight
only
Federal-aid See notes • • • •
matching: Freight
only
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • • Authorized in statute for limited
Pas- access highways, bridges, or rail
senger
and (Fla. Stat. Ann. §337.11); used by the
freight state for several road projects
partnerships Pas- transportation modes; legislative
senger
and approval required (Fla. Stat. Ann.
freight §334.30, §337.251, §§338.22 et
seq., §348.0004); used for several
projects
State infra- • • • • • • • Two separate accounts: a Federally
structure Pas- capitalized account that can be
senger
bank and used for highways and transit, and
freight a state-capitalized account that
can also be used for rail, airports,
and ports (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.55,
§215.617)
Land swaps • • • • • • • • Fla. Stat. Ann. §337.25
or donations Pas-
senger
from land and
owners freight
Notes:
• In 2016, legislation was enacted to create the Florida Department of Transportation Financing Corporation, a govern-
mental corporation that will act as a conduit issuer of debt for FDOT (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.0809; 2016 Fla. Laws, Chap.
2016-181). Debt will be secured by contractual commitments under which FDOT will make payments to the corpora-
tion in exchange for financing services. According to a legislative bill analysis, this arrangement will in effect allow the
issuance of debt to finance transportation projects for which FDOT currently lacks the legal authority to issue bonds.

• Florida’s use of Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance has in-
florida
cluded projects that provide intermodal ground access to the Miami International Airport and tunnel access to the Port
of Miami.
• Although Florida’s use of TIFIA is not specifically authorized in state law, its use is broadly permitted under a statutory
provision that allows the use of innovative finance techniques, including Federal loans, for public private-partnerships
(Fla. Stat. Ann. §334.30[7]). Similarly, the use of advance construction is considered to fall under the state’s authority
to receive Federal reimbursement for projects or project phases (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.12[6]) and the use of toll credits,
or “soft match,” under a provision relating to state matches for Federal-aid funds (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.135[3][c]).
• In Florida, private activity bonds (PABs) have been used by private entities, not by the state.

Restrictions on Debt service for bonds related to right-of-way acquisition and bridge construction is limited
Finance Mechanisms to 7 percent of the revenues deposited into the State Transportation Trust Fund, up to $275
million (Fla. Stat. Ann. §206.46). FDOT must manage all levels of debt to ensure that not
more than 20 percent of total projected available state and Federal revenues from the State
Transportation Trust Fund, together with any local funds, are committed to debt and certain
debt-like contractual obligations in any given year (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.139). No more than
$10 billion of bonds may be outstanding to pay for approved turnpike projects (Fla. Stat.
Ann. §338.2275). The Legislature must approve public-private partnership projects as part of
FDOT’s work plan, and additional approvals are required for leases of existing toll facilities,
turnpike projects, or agreements with terms of more than 75 years. No more than 15 percent
of total Federal and state funding in any given year for the State Transportation Trust Fund
may be obligated for public-private partnerships (Fla. Stat. Ann. §334.30, §§338.22 et seq.,
and §348.0004). GARVEE debt service is capped at 10 percent of Federal highway aid appor-
tionments to FDOT (Fla. Stat. Ann. §215.616).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes, with legislative approvals. The transportation work program is required by law to plan projects to
Spend Excess Funds deplete available revenues, and the Joint Legislative Budget Commission must approve carrying for-
ward any work program budget authority that is not yet committed (Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.135). Oper-
ating cash reverts to the trust fund from which it was appropriated and is available to FDOT to plan its
use and to the Legislature for re-appropriation (Fla. Stat. Ann. §216.301). When FDOT is authorized to
retain excess funds, authorization to spend them must be obtained in a future request.
Legislative Approval Yes. FDOT must submit any work program amendments to affected counties, the governor, and the
Required for DOT to Move Legislature. The governor may not approve the amendment until 14 days after legislative notification.
Funds Between Projects The amendment is approved after the 14-day period if there is no legislative objection.
Legislative Actions to Actions include low-bid requirements and other procurement guidelines (Fla. Stat. Ann. §337.11 and
Control DOT Costs §337.025).

Florida
Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. Florida levies three state taxes specifically for local
Transportation road projects: the constitutional fuel tax, the county fuel tax, and the municipal fuel tax. The constitutional
Revenues to Local fuel tax and county fuel tax are distributed to counties by a statutory formula based on area, population, and
Entities tax collections (Fla. Const. art. XII, §9; Fla. Stat. Ann. §206.47 and §206.60). In addition, FDOT is decentral-
ized into seven districts, which receive portions of rental car surcharge revenues (Fla. Stat. Ann. §212.0606)
and, through the Transportation Regional Incentive Program, allocations of documentary stamp revenues that
are distributed by a statutory formula based on counties’ population and fuel tax collections (Fla. Stat. Ann.
§339.2819). FDOT also awards state-funded discretionary grants to local entities through the Small County
Road Assistance Program, the County Incentive Grant Program, the Small County Outreach Program, and the
Enhanced Bridge Program for Sustainable Transportation (Fla. Stat. Ann. §§339.2816 et seq. and §339.285).
Except for the Small County Road Assistance Program, each of these grant programs requires a local match,
with exceptions granted to fiscally constrained rural counties (Fla. Stat. Ann. §288.019 and §288.0656). The
Small County Road Assistance Program may take local matches into consideration but does not require them
(Fla. Stat. Ann. §339.2816).
Local Revenue In addition to state fuel taxes that are levied for local use, Florida statute also authorizes several local option
Sources Autho- fuel taxes (Fla. Stat. Ann. §206.41, §206.87, §336.021, and §336.025). Counties may establish community
rized in State Law development districts that are authorized to assess property taxes or special assessments for public works
projects, including streets (Fla. Stat. Ann. §190.021). Some counties may levy discretionary sales surtaxes for
transportation purposes (Fla. Stat. Ann. §212.055). Regional transit authorities may assess property taxes (Fla.
Stat. Ann. §163.570). Counties, municipalities, and special districts may charge developers impact fees to pay
for development-related capital improvements (Fla. Stat. Ann. §163.31801).

Georgia

Bridges 15,176
Toll facilities No (see notes)
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, ferry boat, inclined plane, van-
pool, demand response
Notes:
• These statistics refer to all transportation facilities and services in the state, not just those under state jurisdiction. Air-
port statistics only include airports, not heliports or other types of landing facilities. Bridges include all public bridges,
but not tunnels or culverts, that are over 20 feet long and carry vehicular traffic. All statistics were first drawn from
Federal or other sources (see references), and then presented to survey respondents to verify or amend.
• As of October 2016, Georgia has no toll facilities besides high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, as the tolls on GA 400
were discontinued in 2013. An additional 42 miles of managed toll lanes are planned to open in 2017 and 2018.
Legislature
Name Georgia General Assembly
Type Citizen/part-time
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- • Subcommittee on Economic Development
tion-Related Issues • Subcommittee on Public Safety
• Subcommittee on Transportation
• Subcommittee on Economic Development
• Subcommittee on Public Safety
House Committee on Motor Vehicles
Joint Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Overview Committee (MARTOC)

georgia
Name Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)
Leadership Commissioner of Transportation (does not serve on governor’s cabinet; Georgia has no formal cabinet
system), State Transportation Board (independent body), Director of Planning (GDOT Division of Plan-
ning only)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? No. The Georgia Department of Driver Services is an independent state agency, funded primarily by
state general funds. It also receives a minimal amount from motorcycle safety course fees. The Motor
Vehicle Division is a division of the Georgia Department of Revenue, funded solely by state general
funds.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Georgia State Patrol is under the Department of Public Safety, funded by state general funds
as well as motor carrier fines and fees. GDOT does collect and retain a small percentage of permit
fees to offset repairs to weigh stations.
Jurisdiction Over No. The State Road and Tollway Authority has that jurisdiction.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level State Road and Tollway The State Road and Tollway Authority is an instrumentality and public
Transportation Entities Authority (corporation/ corporation of the state that is distinct from, but administratively
instrumentality) attached to, GDOT. The authority is responsible for financing transpor-
tation initiatives and operating toll roads. It is funded by Federal funds,
fuel taxes, toll revenues, and operations. The commissioner of trans-
portation is a member of the authority’s five-member board (O.G.C.A.
§45-15-13 and §§32-10-60 et seq.).
Georgia Ports Authority The Georgia Ports Authority is an instrumentality and public corpora-
(corporation/ instrumentality) tion of the state that is administratively attached to the Department of
Economic Development. It is funded by customer revenues, property
leases, and a minute portion from operations. The authority also issues
general obligation bonds for projects such as deepenings and equip-
ment (O.G.C.A. §45-15-13 and §§52-2-1 et seq.)
Georgia Regional Transpor- The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority is an instrumentality
tation Authority and public corporation of the state that is administratively attached to
(corporation/ instrumentality) the Department of Community Affairs. The authority manages land
transportation and air quality in metro Atlanta. It is funded by state
appropriations, Federal funds, and transit fares (O.G.C.A. §§50-32-1 et
seq.).
Georgia Rail Passenger The Georgia Rail Passenger Authority (currently defunct) was estab-
Authority lished as a public corporation, distinct from but administratively
(corporation) attached to GDOT, to develop passenger rail and public transit projects
(O.G.C.A. §§46-9-270 et seq.).

georgia
Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through dedicated liaisons. GDOT meets regularly with members of the
and Collaboration General Assembly and must submit several reports every year to the House and Senate transportation
committees. Most legislative-GDOT communication occurs through the department’s Office of Policy
and Government Affairs, which includes a director and liaisons to assist in communicating with the
House and the Senate. This office oversees GDOT’s legislative agenda, testifies in legislative hearings,
and responds to numerous legislative and constituent inquiries and concerns.
DOT Legislative Liaison GDOT’s Office of Policy and Government Affairs acts as the main point of contact between the
department and the General Assembly.
Transportation Laws Ga. Const. art. IV, §4; O.C.G.A. tit. 6, 32, 40; portions of O.C.G.A. tit. 12, 13, 45, 46, 50, and 52; Ga.
Const. art. III, §9, ¶VI (revenue restrictions); portions of O.C.G.A. tit. 48 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. GDOT’s board of directors approves any departmental
Legislative Process legislation developed through internal review. Only legislators, how-
ever, can request a finalized legislative draft and formally sponsor and
introduce legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying GDOT does not retain or employ lobbyists. Approval of GDOT’s leg-
islative agenda by its board of directors constitutes the department’s
endorsement. Requests for information are handled by GDOT’s Office
of Policy and Government Affairs.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, state agencies such as GDOT must provide information and
Statements for Legislative Use assistance to the Office of Planning and Budget and the state auditor,
upon request, for the preparation of fiscal notes (O.C.G.A. §28-5-42).
Appointment of The 14 members of the State Transportation Board, who represent congressional districts, are
DOT Leadership elected to five-year terms by a majority vote of the state legislators in their respective districts.
The board, in turn, appoints the commissioner of transportation (Ga. Const. art. IV, §4; O.C.G.A.
§32-2-20). The director of planning is appointed by the governor to serve a term that coincides
with the governor’s, subject to approval by both the House and Senate transportation committees
(O.C.G.A. §32-2-43).
Legislature Able to Yes, for some leaders. Members of the State Transportation Board can be recalled by the state leg-
Remove DOT Leaders? islators in their respective districts. The State Transportation Board can remove the commissioner
of transportation. The director of planning serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules are assigned to a standing committee for review. If a committee opposes a
Administrative Rules rule, a resolution to override it is introduced for consideration by the full legislature. Otherwise, the
rule is automatically approved (O.C.G.A. §50-13-4).
Legislative Audits Neither. Audits are generally conducted by the Performance Audit Operations Division in the
or Sunset Reviews Department of Audits and Accounts, which is not a legislative entity, although reviews can be
requested by individual legislators. Georgia does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or
programs.

georgia
Required DOT Reports GDOT must submit annual reports to the General Assembly concerning a design-build projects
to the Legislature (O.C.G.A. §32-2-81), the Roadside Enhancement and Beautification Fund (O.C.G.A. §32-6-75.2),
and the outdoor advertising program (O.C.G.A. §32-6-74), as well as quarterly reports about its
public-private partnership activities (O.C.G.A. §32-2-80). GDOT must also annually submit a ten-
year strategic plan that outlines the use of department resources for the upcoming fiscal years
(O.C.G.A. §32-5-27.1). The director of planning is required to submit annual reports to the legisla-
ture concerning progress on construction projects valued at $10 million or more, value engineering
studies on all projects with costs exceeding $50 million (O.C.G.A. §32-2-41.2), and progress on the
Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (O.C.G.A. §32-2-41.1).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements listed above, GDOT submits performance goals, metrics,
Performance Management and outcomes to the governor’s Office of Planning and Budget as part of the budget develop-
ment process. This information is included in the annual Governor’s Budget Report, which is used
and approved by the General Assembly in the appropriations process. The General Assembly also
tracks and measures GDOT’s progress through Budget and Fiscal Affairs Oversight Committee
hearings.
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from GDOT. Also, while
Mechanisms there is no formal sunset process, the governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, as part of prepar-
ing the governor’s annual budget, performs a zero-based budget analysis on a rolling list of bud-
get programs. This ensures a cycle that will review the entire budget for spending justifications and
incorporate adjustments and savings into the governor’s budget recommendation to the General
Assembly. The General Assembly may also review audits conducted by the Department of Audits
and Accounts.

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. Each year, the General Assembly passes and the governor
ations Overview signs two separate budgets. The primary one is the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The other is
the “amended” fiscal year budget, which makes adjustments to the current fiscal year to account for
changes in school enrollment and for other unanticipated needs that arise.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Most Federal transportation funds are allocated to
tion Revenues to the DOT GDOT as state legislative appropriations to departmental budgetary programs
and broad spending categories (e.g., state highway construction or main-
tenance). Some Federal funding is sent directly to GDOT, in which case it is
received and recognized through a budget amendment.
allocated to GDOT as appropriations to departmental budgetary programs.

georgia

Authorized Expenditures Capital construction projects $1,678,795,154
Capital maintenance projects $293,168,959
Construction administration $169,799,165
Data collection, compliance, and reporting $12,403,223
Departmental administration $78,952,804
Intermodal $85,562,631
Local maintenance and improvement grants $165,562,234
Local road assistance administration $96,597,611
Planning $16,453,554
Routine maintenance $454,011,607
Traffic management and control $97,707,637
Payments to State Road and Tollway Authority $252,212,858
Total $3,401,227,437
Revenue Sources Federal funds and grants $1,593,146,310
State funds: motor fuel funds $1,660,064,000
State funds: state general funds $54,479,424
Other funds $92,777,470
Intra-state government transfers $760,233
Total $3,401,227,437
Note: In the FY 2017 budget (2016 Ga. Laws, Act 517), GDOT was also appropriated a total of $845,677 in state general funds
to finance Georgia Regional Transportation Authority projects and facilities through the issuance of up to a total of $6.8 million
in general obligation bonds. An additional $9.3 million was appropriated to finance GDOT projects and facilities through the
issuance of up to a total of $108.0 million in general obligation bonds.

Transportation Planning The director of planning works with many planning partners to develop the state’s transportation
and Capital Project Selec- plans and overall transportation investment priorities. GDOT helps to develop, evaluate, and prioritize
tion Process specific projects for inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which lists
Federally-funded transportation projects outside MPO boundaries and is typically developed annually.
The STIP is approved by the governor, the State Transportation Board, and the U.S. DOT. GDOT also
works with each MPO to develop a draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which must be
approved by the MPO and the governor. The TIPs are included in the STIP by reference. As required
by state law (O.C.G.A. §32-2-41.1), GDOT also creates a Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan that
combines the traditional transportation analyses of a long-range transportation plan with a strategic
business case for transportation investment. The document includes growth trends and projections,
economics, existing conditions, future needs, and an investment strategy for transportation in the
state.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The General Assembly is given the opportunity to comment on the draft STIP
Planning Process each year. In addition, the General Assembly can choose to emphasize rail, airports, transit, or other
modes in its annual appropriations to GDOT for intermodal programs.

georgia
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Starting July 1, 2016, both taxes will
gasoline and be annually adjusted based on the
diesel (vari- average fuel economy of all new
able rate— vehicles registered in the state the
indexed, previous year and, until July 1, 2018,
other) the Consumer Price Index (O.C.G.A.
§48-9-3)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on liquefied petro-
alternative leum gas, compressed natural gas,
fuels (vari- and others; adjusted and allocated
able rate— the same way as gasoline and diesel
indexed, taxes (O.C.G.A. §48-9-2, §48-9-3)
other)
Fuel taxes: • • • Dedicated to aviation purposes, to
jet fuel, sales the extent required to comply with
and use Federal law (O.C.G.A. §48-8-3)
taxes
Special fees • • • • • • • Annual heavy vehicle highway
on heavy Pas- impact fee, enacted in 2015; to be
senger
vehicles and used for multimodal transportation
freight purposes (O.C.G.A. §40-2-151.1;
2015 Ga. Laws, Act 46)
Oversize • • • After defraying costs of enforce-
truck permit ment, revenues may be used for
fees road maintenance (O.C.G.A. §32-
6-28)
Tolls • • Revenues used for toll facilities
(O.C.G.A. §32-10-64); not currently
in use (see notes)
Congestion • • • Revenues used for toll facilities
pricing/ (O.C.G.A. §32-10-64, §40-6-54)
high-occu-
pancy toll
(HOT) lanes
Hotel fees • • • • • • • $5 per night fee, enacted in 2015,
Pas- to be used for multimodal transpor-
senger
and tation purposes (O.C.G.A. §48-13-
freight 50.3; 2015 Ga. Laws, Act 46)
General See • • • • • • • • Legislative appropriations; rep-
funds notes Pas- resents a small portion of GDOT’s
senger
and overall budget
freight
Interest • • • Interest earned on fuel tax revenues
income is restricted to road uses (O.C.G.A.
§50-17-63)

Notes:
georgia
• A special registration fee for electric vehicles (which is to be adjusted based on average fuel efficiency and, until July 1,
2018, the Consumer Price Index) was enacted in 2015. The revenues, however, are directed to the general fund and are
not dedicated in law to transportation purposes (O.C.G.A. §40-2-151; 2015 Ga. Laws, Act 46).
• The use of general funds for state expenses generally, but not for transportation purposes specifically, is authorized by
the Georgia constitution (Ga. Const. art. III, §9, ¶3). The appropriation of general funds to transportation purposes is
authorized by session law, not state statute.
• As of October 2016, Georgia has no toll facilities besides high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, as the tolls on GA 400
were discontinued in 2013. An additional 42 miles of managed toll lanes are planned to open in 2017 and 2018.
State Fuel Tax Model Variable rate (indexed and adjusted based on average vehicle fuel economy)
Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges (with emergency exception). The state constitution restricts
State Fuel Taxes use of motor fuel tax revenues to roads and bridges, except that they may, by executive order,
be used for defense or relief purposes if an invasion or major catastrophe is declared by the
governor (Ga. Const. art. III, §9, ¶VI). State statute further states that these revenues may not
be used for public transit, rail, or aviation (O.C.G.A. §§32-9-1 et seq.)
Restrictions on Other State statute dedicates the revenues from new hotel fees and heavy vehicle highway impact
Transportation Revenues fees, both enacted in 2015, to transportation purposes that include roads, bridges, public tran-
sit, rails, airports, buses, seaports, and related debt (O.C.G.A. §40-2-151.1 and §48-13-50.3).
As of July 1, 2017, jet fuel taxes are dedicated to aviation purposes, to the extent required to
comply with Federal law (O.C.G.A. §48-8-3).
Dedicated or Restricted The State Public Transportation Fund, which receives fuel tax and other revenues, must be used
Transportation Funds for roads and bridges, including debt and GDOT operating expenses (O.C.G.A. §§32-5-20 et
seq.).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • Generally authorized in state statute;
obligation requires further legislative approval
bonds (O.C.G.A. §50-17-23); includes $175
million for public transit and bridges
in FY 2016 and an additional $100
million for bridges in FY 2017
Revenue • • • Authorized in state statute (O.C.G.A.
bonds §32-10-90)

georgia
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
GARVEE • • • Authorized in state statute (O.C.G.A.
bonds §32-10-90, §32-10-90.1); most
assistance: project
TIFIA
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • • Authorized for highways, bridges,
Pas- and rail; capped at 50 percent of the
senger
and total amount of construction proj-
freight ects awarded in the previous fiscal
year (O.C.G.A. §32-2-81); used by
the state for several road and bridge
projects
Public-private • • • • • • • Authorized in statute; not restricted
partnerships Pas- by mode (O.C.G.A. §32-2-41, §§32-
senger
and 2-78 et seq.); used by the state for a
freight road project
State infra- • • • • • • • • Georgia Transportation Infra-
structure Pas- structure Bank; capitalized with
senger
bank and state funds only; may be used for
freight highway, airport, rail, transit, har-
bor, waterway, or bicycle projects
(O.C.G.A. §§32-10-120 et seq.)
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. In FY 2016, the General Assembly bonded $175 million for public transit and for bridge
repair, replacement, and renovation. In FY 2017, an additional $100 million in bonds was
provided for bridges.
Restrictions on The General Assembly must approve any general obligation debt (O.C.G.A. §50-17-23). GDOT
Finance Mechanisms may use design-build for no more than 50 percent of the total amount of construction proj-
ects awarded in the previous fiscal year (O.C.G.A. §32-2-81).
Finance Mechanisms State agencies (but not authorities) are prohibited from entering into any contract that consti-
Prohibited in State Law tutes a state of indebtedness (Ga. Const. art. VII, §4, ¶VIII). All funds must be available to the
agency and encumbered when the contract is executed.

georgia
DOT Able to Retain and Yes, for some funds. GDOT can retain excess motor fuel funds. To be spent, these funds must be
Spend Excess Funds amended into the GDOT budget in a subsequent fiscal year as “prior year funds” in the same pro-
gram.
Legislative Approval Yes, for some funds. The General Assembly does not appropriate funds to specific projects, but rather
Required for DOT to Move to broad budget programs such as capital maintenance or capital construction. State funds cannot be
Funds Between Projects moved between budget programs without legislative approval. Federal funds can be moved between
programs with the approval of the governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. Beginning in FY 2017,
however, GDOT will have additional flexibility over the funding of three programs—capital construc-
tion, capital maintenance, and local road assistance—with the authority to transfer up to 10 percent
of state funds between these programs with the approval of the governor’s Office of Planning and
Budget (2016 Ga. Laws, Act 517).
Legislative Actions to Investment policies and benchmarks are developed by GDOT annually through the Statewide Stra-
Control DOT Costs tegic Transportation Plan, which is reviewed by the General Assembly and the governor (O.C.G.A.
§32-2-41.1). Except for contracts awarded for design-build projects and public-private partnerships,
all contracts are awarded to the lowest reliable bidder and value engineering studies are to be per-
formed on all projects with costs that exceed $50 million (O.C.G.A. §32-2-41.2, §32-2-69, §32-2-79,
and §32-2-81).

Allocation of State DOT formulas. By law, the Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant program must be allocated between
Transportation 10 percent and 20 percent of state motor fuel tax revenues each year for local road projects. These funds are
Revenues to Local distributed to cities and counties by a formula that the GDOT director of planning is responsible for creating,
Entities within statutory guidelines (O.C.G.A. §32-5-27). The current formula is based on road miles and population.
The program requires a local match of 30 percent or, in regions that have levied a special district transporta-
tion sales and use tax, 10 percent (O.C.G.A. §48-8-244).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties or special districts to levy local option sales taxes for transportation pur-
Sources Autho- poses (O.C.G.A. §§48-8-240 et seq. and §§48-8-260 et seq.). Four counties in the metropolitan Atlanta area,
rized in State Law including the city of Atlanta, are authorized by state law and a local constitutional amendment to levy a spe-
cial local option sales tax for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (the “MARTA tax”) (O.C.G.A.
§32-9-13; MARTA Act of 1965 [as amended]). Counties with a population of 550,000 or more may impose
special property assessments upon private developers to cover the costs of street repairs associated with a
development project (O.C.G.A. §36-1-18). Counties and municipalities may charge development impact fees
to pay for capital improvements (O.C.G.A. §§36-71-1 et seq.).

Hawaii

Bridges 1,168
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, demand response
Legislature
Name Hawaii Legislature
Type Hybrid
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Public Safety, Intergovernmental, and Military Affairs
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Transportation and Energy
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Ways and Means
Name Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT)
Leadership DOT Director (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Staff Size in Full-Time 2,261 authorized
Equivalents (FTEs)

Hawaii
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle

Includes DMV? No. Hawaii is the only state in which no part of state government issues driver’s licenses or registers
vehicles. These functions are instead carried out by counties, funded in part by county fees. The state
does, however, reimburse counties out of the State Highway Fund for direct costs related to these
functions. Also, the Motor Vehicle Safety Office in the DOT’s Highways Division coordinates Federal
grants for the Commercial Driver’s License Driver Improvement Program and the Commercial Driver’s
License Information System.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes and no. Because of its geography, Hawaii is the only state without a state highway patrol. Most
highway patrol functions are instead carried out by county police, funded by the various counties. The
state does oversee the enforcement of laws related to motor carriers and hazardous materials trans-
portation, funded by the State Highway Fund and Federal funds.
Jurisdiction Over No. Hawaii has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level None. Hawaii has no state-level transportation entities besides the DOT. In Hawaii, counties perform
Transportation Entities many transportation activities.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. The DOT exchanges formal and informal written and oral communications with
and Collaboration individual legislators and legislative committees. DOT officials testify at, make presentations for, and oth-
erwise attend relevant legislative hearings during the legislative session and interim. The Staff Services
office within the Highways Division is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations about
legislation, helping to draft bills, coordinating legislative testimonies, and advising changes in law.
DOT Legislative Liaison The DOT director’s office, as well as the deputy directors’ offices in the department’s Airport Division,
Highways Division, and Harbors Division, are the main points of contact between the DOT and the
Legislature.
Transportation Laws Hawaii Rev. Stat. §26-19; Hawaii Rev. Stat. tit. 15 and 17; portions of Hawaii Rev. Stat. tit. 12; portions of
Hawaii Rev. Stat. tit. 14 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. In Hawaii, bills proposed by the executive branch, known
Legislative Process as “administration bills,” are typically introduced by the Senate Presi-
dent with a postscript that they were introduced “by request” of the
agency. The Staff Services office in the Highways Division assists in
drafting bill proposals for the DOT.
Advocacy and Lobbying Yes. It is common for the DOT to lobby for or against, advocate for or
against, and submit testimony on specific bills and resolutions being
considered by the Legislature.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact The DOT has no official role in preparing fiscal notes or policy state-
Statements for Legislative Use ments, unless specifically asked by the Legislature regarding a specific
project or if relevant information is contained within testimony submit-
ted by the DOT to the Legislature on a specific bill or resolution.

Hawaii
Appointment of Department heads, including the DOT director, are appointed by the governor with the advice and
DOT Leadership consent of the Senate (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §26-31).
Legislature Able to No. The governor may remove the DOT director from office.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of No. Agencies are encouraged to seek help from the Legislative Reference Bureau to meet the
Administrative Rules state’s formatting requirements for rules, but this does not affect a rule’s status or content.
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. The Office of the Auditor, an independent, nonpartisan agency within the
or Sunset Reviews legislative branch, performs periodic audits of executive departments including the DOT. Legislative
bills and resolutions may also request audit or performance data from the DOT. The state conducts
sunset reviews, but not of the DOT.
Required DOT Reports Every state agency, including the DOT, must submit an annual report to the Legislature addressing
to the Legislature its goals, objectives, policies, action plan, and process for measuring performance (1999 Hawaii
Sess. Laws, Act 100). The DOT must also submit annual reports concerning progress on its work
plan (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §279A-6), use of the Transportation Improvement Special Fund (Hawaii Rev.
Stat. §264-19), Safe Routes to School (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §291C-3), bikeway projects (Hawaii Rev.
Stat. §264-18), and, through 2018, customer facility charges on rental cars at airports and related
projects (2008 Hawaii Sess. Laws, Act 226). Under some circumstances, the DOT must submit a
report on airport rates and charges (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §261-7).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, the governor is
Performance Management required to submit an annual “variance report” that compares estimated and actual expendi-
tures, performance, and program size for all state programs, including transportation (Hawaii Rev.
Stat. §37-75). The Legislature may adjust the DOT’s budget based on the variance report or other
performance reports, or request further information to assess performance.
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from the DOT.
Mechanisms
Resources Provided to DOT Yes. Requirements for DOT reports to the Legislature or other legislative mandates have in some
to Support Compliance with cases received separate appropriations.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. The state constitution and
ations Overview statutes prescribe a biennial budget, but in practice, a budget is submitted each year.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. Federal transportation funds
tion Revenues to the DOT are allocated to the DOT as lump sum appropriations to the department or
as appropriations to departmental programs, broad spending categories, or
specific projects. Use of Federal funds is further subject to legislative approval
of the DOT transportation plan. The DOT, via a budget proviso, is allowed to
increase Federal appropriation ceilings when the Legislature is not in session,
thus effectively allowing Federal funds to flow directly to Hawaii’s DOT from the
U.S. DOT during the interim. All such actions must be reported to the Legisla-
ture with details about why the appropriation was not sought during the normal
legislative budgeting cycle.
State Revenues Partial legislative appropriation and plan approval. Some state transportation
funds flow directly from revenue sources to the DOT with no legislative involve-
ment. Others are allocated to the DOT as lump sum appropriations to the
department or as appropriations to departmental programs, broad spending
categories, or specific projects. As with Federal funds, use of all state funds is
subject to legislative approval of the DOT transportation plan.

Hawaii
Most Recently Enacted Supplemental appropriations act, FY 2017 (enacted)

Authorized Expenditures Airports (various) $692,067,889
General aviation $12,876,006
Airports administration $271,872,892
Harbors (various) $633,084,187
Harbors administration $90,218,614
Highways (various) $359,794,331
Highways administration $204,195,644
Highway safety $15,768,723
General administration $27,110,791
Aloha Tower Development Corporation $1,842,173
Total $2,308,831,250

Transportation Planning The governor and the DOT are responsible for short- and long-term planning with input from various
and Capital Project Selec- public and private stakeholder groups, such as the Hawaii Harbor Users Group and MPOs.
tion Process
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The Legislature approves all appropriations for operating costs and capital
Planning Process improvements, including for specific projects. It also must approve the DOT’s transportation plan.

Authorization
and Use
Level Citations and
Authorized In Roads Public Rail Airports Ports and Pedestrian Other
Revenue by state current and transit and waterways and bicycle Additional Details
Source constitution use bridges aviation projects
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Deposited to State Highway Fund
gasoline for roads and bikeways, except 0.3
and diesel percent (up to $250,000) for trail
(fixed rate) management (Hawaii Rev. Stat.
§243-4, §§248-8 et seq.)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied petro-
alternative leum gas and other alternative fuels;
fuels allocated the same way as diesel
taxes (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §243-4)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on all aircraft fuels
aviation (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §248-8, §261-5)
fuels
Fuel taxes: • • • Used for comprehensive statewide
boats boating program (Hawaii Rev. Stat.
§200-8, §248-8)
Vehicle • • • • Combined registration and title fee;
registration deposited to State Highway Fund
and title (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §249-31)
fees

Hawaii
Authorization
and Use
Level Citations and
Authorized In Roads Public Rail Airports Ports and Pedestrian Other
Revenue by state current and transit and waterways and bicycle Additional Details
Source constitution use bridges aviation projects
or statute
State vehi- • • • • Applies to passenger and commer-
cle weight cial vehicles; deposited to State
tax Highway Fund (Hawaii Rev. Stat.
§249-33)
Sales taxes • • • • Surcharge taxes on rental vehi-
on rental cles, tour vehicles, and car-sharing
vehicles vehicles; deposited to State Highway
Fund (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§251-1 et
seq.)
Property • • • • Highway-related property; revenues
rentals and deposited to State Highway Fund
leases (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §248-10)
Fines for • • • • Deposited to State Highway Fund
use of a (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §291C-137)
mobile
electronic
device
while driv-
ing
Passenger • • • Used for airport capital improve-
facility ment projects (Hawaii Rev. Stat.
charges §261-5.5)
Rental • • Rental Used for airport rental car facilities
motor car uses and services (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §261-
only
vehicle 5.6)
customer
facility
charges
Airport • • • Hawaii Rev. Stat. §261-7
operation
and use
fees
Harbor • • • Includes dockage and wharfage
revenues fees, pipeline tolls, and others; used
for harbors (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §266-
17, §266-19)
General • • • Authorized by session law, not state
funds statute; one-time transfer of $37
million to State Highway Fund in FY
2017 (2016 Hawaii Sess. Laws, Act
195)
Notes:

Hawaii
• Hawaii also collects state general excise taxes on motor fuel sales. These, however, like such taxes on all other transac-
tions, are deposited to the state general fund.
• Hawaii does not provide state-level revenues for public transit.

Restrictions on Statutory, roads and bridges, bikeways, and trails. Most state motor fuel taxes are deposited
State Fuel Taxes into the State Highway Fund for roads and bikeways. In general, state statute directs the use
of the fund into which the revenues are deposited, rather than the revenues themselves. An
exception is that 0.3 percent of fuel tax revenues, up to $250,000, are allocated directly to the
Department of Land and Natural Resources for trail management (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §248-8).
Restrictions on Other State statute allocates various transportation-related revenues to the State Highway Fund and
Transportation Revenues to funds dedicated to aviation, boating, and harbor activities. In general, state statute directs
the use of the funds into which the revenues are deposited, rather than the revenues them-
selves.
Dedicated or Restricted The State Highway Fund, which receives revenues from various sources including fuel taxes,
Transportation Funds must be used for roads and bikeways (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §248-9). Three funds are dedicated to
airport projects: the Passenger Facility Charge Special Fund for airport capital improvements,
the Rental Motor Vehicle Customer Facility Charge Special Fund for airport rental car facilities
and services, and the Airport Revenue Fund, which receives all other aviation-related revenues,
for airport purposes generally (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §248-8 and §§261-5 et seq.). The Harbor
Special Fund is dedicated to harbors (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §266-19) and the Boating Special Fund,
which is supported by boat fuel tax revenues, to the comprehensive statewide boating program
(Hawaii Rev. Stat. §200-8 and §248-8).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • • • Generally authorized by statute;
bonds further legislative approval required
(Hawaii Rev. Stat. §39-53); cur-
rently in use for roads, airports, and
harbors
Lease • • • Special limited obligations of the
revenue state; authorized in statute for all
certificates of state agencies, with approval of
participation the director of finance (Hawaii Rev.
Stat. §§37D-1 et seq.); currently in
use for energy efficiency retrofitting
at airports through performance
contracting (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §36-
41); payable from aviation-related
revenue

Hawaii
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized in statute for all state
agencies (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §103D-
303); used by the DOT for road
projects

Restrictions on Revenue bonds must be approved by the Legislature (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §39-53).
Finance Mechanisms

DOT Able to Retain and Yes, inasmuch as all excess funds are retained by the respective DOT division. Retained excess funds
Spend Excess Funds can be spent for the same purposes as the original appropriation without additional approvals. These
funds can only be authorized to be spent for other purposes through a legislative appropriation,
unless budget proviso flexibility provisions apply.
Legislative Approval Yes. Budget provisos allow for DOT flexibility to transfer funds for existing projects when the Leg-
Required for DOT to Move islature is not in session, provided that all transfers are reported in detail to the Legislature. Unless
Funds Between Projects otherwise indicated as part of a lump sum appropriation, funding for new projects must be re-appro-
priated in the following year’s budget.
Legislative Actions to Actions include provisions in Hawaii Public Procurement Code related to low-bid requirements, com-
Control DOT Costs petitive bidding, and value engineering incentives (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§103D-101 et seq.).

Allocation of State Legislative appropriations. The state allocates transportation funds to local entities through state legislative
Transportation appropriations.
Revenues to Local
Entities
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to levy local option fuel taxes and vehicle weight fees for transportation pur-
Sources Autho- poses (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §243-5 and §249-2). State law also provides for county bicycle registration fees, to be
rized in State Law used for bikeways (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §249-14). The state administers a local option 0.5 percent surcharge on
the state sales and excise tax, which counties may establish for transit projects (Hawaii Rev. Stat. §46-16.8).
So far, this surcharge has been implemented by one county, the City and County of Honolulu, for rail projects.
Counties may charge developers impact fees to pay for state highway improvements and other public facilities
(Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§46-141 et seq. and §§264-121 et seq.).

Idaho

Bridges 4,369
Toll facilities No
Ports and Waterways Waterborne cargo tonnage in 2014 763,000
Legislature
Name Idaho Legislature
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Mar.
Legislative Measures 557
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Transportation and Defense
tion-Related Issues
Name Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
Leadership Director of ITD (serves on governor’s cabinet), Idaho Transportation Board (independent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)

Idaho
Includes DMV? Yes. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of ITD, funded out of ITD’s budget by fees on vehicle
and driver’s license transactions.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Idaho State Police, an independent state agency, carries out highway patrol functions. It is
funded by state general funds, a transfer of 5 percent of the Highway Distribution Account (about $17
million annually), and some direct fees for background checks and other services.
Jurisdiction Over Yes (in law but not in practice). State law authorizes the Idaho Transportation Board to levy tolls on
Toll Facilities? turnpike projects (Idaho Code §40-405), but it does not currently do so. Idaho has no toll facilities at
present.
Other
Other State-Level None. Idaho has no state-level transportation entities besides ITD, the Idaho Transportation
Transportation Entities Board, and (for highway patrol functions) the Idaho State Police.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. ITD’s executive leadership and governmental affairs manager communicate with
and Collaboration legislators face-to-face, by phone, and by e-mail throughout the year, and often attend the Legislature
during session. ITD conducts legislative outreach meetings at each of its six district offices in Decem-
ber and invites legislators to attend meetings of the Idaho Transportation Board when the board tours
the state each year. The department’s Governmental Affairs Office monitors relevant legislation and
assigns it to subject matter experts for analysis. These analyses are often shared with the governor’s
office and legislative sponsors. ITD also interacts with the Legislature around its own legislative pro-
posals. Legislators routinely request information from various ITD staff.
DOT Legislative Liaison ITD’s executive leadership and Governmental Affairs Office serve as the main points of contact
between the department and the Legislature. Other ITD staff also serve as sources of information for
legislators.
Transportation Laws Idaho Code tit. 21, 40 and 49; portions of Idaho Code tit. 62 and 70; Idaho Const. art. VII, §17 (revenue
restrictions); portions of Idaho Code tit. 63 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. ITD prepares legislative proposals each year that, after
Legislative Process being approved by the governor’s office, are submitted to the Legis-
lature as part of an executive legislation package. At the beginning
of the legislative session, these bills are delivered to the appropriate
committees to be introduced into the legislative process. ITD staff
frequently assist the legislative sponsors of these bills.
Advocacy and Lobbying ITD staff do not lobby, but they do provide testimony concerning the
department’s legislative proposals and other relevant bills.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact ITD prepares fiscal notes for its own legislative proposals, and some-
Statements for Legislative Use times for other bills when requested by legislators.

Idaho
Appointment of The seven members of the Idaho Transportation Board are appointed by the governor, subject to
DOT Leadership confirmation by the Senate and within statutory requirements regarding state citizenship, resi-
dency, partisan balance, and geographic representation. No member may hold any other political
office, and each must be “well informed and interested in the construction and maintenance of
public highways and highway systems.” At least one member must have special experience or
expertise in aeronautics. Six members represent designated districts for alternating six-year terms,
and the seventh is appointed from the state at large to serve as chairman of the board for an
indefinite period (Idaho Code §§40-301 et seq.). The director of ITD is appointed by the Idaho
Transportation Board within broad statutory guidelines for knowledge and experience (Idaho Code
§40-503).
Legislature Able to No. The governor can remove members of the Idaho Transportation Board for cause, following a
Remove DOT Leaders? prescribed process (Idaho Code §40-305). The chair of the Idaho Transportation Board serves at
the pleasure of the governor, and the director of ITD serves at the pleasure of the Idaho Transpor-
tation Board.
Legislative Review of Yes. Temporary, pending, or final rules are subject to review by the relevant legislative standing
Administrative Rules committees, and proposed rules submitted during the interim between legislative sessions are
subject to review by the germane joint subcommittees. The full Legislature may approve or reject
a rule by concurrent resolution. In most cases, if the Legislature does not object, a rule is auto-
matically approved. A temporary rule adopted during a legislative session, however, expires the
following year unless the Legislature approves it by concurrent resolution. Also, no pending rule or
portion thereof imposing a fee or charge can become final and effective until it has been approved
by concurrent resolution. In addition, all agency rules expire on July 1 of each year unless extended
by statute (Idaho Code §§67-5201 et seq. and §67-454).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. ITD is subject to audits conducted by the Legislative Audits Division of the
or Sunset Reviews Legislative Services Office, which is required to conduct a full audit of all state agencies every three
years. In addition, the Legislature requested that the legislative Office of Performance Evaluations
conduct a comprehensive performance audit of ITD in 2009, with follow-up reports in 2011 and
2012. Idaho does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports All state agencies, including ITD, are required to submit an annual performance report that
to the Legislature includes information about revenues, expenditures, services provided, strategic goals, and progress
on key performance indicators (Idaho Code §67-1904). In addition, legislation enacted in 2015
(2015 Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 341) requires ITD to submit an annual report concerning additional
fuel tax and registration fee revenues generated by that legislation, as well as ongoing mainte-
nance funding needs. The Idaho Transportation Board submits an annual report to the Legislature
about the Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) Transportation Program (Idaho Code
§40-315).
Legislative Role in DOT No formal role besides the reporting requirements listed above. Additionally, the Legislative Ser-
Performance Management vices Office has access, with or without prior notice, during regular operating hours to any records
or other documents maintained by any state agency relating to their expenditures, revenues, oper-
ations and structure (Idaho Code §67-703).
Other Legislative Oversight The Legislature creates interim committees to study various issues, although none are currently
Mechanisms studying transportation topics. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for infor-
mation from ITD.

Idaho
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. The Legislature reviews and approves the departmental bud-
ations Overview get that is recommended by the governor, who receives the initial departmental budget request from
the Idaho Transportation Board.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to ITD as
tion Revenues to the DOT state legislative appropriations to departmental programs or broad spending
categories. These appropriations are based on ITD’s budget request and the
governor’s recommended budget, but the Legislature makes the final determi-
nation in the department’s annual appropriation bill.
allocated to ITD as appropriations to departmental programs or broad spending
categories. These appropriations are also based on ITD’s budget request and the
governor’s recommended budget, but the Legislature makes the final determi-
nation.

Authorized Expenditures Administration $27,997,800
Capital facilities $3,345,000
Aeronautics $2,753,300
Highway operations $194,886,900
Contract construction and right-of-way acquisition $391,586,600
Total $655,885,100
Revenue Sources State Highway Fund (dedicated—state) $347,612,400
State Highway Fund (Federal) $301,086,800
State Highway Fund (local) $4,386,400
State Aeronautics Fund (dedicated—state) $2,250,200
State Aeronautics Fund (Federal) $322,200
State Aeronautics Fund (billing) $227,100
Total $655,885,100

Transportation Planning Project ideas are developed through a coordinated, cooperative process involving many stakehold-
and Capital Project Selec- ers, including local and tribal governments. ITD identifies and selects projects according to existing
tion Process priorities. Projects are confirmed through the public involvement process during the annual update
of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Also, under the new Strategic Initia-
tives Program, ITD will select a number of highway and bridge projects for special funding based on
their return on investment related to safety, mobility, economic opportunity, bridge maintenance and
repair, and the purchase of public right-of-way. Funding that the Legislature provided for this program
(through transfers of surplus cash balances from the general fund) will sunset in May 2017 (Idaho
Code §40-719; 2015 Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 341). The program itself, however, will continue with
funding from other sources.

Idaho
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The Legislature generally has little involvement in transportation planning
Planning Process beyond appropriating funds and approving the departmental budget. In 2006, the Legislature
selected a number of large expansion projects and approved the use of Federal Grant Anticipation
Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) financing for their construction; this program ended in 2016, and the debt
is scheduled to be paid off in 2031. Also, in 2015, the Legislature established the Strategic Initiatives
Program, including broad criteria for project selection based on return on investment (Idaho Code
§40-719; 2015 Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 341).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Idaho Code §63-2402; 2015 Idaho
gasoline Sess. Laws, Chap. 341
and diesel,
highway use
(fixed rate)
alternative leum gas, liquefied and compressed
fuels natural gas, hydrogen, and others;
assessed and allocated the same
way as diesel taxes (Idaho Code
§63-2401, §63-2402)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Idaho Code §63-2408)
Fuel taxes: • • • Grade • • $250,000 used for highway-rail
other cross- crossings, $100,000 for bridge
ings
non-highway only inspections, and small shares for
use waterways, parks and recreation,
search and rescue, and off-road
vehicle facilities and enforcement
(Idaho Code §63-2412)
Vehicle reg- • • • Idaho Code §49-402, §40-701; 2015
istration and Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 341
title fees
Truck regis- • • • Idaho Code §49-434, §40-701; 2015
tration fees Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 341
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Idaho Code §§49-1004 et seq.
overweight
truck permit
fees
Truck permit • • • Includes temporary permits (Idaho
fees, other Code §49-432) and hazardous
materials transportation permits
(Idaho Code §49-2002)

Idaho
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Special fees • • • Idaho Code §49-457, §40-701; 2015
on hybrid Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 341
and electric
vehicles
Tolls • • State law authorizes the Idaho
Transportation Board to collect tolls
(Idaho Code §40-405), but it does
not currently do so; the state has no
toll roads at present
Cigarette • • • Until July 1, 2019, $4.7 million per
taxes year pays the state match of GAR-
VEE debt service; a further share
goes to the State Highway Account
(Idaho Code §40-718, §63-2520;
2014 Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 115
and 337)
Aircraft • • • Idaho Code §21-114
registration
fees
Non-re- • • Vehicle Investment Program; legisla-
stricted fee tive appropriations of $312,000 per
revenues, year for rural transit and services for
State High- seniors and persons with disabilities
way Account
General • • • From April 2015 to May 2017, half
funds the excess cash balance in the gen-
eral fund goes to the Strategic Initia-
tives Program (Idaho Code §40-719;
2015 Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 341)
Interest • • • • Highway Distribution Account, State
income Highway Account, GARVEE Capital
Project Fund, Strategic Initiatives
Program Fund, State Aeronautics
Fund (Idaho Code §40-701, §40-
702, §40-718, §40-719, §21-211)
Note: In general, throughout this report, this chart includes revenue sources authorized for or used by state government agen-
cies or departments (including but not limited to DOTs), but not those used solely by quasi-public entities such as public benefit
corporations or instrumentalities. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” signifies that the item is specifically authorized in
law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible transportation activities” include the state-level
development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not include administrative costs, DMV or high-
way patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education programs, or distributions to local governments. The “rail”
column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail are included under “public transit.”

Idaho

State Fuel Taxes from highway users to highways, including debt and traffic supervision, and prohibits diversion
to any other purpose (Idaho Const. art. VII, §17).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle registration fees to highways, including debt
Transportation Revenues and traffic supervision, and prohibits diversion to any other purpose (Idaho Const. art. VII, §17).
Of total fuel tax revenues from all sources (except aviation and jet fuels), $250,000 is used
annually for highway-rail crossings, $100,000 for local bridge inspections, and small percent-
ages for waterways, parks and recreation, search and rescue, and off-road vehicle facilities and
enforcement (Idaho Code §63-2412).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute dedicates the State Highway Account to highway purposes. The State Highway
Transportation Funds Account receives various revenues, including fuel tax revenues and a share of cigarette taxes,
via the Highway Distribution Account. Distribution of both funds is governed by state statute
(Idaho Code §§40-701 et seq.). The State Aeronautics Fund, which receives aviation-related
revenues including aviation and jet fuel taxes, must be used for aviation purposes (Idaho Code
§21-211 and §63-2412).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
GARVEE • • • Authorized in state statute; legis-
bonds lative approval required for total
amount and projects; total debt
capped at 30 percent of Federal-aid
highway funding received unless
otherwise approved (Idaho Code
§40-315); most recent issue for new
money was in 2014
Build Amer- See notes • • Issued under the state’s GARVEE
ica Bonds bond program in 2010
Advance • • Used on a limited basis
construction
Partial • • Used on a limited basis
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • • Used on a limited basis
matching:
flexible
match
matching:
tapered
match

Idaho
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • Authorized in statute; combined
use of design-build and construc-
tion manager/general contractor
contracts is capped at 20 percent of
ITD’s annual highway construction
budget (Idaho Code §40-904); used
for several road and bridge projects
Notes:
• Although Build America Bonds are not specifically authorized in state statute, the GARVEE program under which
they were issued in 2010 is (Idaho Code §40-315).
Transportation-Related Bonding No, except for GARVEE bonds. Idaho is one of three states that has borrowed against future
Federal-aid funding through the use of GARVEE bonds, but otherwise does not currently use
bonding for transportation projects.
Restrictions on The Legislature has the authority to approve the total amount of GARVEE bonds each year,
Finance Mechanisms and GARVEEs may only be used for projects that are approved in statute. Total debt is capped
at 30 percent of Federal-aid highway funding received unless otherwise approved (Idaho
Code §40-315). Combined use of design-build and construction manager/general contractor
contracts cannot exceed 20 percent of ITD’s annual highway construction budget (Idaho Code
§40-904).
Finance Mechanisms The state constitution prohibits general obligation debt (Idaho Const. art. VIII, §1).

Idaho
DOT Able to Retain and Yes. The ITD is provided re-appropriation or carry-over authority for any unexpended and unencum-
Spend Excess Funds bered balances of the State Highway Fund appropriated for the Contract Construction and Right-of-
Way Acquisition program. No further approval is required to spend these funds.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. Legislative appropriations are controlled at the program level, not by project. The ITD can
Required for DOT to Move transfer funds between projects in the same program without legislative approval, but not between
Funds Between Projects programs.
Legislative Actions to Actions include low-bid requirements and other procurement guidelines in state statute (Idaho Code
Control DOT Costs §§40-901 et seq.).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas. Local entities receive 38 percent of the funds deposited into the State Highway Distribu-
Transportation tion Account, including state fuel taxes and other revenues, and 40 percent of the revenues from fuel tax
Revenues to Local increases, registration fee increases, and new fees on electric and hybrid vehicles that were enacted in 2015.
Entities Of these revenues, after set-asides, 30 percent is distributed to cities by a statutory formula based on popu-
lation. The remainder is distributed to counties and their highway districts based on vehicle registrations and
improved highway miles. All funds must be used for highway maintenance (Idaho Code §40-701, §40-709,
and §63–2412; 2015 Idaho Sess. Laws, Chap. 341).
Local Revenue State statutes allow counties to assess local vehicle registration fees for highway purposes (Idaho Code §40-
Sources Autho- 827). Counties and highway districts may levy special property taxes for highway and bridge projects (Idaho
rized in State Law Code §40-801) and counties or cities may levy property taxes for airport construction and maintenance
(Idaho Code §21-404). Local governments may charge development impact fees to pay for capital improve-
ments, including road and bridge projects (Idaho Code §§67-8201 et seq.).

Illinois

Bridges 26,674
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, commuter rail, ferry boat, street-
car, vanpool, demand response
Rail Freight rail route miles Freight rail route miles: 6,986
Legislature
Name Illinois General Assembly
Session Annual, year-round
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- • Subcommittee on Amtrak
tion-Related Issues • Subcommittee on Special Issues
• Subcommittee on Transportation Innovation
House Committee on Appropriations—Public Safety
House Committee on Intermodal Infrastructure
House Committee on Revenue and Finance
• Towing Oversight Subcommittee
House Committee on Tollway Oversight
House Committee on Transportation—Regulation, Roads, and Bridges
• Railroad and Air Subcommittee
• Registration and Regulation Subcommittee
House Committee on Transportation—Vehicles and Safety
• License Plates Subcommittee
• Signs and Signals Subcommittee

Illinois
Name Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? No. The Driver Services Department and the Vehicle Services Department are both departments under
the Illinois Secretary of State’s Office. That agency is funded by a combination of general fund appro-
priations and appropriations from special state funds (which are supported primarily by an assortment
of user fees). None of these functions are supported by the IDOT budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Illinois State Police, an independent state agency, carries out highway patrol functions. It is
funded primarily by general fund appropriations and also receives revenues from a portion of com-
mercial driver’s license fees, overweight vehicle fines, a special surcharge on vehicle registrations (for
the purchase of new vehicles), and Federal funds for motor carrier and traffic safety purposes.
Jurisdiction Over No. The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has that jurisdiction.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Illinois State Toll Highway The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, a quasi-public entity, oversees
Transportation Entities Authority (instrumentality/ the state’s toll roads. It is funded by toll revenues, a portion of which
administrative agency) is used to support debt service on bonds issued by the authority. The
secretary of transportation serves as one of the authority’s directors ex
officio (605 ILCS 10/1 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal. IDOT actively participates in the legislative process. The department provides tes-
and Collaboration timony and input on relevant legislation during the year-round session, and submits required reports
to the General Assembly. IDOT’s Office of Legislative Affairs fosters positive working relationships
between the department and legislators, handles constituent issues that originate within a legislative
office, and develops and advances IDOT’s policy goals, positions, and strategies.
DOT Legislative Liaison Every state executive agency in Illinois, including IDOT, employs a dedicated legislative liaison who
serves as the main point of contact between that department and the General Assembly. The director
of legislative affairs in IDOT’s Office of Legislative Affairs acts as the department’s legislative liaison.
Transportation Laws 20 ILCS 2705/2705-1 et seq.; ILCS ch. 605 to 630; portions of ILCS ch. 30 and 35 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In Illinois, only legislators may request legislative bill
Advocacy and Lobbying [No data]
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, state agencies such as IDOT must prepare fiscal notes for bills
Statements for Legislative Use that affect them (25 ILCS 50/1 et seq.).

Illinois
Appointment of The secretary of transportation is appointed to a two-year term by the governor, by and with the
DOT Leadership advice and consent of the Senate (20 ILCS 5/5-605 et seq.).
Legislature Able to No. The secretary of transportation can be removed at the governor’s discretion.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules reviews all proposed rules and may review exist-
Administrative Rules ing rules. The committee may suspend a rule (5 ILCS 100/5-90 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. IDOT is subject to audits conducted by the legislature’s Office of the Auditor
or Sunset Reviews General. The Legislative Audit Commission is required by law to review all audits conducted by
the Auditor General (25 ILCS 150/0.01-0.06) and can also perform its own evaluations. The state
conducts sunset reviews, but not of IDOT.
Required DOT Reports IDOT must submit annual reports to the legislature concerning its Highway Improvement
to the Legislature Program (20 ILCS 2705/2705-200), cooperative use of transportation equipment and services
(20 ILCS 2705/2705-215), rail freight service assistance (20 ILCS 2705/2705-430), the target
market program (20 ILCS 2705/2705-600), and traffic and pedestrian stops (20 ILCS 625/11-212).
The department must also submit an annual “For the Record” report of all its projects by district
(20 ILCS 705/2705-200) and monthly progress reports on the Illiana Expressway (605 ILCS 130/60).
In addition, both legislative chambers require detailed documents pertaining to IDOT budget
requests.
Legislative Role in DOT Although IDOT is responsible for setting most of its performance goals, the General Assembly
Performance Management has enacted some legislation that requires the department to meet certain goals. Besides these
specific actions and the reporting requirements listed above, the General Assembly does not have
a formal role.
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from IDOT.
Mechanisms

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. The General Assembly approves IDOT’s annual appropriation
ations Overview as part of the budget bill. The General Assembly reviews the department’s proposed six-year highway
improvement plan during the appropriations process and holds IDOT budget hearings before various
appropriation committees.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. Federal highway reimbursements are commin-
tion Revenues to the DOT gled with all other cash and used to determine the affordable level of appro-
priations. Federal planning and safety funds are spent pursuant to separate
appropriations which are split into state and Federal shares. Federal funds
for aeronautics and transit are appropriated separately. IDOT also periodically
requests separate appropriations for Federal Transportation Investment Generat-
ing Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants and similar project awards.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State transportation funds are allocated to IDOT as
lump sum appropriations to the department or as appropriations to departmen-
tal programs, broad spending categories, or specific projects.

Illinois
Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2015 (enacted) (see note)

Authorized Expenditures Operations $1,222,891,284
Awards and grants $7,243,680,950
Permanent improvements $48,821,934
Highway and waterway construction $8,435,528,162
Refunds $256,500
Total $16,951,178,830
Note: As of late June 2016, due to an ongoing stalemate between the governor and the General Assembly, IDOT’s budget for
FY 2016 could not be adequately presented. While the capital portion of the budget had been enacted and signed into law, other
portions of the budget were being executed either under a court order (personal services and related operating expenses) or under
special statutory provisions known as continuing appropriations (transit operating subsidies). On June 30, 2016, the General As-
sembly enacted and the governor signed Public Act 99-0524, an omnibus appropriation act that contained a mix of appropriations
for FY 2016, spending authority for obligations incurred in FY 2016 that can be liquidated during the course of FY 2017 (and not
just in the two-month lapse period for FY 2016 that started on July 1, 2016), and new appropriations for FY 2017. Because of this
mix of spending authority, it is still not possible to present a comprehensive view of IDOT’s FY 2016 budget. However, it should
also be noted that while many agencies (especially those that rely on general fund support) received less than a full year’s worth of
appropriations, IDOT was fortunate to receive a full year’s set of both operating and capital appropriations for FY 2017.

Transportation Planning IDOT estimates revenues from Federal and state sources, assesses highway needs, and issues funding
and Capital Project Selec- targets and technical guidelines to its nine highway districts. Those districts develop, prioritize, and
tion Process submit projects for inclusion in the six-year highway improvement plan. Programming decisions for
the other modes (transit, rail, and aeronautics) are handled by IDOT’s new Office of Intermodal Project
Implementation. Each year, the plan is submitted for review and announcement to the governor. The
governor then presents the plan to the General Assembly and the public for review and discussion
during the appropriation process.
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. IDOT prepares and presents its proposed six-year highway improvement
Planning Process plan to the General Assembly each year, and the General Assembly reviews and discusses it as part
of the appropriation process. During this process, the General Assembly can approve or modify
the appropriation level, or add projects through line item appropriations for specific projects, but it
cannot remove projects from the multi-year program. There is, however, no formal mechanism for
legislative adoption of the plan.

Illinois
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • See • Mostly used for roads, but a portion
gasoline and notes of non-restricted revenues goes to
diesel (fixed harbor and boating activities (35
rate) ILCS 505/2; 35 ILCS 505/8; 625 ILCS
5/20-101)
Vehicle reg- • • • See 625 ILCS 5/3-815; 625 ILCS 5/2-119
istration and notes
title fees
Truck regis- • • • See 625 ILCS 5/3-815; 625 ILCS 5/2-119
tration fees notes
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • See 625 ILCS 5/15-301 et seq.
overweight notes
truck permit
fees
Aircraft • • • 620 ILCS 5/42
registration
fees
Pilot license • • • 620 ILCS 5/42
fees
Outdoor • • • Logo signing (20 ILCS 2705/2705-
advertising 505)
revenues
General • • • • • Used for transit, Amtrak service, and
funds Pas- aeronautics (30 ILCS 330/14; 30 ILCS
senger
only 105/6z-77; 30 ILCS 740/2-1 et seq.;
70 ILCS 3615/4.01 et seq.)
Interest • • • See See State Construction Account Fund,
income notes notes Road Fund (30 ILCS 105/5d; 30 ILCS
105/6c)
Notes:
• State statute allows the use of fuel taxes and other vehicle-related revenues for limited para-transit grants, as well as
for IDOT operating expenses that include the administration of public transportation programs. The same statute
allows the Road Fund to be used for intercity rail (30 ILCS 105/8.3). At present, however, state transit expenditures
and Amtrak subsidies are supported by state general funds and bond financing.

• Illinois also collects state use taxes on motor fuels (35 ILCS 105/3-10), a portion of which is directed to the State and
Illinois
Local Sales Tax Reform Fund, which is used in part for local and regional transit, and the rest of which is distributed
in the same way as other use tax revenue (35 ILCS 105/9; 30 ILCS 105/6z-17).
• Toll revenues are retained by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, which technically is not a state agency. Legisla-
tive approval is required for all new toll highways (605 ILCS 10/14.1).
• Revenues from a $1 surcharge on passenger vehicle registration fees are authorized to be used for state police vehicles
(625 ILCS 5/3-815), not for the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart.

Restrictions on Statutory, roads and bridges, public transit. State statute directs the use of fuel taxes from high-
State Fuel Taxes way users to public highways and bridges, including administration, debt, grade separation, and
rail crossings (625 ILCS 5/20-101 et seq.). State statute also allows the use of these revenues
for traffic enforcement, limited para-transit grants, and IDOT operating expenses including,
but not limited to, those related to the administration of public transportation programs (30
ILCS 105/8.3). In 2016, voters will consider a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to
further restrict the use of transportation-related revenues across all modes (2016 House Joint
Resolution Constitutional Amendment 36).
Restrictions on Other State statute directs the use of vehicle-related fees and taxes to public highways and bridges,
Transportation Revenues including administration, debt, grade separation, and rail crossings (625 ILCS 5/20-101 et seq.).
State statute also allows the use of these revenues for traffic enforcement, limited para-transit
grants, and IDOT operating expenses including, but not limited to, those related to the adminis-
tration of public transportation programs (30 ILCS 105/8.3). A portion of non-restricted fuel tax
revenues is dedicated to the State Boating Act Fund for harbors, boating, and snowmobile and
other off-highway trail purposes (35 ILCS 505/8; 625 ILCS 45/10-1 et seq.). Truck weight fees,
interest income, and logo signing are also dedicated revenues that are distributed by statutory
formula or direction. Although state statute supposedly restricts the use of vehicle-related user
fees to transportation purposes, there are still numerous “diversions” of those revenues. In
2016, voters will consider a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to further restrict
the use of transportation-related taxes and fees across all modes (2016 Ill. House Joint Reso-
lution Constitutional Amendment 36). In addition, tolls are to be used for the toll facilities and
related debt, and all new toll highways require legislative approval (605 ILCS 10/14.1 and 10/19).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute restricts the Road Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other revenues, to approved
Transportation Funds uses that include highways, access to military facilities, debt, traffic enforcement, administra-
tion, intercity rail, and certain public transit purposes. In general, the fund may not be used for
freight rail, the State Police, or the Secretary of State (30 ILCS 105/8.3), except that the Sec-
retary of State is authorized to receive Road Fund appropriations for the payment of refunds
for overpayments of vehicle-related fees. The State Construction Account Fund must be used
for construction and maintenance of the state-maintained highway system (30 ILCS 105/5d).
Despite these restrictions, revenues have been transferred from these funds to the state general
fund (2015 Ill. Laws, P.A. 99-0002; 30 ILCS 105/8.50). Special state funds also support harbors,
boating, and off-highway trails (625 ILCS 45/10-1), public transit (30 ILCS 740/2-3 and 30 ILCS
105/5.38), and freight rail (30 ILCS 105/5.168).

Illinois
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • • 30 ILCS 330/4
obligation Pas-
senger
bonds only
Revenue • • • • • • • Build Illinois Bonds (backed by state
bonds Pas- sales tax revenue); eligible trans-
senger
and portation purposes include public
freight transit, rail, air, port, and highway
projects (30 ILCS 425/4); used for
minor road, transit, and airport
projects
Build Amer- • • • • • General obligation bonds issued as
ica Bonds Pas- Build America Bonds in 2010
senger
only
Federal credit • See • • • Authorized in state statute for the
assistance: notes Pas- proposed South Suburban Air-
senger
TIFIA only port (620 ILCS 75/2-115; 605 ILCS
130/95) and for public-private part-
nerships generally (630 ILCS 5/45);
not currently in use (see notes)
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching: Pas-
senger
tapered only
match
Federal-aid • • • Primarily used for eligible transit
matching: projects; IDOT has also tested the
toll cred- use of toll credits on one highway
its (“soft project
match”)
Design-build • • • • • Authorized in statute for public-pri-
Pas- vate partnership projects only (630
senger
and ILCS 5/25); not currently in use
freight
Public-private • See • • • • • State statute grants the state
partnerships notes Pas- general authority to enter into
senger
and public-private partnerships for trans-
freight portation projects, except airports;
legislative approval is required for
new toll highways (630 ILCS 5/1
et seq.; 20 ILCS 2705/2705-450);
project-specific authority is also
granted for the Illiana Expressway
(605 ILCS 130/1 et seq.) and the
South Suburban Airport (620 ILCS
75/2-1 et seq.); not currently in use
(see notes)

Notes:
Illinois
• In terms of public-private partnerships with financing elements, the only known projects in Illinois—the leases of the
Chicago Skyway and Chicago’s parking garages and meters—were sponsored by a local entity. No active state-level
projects were found, inasmuch as procurement for the Illiana Expressway has been suspended pending further review by
the state. In terms of partnerships without financing elements, however, the state does participate in the Chicago Region
Environmental Transportation and Efficiency (CREATE) program, a partnership between Federal, state, regional, and
local governments and private railroads to address the massive rail congestion issues in the Chicago metro area.
• Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance has been used by local
entities, not by the state.
• In Illinois, private activity bonds (PABs) have been used by private entities, not by the state, for transportation purposes.
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes, for highway projects generally. Also, in the last seven years, the state has substantially
increased the amount of bond fund appropriations dedicated to transit and rail projects.
Restrictions on The use of general obligation bonds is limited to the purposes specified in the authorizing
Finance Mechanisms law, which may be enacted by the General Assembly or by voters (Ill. Const. art. IX, §9). Bond
proceeds are limited both by the statutory language authorizing the bonds (30 ILCS 330/4)
and by the specific language of the appropriations from those funds.

DOT Able to Retain and Yes, inasmuch as cash balances carry forward. For highways, IDOT programs on a “cash flow” basis,
Spend Excess Funds which means that annual appropriations are typically greater than the available cash balance in the
funds from which spending is authorized. The cash balances in the funds roll over from year to year
without any further action, but there is not a one-to-one relationship between the cash available
at any given moment and the value of the spending authority (appropriations) that have been given
to the department. The financial plan assumes that the authorized level of appropriations would
remain available to the department for the life of the program. To be spent, unexpended balances of
re-appropriating accounts are required to be reauthorized annually. Cash on hand can only be spent
pursuant to active appropriations.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. If an appropriation is project-specific, a change in the appropriation is needed for IDOT
Required for DOT to Move to repurpose those funds. No further legislative action is required, however, for lump sum or pro-
Funds Between Projects gram-level appropriations. The General Assembly also can impose “release requirements,” which
require IDOT to obtain special permission from the governor to use certain appropriations. Released
appropriations must be de-released and re-released if they are to be used for another purpose.
Control DOT Costs

Illinois
Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. After set-asides, 54.4 percent of state fuel tax revenues
Transportation are allocated to local entities for road and public transit projects. Of that amount, 49.1 percent is distributed
Revenues to Local to municipalities by a statutory formula based on population, 16.74 percent goes to counties with 1 million
Entities or more inhabitants (Cook County), 18.27 percent goes to other counties based on vehicle license fees, and
15.89 percent goes to road districts based on road miles (35 ILCS 505/8). In addition, the General Assembly
has appropriated state revenues to local entities for local matches for Federal funds and for the local share of
the annual highway program.
Local Revenue Several state statutes allow counties, mass transit districts, or road districts to levy property taxes for various
Sources Autho- transportation purposes (55 ILCS 5/5-1024; 55 ILCS 5/5-34003; 70 ILCS 3610/5; 605 ILCS 5/5-601 et seq.).
rized in State Law Non-home rule cities may levy sales taxes for infrastructure, including roads and streets (65 ILCS 5/8-11-1.3 et
seq.). Any municipality may assess vehicle license taxes for road improvements (65 ILCS 5/8-11-4). Municipal-
ities with a population over 100,000 and some Chicago-area counties may adopt local option fuel taxes (65
ILCS 5/8-11-15; 55 ILCS 5/5-1035.1). The Regional Transportation Authority may impose regional sales taxes,
local option fuel taxes, and parking taxes for transit purposes (70 ILCS 3615/4.03; 605 ILCS 5/6-512), although
in practice it only levies sales taxes. The Metro-East Mass Transit District may assess regional sales taxes
and vehicle rental taxes (70 ILCS 3610/5.01 et seq.). To support the Chicago Transit Authority, a home rule
municipality with a population over 1 million (currently Chicago) may assess a real estate transfer tax (65 ILCS
5/8-3-19). Counties may also charge developers impact fees to pay for development-related road improve-
ments (605 ILCS 5/5-901 et seq.). Both counties and cities may operate toll bridges (605 ILCS 5/10-302; 605
ILCS 5/10-705).

Indiana

Bridges 19,388
Toll facilities Yes (roads: 157 miles; bridge: 1, expected to
open in 2016)
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, commuter rail, vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name Indiana General Assembly
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Apr. (odd years), Jan. to Mar. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Transportation
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Roads and Transportation
tion-Related Issues [Interim/Study] Interim Study Committee on Roads and Transportation
[Interim/Task Force] Funding Indiana’s Roads for a Stronger, Safer Tomorrow Task Force (2016 interim
only)

Indiana
Name Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT)
Leadership Commissioner of INDOT (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? No. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles is an independent state agency that is funded by general fund
appropriations and fee revenues.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Indiana State Police, an independent state agency, carries out highway patrol functions. It is
funded by general fund appropriations, Federal funds, and various fees and fines.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. INDOT has jurisdiction over the Ohio River Bridges (expected to open on or before Dec. 31, 2016)
Toll Facilities? and the Indiana Toll Road.
Other
Other State-Level Ports of Indiana (corpora- The Ports of Indiana is a quasi-public, self-supporting corporation that
Transportation Entities tion) is funded by port revenues (Ind. Code Ann. §§8-10-1-0.3 et seq.).
Indiana Finance Authority Although not technically a transportation entity, the Indiana Finance
(corporation/ instrumentality) Authority is a quasi-public entity that “owns” the Indiana Toll Road
and the Indianapolis Airport Maintenance Center. The authority
receives state and Federal funding to act as the finance authority (for
bonding purposes) for the state of Indiana (Ind. Code Ann. §§4-4-11-
0.1 et seq. and §§8-9.5-8-0.3 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through a dedicated liaison. INDOT testifies at committee hearings,
and Collaboration including those of state budget committees and any current interim study committees. INDOT’s
legislative affairs director functions as a dedicated legislative liaison who is responsible for most of the
department’s communication and interaction with the General Assembly.
DOT Legislative Liaison INDOT’s legislative affairs director acts as the main point of contact between the department and the
General Assembly.
Transportation Laws Ind. Code Ann. tit. 8 and 9; portions of Ind. Code Ann. tit. 6 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. INDOT can ask an individual legislator to introduce
Legislative Process or sponsor a bill. Only legislators, however, can request legislative bill
drafts and formally sponsor and introduce legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying The legislative affairs director acts as an agency advocate, with the
concurrence of the governor, on all legislative proposals related to
transportation.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact As requested by legislators and the Legislative Services Agency.

Indiana
Appointment of The commissioner of INDOT is appointed by the governor, with no legislative involvement (Ind.
DOT Leadership Code Ann. §8-23-2-2).
Legislature Able to No. The commissioner of INDOT serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of No. The Administrative Rules Oversight Committee, which used to be responsible for legislative
Administrative Rules review of proposed rules, was repealed in 2014 (2014 Ind. Acts, P.L. 53-2014).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. INDOT is subject to reviews conducted by the Legislative Services Agency,
or Sunset Reviews at the direction of the Legislative Evaluation and Oversight Policy Subcommittee of the Legislative
Council (Ind. Code Ann. ch. 2-5-1.1 and ch. 2-5-21). The subcommittee annually assigns topics for
the Legislative Services Agency to study. Reviews are conducted by the agency’s Office of Fiscal
and Management Analysis. INDOT was last reviewed in 2013.
Required DOT Reports None.
to the Legislature
Legislative Role in DOT Besides the legislative audits listed above, INDOT may be requested to provide asset condition
Performance Management reports or other performance information to legislative study committees or task forces. Other-
wise, the General Assembly has no formal role.
Other Legislative Oversight The permanent Interim Study Committee on Roads and Transportation is directed to study various
Mechanisms topics between legislative sessions. In 2015, for example, it studied special group recognition
license plates, direct manufacturer-to-consumer car sales, use of enterprise zone money for public
transit, grade crossings, and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. Biennial budgets are approved
ations Overview effective July 1 every even-numbered year. The state fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to INDOT
tion Revenues to the DOT as state legislative appropriations to departmental programs or broad spending
categories, not to specific projects. For example, appropriations are made for
the Highway Maintenance Work Program or Right-of-Way Purchasing.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. As with Federal funds, state transportation funds
are allocated to INDOT as appropriations to departmental programs or broad
spending categories.

Indiana
Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, FY 2016 and FY 2017 (enacted)
Authorized Expenditures Intermodal operations $86,969,296
(FY 2017 only) Highway operations $1,431,457,000
Distributions to local units of government $696,210,333
Total $2,214,636,629
(FY 2017 only) Dedicated funds $1,238,635,000
Local funds $700,000
Total $2,214,636,629

Transportation Planning INDOT is responsible for project selection and for compliance with state and Federal planning require-
and Capital Project Selec- ments and, as head of INDOT, the commissioner is ultimately responsible for agency priorities. The
tion Process transportation planning process is structured by INDOT’s Annual Program Development Process, a
comprehensive set of procedures for evaluating, ranking, and programming proposed projects. The
process begins with an internal INDOT review of currently programmed projects. A formal “call for
new projects” is then extended to counties, cities, towns, and INDOT district offices. Early consulta-
tion meetings follow to solicit input from MPOs, regional planning organizations, and local elected
officials. The final product of this process is the Indiana State Transportation Improvement Program
(INSTIP). After the draft INSTIP is published, public input is sought at a series of Annual Open House
District Meetings.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. In general, the General Assembly does not select projects, but does set overall
Planning Process funding levels and establishes the legal framework for INDOT. State law requires the legislature to
authorize specific public-private partnership projects, but these requirements do not apply between
July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2021 (Ind. Code Ann. art. 8-15.5 and art. 8-15.7).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes Motor Carrier Fuel Tax and
gasoline and related surtax (Ind. Code Ann. §6-6-
diesel (fixed 1.1-201, §6-6-2.5-28, §6-6-4.1-4,
rate) §6-6-4.1-4.5)
Fuel taxes: • • • As of FY 2017, deposited in part to

use taxes on the Motor Vehicle Highway Account;
gasoline starting FY 2018, also deposited in
part to the newly created Local Road
and Bridge Matching Grant Fund
(see notes) (Ind. Code Ann. §6-2.5-
10-1; 2016 Ind. Acts, P.L. 146-2016)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on liquefied and com-
alternative pressed natural gas (Ind. Code Ann.
fuels §6-6-2.5-28)

Indiana
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Vehicle reg- • • • Ind. Code Ann. §§9-29-5-1 et seq.
istration and
title fees
Truck regis- • • • Ind. Code Ann. §9-29-5-3.1 (light
tration fees trucks), §9-29-5-3.2 (heavy trucks)
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Ind. Code Ann. §9-20-6-13
overweight
truck permit
fees
Truck permit • • • Ind. Code Ann. §6-6-4.1-5, §6-6-
fees, other 4.1-13
Driver’s • • • Ind. Code Ann. §9-24-3-1, §9-24-7-
license and 1, §9-24-8-4, §9-24-16-10
state ID card
fees
Tolls • See • Authorized (e.g., Ind. Code Ann.
notes §§8-15-2-1 et seq., §8-15-3-12,
§8-16-1-16, §8-23-7-22) but not
currently in use (see notes)
Railroad • • • Includes railroad car company situs
property taxes and electric commuter rail
taxes company property taxes, both used
for commuter rail (Ind. Code Ann.
§6-1.1-8-35, §§6-1.1-8.2-1 et seq.)
Port reve- • • • Ind. Code Ann. §8-10-1-17
nues
Outdoor • • • Ind. Code Ann. §8-23-20-25

advertising
revenues
Property • • • Ind. Code Ann. §8-23-2-6
leases or
sales
State general • • • • As of FY 2017, includes allocations
sales taxes Freight to the Industrial Rail Service Fund
only
and the Commuter Rail Service
Fund, but not the Motor Vehicle
Highway Account (see notes) (Ind.
Code Ann. §6-2.5-10-1; 2016 Ind.
Acts, P.L. 146-2016)

Indiana
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
General • • • Includes a required transfer of
funds: statu- excess reserves to the State Highway
tory transfers Fund in CY 2016 and a required
transfer of general funds to the
State Highway Fund in FY 2017;
also, the Major Moves 2020 Trust
Fund received transfers in 2013 and
2014 for major highway expansion
projects (Ind. Code Ann. §4-10-22-
3, §§8-14-14.1-3 et seq.; 2016 Ind.
Acts, P.L. 146-2016)
General • • Legislative appropriations to the
funds: appro- Public Mass Transportation Fund
priations
Interest • • • Next Generation Trust Fund (see
income: notes) (Ind. Code Ann. §8-15.5-11-4,
public-private §§8-14-15-1 et seq.)
partnership
lease conces-
sions
Notes:
• Both INDOT and the Indiana Finance Authority—which is a quasi-public entity, not a state agency—are authorized
by law to collect tolls (e.g., Ind. Code Ann. §§8-15-2-1 et seq., §8-15-3-12, §8-16-1-16, and §8-23-7-22). At present
revenues from the Indiana Toll Road are collected by a private entity under a public-private partnership, and the state’s
single toll bridge is locally operated. The Indiana Finance Authority will begin collecting tolls when new toll bridges
that are currently under construction open to traffic, which is expected to occur on or before Dec. 31, 2016. The toll
revenues will be used by INDOT for operating and maintaining the bridge facilities.
• Until July 2016, the revenues from Indiana’s use tax on gasoline had been distributed in the same way as all other state
use tax revenues: 1 percent to the Motor Vehicle Highway Account, 0.029 percent to the Industrial Rail Service Fund,
0.123 percent to the Commuter Rail Service Fund, and the remainder to the general fund. As of FY 2017, revenues
from the use tax on gasoline are now distributed differently than other use tax revenues. Of gasoline use tax revenues,
the Motor Vehicle Highway Account will receive 14.286 percent, and the newly created Local Road and Bridge Match-
ing Grant Fund will receive 14.286 percent in FY 2018 and 21.429 percent in and after FY 2019, with the remainder
going to the general fund. Of non-gasoline use taxes, 0.031 percent now goes to the Industrial Rail Service Fund and
0.131 percent to the Commuter Rail Service Fund, with the remainder going to the general fund, and no allocation
to the Motor Vehicle Highway Account (Ind. Code Ann. §§6-2.5-3.5-1 et seq. and §6-2.5-10-1; 2016 Ind. Acts, P.L.
146-2016).

• In 2006, the Next Generation Trust Fund was established with an initial deposit of $500 million from the revenue
Indiana
the state received from leasing the Indiana Toll Road (Ind. Code Ann. §8-15.5-11-4). Earned interest and increases in
market value are transferred to the Major Moves Construction Fund every five years, while preserving the fund’s capital
(Ind. Code Ann. §8-14-15-10). All revenues must be used exclusively for highways, roads, and bridges (Ind. Code Ann.
§8-14-15-4).
• Proceeds from state-administered aircraft license excise taxes are allocated to counties and the Fort Wayne-Allen
County Airport Authority, not used by state agencies (Ind. Code Ann. §§6-6-6.5-21 et seq.).

Restrictions on Statutory, roads and bridges. State statute restricts the use of motor fuel taxes, except gasoline
State Fuel Taxes taxes collected at a marine facility, to highway purposes including traffic policing and traffic
safety (Ind. Code Ann. §6-6-1.1-801 and §6-6-2.5-67).
Restrictions on Other State statute directs the use of motor carrier fuel surcharge taxes (Ind. Code Ann. §6-6-4.1-
Transportation Revenues 4.5), special fuel taxes (Ind. Code Ann. §6-6-2.5-67), vehicle registration fees (Ind. Code Ann.
§9-29-5-1), and other revenues for transportation purposes. Toll revenues must be used for
toll road projects, transportation corridors in northwestern Indiana, or projects in the coun-
ties through which a toll road passes, which can include improvements for manufacturing or
commercial activities, public transportation, or arterial streets or highways. Certain toll facilities
must be approved by the General Assembly (Ind. Code Ann. §§8-15-2-1 et seq.; Ind. Code Ann.
§8-15-3-9, §8-15.5-1-2, §8-15.7-1-5, and §8-23-7-22). Marine fuel tax revenues are dedicated to
the Fish and Wildlife Fund (Ind. Code Ann. §6-6-1.1-502 and §6-6-1.1-802).
Dedicated or Restricted Several state funds receive vehicle-related revenues, including fuel taxes. The State Highway
Transportation Funds Road Construction and Improvement Fund is dedicated to highway purposes, including bonding
(Ind. Code Ann. §8-14-10-8). The Motor Vehicle Highway Account is allocated to local entities,
traffic safety, and the State Highway Fund (Ind. Code Ann. §8-14-1-3). The State Highway Fund,
in turn, is dedicated to highway purposes and INDOT and may not be used to repay debt (Ind.
Code Ann. §8-23-9-55). Neither the State Highway Road Construction and Improvement Fund
nor the State Highway Fund may be used for operating subsidies for public transit or commuter
transportation (Ind. Code Ann. §8-23-2-6). The Next Generation Trust Fund, established in
2006, must be used exclusively for highways, roads, and bridges (Ind. Code Ann. §8-14-15-4).
Revenue Sources Tolling of Interstate 69 is prohibited without specific legislative approval (Ind. Code Ann. §8-15-
Prohibited in State Law 2-1, §8-15-3-9, §8-15.5-1-2, §8-15.7-1-5, and §8-23-7-22).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • General authorization given in
bonds statute for toll-backed revenue
bonds; issued by the Indiana Finance
Authority with INDOT and legislative
approval (Ind. Code Ann. §8-9.5-8-
10) (see notes)
ity bonds
assistance: project
TIFIA
Advance • •
construction

Indiana
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
flexible
match
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Public-private • • • • Authorized in statute for road,
partnerships Pas- bridge, and rail projects; most legis-
senger
and lative approval requirements in law
freight are suspended until June 30, 2021
(Ind. Code Ann. §§5-23-1-1 et seq.;
Ind. Code Ann. art. 8-15, 8-15.5,
8-15.7; Ind. Code Ann. §§8-23-7-22
et seq.); used for the Indiana Toll
Road (see notes) and other projects
Land swaps • •
or donations
from land
owners
Notes:
public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. For Indiana, however, bonds issued by the Indiana Finance Authority
are included because the authority acts as the finance authority (for bonding purposes) for the state of Indiana, includ-
ing INDOT. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” signifies that the item is specifically authorized in law, not
just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible transportation activities” include the state-level
development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not include administrative costs, DMV or
highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education programs, or distributions to local govern-
ments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail are included under “public transit.”
• Since 2006, INDOT has used the proceeds from the lease of the Indiana Toll Road for transportation projects; that
money has now been spent down.

• State statute authorized the issuance of Federal GARVEE bonds until July 1, 2009 (Ind. Code Ann. §8-14.5-7-5), but
Indiana
the bonds were not issued.
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. All bonding for transportation projects originates with the Indiana Finance Authority.
INDOT enters into agreements with the Indiana Finance Authority to provide the requisite
debt service.
Restrictions on State law requires the General Assembly to approve public-private partnerships, but most of
Finance Mechanisms those requirements are suspended until June 30, 2021 (e.g., Ind. Code Ann. §8-15-3-9). Toll-
backed revenue bonds also must be legislatively approved (Ind. Code Ann. §8-9.5-8-10).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes, for some funds. Funds in the Major Moves Construction Fund and the State Highway Fund
Spend Excess Funds remain in the accounts at the end of the year. Administrative action or budget augmentation by the
State Budget Agency is required to release funds for INDOT use.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. Legislative appropriations are controlled at the program level, not by project. INDOT can
Required for DOT to Move transfer funds between projects without state legislative approval if those projects are under the
Funds Between Projects same line item in the budget, but approval must be given by the State Budget Committee to transfer
funds between line items.
Control DOT Costs

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. There are two main funding formulas for local units of
Transportation government: the Motor Vehicle Highway Account and the Local Road and Street Account. After set-asides, 15
Revenues to Local percent of the money collected in the Motor Vehicle Highway Account is distributed to cities and towns by a
Entities statutory formula based on population, and 32 percent is distributed to counties by a statutory formula based
on equal distribution, road miles, and vehicle registrations. These funds must be used for certain highway,
bridge, or street purposes, but not for toll roads or toll bridges (Ind. Code Ann. §8-14-1-3, §6-6-1.1-801.5,
and §6-6-2.5-68). The Local Road and Street Account consists of 45 percent of the revenues deposited in the
State Highway, Road, and Street Fund, as well as 30 percent of $50 million in off-the-top funding from state
taxes on special fuels and gasoline. Total allocations to each county are based on vehicle registrations, and
suballocations to cities and towns within each county are based on population and street miles. Counties with
populations of more than 50,000 have a different suballocation formula than counties with populations of
50,000 or less (Ind. Code Ann. §8-14-2-4, §6-6-1.1-801.5, and §6-6-2.5-68). In addition, the legislature has
enacted separate appropriations of state revenues for local matches for Federal funds.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties and municipalities to adopt local option wheel taxes and motor vehicle
Sources Autho- excise surtaxes for road and street purposes, and property taxes for bridge projects (Ind. Code Ann. §6-3.5-
rized in State Law 4-2, §6-3.5-5-2, §8-16-3-3, and §8-16-3.1-4; 2016 Ind. Acts, P.L. 146-2016). Marion County and surrounding
counties, by referendum, can adopt local-option income taxes to fund public transit in the Central Indiana
region beginning with the 2016 elections (2014 Ind. Acts, P.L. 153-2014). Marion County may also levy vehicle
rental excise taxes for capital improvements that can include roads and streets (Ind. Code Ann. §§6-6-9.7-1
et seq.). Transit districts may impose property taxes (Ind. Code Ann. §8-9.5-7-17 and §36-9-4-46) and local
governments may charge developers impact fees to pay for development-related capital improvements (Ind.
Code Ann. §§36-7-4-1300 et seq.).

Iowa

Bridges 24,598
Toll facilities Yes (bridges: 3)
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, ferry boat, vanpool, demand response
Rail Freight rail route miles Freight rail route miles: 3,851
Legislature
Name Iowa General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Public Safety
tion-Related Issues House Committee on Transportation
Joint Transportation, Infrastructure, and Capitals Appropriations Subcommittee
[Interim] Fuel Distribution Percentage Formula Review Committee (meets every six years, per Iowa
Code Ann. §452A.3)

iowa
Name Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT)

Leadership Director of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), Transportation Commission (independent

body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? Yes. The Motor Vehicle Division is a division of the Iowa DOT and is funded out of the department’s
budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? In general, no. Generally, highway patrol functions are performed by the Department of Public Safety,
funded by general funds and Federal funds. Certain Iowa DOT employees, however, may be autho-
rized to enforce motor vehicle laws relating to the operating authority, registration, size, weight,
and load of motor vehicles and trailers, and registration of a motor carrier’s interstate transportation
service with the department (Iowa Code Ann. §321.477).
Jurisdiction Over No. The only toll facilities in Iowa are three privately operated bridges.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level None. Iowa has no state-level transportation entities besides the Iowa DOT, the Transportation Com-
Transportation Entities mission, and (for highway patrol functions) the Department of Public Safety.

Overall Communication and Formal and informal, extensive. The Iowa DOT varies its strategies for communicating with
Collaboration the legislature depending on needs. In general, the Iowa DOT director and other staff
members engage with the legislature throughout the year through committee hearings,
phone calls, briefings to the legislature, and a reception at the capitol that is hosted by the
department at the start of each legislative session. The Iowa DOT employs a full-time leg-
islative liaison within its Office of Policy and Legislative Services who maintains a high level
of communication with legislators and legislative staff, responds to legislative requests and
inquiries, informs DOT staff about current policy issues, represents the department at the
capitol every day of the legislative session, and acts as the department’s lobbyist.
DOT Legislative Liaison The legislative liaison in the Iowa DOT’s Office of Policy and Legislative Services is the
main point of contact between the department and the General Assembly. The Iowa DOT
director and other staff also regularly interact with and provide information to legislators
and legislative staff.

Iowa
Transportation Laws Iowa Code Ann. tit. 8; Iowa Const. art. VII, §8 (revenue restrictions); portions of Iowa Code Ann. tit. 10
(revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. In Iowa, state agencies may pre-file legislative proposals that
Legislative Process are introduced as “study bills” early in session and referred to the appro-
priate standing committee for consideration. If the bill is approved, its
sponsorship changes to the committee. The Iowa DOT regularly pre-files
such bills addressing both policy and technical matters.
Advocacy and Lobbying The Iowa DOT legislative liaison serves as the department’s lobbyist.
The department works with other entities to move forward legislative
initiatives of common interest.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact The Iowa DOT does not prepare fiscal notes for legislative initiatives.
Statements for Legislative Use Fiscal notes are prepared by the Legislative Services Agency’s Fiscal
Services Division.
Appointment of The seven members of the Transportation Commission are appointed to four-year terms
DOT Leadership by the governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Members must meet statutory
requirements for partisan balance and must not have specified conflicts of interest (Iowa
Code Ann. §§307A.1A et seq.). The director of transportation is appointed by the governor,
subject to confirmation by the Senate. The director may not hold any other public office or
position for profit, engage in any business inconsistent with the director’s duties, serve on
a political party committee, or contribute to campaign funds (Iowa Code Ann. §307.11).
Legislature Able to No. A district court can remove a commissioner from office, following a prescribed
Remove DOT Leaders? process (Iowa Code Ann. ch. 66). The director of transportation serves at the pleasure
of the governor.
Legislative Review of Yes (optional). The Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee selectively reviews pro-
Administrative Rules posed and existing rules. The committee may suspend or object to a rule, in which case the
rule is then further reviewed by the relevant standing committees. A standing committee
may sponsor a joint resolution to disapprove the rule (Iowa Code Ann. §17A.8).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. The Iowa DOT is subject to program evaluations conducted by the
or Sunset Reviews Legislative Services Agency, using fiscal and other data it requests from the Iowa DOT. The
agency’s Fiscal Services Division, together with its Legal Services Division, perform these
evaluations. The Fiscal Services Division also analyzes the department’s annual budget
request. Iowa does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports The Iowa DOT or its director must submit annual reports to the General Assembly con-
to the Legislature cerning the highway construction program (Iowa Code Ann. §307.12), the Secondary
Road Research Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §310.36), the Street Research Fund (Iowa Code
Ann. §312.3A), the Passenger Rail Service Revolving Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §327J.3), the
Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blended Fuel Revolving Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §307.20), the Living
Roadway Trust Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §314.21), roadside vegetation management (Iowa
Code Ann. §314.22), departmental use of recycled and bio-based plastic products (Iowa
Code Ann. §307.21), disagreements with soil and water conservation district commission-
ers (Iowa Code Ann. §306.54), equipment and vehicle purchases through the Highway
Materials and Equipment Revolving Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §307.47), and highway crossings
(Iowa Code Ann. §307.26). Until June 30, 2019, the department must also submit annual
reports detailing how counties use state road funds to replace or repair structurally defi-
cient bridges under their jurisdiction (Iowa Code Ann. §307.32). Every other year, the Iowa
DOT must submit a report about transportation coordination (Iowa Code Ann. §324A.4),
and every five years, it must submit a report concerning revenue levels and alternative
funding sources (Iowa Code Ann. §307.31).

iowa
Legislative Role in DOT None besides the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above.
Other Legislative Oversight The General Assembly creates interim committees to study various issues, although none
Mechanisms are currently studying transportation topics. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative
requests for information from the Iowa DOT.

ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to the Iowa DOT
tion Revenues to the DOT from the U.S. DOT with no state legislative involvement. Federal funds, espe-
cially for highways, are incorporated into the funding estimates in the Five-Year
Transportation Improvement Program, which is approved by the Transportation
Commission.
State Revenues Partial legislative appropriation and budget approval. Some state transportation
funds—mainly those from registration fees and fuel taxes—flow directly to the
Iowa DOT from revenue sources with no state legislative involvement. These
funds are allocated according to formulas in state statute and are used as pro-
gramming funds for highway projects, subject to approval by the Transportation
Commission. The General Assembly appropriates funds for other modes such as
transit, rail, and aviation, either through project-specific earmarks or at the pro-
gram or category level. The Iowa DOT operating budget also must go through
the General Assembly each year before it is approved by the governor.

Most Recently Enacted FY 2017 transportation appropriations bill (enacted), FY 2017–21 Five-Year Transportation Improve-
Transportation Budget ment Program (approved) (see note)
Authorized Expenditures Driver’s license equipment lease/central issuance $3,876,000
(Appropriations Bill) Operations $47,712,188
Performance and technology $3,669,430
Planning and programming $8,935,770
Highway $244,749,911
Department of Administrative Services $1,854,000
Workers’ compensation $3,948,442
County treasurers support $1,406,000
Inventory and equipment replacement $5,366,000
Mount Pleasant/Fairfield combined garage $4,902,000
Aviation grants $810,000
Other (see legislation for details) $6,866,400
Total $371,662,771

Iowa
Revenue Sources (Appro- State Aviation Fund $810,000
priations Bill) Road Use Tax Fund $50,223,194
Primary Road Fund $320,629,577
Total $371,662,771
Note: The Iowa transportation appropriations bill (summarized above for FY 2017) is enacted by the General Assembly each
year and includes the Iowa DOT’s operating budget and, at times, some appropriations for non-highway projects. Most capital
funding, however, especially for highways, is outlined in the Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program, which presents
estimates of revenues expected to be received from non-appropriated sources and is approved by the Transportation Commis-
sion. Overall, the most recent program estimates a total of $1.2 billion in new, non-appropriated income to the Iowa DOT in
FY 2017. Because some of the program’s specific estimates are by calendar year, and others are by fiscal year, further details have
not been provided here.

Transportation Planning The Iowa DOT sets long-term, mode-specific planning and investment priorities that are approved by
and Capital Project Selec- the Transportation Commission. The Iowa DOT also plans for more immediate projects in the annually
tion Process updated Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program. Projects are identified by a wide range of
sources including the Iowa DOT’s district offices, MPOs and local governments, and public input at
Transportation Commission meetings. The Transportation Commission establishes annual program-
ming objectives, after which Iowa DOT staff evaluate potential projects based on technical factors.
The Iowa DOT then develops the final program, which the Transportation Commission approves or
amends. The governor’s office is briefed but has no other specific role.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The General Assembly appropriates some funds for operations and non-high-
Planning Process way modes—including some project-specific earmarks, which do not require Transportation Commis-
sion approval—but most Iowa DOT funding does not come from legislative appropriations. Legislative
staff monitor the planning process, and individual legislators may raise constituent concerns to the
Iowa DOT during this process. The planning for some programs must follow statutory criteria set by
the General Assembly.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Until July 1, 2020, taxes on gaso-
gasoline and line and diesel are to be adjusted
diesel (vari- annually based on fuel distribution
able rate— percentage formulas (the gasoline
other) tax rate based on the percentage of
ethanol blended fuel sold, and the
diesel tax rate based on the percent-
age of biodiesel blended fuel sold);
these adjustments are intended to
be revenue-neutral. The formula
must be reviewed by a legislative
interim committee at least every
six years, with the next review due
by Jan. 1, 2020 (Iowa Code Ann.
§452A.3, §452A.79; 2015 Iowa
Acts, Chap. 2)

iowa
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
alternative leum gas, liquefied and compressed
fuels natural gas, and others (Iowa Code
Ann. §452A.3, §452A.79)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on aviation gaso-
aviation fuels line and jet fuel (Iowa Code Ann.
§452A.3, §452A.82)
Fuel taxes: • • • Used for recreational boating pur-
watercraft poses (Iowa Code Ann. §452A.79A,
§452A.84)
Vehicle regis- • • • Deposited to the Road Use Tax
tration fees Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §321.109,
§321.145)
One-time • • • • 5 percent fee in lieu of sales tax,
registration formerly the “motor vehicle use/
fee on vehi- lease tax”; includes allocations to
cle sales and the Road Use Tax Fund and to State
leases Transit Assistance via the Statutory
Allocations Fund (Iowa Code Ann.
§321.105A, §321.145)
Vehicle title • • • Allocated in part to the Road Use
fees Tax Fund via the Statutory Allo-
cations Fund (Iowa Code Ann.
§321.145)
Special • • • In addition to regular annual regis-
license plate tration fees; deposited in part to the
fees Road Use Tax Fund via the Statutory
§321.34, §321.145)
Truck regis- • • • Deposited to the Road Use Tax
tration fees Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §321.122,
(based on §321.145)
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Iowa Code Ann. §321E.14
overweight
truck permit
fees
Sales taxes • • • Allocated in part to the Road Use
on rental Tax Fund via the Statutory Alloca-
vehicles tions Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §423.2,
§312.1, §321.145)
Rest area • • Authorized in state administrative
sponsorship code, not statute; allocated to the
Primary Road Fund (Iowa Admin
Code §§761-123.1[307] et seq.)

Iowa
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Misc. fees • • • Includes driver’s license fees, rental
and taxes car excise taxes, trailer registra-
tion fees, and use taxes on leased
vehicles and manufactured homes;
all are allocated in part to the Road
Use Tax Fund via the Statutory
§321.145)
Aircraft • • • Iowa Code Ann. §328.21, §328.36,
registration §328.56
fees
Aircraft • • • Iowa Code Ann. §328.29; allocated
dealer license to State Aviation Fund
fees
Casino taxes • • • • • • • “Wagering tax,” deposited in part
Pas- to Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund;
senger
and general use of revenues and fund
freight authorized in statute (Iowa Code
Ann. §8.57); specific allocations
made through annual legislative
appropriations; used for public
transit, rail, aviation, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and recreational trails
Legislative • • Ports are funded by specific legisla-
appropria- tive appropriations
tions
Interest • • • • • • • • • Road Use Tax Fund, Marine Fuel
income Pas- Tax Fund, Rebuild Iowa Infrastruc-
senger
and ture Fund (Iowa Code Ann. §8.57,
freight §321A.2, §312.1, §452A.79A)
Notes:
• Recreational trails are categorized as both “pedestrian and bicycle projects” and “other” in this chart, under the assump-
tion that they may be used for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle, and motorized vehicular activities.
• The only toll facilities in Iowa are three privately operated bridges.
• Outdoor advertising revenues are deposited to the Highway Beautification Fund and used only to support the admin-
istration of the outdoor advertising program, not for the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart (Iowa
Code Ann. §§306B.1 et seq.).

iowa
State Fuel Tax Model Variable rate until July 1, 2020 (adjusted based on fuel distribution percentage formulas, but
intended to be revenue neutral)
Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts the use of all motor vehicle
State Fuel Taxes fuel taxes, except for the cost of administration, to public highways, including debt (Iowa Const.
art. VII, §8).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of all vehicle registration fees, except for the cost of
Transportation Revenues administration, to public highways, including debt (Iowa Const. art. VII, §8). Revenues from
taxes on fuels used in aircraft and watercraft are dedicated to those modes (Iowa Code Ann.
§452A.3, §452A.79A, §452A.82, and §452A.84). Restrictions on specific appropriations are
included in session law.
Dedicated or Restricted The Iowa DOT is funded primarily by the Road Use Tax Fund, the Primary Road Fund, and the
Transportation Funds TIME-21 Fund, which are defined and allocated in state law (Iowa Code Ann. ch. 312, 312A,
and 313). State statute dedicates State Transit Assistance funds to transit systems (Iowa Code
Ann. §324A.6) and the State Aviation Fund, which receives aviation-related revenues, to air-
ports (Iowa Code Ann. §328.56).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • Authorized up to a total of
obligation $250,000 by the state constitution
bonds (Iowa Const. art. VII, §2 and §5); not
currently in use
Revenue • • • See See See See See notes Authorized in statute (Iowa Code
bonds notes notes notes notes Ann. §§12.87 et seq.); issued in
2009 as part of a state-level bond
issuance (see notes)
Build Amer- See notes • • Issued in 2009 as part of a state-
ica Bonds level bond issuance (see notes)
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Notes:

Iowa
• State statute authorizes the use of revenue bonds for vertical infrastructure, which could include various transportation
purposes (Iowa Code Ann. §§12.87 et seq.). In 2009, the Iowa DOT received a one-time appropriation for bridge
repair from the proceeds of a large bond issuance of this kind. The bonds are being repaid with revenues from wagering
taxes, and have been used for many purposes. They are not being repaid from funding used directly for transportation
and are not considered a DOT debt. Build America Bonds were issued as part of the 2009 revenue bond package and,
although the law does not identify them by name, under the same statutory authority.
Transportation-Related Bonding No. Although the Iowa DOT received a one-time appropriation from revenue bonds for bridge
repair in 2009, the debt was part of a large bond issue at the state level which was backed by
wagering taxes, used for many purposes, and is not considered a DOT debt. The Iowa DOT,
therefore, is currently debt-free. This makes Iowa one of five states that does not currently use
bonding of any kind for transportation projects.
Restrictions on The state constitution prohibits general obligation debt from exceeding $250,000 without
Finance Mechanisms voter approval (Iowa Const. art. VII, §2 and §5).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes, with additional approvals required in some cases. Aside from statutory distributions to local
Spend Excess Funds entities, the Road Use Tax Fund and Primary Road Fund are allocated to the Iowa DOT in their entirety
each year—either through statutory formula or appropriations—for road and highway purposes.
Generally, any unspent balances remain in these funds. Funds that remain in the Road Use Tax Fund
are re-distributed by applicable statutory formulas. Funds in the Primary Road Fund remain available
to the Iowa DOT for use on eligible projects, subject to additional approval from the Transportation
Commission. Any unexpected revenues are typically allocated to current projects with approval of the
Transportation Commission after receipt. For funds that are appropriated by the General Assembly for
Iowa DOT operating expenses, the Iowa DOT may keep half of any unused balance to be used in the
next fiscal year for employee training and technology enhancement; otherwise, the money reverts to
the respective funds and goes through the normal distribution process. Multimodal projects typically
are funded by Iowa DOT grants drawn from non-road infrastructure funds and approved by the
Transportation Commission; these funds are appropriated separately from road-related funds and the
reversion date usually is four years. In the unusual case that grants for the total appropriated amounts
are not made within four years, the Iowa DOT must apply to the General Assembly for an extension
through the budget bill. Otherwise, the money reverts to the respective funds.
Legislative Approval Yes, for some projects. Legislative approval is only required to move funds between projects that
Required for DOT to Move received specific legislative allocations or appropriations, which rarely happens. The rest of the time,
Funds Between Projects approval is through the Transportation Commission.
Control DOT Costs

iowa
Allocation of State Statutory and committee formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. The Street Construction Fund
Transportation receives 20 percent of the Road Use Tax Fund after set-asides, 20 percent of the TIME-21 Fund, and 0.175
Revenues to Local percent of the Primary Road Fund, and is distributed to cities for street projects using a statutory formula
Entities based on population. The Secondary Road Fund receives 24.5 percent of the Road Use Tax Fund after set-
asides, 20 percent of the TIME-21 Fund, and 1.575 percent of the Primary Road Fund. Money that comes to
the Secondary Road Fund through the TIME-21 Fund must be used for bridge projects and farm-to-market
roads. Farm-to-market roads are also funded through the Farm-to-Market Fund, which receives 8 percent of
the Road Use Tax Fund after set-asides. The Secondary Road Fund and the Farm-to-Market Fund are both
distributed to counties by formulas set by the Secondary Road Fund Distribution Committee. The formulas
are based on area, rural population, vehicle miles traveled, road miles, and bridge length (Iowa Code Ann.
§309.10, §310.4, 312.2, §312.3, §312.3C, §312A.3, §313.4; Iowa Admin. Code §761-102.2 [312]). State
Transit Assistance, which is supported by a fee on vehicle sales and leases, is mostly distributed by the Iowa
DOT to transit agencies by a formula based on system performance (Iowa Code Ann. §321.145 and §324A.6;
Iowa Admin. Code ch. 920). Local entities also receive state legislative appropriations and discretionary grants
approved by the Transportation Commission.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to transfer general property tax revenues to secondary road funds (Iowa Code
Sources Autho- Ann. §331.429) and to assess local option vehicle registration taxes for transit, roads, or streets (Iowa Code
rized in State Law Ann. §§423B.2 et seq.). Cities may impose special property taxes for highways, bridges, transit, or aviation pur-
poses (Iowa Code Ann. §384.12). Cities and counties may form special assessment districts for infrastructure
improvements, including street projects (Iowa Code Ann. §§331.485 et seq. and §§384.37 et seq.).

Kansas

Bridges 25,047
Toll facilities Yes (roads: 236 miles)
Legislature
Name Kansas Legislature
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Ways and Means
tion-Related Issues • Transportation and Public Safety Subcommittee
House Committee on Transportation and Public Safety Budget
Joint Committee on State Building Construction
The speaker of the House or president of the Senate may assign a bill to any committee, regardless of
subject matter. Some transportation-related bills are heard in judiciary and appropriation committees,
for example.

Kansas
Name Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT)

Staff Size in Full-Time 2,515.6
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation (including unmanned aircraft sys-
DOT Has Jurisdiction tems), pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? No. The Division of Vehicles is a division of the Kansas Department of Revenue. It is primarily funded
via a transfer from the State Highway Fund.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Kansas Highway Patrol is an independent state agency. More than half of its budget comes
from a transfer from the State Highway Fund. Other funding sources include Federal funds, Federal
and state forfeiture programs, and a portion of state revenues collected on Vehicle Identification
Number inspections on non-new vehicles brought into Kansas to be titled.
Jurisdiction Over No. The Kansas Turnpike Authority has this jurisdiction. The secretary of transportation, however, is
Toll Facilities? the authority’s director (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2003).
Other
Other State-Level Kansas Turnpike Authority The Kansas Turnpike Authority, a quasi-public entity, operates under
Transportation Entities (corporation/ instrumentality) separate statutory authority from KDOT. The secretary of transporta-
tion, however, is a statutory member of the authority and also serves
as its director. KDOT and the authority are authorized to contract with
each other and minimize duplication of effort. The authority is funded
by user fees and tolls (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§68-2001 et seq.; 2013 Kan.
Sess. Laws, Chap. 113; 2015 Kan. Sess. Laws, Chap. 8).

Overall Communication Formal and informal. KDOT staff provide legislators with written updates on the work of the depart-
and Collaboration ment, brief legislators on transportation topics, and testify at committee hearings. KDOT’s Division
of Policy serves as a source of information for the Legislature and also organizes meetings and press
releases. The Kansas Legislative Research Department, a nonpartisan agency within the Legislature,
works with KDOT staff to provide transportation-related information to legislators.
DOT Legislative Liaison KDOT’s legislative and public outreach coordinator acts as the main point of contact between the
department and the Legislature. The director of policy is also a key contact.

Kansas
Transportation Laws Kan. Stat. Ann. ch. 3, 8, and 68; portions of Kan. Stat. Ann. ch. 66; Kan. Stat. Ann. §§75-5001 et seq.;
Kan. Const. art. XI, §9 (internal improvements) and §10 (revenues); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§79-3401 et seq.
(revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. In Kansas, only legislators may request legislative bill
Legislative Process drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation. If requested, however,
KDOT may assist with bill drafts or proposals. An agency represen-
tative may also request introduction of a bill and provide suggested
language. A bill must then be requested by a legislator or a legislative
committee and drafted by a member of the staff of the Revisor of
Statutes.
Advocacy and Lobbying KDOT staff sometimes represent the department’s position on a
legislative proposal when testifying at committee hearings. In addi-
tion, KDOT leaders may meet separately with legislative transportation
committee members or other legislators.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact The Division of the Budget in the Department of Administration pre-
Statements for Legislative Use pares fiscal notes for all legislation and requests information from state
agencies such as KDOT to do so (Kan. Stat. Ann. §75-3715a).
Appointment of The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate
DOT Leadership (Kan. Stat. Ann. §75-5001).
Legislature Able to No. The secretary of transportation serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations reviews all proposed rules. The
Administrative Rules committee’s role is mainly advisory (Kan. Stat. Ann. §77-436).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. KDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Legislative Division of Post
or Sunset Reviews Audit. The division provides auditing services to the Legislature at the direction of the bipartisan
Legislative Post Audit Committee, from which legislators and the governor may request audits of
state agencies, and has the authority to review any aspect of KDOT operations (Kan. Stat. Ann.
§§46-1119 et seq.). This past year, the Legislature also contracted with an outside company for
an efficiency audit, which included a look at statewide indebtedness, including KDOT bonding.
Kansas does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports The secretary of transportation is required to submit an annual report to the Legislature. The
to the Legislature report must detail the department’s finances, project selection process, assistance awards,
proposed work plan, and construction projects, as well as information about the Transportation
Revolving Fund, the Coordinated Public Transportation Assistance Fund, the Rail Service Improve-
ment Fund, and the Public Use General Aviation Airport Development Fund. In addition, the report
must include “specific recommendations for any statutory changes necessary for the successful
completion of the transportation program ... or efficient and effective operation of the Kansas
department of transportation” and an explanation of any material changes from the previous
annual report (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2315). The secretary must also deliver an annual report con-
cerning KDOT’s inventory of real property (Kan. Stat. Ann. §75-3516).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, as part of KDOT’s
Performance Management annual budget submission, the department provides performance indicators to help track goals
and progress from the prior year’s actual budget through the budget years included in the submis-
sion. These measures are linked to specific KDOT programs. Legislative budget committees review
this information and question KDOT officials as part of the budget process. KDOT’s performance
measures are also included in documentation provided by the Legislative Research Department for
further legislative review.

Kansas
Other Legislative Oversight The Legislature reviews KDOT reports and other information provided to the general public in
Mechanisms press releases and e-mails and on agency websites. Detailed budget submissions are required (Kan.
Stat. Ann. §75-3717 and §75-3721). These submissions are reviewed closely and agency officials
are questioned regarding them. Every state agency, including KDOT, must submit requests for new
buildings, relocation of buildings, and rehabilitation and repair of existing structures to the Joint
Committee on State Building Construction (Kan. Stat. Ann. §75-3717b). The Legislative Coordinat-
ing Council may approve interim committees to study various issues, although none currently are
studying transportation topics. Legislators routinely request KDOT-related information via the Leg-
islative Research Department and directly from KDOT. Two legislators serve on the Kansas Turnpike
Authority, a separate entity whose operations are directed by the secretary of transportation.
Resources Provided to DOT No. All compliance activities are performed by KDOT staff included in KDOT budget items, as a
to Support Compliance with normal operating expense.

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget for most state agencies (including KDOT); fiscal year begins July 1. The governor
ations Overview submits a budget for KDOT, but most funding comes from sources dedicated to KDOT and is appro-
priated without limit.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to the KDOT from
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State transportation funds for capital improvements
and preservation projects mainly come from the State Highway Fund, which
is legislatively appropriated to KDOT with no limit on expenditure authority.
Operating expenditures are provided, with limits, through appropriations to
departmental programs or broad spending categories. Generally, only overhead
expenditures and building expenditures have specific legislative oversight.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2017 (approved), separate capital and operating budgets (see note)
Authorized Expenditures Administration and transportation planning $57,900,769
Local support $225,950,099
Maintenance $139,347,764
Construction $932,904,182
Total $1,356,102,814
Revenue Sources KDOT agency operations $255,917,332
All other funds $1,100,185,482
Total $1,356,102,814
Note: The numbers in this chart are drawn from a KDOT summary of the department’s approved reportable expenditures for
FY 2017. They reflect both appropriated and non-appropriated revenues.

Kansas
Transportation Planning KDOT leads all aspects of the transportation planning process. Construction projects are identified
and Capital Project Selec- by KDOT, MPOs, and other parties. After scoring projects, KDOT solicits further input on a short-
tion Process list of candidate projects within a spending range for each region. This part of the process includes
local consultation meetings. KDOT, using stakeholder input, then selects and programs projects for
construction. Maintenance projects are selected based solely on engineering criteria and available
funding. Prioritization decisions ultimately rest with the secretary of transportation.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The Legislature sets broad priorities for KDOT in statute when it approves
Planning Process the state’s multi-year transportation plan. This occurred most recently in 2010 when the 10-year, $8
billion Transportation Works for Kansas (T-Works) program was enacted into law (Kan. Stat. Ann.
§§68-2314b et seq.). The multi-year plan, however, provides only general priorities and focuses mainly
on revenues and financing. It also requires KDOT to spend at least $8 million in each county over the
duration of the T-Works program (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2316). Beyond that, the Legislature has only an
advisory role and has not claimed an active role in project selection. The secretary of transportation
does report to the Legislature annually on KDOT-selected projects.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Use is restricted to roads (Kan. Stat.
gasoline and Ann. §79-3402, §79-3408, §79-
diesel (fixed 3408c, §79-34,126, §79-34,141,
rate) §79-34,142)
alternative leum gas and liquefied and com-
fuels pressed natural gas; use is restricted
to roads (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§79-3490
et seq., §79-34,141, §79-34,142)
Sales of con- • • • • See • • Proceeds of sale of fuel confiscated
fiscated fuel notes for nonpayment of taxes; deposited
to the State Highway Fund (Kan.
Stat. Ann. §55-518)
Vehicle reg- • • • • See • • Deposited to the State Highway
istration and notes Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §8-132,
title fees §8-145); also includes fees for
reinstating registrations that were
revoked for failure to maintain insur-
ance (Kan. Stat. Ann. §40-3118)
Special • • • • See • • Deposited to the State Highway
license plate notes Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §8-132)
fees
Truck regis- • • • • See • • Deposited to the State Highway
tration fees notes Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§8-143 et
(based on seq., §8-1,101)
gross vehicle
weight)

Kansas
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Motor carrier • • • • See • • Twice per year, unencumbered
license fees notes balances in excess of $700,000 in
the motor carrier license fees fund
are transferred to the State Highway
Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §66-1,142)
Oversize/ • • • • See • • Deposited to the State Highway
overweight notes Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §8-1911)
truck permit
fees
Truck permit • • • • See • • Includes permits for dealer demon-
fees, other notes strations and 72-hour transport
permits (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§8-143c
et seq.)
Driver’s • • • • See • • Deposited in part to the State High-
license and notes way Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §8-243,
state ID card §8-246, §8-267, §8-1324, §8-1333);
fees includes fees for reinstatement or
additional testing (Kan. Stat. Ann.
§8-241, §8-255)
Misc. fees • • • • See • • Includes allocations to the State
and fines notes Highway Fund from vehicle dealer
license fees (Kan. Stat. Ann.
§8-2418), junkyard certificate of
compliance fees (Kan. Stat. Ann.
§68-2205), penalties for violations
of commercial vehicle out-of-service
orders (Kan. Stat. Ann. §8-2,152),
and 5/106 of revenues from clean
water drinking fees (Kan. Stat. Ann.
§82a-2101)
Outdoor • • • • See • • Sign permit fees; deposited to the
advertising notes State Highway Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann.
revenues §68-2236)
Property • • • • See • • Deposited to the State Highway
sales notes Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-413,
§68-423a)
State general • • • • See • • Portions of both the state sales
sales taxes notes tax and the compensating tax are
deposited to the State Highway
Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §79-3620,
§79-3710)
Interest • • • • See • • State Highway Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann.
income notes §68-2324), Highway Bonds Proceeds
Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2321),
International Fuel Tax Agreement
Clearing Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann. §79-
34,126), International Registration
Plan Clearing Fund (Kan. Stat. Ann.
§8-1,101)

Notes:
Kansas
• The Kansas Turnpike Authority, a quasi-public instrumentality, operates toll roads (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2009).
• State statute allocates some State Highway Fund revenues to freight rail via the Rail Service Improvement Fund (Kan.
Stat. Ann. §75-5048). State statute also allows the fund to be used for any purpose in the Transportation Works for
Kansas authorizing statute, which includes rail grade separations and rail service assistance (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-416
and §68-2314b). There is disagreement, however, about whether the fund can be used for passenger rail. In the opinion
of the former secretary of transportation, for example, the state constitution’s prohibition on internal improvements
(Kan. Const. art. XI, §9) precluded funding being used specifically for passenger rail absent an “affirmative vote of not
less than two-thirds of all members” of each legislative chamber. So far, State Highway Fund moneys appear to have
been used for signal and other crossing modernization projects on tracks used by both Amtrak and freight railroads, but
not for projects that solely benefit passenger rail.
• KDOT also has a Federal Funds Exchange Program that allows local public agencies to trade their Federal funds with
KDOT in exchange for state dollars. Exchanging Federal funds for state funds often allows the local agency more
flexibility. Given that the exchange rate is $0.90 of state funds for every $1.00 of local Federal obligation authority
exchanged, this program also likely increases moneys available to the State Highway Fund.

Restrictions on Constitutional and statutory, roads and bridges. The state constitution authorizes the state to
State Fuel Taxes levy special taxes on motor fuels for road and highway purposes (Kan. Const. art. XI, §10). State
statute further dedicates motor fuel taxes to highways, including related debt (Kan. Stat. Ann.
§79-3402).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution gives the state the power to levy special taxes on motor vehicles for road
Transportation Revenues and highway purposes (Kan. Const. art. XI, §10) and prohibits the use of a general property tax
for highway purposes (Kan. Const. art. XI, §9). State statute requires tolls and other revenues
from the Kansas Turnpike to be used for turnpike projects or debt (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2009).
State statutes also direct various transportation-related revenues to the State Highway Fund.
Dedicated or Restricted State statute directs the use of the State Highway Fund to highways, public transit, and other
Transportation Funds transportation purposes. Some revenues from the State Highway Fund are further allocated to
the Coordinated Public Transportation Assistance Fund for coordinated transportation systems,
the Rail Service Improvement Fund for freight rail, and the Public Use General Aviation Airport
Development Fund for general aviation airports (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-416, §68-2314b, §75-
5035, §75-5048, and §75-5061).

Kansas
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • Authorized in statute; annual debt
bonds service is capped at 19 percent of
annual State Highway Fund revenues
for FY 2017 only, after which the
cap reverts to 18 percent (Kan. Stat.
Ann. §68-2320)
Build Amer- See notes • • Issued in support of the Transpor-
ica Bonds tation Works for Kansas program in
2010; state statute does not specifi-
cally authorize them, but does indi-
cate legislative acceptance of their
use under certain circumstances
(Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2314b[b][2])
Advance • • •
construction
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Federal-aid • • Used by KDOT
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • Authorized for one highway demon-
stration project only (Kan. Stat.
Ann. §68-2314b); project is now in
progress
State infra- • • • Transportation Revolving Fund; capi-
structure talized with state funds only; may be
bank used for highway and road projects
only (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§75-5063 et
seq.)
Notes:

• Although state statute does not identify Build America Bonds by name, the law does authorize them inasmuch as it was
Kansas
amended in 2010 to allow 25-year bonds for which the interest is eligible for Federal subsidies (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-
2321; 2010 Kan. Sess. Laws, Chap. 156).

Restrictions on State statute limits the amount of debt KDOT may incur. For FY 2017 only, annual debt service
Finance Mechanisms for highway revenue bonds is capped at 19 percent of annual State Highway Fund revenues;
the cap reverts to 18 percent in subsequent years (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2320). Design-build is
authorized for one highway demonstration project only (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2314b).
Finance Mechanisms The state constitution prohibits the use of general obligation bonds for highways (Kan. Const.
Prohibited in State Law art. XI, §9).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Excess funds remain within the State Highway Fund. Projects tend to exceed available funding,
Spend Excess Funds however, so most funds are programmed or encumbered. Any revenues received beyond the amount
included within the submitted budget estimate are available for use. The authority for use of the State
Highway Fund is statutorily given to the secretary of transportation (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§68-404 et
seq.).
Legislative Actions to Provisions in state statute allow the Kansas Turnpike Authority and the secretary of transportation to
Control DOT Costs contract with each other for preliminary project studies and investigations or to provide personnel,
equipment, or other resources for various functions including highway construction, maintenance,
and operation (Kan. Stat. Ann. §68-2021 and §68-2021a). This is designed to reduce redundancy of
effort and equipment between the authority and KDOT.

Allocation of State Statutory formulas. State statute directs all motor carrier property taxes and 33.63 percent of fuel taxes to
Transportation the Special City and County Highway Fund, which is to be distributed to cities and counties by formulas based
Revenues to Local on number of registered vehicles, vehicle miles traveled, road mileage and, for cities only, population. Motor
Entities carrier property tax deposits to this fund, however, have been suspended since 2010 and had been limited
since 2001. At least 25 percent of the funds each county receives must be used for mail and school bus routes
on county roads (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§79-3425 et seq. and §79-34,142).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes cities to levy vehicle taxes for street improvements (Kan. Stat. Ann. §12-143). Counties
Sources Autho- and municipalities may assess property taxes for roads, streets, and bridges (Kan. Stat. Ann. §15-733, §68-
rized in State Law 518c, §68-559a, §68-596, §68-5,100, and §80-1413). Cities may adopt property taxes for transit uses (Kan.
Stat. Ann. §12-2814 and §13-3112). Some counties are specifically authorized to adopt local sales taxes for
highway and road projects (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§12-187 et seq.).

Kentucky

Bridges 14,261
Toll facilities Yes (bridges: 3, expected to open in 2016)
Legislature
Name Kentucky General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Mar. (odd years), Jan. to Apr. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Appropriations and Revenue
diction Over Transporta- • Senate Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation
House Committee on Appropriations and Revenue
• House Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation
[Interim] Joint Interim Committee on Appropriations and Revenue
• Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation
[Interim] Joint Interim Subcommittee on Transportation

Kentucky
Name Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC)
Structure Organized mainly by functional activity. The KYTC comprises ten executive offices, which are orga-
nized by functional activity, and four departments, one of which is the Department of Aviation.
Leadership Secretary of the KYTC (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? Yes. The Department of Vehicle Regulation is within the KYTC. The majority of its funding comes
from the Road Fund, with fines, fees, penalties, and Federal grants making up the rest. Driver’s
licenses are issued by the state circuit court clerk’s office in each county. Driver’s license testing is
conducted by the Kentucky State Police.
Includes Highway Patrol? In general, no. Traffic and motor carrier enforcement functions are carried out by the Kentucky State
Police, a state agency under the umbrella of the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet. It is
funded primarily by the Road Fund and general funds, with some revenues coming from fines, fees,
penalties, and Federal funds. In addition, however, an incident management patrol service called the
“Safe Patrol” is housed within the KYTC’s Office of Highway Safety, which is funded by the Road
Fund and some Federal funds.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. The KYTC has jurisdiction over the Ohio River Bridges (expected to open on or before Dec. 31,
Toll Facilities? 2016).
Other
Other State-Level Turnpike Authority of Ken- The Turnpike Authority of Kentucky is a quasi-public entity that is
Transportation Entities tucky (corporation/ instru- used to issue bonds for highway projects. The authority’s transpor-
mentality) tation-related debt service is paid from the Road Fund. The secretary
of the KYTC is an ex officio member of the authority (Ky. Rev. Stat.
§§175.410 et seq.).
Kentucky Public Transporta- The Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority, an “inde-
tion Infrastructure Authority pendent de jure municipal corporation” and instrumentality of the
(corporation/ instrumentality) state, facilitates and finances authorized transportation “mega-proj-
ects.” The authority’s debt service is paid from toll revenues and Fed-
eral funds. The authority is administered by the KYTC, which covers
administrative costs, and the secretary of the KYTC serves as chair ex
officio (Ky. Rev. Stat. §§175B.005 et seq.).
Bond-issuing commissions Although not technically transportation entities, the Kentucky Asset/
(state agencies) Liability Commission can issue GARVEE bonds for Federally-funded
transportation projects, and the State Property and Buildings Com-
mission is used by the KYTC to issue bonds for projects that are not
bridges or roads. Each is an independent administrative state agency
and public body corporate that consists entirely of ex officio members
from other state agencies, but not the KYTC (Ky. Rev. Stat. §§56.860
et seq. and §§56.440 et seq).

Kentucky
Overall Communication Mainly informal. Aside from statutory reporting requirements, communication between the General
and Collaboration Assembly and the KYTC is not formalized and is generally ad hoc. The secretary has an open-door
policy for legislators and, along with other KYTC administrators, is available to legislative staffers.
KYTC administrators routinely meet with legislators and appear before legislative committees. The
KYTC also employs a dedicated legislative liaison, who regularly interacts with key legislators and
testifies at committee meetings.
DOT Legislative Liaison KYTC administrators and the legislative liaison all serve as points of contact between the department
and the General Assembly.
Transportation Laws Ky. Rev. Stat. tit. 15 and 16; portions of Ky. Rev. Stat. tit. 24; Ky. Const. §230 (revenue restrictions); por-
tions of Ky. Rev. Stat. tit. 11 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. In Kentucky, only legislators may request legislative bill
Legislative Process drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation. The KYTC does, however,
regularly give input to bill sponsors.
Advocacy and Lobbying The KYTC does advocate for and against legislation in some cases.
Often it will take a neutral stance.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact In Kentucky, fiscal notes are prepared by legislative staff. The KYTC
Statements for Legislative Use and other executive branch agencies do, however, provide Legislative
Research Commission staff with necessary information and data to
prepare the notes.
Appointment of The secretary of the KYTC is appointed to a four-year term by the governor (Ky. Rev. Stat. §12.040
DOT Leadership and §12.255).
Legislature Able to No. The governor may remove the secretary of the KYTC from office (Ky. Rev. Stat. §63.080).
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee of the Legislative Research Com-
Administrative Rules mission reviews all proposed rules and may review existing rules. The subcommittee’s role is mainly
advisory. After rules are reviewed by the subcommittee, they are also referred to the relevant
standing committees and subcommittees for further optional and advisory review (Ky. Rev. Stat.
§§13A.020 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. The KYTC is subject to reviews conducted by the legislature’s Program
or Sunset Reviews Review and Investigations Committee, a 16-member bipartisan committee that is empowered to
review state agencies and program. Kentucky does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or
programs.
Required DOT Reports The secretary of the KYTC must submit annual reports to the General Assembly concerning bicycle
to the Legislature and bikeway needs (Ky. Rev. Stat. §174.125), design-build projects (Ky. Rev. Stat. §176.431), and
the status of delayed projects (2014 Ky. Acts, Chap. 127). The secretary is also required to submit
quarterly reports concerning the Road Fund Cash Management Plan (2014 Ky. Acts, Chap. 127)
and monthly reports on current projects (Ky. Rev. Stat. §176.430). In addition, state law requires all
state budget units to share records with the General Assembly that detail activities, appropriations,
allotments, expenditures, receipts, transfers, encumbrances, and available balances (Ky. Rev. Stat.
§48.800). The KYTC provides an annual financial report with this information for all of its operat-
ing funds.

Kentucky
Other Legislative Oversight Between legislative sessions, both interim committees on transportation hold monthly meetings in
Mechanisms which KYTC activities are discussed and examined. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative
reviews of audits conducted by the Auditor of Public Accounts, an independent elected office, and
legislative requests for information from the KYTC.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1.
ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are legislatively appro-
tion Revenues to the DOT priated to the KYTC through the biennial budget process. Funds are allocated
within the categories of general administration and support, aviation, debt ser-
vice, highways, public transportation, revenue sharing, and vehicle regulation.
Within those categories, additional direction is provided to guide expenditures.
legislatively appropriated to the KYTC within certain categories, with additional
direction to guide expenditures.

Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, FY 2017 and FY 2018 (enacted), separate capital and operating budgets (see note)
Authorized Expenditures General administration and support $5,099,000
(Capital Budget, Aviation $600,000
FY 2017 only)
Highways $3,350,000
Vehicle regulation $1,250,000
Total $10,299,000
Revenue Sources Road Fund $9,699,000
(Capital Budget, Investment income $600,000
FY 2017 only)
Total $10,299,000
Authorized Expenditures General administration and support $76,967,400
(Operating Budget, Aviation $24,964,800
FY 2017 only)
Debt service $156,899,900
Highways $1,579,906,300
Public transportation $32,151,300
Revenue sharing $330,812,900
Vehicle regulation $45,920,400
Total $2,247,623,000
Revenue Sources (Operat- General fund $16,228,200
ing Budget, Restricted funds $132,732,200
FY 2017 only)
Federal fund $740,779,100
Road Fund $1,357,883,500
Total $2,247,623,000

Note: The numbers in this chart are drawn from the capital and operating budgets provided by Kentucky’s Office of State Budget
Kentucky
Director, which include the KYTC appropriations bill for FY 2017 and FY 2018 (2016 Ky. Acts, Chap. 148), separate general
fund appropriations for aviation facilities (2016 Ky. Acts, Chap. 146), and a budgeted lapse of $3,483,000 for a Build America
Bonds subsidy.

Transportation Planning The state adopts a biennial highway construction plan and a six-year road plan every two years. The
and Capital Project Selec- KYTC spearheads the planning process—coordinating input from MPOs, area development district
tion Process agencies, and other stakeholders—and is primarily responsible for identifying projects, most of which
originate at the local level. Legislators also identify and recommend projects. The governor presents the
proposed six-year plan to the General Assembly for consideration and approval; the General Assembly
can amend the governor’s recommended plan.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. Legislators participate in the process by identifying and recommending
Planning Process projects. The General Assembly also is required by statute to adopt the biennial highway construction
plan in a bill and to adopt the last four years of the six-year road plan in a non-binding resolution. This
allows for significant legislative involvement, and the final plan may differ significantly from the one
prepared by the KYTC and submitted by the governor.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Use is restricted to roads; taxes on
gasoline and both gasoline and diesel include a
diesel (fixed fixed-rate component and a variable
rate and vari- component based on average
able rate— wholesale price of fuel, with a price
percentage floor of $2.177/gallon; the price
of price) cannot vary more than 10 percent
per year (Ky. Rev. Stat. §138.220,
§138.228; Ky. Const. §230; 2015 Ky.
Acts, Chap. 67)
alternative leum gas and other special fuels;
fuels (fixed assessed the same way, but at
rate and vari- different rates, as gasoline and
able rate— diesel taxes (Ky. Rev. Stat. §138.210,
percentage §138.220, §234.320)
of price)
Fuel taxes: • • • Capped at $1 million per carrier
jet fuel per year (Ky. Rev. Stat. §144.132,
§183.525)
Vehicle reg- • • • Use is restricted to roads (Ky. Rev.
istration and Stat. §186.050; Ky. Const. §230)
title fees
Sales taxes • • • “Usage tax”; use is restricted to
on motor roads; deposited to the Road Fund
vehicle sales (Ky. Rev. Stat. §138.460, §139.779;
Ky. Const. §230)

Kentucky
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Truck regis- • • • Use is restricted to roads (Ky. Rev.
tration fees Stat. §186.050; Ky. Const. §230)
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Weight-dis- • • • Use is restricted to roads (Ky. Rev.
tance taxes Stat. §138.660; Ky. Const. §230)
(trucks)
Oversize/ • • • Includes permit fees for any oversize
overweight or overweight trucks and special
truck permit permit fees for overweight coal
fees trucks; use is restricted to roads (Ky.
Rev. Stat. §177.9771; Ky. Rev. Stat.
§§189.230 et seq.; Ky. Const. §230)
Driver’s • • • Deposited to the Road Fund (Ky.
license fees Rev. Stat. §186.531)
Tolls • • Authorized (Ky. Rev. Stat. §§180.010

et seq.) but not currently in use; the
state will begin collecting tolls when
new toll bridges that are currently
under construction open to traffic,
which is expected to occur on or
before Dec. 31, 2016
Capital City • • • Includes revenues from the oper-
Airport Divi- ation of state-owned aircraft and
sion revenues airport user fees (Ky. Rev. Stat.
§174.504)
Motorboat • • • Ky. Rev. Stat. §235.080, §235.085,
registration §235.130
and title fees
Non-re- • • Annual legislative appropriations of
stricted non-restricted revenues to aviation
Road Fund
revenues
General • • • • Legislative appropriations for avia-
funds tion, riverports, and transit
Interest • • • Road Fund (Ky. Rev. Stat. §42.500)

income

Kentucky
Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution dedicates fuel tax revenues to pub-
State Fuel Taxes lic highways and bridges, including debt and the enforcement of traffic and vehicle laws (Ky.
Const. §230).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution dedicates revenues from vehicle-related fees, excise or license taxes to
Transportation Revenues public highways and bridges, including debt and the enforcement of state traffic and vehicle
laws (Ky. Const. §230). State statute dedicates jet fuel tax proceeds to aviation facilities (Ky. Rev.
Stat. §183.525).
Dedicated or Restricted Fuel taxes and other revenues accrue to the state’s Road Fund, but in general, state law restricts
Transportation Funds the use of transportation-related revenues, rather than the funds into which they are deposited.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • • Toll revenue bonds (Ky. Rev. Stat.
bonds §177.400, §§175.500 et seq.; See
notes) and airport revenue bonds
(Ky. Rev. Stat. §§183.630 et seq.)
are authorized in statute; legislative
approval is required for revenue
bonds that are to be repaid by the
Road Fund (Ky. Rev. Stat. §56.870);
currently in use for road and airport
projects
GARVEE • • • Authorized by budget acts; broad
bonds GARVEE authorization for certain
projects is in state statute (Ky. Rev.
Stat. §175B.025); most recently
issued in 2015
Build Amer- • • Issued in 2010 for highway projects
ica Bonds
assistance: project
TIFIA
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • Authorized in statute for up to five
road and bridge demonstration
projects per year; projects must have
a construction cost of $30 million or
less (Ky. Rev. Stat. §176.431); used
for several road projects

Kentucky
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Public-private • • As of April 2016, authorized in
partnerships statute for capital projects, including
highways (Ky. Rev. Stat. §45A.077;
2016 Ky. Acts, Chap. 67); further
legislative approval required for
some projects
benefit corporations or instrumentalities. For Kentucky, however, bonds issued by the Kentucky Turnpike Authority and the
Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority are included because they are among those mechanisms that are used
specifically to finance projects under KYTC jurisdiction. “Authorized by state constitution or statute” signifies that the item is
specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible transportation activi-
ties” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not include administra-
tive costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education programs, or distributions to local
governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail are included under “public transit.”

Restrictions on The state constitution prohibits general obligation debt from exceeding $500,000 without
Finance Mechanisms voter approval (Ky. Const. §49 and §50). Design-build contracts are only authorized for up to
five road and bridge demonstration projects per year. Projects must have a construction cost
of $30 million or less (Ky. Rev. Stat. §176.431). The General Assembly must approve any pub-
lic-private partnership with an aggregate value of $25 million or more, or any partnership for
a project to link Kentucky and Ohio (Ky. Rev. Stat. §45A.077 and §175B.030; 2016 Ky. Acts,
Chap. 67).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes and no. Historically, most transportation resources have been retained by the KYTC for transpor-
Spend Excess Funds tation purposes. The General Assembly, however, provides the appropriation authority necessary for
the KYTC to spend the funds. By state law, appropriations for executive agencies lapse at the end
of a fiscal year (Ky. Rev. Stat. §45.229), so funds carried forward from a previous year in most areas
must be legislatively re-appropriated in order for the KYTC to spend them. Some areas have been
exempted from this requirement by budget bill provisions that have allowed appropriation balances
to be carried forward. Excess money in the Road Fund must be deposited in a surplus fund, and no
expenditures can be made from the fund unless legislatively appropriated or directed by the legisla-
ture in the case of revenue shortfalls (Ky. Rev. Stat. §48.710).
Legislative Approval No, but there is a review and approval process for any modifications to the appropriation levels.
Legislative Actions to State law requires a department engineer’s estimate for the costs of a highway construction project
Control DOT Costs to be made public and requires contracts to be awarded to the lowest and best bidder (Ky. Rev. Stat.
§176.080).

Kentucky
Allocation of State Statutory formulas. State law dedicates 48.2 percent of motor fuel tax revenues to county and city govern-
Transportation ments for construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of local roads and bridges. The County Road Aid
Revenues to Local program receives 18.3 percent, and the Rural Secondary Program 22.2 percent (Ky. Rev. Stat. §177.320).
Entities These revenues are distributed by a statutory formula based on population, area, and public road mileage (Ky.
Rev. Stat. §177.360). The other 7.7 percent goes to the Municipal Aid Program and is distributed based on
population (Ky. Rev. Stat. §177.365 and §177.366).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes local entities within transit authority service areas to levy special “occupational license
Sources Autho- fees” or property taxes for transit purposes (Ky. Rev. Stat. §96A.320 and §96A.340). Local option sales taxes
rized in State Law for transit programs are also authorized in statute, but have not been implemented due to constitutional
restrictions on local excise taxes (Ky. Rev. Stat. §96A.340; Ky. Const. §181). Public road districts may levy spe-
cial assessments for road improvements (Ky. Rev. Stat. §§184.010 et seq.)

Louisiana

Bridges 12,900
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, ferry boat, streetcar, demand
response
Legislature
Name Louisiana Legislature
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Apr. to June (odd years), Mar. to June (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Finance
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Public Works
• Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Resources
House Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Public Works
Joint Committee on Capital Outlay
Joint Highway Priority Construction Committee (composed of the entire membership of the Senate
and House committees on transportation, highways, and public works)

Louisiana
Name Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD)

Leadership Secretary of Transportation and Development (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle,
DOT Has Jurisdiction flood control. DOTD provides funding for public transit, ports, aviation, and statewide flood control
through statutory programs.
Includes DMV? No. The Office of Motor Vehicles is a division of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. It is
funded by a portion of vehicle registration and driver’s license fees, not out of DOTD’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Louisiana State Police is a division of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. It is
funded by a portion of vehicle registration fees, not out of DOTD’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. DOTD currently operates Leeville Bridge.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level None. Louisiana has no state-level transportation entities outside of DOTD and (for DMV and high-
Transportation Entities way patrol functions) the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Within DOTD, however, is the
Louisiana Transportation Authority, established to develop and operate tollways and transitways. The
authority is staffed and funded by DOTD, and the secretary of transportation and development is one
of its nine directors (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§48:2071 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal. DOTD staff interact formally and informally with Senate and House committees,
and Collaboration other legislators, and legislative staff. The secretary and executive staff engage with the Legislature on
relevant issues. Under the direction of the executive team, DOTD general counsel and legal staff draft
and track legislation and provide informational testimony in legislative hearings. The general counsel
also ensures that DOTD is in compliance with legislative mandates and expectations, in communica-
tion with legislative transportation committee staff. DOTD employs a dedicated legislative liaison who
works to maintain an engaged relationship with legislators and legislative staff.
DOT Legislative Liaison The legislative liaison in DOTD’s Office of the Secretary is the main point of contact between the
department and the Legislature. The secretary, executive staff, general counsel, and legal staff also
regularly interact with and provide information to legislators and legislative staff.
Transportation Laws La. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 32, 34, and 48; portions of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38 and 45; La.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §36:4 and §§36:501 et seq.; La. Const. art. VII, §27 (Transportation Trust
Fund); La. Const. art. VII, §5 and portions of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 47 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. DOTD’s general counsel and legal staff draft legislative
Legislative Process proposals. The governor often suggests “administration bills,”
which are typically introduced by legislators referred to as the
governor’s floor leaders. The governor or an executive agency also
may request legislative bill drafts, but only if they are given “blanket
approval” by the floor leader.

Louisiana
Advocacy and Lob- By law, no state employees may lobby the Legislature in their offi-
bying cial capacity, and no state agencies may spend funds to lobby the
Legislature or any local government. State agencies can, however,
share factual information that is relevant to legislative matters (La.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §24:56 and §43:31).
Fiscal Notes or Policy The Legislative Fiscal Office prepares fiscal notes for bills with fac-
Impact Statements tual input from agencies, including DOTD.
for Legislative Use
Appointment of The secretary of transportation and development is appointed by the governor with consent of the
DOT Leadership Senate (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §36:503).
Legislature Able to No. The secretary of transportation and development serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules, rule amendments, and fees are submitted to the relevant standing com-
Administrative Rules mittees for review. A committee may suspend a rule, pending further review by the governor. If
the committee does not object, the rule is automatically approved, although the governor may still
veto it (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §49:968).
Legislative Audits Both legislative audits and sunset reviews. DOTD is subject to regular fiscal and performance audits
or Sunset Reviews conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor. The office is required by law to conduct at least
one performance audit of each of the 20 executive branch departments over a seven-year period
(La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §24:522). Also, in Louisiana, all statutory entities including DOTD are scheduled
for termination at least every 6 years unless affirmatively continued by the Legislature; this makes
Louisiana one of four states that conduct regular sunset reviews of its department of transpor-
tation. The sunset review process is conducted under the oversight of the relevant legislative stand-
ing committee. DOTD is scheduled to terminate on July 1, 2017, unless continued by the Legislature
(La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§49:190 et seq.).
Required DOT Reports DOTD is required to submit to the Legislature an annual report concerning projects funded by the
to the Legislature TIMED (Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development) Program (La. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §47:820.4) and an annual complete streets progress report (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:22.1).
It also must submit quarterly reports of all contracts between the department and consulting
engineers (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:93), semi-annual reports on maintenance projects (La. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §48:228.1), and biennial reports on the outcomes of each Highway Priority Program (La. Rev.
Stat. Ann. §48:229.1).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements, legislative audits, and sunset reviews listed above, since
Performance Management 1997, Louisiana law has mandated performance-based budgeting for all executive agencies. The
statutory requirements include regularly updated strategic plans, quarterly and annual perfor-
mance reporting, and a range of performance-based rewards and penalties. Performance goals are
reviewed as part of the annual budget process (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §39:31 and §§39:87.1 et seq.).
Other Legislative Oversight The Legislature assigns interim committees topics to study between legislative sessions, although
Mechanisms none are currently studying transportation topics. In addition, state statute requires the Joint
Highway Priority Construction Committee to hold annual public hearings in each highway district
to review DOTD’s construction priorities. At these hearings, the department must provide each leg-
islator with map of projects in their respective district. A report based on testimony received at the
hearings is sent to DOTD, which then creates the final construction program for the coming fiscal
year and submits it to the Legislature (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:231). Other oversight mechanisms
include legislative requests for information from DOTD.

Louisiana

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. The Office of Planning and Budget sends out guidelines
ations Overview for budget preparation each September. Each agency prepares and submits its budget request and/
or capital outlay request by Nov. 1. The executive budget recommendation, along with supporting
documents and appropriation bills, occurs in February or March. The legislative appropriation process
occurs from March or April to June. Final appropriation letters are sent to agencies in early July.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and program approval. Each year, after the Legislature
tion Revenues to the DOT approves the Highway Priority Program, the program is funded through appropri-
ations of both Federal and state funds within the state’s capital outlay bill (House
Bill 2). Appropriations are made to DOTD within the categories of Preservation,
Operations, Safety, and Capacity. Some project-specific appropriations also are
made. DOTD also administers Federal transit funds for rural areas and special pro-
grams, which are appropriated as part of the department’s operating budget.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and program approval. As with Federal funds, state
transportation funds also are allocated to DOTD as appropriations to broad
spending categories and specific projects, following approval of the Highway
Priority Program.

Authorized Expenditures Capital outlay, engineering (highways) $804,000,000
Capital outlay (non-highways) $75,000,000
Non-DOTD dedicated $91,000,000
Non-Federal-aid eligible roads $33,000,000
Operating budget $588,000,000
Total $1,757,000,000
Revenue Sources Federal funds $736,000,000
State Transportation Trust Fund $595,000,000
State Transportation Trust Fund—TIMED account $120,000,000
State Highway Improvement Fund $57,000,000
General obligation bonds/other $184,000,000
Self-generated revenues $49,000,000
Interagency transfer $16,000,000
Total $1,757,000,000

Louisiana
Transportation Planning Each year, DOTD provides the Legislature with the Highway Priority Program, a proposed program
and Capital Project Selec- of highway construction for the coming fiscal year plus an additional list of projects for the four
tion Process years after that. DOTD district offices identify projects in coordination with MPOs. Staff from DOTD
headquarters select from among those projects and develop the proposed program. The program is
submitted to the Joint Highway Priority Construction Committee, which comprises the membership
of the House and Senate transportation committees. The committee holds public hearings in each
highway district, which are also attended by other state legislators from that district, and submits a
report back to DOTD for use in modifying the plan or developing future programs. DOTD then creates
the final Highway Priority Program and submits it to the House and Senate transportation committees
for review. Ultimately, the program—both for the next fiscal year and ensuing years—is made part of
the capital outlay bill and voted on by the full Legislature. The Legislature can delete any projects that
are not prioritized according to statutorily provided criteria but cannot add or substitute projects (La.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §§48:229 et seq.).
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The Legislature holds hearings around the state and reviews and approves
Planning Process the Highway Priority Program. Feedback from legislative committees is used to modify the proposed
program or to develop future ones. The Legislature can delete—but cannot add or substitute—proj-
ects in the approval process. The Legislature also must approve priority programs for ports (La. Rev.
Stat. Ann. §§34:3451 et seq.), aviation (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§2:801 et seq.), and statewide flood
control (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§38:90.1 et seq.).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Deposited to the Transportation
gasoline and Pas- Trust Fund and its TIMED Account
senger
diesel (fixed only (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:711,
rate) §47:820.1; La. Const. art. VII, §27)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Includes taxes on any liquid or gas
alternative Pas- vehicle fuel other than gasoline or
senger
fuels only diesel; allocated to the Highway Pri-
ority Program, Parish Transportation
Fund, and Statewide Flood-Con-
trol Program (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§47:802)
Fuel taxes: • • • Deposited to the Transportation
aviation fuels Trust Fund, but directed to airports
inasmuch as the annual appropri-
ation for airports must equal (and
cannot exceed) estimated aviation
fuel tax revenues (La. Const. art. VII,
§27)
Vehicle • • • • • • • Deposited to the Transportation
registration Pas- Trust Fund (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
senger
fees (“vehicle only §32:728, §47:463; La. Const. art.
license tax”) VII, §5)
and title fees

Louisiana
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Sales taxes • • • See • Authorized in statute; not currently
on motor notes in use (see notes) (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
vehicles §48:77; La. Acts 2015, Acts 257 and
275)
Truck regis- • • • • • • • Allocated to the State Highway Fund
tration fees Pas- No. 2, the State Highway Improve-
senger
(based on only ment Fund, the Transportation Trust
gross vehicle Fund, and, until June 30, 2018,
weight) the New Orleans Ferry Fund (La.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:462, §48:25.2,
§48:196, §48:197)
Oversize/ • • • • • • Deposited to the Transportation
overweight Pas- Trust Fund (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
senger
truck permit only §32:387)
fees
Tolls • • • Used for toll facilities and related
debt (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:1261)
Outdoor • • • • • • • Permits and logo signing (La. Rev.

advertising Pas- Stat. Ann. §48:274, §48:461.3);
senger
revenues only revenues may be used for any DOTD
purpose (see notes)
Rest area • • • • • • Authorized but not currently in
sponsorship Pas- use; revenues may be used for any
senger
only DOTD purpose (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§48:274.2) (see notes)
DOTD • • • • • • Includes map sales, ferry fares,
self-gener- Pas- equipment buy-back, and other
senger
ated reve- only revenues; revenues may be used for
nues (other) any DOTD purpose
Interest • • • • • • • Transportation Trust Fund, State
income Pas- Highway Improvement Fund (La.
senger
only Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:78, §48:196)
Notes:
• Although the multimodal Transportation Trust Fund may be used for public transit or rail, there are no dedicated state
programs for these transportation modes.
• Legislation enacted in 2015 amended how sales taxes on motor vehicles are dedicated to transportation purposes. From
2008 to 2015, a percentage of these revenues was annually allocated to the Transportation Trust Fund and the Trans-

portation Mobility Fund. Now, the amount allocated to transportation purposes is tied to excess mineral revenues, and
Louisiana
will be directed to the Transportation Trust Fund for highway and port projects and to the state infrastructure bank
for highways, airports, ports, ferries, or public transit (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:77; La. Acts 2015, Acts 257 and 275).
Based on the May 2015 official revenue forecasts, however, no revenues are expected from this source until FY 2018.
• The state constitution provides that the annual appropriation for airports must equal (and cannot exceed) estimated avi-
ation fuel tax revenues (La. Const. art. VII, §27). As a result of this constitutional restriction, even when other revenue
sources are permitted to be used for any DOTD purpose, they cannot be used for airports. The exception listed above is
sales taxes on motor vehicles which, inasmuch as they will now be directed in part to the state infrastructure bank, can
be used through that mechanism for airport projects.
• State statute allocates $15 million annually from the Unclaimed Property Fund to the I-49 project (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§9:165). This funding source, however, was bonded out so that the project could receive a cash infusion. The $15 million
is now used to pay debt service.

Restrictions on Constitutional, multimodal transportation. The state constitution requires all fuel tax revenues, after
State Fuel Taxes debt payments, to be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund for specified multimodal trans-
portation purposes (La. Const. art. VII, §27). In general, the constitution restricts the use of the fund
itself, rather than the revenues that are deposited into it.
Restrictions on Other The state constitution establishes a vehicle license tax and dedicates the revenues to debt service and
Transportation Revenues the Transportation Trust Fund (La. Const. art. VII, §5). The constitution also requires aviation fuel taxes
to be deposited to the Transportation Trust Fund and an equivalent amount to be appropriated to air-
ports (La. Const. art. VII, §27). State statute allocates various revenues, including taxes on alternative
fuels (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:802), to transportation purposes.
Dedicated or Restricted The state constitution establishes the multimodal Transportation Trust Fund, which receives fuel tax
Transportation Funds and other revenues, and dedicates it to highways, statewide flood control, ports, airports, public
transit, the state police for traffic control, the Parish Transportation Fund, and debt service. Up to 20
percent of the state revenues in the fund can be used for ports, the Parish Transportation Fund, state-
wide flood control, and the state police. The Parish Transportation Fund, however, must receive the
proceeds of at least 1 cent of the state taxes on gasoline and special fuels. The annual appropriation
for airports must equal the estimated revenue from aviation fuel taxes (La. Const. art. VII, §27). State
statute further provides that the fund may be used for bicycle projects (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:163.1).
The State Highway Improvement Fund, which receives most truck registration fees, must be used for
highways that are not eligible for Federal aid (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:196).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • Authorized in session law (the
obligation annual capital outlay bill); currently
bonds used for highway, bridge, aviation,
and waterway projects
Revenue • • • • • Transportation Infrastructure
bonds Model for Economic Development
(TIMED) program (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§§47:820.1 et seq.)

Louisiana
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Build Amer- • • • • Issued in 2009
ica Bonds
GARVEE • • Authorized in state statute;
bonds issuances and projects must be
approved by Senate and House com-
mittees (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:27);
not issued
Federal credit • • Active loan(s), used for highway
assistance: projects
TIFIA
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • Authorized in statute for road,
bridge, tunnel, and ferry projects;
legislative approval required (La. Rev.
Stat. Ann. §§48:250.2 et seq.); used
Public-private • • • • • • Authorized in statute for various
partnerships Pas- transportation modes (La. Rev. Stat.
senger
only Ann. §§48:1251 et seq., §§48:2084
et seq.); not currently in use
State infra- • • • • • • Louisiana State Transportation Infra-
structure Pas- structure Fund; established in 2015;
senger
bank only not currently in use; capitalized with
state funds only; may be used for
highways, airports, ports, ferries,
and public transit (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§48:77, §§48:81 et seq.; La. Const.
art. VII, §14)

Louisiana
Restrictions on General obligation bonds require legislative or voter approval. GARVEE bonds may only be
Finance Mechanisms issued if they, and the projects to be financed by them, are approved by the Senate and
House committees on transportation, highways, and public works (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:27).
The use of design-build must also be approved by these committees (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§48:250.2).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Unencumbered and unexpended balances at the end of each fiscal year remain in the Transpor-
Spend Excess Funds tation Trust Fund (La. Const. art. VII, §27). Excess funds must be recognized by the Revenue Esti-
mating Conference (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §39:24) as undesignated fund balances. They must then be
requested to be included within the next fiscal year capital outlay appropriation and approved by the
full Legislature.
Legislative Approval Yes, for some projects. Legislative approval is only required to move funds between projects funded
Required for DOT to Move by a project-specific, line-item appropriation. Otherwise, the only requirement is that DOTD fund
Funds Between Projects those projects that are consistent with the legislatively approved Highway Priority Program.
Legislative Actions to All DOTD projects must adhere to state laws concerning bidding of department projects, including
Control DOT Costs low-bid requirements (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§48:252 et seq.).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. The Parish Transportation Fund was established in 1990 for
Transportation local transportation needs and receives annual legislative appropriations from the state Transportation Trust
Revenues to Local Fund. Each year, the Parish Transportation Fund must receive at least the proceeds of 1 cent of the state tax
Entities on gasoline, diesel, and special fuels. By statutory formula, funds are distributed to parishes on a per capita
basis in population categories. Funds in excess of $34 million (the FY 1994–5 funding level) are distributed
on a per-mile basis. Funds can be used for roads, public transit, and dam or levee projects (La. Const. art. VII,
§27; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§48:751 et seq.).
Local Revenue The state constitution allows any political subdivision, with voter approval, to levy special taxes for public
Sources Autho- improvements (La. Const. art. VI, §32). State statute authorizes municipalities, parishes, and road districts to
rized in State Law levy property taxes for various transportation purposes (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §39:617, §39:781, §39:801, and
§48:588). Eligible municipalities and parishes may collect special assessments for street improvements (La.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §33:3351 and §33:3381). The New Orleans Regional Transit Authority may adopt any tax with
voter approval (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:1664).

Maine

Bridges 2,750
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, commuter rail, ferry boat, demand response
Legislature
Name Maine Legislature
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to June (odd years), Jan. to Apr. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Joint Committee on Transportation
diction Over Transporta-
tion-Related Issues

Maine
Name Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT)
Leadership Commissioner of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? No. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles is under the Maine Department of Secretary of State. It is funded
by the Highway Fund, general funds, and Federal funds, not out of MaineDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Maine State Police is under the Department of Public Safety. It is funded by the Highway
Fund, general funds, and Federal funds, not out of MaineDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over No.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Maine Turnpike Authority The Maine Turnpike Authority is a quasi-public entity that manages and
Transportation Entities (quasi-state agency) operates the 109-mile toll highway from Kittery to Augusta, funded by toll
revenues. The commissioner of transportation or a designee—currently
MaineDOT’s chief financial officer—serves as an ex officio member of the
authority’s board (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §§1961 et seq.).
Northern New England The Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority is a quasi-public entity
Passenger Rail Authority that develops and manages passenger rail service between Maine and Bos-
(corporation) ton and to points within Maine. It is funded by fares and state and Federal
funds. The commissioner of transportation serves on the authority’s board
(Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §§8111 et seq.).
Maine Port Authority The Maine Port Authority is a corporation that exists to develop and operate
(corporation) marine and rail facilities for the intermodal movement of people and cargo.
It is funded by revenues generated by port activity. The commissioner of
transportation serves as chair of the authority’s board (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
tit. 23, §§4420 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal. The Legislature and MaineDOT interact in many ways. The Legislature commu-
and Collaboration nicates with MaineDOT through letters and memoranda and by overseeing the MaineDOT budget.
MaineDOT executive staff—including the commissioner, the deputy commissioner, and the director
of finance and administration—testify regularly before the Joint Standing Committee on Transporta-
tion about relevant policy and budget issues. These officials also participate in work sessions and are
generally accessible to legislators. MaineDOT has a dedicated legislative liaison who represents the
department’s interests before the Legislature and provides outreach to legislators and legislative staff.
DOT Legislative Liaison The legislative liaison in MaineDOT’s Executive Office acts as the main point of contact between the
department and the Legislature. Executive staff also interact with the Legislature in many ways.

Maine

Transportation Laws Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 6, 23, and 29-A; portions of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
35-a, §§5101 et seq.; Me. Const. art. IX, §19 (revenue restrictions); portions of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 36
(revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. In Maine, the governor and executive agencies can
Legislative Process propose bills, but only legislators can formally sponsor and introduce
them.
Advocacy and Lobbying MaineDOT’s legislative liaison advocates for the department’s positions
on legislation.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact Preparing notes for bills and bill amendments is one of the primary
Statements for Legislative Use responsibilities of the legislative Office of Fiscal and Program Review.
This office typically consults with MaineDOT in preparing fiscal notes
for legislative initiatives.
Appointment of The commissioner of transportation is appointed by the governor, subject to review by the Joint
DOT Leadership Committee on Transportation and confirmation by the full Legislature (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23,
§4205).
Legislature Able to Yes. Although in general the commissioner of transportation serves at the pleasure of the gover-
Remove DOT Leaders? nor, any person holding any state office may be removed by the governor on the address of both
branches of the Legislature (Me. Const. art. IX, §5).
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed “major substantive rules,” as designated by the Legislature, are reviewed by the
Administrative Rules relevant joint standing committees and approved or rejected by the full Legislature. If the Legisla-
ture does not object, the rule is automatically approved. “Routine technical rules” are not subject
to legislative review (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, §§8071 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. MaineDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Office of Program Evalua-
or Sunset Reviews tion and Government Accountability, a nonpartisan, independent legislative office (Me. Rev. Stat.
Ann. tit. 3, §§991 et seq.). Also, each state agency must be reviewed by its legislative committee
of jurisdiction every eight years. MaineDOT is scheduled for its next review in 2017. The committee
review process amounts to a sunset review (with possible termination) for some agencies, but not
for MaineDOT (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, §§951 et seq.; 2015 Me. Laws, Chap. 473).
Required DOT Reports MaineDOT is required to submit annual reports to the Legislature concerning bonds (Me. Rev. Stat.
to the Legislature Ann. tit. 3, §523) and public-private partnerships (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4251), and must
submit biennial reports concerning progress on various policy goals (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23,
§73). The commissioner of transportation must submit annual reports concerning the highway and
bridge capital program (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §1654-A) and biennial reports about experi-
mental vehicles (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4206).
Performance Management enacted performance goals for MaineDOT in state law (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §73; this stat-
ute also requires the related report to the Legislature that is listed above). The Legislature tracks
MaineDOT’s progress on its performance goals through the budget bill process and through other
legislation that may be introduced during the legislative session.
Other Legislative Oversight The Legislature convenes interim committee studies and study commissions to examine issues
Mechanisms between legislative sessions, although none are currently studying transportation topics. Other
oversight mechanisms include legislative reviews of audits conducted by the Office of the State
Controller and Office of the State Auditor, both of which are executive offices, and legislative
requests for information from MaineDOT.

Maine
Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. The governor, with MaineDOT,
ations Overview presents the Highway Fund budget to the Legislature for approval. The budget is reviewed and voted
on by the Joint Committee on Transportation before it goes to the full Legislature.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. All funding allocated to MaineDOT is approved by the
tion Revenues to the DOT Legislature. Federal transportation funds are allocated to MaineDOT as state leg-
islative appropriations to departmental programs or broad spending categories.
Any funding received from the Federal government must be allocated to specific
programs by the Legislature before it can be spent.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and budget approval. As with Federal funds, state
transportation funds are also allocated to MaineDOT as appropriations to
departmental programs or broad spending categories, and are required to be
legislatively allocated before they can be spent. In addition, the budget for the
Highway Fund, which receives state transportation revenues, must be approved
by the Legislature.

(FY 2017 only) Bond interest—highway $2,600,579
Bond retirement—highway $21,015,000
Callahan mine site restoration $750,000
Fleet services $28,945,608
Highway and bridge capital $263,531,549
Highway light capital $23,486,204
Local road assistance program $20,935,320
Maintenance and operations $158,398,380
Multimodal—aviation, freight and passenger rail, island ferry service, ports $37,948,455
and marine, and transit
Multimodal Transportation Fund $3,142,608
Receivables $1,012,121
State Infrastructure Bank $150,000
Transportation facilities $2,200,000
Total $576,417,088
Revenue Sources Highway Fund $253,564,995
(FY 2017 only) Federal Expenditures Fund $194,142,485
Other special revenue funds $86,693,416
Transportation Facilities Fund $2,200,000
Fleet Services Fund—DOT $28,945,608
Industrial Drive Facility Fund $500,000
Island Ferry Services Fund $10,370,584
Total $576,417,088

Maine
Transportation Planning MaineDOT has primary responsibility for developing the Annual Work Plan, the Long-Range Plan, the
and Capital Project Selec- Statewide Rail Plan, and other plans. MaineDOT works extensively with other stakeholders, including
tion Process MPOs, to identify projects. Projects are selected according to cost/benefit, policy objectives, modal
distribution, equitability, and funding availability. The three-year plan is approved by MaineDOT lead-
ership under the direction of the commissioner.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The Legislature does not formally approve the Annual Work Plan, but does
Planning Process provide oversight and may influence the program through the budget approval process and other
legislation.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Use is restricted to roads; indexing
gasoline was repealed in 2011 (Me. Rev. Stat.
and diesel, Ann. tit. 36, §2902, §3203; Me.
highway use Const. art. IX, §19; 2011 Me. Laws,
(fixed rate) Chap. 392)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on propane, com-
alternative pressed natural gas, hydrogen, and
fuels others; use is restricted to roads
(Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, §3203,
§3219; Me. Const. art. IX, §19)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • Includes taxes on aviation gasoline
aviation fuels Pas- and jet fuel; deposited to the Mul-
senger
and timodal Transportation Fund (Me.
freight Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, §2912)
Fuel taxes: • • • • Gasoline tax revenues attributable to
other boats, snowmobiles, and all-terrain
non-highway vehicles are used for those modes
use (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, §2903-
D)
Vehicle reg- • • • Use is restricted to roads; allocated
istration and in part to the TransCap Trust Fund
title fees (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, §501,
§603; Me. Const. art. IX, §19)
Special • • • Vanity plate fees; deposited to the
license plate Highway Fund and the TransCap
fees Trust Fund (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
29-A, §453)
Vehicle • • • Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, §1751,
inspection §1767
fees
Driver’s • • • Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, §1406-
license and a, §1410; directed to the Highway
state ID card Fund, under constitutional restric-
fees tions on vehicle-related revenues
(Me. Const. art. IX, §19)

Maine
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Truck regis- • • • Use is restricted to roads; allocated
tration fees in part to the TransCap Trust Fund
(based on (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, §504;
gross vehicle Me. Const. art. IX, §19)
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, §2382
overweight
truck permit
fees
Fines for • • • Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, §2602
truck size
and weight
violations
Traffic fines • • • Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, ch. 19
and ch. 23; directed to the Highway
Fund, under constitutional restric-
tions on vehicle-related revenues
(Me. Const. art. IX, §19)
Sales taxes • • • • • • Deposited to the Multimodal Trans-
on rental Pas- portation Fund (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
senger
vehicles and tit. 23, §4210-B)
freight
Ferry fares • • See Fares of the Maine State Ferry
notes Service are used to fund half of the
service’s annual operating budget
(Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4210-
C, §4404)
Leases of • • • Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §7105;
rail-related Freight revenues are used to support rail
only
property projects
Wholesale • • • A portion of the proceeds from the
liquor reve- state’s wholesale liquor contract is
nues dedicated to highways and bridges
(Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30-A,
§6054; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
28-A, §90); approx. $3.3 million was
received for FY 2016
Interest • • • • • • • Highway Fund, Multimodal Trans-
income Pas- portation Fund (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
senger
and tit. 5, §135; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
freight 23, §4210-B)
Notes:

Maine
• Maine state ferries are considered part of the highway system (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4210-C).
• In addition to the revenues shown above, which are authorized and used by state agencies, a number of quasi-state enti-
ties also receive and use transportation-related revenues. These include the Maine Turnpike Authority, which is funded
by toll revenues (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §1974), the Maine Port Authority, which is funded by port operating
revenues (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, §12004-F; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4420), and the Northern New England
Passenger Rail Authority, which uses passenger rail fares to operate the Downeaster rail service (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
tit. 23, §8006).
• Pilot license fees are allocated to the Maine Pilotage Commission for administration and enforcement activities (Me.
Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38, §93 and §106), not used for the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart.

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts the use of fuel taxes from highway
State Fuel Taxes users to public highways and bridges, including debt and the enforcement of traffic laws (Me. Const.
art. IX, §19).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related fees and taxes, except any vehicle tax that
Transportation Revenues is imposed in lieu of personal property tax, to public highways and bridges, including debt and the
enforcement of traffic laws (Me. Const. art. IX, §19). State statute dedicates the fuel tax revenues
attributable to boats, snowmobiles, and all-terrain vehicles to those modes (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
36, §2903-D). Turnpike toll revenues are to be used for the turnpike expenses, related debt, and
access roads (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §1974).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute dedicates the Highway Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other revenues, to high-
Transportation Funds ways and bridges, administrative costs, the State Police, and snow removal, and prohibits permanent
diversion to other purposes (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §1653). The Multimodal Transportation Fund,
which receives rental vehicle sales taxes and other revenues, is dedicated to multimodal transporta-
tion including public transit, aeronautics, marine, and rail (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4210-B). The
TransCap Trust Fund, supported by bond financing and other revenues, is dedicated to transportation
capital improvements in all modes (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30-A, §6006-G).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General See notes • • • • • • Includes Highway Fund general obli-
obligation Pas- gation bonds, for which debt service
senger
bonds and is capped at 10 percent of Highway
freight Fund revenue (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
tit. 23, §1604); also includes General
Fund general obligation bonds,
which can be used for all transpor-
tation activities; legislative approval
required for all bonding

Maine
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue See notes • • TransCap revenue bonds; legislative
bonds approval required (Me. Rev. Stat.
Ann. tit. 23, §1604); may be used
only for Highway Fund-supported
activities (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
30-A, §6006-G)
Build Amer- See notes • • Issued in 2010
ica Bonds
GARVEE See notes • • Legislative approval required; debt
bonds service capped at 15 percent of Fed-
eral funding received (Me. Rev. Stat.
Ann. tit. 23, §1604); most recently
issued in 2014
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • • • A state toll credit policy was
matching: adopted in 2013 and a bank of over
toll cred- $300 million was established; used
its (“soft for three projects so far
match”)
Design-build • • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for various
Pas- transportation modes, including
senger
and trails (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23,
freight §4244); recently used for bridge
projects
Public-private • • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for various
partnerships Pas- transportation modes, including
senger
and trails; legislative approval required
freight (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4251);
State infra- • • • • Capitalized with state and Federal
structure funds; may be used for highway or
bank transit projects (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
tit. 23, §§1853 et seq.)
Notes:

• Trails are identified as both “pedestrian and bicycle projects” and “other” in this chart, under the assumption that they
Maine
may be used for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle, and motorized vehicular activities.
• Maine state statute sets transportation debt policy for capital planning purposes, rather than directly authorizing bond-
ing. All bonds, including Federal GARVEE bonds, must be authorized by the Legislature (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23,
§1604).
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. The state of Maine has used general obligation bonds, GARVEE bonds, and most recently
TransCap Trust Fund revenue bonds to fund transportation projects.
Restrictions on The Legislature must approve any bonding, including GARVEE bonds, and state statute limits
Finance Mechanisms how much debt may be incurred. Average debt service payments for general obligation bonds
are capped at 10 percent of highway fund revenue, and GARVEE debt service is capped at 15
percent of Federal funding received (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §1604). The Legislature must
also approve public-private partnerships (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4251).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Unexpended funds at the end of the fiscal year are carried over to the next year. Also, at the
Spend Excess Funds end of each fiscal year, any unallocated balance in the Highway Fund over $100,000 is transferred
to MaineDOT for capital and maintenance purposes. To be spent, these funds must be allotted by a
financial order signed by the MaineDOT commissioner and the governor.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. Legislative approval is required to move funds from one program to another, but not
Required for DOT to Move from one project to another within the same program.
Legislative Actions to State law requires purchases to generate the “greatest possible economy” (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5,
Control DOT Costs §1825-B) and includes low-bid requirements for MaineDOT (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §4243).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. Funds are mainly allocated through the Local Road
Transportation Assistance Program, which receives 9 percent of the Highway Fund allocation to MaineDOT. This program
Revenues to Local distributes rural road assistance and urban compact assistance funding to eligible municipalities, counties, and
Entities Indian reservations. Funds are allocated by statutory formulas based on lane miles. In addition, MaineDOT can
make discretionary awards to municipalities, counties, and reservations from the Secondary Road Program
Fund (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §§1801 et seq.). Funds are also allocated to local entities through legislative
appropriations.
Local Revenue State statute allows transit districts to direct their constituent municipalities to levy property taxes for their
Sources Autho- support (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30-A, §3517). Municipalities may also charge developers impact fees to pay
rized in State Law for development-related capital improvements (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30-A, §4354).

Maryland

Bridges 5,313
Toll facilities Yes (roads: 27.6 miles; bridges: 5; tunnels: 2)
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, streetcar,
vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name Maryland General Assembly
Chambers Senate (47 members), House of Delegates (141 members)
Type Hybrid
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Budget and Taxation
diction Over Transporta- • Public Safety, Transportation, and Environment Subcommittee
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Finance
• Transportation Subcommittee
Senate Committee on Judicial Proceedings
• Transportation and the Environment Subcommittee
House Committee on Environment and Transportation
• Motor Vehicle and Transportation Subcommittee
• Vice Chairs Subcommittee
House Judiciary Committee

Maryland
Name Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT)

Staff Size in Full-Time 9,107.5 in-house, 40.7 contractual
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle.
DOT Has Jurisdiction The State Highway Administration, Maryland Transit Administration, Maryland Aviation Administra-
tion, and Maryland Port Administration are all business units within MDOT.
Includes DMV? Yes. The Motor Vehicle Administration is a unit of MDOT. It is funded out of the Transportation Trust
Fund as part of MDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. State-level highway patrol functions in Maryland are carried out by the Maryland State Police, an
independent state agency, and the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. The Maryland Transpor-
tation Authority Police is funded by toll revenues. The Maryland State Police is funded by general and
dedicated funds and, for enforcement activities on the Kennedy Highway, toll revenues. None of these
functions are funded out of MDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over No. The Maryland Transportation Authority has this jurisdiction.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Maryland Transportation The Maryland Transportation Authority is a non-budgeted, legislatively
Transportation Entities Authority (state agency) created entity that operates the state’s toll facilities. It is supported by
toll revenues. Although the authority is an independent state agency,
it performs various activities on behalf of MDOT. The secretary of
transportation serves as the authority’s chair (Md. Transportation Code
Ann. §§4-201 et seq.).
Washington Metropolitan The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is an instrumen-
Area Transit Authority (inter- tality of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia (Md. Trans-
state corporation/ instru- portation Code Ann. §10-204). It was created to plan, finance, build,
mentality) and operate a comprehensive public transit system for the Washington
metropolitan area. It is funded by fares and advertising revenues, as
well as contributions from the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia,
and counties in the greater metropolitan Washington area. On an
annual basis, these jurisdictions must appropriate funds according to
an agreed-upon formula to subsidize WMATA’s operating and capital
budget.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. The General Assembly and MDOT interact during the legislative session at
and Collaboration budget and bill hearings. During the interim, MDOT typically engages with elected officials about its
Consolidated Transportation Program, broader topics of interest, and constituent issues. Individual
legislators meet with MDOT staff and request information from the department throughout the year.
MDOT employs a state legislative officer who functions as a dedicated legislative liaison and is respon-
sible for much of MDOT’s communication and interaction with the General Assembly.
DOT Legislative Liaison MDOT’s state legislative officer, located in the Government Affairs Office under Policy, Planning, and
Enterprise Services, acts as the main point of contact between the department and the legislature.
Other MDOT staff also interact with legislators and legislative staff.

Maryland
Transportation Laws Md. Transportation Code Ann.; portions of Md. State Finance and Procurement Code Ann.; Md. Const.
art. III, §53 (Transportation Trust Fund); portions of Md. Tax-General Code Ann. (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. MDOT can propose legislation through the governor’s
Legislative Process office or through the relevant committee chair. Both “administration
bills,” submitted by the governor, and “departmental bills,” submit-
ted by executive agencies, must still be sponsored and introduced by
legislators. For departmental bills, the chair of the relevant standing
committee is the sponsor, as a courtesy, and the agency is identified
on the bill after the sponsor’s name.
Advocacy and Lobbying MDOT can lobby for legislation or policy proposals.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, state agencies such as MDOT must provide any information
Statements for Legislative Use requested by the Department of Legislative Services for preparing a
fiscal note (Md. State Government Code Ann. §2-1505).
Appointment of The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the
DOT Leadership Senate (Md. Transportation Code Ann. §2-102).
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review reviews all proposed
Administrative Rules rules. The committee’s role is mainly advisory, except that emergency rules require committee
approval (Md. State Government Code Ann. §§10-109 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. MDOT is subject to financial and performance audits conducted by the
or Sunset Reviews Office of Legislative Audits in the legislature’s Department of Legislative Services. The state con-
ducts sunset reviews, but not of MDOT.
Required DOT Reports Each year, the secretary of transportation must submit to the legislature a State Report on Trans-
to the Legislature portation, which includes the updated Consolidated Transportation Program, the Maryland Trans-
portation Plan, and a report on the attainment of state transportation goals and benchmarks (Md.
Transportation Code Ann. §2-103.1 and Md. State Government Code Ann. §2-1246).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, state law also creates
Performance Management the Advisory Committee on Transportation Goals, Benchmarks, and Indicators to advise MDOT on
its development of measurable long-term goals and intermediate benchmarks (Md. Transportation
Code Ann. §2-103.1). In addition, as part of a bill enacted in 2016 concerning the project prioriti-
zation process, the General Assembly enacted a set of performance goals and measures for MDOT
into law (2016 Md. Laws, Chap. 36 [House Bill 1013]).
Other Legislative Oversight The General Assembly can request specific reports from MDOT through the budget or other legis-
Mechanisms lation, make funding contingent upon submission of a report or action, or require legislative notice
before an action is taken. Commissions or study groups are often created by the General Assembly
to look at specific issues, although none are currently studying transportation topics. Individual
legislators can request information from MDOT at any time.

Maryland

ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Partial legislative appropriation and plan approval. Some Federal funds flow
tion Revenues to the DOT directly to MDOT from the U.S. DOT with no state legislative involvement. Other
Federal funds are appropriated by the General Assembly to different programs
within each of MDOT modal administrations’ respective budgets (for example,
to the capital program for the State Highway Administration within MDOT).
Although legislative appropriations are at the level of departmental programs,
the General Assembly reviews and approves project-specific funding in the
annually updated Consolidated Transportation Plan.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. The General Assembly appropriates
state transportation funding at the program level, and reviews and approves
project-specific funding in the annually updated Consolidated Transportation
Plan.

Authorized Expenditures Secretary’s office $648,990,974
Debt service requirements $309,911,986
State Highway Administration $2,025,227,440
Maryland Port Administration $168,294,624
Motor Vehicle Administration $234,696,618
Maryland Transit Administration $1,462,162,370
Maryland Aviation Administration $307,307,454
Total $5,156,591,466
Revenue Sources Special funds $3,973,140,941
Federal funds $1,183,450,525
Total $5,156,591,466

Maryland
Transportation Planning MDOT prepares several long-term planning documents that are used to determine transportation
and Capital Project Selec- investment priorities. These include the six-year Consolidated Transportation Program, updated annu-
tion Process ally, and the 20-year Maryland Transportation Plan, revised every five years. MDOT uses these plans to
develop annual operating and capital budget requests for the General Assembly’s consideration. The
planning approach is bottom-up, in that local jurisdictions submit priority project lists to MDOT. The
state has a consolidated funding mechanism for all modes, so MDOT and the governor must weigh
the demands of all projects in all modes. Final project selection is by the governor, who approves the
capital program before submitting it to the General Assembly for approval. Funding is provided at
the program level in the budget; project-specific detail, however, is provided in the capital plan. In
addition to this process, the General Assembly enacted new legislation in 2016 that sets out specific
goals and measures for prioritizing major highway and public transit projects (2016 Md. Laws, Chap.
36 [House Bill 1013]). MDOT is still assessing how to implement this bill.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The General Assembly has responsibility in the planning process to approve
Planning Process the capital program and the funding provided for it in the budget. The General Assembly can reduce
but not add funding for specific projects in the governor’s budget. It can, however, add expenditures
through a supplementary appropriations bill if matched with new revenues, or require the next year’s
executive budget to include certain expenditures. The General Assembly also has enacted laws that
set broad transportation policy goals and benchmarks, which influence MDOT programming.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Taxes on gasoline and diesel include
gasoline and Pas- a cents-per-gallon tax that is
senger
diesel (vari- and indexed to the Consumer Price Index
able rate— freight and a sales and use tax equivalent
indexed, rate that is annually adjusted as
percentage a percentage of retail price (Md.
of price) Tax-General Code Ann. §9-305,
§9-306, §2-1103; 2013 Md. Laws,
Chap. 429)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Includes all clean-burning fuels
alternative Pas- except electricity; adjusted the
senger
fuels (vari- and same way as gasoline and diesel
able rate— freight taxes (Md. Tax-General Code Ann.
indexed, §9-305, §9-306)
percentage
of price)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Includes taxes on aviation gasoline
aviation fuels Pas- and jet fuel (Md. Tax-General Code
senger
(fixed rate) and Ann. §9-305, §2-1103)
freight
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • • Includes title fees and taxes and
istration and Pas- vehicle registration fees (Md.
senger
title fees and Transportation Code Ann. §8-402,
freight §13-802, §13-809, §13-814, §§13-
911 et seq.)

Maryland
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Truck regis- • • • • • • • • Md. Transportation Code Ann.
tration fees Pas- §§13-916 et seq.
senger
(based on and
weight)
Oversize/ • • • • • • • • Md. Transportation Code Ann. §24-
overweight Pas- 112
senger
truck permit and
fees freight
Truck permit • • • • • • • • Exceptional hauling permits (Md.
fees, other Pas- Transportation Code Ann. §24-
senger
and 113.2)
freight
Sales taxes • • • • • • • • Md. Tax-General Code Ann.
on rental Pas- §2-1302.1, §11-104; Md. Transporta-
senger
vehicles and tion Code Ann. §8-402
freight
Driver’s • • • • • • • • Includes driver’s license fees (Md.
license fees Pas- Transportation Code Ann. §§16-101
senger
and et seq.) and commercial driver’s
freight license fees (Md. Transportation
Code Ann. §16-818)
Tolls • • • Used by the Maryland Transporta-
tion Authority; pay for toll bridges,
highways, and untolled portions of
I-95 and I-395 (Md. Transportation
Code Ann. §4-312)
Congestion • • • Used by MDOT and Maryland
pricing/ Transportation Authority; revenues
high-occu- used for HOT lanes facilities (Md.
pancy toll Transportation Code Ann. §4-312)
(HOT) lanes
Revenue- • • • Annual payments to the Maryland
sharing: rest Transportation Authority under a
area food public-private partnership for I-95
and fuel travel plazas; based on gross sales
concessions revenues and fuel sales
Transit fares/ • • • Indexed to Consumer Price Index
operating (Md. Transportation Code Ann.
revenues §7-208, §7-505; 2013 Md. Laws,
(indexed) Chap. 429)
Airport • • • Includes revenues collected from
operating airlines and vendors; used to cover
revenues some Maryland Aviation Adminis-
tration expenses (general authoriza-
tion: Md. Transportation Code Ann.
§§5-201 et seq.)

Maryland
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Airport • • Rental Generally authorized in state statute
non-operat- car uses (Md. Transportation Code Ann.
only
ing revenues §5-408); includes customer facility
charges (used for rental car capital
projects and related debt service)
and transportation facility charges
(used for rental car operations and
maintenance)
Port operat- • • • Used to cover some Maryland Port
ing revenues Administration expenses (general
authorization: Md. Transportation
Code Ann. §§6-201 et seq.)
Corporate • • • • • • • • Md. Tax-General Code Ann. §2-614;
income taxes Pas- Md. Transportation Code Ann.
senger
and §8-402
freight
Interest • • • • • • • • Transportation Trust Fund (Md. State
income Pas- Finance and Procurement Code Ann.
senger
and §6-226)
freight
Notes:
• Because the Federal Marketplace Fairness Act was not enacted, the Transportation Trust Fund is not receiving general
sales tax revenue. Instead, the motor fuel sales and use tax equivalent rate increased to 5 percent on June 1, 2016 (2013
Md. Laws, Chap. 429).
• Legislation enacted in 2011 (2011 Md. Laws, Chap. 397) transferred a total of $100 million from the Transportation
Trust Fund, with $60 million going to the general fund and $40 million to the Rainy Day Fund. The legislation in-
cluded the repayment of the $60 million from the general fund from FY 2014 to FY 2016 through the reconciliation of
corporate income tax revenues, rather than an explicit repayment schedule. The $40 million to the Rainy Day Fund was
repaid through additional revenue that was raised for transportation through fee increases in FY 2012.

Maryland
State Fuel Tax Model Variable rate (indexed) and variable rate (percentage of price)
Restrictions on Constitutional and statutory, multimodal transportation (with exceptions). State statute directs most
State Fuel Taxes fuel tax proceeds to the constitutionally restricted Transportation Trust Fund for multimodal transpor-
tation purposes. Exceptions include allocations to the general fund, the Waterway Improvement Fund,
and the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund (Md. Tax-General Code Ann. §§2-1101 et
seq.). In general, state law restricts the use of the funds into which the revenues are deposited, rather
than the revenues themselves.
Restrictions on Other State statute directs various transportation-related revenues to the Transportation Trust Fund, to be
Transportation Revenues used for multimodal transportation purposes.
Dedicated or Restricted In 2014, Maryland voters approved a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to further define
Transportation Funds and restrict the use of the multimodal Transportation Trust Fund. The state constitution now limits
the use of the fund, which receives fuel taxes and other transportation revenues, to highways and
other transportation purposes including debt service, allocations to local entities, and the Maryland
Transportation Authority. Fund revenues may not be diverted to the general fund, a special fund, or
another purpose unless the governor, by executive order, declares a fiscal emergency and the transfer
is approved by a three-fifths vote of each house of the General Assembly (Md. Const. art. III, §53).
The amendment strengthens protections that had already been enacted into state statute. State
statute also notes that the fund may be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects (Md. Transportation
Code Ann. §3-216 and §3-217).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • • • • • Authorized for, and used by, MDOT
bonds Pas- and the Maryland Transportation
senger
and Authority (Md. Transportation
freight Code Ann. §§3-201 et seq., §§4-301
et seq.)
Build Amer- • • • Issued in 2009 and 2010 by the
ica Bonds Maryland Transportation Authority
for highway projects
GARVEE • • • Authorized for use by both MDOT
bonds and Maryland Transportation
Authority; total GARVEE debt
is capped at $750 million (Md.
Transportation Code Ann. §3-601,
§4-320); used by the Maryland
Transportation Authority; most
Private activ- • • • Allocated to the Maryland Economic
ity bonds Development Corporation for the
Purple Line Light Rail Project; issued
in June 2016

Maryland
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Federal credit • • • See Active loan(s), used by the Maryland
assistance: notes Transportation Authority for a high-
TIFIA way project (see notes); authorized
in statute (Md. Transportation Code
Ann. §4-101, §4-321)
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for all state
Pas- agencies (Md. State Finance and
senger
and Procurement Code Ann. §3-602);
freight used for several road and bridge
projects
Public-private • • • • • • • Authorized for MDOT and the
partnerships Pas- Maryland Transportation Authority;
senger
and not restricted by mode (Md. State
freight Finance and Procurement Code Ann.
§§10A-101 et seq.); currently in use
for three projects
Certificates • • • • • • • Md. State Finance and Procurement
of participa- Pas- Code Ann. §§8-401 et seq.
senger
tion and
freight
Notes:
• In June 2016, a Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan was also approved to
the private concessionaire for the Maryland Purple Line, a light rail project that is being developed through a pub-
lic-private partnership among MDOT, the Maryland Transit Administration, and a consortium of private companies.
• General obligation bonds are authorized and issued by the state primarily to finance state-owned capital improvements
(Md. State Finance and Procurement Code Ann. §§8-101 et seq.). Although general obligation bonds have been used
for road and bridge projects in the past, these instances have been infrequent. General obligation bonds are not typically
used for transportation purposes.

Maryland

Restrictions on MDOT uses bonding only for its capital program, and the level of debt is constrained by
Finance Mechanisms broader state debt limitations, a transportation debt outstanding limit, and coverage ratio
limits agreed upon with bondholders. Total GARVEE debt is capped at $750 million (Md.
Transportation Code Ann. §3-601 and §4-320).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Any funds not used in a fiscal year are retained by the Transportation Trust Fund unless otherwise
Spend Excess Funds specified. Excess funds not obligated or spent at the end of the fiscal year remain in the Transporta-
tion Trust Fund and must be appropriated in a subsequent budget in order to be spent.
Legislative Approval No. Annual budget bill language requires MDOT to notify the budget committees of proposed
Required for DOT to Move changes to the transportation capital program that will add a new project or increase a project’s total
Funds Between Projects cost by more than 10 percent or $1 million due to a change in scope, but legislative approval is not
required.
Legislative Actions to MDOT costs are not directly constrained or controlled through statute.
Control DOT Costs

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and grants. Of the state’s total highway user revenues, 7.7 percent is allocated to the city
Transportation of Baltimore, 1.5 percent to counties, and 0.4 percent to municipalities. The funds for counties and munici-
Revenues to Local palities are distributed by statutory formulas based on road miles and motor vehicle registrations and, except
Entities in Baltimore and Kent County, must be used for transportation facilities or road-related debt service (Md.
Transportation Code Ann. §§8-401 et seq.). In addition, the governor may include capital grants to local
jurisdictions in the budget and specify how the funds are to be distributed. Such capital grants are subject to
approval by the legislature.
Local Revenue In general, state statute does not authorize local revenue sources specifically for transportation. Certain coun-
Sources Autho- ties are, however, authorized to charge development impact fees, which may be used for road improvements
rized in State Law (Md. Local Government Code Ann. §§20-701 et seq.).

Massachusetts

Bridges 5,167
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, ferry
boat, vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name Massachusetts General Court
Legislative Measures 1,069 (out of more than 6,300 introduced in the 2015-16 biennium). Massachusetts has a two-year
Introduced in 2016 legislative cycle, and almost all bills are filed in January of each odd year.
Committees with Juris- Joint Committee on Transportation
tion-Related Issues
Name Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (who is also the chief executive officer of MassDOT; serves on governor’s
cabinet), MassDOT Board of Directors (independent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)

Massachusetts
Includes DMV? Yes. The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles is a division of MassDOT and is funded out of
MassDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Massachusetts State Police is a state agency under the umbrella of the Executive Office of
Public Safety and Security. It is funded by a combination of state and Federal funds, not out of Mass-
DOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over Yes.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Massachusetts Port Author- The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), a quasi-public entity,
Transportation Entities ity (corporation/ instrumen- operates airports and ports. It is funded by real estate revenues, park-
tality) ing revenues, and airport taxes and fees. The secretary of transporta-
tion serves as an ex officio member of the Massport board (Mass. Gen.
Laws Ann. ch. 91 app., §§1-1 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through a dedicated liaison. MassDOT has an Office of Legislative and
and Collaboration Community Affairs that oversees all aspects of legislative involvement on transportation matters. The
office team also serves as the primary point of contact for state and local elected officials regarding
constituent matters pertaining to MassDOT and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. This
team also helps coordinate legislative involvement and community outreach on public works projects.
Only MassDOT executives and senior administrators testify formally before legislative committees.
DOT Legislative Liaison MassDOT’s Office of Legislative and Community Affairs is the main point of contact between the
department and the General Court. The MassDOT Legislative Director oversees this office and is a
member of the secretary’s senior staff.
Transportation Laws Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C and 160 to 163; portions of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. tit. 14 and 22; Mass.
Const. amend. art. LXXVIII (revenue restrictions); portions of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. tit. 9 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. MassDOT’s Office of Legislative and Community Affairs
Legislative Process works seamlessly with the governor’s office and across all MassDOT
divisions on all matters pertaining to the development of proposed
legislation. The governor, but not MassDOT, can directly file proposed
legislation. MassDOT may also seek legislators to sponsor legislation or
budget amendments that the department is in support of. MassDOT
will often draft language, but ultimately, is not involved in the formal
filing.
Advocacy and Lobbying MassDOT weighs in and offers objective feedback on various policies
and proposals as deemed necessary throughout the legislative and
budgetary process.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact On a case-by-case basis, MassDOT works with legislative staff and
Statements for Legislative Use pertinent leadership to provide the relevant objective data and infor-
mation to support the legislative process.

Massachusetts
Appointment of The secretary of transportation, who also serves as the chief executive officer of MassDOT, is
DOT Leadership appointed by the governor, to serve a term of office that coincides with the governor’s. The
MassDOT Board of Directors has 11 members, ten of whom are appointed by the governor within
statutory requirements for experience and partisan balance. The final member is the secretary
of transportation, who serves ex officio as chair. Of the 10 appointed members, one must have
experience in finance, one in transportation planning and policy, one in either finance or planning
and policy, one in civil engineering, and three in municipal government in specified communities.
Of the remaining two appointed members, one must represent a labor organization and one must
be a transit rider (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §2).
Legislature Able to No. The governor has sole discretion to remove the secretary of transportation and can remove
Remove DOT Leaders? any of the appointed members of the MassDOT Board of Directors for cause.
Legislative Review of No. The General Court is informed of all expected rules, but does not review them (Mass. Gen.
Administrative Rules Laws Ann. ch. 30A, §6D).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. MassDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Senate and House legislative
or Sunset Reviews post audit and oversight bureaus, under and at the discretion of the Senate and House committees
on post audit and oversight (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 3, §63 and §64). Massachusetts does not
conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports MassDOT must submit annual reports to the General Court concerning its project information sys-
to the Legislature tem and performance measurements (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §6) and revenues and expen-
ditures (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §28). The department must also submit annual reports on
its capital spending, as required by transportation bond bills.
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, state law creates
Performance Management MassDOT’s Office of Performance Management and Innovation, as well as a Performance and
Asset Management Advisory Council to advise the MassDOT board of directors, and sets perfor-
mance goals related to accident reduction, fleet maintenance, on-time performance for public
transit, and commuting times (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §6, §6A, and §12A). The General
Court can also use the committee oversight process to request performance information from
MassDOT or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
Other Legislative Oversight Various legislative committees can call oversight hearings on particular projects, programs, or pol-
Mechanisms icy matters involving MassDOT or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Other oversight
mechanisms include legislative requests for information from MassDOT.

ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to MassDOT via the
tion Revenues to the DOT Transportation Trust Fund with no state legislative involvement.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. Gas taxes, registration fees, a portion of the sales tax,
and certain other transportation revenues go into the Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Fund, from which lump sum appropriations are made to MassDOT each
year. Other funds—including aviation, planning, highway, rail and transit—are
allocated through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund based on a formula,
but still subject to legislative appropriation. Typically, the General Court also
appropriates supplemental funding for snow and ice removal.

Massachusetts
Most Recently Enacted [No data]

Authorized Expenditures [No data]

Transportation Planning Projects are identified by the General Court in a transportation bond bill, by MassDOT based on
and Capital Project Selec- its selection criteria, or through the regional MPO process, in which MassDOT works with MPOs
tion Process to determine investment plans and priorities. From among those projects, MassDOT selects, priori-
tizes, and approves projects from among those identified to advance through the statewide capital
program. In 2016, MassDOT also incorporated a project scoring system and project categories that
were recently developed in consultation with the Project Selection Advisory Council, as required
by legislation enacted in 2013 (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §11A; 2013 Mass. Acts, Chap. 46). Final
approval over all projects rests with MassDOT.
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. About every three years, a multi-year bond bill is enacted to finance trans-
Planning Process portation priorities, and some projects are added to it by the General Court. The General Court can
also work with a local community to advance a project on the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). MassDOT, however, still has final approval over all projects. The General Court does not approve
MassDOT’s capital program.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Revenue Authorized In cur- Roads Public Rail Air- Ports and Pedestri- Other
by state rent and tran- ports waterways an and Additional Details
Source
constitution use bridges sit and bicycle
or statute aviation projects
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Indexing was enacted in 2013 and
gasoline and repealed in 2014; use is restricted to
diesel (fixed roads and public transit (Mass. Gen.
rate) Laws Ann. ch. 64A, §1, §13; Mass.
Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 64E, §4, §13;
2013 Mass. Acts, Chap. 46; 2014
Mass. Acts, Chap. 504)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied gas and
alternative other alternative fuels; rate adjusted
fuels (vari- quarterly based on price; use is
able rate— restricted to roads and public transit
percentage (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 64E, §1,
of price) §4, §13)
aviation fuels only (see notes); rate adjusted quar-
(variable terly based on price; use is restricted
rate—per- to airports (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.
centage of ch. 64A, §1, §13)
price)
Vehicle reg- • • • • • Deposited to the Commonwealth
istration and Transportation Fund; use is restricted
title fees to roads and public transit (Mass.
Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, §33, §34;
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90D, §28)

Massachusetts
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
Truck regis- • • • • • Deposited to the Commonwealth
tration fees Transportation Fund; use is restricted
(based on to roads and public transit (Mass.
gross vehicle Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, §33, §34)
weight)
Oversize/ • • • • • Deposited to the Commonwealth
overweight Transportation Fund (Mass. Gen.
truck permit Laws Ann. ch. 85, §30A)
fees
Sales taxes • • • • • • • Deposited to the Commonwealth
on motor Passen- Transportation Fund; allocated
ger and
vehicle sales freight in part to the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority and public
transit agencies (Mass. Gen. Laws
Ann. ch. 29, §2ZZZ; Mass. Gen.
Laws Ann. ch. 64H, §3; Mass. Gen.
Laws Ann. ch. 64I, §4)
Driver’s • • • • • Deposited to the Commonwealth
license fees Transportation Fund; use is restricted
to roads and public transit (Mass.
Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, §33, §34)
Tolls • • • Use is restricted to toll roads (Mass.
Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §3, §13)
Transit fares • • • Allocated to the Massachusetts Bay

Transportation Authority (Mass.
Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 161A, §5)
Service city • • • Allocated to the Massachusetts Bay
and town Transportation Authority (Mass.
payments Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 161A, §9)
Outdoor • • • • • • • Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 93D, §§1
advertising Passen- et seq.
ger and
revenues freight
Gaming • • • • • • • Allocated in part to the Transporta-
revenues Passen- tion Infrastructure and Development
ger and
freight Fund (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch.
23K, §59, §62)
Property • • • • • • • Includes leases of air rights; depos-
leases and Passen- ited to Massachusetts Transporta-
ger and
sales freight tion Trust Fund (Mass. Gen. Laws
Ann. ch. 6C, §3, §4, §20, §46)
State general • • • A portion is dedicated to the
sales taxes Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch.
10, §35T)

Massachusetts
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
General • • • • • • • • Annual transfers to the Common-
funds Passen- wealth Transportation Fund until FY
ger and
freight 2020 (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 29,
§2ZZZ)
Interest • • • • • • • Massachusetts Transportation Trust
income Passen- Fund (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C,
ger and
freight §4); Transportation Infrastructure
and Development Fund (Mass. Gen.
Laws Ann. ch. 23K, §62)
Notes:
• In Massachusetts, the excise tax on jet fuel is a local option, not state, tax. State law does not dedicate the tax to any
specific purpose (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 64J, §§1 et seq.).

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges, public transit (with exception). The state constitution restricts the
State Fuel Taxes use of fuel taxes from highway users to highways and bridges, public transit, and the enforcement
of state traffic laws (Mass. Const. amend. art. LXXVIII). Nevertheless, 0.15 percent of taxes on motor
fuels, except aviation fuel and fuels used for farming purposes, are allocated to the Inland Fisheries
and Game Fund (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 64A, §13).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related fees and taxes, except any excise tax that is
Transportation Revenues imposed in lieu of personal property tax, to highways and bridges, public transit, and the enforce-
ment of state traffic laws (Mass. Const. amend. art. LXXVIII). Toll revenues can be used only for the
toll facilities and related debt (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §13). Aviation fuel taxes are directed to
airport projects (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 64A, §13).
Dedicated or Restricted Massachusetts has two multimodal funds: the Commonwealth Transportation Fund (formerly the
Transportation Funds Highway Fund) and the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund. The Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Fund is a budgetary fund of the state that mainly uses revenues from fuel taxes, registration
fees, motor vehicle sales taxes, and other sources to pay debt service and make allocations to transit
agencies, subject to annual legislative appropriation (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 29, §2ZZZ). Remain-
ing revenues in the fund are transferred to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund, which also
receives all other transportation revenues. This second fund is managed by MassDOT, is not subject to
annual legislative appropriation, and is used to pay for MassDOT operations across all modes as well
as special obligation debt assumed by the department (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §4). In addition,
state statute dedicates the Transportation Infrastructure and Development Fund, which received its
first disbursement of gaming revenues in FY 2015, to approved transportation purposes. At least half
of the fund must be used for municipal ways (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 23K, §62).

Massachusetts
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • • • Generally authorized in statute, up
obligation Pas- to a specified limit; further legislative
senger
bonds and approval required (Mass. Gen. Laws
freight Ann. ch. 29, §60A)
Revenue • • • • • • Commonwealth Transportation Fund
bonds revenue bonds generally autho-
rized in statute; further legislative
approval required (Mass. Gen.
Laws Ann. ch. 29, §2O); used for
the Accelerated Bridge Program,
airports, ports, and transit, including
commuter rail
Build Amer- • • Issued in 2010 for the Accelerated
ica Bonds Bridge Program
GARVEE • • “Grant anticipation notes”; specifi-
bonds cally authorized in session law (e.g.,
2008 Mass. Acts, Chap. 233), not
statute; used for the Accelerated
Bridge Program
Advance • •
construction
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for all state
Pas- agencies, for projects with cost
senger
and estimates of more than $5 million
freight (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 149A,
§§14 et seq.) and as part of Mass-
DOT public-private partnerships
(Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §§62
et seq.); used for road and bridge
projects
partnerships Pas- transportation modes (Mass. Gen.
senger
and Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §§62 et seq.);
freight used for a road project (see notes)
Notes:

Massachusetts
• In 2000, Massachusetts entered into a public-private partnership agreement for Route 3 North under project-specific
legislation (1999 Mass. Acts, Chap. 53). The project was delivered using a design-build component and is still privately
operated. The state’s current authorizing statutes for public-private partnerships were enacted in 2009.
• As of March 2016, Massachusetts was in the loan pipeline for Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Inno-
vation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance.
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. Massachusetts tends to pass a transportation bond bill about every two to three years.
Restrictions on Bonding is subject to legislative authorization through bond bills, debt affordability limitations,
Finance Mechanisms and a statutory limit on overall general obligation debt (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 29, §2O
and §60A).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. MassDOT can retain excess funds from the Commonwealth Transportation Fund in the Transpor-
Spend Excess Funds tation Trust Fund, which is not subject to appropriation. However, excess funds tend to be minimal
because the Commonwealth Transportation Fund is subject to appropriation. No additional approvals
are required to spend excess funds in the Transportation Trust Fund.
Legislative Approval No, unless it is necessary to change bond bill language that was previously approved.
Legislative Actions to [No data]
Control DOT Costs

Allocation of State Legislative appropriations, legislatively established formulas, and grants. MassDOT allocates state transporta-
Transportation tion bond revenues to municipalities for roadway projects through the “Chapter 90” Program (first enacted in
Revenues to Local 1973, now authorized in Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 6C, §4). Overall funding for the program is appropriated
Entities by the General Court, and the amount of available funds for each municipality is based on road miles, popu-
lation, and employment, using a formula that was initially developed by a legislative committee. Municipalities
must apply for reimbursement for eligible projects. In 2015, MassDOT also used the Chapter 90 formula to
distribute $30 million to municipalities for road and bridge repairs through the Winter Recovery Assistance
Program. A similar approach will be used to distribute revenues from the Transportation Infrastructure and
Development Fund to cities and towns (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 23K, §62). In addition, MassDOT awards
discretionary grants to municipalities through the Complete Streets Funding Program, and to transit agencies
and other eligible entities through the Community Transit Grant Program.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes local motor vehicle excise taxes, to be used exclusively for local highway and transit
Sources Autho- purposes (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 60A). State statute also dedicates to regional transportation authorities,
rized in State Law including the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, a portion of the property taxes assessed by the
authorities’ constituent municipalities (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 161A, §9; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 161B,
§9 and §10).

Michigan

Bridges 11,092
Toll facilities Yes (bridges: 7; tunnels: 1)
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, streetcar, automated guideway, vanpool,
demand response
Legislature
Name Michigan Legislature
Introduced in 2016

Michigan
Name Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)

Structure Organized by both functional activity and transportation mode. MDOT is organized into bureaus
based on functional activities, but also has offices dedicated to passenger transportation, rail, and
aeronautics.
Leadership MDOT Director (serves on governor’s cabinet), State Transportation Commission (independent body).
The State Transportation Commission is an appointed policymaking body, and the MDOT director is
responsible for executing commission policy. In Michigan, the governor is less actively involved with
transportation oversight and has chosen to delegate much of the responsibility to MDOT.
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit (including intercity bus regulation), freight and passenger rail, aviation,
DOT Has Jurisdiction ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle, limousine regulation. MDOT is involved to some extent with all
transportation networks and services.
Includes DMV? No. The Michigan Secretary of State performs driver’s licensing and vehicle registration functions.
The cost of vehicle registration operations are largely funded by sources that would otherwise go to
transportation, including an annual $20 million appropriation from the Michigan Transportation Fund
(2003 Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 151) and a $5.75 annual vehicle registration service fee (Mich. Comp. Laws
Ann. §257.801) that yields about $44 million per year. Other functions are supported by other fee
revenues and general fund appropriations.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Michigan State Police perform highway patrol functions, including motor carrier enforcement,
funded by general funds, annual appropriations from the transportation budget, Federal funds, and
a $2.25 annual regulatory fee on vehicle registrations (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §257.801) that yields
about $16 million per year. Local police forces also patrol state highways.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. Within MDOT is the Mackinac Bridge Authority, a public benefit corporation and instrumentality
Toll Facilities? of the state with separate finances (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §254.302), which manages the Macki-
nac Bridge and is funded by toll revenues. MDOT also has jurisdiction over the International Bridge
and the Blue Water Bridge (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §16.456 and §16.458). Other toll bridges, the
Detroit-Windsor tunnel, and ferries are private or locally-operated.
Other
Other State-Level Michigan Aeronau- The Michigan Aeronautics Commission is responsible for the general supervision of all
Transportation tics Commission aeronautics within the state. The commission is administered by the MDOT’s Office of
Entities (state entity) Aeronautics and funded by aviation-related revenues. The MDOT director is a statutory
member of the commission (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§259.26 et seq.).

Michigan
Overall Communication Formal and informal. The MDOT director and budget officials participate with appropriation sub-
and Collaboration committees on development of the annual transportation budget, including non-dedicated (general
fund) revenue, and on legislation within the appropriation bill. MDOT’s Office of Governmental Affairs
communicates with legislators and legislative staff on the development of transportation-related
bills, to deliver department and administration suggestions, and in response to legislators’ questions
or requests for advice. MDOT officials may testify formally as to the administration’s position on bills
during committee action.
DOT Legislative Liaison The legislative liaison in MDOT’s Office of Governmental Affairs is the principal point of contact with
the Legislature, and is supplemented by MDOT’s director, budget officer, and other staff as needed.
Transportation Laws Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. ch. 220 to 259 and ch. 460 to 480; Mich. Const. art. V, §28; Mich. Comp. Laws
Ann. §§16.450 et seq.; Mich. Const. art. IX, §9 (revenue restrictions); portions of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
ch. 205 and 207 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. Only legislators can request legislative bill drafts and
Legislative Process sponsor and introduce bills. In some cases, bills are introduced at
MDOT’s request, by legislative sponsors identified through the gover-
nor’s office.
Advocacy and Lobbying MDOT does not lobby nor advocate legislative actions. MDOT may
support or oppose specific bills, stating the position of the governor’s
administration, and offer advice on amendments. MDOT may advise
the governor’s office on the implications of a bill, or provide bill analy-
ses to the governor’s office prior to signature or veto.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact No formal role. Fiscal impacts are estimated by the House or Senate
Statements for Legislative Use fiscal offices on each bill with revenue or budget implications. MDOT
may advise the Legislature on the fiscal, operational, or policy implica-
tions of bills.
Appointment of The six members of the State Transportation Commission are appointed by the governor to
DOT Leadership staggered three-year terms, with the advice and consent of the Senate and within constitutional
requirements for partisan balance. The MDOT director also is appointed by the governor, with
the advice and consent of the Senate, and within broad statutory requirements for executive and
administrative abilities. If the director is not a licensed professional engineer, the director must
designate a deputy director who is, to be responsible for the engineering content of policies and
programs (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §16.455 and §§247.801 et seq.; Mich. Const. art. V, §28).
Legislature Able to No. The MDOT director serves at the pleasure of the governor. Members of the State Transporta-
Remove DOT Leaders? tion Commission may also be removed by the governor (Mich. Const. art. V, §10).
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules reviews all proposed rules. The committee
Administrative Rules or any other legislator may introduce a bill to block a rule. Otherwise, the rule is automatically
approved. The committee may also suspend a rule during the interim (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
§§24.201 et seq.).

Michigan
Legislative Audits Neither. Performance audits are generally conducted by the Office of the Auditor General.
or Sunset Reviews Although the auditor general is elected by the Legislature, the office is an independent body.
Michigan does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports By statute, MDOT must submit annual reports to the Legislature concerning bridge repairs (Mich.
to the Legislature Comp. Laws Ann. §247.660), transportation for older adults and people with disabilities (Mich.
Comp. Laws Ann. §247.660e), the local Federal match grant program (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
§247.661f), transportation revenues and distributions (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.667), the
Pure Michigan byway system (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.958), and the rail infrastructure loan
fund and rail freight fund (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §474.65a). MDOT’s director must provide an
annual report on pavement demonstration projects (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.651i). The State
Transportation Commission must make annual reports to the Legislature about its activities (Mich.
Comp. Laws Ann. §247.813) and its recommendations for a transportation program (Mich. Comp.
Laws Ann. §247.660h). The Legislature also receives the annual report of the State Transportation
Commission’s Transportation Asset Management Council, reporting on the results from MDOT’s
asset management system and the biennial surveys of Federal-aid-eligible local roads (Mich. Comp.
Laws Ann. §247.659a). In addition, MDOT has several recurring reporting requirements in annual
appropriations boilerplate. These include reports on performance metrics for new or expanded
programs (§204), the warranty program (§601), and the use of alternative materials (§660). MDOT
is also required to submit a number of one-time reports.
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements listed above, annual appropriations boilerplate also
Performance Management requires a website scorecard on key metrics used to monitor and improve agency performance
(§235).
Other Legislative Oversight Most legislative oversight is in the form of committee meetings on legislation, or through occa-
Mechanisms sional information requests from legislators. Legislators may read some audit reports prepared by
non-legislative entities, but there is no systematic or routine review.

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The Legislature approves the transportation budget, but the
ations Overview budget is largely driven by how much revenue is generated and by statutory formulas for distribution.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are included in the
tion Revenues to the DOT annual state budget. They must be appropriated before they can be spent by
MDOT on state projects or made available for local projects. The Legislature
approves a budget with line items for broad spending categories, not for spe-
cific projects, and MDOT decides how to allocate funds within those categories.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State transportation funds are distributed by statu-
tory formula, but still must be appropriated in the annual state budget (at the
program or category level) before they can be spent by MDOT or distributed to
local agencies.

Michigan
Authorized Expenditures Debt service $237,925,300
Collection, enforcement, and other agency support services $47,320,700
Executive direction $5,716,300
Business support $17,212,700
Finance, contracts, and support services $21,791,700
Transportation planning $38,969,900
Design and engineering services $170,732,700
Highway maintenance $303,948,000
Road and bridge programs $2,649,252,600
Blue Water Bridge $6,433,100
Transportation economic development $24,447,500
Aeronautics services $7,898,800
Public transportation services $5,740,500
Bus transit division: statutory operating $212,277,900
Intercity passenger $133,740,700
Public transportation development $80,630,200
Capital outlay: buildings and facilities $3,001,500
Capital outlay: airport improvement programs $106,599,000
One-time basis only appropriations $8,500,000
Total $4,114,503,600
Revenue Sources Federal revenues $1,314,744,000
Local revenues $50,418,500
Private revenues $100,000
State restricted revenues $2,736,727,700
State general fund $8,500,000
Interdepartmental grants and transfers $4,013,400
Total $4,114,503,600

Transportation Planning MDOT has a highly devolved transportation system, in which the state has jurisdiction over just 8.1
and Capital Project Selec- percent of the state’s road miles, and 616 local road agencies control the rest. MDOT guides the
tion Process process and selects projects for its annually updated Five Year Transportation Program (Five-Year Plan),
which outlines its capital program for roads and bridges. Projects are selected mainly to meet pave-
ment and bridge performance goals and for statewide geographic distribution. MPOs coordinate local
projects but do not select projects for the state plan. The State Transportation Commission approves
the five-year plan as a broad planning document, but does not select or question specific projects.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. Historically, the Legislature has not been involved in the project selection pro-
Planning Process cess. The Legislature reviews but does not approve the five-year plan, and the transportation budget
it approves is largely pre-determined. Although this is still generally true, the Legislature has, however,
included some earmarks in the annual budgets that could be considered capital projects. In FY 2014,
$230.0 million in general fund revenue was appropriated for state road and bridge programs, and
the governor allowed legislative leadership to participate in project selection. In addition, both the FY
2016 and FY 2017 budgets include several legislatively designated or earmarked projects.

Michigan
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Up to 10 percent of revenues may
gasoline and Pas- be used for multimodal transpor-
senger
diesel (fixed and tation (Mich. Const. art. IX, §9)
rate; starting freight including transit, rail, aviation, and
2022: vari- ports; to be indexed to the Con-
able rate— sumer Price Index starting Jan. 1,
indexed) 2022, with increases capped at 5
percent per year (Mich. Comp. Laws
Ann. §207.1008; 2015 Mich. Pub.
Acts, Act 176 [House Bill 4738]) (see
notes)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Currently includes a fixed-rate tax
alternative Pas- on liquefied petroleum gas; taxes
senger
fuels (fixed and on liquefied and compressed natural
rate; starting freight gas, hydrogen, and others will go
2022: vari- into effect for commercial users on
able rate— Jan. 1, 2017, and for all others on
indexed) Jan. 1, 2018; will be taxed the same
way as gasoline and diesel (Mich.
Comp. Laws Ann. §207.1152; 2015
Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 176 [House Bill
4738] and 2015 Mich. Pub. Acts, Act
178 [House Bill 4616])
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes privilege (excise) taxes
aviation on aviation gasoline and jet fuel;
fuels, excise dedicated in the constitution to
taxes “public transportation” purposes,
and in statute to state aeronautics
programs (Mich. Const. art. IX, §9;
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §259.203,
§259.34)
Fuel taxes: • • • As of Oct. 1, 2016, 2 percent of
aviation revenues from state general sales
fuels, sales and use taxes on aviation fuels go
and use to aviation (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
taxes §205.75, §205.111, §259.34)
Fuel taxes: • • • • 2 percent of gasoline taxes (reflect-
non-highway ing gasoline use in boats, off-road
use vehicles, and snowmobiles) go
to the Recreation Improvement
Account, which is mostly allocated
to waterways and snowmobile
trails (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
§§324.71101 et seq.; Mich. Const.
art. IX, §40)

Michigan
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
State general • • • • • • A portion is dedicated to the Com-
sales taxes Pas- prehensive Transportation Fund for
senger
on motor and public transit, rail, and other “public
fuels, vehi- freight transportation” activities, which can
cles, parts, include port and airport improve-
and accesso- ments (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
ries §205.75)
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • • Up to 10 percent of vehicle registra-
istration and Pas- tion tax revenues may be used for
senger
title fees and multimodal transportation; the basic
freight $10 title fee is credited to the Mich-
igan Transportation Fund (Mich.
Const. art. IX, §9; Mich. Comp.
Laws Ann. §§257.801 et seq.; 2015
Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 174 [House Bill
4736])
Special reg- • • • • • • • Vehicle registration tax surcharges;
istration fees Pas- will go into effect Jan. 1, 2017 (2015
senger
on hybrid and Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 174 [House Bill
and electric freight 4736])
vehicles
Truck regis- • • • • • • • • Deposited to Michigan Transporta-
tration fees Pas- tion Fund (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
senger
(based on and §257.801, §257.810)
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §257.725
overweight
truck permit
fees
Vehicle • • • • • • • • Deposited to the Michigan Transpor-
dealer license Pas- tation Fund (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
senger
fees and §257.807, §257.810)
freight
Tolls • • • Used for toll bridges (see notes)
(Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §16.456,
§254.161)
Aircraft • • • Dedicated in the constitution to
registration public transportation purposes,
fees and in statute to state aeronautics
programs (Mich. Const. art. IX, §9;
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §259.77,
§259.34)
Aircraft • • • Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §259.82
dealer license
fees

Michigan
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Airport park- • • • Deposited in part to the State Aero-
ing taxes nautics Fund (Mich. Comp. Laws
Ann. §§207.371 et seq.)
Airport • • • Includes license fees for airport facil-
licensing and ities and airport managers (Mich.
permits Comp. Laws Ann. §259.86)
Airport prop- • • • Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §259.105
erty leases or
sales
Individual • • • • • • • Annual allocations to the Michigan
income taxes Pas- Transportation Fund will begin in
senger
and FY 2019 (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
freight §206.51d; 2015 Mich. Pub. Acts, Act
179 [House Bill 4370])
General fund See notes • • Legislative appropriations for high-
appropria- way projects (see notes)
tions
Notes:
• In addition to the fuel taxes listed in this chart, a 6-percent tax is collected through the International Fuel Tax Agree-
ment on diesel fuel purchased by interstate motor carriers in other jurisdictions and burned in Michigan (Mich. Comp.
Laws Ann. §205.175 and §205.185).
• Michigan law defines “public transportation,” synonymous with “comprehensive transportation,” as “the movement of
people and goods by publicly or privately owned water vehicle, bus, railroad car, street railway, aircraft, rapid transit
vehicle, taxicab, or other conveyance that provides general or special service to the public, but not including charter or
sightseeing service or transportation which is exclusively for school purposes” (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.660c).
The Comprehensive Transportation Fund may be used for any “public transportation” purposes under this definition.
• Toll facilities in Michigan include three publicly owned bridges: the Mackinac Bridge, the International Bridge, and
the Blue Waters Bridge.
• State statute generally authorizes the use of general funds (or any other revenues) for transportation purposes through
the Michigan Transportation Fund (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.660). Specific uses of general funds are authorized
in appropriations bills. For FY 2017, the transportation budget includes appropriations of general funds for three high-
way projects (2016 Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 268).
• Unless otherwise appropriated, a portion of driver’s license fees is credited to the Transportation Economic Develop-
ment Fund, which is allocated to local agencies for road and street projects (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §257.811 and
§257.819).

Michigan
State Fuel Tax Model Fixed rate (cents per gallon); variable rate (indexed) starting Jan. 1, 2022
Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges, multimodal transportation. The state constitution dedicates fuel
State Fuel Taxes taxes from highway users to transportation purposes. At least 90 percent must be used for roads,
streets, and bridges usable by road vehicles, and the remainder for comprehensive transportation
purposes as defined by law (Mich. Const. art. IX, §9; see note). In addition to these constitutional
restrictions, most state surface transportation programs are defined in and governed by state statute
(Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§247.651 et seq.).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution dedicates taxes on motor vehicles in the same manner as fuel taxes from high-
Transportation Revenues way users. Taxes and fees on aircraft, aviation fuel taxes, and up to 25 percent of the state general
sales tax on motor fuels, vehicles, parts, and accessories must be used for comprehensive transpor-
tation purposes as defined by law (Mich. Const. art. IX, §9). These revenues are directed to various
funds by state statute. In addition, state statute directs the fuel tax revenues attributable to water-
craft, off-road vehicles, and snowmobiles to the Recreation Improvement Account (Mich. Comp. Laws
Ann. §324.71106).
Dedicated or Restricted The Michigan Transportation Fund receives state transportation revenues, including fuel taxes and
Transportation Funds vehicle registration taxes, and as of 2015 may receive revenues from any other source. Fund revenues
are distributed to other accounts and programs by statutory formulas, mainly for road projects and
related debt. Of the funds allocated from the Michigan Transportation Fund to the State Trunk Line
Fund and to counties, cities, and villages, at least 1 percent must be spent on non-motorized trans-
portation services and facilities. Ten percent of the fund’s revenues and a portion of the state general
sales tax on motor fuels, vehicles, parts, and accessories go into the Comprehensive Transportation
Fund, to be used for public transit, rail, and other transportation purposes (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
§205.75 and §§247.660 et seq.; see note). The State Aeronautics Fund receives aviation fuel taxes,
aircraft registration fees, an airport parking tax, and, beginning Oct. 1, 2016, 2 percent of the general
sales tax on aviation fuel, and must be used for airports (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §205.75, §259.34,
and §259.35). Revenues in the Recreation Improvement Account are mostly allocated to waterways
and trails (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §324.71108; Mich. Const. art. IX, §40).
Revenue Sources None. State law establishes the Michigan Transportation Fund as the primary collection and distribu-
Prohibited in State Law tion fund for dedicated transportation revenues and for many years, prohibited the deposit of any
other money—including, specifically, state general fund revenues—into that fund. Recently enacted
legislation, however, allows the fund to receive money from any source as of April 1, 2016 (Mich.
Comp. Laws Ann. §247.660; 2015 Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 175).
Note: Although Michigan’s dedications of revenues from particular sources (such as taxes on motor fuels or vehicle registrations)
and dedications of the funds or accounts into which those revenues are deposited (such as the Michigan Transportation Fund)
overlap in practice, there is a fine distinction between them. Concerning revenues, the Michigan constitution allows up to 10
percent of the revenues from fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees to be used for comprehensive transportation purposes (Mich.
Const. art IX, §9), whereas, concerning funds and accounts, state statute requires a firm 10 percent of all revenues in the Michi-
gan Transportation Fund (which is fed by other revenues in addition to fuel taxes and vehicle registration taxes) to be transferred
to the Comprehensive Transportation Fund for comprehensive (multimodal) transportation purposes (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
§247.660).

Michigan
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • • • • • State Trunkline Fund bonds and
bonds Pas- Comprehensive Transportation Fund
senger
and bonds (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
freight §§247.668a et seq.)
Build Amer- See notes • • Issued in 2009 for road and bridge
ica Bonds projects
GARVEE See notes • • Only indirect GARVEEs have been
bonds (indi- issued, most recently in 2009
rect only)
Advance • •
construction
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
flexible
match
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Federal-aid • • See
matching: notes
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build See notes • • No authorizing statute (see notes);
used for road projects
Public-private See notes • • No authorizing statute (see notes);
partnerships used for road and bridge projects
State infra- • • • Capitalized with state and Federal
structure funds; authorized in annual appro-
bank priations, not state statute; may be
used for highway, transit, rail, or
intermodal projects
Notes:

Michigan
• The State Transportation Commission is authorized generally to issue notes and bonds, including those issued in antic-
ipation of the receipt of Federal grants (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.668b). Both Build America Bonds and GAR-
VEE bonds are considered to be included, if not specifically named, under this general authority.
• MDOT used toll credits from FY 2005 to FY 2010 to match Federal aid for transit projects, with small amounts also
used for this purpose in FY 2011 and FY 2012. More recently, toll credits have been used for road and bridge projects.
• Although Michigan does not have statutes that specifically authorize design-build contracting or public-private part-
nerships, state law generally gives agencies discretion over procurement (see, for example, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
§§18.1240 et seq.) and MDOT has used both of these approaches.
• Michigan previously used a Section 129 loan for the Blue Water Bridge. Repayments began in 1998 and were complet-
ed by 2006.

Restrictions on State statute limits total transportation-related debt service to 50 percent of the previous
Finance Mechanisms year’s constitutionally restricted transportation revenue (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.668b).
State Transportation Commission policy is stricter, and limits debt service to 25 percent of
constitutionally restricted revenues. These guidelines also require bonding to be used only for
capital projects, infrastructure, and equipment.

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. MDOT can carry forward appropriated funds for projects into subsequent years. Carry-forward
Spend Excess Funds funds do not need to be re-appropriated, and in general, no further approvals are required for excess
funds to be spent, except that projects with work-project status must be reviewed every year over the
four-year life of the appropriation.
Legislative Approval No. The State Transportation Commission must notify the Legislature if MDOT intends to use bond
Required for DOT to Move funds for a different project than originally specified (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.668b), but bond
Funds Between Projects proceeds are not appropriated and no legislative approval is required. In addition, any changes to
MDOT’s Five-Year Plan are simply reflected in the subsequent year’s updated plan, which also is not
subject to legislative approval.
Legislative Actions to Various state statutes provide for procurement and bidding guidelines and directives, including com-
Control DOT Costs petitive bidding requirements (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.661c). State law also requires pavement
warranties wherever possible (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.661), mandates a life-cycle cost analysis
for each pavement project with a total cost over $1 million (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.651h), limits
MDOT administrative expenses to 8 percent of all funds received (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.661),
and tasks the Transportation Asset Management Council with putting a pavement management
system in place to prevent a disproportionate share of pavement on Federal-aid eligible roads from
becoming due for replacement or major repair at the same time (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.651g).
Although not required, state law also allows for pavement projects to evaluate the cost-effective-
ness and performance of new construction methods, materials, or design (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
§247.651i).

Michigan
Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. Local agencies—including 83 county road com-
Transportation missions and 533 counties and villages—control more than 90 percent of Michigan’s road miles, and most
Revenues to Local state transportation revenue is distributed to local entities by statutory formula. After set-asides, 39.1 percent
Entities of the Michigan Transportation Fund is directed to county road commissions, and 21.8 percent to cities and
villages, for road projects. Proceeds from 3 cents of the state gas tax are allocated in the same proportions.
These revenues are distributed to county road commissions by a statutory formula based on road miles,
population, and vehicle registrations, and to cities and villages based on population and road miles. As of
2016, with MDOT approval, a city may use up to 20 percent of its allocation for public transit if more than 10
million passengers used public transit in that city the previous year (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §247.663). Also
from the Michigan Transportation Fund, the Local Bridge Fund receives $5 million plus half a cent of the state
gas tax for local distribution, $3 million for debt service, and $30 million in bond financing for any authorized
purpose. After set-asides, the Local Bridge Fund is distributed to regional bridge councils by a statutory for-
mula based on number of bridges, bridge deck area, and structurally deficient bridge deck area (Mich. Comp.
Laws Ann. §247.660). A portion of the Comprehensive Transportation Fund is used for public transit operat-
ing and capital grants to eligible local entities (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§247.660b et seq.). Revenues from
the Transportation Economic Development Fund are allocated to local entities for road and street projects
through distribution formulas and grant programs (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§247.901 et seq.). General funds
are sometimes appropriated for local use, in which case the Legislature may define the allocation formula.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes municipalities, metropolitan districts, and public transportation authorities to assess
Sources Autho- property taxes for various transportation purposes (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §110.6, §117.4g, §119.4, and
rized in State Law §124.468). Metropolitan districts and some municipalities may also levy special assessments for public
improvements and services, including transportation facilities (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §41.411, §41.722,
§110.7, §117.4g, and §119.4). A regional transit authority may, with voter approval, establish special assess-
ments or vehicle registration taxes for public transit purposes in metropolitan Detroit (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
§124.550).

Minnesota

Bridges 13,301
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, commuter rail, vanpool, demand
response
Legislature
Name Minnesota Legislature
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to May (odd years), Feb. to May (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Capital Investment
tion-Related Issues • Transportation and Public Safety Budget Division
Senate Committee on Transportation and Public Safety
House Committee on Capital Investment
House Committee on Transportation Policy and Finance
House Subcommittee on Metropolitan Council Accountability and Transparency
[Commission] Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Government

Minnesota
Name Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)

Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle.
DOT Has Jurisdiction MnDOT is a funding partner, not a provider, for public transit and passenger rail.
Includes DMV? No. Driver and Vehicle Services is a division of the Department of Public Safety. These functions are
not funded out of MnDOT’s budget directly, but they are funded by transportation dollars—including
user fees and some trunk highway funds—that otherwise would have been spent on road and bridge
projects.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Minnesota State Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety. These functions are
not funded out of MnDOT’s budget directly, but they are funded by transportation dollars—primarily
trunk highway funds—that otherwise would have been spent on road and bridge projects. They are
also supported by Federal funds and special revenue funds.
Jurisdiction Over Yes, inasmuch as MnDOT operates a number of high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in the Twin Cities
Toll Facilities? metro area. Besides HOT lanes, however, the only toll facility in Minnesota is a privately operated
bridge, and Minnesota law restricts the use of tolls to facilities that were tolled before Sept. 1, 2007,
or lanes added to a highway after that date (Minn. Stat. Ann. §160.845).
Other
Other State-Level Department of Public The Department of Public Safety contains the Office of Pipeline Safety
Transportation Entities Safety—Office of Pipeline as well as the Minnesota State Patrol.
Safety (state agency)

Overall Communication Formal and informal, extensive. MnDOT and the Legislature have extensive contact. District manage-
and Collaboration ment and executive staff regularly discuss specific transportation issues and projects with legislators.
Special briefings are occasionally held to acquaint legislators with MnDOT activities. Legislators and
legislative staff frequently request information from MnDOT, which is regarded as the expert source
of transportation-related information. MnDOT testifies during session about transportation-related
legislation. MnDOT’s Office of Government Affairs assists policy makers with transportation-related
decisions, responds to constituent inquiries, and works with the Legislature to advance policies that
will improve MnDOT’s operation and services. MnDOT employs a dedicated state legislative liaison
within the Office of Government Affairs.
DOT Legislative Liaison MnDOT district management, executive staff, state legislative liaison, and other government affairs
staff all serve as points of contact between the department and the Legislature.

Minnesota
Transportation Laws Minn. Const. art. XIV; Minn. Stat. Ann. ch. 15, 160 to 174A, 218 to 222, and 360 to 362; Minn. Const.
art. XI, §5 (bonding); Minn. Const. art. X, §4 and §5 (revenues); Minn. Stat. Ann. ch. 296A and 297B
(revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. MnDOT works with the Legislature to develop legislative
Legislative Process proposals. Also, in Minnesota, executive agencies can develop and
propose “department bills,” with the approval of the governor’s office,
but only legislators can formally sponsor and introduce bills. In general,
department bills are delivered to legislative leaders, who identify legis-
lative sponsors for them.
Advocacy and Lobbying MnDOT puts forward language for governor’s proposals, as well as
more minor technical or housekeeping proposals, which a legislative
member carries. MnDOT will publicly explain these bills, and will also
at times take positions on other proposals, either publicly or though
memos, that did not originate from the department.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, state agencies such as MnDOT must prepare fiscal notes
Statements for Legislative Use for bills as requested by chairs of legislative committees (Minn. Stat.
Ann. §3.98).
Appointment of The commissioner of transportation is appointed by the governor to a term that coincides with
DOT Leadership the governor’s, with the advice and consent of the Senate (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.02, §15.06, and
§15.066).
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed and new rules are reviewed by the relevant standing committees. The joint Leg-
Administrative Rules islative Coordinating Commission may also review proposed and existing rules. The roles of these
committees are mainly advisory (Minn. Stat. Ann. §14.116 and §§3.841 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. MnDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Office of the Legislative Audi-
or Sunset Reviews tor, a professional, nonpartisan audit and evaluation office within the state’s legislative branch.
Minnesota does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports State statute requires MnDOT to submit an annual report to the Legislature on major highway proj-
to the Legislature ects, Trunk Highway Fund expenditures, and efficiencies, including an annual budget with mea-
sures of productivity for the previous fiscal year (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.56). The commissioner of
transportation must submit annual reports concerning the Corridors of Commerce program (Minn.
Stat. Ann. §161.088), privatization transportation contracts (Minn. Stat. Ann. §161.3203), bridge
projects (Minn. Stat. Ann. §165.14), the Stillwater lift bridge endowment account (Minn. Stat. Ann.
§165.15), and life-cycle cost analyses (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.185). Every other year, the commis-
sioner is required to make reports about the Trunk Highway Emergency Relief Account (Minn.
Stat. Ann. §161.04), the condition, management, and financial transactions of MnDOT (Minn. Stat.
Ann. §161.10), small business contracts (Minn. Stat. Ann. §161.321), real property (Minn. Stat. Ann.
§161.44), bridge inspection quality assurance (Minn. Stat. Ann. §165.03), highway construction
training (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.03), the disadvantaged business enterprise program (Minn. Stat.
Ann. §174.03), the transportation economic development program (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.12), safe
routes to school (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.40), and guideway projects (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.93).
Also, as part of MnDOT’s biennial budget, the commissioner must report to the Legislature on
department performance (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.02). Every four years, starting in 2016, the com-
missioner must submit an aviation tax report (Minn. Stat. Ann. §360.675).

Minnesota
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, all state agencies
Performance Management including MnDOT are required to present performance data in their budget proposals (Minn. Stat.
Ann. §16A.10). This allows the Legislature to determine how successful state programs are, as well
as encouraging agencies to develop clear goals and objectives and strengthening their accountabil-
ity to citizens. The Legislature has also established MnDOT goals and performance measurement
requirements in state law (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.01 and §174.03).
Other Legislative Oversight Standing committees conduct studies on topics under their jurisdiction between legislative ses-
Mechanisms sions. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from MnDOT.
Resources Provided to DOT Yes. Requirements for MnDOT reports to the Legislature or other legislative mandates have in
to Support Compliance with some cases received separate appropriations.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1.
ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. Federal funds that flow through the state’s
tion Revenues to the DOT Trunk Highway Fund are appropriated through the biennial budget process,
usually in broad spending categories such as construction or maintenance and
occasionally as project-specific appropriations. Federal funds that do not flow
through the state’s Trunk Highway Fund require legislative approval to be spent.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State revenues are constitutionally dedicated to Min-
nesota’s Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, then appropriated through direct
and statutory appropriations to state agencies and programs. Appropriations
usually are at the category level, but occasionally are project-specific.

Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, FY 2016 and FY 2017 (approved) (see notes)
Authorized Expenditures Multimodal systems 231,237,000
(FY 2017 only) Program planning and delivery 259,674,000
State road construction 856,076,000
Operations and maintenance 332,879,000
Debt service 231,199,000
Local roads 1,081,943,000
Agency management and other 112,769,000
Total (See notes) 3,105,778,000
Revenue Sources Direct appropriations 2,496,573,000
(FY 2017 only) Open appropriations 7,491,000
Statutory appropriations 601,714,000
Total 3,105,778,000
Notes:
• The numbers in this chart are drawn from MnDOT’s approved biennial transportation budget, which includes direct
appropriations (those in the biennial budget bill), open appropriations (authorizations to spend an unspecified amount to
meet program goals or requirements), and statutory appropriations (ongoing allocations made in state statute, not session
law). This chart shows MnDOT’s budget only, not those transportation dollars appropriated to other state agencies.
• Numbers do not total due to rounding (to the nearest thousand) in MnDOT’s budget summary.

Minnesota
Transportation Planning Using an extensive public involvement process, MnDOT develops a 20-year state plan, a 10-year
and Capital Project Selec- highway investment plan, and an annually updated four-year State Transportation Improvement Pro-
tion Process gram (STIP). These plans are informed by special studies and metropolitan, regional, and tribal plans.
MnDOT identifies and develops projects for the state trunk highway system and coordinates involve-
ment of other stakeholders on all modes. The process of prioritizing projects for funding in the STIP
is done with the participation of Area Transportation Partnerships, which are regional committees
comprised of local elected officials or their delegates and MnDOT employees. Since MAP-21, MnDOT
has employed more statewide programming on the National Highway System, so potential projects
are identified by asset management systems and then evaluated and programmed by the districts.
Work that is not on the National Highway System continues to be a more decentralized programming
process in which districts initiate candidate projects.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. With rare exceptions, the Legislature does not identify projects in legislation.
Planning Process Legislators do, however, regularly introduce bills that would prioritize certain projects more highly
than in the existing plan. The Legislature does not approve the transportation plans, but may review
them at legislative hearings. The Legislature appropriates funds within broad categories, and can set
investment priorities in that way.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Minn. Stat. Ann. §296A.07,
gasoline and §296A.08; Minn. Const. art. XIV,
diesel (fixed §10
rate)
fuels pressed natural gas (Minn. Stat.
Ann. §296A.08; Minn. Const. art.
XIV, §10)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on aviation gaso-
aviation fuels line and jet fuel (Minn. Stat. Ann.
§296A.09, §296A.18)
Vehicle regis- • • • Minn. Const. art. XIV, §9; Minn.
tration taxes Stat. Ann. §168.013
Truck regis- • • • Minn. Stat. Ann. §168.013
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Deposited to the Trunk Highway
overweight Fund (Minn. Stat. Ann. §§169.86 et
truck permit seq.)
fees
Commer- • • • Deposited to the Trunk Highway
cial vehicle Fund (Minn. Stat. Ann. §169.781)
inspection
fees

Minnesota
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Sales taxes • • • • At least 40 percent of revenues must
on motor go to public transit, and the rest to
vehicle sales the Highway User Tax Distribution
Fund (Minn. Stat. Ann. §297B.02,
§297B.09; Minn. Const. art. XIV,
§13)
Sales taxes • • See • Allocated to public transit and
on motor notes county state-aid highways (see
vehicle leases notes) (Minn. Stat. Ann. §297A.815)
Fees on • • • 5 percent of sales price; excess fees
rental vehi- go to Highway User Tax Distribution
cles Fund (Minn. Stat. Ann. §297A.64,
§297A.94)
Congestion • • • • Used for the HOT lanes facilities,
pricing/ corridor improvements, and bus
high-occu- transit (Minn. Stat. Ann. §160.93)
pancy toll
(HOT) lanes
Traffic fines • • • Grade Allocated in part to the Minnesota
cross- rail grade crossing safety account
ings
only and the Trunk Highway Fund (Minn.
Stat. Ann. §299D.03)
Airline flight • • • Minn. Stat. Ann. §§270.071 et seq.
property tax
Aircraft • • • Levied “in lieu” of all other taxes

registration on aircraft except sales and use
taxes tax (Minn. Stat. Ann. §360.531,
§360.66)
Sales taxes • • • Deposited to the State Airports Fund
on aircraft as of FY 2014 (Minn. Stat. Ann.
§297A.82)
Aircraft • • • Minn. Stat. Ann. §360.018,
dealer license §360.63, §360.654, §360.66
and com-
mercial use
permit fees
Outdoor • • • Permit fees for signs and billboard
advertising adjacent to highways; allocated to
revenues Trunk Highway Fund (Minn. Stat.
Ann. §§173.01 et seq.)
sponsorship revenues may be used for rest areas
only (Minn. Stat. Ann. §160.2735,
§160.2745)
General • • • • • Legislative appropriations for public
funds Pas- transit, rail, waterways, and pedes-
senger
and trian and bicycle projects
freight

Minnesota
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Interest • • • • Trunk Highway Fund, Highway User
income Tax Distribution Fund, State Airports
Fund (Minn. Stat. Ann. §161.04,
§161.081, §360.017)
Notes:
• Revenues from sales taxes on motor vehicles are allocated to the Greater Minnesota Transit Account and to county
highways that are eligible for state aid. No revenues are used for state highway purposes (Minn. Stat. Ann. §297A.815).
• Besides high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, the only toll facility in Minnesota is a privately operated bridge. Minnesota
law restricts the use of tolls to facilities that were tolled before Sept. 1, 2007, or lanes added to a highway after that date
(Minn. Stat. Ann. §160.845).

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution dedicates fuel taxes from highway users to
State Fuel Taxes the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, which must be used for highway purposes (Minn. Const.
art. XIV, , §5 and §10). In general, state law restricts the use of the fund into which the revenues are
deposited, rather than the revenues themselves.
Restrictions on Other The state constitution dedicates taxes on motor vehicles to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund for
Transportation Revenues highway purposes (Minn. Const. art. XIV, §9). Sales taxes on motor vehicles must be used for trans-
portation, with at least 40 percent deposited in a fund dedicated solely to public transit assistance
and up to 60 percent deposited in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (Minn. Const. art. XIV, §12
and §13). State statute directs a number of aviation-related revenues to the State Airport Fund.
Dedicated or Restricted The state constitution restricts use of the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, which receives fuel
Transportation Funds taxes and other vehicle-related revenues, to highway purposes (Minn. Const. art. XIV, §5). The
constitution also limits the use of the Trunk Highway Fund—which is funded by transfers from the
Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, Federal funds, and other revenues such as overweight truck fees
and fines—to trunk highways (Minn. Const. art. XIV, §2 and §6). State statute dedicates the Tran-
sit Assistance Fund to public transit (Minn. Stat. Ann. §16A.88) and the State Airport Fund, which
receives aviation-related revenues, to airports (Minn. Stat. Ann. §360.017). These last two funds are
only dedicated in statute, however, and transfers have been made from the State Airport Fund to deal
with general fund budget deficits.
Revenue Sources Minnesota law restricts the use of tolls to facilities that were tolled before Sept. 1, 2007, or lanes
Prohibited in State Law added to a highway after that date (Minn. Stat. Ann. §160.845).

Minnesota
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • • • Includes general obligation bonds
obligation Pas- (used at the state level for public
senger
bonds and transit, rail, airports, ports, and
freight pedestrian and bicycle projects) and
trunk highway bonds; legislative
approval required (Minn. Const. art.
XI, §5; Minn. Const. art. XIV, §11;
Minn. Stat. Ann. §167.50)
Advance • • •
construction
Partial • • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • • • • • •
matching: Pas-
senger
flexible and
match freight
Design-build • • • • • Authorized for light rail (Minn.
Stat. Ann. §473.3995), bicycle and
pedestrian bridges (Minn. Stat. Ann.
§160.262), and highways (Minn.
Stat. Ann. §§161.3410 et seq.); use
is capped at 10 percent of construc-
tion contracts awarded by the com-
missioner the previous year; used for
several projects
Public-private • • Authorized in statute for eligible toll
partnerships facilities (Minn. Stat. Ann. §§160.84
et seq.); also authorized to establish
a joint program office to oversee
and coordinate public-private part-
nership activities (Minn. Stat. Ann.
§174.45); not currently in use
State infra- • • • • • • • Transportation Revolving Loan Fund
structure Pas- (Minn. Stat. Ann. §446A.085); capi-
senger
bank and talized with state and Federal funds;
freight may be used for highways (includ-
ing bicycle paths) or transit, rail, or
airport projects
Notes:

Minnesota
• Minnesota has also used the best-value selection process and construction manager/general contractor contracts as
alternative project delivery methods (Minn. Stat. Ann. §§161.3206 et seq.).
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. Only trunk highway funds may be used to repay the bonds sold for state highway
improvements.
Restrictions on General obligation bonds, including trunk highway bonds, require legislative approval and
Finance Mechanisms may be designated to specific projects. Bonds that are issued for rail projects and unpaid are
capped at $200 million (Minn. Const. art. XI, §5 and §7; Minn. Const. art. XIV, §11). Design-
build contracts are capped at ten percent of the total number of construction contracts
awarded by the commissioner the previous year (Minn. Stat. Ann. §161.3412).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes and no. Appropriations can be carried forward within a fiscal biennium. Specific language accom-
Spend Excess Funds panying an appropriation is needed for carry-forward authority across biennia. This authority gener-
ally is given in the aviation section of the transportation budget, but not necessarily in others. If no
carry-forward authority was given with the original appropriation, additional approvals are required
for any excess funds to be spent.
Legislative Approval Yes, in some cases. Legislative approval is not required to move funds between individual highway
Required for DOT to Move transportation projects in a construction appropriation. However, spending authority may not be
Funds Between Projects transferred from the construction appropriation to other areas of the budget without a legislative
charge.
Legislative Actions to For certain transportation contracts over $100,000 (typically for highway project planning and deliv-
Control DOT Costs ery), state law requires MnDOT to prepare a comprehensive written estimate of the cost of having the
same work done by MnDOT employees. For contracts of $250,000 or more, the estimated contract
costs (including MnDOT contract monitoring) must be lower than the costs of completing the project
in-house for the contract to go forward (Minn. Stat. Ann. §161.3203). State statute also requires
life-cycle cost analyses for reconditioning, resurfacing, and road repair projects. If the approach with
the lowest life-cycle costs is not selected, the commissioner of transportation must document the
justification for the chosen strategy (Minn. Stat. Ann. §174.185).

Minnesota
Allocation of State Constitutional and statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. In the biennial budget process,
Transportation the Legislature makes lump sum appropriations to MnDOT for county roads and municipal streets using a
Revenues to Local constitutional formula for distributing the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund. The formula allocates 29
Entities percent of the fund to county roads and 9 percent to municipal streets, and sets aside 5 percent of the fund
to be apportioned to either of these purposes or trunk highways (Minn. Const. art. XIV, §5). MnDOT then
allocates funds to counties by a statutory formula based on needs, motor vehicle registrations, and lane miles
(Minn. Stat. Ann. §§162.07 et seq.) and to municipalities based on needs and population (Minn. Stat. Ann.
§162.13). The state’s general obligation bonds assist with local road and bridge projects, which are mostly
funded on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to adopt wheelage taxes for roads and bridges (Minn. Stat. Ann. §163.051).
Sources Autho- State statute also imposes a local severance tax (“aggregate materials tax”) in some counties, most of which
rized in State Law is allocated to local road and bridge projects (Minn. Stat. Ann. §298.75). The Metropolitan Council, regional
railroad authorities, cities (at the request of economic development authorities), and a few local transit agen-
cies are authorized to assess property taxes for various transportation purposes (Minn. Stat. Ann. §398A.04,
§458A.10, §458A.31, §469.107, §473.167, and §473.446). A county outside the metropolitan transportation
area may impose a transportation sales tax of up to 0.5 percent and an excise tax of $20 per motor vehicle
(Minn. Stat. Ann. §297A.993).

Mississippi

Bridges 17,057
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, streetcar, vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name Mississippi Legislature
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Energy
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Highways and Transportation
Senate Committee on Judiciary, Division A
Senate Committee on Ports and Marine Resources
Senate Committee on Public Property
House Committee on Judiciary A
House Committee on Ports, Harbors, and Airports
House Committee on Public Property
House Committee on Public Utilities

Mississippi
Name Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT)

Leadership Executive Director of MDOT (does not serve on governor’s cabinet; Mississippi has no formal cabinet
system), Mississippi Transportation Commission (independent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, aviation, ports/waterways. MDOT has divisions dedicated to ports and
DOT Has Jurisdiction aeronautics, but all airports and ports in the state operate autonomously, and MDOT assists them in
various capacities.
Includes DMV? No. Driver’s licensing functions are carried out by the Department of Public Safety, funded by general
funds, state special funds, and Federal funds. Vehicle registration functions are carried out by the
Department of Revenue.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes and no. The Department of Public Safety is mostly responsible for highway patrol functions. It is
funded by general funds, state special funds, and Federal funds, not out of MDOT’s budget. MDOT
Law Enforcement, however, also has purview over commercial motor vehicle inspections.
Jurisdiction Over No. Mississippi has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Mississippi State Port The Mississippi State Port Authority operates the Port of Gulfport. It is
Transportation Entities Authority at Gulfport (state funded by port operating revenues, county taxes, grants, and interest
agency) income (Miss. Code Ann. §§59-5-1 et seq.).
Yellow Creek State Inland The Yellow Creek State Inland Port is a state inland port authority. It
Port (state agency) is funded by port operating revenues and interest income (Miss. Code
Ann. §§59-17-1 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal. MDOT staff are at all transportation-related committee meetings and represent
and Collaboration MDOT’s position on pending legislation. MDOT has a dedicated government affairs staff member
who, with the executive director, briefs transportation committees about relevant issues and poli-
cies. This staff member is also available to legislators on an ongoing basis and responds to legislative
requests for information.
DOT Legislative Liaison MDOT’s government affairs staff member acts as the main point of contact between the department
and the Legislature. The MDOT executive director and other staff are also key sources of information
and testimony.

Mississippi
Transportation Laws Miss. Code Ann. tit. 61 to 65; portions of Miss. Code Ann. tit. 77; portions of Miss. Code Ann. tit. 27
(revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. In Mississippi, only legislators may request legislative
Legislative Process bill drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation. MDOT does, how-
ever, have a role in the formation of legislative policy desired by the
department.
Advocacy and Lobbying MDOT actively engages in lobbying efforts for all legislation that
affects the department’s operations.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact MDOT provides fiscal notes for bills that concern it, when requested to
Statements for Legislative Use do so by the legislative sponsor.
Appointment of The three members of the Mississippi Transportation Commission are, uniquely among state
DOT Leadership transportation commissions, elected by the people. Each represents one the state’s three Supreme
Court districts, and they are elected at the same time and in the same manner as the governor.
Members must be qualified electors and citizens of the district they represent (Miss. Code Ann.
§65-1-3). The commission appoints the executive director of MDOT to a four-year term with the
advice and consent of the Senate and within statutory requirements for expertise and knowl-
edge. The executive director cannot have been a member of the commission within two years of
appointment (Miss. Code Ann. §65-1-9).
Legislature Able to No. The executive director of MDOT can be removed by a majority of the Mississippi Transporta-
Remove DOT Leaders? tion Commission. No process is specified for removing members of the commission before the end
of their respective terms of office.
Legislative Review of No. The executive Mississippi Secretary of State reviews proposed rules (Miss. Code Ann. §§25-43-
Administrative Rules 3.101 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. MDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Joint Legislative Committee on
or Sunset Reviews Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER), a standing committee of the Mississippi
Legislature, and its staff. Mississippi does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or pro-
grams.
Required DOT Reports MDOT is required to file a detailed annual report with the Legislature on its projects, expenditures,
to the Legislature and recommendations (Miss. Code Ann. §65-1-10 and §65-1-149). It must also submit annual
reports concerning the four-lane highway program (Miss. Code Ann. §65-3-97), the Multi-Modal
Transportation Improvement Program (Miss. Code Ann. §65-1-709), and, as of FY 2017, all sources
of revenue (Miss. Code Ann. §27-103-159). The Mississippi Transportation Commission must sub-
mit an annual report to the Legislature about toll project contracts (Miss. Code Ann. §65-43-4).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, each state agency
Performance Management including MDOT must include a five-year strategic plan with its budget request (Miss. Code Ann.
§27-103-155). This plan must align all agency performance measures to one of the eight key policy
areas in the State Strategic Plan. Previously, performance measures were then developed by the
Legislature and included in the appropriation bill. As of FY 2016, however, MDOT must provide an
inventory of agency programs and activities, including goals, objectives, and other indicators, for
use in the budgeting process (Miss. Code Ann. §27-103-153 and §27-103-159).
Other Legislative Oversight MDOT is audited at the end of each fiscal year by the Office of the State Auditor, an elected office
Mechanisms within the executive branch, and a copy of the audit is sent to the Legislative Budget Office (Miss.
Code Ann. §65-1-149). Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information
from MDOT.

Mississippi

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. MDOT’s annual budget request is approved by the Mississippi
ations Overview Transportation Commission before it is submitted to the Legislature.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to MDOT
tion Revenues to the DOT as state legislative appropriations to departmental programs or broad spend-
ing categories.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State taxes and fees dedicated to transportation are
deposited directly into the State Highway Fund, but still must be appropriated
annually to MDOT by the Legislature.

Authorized Expenditures Administration and other expenses $59,182,330
Law enforcement $15,552,500
Aeronautics, rails, and other $34,271,500
Total $1,329,186,247
Revenue Sources Department of Transportation funds $1,329,186,287
Total $1,329,186,287

Transportation Planning MDOT identifies projects with input from MPOs and develops the Statewide Transportation Improve-
and Capital Project Selec- ment Program (STIP). The Mississippi Transportation Commission approves all projects, contracts, and
tion Process expenditures. MDOT maintains a five-year plan of projects that is submitted to the Legislature each
October. MDOT also produces a long-range plan called the Mississippi Unified Long-Range Transpor-
tation Infrastructure Plan (MULTIPLAN) that is a comprehensive analysis of transportation infrastruc-
ture and needs throughout the state with a 25-year horizon.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. MDOT submits its five-year plan of projects to the Legislature each October,
Planning Process but the Legislature does not approve this plan. The Legislature can identify a project through a trans-
portation bond bill. The Legislature also has passed statutes identifying specific projects for MDOT
to consider (e.g., the four-lane highway program in Miss. Code Ann. §65-3-97) or offering guidelines
for project prioritization (e.g., Miss. Code Ann. §65-3-145). MDOT, however, retains the flexibility to
determine project priority and when each prioritized project is to be completed.

Mississippi
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Mostly used for roads, but also used
gasoline and Pas- by MDOT for the Multi-Modal Trans-
senger
diesel (fixed and portation Improvement Fund (Miss.
rate) freight Code Ann. §27-5-101, §27-55-11,
§27-55-519)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied and
alternative Pas- compressed natural gas; mostly
senger
fuels and allocated the same way as gasoline
freight taxes (Miss. Code Ann. §27-59-11,
§27-59-49)
aviation fuels and jet fuel; allocated to the Missis-
sippi Aeronautics Commission (Miss.
Code Ann. §27-55-11 and Miss.
Code Ann. §27-55-519)
Fuel taxes: • • • Used for the Railroad Revitalization
locomotive Pas- Fund (Miss. Code Ann. §57-43-1)
senger
fuels and
freight
License tag • • • A $5 tag fee and a portion of some
fees special license plate fees go to the
State Highway Fund for highway
uses (Miss. Code Ann. §27-19-43,
§27-19-99, §§27-19-56.1 et seq.)
Vehicle • • • Additional tag fee is deposited to
dealer tag the State Highway Fund for highway
fees uses (Miss. Code Ann. §27-19-309,
§27-19-325)
Truck regis- • • • Privilege tax on trucks and buses;
tration fees deposited in part to the State High-
(based on way Fund for highway uses (Miss.
gross vehicle Code Ann. §27-19-11)
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Deposited to the State Highway
overweight Fund for highway uses (Miss. Code
truck permit Ann. §27-19-79, §27-19-81)
fees
Overweight • • • • • • • Allocated to MDOT (Miss. Code.
truck taxes Pas- Ann. §27-19-15); used to support
senger
and the Multi-Modal Transportation
freight Improvement Program
Tolls • • Authorized but not currently in use
(Miss. Code Ann. §§65-43-1 et seq.)

Mississippi
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Contractor’s • • • Tax on certain highway construction
taxes contracts; deposited to the State
Highway Fund for highway uses
(Miss. Code Ann. §27-65-21, §27-
65-75)
Lubricating • • • Deposited to the State Highway
oil taxes Fund for highway uses (Miss. Code
Ann. §27-57-11, §27-57-37)
Railroad • • • Allocated to the Mississippi Trans-
mileage Pas- portation Commission for railroad
senger
taxes and purposes (Miss. Code Ann. §77-9-
freight 493)
Casino taxes See notes See • See notes
notes
Port operat- • • • Used by the Mississippi State Port

ing revenues Authority at Gulfport and Yellow
Creek State Inland Port (Miss. Code
Ann. §59-5-13, §59-17-15)
Interest • • • • • • • Interest on any highway funds goes
income Pas- to the State Highway Fund, from
senger
and which any investment account sur-
freight plus goes to the Economic Develop-
ment Highway Fund; interest earned
on the Multi-Modal Transportation
Improvement Fund is credited to
that fund (Miss. Code. Ann. §65-1-
111, §65-1-703, §65-4-19)
Notes:
• Motor vehicle privilege taxes are collected by the state, but the revenues are distributed entirely to counties (Miss. Code
Ann. §27-19-159).
• A portion of off-road fuel taxes are remitted to the Department of Marine Resources through legislative appropriations.
• Under legislation enacted in 2015, casino taxes are currently being used to support revenue bonds for bridge projects,
including deficient bridges in and approaching counties where legal gaming is being conducted or is authorized (2015
Miss. Laws, Chap. 479). Revenues in excess of the amount needed for debt service may be transferred to the Gaming
Counties State-Assisted Infrastructure Fund, which state statute allows the Mississippi Transportation Commission to
use for road and bridge projects in gaming counties (Miss. Code Ann. §65-39-1).

Mississippi
Restrictions on Statutory, roads and bridges (with exceptions). State statute declares the legislative purpose that
State Fuel Taxes gasoline taxes are levied in order to provide highways, streets, and roads (Miss. Code Ann. §27-55-3).
State statute generally allocates gasoline taxes to the State Highway Fund for MDOT use and, in part
through the State Aid Road Fund, to counties and cities for road and bridge projects. MDOT puts
some of its allocation toward non-road purposes, however, by using it to support the Multi-Modal
Transportation Improvement Fund. State statute also allows for the appropriation of a portion of gas-
oline tax revenues to the Fisheries and Wildlife Fund (Miss. Code Ann. §27-5-101).
Restrictions on Other A number of vehicle-related revenues, including fees and taxes on vehicle registrations, trucks, and
Transportation Revenues buses, are directed by state statute to the State Highway Fund for specific highway uses. State statute
also directs locomotive fuel taxes to the Railroad Revitalization Fund and aviation fuel taxes to aero-
nautics (Miss. Code Ann. §57-43-1 and §27-5-101).
Dedicated or Restricted In general, state statute places restrictions on the revenues deposited into the State Highway Fund,
Transportation Funds rather than on the fund itself. The state also has a Multi-Modal Transportation Improvement Fund
that is dedicated to ports, airports, public transit, and railroads (Miss. Code Ann. §§65-1-701 et seq.).
MDOT has chosen to allocate approximately $10 million per year to this fund from state-source special
revenues that are not otherwise dedicated, including non-restricted fuel taxes.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General See notes • • Currently authorized under ses-
obligation sion law (see notes); used for road
bonds projects
Revenue See notes • • Currently authorized in session law
bonds (2015 Miss. Laws, Chap. 479) (see
notes); backed by casino taxes (Miss.
Code Ann. §75-76-129) and used for
bridge projects
ica Bonds
GARVEE • • Most recent issue for new money
bonds was in 2014
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized for up to three highway
projects per year plus projects for
the Mississippi Development Author-
ity (Miss. Code Ann. §65-1-85); used
for several projects
Public-private • • Authorized in statute for toll roads
partnerships and bridges (Miss. Code Ann. §§65-
43-1 et seq.); not currently in use

Notes:
Mississippi
• Although general obligation bonds are mainly authorized through session law (bond bills), state statutes provided
authority for the issuance of $200 million in bonds for the Four-Lane Highway Program (Miss. Code Ann. §31-17-
127) and $325 million in bonds for the Gaming Roads Program (Miss. Code Ann. §65-39-5). Debt for the Four-Lane
Highway Program was issued in 1997 and retired in 2006. Gaming Roads Program bonds were last issued in 2002.
• State statute authorizes the use of toll revenue bonds (Miss. Code Ann. §65-43-13), but these are not currently in use.

Restrictions on Bond proceeds are typically dedicated to a specific project or program by the authorizing
Finance Mechanisms legislation. Design-build contracts are limited to three highway projects per year (two with an
estimated cost of up to $10 million and one over that amount), plus projects for the Missis-
sippi Development Authority (Miss. Code Ann. §65-1-85).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. All state fees and taxes dedicated to transportation and all Federal reimbursements for Fed-
Spend Excess Funds eral-aid projects are deposited directly into the State Highway Fund, where they are retained until
spent. Excess funds, while retained, must be annually appropriated by the Legislature in order to be
spent.
Legislative Actions to State statute contains low-bid requirements for road construction contracts (Miss. Code Ann. §65-1-
Control DOT Costs 85).

Mississippi
Allocation of State Statutory formulas and grants. The State Aid Road Fund receives a portion of state fuel tax revenues (23.25
Transportation percent or $48 million per year, whichever is more) and $3 million per year of state sales tax revenue. These
Revenues to Local revenues are distributed to counties for road and bridge projects by a statutory formula based on rural road
Entities miles and rural population (Miss. Code Ann. §27-65-75). The Local System Bridge Replacement and Rehabil-
itation Fund receives $20 million each year from the state general fund, if general fund revenues reflect at
least 2 percent growth from the previous fiscal year. These funds are allocated to counties for bridge projects
by a statutory formula based on number of deficient bridges and local system road miles (Miss. Code Ann.
§65-37-1 et seq.). A further portion of state fuel tax revenues is returned directly to cities and counties for
road and bridge projects, using statutory formulas based on population for cities and population and square
mileage for counties (Miss. Code Ann. §27-5-101 and §27-5-103). Motor vehicle privilege tax proceeds are
distributed to counties based on registered vehicles, square miles, and population (Miss. Code Ann. §27-19-
159). Statutorily established Multi-Modal Fund Committees, with MDOT involvement, award discretionary
grants to local entities for rail, port, airport, and transit projects through the Multi-Modal Transportation
Improvement Program (Miss. Code Ann. §§65-1-701 et seq.).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes three counties to assess local option fuel taxes, vehicle privilege taxes, and property
Sources Autho- taxes for seawalls and the construction or improvement of coastal highways (Miss. Code Ann. §§65-33-1
rized in State Law et seq.). Cities, counties, road districts, and railroad authorities may levy property taxes for transportation
purposes (Miss. Code Ann. §19-9-9, §19-29-18, §21-33-313, §27-39-305, §65-15-1, and §65-19-33). Special
improvement districts may also be used to generate revenues for transportation improvements (Miss. Code
Ann. §§21-41-1 et seq.).

Missouri

Bridges 24,398
Legislature
Name Missouri General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Public Safety
tion-Related Issues House Committee on Appropriations—Revenue, Transportation, and Economic Development
House Committee on Budget
Joint Committee on Legislative Research
• Subcommittee on Oversight
Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight
[Select] Senate Select Committee on Capital Improvements

Missouri
Name Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)
Leadership MoDOT Director (serves on governor’s cabinet), Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission
(independent body)
Staff Size in Full-Time 5,079 salaried, 272 temporary
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? No. Driver’s licensing and vehicle registration functions are carried out by the Missouri Department
of Revenue, funded by the State Highways and Transportation Department Fund, fee revenues, and
general funds.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes and no. The Missouri State Highway Patrol, a division of the Department of Public Safety, per-
forms most highway patrol functions, funded by the State Highways and Transportation Department
Fund. MoDOT oversees motor carrier enforcement, which is funded as part of the transportation
budget.
Jurisdiction Over No. The only toll facility in Missouri is a privately operated bridge.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level None. Missouri has no state-level transportation entities besides MoDOT, the Missouri Highways and
Transportation Entities Transportation Commission, and those that perform DMV and highway patrol functions. In Missouri,
cities and counties form port authorities, not the state (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§68.010 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal, extensive. Communication occurs formally and informally through legislator-re-
and Collaboration quested visits, written policy statements, the fiscal note process, annual reports, and Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program documents. Performance information is also shared through
MoDOT Tracker, an online performance management tool. During session, the Missouri Highways
and Transportation Commission holds monthly meetings at MoDOT headquarters for the convenience
of any legislator who wishes to attend. MoDOT’s Division of Governmental Relations interacts with
the General Assembly on an ongoing basis and advocates for departmental objectives and initiatives.
Governmental relations staff and MoDOT’s senior management team testify before legislative com-
mittees.
DOT Legislative Liaison Staff in MoDOT’s Division of Governmental Relations serve as the main point of contact between the
department and the General Assembly. The MoDOT senior management team and other staff also
interact with legislators and legislative staff in various ways.

Missouri

Transportation Laws Mo. Const. art. IV, §§29 et seq.; Mo. Rev. Stat. ch. 226 to 238 and 300 to 307; portions of Mo. Rev. Stat.
ch. 142, 145, and 155 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. Each fall, MoDOT submits potential legislative proposals to
Legislative Process the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission for review and
approval. Only legislators, however, may request legislative bill drafts
and sponsor and introduce legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying MoDOT’s director and governmental relations staff are registered lob-
byists and advocate with legislators about relevant legislation.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact The Oversight Division of the legislative Joint Committee on Legislative
Statements for Legislative Use Research is required to prepare a fiscal note for each bill. To do this,
the division solicits a statement of impact from all potentially affected
agencies (Mo. Rev. Stat. §23.140). MoDOT responds to about 650
fiscal note requests each year.
Appointment of The six members of the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission are appointed to stag-
DOT Leadership gered six-year terms by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and within
statutory requirements for partisan balance, taxpayer status, and state residency (Mo. Rev. Stat.
§226.030). The MoDOT director is appointed by the commission within statutory requirements for
state citizenship, state residency, and executive management experience (Mo. Rev. Stat. §226.040).
Legislature Able to No. A member of the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission may be removed by the
Remove DOT Leaders? governor for reasons of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office. The MoDOT director
serves at the pleasure of the commission.
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules reviews all proposed rules. The committee may
Administrative Rules suspend a rule for 30 days, during which time the full legislature may permanently reject it by
concurrent resolution. Otherwise, the rule is automatically approved (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§536.010 et
seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. MoDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Oversight Division, under the
or Sunset Reviews legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Research. The division so far has performed at least five
audits of MoDOT programs and funds. The state conducts sunset reviews, but not of MoDOT.
Required DOT Reports MoDOT is required to provide an annual accountability report to the General Assembly, and
to the Legislature to present it in person before the Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight (Mo. Rev. Stat.
§21.795). This report must include status reports concerning public-private partnerships (Mo. Rev.
Stat. §227.669) and design-build contracts (Mo. Rev. Stat. §227.107). MoDOT must also submit
an annual report about rural and special transportation (Mo. Rev. Stat. §226.808). The Missouri
Highways and Transportation Commission must submit an annual report concerning the state
transportation system, including a report on the commission’s pursuit of Federal funds (Mo. Rev.
Stat. §225.140).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, state statute mandates
Performance Management a performance-based budgeting system that includes goals, objectives, and performance mea-
sures for each state program (Mo. Rev. Stat. §33.210). State departments submit the performance
measures for their programs with their annual budget requests. The General Assembly has the
discretion to use that information to determine the appropriations it approves.
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from MoDOT. The General
Mechanisms Assembly has periodically created interim committees to study certain aspects of MoDOT, but
none are currently active.

Missouri
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual operating and capital budgets; fiscal year begins July 1.
ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. Federal highway funds are deposited directly
tion Revenues to the DOT into the State Road Fund per statute, without state legislative involvement. The
State Road Fund is authorized by the Missouri Highways and Transportation
Commission. Federal funds for highway safety and other modes—including
transit, rail, and aviation—must be appropriated by the General Assembly at the
level of departmental programs or broad spending categories.
State Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. State funds for highways and bridges flow
directly to MoDOT according to the Missouri Constitution and state statute,
without legislative involvement. Funding for other modes is appropriated by the
General Assembly at the program or category level.

Authorized Expenditures Highways and Transportation Commission and highway program adminis- $26,156,918
tration
Fringe expenses $214,869,128
Construction program $1,329,122,729
Local cost-share program $20,000,000
Maintenance program $389,753,449
Fleet, facilities, and information systems $75,320,326
Multimodal operations administration $2,428,022
Multimodal operations $1,329,067
Transit program $64,579,482
Rail program $19,607,453
Aviation program $41,000,000
Waterways program $5,600,000
Federal rail, port, and freight assistance program $1,000,000
Freight enhancement program $1,000,000
Total $2,191,766,574
Revenue Sources General revenue fund $37,644,129
Other funds $2,034,199,983
Total $2,191,766,574

Missouri
Transportation Planning MoDOT annually develops a rolling five-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
and Capital Project Selec- through a collaborative process called the planning framework. MoDOT coordinates the involvement
tion Process of MPOs, regional planning commissions, local elected officials, and the general public, who work
collaboratively with MoDOT to select and prioritize projects consistent with the goals in the state’s
long-range transportation plan. The STIP is approved by the Missouri Highways and Transportation
Commission. Multimodal projects are selected through collaboration with regional and local entities.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. In general, the General Assembly does not participate in project selection,
Planning Process prioritization, or approval. It can, however, appropriate general revenue for specific projects. Like any
member of the public, a legislator may also be involved in the decision-making process by attending a
public meeting, contacting a regional planning partner, or contacting MoDOT directly.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • Use is restricted to roads and
gasoline and bridges, which can include pedes-
diesel (fixed trian and bicycle facilities (Mo. Rev.
rate) Stat. §142.803; Mo. Const. art. IV,
§§30[a] et seq.)
Fuel taxes: • • • • As of Jan. 1, 2016, includes taxes on
alternative liquefied and compressed natural
fuels gas; use is restricted to roads and
bridges, which can include pedes-
trian and bicycle facilities (Mo. Rev.
Stat. §142.803; Mo. Const. art. IV,
§§30[a] et seq.)
Fuel taxes: • • • Mo. Rev. Stat. §155.080
aviation
gasoline, use
taxes
Fuel taxes: • • • Mo. Rev. Stat. §144.805
jet fuel, sales
taxes
Vehicle reg- • • • • Use is restricted to roads and
istration and bridges (Mo. Rev. Stat. §301.055,
title fees §301.090, §301.190; Mo. Const. art.
IV, §§30[b] et seq.)
Special fees • • • • Decal fee for electric vehicles and
on electric liquid petroleum gas vehicles; also
and some applies to owners of natural gas
alternative vehicles who have installed their
fuel vehicles own fueling stations (Mo. Rev. Stat.
§142.869)
Sales taxes • • • • • • • • Allocated in part to the multimodal
on motor Freight State Transportation Fund (Mo. Rev.
only
vehicle sales Stat. §144.020, §144.070, §226.225;
and leases Mo. Const. art. IV, §§30[b] et seq.)

Missouri
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Truck regis- • • • • Use is restricted to roads and
tration fees bridges (Mo. Rev. Stat. §301.057,
(based on §301.090; Mo. Const. art. IV,
gross vehicle §§30[b] et seq.)
weight)
Driver’s • • • • Allocated to MoDOT for departmen-
license fees tal expenses and traffic enforce-
ment; any excess revenues go to
the State Road Fund (Mo. Rev. Stat.
§226.200, §302.228)
General • • • • • • • Legislative appropriations for road
funds Pas- and bridge projects and multimodal
senger
and programs including aviation, transit,
freight rail, and ports
Interest • • • • • • • • State Highways and Transportation
income Freight Department Fund, from which
only
transfers are made to the State Road
Fund; Aviation Trust Fund (Mo. Rev.
Stat. §226.200, §305.230)
Notes:
• The only toll facility in Missouri is a privately operated bridge.
• Missouri also assesses railroad regulation fees, which are used solely for railroad safety inspections and other related
regulatory activities conducted by MoDOT (Mo. Rev. Stat. §622.015 and §622.300), not for the kinds of transporta-
tion activities described in this chart.

Missouri

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution dedicates fuel taxes from highway users to
State Fuel Taxes the State Road Fund, cities, and counties for highway, road, and bridge purposes. Any such revenues
that are allocated to the State Road Fund may not be diverted to other uses. The state share includes
a set-aside for the state highway patrol. The Department of Revenue is appropriated up to 3 percent
of fuel tax proceeds for the cost of collecting revenue (Mo. Const. art. IV, §§30[a] et seq.).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution dedicates most vehicle-related state taxes and fees, after payments to the
Transportation Revenues Department of Revenue for its collection costs and the State Highway Patrol for its enforcement costs,
to the State Road Fund. The exception is the state sales tax on highway motor vehicles. The first half
of the proceeds of this sales tax is distributed to counties, cities, the State Road Fund for highway
and road purposes, and the State Transportation Fund for multimodal transportation purposes. The
second half of the proceeds (except that portion that must be deposited into the School District
Trust Fund) is allocated to the State Road Bond Fund for the repayment of state road bonds that are
issued by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (Mo. Const. art. IV, §§30[b] et seq.).
Restrictions on specific appropriations from the general fund are included in session law.
Dedicated or Restricted The state constitution dedicates the State Road Fund to specified highway uses and related debt, the
Transportation Funds State Road Bond Fund to debt service (with any excess going to the State Road Fund), and the State
Transportation Fund to multimodal transportation including aviation, public transit, rail, and ports
(Mo. Const. art. IV, §§30[b] et seq.; see also Mo. Rev. Stat. §§226.210 et seq.). The Aviation Trust
Fund, which receives aviation fuel taxes and a portion of the state sales tax on jet fuel, is dedicated to
aviation purposes (Mo. Rev. Stat. §155.090 and §305.230).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • State road bonds (Mo. Const. art.
bonds IV, §30[b]; Mo. Rev. Stat. §226.200,
§226.210)
Build Amer- • • Issued in 2009 and 2010, mostly for
ica Bonds bridge projects
GARVEE • • Only indirect GARVEEs have been
bonds (indi- issued, most recently in 2010
rect only)
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized for highway projects;
capped at 2 percent of highway
construction contracts per year (Mo.
Rev. Stat. §227.107; 2016 Mo. House
Bill 2376); used for several road and
bridge projects
Public-private • • • • • Authorized in statute for various
partnerships Pas- transportation modes, not including
senger
and highways; legislative and, for some
freight projects, voter approval required
(Mo. Rev. Stat. §§227.600 et seq.);

Missouri
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
State • • • Capitalized with state and Fed-
infrastruc- eral funds; not authorized in state
ture bank: statute; may be used for highway or
Missouri transit projects
Transporta-
tion Finance
Corporation
State infra- • • • • • • Capitalized with state funds only;
structure Pas- may be used for non-highway proj-
senger
bank: State and ects, including facilities for transpor-
Trans- freight tation by air, water, rail, or transit
portation (Mo. Rev. Stat. §226.191)
Assistance
Revolving
(STAR) Fund

Restrictions on State road bonds are to be used for the construction or reconstruction of the state highway
Finance Mechanisms system (Mo. Const. art. IV, §30[b]). Public-private partnership projects must be approved
by the General Assembly and, for any mode of transportation not explicitly identified in the
authorizing statute, by a vote of the people (Mo. Rev. Stat. §227.600 and §227.615). Design-
build contracts are limited to 2 percent of highway construction contracts per year (Mo. Rev.
Stat. §227.107; 2016 Mo. House Bill 2376). State statute limits the use of the State Transporta-
tion Assistance Revolving Fund to certain non-highway purposes (Mo. Rev. Stat. §226.191).

Missouri
DOT Able to Retain and Yes, for nearly all funds. The remaining balance of the State Road Fund, which is dedicated to roads
Spend Excess Funds and bridges, is used and expended at the discretion of and under the supervision and direction of the
Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (Mo. Const. art. IV, §30[b]). All other funds with
remaining balances also are authorized to retain excess funds, with the exception of the state Grade
Crossing Safety Account, which may be swept at the end of a biennium if funds are not already
obligated to future projects. In Missouri, the budget bill notates that some appropriations to the State
Road Fund are estimated, which allows MoDOT to spend revenues in excess of those appropriations
without further legislative action. For all other modes, MoDOT must have additional appropriation
authority.
Legislative Approval No, unless the project was originally earmarked by the legislature.
Legislative Actions to State statute provides guidelines for highway construction bids, including low-bid requirements (Mo.
Control DOT Costs Rev. Stat. §§227.100 et seq.). It also requires the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission,
when making decisions about a highway project, to consider durability and low maintenance cost
(Mo. Rev. Stat. §227.060). In addition, state statute provides that if any county, civil subdivision, or
interested persons desire a road of a higher type, more expensive construction, or better in any way
than the road proposed by MoDOT, then those parties are responsible for the additional cost (Mo.
Rev. Stat. §227.160).

Allocation of State Constitutional and statutory formulas. The state constitution dedicates portions of the state motor fuel tax
Transportation and a state sales tax on vehicles to local entities. After set-asides, 15 percent of the proceeds of the fuel tax
Revenues to Local are deposited in the County Aid Road Trust Fund for road and bridge projects. Aside from an allocation for
Entities cities not within a county, this fund is distributed to counties by a formula based on road mileage and rural
land valuation. Another 15 percent of fuel tax proceeds goes to cities, towns, and villages for road and street
projects, and is distributed by a population-based formula (Mo. Const. art. IV, §30[a]). In addition, the state
constitution dedicates half the proceeds from the state sales tax on motor vehicles to highway and transpor-
tation use. Of this half, 10 percent goes to counties and 15 percent to cities, towns, and villages, using the
same distribution formulas as are used for fuel tax revenues (Mo. Const. art. IV, §30[b]).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes some cities to levy local option vehicle license taxes for street maintenance (Mo. Rev.
Sources Autho- Stat. §94.410). Cities, counties, and county transit authorities are authorized to levy sales taxes for transporta-
rized in State Law tion purposes (Mo. Rev. Stat. §67.700, §92.402, §94.577, §94.605, §94.660, §94.705, and §238.410). Road
districts may levy property taxes (Mo. Rev. Stat. §233.172). Transportation development districts may assess
property taxes and sales taxes (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§238.200 et seq.). Transportation corporations—nonprofit,
quasi-governmental agencies that localities can form to develop and oversee transportation projects—may
impose tolls and other user charges (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§238.300 et seq.).

Montana

Bridges 5,243
Toll facilities No
Legislature
Name Montana Legislature
Session Biennial, approx. Jan. to Apr. (odd years only)
Legislative Measures None (no regular 2016 session)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Highways and Transportation
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Transportation
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Finance and Claims/House Committee on Appropriations
• Joint Subcommittee on General Government
• Joint Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Transportation
[Interim] Revenue and Transportation Interim Committee

Montana
Name Montana Department of Transportation (MDT)

Structure Organized by both functional activity and transportation mode. MDT is organized into eight divisions,
one of which is dedicated to aeronautics and another of which is dedicated to rail, transit, and planning.
Leadership MDT Director (serves on governor’s cabinet), Transportation Commission (independent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? No. The Motor Vehicle Division is a division of the Montana Department of Justice. Its budget is
mostly funded by general funds (44.8 percent) and fuel taxes (31.1 percent). Its costs are not funded
out of MDT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Montana Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Justice. Its budget is mostly
funded by fuel taxes (82.2 percent), with a $5 vehicle registration fee and Federal funds making up
the remainder. Its costs are not funded out of MDT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over No. Montana has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Montana Aeronautics Board Like the Transportation Commission, the Montana Aeronautics Board
Transportation Entities (state entity) is a quasi-judicial state entity that is attached to MDT for administrative
purposes only (Mont. Code Ann. §2-15-2506). The board advises MDT
and has statutory authority over the allocation of airport development
loan and grant funds and pavement preservation grant funds. It is
funded by aviation fuel taxes.
Rail Service Competition The Rail Service Competition Council, which is attached to MDT for
Council (state entity) administrative purposes only, was created in 2005 to promote rail
service competition in Montana. The MDT director serves as one of
the council’s members ex officio (Mont. Code Ann. §2-15-2511). The
council is funded out of MDT’s non-restricted revenues.

Overall Communication Mainly formal. Communication between MDT and the Legislature is mostly between MDT staff
and Collaboration members and legislative committees. During the interim, MDT staff—generally the director—provide
reports on departmental planning and activities to the Revenue and Transportation Interim Commit-
tee. This committee also can request legislation on behalf of MDT. During session, MDT frequently
appears before key committees concerning transportation-related legislation and budget discussions.
MDT’s Legal Services Division drafts, reviews, and may provide testimony on legislation, rules, and
policies.
DOT Legislative Liaison Various MDT staff, including the director and the Legal Services Division, provide information and
testimony to the Legislature. MDT has no dedicated legislative liaison or governmental affairs office.

Montana
Transportation Laws Mont. Code Ann. §§2-15-2501 et seq.; Mont. Code Ann. tit. 60, 61, and 67; portions of Mont. Code Ann.
tit. 69; Mont. Const. art. VIII, §6 (revenue restrictions); portions of Mont. Code Ann. tit. 15 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. MDT’s Legal Services Division drafts legislative proposals, but
Legislative Process only legislators can formally sponsor and introduce bills. The Revenue and
Transportation Interim Committee can request legislation on behalf of MDT.
Advocacy and Lobbying During session, MDT frequently appears before the House Transportation
Committee and the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee to influ-
ence or inform transportation-related legislation. MDT also appears before
the Joint Subcommittee on General Government, which deals with the MDT
budget.
Fiscal Notes or Policy The state budget director prepares fiscal notes for bills, in cooperation with
Impact Statements for the state or local agencies that would be affected by them (Mont. Code Ann.
Legislative Use §5-4-203). MDT participates in this process.
Appointment of The five members of the Transportation Commission are appointed by the governor, subject to
DOT Leadership confirmation by the Senate and within statutory requirements for district residency, geographic
representation, and partisan balance. At least one must have specific knowledge of Indian culture
and tribal transportation needs, and must be selected by the governor after consultation with the
Montana members of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council. No state official or state
employee may serve on the commission (Mont. Const. art. VI, §8; Mont. Code Ann. §2-15-2502).
The MDT director is appointed by the governor to hold office until the end of the governor’s term,
subject to confirmation by the Senate, and serves at the pleasure of the governor (Mont. Code
Ann. §2-15-2501 and §2-15-111).
Legislature Able to No. Members of the Transportation Commission and the MDT director serve at the pleasure of the
Remove DOT Leaders? governor.
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules are reviewed by the relevant joint interim committees. The role of these
Administrative Rules committees is mainly advisory (Mont. Code Ann. §§2-4-402 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. MDT is subject to audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Division, under
or Sunset Reviews consultation and advisement with the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. State law requires the
division to conduct a financial and compliance audit of each state agency at least every two years
(Mont. Code Ann. §5-13-304). Montana does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or
programs.
Required DOT Reports MDT must submit biennial reports to the Legislature concerning emergency medical services grants
to the Legislature (Mont. Code Ann. §61-2-109).
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from MDT.
Mechanisms

Montana

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. Biennial budget requests are
ations Overview reviewed and approved by the Legislature.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to MDT as
tion Revenues to the DOT state legislative appropriations to departmental programs or broad spending
categories, not to specific projects, as part of the biennial budget process.
allocated to MDT as legislative appropriations to departmental programs or
broad spending categories, as part of the biennial budget process.

Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, FY 2016 and FY 2017 (enacted) (see notes)
Authorized Expenditures Personal services $166,059,776
(FY 2017 only) Operating expenses $470,965,680
Equipment and intangible assets $3,257,658
Capital outlay $12,956,865
Grants $41,050,954
Benefits and claims $500
Transfers $17,801,593
Debt service $85,270
Local assistance $4,794,412
Total $716,972,708
Revenue Sources State/other special revenue funds $282,977,886
(FY 2017 only) Federal special revenue funds $433,994,822
Total $716,972,708
Note: The numbers in this chart include MDT’s enacted legislative budget for FY 2017, plus $37,759,250 in statutory appro-
priations and an additional $7,045,579 that was provided for personal services (as required to implement a new state employee
compensation plan under 2015 Mont. Laws, Chap. 438).

Transportation Planning MDT staff engage in a number of different planning processes, including the Statewide Transporta-
and Capital Project Selec- tion Improvement Program (STIP). The Transportation Commission selects, prioritizes, and gives final
tion Process approval for construction and reconstruction projects, based on information and recommendations
from MDT staff and local governments (Mont. Code Ann. §60-2-110).
Legislative Role in the No legislative role. The Legislature reviews and approves the MDT budget, but not at the project-spe-
Planning Process cific level. The Transportation Commission, not the Legislature, approves projects. In the past, the Leg-
islature has been known to require or address an individual project in statute (e.g., U.S. Highway 2 in
Mont. Code Ann. §60-2-133), but this kind of special legislation is rare and generally discouraged. Like
any member of the public, a legislator may testify at a meeting of the Transportation Commission.

Montana
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Mont. Code Ann. §15-70-403, §60-
gasoline 3-201; $75,000 allocated annually to
and diesel, public transit
highway use
(fixed rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Includes taxes on compressed natu-
alternative ral gas and liquefied petroleum gas;
fuels allocated the same way as gasoline
and diesel taxes (Mont. Code Ann.
§15-70-711)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Mont. Code Ann. §60-
3-201, §67-1-301, §15-70-403)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Allocated to boating, snowmobiles,
other off-road vehicles, and aeronautics
non-highway (Mont. Code Ann. §60-3-201)
use
Vehicle reg- • • • • As of 2016, motor vehicle taxes and
istration and fees are deposited to the general
title fees fund, except for set-asides for
boating, snowmobiles, and off-road
vehicles (Mont. Code Ann. §15-1-
122, §61-3-203, §61-3-321, §61-3-
562; 2015 Mont. Laws, Chap. 430)
Gross vehicle • • • • Deposited to the highway revenue
weight fees account (Mont. Code Ann. §61-10-
(light and 201, §61-10-225, §61-10-226)
heavy trucks)
Oversize/ • • • • • • • Deposited to the non-restricted
overweight Pas- account, which can be used for any
senger
truck permit and activity (Mont. Code Ann. §§61-10-
fees freight 124 et seq.)
Sales taxes • • • As of 2016, 25 percent of revenues
on rental go to senior citizen and persons with
vehicles disabilities transit services (Mont.
Code Ann. §7-14-112, §15-68-102,
§15-68-820; 2015 Mont. Laws,
Chap. 430)
Airport prop- • • • For state-owned airports (Mont.
erty sales or Code Ann. §67-2-302)
leases
Interest • • • • • • • Restricted and non-restricted
income Pas- accounts (Mont. Code Ann. §15-70-
senger
and 101, §15-70-125)
freight

Notes:
Montana
• Ten percent of the revenues from aircraft registration fees and pilot license fees are distributed to MDT for adminis-
tration and enforcement costs (Mont. Code Ann. §67-3-205), not for the kinds of transportation activities described in
this chart. The remainder goes to the state general fund.

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges (with exceptions). The state constitution restricts the use of excise
State Fuel Taxes and license taxes on gasoline, fuel, and other energy sources used to propel vehicles on public high-
ways to public highways, streets, roads, and bridges; payment of county, city, and town obligations
on streets, roads, and bridges; and enforcement of highway safety, driver education, tourist promo-
tion, and administrative collection costs. Such revenues may be appropriated for other purposes by a
three-fifths vote of each house of the Legislature (Mont. Const. art. VIII, §6). Despite this restriction,
$75,000 in fuel tax revenues is allocated to public transit each year.
Restrictions on Other As with fuel taxes, the state constitution restricts the use of gross vehicle weight fees to road and
Transportation Revenues bridge purposes, unless otherwise appropriated by a three-fifths vote of each house of the Legislature
(Mont. Const. art. VIII, §6). State statute directs gasoline and diesel taxes from non-highway uses to
the modes of transportation to which they are attributed, including boating, snowmobiles, off-road
vehicles, and aeronautics (Mont. Code Ann. §60-3-201). Other aviation fuel taxes are also directed to
aeronautics (Mont. Code Ann. §67-1-301).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute identifies two accounts in MDT’s state special revenue fund: a restricted account funded
Transportation Funds with constitutionally restricted revenues and a nonrestricted account funded with other revenues
(Mont. Code Ann. §15-70-125, §15-70-101, and §61-10-226). State statute also identifies accounts for
MDT’s aeronautics activities (Mont. Code Ann. §67-1-301). In general, however, the law places restric-
tions on special revenues, rather than the accounts into which they are deposited.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • Highway revenue bonds are autho-
bonds rized in statute (Mont. Code Ann.
§§17-5-901 et seq.); not currently in
use, aside from GARVEE bonds (see
notes)
GARVEE See notes • • Generally authorized in state statute
bonds (see notes); most recent issue for
new money was in 2008
Advance • •
construction

Montana
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
flexible
match
Design-build • • • Authorized for highway projects
(Mont. Code Ann. §60-2-111, §60-
2-112, §60-2-137); used for several
projects
Land swaps • •
or donations
from land
owners
Notes:
• State statute authorizes the use of highway revenue bonds that are backed by constitutionally restricted state highway
revenues, including fuel taxes, or “any other revenues, taxes, or receipts credited to the department in the state special
revenue fund and the Federal special revenue fund” (Mont. Code Ann. §17-5-903). Although it does not mention
GARVEE bonds specifically, this statute is what authorizes MDT to use GARVEE debt as a financing mechanism for
highway projects. Montana does not, however, currently use any other bonding for transportation projects.
Transportation-Related Bonding No, except for GARVEE bonds. Montana is one of three states that has borrowed against
future Federal-aid funding through the use of GARVEE bonds, but otherwise does not cur-
rently use bonding for transportation projects.
Restrictions on None.
Finance Mechanisms

Montana
DOT Able to Retain and Yes. MDT is authorized to retain excess funds in the Highway Fund with no limit. Any unused or
Spend Excess Funds unencumbered authority, however, must have a new appropriation in the subsequent biennium in
order to be spent.
Legislative Actions to State law includes low-bid requirements for highway construction projects that exceed $50,000
Control DOT Costs (Mont. Code Ann. §60-2-112) and other services and goods (Mont. Code Ann. §18-4-303). State stat-
ute also prohibits the establishment of footpaths and bicycle trails if their cost is excessively dispro-
portionate to the need or probable use, or if sparse population, other available ways, or other factors
indicate an absence of any need for them (Mont. Code Ann. §60-3-303).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas. State law annually allocates $16.7 million of state fuel tax revenues to local entities for
Transportation road projects. Of this, $6.3 million is distributed to counties by a statutory formula based on rural road mile-
Revenues to Local age, rural population, and land area, and $10.3 million is distributed to incorporated cities and towns by a for-
Entities mula based on population and street miles. Consolidated city-county governments receive a single payment
based on a combined calculation (Mont. Code Ann. §15-70-101). In addition, the Montana Aeronautics Board
awards grants to municipalities for airport development or improvement programs, funded by a portion of
aviation fuel taxes (Mont. Code Ann. §67-1-301).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to adopt local option fuel taxes for road construction and maintenance
Sources Autho- (Mont. Code Ann. §§7-14-301 et seq.). Counties, municipalities, railway authorities, and urban transportation
rized in State Law districts may assess property taxes for transportation purposes (Mont. Code Ann. §7-14-232, §7-14-1633,
§7-14-2502, §7-14-2503, and §7-14-2807). Resort communities may levy sales taxes for public facilities that
include streets, bridges, and docks (Mont. Code Ann. §§7-6-1501 et seq.). Improvement districts may levy
special assessments for public improvements that include streets and parking facilities (Mont. Code Ann. §§7-
12-1101 et seq., §§7-12-4101 et seq., and §§7-12-4401 et seq.) and local governments may use tax increment
financing to pay for public improvements in an urban renewal area or targeted economic development district
(Mont. Code Ann. §7-15-4288). Counties and municipalities may charge development impact fees to pay for
capital improvements (Mont. Code Ann. §§7-6-1601).

Nebraska

Bridges 15,341
Legislature
Name Nebraska Legislature
Structure Unicameral, nonpartisan
Chambers Legislature (49 members, all called senators)
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to June (odd years), Jan. to Apr. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Committee on Transportation and Telecommunications
tion-Related Issues
Name Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR)
Leadership NDOR Director (serves on governor’s cabinet), State Highway Commission (within NDOR, advisory
only)
Equivalents (FTEs)

Nebraska
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, pedestrian/bicycle. NDOR has jurisdiction over rural public transit only, and
DOT Has Jurisdiction over pedestrian and bicycle facilities for the state highway system only. NDOR is also in the process of
developing a multimodal state freight plan, which will include highway, rail, air, and marine components.
Includes DMV? No. The Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles is an independent state agency. It is funded by its
own cash funds, which are derived primarily from fee revenues, not out of NDOR’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Nebraska State Patrol is an independent state agency. Its traffic safety functions are funded by
state general funds, not out of NDOR’s budget. Its motor carrier enforcement functions are funded by
annual legislative transfers from NDOR’s Roads Operations Cash Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §81-2004.01).
Jurisdiction Over No. The only toll facilities in Nebraska are two privately operated bridges. NDOR does, however, have
Toll Facilities? authority over the inspections of these bridges.
Other
Other State-Level Nebraska Department of Nebraska does not have an integrated, multimodal department of
Transportation Entities Aeronautics (state agency) transportation. Instead, the Nebraska Department of Aeronautics, the
Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles, and NDOR are all indepen-
dent state agencies that report directly to the governor. The Depart-
ment of Aeronautics is mainly funded by aviation fuel taxes. Other
sources of revenue include state-owned airfield operation and rental,
trust fund income, and state aircraft rentals. Federal funds are passed
through to local airports for airport improvements.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through a dedicated liaison. Most communication goes through the
and Collaboration Legislature’s Transportation and Telecommunications Committee and NDOR’s Government Affairs
Office, which functions as a dedicated legislative liaison and works to advance the department’s leg-
islative agenda. Senators’ offices also contact the Government Affairs Office directly when they have
questions or need information. In addition, NDOR must present required reports to the Legislature,
including an annual highway needs assessment.
DOT Legislative Liaison NDOR’s Government Affairs Office is the main point of contact between the department and the
Legislature.
Transportation Laws Neb. Const. art. III, §18; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§81-701.01 et seq.; Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 3, 39, 60, and 74;
portions of Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 66 and 77 (revenues); portions of Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 13 (public transit
assistance)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. As a “code agency” subject to the governor’s direct
Legislative Process control, NDOR must work through the Governor’s Policy and Research
Office to propose legislation. Only legislators can formally sponsor or
introduce legislation, although they may do so “on behalf of the gov-
ernor.” If given permission, NDOR’s director or Governmental Affairs
Office will typically coordinate legislative proposals with the Legisla-
ture’s Transportation and Telecommunications Committee. NDOR can
directly request legislative bill drafts.
Advocacy and Lobbying NDOR must work through the Governor’s Policy and Research Office
to support, oppose, or offer an amendment to a bill, regardless of
which committee holds jurisdiction.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact NDOR prepares fiscal notes on all introduced legislation that impacts
Statements for Legislative Use highway financing.

Nebraska
Appointment of The eight members of the State Highway Commission are appointed by the governor with the
DOT Leadership consent of the Legislature, within statutory requirements for geographic representation, U.S.
citizenship, age, state residency, and partisan balance (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-1101). The commission
is advisory only and has no authority over NDOR (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-1110). As head of a state
department, the NDOR director (called the “Director-State Engineer” in statute) is appointed by the
governor, subject to confirmation by the Legislature (Neb. Rev. Stat. §81-102).
Legislature Able to No. The governor can remove members of the State Highway Commission for inefficiency, neglect
Remove DOT Leaders? of duty, or misconduct in office, after an opportunity for a hearing (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-1104). The
NDOR director serves at the pleasure of the governor (Neb. Const. art. IV, §10; Neb. Rev. Stat. §81-
102).
Legislative Review of Yes (optional). The relevant standing committees have the opportunity to review all proposed rules
Administrative Rules and amendments and may submit comments for the record (Neb. Rev. Stat. §84-907.07).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. NDOR is subject to audits performed by the Legislative Audit Office.
or Sunset Reviews Nebraska does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports NDOR must submit an annual report to the Legislature detailing the needs of the state highway
to the Legislature system, the department’s planning procedures, and progress being made on the expressway
system. This report must include lists of projects funded and planned to be funded by the 2016
Transportation Innovation Act’s Accelerated State Highway Capital Improvement Program, County
Bridge Match Program, and Economic Opportunity Program (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-1365.02; 2016
Neb. Laws, L.B. 960). NDOR must also submit an annual report to the Legislature concerning the
public transit assistance program (Neb. Rev. Stat. §13-1210). The State Highway Commission must
submit a quarterly status and financial report (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-1111).
Performance Management also prescribed certain performance goals in law, such as the completion of the expressway system
by 2033 (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-1365 and §39-1365.02).
Other Legislative Oversight Legislative committees and individual senators introduce resolutions that direct committees to
Mechanisms study issues between legislative sessions. In 2015, for example, the Transportation and Telecom-
munications Committee was directed to study Nebraska’s state and local roads sytem, NDOR’s
process for designing and building expressways, vehicle weight limits, and distracted driving. There
are, however, no currently active resolutions that directly relate to transportation. Other oversight
mechanisms include legislative requests for information from NDOR.

Nebraska

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. As required by law, NDOR
ations Overview submits an annual highway needs assessment to the Legislature before session. The assessment is
presented at a joint meeting of the appropriations and transportation committees that provides a
forum for discussion. The Legislature then determines the overall level of state funding to be provided
for transportation through the normal budget and appropriations process for executive agencies. This
process includes review by the Appropriations Committee, public hearings, and deliberations of the
full Legislature. The governor approves NDOR’s budget request before it is submitted to the Legisla-
ture and can exercise veto power.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds flow directly into NDOR’s
tion Revenues to the DOT cash fund. The Legislature does not limit the flow of Federal funds, but does
provide appropriations at the level of departmental programs that reflect a cash
flow estimate. NDOR can exceed these estimates as needed without legislative
involvement.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. A department-wide Highway Cash Fund appropriation
sets an amount of state funds available to NDOR. The variable fuel tax is then
set to generate revenue equal to this amount when added to other revenue
sources. As with Federal funds, the Legislature appropriates these state funds
at the level of departmental programs. In addition, the Build Nebraska Act ded-
icates a portion of general sales taxes for transportation (Neb. Rev. Stat. §77-
27,132; 2011 Neb. Laws, L.B. 84), and NDOR’s percentage of these revenues is
also appropriated at the program level. These appropriations reflect a cash flow
estimate that NDOR can exceed without legislative involvement. The exception
is an appropriation for transit aid, which is a set dollar amount.

Authorized Expenditures Assistance to local transit $6,312,705
(FY 2017 only) Highway administration $17,809,931
Services and support $29,376,889
Total $881,897,959
Revenue Sources Cash $881,897,959
(FY 2017 only) Total $881,897,959

Transportation Planning and All transportation planning and project prioritization is done by NDOR, with ultimate authority
Capital Project Selection Process resting with the governor. The State Highway Commission reviews NDOR’s plans, but acts in
an advisory and informational capacity only. MPOs and city and county departments work
with NDOR when the need arises.
Legislative Role in the Planning No legislative role. The state constitution expressly prohibits the Legislature from laying out,
Process planning, or directing the construction of roads or highways (Neb. Const. art. III, §18). The
only legislative role is to generate and appropriate funding.

Nebraska
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • Taxes on gasoline and diesel have
gasoline a fixed-rate component, a variable
and diesel component that is adjusted every six
(fixed rate months as 5 percent of the whole-
and variable sale price, and a variable component
rate—per- that is adjusted annually to provide
centage of for legislative appropriations and
price, other) debt service; the fixed rate com-
ponent is set to increase 1.5 cents
each year from 2016 through 2019
(Neb. Rev. Stat. §66-4,105, §66-
4,145, §66-4,146; Neb. Rev. Stat.
66-489.02; Neb. Rev. Stat. §66-
4,140, §66-4,144; 2015 Neb. Laws,
L.B. 610)
Fuel taxes: • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied and
fuels (fixed petroleum gas, and other com-
rate and vari- pressed fuels; assessed the same
able rate— way as taxes on gasoline and diesel
percentage (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§66-6,100 et seq.)
of price,
other)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Neb. Rev. Stat. §3-148)
Vehicle regis- • • • • Neb. Rev. Stat. §60-3,141, §60-3,143
tration fees
Special fees • • • • Applies to electric vehicles and vehi-
on electric cles fueled by any other alternative
and some fuel except compressed fuel; allo-
alternative cated to Highway Trust Fund (Neb.
fuel vehicles Rev. Stat. §60-306, §60-3,191)
Sales taxes • • • • Neb. Rev. Stat. §77-27,132
on motor
vehicle sales
and leases
Truck regis- • • • • Neb. Rev. Stat. §60-3,147
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • • Neb. Rev. Stat. §60-6,298
overweight
truck permit
fees
Property • • • • Deposited to the Highway Cash
leases and Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-1323.01)
rentals

Nebraska
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Airport prop- • • • Neb. Rev. Stat. §3-146
erty rentals
Train-mile • • • Grade Used for highway-rail grade cross-

taxes crossings (Neb. Rev. Stat. §74-1320)
ings
only
Outdoor • • • • Permit fees (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-220)
advertising
revenues
State general • • • The 2011 Build Nebraska Act ded-
sales taxes icates a tax rate of 0.25 percent to
highways until July 1, 2033 (Neb.
Rev. Stat. §77-27,132; 2011 Neb.
Laws, L.B. 84)
Interest • • • • Grade • Department of Aeronautics Cash
income cross- Fund, State Aid Bridge Fund, State
ings
only Recreation Road Fund, Highway
Trust Fund, State Highway Capital
Improvement Fund, Highway Cash
Fund, Grade Crossing Protection
Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §3-126, §39-
846, §39-1390, §39-2215, §39-
2703, §66-4,100, §74-1317; Neb.
Rev. Stat. §72-1248)
Notes:
• Although license plate fees are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, they do not provide revenues for the kinds of
transportation activities described in this chart. Rather, the funding to manufacture license plates comes out of highway
revenues, and as plates are issued, the plate fee—which is required by state statute to cover only the cost of the license
plate and validation decals (Neb. Rev. Stat. §60-3,102)—is deposited back into the Highway Trust Fund to minimize
the impact of this process on highway funds.
• Nebraska’s only toll facilities are two privately operated bridges.

Nebraska
State Fuel Tax Model Fixed rate (cents per gallon), variable rate (percentage of price), variable rate (adjusted to provide for
legislative appropriations and debt service)
Restrictions on Statutory, roads and bridges, public transit. State statute directs fuel tax revenues from highway users
State Fuel Taxes to the Highway Trust Fund and, from there, to other funds to be used for NDOR highway and public
transit programs, local road and street purposes, and debt service (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-2215, §66-
489.02, §66-499, §66-4,144, and §66-4,147).
Restrictions on Other State statute directs various highway-user fees and taxes to the Highway Trust Fund and, from there,
Transportation Revenues to other funds to be used for NDOR highway and public transit programs, local road and street pur-
poses, grade crossings, debt service, and administrative costs (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-2215). An exception
is that a portion of vehicle registration fees is credited to the State Recreation Road Fund (Neb. Rev.
Stat. §60-3,156). Aviation fuel taxes are dedicated to aeronautics (Neb. Rev. Stat. §3-149) and train-
mile taxes to grade crossings (Neb. Rev. Stat. §74-1321).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute directs the use of the Highway Trust Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other transpor-
Transportation Funds tation revenues, to the Highway Cash Fund, debt service, local entities for road and street purposes,
and other programs (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-2215). The Highway Cash Fund, in turn, is allocated to NDOR
for highway construction and maintenance, debt service, and public transit assistance programs
(Neb. Rev. Stat. §66-4,100). Other funds governed by state statute include the State Highway Capital
Improvement Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-2703), the State Aid Bridge Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§39-846 et
seq.), the State Recreation Road Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-1390), the Grade Crossing Protection Fund
(Neb. Rev. Stat. §74-1317), the Aeronautics Cash Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §3-126), and the new Transpor-
tation Infrastructure Bank Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-2803).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • Authorized by legislation enacted
in April 2016 (2016 Neb. Laws, L.B.
960); not yet in use
State infra- See • • Capitalized with Federal funds
structure notes in 1997 under the NHS Act pilot
statute; currently inactive (see notes)
Notes:
• The state constitution allows revenue bonds for highways, but only if approved by a three-fifths vote of the Legislature
(Neb. Const. art. XIII, §1). Bonding is not currently in use.

• In 2016, Nebraska enacted legislation to establish a Transportation Infrastructure Bank Fund (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-
Nebraska
2803; 2016 Neb. Laws, L.B. 960). This fund, however, does not meet the criteria used here for identifying state infra-
structure banks inasmuch as it will not issue loans or collect repayments. Rather, it will function as a capital improve-
ment fund for new road and bridge construction projects.
Transportation-Related Bonding No. No bonds have been issued since 1969. This makes Nebraska one of five states that does
not currently use bonding of any kind for transportation projects.
Restrictions on The state constitution allows revenue bonds for highways, but only if approved by a three-
Finance Mechanisms fifths vote of the Legislature (Neb. Const. art. XIII, §1).
Finance Mechanisms The Nebraska constitution generally prohibits extending the credit of the state (Neb. Const.
Prohibited in State Law art. XIII, §3), although it does allow for bonds backed by specific revenues, including highway
bonds, in limited cases (Neb. Const. art. XIII, §1).
DOT Able to Retain and Yes. The Highway Cash Fund appropriation determines the amount of state funding available to
Spend Excess Funds NDOR each year and the variable fuel tax is set to attempt to generate this amount of revenue. The
tax rate can be raised or lowered mid-year if needed. If actual revenues exceed the appropriation,
they remain in the Highway Cash Fund until subsequently appropriated by the Legislature. If collec-
tions fall short, NDOR is simply out this amount of money. NDOR also retains unspent allocations of
general sales tax revenues that are generated by the Build Nebraska Act. All excess funds must be
re-appropriated to be spent.
Legislative Approval No. The Legislature does not get involved at the project-specific level.
Legislative Actions to State statute provides direction to NDOR concerning contracts for highway construction, including
Control DOT Costs low-bid requirements and the prequalification of eligible bidders (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§39-1348 et seq.).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and grants. The state Highway Trust Fund is funded by fuel taxes and other transportation
Transportation revenues. After set-asides, 23.3 percent of the Highway Trust Fund is allocated to counties and 23.3 percent
Revenues to Local to municipalities, (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-2215). Funds are distributed to counties for road projects by a statutory
Entities formula based on rural and total population, lineal feet of bridges and overpasses, rural and total motor vehi-
cle registrations, road miles, and sales of farm products (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-2507). Funds are distributed to
municipalities for street projects by a statutory formula based on population, motor vehicle registrations, and
lane miles (Neb. Rev. Stat. §39-2517). Before these distributions, incentive payments are made to counties and
municipalities with licensed county highway or city street superintendents. Incentive payment amounts are
based on population and the superintendent’s level of licensure (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§39-2501 et seq. and §§39-
2511 et seq.). A portion of dedicated general sales tax revenues is distributed to counties and municipalities
by the same formulas (Neb. Rev. Stat. §66-4,148 and §77-27,132), as are motor vehicle fees, but without the
incentive payments (Neb. Rev. Stat. §60-3,190). The state also may award discretionary grants to local entities
for intercity bus operating costs (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§13-1213) or up to half of their eligible transit capital and
operating costs (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§13-1209 et seq.; 2016 Neb. Laws, L.B. 977).
Local Revenue In addition to state vehicle fees that are levied for local use, municipalities may also adopt motor vehicle fees
Sources Autho- for road and street maintenance (Neb. Rev. Stat. §14-109 and §18-1214). Counties, municipalities, and transit
rized in State Law authorities may levy property taxes for transportation purposes (Neb. Rev. Stat. §14-1821 and §23-397).
Municipalities may levy local option sales taxes for public infrastructure including roads, airports, ports, and
public transit (Neb. Rev. Stat. §77-27,142). Improvement districts may levy special assessments for road or
street improvements (Neb. Rev. Stat. §17-510 and §39-1601).

Nevada

Bridges 1,994
Toll facilities No (see notes)
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, monorail, vanpool, demand response
Notes:
• A 6.4-mile stretch of road that is operated within the Valley of Fire State Park by the Nevada State Parks Division is
reported to the Federal Highway Administration as a toll road because there is a required entrance fee, but it is not
considered a toll road for the purposes of this report. The revenue generated from the fee does not go to road repair or
maintenance.
Legislature
Name Nevada Legislature
Session Biennial, approx. Feb. to June (odd years only)
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- Assembly Committee on Transportation
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Finance/Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
• Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources, and Transportation
[Interim] Interim Finance Committee
[Interim] Legislative Commission
[Commission] Commission on Special License Plates

Nevada
Name Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

Leadership NDOT Director (serves on governor’s cabinet), NDOT Board of Directors (within NDOT, governor
serves ex officio)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, pedestrian/bicycle. NDOT’s Planning Division also has sections dedicated to aviation,
DOT Has Jurisdiction public transit, and rail.
Includes DMV? No. The Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles is an independent state agency. It is primarily funded
by appropriations from the Highway Fund and fee revenues, not out of NDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Nevada Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety. It is primarily funded
by appropriations from the Highway Fund and Federal grants, not out of NDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over No. Nevada has no toll facilities (see notes on pp. 321 and 327).
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Nevada Department of Busi- The Nevada Transportation Authority, a division of the Nevada Depart-
Transportation Entities ness and Industry—Nevada ment of Business and Industry, has statewide regulatory responsibility
Transportation Authority and over the transportation of passengers and household goods, including
Nevada Taxicab Authority the tow truck, bus, limousine, and taxicab industries. The exception is
(state agency) taxicabs in Clark County, which are regulated by the Nevada Taxicab
Authority, another division in the same state department (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §§706.011 et seq. and §§706.8818 et seq.). Both authorities are
funded by fee revenues. The Nevada Transportation Authority also
receives appropriations from the State Highway Fund.
Public Utilities Commission Among other duties, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, a state
of Nevada—Railroad Safety regulatory agency, oversees railroad and pipeline safety.
Program and Pipeline Safety
Program (state agency)

Overall Communication Mainly formal. NDOT and the Legislature interact primarily through committee hearings, the budget
and Collaboration process, and policy decisions, although the department has open access to legislators year-round.
NDOT’s communications director, among other duties, acts as the department’s legislative liaison.
DOT Legislative Liaison NDOT’s communications director also acts as the legislative liaison and, among other duties, serves as
the main point of contact between the department and the Legislature.

Nevada
Transportation Laws Nev. Rev. Stat. tit. 35, 43, and 44; Nev. Const. art. IX, §5 (revenue restrictions); portions of Nev. Rev. Stat.
tit. 32 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. By law, the governor may request bill drafts for up to 110
Legislative Process measures each session, including those approved on behalf of execu-
tive departments (Nev. Rev. Stat. §218D.175). After getting feedback
from staff and leadership, NDOT submits bill draft requests that are
approved by the governor. These bill drafts, however, must be intro-
duced by a legislator or a standing committee to advance through the
legislative process.
Advocacy and Lobbying NDOT is usually neutral on most legislative issues. The department’s
role is to provide information and get direction from the Legislature
and the governor. NDOT does, however, advocate for the passage of
bills that the department submitted as bill draft requests and that were
approved by the governor. NDOT also sometimes testifies in favor of
driver and pedestrian safety initiatives, since the department’s goal is
to keep people safe and connected.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact The legislative Fiscal Analysis Division coordinates and distributes fiscal
Statements for Legislative Use notes for bills using estimates from state and local agencies that would
be affected by them (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§218d.430 et seq.). NDOT partic-
ipates in this process.
Appointment of Four of the seven members of the NDOT Board of Directors are appointed to four-year terms by
DOT Leadership the governor with no legislative involvement, and within statutory requirements for geographic
representation and state residency. Each appointed member must be informed and interested con-
cerning highway construction and maintenance and other transportation matters and must also
be an engineer, a general contractor, or a person with expertise in financial matters and business
administration. No appointed member may have an interest in highway construction and mainte-
nance in Nevada. The other three board members are the governor, lieutenant governor, and state
controller, who serve ex officio (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.106). The NDOT director is appointed by the
NDOT Board of Directors, also without legislative involvement, within statutory requirements for
qualifications and experience. The director may not have other simultaneous employment (Nev.
Rev. Stat. §§408.160 et seq.).
Legislature Able to No. The NDOT director may be removed by the NDOT Board of Directors. No process is specified
Remove DOT Leaders? for removing members of the NDOT Board of Directors before the end of their respective terms of
office.
Legislative Review of Yes. The Legislative Commission, an ongoing statutory committee, reviews all proposed rules. The
Administrative Rules commission may approve or reject a rule. If it objects, the agency must revise and resubmit the rule
until the commission approves it. If the rule is not approved, it does not go into effect (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §§233b.067 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. NDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Audit Division of the Legislative
or Sunset Reviews Counsel Bureau, under the direction of the Legislative Audit Commission’s Audit Subcommittee.
Nevada does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports Each year, the NDOT director is required to submit to the Legislature an annual performance
to the Legislature report (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.133) and a report that outlines highway construction and maintenance
requirements for the next 10 years (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.203). Every other year, the director must
submit reports concerning highway requirements for the next four years, highway preservation,
and mobile equipment (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.203), and, until 2023 or until NDOT can demonstrate
that disparities no longer exist in contract awards, disadvantaged business enterprises (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §408.38726).

Nevada
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, state statute requires
Performance Management the executive branch to submit a proposed budget that includes the long-term performance goals
of departments and an explanation of the means by which the proposed budget will provide
adequate funding to achieve those goals (Nev. Rev. Stat. §353.205). In addition, NDOT’s board of
directors is required to adopt a plan for measuring NDOT performance that includes measures for
the department as a whole and for each of its divisions (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.133; this statute also
requires the related report to the Legislature that is listed above).
Other Legislative Oversight In the interim between legislative sessions, the Legislative Council Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division
Mechanisms provides ongoing fiscal and programmatic oversight of NDOT’s activities, while the Interim Finance
Committee reviews executive branch finances and program operations and, when necessary,
considers modifications to NDOT’s biennial work program. Other interim committees are occasion-
ally formed to review state financing of highway construction and other projects, but none are
currently active. In addition, the Legislative Commission may conduct reviews of state agencies and
recommend whether each should be continued, consolidated, or terminated. Likewise, the Legis-
lative Commission’s Sunset Subcommittee may review all boards and commissions that have been
created by the Legislature (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§232B.010 et seq.), including the NDOT board of direc-
tors, although NDOT’s board has not been reviewed since the subcommittee was created in 2011.
The subcommittee’s review process is not a true sunset, however, because the entity under review
is not automatically terminated if there is no action of the Legislature. Other oversight mechanisms
include legislative requests for information from NDOT.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. The Legislature approves the
ations Overview overall NDOT budget in its biennial session. The budget is based on investment priorities, Federal
requirements, and the governor’s recommendations. When reviewing and approving the NDOT bud-
get, the Nevada Legislature strives to maximize highway construction while also maintaining a mini-
mum Highway Fund balance (one month of operating expenses and 1.5 months of capital expenses,
which is approximately $115.6 million in the 2015–17 biennium).
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to NDOT as
tion Revenues to the DOT lump sum appropriations to the department in the state’s Authorizations Act.
When the Legislature is not in session, NDOT’s use of Federal transportation
funds may be approved by the Interim Finance Committee.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State transportation funds are allocated to NDOT
based on legislatively approved expenditure categories for the department,
which may reflect expenditures for specific programs. In addition, the Legis-
lature may enact legislation that dedicates state tax or bond revenue to fund
highway projects. When the Legislature is not in session, NDOT may request and
receive additional state Highway Fund appropriations if approved by the Interim
Finance Committee.

Nevada
Authorized Expenditures Transportation administration: base $620,966,850
(FY 2017 only) Transportation administration: maintenance $2,834,704
Transportation administration: enhancement $24,175,300
Bond construction $150,000,000
Total $797,976,854
Revenue Sources Federal fund $320,000,000
(FY 2017 only) Highway fund $322,295,530
Interagency transfer $4,905,929
Other fund $775,395
FY 2017 bond issue $150,000,000
Total $797,976,854

Transportation Planning NDOT is responsible for identifying projects, developing and approving transportation plans, coordi-
and Capital Project Selec- nating with the state’s four MPOs, and facilitating all transportation improvements in non-MPO areas.
tion Process NDOT develops the four-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) annually in col-
laboration with MPOs, local entities, and 23 tribal governments. The MPOs have primary stewardship
for transportation planning within their boundaries. Projects are evaluated by a standardized criteria
related to feasibility and use benefits. Areas not under MPO authority must submit applications for
proposed transportation improvement projects. These applications are ranked by an NDOT project
evaluation team, and high-priority projects are forwarded to the director and deputy director for final
selection. The number of projects included in the STIP for the next four-year period is limited by antici-
pated available funding. The NDOT Board of Directors approves the STIP annually.
Legislative Role in the No legislative role. The Legislature approves the overall NDOT budget, but not at the project-spe-
Planning Process cific level. At times, the Legislature may enact specific bills that fund highway construction projects
through tax modifications or bond issuances. NDOT, however, is responsible for selecting and approv-
ing those projects.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Nev. Rev. Stat. §§365.175 et seq.,
gasoline and §366.190, §408.235
diesel (fixed
rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on liquefied and
fuels petroleum gas, and others (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §366.190, §366.700)
Fuel taxes: • • • Allocated to recreational boating-re-
recreational lated uses (Nev. Rev. Stat. §365.535)
boating

Nevada
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Vehicle reg- • • • Nev. Rev. Stat. §482.480, §408.235
istration and
title fees
Truck regis- • • • Nev. Rev. Stat. §482.482, §408.235
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Driver’s • • • • Generally deposited to the Motor
license and Vehicle Fund, the balance of which
state ID card is transferred to the State Highway
fees Fund (Nev. Rev. Stat. §483.410,
§483.820, §482.180); additional
driver’s license fees support pedes-
trian and bicycle projects (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §483.415)
sponsorship revenues may be used for rest areas
only (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§408.551 et
seq.)
Passenger • • • Includes taxes on transportation
carrier excise network companies, taxicabs, and
taxes common motor carriers; first $5.0
million each biennium is allocated to
the State Highway Fund (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §372B.170; 2015 Nev. Stats.,
Chap. 278 and 447)
Petroleum • • • NDOT is annually allocated 10
cleanup fees percent of any revenues that exceed
$7,500,000 in the Fund for Cleaning
Up Discharges of Petroleum, for use
in counties that have a population
of less than 100,000 (Nev. Rev. Stat.
§408.242, §445C.350)
Occupational • • • Fees for vehicle manufacturer’s,
and business distributor’s, dealer’s, or rebuilder’s
licensing fees licenses (Nev. Rev. Stat. §482.325);
deposited to the State Highway
Fund
Governmen- • • • Tax imposed for the privilege of
tal services operating any vehicle upon the
taxes public highways of the state; to be
deposited in equal shares to the
State Highway Fund and the general
fund in FY 2017, and entirely to
the State Highway Fund starting in
FY 2018 (Nev. Rev. Stat. §371.060,
§482.182; 2015 Nev. Stats., Chap.
487)

Nevada
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Interest • • • See State Highway Fund (Nev. Rev. Stat.
income notes §408.235, §408.271) (see notes)
Notes:
• A 6.4-mile stretch of road that is operated within the Valley of Fire State Park by the Nevada State Parks Division is
reported to the Federal Highway Administration as a toll road because there is a required entrance fee, but it is not
considered a toll road for the purposes of this report. The revenue generated from the fee does not go to road repair or
maintenance.
• Nevada statute allows NDOT to use interest income from the State Highway Fund to conduct transit studies and
provide the state match for public transit capital purchases (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.271). However, due to insufficient
revenues, NDOT has had to discontinue this funding. Currently, no state funds are allocated to public transit, rail, or
other non-highway modes (except recreational boating).
• Although NDOT is authorized to collect permit fees for the operation of oversize or overweight vehicles, these fees do
not provide revenues for the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart. Rather, state statute requires that
the aggregate amounts received from the fees may not exceed the costs of administering the permit system (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §484D.625). Similarly, license plate fees are used only to defray the cost of producing the plates (Nev. Rev. Stat.
§482.268).
• Proceeds from state aviation fuel taxes are allocated to local airport operators and the Civil Air Patrol, not used by state
agencies (Nev. Rev. Stat. §365.170, §365.545, and §365.565).
• General funds have sometimes been authorized for NDOT use. This occurred most recently in 2007, when the Legis-
lature appropriated $170.0 million in general funds for highway construction projects in southern Nevada (2007 Nev.
Stats., Chap. 372). Due to the subsequent decline in the state economy, only $33.6 million of this appropriation was
spent.

Nevada

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution dedicates motor vehicle fuel taxes to public
State Fuel Taxes highways and administrative costs (Nev. Const. art. IX, §5). State statute repeats this restriction, and
caps the administrative costs for collecting the fuel tax at 1 percent of the total proceeds (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §408.235).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution dedicates vehicle-related fees and charges, except any tax that is imposed in
Transportation Revenues lieu of an ad valorem property tax, to public highways and administrative costs (Nev. Const. art. IX,
§5). State statute repeats this restriction and caps the administrative costs for collecting license and
registration fees at 27 percent of the total proceeds (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.235); this administrative
cap is slated to return to 22 percent after July 1, 2020 (2015 Nev. Stats., Chap. 394). State statute also
allocates fuel tax revenues attributable to recreational boating and aviation to purposes related to
those modes (Nev. Rev. Stat. §365.535, §365.545, and §365.565).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute establishes the State Highway Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other vehicle-related
Transportation Funds revenues (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.235), and the Fund for Aviation, which is authorized to receive reve-
nues for airport projects (Nev. Rev. Stat. §494.048). In general, however, the law places restrictions on
revenues, rather than the funds into which the revenues are deposited.
Revenue Sources Tolls are prohibited. State statute authorizes NDOT to develop, construct, improve, maintain, or oper-
Prohibited in State Law ate transportation facilities, but defines the term “transportation facility” to specifically exclude toll
bridges and toll roads (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.5471 and §408.5473).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • Highway Improvement Revenue
bonds Bonds (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.273)
GARVEE See notes Not currently in use; See notes
bonds
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • See See See Authorized in statute for various
notes notes notes transportation modes, not includ-
ing toll roads or bridges; allowed
for projects with cost estimates of
over $10 million, and up to two
projects between $5 million and $10
million (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.388,
§§408.5471 et seq.); used for sev-
eral road projects
Public-private • See • See See See Authorized in statute for various
partnerships notes notes notes notes transportation modes (Nev. Rev.
Stat. §§338.161 et seq.); not cur-
rently in use (see notes)
Land swaps • • Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.489
or donations
from land
owners

Notes:
Nevada
• Although GARVEE bonds are not identified by name in state statute, their use is permitted under a statutory provision
that allows NDOT to secure special obligation bonds for highway construction projects with state highway revenues or
by pledging Federal highway grants payable to the state (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.273). According to NDOT, this statute
would also allow private activity bonds (PABs) to be issued.
• Nevada statute authorizes state use of design-build and public-private partnerships for various non-highway modes
including public transit, railroads, and airports (Nev. Rev. Stat. §338.161 and §408.5471), but because no state funds
are currently used for these modes, it is also unlikely that these finance mechanisms would be used for them at the state
level.
• The only known public-private partnership in Nevada, the Las Vegas Monorail, was sponsored by private entities, with
some local and state involvement. The monorail continues to be privately owned and operated. No state-level projects
were found.
• Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance has been used by local
entities, but not at the state level.
• Nevada has used contracts involving construction managers at risk (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§338.1685 et seq.) as an additional
innovative project delivery method.
• The Nevada Legislature has sometimes enacted session law to authorize general obligation bonds for transportation
uses. This most recently happened in 2009, when the Legislature approved the sale of $15 million in general obligation
bonds in FY 2011 for highway projects (2009 Nev. Stats., Chap. 440). Although authorized by the Legislature, this
bond sale did not occur. No general obligation bonds are currently authorized or in use for transportation purposes.

Restrictions on Bonding may only be used for highway construction projects (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.273).
Finance Mechanisms Design-build is authorized for projects with cost estimates of over $10 million, and up to two
projects between $5 million and $10 million, but not for toll roads or bridges (Nev. Rev. Stat.
§408.388 and §§408.5471 et seq.).

Nevada
DOT Able to Retain and Yes, in some cases. NDOT may retain unspent revenues that are restricted by law to certain programs
Spend Excess Funds (for example, driver’s license fees that must be used for pedestrian and bicycle activities) and bal-
ance them forward from one fiscal year to the next. In general, these revenues can be spent without
further legislative approval. Pursuant to the State Budget Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§353.150 et seq.),
however, legislative approval may be required if NDOT wishes to use program-restricted revenues
for a different expenditure category than the one originally approved by the Legislature in the prior
fiscal year. Unspent appropriations, unless approved by the Legislature to carry forward to the second
year of a biennium, typically revert to their respective funds at the end of each fiscal year and must
be re-appropriated. Excess bond proceeds may be carried forward according to NDOT construction
schedules, and without legislative approval.
Legislative Approval No. NDOT may require legislative approval to transfer funds between expenditure categories, but not
Required for DOT to Move between highway projects. The Legislature approves NDOT’s overall funding level for each year of the
Funds Between Projects biennium, but NDOT retains authority within those funding levels to modify project-specific funding.
This allows NDOT to maintain flexibility in its program and to implement the approved investment
priorities efficiently and effectively.
Legislative Actions to State statute establishes low-bid requirements for most contracts (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.343).
Control DOT Costs

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. Regional transportation commissions in Clark and
Transportation Washoe counties are annually allocated 70 percent and 20 percent, respectively, of any revenues that
Revenues to Local exceed $7.5 million in the Fund for Cleaning Up Discharges of Petroleum (Nev. Rev. Stat. §408.242). Nevada
Entities also allocates state transportation funding to local entities by legislative appropriation. Local governments are
not eligible to receive appropriations from the Highway Fund, which may only be used for the construction,
maintenance, and repair of public highways of the state, but they do receive local gas tax revenue for the
construction and maintenance of roads.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to levy local option fuel taxes, which may be indexed to inflation, for road
Sources Autho- and street uses (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§373.010 et seq.). Counties may also levy sales taxes or lodging taxes for
rized in State Law transportation purposes (Nev. Rev. Stat. §377A.020 and §§244.3351 et seq.), development privilege taxes
for growth-related transportation improvements (Nev. Rev. Stat. §278.710), local option aviation fuel taxes
for airport purposes (Nev. Rev. Stat. §365.203, §365.545, and §365.565), and, for counties with populations
under 100,000, vehicle privilege taxes for road and street projects (Nev. Rev. Stat. §371.045). Counties with
a population of 100,000 or more must allocate a portion of their property taxes to the State Highway Fund
for highway projects in that county (Nev. Rev. Stat. §354.59815 and §408.235). At NDOT’s request, counties
with a population of 700,000 or more (currently Clark County) must issue bonds for up to $300 million to
assist with highway projects in that county. These bonds may be backed by local revenues from recreational
facilities, lodging taxes, or other sources (Nev. Rev. Stat. §244A.637). Road maintenance districts may levy
special assessments (Nev. Rev. Stat. §320.110). Counties and cities may charge developers impact fees to pay
for development-related capital improvements (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§278B.010 et seq.).

New Hampshire

Bridges 3,848
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, ferry boat, demand response
Legislature
Name New Hampshire General Court
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to July
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Transportation
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Ways and Means
House Committee on Public Works and Highways
Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds
[Study] Committee to Study the Feasibility of a Complete Streets Program (2016 only)
[Commission] Commission to Study Recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board
[Commission] New Hampshire Conservation Number Plate Advisory Committee
[Commission] Oversight Commission on Motor Vehicle Fines

New Hampshire
Name New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT)

Structure Organized mainly by functional activity. One of NHDOT’s five divisions, however, is dedicated to spe-
cific transportation modes (aeronautics, rail, and public transit).
Leadership NHDOT Commissioner (does not serve on governor’s cabinet; New Hampshire has no formal cabinet
system)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? No. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of the Department of Safety. It is funded by vehicle
registration fees. Pursuant to the state constitution (N.H. Const. part II, art. 6-a), any costs associated
with the collection and administration of highway funds by the Department of Safety are deducted
by the department before the funds are credited to the Highway Fund. This includes both fuel tax and
vehicle fee collections.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The New Hampshire State Police is a division of the Department of Safety. Funding sources for
these functions include fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, Turnpike toll revenues, and general funds.
These are not part of the NHDOT budget, but are appropriated to the Department of Safety.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Pease Development Author- The Pease Development Authority, a self-supporting corporation and
Transportation Entities ity—Division of Ports and instrumentality of the state, contains the Division of Ports and Harbors.
Harbors (corporation/ instru- The division is funded by port operating revenues (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
mentality) §§12-G:1 et seq. and §§12-G:42 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal. NHDOT commissioners, directors, assistant directors, and administrators meet
and Collaboration with and appear before the legislature on bills that impact the department, or at the request of legis-
lators for issues involving transportation infrastructure, planning, funding, and budgets.
DOT Legislative Liaison NHDOT’s Front Office serves as the main point of contact. The department also has a staff member
who serves as the legislative liaison and works with the key legislative policy committees.

New Hampshire
Transportation Laws N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 21-L, 228 to 272, and 422 to 424; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§12-G:42 et seq.; por-
tions of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 34; N.H. Const. part II, art. 6-a (revenue restrictions); portions of N.H.
Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. In New Hampshire, only legislators may request
Legislative Process legislative bill drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation. At times,
however, the department works with legislators to draft or revise
legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying By law, state funds cannot be used to lobby or attempt to influence
legislation (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §15:5). State agencies can, however,
provide factual information.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, fiscal impact notes are prepared by the legislative budget assis-
Statements for Legislative Use tant, who can request assistance or data from a state agency such as
NHDOT (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:46).
Appointment of The NHDOT commissioner is appointed to a four-year term by the governor, with the consent of
DOT Leadership the Executive Council (an elected agency in the executive branch) but with no legislative involve-
ment. State statute requires the commissioner to be qualified for the position “by reason of educa-
tion and experience” (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §21-L:3).
Legislature Able to No. The attorney general, the governor, or an Executive Council member may petition for the
Remove DOT Leaders? NHDOT commissioner’s removal for cause. Removal is effected by a majority vote of the Executive
Council in concurrence with the governor (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §4:1).
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules reviews all proposed rules and
Administrative Rules proposed interim rules. The committee may approve, conditionally approve, or object to a pro-
posed rule. If the committee does not act within 45 or 60 days, the proposed rule is automatically
approved. If the committee does object, it may sponsor a joint resolution to permanently prevent
adoption of the proposed rule. In addition, the committee must actively approve all proposed
interim rules (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§541-A:1 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. NHDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Audit Division of the Office of
or Sunset Reviews Legislative Budget Assistant. New Hampshire does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or
programs.
Required DOT Reports NHDOT is required to submit annual reports to the legislature concerning the state infrastructure
to the Legislature bank (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §21-L:23), real property (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §4:39-e), and the highway
and bridge betterment program (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §235:23-a). Every five years, the department
must submit a report concerning dedicated funds (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §6:12 and §6:12-j).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, as a result of legis-
Performance Management lation enacted in 2014, all state departments are now required to submit “efficiency expenditure
requests” as part of the biennial budget process. These requests must include performance goals
and measures, and those related to the appropriations of highway funds must be reported to the
General Court (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9:4 and §9:6; 2014 N.H. Laws, Chap. 168).
Other Legislative Oversight The General Court regularly forms study committees and commissions to address specific issues for
Mechanisms a limited period of time. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information
from NHDOT.
Resources Provided to DOT No. There is no specific allocation of funds to comply with required reporting. It is done as a part
to Support Compliance with of the department’s normal duties.

New Hampshire

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month operating budgets and one 24-month capital budget; fiscal year
ations Overview begins July 1. NHDOT submits its operating and capital budget requests to the governor, who then
submits recommended budgets to the legislature. The legislature enacts budget bills and presents
them to the governor for signature.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. Federal transportation funds are
tion Revenues to the DOT allocated to NHDOT as lump sum appropriations to the department. The Gen-
eral Court also approves the Statewide Transportation/Ten-Year Improvement
Plan, which reflects the overall amount of Federal funding.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. State transportation funds are
allocated to NHDOT as appropriations at the level of departmental programs
or broad spending categories. The General Court also approves the Statewide
Transportation/Ten-Year Improvement Plan, including the use of state funds for
individual projects.

Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, FY 2016 and FY 2017 (enacted), separate capital and operating budgets (see note)
Authorized Expenditures Aeronautics, rail, and transit $63,711,023
(Capital Budget, FY 2016 Software, facilities, and equipment $12,970,000
and FY 2017)
Total $76,681,023
(Capital Budget, FY 2016 General funds $7,804,623
and FY 2017)
Highway funds $12,970,000
Total $76,681,023
Authorized Expenditures Division of Aeronautics, Rail, and Transit $16,505,053
(Operating Budget, Administration $35,296,051
FY 2017 only)
Division of Finance $3,342,180
Division of Policy and Administration $2,317,167
Division of Operations $126,566,459
Division of Project Development $38,905,015
Municipal aid $60,625,777
Construction program $49,269,085
Consolidated Federal aid program $104,648,113
Turnpike system $152,551,539
Total $590,026,439
(Operating Budget, General funds $1,003,485
FY 2017 only)
Highway funds $190,172,199
Turnpike funds $149,519,063
Total $590,026,439
Note: NHDOT’s capital budget (in House Bill 25) includes software, facilities, and equipment, as well as matching funds for
aeronautics and transit Federal programs that are bond-financed during the biennium. The capital budget bill also makes appro-
priations from the Highway Fund to the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Safety, which are not
included here. NHDOT’s operating budget (in House Bill 1) includes debt service and infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

For ease of comparison with other states, this chart displays only one year of NHDOT’s biennial operating budget, which is
New Hampshire
enacted as two 12-month budgets. The capital budget, however, is enacted as one 24-month budget, and is reflected here in its
entirety.

Transportation Planning NHDOT uses the Governor’s Advisory Council on Intermodal Transportation process for transporta-
and Capital Project Selec- tion planning and for creating the Statewide Transportation/Ten-Year Improvement Program, which
tion Process by law must be updated every other year (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §228:99 and ch. 240). NHDOT, after
gathering information and input from the local level, drafts the plan and presents it to the governor’s
council. After debating the plan in public hearings, the governor’s council forwards it to the governor
for review. The governor then submits the plan to the General Court for review (including more public
hearings), revision, and final approval. MPOs incorporate approved projects into their own plans. In
2010, NHDOT also developed a Long-Range Transportation Plan with extensive review by NHDOT, the
General Court, and others.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The General Court biennially reviews, revises, and adopts the Statewide
Planning Process Transportation/Ten-Year Improvement Program. Typically, the plan undergoes many legislative
changes related to specific projects before it is approved. In 2010, General Court also reviewed the
Long-Range Transportation Plan.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§260:32 et
gasoline and seq., §260:35, §260:52
diesel (fixed
rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on liquefied natural
alternative gas, compressed natural gas, and
fuels propane, but not electricity (N.H.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §260:32-c)
Vehicle reg- • • • N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §261:20,
istration and §261:141
title fees
Truck regis- • • • N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §261:20
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Tolls • • • Turnpike System (N.H. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §237:9)
Rest area • Authorized in session law, not stat-
sponsorship ute; not currently in use; revenues
may be used for rest areas only
(2013 N.H. Laws, Chap. 259)
Rest area • • The Turnpike System has an arrange-
food or fuel ment with a third party for I-93
concessions Welcome Centers

New Hampshire
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Railroad • • • N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §82:31, §228:69
taxes and Pas-
senger
other rail and
fees freight
Rail property • • • N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §228:68
leases and Pas-
senger
sales and
freight
General • • • • Legislative appropriations for debt
funds Pas- service for aviation, transit, and rail
senger
and projects, and for NHDOT operating
freight expenses related to these modes
Interest • • • Turnpike System (N.H. Rev. Stat.
income Ann. §237-A:1)
Notes:
• Port operating revenues are collected and used by the Division of Ports and Harbors of the Pease Development Author-
ity, which is a self-supporting instrumentality of the state (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §12-G:42).
• At this time, there is no dedicated state funding for state-level aviation activities or the State Aeronautical Fund.
Proceeds from state aviation fuel taxes and aircraft registration and operating fees go to local entities and to the general
fund (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§422:31 et seq.). State legislation is expected to be drafted as part of the biennial bud-
get for FY 2018 and FY 2019 to restrict the use of aviation fuel tax revenues to aviation purposes, in compliance with
recent Federal Aviation Administration rulings.

New Hampshire
Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts the use of gasoline road tolls and
State Fuel Taxes other motor fuel taxes to public highways, including traffic supervision and debt, and prohibits their
diversion to any other purpose (N.H. Const. part II, art. 6-a). State statute further directs the use of
the revenues attributable to the gas tax increase enacted in 2014 (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§260:32-b).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related charges and taxes to public highways, includ-
Transportation Revenues ing traffic supervision and debt, and prohibits their diversion to any other purpose (N.H. Const. part II,
art. 6-a). State statute requires toll revenues from the New Hampshire Turnpike System to be used for
turnpike operations, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or debt, and prohibits their diversion
to any other purpose ()N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §237:9).
Dedicated or Restricted The Highway Fund receives fuel taxes and other highway revenues. State statute makes allocations
Transportation Funds from the fund to NHDOT, the Department of Safety, and other agencies (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9:9-b).
The Highway and Bridge Betterment Account, which also receives a portion of fuel tax revenues, is
restricted to highway and bridge projects, and is distributed to the state highway districts by statutory
formula (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §235:23-a). State statute also establishes a railroad fund (N.H. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §§228:68 et seq.) and aeronautical fund (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §422:35).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • Typically authorized in session law
obligation Pas- (N.H. House Bill 25, the capital
senger
bonds and budget bill); also authorized in state
freight statute for the I-93 project (N.H.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §6:13-d) (see notes)
Revenue • • • Used for the Turnpike System only
bonds (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §237-A:2); also
authorized in statute for the I-93
project (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §6:13-
d) (see notes)
Build Amer- • • Issued in conjunction with Turnpike
ica Bonds revenue bonds and GARVEE bonds
in 2010
GARVEE • • • Authorized in state statute; capped
bonds at a total of $490 million (N.H. Rev.
Stat. Ann. §§228-A:1 et seq.); most
Federal credit • • • Authorized in statute (N.H. Rev. Stat.
assistance: Ann. §6:13-d); active loan(s) as of
TIFIA May 2016 (see notes)
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • • • Occasionally used for transit when
matching: Congestion Mitigation and Air Qual-
toll cred- ity program funding is transferred to
its (“soft the Federal Transit Administration
match”)

New Hampshire
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Design-build • • • Authorized in statute for highways,
bridges, or “other item directly
related to transportation”; additional
approvals required for projects over
$25 million (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§228:4); used for at least one bridge
project
Public-private • • • • As of Aug. 15, 2016, authorized for
partnerships Pas- multimodal transportation infra-
senger
and structure projects (N.H. Rev. Stat.
freight Ann. §228:21, §§228:107 et seq.;
2016 N.H. Laws, Chap. 276)
State infra- • • • • • Established in 2014 but not yet cap-
structure Pas- italized; may be used for “surface
senger
bank and transportation projects that contrib-
freight ute to multi-modal and intermodal
transportation” (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§§21-L:19 et seq.); not currently in
use
Notes:
• State statute allows the use of general obligation and revenue bonds for improvements to Interstate 93 and caps total
debt for the project at $200 million (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §6:13-d). No such bonds, however, are being used. Instead,
the state has entered into a $200 million direct loan under the Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Inno-
vation Act (TIFIA) program, which is to be repaid by a general obligation pledge of the state and gas tax revenues.

Restrictions on Total GARVEE bonding is capped at $490 million (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §228-A:2). Additional
Finance Mechanisms approvals from the governor and the Executive Council are required for design-build projects
costing more than $25 million (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §228:4). Total debt for the I-93 project is
capped at $200 million (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §6:13-d).

New Hampshire
DOT Able to Retain and Yes, for funds related to the construction and reconstruction of highways. These funds are retained
Spend Excess Funds and do not require further approvals to be spent. All other NHDOT revenues that are received in
excess of budget estimates are transferred to the Highway Surplus Account, use of which must be
approved by the Joint Legislative Fiscal Council and the governor (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§228:11 et
seq.).
Legislative Actions to State statute contains low-bid requirements for Turnpike projects and other state transportation proj-
Control DOT Costs ects (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §228:4, 237:14, and §237:44).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. New Hampshire allocates state revenues to localities
Transportation through its Highway Block Grant Aid program and discretionary state aid programs for highways and bridges.
Revenues to Local By law, all municipalities that have class IV and V highway mileage are entitled to Highway Block Grant Aid
Entities for projects on those highways. As part of this aid, at least 12 percent of state fuel tax and motor vehicle fee
revenues must be distributed to municipalities by a statutory formula based on population and class IV and V
highway miles. An additional amount of at least $400,000 per year is distributed by a formula based on class
V highway miles only (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §235:23). In addition, a municipality may apply to the commis-
sioner for discretionary state aid for class I, II, and III highway projects (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§235:10 et seq.)
or for bridge projects on class II highways (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§234:1 et seq.). Both of these programs
require a local match. State transportation funds are also allocated to local entities through state legislative
appropriations.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes cities and towns to adopt additional registration fees for transportation improve-
Sources Autho- ments including roads, bridges, public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
rized in State Law §261:153). Municipalities may also charge developers impact fees to pay for development-related capital
improvements (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §674:21).

New Jersey

Bridges 6,686
boat, streetcar, vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name New Jersey Legislature
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Law and Public Safety
tion-Related Issues Assembly Committee on Law and Public Safety
Assembly Committee on Transportation and Independent Authorities

New Jersey
Name New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT)
Staff Size in Full-Time 3,141 (not including the Motor Vehicle Commission and NJ Transit)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, freight rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle. Some marine transportation
DOT Has Jurisdiction is under NJDOT jurisdiction, but most is under independent authorities. The New Jersey Transit Corpo-
ration (NJ Transit), which has jurisdiction over public transit, is a corporation and instrumentality of the
state that by law is allocated to NJDOT, but functions as an independent entity (see below).
Includes DMV? No. The Motor Vehicle Commission is an independent state agency. It is funded by fee revenues.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The New Jersey State Police and the Division of Highway Traffic Safety are under the Depart-
ment of Law and Public Safety. State Transportation Trust Fund funds are used to support state-level
highway patrol functions related to work zone enforcement on NJDOT construction projects. Other
enforcement efforts are funded through Federal sources and other general fund appropriations.
Jurisdiction Over No. The New Jersey Turnpike Authority and the South Jersey Transportation Authority are corpora-
Toll Facilities? tions and instrumentalities of the state that are statutorily within NJDOT, but function as independent,
quasi-public entities (see below). NJDOT has no jurisdiction over toll facilities operated by bi-state
authorities.
Other
Other State-Level New Jersey Transportation The New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority finances the
Transportation Entities Trust Fund Authority (corpo- annual capital programs of NJDOT and NJ Transit. The authority is a
ration/ instrumentality) corporation and instrumentality of the state that is allocated to NJDOT
to meet constitutional requirements (N.J. Const. art. V, §4, ¶1) but
otherwise functions as an independent, quasi-public entity. The com-
missioner of transportation serves as the authority’s chair ex officio
(N.J. Stat. Ann. §§27:1B-4 et seq.).
New Jersey Turnpike Author- The New Jersey Turnpike Authority is a corporation and instrumentality
ity (corporation/ instrumen- of the state that is statutorily within NJDOT, but otherwise functions
tality) as an independent, quasi-public entity. The commissioner of trans-
portation or designee serves as a member ex officio (N.J. Stat. Ann.
§§27:23-1 et seq.).
South Jersey Transportation The South Jersey Transportation Authority is a corporation and instru-
Authority (corporation/ mentality of the state that is allocated to NJDOT to meet constitutional
instrumentality) requirements (N.J. Const. art. V, §4, ¶1) but otherwise functions as an
independent, quasi-public entity. The commissioner of transportation
serves as a member ex officio (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§27:25a-1 et seq.).
New Jersey Transit Corpora- The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is a corporation
tion (corporation/ instrumen- and instrumentality of the state that is allocated to NJDOT to meet
tality) constitutional requirements (N.J. Const. art. V, §4, ¶1) but otherwise
functions as an independent, quasi-public entity. NJ Transit is funded
by transit fares, legislative appropriations, Federal funds, and the Trans-
portation Trust Fund. The commissioner of transportation serves as NJ
Transit’s chair ex officio (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§27:25-1 et seq.).
South Jersey Port Corpora- The South Jersey Port Corporation, a quasi-state entity within New
tion (corporation/ instrumen- Jersey’s Department of the Treasury, operates marine shipping ter-
tality) minals in the seven-county South Jersey Port District (N.J. Stat. Ann.
§§12:11A-1 et seq.).

New Jersey
Port Authority of New York The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a bi-state corpora-
and New Jersey (bi-state tion that oversees bridges, tunnels, airports, ports, and some transit
corporation) facilities in the Port of New York district (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§32:1-1 et
seq.). It is primarily funded by fares and toll revenues.
Waterfront Commission The Waterfront Commission of the New York Harbor is a bi-state
of the New York Harbor corporation and instrumentality of New York and New Jersey that
(bi-state corporation/ instru- acts as the regulatory agency for the Port of New York (N.J. Stat. Ann.
mentality) §§32:23-7 et seq.).
Delaware River Port Author- The Delaware River Port Authority is a bi-state public corporate instru-
ity (bi-state corporation/ mentality (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§32:3-1 et seq.) that oversees four bridges
instrumentality) and a transit system between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Delaware River Joint Toll The Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission is a bi-state public
Bridge Commission (bi-state corporate instrumentality (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§32:8-1) that oversees 20
corporation/ instrumentality) toll and toll-supported bridges between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
It is funded by toll revenues.
Delaware River and Bay The Delaware River and Bay Authority, a bi-state government agency
Authority (bi-state govern- of Delaware and New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§32:11E-1 et seq.) main-
ment agency) tains and operates five regional airports, the Cape-May Lewes Ferry,
and the Delaware Memorial Bridge Twin Span. It is funded by operat-
ing revenues and investments.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. Formal communication between NJDOT and the Legislature occurs in relation
and Collaboration to legislative approval of NJDOT’s executive budget, the annual Transportation Capital Program, and
other transportation plans (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-22). Staff in NJDOT’s Government and Community
Relations Division interact with legislators and legislative staff about various matters, including pend-
ing legislation, and analyze transportation-related bills.
DOT Legislative Liaison The director of legislative, administrative, and regulatory actions in NJDOT’s Government and Com-
munity Relations Division is the main point of contact between the department and the Legislature.
Other NJDOT staff are also key sources of information and testimony.
Transportation Laws N.J. Stat. Ann. tit. 6, 27, and 39; portions of N.J. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, 32, and 48; N.J. Const. art. VIII, §2,
¶4 (revenue restrictions); portions of N.J. Stat. Ann. tit. 54 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In New Jersey, only legislators may request legislative
Legislative Process bill drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying NJDOT advises legislative transportation committees of its position on
pending legislation and, in many cases, offers suggestions for amend-
ments.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, state agencies must prepare fiscal notes for bills that would
Statements for Legislative Use affect them, as directed by the state budget director (N.J. Stat. Ann.
§§52:13B-6 et seq.). NJDOT participates in this process. State agencies
do not always, however, provide fiscal notes for bills.

New Jersey
Appointment of The commissioner of transportation is appointed by the governor to a term that coincides with the
DOT Leadership governor’s, with the advice and consent of the Senate. State statute requires the commissioner to be
“qualified by training and experience to perform the duties of [the] office” (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1A-4).
Legislature Able to No. The commissioner of transportation serves at the pleasure of the governor during the gover-
Remove DOT Leaders? nor’s term of office.
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules are reviewed by the relevant standing committees. The role of these com-
Administrative Rules mittees is mainly advisory (N.J. Stat. Ann. §52:14B-4.1). In addition, under the state constitution,
the full Legislature may review any proposed or existing rule, and can invalidate or prohibit such a
rule by concurrent resolution if it is found to be inconsistent with legislative intent (N.J. Const. art.
V, §4, ¶6).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. NJDOT is subject to periodic operational audits conducted by the Office of
or Sunset Reviews the State Auditor, in the legislative branch. These audits are reviewed by the Legislature. The state
conducts sunset reviews, but not of NJDOT.
Required DOT Reports NJDOT must submit a report at least every six months to the Legislature concerning projects
to the Legislature funded by the Transportation Trust Fund (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-17). The commissioner of transpor-
tation is required to submit annual reports concerning NJDOT operations (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1A-
5), NJDOT and NJ Transit salaries and overhead expenses (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-21), and roadway
pavements (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-21.23 and §27:1B-21.24). The Transportation Trust Fund Author-
ity must make an annual report concerning all its activities (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-17).
Legislative Role in DOT None besides the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above. New Jersey has a per-
Performance Management formance-based budgeting system in which NJDOT sets goals in conjunction with the Department
of the Treasury as part of the budget process, but the Legislature has no role in these activities.
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from NJDOT.
Mechanisms
Resources Provided to DOT Yes. Funds have been allocated to NJDOT to support its compliance with legislative oversight
to Support Compliance with requirements.


ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. Federal transportation funds that
tion Revenues to the DOT support NJDOT’s capital program, as with all other funding of state government
activities, are constitutionally subject to appropriation (N.J. Const. art. VIII, §2,
para. 2). The Legislature approves the Annual Transportation Capital Program,
including the use of Federal funds, in the appropriations act (N.J. Stat. Ann.
§27:1B-22.2). Any Federal funds that become available to the state for trans-
portation projects that have not been appropriated to NJDOT in the annual
appropriations act are deemed appropriated and may, subject to approval by
the Joint Budget Oversight Committee and the state treasurer, be expended for
any qualified purpose (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-21).
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. State transportation funds are
generally allocated to NJDOT as lump sum appropriations to the Transportation
Trust Fund, from which they are appropriated for specific projects as part of the
annual appropriations act. The Legislature approves the Annual Transportation
Capital Program, including the use of state funds, as part of the annual appro-
priations act (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-22.2). The Transportation Trust Fund Act
limits the final appropriation, exclusive of Federal funds, to $1.6 billion (N.J. Stat.
Ann. §27:1B-21.1).

New Jersey
Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2016 capital program (approved) (see notes)
Authorized Expenditures Infrastructure preservation $1,477,151,000
Mass transit $2,099,515,009
Mobility and congestion relief $254,269,000
Operating and maintenance $77,141,000
Safety $125,808,000
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey bridges $950,000,000
Total $4,983,884,009
Revenue Sources Transportation Trust Fund $1,247,000,000
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey $353,000,000
Federal revenues $2,357,500,000
Other revenues $1,026,400,000
Total $4,983,900,000
Notes:
• The Transportation Trust Fund Renewal Act of 2012, which reauthorized the Transportation Trust Fund program for
four years, expired on June 30, 2016. No new spending authorization was in place as of July 1, 2016.
• New Jersey’s annual transportation capital program includes expenditures for NJDOT, NJ Transit, and the Port Au-
thority of New York and New Jersey, all of which are included in this chart.

Transportation Planning State law requires a one-year capital program and a five-year capital plan to be submitted annually. In
and Capital Project Selec- addition, a transportation master plan is required every five years and a statewide capital investment
tion Process strategy may be updated annually (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-22). Each year, NJDOT prepares its proposed
Annual Transportation Capital Program. NJDOT selects and prioritizes projects for the program in
consultation with MPOs. The commissioner of transportation submits the program to the Legislature,
and either chamber may return it with objections or recommended modifications. The Legislature
approves the program as part of the annual appropriations act.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The Legislature reviews and approves projects in the Annual Transportation
Planning Process Capital Program as part of the annual appropriations act, and in the process may make changes. The
Legislature also has some discretion in how it appropriates transportation revenues, even those that
are dedicated in state statute to specific purposes, as the appropriations act traditionally takes prece-
dence over statutory dedications. Dedications in the constitution, however, are considered binding.

New Jersey
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Taxes on gasoline and diesel include
gasoline and Pas- a fixed-rate component and a
senger
diesel (fixed and variable component, the petroleum
rate and vari- freight products gross receipts tax, which
able rate— is adjusted twice per year based on
percentage average retail price; $200 million per
of price) year from proceeds of the petroleum
products gross receipts tax is ded-
icated to transportation (N.J. Stat.
Ann. §54:39-103, §54:15B-3; N.J.
Const. art. VIII, §2, ¶4)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied petro-
alternative Pas- leum gas, which is also subject
senger
fuels (fixed and to the petroleum products gross
rate and vari- freight receipts tax (N.J. Stat. Ann. §54:39-
able rate— 103, §54:15B-3)
percentage
of price)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (N.J. Stat. Ann. §6:1-92,
§54:39-102, §54:39-103, §54:39-
149)
Vehicle • See • • • • • • Good Driver Surcharge; dedicated in
registration notes Pas- statute (N.J. Stat. Ann. §17:33b-63,
senger
surcharges and §27:1B-20) but not currently in use
freight for transportation (see notes)
Sales taxes • • • • • • • • $200 million per year is dedicated
on motor Pas- to transportation (N.J. Stat. Ann.
senger
vehicle sales and §27:1B-20; N.J. Const. art. VIII, §2,
freight ¶4)
Truck regis- • See • • • • • • A portion of registration fees on
tration fees notes Pas- heavy trucks is dedicated in statute
senger
(based on and (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-20, §39:3-20)
gross vehicle freight but not currently in use for transpor-
weight) tation (see notes)
Tolls/contrac- • • • • • • • • The Transportation Trust Fund is
tual contribu- Pas- allocated at least $24.5 million per
senger
tions and year from contracts with toll road
freight authorities and other agencies (N.J.
Stat. Ann. §27:1B-20)
sponsorship law also allows sponsorship of other
highway-related services or pro-
grams; use of revenues is restricted
to highway uses (N.J. Stat. Ann.
§§27:7-44.18 et seq.)

New Jersey
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Aeronauti- • • • N.J. Stat. Ann. §6:1-44.1
cal facilities
licensing fees
Interest • • • • • • • • Transportation Trust Fund (N.J. Stat.
income Pas- Ann. §27:1B-6)
senger
and
freight
Notes:
• The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit)—which is a corporation and instrumentality of the state, not a state
agency—receives revenues from transit fares, property leases or sales (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:25-5), and other sources.
The Delaware River and Bay Authority, a bi-state government agency of Delaware and New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann.
§§32:11E-1 et seq.) maintains and operates five regional airports, the Cape-May Lewes Ferry, and the Delaware Me-
morial Bridge Twin Span, and is funded by operating revenues and investments.
• In general, passenger vehicle registration and title fees are allocated to the Motor Vehicle Commission and to the
general fund (N.J. Stat. Ann. §39:2A-36), not to the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart. Revenues
from the additional registration fee known as the Good Driver Surcharge (N.J. Stat. Ann. §17:33b-63) and a portion of
registration fees on heavy trucks (N.J. Stat. Ann. §39:3-20), although statutorily dedicated to the Transportation Trust
Fund Account N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-20), have not been appropriated by the Legislature to transportation purposes
since FY 2001.
• Net proceeds from tire fees in excess of $2.3 million per year are made available for appropriation to NJDOT for snow
removal operations (N.J. Stat. Ann. §54:32F-2), but not for the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart.

New Jersey
Restrictions on Constitutional, multimodal transportation. The state constitution dedicates 10.5 cents per gallon of
State Fuel Taxes motor fuel tax revenues to transportation purposes, including debt, and prohibits the Legislature from
borrowing, appropriating, or using any part of these funds for any other purpose (N.J. Const. art. VIII,
§2, ¶4).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution annually dedicates at least $200 million in petroleum products gross receipts
Transportation Revenues tax revenues and $200 million in state sales tax revenues to transportation purposes, including debt,
and prohibits the Legislature from using these revenues for any other purpose (N.J. Const. art. VIII, §2,
¶4). State statute directs these and other revenues to the multimodal Transportation Trust Fund (N.J.
Stat. Ann. §27:1B-20). Statutory dedications of revenue, however, unlike those in the constitution,
are not binding on the Legislature. The annual appropriations act takes precedence over dedication
language in statute, and the Legislature typically has chosen not to fully appropriate the statutory
revenues.
Dedicated or Restricted State statute dedicates the multimodal Transportation Trust Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other
Transportation Funds revenues, to transportation system capital projects (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-21.4). The Airport Safety
Fund, which receives aviation-related revenues, must be used for authorized aviation purposes (N.J.
Stat. Ann. §6:1-92).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Appropria- • • • • • • • • Transportation Trust Fund Authority
tion credit Pas- (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-6) (see notes)
senger
bonds (see and
notes) freight
Build Amer- • • • • • • • Issued in 2009 by the Transportation
ica Bonds Pas- Trust Fund Authority (see notes);
senger
and tax credits now used to offset the
freight authority’s debt service costs
GARVEE See notes • • Authorized in state statute (N.J. Stat.
bonds Ann. §27:1B-9) (see notes); most
Advance • • Authorized in session law (2016 N.J.
construction Laws, Chap. 10), not statute
Federal-aid • • • Used to match all Federal highway
matching: and public transit funds
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build See See See See Used for past projects, but not cur-
notes notes notes notes rently in use; no current authorizing
statute found (see notes)
Public-private See See See See Used for past projects, but not cur-
partnerships notes notes notes notes rently in use; no current authorizing
statute found (see notes)

Notes:
New Jersey
as public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. For New Jersey, however, bonds issued by the Transportation Trust
Fund Authority, which exists in part to finance NJDOT’s capital program, are included. “Authorized by state constitu-
tion or statute” signifies that the item is specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authoriza-
tions or powers. “Eligible transportation activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation
facilities and services. They do not include administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or
regulatory activities, education programs, or distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail
only. Commuter rail and light rail are included under “public transit.”
• The Transportation Trust Fund Authority is authorized to issue its own bonds to finance the legislatively approved
Annual Transportation Capital Program, up to a statutory limit (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-6, §27:1B-9). These bonds
are considered “appropriation credit” bonds rather than revenue bonds because actual yields from each of the revenue
sources do not automatically flow to the Authority. Instead, the Legislature must appropriate specific revenue amounts
each year.
• GARVEE bonds are authorized under a state statute that allows the Transportation Trust Fund Authority to “issue
notes in anticipation of the receipt of appropriations, grants, reimbursements or other funds, including without limita-
tion grants from the Federal government for Federal aid highways or public transportation systems” and exempts such
notes from other statutory debt limitations (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-9).
• New Jersey has a number of corporations that function as quasi-state entities. Among these, Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey, a bi-state corporation, has used private activity bonds (PABs), a TIFIA loan, design-build, and
public-private partnerships, and NJ Transit has used design-build and public-private partnerships (see below).
• In the late 1990s, several public-private partnerships were established in New Jersey. In 1997, NJDOT entered into a
partnership for a tunnel project, and from 1996 to 1999, two quasi-public entities—NJ Transit and the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey—entered into partnerships for transit and airport projects. All of these projects included
design-build components and most of them continue to be privately operated. In addition, in 2013, the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey entered into a partnership for the Goethals Bridge project. In terms of statutory authority,
from 1997 to 2002, state law authorized up to seven public-private transportation demonstration projects, including
design-build contracting (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§27:1D-1 et seq.). No current authorizing statutes, however, were found.
Transportation-Related Yes.
Bonding
Restrictions on State statute allows the Transportation Trust Fund Authority to issue its own bonds to finance the
Finance Mechanisms legislatively approved Annual Transportation Capital Program, up to a statutory limit. The annual limit
has been decreasing since 2012, with a cap of $626.8 million for FY 2016 (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-6
and §27:1B-9).

New Jersey
DOT Able to Retain and Yes. State Transportation Trust Fund spending authority that is not obligated at the end of a fiscal year
Spend Excess Funds carries over to the next fiscal year and must be used for capital projects. Other state funding sources,
including operating and maritime funds, also carry over via authorizing budget language in the annual
appropriations act. No additional approval is required to spend these funds, provided appropriated
capital funds are spent on the original programmed project. Excess re-appropriated funds within the
maintenance and operations budget are available for spending in that program.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. Notwithstanding state statutes to the contrary (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-21), annual appro-
Required for DOT to priations acts have long authorized NJDOT to transfer appropriated funds among projects if approved
Move Funds Between by the director of the state treasury’s Division of Budget and Accounting. The Legislative Budget and
Projects Finance Officer, in general, must only be notified of any such approved transfers. The Legislative Bud-
get and Finance Officer, however, is required to approve transfers between state accounts.
Legislative Actions to In 2006, the Legislature created the Financial Policy Review Board “to assure fiscal discipline” for
Control DOT Costs the Transportation Trust Fund Authority, in part by certifying annually that the authority adheres to
statutory caps on bonding and permitted maintenance expenditures, as well as a statutory $1.6 billion
annual limit on total appropriations of state funds for project costs (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-22.2 and
§27:1B-9). State statute also contains low-bid requirements for highway construction projects and
transit capital projects (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:7-25 and §27:25-11) and limits the annual amount spent
on NJDOT and NJ Transit salaries and overhead at 13 percent of that year’s appropriations from the
Transportation Trust Fund (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-21).

Allocation of State Statutory and other formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. By law, the Legislature must annually
Transportation appropriate at least $175 million from the Transportation Trust Fund for state aid to counties and municipal-
Revenues to Local ities for transportation projects. Of the total appropriated amount, 10 percent is set aside for the commis-
Entities sioner to allocate at his or her discretion. Another $5 million is distributed to municipalities that qualify for
state Urban Aid, using a formula computed by the state’s Department of Community Affairs. A further por-
tion of the appropriation is awarded to municipalities through the competitive Municipal Aid grant program.
Under this program, each county is allocated a share of the available funding by a statutory formula based
on population and road miles. Municipalities then compete for portions of their county’s share. The com-
missioner of transportation makes the final project selection (N.J. Stat. Ann. §27:1B-25). NJDOT also awards
discretionary grants for county aid, local bridges, bikeway projects, safe transit access, and transit-oriented
development.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes certain municipalities to impose special assessments for local road improvements (N.J.
Sources Autho- Stat. Ann. §40:56-48). Municipalities may require developers to pay a share of necessary street and other
rized in State Law improvements (N.J. Stat. Ann. §40:55D-42). Similarly, counties may charge development fees to pay for trans-
portation improvements (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§27:1C-1 et seq.).

New Mexico

Bridges 3,960
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, commuter rail, vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name New Mexico Legislature
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Mar. (odd years), Jan. to Feb. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Corporations and Transportation
tion-Related Issues House Committee on Appropriations and Finance
House Committee on Transportation and Public Works
[Interim] Transportation Infrastructure Revenue Subcommittee

New Mexico
Name New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT)
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), State Transportation Commission (indepen-
dent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit (including commuter rail), passenger rail, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? No. The Motor Vehicle Division is a division of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department. It
is funded by general funds, fee revenues, and the sale of driver’s license database information.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The New Mexico State Police is a division of the Department of Public Safety. It is funded primarily
by general funds.
Jurisdiction Over No. New Mexico has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level None. New Mexico has no state-level transportation entities besides NMDOT, the State Transportation
Transportation Entities Commission, and those that perform DMV and highway patrol functions.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly during the legislative session. Communication is frequent between
and Collaboration NMDOT and legislative staff, and as needed between NMDOT and legislators. NMDOT interacts with
the Legislature about transportation-related legislation all year, but especially from the start of the
budget cycle to the end of the session. NMDOT’s Office of the Secretary is responsible for most of the
department’s interactions with legislators and legislative staff. As needed, legislative committee staff
communicate directly with the secretary and other NMDOT senior officials in an informal, hands-on
manner to prepare budgets and legislation or provide answers for legislators.
DOT Legislative Liaison NMDOT’s Office of the Secretary acts as the main point of contact between the department and the
Legislature. Other senior NMDOT officials are also key sources of information.
Transportation Laws N.M. Stat. Ann. ch. 64 to 67; portions of N.M. Stat. Ann. ch. 63; portions of N.M. Stat. Ann. ch. 7 (reve-
nues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In New Mexico, only legislators may request legislative
Legislative Process bill drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation. NMDOT senior offi-
cials do, however, consult informally with legislative committee staff
concerning the preparation of new legislative proposals.
Advocacy and Lobbying Only the secretary of transportation is allowed to lobby the Legislature.
NMDOT staff provide technical information regarding specific legisla-
tion. The department does not use contract lobbyists.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact NMDOT provides input as appropriate to the Legislative Finance Com-
Statements for Legislative Use mittee, which prepares fiscal impact reports for proposed bills.

New Mexico
Appointment of The six members of the State Transportation Commission are appointed to staggered six-year
DOT Leadership terms by the governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate and within statutory require-
ments for geographic representation and partisan balance. If the governor fails to follow the
procedure for Senate confirmation, however, the Senate appoints and confirms the commissioners
(N.M. Stat. Ann. §§67-3-2 et seq.). The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor,
with the advice and consent of the Senate and the approval of the State Transportation Commis-
sion (N.M. Stat. Ann. §67-3-23).
Legislature Able to No legislative entity has the power to remove a DOT leader from office. However, although mem-
Remove DOT Leaders? bers of the State Transportation Commission serve at the pleasure of the governor, they cannot be
removed from office without Senate approval (N.M. Stat. Ann. §67-3-5). The governor may remove
the secretary of transportation (N.M. Const. art. V, §5).
Legislative Review of No. New Mexico has no formal process for legislative review of administrative rules.
Administrative Rules
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. NMDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Legislative Finance Commit-
or Sunset Reviews tee. New Mexico conducts sunset reviews, but not of NMDOT.
Required DOT Reports NMDOT must provide quarterly progress reports to the Legislative Finance Committee (N.M. Stat.
to the Legislature Ann. §67-3-59.4).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, as part of the state’s
Performance Management performance-based budgeting process (N.M. Stat. Ann. §§6-3A-1 et seq.), the Legislature annually
reviews NMDOT’s progress on its performance goals and, after consensus with the governor’s
office and NMDOT, enacts updated goals and measures into the appropriation act. The Legislative
Finance Committee prepares quarterly performance report cards on a number of state agencies,
including NMDOT. The Legislature also tracks performance through frequent NMDOT presenta-
tions to various legislative committees.
Other Legislative Oversight The Legislative Council can create interim committees to study major problems between legislative
Mechanisms sessions. In 2015, for example, the Legislative Council created the Transportation Infrastructure
Revenue Subcommittee to study and make recommendations concerning the state’s transportation
needs and revenue sources. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for informa-
tion from NMDOT.
Resources Provided to DOT Yes. Legislative requests come in the form of memorials or resolutions from the House, Senate, or
to Support Compliance with both. Occasionally an appropriation is included in other legislation for the costs of the report; more
Oversight Requirements? frequently, NMDOT will conduct the study or report from the operating budget for the specific
area from which the report is generated. Memorials and resolutions do not have the force of law,
so if a request is overly burdensome, the department will not undertake the study.

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. New Mexico is one of five states in which a legislative
ations Overview entity—in this case, the Legislative Finance Committee—produces a comprehensive budget as an
alternative to the governor’s proposal.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Partial legislative appropriation and plan approval. Federal transportation funds
tion Revenues to the DOT are allocated to NMDOT in several ways, including direct flow from the U.S.
DOT with no state legislative involvement, lump sum legislative appropriations
to the department, appropriations to broad spending categories and specific
projects, and through annual approval of the Statewide Transportation Improve-
ment Program (STIP).
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. State transportation funds are allo-
cated to NMDOT as lump sum legislative appropriations to the department and
appropriations to broad spending categories and specific projects, and through
annual approval of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

New Mexico
Authorized Expenditures Project design and construction $529,905,000
Highway operations $233,794,900
Program support $42,171,900
Modal $61,681,200
Total $867,553,000
Revenue Sources General fund $0
Total $867,553,000

Transportation Planning The Legislature, the Department of Finance and Administration, and NMDOT come to agreement
and Capital Project Selec- during the legislative session on budget numbers and priorities. NMDOT then coordinates the process
tion Process for updating the four-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) with input from
MPOs, tribes, and others. The State Transportation Commission advises and amends the plan as
appropriate, given changing needs in the state. The Legislature has oversight of and can comment
upon the commission’s amendments, but cannot change them. The governor gives input through the
budget process and before State Transportation Commission meetings. NMDOT also spearheads the
development of the state’s 20-year Long-Range Multi-Modal Transportation Plan, which sets lon-
ger-term priorities and guides decision-making.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The Legislature is one of the three critical actors in the planning process,
Planning Process along with NMDOT and the State Transportation Commission. The primary legislative role is to set
budget priorities in cooperation with the Department of Finance and Administration and NMDOT, and
then to approve those priorities through committee action. The Legislature has oversight of and can
comment upon the commission’s amendments to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), but cannot change them.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Allocated in part to the multimodal
gasoline and Pas- State Road Fund, the State Aviation
senger
diesel (fixed and Fund, and the Motorboat Fuel Tax
rate) freight Fund (N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-1-6.10,
§7-13-3, §7-16a-3)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied petro-
alternative Pas- leum gas, liquefied and compressed
senger
fuels and natural gas, and others; allocated
freight the same way as gasoline and diesel
taxes (N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-1-6.10,
§7-16B-1, §7-16B-4)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-1-
6.7)

New Mexico
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • • N.M. Stat. Ann. §66-6-19, §66-6-
istration and Pas- 23, §67-3-66
senger
title fees and
freight
Sales taxes • • • Gross receipts taxes; allocated in
on motor part to the Highway Infrastructure
vehicle leases Fund (N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-14A-10)
and rentals
Weight-dis- • • • • • • • • Allocated to State Road Fund (N.M.
tance taxes Pas- Stat. Ann. §7-1-6.10, §§7-15A-1 et
senger
(trucks) and seq.)
freight
Trip taxes • • • • • • • • In lieu of registration fees and
Pas- weight distance taxes for for-
senger
and eign-based motor carriers (N.M.
freight Stat. Ann. §7-15-3.1, §7-15-5)
Oversize/ • • • • • • • • N.M. Stat. Ann. §66-6-23, §66-7-
overweight Pas- 413, §66-7-413.4
senger
truck permit and
fees freight
Driver’s • • • • • • • • N.M. Stat. Ann. §66-6-23, §67-3-66
license fees Pas-
senger
and
freight
Aircraft • • • N.M. Stat. Ann. §64-4-11, §64-4-14
registration
fees
Outdoor • • • • • • • • Permit fees (N.M. Stat. Ann. §67-
advertising Pas- 12-5)
senger
revenues and
freight
State general • • • Statute dedicates a percentage to
sales taxes the State Aviation Fund until June
30, 2018 (N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-1-6.7;
2016 N.M. Laws, Chap. 87)
Interest • • • • • • • • State Aviation Fund, State Road
income Pas- Fund (N.M. Stat. Ann. §64-1-15,
senger
and §67-3-65)
freight
Notes:

New Mexico
• Although the State Road Fund can be used for multimodal purposes, more than 95 percent of NMDOT’s operating
budget is used for highways.

Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation (with exceptions). State statute directs most fuel tax revenues
State Fuel Taxes to the State Road Fund for multimodal transportation purposes. Allocations are also made to local
entities, the State Aviation Fund, the Motorboat Fuel Tax Fund, qualified tribes, and the general fund
(N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-1-6.10). In general, state law restricts the use of the funds into which the reve-
nues are deposited, rather than the revenues themselves.
Restrictions on Other State statute specifies the funds to which various transportation-related revenues are credited. In
Transportation Revenues general, state law restricts the use of the funds into which the revenues are deposited, rather than the
revenues themselves.
Dedicated or Restricted State statute dedicates the State Road Fund, which is supported mainly by fuel taxes, the weight-dis-
Transportation Funds tance tax, and vehicle registration fees, to transportation projects and debt, including bicycle and
pedestrian facilities (N.M. Stat. Ann. §67-3-63 and §67-3-65.1). The fund has been used for multi-
modal activities that include highways, transit, rail, aviation, and waterways. Other dedicated funds
include the Highway Infrastructure Fund (N.M. Stat. Ann. §67-3-59.2), the State Aviation Fund (N.M.
Stat. Ann. §64-1-15), and the Motorboat Fuel Tax Fund, which must be used for boating purposes
(N.M. Stat. Ann. §16-2-19.1).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • • N.M. Stat. Ann. §67-3-72; used for
bonds highway projects and transit (Rail
Runner commuter rail service)
bonds
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Design-build • • • As of May 2016, authorized in
statute for eligible road construction
projects (N.M. Stat. Ann. §13-1-
119.2; 2016 N.M. Laws, Chap. 86);
used for several road projects (see
notes)

New Mexico
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
bank program; active but not authorized
in state statute; may be used for
highway or transit projects
Notes:
• Legislation enacted in 2016 authorizes NMDOT to use design-build at its discretion for road construction projects that
have a maximum allowable construction cost of more than $50 million and are funded at least in part by Federal-aid
highway funds (N.M. Stat. Ann. §13-1-119.2; 2016 N.M. Laws, Chap. 86). Before this, although highway and road
projects were excluded from design-build authorization in state law, NMDOT had been granted legislative approval on
a case-by-case basis to use design-build for certain large projects.

Restrictions on State statute limits total revenue bonds for highways to $1.124 billion, and the state constitu-
Finance Mechanisms tion limits general obligation bonds for highways to $2 million (N.M. Const. art. IX, §16; N.M.
Stat. Ann. §67-3-59.1). Design-build may only be used for road construction projects that have
a maximum allowable construction cost of more than $50 million and are funded at least in
part by Federal-aid highway funds (N.M. Stat. Ann. §13-1-119.2).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Unspent funds are automatically re-appropriated to the same purpose. No additional approval is
Spend Excess Funds required to spend these funds.
Legislative Approval Yes. NMDOT obtains legislative approval by submitting budget adjustment requests to the Legislature.
Required for DOT to
Move Funds Between
Projects
Legislative Actions to State statute requires the State Transportation Commission to comply with the procurement code,
Control DOT Costs including low-bid requirements (N.M. Stat. Ann. §67-3-12 and §§13-1-28 et seq.).

New Mexico
Allocation of State Statutory formulas and grants. The Local Government Road Fund provides funding for local government
Transportation road projects. Revenue sources for the fund include 9.25 percent of the special fuel excise tax (N.M. Stat.
Revenues to Local Ann. §7-1-6.39), 5 cents per gallon of the petroleum products loading fee (N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-13A-3 and
Entities §7-1-6.25), 25 percent of the leased vehicle gross receipts tax (N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-14A-10), 100 percent of
reinstatement fees for driver’s licenses that were revoked for driving while intoxicated (N.M. Stat. Ann. §66-
5-33.1), and, for the fund’s municipal arterial program only, 1.44 percent of the state gas tax (N.M. Stat. Ann.
§7-1-6.28). Each year, NMDOT may use up to $500,000 from the fund to provide equipment to, and up to
$1 million to cover local matches for, municipalities and counties in financial hardship. After those set-asides,
42 percent of the fund goes to cooperative grant agreements (of which 33 percent is distributed to counties
and 49 percent to municipalities), 16 percent to the municipal arterial program, and 26 percent to the county
arterial program. The county arterial program distributes its funds to counties by a statutory formula based
on road miles, and requires a local match of at least 25 percent of the allocation amount. The other programs
award discretionary grants that cover up to 75 percent of project costs (N.M. Stat. Ann. §67-3-28.2 and §67-
3-32). An additional 10.38 percent of state gas taxes is distributed directly to counties and municipalities, and
another 5.76 percent just to municipalities, by statutory formulas based on taxable fuel sales (N.M. Stat. Ann.
§7-1-6.9 and §7-1-6.27).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to impose an additional gasoline tax of up to 2 cents (N.M. Stat. Ann.
Sources Autho- §7-24A-5). County improvement districts may adopt property taxes for improvements that can include road,
rized in State Law bridge, and railroad projects (N.M. Stat. Ann. §4-55a-12.1). Counties and municipalities may dedicate gross
receipt taxes to special purposes that, depending on the tax, may include roads, streets, or public transit
(N.M. Stat. Ann. §7-19D-9, §7-19D-11, §7-20E-11, and §7-20E-19). Counties and municipalities may charge
developers impact fees to pay for development-related capital improvements (N.M. Stat. Ann. §§5-8-1 et
seq.).

New York

Bridges 17,498
boat, vanpool, demand response
Urban transit trips in 2014 4.0 billion
Legislature
Name New York Legislature
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Infrastructure and Capital Investment
tion-Related Issues Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions
• Subcommittee on Infrastructure
[Commission] Legislative Commission on Critical Transportation Choices
[Commission] Legislative Commission on Rural Resources

New York
Name New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? No. The New York Department of Motor Vehicles is an independent state agency. It is primarily
funded through the Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund, which receives license and registration
fees, among other revenues.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes and no. The New York State Police, an independent state agency, carries out highway patrol
functions. It is funded by general funds, not out of NYSDOT’s budget. The New York State Thruway
Authority is responsible for its share of State Police (Troop T) costs. Enforcement of motor carriers
is shared between NYSDOT and the State Police, with the NYSDOT component funded by its state
appropriations and some Federal grants.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level New York State Thruway The New York State Thruway Authority, which is responsible for the New
Transportation Entities Authority (corporation) York State Thruway and Canal System, is a corporation that functions
as a quasi-state entity (N.Y. Public Authorities Law §§350 et seq.). Its
finances are separate from state government and it is largely funded by
tolls, although it does receive some financial assistance through the state
budget.
New York State Bridge The New York State Bridge Authority, which is responsible for toll bridges
Authority (corporation) in the Hudson River Valley, is a corporation that functions as a quasi-state
entity (N.Y. Public Authorities Law §§525 et seq.). Its finances are separate
from state government and it is primarily funded by tolls.
Metropolitan Transportation The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is responsible for public
Authority (corporation) transit in the downstate region, is a public benefit corporation that func-
tions as a quasi-state entity (N.Y. Public Authorities Law §§1260 et seq.).
Its finances are separate from state government and it is largely funded by
fares and a payroll tax, although it does receive some financial assistance
through the state budget.
Port Authority of New York The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a bi-state corporation
and New Jersey (bi-state that oversees bridges, tunnels, airports, ports, and some transit facilities
corporation) in the Port of New York district (N.Y. Unconsolidated Law §§6401 et seq.).
It is primarily funded by fares and toll revenues.
Waterfront Commission The Waterfront Commission of the New York Harbor is a bi-state corpo-
of the New York Harbor ration and instrumentality of New York and New Jersey that acts as the
(bi-state corporation/ instru- regulatory agency for the Port of New York (N.Y. Unconsolidated Law
mentality) §§9801 et seq.).
Albany Port District Commis- The Albany Port District Commission (also known as the Albany Port
sion (corporation) Authority), which operates port facilities in the Albany Port District, is a
corporation that functions as a quasi-state agency (1925 N.Y. Laws, Chap.
192 [N.Y. Unconsolidated Law]).

New York
Odgensburg Bridge and Port The Odgensburg Bridge and Port Authority, which is responsible for an
Authority (corporation) international bridge as well as port, airport, and freight rail facilities in and
around Odgensburg, is a public benefit corporation that functions as a
quasi-state agency (N.Y. Public Authorities Law §§700 et seq. and §§1375
et seq.). It is mainly funded by operating revenues.
Port of Oswego Authority The Port of Oswego Authority, which operates the Port of Oswego, is a
(corporation) public benefit corporation that functions as a quasi-state agency (N.Y.
Public Authorities Law §§1350 et seq.). It is mainly funded by operating
revenues.
Upstate transportation New York law establishes a number of transportation authorities that are
authorities (corporations) responsible for public transit in their respective upstate regions. These
include the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (N.Y. Public Author-
ities Law §§1299 et seq.), the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority (N.Y. Public Authorities Law §§1299-AA et seq.), and the Capital
District Transportation Authority (N.Y. Public Authorities Law §§1300 et
seq.). Each is a public benefit corporation that functions as a quasi-state
entity, with finances that are separate from state government. These
authorities are funded largely by fares, although they do receive some
financial assistance through the state budget.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, extensive. Interaction between NYSDOT and the Legislature occurs at all levels
and Collaboration of both organizations. Individual legislators reach out to NYSDOT, and vice versa. Legislators and NYS-
DOT often work together on legislative initiatives, including “departmental” bills that NYSDOT works
to advance through the governor’s office. NYSDOT staff attend and testify at public hearings concern-
ing transportation-related legislation. The department’s outreach to the Legislature is coordinated by
the commissioner’s chief of staff.
DOT Legislative Liaison The NYSDOT commissioner’s chief of staff serves as the main point of contact between the depart-
ment and the Legislature. Various other NYSDOT staff also engage with, and provide information and
testimony to, the Legislature.
Transportation Laws N.Y. Transportation Law; N.Y. Highway Law; N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law; N.Y. Navigation Law; N.Y. Railroad
Law; portions of N.Y. Public Authorities Law; portions of N.Y. State Finance Law and N.Y. Tax Law (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. NYSDOT can propose legislative measures through the gov-
Legislative Process ernor’s office or through a legislative sponsor. The governor can directly
sponsor “governor’s bills,” while “departmental bills” are sponsored
and introduced by a legislator or a standing committee. Departmental
bills generally identify the agency after the sponsor’s name.
Advocacy and Lobbying NYSDOT does not lobby. The department does provide technical, proj-
ect, and program guidance. It also, at times, may support or oppose
specific legislation.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact Under joint legislative rules, fiscal impact notes for bills proposed by
Statements for Legislative Use a state department or agency must be prepared and furnished by that
department or agency. NYSDOT may also provide fiscal information for
other bills, upon request. The State Division of Budget generally takes
the lead role in working with NYSDOT to provide fiscal and policy
information to the Legislature.

New York
Appointment of The commissioner of transportation is appointed by the governor to a term that coincides with the
DOT Leadership governor’s, with the advice and consent of the Senate (N.Y. Transportation Law §11).
Legislature Able to No. The commissioner of transportation may be removed by the governor (N.Y. Const. art. V, §4).
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The Administrative Regulations Review Commission, a joint legislative committee, reviews all
Administrative Rules proposed rules. The commission’s role is mainly advisory (N.Y. Legislative Law §86).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. NYSDOT is subject to legislative audits conducted by the Assembly Commit-
or Sunset Reviews tee on Oversight, Analysis, and Investigation. New York does not conduct sunset reviews of state
agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports NYSDOT is required to submit numerous reports to the Legislature. NYSDOT must submit an
to the Legislature annual report to the Legislature on public transit and the statewide operating assistance program
(N.Y. Transportation Law §18-b) and a quarterly report on bond-reimbursable disbursements (N.Y.
Highway Law §10-e). Every other year, the commissioner of transportation must submit a report
concerning the highway construction and maintenance safety education program (N.Y. Vehicle
and Traffic Law §224-a) and, every five years, a report on the condition of the state highway and
bridge system, including goals for the next five years (N.Y. Highway Law §10). NYSDOT is also typi-
cally required by Memorandums of Understanding between the executive and legislative branches
concerning the department’s capital program to provide specific performance reports on capital
program letting and implementation, capital program accomplishments, and bridge and pavement
conditions.
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, the Legislature and
Performance Management the governor set NYSDOT’s performance goals as part of the multi-year capital spending plan.
There may also be other discussions between the Legislature and NYSDOT concerning perfor-
mance and reporting targets.
Other Legislative Oversight The Legislature reviews audits conducted by the executive Office of the New York State Comp-
Mechanisms troller and has the ability to hold public hearings on NYSDOT issues. Other oversight mechanisms
include legislative requests for information from NYSDOT.

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins April 1. The governor submits a proposed budget to the Legislature
ations Overview along with the appropriation bills and other legislation required to carry out budgetary recommenda-
tions, and the Legislature gives final approval. NYSDOT receives appropriations through three different
appropriation bills: one for capital projects, one for state operations, and one for aid to localities.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. Federal transportation funds are
tion Revenues to the DOT allocated to NYSDOT as lump sum appropriations to the department and as leg-
islative appropriations to departmental programs or broad spending categories.
The Legislature also approves a multi-year capital spending program, including
use of Federal funds for specific projects, as part of the annual budget process.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. As with Federal funds, state trans-
portation funds are allocated to NYSDOT as lump sum appropriations to the
department, as legislative appropriations to departmental programs or broad
spending categories, and through approval of the multi-year capital spending
program. The Legislature also sometimes approves additional appropriations of
state funds for specific projects.

New York
Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2017 (enacted) (see notes)

Authorized Expenditures Aviation $10,000,000
Highway facilities $4,632,353,000
Maintenance facilities $18,165,000
Aid to localities $5,222,860,300
Mass transportation and rail freight $111,330,000
New York Works $850,329,000
Other DOT operations $33,166,000
Total $10,878,203,300
Revenue Sources Capital Projects Fund $57,000,000
Capital Projects Fund—Authority Bonds $1,328,126,000
Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund $2,000,520,000
Federal Capital Projects Fund $2,168,000,000
Miscellaneous New York State Agency Fund $50,000,000
New York Metro Transportation Council Account $18,531,000
Special revenue funds—Federal and other $5,150,175,500
General Fund $105,850,800
Total $10,878,203,300
Note: NYSDOT, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and those quasi-state corporations that receive limited state funds (i.e.,
the New York State Thruway Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority) all have their own detailed budgets.
This chart shows the enacted FY 2017 budget for NYSDOT only. This budget includes all of NYSDOT’s capital and operating
expenses, as provided by the FY 2017 appropriation bills for capital projects, state operations, and aid to localities.

Transportation Planning In general, NYSDOT develops the state’s transportation plans and the governor and the Legislature are
and Capital Project Selec- responsible for developing and approving the funding needed to support them. NYSDOT takes the
tion Process lead in advancing the planning process and creating the four-year Statewide Transportation Improve-
ment Program (STIP), in collaboration with MPOs, local transportation agencies, and others. NYSDOT
oversees project identification and prioritization as part of a comprehensive planning process that
includes public outreach. The governor approves the final STIP, and each year includes an updated
multi-year capital spending program in the proposed budget for legislative approval. NYSDOT also
oversees the state rail plan and aviation and port issues. In addition to these plans, every five years,
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (which provides subway, bus, and commuter rail service in
the downstate region) must submit a new proposed five-year capital program. The program must be
unanimously approved by the MTA Capital Program Review Board, on which the NYSDOT commis-
sioner serves as chair, and which also includes members of Senate and Assembly (N.Y. Public Authori-
ties Law §§1269-a et seq.).
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. Although NYSDOT takes the lead in the planning process, the Legislature
Planning Process has various opportunities to influence spending priorities as well as to approve and advance specific
projects. An updated multi-year capital spending program is usually prepared as part of the annual
budget, which is proposed by the governor and requires legislative approval. This part of the budget
often includes a memorandum of understanding with specific statewide and regional goals that have
been agreed upon by NYSDOT. Legislators frequently work with NYSDOT to advance projects of
interest.

New York
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Gasoline and diesel are both subject
gasoline and Pas- to fixed-rate excise taxes, state
senger
diesel (fixed and sales taxes on the retail price, and
rate and vari- freight petroleum business taxes that are
able rate— annually indexed to the Producer
indexed, Price Index for refined petroleum
percentage products (up to a 5 percent adjust-
of price) ment); revenues are allocated to
the Dedicated Highway and Bridge
Trust Fund and the Dedicated Mass
Transportation Trust Fund (N.Y. Tax
Law §282-a, §282-b, §282-c, §284,
§284-a, §284-c, §289-e, §301-a,
§301-j, §312, §515, §523, §528)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Includes taxes on aviation gasoline
aviation fuels Pas- and jet fuel; allocated to the same
senger
and funds as motor fuel taxes; as of Dec.
freight 1, 2017, aviation business tax will
go to aviation purposes (N.Y. Tax
Law §301-e, §301-j, §312; 2016 N.Y.
Laws, Chap. 60)
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • • Allocated in part to the Dedicated
istration and Pas- Highway and Bridge Trust Fund and,
senger
title fees and until April 1, 2020, the Dedicated
freight Mass Transportation Trust Fund (N.Y.
Vehicle and Traffic Law §401, §2125)
Truck regis- • • • • • • • • Allocated in part to the Dedicated
tration fees Pas- Highway and Bridge Trust Fund (N.Y.
senger
(based on and Vehicle and Traffic Law §401)
weight)
Weight-dis- • • • • • • • • “Highway use tax”; allocated to
tance taxes Pas- Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust
senger
(trucks) and Fund (N.Y. Tax Law §503, §503-b,
freight §515)
Oversize/ • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Dedicated Highway
overweight Pas- and Bridge Trust Fund (N.Y. Vehicle
senger
truck permit and and Traffic Law §385)
fees freight
Sales taxes • • • • • • • • Allocated in part to Dedicated High-
on rental Pas- way and Bridge Trust Fund (N.Y. Tax
senger
vehicles and Law §§1160 et seq.)
freight
Driver’s • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Dedicated Highway
license fees Pas- and Bridge Trust Fund (N.Y. Vehicle
senger
and and Traffic Law §503)
freight

New York
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Franchise • • • • • • • • Allocated in part to transit operat-
taxes on Pas- ing assistance and, until March 31,
senger
transmission and 2018, the Dedicated Highway and
and trans- freight Bridge Trust Fund (N.Y. Tax Law
portation §183, §184, §205)
companies
Outdoor • • • • • • • • Permit fees; allocated to the Ded-
advertising Pas- icated Highway and Bridge Trust
senger
revenues and Fund (N.Y. Highway Law §88)
freight
Misc. fines • • • • • • • • Includes DOT document fees, permit
and fees Pas- fees, and other vehicle and traffic-re-
senger
and lated fees that are allocated to the
freight Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust
Fund (N.Y. State Finance Law §89-b)
General • • • • • • • The Dedicated Highway and Bridge
funds Pas- Trust Fund can no longer fully sup-
senger
and port existing commitments and now
freight requires significant annual support
from the general fund
Interest • • • • • • • • N.Y. State Finance Law §98-a (gen-
income Pas- eral power to invest public funds);
senger
and N.Y. State Finance Law §89-c (inter-
freight est on Dedicated Mass Transporta-
tion Trust Fund specifically)
Notes:
• New York also has a number of corporations that function as quasi-state entities, the finances of which are not part of
the state budget. Among these, the New York State Thruway Authority and New York State Bridge Authority are sup-
ported by revenues from tolls, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority receives revenues from a state-adminis-
tered payroll tax in the 12-county Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District (N.Y. Tax Law §§800 et seq.).

New York
State Fuel Tax Model Fixed rate (cents per gallon), variable rate (indexed), variable rate (percentage of price)
Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation. State statute directs fuel tax revenues, including excise, sales,
State Fuel Taxes and petroleum business taxes, to the Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund for multimodal
transportation purposes and to the Dedicated Mass Transportation Trust Fund for rail and tran-
sit (N.Y. Tax Law §§282-a et seq., §§284 et seq., §289-e, §301-a, §301-j, §312, §515, §523, and
§528). In general, state law restricts the use of the funds into which the revenues are deposited,
rather than the revenues themselves.
Restrictions on Other Aviation fuel taxes are currently allocated to the same funds as motor fuel taxes. Starting Dec. 1,
Transportation Revenues 2017, however, in response to the recent Federal Aviation Administration directive, aviation fuel
business taxes will be allocated to a new aviation purpose account in the Dedicated Highway and
Bridge Trust Fund to be used for aviation purposes only (2016 N.Y. Laws, Chap. 60). State statute
directs various other revenues to the Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund.
Dedicated or Restricted State statute dedicates the multimodal Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund, which receives
Transportation Funds fuel taxes and other revenues, to roads, aviation, passenger and freight rail, ports, and ferries
(N.Y. State Finance Law §89-b). As of April 1, 2017, the fund will include a new, dedicated aviation
purpose account (2016 N.Y. Laws, Chap. 60). The Dedicated Mass Transportation Trust Fund is
dedicated to transit and rail activities, including the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (N.Y.
State Finance Law §89-c).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • • Authorized by voter-approved bond
obligation Pas- acts (e.g., 2005 N.Y. Laws, Chap. 60)
senger
bonds and
freight
Build Amer- • • • • • • • Issued in 2010 for Rebuild and
ica Bonds Pas- Renew New York transportation
senger
and capital projects (e.g., 2005 N.Y.
freight Laws, Chap. 60)
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • See See See notes Authorized until 2017 by session
notes notes law, not statute (2011 N.Y. Laws,
Chap. 56; 2015 N.Y. Laws, Chap.
60); NYSDOT’s use is limited to proj-
ects that cost $1.2 million or more
each; used by NYSDOT for road
and bridge projects
Notes:

New York
• New York also has a number of corporations that function as quasi-state entities, the finances of which are not part of
the state budget. Among these, the New York State Thruway Authority has used revenue bonds (N.Y. Public Author-
ities Law §354), Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance (N.Y.
Unconsolidated Law §6297), Federal-aid matching in the form of toll credits (“soft match”), and design-build; the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority has used revenue bonds (N.Y. Public Authorities Law §1265) and Federal Rail-
road Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loans; and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
a bi-state corporation, has used private activity bonds (PABs), a TIFIA loan, design-build, and public-private partner-
ships (see below).
• Public-private partnerships are not currently authorized in state law, and are neither authorized for nor used by NYS-
DOT. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, however, a quasi-state entity, has entered into public-private
partnerships for transit, airport, and bridge projects, some of which have included design-build elements.
• Design-build is currently authorized by session law that was enacted in 2011 and then re-enacted in 2015 (2011 N.Y.
Laws, Chap. 56; 2015 N.Y. Laws, Chap. 60). The law authorizes use of the approach for capital infrastructure projects
by a limited list of entities that include NYSDOT and two quasi-state entities, the New York State Thruway Authority
and the New York State Bridge Authority. Eligible projects include canals, which are currently overseen by the Thru-
way Authority, as well as highways and bridges. The authorization is due to expire in 2017.

Restrictions on General obligation bonds require legislative and voter approval. They must be used for the
Finance Mechanisms purposes set forth in the ballot question and may not exceed the amount authorized by the
voters. Design-build is currently only authorized until 2017, and NYSDOT’s use of the approach
is limited to projects for which each project has a total cost of $1.2 million or more (2011 N.Y.
Laws, Chap. 56; 2015 N.Y. Laws, Chap. 60).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Capital program funds that are not obligated in the year of appropriation are automatically
Spend Excess Funds re-appropriated to the same purpose. NYSDOT is largely funded by the multimodal Dedicated High-
way and Bridge Trust Fund. If revenues provided for this fund in the enacted budget exceed projec-
tions, the additional money remains in the fund. No additional approval is required to spend these
funds.
Legislative Actions to New York statute contains low-bid requirements for contracts for the construction or improvement of
Control DOT Costs highways (N.Y. Highway Law §38).

New York
Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. Each year, an amount is appropriated for local transporta-
Transportation tion improvements under the Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS). For FY
Revenues to Local 2017, the total appropriation for this program was $438 million, out of a capital budget of $2.5 billion. Each
Entities year, the allocation includes a statutorily required appropriation of $145 million, of which 41.4 percent is dis-
tributed to New York City and counties by a formula based on motor vehicle registrations and highway miles,
and the rest to local jurisdictions and municipalities by formulas based on vehicle miles traveled and lane
miles. An additional amount, which varies annually, is distributed to towns (38 percent), counties (30 percent),
New York City (14 percent), other cities (9 percent), and villages (9 percent) based on their historical receipts
from the program and its predecessor (N.Y. Highway Law §10-c). New York’s enacted budget for FY 2017 also
includes $100 million for the PAVE NY program, apportioned using the CHIPS formula. This program supports
the rehabilitation and reconstruction of local highways and roads.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes towns to levy property taxes and special assessments for road and street improve-
Sources Autho- ments (N.Y. Highway Law §292; N.Y. Town Law §200 and §231). State statute establishes mortgage recording
rized in State Law taxes for county use, and requires some counties to use the revenues for public transit (N.Y. Tax Law §§250 et
seq.). The state has also imposed sales taxes (N.Y. Tax Law §1109), payroll taxes (N.Y. Tax Law §§800 et seq.),
and special fees (N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law §§499 et seq. and §503) in the 12-county region served by the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority to support authority operations.

North Carolina

Bridges 18,124
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, ferry boat, vanpool, demand
response
Legislature
Name North Carolina General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to July (odd years), May to July (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Appropriations Committee on Department of Transportation
tion-Related Issues House Committee on Appropriations
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Capital Improvements
Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee
[Select] House Select Committee on Strategic Transportation Planning and Long-Term Funding Solu-
tions

North Carolina
Name North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), Board of Transportation (independent
body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle,
DOT Has Jurisdiction ferries
Includes DMV? Yes. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of NCDOT and is funded out of NCDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The North Carolina State Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety. It is
funded out of the state general fund.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. The North Carolina Turnpike Authority is within NCDOT, under the direct supervision of the sec-
Toll Facilities? retary of transportation (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-89.182).
Other
Other State-Level None. North Carolina has no state-level transportation entities outside of NCDOT, the Board of
Transportation Entities Transportation, and (for highway patrol functions) the Department of Public Safety. Within NCDOT,
however, are three corporations under the direct supervision of the secretary of transportation: the
North Carolina Turnpike Authority (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§136-89.180 et seq.), the North Carolina Global
Transpark Authority (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§63A-1 et seq.), and the North Carolina State Ports Authority
(N.C. Gen. Stat. §§136-260 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal. The secretary of transportation and members of the Board of Transportation
and Collaboration make formal appearances before legislative committees, including appropriations committees (during
the legislative session) and the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee (throughout the
year). NCDOT’s legislative director coordinates the department’s responses to legislative issues.
DOT Legislative Liaison NCDOT’s legislative director is the main point of contact between the department and the General
Assembly. The secretary of transportation and members of the Board of Transportation are also
important sources of information and testimony.
Transportation Laws N.C. Gen. Stat. §§143B-345 et seq.; N.C. Gen. Stat. ch. 20, 63, 75A, 76A, and 136; portions of N.C. Gen.
Stat. ch. 62; portions of N.C. Gen. Stat. ch. 105 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In North Carolina, only legislators may request legisla-
Legislative Process tive bill drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying By law, all state agencies must designate one or two employees as
liaisons to lobby for legislative actions (N.C. Gen. Stat. §120C-500).
NCDOT’s legislative director represents the department’s interests in
the legislative process.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact NCDOT prepares policy impact statements for legislative initiatives, but
Statements for Legislative Use not fiscal notes, for use by the General Assembly.

North Carolina
Appointment of The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor with no legislative involvement (N.C.
DOT Leadership Gen. Stat. §143B-9). The 19 voting members of the Board of Transportation are appointed to
staggered four-year terms by the governor with no legislative involvement, and within statutory
requirements for geographic representation and partisan balance. Fourteen members represent
the state’s highway divisions and five serve the state at large. One of the five at-large members
must have knowledge of environmental issues, one of ports and aviation, one of government-re-
lated finance and accounting, one (who must live in a rural area) of rural transportation issues, and
one (who must live in an urban area) of public transit issues. The secretary of transportation serves
as an ex officio, non-voting member (N.C. Gen. Stat. §143B-350).
Legislature Able to No. The secretary of transportation serves at the pleasure of, the governor. The governor may
Remove DOT Leaders? remove a member of the Board of Transportation for any cause the governor finds sufficient, and
must remove a member for certain convictions or violations.
Legislative Review of Yes. In general, proposed and existing rules are reviewed by the Rules Review Commission, an
Administrative Rules executive branch entity whose members are appointed by the General Assembly (N.C. Gen.
Stat. §§143B-30.1 et seq.). A legislative committee, the Joint Legislative Administrative Procedure
Oversight Committee, also reviews rules after the Rules Review Commission approves or objects to
them, consults with agencies as part of their required rules review process, and can recommend to
the full General Assembly that it direct an agency to review a specific rule (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§120-
70.100 et seq. and §150B-21.3A).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. NCDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Program Evaluation Division
or Sunset Reviews of the Legislative Services Commission. North Carolina does not conduct sunset reviews of state
agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports Each year, NCDOT is required to submit to the General Assembly a full annual report of its projects
to the Legislature and finances (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-12). It must also submit annual reports concerning use of recy-
cled oil products in road construction (N.C. Gen. Stat. §130A-309.19), electric vehicle charging sta-
tions (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-18.02), disadvantaged business enterprises (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-28.4),
state aid to municipalities (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-41.3), the highway maintenance improvement pro-
gram (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-44.3A), the annual construction program (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-44.4),
agreements with counties and municipalities (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-66.3), commute reduction (N.C.
Gen. Stat. §143-215.107C), and, beginning in 2016, any changes made to the project prioritization
process (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-189.11). Every other year, NCDOT must submit reports concerning
oversize permit fees (N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-119), the off-premise sign regulatory program (N.C. Gen.
Stat. §136-12.1), and, in years when appropriations bills are considered, fee-based services (N.C.
Gen. Stat. §136-44.2B). Twice per year, it must submit a report concerning its use of in-house and
private counsel (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-18.03). The secretary of transportation must submit annual
reports concerning job satisfaction for NCDOT personnel, citizen satisfaction with road conditions
(N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-180.05), small project bidding (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-28.10) and agreements
and partnerships with private developers (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-28.6 and §136-28.6A). Every
ten years, following the decennial census, the secretary must submit a report concerning MPO
boundaries, governance, and structure (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-200.2) and every five years, a report
concerning regional boundaries (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-202).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, the General Assembly
Performance Management enacted several performance goals and measurement requirements in the 2015 appropriations
act (2015 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 2015-241). By March 1, 2016, NCDOT was required to adjust its
online performance dashboard to track monthly progress on maintenance projects costing over $1
million, bridge replacement projects, bridge projects requiring road closures in excess of 24 hours,
and construction projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program. The dashboard also
had to include highway division- and county-specific data, with more detailed financial reporting
and project delivery tracking. Further, NCDOT had to submit a study of its Division of Highways,
including recommendations for performance- or incentive-based systems to improve its effective-
ness, to the General Assembly by May 1, 2016. On an ongoing basis, the act requires NCDOT to
establish annual baseline unit prices for goods used in highway maintenance and construction
projects and to report any variances of more than 10 percent.

North Carolina
Other Legislative Oversight Although North Carolina does not in general conduct sunset reviews, the General Assembly’s
Mechanisms appropriations committees have at times instituted “continuation reviews” of certain agency
funds, programs, or divisions to determine if they should be continued. In addition, the Joint Leg-
islative Transportation Oversight Committee can consider any transportation-related topic. Other
oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from NCDOT.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. The budget of the Highway
ations Overview Fund is recommended by the governor and goes through the full legislative process. The distribution
of the Highway Trust Fund is determined by statute, the Board of Transportation, and NCDOT.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to NCDOT from the
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. All state spending must be authorized by appropria-
tion as part of the budget approved by the General Assembly, either as a lump
sum to the department or as appropriations to departmental programs, broad
spending categories, or specific projects.

Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, FY 2016 and FY 2017 (revised) (see note)
Authorized Expenditures Department of Transportation administration $90,246,679
(FY 2017 only) Division of Highways $1,380,716,021
State aid to municipalities $147,500,000
Intermodal divisions $229,480,752
Governor’s Highway Safety $251,241
Division of Motor Vehicles $125,307,394
Other state agencies, reserves, and transfers $68,222,213
Capital improvements $6,965,700
Total HIGHWAY FUND EXPENDITURES $2,048,690,000
Program administration $35,064,813
Bond redemption $61,012,229
Turnpike Authority $49,000,000
Transfer to visitor center $400,000
Strategic prioritization $1,225,802,958
Total HIGHWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURES $1,371,280,000
Federal expenditures $1,257,697,716
Total $4,677,667,716
Revenue Sources Highway Fund $2,048,690,000
(FY 2017 only) Highway Trust Fund $1,371,280,000
Federal revenues $1,257,697,716
Total $4,677,667,716

Note: This chart reflects NCDOT’s entire FY 2017 budget. It includes legislative appropriations of state funds, as revised by the
North Carolina
2016 appropriations act (2016 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 2016-94), as well as Federal revenues, which flow directly to NCDOT
without state legislative action.

Transportation Planning NCDOT uses a statutorily mandated process for prioritizing major transportation projects and making
and Capital Project Selec- investment decisions. This “strategic prioritization process,” which NCDOT first started developing in
tion Process 2009 in response to an executive order (2009 Executive Order No. 02), was enacted into law in 2013
(N.C. Gen. Stat. §§136-189.10 et seq.). Every other year, projects are evaluated based on existing
and future conditions, expected benefits, multimodal characteristics, and how a project fits in with
local priorities. Projects are ranked in each of NCDOT’s six modes of transportation (highway, ferry,
rail, public transit, bicycle/pedestrian, and aviation). The results of this process serve as input to an
updated ten-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is released to the public
for review and comment before being approved by the Board of Transportation and reviewed by the
General Assembly. In addition, the General Assembly approves specific transit and rail projects as part
of the appropriation process.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. Projects are prioritized according to a process that the General Assembly
Planning Process enacted into law in 2013. The General Assembly reviews the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and other transportation plans, but does not approve or modify them. NCDOT submits
annual reports to the General Assembly about its projects and the project prioritization process. The
General Assembly reviews and approves the NCDOT budget, and approves specific transit and rail
projects, as part of the appropriation process. The General Assembly is not, however, involved in
individual project selection.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • A variable component, based on
gasoline and Pas- wholesale price, was repealed in
senger
diesel (fixed and 2015. In 2016, the tax is being levied
rate; starting freight at a flat rate. Starting Jan. 1, 2017, it
2017: vari- will be annually adjusted based on
able rate— population and the Consumer Price
indexed, Index for energy costs (N.C. Gen.
other) Stat. §105-449.38, §105-449.80;
§105-449.125, §105-449.126; 2015
N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 2015-2)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Includes taxes on liquid and gas
alternative Pas- alternative fuels, including liquefied
senger
fuels (fixed and and compressed natural gas and
rate; starting freight liquefied propane gas; taxed the
2017: vari- same way as gasoline and diesel;
able rate— revenues mostly allocated to the
indexed, Highway Fund and Highway Trust
other) Fund (N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-449.38,
§105-449.125, §105-449.130, §105-
449.136)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes sales taxes on aviation
aviation fuels gasoline and jet fuel (N.C. Gen. Stat.
§105-164.4, §105-164.44M)

North Carolina
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Vehicle • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Highway Fund and
registration Pas- Highway Trust Fund; will be indexed
senger
and title and to the Consumer Price Index starting
fees (start- freight July 1, 2020 (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§20-
ing 2020: 85 et seq., §136-176; 2015 N.C.
indexed) Sess. Laws, Chap. 2015-241)
Vehicle • • • • • • • • Allocated in part to the Highway
inspection Pas- Fund (N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-183.7)
senger
fees and
freight
Special fees • • • • • • • • Will be indexed to the Consumer
on electric Pas- Price Index starting July 1, 2020
senger
vehicles and (N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-87; 2015 N.C.
(starting freight Sess. Laws, Chap. 2015-241)
2020:
indexed)
Sales taxes • • • • • • • “Highway use tax”; used for mul-
on motor Pas- timodal purposes via the Highway
senger
vehicle sales and Trust Fund; cannot be used for
and leases freight independent bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects (N.C. Gen.
Stat. §§105-187.1 et seq., §136-176)
Truck regis- • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Highway Fund; will
tration fees Pas- be indexed to the Consumer Price
senger
(based on and Index starting July 1, 2020 (N.C.
gross vehicle freight Gen. Stat. §20-88, §20-97; 2015
weight) N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 2015-241)
(starting
2020:
indexed)
Oversize/ • • See May be used for highway and bridge
overweight notes maintenance under some circum-
truck permit stances (see notes) (N.C. Gen. Stat.
fees §§20-119 et seq.).
Tolls • • • Used by the North Carolina Turnpike
Authority, which is within NCDOT;
statutory authorization is capped at
11 projects (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-
89.183)
High-occu- • • Authorized in statute (N.C. Gen.
pancy toll Stat. §136-89.199); planned to open
(HOT) lanes in 2018
Driver’s • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Highway Fund; will
license Pas- be indexed to the Consumer Price
senger
fees (start- and Index starting July 1, 2020 (N.C.
ing 2020: freight Gen. Stat. §20-7; 2015 N.C. Sess.
indexed) Laws, Chap. 2015-241)

North Carolina
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Business • • • • • • • • Business license fees for vehicle
license Pas- dealers, distributors, wholesalers,
senger
fees (start- and and manufacturers; allocated to the
ing 2020: freight Highway Fund; will be indexed to
indexed) the Consumer Price Index starting
July 1, 2020 (N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-
289, §20-4.02; 2015 N.C. Sess.
Laws, Chap. 2015-241)
North • • Grade • Allocated to the Freight Rail and Rail
Carolina Rail cross- Freight Crossing Safety Improvement Fund
ings only
Company only within the Highway Fund (N.C. Gen.
dividends Stat. §124-5.1)
Port reve- • • • North Carolina State Ports Authority
nues (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-262)
Interest • • • • • • • • Highway Fund, Highway Trust Fund

income Pas- (N.C. Gen. Stat. §143C-1-4)
senger
and
freight
Notes:
• The North Carolina State Ports Authority was appropriated $35 million per year from the Highway Fund for FY 2016
and FY 2017 (2015 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 2015-241).
• State statute requires oversize and overweight truck permit fees to be adjusted periodically so that fee revenues equal
the cost of administering the permitting program. Any excess revenues, however, must be used for highway and bridge
maintenance required as a result of damages caused by overweight or oversize loads (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§20-119 et seq.).

North Carolina
State Fuel Tax Model Fixed rate (cents per gallon); variable rate (indexed and adjusted based on population) starting Jan. 1,
2017
Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation (with exceptions). After set-asides for the Commercial Leaking
State Fuel Taxes Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund and the Water and Air Quality Account, state
statute allocates 71 percent of fuel tax revenues to the Highway Fund and 29 percent to the Highway
Trust Fund (N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-449.125; 2015 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 2015-241), to be used for
multimodal transportation projects. State statute also allocates small shares of fuel tax revenues to the
Wildlife Resources Fund for boating and water safety activities and to the Shallow Draft Navigation
Channel Dredging and Lake Maintenance Fund for dredging activities (N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-449.126).
Restrictions on Other State statute requires the annual appropriation of sales taxes on aviation fuels to NCDOT’s Division of
Transportation Revenues Aviation for aviation-related capital improvements (N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-164.4 and §105-164.44M).
State statute directs various transportation-related revenues to the Highway Trust Fund and the High-
way Fund. The North Carolina Turnpike Authority may only establish up to 11 toll road projects, which
must meet certain statutory requirements (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-89.183).
Dedicated or Restricted The Highway Fund, which is primarily funded by fuel taxes and other revenues, is used for multimodal
Transportation Funds transportation purposes that include maintenance and operations for highways and bridges, public
transit, rail, aviation, ferries, and waterways (N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-449.126, §136-44.2, and §136-
44.3A). A separate fund, the Highway Trust Fund, is primarily funded by motor vehicle use taxes and
fuel taxes along with titling fees, and is used for turnpike debt service and statewide capital strategic
transportation investments that include fixed guideway projects but not independent bicycle and
pedestrian improvement projects (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-176 and §136-189.11). Although distribution
of the Highway Trust Fund is determined by statute, the General Assembly sometimes overrides the
statutes during the appropriations process.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • Highway Bonds; authorized in ses-
obligation sion law, not statute
bonds
Revenue • • • North Carolina Turnpike Authority
bonds (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-89.189)
Build Amer- • • Issued in 2010 by the North Carolina
ica Bonds Turnpike Authority; authorized in
session law, not statute
GARVEE • • • Authorized in state statute; debt
bonds service is capped at 15 percent of
expected average annual Federal
revenue (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-18);
most recently issued in 2015
Private activ- • • • Authorized in statute for public-pri-
ity bonds vate partnerships (N.C. Gen. Stat.
§136-18); issued
TIFIA

North Carolina
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Advance • •
construction
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Design-build • • • • • • • • Authorized in statute; not restricted
Pas- by mode (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-
senger
and 28.11); used for several road projects
freight
Public-private • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for a limited
partnerships Pas- number of projects; various trans-
senger
and portation modes are eligible (N.C.
freight Gen. Stat. §136-18, §§136-28.6 et
seq., §§136-89.180 et seq.); used
by the state for at least two road
projects
State infra- • • • • Capitalized with Federal funds; may
structure be used for highway or transit proj-
bank ects (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-18)
Notes:

Restrictions on General obligation bonds require legislative and voter approval. NCDOT and the North Caro-
Finance Mechanisms lina Turnpike Authority are both limited in the number of public-private partnerships they may
undertake (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-18 and §136-89.183). GARVEE debt service is capped at 15
percent of expected average annual Federal revenue (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-18). In addition, the
Debt Affordability Advisory Committee in the Department of State Treasurer, which among
other duties is required by law to establish debt guidelines annually for the Highway Fund and
the Highway Trust Fund (N.C. Gen. Stat. §142-101), set a guideline in 2016 that limits total
transportation-related debt service to 6 percent of total state transportation revenues.

North Carolina
DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Excess funds revert to the funds from which they came—the Highway Fund or the Highway Trust
Spend Excess Funds Fund—and are available for expenditure. Approval is required from the executive branch Office of
State Budget and Management in order to spend these funds.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. Generally, legislative approval is required to repurpose funds that were appropriated to
Required for DOT to Move specific transit and rail projects, but not to move funds among highway and other projects that were
Funds Between Projects selected by NCDOT.
Legislative Actions to State statute contains low-bid requirements for infrastructure construction, repair, and maintenance
Control DOT Costs projects costing under $2.5 million (N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-28.1). Also, the 2015 appropriations act
required NCDOT to establish a baseline unit pricing structure for transportation goods used in high-
way maintenance and construction and prohibits any highway division from exceeding a 10 percent
variance over a baseline unit price set for that year. The act further provides that, in order to drive
savings, unit pricing may be reduced annually as efficiencies are achieved. As part of a larger study
to be submitted by May 1, 2016, the act also required NCDOT to develop a plan to eliminate at least
10 percent of NCDOT job positions that perform administrative, managerial, supervisor, or oversight
functions (2015 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 2015-241).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. North Carolina has a highly centralized transportation
Transportation system, in which NCDOT builds and maintains secondary roads and there are no county road departments.
Revenues to Local Municipalities, however, do receive state aid for local projects. Under the “Powell Bill” program (N.C. Gen.
Entities Stat. §§136-41.1 et seq.), upon appropriation of funds by the General Assembly to NCDOT for state aid to
municipalities, allocations are then made to eligible municipalities by a statutory formula based on population
and road miles. Funds may be used for street, bridge, bikeway, or sidewalk projects. NCDOT has made these
allocations annually since the 1950s.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties and cities to assess property taxes for roads, public transit, rail, airports, and
Sources Autho- ports (N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A-149 and §160A-209), as well as special assessments for street improvements
rized in State Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A-185, §153A-205, and §160A-216). Municipalities and transportation authorities may
levy vehicle registration fees for public transit uses (N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-97 and §105-561). Transportation
authorities may also adopt vehicle rental taxes (N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-551). County and municipal service
districts may impose property taxes for specified transportation purposes (N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A-301, §153A-
307, §160A-536, and §160A-542).

North Dakota

Bridges 4,409
Toll facilities No
Legislature
Name North Dakota Legislative Assembly
Session Biennial, approx. Jan. to Apr. (odd years only)
Introduced in 2016
tion-Related Issues [Interim] Joint Interim Committee on Transportation
Name North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)
Leadership NDDOT Director (serves on governor’s cabinet)
Staff Size in Full-Time 1,080.5 authorized, 1,054.5 actual
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, pedestrian/bicycle. NDDOT also has an Aviation Services function, but
DOT Has Jurisdiction aviation is generally under the jurisdiction of the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission.

North Dakota
Includes DMV? Yes. NDDOT performs driver’s licensing and vehicle registration functions. Driver’s licensing functions
are funded from the State Highway Fund, and vehicle registration functions are funded from the state
Highway Tax Distribution Fund. Both functions are funded through the NDDOT budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The North Dakota Highway Patrol is an independent state agency. It currently receives its funding
from the state’s general fund ($46.7 million), the Highway Tax Distribution Fund, ($6.7 million), and
Federal funds ($6.4 million).
Jurisdiction Over No. North Dakota has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level North Dakota Aeronautics The North Dakota Aeronautics Commission has authority over the
Transportation Entities Commission (state agency) state’s aviation functions (N.D. Cent. Code §§2-05-01 et seq.). It is
funded primarily by aviation-related state revenues, Federal funds, and
state general funds.
Public Service Commission The North Dakota Public Service Commission, an elected state agency,
(state agency) has authority over railroads (N.D. Cent. Code §§49-01-01 et seq.).

Overall Communication Mainly formal. NDDOT interacts with the legislature primarily by providing testimony and required
and Collaboration reports to legislative committees. NDDOT disseminates information to its stakeholders, including legis-
lative bodies, through its Communications Division.
DOT Legislative Liaison NDDOT’s Communications Division, under Business Support, is the main point of contact between the
department and the Legislative Assembly. NDDOT has no dedicated legislative liaison or governmental
affairs office.
Transportation Laws N.D. Cent. Code tit. 2, 24, and 39; portions of N.D. Cent. Code tit. 49; N.D. Const. art. X, §11 (revenue
restrictions); N.D. Cent. Code §§54-27-19 et seq. (funds); portions of N.D. Cent. Code tit. 57 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. Although bills may only be introduced by legislative
Legislative Process entities, North Dakota executive agencies can have bills automatically
introduced in the name of the standing committee to which the bill
will be referred. NDDOT is allowed to introduce legislation relating to
any transportation topic.
Advocacy and Lobbying NDDOT may testify on any bill being considered by the Legislative
Assembly.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact Joint legislative rules require state agencies and departments to pre-
Statements for Legislative Use pare fiscal notes, at the request of the Legislative Council, for bills that
would affect them. NDDOT participates in this process.

North Dakota
Appointment of The NDDOT director is appointed by the governor with no legislative involvement (N.D. Cent. Code
DOT Leadership §24-02-01.3).
Legislature Able to No. The NDDOT director serves at the pleasure of the governor.
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The interim Administrative Rules Committee reviews all new rules. The committee can void a
Administrative Rules rule. If the committee does not object, the rule is automatically approved. The committee may also
review existing rules (N.D. Cent. Code §§28-32-01 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Neither. Audits are generally conducted by the Office of State Auditor, which is not a legislative
or Sunset Reviews entity, although the audits may be directed or reviewed by the Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review
Committee. North Dakota does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports Every other year, NDDOT must submit to the Legislative Assembly a report on its operations for the
to the Legislature previous two fiscal years (N.D. Cent. Code §54-06-04).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements listed above, NDDOT will testify to the Joint Interim
Performance Management Transportation Committee.
Other Legislative Oversight Interim committees study various issues in the two years between legislative sessions. In 2015, for
Mechanisms example, the Joint Interim Transportation Committee was directed to study truck size and weight
provisions (2015 N.D. House Bill 1012) and truck permits in oil and gas producing counties (2015
N.D. House Bill 1377), and to consider studying several other transportation topics. The Legislative
Audit and Fiscal Review Committee may review audits conducted by the Office of State Auditor.
Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from NDDOT.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of one 24-month budget; fiscal year begins July 1. NDDOT presents a budget
ations Overview request to the Legislative Assembly that may be modified. The Legislative Assembly approves an over-
all budget for the department as a whole.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to NDDOT
tion Revenues to the DOT as lump sum appropriations to the department.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. As with Federal funds, state transportation funds also
are allocated to NDDOT as lump sum appropriations to the department. Some
appropriations of general funds may be directed to departmental programs or
broad spending categories.

Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, 2015–17 fiscal biennium (enacted)
Authorized Expenditures Salaries and wages $207,778,278
(2015–17 biennium total) Operating expenses $395,822,751
Capital assets $1,107,696,960
Grants $62,918,030
Total $1,774,216,019
Revenue Sources Estimated income $1,774,156,019
(2015–17 biennium total) General fund $60,000
Total $1,774,216,019

North Dakota
Transportation Planning NDDOT is responsible for developing and maintaining transportation plans for the state, including the
and Capital Project Selec- Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (TransAction) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement
tion Process Program (STIP). NDDOT identifies transportation needs, selects projects, and develops the plans, with
input from political subdivisions and members of the public. The governor may provide direction in
determining investment priorities.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. No formal process exists to involve the Legislative Assembly in transportation
Planning Process planning. Transportation plans do not need legislative approval and appropriations do not include
funding for specific projects. The Legislative Assembly can provide input into the Statewide Transpor-
tation Improvement Program (STIP) and occasionally provides direction for specific plans. NDDOT may
be asked to provide transportation plan updates to legislative committees.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • N.D. Cent. Code §57-43.1-02, §57-
gasoline and 43.2-02
diesel (fixed
rate)
fuels petroleum gas, and other alternative
fuels (N.D. Cent. Code §57-43.2-02,
§57-43.2-03, §57-43.2-19)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (N.D. Cent. Code §57-
43.3-04, §57-43.3-06)
Vehicle reg- • • • • A portion of registration fees is used
istration and for public transit via the Highway Tax
title fees Distribution Fund (see notes) (N.D.
Cent. Code §39-04-19, §39-04-39,
§54-27-19; 2009 N.D. Sess. Laws,
Chap. 40)
Truck regis- • • • N.D. Cent. Code §39-04-19, §39-
tration fees 04-39
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Driver’s • • • Deposited to the State Highway
license and Fund (N.D. Cent. Code §39-06-49)
state ID card
fees
Aircraft • • • N.D. Cent. Code §2-05-11
registration
fees
Aircraft • • • N.D. Cent. Code §57-40.5-02
excise taxes

North Dakota
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Aircraft • • • N.D. Cent. Code §2-08-03
dealer license
fees
General • • • • Legislative appropriations in the
funds biennial budget bill for highways,
public transit, and aviation
Interest • • • 80 percent of interest from the State
income Highway Fund is allocated to the
Special Road Fund for access roads
(N.D. Cent. Code §24-02-37)
Notes:
• Diesel taxes are deposited to the Highway Tax Distribution Fund, except that, until June 30, 2019, all taxes on diesel
sold to railroads (up to $275,000 per year) must go to the Rail Safety Fund (N.D. Cent. Code §57-43.2-02, §57-43.2-
19; 2015 N.D. Sess. Laws, Chap. 42). These revenues are being used for rail inspections, however, not for the kinds of
transportation activities described in this chart.
• North Dakota’s constitution restricts the use of fuel taxes and vehicle registration and license taxes solely to the con-
struction, reconstruction, repair, and maintenance of public highways (N.D. Const. art. X, §11). State statute, however,
establishes the Highway Tax Distribution Fund, into which fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees are deposited, and
distributes 1.5 percent of the fund’s revenues to the Public Transportation Fund (N.D. Cent. Code §54-27-19). This al-
location is generally considered to be drawn from vehicle registration fees, inasmuch as a flat registration surcharge was
used to support the Public Transportation Fund from 1989 to 2009, when it was replaced by an equivalent increase to
vehicle registration fees (1989 N.D. Sess. Laws, Chap. 457; 1999 N.D. Sess. Laws, Chap. 337; 2005 N.D. Sess. Laws,
Chap. 326; 2009 N.D. Sess. Laws, Chap. 40; N.D. Cent. Code §39-04.2-03 [repealed]).

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts the use of revenues from gasoline
State Fuel Taxes and other motor fuel excise and license taxes, except aviation fuel taxes, to public highways (N.D.
Const. art. X, §11).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of revenues from vehicle registration and license taxes to public
Transportation Revenues highways (N.D. Const. art. X, §11). A portion of registration fees, however, is allocated to public tran-
sit via the Highway Tax Distribution Fund. State statute directs aviation fuel taxes, aircraft registration
fees, and aircraft sales and rental taxes to the Aeronautics Commission Special Fund to be used for
airport projects (N.D. Cent. Code §2-05-11, §57-40.5-09, and §57-43.3-06). From July 1, 2015, to
June 30, 2019, up to $275,000 per year from taxes on diesel sold to railroads must be directed to the
Rail Safety Fund. After that, all diesel taxes will go to the Highway Tax Distribution Fund (N.D. Cent.
Code §57-43.2-19).

North Dakota
Dedicated or Restricted State statute allocates the Highway Tax Distribution Fund, which receives transportation-related reve-
Transportation Funds nues and appropriations, to the State Highway Fund, local entities, and the Public Transportation Fund
(N.D. Cent. Code §54-27-19). The State Highway Fund, which also receives all other NDDOT revenues,
is dedicated to highways (N.D. Cent. Code §24-02-37 and §24-02-41).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
bonds
Advance • •
construction
Public-private • See • Authorized in statute for “fee-based
partnerships notes facilities” (N.D. Cent. Code §§48-
02.1-01 et seq.); not currently in use
(see notes)
Notes:
• North Dakota’s public-private partnerships law (N.D. Cent. Code §§48-02.1-01 et seq.), enacted in 1993, reportedly
applies to fee-based transportation facilities and had been used for a toll bridge. As of 2016, however, no toll facilities
exist in the state.
• North Dakota’s limited design-build authorization, which had been enacted in 2009, expired on Dec. 31, 2013 (2009
N.D. Sess. Laws, Chap. 236; ND. Cent. Code §24-02-47).
Transportation-Related Bonding No, except for GARVEE bonds. North Dakota is one of three states that has borrowed against
future Federal-aid funding through the use of GARVEE bonds, but otherwise does not cur-
rently use bonding for transportation projects.
Restrictions on The state constitution restricts general obligation debt and requires legislative approval for all
Finance Mechanisms revenue bonding (N.D. Const., art. X).

North Dakota
DOT Able to Retain and Yes, with legislative approval. NDDOT retains all unspent funds at the end of the biennial budget
Spend Excess Funds cycle, but they must be re-appropriated to be spent. The Legislative Assembly may also continue
appropriations for new construction, major repair or improvement projects, and eligible equipment
and land purchases for up to two more years (N.D. Cent. Code 54-44.1-11). NDDOT may seek legisla-
tive approval to spend any funds received above the biennial budget appropriation.
Legislative Actions to State statute requires a formal bidding process for most highway improvement projects and that the
Control DOT Costs project be awarded to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest and best bid (N.D. Cent. Code
§§24-02-17 et seq.).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas. The state’s Highway Tax Distribution Fund receives revenues from state motor fuel taxes,
Transportation vehicle registrations, license taxes, and other sources. After set-asides, 2.7 percent of the fund is distributed
Revenues to Local through counties to townships by a statutory formula based on township road miles. To be eligible for funds,
Entities townships must provide a 50 percent local match. Another 34.5 percent of the Highway Tax Distribution
Fund is distributed first to incorporated cities by a statutory formula based on population, and then after the
cities’ share is deducted, to counties based on vehicle registrations (N.D. Cent. Code §§54-27-19 et seq.). All
money from the Highway Tax Distribution Fund must be used on road projects, per constitutional restrictions
on transportation revenues (N.D. Const. art. X, §11). In addition, 6 percent of the state’s oil and gas gross
production tax goes to townships for road projects. Half of this is distributed equally to all townships in
eligible counties, and half by a statutory formula based on township road miles (N.D. Cent. Code §57-51-15).
Counties also are allocated funds for public transit by a statutory formula based on population (N.D. Cent.
Code §39-04.2-04).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes home rule counties to levy local option fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees (N.D.
Sources Autho- Cent. Code §11-09.1-05). Counties and municipalities may assess property taxes for various transportation
rized in State Law purposes including roads, bridges, airports, and public transit (N.D. Cent. Code §24-05-01, §57-15-06.7, §57-
15-19.4, §57-15-20.2, §57-15-22, and §57-15-55). Special assessments may be levied by counties for public
improvements, including transportation uses (N.D. Cent. Code §11-09.1-05 and §11-11-55.1), and by cities for
sidewalks (N.D. Cent. Code §40-29-14).

Ohio

Bridges 27,104
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, light rail, vanpool, demand
response
Legislature
Name Ohio General Assembly
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Transportation, Commerce, and Labor
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Finance
tion-Related Issues • Subcommittee on Transportation

Ohio
Name Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)

Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicycle. Also, the Ohio Rail Devel-
DOT Has Jurisdiction opment Commission, which has jurisdiction over rail, is an independent state agency located within
ODOT. The director of transportation serves as an ex officio member of the commission (Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. §§4981.02).
Includes DMV? No. The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles is a division of the Department of Public Safety. It is funded
by state taxes, fees, and fines collected by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§4501.25), not out of ODOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Ohio State Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety. It is funded by
Federal funds and by state taxes, fees, and fines on vehicle and trailer registrations, vehicle inspec-
tions, and driver’s licenses (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4501.06, §4501.13, and §4508.08), not out of
ODOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over Yes (in law but not in practice). Although ODOT is authorized to collect tolls (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
Toll Facilities? §5531.11; 2009 Ohio Laws, H. 2), it does not currently do so. At present, Ohio’s only toll roads are
managed by the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission.
Other
Other State-Level Ohio Turnpike and Infra- The Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission is a corporation
Transportation Entities structure Commission (cor- and instrumentality of the state that operates the Ohio Turnpike. It is
poration/ instrumentality) funded by tolls, service concession agreements, and $0.05 on every
gallon of fuel sold on the turnpike. The director of transportation or
designee serves on the commission as an ex officio voting member
(Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§5537.01 et seq. and §5735.23).
Ohio Public Works Commis- The Ohio Public Works Commission provides financing for local public
sion (state entity) infrastructure improvements, including roads and bridges. The director
of transportation serves as an ex officio non-voting member (Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. §164.02). It is funded by state general funds and fuel taxes.
Public Utilities Commission The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has jurisdiction over rail grade
of Ohio (state entity) crossings and motor carrier registration and inspection. It is funded by
special revenues and, for the grade crossing program, fuel taxes (Ohio
Rev. Code Ann. §§4907.01 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal. ODOT officials interact with the General Assembly by providing testimony,
and Collaboration making required reports, responding to legislative requests for information, and engaging informally
with legislators. ODOT’s dedicated Office of Legislative Affairs fosters positive working relationships
between the department and legislature, monitors transportation-related bills, handles constituent
casework that originates within a legislative office, and coordinates efforts to ensure that legislative
initiatives are consistent with the overall policies and goals of the administration.
DOT Legislative Liaison The legislative liaison in ODOT’s Office of Legislative Affairs is the main point of contact between the
department and the General Assembly.

Ohio
Transportation Laws Ohio Rev. Code Ann. tit. 45 and 55; portions of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. tit. 49; Ohio Const. art. VIII, §2m
(bonding); Ohio Const. art. XII, §5a (revenue restrictions); portions of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. tit. 57 (reve-
nues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In Ohio, only legislators may request legislative bill
Advocacy and Lobbying ODOT’s Office of Legislative Affairs advocates for departmental goals
and legislative positions before the General Assembly.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact ODOT provides fiscal notes and policy statements when requested by
Statements for Legislative Use the Ohio Legislative Services Commission.
Appointment of The director of transportation is appointed by the governor to a term of office that coincides with
DOT Leadership the governor’s, with the advice and consent of the Senate (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §121.03; Ohio
Const. art. III, §21).
Legislature Able to Legislative approval is required. The governor can remove the director of transportation for cause,
Remove DOT Leaders? but only with the advice and consent of the Senate (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3.04).
Legislative Review of Yes. The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review reviews all proposed rules, amendments, and
Administrative Rules recissions. The committee, the role of which is mainly advisory, may recommend to the full legisla-
ture that it adopt a concurrent resolution to invalidate a proposed rule. If no resolution is adopted
within 65 days, the rule is automatically approved. Agencies are also required to review each of
their existing rules at least every five years, and to submit their findings to the joint committee for
review (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §101.35, §§106.02 et seq., and §§119.02 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Neither. Audits are generally conducted by the Office of State Auditor, which is not a legislative
or Sunset Reviews entity. The state conducts sunset reviews, but not of ODOT.
Required DOT Reports ODOT is required to submit annual reports to the General Assembly concerning its finances and
to the Legislature activities (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5501.06), highway expenditures (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5501.52),
and toll projects (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5531.16). Every other year, ODOT must submit a fiscal
forecast (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5512.04) and a report concerning major new transportation capac-
ity projects (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5512.06).
Other Legislative Oversight Every six years, Ohio’s legislative Sunset Review Committee conducts a substantial sunset review
Mechanisms process (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§101.82 et seq.). This process does not include ODOT, but does
include the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC), a nine-member body that oversees
ODOT’s selection process for major new transportation capacity projects (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§§5512.01 et seq.). In addition, the Ohio Legislative Service Commission continuously monitors
DOT revenues and expenditures and reports on significant developments in a monthly newsletter
to legislators and legislative staff. This gives the General Assembly another window into the DOT’s
financial activities. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from
ODOT.

Ohio

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. State executive agencies,
ations Overview including ODOT, submit a budget request to the Office of Budget and Management, which then
makes recommendations to the governor. The governor submits a budget bill to the General Assem-
bly, the final version of which is passed by the House and Senate and then submitted to the gover-
nor—who has line-item veto power—for signature.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and other approval. Federal transportation funds are
tion Revenues to the DOT allocated to ODOT as state legislative appropriations based on line items, not on
programs or projects. The governor’s budget submission to the General Assem-
bly details the programs that are funded within each line item. The legislative
Controlling Board also must approve any state use of capital funds for passen-
ger rail development, and the Ohio Rail Commission’s use of any public funds
for rail operations (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4981.02).
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and other approval. As with Federal funds, state trans-
portation funds are allocated to ODOT as state legislative appropriations based
on line items. The legislative Controlling Board also must approve any state use
of capital funds for passenger rail development, and the Ohio Rail Commission’s
use of any public funds for rail operations (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4981.02).

Authorized Expenditures Highway infrastructure bank $13,325,000
(FY 2017 only) Infrastructure debt reserve $1,175,000
Roadway infrastructure bank $3,500,000
Aviation infrastructure bank $2,000,000
Transportation facilities lease rental bond payments $12,162,500
Planning and research $54,371,282
Highway construction $1,689,720,003
Major new state infrastructure bond debt service $172,393,700
Grade crossings $14,072,000
Airport improvements $405,000
Aviation administration $6,666,416
Administration $92,690,582
Rail transportation—other $2,875,800
County airport maintenance $620,000
Highway construction—bonds $166,254,827
Highway infrastructure bank—bonds $206,053,254
Total $2,990,417,913
Revenue Sources Highway Operating Fund Group $2,614,614,032
(FY 2017 only) Capital Projects Fund Group $372,308,081
Dedicated Purpose Fund Group $3,495,800
Total $2,990,417,913
Note: Ohio’s biennial transportation budget act contains funding for four agencies: ODOT, the Department of Public Safety,
the Public Works Commission, and the Development Services Agency. This chart shows the budget for ODOT only.

Ohio
Transportation Planning and ODOT takes the lead in creating the state’s transportation plans, including long-range plans
Capital Project Selection Process and the four-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Projects are nom-
inated by ODOT, rail development commissions, MPOs, transit and port authorities, local
governments, and other authorized entities. ODOT selects and prioritizes major new trans-
portation capacity projects under the oversight of the Transportation Review Advisory Council
(TRAC), which was legislatively created in 1997 to bring an open, numbers-driven system to
the selection process. The council reviews and ranks nominated projects through a process
that includes up to six hearings and public comment on new projects (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§§5512.01 et seq.).
Legislative Role in the Planning No legislative role. The General Assembly historically has refrained from establishing or con-
Process trolling specific projects by legislation. The General Assembly sets general appropriation limits,
within which funds are allocated to projects and programs. ODOT submits a biennial report to
the General Assembly, with approval of the Transportation Review Advisory Council, on the
selection, prioritization, and progress of major new transportation capacity projects (Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. §5512.06).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Grade State taxes on gasoline and diesel
gasoline and cross- include a fixed-rate “motor fuel tax”
ings
diesel (fixed only that is made up of five different lev-
rate and vari- ies (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5735.01,
able rate— §5735.05, §5735.23, §5735.25,
percentage §5735.29, §5735.30) and a gross
of price) receipts tax, known as the “Petro-
leum Activity Tax,” that is based
on the wholesale price (Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. §§5736.01 et seq.); use
of both taxes is restricted to roads;
the motor fuel tax may be used for
grade crossings (Ohio Rev. Code
Ann. §4907.472)
Fuel taxes: • • • Grade Includes taxes on liquid petroleum
alternative cross- gas, liquid natural gas, or other
ings
fuels (fixed only liquid fuels; taxed the same way
rate and vari- as gasoline and diesel (Ohio Rev.
able rate— Code Ann. §5735.01, §5735.05,
percentage §5735.25, §5735.29, §5735.30,
of price) §§5736.01 et seq.)
Fuel taxes: • • • Allocated to waterways and boating
watercraft purposes (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§5735.051)
Leases of • • • Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5501.311
rights-of-way
Outdoor • • • Logo sign and tourist attraction

advertising sign fees (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
revenues §4511.101, §4511.103)

Ohio
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
sponsorship allocated to the Highway Oper-
ating Fund (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§5515.08)
Rail loan • • • Ohio Rail Development Commission
repayments Pas- (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4981.13)
senger
and loan ser- and
vicing fees freight
Rail property • • • Ohio Rail Development Commission
leases and Pas- (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4981.08,
senger
sales and §4981.09)
freight
Aircraft • • • Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§4561.17 et
license tax seq.
General • • • • Legislative appropriations for transit,

funds Pas- rail, and aviation
senger
and
freight
Interest • • • State Highway Safety Fund, High-
income way Capital Improvement Fund,
Highway Operating Fund (Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. §4501.06, §5528.53,
§5735.291)
Notes:
• Although state law authorizes ODOT to collect tolls (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5531.11; 2009 Ohio Laws, H. 2), Ohio’s
only currently tolled roads are managed by the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission, which is an instru-
mentality of the state, not a state agency. The turnpike is supported by toll revenues, service concession agreements, a
portion of the tax on fuel sold at turnpike gas stations (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5735.23), and other sources.
• The Ohio Rail Development Commission is an independent state agency within ODOT (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§4981.02).
• Automobile registration taxes are allocated entirely to local governments, not for state use (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§§4501.03 et seq. and §§4503.01 et seq.). Commercial motor vehicle registration taxes, which were previously deposited
in part to the Highway Operating Fund and the Highway Obligations Bond Retirement Fund, are now directed to the
State Highway Safety Fund as a result of legislation enacted in 2015. After set-asides, the remainder is allocated to local
governments (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§4501.044 et seq., §4503.02, §4503.042, and §4503.65; 2015 Ohio Laws, H. 53).
Consequently, none of these revenues are currently used for the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart.

Ohio
State Fuel Taxes from highway users to public highways and bridges, other statutory highway purposes, traffic
enforcement, and the hospitalization of indigent people who are injured in highway accidents
(Ohio Const. art. XII, §5a).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related revenues to public highways and
Transportation Revenues bridges, other statutory highway purposes, traffic enforcement, and the hospitalization of
indigent people who are injured in highway accidents (Ohio Const. art. XII, §5a). State statute
directs the use of tax revenues attributable to watercraft to the Waterways Safety Fund and the
Wildlife Boater Angler Fund (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5735.051).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute dedicates the Highway Operating Fund, which receives fuel tax revenues, to
Transportation Funds highway and road purposes. The law also allows the use of some fund revenues to pay the
costs of the Department of Public Safety “in administering and enforcing state law relating to
the registration and operation of motor vehicles” (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5735.27), but the fund
is not currently used for this purpose. State statute also dedicates the Rail Development Fund
to passenger and freight rail, as well as transit safety (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4981.09), and the
Airport Assistance Fund, which receives aircraft license taxes and fines, to aviation uses (Ohio
Rev. Code Ann. §4561.21). Any project financed by the Highway Capital Improvement Fund,
which is supported by bond revenues, must use Ohio products, materials, services, and labor to
the extent practicable (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5528.53).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • State capital improvement bonds
obligation and state highway capital improve-
bonds ment bonds (“state highway
bonds”); generally authorized in
state constitution and statute;
require further legislative approval;
state law caps annual issuances and
total outstanding principal (Ohio
Const. art. VIII, §2i, §2m; Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. §151.01, §151.06)
ica Bonds
GARVEE • • • Authorized in state statute (Ohio
bonds Rev. Code Ann. §5531.10); most
assistance: project
TIFIA
Advance • •
construction

Ohio
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • Authorized for highway and bridge
projects; use is capped at $1 billion
per year (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§5517.011); used for several projects
partnerships Pas- transportation modes (Ohio Rev.
senger
and Code Ann. §§5501.70 et seq.); used
freight by the state for a road project and
a bridge
State infra- • • • • • • Separate Federally and state-cap-
structure Pas- italized accounts; may be used
senger
bank and for highway, transit, aviation, and
freight rail projects (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§5531.09)

Restrictions on General obligation bonds require legislative approval, and state law limits annual bond issu-
Finance Mechanisms ances and maximum outstanding principal balances for state highway capital improvement
bonds (“state highway bonds”) and state capital improvement bonds (Ohio Const. art. VIII,
§2m; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §151.01 and §151.06). Design-build contracts are capped at $1
billion per fiscal year (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5517.011).

Ohio
DOT Able to Retain and Yes, with legislative and other approval. Ohio’s transportation budget bill routinely allows unspent
Spend Excess Funds appropriations at the end of one fiscal year to be legislatively re-appropriated into the next, subject
to additional approval from the director of the Office of Budget and Management. After that office
gives its approval for unspent appropriations to be re-appropriated (carried forward) to the current
year, no further approvals are required for the excess funds to be spent.
Legislative Actions to State statute contains low-bid requirements for construction contracts (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
Control DOT Costs §5525.01) and requires the legislative Controlling Board to waive the use of competitive bidding for
state agency purchases or leases that exceed certain amounts (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §127.16). State
statute also caps change order increases on construction contracts (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5525.14).
Also, although not required, state law allows for contract clauses by which a contractor may propose
a project change that, without impairing the project’s essential functions and characteristics, saves
ODOT time or money. If the proposal is adopted, at least half the resulting savings must go to the
contractor (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5525.01).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas. Ohio’s overall state fuel tax is made up of five separate tax levies, each set at its own rate
Transportation per gallon. Four of these five levies are allocated in part to local entities, according to statutory percentages
Revenues to Local and formulas. All fuel tax revenues allocated to municipalities are distributed among them by a formula based
Entities on vehicle registrations. Revenues allocated to counties are divided among them equally. Some revenues
allocated to townships are divided equally, while others are either divided equally or distributed using a for-
mula based on lane miles and vehicle registration, whichever is greater (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5735.05 and
§5735.23 to §5735.291). Vehicle registration fees are also allocated to local governments by statutory formu-
las. After set-asides, 34 percent of these funds are returned to the county or municipality where each vehicle
was registered, and an additional 47 percent goes to just the county of registration. A further 9 percent is
distributed to counties, and 5 percent to townships, by statutory formulas based on road miles. The final 5
percent is divided equally among the counties (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4501.04). Revenues from fuel taxes and
registration fees must be used for highway purposes, traffic enforcement, or the hospitalization of indigent
people who are injured in highway accidents, per constitutional restrictions on transportation revenues (Ohio
Const. art. XII, §5a).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties and municipalities to adopt vehicle license taxes and property taxes for
Sources Autho- road, street, and bridge projects (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§4504.01 et seq., §5521.09, §5555.48, §5555.49,
rized in State Law §5555.95, and §5705.06). Counties may also levy sales taxes to provide revenues for a transit authority or
specific permanent improvements (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5739.026). Regional transit authorities may levy
property taxes or sales taxes (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §306.49 and §5739.023). Transportation improvement
districts may levy vehicle license taxes or special assessments for road improvements (Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§4504.21 and §5540.031). A rapid transit commission may levy special assessments for parkways and boule-
vards (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §747.06).

Oklahoma

Bridges 23,049
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, ferry boat, demand response
Legislature
Name Oklahoma Legislature
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Feb. to May
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- • Subcommittee on General Government and Transportation
House Committee on Appropriations and Budget

Oklahoma
Name Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), ODOT Director, Transportation Commission
(independent body). In Oklahoma, the governor is less actively involved with transportation oversight
and has chosen to delegate much of the responsibility to ODOT.
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, freight and passenger rail, ports/waterways
Includes DMV? No. Driver’s licensing functions are carried out by the Department of Public Safety. Vehicle registration
and titling are carried out by the Motor Vehicle Division, a division of the Oklahoma Tax Commission.
Both are funded by their respective appropriations, fees, and fines.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety. It is funded
through appropriations, fees, and fines. Regulation of motor carriers and hazardous materials trans-
portation are generally under the purview of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and are funded
by user fees, permit fees, and fines. Some regulatory functions of motor carriers are undertaken by
the Department of Public Safety as well.
Jurisdiction Over No. Oklahoma’s only toll facilities are operated by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Oklahoma Turnpike Author- The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is a corporation and instrumental-
Transportation Entities ity (corporation/ instrumen- ity of the state that builds and operates turnpike projects, but only
tality) at locations approved by the Transportation Commission and the
Legislature. It receives revenues from tolls and a percentage of turnpike
concession sales (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §§1701 et seq.).
Oklahoma Aeronautics Com- The Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission is an independent state
mission (state agency) agency that oversees and promotes aviation (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 3,
§84.2). It is funded by state aviation-related fees and taxes and Federal
funds.
Oklahoma Capitol Improve- Although not a transportation entity per se, the Oklahoma Capitol
ment Authority (corporation/ Improvement Authority exists in part to issue bonds for construction
instrumentality) and improvement of the state’s highway infrastructure, to be retired by
payments made by ODOT. The ODOT director is a statutory member of
the authority (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 73, §§151 et seq.).

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through a dedicated liaison. ODOT’s legislative liaison maintains constant
and Collaboration contact with members of the Legislature, advances the department’s legislative agenda, and responds
to legislative requests and inquiries.
DOT Legislative Liaison Although ODOT’s legislative liaison is the main point of contact between the department and the
Legislature, both the director and deputy director are quite involved as well.

Oklahoma

Transportation Laws Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, 47, 66, and 69; portions of Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 13; portions of Okla. Stat. Ann.
tit. 68 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. ODOT regularly provides legislation for consideration.
Legislative Process Only legislators, however, can request legislative bill drafts and
sponsor and introduce bills.
Advocacy and Lobbying ODOT’s legislative liaison works to influence relevant legislation.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact No role, unless specifically asked by legislative staff.
Appointment of The secretary of transportation is appointed to the governor’s cabinet by the governor, with the
DOT Leadership advice and consent of the Senate (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §10.3). The eight members of the Transpor-
tation Commission are appointed to staggered eight-year terms by the governor, with the consent of
the Senate, and within statutory requirements for geographic representation (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69,
§302). The ODOT director is elected by the Transportation Commission (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §305).
Legislature Able to No. The secretary of transportation and the members of the Transportation Commission serve at the
Remove DOT Leaders? pleasure of the governor. The ODOT director serves at the pleasure of the Transportation Commission.
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules are reviewed in the Senate by the relevant standing committees and in the
Administrative Rules House by the Administrative Rules Committee. The role of these committees is mainly advisory. The
Legislature must prepare an omnibus joint resolution each session that approves or disapproves all
proposed rules. The Legislature can also approve or reject rules by other concurrent or joint resolu-
tions (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §§250 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. ODOT is subject to legislative audits conducted by the House Committee on
or Sunset Reviews Government Oversight and Accountability. Also, the Legislature is required by statute to conduct
annual performance reviews of many state agencies, including ODOT, as part of the budget process
(Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 62, §34.95). The state conducts sunset reviews, but not of ODOT.
Required DOT Reports ODOT is required to submit annual reports to the Legislature concerning expenditures from state
to the Legislature motor fuel tax revenues (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, §358) and an online mapping system (Okla. Stat.
Ann. tit. 69, §1912). ODOT and the Transportation Commission must also submit a progress report
as part of the annual budget submission (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §4002) and, as requested by the
relevant Senate or House appropriations subcommittee, performance analysis reports (Okla. Stat. Ann.
tit. 62, §34.95). Each year, ODOT submits performance data that includes the percentage of deficient
bridges, miles of two-lane highways without shoulders, and the number of crossover fatalities.
Performance Manage- each Senate and House appropriations subcommittee to establish budget performance measurements
ment for every agency under its jurisdiction (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 62, §34.95; this statute also provides for
the annual legislative performance reviews and analysis reports listed above).
Other Legislative Over- Individual legislators can request interim studies, which must be approved by the chair of the relevant
sight Mechanisms committee. In the 2015 legislative session, for example, interim studies were approved concerning
overweight truck routes, state costs to comply with Federal regulations, ODOT eminent domain
court cases, public-private partnerships, and driving under the influence. Other oversight mechanisms
include legislative requests for information from ODOT.
Resources Provided to No.
DOT to Support Com-
pliance with Oversight
Requirements?

Oklahoma
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. Oklahoma is one of five states in which a legislative entity—
ations Overview in this case, standing committees and subcommittees—produces a comprehensive budget as an
alternative to the governor’s proposal.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to ODOT from the
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. A portion of fuel tax and vehicle fee revenues flow
directly to the State Transportation Fund according to statutory requirements,
but the Legislature must authorize ODOT to spend these funds through the
annual budget process. The Legislature sets the maximum amount of expen-
diture per year from the State Transportation Fund for each departmental
program or broad spending category. The Legislature also appropriates general
fund allocations to the Rebuilding Oklahoma Access and Driver Safety (ROADS)
Fund, as authorized in state statute and by the State Board of Equalization
(Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §1521).

Authorized Expenditures Highway $1,530,065,136
County $326,123,988
Transit $27,423,297
Rail $56,976,012
Waterways $178,769
Total $1,940,767,202
Revenue Sources Earmarked revenue $586,095,431
Appropriations $184,901,463
Other revenue $94,827,693
Federal revenue $797,341,373
Prior year carryover $313,400,000
Total $1,976,565,960

Transportation Planning and The entire planning process for projects on the highway system is completed within ODOT.
Capital Project Selection Process MPOs are responsible for projects that are eligible for local surface transportation program
funding. ODOT submits the eight-year construction work plan to the Transportation Commis-
sion for approval. After the plan is approved, it is delivered to the governor and the Legislature
and made publicly available on the ODOT Web site, and projects are begun.
Legislative Role in the Planning Limited legislative role. The Legislature does not approve the construction work plan, and has
Process long avoided directing ODOT about project prioritization. Through the appropriations process
and other legislation, the Legislature directs some spending toward public transit, rail, and
other transportation modes besides roads and bridges, which influences overall investment
priorities. The Legislature must authorize any bond financing in a bill or joint resolution that
identifies the specific projects for which the bonds can be used.

Oklahoma
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • Allocated in part to the multimodal
gasoline and Pas- State Transportation Fund (Okla.
senger
diesel (fixed and Stat. Ann. tit. 68, §500.4)
rate) freight
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied and com-
alternative Pas- pressed natural gas; allocated the
senger
fuels and same way as gasoline taxes (Okla.
freight Stat. Ann. tit. 68, §500.4, §500.6,
§§701 et seq.)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 3,
§91; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 68, §500.4,
§500.6a)
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • Allocated in part to the State Trans-
istration and Pas- portation Fund (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.
senger
title fees and 47, §1104)
freight
Truck regis- • • • • • • Allocated in part to the State Trans-
tration fees Pas- portation Fund (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.
senger
(based on and 47, §1104, §1133)
weight)
Oversize/ • • • • • • Allocated in part to the State Trans-
overweight Pas- portation Fund (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.
senger
truck permit and 47, §§14-101 et seq., §1104)
fees freight
Truck permit • • • • • • Includes temporary permit fees; allo-
fees, other Pas- cated in part to the State Transpor-
senger
and tation Fund (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47,
freight §1124, §1104)
Aircraft • • • Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, §256
registration
fees
Aircraft • • • $4.5 million is allocated annually to
excise taxes the Oklahoma Aeronautics Com-
mission Revolving Fund (Okla. Stat.
Ann. tit. 68, §§6001 et seq.)
Aircraft • • • In lieu of ad valorem tax on aircraft
dealer license (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, §§254 et
fees seq.)
Outdoor • • • Fees for highway advertising licenses
advertising and permits (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69,
revenues §1277); deposited to the Highway
Construction and Maintenance Fund

Oklahoma
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Income taxes • • • • • Portions allocated to the Rebuilding
Pas- Oklahoma Access and Driver Safety
senger
only (ROADS) Fund, the Public Transit
Revolving Fund, and the Heartland
Flyer rail project (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.
69, §1521)
Interest • • • High Priority State Bridge Revolving
income Fund (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §506)
Notes:
• Oklahoma’s only toll facilities are operated by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, which is a corporation and instru-
mentality of the state, not a state agency (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §1703).

Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation. State statute allocates the state portion of fuel tax reve-
State Fuel Taxes nues to the State Transportation Fund, the High Priority State Bridge Revolving Fund, the Public
Transit Revolving Fund, and the Oklahoma Tourism and Passenger Rail Revolving Fund (Okla.
Stat. Ann. tit. 68, §500.6 and §500.7), to be used for multimodal transportation purposes. In
general, state law restricts the use of the funds into which the revenues are deposited, rather
than the revenues themselves.
Restrictions on Other State statute specifies the funds to which various transportation-related revenues are credited.
Transportation Revenues In general, state law restricts the use of the funds into which the revenues are deposited, rather
than the revenues themselves..
Dedicated or Restricted State statute dedicates the State Transportation Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other reve-
Transportation Funds nues, to highways and other transportation uses (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §1501.1). The fund is
generally used for roads, transit, rail, and waterways. The Legislature annually limits the expen-
diture authorization from the State Transportation Fund in the general appropriations bill. Funds
in excess of the authorization are transferred to the general fund for appropriation to other
areas of state or local government. State statute also dedicates the Public Transit Revolving Fund
to public transit (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §§4031 et seq.), the Oklahoma Tourism and Passenger
Rail Revolving Fund to passenger rail (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 66, §325), the Rebuilding Oklahoma
Access and Driver Safety (ROADS) Fund to highways, roads, and bridges (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69,
§1521), and the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission Revolving Fund, which is funded by aircraft
fuel taxes and registration fees, to aviation (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, §91).

Oklahoma
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • Issued by the Oklahoma Capitol
bonds Improvement Authority (see
notes) (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69,
§2001; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 73,
§168, §341, §342; 2016 Okla.
House Bill 3231)
Build Amer- • • Issued in 2009 and 2010 by the
ica Bonds Oklahoma Capitol Improvement
Authority (see notes)
GARVEE • • • Authorized in state statute
bonds (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §2001);
most recently issued in 2008
Federal credit • • • Authorized under state infra-
assistance: Pas- structure bank law (Okla. Stat.
senger
TIFIA and Ann. tit. 69, §§403 et seq.) but
freight not currently in use (see notes)
Federal-aid • • ODOT uses Oklahoma Turnpike
matching: Authority turnpike expenditures
toll credits as the basis for toll credits
Advance • •
construction
State infra- • • • Authorized in state statute
structure (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §§403
bank et seq.); not currently in use (see
notes)
Notes:
as public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. For Oklahoma, however, bonds issued by the Oklahoma Capitol
Improvement Authority are included because the authority exists in part to issue bonds for state highway infrastructure,
and the bonds are retired by payments made to the authority by ODOT. “Authorized by state constitution or statute”
signifies that the item is specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers.
“Eligible transportation activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and ser-
vices. They do not include administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities,
education programs, or distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail
and light rail are included under “public transit.”
• Oklahoma established a state infrastructure bank in 1996 under the Federal NHS Act pilot program, but it was not
capitalized. In 2012, the state statute authorizing the bank was amended to direct the Transportation Commission to
pursue Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance and to allow any
credit assistance received to be pooled with other funds in the bank (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 69, §§403 et seq.; 2012 Okla.
Sess. Laws, Chap. 356). As of 2016, these actions have not occurred.

Oklahoma
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. Bonding is used as a means to finance projects, but such authorizations are approved
individually and are not necessarily undertaken every year.
Restrictions on All bond financing must be authorized by the Legislature in a bill or joint resolution.
Finance Mechanisms

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. All appropriations and authorizations are transferred to revolving funds within ODOT, and ODOT
Spend Excess Funds is authorized to retain any unspent funds. ODOT cannot, however, make expenditures from the State
Transportation Fund beyond the annual limits that are authorized by the Legislature. Rather, any
excess funds in the State Transportation Fund must be re-appropriated to be spent. Funds transferred
to other agency revolving funds are not generally subject to fiscal year limitations.
Legislative Actions to Although state law exempts ODOT construction projects (including aesthetic elements) from the
Control DOT Costs Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §85.12), statutes specific to construction
do include low-bid requirements (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §103). State statute also limits change order
increases on construction contracts (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 61, §121).

Allocation of State Statutory and DOT formulas. Cities and towns receive 1.875 percent of state gasoline taxes for street projects,
Transportation which is distributed among them by a statutory formula based on population. Apportionments to counties
Revenues to Local for road projects include 30.125 percent of state gasoline taxes and 30.43 percent of state diesel taxes, which
Entities are distributed among them by two statutory formulas based on road miles, total and rural population, and
area, plus an ODOT formula (sometimes called the “county road” factor) that takes terrain and traffic volume
into account. Further percentages of gasoline and diesel taxes are distributed to counties for deposit into each
county’s County Bridge and Road Improvement Fund, as well as to the Statewide Circuit Engineering District
Revolving Fund (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 68, §500.6 and §500.7). Counties also receive portions of vehicle regis-
tration fees and taxes on special fuels (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 68, §704 and §§707.1 et seq.; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.
47, §1104). Percentages of state gross production taxes on oil, gas, asphalt, and ores also go to counties for
road projects. Most of these revenues are allocated based on each county’s share of production value in the
corresponding month of the preceding year. The rest use the ODOT “county road” factor (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.
68, §1004).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes rural road improvement districts to levy property taxes for rural roads (Okla. Stat.
Sources Autho- Ann. tit. 19, §902.15 and §902.16). Counties may adopt sales taxes for a designated purpose, which can
rized in State Law include capital improvements or roads (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 68, §1370). Transportation authorities may also
adopt sales taxes (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 68, §1370.7). Municipalities may charge development fees to pay for
development-related capital improvements (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 62, §895).

Oregon

Bridges 8,037
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, streetcar, vanpool, demand
response
Legislature
Name Oregon Legislative Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Feb. to July (odd years), Feb. to Mar. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Business and Transportation
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue
tion-Related Issues House Committee on Revenue
House Committee on Transportation and Economic Development
Joint Committee on Ways and Means
• Subcommittee on Transportation and Economic Development
[Interim] Senate Interim Committee on Business and Transportation
[Interim] Senate Interim Committee on Finance and Revenue
[Interim] House Interim Committee on Revenue
[Interim] House Interim Committee on Transportation and Economic Development
[Interim] Joint Emergency Board
• Interim Subcommittee on Transportation and Economic Development
[Interim] Joint Interim Committee on Transportation Preservation and Modernization
[Interim] Joint Interim Committee on Ways and Means
• Subcommittee on Transportation and Economic Development

Oregon
Name Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Structure Organized by both functional activity and transportation mode. Some of ODOT’s divisions are dedi-
cated to functional activities, and others are dedicated to specific transportation modes (highways,
public transit, and rail).
Leadership Director of Transportation (does not serve on governor’s cabinet; Oregon has no formal cabinet
system), Oregon Transportation Commission (independent body). In Oregon, the governor employs a
liaison who maintains active communication with ODOT about transportation issues.
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? Yes. The Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division is a division of ODOT. It is funded by the State
Highway Fund as part of ODOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Oregon State Police, an independent state agency, carries out highway patrol functions. It is
funded by any fund other than the State Highway Fund, usually by general funds and other sources. It
is not funded out of ODOT’s budget, except for reimbursements from ODOT for acting as weighmas-
ters.
Jurisdiction Over No. The only toll facilities in Oregon are two bridges over the Columbia River to Washington, nei-
Toll Facilities? ther of which is state-operated. State statute grants the authority to approve new toll proposals and
rulemaking authority for toll collection systems and photo enforcement to the Oregon Transportation
Commission, not ODOT (Or. Rev. Stat. §383.004 and §383.014).
Other
Other State-Level Oregon Department of Avia- The Oregon Department of Aviation is a separate state agency (Or.
Transportation Entities tion (state agency) Rev. Stat. §§835.100 et seq.). It is funded by aviation-related revenues.
Oregon State Marine Board The Oregon State Marine Board is a separate state agency that over-
(state agency) sees recreational boating (Or. Rev. Stat. §§830.100 et seq.). It is funded
by boat registration fees, fuel taxes from boating, and Federal grants.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. ODOT’s Government Relations Section guides the department’s participation in
and Collaboration state legislative efforts. This includes doing fiscal and policy analyses of transportation-related legis-
lation, coordinating regular ODOT testimony before legislative committees, and sometimes providing
technical support to legislative offices for bill and amendment drafting. Regular communication takes
place between legislative leadership and the chairs of relevant legislative committees (on the legisla-
tive side) and the ODOT director’s office and government relations staff (on the department side).
DOT Legislative Liaison The legislative liaison in ODOT’s Government Relations Section is the main point of contact between
the department and the Legislative Assembly.

Oregon

Transportation Laws Or. Rev. Stat. §§184.610 et seq.; Or. Rev. Stat. tit. 31 and 58 to 62; portions of Or. Rev. Stat. tit. 57; Or.
Const. art. XI, §7 (bonding); Or. Const. art. IX, §3a (revenue restrictions); portions of Or. Rev. Stat. tit. 29
(revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. ODOT and other executive agencies submit proposed
Legislative Process legislative measures through the governor’s office. By law, the gover-
nor must approve all state agency proposals. The Legislative Counsel
may draft these bills, and the governor introduces them (Or. Rev. Stat.
§171.130, §171.133, and §173.130). ODOT agency bills are introduced
at the beginning of every session.
Advocacy and Lobbying ODOT has registered lobbyists within the agency that focus on pro-
viding neutral, factual information to the Legislative Assembly about
policy implications, fiscal impacts, revenue projections, and agency
operations. Support and opposition for legislation is directed by the
office of the governor.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact ODOT provides information to the Legislative Fiscal Office and the
Statements for Legislative Use Legislative Revenue Office, which develop fiscal and revenue impact
statements for proposed bills.
Appointment of The five members of the Oregon Transportation Commission are appointed to four-year terms by the
DOT Leadership governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate and within statutory requirements for geographic
representation and partisan balance (Or. Rev. Stat. §184.612; Or. Const. art. III, §4). The director of
transportation is appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate (Or. Rev. Stat.
§184.620).
Legislature Able to No. The director of transportation holds office at the pleasure of the governor. No process is specified
Remove DOT Leaders? for removing members of the Oregon Transportation Commission before the end of their respective
terms of office.
Legislative Review of Yes. The Office of Legislative Counsel reviews all new rules and rule amendments. The role of the
Administrative Rules office is mainly advisory, and its determinations are submitted to the relevant interim committees.
Either the Office of Legislative Counsel or the Joint Committee on Legislative Counsel may review any
other rule (Or. Rev. Stat. §§183.710 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Neither. Audits are generally conducted by the Office of the Secretary of State, which is not a legisla-
or Sunset Reviews tive entity. Oregon does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports ODOT is required to submit reports every other year to the Legislative Assembly concerning audits
to the Legislature of the department (Or. Rev. Stat. §184.649), highway construction workforce diversity (Or. Rev. Stat.
§184.866), use of photo radar in highway work zones (Or. Rev. Stat. §810.441), and flat fee adjust-
ments for trucks carrying certain commodities (Or. Rev. Stat. §825.482). The department must report
quarterly on passenger rail performance (Or. Rev. Stat. §824.410) and make regular reports about
hazardous materials transportation (Or. Rev. Stat. §453.825). The Oregon Transportation Commis-
sion must submit a report every other year about emerging small business assistance (Or. Rev. Stat.
§200.160). ODOT must also submit an Annual Performance Progress Report, a quarterly report on
revenues resulting from the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 (per 2010 Or. Laws, Chap. 30), and a
number of other one-time or ongoing reports.

Oregon
Legislative Role in In addition to the reporting requirements listed above, state statute requires state agencies to develop
DOT Performance and use performance measures, and to review them with the appropriate legislative committee every
Management other year (Or. Rev. Stat. §291.110). ODOT proposes its biennial performance measures and targets
in the documentation it submits to the Department of Administrative Services and the Legislative
Fiscal Office as part of the budget process. The Legislative Assembly approves, denies, or modifies
these proposed measures. Once the measures are approved, they are reported upon until eliminated
or modified by the Legislative Assembly. ODOT reports to the Legislative Assembly on its progress
through testimony before legislative committees and in formal reports (including the Annual Perfor-
mance Progress Report listed above).
Other Legislative Although the Legislative Assembly does not itself conduct audits, ODOT is required to appear before
Oversight Mechanisms the Joint Committee on Legislative Audits at least once every two years to report on internal audits
and Federal audits of the department (Or. Rev. Stat. §184.649). Also, between legislative sessions,
legislative leaders appoint members to interim committees and assign them topics to study, which can
include transportation-related topics. In addition, legislative leadership and chairs of relevant commit-
tees occasionally request background information from ODOT about its programs, procedures, and
past legislation. Individual legislators may also request information from ODOT.
Resources Provided to Yes. Funds have been allocated to ODOT to support its compliance with legislative oversight require-
DOT to Support Com- ments.
Requirements?

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of one 24-month budget; fiscal year begins July 1. ODOT prepares a two-year
ations Overview budget request, which is approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission, then by the governor.
The governor submits the proposed ODOT budget to the Legislative Assembly for approval. The pro-
posed budget must include expenditures for each program or item specifically listed in the previously
enacted budget bill (Or. Rev. Stat. §184.656). The Legislative Assembly modifies the budget based on
legislative priorities and adopts it as an appropriations bill, subject to the governor’s approval or veto.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and application approval. Federal formula funds for
tion Revenues to the DOT transportation flow directly to ODOT from the U.S. DOT with no state legislative
involvement. However, ODOT is subject to an expenditure limit on those funds
that is set by the Legislative Assembly as part of the biennial appropriations bill.
Legislative approval also is required for ODOT to apply for non-formula Federal
grants (Or. Rev. Stat. §291.375).
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. As with Federal funds, state transportation funds flow
directly from the revenue source to ODOT but are subject to the biennial expen-
diture limit. Some state funds are appropriated to specific projects in special
legislation.

Oregon
Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, 2015–17 fiscal biennium (enacted)

Authorized Expenditures Non-limited programs $18,158,214
(2015–17 biennium total) Capital improvement and construction $52,438,165
Highways $2,040,568,172
Driver and motor vehicles services $209,397,660
Motor carrier transportation $65,423,763
Transportation program development $177,379,941
Public transit $95,572,166
Rail $77,916,495
Transportation safety $36,297,561
Central services $207,455,609
Total $3,561,146,422
(2015–17 biennium total) Lottery funds $107,484,140
Other funds $3,294,101,872
Total $3,561,146,422

Transportation Planning and The Oregon Transportation Commission selects projects for the four-year Statewide Transpor-
Capital Project Selection Process tation Improvement Program (STIP). ODOT’s primary responsibility in the process is to provide
staff support for the commission. Other entities that participate in the STIP process include
ODOT divisions and regions, Area Commissions on Transportation, the Oregon Freight Advi-
sory Committee, tribal and local governments, MPOs, and transportation management areas.
ODOT prepares, publishes, and presents the draft STIP for review and comment in public
hearings across the state. ODOT also staffs some of the Area Commissions on Transportation
that organize stakeholder input for regional transportation planning.
Legislative Role in the Planning Moderate legislative role. The Legislative Assembly does not approve the STIP, but does
Process modify and approve the two-year budget for transportation projects. The Legislative Assem-
bly has at times enacted separate legislation that identified and provided revenues for specific
multimodal or highway projects.

Oregon
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • Allocated to the State Highway Fund
gasoline and (Or. Rev. Stat. §319.020, §366.505)
diesel (fixed
rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • • Includes taxes on all alternative
alternative fuels, including liquefied petroleum
fuels gas and compressed natural gas;
allocated to the State Highway Fund
(Or. Rev. Stat. §319.020, §366.505)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Or. Rev. Stat. §319.020,
§319.410, §319.417; 2015 Or. Laws,
Chap. 700)
Fuel taxes: • • • Allocated to boating purposes; used
boat opera- by the State Marine Board (Or. Rev.
tion Stat. §319.415, §830.140)
Unclaimed • • • Allocated to the Department of
motor fuel Transportation Operating Fund;
tax refunds allowable uses include public transit
(Or. Rev. Stat. §184.642)
Vehicle reg- • • • • Allocated to the State Highway Fund
istration and (Or. Rev. Stat. §366.505, §803.090,
title fees §§803.420 et seq.)
Special fees • • • • Additional fee for electric and hybrid
on some vehicles in certain weight categories;
hybrid and allocated to the State Highway Fund
electric (Or. Rev. Stat. §366.505, §803.420)
vehicles
Truck regis- • • • • Allocated to the State Highway Fund
tration fees (Or. Rev. Stat. §366.505, §803.420)
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Weight-dis- • • • • “Weight-mile tax”; allocated to the
tance taxes State Highway Fund (Or. Rev. Stat.
(trucks) §366.505, §825.474)
Oversize/ • • • Or. Rev. Stat. §818.220; use is
overweight constitutionally restricted (Or. Const.
truck permit art. IX, §3a); deposited to the State
fees Highway Fund
Truck permit • • • Includes fees for temporary passes
fees: other and other permits; allocated to the
Motor Carrier Account, the balance
of which is transferred monthly
to the State Highway Fund (Or.
Rev. Stat. §825.180, §825.454,
§825.470, §825.326, §825.328)

Oregon
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Road usage • • • • Mileage-based fees; authorized for
charges up to 5,000 vehicles; allocated to
the State Highway Fund (Or. Rev.
Stat. §§319.883 et seq., §366.505;
2013 Or. Laws, Chap. 781)
Custom • • • Or. Rev. Stat. §802.100, §802.110,
license plate Pas- §805.205, §805.222, §805.240
senger
fees only
Rest area • Authorized in state administrative
sponsorship code, not statute; not currently in
use; revenues may be used for rest
areas only (Or. Admin. Code §§734-
031-0001 et seq.)
Driver’s • • • • Or. Rev. Stat. §807.370; use is
license fees constitutionally restricted (Or. Const.
art. IX, §3a); allocated to the State
Highway Fund
State ID card • • • Allocated to transit for older adults
fees and people with disabilities (Or. Rev.
Stat. §184.642, §807.410)
Airport facili- • • • Or. Rev. Stat. §§836.010 et seq.
ties leases
Aircraft • • • Or. Rev. Stat. §§837.040 et seq.

registration
fees
Railroad fees • • • Fees paid on gross operating reve-
Pas- nues (Or. Rev. Stat. §824.010)
senger
and
freight
Cigarette • • • 3.45 percent allocated to transit for
taxes older adults and people with disabil-
ities (Or. Rev. Stat. §323.455)
Property • • • • Deposited to the State Highway
leases or Fund or other special funds (Or. Rev.
sales Stat. §366.395)
General • • • • Legislative appropriations for debt
funds Pas- service, transit, and passenger rail
senger
only
Interest • • • • • • • • State Highway Fund, Connect Ore-
income Pas- gon Fund, Department of Transpor-
senger
and tation Operating Fund (Or. Rev. Stat.
freight §184.642, §366.505, §367.080)
Notes:

Oregon
• The only toll facilities in Oregon are two bridges that are not state-operated.
• Lottery revenues are used to support Connect Oregon bonds (Or. Rev. Stat. §§367.080 et seq.).
• The state administers local payroll and self-employment taxes for the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District
(TriMet) and the Lane County Mass Transit District, as authorized by state law (Or. Rev. Stat. §§267.360 et seq. and
§267.615). Although state-administered, these are local taxes.
• Pilot license fees are used for air search and rescue (Or. Rev. Stat. §837.035), maritime pilot license fees by the Oregon
Board of Maritime Pilots (Or. Rev. Stat. §776.355), and rail safety fees for the state rail safety oversight program (Or.
Rev. Stat. §824.045). None of these revenue sources are used for the kinds of transportation activities described in this
chart.

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts the use of fuel taxes from
State Fuel Taxes non-commercial motor vehicles, not including recreational vehicles and snowmobiles, to road
uses including roadside rest areas and bond repayment (Or. Const. art. IX, §3a).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related revenues from non-commercial motor
Transportation Revenues vehicles, not including recreational vehicles and snowmobiles, to road uses including roadside
rest areas and bond repayment. Taxes on recreational vehicles and snowmobiles may, however,
be used for parks and recreation areas, and taxes on commercial vehicles may be used for the
enforcement of commercial vehicle regulations (Or. Const. art. IX, §3a). Aviation fuel taxes are
directed to the State Aviation Account for aviation purposes (Or. Rev. Stat. §319.417) and fuel
taxes derived from boats are directed to the Boating Safety, Law Enforcement, and Facility
Account (Or. Rev. Stat. §319.415 and §830.140).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute establishes the State Highway Fund as a trust fund that receives fuel taxes and
Transportation Funds other highway-dedicated revenues, and requires it to be used for purposes authorized by law
(Or. Rev. Stat. §366.505). The fund may be used for footpaths and bicycle trails as a part of
highway, road, and street purposes (Or. Rev. Stat. §366.514). The Connect Oregon Fund, which
is supported by lottery-backed revenue bonds, is dedicated to transit, rail, marine, aviation, and
bicycle and pedestrian capital projects that cannot be funded by constitutionally restricted high-
way revenues (Or. Rev. Stat. §§367.080 et seq.). The Department of Transportation Operating
Fund, funded by non-restricted fuel taxes and other revenues, must be used for non-highway
ODOT activities (Or. Rev. Stat. §184.642). Other dedicated funds established in state statute
include the Public Transit Account (Or. Rev. Stat. §184.691), the State Aviation Account (Or. Rev.
Stat. §319.417), the Passenger Rail Transportation Account (Or. Rev. Stat. §802.100), and the
Boating Safety, Law Enforcement, and Facility Account (Or. Rev. Stat. §319.415 and §830.140).

Oregon
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • Generally authorized by the
obligation constitution for road uses (Or.
bonds Const. art. XI, §7); requires fur-
ther legislative approval (Or. Rev.
Stat. §286A.035); specific bonds
authorized in 2015 by session
law (2015 Or. Laws, Chap. 685)
Revenue • • • • • • • Includes Connect Oregon bonds
bonds Pas- (backed by lottery revenues; Or.
senger
and Rev. Stat. §§367.080 et seq.) and
freight Highway User Tax Bonds (Or.
Rev. Stat. §367.615, §367.620)
ica Bonds
GARVEE • • Authorized in statute (Or. Rev.
bonds Stat. §§367.161 et seq.); not
issued
Federal credit • • • • • Authorized in state statute for
assistance: Pas- public-private partnerships; not
senger
TIFIA and restricted by mode (Or. Rev. Stat.
freight §367.812); not currently in use
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Design-build • • • • • • • • Design-build is specifically
Pas- authorized for tollways (Or. Rev.
senger
and Stat. §383.005); alternative con-
freight tracting is generally authorized
for ODOT projects in any mode,
under certain conditions (Or.
Rev. Stat. §279C.335); used for
road and bridge projects
Public-private • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for trans-
partnerships Pas- portation projects in any mode
senger
and (Or. Rev. Stat. §§367.800 et seq.,
freight §§383.001 et seq.) ( See notes
regarding use)
State infra- • • • • • • • • Oregon Transportation Infra-
structure Pas- structure Bank; capitalized with
senger
bank and state and Federal funds; may be
freight used for highway, transit, rail,
aviation, bicycle, and pedestrian
projects (Or. Rev. Stat. §367.015)

Notes:
Oregon
• ODOT is currently involved in public-private partnerships related to placing solar arrays near highways, develop-
ing electric vehicle charging stations, and collecting road usage charges. No public-private partnerships are currently
being used to finance transportation assets of the kind described in this chart.
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. Bonding, which historically had been low in Oregon, was substantially increased by three
bonding programs passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003, known collectively as the Oregon Trans-
portation Improvement Act. The Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 (2009 Or. Laws, Chap.
865) provided an additional $940 million in bonding authority. Bond revenues now supply
most of the state funds available for highways.
Restrictions on All bond financing must be legislatively approved.
Finance Mechanisms

DOT Able to Retain and Yes, for some funds, with legislative approval. Other than general funds, ODOT retains all unspent
Spend Excess Funds highway funds at the end of the biennial budget cycle, but they must be re-appropriated to be spent.
These funds are included in the ODOT ending balance that serves as a beginning balance for the next
biennial budget. Excess general funds are reverted to the general state ending balance for realloca-
tion by the Legislative Assembly. ODOT cannot spend any funds in excess of its biennial expenditure
limit without legislative approval.
Legislative Approval Yes, in some cases. In general, ODOT must seek approval from the Oregon Transportation Com-
Required for DOT to Move mission, not the Legislative Assembly, to move funds between projects. In certain cases where the
Funds Between Projects Legislative Assembly has allocated funds to specific projects, however, allocations cannot be changed
except by further legislative action.
Legislative Actions to State laws address the procurement of services, goods, and public improvements. Before procuring
Control DOT Costs services with a contract price over $250,000, an agency must show in writing that procurement
will cost less than performing the services in-house, or that performing the services in-house is not
feasible (Or. Rev. Stat. §279B.030). For a contract over $150,000 for services or goods, an agency
must seek approval to use an approach other than competitive bidding, and the alternative method
must result in cost savings or other public benefits (Or. Rev. Stat. §279B.085). If a public improvement
project over $125,000 is to be completed in-house, the agency must conduct cost estimates and
show that this approach is more cost-effective (Or. Rev. Stat. §279C.305). Competitive bidding must
be used for public improvement contracts, but the director of transportation may exempt transpor-
tation projects from the requirement if an alternative method results in cost savings or other public
benefits (Or. Rev. Stat. §279C.335). After completing a public improvement project over $100,000 for
which competitive bidding was not used, the contracting agency must evaluate the project, including
a comparison of actual project costs with the original cost estimates (Or. Rev. Stat. §279C.355).

Oregon
Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislation appropriation, and grants. For road and street projects, counties and cities
Transportation receive state revenues from several revenue streams according to different distribution formulas. First, after
Revenues to Local set-asides, counties receive 24.38 percent, and cities 15.57 percent, from the “base,” which includes state
Entities fuel taxes and a number of other taxes and fees (Or. Rev. Stat. §366.739). The “base,” however, does not
include increases that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 by the Oregon Transportation Investment Acts (2001
Or. Laws, Chap. 669; 2003 Or. Laws, Chap. 618) or by the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 (2009 Or.
Laws, Chap. 865). The revenues attributable to these increases are tracked separately and allocated in part
to counties and cities according to their own distribution formulas (Or. Rev. Stat. §§366.744 et seq.). Alloca-
tions to counties, both from the “base” and the later increases, are distributed among them by a statutory
formula based on vehicle registrations, except for $750,000 each year that goes to counties that received less
than $4,500 per county highway mile in state and Federal funds the year before (Or. Rev. Stat. §§366.762 et
seq.). Revenues allocated to cities are distributed among them by a statutory formula based on population,
except for $500,000 that ODOT awards to small cities through a discretionary grant program (Or. Rev. Stat.
§§366.785 et seq.). In addition, the state Financial Assistance to Municipalities program awards grants to
local entities for airport projects (Or. Rev. Stat. §836.015) and some state funds are allocated to local entities
through legislative appropriations.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties and local governments to assess local motor fuel taxes, vehicle registration
Sources Autho- fees, and property taxes for various transportation purposes (Or. Rev. Stat. §267.001, §267.305, §267.310,
rized in State Law §267.615, §267.620, §319.950, §368.705, §370.180, and §§801.041 et seq.). Property taxes may also be
levied by county and special road districts (Or. Rev. Stat. §371.065 and §371.336), by cities and counties for
capital projects (Or. Rev. Stat. §280.060), and by county service districts for service facilities, including public
transit or roads (Or. Rev. Stat. §451.540). Transit or transportation districts may impose income, payroll, and
self-employment taxes, as well as business license fees (Or. Rev. Stat. §§267.360 et seq. and §267.615). The
state administers the local payroll and self-employment taxes for the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District (TriMet) and the Lane County Mass Transit District. The Portland area’s regional government, Metro
(previously the Metropolitan Services District), is also authorized to collect various taxes to support its oper-
ations, including transportation services (Or. Rev. Stat. §§268.500 et seq.). Local governments may charge
developers “system development charges” to pay for development-related capital improvements (Or. Rev.
Stat. §§223.297 et seq.).

Pennsylvania

Bridges 22,778
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, inclined
plane, streetcar, vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name Pennsylvania General Assembly
Introduced in 2016
tion-Related Issues • Subcommittee on Aviation
• Subcommittee on Highways
• Subcommittee on Public Transportation
• Subcommittee on Railroads
• Subcommittee on Transportation Safety

Pennsylvania
Name Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)

Structure Organized by both functional activity and transportation mode. PennDOT is organized into five main
areas known as “deputates,” one of which is dedicated to highway administration and another to
multimodal transportation.
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), State Transportation Commission (indepen-
dent body). In Pennsylvania, the governor employs a liaison who maintains active communication with
PennDOT about transportation issues.
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? Yes. Pennsylvania’s Driver and Vehicle Services are a part of PennDOT and are therefore funded com-
pletely through the department’s budget, mainly through the state Motor License Fund.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Pennsylvania State Police, an independent state agency, carries out highway patrol functions.
Although the agency is not funded directly out of PennDOT’s budget, a portion of its funding is from
the state’s Motor License Fund, which then influences PennDOT’s budget. The remainder of its budget
comes out of the state general fund.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Pennsylvania Turnpike Com- The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, an instrumentality of the state,
Transportation Entities mission (instrumentality) operates the turnpike and its extensions. It is funded by toll revenues.
The secretary of transportation serves as an ex officio member of the
the authority (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, §652d; Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74,
§8105).
Delaware River Port Author- The Delaware River Port Authority is a bi-state public corporate instru-
ity (bi-state corporation/ mentality (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, §§3503 et seq.) that oversees four
instrumentality) bridges and a transit system between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Delaware River Joint Toll The Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission is a bi-state public
Bridge Commission (bi-state corporate instrumentality (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, §§3401.1 et seq.) that
corporation/ instrumentality) oversees 20 toll and toll-supported bridges between New Jersey and
Pennsylvania. It is funded by toll revenues.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, extensive. The House and Senate transportation committees interact regularly
and Collaboration with PennDOT officials and staff, including sharing their committee agendas and maintaining an
open line of communication. PennDOT provides office staff to help legislators with driver licensing
and motor vehicle issues. PennDOT’s dedicated Office of Legislative Affairs is responsible for ongoing
communication and interaction with the General Assembly.
DOT Legislative Liaison Staff in PennDOT’s Office of Legislative Affairs, including the legislative liaison, serve as the main point
of contact between the department and the General Assembly.

Pennsylvania
Transportation Laws Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 71, §§511 et seq.; Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 36, 55, and 67; Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74 and
75; portions of Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 66; Pa. Const. art. VIII, §11 (revenue restrictions); portions of Pa.
Stat. Ann. tit. 72 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. Pennsylvania executive agencies may request legisla-
Legislative Process tive bill drafts, but only legislators can formally sponsor and introduce
legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying PennDOT does engage in advocacy concerning proposed legislation
that affects the department.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact The Senate and House appropriations committees are the legislative
Statements for Legislative Use entity responsible for preparing fiscal notes. The governor’s Office of
the Budget also develops fiscal notes for use by the governor’s office,
the General Assembly, and the public. In addition, PennDOT prepares
its own fiscal notes for proposed bills that affect the department,
which are shared with the legislative committees in which the bills are
committed.
Appointment of Of the State Transportation Commission’s 15 members, four are the chairs and minority chairs of
DOT Leadership the House and Senate transportation committees or their designees, who serve ex officio, and the
fifth is the secretary of transportation, who acts as chair. The other 10 members are appointed
to six-year terms by the governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate and within statutory
requirements for geographic representation and partisan balance. All members serve the state at
large. At least one appointee must hold a pilot’s license and be actively involved in aviation, and
at least two must be members of the board of a transportation authority. All members must be
“reputable citizens ... of mature judgment and broad business experience.” No member may hold
any other state employment or have specified conflicts of interest (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 71, §178).
The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the
Senate (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 71, §67.1).
Legislature Able to No. The governor may remove a member of the State Transportation Commission who misses
Remove DOT Leaders? three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings without cause. The secretary of transportation may
be removed at the pleasure of the governor (Pa. Const. art. VI, §7).
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules are reviewed by the relevant standing committees. A committee may
Administrative Rules suspend a proposed rule for 14 days, during which time it may introduce a concurrent resolution
to disapprove the rule. Otherwise, the rule is automatically approved. The committees may also
review existing rules (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 71, §§745.1 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. PennDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Legislative Budget and
or Sunset Reviews Finance Committee. Pennsylvania does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports PennDOT is required to submit annual reports to the General Assembly concerning testing of
to the Legislature recycled materials (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, §4000.1506), diverse business participation (Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §303), public transit (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §1511), and driving under the
influence (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §3817). Every five years, PennDOT must submit a report
concerning special license plates (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §1370).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, the General Assembly
Performance Management may at any time request legislative hearings on PennDOT’s budget and goals. Also, the secretary
of transportation meets quarterly with the four chairs of the Senate and House transportation
committees.

Pennsylvania
Other Legislative Oversight Four legislative leaders serve on the State Transportation Commission by virtue of their office. This com-
Mechanisms mission provides greater oversight of PennDOT than any other legislative body and creates a venue for
an unusually direct interaction between the legislature and the DOT concerning transportation matters.
The General Assembly may also review audits of PennDOT conducted by the non-legislative Auditor
General. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from PennDOT.

ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. Federal highway funds flow directly to PennDOT
tion Revenues to the DOT from the U.S. DOT, and state statute authorizes PennDOT to spend them with-
out further legislative appropriation (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, §670-1005). Federal
aviation funds also do not need to be further appropriated. Federal funds for
public transit are legislatively appropriated to departmental programs or broad
State Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. Some state transportation funds flow directly
to PennDOT from the revenue source by statutory formula. Others are appropri-
ated in the annual budget bill.

Authorized Expenditures Transportation support services $62,872,000
Highways and bridges $4,760,378,000
Local highway and bridge assistance $907,449,000
Multimodal transportation $1,986,423,000
Driver and vehicle services $213,032,000
Total $7,930,154,000
Special funds $2,039,973,000
Federal funds $1,942,821,000
Other funds $3,941,246,000
Total $7,930,154,000
Note: The numbers in this chart are drawn from a summary of the governor’s proposed PennDOT budget for FY 2017, which
includes legislative appropriations that were made in the most recent annual budget bill as well as executive spending authori-
zations. Compared to the proposed budget, the final approved budget (for which a summary was not yet available as of Sept. 1,
2016) increased to a total of $7,949,748,000. This increase was due to revenue receipts, carry forwards, and lapses, not as a result
of any major legislative actions.

Pennsylvania
Transportation Planning Every two years, PennDOT prepares and submits to the State Transportation Commission a mul-
and Capital Project Selec- timodal Twelve-Year Transportation Program, including anticipated schedules and costs. Projects
tion Process are identified by diverse stakeholders, then prioritized by MPOs, rural planning organizations, and
county planning agencies in collaboration with PennDOT. The program is approved by the State
Transportation Commission.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The main conduit for legislative involvement is through the State Trans-
Planning Process portation Commission. The commission, which reviews and approves the Twelve-Year Transportation
Program, includes four legislative leaders who serve ex officio. In addition, legislators may provide
testimony for specific projects during the update of the Twelve-Year Transportation Program. On
occasion, legislators are appointed to MPO and rural planning organization boards.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Use is restricted to roads (see notes).
gasoline and In 2014, the oil company franchise
diesel (vari- tax, which is adjusted annually
able rate— based on wholesale price, replaced
percentage fixed-rate taxes; as of Jan. 1, 2017,
of price) the price floor is $2.99/gallon and
there is no ceiling (Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. tit. 75, §9002, §9004, §9502,
§9603; 2013 Pa. Laws, Act 89)
alternative pressed natural gas, liquefied petro-
fuels (vari- leum gas, electricity, and other fuels;
able rate— assessed on a gallon equivalent basis;
percentage use is restricted to roads (Pa. Cons.
of price) Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §9002, §9004)
aviation fuels and jet fuel; an additional tax is
(variable annually indexed to the Producer
rate— Price Index for Jet Fuel (Pa. Cons.
indexed) Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §6121, §6131; Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §9004)
Vehicle reg- • • • Indexed every other year to the Con-
istration fees sumer Price Index (Pa. Cons. Stat.
(indexed) Ann. tit. 75, §1904, §§1911 et seq.)
Truck regis- • • • Allocated in part to the Highway
tration fees Bridge Improvement Restricted
(based on Account within the Motor License
gross vehicle Fund; will be indexed every other
weight) year to Consumer Price Index
(starting starting Feb. 1, 2017 (Pa. Cons. Stat.
2017: Ann. tit. 75, §1904, §1916)
indexed)

Pennsylvania
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Oversize/ • • • Allocated to the Motor License Fund
overweight (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §1904,
truck permit §1942, §§4961 et seq.) as non-
fees restricted revenues that are used
for highway infrastructure, among
other purposes
Motor • • • Allocated to the Public Transporta-
vehicle rental tion Assistance Fund (Pa. Stat. Ann.
fees tit. 72, §9301)
Motor • • • Allocated to the Public Transporta-
vehicle lease tion Assistance Fund (Pa. Stat. Ann.
taxes tit. 72, §9301)
Tire taxes • • • Allocated to the Public Transporta-
tion Assistance Fund (Pa. Stat. Ann.
tit. 72, §9301)
Tolls • • • • • • • • Tolls collected by the Pennsylvania
Pas- Turnpike Commission are allocated
senger
and in part to the Public Transportation
freight Trust Fund and the Multimodal
Transportation Fund (Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. tit. 74, §1506) (see notes)
Driver’s • • • • • • • • Indexed every other year to the
license fees, Pas- Consumer Price Index; portions of
senger
title fees, and these fee revenues are allocated to
certificate of freight the Public Transportation Fund, the
inspection Multimodal Transportation Fund,
fees, and and, until July 1, 2017, the Motor
other fees License Fund (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.
(indexed) tit. 75, §1904)
Traffic fines • • • • Includes fines and surcharges that
Pas- are allocated to the Public Transpor-
senger
only tation Trust Fund; can be used for
public transit and intercity passenger
rail (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75,
§3111, §6506)
Outdoor • • • Permit fees; allocated to the High-
advertising way Beautification Fund (Pa. Stat.
revenues Ann. tit. 36, §2718.107, §2718.112)
State lottery • • • Used to reimburse transit agencies
revenues for providing free service to older
adults (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 72,
§3761-902)

Pennsylvania
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
State general • • • • 4.4 percent of revenues go to the
sales taxes Pas- Public Transportation Trust Fund;
senger
only can be used for public transit and
intercity passenger rail (Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §1506)
General • • • Legislative appropriations for freight
funds Freight rail and ports
only
Interest • • • • • • • • Multimodal Transportation Fund (Pa.
income Pas- Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §2103)
senger
and
freight
Notes:
as public benefit corporations or instrumentalities. Tolls collected by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, howev-
er, are included because they are allocated in part to funds administered by PennDOT under Act 44 and subsequent
amendments (2007 Pa. Laws, Act 44; Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §1506). “Authorized by state constitution or statute”
signifies that the item is specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers.
“Eligible transportation activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and ser-
vices. They do not include administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities,
education programs, or distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail
and light rail are included under “public transit.”
• All toll roads in Pennsylvania are operated by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, an instrumentality of the state, and
bridges are operated by the Delaware River Port Authority and the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission, both of
which are bi-state instrumentalities of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. No toll facilities are operated by state agencies.
• Starting in FY 2016, state statute allocates $35 million per year from oil company franchise tax revenues to the Multi-
modal Transportation Fund (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §9502). These revenues, however, are still subject to the constitutional
restriction on fuel taxes and must be used for public highways or bridges. Eligible projects that would serve multimodal
purposes could include, for example, an airport access road or a sidewalk in conjunction with a highway project.
• Starting in FY 2023, a portion of sales tax revenues from motor vehicles, trailers, and semi-trailers will be allocated
to the Public Transportation Trust Fund, then transferred in part to the Multimodal Transportation Fund (Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §1506; Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 72, §7238).

Pennsylvania
State Fuel Tax Model Variable rate (percentage of price)

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts use of motor fuel taxes to
State Fuel Taxes public highways and bridges, including debt and public safety, and prohibits diversion to other
purposes (Pa. Const. art. VIII, §11).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle registration and license fees, driver’s license
Transportation Revenues fees, and other excise taxes on products used in motor transportation to public highways and
bridges, including debt and public safety, and prohibits diversion to other purposes. It also
restricts the use of aviation fuel excise taxes to aviation purposes, and prohibits their diversion
(Pa. Const. art. VIII, §11).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute allocates the Multimodal Transportation Fund, which receives driver’s license fees
Transportation Funds and other revenues, to aviation, rail, marine, and bicycle and pedestrian projects (Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. tit. 74, §§2101 et seq.). Other dedicated funds that are established by state statute include
the Public Transportation Trust Fund (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §1506), the Highway Bridge
Improvement Restricted Account (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §§9619 et seq.), and the Aviation
Restricted Revenue Account (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 71, §210).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • • Generally authorized by the consti-
obligation Freight tution for capital projects; requires
only
bonds further legislative approval (Pa.
Const. art. VIII, §7; Pa. Stat. Ann.
tit. 72, §§3919.301 et seq.); specific
authorization given in session law
(2013 Pa. Laws, Act 89)
Revenue • • • Used by the Pennsylvania Turn-
bonds pike Commission, in part to make
payments to PennDOT for roads and
public transit (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 74,
§8104) (see notes)
Build Amer- • • • Issued in 2010 by the state as
ica Bonds general obligation bonds, in part for
bridge projects, and in 2009 and
2010 by the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission as revenue bonds, in
part to make payments to PennDOT
for roads and public transit (see
notes)
ity bonds
Advance • •
construction
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction

Pennsylvania
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • • • • • Authorized under the public-private
Pas- partnerships law (Pa. Cons. Stat.
senger
and Ann. tit. 74, §9108); used for a
freight statewide bridge project
Public-private • • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for various
partnerships Pas- transportation modes (Pa. Cons.
senger
and Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §§9101 et seq.);
freight used by the state for a statewide
bridge project
State infra- • • • • • • Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank;
structure Freight separate Federally and state-capital-
only
bank ized accounts; may be used for high-
way, transit, aviation, and freight rail
projects (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 71, §525)
benefit corporations or instrumentalities. Bonds issued by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, however, are included be-
cause the proceeds have been used in part to make payments to PennDOT for roads and public transit, under the lease agree-
ment established in Act 44 (2007 Pa. Laws, Act 44; Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §8104). “Authorized by state constitution or statute”
signifies that the item is specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible
transportation activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not
include administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education programs, or
distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail are included under
“public transit.”
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes, although Pennsylvania mainly uses pay-as-you-go financing.

Restrictions on All public-private partnership projects must be approved by the Public-Private Transportation
Finance Mechanisms Partnership Board (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §9104).

Pennsylvania
DOT Able to Retain and Yes, in most cases. In general, unspent transportation revenues lapse back into the dedicated funds
Spend Excess Funds from which they came. (The exception is funding for rail freight, which is legislatively appropriated
in the annual budget bill. Unspent rail freight funds lapse back into the general fund and lose the
dedication for rail projects.) A waiver process allows for continued spending with additional approvals
(Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 71, §240.1).
Legislative Approval No. Funds cannot, however, be spent outside the appropriations or statutory revenue streams
Required for DOT to from which they were made. In addition, transit funding cannot be transferred to a highway project
Move Funds Between or vice versa.
Projects
Legislative Actions to PennDOT is subject to low-bid requirements in the state procurement code (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 62,
Control DOT Costs §512).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. Municipalities receive 20 percent of the state fuel
Transportation tax, a portion of the oil company franchise tax, $30 million per year from the Motor License Fund, and a
Revenues to Local $5 million annual legislative appropriation. These revenues are distributed by a statutory formula based on
Entities population and road miles. Municipalities are allocated a further $40 million per year from the Motor License
Fund, for traffic signal upgrades. PennDOT awards these funds as discretionary grants that require a 50 per-
cent local match. Counties are allocated $5 million annually from the Motor License Fund, which is distrib-
uted among them by a statutory formula based on bridge deck area. Counties also receive 4.17 percent of a
portion of the oil company franchise tax, which is distributed based on past allocations. These revenues must
be further distributed to political subdivisions within each county by a statutory formula based on road miles
and population. Other shares of oil company franchise taxes go to local bridge projects and to municipalities
for maintaining highways that are transferred from state to local ownership (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 72, §2615.4;
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §9010, §9301, §9502, and §9511). PennDOT also awards discretionary grants to
local entities from the Multimodal Transportation Fund for aviation, rail, marine, and bicycle and pedestrian
projects. This program requires a 30 percent local match (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, §2104).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to adopt property taxes for roads, bridges, and tunnels (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit.
Sources Autho- 16, §5901 and §5903). Counties may also impose vehicle registration fees for transportation purposes (Pa.
rized in State Law Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §1935). Municipalities may levy special assessments for transportation facilities or ser-
vices within transportation development districts (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, §1623) or charge impact fees to pay
for development-related transportation improvements (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, §§10501-A et seq.).

Rhode Island

Bridges 764
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, ferry boat, vanpool, demand response
Legislature
Name Rhode Island General Assembly
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Finance
tion-Related Issues • Subcommittee on Environment/Transportation
Joint Committee on Highway Safety
[Commission] Special Senate Commission to Study the DMV
[Commission] House Commission Studying Regulation of Drones
[Commission] Special Joint Commission to Study the Public Motor Vehicle Act

Rhode Island
Name Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT)

Staff Size in Full-Time 701
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, passenger rail, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle, ferries (new, seasonal ferry service
DOT Has Jurisdiction between Providence and Newport)
Includes DMV? No. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of the Department of Revenue. It is funded by general
funds, not out of RIDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Rhode Island State Police is a division of the Department of Public Safety. It is funded by gen-
eral funds and occasionally settlement funding, not out of RIDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over Yes (in law but not in practice). RIDOT was recently authorized to toll large commercial trucks, but it
Toll Facilities? does not yet do so (R.I. Gen. Laws §§42-13.1-1 et seq.; 2016 R.I. Pub. Laws, Chap. 3 and 4).
Other
Other State-Level Rhode Island Turnpike The Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority is a quasi-state entity
Transportation Entities and Bridge Authority that has jurisdiction over four bridges, including one toll bridge, and
(corporation) the Route 138 highway connector. The director of transportation
serves as a member ex officio (R.I. Gen. Laws §§24-12-1 et seq.). The
authority is funded by toll revenue and, since FY 2015, a portion of the
state fuel tax (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-36-20).
Rhode Island Public Transit The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority is a quasi-state entity that
Authority (corporation) is authorized to provide public transit services statewide. The director
of transportation or designee serves as a member ex officio (R.I. Gen.
Laws §§39-18-1 et seq.). The authority is funded by fares, general
funds, revolving funds, Rhode Island Capital Plan funds, a portion of
the state fuel tax (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-36-20), and Federal funds.
Rhode Island Airport The Rhode Island Airport Corporation is a quasi-state entity with juris-
Corporation (corporation) diction over airports (R.I. Gen. Laws §§1-2-1 et seq.). It is funded by
airport revenues and Federal funds.

Overall Communication Mainly informal and through a dedicated liaison. Among other duties, RIDOT’s administrator for
and Collaboration legislative affairs serves as a legislative liaison and attends the General Assembly when it is in session.
The administrator addresses legislators’ concerns, answers legislative requests for information, and
facilitates communication between RIDOT and the General Assembly about legislative and municipal
issues. House and Senate fiscal staff interact directly with RIDOT deputy directors, financial adminis-
trators, and other staff about RIDOT programs, spending, and statutory compliance.
DOT Legislative Liaison The administrator for legislative affairs in RIDOT’s Policy and Government Relations unit, among other
duties, acts as the main point of contact between the department and the legislature. RIDOT deputy
directors, financial administrators, and other staff also serve as important sources of information.

Rhode Island
Transportation Laws R.I. Gen. Laws tit. 42, ch. 13 and 13.1; R.I. Gen. Laws tit. 1, 24, and 31; portions of R.I. Gen. Laws tit. 37,
39, and 46
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In Rhode Island, only legislators may request legislative
Legislative Process bill drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation.
Advocacy and Lobbying RIDOT’s administrator for legislative affairs lobbies for the depart-
ment’s positions on bills.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact By law, the state budget officer prepares fiscal notes for bills in
Statements for Legislative Use cooperation with state agencies that would be affected by them, as
requested by Senate or House finance committee chairs. The commit-
tee chairs also can request performance metrics from state agencies if
a bill affecting an agency would have an economic impact (R.I. Gen.
Laws §22-12-3). RIDOT provides this information as requested.
Appointment of The director of transportation is appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate
DOT Leadership (R.I. Gen. Laws §42-13-1).
Legislature Able to No. No process is specified in state law for removing the director of transportation from office, but
Remove DOT Leaders? the director is considered to serve at the pleasure of the governor, with removal being an executive
function.
Legislative Review of No. Rhode Island has no formal review process for administrative rules.
Administrative Rules
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. RIDOT is subject to audits conducted by the legislative Office of the Auditor
or Sunset Reviews General, but no such audits have been done in recent years. Rhode Island does not conduct sunset
reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports RIDOT is required to submit annual reports to the General Assembly concerning aviation projects, (R.I.
to the Legislature Gen. Laws §1-2-13), highway spending and recommendations (R.I. Gen. Laws §24-8-1 and §24-8-1.4),
and the status of the 10-year transportation plan (R.I. Gen. Laws §42-13-2). The department must
now also report quarterly on the status of projects authorized under the Rhode Island Bridge Replace-
ment, Reconstruction, and Maintenance Fund Act of 2016 (R.I. Gen. Laws §42-13.1-16; 2016 R.I. Pub.
Laws, Chap. 3 and 4). Thus far, RIDOT has chosen to exceed the statutory requirements by adding
updates on key accomplishments to these quarterly reports.
Performance Manage-
ment
Other Legislative Over- The Bureau of Audits (now the Office of Internal Audit) in the executive branch, which conducts
sight Mechanisms audits of RIDOT and other state agencies, must submit all audit reports, departmental responses, and
results of follow-up audits to the Senate and House finance committees (R.I. Gen. Laws §35-7-3 and
§42-13-2). Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from RIDOT.
DOT to Support Com-
Requirements?

Rhode Island

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. RIDOT’s budget request is submitted to the governor, the
ations Overview General Assembly, and the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and
Budget provides analysis and recommendations to the governor, who then prepares a unified budget
request for all state agencies. The General Assembly makes adjustments to proposed expenditures
and revenues, and appropriates funding at the program level.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to RIDOT
categories. All funds must be legislatively authorized before they can be spent.
allocated to RIDOT as appropriations to departmental programs or broad spend-
ing categories, and must be legislatively authorized before they can be spent.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2016 (revised)
Authorized Expenditures Central management $12,635,490
Management and budget $3,695,084
Infrastructure—engineering $384,213,963
Infrastructure—maintenance $82,314,372
Total $482,858,909
Restricted receipts $159,506
Operating transfers from other funds $46,988,530
Total $482,858,909

Transportation Planning Because of the state’s size, transportation planning is done on a consolidated statewide basis (unlike
and Capital Project Selec- in other states, where planning also takes place at the regional and metropolitan levels). The cooper-
tion Process ative planning process is a collaboration among the Statewide Planning Program (the state’s central
planning agency), RIDOT, and the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), under the guidance
of the State Planning Council, which serves as the single statewide MPO for Rhode Island. A sub-
committee of the State Planning Council called the Transportation Advisory Committee assists in
selecting projects in the transit and transportation alternatives categories, while a data-driven process
determines projects in categories such as bridge, pavement, and traffic safety. The Statewide Planning
Program then assists in preparing the ten-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in collabora-
tion with the State Planning Council, RIDOT, and RIPTA. The governor also makes a series of recom-
mendations for the use of state transportation revenues. The TIP is approved by the State Planning
Council and the governor, and the General Assembly authorizes the funding to implement it through
the annual Rhode Island State Capital Budget.
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. In recent years, the legislative role has been to review RIDOT’s capital plan,
Planning Process generate state revenues for transportation, appropriate funds, and place referendum questions on the
ballot for voters to approve bond-financed projects. The General Assembly has taken an active role in
prioritizing state-funded, but not Federally-funded, projects through the appropriations process and
other legislation.

Rhode Island
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Indexed every other year to the Con-
gasoline and Pas- sumer Price Index (R.I. Gen. Laws
senger
diesel (vari- and §31-36-7, §31-36-20)
able rate— freight
indexed)
Vehicle • • • • Revenues from registration fees (75
registration percent in FY 2017 and 100 percent
fees and in FY 2018 and thereafter) and reg-
surcharges istration surcharges are allocated to
the Highway Maintenance Account
(R.I. Gen. Laws §31-6-1, §39-18.1-4)
Emissions • • • • Allocated to the Highway Mainte-
inspection nance Account (R.I. Gen. Laws §39-
fees 47.1-11, §39-18.1-4)
Rental • • • • Allocated in part to the Highway
vehicle sur- Maintenance Account (R.I. Gen.
charges Laws §31-34.1-2)
Truck regis- • • • • Allocated to the Highway Mainte-
tration fees nance Account (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-
(based on 6-1, §39-18.1-4)
gross vehicle
weight)
Tolls on large • • Approved in 2016, but not yet in
commercial use; dedicated to bridges and toll
trucks facilities (R.I. Gen. Laws §§42-13.1-1
et seq.; 2016 R.I. Pub. Laws, Chap.
3 and 4)
Driver’s • • • • Allocated to the Highway Mainte-
license fees nance Account (75 percent in FY
2017 and 100 percent in FY 2018
and thereafter) (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-
10-31, §39-18.1-4)
Outdoor • • • • Permit fees; deposited to the Inter-
advertising modal Surface Transportation Fund
revenues (R.I. Gen. Laws §24-10.1-4)
Property • • • • R.I. Gen. Laws §37-7-5; revenues are
sales returned to RIDOT to be spent on
other transportation projects
Interest • • • • Authorized in statute for dedicated
income accounts within the Intermodal Sur-
face Transportation Fund (R.I. Gen.
Laws §42-13.1-6, §39-18.1-4)
Notes:

specifically authorized in law, not just permitted under more general authorizations or powers. “Eligible transporta-
Rhode Island
tion activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not
include administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education pro-
grams, or distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail
are included under “public transit.”
• Rhode Island’s only currently tolled facility is a bridge that is operated by the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge
Authority, a quasi-state entity (R.I. Gen. Laws §§24-12-1 et seq.).
• Transit fares are used by the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), a quasi-state entity (R.I. Gen. Laws
§39-18-9).
• Annual appropriations of general funds are used to purchase bus passes for participants in Department of Human
Services job placement and retraining programs.
State Fuel Tax Model Variable rate (indexed)

Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation. State statute directs fuel tax revenues primarily to the
State Fuel Taxes Intermodal Surface Transportation Fund for multimodal transportation purposes, with other
portions allocated to the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), the Department of
Human Services for the Elderly/Disabled Transportation Program, and the Rhode Island Turnpike
and Bridge Authority (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-36-20).
Restrictions on Other State statute directs the deposit of various transportation-related revenues into dedicated
Transportation Revenues accounts, including the Highway Maintenance Account (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-3.1-6, §31-34.1-2,
§31-41.1-7, §31-47.1-11, §39-18.1-4, and §39-18.1-5), within the Intermodal Surface Transporta-
tion Fund.
Dedicated or Restricted The Intermodal Surface Transportation Fund, which receives fuel tax revenues, is allocated to
Transportation Funds RIDOT use, subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-36-
20). The fund includes two dedicated accounts: the Highway Maintenance Account, which
receives various fee revenues and is dedicated to highway and transit purposes (R.I. Gen. Laws
§39-18.1-5), and the Rhode Island Bridge Replacement, Reconstruction, and Maintenance Fund,
which is supported by tolls on commercial vehicles and is dedicated to toll facilities and bridges
(R.I. Gen. Laws §42-13.1-9).
Revenue Sources RIDOT is prohibited from collecting tolls on any vehicles other than large commercial trucks (R.I.
Prohibited in State Law Gen. Laws §42-13.1-5). Aviation fuels are exempt from the fuel tax (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-36-1)
and sales of aircraft and aircraft parts are exempt from the sales and use tax (R.I. Gen. Laws
§44-18-30).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • Authorized by voter-approved bond
obligation measures (e.g., 2010 R.I. Question 3,
bonds 2014 R.I. Question 6) (see notes)
Build Amer- • • • Used to refund existing general
ica Bonds obligation bond debt and reduce
general obligation bond payments;
RIDOT applies the $2 million saved
annually to projects

Rhode Island
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
GARVEE • • Most recently issued in 2009;
bonds refunded existing 2006 and 2009
GARVEE bonds in June 2016; pre-
paring to issue $300 million for new
money in fall 2016
Federal credit • • See Active loan(s), used for an inter-
assistance: notes modal project
TIFIA
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Advance • •
construction
bank program
Notes:
• Previously, general obligation bonds were used to provide the 20 percent state match for the Federal-aid highway
program, but this practice ended in 2012. General obligation bonds are now used for specific projects only. In 2014,
for example, RIDOT was authorized to issue general obligation bonds for mass transit hub infrastructure (2014 R.I.
Question 6).
• Rhode Island has used Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance for
an intermodal project that provides public transit access (commuter rail and bus service) at T.F. Green Airport.
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. General obligation bonds are used for specific projects. For large, multi-year projects, the
state borrows against future Federal-aid funding through the use of GARVEE bonds.
Restrictions on General obligation bonds must be used for the purposes set forth in the ballot question
Finance Mechanisms and may not exceed the amount authorized by the voters. Revenue bonds, such as GARVEE
bonds, motor fuel bonds, or other anticipation bonds are required to go through an extensive
debt evaluation process with sign-off from the RIDOT director, the governor, and the general
treasurer, among others.

Rhode Island
DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Excess Federal funds can be carried forward into the next fiscal year. Certain state funds, such
Spend Excess Funds as capital funds, are automatically re-appropriated to the following fiscal year, while others must be
appropriated to be spent. Any revenues in excess of budgeted amounts are retained in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Fund.
Legislative Approval Yes, in some cases. RIDOT only needs approval to move funds between types of expenditures, or if
Required for DOT to state funds are allocated to a specific project, as is the case for specific state-owned infrastructure
Move Funds Between and capital equipment projects funded with Rhode Island Capital Plan (RICAP) funds.
Projects
Legislative Actions to RIDOT must adhere to procurement guidelines, including low-bid requirements, as provided in state
Control DOT Costs statute (R.I. Gen. Laws §§37-2-1 et seq.) and the state’s Administrative Procedures Act, a compre-
hensive set of regulations concerning purchasing and bidding procedures.

Allocation of State None. Rhode Island has no formal statutory program for allocating state revenues to local entities for trans-
Transportation portation projects. In addition, since the early 2000s, there have been no state appropriations available for
Revenues to Local allocation to local governments. There are some existing statutes concerning state aid that date back several
Entities decades and are no longer viable given changes in organizational and funding structures. These include stat-
utes concerning the distribution of available highway appropriations to cities and towns for road projects (R.I.
Gen. Laws §24-8-17) and additional state aid to eligible towns for local road and bridge maintenance (R.I.
Gen. Laws §24-5-4). Rhode Island does not have organized county governments.
Local Revenue In general, Rhode Island law does not authorize local revenue sources specifically for transportation. Rather,
Sources Autho- state statute directs towns to annually appropriate a portion of their general revenues to highway and bridge
rized in State Law maintenance, and to include the appropriated amount in their annual tax levies (R.I. Gen. Laws §24-5-3).
Municipalities may, however, charge developers impact fees to pay for development-related capital improve-
ments (R.I. Gen. Laws §§45-22.4-3 et seq.).

South Carolina

Bridges 9,344
Legislature
Name South Carolina General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Introduced in 2016
diction Over Transporta- • Budget Subcommittee on Transportation and Regulatory
House Committee on Education and Public Works
House Committee on Legislative Oversight
• Budget Subcommittee on Transportation, Regulatory, and Cultural
Joint Transportation Review Committee
[Special] House Transportation Infrastructure and Management Ad-Hoc Committee
[Study] Motorcycle Usage and Safety Study Committee

South Carolina
Name South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)

Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), SCDOT Commission (independent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? No. The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles is an independent state agency. It is funded by
general fund appropriations, not out of SCDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The South Carolina Department of Public Safety is an independent state agency that includes the
Highway Patrol, the State Transport Police, and other divisions. It is funded by general fund appropri-
ations, fees, fines, reimbursements from other state agencies, and Federal funds. It is not funded out
of SCDOT’s budget.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level State Fiscal Accountability As a result of recent government restructurings, the South Carolina
Transportation Entities Authority—South Carolina Aeronautics Commission is now under the State Fiscal Accountability
Aeronautics Commission Authority, a state agency that was created in 2014, and has incorpo-
(state agency) rated the functions of the former Division of Aeronautics (2012 S.C.
Acts, Act 270; 2014 S.C. Acts, Act 121; S.C. Code Ann. §§13-1-1000
et seq. and §§55-1-1 et seq.). It is funded by aviation-related fees and
taxes and Federal funds (S.C. Code Ann. §55-5-280).
South Carolina Department Palmetto Railways (also known as the Division of Public Railways) is
of Commerce—Palmetto a division of the state Department of Commerce that operates three
Railways (state agency) state-owned short-line railroads (S.C. Code Ann. §§13-1-1310 et
seq.).
South Carolina Ports Author- The South Carolina Ports Authority is an instrumentality of the state
ity (instrumentality) that owns and operates two port facilities. The secretary of trans-
portation or designee serves as a non-voting member of the board
(S.C. Code Ann. §§54-3-10 et seq.). In general, it operates on its own
profits, although it has received non-recurring appropriations for
specific projects.
South Carolina Transporta- The South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank was estab-
tion Infrastructure Bank (cor- lished in 1997 as a corporation and instrumentality of the state, with
poration/ instrumentality) the purpose of providing loans and other financial assistance for
transportation projects. The bank is funded by portions of state fuel
taxes and vehicle sales taxes, various fees and fines, electric power
taxes, general funds, and Federal funds. SCDOT works closely with
the infrastructure bank to finance projects. The chair of the SCDOT
Commission is a voting member ex officio of the bank’s govern-
ing board and in 2016, new legislation was enacted to require the
commission’s approval before the bank may provide loans or other
financial assistance (S.C. Code Ann. §§11-43-110 et seq., §12-28-
2915, §12-36-2647, and §56-3-910; 2016 S.C. Acts, Act 275).

South Carolina
Overall Communication Formal and informal, proactive. The General Assembly, and especially those committees that handle
and Collaboration most transportation issues, often contact SCDOT for input on bills and budget provisos before they
are scheduled for public hearing. The General Assembly notifies SCDOT of hearings on any trans-
portation-related bills so SCDOT may testify. SCDOT monitors bills and contacts key legislators when
bills will affect the department. The secretary of transportation also contacts legislators regarding
important or urgent transportation matters. The General Assembly has a lower level of staff support,
and frequently turns to state agencies like SCDOT for information and research assistance.
DOT Legislative Liaison Various SCDOT staff engage with, and provide information and testimony to, the General Assembly.
An SCDOT staff member is designated as a legislative liaison.
Transportation Laws S.C. Code Ann. tit. 54 to 57; portions of S.C. Code Ann. tit. 50 and 58; S.C. Code Ann. §1-30-10 and
§1-30-105; S.C. Const. art. X, §13 (bonding); portions of S.C. Code Ann. tit. 12 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In South Carolina, only legislators may request legis-
Legislative Process lative bill drafts and sponsor and introduce legislation. SCDOT does,
however, consult informally with legislative committees concerning the
preparation of new legislative proposals.
Advocacy and Lobbying SCDOT does not engage in advocacy or lobbying.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact SCDOT provides fiscal impact statements to the General Assembly
Statements for Legislative Use when requested.
Appointment of The eight members of the SCDOT Commission are appointed by the governor to four-year terms—
DOT Leadership one member at-large and one member from each of the seven congressional districts in the state.
The appointments must be confirmed by the legislative delegation of the respective congressional
district (for all but the at-large member), the Joint Transportation Review Committee, and the Sen-
ate. The governor, in making these appointments, must take race, gender, and other demographic
factors into account so as to represent, as much as possible, all segments of the state’s population.
Commissioners must meet statutory requirements for education and experience, and no legislator
or member of a legislator’s immediate family is eligible (S.C. Code Ann. §§57-1-310 et seq.; 2016
S.C. Acts, Act 275). The secretary of transportation is hired by the commission, with the advice and
consent of the Senate (S.C. Code Ann. §57-1-410; 2016 S.C. Acts, Act 275).
Legislature Able to No, but legislative approval is required in some cases. Members of the SCDOT Commission may be
Remove DOT Leaders? removed by the governor with the approval of the legislative delegation of the appropriate congres-
sional district (S.C. Code Ann. §57-1-330; 2016 S.C. Acts, Act 275). The secretary of transportation
serves at the pleasure of the commission (S.C. Code Ann. §57-1-410; 2016 S.C. Acts, Act 275).
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules are reviewed by the relevant standing committees. The full General Assem-
Administrative Rules bly can approve or reject a rule by joint resolution within 120 days of receiving it. Otherwise, the
rule is automatically approved (S.C. Code Ann. §§1-23-10 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. SCDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Council (S.C.
or Sunset Reviews Code Ann. §57-1-490). The most recent audit was released in April 2016. South Carolina does not

South Carolina
Required DOT Reports Each year, SCDOT is required to submit to the General Assembly a report that addresses future
to the Legislature highway needs, traffic regulation, transportation coordination, the department’s accomplishments,
and its contracts (S.C. Code Ann. §57-3-760). It must also submit annual reports concerning
streamlining recommendations (S.C. Code Ann. §1-30-10), county transportation projects (S.C.
Code Ann. §12-28-2740), use of recycled products and compost in highway projects (S.C. Code
Ann. §44-96-140), transportation coordination (S.C. Code Ann. §57-3-210), and railroad crossing
inspections (S.C. Code Ann. §58-17-1450). SCDOT’s Office of Railroads must submit an annual
report concerning state rail plans (S.C. Code Ann. §57-3-30) and its Office of Public Transit must
submit an annual report of its accomplishments and plans (S.C. Code Ann. §57-3-40). The SCDOT
Commission must submit an annual report concerning Federal enhancement grants (S.C. Code
Ann. §57-1-370).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, under the South
Performance Management Carolina Restructuring Act of 2014, legislative committees must now conduct periodic reviews of
state agencies at least once every seven years. As part of this process, the investigating committee
may request that an agency provide information about performance goals, objectives, criteria, and
progress as part of a program evaluation report (2014 S.C. Acts, Act 121; S.C. Code Ann. §§2-2-5
et seq.). The House Legislative Oversight Committee issued a full committee study of SCDOT in
June 2016.
Other Legislative Oversight By law, SCDOT must be audited annually at the direction of the Office of the State Auditor. The
Mechanisms results are submitted to the General Assembly for review (S.C. Code Ann. §57-1-490). Other over-
sight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from SCDOT.

Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. The SCDOT Commission approves SCDOT’s budget (S.C.
ations Overview Code Ann. §57-1-370) before it is approved by the General Assembly and the governor as part of the
annual appropriations act.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are considered “other”
tion Revenues to the DOT revenues to the state and flow directly to SCDOT from the U.S. DOT. The
General Assembly approves the SCDOT budget as “other funds” in the appro-
priation act, both in total and as appropriations to departmental programs or
legislatively approved as “other funds,” both in total and as appropriations to
departmental programs or spending categories. The General Assembly autho-
rizes the department’s other funds request via the appropriation act or via the
Other Funds Oversight Committee, if the request is during the current fiscal
year. The General Assembly allocates any general fund dollars via the appropri-
ation act.

South Carolina
Highway $1,568,660,405
Toll operations $7,745,339
Non-Federal aid highway fund $63,320,001
Mass transit $31,673,017
Employee benefits $87,190,369
Total $1,804,212,026
Revenue Sources General funds $50,057,271
Other funds $1,754,154,755
Total $1,804,212,026

Transportation Planning and The SCDOT Commission annually updates the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Capital Project Selection Process (STIP), with input from MPOs, councils of government, and SCDOT staff. The STIP is scheduled
for updating every three years and is revised on a continual basis to reflect the latest program
and project information. The commission prioritizes projects for inclusion in the STIP using
nine criteria that are specified in law. These criteria include public safety, traffic congestion,
and pavement quality (S.C. Code Ann. §57-1-370). The SCDOT Commission also develops and
adopts the state’s long-range multimodal transportation plan, which is updated every 5 years
to reflect the latest information on travel and growth trends, goals and objectives, infrastruc-
ture conditions, future deficiencies, and estimated funding.
Legislative Role in the Planning Limited legislative role. The General Assembly has no formal role in selecting projects,
Process although projects are prioritized according to a process and criteria that the General Assembly
enacted into law in 2007. Transportation plans do not need legislative approval and appropri-
ations do not include funding for specific projects. Legislators have the opportunity to provide
input at public hearings, and the commission is sensitive to their interests.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Allocated in part to the Water Rec-
gasoline and reational Resources Fund (and the
diesel (fixed state infrastructure bank) (see notes)
rate) (S.C. Code Ann. §12-28-310, §§12-
28-2710 et seq., §11-43-160)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied petro-
fuels pressed natural gas; allocated the
same way as gasoline taxes (S.C.
Code Ann. §12-28-110, §12-28-310,
§§12-28-2710 et seq.)

South Carolina
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes sales taxes on aviation gas-
aviation fuels oline and jet fuel; allocated to the
State Aviation Fund (S.C. Code Ann.
§12-36-2120, §55-5-280)
Sales taxes • • • Allocated to the State Highway Fund
on motor (and the state infrastructure bank)
vehicle sales (S.C. Code Ann. §§12-36-1710 et
seq., §12-36-2647; 2016 S.C. Acts,
Act 275)
Oversize/ • • • S.C. Code Ann. §57-3-130
overweight
truck permit
fees
Driver’s • • • Includes some commercial driver’s
license and license fees; deposited to the State
state ID card Non-Federal Aid Highway Fund (S.C.
fees Code Ann. §56-1-50, §56-1-140,
§56-1-200, §56-1-390, §56-1-460,
§56-1-740, §56-1-2090, §56-1-3350)
Misc. DMV • • • Allocated to the State Highway Fund
fees and (and the state infrastructure bank)
fines (S.C. Code Ann. §11-43-167; 2016
S.C. Acts, Act 275)
Tolls • • • S.C. Code Ann. §57-3-615
Airport • • • Allocated to the State Aviation Fund

licenses (S.C. Code Ann. §55-5-280; S.C.
Code Ann. §§55-11-10 et seq.)
Property • • • Revenues over $2.5 million, and half
taxes on the revenues over $5 million, are allo-
aircraft cated to the State Aviation Fund (S.C.
Code Ann. §55-5-280, §§12-37-2410
et seq.; 2016 S.C. House Bill 4577)
Electric • • • Taxes collected in excess of $20 million
power taxes are allocated to the State Non-Fed-
eral Aid Highway Fund (and the state
infrastructure bank) (S.C. Code Ann.
§§12-23-10 et seq., §12-28-2915)
Railroad • • • Used by Palmetto Railways (also
operating Freight known as the Division of Public
only
revenues Railways) in the state Department
of Commerce for state-owned
short-line railroads (S.C. Code Ann.
§§13-1-1310 et seq.)
Interest • • • • State Aviation Fund (S.C. Code Ann.
income §55-5-280); State Highway Fund
(S.C. Code Ann. §57-11-20)

Notes:
South Carolina
• Although the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank is an instrumentality of the state, not a state agency,
allocations to the bank from revenue sources that also fund SCDOT are noted in the chart for clarity. In addition to
these allocations, the bank also receives revenues from vehicle registration and license fees (S.C. Code Ann. §56-3-
910), fees on self-propelled property-carrying vehicles and farm trucks (S.C. Code Ann. §11-43-160), and interest
income (S.C. Code Ann. §11-43-160). In addition, SCDOT is annually appropriated $50 million in general funds, and
must send an equivalent amount to the infrastructure bank for road and bridge projects (S.C. Code Ann. §11-43-165;
2013 S.C. Acts, Act 98).

Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation. Fuel tax revenues are mostly directed to SCDOT for any
State Fuel Taxes departmental purpose, with other portions allocated specifically to mass transit, the State High-
way Fund, the Water Recreational Resources Fund, and local entities (S.C. Code Ann. §§12-28-
2710 et seq.).
Restrictions on Other Toll revenues may only be used for the toll facilities or highway debt (S.C. Code Ann. §12-28-
Transportation Revenues 2920 and §57-3-615).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute directs some expenditures from the State Highway Fund (e.g., S.C. Code Ann.
Transportation Funds §57-5-150 and §57-5-1610) but does not restrict the fund’s use to specific modes. The State
Non-Federal Aid Highway Fund, which receives vehicle sales taxes and other revenues, must
be used for highways, roads, and bridges (S.C. Code Ann. §12-36-2647), the State Highway
Construction Debt Service Fund, for highway-related debt service (S.C. Code Ann. §57-11-20),
the State Port Construction Fund, for port facilities (S.C. Code Ann. §54-3-1030), and the State
Aviation Fund, which receives aviation-related revenues, for aviation purposes (S.C. Code Ann.
§55-5-280).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • Generally authorized by the con-
obligation stitution for highway uses; require
bonds legislative approval; capped at 15
percent of annual proceeds from
highway revenues (S.C. Const. art.
X, §13)

South Carolina
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • Authorized in the state constitution
bonds (S.C. Const. art. X, §13); issued by
the state infrastructure bank to
finance SCDOT highway projects
(S.C. Code Ann. §11-43-150) (see
notes)
Advance • •
construction
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
flexible
match
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • Authorized for highway contracts
(S.C. Code Ann. §57-5-1625); used
Public-private • • • • Authorized in statute for roads and
partnerships bridges (S.C. Code Ann. §57-3-200,
§§57-5-1310 et seq.) and for the
South Carolina State Ports Authority,
to increase capital investments in
port facilities (S.C. Code Ann. §54-3-
118); used for a road project
State infra- • • • • South Carolina Transportation
structure Infrastructure Bank; capitalized with
bank state and Federal funds; may be
used for highway or transit projects
(S.C. Code Ann. §§11-43-110 et seq.)
Notes:

South Carolina
• Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance was used for a bridge
project, but the loan is now retired.
• The South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank is a corporation and instrumentality of the state, not a state
agency. It is itself included in this chart as a finance mechanism, as it can provide loans to state agencies for transpor-
tation projects. In addition, the bank has issued revenue bonds, the proceeds from which have been used to finance
SCDOT highway projects (S.C. Code Ann. §11-43-150).

Restrictions on General obligation bonds for highway purposes require legislative approval, and are limited to
Finance Mechanisms 15 percent of the annual proceeds from highway revenues (S.C. Const. art. X, §13).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. SCDOT is allowed to retain any unspent funds remaining in the cash account. The annual SCDOT
Spend Excess Funds budget is developed based on projected revenues plus unspent funds carried forward into the next
budget year. For SCDOT to spend unspent funds from previous years, the expenditures must be
approved in the current year’s budget.
Legislative Actions to State statute provides that, unless approved by the State Fiscal Accountability Authority, SCDOT may
Control DOT Costs not let any highway construction contract unless reserves for the contract have been provided for out
of current balances in the State Highway Fund, Federal aid obligated for the contracts, or estimated
revenue balances that will accrue during the period in which contract payments will become due (S.C.
Code Ann. §57-5-1610). State law also contains advertising and low-bid requirements for construc-
tion contracts for $10,000 or more (S.C. Code Ann. §57-5-1620) and states that, unless approved in
advance by the SCDOT Commission, no construction contract may be extended to include work not
contemplated in the original award, except within the limitations imposed by the contract (S.C. Code
Ann. §57-5-1630).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas. The proceeds from 2.66 cents per gallon of the state gas tax is distributed to counties by a
Transportation statutory formula based on land area, population, and rural road miles. At least 25 percent of a county’s share
Revenues to Local must be spent on state highways, and the rest on any road and bridge projects (S.C. Code Ann. §12-28-2740).
Entities
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties and townships to levy property taxes for various transportation purposes
Sources Autho- (S.C. Code Ann. §§57-19-10 et seq. and §57-19-210) and local “hospitality taxes” on food and beverages for
rized in State Law tourism-related capital investments, which may include roads and bridges (S.C. Code Ann. §§6-1-700 et seq.).
Counties may also adopt a transportation authority sales tax, a capital project sales tax, or tolls (S.C. Code
Ann. §4-10-310 and §4-37-30), or form special tax districts for public works, including roads (S.C. Code Ann.
§4-9-30). County paving districts may levy property taxes for road paving projects (S.C. Code Ann. §§57-21-
10 et seq.). Regional transportation authorities may assess local vehicle registration fees for transit services
(S.C. Code Ann. §58-25-60). Municipalities and public improvement districts may levy special assessments for
roads, streets, and other improvements (S.C. Code Ann. §4-35-80, §5-27-310, and §5-37-30). Local govern-
ments may charge developers impact fees for development-related capital improvements (S.C. Code Ann.
§§6-1-910 et seq.).

South Dakota

Bridges 5,866
Toll facilities No
Legislature
Name South Dakota Legislature
Introduced in 2016
tion-Related Issues

South Dakota
Name South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT)
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), Transportation Commission (within
SDDOT)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight rail, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle. SDDOT acts as a facilitator of
DOT Has Jurisdiction public transit and specialized transportation through contracting for service and awarding grants. The
South Dakota Aeronautics Commission, South Dakota Railroad Board, and South Dakota Railroad
Authority are all under SDDOT (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §1-44-11, §1-44-25, §§49-16B-1 et seq., and
§50-2-1.1).
Includes DMV? No. Driver’s licensing is carried out by the Department of Public Safety. Vehicle registration functions
are carried out by the Division of Motor Vehicles, a division of the South Dakota Department of Reve-
nue. Both entities are funded by fee revenues via the Motor Vehicle Fund, not out of SDDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The South Dakota Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety. Salaries and
expenses incurred by agents of the Highway Patrol are authorized to be paid from the State Highway
Fund (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §32-2-11). Administration of the Highway Patrol is funded by portions
of driver’s license and vehicle registration fee revenues via the Motor Vehicle Fund.
Jurisdiction Over No. South Dakota has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level None. South Dakota has no state-level transportation entities besides SDDOT and those that perform
Transportation Entities DMV and highway patrol functions.

Overall Communication Mainly formal. SDDOT officials interact with the Legislature by providing testimony and required
and Collaboration reports to legislative committees, and by working with relevant committees to introduce relevant
legislation. SDDOT’s Legal Office assists in formulating, drafting, and tracking legislation that affects
the department, as well as monitoring legislative committees.
DOT Legislative Liaison Various SDDOT officials, including its Legal Office, provide information and testimony to the Legisla-
ture. SDDOT has no dedicated legislative liaison or governmental affairs office.
Transportation Laws S.D. Codified Laws Ann. ch. 1-44; S.D. Codified Laws Ann. tit. 31, 32, and 50; portions of S.D. Codified
Laws Ann. tit. 49; S.D. Const. art. XI, §8 (revenue restrictions); portions of S.D. Codified Laws Ann. tit. 10
(revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. A process exists by which standing committees will intro-
Legislative Process duce legislation at the request of SDDOT. By joint rule, all executive
agencies are required to pre-file any legislation that they wish to have
considered. The chair of the relevant standing committee must give
the agency permission before the bill may be pre-filed, and the com-
mittee sponsors the bill. The bill indicates that it is “at the request” of
the agency.
Advocacy and Lobbying SDDOT employees lobby legislators during the legislative session
regarding bills of interest to the department.

South Dakota
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact SDDOT does not prepare formal fiscal notes or policy impact state-
Statements for Legislative Use ments, but the department does respond to specific information
requests from the Legislature.
Appointment of The nine members of the Transportation Commission are appointed by the governor to four-year
DOT Leadership terms, within statutory requirements for partisan balance and geographic representation (S.D.
Codified Laws Ann. §§1-44-4 et seq.). The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (S.D. Const. art. IV, §9; S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
§1-32-3).
Legislature Able to No. The secretary of transportation serves at the pleasure of the governor. No process is specified
Remove DOT Leaders? for removing members of the Transportation Commission before the end of their respective terms of
office.
Legislative Review of Yes. The joint Interim Rules Review Committee reviews all proposed rules. The committee may sus-
Administrative Rules pend a rule. If the committee does not object, the rule is automatically approved (S.D. Codified Laws
Ann. §§1-26-1 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. The Department of Legislative Audit conducts financial audits of SDDOT. There
or Sunset Reviews is no legislative performance audit. South Dakota does not conduct sunset reviews of state agencies
or programs.
Required DOT Reports SDDOT is required to submit an annual report to the Legislature on the current and projected condi-
to the Legislature tion of the state highway system, progress on 10-year performance goals, and any additional funding
that is needed to meet those goals (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §31-2-20.1; 2015 S.D. Sess. Laws, Chap.
165).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, legislation enacted in
Performance Manage- 2015 requires SDDOT to establish performance standards to measure the overall condition of the
ment highways and bridges and 10-year goals for maintenance (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §31-2-20.1;
2015 S.D. Sess. Laws, Chap. 165; this statute also requires the annual report listed above). Also, the
Legislative Planning Committee is currently working with SDDOT to establish performance goals for
the department that can be used by the Legislature. The Legislature will track these goals through its
appropriations committees and government operations and audit committees.
Other Legislative Over- Interim committees are assigned topics to study between legislative sessions. In 2014, for example,
sight Mechanisms the Highway Needs and Financing Interim Committee studied state and local highway conditions and
financial needs. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from SDDOT.
DOT to Support Com-
Requirements?

South Dakota
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. The Joint Appropriations Committee holds hearings for
ations Overview SDDOT to present its budget, but does not become involved in project-level details.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to SDDOT
tion Revenues to the DOT as lump sum appropriations to the department or as appropriations to depart-
mental programs or broad spending categories. This appropriation, however, is
only for informational purposes, and budgetary control lies with the Transpor-
tation Commission. Thus, in effect, the funds flow directly to SDDOT from the
U.S. DOT.
allocated to SDDOT through appropriations that are for informational purposes
only. Budgetary control lies with the Transportation Commission.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2016 (enacted/budgeted) (see note)
Authorized Expenditures Personal services $69,856,936
Operating expenses $548,468,805
Total $618,325,741
Revenue Sources General funds $535,256
Total $618,325,741
Note: Budgetary control lies with the Transportation Commission, and legislative appropriations of transportation revenues to
SDDOT are for informational purposes only.

Transportation Planning Each year, the Transportation Commission proposes and adopts the updated four-year Statewide
and Capital Project Selec- Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) based on highway needs and funding availability. SDDOT
tion Process administers the entire planning process and gathers input from MPOs, the governor, local govern-
ments, the commission, legislators, and other interested parties. The planning process includes a
series of public hearings before the Transportation Commission.
Legislative Role in the No legislative role. The Legislature has essentially given control over the SDDOT budget and transpor-
Planning Process tation investment priorities to the Transportation Commission, with guidance from SDDOT. Like any
member of the public, a legislator may participate in the public hearings that are part of the planning
process.

South Dakota
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §10-47B-4;
gasoline S.D. Const. art. XI, §8
and diesel,
highway use
(fixed rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on liquid petroleum
alternative gas, liquid and compressed natural
fuels gas, and others (S.D. Codified Laws
Ann. §10-47B-4, §10-47B-148)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
§10-47B-4, §10-47B-150, §50-4-16)
Fuel taxes: • • • • Allocated to boating and snowmo-
boats and bile trails (S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
snow- §10-47B-149)
mobiles
Sales taxes • • • 4 percent excise tax (S.D. Codified
on motor Laws Ann. §§32-5B-1 et seq.; S.D.
vehicle sales Const. art. XI, §8)
and leases
Sales taxes • • • 4.5 percent excise tax (S.D. Codified
on rental Laws Ann. §32-5B-17, §32-5B-19,
vehicles §32-5B-20; S.D. Const. art. XI, §8)
Aircraft • • • S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§50-11-5
registration et seq.
fees
Sales taxes • • • S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§50-11-19
on aircraft et seq.
Aircraft • • • S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §50-12-12

dealer license
fees
Property • • • Income from SDDOT rail property
sales or Freight management goes to the Railroad
only
leases: Administration Fund, which can be
railroad used for the maintenance of state-
property owned rail property (S.D. Codified
Laws Ann. §1-44-28, §1-44-31,
§§49-16b-15 et seq.)
Outdoor • • • • Includes fees for billboard permits
advertising and business signs; allocated to
revenues State Highway Fund; SDDOT uses a
portion of these and other non-re-
stricted revenues for transit oper-
ating assistance (see notes) (S.D.
Codified Laws Ann. §31-29-71.1,
§31-29-71.3, §31-29-80.1, §31-29-
80.2)

South Dakota
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Discretionary • • SDDOT uses a portion of non-re-
allocations stricted State Highway Fund reve-
from State nues for transit operating assistance
Highway (see notes)
Fund
Interest • • • State Highway Fund (no authorizing
income statute found)
Notes:
• Nearly all state revenues generated for transportation are restricted to highways and bridges. State statute does allow
the State Highway Fund to be used for public transit, but no revenues are dedicated to that purpose. SDDOT uses a
portion of non-restricted State Highway Fund revenues for transit operating assistance grants.
• Revenues from vehicle registration, license, and title fees—including truck registration fees based on gross vehicle
weight—are mostly allocated to local governments, not for state activities. The only exceptions are small allocations to
cover state administrative costs (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §32-3-18, §32-10-35, §§32-11-4.1 et seq., §§32-11-5 et seq.,
and §§32-11-32 et seq.). None of these revenues, therefore, are used for the kinds of state-level transportation activities
described in this chart.

State Fuel Taxes from highway users to highways and bridges (S.D. Const. art. XI, §8).
Restrictions on Other Nearly all revenue generated for transportation in South Dakota is restricted to highways and
Transportation Revenues bridges. The state constitution limits the use of vehicle-related revenues to highways and
bridges (S.D. Const. art. XI, §8). State statute dedicates revenues appropriated or collected by
general state taxation for state highway purposes to highways and Transportation Commission
expenses (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §31-5-8). Aviation fuel taxes are allocated to aviation-related
uses (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §50-4-16).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute dedicates the State Highway Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other revenues,
Transportation Funds to highways and bridges, SDDOT expenses, the Division of Highway Patrol, and public transpor-
tation (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §32-2-11, §31-2-13.2, §31-2-14.2, and §31-6-9). The Aeronau-
tics Fund is dedicated to aviation purposes (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §50-4-14).

South Dakota
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Finance
Authorized In Roads Public Rail Airports Ports and Pedestrian Other Additional Details
Mechanism by state current and transit and waterways and bicycle
or statute
Advance • •
construction
Partial • •
conversion
of advance
construction
Design-build • • Authorized in statute for all state
agencies (S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
§5-18B-20); not currently in use for
transportation projects
bank program; active but not authorized
in state statute; may be used for
highway or transit projects
Land swaps • • • S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §31-19-46
or donations
from land
owners
Notes:
• The South Dakota Railroad Authority, a quasi-state entity, is authorized to issue revenue bonds for railroad purposes
(S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §49-16B-24).
Transportation-Related Bonding No. South Dakota does not have state bonding authority. This makes South Dakota one of five
states that does not currently use bonding of any kind for transportation projects.
Restrictions on The state constitution limits general obligation debt to $100,000 (S.D. Const. art. XIII, §2).
Finance Mechanisms

South Dakota
DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Unspent funds remain in the State Highway Fund. Additional approval, however, is required to
Spend Excess Funds spend these funds. Expenditure authority does not carry-over and reverts each year. The authority to
spend out of the State Highway Fund is appropriated each fiscal year.
Legislative Actions to SDDOT must comply with state laws that regulate the process of awarding bids for highway improve-
Control DOT Costs ments, including low-bid requirements (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §31-5-10). State statute also caps
SDDOT administrative expenditures at 7 percent of available highway funds (S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
§31-2-14).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas, grants, and other programs. The Local Government Highway and Bridge Fund receives
Transportation revenues from vehicle registration and license fees, including fees for commercial vehicles. The fund is distrib-
Revenues to Local uted in part to counties and municipalities by statutory percentages. Counties get one allocation for township
Entities roads, which must be further distributed to townships based on road miles, and another for county highways.
A further $1.75 million from the Local Government Highway and Bridge Fund goes to the Bridge Improve-
ment Grant program, from which SDDOT awards discretionary grants to eligible counties. A percentage of
commercial vehicle fees and $700,000 from the motor fuel tax fund go directly to counties, using a statutory
formula based on truck registrations, population, and road miles. Further portions of commercial vehicle
fees and vehicle license taxes are distributed to municipalities based on street miles (S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
§10-47B-149, §10-47B-149.1, §32-3-18, §32-10-35, §§32-11-4.1 et seq., §§32-11-5 et seq., and §§32-11-32
et seq.). Using state transportation revenue increases that were enacted into law last year (2015 S.D. Sess.
Laws, Chap. 165), SDDOT now allows counties and cities to exchange their locally available Federal funds
for state funds. This places the burden of meeting Federal requirements on the state and gives local entities
more flexibility. SDDOT also awards discretionary grants of state funds to local entities for transit operating
assistance, using a DOT formula (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §1-44-7.3; S.D. Admin. Code §70:06:02:01) and the
South Dakota State Railroad Board, an entity under SDDOT jurisdiction, maintains a trust fund that grants or
loans money to regional railroad authorities for the construction or maintenance of rail lines (S.D. Codified
Laws Ann. §§49-16C-1 et seq.).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes some cities to levy local option fuel taxes for municipal streets, but not if they also
Sources Autho- have a municipal sales tax (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§10-52-1 et seq.). Counties may adopt local option
rized in State Law wheel taxes (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §32-5A-1). Property taxes may be assessed by counties and townships
for roads and bridges (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §10-12-13, §10-12-28.2, and §31-12-27), by regional railroad
authorities (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §49-17A-21), or by improvement districts for facilities that may include
roads (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §7-25A-30). Improvement districts may also levy special assessments, as may
county road districts (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §7-25A-33 and §31-12A-23).

Tennessee

Bridges 19,740
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, commuter rail, inclined plane,
Legislature
Name Tennessee General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to April
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Finance, Ways, and Means
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Government Operations
tion-Related Issues Senate Committee on Transportation and Safety
House Committee on Finance, Ways, and Means
House Committee on Government Operations
• General Subcommittee
Joint Committee on Fiscal Review

Tennessee
Name Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? No. The Driver Services Division is a division of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security. The
Department of Revenue performs vehicle registration functions. The state’s county clerks issue driver’s
licenses and vehicle registrations. None of these functions are funded out of TDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Tennessee Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security
(Tenn. Code Ann. §4-7-104). It is funded by general funds, not out of TDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over Yes (in law but not in practice). TDOT has limited authorization to develop and operate toll facilities
Toll Facilities? (with required legislative approval) (Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-3-101 et seq.), but currently there are no
such facilities in the state.
Other
Other State-Level None. Tennessee has no state-level transportation entities outside of TDOT and those that perform
Transportation Entities DMV and highway patrol functions. The Tennessee Aeronautics Commission is attached to TDOT and
serves in an advisory capacity to the commissioner of transportation (Tenn. Code Ann. §42-2-301).

Overall Communication Mainly informal. Few formal mechanisms exist for interactions between TDOT and the General
and Collaboration Assembly. TDOT has a Legislative Services Office that advances the department’s legislative agenda
through the legislative process and maintains effective working relationships with all members of the
General Assembly. The Legislative Services Office develops legislative proposals, analyzes and provides
information about proposed legislation, advises TDOT on legislative issues, responds to legislative
inquiries, and works with sponsors of relevant legislation. In addition, the Office of the Commissioner
of Transportation frequently gives input to the General Assembly about transportation-related legisla-
tion.
DOT Legislative Liaison Among other duties, the special assistant/legislative services manager in TDOT’s Legislative Services
Office (in the Governmental Affairs section) acts as a legislative liaison and is the main point of con-
tact between the department and the General Assembly. The Office of the Commissioner of Trans-
portation and other legislative services staff are also important contacts.
Transportation Laws Tenn. Code Ann. §§4-3-2301 et seq.; Tenn. Code Ann. tit. 42, 54, and 55; portions of Tenn. Code Ann.
tit. 65 and 69; Tenn. Code Ann. tit. 13, ch. 10; portions of Tenn. Code Ann. tit. 67 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. In Tennessee, only legislators can request legislative bill
Legislative Process drafts and sponsor and introduce bills. TDOT’s Legislative Services
Office develops bill proposals and works with legislators who sponsor
those proposals.
Advocacy and Lobbying TDOT’s Legislative Services Office takes the lead but works with other
pertinent areas of the department to lobby for and against certain bills
impacting the department.

Tennessee
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact TDOT’s Finance Office prepares estimates of fiscal impacts of proposed
Statements for Legislative Use legislation, but ultimately it is the purview of the legislature’s Fiscal
Review Committee to issue official fiscal notes. The committee may
request information from executive departments, including TDOT, to
assist it in carrying out its responsibilities (Tenn. Code Ann. §3-2-107
and §3-7-103).
Appointment of The commissioner of transportation is appointed by the governor with no legislative involvement. The
DOT Leadership commissioner must be qualified by training and experience to perform the duties of the office (Tenn.
Code Ann. §4-3-2302).
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. The House and Senate Government Operations review all proposed rules. Either committee may
Administrative Rules suspend a rule. All permanent rules expire on June 30 of the year after they are filed unless the Gen-
eral Assembly enacts legislation to extend them (Tenn. Code Ann. §§4-5-201 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Both legislative audits and sunset reviews. TDOT is subject to audits conducted by the legislative
or Sunset Reviews Offices of Research and Education Accountability. Also, in Tennessee, state agencies are scheduled
for termination at least every eight years unless affirmatively continued by the legislature; this makes
Tennessee one of four states that conduct regular sunset reviews of its department of transportation.
The sunset review is performed by a joint legislative committee using audits performed by the state
comptroller’s office (Tenn. Code Ann. §§4-29-101 et seq.). TDOT is scheduled to terminate on June
30, 2020, unless continued by the General Assembly (Tenn. Code Ann. §4-29-237).
Required DOT Reports TDOT is required to submit annual reports to the General Assembly concerning the coordination
to the Legislature committee (Tenn. Code Ann. §4-3-2311), use of the state barrels tax on beer (Tenn. Code Ann. §57-
5-201), and use of the bottled soft drink tax (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-4-402). Quarterly, TDOT must
submit status reports on all highway and road projects approved in the department’s budget (Tenn.
Code Ann. §54-1-302) and furnish individual legislators with status reports on the highway projects
in their respective districts (Tenn. Code Ann. §54-1-115). TDOT is also required to submit a number of
conditional or one-time reports. The commissioner of transportation must submit an annual report
concerning state financial assistance for public transit projects (Tenn. Code Ann. §13-10-107) and a
joint annual report with the commissioner of revenue about the transportation equity fund (Tenn.
Code Ann. §67-6-408).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements, legislative audits, and sunset reviews listed above, state
Performance Manage- statute expresses the intent of the General Assembly that, to the extent practicable, the state budget
ment should be prepared using performance data and other relevant program measures. The goal is for
each budget unit to provide detailed statements that specifically include agency objectives and per-
formance indicators (Tenn. Code Ann. §9-4-5102).
Other Legislative Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from TDOT.
Oversight Mechanisms
DOT to Support Com-
Requirements?

Tennessee
ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to TDOT
categories.
allocated to TDOT as appropriations to departmental programs or broad spend-
ing categories.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2017 (enacted) (see note)
Headquarters operations $31,706,800
Field operations $60,900,200
Garage and fleet operations $40,712,500
Highway system maintenance $306,323,900
State-funded programs $68,537,000
Federally funded programs $1,287,461,100
Total $1,875,791,400
Revenue Sources State $844,556,000
Federal $999,710,400
Other $31,525,000
Total $1,875,791,400
Note: The numbers in this chart are mostly drawn from the governor’s FY 2017 recommended budget for TDOT, which the
General Assembly enacted without changes in the annual appropriations bill (2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts, Chap. 758). A subsequent
adjustment, however, was made as a result of legislation that permanently reduced the required local match for the County
Bridge Grant Program from 20 percent to 2 percent for eligible counties (2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts, Chap. 981; Tenn. Code Ann.
§54-4-507). This is reflected in the chart as a $2.19 million reduction in expenditures for field operations, and a corresponding
reduction in revenues from “other” sources, compared to the governor’s budget. Note that the governor’s budget (and therefore
this chart) does not reflect the state’s global allocations for payroll increases, health insurance adjustments, and so on. These ad-
justments will not exceed 3 percent of TDOT’s total state budget appropriation. Also not included are transfers from the general
fund to TDOT totaling $142 million in FY 2016 and FY 2017, which were made in partial repayment of transfers previously
made from TDOT to the general fund. Of these transfers, $42 million is to be distributed to counties through the state-aid
highway program, and the rest may be used for any purpose.
Transportation Planning TDOT is generally responsible for all transportation planning and project identification. TDOT sets
and Capital Project Selec- priorities based on needs and available funding, with input from the governor’s office, local gov-
tion Process ernments, MPOs, transit agencies, and rural planning organizations. Each year, TDOT presents the
proposed three-year highway program to the General Assembly for review. Typically, the General
Assembly approves year one of the program by reference in the state budget. TDOT also annually
updates the multimodal, four-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and, as required
by law, submits it to the General Assembly (Tenn. Code Ann. §4-3-2303).

Tennessee
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. The General Assembly reviews and approves the annually updated highway
Planning Process program, and reviews the annually updated multimodal State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). Legislation is occasionally introduced to specify a particular project, but in general, project
identification is done by TDOT.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • Allocated in part to boating safety
gasoline and (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-3-201, §67-3-
diesel (fixed 202, §67-3-901, §67-3-905)
rate)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied gas and
alternative compressed natural gas; allocated
fuels in part to the State Highway Fund
(Tenn. Code Ann. §67-3-905, §67-
3-908, §67-3-1101, §67-3-1102,
§67-3-1113)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • Includes 4.5 percent tax on aviation
rail, water Pas- gasoline and jet fuel; allocated to
senger
carrier, and and Transportation Equity Trust Fund
aviation fuels freight (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-6-103, §67-6-
217, §67-6-408)
Vehicle regis- • • • • • Tenn. Code Ann. §55-4-111, §55-
tration fees 6-107
Truck regis- • • • • • Tenn. Code Ann. §55-4-113, §55-
tration fees 6-107
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • See See See notes Used for State Highway Fund pur-
overweight notes notes poses under some circumstances
truck permit (see notes)
fees
Tolls • • Pilot program authorized in law
but not currently in use; legislative
approval required for toll facilities
(Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-3-101 et
seq.).
Rest area • • See notes Authorized but not currently in use;
sponsorship revenues restricted to highway uses
(Tenn. Code Ann. §4-3-2308) (see
notes)
HELP truck • • • • Revenues from ads on HELP incident
commercial response trucks; authorized in stat-
sponsorship ute (Tenn. Code Ann. §4-3-2309)
but not currently in use; allocated to
the State Highway Fund, to be used
solely for transportation purposes

Tennessee
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Off-road • • • • • • • • Collected by the Department of Rev-
vehicle fees Pas- enue (Tenn. Code Ann. §55-3-101);
senger
and a portion of the revenues is trans-
freight ferred to TDOT and may be used for
any TDOT purpose
General • • • • One-time transfers to the State
funds Highway Fund in FY 2016 and FY
2017 only (see notes); authorized in
session law (2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts,
Chap. 758), not statute
Interest • • • • • • • • State Highway Fund (investment
income Pas- income from specified fuel tax
senger
and increases), Transportation Equity
freight Trust Fund (Tenn. Code Ann. §9-4-
207, §67-3-905)
Notes:
• Revenues allocated to the State Highway Fund may be used for pedestrian and bicycle projects. For rest area sponsor-
ship revenues, which are restricted by law to highway purposes (Tenn. Code Ann. §4-3-2308), only those pedestrian
or bicycle projects with a connection to highway purposes (e.g., “Share the Road” highway signage) would be eligible
activities.
• State statute directs the revenues from oversize or overweight truck permit fees to the State Highway Fund for adminis-
tration of the permitting program (Tenn. Code Ann. §55-7-205), not for the kinds of transportation activities listed in
this chart. Any excess revenues, however, may reportedly be used for other State Highway Fund purposes.
• Between FY 2002 and FY 2008, a total of $262 million was transferred from the State Highway Fund to the general
fund. In partial repayment for these transfers, the FY 2017 budget bill (2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts, Chap. 758) transfers a total
of $142 million back to the State Highway Fund. From that $142 million, $42 million will go to counties for road projects
via the State-Aid Highway Program (Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-4-401 et seq.) and $100 million will be for state use.

Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation (with exception). State statute directs most fuel tax reve-
State Fuel Taxes nues to transportation purposes, including allocations to the State Highway Fund for highways
and public transit, to the Wildlife Resources Fund for boating safety, and to local entities for
road projects. An exception is set-asides for the state general fund (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-3-901
and §67-3-905).

Tennessee
Restrictions on Other Revenues from taxes on fuels used for rail, waterways, and aviation are deposited into the
Transportation Revenues Transportation Equity Trust Fund, to be used for those modes (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-6-103).
Toll revenues must be used for the toll facilities or for allowable purposes of the State Highway
Fund, and any toll facility must be approved by the General Assembly (Tenn. Code Ann. §54-3-
102 and §54-3-105).
Dedicated or Restricted The State Highway Fund is directed mainly to highways and transit projects. Diversions or trans-
Transportation Funds fers are prohibited (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-3-901 and §§54-2-102 et seq.). The Transportation
Equity Trust Fund, which receives revenues from taxes on fuels used for rail, waterways, and
aviation, must be used for those modes (Tenn. Code Ann. §9-4-207).
Revenue Sources The state constitution generally prohibits the use of lottery revenues, except a state lottery for
Prohibited in State Law educational purposes or a specifically authorized lottery for an annual event to benefit a non-
profit or veterans’ organization (Tenn. Const. art. XI, §5). The constitution also bans any state
income taxes except those in effect on Jan. 1, 2011 (Tenn. Const. art. II, §28).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized for up to 15 road and
bridge contracts under $1 million, or
5 contracts over $1 million, per year;
legislative approval required for con-
tracts over $70 million (Tenn. Code
Ann. §54-1-119); used for several
road projects
Public-private • • • See Authorized in statute for a pilot
partnerships notes program of up to two toll road
or bridge projects that must be
legislatively approved (Tenn. Code
Ann. §§54-3-101 et seq.) and, as of
Oct. 1, 2016, public transit projects
(Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-23-101 et
seq.; 2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts, Chap.
State infra- • • • • • • • Transportation State Infrastructure
structure Pas- Fund (Tenn. Code Ann. §§4-31-1201
senger
bank and et seq.); capitalized with Federal
freight funds; uses authorized by state
statute include highway, airport, rail,
port, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
projects; currently inactive (see notes)
Notes:
activities” include the state-level development and operation of transportation facilities and services. They do not

include administrative costs, DMV or highway patrol functions, enforcement or regulatory activities, education pro-
Tennessee
grams, or distributions to local governments. The “rail” column refers to heavy rail only. Commuter rail and light rail
are included under “public transit.”
• Tennessee’s Public-Private Transportation Act of 2016 (Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-23-101 et seq.; 2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts,
Chap. 975) authorizes the use of public-private partnerships for mass transit systems, but does not define mass transit.
Another statute, however, defines mass transit as including both light and heavy rail (Tenn. Code Ann. §64-8-202).
• Tennessee Federally capitalized a state infrastructure bank in 1997 under the NHS Act pilot program. The bank made
one loan and became inactive. In 2009, new legislation was enacted to establish the Transportation State Infrastruc-
ture Fund (2009 Tenn. Pub. Acts, Chap. 525; Tenn. Code Ann. §§4-31-1201 et seq.), and the money remaining in the
original bank was transferred to the new fund. No current activity, however, was found.
Transportation-Related Bonding No. Tennessee’s highway program has been debt-free since 1987. Although the Better Bridge
Program was authorized in 2009 to use bond financing, the bonds were never issued. This
makes Tennessee one of five states that does not currently use bonding of any kind for trans-
portation projects.
Restrictions on All bond proceeds must be deposited into the State Highway Fund (Tenn. Code Ann. §54-2-
Finance Mechanisms 102) and used for the projects specified in the authorizing bond bill. Tennessee does not cur-
rently, however, use bonding for transportation projects. Public-private partnerships are lim-
ited to a pilot program of two tollway projects that must be legislatively approved (Tenn. Code
Ann. §54-3-113) and, as of Oct. 1, 2016, public transit projects (Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-23-101
et seq.; 2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts, Chap. 975). Use of design-build is limited to 15 contracts of
less than $1 million, or 5 contracts of more than $1 million, per year. Legislative approval is
required for design-build contracts of more than $70 million (Tenn. Code Ann. §54-1-119).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. TDOT retains all excess funds, which are carried forward to the next year. No further approval is
Spend Excess Funds required to spend retained funds.
Legislative Approval No. Language in the annual appropriations bill, however, does require TDOT to notify select legislative
Required for DOT to Move committees, legislative leaders, and the individual senator and representative of the affected district
Funds Between Projects concerning any approved project that is canceled.
Legislative Actions to State statute contains low-bid requirements for TDOT contracts (Tenn. Code Ann. §54-5-116). Also,
Control DOT Costs selection criteria for a design-build contract must include project cost (Tenn. Code Ann. §54-1-119).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. After set-asides, portions of state gasoline and diesel tax
Transportation revenues go to counties and municipalities. Funds are distributed to counties by a statutory formula based on
Revenues to Local population and land area. Up to 22.22 percent of a county’s gasoline tax allocation may be used for public
Entities transit, and the rest for road and bridge projects. Funds are distributed to municipalities for street projects
based on population (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-3-901, §67-3-905, §54-4-103, and §54-4-203). Appropriations of
state funds to the state-aid highway program are also distributed to counties based on population and land
area (Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-4-401 et seq.).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties and cities to assess local option fuel taxes for public transit or street projects
Sources Autho- (Tenn. Code Ann. §§67-3-1001 et seq.), as well as tolls, user fees, or property taxes for public works projects
rized in State Law that may include roads (Tenn. Code Ann. §9-21-107). Counties may also levy mineral severance taxes for road
projects (Tenn. Code Ann. §67-7-201). Road improvement districts assess levy property taxes or special assess-
ments for roads or bridges (Tenn. Code Ann. §§54-12-101 et seq.).

Texas

Bridges 53,209
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, commuter rail, ferry boat, streetcar,
vanpool, demand response
Aviation Total airports 1,437
Legislature
Name Texas Legislature
Type Hybrid
Session Biennial, approx. Jan. to May (odd years only)
Introduced in 2016
tion-Related Issues House Committee on Appropriations
House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety
• Subcommittee on Long-term Infrastructure Planning
[Select] Senate Select Committee on Texas Ports
[Select] Senate Select Committee on Transportation Planning
[Select] House Select Committee on Transportation Planning
Standing committees also meet during the interim to oversee and study various matters.

Texas
Name Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
Structure Organized by both functional activity and transportation mode. TxDOT is organized into a number
of divisions, some of which are dedicated to transportation modes such as aviation, maritime, public
transit, and rail.
Leadership Executive Director of TxDOT (does not serve on governor’s cabinet; Texas has no formal cabinet sys-
tem), Texas Transportation Commission (independent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation (general aviation only), ports/water-
DOT Has Jurisdiction ways, pedestrian/bicycle. TxDOT’s role in public transit and general aviation are limited to managing
grant programs, and its role in rail, marine, and non-motorized transportation is limited to statewide
coordination and planning. TxDOT is the state sponsor of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and, as
such, facilitates the placement of dredge disposal for improvements to the waterway by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Includes DMV? No. Vehicle registration is handled by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, an independent state
agency that is funded by fee revenues. Driver’s licensing is carried out by the Department of Public
Safety, which is funded by general, dedicated, and Federal funds. Neither is funded out of TxDOT’s
budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Texas Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety, which is funded by
general, dedicated, and Federal funds, not out of TxDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. TxDOT has jurisdiction over some, but not all, toll facilities in the state. There are other local
Toll Facilities? toll project entities in the state.
Other
Other State-Level None. Texas has no state-level transportation entities besides TxDOT, the Texas Transportation Com-
Transportation Entities mission, and those that perform DMV and highway patrol functions.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through a dedicated liaison. TxDOT’s State Legislative Affairs unit is
and Collaboration primarily responsible for TxDOT’s communication and interactions with the Legislature. The office
responds to legislative information requests, researches and analyzes policy issues, monitors and
prepares TxDOT testimony for relevant legislative hearings, provides educational briefings to legislators
and legislative staff, prepares transportation materials for legislative visits, tracks legislative actions,
oversees TxDOT’s reporting requirements to the Legislature, and coordinates with experts throughout
TxDOT. Other TxDOT staff also interact with the Legislature as needed, both informally and through
formal testimony and reporting requirements.
DOT Legislative Liaison The State Legislative Affairs unit in TxDOT’s Government Affairs Division, among other duties, is the
main point of contact between the department and the Legislature.
Transportation Laws Tex. Transportation Code Ann.; Tex. Const. art. VIII, §7-a (revenue restrictions); Tex. Const.
art. III, §§49-k et seq. (funds and bonding); portions of Tex. Tax Code Ann. (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals No direct role. In Texas, only legislators may formally sponsor and
Legislative Process introduce legislation. TxDOT does respond to requests from legisla-
tors for input on legislative proposals.

Texas
Advocacy and Lob- By law, state agencies may not use appropriated funds to attempt
bying to influence legislation. State employees can, however, provide
public information or information in response to a request (Tex.
Government Code Ann. §556.006). TxDOT personnel do not lobby,
therefore, but do act as neutral resource witnesses and testify
before legislative committees.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Upon request, TxDOT gives input to the Legislative Budget Board to
Impact Statements inform its fiscal notes on legislation.
for Legislative Use
Appointment of The five members of the Texas Transportation Commission are appointed to staggered six-year
DOT Leadership terms by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members must be appointed
to reflect the diverse regions and population groups of the state, but all of them represent the
general public. One member must reside in a rural area and be a registered voter of a county with
a population of less than 150,000. No member may be a registered lobbyist or accept any cam-
paign contributions. Members and, in some cases, their spouses must not have specified conflicts
of interest (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §§201.051 et seq.). The executive director of TxDOT is
elected by the commission, within broad statutory guidelines for experience and skills (Tex. Trans-
portation Code Ann. §201.301).
Legislature Able to Yes. By law, the Legislature can remove the head of a state department or a commissioner by
Remove DOT Leaders? impeachment (Tex. Government Code Ann. §§665.001 et seq.). The governor may remove a mem-
ber of the Texas Transportation Commission for certain reasons (Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
§201.057) and the executive director of TxDOT, in general, serves at the will of the commission.
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules are reviewed by the relevant standing committees. The role of these com-
Administrative Rules mittees is mainly advisory (Tex. Government Code Ann. §2001.032).
Legislative Audits Both legislative audits and sunset reviews. The State Auditor’s Office, a legislative agency, conducts
or Sunset Reviews audits of state agencies, including TxDOT, at the direction of the Legislature. Also, in Texas, state
agencies are scheduled for termination at least every 12 years unless affirmatively continued by the
Legislature; this makes Texas one of four states that conduct regular sunset reviews of its depart-
ment of transportation. The sunset review is performed by the legislative Sunset Advisory Commis-
sion (Tex. Government Code Ann. §§325.001 et seq.). TxDOT is currently scheduled to terminate
on Sept. 1, 2017, unless continued by the Legislature (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §201.204).
Required DOT Reports TxDOT is required to submit annual reports to the Legislature concerning expenditures (Tex. Trans-
to the Legislature portation Code Ann. §201.616), environmental reviews (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §201.762),
the status of each transportation goal for the state (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §201.809),
public transit providers (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §456.008), and the Economically Disad-
vantaged County Program (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §222.053). Every other year, TxDOT
must submit a report on cash balances in project sub-accounts (Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
§228.012) and the Texas Transportation Commission must submit a report on the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §51.007).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements, legislative audits, and sunset reviews listed above, the
Performance Management Legislature approves annual performance goals and targets for each state agency in the bien-
nial appropriations act. TxDOT proposes and the Legislative Budget Board and the Office of the
Governor jointly establish these targets and goals, as well as annual outcome and quarterly output
measures. Annual outcome and quarterly output performance results are reported to the Legisla-
tive Budget Board via its automated reporting system, which is available for legislative review. The
Legislative Budget Board reports on variance from the targets and other information as requested
by the Legislature. TxDOT includes prior year performance results in its biennial Legislative Appro-
priations Request.

Texas
Other Legislative Oversight State law requires TxDOT to post information about its projects, expenditures, transportation-re-
Mechanisms lated statistics, and other matters online (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §§201.805 et seq.) and
to publish an annual funding and cash flow forecast (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §201.993). In
addition, TxDOT meets regularly with legislative committees between legislative sessions. This is
largely due to interim charges from legislative leaders that direct committees to study various top-
ics during this time. In 2015, for example, the Senate Committee on Transportation was directed
to study vehicle inspections, the State Highway Fund, impacts of the Panama Canal expansion, the
Driver Responsibility Program, oversize and overweight vehicles, tolling, TxDOT’s sunset review,
and other TxDOT matters. The House Committee on Transportation was directed to study TxDOT’s
role in disaster response, toll roads, design-build, alternative transportation modes, local transpor-
tation funding, utility relocation, oversize and overweight corridors, and innovative transportation
technologies. Other committees were also directed to study transportation-related topics, and the
House Committee on Transportation was tasked with further interim oversight and monitoring of
TxDOT. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from TxDOT.
Resources Provided to DOT No. TxDOT does not receive explicit line item funding to support its compliance in making required
to Support Compliance with reports to the Legislature or meeting other legislative oversight requirements. However, TxDOT
Oversight Requirements? utilizes its budgetary and staff resources to perform these functions.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins Sept. 1. Texas is one of five states
ations Overview in which a legislative entity—in this case, the Legislative Budget Board—produces a comprehensive
budget as an alternative to the governor’s proposal.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to TxDOT
categories. The state General Appropriations Act provides appropriation author-
ity for Federal funds. All funds received are deposited into the State Highway
Fund. TxDOT is the state administrative authority for these funds.
allocated to TxDOT in the General Appropriations Act, as legislative appropria-
tions to departmental programs or broad spending categories.

Authorized Expenditures Provide transportation planning $1,267,631,772
(FY 2017 only) Transportation improvements $2,470,084,123
Preserve the transportation system $4,199,324,049
Optimize services and systems $175,216,327
Enhance rail transportation $18,082,092
Indirect administration $256,715,334
Debt service payments $1,152,787,173
Develop toll subaccount projects $309,286,200
Proposition 1, 2014 (non-tolled public roadways) $1,197,393,000
Total $11,046,520,070
Revenue Sources General revenue fund $287,773,889
(FY 2017 only) Federal funds $3,999,744,107
Other funds $6,759,002,074
Total $11,046,520,070

Texas
Transportation Planning The Texas Transportation Commission and TxDOT annually update the 10-year Unified Transporta-
and Capital Project Selec- tion Program, which broadly guides project development for highways, aviation, public transit, and
tion Process waterways, and the four-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is a more
detailed program for highway and transit projects. Under the oversight of the commission, TxDOT
works with TxDOT district offices, MPOs, transit and rail agencies, port authorities, and local toll
entities to identify projects and funding strategies. After a series of hearings and other opportunities
for public input, the Texas Transportation Commission approves funding and authorizes construction
based on funding availability and local priorities. TxDOT oversees project implementation.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The Legislature has statutorily delegated responsibilities for project selection,
Planning Process prioritization, and approval to the Texas Transportation Commission (Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
§201.103). The Legislature has established statutory guidelines for the planning process and helps set
spending levels through appropriations.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§162.101 et
gasoline and seq., §§162.201 et seq., §162.503,
diesel (fixed §162.504
rate)
alternative pressed natural gas (Tex. Tax Code
fuels Ann. §§162.351 et seq., §162.506)
Vehicle reg- • • • Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
istration and §50.252
title fees
Vehicle • • • Allocated to the Texas Mobility Fund
inspection (Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
fees §548.508)
Truck regis- • • • Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
tration fees §502.253
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Allocated in part to the State High-
overweight way Fund (Tex. Transportation Code
truck permit Ann. §623.0111)
fees
Sales taxes • • Allocated in part to the State High-
on motor way Fund starting FY 2020; set to
vehicle sales, expire in FY 2029 (Tex. Const. art.
leases, and VIII, §7-c; 2015 Tex. Senate Joint
rentals Resolution 5)

Texas
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Tolls • • • Revenues are generally used for the
toll facilities and other highways,
although surplus revenues may be
used for other transportation proj-
ects (Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
§228.006)
High-occu- • • • Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
pancy toll §§228.201 et seq.
(HOT) lanes/
managed
lanes
Sales taxes • • • Tex. Tax Code Ann. §151.801
on motor
lubricants
Driver’s • • • Allocated to the Texas Mobility Fund
license and (Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
state ID card §521.427, §522.029, §524.051)
fees
Driver record • • • Allocated to the Texas Mobility Fund
information (Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
fees §521.058)
State general • • Allocated in part to the State High-
sales taxes way Fund starting FY 2018; set to
expire in FY 2032 (Tex. Const. art.
VIII, §7-c; 2015 Tex. Senate Joint
Resolution 5)
Oil and gas • • • Allocated in part to the State High-
production way Fund (Tex. Const. art. III, §49-g)
taxes
Discretionary • • • • • • TxDOT uses a portion of non-re-
allocations Pas- stricted State Highway Fund reve-
senger
from State and nues for public transit, rail, aviation,
Highway freight and ports (see note)
Fund
Interest • • • Texas Mobility Fund (Tex. Transpor-
income tation Code Ann. §201.946)
Notes:

• State statute allows the State Highway Fund to be used for any TxDOT departmental purpose (Tex. Transportation
Texas
Code Ann. §222.002). No state revenues, however, are dedicated to non-highway modes. TxDOT uses a portion of
non-restricted State Highway Fund revenues for public transit, rail, aviation, and ports.

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges, schools. The state constitution dedicates three-fourths of fuel
State Fuel Taxes tax revenues to public roadways, including traffic and safety supervision, and one-fourth to the
Available School Fund (Tex. Const. art. VIII, §7-a).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle registration fees and all taxes on lubricants,
Transportation Revenues except gross production and ad valorem taxes, to public roadways, including traffic and safety
supervision (Tex. Const. art. VIII, §7-a). The constitution also dedicates portions of oil and gas
production taxes, state general sales taxes (starting in FY 2018), and sales taxes on motor vehi-
cles (starting in FY 2020) to the State Highway Fund for improvements to public roadways other
than toll roads. The sales tax dedications may also be used to repay general obligation debt for
highway improvements and are set to expire at the ends of FY 2032 and FY 2029, respectively,
unless extended by the Legislature (Tex. Const. art. III, §49-g, and art. VIII, §7-c; 2015 Tex.
Senate Joint Resolution 5).
Dedicated or Restricted The State Highway Fund receives revenues from sources that are constitutionally dedicated to
Transportation Funds roadways, as well as other revenues that state statute allows to be used for any TxDOT purpose.
The fund may not, however, be used to guarantee a loan or issue bonds for a toll facility (Tex.
Transportation Code Ann. §§222.001 et seq.). The state constitution restricts use of the Texas
Mobility Fund, which cannot receive vehicle registration fees or taxes on motor fuels and lubri-
cants, to state highways, toll roads, and other transportation projects (Tex. Const. art. III, §49-
k). Although permissable under the constitution, the Texas Mobility Fund is further restricted by
state statute from being used for toll roads (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §201.946).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • Highway Improvement General Obli-
obligation gation (HIGO) Bonds, also known
bonds as Proposition 12 bonds; generally
authorized by the state constitution;
require further legislative approval;
capped at $5 billion (Tex. Const. art.
III, §49-p; Tex. Transportation Code
Ann. §222.004)
Revenue • • • Includes State Highway Fund
bonds bonds (Tex. Const. art. III, §49-n;
Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
§222.003), which are capped at $1.5
billion per year and $6 billion total,
and Texas Mobility Fund bonds (see
notes) (Tex. Const. art. III, §49-k;
Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
§§201.941 et seq.)

Texas
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Build Amer- • • • Issued in 2009 for highway projects;
ica Bonds were used to partially offset debt
service costs on three currently
outstanding series of revenue and
general obligation bonds
Private activ- • • • Issued; TxDOT program authorized
ity bonds in state statute (Tex. Transportation
Code Ann §222.035)
TIFIA
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
tapered
match
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • Authorized for up to three high-
way projects per year, each with a
construction cost estimate of $150
million or more (Tex. Transportation
Code Ann. §223.242); used for
several projects
Public-private • • • See Authorized in statute for rail (see
partnerships notes notes) and specific road projects
(Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
§91.054, §§223.201 et seq.,
§§371.001 et seq.); used for several
road projects
State infra- • • • • Capitalized with Federal funds; may
structure be used for highway or transit proj-
bank ects (Tex. Transportation Code Ann
§§222.071 et seq.)
Notes:

• State statute provides that if the Texas Mobility Fund is insufficient to cover its obligations, those obligations can be
Texas
paid by the State Treasury (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §201.944). In 2015, the fund’s bond program reached its
statutorily authorized capacity and legislation was enacted to prohibit the issuance of any new bonds after Jan. 1, 2015,
except to refund certain outstanding obligations (2015 Tex. Gen. Laws, Chap. 387).
• Although state statute allows the use of public-private partnerships for rail (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §91.054),
the state is not currently engaged in any such projects.
Transportation-Related Bonding Yes. Texas used pay-as-you-go financing until 2001. The Texas Transportation Commission
was then authorized to issue bonds by constitutional amendments that were approved in
2001, 2003, and 2007 (Tex. Const. art. III, §49-k, §49-n, and §49-p). The commission began
issuing revenue bonds in 2005 and general obligation bonds in 2010.
Restrictions on The state constitution limits general obligation bonds for highway projects to $5 billion (Tex.
Finance Mechanisms Const. art. III, §49-p), and state statute makes them subject to legislative appropriation (Tex.
Transportation Code Ann. §222.004). State Highway Fund revenue bonds are limited to $1.5
billion per year and $6 billion total (Tex. Const. art. III, §49-n; Tex. Transportation Code Ann.
§222.003). Public-private partnerships are limited to projects identified in statute (Tex. Trans-
portation Code Ann. §223.2011). Use of design-build is capped at three highway projects per
year, each with a construction cost estimate of $150 million or more (Tex. Transportation Code
Ann. §223.242).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes and no. TxDOT has traditionally been granted authority through the General Appropriations Act
Spend Excess Funds to carry forward unspent appropriations between years of a state fiscal biennium for major transpor-
tation planning, construction, and maintenance. In general, appropriations that remain unspent at the
end of one biennium must be legislatively re-appropriated to be spent in the next.
Legislative Approval Yes, in some cases. TxDOT must receive approval from the Legislative Budget Board and the governor
Required for DOT to Move to transfer funds between spending categories that were separate line items in the General Appropri-
Funds Between Projects ations Act. No approval is required to transfer funds between projects within a category.
Legislative Actions to TxDOT is subject to state statutes concerning bids and contracts for highway projects, including low-
Control DOT Costs bid requirements (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §§223.001 et seq.).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and legislative appropriations. The County and Road District Highway Fund receives at
Transportation least $7.3 million each fiscal year in state gas tax revenues. The fund is distributed to counties for road proj-
Revenues to Local ects by a statutory formula based on area, rural population, and road miles (Tex. Tax Code Ann. §162.503;
Entities Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §256.002). Counties also receive funds from appropriations to the Special
County Road Assistance Program, which is distributed at a statutory formula based on total population, unin-
corporated population, total road miles, and paved road miles (Tex. Local Government Code Ann. §§615.101
et seq.). Counties act as agents for the state in collecting vehicle registration fees, and retain a portion of
these fees for road and bridge projects. A county’s share is based on net collections and county road miles
(Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §502.102). In 2013, the Legislature created and allocated a one-time $224.5
million transfer to a new County Transportation Infrastructure Fund for county roads in oil and gas devel-
opment regions. TxDOT awards grants from this fund to eligible counties by a statutory formula based on
weight tolerance permits, oil and gas production taxes, well completions, and oil and gas waste. The program
requires a 20 percent local match, which is reduced to a 10 percent match for economically disadvantaged
counties (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §§256.101 et seq.).

Texas
Local Revenue State statute authorizes various regional and local entities to build and operate toll roads (Tex. Transportation
Sources Autho- Code Ann. ch. 284, 365, 366, and 370). Counties may levy vehicle registration fees for roads and bridges
rized in State Law (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §502.401) and special assessments for road improvements (Tex. Transporta-
tion Code Ann. §253.003). Counties, precincts, road districts, and road utility districts may assess property
taxes for various road purposes (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §§256.051 et seq. and §§441.191 et seq.).
Metropolitan rapid transit authorities, regional transportation authorities, municipal transit departments, and
county mass transit authorities may impose sales taxes (Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §451.404, §452.401,
§453.401, and §457.301); metropolitan rapid transit authorities may also impose vehicle emissions taxes
(Tex. Transportation Code Ann. §451.414). Municipalities, some counties, and other local entities may charge
developers impact fees for development-related capital improvements (Tex. Local Government Code Ann.
§§395.001 et seq.).

Utah

Bridges 2,971
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, commuter rail, vanpool, demand
response
Legislature
Name Utah Legislature
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology
diction Over Transporta- Senate Confirmation Committee on Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology
tion-Related Issues House Committee on Transportation
Joint Committee on Executive Appropriations
• Subcommittee on Infrastructure and General Government Appropriations
[Interim] Joint Interim Committee on Transportation

Utah
Name Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
Leadership Executive Director of UDOT (serves on governor’s cabinet), Utah Transportation Commission (inde-
pendent body). The Utah Transportation Commission does not have direct governing authority over
UDOT. Rather, it is an advisory committee that has only certain narrow duties as defined in state law,
the chief of which are to prioritize projects and to decide how available funds are spent (Utah Code
Ann. §72-1-303).
Staff Size in Full-Time 1,730 authorized, 1,567 actual
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, ferries (UDOT owns a 3-mile ferry system on Lake Powell that connects two state
DOT Has Jurisdiction roads). UDOT has responsibility for pedestrian and bicycle transportation adjacent to the highway
system, but not as stand-alone modes of transportation. UDOT does not have jurisdiction over other
modes, other than Federally required safety oversight responsibilities for public transit light rail sys-
tems and freight rail.
Includes DMV? No. Vehicle registration is handled by the Division of Motor Vehicles, a division of the Utah State Tax
Commission that is funded by the Transportation Fund, restricted accounts, general funds, and Fed-
eral funds. Driver’s licensing is carried out by the Driver License Division of the Department of Public
Safety.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Utah Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of Public Safety. It is funded by the
Transportation Fund, restricted accounts, general funds, and Federal funds.
Jurisdiction Over Yes (in law but not in practice). UDOT has authority to establish and operate toll roads (with required
Toll Facilities? statutory approvals), but besides high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, no public toll facilities currently exist.
Other
Other State-Level None. Utah has no state-level transportation entities besides UDOT, the Utah Transportation Commis-
Transportation Entities sion, and those that perform DMV and highway patrol functions.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. UDOT interacts with the Legislature by testifying before legislative committees,
and Collaboration and engaging with individual legislators, about relevant bills or issues. UDOT also makes annual
reports to interim committees. At times, UDOT may be invited to present to a caucus on a particular
topic. UDOT’s policy and legislative services director is responsible for ongoing communication and
interaction with the Legislature.
DOT Legislative Liaison UDOT’s policy and legislative services director also acts as the legislative liaison and, among other
duties, is the main point of contact between the department and the Legislature.
Transportation Laws Utah Code Ann. tit. 41, 56, and 72; portions of Utah Code Ann. tit. 73; Utah Const. art. XIII, §5 (revenue
restrictions); portions of Utah Code Ann. tit. 59 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. UDOT may ask legislators to sponsor particular bills or
Legislative Process be invited to present to a caucus on a particular issue. Only legislators,
however, may request legislative bill drafts and sponsor and introduce
legislation.

Utah
Advocacy and Lobbying In Utah, state entities are statutorily prohibited from hiring contract
lobbyists (Utah Code Ann. §63J-1-210), and in practice, generally
refrain from trying to influence legislative action. Agencies do, how-
ever, educate and provide relevant information to lawmakers as appro-
priate. In addition, UDOT is statutorily required to advise the governor
and the Legislature of state transportation system needs (Utah Code
Ann. §72-1-201).
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact The Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst prepares official fiscal notes
Statements for Legislative Use on bills using information gathered from state agencies, including UDOT.
Appointment of The seven members of the Utah Transportation Commission are appointed to staggered six-year
DOT Leadership terms by the governor with the consent of the Senate, within statutory requirements for state
residency and geographic representation. Four members represent the UDOT regions and three
represent the state at large. No more than two can be from any one region, and at least one
at-large member must be from a rural county (Utah Code Ann. §72-1-301). The executive director
of UDOT is appointed by the governor after consultation with the Utah Transportation Commission
and with the consent of the Senate, within broad statutory guidelines for experience and training
(Utah Code Ann. §72-1-202).
Legislature Able to No. The executive director of UDOT may be removed by the governor. No process is specified for
Remove DOT Leaders? removing members of the Utah Transportation Commission before the end of their respective
terms of office.
Legislative Review of Yes. The joint Administrative Rules Review Committee reviews all proposed and existing rules. The
Administrative Rules committee’s role is mainly advisory. Any existing rule that is in effect on Feb. 28 of any calendar
year expires on May 1 of that year unless it is reauthorized by the full Legislature in an annual
omnibus bill (Utah Code Ann. §§63g-3-501 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. UDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor
or Sunset Reviews General. This office has the authority to audit any branch, department, agency, or political subdivi-
sion of the state. The state conducts sunset reviews, but not of UDOT.
Required DOT Reports UDOT’s reporting requirements to the Legislature were streamlined by legislation enacted in 2016
to the Legislature (2016 Utah Laws, Chap. 137). Now, UDOT need only submit annual reports on Federal receipts
(Utah Code Ann. §63j-1-219) and recommended additions to or deletions from the state highway
system (Utah Code Ann. §72-4-102), as well as annual reports to the Transportation Interim Com-
mittee on highway operation, maintenance, condition, and safety needs and, jointly with the Utah
Transportation Commission, the condition, safety, and mobility of the state transportation system
(Utah Code Ann. §72-1-201). Historically, other statutory reporting requirements have also been
included in these reports to the Transportation Interim Committee, including information about
prioritized transportation capacity projects and unfunded highway construction and maintenance
needs (Utah Code Ann. §72-1-303 and §72-1-305). Although not explicitly required, information
about UDOT’s progress toward its performance goals has also been included in these reports.
Performance Management UDOT to develop strategic initiatives and to report them to the Utah Transportation Commission,
including measures for determining whether the initiatives have been achieved (Utah Code Ann.
§72-1-211).
Other Legislative Oversight State statute requires UDOT’s internal performance auditors to submit all audit findings to the
Mechanisms Legislative Auditor General (Utah Code Ann. §72-1-206). In addition, the Legislative Management
Committee can direct interim committees to study various topics between legislative sessions.
The specific topics vary from year to year; in 2015, for example, the Joint Interim Committee on
Transportation studied the impacts of recent transportation funding legislation, the Utah Transpor-
tation Commission’s project prioritization process, and nighttime work zone noise. Other oversight
mechanisms include legislative requests for information from UDOT.

Utah
Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins July 1. UDOT works with the Utah Transportation Commission and
ations Overview the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget to develop the department’s budget recommenda-
tions. The governor’s office provides the Legislature with these recommendations.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to UDOT
categories.
allocated to UDOT as legislative appropriations to departmental programs or

Authorized Expenditures Support services $34,591,600
Engineering services $35,567,900
Operations/maintenance management $167,620,000
Construction management $272,288,100
Region management $28,993,700
Equipment management $29,289,800
B and C roads $155,127,400
Safe sidewalk construction $500,000
Mineral lease $56,448,100
Share the Road $35,000
TIF Capacity Program $403,795,400
Total $1,191,690,000
Revenue Sources Transportation Fund $454,874,200
Transportation Investment Fund of 2005 $410,696,800
Dedicated credits revenue $33,177,100
Federal mineral lease $56,448,100
Aeronautics Restricted Account $7,049,400
General fund revenue—Share the Road Bicycle Support $35,000
Designated sales tax $46,682,500
Total $1,191,690,000

Utah
Transportation Planning The state adopts a long-range plan, and priority projects from that plan are added to the six-year
and Capital Project Selec- Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In general, UDOT and MPOs identify projects.
tion Process The Utah Transportation Commission prioritizes new transportation capacity projects using a statu-
torily provided process, the Decision Support System (Utah Code Ann. §72-1-304 and §72-1-305).
Smaller-scale projects to alleviate specific traffic bottlenecks also are prioritized. UDOT’s role is to rec-
ommend construction projects to the Utah Transportation Commission, and the commission approves
or rejects this recommendation.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. In 2005, as the result of a two-year legislative task force, the Utah Legis-
Planning Process lature adopted legislation to reduce legislative influence in the project selection process, and instead
to statutorily solidify efforts by the Utah Transportation Commission and UDOT to prioritize projects
based on a data-driven, weighted prioritization process. The Legislative Management Committee
reviews but does not approve amendments to this process (Utah Code Ann. §72-1-304 and §72-1-305;
2005 Utah Laws, Chap. 245). The Legislature determines general funding levels and can fund specific
new capacity projects in the annual appropriations act, although it has generally refrained from ear-
marking any projects of substantial value. The Legislature also retains authority to authorize bonding,
and bond authorizations usually specify the projects for which some, but not all, of the proceeds may
be used. However, those authorizations have always been for projects that have been already selected
and prioritized by the Utah Transportation Commission, and simply serve to accelerate those commis-
sion-selected projects.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Adjusted annually based on average
gasoline rack price, with a price floor of
and diesel, $2.45/gallon and ceiling of $3.33/
highway gallon; to be indexed to the Con-
use (variable sumer Price Index starting the year
rate—per- after the actual price reaches $2.45/
centage of gallon (Utah Code Ann. §59-13-201,
price, also to §59-13-301; 2015 Utah Laws, Chap.
be indexed) 275)
alternative pressed natural gas and hydrogen
fuels (Utah Code Ann. §59-13-301)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Utah Code Ann. §§59-
13-401 et seq.)
Fuel taxes: • • • Allocated to boating facilities,
boating administration, and enforcement
(Utah Code Ann. §59-13-201)
Vehicle reg- • • • Utah Code Ann. §§41-1a-1201 et
istration and seq.
title fees
Sales taxes • • • Allocated to the Marda Dillree Cor-
on rental ridor Preservation Fund (Utah Code
vehicles Ann. §59-12-1201)

Utah
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Truck regis- • • • Utah Code Ann. §41-1a-1206
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Utah Code Ann. §72-7-406
overweight
truck permit
fees
Tolls • • Generally authorized in law but not
currently in use; legislative approval
required for toll facilities (Utah Code
Ann. §72-6-118)
High-occu- • • • Utah Code Ann. §72-6-118
pancy toll
(HOT) lanes
sponsorship allocated to Transportation Fund
(Utah Code Ann. §72-6-403)
Aircraft • • • Utah Code Ann. §72-10-110
registration
fees
State general • • • Percentages are allocated to the
sales taxes Transportation Investment Fund of
2005 and the Transportation Fund
(Utah Code Ann. §59-12-103); one
share represents a portion of sales
and use taxes on vehicles and vehi-
cle-related products
Interest • • • • Transportation Fund, Transportation
income Investment Fund of 2005, Aero-
nautics Restricted Account, various
other funds (Utah Code Ann. §§72-
2-101 et seq.)
Notes:
• Legislative approval is required to impose tolls on an existing non-tolled highway, although the Utah Transportation
Commission can approve the establishment of high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on an existing highway, or establish
tollways on new roads or new capacity lanes (even if the new capacity lanes are on an existing highway), without

legislative approval (Utah Code Ann. §72-6-118). Besides HOT lanes, the only current toll facility in Utah is a
Utah
privately operated toll road.

• UDOT also owns a 3-mile ferry system on Lake Powell that connects two state roads. Ferry fares, which are retained by
the private operator and thus not listed in this chart, are currently sufficient to cover the system’s operating costs. Occa-
sional costs, like engine rehabilitation or replacement, have been covered by Federal grants or state transportation funds.
• Utah does not provide state-level revenues for public transit.
State Fuel Tax Model Variable rate (percentage of price; also to be indexed starting the year after the actual price
reaches $2.45/gallon)
State Fuel Taxes from highway users to roads and related debt, driver education, and the enforcement of vehicle
and traffic laws (Utah Const. art. XIII, §5).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related revenues to roads and related debt,
Transportation Revenues driver education, and the enforcement of vehicle and traffic laws (Utah Const. art. XIII, §5).
Aviation fuel taxes must be used for airports and aeronautics operations (Utah Code Ann.
§59-13-402). All toll revenues, including those from high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, must be
used for toll facilities, and legislative approval is required to impose tolls on an existing non-
tolled highway. The Utah Transportation Commission, however, can approve the establishment
of HOT lanes on an existing highway, or establish tollways on new roads or new capacity lanes
(even if the new capacity lanes are on an existing highway) without legislative approval (Utah
Code Ann. §72-6-118).
Dedicated or Restricted Utah statute dedicates several funds and accounts to transportation purposes (Utah Code Ann.
Transportation Funds §§72-2-101 et seq.). The Transportation Fund is dedicated to highway purposes (Utah Code
Ann. §72-2-102), the Transportation Investment Fund of 2005 to highway projects and related
debt (Utah Code Ann. §72-2-124), and the Aeronautics Restricted Account, which receives avia-
tion-related revenues, to aviation purposes (Utah Code Ann. §72-2-126).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • Utah Code Ann. §63J-3-402, §63B-
obligation 16-101
bonds
Build Amer- • • • Issued in 2010 by the Utah State
ica Bonds Treasurer as general obligation high-
way bonds
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized for UDOT projects; not
restricted by mode (Utah Code Ann.
§63G-6a-1402) (see notes)

Utah
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Public-private • • Authorized in statute for tollways;
partnerships legislative approval required to toll
an existing highway (Utah Code
Ann. §63G-6a-1403, §72-2-120,
§72-6-118, §§72-6-201 et seq.); also
authorized for other DOT projects
that include a design-build compo-
nent (Utah Code Ann. §63G-6a-
State infra- • • • Capitalized with Federal funds; may
structure be used for highway projects only
bank (Utah Code Ann. §§72-2-201 et seq.)
Notes:
• UDOT is authorized to use design-build, but more frequently uses the construction manager/general contractor (CM/
GC) contracting method.

Restrictions on General obligation bonds for highway bonds require legislative approval, but are generally
Finance Mechanisms exempted from the statutory limits on debt (Utah Code Ann. §63J-3-402).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Balances that remain in the Transportation Fund at the end of a fiscal year can be reallocated
Spend Excess Funds within the same line item. During each general session, UDOT asks the Legislature for nonlapsing
authority for excess funds, which is provided through a supplemental appropriations bill (Senate Bill 3).
Legislative Approval No. UDOT does not require approval to move funds between projects, but does require legislative
Required for DOT to Move approval to move funds between line items. (Typically, UDOT may ask the Legislature to shift funds
Funds Between Projects between line items for FTE reallocations; the Legislature approves this annually).
Legislative Actions to The state procurement code includes low-bid requirements (Utah Code Ann. §63G-6a-606).
Control DOT Costs

Utah
Allocation of State Statutory formulas. After set-asides, 30 percent of all revenues deposited into the state’s Transportation
Transportation Fund from state gas taxes, license taxes, registration fees, and other highway-user taxes and fees, but not
Revenues to Local from dedicated state sales taxes, go to the Class B and Class C Roads Account. Funds from the account are
Entities distributed to counties and municipalities by statutory formulas based on population, paved road miles, and
all other road miles (Utah Code Ann. §§72-2-107 et seq.).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties and municipalities to levy sales taxes for local roads, public transit, airports,
Sources Autho- bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or other transportation projects (Utah Code Ann. §§59-12-2213 et seq.). Coun-
rized in State Law ties, municipalities, and other local entities may charge developers impact fees for development-related public
facilities (Utah Code Ann. §§11-36A-101 et seq.).

Vermont

Bridges 2,736
Legislature
Name Vermont General Assembly
Introduced in 2016
tion-Related Issues Joint Transportation Oversight Committee

Vermont
Name Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans)

Leadership Secretary of VTrans (serves on governor’s cabinet), Transportation Board (independent body, advisory
and quasi-judicial functions only). The Transportation Board acts as an arbiter in resolution of claims
or complaints related to transportation. It does not have a role in the management of day-to-day
activities, programs, projects, or personnel decisions at VTrans.
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle. Vermont has no
DOT Has Jurisdiction ports. VTrans’ jurisdiction related to marine operations is limited to the Department of Motor Vehicles’
role as the registrar for watercraft.
Includes DMV? Yes. The Department of Motor Vehicles is a unit of VTrans, and is funded by the Transportation Fund
as part of VTrans’ budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes and no. The Vermont State Police within the Department of Public Safety has a Traffic Safety Unit
that is funded by general funds, a statutory allocation from the Transportation Fund (Vt. Stat. Ann.
tit. 19, §11a), and Federal funds. In addition, the Department of Motor Vehicles within VTrans has an
enforcement unit with sworn law enforcement officers who enforce traffic safety, motor carrier, and
hazardous materials transportation laws.
Jurisdiction Over No. The only toll facilities in Vermont are three short, privately operated roadways, all located at major
Toll Facilities? attraction sites.
Other
Other State-Level None. Vermont has no state-level transportation entities besides VTrans, the Transportation Board,
Transportation Entities and (for highway patrol functions) the Department of Public Safety. The Vermont Transportation
Authority is established in statute as an instrumentality of the state (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 29, §§701 et
seq.), but it has been inactive since the early 2000s. It was last used for the operations of a short-lived
commuter rail service.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through leadership. VTrans’ division heads testify before the House and
and Collaboration Senate transportation committees at the beginning of each session concerning the agency’s activi-
ties and its annual multi-year Transportation Program, which includes a recommended budget and
project priorities. Legislative committees frequently solicit testimony from VTrans officials on trans-
portation-related bills and issues. VTrans also communicates through required written reports. VTrans
officials also make themselves available for informal communications with legislators and legislative
staff. In addition, VTrans’ Policy, Planning, and Intermodal Development Division, among other duties,
provides background and support for the agency’s legislative activities and serves as a liaison with the
General Assembly.
DOT Legislative Liaison The secretary of transportation serves as a main point of contact between VTrans and the General
Assembly. Other VTrans officials, especially its division heads, also engage with and provide informa-
tion and testimony to the General Assembly. The director of VTrans’ Policy, Planning, and Intermodal
Development Division acts as a legislative liaison and is another key contact.

Vermont
Transportation Laws Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, 19, and 23; portions of Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 25; portions of Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32 (reve-
nues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. VTrans proposes legislative measures, but only legislators
Legislative Process can request legislative bill drafts and sponsor and introduce bills. Typ-
ically, VTrans staff submit legislative proposals to the legislature each
year for consideration. Agency officials then testify before the House
and Senate transportation committees about each proposal.
Advocacy and Lobbying VTrans officials regularly advocate before relevant legislative commit-
tees concerning the agency’s legislative proposals and other bills.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact VTrans does not prepare formal fiscal notes or impact statements, but
Statements for Legislative Use it does submit written testimony, sometimes unsolicited and at other
times upon request, that detail the fiscal and policy impact implica-
tions of legislative proposals. The information VTrans is requested to
provide is usually issue-, project-, or program-specific.
Appointment of The seven members of the Transportation Board are appointed to up to three three-year terms by
DOT Leadership the governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate and within statutory requirements for
partisan balance. The governor must, as feasible, appoint members “whose interests and expertise
lie in various areas of the transportation field.” Members must not have specified conflicts of inter-
est (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §3). The secretary of VTrans is appointed by the governor with the advice
and consent of the Senate (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §7).
Legislature Able to Yes. Although in general the secretary of VTrans serves at the pleasure of the governor, the legisla-
Remove DOT Leaders? ture has the power to impeach any officer of the state. No other process is specified for removing
members of the Transportation Board before the end of their respective terms of office.
Legislative Review of Yes. The joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules reviews all proposed rules. The com-
Administrative Rules mittee cannot suspend a rule, but if it objects to one, the agency is thereafter assigned the burden
of proving that rule’s validity if it is ever challenged in court. The committee may also review exist-
ing rules (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, §§800 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. VTrans is subject to audits conducted by the legislative Joint Fiscal Office.
or Sunset Reviews Sunset reviews are at the General Assembly’s discretion, and their structure varies on a case-by-
case basis. VTrans has not yet been subject to the sunset process.
Required DOT Reports VTrans is required to submit to the General Assembly an annual consolidated transportation sys-
to the Legislature tem and activities report that includes information about public transit, highways, highway safety,
aviation, rail, and DMV activities (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §42). The agency also must submit with the
annual Transportation Program a separate report detailing expenditures and unspent funds (Vt.
Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §10g).
Performance Management the annual Transportation Program proposed by VTrans to include system-wide performance mea-
sures, track the measures over time, and, where appropriate, recommend the setting of relevant
performance targets (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §10g).
Other Legislative Oversight Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from VTrans. In general,
Mechanisms because the annual transportation budget process is detailed and the state is small enough, the
legislative transportation committees are able to review progress on nearly all active projects.
Resources Provided to DOT No. VTrans’ annual budget covers these costs, but there is no specific, designated line item for
to Support Compliance with them.

Vermont

ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. The General Assembly allocates
tion Revenues to the DOT Federal transportation funds to VTrans through approval of the annual trans-
portation plan (known as the Transportation Program) and the annual appro-
priations bill. Spending authority of Federal funds is approved by the General
Assembly in the annual transportation plan on a program and project-by-project
basis. VTrans’ proposed plan details project-specific spending to date, proposed
spending over the next four fiscal years, and total estimated project costs. At
the program level, the annual plan details actual spending in the prior fiscal year
and unexpended carryforward funds. Appropriations authority is approved in
the annual appropriations bill for higher line-item categories. By general statute,
VTrans has authority to re-allocate funds to deal with emergencies, project
delays, and other circumstances.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation and plan approval. As with Federal funds, state trans-
portation funds are allocated to VTrans through approval of the annual Trans-
portation Program and the annual appropriations bill.

Authorized Expenditures Department of Motor Vehicles $28,910,055
Finance and administration $14,206,799
Program development $283,527,081
Rest areas $550,000
Policy and panning $9,987,158
Public transit program $31,173,698
Aviation $20,035,048
Rail $33,881,604
Central garage $19,731,787
Transportation buildings $2,000,000
Town highway programs $76,785,174
Transportation Board $229,245
Total $612,574,418
Revenue Sources State $249,073,779
Federal $326,665,494
Local/other $4,080,416
Interdepartmental transfers $753,566
Transportation Infrastructure Bond funds $12,269,376
Internal service $19,731,787
Total $612,574,418

Vermont
Transportation Planning VTrans takes the lead in the transportation planning process, and coordinates all planning efforts with
and Capital Project Selec- the Climate Change Oversight Committee and local and regional planning entities, as required by law.
tion Process Annually, VTrans proposes to the General Assembly a multi-year Transportation Program that contains
a proposed project list. State statute requires VTrans to use a numerical grading system to assign a
priority rating to paving, road, bridge, safety, and traffic operation projects. Factors to be considered
include safety, traffic, future costs, local priorities, economic impacts, and the project’s importance to
the social and cultural life of surrounding communities. The final program must include a description
of how ratings were assigned (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §§10b et seq.). VTrans also voluntarily uses this
grading system to prioritize projects in other transportation modes. All projects must be approved by
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The House and Senate transportation committees receive VTrans’ pro-
Planning Process posed annual Transportation Program each January and solicit testimony from agency, regional
planning, and local officials. The General Assembly’s annual transportation bill adopts the agency’s
proposed program, except as modified in the bill. Except for emergency projects, no money can be
spent on any project unless it is included in the approved annual program. The General Assembly has
also established statutory guidelines for the planning process.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Includes a fixed-rate tax and a
gasoline Pas- variable tax based on tax-adjusted
senger
(fixed rate and retail price, both allocated to the
and variable freight Transportation Fund, and another
rate—per- variable tax that is allocated to the
centage of Transportation Infrastructure Bond
price) Fund (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §3106;
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §11f)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Includes two fixed-rate taxes, one
diesel (fixed Pas- allocated to the Transportation Fund
senger
rate) and and the other to the Transportation
freight Infrastructure Bond Fund (Vt. Stat.
Ann. tit. 23, §3003; Vt. Stat. Ann.
tit. 19, §11f)
aviation fuels and jet fuel; use is restricted to avi-
ation (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §11; Vt.
Stat. Ann. tit. 5, §211)
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • Allocated to the Transportation Fund
istration and Pas- (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §§361 et seq.)
senger
title fees and
freight
Sales taxes • • • • • • • “Motor vehicle purchase and use
on motor Pas- tax”; allocated in part to the Trans-
senger
vehicle sales, and portation Fund (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit.
leases, and freight 32, §§8900 et seq.)
rentals

Vermont
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Truck regis- • • • • • • • Allocated to the Transportation Fund
tration fees Pas- (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §367)
senger
(based on and
weight)
Transporta- • • • • • Enacted in 2013; may be assessed
tion impact by VTrans; may be used for high-
fees ways, public transit, and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities (Vt. Stat. Ann.
tit. 10, §§6101 et seq.)
Interest • • • • • • • Transportation Infrastructure Bond
income Pas- Fund (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §11f),
senger
and Transportation Fund Budget Stabili-
freight zation Reserve (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32,
§308a)
Notes:
• The Transportation Fund is used for multimodal transportation purposes that include highways, transit, rail, and avia-
tion. Vermont has no ports.
• Vermont’s only toll facilities are privately operated toll roads.
Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation (with exceptions). State statute directs motor fuel tax revenues to
State Fuel Taxes the Transportation Fund, to be used for multimodal transportation purposes (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §§11 et
seq.). An exception is an allocation to the Fish and Wildlife Fund and the Department of Forests, Parks, and
Recreation for natural resource management (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §3106).
Restrictions on Other State statute directs various transportation-related revenues to the Transportation Fund, to be used
Transportation Revenues for multimodal transportation purposes (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §§11 et seq.). An exception is an alloca-
tion of one-third of motor vehicle purchase and use taxes to the Education Fund (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 16,
§4025). Aviation fuel tax revenues must be used for aviation purposes (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, §211).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute requires the Transportation Fund to be appropriated only for VTrans, the Transportation
Transportation Funds Board, Transportation Pay Act Funds, transportation capital projects, transportation debt, rest areas
(known as “information centers”), and the Department of Public Safety (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §11a).
Nevertheless, a portion of the fund’s revenues is typically allocated to other state functions as part of
the annual budget process, with the governor’s budget proposing an amount and the General Assembly
responding. This allocation has generally decreased each year.

Vermont
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • Authorized in session law (appropri-
obligation Pas- ation acts)
senger
bonds and
freight
Revenue • • • • • Special Obligation Transportation
bonds Pas- Infrastructure Bonds; generally
senger
and authorized in statute for roads,
freight bridges, rail, and airports; (Vt. Stat.
Ann. tit. 32, §972); require further
legislative approval
Advance • • •
construction
Federal-aid • • •
matching:
tapered
match
Design-build • • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for any trans-
Pas- portation project, including trails
senger
and (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §§2601 et
freight seq.) (see notes); used for several
road and bridge projects
State infra- • • • • • • Capitalized with state and Federal
structure Pas- funds; may be used for activities
senger
bank and as defined in Title 23 and Title 49
freight of the Code of Federal Regulations
(including highway, public transit,
rail, and pedestrian projects) (Vt.
Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §§280d et seq.)
Notes:
• Vermont law authorizes the use of design-build for transportation projects, including trails. Trails are categorized as
both “pedestrian and bicycle projects” and “other” in this chart, as state uses the term to refer to any type of trail facility
(bicycle, pedestrian, or multi-use) that has a transportation function.

Vermont

Restrictions on All financing methods, including bonding, require legislative approval.
Finance Mechanisms

DOT Able to Retain and Yes and no. VTrans’ spending authority is limited to the state and Federal funds authorized in the
Spend Excess Funds annual transportation and appropriation bills. State law gives the administration the authority to carry
forward unspent appropriations of state funds into the next fiscal year (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, §703),
but carryforward funds can only be spent on the project or program for which the original funds
were authorized. Unexpended Federal funds must be re-appropriated to be spent. All revenue in
excess of appropriated amounts are credited to the Transportation Fund.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. No approved project may be canceled without the approval of the General Assem-
Required for DOT to Move bly. VTrans is, however, authorized to reallocate funds without further legislative approval in the
Funds Between Projects event of cost overruns or emergency projects, although the agency is required to notify the relevant
legislative committees in most such cases (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §10g).
Legislative Actions to State statute directs VTrans to use either low bid or best value as the basis for awarding design-build
Control DOT Costs contracts (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, §§2601 et seq.).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. An annual legislative appropriation is made to the
Transportation town highway aid program from the state Transportation Fund, which receives state transportation revenues
Revenues to Local including gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. Of this appropriation, 6 percent goes to class 1 town high-
Entities ways, 44 percent to class 2 town highways, and 50 percent to class 3 highways. Each percentage is further
distributed to towns based on highway miles in each class. Funds can be used for highway projects, as the
local share for Federal transit assistance, or for bicycle routes. A second appropriation is made for towns with
multi-lane class 1 highways, and is distributed among them based on the additional highway lanes. Further
appropriations are made to state aid programs for town highway bridge projects, non-Federal and Federal
disasters, town highway structures, and class 2 highway improvements. VTrans awards discretionary grants to
towns from all these programs, within statutory guidelines for eligibility and local matches (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit.
19, §306).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes municipalities to levy property taxes for town highways and impose special assess-
Sources Autho- ments for public improvements (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §1521 and §3253). Municipalities may also charge
rized in State Law developers impact fees to pay for development-related capital improvements (including transportation
improvements, although these are not specifically identified in law; see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §§5200 et seq.).
Regional transit authorities may assess property taxes (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §5108).

Virginia

Bridges 13,538
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, commuter rail, ferry boat, vanpool,
demand response
Notes:
• The number included in this chart for freight rail miles in Virginia does not include trackage rights. The number of
urban transit trips in 2014 refers to unlinked passenger trips, and does not include MetroRail.
Legislature
Name Virginia General Assembly
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Feb. (odd years), Jan. to Mar. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
• Subcommittee on Tolling
• Subcommittees #1, #2, #3, and #4
[Commission] Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability

Virginia
Name Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), Commissioner of VDOT, Commonwealth
Transportation Board (independent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, pedestrian/bicycle. VDOT also operates and maintains several vehicle ferries.
Includes DMV? No. The Department of Motor Vehicles is an independent state agency. It is funded by 1 percent of
state fuel taxes (Va. Code §58.1-2289), not out of VDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Virginia State Police is a state agency under the Secretariat of Public Safety and Homeland
Security. It is funded by general funds and fee revenues. In addition, public-private partnership con-
cession operators contract with the Virginia State Police for patrols and enforcement.
Jurisdiction Over Yes, over some facilities. There are, however, toll facilities in Virginia that fall under other jurisdiction.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Department of Rail The Department of Rail and Public Transportation is a state agency that, like VDOT,
Transportation and Public Trans- reports to the secretary of transportation and is subject to oversight by the Common-
Entities portation (state wealth Transportation Board (Va. Code §33.2-282). Its main areas of activity are rail,
agency) public transit, and commuter services. It is funded by state revenues—including portions
of sales taxes, fuel taxes, vehicle rental taxes, and recordation taxes—and Federal funds.
Department of The Department of Aviation is a state agency that reports to the secretary of transpor-
Aviation (state tation but is not subject to oversight by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (Va.
agency) Code §§5.1-1 et seq.). It is funded by a statutory distribution from the Transportation
Trust Fund (Va. Code §33.2-1526).
Motor Vehicle The Motor Vehicle Dealer Board regulates and provides oversight for the vehicle dealer
Dealer Board (state industry (Va. Code §§46.2-1500 et seq.). It is funded by dealer license fees.
agency)
Virginia Port The Virginia Port Authority is a corporation and instrumentality of the state with jurisdic-
Authority (corpo- tion over Virginia’s ports and related facilities (Va. Code §§62.1-128 et seq.). The authority
ration/ instrumen- reports to the secretary of transportation but is not subject to oversight by the Common-
tality) wealth Transportation Board. It is funded by fee revenues and a statutory distribution
from the Transportation Trust Fund (Va. Code §62.1-132.16 and §33.2-1526).
Virginia Commer- The Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority is a corporation and instrumentality of
cial Space Flight the state that was established to promote space activity, economic development, and
Authority (corpo- aerospace research. The secretary of transportation serves as an ex officio member of the
ration/ instrumen- authority’s board of directors (Va. Code §§2.2-2201 et seq.). It is funded by a statutory
tality) distribution from the Transportation Trust Fund (Va. Code §33.2-1526).
Washington Metro- The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is an instrumentality of the District of
politan Area Transit Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia (Va. Code §33.2-3100). It was created to plan, finance,
Authority (inter- build, and operate a comprehensive public transit system for the Washington metropoli-
state corporation/ tan area. It is funded by fares and advertising revenues, as well as contributions from the
instrumentality) District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and counties in the greater metropolitan Wash-
ington area. On an annual basis, these jurisdictions must appropriate funds according to
an agreed-upon formula to subsidize WMATA’s operating and capital budget.

Virginia
Overall Communication Formal and informal, proactive. VDOT and the General Assembly have a proactive approach to
and Collaboration communication. VDOT holds informational regional town hall meetings with legislators, analyzes
proposed legislation, testifies in committee hearings during the legislative session, and posts key
information online. Among other duties, VDOT’s chief of policy oversees the department’s legislative
activities.
DOT Legislative Liaison VDOT’s chief of policy, among other duties, is the main point of contact between the department and
Transportation Laws Va. Code tit. 5.1, 33.2, and 46.2; portions of Va. Code tit. 15.2, 25.1, 56, and 62.1; portions of Va. Code
tit. 58.1 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. The governor can prepare legislation at his or her discre-
Legislative Process tion, with assistance from cabinet members, state agencies, or others.
The governor typically solicits legislative proposals from cabinet mem-
bers, including the secretary of transportation, that then are developed
in collaboration with state agencies. Only legislators, however, can
request legislative bill drafts, and all bills must be sponsored and intro-
duced by legislators to be considered by the General Assembly.
Advocacy and Lobbying VDOT analyzes and comments on all proposed legislation that directly
or indirectly impacts transportation or agency operations, administra-
tion, services, or functions. The department’s analyses and recommen-
dations are provided to the secretary of transportation, the Virginia
Department of Planning and Budget, and the governor’s office for
consideration. VDOT legislative liaisons also interact with legislators
and legislative committees and committee staff to communicate the
impacts of legislation.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact VDOT prepares legislative impact statements that include fiscal analy-
Statements for Legislative Use ses and address policy implications of relevant proposed legislation.
Appointment of As of July 1, 2016, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has 17 members. Of those, 14 are
DOT Leadership voting, citizen members who are appointed to up to two consecutive four-year terms by the
governor, subject to confirmation by the General Assembly and within statutory requirements for
geographic representation. Nine members must represent the state’s highway districts, and of the
other five, two must live in rural areas and two in urban areas. The other three members are the
secretary of transportation, the commissioner of VDOT (called the “commissioner of highways”
in statute), and the director of the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, who serve as ex
officio, non-voting members (Va. Code §§33.2-200 et seq.; 2015 Va. Acts, Chap. 684). The com-
missioner of VDOT is appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the General Assem-
bly, within broad statutory guidelines for experience and ability (Va. Const. art. V, §10; Va. Code
§§33.2-222). The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor to a term that coincides
with the governor’s, subject to confirmation by the General Assembly (Va. Code §2.2-200).
Legislature Able to No. As of July 1, 2016, the governor may remove members of the Commonwealth Transportation
Remove DOT Leaders? Board for specified causes (Va. Code §2.2-108; 2015 Va. Acts, Chap. 684 [House Bill 1887]). The
commissioner of VDOT and the secretary of transportation serve at the pleasure of the governor.
Legislative Review of Yes (optional). The Joint Commission on Administrative Rules may review any proposed or existing
Administrative Rules rule, as may the relevant standing committees. Either may suspend a rule with the concurrence of
the governor (Va. Code §§30-73.1 et seq. and §§2.2-4000 et seq.).

Virginia
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. VDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Joint Legislative Audit and
or Sunset Reviews Review Commission and by the Auditor of Public Accounts, the legislative external auditor for state
departments and other entities (Va. Code §§30-130 et seq.). Virginia does not conduct sunset
reviews of state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports Each year, the commissioner of VDOT is required to submit a comprehensive annual report to the
to the Legislature legislature that addresses existing assets, maintenance needs, performance targets and outcomes,
collaboration with the private sector, and other matters (Va. Code §33.2-232). The commissioner
also must submit annual reports concerning use of the Innovation and Technology Transportation
Fund (Va. Code §33.2-1531) and clean special fuel vehicles on HOV lanes (Va. Code §46.2-749.3),
as well as quarterly status reports on highway construction projects (Va. Code §32.2-233). The
secretary of transportation must submit annual reports on the allocation of Federal transportation
funds and actions taken to provide the required match (2016 Va. Acts, Chap. 780) and, in con-
sultation with the commissioner of VDOT and the director of the Department of Rail and Public
Transportation, on actions taken to increase public transit use and reduce highway congestion (Va.
Code §33.2-106). VDOT is required to report annually on litter collection (Va. Code §10.1-1416)
and performance and payment bonds (2012 Va. Acts, Chap. 783), and at least every six months
on significant transportation projects in and near the Northern Virginia Transportation District, in
coordination with the Commonwealth Transportation Board, Department of Rail and Public Trans-
portation, and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (Va. Code §33.2-257). In addition to
these regular reporting requirements, VDOT and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation
are also required to submit a number of one-time reports.
Performance Management the Statewide Transportation Plan to include quantifiable measures and achievable goals relating
to, but not limited to, congestion reduction and safety, transit and high-occupancy vehicle facility
use, job-to-housing ratios, job and housing access to transit and pedestrian facilities, air quality,
movement of freight by rail, and per capita vehicle miles traveled (Va. Code §33.2-353).
Other Legislative Oversight The General Assembly occasionally creates special committees, including interim committees,
Mechanisms to study transportation topics. In 2014, for example, Senate Resolution 32 established the Joint
Committee to Study Construction of Proposed Interstate 73. In addition, the Joint Commission
on Transportation Accountability, comprising members of the Virginia House of Delegates and
Senate and the Auditor of Public Accounts, was established specifically to review and study various
transportation issues as well as the performance and operations of transportation agencies. The
commission also reviews actions of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (Va. Code §§30-282
et seq.). Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from VDOT.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. The budget is adopted for a
ations Overview biennium, but is amended in the second year of the biennium.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are allocated to VDOT
categories.
allocated to VDOT as legislative appropriations to departmental programs or

Virginia
Authorized Expenditures Environmental monitoring and evaluation $13,674,514
(FY 2018 only) Ground transportation planning and research $64,625,062
Highway construction programs $1,812,622,400
Highway system maintenance and operations $1,711,761,575
Commonwealth toll facilities $79,794,150
Financial assistance to localities for ground transportation $975,994,130
Non-toll supported transportation debt service $383,211,784
Administrative and support services $265,724,618
Total $5,307,408,233
Revenue Sources General $40,000,000
(FY 2018 only) Commonwealth Transportation Fund $4,296,950,931
Trust and agency $445,071,551
Dedicated special revenue $518,000,000
Federal Trust $7,385,751
Total $5,307,408,233
Note: VDOT, the secretary of transportation, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Rail and Public Transpor-
tation, the Department of Aviation, the Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, the Virginia Port Authority, and the Virginia Commercial
Space Flight Authority all have their own detailed budgets. This chart shows the budget for VDOT only.

Transportation Planning At least every four years, the Commonwealth Transportation Board must develop a long-range,
and Capital Project Selec- multimodal Statewide Transportation Plan (Va. Code §33.2-353). The board works with VDOT, the
tion Process state’s other modal agencies, MPOs, and regional planning organizations to develop the plan, which
expresses the state’s overall vision, goals, and priorities. All other transportation plans and programs
are developed with the Statewide Transportation Plan in mind. The Six-Year Improvement Program,
which details specific projects and investment priorities for highways and transit, is annually updated
by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in collaboration with VDOT and other state, regional,
and local planning partners. In July 2016, pursuant to statutory requirements, the board adopted the
quantifiable, transparent “SMART SCALE” prioritization process for capacity-enhancing projects (Va.
Code §33.2-214; 2014 Va. Acts, Chap. 726). As part of the planning process, the Commonwealth
Transportation Board holds a series of public hearings at which it invites input from its planning part-
ners, elected officials, and the general public. The board approves all final plans.
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. The General Assembly can identify priority projects in the annual appro-
Planning Process priation act, but the vast majority of annual project prioritization and funding decisions remains the
purview of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The General Assembly has set statutory guide-
lines for rail, transit, port, and airport spending, as well as the prioritization process for some highway
projects. Legislators serve on some of the larger MPOs, which play a critical role in determining which
projects advance within their respective areas. The Statewide Transportation Plan is presented to the
General Assembly for review, but not approval. The General Assembly is required to authorize all
debt.

Virginia
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • See notes • Adjusted twice per year based on
gasoline and Pas- average wholesale price, with a
senger
diesel (vari- and price floor of $3.17/gallon for gaso-
able rate— freight line and $3.36/gallon for diesel (the
percentage average prices on Feb. 20, 2013);
of price) allocated in part to the Transpor-
tation Trust Fund (Va. Code §58.1-
2217, §58.1-2289)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • See notes • Includes taxes on liquid and other
alternative Pas- alternative fuels; allocated the same
senger
fuels and way as gasoline and diesel taxes (Va.
freight Code §58.1-2249, §58.1-2289)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Va. Code §5.1-53,
§58.1-2217, §58.1-2289)
Vehicle regis- • • • • Allocated in part to the Highway
tration fees Maintenance and Operating Fund
(Va. Code §§46.2-694 et seq.,
§46.2-702.1)
Truck regis- • • • • Allocated in part to the Highway
tration fees Maintenance and Operating Fund
(based on (Va. Code §46.2-697, §46.2-702.1)
gross vehicle
weight)
Special fees • • • • Allocated to the Highway Main-
on electric tenance and Operating Fund (Va.
vehicles Code §58.1-2249, §33.2-1530)
Sales taxes • • • • • • See notes • Allocated in part to the Transpor-
on motor Pas- tation Trust Fund (Va. Code §58.1-
senger
vehicle sales and 2402, §58.1-2425, §33.2-1530)
freight
Sales taxes • • • • • • See notes • Allocated in part to the Transpor-
on rental Pas- tation Trust Fund and to the Rail
senger
vehicles and Enhancement Fund (Va. Code §58.1-
freight 1736, §58.1-1741; 2015 Va. Acts,
Chap. 684)
Tolls • • • Va. Code §33.2-1529
Oversize/ • • • • Allocated to the Highway Main-

overweight tenance and Operating Fund (Va.
truck permit Code §46.2-652.1, §46.2-1128,
fees §§46.2-1140.1 et seq., §33.2-1530)
Aircraft • • • Va. Code §5.1-5, §5.1-9, §5.1-51
registration
fees

Virginia
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Airport • • • Va. Code §5.1-7, §5.1-9, §5.1-51
licensing fees
Sponsorship, • • Rest area sponsorship program; no

Advertising, authorizing statute found; revenues
and Vending used for rest areas only
Enhance-
ment (SAVE)
Program
State recor- • • • Allocated in part to the Common-
dation taxes wealth Mass Transit Fund and the
Commonwealth Transit Capital Fund
(Va. Code §58.1-815.4)
State general • • • • • • See notes • Portions are dedicated to various
sales taxes Pas- transportation funds (Va. Code
senger
and §58.1-638, §58.1-638.3)
freight
Interest • • • • • • See notes • Transportation Trust Fund (Va. Code
income Pas- §33.2-1524), Intercity Passenger Rail
senger
and Operating and Capital Fund (Va.
freight Code §33.2-1603)
Notes:
• Revenues from high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes and congestion pricing (see Va. Code §§33.2-500 et seq.) currently go
to the private entities that operate those roads under public-private partnerships.
• State revenues that go to the Commonwealth Port Fund in the Transportation Trust Fund for port purposes are set
aside for use by the Virginia Port Authority (Va. Code §58.1-638), which is an instrumentality of the state, not a state
agency.

Virginia

Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation. As of July 1, 2016, fuel tax revenues are allocated to
State Fuel Taxes the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund, the Transportation Trust Fund for multimodal
transportation purposes, the Priority Transportation Fund, the Commonwealth Transit Capi-
tal Fund, the Commonwealth Mass Transit Fund, and a special fund for the expenses of the
Department of Motor Vehicles (Va. Code §58.1-2289). In addition, transportation funding leg-
islation enacted in 2013 requires that any provisions of the act that generate additional revenue
through state taxes or fees, which includes some gas tax provisions, expire at the end of any
year in which any of those revenues are appropriated for or transferred to any non-transporta-
tion-related purpose (2013 Va. Acts, Chap. 766).
Restrictions on Other Transportation funding legislation enacted in 2013 requires that any provisions of the act that
Transportation Revenues generate additional revenue through state taxes or fees, which includes provisions related to
general sales taxes and motor vehicle sales taxes, expire at the end of any year in which any of
those revenues are appropriated for or transferred to any non-transportation-related purpose
(2013 Va. Acts, Chap. 766). State statute restricts the use of revenues from sales and use taxes
on motor vehicles to highways, including traffic regulation (Va. Code §58.1-2425). State statute
directs that taxes on fuels used for boating and aviation are generally to be used for those
modes (Va. Code §58.1-2289), although some revenues from boat fuel taxes are allocated to
roads and bikeways that provide access to public recreational areas and historic sites (Va. Code
§33.2-1510). Toll revenues are deposited into the Toll Facilities Revolving Account within the
Transportation Trust Fund, to be used for toll facilities (Va. Code §33.2-1529). State statute spe-
cifically allows the use of highway funding for public transit assistance (Va. Code §33.2-367).
Dedicated or Restricted By state statute, the Transportation Trust Fund is to be used for highways and other transpor-
Transportation Funds tation purposes, and includes dedicated accounts for transit and rail, aviation, and ports (Va.
Code §33.2-1526 and §58.1-638). State statute allows diversion from the fund by the General
Assembly or the governor in the budget bill, but only if language is included that sets out the
plan for repayment of the funds within three years (Va. Code §2.2-1509.2). State statute dedi-
cates the Priority Transportation Fund to priority transportation projects (Va. Code §33.2-1527).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Revenue • • • • • Authorized in statute for surface
bonds Pas- transportation projects; requires fur-
senger
only ther legislative approval (Va. Code
§§33.2-1700 et seq.)
Build Amer- • • • • Issued in 2010 as capital project
ica Bonds Pas- revenue bonds
senger
only
GARVEE • • • Authorized in state statute, subject
bonds to a $1.2 billion cap set in session
law (Va. Code §§33.2-1511 et seq.;
2005 Va. Acts, Chap. 655); most
ity bonds

Virginia
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
TIFIA
Advance • •
construction
Federal-aid • •
matching:
toll cred-
its (“soft
match”)
Design-build • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for VDOT and
Pas- Department of Rail and Public Tran-
senger
and sit use (Va. Code §33.2-209); used
freight for several projects
Public-private • • • • See • • Authorized in statute for various
partnerships notes transportation modes (Va. Code
§§33.2-1800 et seq.); authorized in
session law for passenger rail (see
notes); used for several projects
State • • Capitalized with Federal funds in
infrastruc- 1996 and 1997 under the NHS Act
ture bank: pilot program; may be used for
Federally highway or transit projects; currently
capitalized inactive (see notes)
State infra- • • • • • • • • Established in 2011; capitalized with
structure Pas- state funds only; may be used for
senger
bank: Vir- and highway, transit, rail, port, airport,
ginia Trans- freight or commercial space flight projects
portation (Va. Code §§33.2-1500 et seq.) (see
Infrastructure notes)
Bank
Notes:
• Session law enacted in 2015 authorizes the Department of Rail and Public Transportation to enter into public-private
partnerships of up to 20 years to improve passenger rail service (2015 Va. Acts, Chap. 684).
• Virginia has two state infrastructure banks: a Federally-capitalized infrastructure bank that was established under the
NHS Act pilot program in the late 1990s and is currently inactive, and the separate, active, state-capitalized Virginia
Transportation Infrastructure Bank, which was enacted into state law in 2011 (2011 Va. Acts, Chap. 830 and 868; Va.
Code §§33.2-1500 et seq.).

Virginia

Restrictions on The General Assembly must authorize all debt. As provided in session law, the current limit on
Finance Mechanisms Capital Projects Revenue Bonds is $3.18 billion total (2007 Va. Acts, Chap. 896; 2010 Va. Acts,
Chap. 874).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. VDOT may retain excess funds with no restrictions. Additional approval, however, is required
Spend Excess Funds to spend excess funds in some cases. Annual amendments to the appropriation act re-appropriate
excess funds, and in some cases residue bond proceeds require additional legislative authorization.
Legislative Actions to State statute requires VDOT to use value engineering for highway projects, including all projects cost-
Control DOT Costs ing more than $5 million, unless a project-specific waiver is granted by the commissioner of highways
(Va. Code §33.2-261).

Allocation of State Statutory formula, legislative appropriations, and grants. VDOT is responsible for most roadways in the state,
Transportation and actively maintains secondary and local roads in all but two counties and the 38 independent cities.
Revenues to Local Virginia does, however, allocate some state funds to local governments for transportation projects. The
Entities Commonwealth Transportation Board makes allocations to eligible counties, cities, and towns for highway
maintenance from overweight permit fees and other state revenues. These funds are distributed by statu-
tory formulas based on lane miles (Va. Code §33.2-319, §33.2-366, §46.2-1140.1, §46.2-1143, §46.2-1148,
and §1149.1). The Revenue Sharing Program, which the Commonwealth Transportation Board funds out of
legislative appropriations, provides state matches for local spending on highway projects. Under this program,
VDOT can award a county, city, or town a discretionary grant of up to $5 million for highway maintenance
and up to $10 million for highway improvement or construction (Va. Code §33.2-357). Virginia also levies
some state taxes and fees specifically for regional transportation projects. These include general sales taxes
and sales taxes on gasoline for the Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads planning districts, and occupancy
taxes and grantor’s fees for Northern Virginia only (Va. Code §58.1-603.1, §58.1-604.01, §58.1-802.2, §58.1-
1742, and §58.1-2295). Transportation funding legislation enacted in 2013 provides that if a county or city
where these taxes and fees are levied uses any of the revenues for non-transportation purposes, it cannot
receive any funding from those sources in the following year (2013 Va. Acts, Chap. 766). Local entities also
receive state aid for access roads to airports, economic development sites, and recreational or historic areas,
within statutory guidelines and subject to funding approvals (Va. Code §§33.2-1509 et seq.).
Local Revenue VDOT maintains most roadways in the state, including secondary roads, and local governments have a limited
Sources Autho- role in paying for transportation infrastructure. In addition, Virginia is a “Dillon Rule” state in which localities
rized in State Law are prohibited from implementing local taxes without express authorization from the General Assembly. State
statute does, however, authorize several local option taxes that can be used for transportation purposes. Ser-
vice districts created by counties, cities, or towns may levy property taxes or special assessments for services
that may include streets and public transit (Va. Code §§15.2-2403 et seq.). Cities and counties served by the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority may assess additional vehicle license taxes for transit
operations (Va. Code §46.2-753). Until Jan. 1, 2018, counties and cities may adopt severance taxes, to be
used primarily for road improvements (Va. Code §58.1-3713). Eligible localities may charge developers impact
fees for development-related road improvements (Va. Code §§15.2-2317 et seq.) and any county, city, or
town may adopt tax increment financing (Va. Code §58.1-3245.2).

Washington

Bridges 7,353
Toll facilities Yes (roads: 28.0 miles; bridges: 4 within state
boundaries, 2 of which are bi-state bridges oper-
ated by the state of Oregon)
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, commuter rail, ferry boat, monorail,
Legislature
Name Washington Legislature
Type Hybrid
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Apr. (odd years), Jan. to Mar. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
tion-Related Issues [Interim] Joint Transportation Committee

Washington
Name Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), Washington State Transportation Commis-
sion (independent body, governor serves ex officio). The Washington State Transportation Commis-
sion is separate from WSDOT, and does not have direct control over the agency. Rather, its role is to
set ferry fares and toll rates, and to develop the four-year policy plan.
Staff Size in Full-Time 6,957.8
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight and passenger rail, aviation, ports/waterways, pedestrian/bicy-
DOT Has Jurisdiction cle, Washington State Ferries. WSDOT has Federal safety oversight responsibility for public transit and
funds some intercity bus service.
Includes DMV? No. The Washington State Department of Licensing performs driver’s licensing and vehicle registration
functions. It is funded by fee revenues, not out of WSDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Washington State Patrol is an independent state agency. It is funded by fees, grants, con-
tracts, and other revenues, not out of WSDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. WSDOT is responsible for designing, constructing, and operating all toll facilities on the state sys-
Toll Facilities? tem. Toll rates, however, are set by the Washington State Transportation Commission. WSDOT is also
responsible for setting the statewide standards and protocols for all toll facilities in the state.
Other
Other State-Level Utilities and Transportation The Utilities and Transportation Commission regulates certain com-
Transportation Entities Commission (state entity) mercial transportation providers including special-needs transportation
providers, moving vans, private ferries, and charter buses (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §§80.01.010 et seq.). WSDOT and the commission are
partner agencies with no direct membership ties.
Washington State Traffic The Washington State Traffic Safety Commission is the state’s highway
Safety Commission (state safety office, and is funded primarily by Federal funds. The secre-
entity) tary of transportation is a statutory member (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§§43.59.010 et seq.).
Freight Mobility Strategic The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board identifies, recom-
Investment Board (state mends, and coordinates funding for freight projects. The secretary
entity) of transportation is a statutory member (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§§47.06a.001 et seq.).
Transportation Improvement The Transportation Improvement Board distributes grant funding,
Board (state entity) which comes from 3 cents of the state fuel tax, to cities and counties
for transportation projects. WSDOT has two statutory seats on the
board (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§47.26.121 et seq.).
County Road Administration The County Road Administration Board is a state agency that provides
Board (state entity) grant funding, technical assistance, and oversight for the state’s 39
county road departments (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§36.78.010 et seq.).
It is funded by a portion of the counties’ fuel tax that is withheld for
state supervision and a portion of the state grant programs that it
administers. WSDOT and the County Road Administration Board are
partner agencies with no direct membership ties.
Board of PIlotage Commis- The Board of PIlotage Commissioners regulates marine pilots. State
sioners (state entity) law places it under the jurisdiction of WSDOT for staff support and
administration, but explicitly retains its independent policy making
powers. WSDOT’s assistant secretary of marine operations is a statutory
member (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.01.031 and §§88.16.010 et seq.).

Washington
Overall Communication Formal and informal, extensive. WSDOT executive management and legislative committee members
and Collaboration interact frequently (daily during the legislative session) about transportation policy and budgetary
matters. This includes regular WSDOT testimony before the Legislature’s transportation committees.
Significant and consistent interaction occurs at the staff level as well. WSDOT’s Intergovernmental and
Tribal Relations Office conducts policy research and analysis, tracks relevant bills, prepares presenta-
tions for legislative bodies, coordinates the agency’s requests for legislation through the governor’s
office, and answers requests for information from legislators and legislative staff.
DOT Legislative Liaison WSDOT’s Intergovernmental and Tribal Relations Office is the main point of contact between the
department and the Legislature. Various WSDOT officials and staff also engage with, and provide
information and testimony to, legislators and legislative staff.
Transportation Laws Wash. Rev. Code Ann. tit. 14, 46, 47, 80, 81, 88, and 91; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§43.146.010 et seq.
and §§43.59.010 et seq.; Wash. Const. art. II, §40 (revenue restrictions); portions of Wash. Rev. Code
Ann. tit. 82 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. Washington executive agencies, including WSDOT, submit
Legislative Process legislative proposals known as “agency request bills” to the governor’s
office for approval. Once a proposal is approved, the agency requests
a legislative bill draft. The agency also must find a legislative sponsor
for each bill, as only legislators can sponsor and introduce legislation
for consideration. Agency request bills indicate after the sponsor’s
name that they are “by request” of the relevant agency.
Advocacy and Lobbying WSDOT advocates for its “agency request bills” and testifies regularly
on other bills that impact the agency to indicate support, express con-
cerns, or provide information.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact WSDOT prepares fiscal notes in coordination with the Office of Finan-
Statements for Legislative Use cial Management. By law, the state Office of Financial Management
must coordinate the development of fiscal notes with all affected state
agencies (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §43.88A.020).
Appointment of The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the
DOT Leadership Senate, and serves at the pleasure of the governor (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.01.041). The seven
voting members of the Washington State Transportation Commission are appointed to up to two
consecutive six-year terms by the governor, with the consent of the Senate and within statutory
requirements for geographic representation. Members should reflect a “wide range of transpor-
tation interests” and cannot otherwise be state officials or employees. The governor or governor’s
designee and the secretary of transportation serve as ex officio, non-voting members (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §47.01.051).
Legislature Able to Once confirmed by the Senate, no. In Washington, the secretary of transportation may start serv-
Remove DOT Leaders? ing upon appointment even without a Senate confirmation vote, unless and until voted down by a
majority vote of the Senate. (An example of the secretary of transportation being removed in this
way took place during the 2016 legislative session.) However, a secretary that has been confirmed
by a majority vote of the Senate may then only be removed at the governor’s pleasure. The same
general rule applies to members of the Washington State Transportation Commission, except that
a commissioner that has been confirmed by the Senate may only be removed by the governor for
cause.

Washington
Legislative Review of Yes (optional). The Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee selectively reviews proposed
Administrative Rules and existing rules. In general, the committee reviews only those rules that raise a question about
whether they follow legislative intent. The role of the committee is mainly advisory (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §§34.05.610 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee conducts performance
or Sunset Reviews audits of WSDOT. The state conducts sunset reviews, but not of WSDOT.
Required DOT Reports WSDOT is required to submit many legislatively mandated studies and reports. In addition to
to the Legislature ongoing statutory reports, WSDOT is also often directed to submit various reports to the Legisla-
ture by the biennial state transportation budget. WSDOT must submit a comprehensive biennial
report that includes operational and construction activities in the previous biennium and recom-
mendations for future operations (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.01.141). As of Oct. 1, 2016, WSDOT
also must submit a biennial attainment report to assess progress toward transportation policy
goals and objectives (2016 Wash. Laws, Chap. 35). Other required biennial reports concern small
business participation (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §43.19.727) and commute trip reduction (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §70.94.551). Required annual reports concern the Freight Rail Investment Bank (2015
Wash. Laws, Chap. 10 [1st Spec. Sess.]), public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects (2015 Wash.
Laws, Chap. 43 [3rd Spec. Sess.]), public transit systems (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §35.58.2796),
toll nonpayment adjudication (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §46.63.160), highway construction work-
force development (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.01.435), local permit applications that take more
than 90 days (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.01.485), reimbursable expenditures (Wash. Rev. Code
Ann. §47.04.210), the miscellaneous transportation programs account (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§47.04.220), progress on the state public transportation plan (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.06.110),
the SR167 high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane pilot project (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.56.403),
Interstate 405 express toll lanes (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.56.880), ferry system performance
(Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.64.360), rural mobility grants (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.66.100),
transit coordination grants (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.66.110), regional mobility grants (Wash.
Rev. Code Ann. §47.66.030), and, from 2017 to 2020, use of recycled materials (Wash. Rev. Code
Ann. §70.95.807). WSDOT must also submit periodic reports on highway classification (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §47.05.021) and ferry fuel cost reduction (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.60.830); quarterly
reports on various aspects of toll operations and penalties (2015 Wash. Laws, Chap. 10 [1st Spec.
Sess.]); and semi-annual reports on Connecting Washington project savings (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§47.01.480). The secretary of transportation must submit an annual report concerning private
contracting (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.28.251).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, the Legislature
Performance Management established performance measurement requirements for all state agencies (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§43.17.385 and §43.17.390), including that state agencies must include performance measures in
their biennial budget requests (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §43.88.030 and §43.88.090). The Legisla-
ture also created six overall state transportation policy goals in state statute. The Office of Financial
Management, in consultation with the Washington State Transportation Commission, oversees the
establishment of objectives and performance measures for each state transportation agency based
on the statutory policy goals (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.04.280) and is required to submit a bien-
nial “attainment report” measuring statewide progress toward those goals (2016 Wash. Laws,
Chap. 35). Although not required, WSDOT also produces its own performance publications that
are tied to the statutory goals, such as the Gray Notebook and the Corridor Capacity Report,
and provides them to the Legislature.

Washington
Other Legislative Oversight The State Auditor’s Office in the executive branch conducts financial and performance audits of
Mechanisms WSDOT, and must submit them to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee and other
appropriate legislative committees (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §46.68.290). By law, the relevant
legislative body must hold a public hearing to consider the findings of each performance audit
conducted by the State Auditor’s Office (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §43.09.470). Other legislative
committees may ask for presentations of the State Auditor’s performance audit results as well.
Legislative members and staff also at times ask for copies of audits performed by WSDOT’s Internal
Audit Office. In addition, the interim Joint Transportation Committee performs a number of studies
and evaluations of WSDOT expenditures and activities between legislative sessions. In 2015, for
example, the Legislature directed the committee to study WSDOT’s implementation of design-build
project delivery and weigh stations. The committee also chose to review several other transporta-
tion topics during the interim. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative requests for informa-
tion from WSDOT, as well as committee work sessions on particular projects and programs during
the legislative session.
Resources Provided to DOT Yes. Some funds have been allocated to WSDOT to support its compliance with legislative over-
to Support Compliance with sight requirements. Many reports are required to be completed within existing agency resources.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of one 24-month budget; fiscal year begins July 1. Supplemental transportation
ations Overview budgets frequently are enacted in each of the two years following the adoption of the biennial bud-
get to account for technical and workload updates, make corrections, or address emerging issues.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. Federal transportation funds are mostly allo-
tion Revenues to the DOT cated to WSDOT as state legislative appropriations to departmental programs
or broad spending categories. Some funds flow directly to WSDOT from the
U.S. DOT with no state legislative involvement. Legislative staff must review, but
need not approve, any Federal funding that is received for operating purposes
outside of existing appropriations.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. State transportation funds are allocated to WSDOT as
legislative appropriations to departmental programs and broad spending cate-
gories, and as project-specific earmarks.

Washington
Most Recently Enacted Biennial budget, 2015–17 fiscal biennium (enacted and revised by a supplemental budget)
Authorized Expenditures Aviation $12,788,000
(2015–17 biennium total) Charges from other agencies $78,281,000
Economic partnerships $1,600,000
Facilities $49,962,000
Improvements $2,450,660,000
Local programs $140,030,000
Marine $484,348,000
Preservation $678,552,000
Program delivery management and support $54,661,000
Rail $597,553,000
Toll operations and maintenance $90,920,000
Traffic operations $74,909,000
Transportation management and support $31,961,000
Transportation planning, data, and research $52,630,000
Washington State Ferries $406,035,000
Total $5,884,140,000
Revenue Sources State appropriations $4,060,146,000
(2015–17 biennium total) Federal appropriations $1,633,819,000
Private/local appropriations $190,175,000
Total $5,884,140,000
Note: Washington’s transportation budget bill makes appropriations to many state agencies including WSDOT, the Washing-
ton State Patrol, the Department of Licensing, the Washington State Transportation Commission, and others. This chart shows
the budget for WSDOT only.

Transportation Planning In general, the Washington State Transportation Commission conducts statewide and long-range
and Capital Project Selec- planning activities (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.01.071), while WSDOT is charged with project identi-
tion Process fication and prioritization. WSDOT takes the lead in developing the state’s several modal plans and
the annually updated four-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The governor’s
office also plays a significant role in identifying, selecting, and prioritizing projects through the budget
process. MPOs, transit agencies, port authorities and local governments are solely responsible for local
programming, but play only a minor role in state projects, mainly through lobbying. The Legislature
approves the budget and also selects, approves, and funds specific projects.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The Legislature approves the overall WSDOT budget and regularly ear-
Planning Process marks Federal and state funds for specific projects. The Legislature must authorize any bond financing
in legislation that identifies the projects for which the bonds can be used. WSDOT sometimes seeks
input from legislative transportation committee chairs about how to allocate certain Federal funds for
capital purposes.

Washington
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • See notes As of July 1, 2016, allocated to the
gasoline and Motor Vehicle Fund, Connecting
diesel (fixed Washington Account, and Transpor-
rate) tation Partnership Account; includes
use for ferries (see note) (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §46.68.090, §82.36.020,
§82.38.030)
Fuel taxes: • • • See notes Includes taxes on gaseous and liquid
alternative alternative fuels; allocated the same
fuels way as gasoline and diesel taxes
(Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §46.68.090,
§82.38.030)
aviation fuels and jet fuel; used for aviation only
(Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §82.42.020,
§82.42.090)
Vehicle reg- • • • See notes Allocated to the Motor Vehicle
istration and Fund, Transportation 2003 Account,
license fees and Transportation Partnership
Account; includes use for ferries and
highway patrol (Wash. Rev. Code
Ann. §46.68.030, §46.68.035)
Vehicle title • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Motor Vehicle Fund,
fees Pas- Multimodal Transportation Account,
senger
and and Transportation 2003 Account;
freight includes use for ferries (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §46.68.020).
Vehicle • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Multimodal Trans-
weight fees Pas- portation Account; includes use
senger
(passenger and for ferries (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
vehicles, freight §46.17.365, §46.68.415)
motor
homes)
License plate • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Multimodal Trans-
retention Pas- portation Account; includes use
senger
fees and for ferries (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
freight §46.17.200)
Special fees • • • • • • • • Allocated to the Motor Vehicle Fund,
on electric Pas- Multimodal Transportation Account,
senger
vehicles and and other accounts; includes use
freight for ferries (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§46.17.323)
Sales taxes • • • • • • • • Allocated in part to the Multimodal
on motor Pas- Transportation Account; includes
senger
vehicle sales and use for ferries (Wash. Rev. Code
and rental freight Ann. §82.08.020)
vehicles

Washington
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Truck regis- • • • See notes Allocated to the Motor Vehicle
tration fees Fund, Transportation 2003 Account,
(based on and Transportation Partnership
gross vehicle Account: includes use for ferries and
weight) highway patrol (Wash. Rev. Code
Ann. §46.17.355, §46.68.035)
Tolls • • • Revenues used for toll facilities;
See notes (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§47.56.820)
Studded tire • • • See notes Aside from a portion retained by the
fees seller, fee revenues go to the Motor
Vehicle Fund (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§46.37.427)
Congestion • • • Includes congestion variable tolling
pricing/vari- on SR 167 and I-405 HOT lanes,
able tolling/ and time-variable tolling on SR
high-occu- 520 bridge (Wash. Rev. Code
pancy toll Ann. §47.56.403, §47.56.870,
(HOT) lanes §47.56.880)
Property • • • Allocated to the Motor Vehicle Fund
sales (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.12.063,
§47.12.283)
Aircraft • • • Used for aviation only (Wash. Rev.
excise taxes Code Ann. §§82.48.010 et seq.)

dealer license Code Ann. §§14.20.010 et seq.)
fees
registration Code Ann. §47.68.250)
fees
Ferry fares • • See Used for ferries only (see notes)
and sur- notes (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.60.315,
charges §47.60.530)
Interest • • • • • • • • Various funds and accounts, includ-
income Pas- ing the Motor Vehicle Fund and the
senger
and Multimodal Transportation Account
freight (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §43.84.092)
Notes:

• Washington state ferries are considered part of the state highway system.
Washington
• The Motor Vehicle Fund may be used for pedestrian, equestrian, or bicycle projects, but only when mitigating the im-
pacts of a highway project (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.30.030).
• Only the Legislature may authorize the imposition of tolls on eligible toll facilities (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§47.56.820).
• The state does not directly participate in transit, but makes grants to local entities and provides coordination.

Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution restricts the use of excise taxes on
State Fuel Taxes motor vehicle fuel to highway purposes, including public highways, county roads, bridges, city
streets, traffic signs and signals, state policing of public highways, and ferries that are part of a
highway, road, or street (Wash. Const. art. II, §40). In Washington, state ferries are considered
part of the state highway system.
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle license fees to highway purposes, including
Transportation Revenues public highways, county roads, bridges, city streets, traffic signs and signals, state policing of
public highways, and ferries that are part of a highway, road, or street. This restriction does
not include driver’s license fees, any vehicle tax that is imposed in lieu of property tax, titling
fees, or taxes not levied primarily for highway purposes (Wash. Const. art. II, §40). State
statute requires vehicle weight fees to be used for transportation purposes (Wash. Rev. Code
Ann. §46.68.415), ferry fares, for ferries (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.60.530), and tolls, for the
toll facility (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.56.820). Aviation fuel taxes and other aviation-related
revenues are directed to the Aeronautics Account, to be used for aviation purposes (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §14.20.060., §47.68.250, §82.42.090, and §82.48.080). Only the Legislature may
authorize the imposition of tolls on eligible toll facilities, or the use of fees or tolls on public-pri-
vate partnership projects (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.56.820).
Dedicated or Restricted By state statute, the Motor Vehicle Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other highway-dedi-
Transportation Funds cated revenues, is to be used for road, street, and highway purposes (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§46.68.070). The fund can also be used for pedestrian, equestrian, or bicycle projects, but only
when mitigating the impacts of a highway project (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.30.030). Within
the fund are the Transportation 2003 (Nickel) Account, the Transportation Partnership
Account, and the Connecting Washington Account, which are set aside for projects that were
identified and funded by legislative packages in 2003, 2005, and 2015, respectively (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §47.10.863, §47.10.875, and §46.68.395). The Multimodal Transportation Fund (for-
merly the Transportation Fund) is a separate fund that is dedicated to transportation purposes
(Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §82.44.180) and has been used for highways, transit, aviation, and rail.
The fund includes the Multimodal Transportation Account.

Washington
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.10.812,
obligation Pas- §47.10.843, §47.10.861, §47.10.867,
senger
bonds and §47.10.873, §47.10.879, §47.10.889
freight
Build Amer- • • • Issued by the state in 2009 and
ica Bonds 2010 for highway projects
GARVEE • • • Most recently issued in 2013 for a
bonds public bridge project; also autho-
rized in state statute for public-pri-
vate partnerships, with further
legislative approval required (Wash.
Rev. Code Ann. §47.29.060)
Federal credit See notes • • Active loan(s), used for a highway
assistance: project; authorized in state stat-
TIFIA ute for public-private partnerships
(Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.29.060)
(see notes)
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized for highway projects
over $2 million (Wash. Rev. Code
Ann. §§47.20.780 et seq.) and
auto ferries (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§§47.60.810 et seq.); used for sev-
eral projects
Public-private • • • • • • • Authorized in statute for any trans-
partnerships Pas- portation mode; legislative approval
senger
and required for the use of tolls (Wash.
freight Rev. Code Ann. §§47.29.010 et
seq.); not currently in use
State infra- • • • • Capitalized with Federal funds;
structure may be used for highway or transit
bank projects (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§§82.44.190 et seq.)
Freight Rail • • • Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.76.250;
Investment Freight state-capitalized at a rate of $2.5
only
Bank million per year; to date, the rail
bank has been used more than the
state infrastructure bank

Notes:
Washington
• Washington statute only explicitly authorizes the use of Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA) credit assistance for public-private partnerships (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.29.060). The state’s one use
of TIFIA so far, however, has been a direct loan for the State Route (SR) 520 bridge project, which is not a public-pri-
vate partnership. The TIFIA loan is considered to have been authorized under statutes that authorize general obliga-
tion bonds for SR 520, payable first from tolls (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.10.879 and §47.10.883), as it too is being
reimbursed by toll revenues.

Restrictions on General obligation bonds must be used for the projects for which they were authorized by
Finance Mechanisms the Legislature. Legislative approval is also required to use GARVEE bonds for a public-private
partnership project (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.29.060). Use of design-build for highways is
limited to projects over $2 million (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.20.780).

DOT Able to Retain and No. WSDOT is not authorized to retain unspent appropriation authority or excess funds. Unspent
Spend Excess Funds appropriations revert to the fund from which they were appropriated and become part of the fund’s
balance for the next fiscal biennium. WSDOT must seek new expenditure authority for unfinished
projects or activities. Excess funds must be re-appropriated to be spent.
Legislative Approval No. WSDOT may shift funding between earmarked projects with approval from the governor’s
Required for DOT to Move budget office. This process includes review by legislative staff. Also, under the biennial transportation
Funds Between Projects appropriations bill, the state’s director of financial management can authorize a transfer of appropria-
tion authority between projects that are funded with Transportation 2003 Account or Transportation
Partnership Account appropriations, if the transfer does not exceed $250,000 or 10 percent of the
total project cost. These transfers must be reported to the Legislature (2016 Wash. Laws, Chap. 14).
Legislative Actions to State statute contains applicable provisions concerning construction contracts, including low-bid
Control DOT Costs requirements (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §47.28.090).

Washington
Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. Counties and municipalities receive statutory
Transportation allocations from state fuel tax revenues and the Motor Vehicle Fund for highway uses, and from the Multi-
Revenues to Local modal Transportation Account for transportation uses generally. After set-asides, the allocations for counties
Entities are distributed among them by a statutory formula based on population, road costs, and need (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §§46.68.120 et seq.). Most of the funds for cities and towns are distributed among them based on
population (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §46.68.110). Further portions of state fuel taxes are set aside for county
ferries and urban, county, and rural arterials (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §46.68.090, §§47.26.086 et seq., and
§47.56.725). In addition, WSDOT awards discretionary grants to cost-effective local projects that improve
regional mobility (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §46.68.320 and §47.66.030) and rural transit projects (Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. §46.68.325 and §47.66.100). Both grant programs receive statutory allocations from the Multi-
modal Transportation Account. WSDOT also can award grants to municipalities for airport projects (Wash.
Rev. Code Ann. §47.68.090) and to local governments for complete streets projects (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§47.04.320) out of legislative appropriations made for those purposes.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes a wide range of local option revenue sources for transportation purposes. Counties
Sources Autho- and border area cities may adopt local option fuel taxes for highway uses (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §82.47.020
rized in State Law and §82.80.010). Property taxes may be assessed by a variety of special districts, including county road dis-
tricts (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §36.54.130, §36.60.040, §36.73.060, §36.83.030, and §84.52.043). Transpor-
tation benefit districts may impose tolls, although tolls on state routes must be authorized by the Legislature
(Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §36.73.040). A number of local sales taxes are authorized for public transit and other
transportation-related uses (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §81.100.060, §81.104.160, §81.104.170, §82.14.045,
§82.14.370, and §82.14.445). Eligible counties, regional transportation investment districts, and public
transportation benefit areas with passenger-only ferry service may assess motor vehicle excise taxes (Wash.
Rev. Code Ann. §81.100.060 and §82.80.130). Transportation benefit districts may impose annual vehicle fees
(Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §82.80.140) and regional transportation investment districts may assess local option
vehicle license fees (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §82.80.100). Counties and cities may levy real estate transfer
taxes for capital projects that may include roads and bridges (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §82.46.010). Coun-
ties, cities, regional transportation investment districts, and passenger-only ferry service districts may assess
commercial parking taxes for transportation uses (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§82.80.030 et seq.). Municipalities
and county road improvement districts may levy special assessments (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §35.43.040
and §36.88.010). Employer taxes may be imposed by certain counties and other entities for high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes, and by cities and other entities for high-capacity public transit (Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§81.100.030 and §81.104.150). County transportation authorities, public transportation benefit area author-
ities, and other entities may assess business and occupation taxes (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §35.95.040). Local
governments may charge developers impact fees to pay for development-related transportation improve-
ments (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §39.92.040 and §§82.02.050 et seq.).

West Virginia

Bridges 7,215
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, automated guideway, demand response
Legislature
Name West Virginia Legislature
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
diction Over Transporta- House Committee on Roads and Transportation
tion-Related Issues [Interim] Joint Committee on Government and Finance
[Interim/Select] Joint Interim Select Committee on Infrastructure
[Interim/Commission] Joint Legislative Oversight Commission on Department of Transportation
Accountability

West Virginia
Name West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT)

Leadership Secretary of Transportation (serves on governor’s cabinet), Commissioner of Highways (WVDOT Divi-
sion of Highways only)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? Yes. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of WVDOT and is funded by the State Road Fund and
Federal funds as part of WVDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The West Virginia State Police, an independent state agency, carries out highway patrol functions.
It is funded by general funds.
Jurisdiction Over Yes. The West Virginia Parkways Authority, which operates the state’s toll roads, is a component unit
Toll Facilities? both of the state of West Virginia and of WVDOT. The secretary of transportation or designee is a
statutory member of the authority (W. Va. Code §17-16A-3).
Other
Other State-Level None. West Virginia has no state-level entities outside of WVDOT and (for highway patrol
Transportation Entities functions) the West Virginia State Police. The Division of Highways, Division of Public Tran-
sit, West Virginia Aeronautics Commission, West Virginia Parkways Authority, West Virginia
Public Port Authority, and State Rail Authority are all contained within WVDOT.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through leadership. Communication between the Legislature and
and Collaboration WVDOT is generally through upper management, with all written correspondence signed by the
commissioner of highways or the assistant commissioner. During the legislative session, communica-
tion is generally through the state highway engineer, the commissioner of highways, and the assistant
commissioner. WVDOT’s Office of Communications responds to legislative requests for information.
DOT Legislative Liaison WVDOT officials, including the commissioner of highways and the assistant commissioner, are the
main point of contact between the department and the Legislature. WVDOT has no dedicated legisla-
tive liaison or governmental affairs office.
Transportation Laws W. Va. Code ch. 17 to 17F and 24A; W. Va. Const. art. VI, §52 (revenue restrictions); portions of W. Va.
Code ch. 11 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. WVDOT drafts bills for consideration by the Legislature,
Legislative Process but only legislators can request legislative bill drafts and sponsor and
introduce legislation. A legislative sponsor may identify a bill as being
introduced “by request” of a state agency.
Advocacy and Lobbying When the Division of Highways does not support a piece of legislation,
it informs the full committee, the committee chair, or the sponsor and
offers to assist with rewrites.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact Legislative rules require the preparation of a fiscal note prior to legisla-
Statements for Legislative Use tive consideration of a bill with fiscal impacts. These fiscal notes must
be obtained by the legislative sponsor, and are typically prepared by
executive branch agencies, including WVDOT.

West Virginia
Appointment of The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Sen-
DOT Leadership ate (W. Va. Code §5F-1-2). The commissioner of highways is appointed by the governor, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, within broad statutory guidelines for experience and qualifica-
tions (W. Va. Code §17-2A-2).
Legislature Able to No. The secretary of transportation serves at the will and pleasure of the governor. The governor has
Remove DOT Leaders? the power to remove any officer the governor appoints, including the commissioner of highways, for
cause (W. Va. Const. art. VII, §10).
Legislative Review of Yes. The joint Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee reviews all proposed rules. The committee’s
Administrative Rules role is mainly advisory (W. Va. Code §§29A-3-1 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. WVDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Legislative Auditor’s Office,
or Sunset Reviews including financial audits and periodic performance reviews. In addition, state law requires indepen-
dent annual financial audits of the Commission of Highways and the Industrial Access Road Fund, to
be conducted under the oversight of the Joint Committee on Government and Finance (W. Va. Code
§17-3-1a and §17-3A-6). In 2015, the Legislature also mandated a special independent performance
audit of WVDOT’s Division of Highways, to be performed under the oversight of the legislative Joint
Committee on Government and Finance (W. Va. Code §17-2A-6a). The state conducts sunset reviews,
but not of WVDOT.
Required DOT Reports The commissioner of highways must submit annual reports to the Legislature concerning the depart-
to the Legislature ment’s activities and accomplishments, alternative road funding models and any legislative recom-
mendations (W. Va. Code §17-28-4), and highway design-build projects (W. Va. Code §17-2D-5).
Other entities within WVDOT that must submit annual reports to the Legislature include the Complete
Streets Advisory Board, on the Division of Highway’s implementation of the complete streets program
(W. Va. Code §17-4A-3); the Public Port Authority, on the statewide tourist intermodal transportation
system and the authority’s activities (W. Va. Code §17-16B-6); the Division of Public Transit, on the
safety of the state’s rail fixed guideway transportation systems (W. Va. Code §17-16E-3); the com-
missioner of motor vehicles, on Class G licenses (W. Va. Code §17B-2B-9) and the ignition interlock
program (W. Va. Code §17C-5A-3a); and the chief hearing examiner of the Office of Administrative
Hearings, on the office’s activities (W. Va. Code §17C-5C-2).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, every state agency must
Performance Manage- undergo regular legislative performance reviews, after which the Legislature may vote on whether the
ment agency should be continued, consolidated, or terminated (W. Va. Code §§4-10-1 et seq.). This is not
a true sunset, because the agency is not automatically terminated if there is no action of the Legisla-
ture. WVDOT is next scheduled for review in 2020.
Other Legislative Over- Interim committees are assigned topics to study between legislative sessions. In 2015, for example,
sight Mechanisms the Joint Standing Committee on Finance studied highway and bridge revenue sources. Other over-
sight mechanisms include legislative requests for information from WVDOT.
DOT to Support Com-
Requirements?

West Virginia

ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. In general, Federal transportation funds are allocated
tion Revenues to the DOT to WVDOT as a lump sum appropriation to the department. In some cases, the
Legislature may designate specific projects, or indicate a project as a line item,
in the budget bill.
generally allocated to WVDOT as a lump sum, with appropriations made to
specific designations or line items.

Authorized Expenditures State Rail Authority $2,113,694
Division of Public Transit $17,894,318
Aeronautics Commission $1,084,022
Division of Motor Vehicles $69,113,774
Division of Highways $1,209,076,000
Office of Administrative Hearings $1,951,979
Public Port Authority $4,626,250
Claims against the state $983,485
Total $1,306,843,522
Revenue Sources General revenue $5,498,334
State Road Fund $1,255,390,193
Total $1,306,843,522

Transportation Planning WVDOT is primarily responsible for creating the statewide, long-term transportation plan. WVDOT
and Capital Project Selec- works with MPOs to identify projects and programs, as funding allows. MPOs provide and approve
tion Process projects for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), with the governor’s office
providing input when appropriate. A public comment period is provided for each project. WVDOT has
final approval of the state’s transportation plans.
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. The Legislature’s input is received in the public comment process, and mem-
Planning Process bers are provided with lists of projects scheduled in their districts. The Legislature appropriates the
State Road Fund in the annual budget, but appropriations are generally based on revenue estimates
for the budget year rather than on project priorities. In some cases, the Legislature may designate
specific projects, or indicate a project as a line item, in the budget bill.

West Virginia
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes a fixed-rate component
gasoline and and a variable component that is
diesel (fixed annually adjusted based on average
rate and vari- wholesale price, with a price floor of
able rate— $2.34/gallon; the price cannot vary
percentage more than 10 percent per year (W.
of price) Va. Code §11-14C-5)
Fuel taxes: • • • Includes taxes on gaseous and liquid
alternative alternative fuels; assessed the same
fuels (fixed way as gasoline and diesel taxes (W.
rate and vari- Va. Code §11-14C-2, §11-14C-5)
able rate—
percentage
of price)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (W. Va. Code §11-15-
18b)
Vehicle reg- • • • W. Va. Code §17A-3-4, §§17A-10-1
istration and et seq.
title fees
Truck regis- • • • W. Va. Code §17A-10-3
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)
Oversize/ • • • Includes permit fees for any oversize
overweight or overweight trucks and special
truck permit permit fees for overweight coal
fees trucks (W. Va. Code §17C-17-11,
§17C-17A-5, §17C-17A-13)
Sales taxes • • • W. Va. Code §11-15-3c
on motor
vehicle sales,
leases, and
rentals
Tolls • • • Used by West Virginia Parkways
Authority (W. Va. Code §§17-16a-1
et seq.)
General • • • • • Legislative appropriations in the
funds Pas- annual budget bill for public transit,
senger
and rail, aviation, and ports
freight

West Virginia
Restrictions on Constitutional, roads and bridges. The state constitution dedicates gasoline and other motor
State Fuel Taxes fuel excise and license taxes, and all other revenues derived from motor fuels, to public high-
ways, including debt (W. Va. Const. art. VI, §52).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution dedicates vehicle registration and license taxes and all other vehicle-re-
Transportation Revenues lated revenues to public highways, including debt (W. Va. Const. art. VI, §52). State statute
dedicates aviation fuel taxes to providing the match for Federal funds for airport projects (W.
Va. Code §11-15-18b).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute restricts the use of the State Road Fund, which receives fuel tax and vehicle-re-
Transportation Funds lated revenues, to state roads, related debt, and administrative costs of the WVDOT Division of
Highways (called the “road department” in statute) (W. Va. Code §17-3-1).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • Authorized by constitutional amend-
obligation ments (e.g., W. Va. Const. amend.
bonds 16, the “Safe Roads Amendment of
1996”)
GARVEE See notes • • Most recently issued in 2009
bonds
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • Authorized for highway and bridge
projects; use is capped at $50
million per year or, if funds are
rolled over from previous years,
$150 million per year (W. Va. Code
§§17-2D-1 et seq.); used for several
projects
Public-private • • • • • Authorized in statute for roads,
partnerships bridges, ports, and airports (W. Va.
Code §§17-27-1 et seq.); used for a
road project (see notes)
State infra- • • • Established in 2015 (W. Va. Code
structure §§17-17b-1 et seq.; 2015 W. Va.
bank Acts, Chap. 213); may be used for
highway or transit projects; not yet
capitalized or active
Notes:

West Virginia
• The Division of Highways issues GARVEE bonds under the authority of a constitutional amendment that authorizes
up to $200 million in revenue bonds (W. Va. Const. amend. 8, the “Better Roads Amendment”).
• In the mid-2000s, West Virginia began a public-private project for the King Coal Highway under a special negotiated
agreement by which some highway construction is done by local mining companies as they extract coal nearby. The
project was authorized in part by project-specific legislation that created the King Coal Highway Authority (1999 W.
Va. Acts, Chap. 299) and urged the project’s acceleration (1999 W. Va. House Concurrent Resolution 7). The state’s
current authorizing statutes for public-private partnerships were enacted in 2008.
• As of March 2016, West Virginia was in the loan pipeline for Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Inno-
vation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance.

Restrictions on Bonding, including GARVEE bonding, is limited to the amounts authorized by amendments to
Finance Mechanisms the state constitution (e.g., W. Va. Const. amend. 16, the “Safe Roads Amendment of 1996”).
Use of design-build for highway and bridge projects is capped at $50 million per year or, if funds
are rolled over from previous years, $150 million per year (W. Va. Code §§17-2D-1 et seq.).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Surplus funds are retained by WVDOT in the State Road Fund without restrictions at the end of
Spend Excess Funds the fiscal year. However, WVDOT must adhere to spending only the appropriated amounts established
for each specific line. Thus, in order for surplus funds to be spent beyond an existing appropriation for
any line, WVDOT must request additional spending authority from the Legislature.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. Legislative approval is required for transfers between line items of appropriations. Other
Required for DOT to Move amendments to WVDOT’s expenditure schedule must be approved by the secretary of revenue and
Funds Between Projects reported to the Legislative Auditor’s Office (W. Va. Code §11B-2-13 and §11B-2-17).
Legislative Actions to State law contains low-bid requirements for highway construction contracts (W. Va. Code §17-4-19),
Control DOT Costs public-private transportation facilities (W. Va. Code §17-27-16), and some projects of the State Rail
Authority (W. Va. Code §29-18-6).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas and grants. The commissioner of highways, at his discretion, allocates to counties a por-
Transportation tion of the revenues deposited into the State Road Fund from state motor fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees,
Revenues to Local motor carrier road tax, and other sources. Funds are first distributed to counties for local road maintenance by
Entities a statutory formula based on paved, unpaved, and dirt road miles. Funds are then distributed for local road
construction based on unimproved road miles. In addition, the commissioner can use state funds for local
road projects on a matching fund basis, and can determine at his discretion the required local match (W. Va.
Code §§17-3-6 et seq.).
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to adopt property taxes on property outside of municipalities for the benefit
Sources Autho- of roads in those areas (W. Va. Code §17-10-23). Counties may also charge developers impact fees to pay for
rized in State Law development-related capital improvements (W. Va. Code §§7-20-1 et seq.).

Wisconsin

Bridges 14,116
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, light rail, streetcar, vanpool, demand
response
Legislature
Name Wisconsin Legislature
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Transportation and Veterans Affairs
diction Over Transporta- Assembly Committee on Transportation
tion-Related Issues [Commission] Transportation Projects Commission
The Legislative Council regularly creates special study committees, but none are currently studying
transportation topics.

Wisconsin
Name Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Includes DMV? Yes. The Division of Motor Vehicles is a division of WisDOT. It is funded by the Transportation Fund,
specific user fee revenues, and Federal funds as part of WisDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes. The Wisconsin State Patrol is a division of WisDOT. It is funded by the Transportation Fund, spe-
cific user fee revenues, and Federal funds as part of WisDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over No. Wisconsin has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Office of the Commis- The Office of the Commissioner of Railroads is the state agency with primary
Transportation Entities sioner of Railroads (state responsibility for making determinations of the adequacy of warning devices
agency) at railroad crossings, along with other regulations related to railroads and
water carriers. It is administratively attached to the Public Service Commis-
sion, except that WisDOT processes its budget requests, and its administra-
tive costs are covered by railroad assessments (Wis. Stat. Ann. §§189.01 et
seq., §15.03, §15.795, and §195.60). WisDOT coordinates with the office on
railroad crossings and highway projects.

Overall Communication Formal and informal, mainly through dedicated liaisons. WisDOT’s assistant deputy secretary and
and Collaboration legislative advisor in the Office of the Secretary oversee and manage the department’s legislative
activities and relationships. The role includes providing testimony at legislative hearings, interacting
regularly with legislators, and reviewing pending legislation. Other WisDOT staff members, especially
in the regional offices, often meet with local legislators over the course of the year.
DOT Legislative Liaison The assistant deputy secretary and legislative advisor in WisDOT’s Office of the Secretary are the main
points of contact between the department and the Legislature.
Transportation Laws Wis. Stat. Ann. §§15.46 et seq.; Wis. Stat. Ann. §13.489; Wis. Stat. Ann. ch. 80 to 86, 110, 114, 189
to 195, 237, and 340 to 351; Wis. Stat. Ann. §§25.40 et seq. (funds); Wis. Const. art. VIII, §11 (revenue
restrictions); Wis. Stat. Ann. ch. 78 and portions of ch. 76 and 77 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Occasional role. State agencies including WisDOT may request legisla-
Legislative Process tive bill drafts, but all bills must be formally sponsored and introduced
by a legislator or legislative committee.
Advocacy and Lobbying WisDOT staff regularly testify at hearings and committee meetings on
legislation affecting the department, and can influence transporta-
tion-related legislation through the biennial budget process.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact WisDOT typically develops both policy and fiscal notes on relevant
Statements for Legislative Use pending legislation.

Wisconsin
Appointment of The secretary of transportation is appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the
DOT Leadership Senate (Wis. Stat. Ann. §15.05).
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of Yes. All proposed rules are reviewed first by the Legislative Council. After a process that includes a
Administrative Rules public hearing, drafting of the final rule, and approval of the final rule by the governor, the agency
then delivers the final rule to the Legislature for review by the relevant standing committees. If a
standing committee objects to a rule, it sends it to the Joint Committee for Review of Administra-
tive Rules which, if it agrees, introduces a bill to veto the rule. Otherwise, if no committee action
is taken, the agency certifies the final rule and submits it to the Legislative Reference Bureau for
publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register. A final rule is effective on the first day of the
month commencing after the date of publication. The joint committee may also review and sus-
pend existing rules (Wis. Stat. Ann. §§227.10 et seq.; see also Wis. Exec. Order No. 2011-50).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. WisDOT is subject to annual financial audits and periodic programmatic
or Sunset Reviews audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Bureau. Wisconsin does not conduct sunset reviews of
state agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports Each secretary of a state agency (including WisDOT) is required to submit to the Legislature a
to the Legislature biennial report on the agency’s performance and operations during the previous biennium, and
its goals and objectives as developed for the program budget report (Wis. Stat. Ann. §15.04).
The secretary of transportation must also submit biennial reports concerning the comprehensive
highway safety program (Wis. Stat. Ann. §85.07). WisDOT must submit a report every six months
on major highway projects (Wis. Stat. Ann. §13.489), annual reports concerning economic devel-
opment programs (Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.01) and, until 2019, traffic signals and intelligent transpor-
tation programs (Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.06), and biennial inventories of surplus land (Wis. Stat. Ann.
§84.09). WisDOT must submit a joint annual report with the Department of Justice concerning
access to driver’s license and ID photos (Wis. Stat. Ann. §343.237). The legislative Joint Committee
on Finance has also directed WisDOT to report on the status of the Highway Maintenance Program
(Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.07) twice per year.
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, WisDOT reports on its
Performance Management performance goals, objectives, measures, and progress to the Department of Administration, for
consideration by the Office of the Governor, as part of its biennial budget request. This infor-
mation is then passed on to the General Assembly for consideration in the budget process.
Other Legislative Oversight WisDOT is required to prepare reports to accompany bills that would create exceptions to vehicle
Mechanisms weight limits (Wis. Stat. Ann. §13.096) or revoke a person’s driving privileges upon conviction
for an offense (Wis. Stat. Ann. §13.0965). These reports are distributed in the same way as bill
amendments. In addition, the Joint Committee on Finance, which takes up all budget items in the
Wisconsin Legislature, has its own budget staff that regularly asks questions of WisDOT through-
out the year. Other oversight mechanisms include other legislative requests for information from
WisDOT.
Resources Provided to DOT Yes. Funds have been allocated to WisDOT to support its compliance with legislative oversight
to Support Compliance with requirements. For example, the 2015-17 biennial budget (2015 Wis. Laws, Act 55) provided $1
Oversight Requirements? million over the biennium to study methods of improving the solvency of the state’s Transportation
Fund, and required WisDOT to submit a report to the Legislature by Jan. 1, 2017.

Wisconsin
Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of two 12-month budgets; fiscal year begins July 1. WisDOT submits biennial
ations Overview budget requests for approval by the Legislature.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues Legislative appropriation. Federal airport, transit, and traffic safety funds are
tion Revenues to the DOT allocated to WisDOT as state legislative appropriations to departmental pro-
grams. Federal highway funds are allocated among several WisDOT programs
by legislative appropriation, based on an estimate of the total amount that will
be received. If receipts differ from estimates by more than 5 percent, WisDOT
must submit a plan to the legislative Joint Committee on Finance to adjust the
appropriations. The committee may approve or modify the plan. WisDOT makes
administrative adjustments for any difference under the 5 percent threshold.
State Revenues Partial legislative appropriations. State transportation funds are allocated to
WisDOT through legislative appropriations at the program or category level.
WisDOT generally has spending discretion within broad categories (state high-
way rehabilitation, major highway development, airport improvement, etc.),
each of which has its own appropriation. With a few minor exceptions, there
are no automatic or formula-based appropriations of state funds to transporta-
tion programs.

Authorized Expenditures State highways $3,387,900,000
(FY 2016 and FY 2017, total) Local programs $1,959,800,000
Debt service and reserves $992,600,000
DOT operations $482,500,000
Total $6,822,800,000
Revenue Sources State funds $3,852,600,000
(FY 2016 and FY 2017, total) Federal funds $1,655,000,000
Bond funds (total bonding allocated to programs) $910,700,000
General purpose revenue $229,900,000
Revenues allocated to non-WisDOT agencies ($53,300,000)
Total $6,822,800,000

Wisconsin
Transportation Planning WisDOT is responsible for both short- and long-term multimodal planning. Project identification
and Capital Project Selec- is an iterative process that begins with a needs analysis conducted by the central WisDOT office.
tion Process WisDOT regional planning sections review the analysis and develop a range of alternatives. “Back-
bone” projects (multi-lane highways connecting all major population and economic regions of the
state) are ranked using a comprehensive prioritization process focused on safety and life-cycle cost
estimates. These projects are approved by a statewide peer review process. In this process, WisDOT
works closely with MPOs to coordinate transportation planning in metropolitan areas. By law, major
highway projects have an added layer of analysis and require legislative approval. These planning
activities result in a long-term multimodal plan, the annually updated four-year Statewide Transpor-
tation Improvement Program (STIP), and a list of major highway projects that is typically approved by
the Legislature in the biennial budget process.
Legislative Role in the Substantial legislative role. The main role of the Legislature is to review and approve major highway
Planning Process projects and project studies for projects that require significant capacity expansion. The review is
performed largely by the Transportation Projects Commission, using recommendations from WisDOT,
as part of the biennial budget process. The Transportation Projects Commission is a legislative body,
chaired by the governor, that is made up of 10 legislators, three citizen members, and the secretary
of transportation, who is a nonvoting member. After projects are approved by the commission, they
then must be approved by the full Legislature and identified in statute (Wis. Stat. Ann. §13.489 and
§84.013). The Legislature also approves overall funding levels in the biennial budget bill.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §78.01
gasoline and Pas-
senger
diesel (fixed and
rate) freight
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Includes taxes on gaseous and liquid
alternative Pas- alternative fuels (Wis. Stat. Ann.
senger
fuels and §25.40, §78.39, §78.40)
freight
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • • Includes taxes on aviation gasoline,
aviation fuels Pas- jet fuel, and other fuels (Wis. Stat.
senger
and Ann. §78.555)
freight
Vehicle reg- • • • • • • • • Includes additional registration fees
istration and Pas- for some vehicle types (Wis. Stat.
senger
title fees and Ann. §§341.25 et seq., §342.14)
freight
Truck regis- • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §341.25
tration fees Pas-
senger
(based on and
weight)
Oversize/ • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §§348.25 et seq.
overweight Pas-
senger
truck permit and
fees freight

Wisconsin
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fines for • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §348.11, §348.21,
truck size Pas- §348.25
senger
and weight and
violations freight
State rental • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §77.995, §25.40
vehicle fees Pas-
senger
and
freight
Driver’s • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §343.21, §343.50
license and Pas-
senger
state ID card and
fees freight
Railroad • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §§76.01 et seq.,
property Pas- §25.40
senger
taxes and
freight
Airline prop- • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §76.01, §76.24,
erty taxes Pas- §25.40
senger
and
freight
Aircraft • • • • • • • • Wis. Stat. Ann. §114.20, §25.40
registration Pas-
senger
fees and
freight
Outdoor • • • • • • • • Sign permit fees (Wis. Stat. Ann.
advertising Pas- §84.30)
senger
revenues and
freight
Passenger • • • • • • • • Fees for the display of sponsorship
rail station Pas- information at state-owned pas-
senger
sponsorship and senger rail stations (Wis. Stat. Ann.
freight §84.01)
Driver and • • • • • • • State statutes generally address the
vehicle Pas- release of driver and vehicle records
senger
record infor- and (Wis. Stat. Ann. §19.36, §343.03)
mation fees freight but do not explicitly authorize the
fees
Property • • • • • • • • Sales of surplus land (Wis. Stat. Ann.
sales Pas- §84.09)
senger
and
freight
Petroleum • • • • • • • Annual appropriations of Petroleum
Inspection Pas- Environmental Cleanup Fund Award
senger
Fund reve- and (PECFA) fees from the Petroleum
nues freight Inspection Fund to the Transporta-
tion Fund

Wisconsin
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
General • • • • • • • • Annual transfer of 0.25 percent of
funds Pas- general fund revenues to Trans-
senger
and portation Fund (Wis. Stat. Ann.
freight §16.5185); also includes transfers
from the general fund that are
enacted into law each biennium
(Wis. Stat. Ann. §20.395) and
one-time appropriations from the
general fund to pay debt service on
general obligation bonds used for
transportation projects
Interest • • • • • • • • Transportation Fund (Wis. Stat. Ann.
income Pas- §25.40)
senger
and
freight
Notes:
• State statute directs that Transportation Fund revenues may be used for administrative costs, safety programs, and traf-
fic enforcement, in addition to the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart (Wis. Stat. Ann. §25.40).
• Under the Tribal Elderly Transportation Grant Program, WisDOT awards grants to Federally recognized American
Indian tribes or bands to assist in providing transportation services for older adults. The program, although state-ad-
ministered, is funded from tribal gaming revenues (Wis. Stat. Ann. §85.215; 2009 Wis. Laws, Act 28).

Restrictions on Constitutional, multimodal transportation. The state constitution dedicates fuel taxes to WisDOT for
State Fuel Taxes transportation purposes or to the holders of transportation-related revenue bonds, via the compre-
hensive, multimodal Transportation Fund or a trustee (Wis. Const. art. VIII, §11). State statute provides
further authority for designating fuel taxes to the Transportation Fund (Wis. Stat. Ann. §25.40).
Restrictions on Other As with fuel taxes, other transportation-related revenues are also deposited into the comprehensive,
Transportation Revenues multimodal Transportation Fund (Wis. Const. art. VIII, §11).
Dedicated or Restricted Wisconsin has a comprehensive, multimodal trust fund called the Transportation Fund, which receives
Transportation Funds fuel taxes and other transportation-related revenues. The state constitution prohibits transfers or
appropriations from the Transportation Fund to any program that is not directly administered by
WisDOT in relation to the state’s transportation systems (Wis. Const. art. VIII, §11). State statute fur-
ther provides that the fund may be used for transportation purposes that include highways, airports,
harbors, ferries, railroads, and bicycle or pedestrian facilities, as well as administrative costs, safety
programs, and traffic enforcement (Wis. Stat. Ann. §25.40).

Wisconsin
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • Generally authorized in statute for
obligation Pas- highway rehabilitation projects
senger
bonds and (Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.95); specifically
freight authorized by session law (budget
bills); currently in use for highway,
rail, and harbor projects
Revenue • • • Transportation revenue bonds;
bonds authorized in statute for highway
projects and administrative facil-
ities (see notes); capped at $3.93
billion total (Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.51,
§84.53, §84.59)
Build Amer- • • • • Includes transportation revenue
ica Bonds Freight bonds issued as Build America
only
Bonds in 2010; used for highways,
ports, and freight rail
Advance • •
construction
Partial • • Used once or twice per year at most
conversion
of advance
construction
Design-build • • Limited authorization in statute for
bridge projects (Wis. Stat. Ann.
§84.11[5n]); not currently in use
Public-private • • • Limited authorization in statute
partnerships for build-operate-lease or transfer
agreements, including for highways
and park-and-ride facilities (Wis.
Stat. Ann. §84.01[30]); not currently
in use
State infra- • • • • Capitalized with state and Federal
structure funds; may be used for highway
bank or transit projects (Wis. Stat. Ann.
§25.405)
Notes:

• State statute directs that transportation revenue bonds may also be used for administrative facilities (i.e., office build-
Wisconsin
ings) in addition to the kinds of transportation activities described in this chart (Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.59).

Restrictions on General obligation bonds must be used for major highway projects and for the purposes for
Finance Mechanisms which they were authorized by the Legislature. State statute currently limits transportation
revenue bonds, which may be used for highway projects and administrative facilities, to a total
of $3.93 billion (Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.59).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes, for some funds. For most capital improvement and maintenance programs, WisDOT retains
Spend Excess Funds appropriated but unobligated funds from year to year. Excess fund revenues are not available for
expenditure, however, unless appropriated by the Legislature. For administrative functions, unspent
funds lapse to the transportation fund at the end of the fiscal year.
Legislative Approval Yes and no. Legislative approval is required to move funds between legislative appropriations. No
Required for DOT to Move legislative approval is required, however, to move funds within those appropriations.
Legislative Actions to State statute contains many examples of cost controls, which include but are not limited to low-bid
Control DOT Costs requirements for highway construction contracts and railroad projects (Wis. Stat. Ann. §84.06 and
§85.077), required cost-benefit analyses for engineering services contracts over $300,000 (Wis. Stat.
Ann. §84.01), and limits on expenditures for aesthetic elements of highway improvement projects
(Wis. Stat. Ann. §85.0205).

Allocation of State Statutory and DOT formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. Each local aid program in Wisconsin has
Transportation its overall funding levels set by the Legislature. The General Transportation Aids program allocates more than
Revenues to Local 20 percent of all state transportation revenues, including fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, to counties
Entities and municipalities for road projects and other transportation costs. Funds are distributed to counties by a
statutory formula based on “share of costs,” which is how much a county has spent on its road miles in previ-
ous years. Each municipality’s share is calculated based either on share of costs or road miles, whichever yields
a larger amount (Wis. Stat. Ann. §86.30). The Local Roads Improvement Program distributes some funding
to counties, cities, and towns based on statutory percentages and WisDOT formulas, and other amounts
through WisDOT discretionary grants (Wis. Stat. Ann. §86.31). The State Urban Mass Transit Operating
Assistance program allocates funds to eligible local entities, divided so that all transit systems have an equal
percentage of their total operating costs covered by combined state and Federal aid. This program requires
a 20 percent local match (Wis. Stat. Ann. §85.20). WisDOT also distributes smaller amounts to airports,
transportation enhancements, and other projects on a discretionary basis. Significant general aid is also pro-
vided to local governments from the general fund and likely has the effect of supporting local transportation
expenditures.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties and municipalities to levy vehicle registration fees for transportation projects
Sources Autho- (Wis. Stat. Ann. §341.35) and property taxes for roads and bridges (Wis. Stat. Ann. §83.065 and §83.14).
rized in State Law Municipalities may charge developers impact fees to pay for development-related capital improvements (Wis.
Stat. Ann. §66.0617).

Wyoming

Bridges 3,085
Toll facilities No
Urban transit trips in 2013 487,000
Legislature
Name Wyoming Legislature
Session Annual, approx. Jan. to Mar. (odd years), Feb. to Mar. (even years)
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Senate Committee on Revenue
diction Over Transporta- Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs
tion-Related Issues House Committee on Revenue
House Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs
[Interim] Joint Interim Committee on Appropriations
[Interim] Joint Interim Committee on Revenue
[Interim] Joint Interim Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs
[Select] Air Transportation Liaison Committee

Wyoming
Name Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT)

Structure Organized mainly by functional activity. One of WYDOT’s five divisions, however, is dedicated to a
specific transportation mode (aeronautics).
Leadership Director of WYDOT (serves on governor’s cabinet), Transportation Commission (independent body)
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit, freight rail, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle. State-level aeronautics, rail, and
DOT Has Jurisdiction transit functions reside within WYDOT. WYDOT’s jurisdiction over freight rail, however, only extends
to crossings, grade separations, fencing, fireguards, and claims for injury to livestock.
Includes DMV? Yes. WYDOT performs driver’s licensing and vehicle registration functions, supported by non-re-
stricted revenues to the Highway Fund.
Includes Highway Patrol? Yes. The Wyoming Highway Patrol is a division of WYDOT (Wyo. Stat. §24-12-101). The Highway
Patrol budget is primarily legislatively appropriated and WYDOT-funded with state revenues. Highway
user fees can fund a portion of highway patrol functions, as can non-restricted funding that WYDOT
receives, such as Federal mineral royalties and severance taxes. At times, there may be small legislative
appropriations of general funds for a specific purpose.
Jurisdiction Over No. Wyoming has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level None. Wyoming has no state-level transportation entities besides WYDOT and the Transportation
Transportation Entities Commission.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. WYDOT and the Legislature interact face-to-face and through issue-specific mate-
and Collaboration rials that are requested by the Legislature or provided on WYDOT’s initiative. WYDOT’s executive team
works closely with the Legislature during the legislative session. During the interim, WYDOT is generally
given a full day at each meeting of the Joint Interim Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Mili-
tary Affairs to present the department’s concerns and issues. Between committee meetings, legislative
attorneys work with WYDOT to prepare legislation for the committee to consider. WYDOT is also given
the opportunity to suggest topics for the committee to study during its interim work.
DOT Legislative Liaison Various WYDOT staff, including its executive team, interact closely with the Legislature. The secre-
tary of the Transportation Commission also acts as a legislative liaison and is a main point of contact
between the department and the Legislature. Another main point of contact is the WYDOT Manage-
ment Services Program, which recently assumed duties to assist with coordinating agency legislative
activities and responses.

Wyoming
Transportation Laws Wyo. Const. art. III, §27; Wyo. Stat. tit. 10, 24, and 31; portions of Wyo. Stat. tit. 37 and 41; Wyo. Const.
art. XV, §16 (revenue restrictions); portions of Wyo. Stat. tit. 39 (revenues)
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. In Wyoming, only legislators can request legislative bill drafts
Legislative Process and formally sponsor and introduce legislation, but the process of draft-
ing transportation-related legislation is collaborative. Between meetings
of the Joint Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs Committee
during the legislative interim, legislative attorneys work directly with
WYDOT to draft legislation for the committee to consider. WYDOT can
comment and suggest revisions to bill drafts throughout the process.
Advocacy and Lobbying WYDOT does not lobby or engage in advocacy. The department
provides the Legislature with information, including statistics and other
data, but does not ask legislators to vote for or against bills.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact WYDOT provides information to the Budget and Fiscal Section of the
Statements for Legislative Use Legislative Service Office for fiscal notes. The department also provides
policy information for bills when requested to do so.
Appointment of The seven members of the Transportation Commission are appointed to six-year terms by the
DOT Leadership governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and within statutory requirements for
partisan balance and geographic representation (Wyo. Stat. §24-2-101). The director of WYDOT
is appointed by the governor, from among at least three nominees chosen by the Transportation
Commission (Wyo. Stat. §24-2-105).
Legislature Able to No. Members of the Transportation Commission and the director of WYDOT may be removed at
Remove DOT Leaders? the governor’s pleasure (Wyo. Stat. §9-1-202).
Legislative Review of Yes. The Legislative Service Office reviews all new, amended, or repealed rules, then submits them to
Administrative Rules the Management Council for further review. The council may also review any other rule. The roles of
these entities are mainly advisory. The council may, however, introduce a legislative order to prohibit
the implementation or enforcement of a rule. Otherwise, the rule is automatically approved by the
Legislature and moves on to the governor for review (Wyo. Stat. §§28-9-101 et seq.).
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. WYDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Legislative Service Office at
or Sunset Reviews the direction of the Management Audit Committee (Wyo. Stat. §28-8-107). Wyoming does not
Required DOT Reports State law requires each state agency’s budget request to be accompanied by a written, com-
to the Legislature prehensive report of its programs, objectives, activities, and condition during the previous fiscal
period, including an annual performance report (Wyo. Stat. §9-2-1014). WYDOT’s budget request
must also include reports about armed forces and gold star license plates (Wyo. Stat. §31-2-217
and §31-2-229). WYDOT must also annually report on diesel taxes (Wyo. Stat. §39-17-211) and
has, at times, been asked to submit ad hoc, one-time reports.
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, state statute also
Performance Management requires each state agency to maintain a statement of policies and statutory authority that guide
its programs, activities, and functions, including objectives against which the agency will be
measured to evaluate its effectiveness. Every other year, each agency must also submit its four-
year plan to accomplish and further certain goals and objectives as defined by the governor. This
plan must include performance measures that are reviewed by the legislative Management Audit
Committee (Wyo. Stat. §28-1-115). Given the smaller size of WYDOT and the Legislature, the
Legislature’s role in tracking and monitoring the department’s performance is mostly maintained
as a function of its oversight and funding activities. Oral and written reports to the Joint Interim
Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs typically are used to monitor and
evaluate WYDOT’s performance.

Wyoming
Other Legislative Oversight The Transportation Commission is required to submit WYDOT’s budget, including the non-legis-
Mechanisms latively appropriated budget, for legislative review each year (Wyo. Stat. §9-2-1011). In addition,
audits conducted by WYDOT’s internal audit program and an annual audit conducted by a private
sector external auditor are submitted to the Legislature through the Management Audit Commit-
tee. Also, each joint interim committee conducts studies of assigned topics between legislative ses-
sions. In 2016, for example, the Joint Interim Committee on Transportation, Highways, and Military
Affairs plans to study methods to promote economic development along transportation corridors,
out-of-state vehicle registrations, distribution of vehicle sales and use taxes, and statutes governing
vehicle titles and oversize or overweight vehicles. Other oversight mechanisms include legislative
requests for information from WYDOT.

Budgeting and Appropri- Biennial enactment of one 24-month budget; fiscal year begins July 1.
ations Overview
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to WYDOT from
State Revenues Partial legislative appropriation. Highway user tax and fee revenues flow directly
to WYDOT with no state legislative involvement. The Legislature may also make
appropriations for transportation each biennium.

Authorized Expenditures Highway improvement/contract maintenance $336,389,881
Regular/special maintenance/operations $109,341,038
Law enforcement $43,532,421
Administration $1,728,969
Support services/regulatory $14,331,370
Operating transfers out $7,838,644
Capital expenditures $8,643,431
Planning/administration $26,957,939
Other expenditures $23,239,248
Total $610,770,475
Revenue Sources Federal aid $272,782,508
Highway user fees $205,266,433
Royalties $66,472,500
Severance taxes $6,711,500
General funds $34,449,466
Other $25,088,068
Total $610,770,475
Note: This chart represents anticipated revenues and expenditures for the WYDOT, current to the beginning of FY 2016. This
includes funds that were appropriated by the Legislature and by the Transportation Commission.

Wyoming
Transportation Planning WYDOT, under the direction of the Transportation Commission, is responsible for determining priori-
and Capital Project Selec- ties for state highway projects, highway safety programs, and rural public transit. Each year, WYDOT
tion Process takes the lead in a planning process that emphasizes public involvement and interaction with local
officials. WYDOT identifies, selects, and prioritizes projects in collaboration with local entities, the
Transportation Commission, and others. Identified and programmed projects are then presented to
the Transportation Commission for review and approval. The resulting document is the six-year State-
wide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Local entities select projects in cities, towns, and
counties that are not on the state highway system.
Legislative Role in the Limited legislative role. The Legislature, by and large, has remained in the role of assessing needs and
Planning Process providing funding through the budget process. It has refrained from large-scale earmarking or project
prioritization. The Legislature can make special appropriations to promote spending categories or
types of projects, but the state constitution limits the Legislature’s ability to provide special funding
for individual projects, inasmuch as it expressly prohibits the Legislature from laying out, planning, or
directing the construction of roads or highways (Wyo. Const. art. III, §27).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • Wyo. Stat. §§39-17-201 et seq.
gasoline
and diesel,
highway use
(fixed rate)
alternative compressed natural gas, biodiesel,
fuels electricity, and others (Wyo. Stat.
§§39-17-301 et seq.)
aviation fuels and jet fuel (Wyo. Stat. §§39-17-101
et seq., §§39-17-201 et seq.)
Fuel taxes: • • • • Portions allocated to boating, snow-
other mobiles, and off-road vehicles (Wyo.
non-highway Stat. §39-17-111)
use
Vehicle reg- • • • Wyo. Stat. §§31-3-101 et seq.
istration and
title fees
Special fees • • • Wyo. Stat. §31-3-102
on electric
vehicles
Truck regis- • • • Wyo. Stat. §§31-18-401 et seq.
tration fees
(based on
gross vehicle
weight)

Wyoming
Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Oversize/ • • • Wyo. Stat. §31-18-804
overweight
truck permit
fees
Driver’s • • • Wyo. Stat. §31-7-104, §31-7-113
license fees
Outdoor • • • Permit fees (Wyo. Stat. §24-10-107)

advertising
revenues
Mineral • • • • See Includes ongoing allocations to the
royalties notes Highway Fund and past allocations
to other funds (Wyo. Stat. §9-4-601,
§9-4-607, §11-34-131) (see notes)
Mineral sev- • • • • Allocated in part to the Highway
erance taxes Fund (Wyo. Stat. §39-14-801) (see
notes)
Non-re- • • • State statute allocates $1.5 million
stricted High- annually of non-restricted state
way Fund highway funds to the Public Transit
revenues Account of the Highway Fund (Wyo.
Stat. §24-15-102) (see notes)
General • • • • Legislative appropriations for surface
funds transportation and aviation
Notes:
• A portion of mineral royalties was deposited to the Transportation Enterprise Fund in 1999 and to the Transportation
Trust Fund in 2000, 2001, and 2002. These revenues and the interest income derived from them have been used in part
to support public transit and aviation (Wyo. Stat. §9-4-601, §9-4-607, and §11-34-131). Mineral royalties and mineral
severance taxes are non-restricted funds to WYDOT that, along with other non-restricted revenues to WYDOT, are
used for a statutory allocation of state revenues to public transit (Wyo. Stat. §24-15-102). These revenues can also be
used for equipment, general property, building expenses, or overhead.
• No state funds are used for rail purposes.

Wyoming
State Fuel Taxes from highway users to public highways, county roads, bridges, and streets, alleys and bridges in
cities and towns, and the expense of enforcing state traffic laws (Wyo. Const. art. XV, §16).
Restrictions on Other The state constitution restricts the use of vehicle-related revenues to public highways, county
Transportation Revenues roads, bridges, and streets, alleys and bridges in cities and towns, and the expense of enforc-
ing state traffic laws (Wyo. Const. art. XV, §16). State statute allocates $1.5 million annually of
non-restricted state highway funds to the Public Transit Account of the Highway Fund (Wyo.
Stat. §24-15-102). Fuel taxes from non-highway uses are directed to the modes of transpor-
tation to which they are attributed, including boating, snowmobiles, off-road vehicles, and
aviation (Wyo. Stat. §39-17-111 and §39-17-211).
Dedicated or Restricted State statute establishes the state Highway Fund (Wyo. Stat. §24-1-119), which receives fuel
Transportation Funds taxes and other revenues, and specifies some of its uses. In general, however, state law restricts
the use of highway-dedicated revenues, rather than this fund. State statute also establishes
the Transportation Trust Fund, an investment account for past allocations of mineral royalties,
and the Transportation Enterprise Account, which receives interest from the Transportation
Trust Fund and is to be used for transportation purposes that include public transit and aviation
(Wyo. Stat. §9-4-601, §9-4-607, and §11-34-131).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • Authorized in statute for all state
agencies, including for highway
projects (Wyo. Stat. §§16-6-701 et
seq.); not currently in use

Wyoming
Transportation-Related Bonding No. Wyoming does not have state bonding authority. This makes Wyoming one of five states
that does not currently use bonding of any kind for transportation projects.
Restrictions on None.
Finance Mechanisms

DOT Able to Retain and Yes, in most cases. WYDOT is authorized to retain excess funds, except for legislatively appropriated
Spend Excess Funds general funds that are not spent or obligated by the end of each biennium. Additional approval,
however, is required to spend excess funds. All expenditures of highway funds are approved by the
Transportation Commission.
Legislative Actions to State statute contains low-bid requirements for road and bridge construction projects over $200,000
Control DOT Costs (Wyo. Stat. §24-2-108).

Allocation of State Statutory formulas, legislative appropriations, and grants. After set-asides, 13.5 percent of state gas tax rev-
Transportation enues and 20 percent of diesel tax revenues are distributed to counties for County Road funds by a statutory
Revenues to Local formula based on land area, rural population, and property valuation. Counties also receive 14 percent of
Entities gas tax revenues for road construction and maintenance, based on rural population and land area. Cities
and towns are allocated 15 percent of gas tax revenues based on gas tax collections and population, and
5 percent of diesel tax revenues based on population only, for street projects (Wyo. Stat. §24-2-110 and
§39-17-211). A portion of mineral severance taxes is also distributed to counties for road projects, based on
population, county road miles, and property valuation (Wyo. Stat. §39-14-801). By law, each biennium the
Transportation Commission must provide $4 million to the Industrial Road Program for eligible county road
projects and $1.5 million to the Public Transit Program for urban and rural transit assistance. WYDOT awards
funds from both programs to local entities as discretionary grants. The Industrial Road Program requires a
local match (Wyo. Stat. §24-15-102 and §§24-5-118 et seq.). In addition, the Legislature has appropriated
funds for airport improvements, transit vehicles, and reclaimed asphalt, and WYDOT and the Transportation
Commission have earmarked funds for local projects.
Local Revenue State statute authorizes counties to levy special property taxes for airports or road and bridge purposes,
Sources Autho- subject to an overall limit on property tax rates (Wyo. Stat. §39-13-104). Counties may form improvement and
rized in State Law service districts, which may impose special assessments for public improvements that may include streets (Wyo.
Stat. §18-12-117). Regional transportation authorities may assess property taxes (Wyo. Stat. §18-14-103).


Roads and Bridges Total lane miles 3,428 (all urban)
Bridges 254
Toll facilities No
Public Transit Transit modes Bus, heavy rail, streetcar, vanpool, demand
response
Passengers boarded in 2013 0 (commercial airports in the D.C. area are legally
and geographically in Maryland and Virginia)
Legislature
Name Council of the District of Columbia
Structure Unicameral, partisan
Chambers Council (13 members)
Type [No data]
Introduced in 2016
Committees with Juris- Committee on Finance and Revenue
diction Over Transporta- Committee on Transportation and the Environment
tion-Related Issues

Name District Department of Transportation (DDOT)

Leadership DDOT Director (serves on mayor’s cabinet). The deputy mayor for planning and economic develop-
ment and the chair of the Committee on Transportation and the Environment also exercise leadership
on some decisions.
Staff Size in Full-Time 950
Equivalents (FTEs)
Modes Over Which the Roads/bridges, public transit (including streetcar), pedestrian/bicycle
Includes DMV? No. The Department of Motor Vehicles is an independent agency. It is funded by local funds, fee
revenues, and Federal funds, not out of DDOT’s budget.
Includes Highway Patrol? No. The Metropolitan Police Department, an independent agency, carries out highway patrol func-
tions. It is funded by both Federal and local funds, not out of DDOT’s budget.
Jurisdiction Over No. The District of Columbia has no toll facilities.
Toll Facilities?
Other
Other State-Level Washington Metropolitan The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is an instrumen-
Transportation Entities Area Transit Authority (inter- tality of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia (D.C. Code
state corporation/ instru- Ann. §9-1107.01). It was created to plan, finance, build, and operate a
mentality) comprehensive public transit system for the Washington metropolitan
area. It is funded by fares and advertising revenues, as well as contri-
butions from the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and counties
in the greater metropolitan Washington area. On an annual basis,
these jurisdictions must appropriate funds according to an agreed-
upon formula to subsidize WMATA’s operating and capital budget.

Overall Communication Formal and informal. The Council’s Committee on Transportation and the Environment holds over-
and Collaboration sight hearings on D DOT policies and programs throughout the year, at which the DDOT director usu-
ally testifies. These hearings include an annual performance oversight hearing and an annual budget
oversight hearing. The DDOT director and other relevant staff also are invited to testify before the
committee when transportation-related legislation is under consideration. DDOT’s Office of Policy and
Governmental Affairs, the DDOT director, and other department staff maintain frequent contact with
individual council members about various projects and issues.
DOT Legislative Liaison DDOT’s Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs is the main point of contact between the depart-
ment and the Council. The DDOT director and other staff also engage with, and provide information
and testimony to, the Council.

Transportation Laws D.C. Code Ann. tit. 9 and 50; portions of D.C. Code Ann. tit. 47 (revenues). DDOT is also subject to bud-
getary provisions of the District’s Home Rule Charter.
DOT Role in the Legislative Proposals Active role. DDOT submits legislative proposals through the mayor,
Legislative Process who is authorized to submit drafts of acts to the Council (D.C. Code
Ann. §1-204.22). Such bills are introduced through the Council chair.
Advocacy and Lobbying DDOT has the opportunity to present testimony, on behalf of the
mayor, in support or in opposition to specific bills or resolutions.
Fiscal Notes or Policy Impact DDOT assists in preparing fiscal impact statements but the Office of
Statements for Legislative Use the Chief Financial Officer presents the fiscal impact statements to the
Council.
Appointment of The DDOT director is appointed by the mayor, with the advice and consent of the Council (D.C.
DOT Leadership Code Ann. §50-921.02 and §1-523.01).
Legislature Able to No. The DDOT director serves at the pleasure of the mayor (D.C. Code Ann. §1-610.51).
Remove DOT Leaders?
Legislative Review of In general, no. In most instances the Council does not review administrative rules or regulations.
Administrative Rules For a very few specific categories of rules, the Council has reserved the right to either a passive or
active review of specific rules or regulations. These primarily include the imposition of new fees or
fines.
Legislative Audits Legislative audits only. DDOT is subject to audits conducted by the Office of the District of Colum-
or Sunset Reviews bia Auditor, which is in the legislative branch (D.C. Code Ann. §1-204.55). No sunset reviews are
conducted of District agencies or programs.
Required DOT Reports All District agencies must submit an annual performance report (D.C. Code Ann. §1-614.13). The
to the Legislature director of DDOT must submit annual reports to the Council concerning community-based trans-
portation enhancement activities (D.C. Code Ann. §50-921.02) and distracted driving (D.C. Code
Ann. §50-1731.09) and the department must submit an annual report concerning child safety
helmet education (D.C. Code Ann. §50-1607). In addition, the mayor is required to submit a num-
ber of reports concerning DDOT activities and finances (D.C. Code Ann. §9-111.01c, §50-921.02,
§50-921.12, §50-2535, and §50-2635).
Legislative Role in DOT In addition to the reporting requirements and legislative audits listed above, District law requires
Performance Management DDOT’s Performance Administration to develop and maintain a performance monitoring system to
measure the quality and effectiveness of transportation services (D.C. Code Ann. §50-921.04). The
mayor’s annual budget submission to the Council must include performance objectives, indicators,
and progress for all District agencies, including DDOT (D.C. Code Ann. §§1-614.11 et seq.). The
Council also holds annual performance and budget oversight hearings for each District agency. As
part of this process, DDOT must answer questions relating to agency organization and operations;
budget and finance; laws, audits, and studies; and specific programs.
Other Legislative Oversight By law, the executive Office of the Inspector General must conduct an annual audit of the District
Mechanisms of Columbia’s Highway Trust Fund and submit the results to the Council, among others, for review
(D.C. Code Ann. §9-109.02). Other oversight mechanisms include Council requests for information
from DDOT.


Budgeting and Appropri- Annual budget; fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The local portion of the budget (financed with revenue
ations Overview derived from local sources) is transmitted by the chairman of the Council to the Speaker of the U.S.
House of Representatives pursuant to the passive review process used for other acts of the Council.
The Federal portion is submitted by the mayor to the president for transmission to Congress. The
Federal portion is appropriated only insofar as Congress elects to do so.
Allocation of Transporta- Federal Revenues No legislative role. Federal transportation funds flow directly to DDOT from the
tion Revenues to the DOT U.S. DOT with no Council involvement.
State Revenues Legislative appropriation. All state transportation revenues are allocated by
legislative appropriation. Revenues are appropriated to departmental programs,
broad spending categories, or specific projects. DDOT cannot spend local,
matching, or special purpose revenue funds without Council appropriation.

Most Recently Enacted Annual budget, FY 2016 (approved), separate capital and operating budgets
Authorized Expenditures Feasibility $11,065,000
(Capital Budget) Design $19,812,000
Project management $34,274,000
Equipment $4,000,000
Total (see note) $334,770,000
Revenue Sources Government obligation bonds $82,941,000
(Capital Budget) Paygo (transfer from operating budget) $18,575,000
Equipment lease $2,500,000
Local transportation (transfer from operating budget) $46,017,000
Highway Trust Fund (local match) $22,504,000
Federal $162,233,000
Total $334,770,000
Authorized Expenditures Agency management $12,318,000
(Operating Budget) Agency financial operations $1,659,000
Urban forestry administration $1,935,000
Infrastructure project management administration $8,277,000
Public space operations project $6,580,000
Progressive transportation services $11,909,000
Planning, policy, and sustainability $27,557,000
Transportation operations $43,441,000
Total $113,676,000
Revenue Sources General funds $105,731,000
(Operating Budget) Federal funds $7,945,000
Total $113,676,000
Note: Numbers do not total due to rounding in DDOT’s Highway Trust Fund budget summary.

Transportation Planning Every year, DDOT revises the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a six-year financial plan
and Capital Project Selec- and schedule for obligating Federal funds to state/local projects. Concurrently, DDOT’s short-term
tion Process planning for transportation projects is driven by the six-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a budget
document that must be approved by the Council each year. The projects contained in the CIP must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Nation’s Capital, the Metropolitan Washington Trans-
portation Planning Board’s Constrained Long Range Plan, the TIP, the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority capital budget, and move DC Long Range Multi-Modal Transportation Plan. DDOT is
required to participate in the MPO process on behalf of the District, which functions in this regard as
both the state and the city.
Legislative Role in the Moderate legislative role. Council members consult with the mayor and the DDOT director about
Planning Process transportation project priorities, and make changes to project funding and priorities during the annual
budget process. Plans for some projects must be approved by the Council due to specific legislative
requirements.

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Adjusted twice per year based on
gasoline and Freight average wholesale price, with a
only
diesel (vari- price floor of $2.94/gallon. The price
able rate— cannot vary more than 10 percent
percentage per adjustment. Allocated to the
of price) local Highway Trust Fund (D.C. Code
Ann. §47-2301)
Fuel taxes: • • • • • • • Includes taxes on liquefied petro-
alternative Freight leum gas and other gaseous and
only
fuels (vari- liquid alternative fuels; assessed and
able rate— allocated the same way as gasoline
percentage and diesel taxes (D.C. Code Ann.
of price) §47-2301, §47-2302)
Rights-of- • • • • • • • Allocated to the Local Transporta-
way user fees Freight tion Fund (D.C. Code Ann. §§10-
only
1141.01 et seq., §9-111.01a)
Public space • • • • • • • Allocated to the Local Transporta-
rental and Freight tion Fund (D.C. Code Ann. §§10-
only
use fees 1101.01 et seq., §9-111.01a)
Public incon- • • • • • • Allocated, but not otherwise autho-
venience fees Freight rized, in statute; allocated to the
only
Local Transportation Fund and the
DDOT Enterprise Fund for Transpor-
tation Initiatives (D.C. Code Ann.
§9-111.01a, §50-921.13)
Utility mark- • • • • • • Allocated, but not otherwise
ing fees Freight authorized, in statute; allocated to
only
the Local Transportation Fund (D.C.
Code Ann. §9-111.01a)

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Source
or statute
General • • • See • • Appropriations of general funds
funds notes for capital projects; currently in use
for roads, bridges, public transit,
pedestrian and bicycle projects, and
recreational trails (see notes)
Interest • • • • • • Highway Trust Fund; used as a
income Freight source of revenue for local match-
only
ing funds; interest income is not
addressed in statute
Notes:
• Motor fuel taxes and other revenues deposited in the local Highway Trust Fund are used to pay the cost-sharing
requirements established under Title 23 of the U.S. Code (D.C. Code Ann. §9-109.02). DDOT has used the fund pri-
marily for highway projects, but also for public transit, freight rail, pedestrian and bicycle projects, and other transpor-
tation projects including recreational trails. Recreational trails are categorized as both “pedestrian and bicycle projects”
and “other” in this chart, under the assumption that they may be used for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle, and motorized
vehicular activities.
• There are no overall restrictions on how general funds can be used and, therefore, all transportation modes including
freight rail could be eligible activities. However, general funds are allotted to capital projects through annual appropria-
tions, and these specific appropriations do not currently include freight rail projects.
• In addition, district parking meter revenues (D.C. Code Ann. §50-2603) and parking taxes (D.C. Code Ann. §47-
2002 and §47-2002.07) are used to support the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which is an instru-
mentality of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland, not a state agency.

Restrictions on Statutory, multimodal transportation. District statute allocates fuel taxes to the Highway Trust
State Fuel Taxes Fund, which is used first to pay for the non-Federal share of highway projects, and then for
other transportation purposes (D.C. Code Ann. §47-2301, §9-109.02, and §§9-111.01 et seq.).
In general, District law restricts the use of amount deposited to a specific fund, rather than
restricting use of the revenues per se.
Restrictions on Other District statute directs parking meter revenues (after set-asides) to the Washington Metropoli-
Transportation Revenues tan Area Transit Authority (D.C. Code Ann. §50-2603) and a number of revenues to the Local
Transportation Fund (D.C. Code Ann. §9-111.01a).

Dedicated or Restricted District statute requires that the local Highway Trust Fund, which receives fuel taxes and other
Transportation Funds revenues, be used to pay the non-Federal share of transportation projects covered under Title
23 of the U.S. Code. DDOT has used the Highway Trust Fund primarily for highway projects, but
also for public transit, freight rail, pedestrian and bicycle projects, and other transportation proj-
ects including recreational trails. Any remaining trust fund revenues are directed to the Local
Transportation Fund, which is used for local transportation infrastructure maintenance and
repair, including streets that are not eligible for Federal aid and public transit projects. In this
way, fuel taxes and rights-of-way user fees collected in excess of Federal matching requirements
are allocated to local transportation uses (D.C. Code Ann. §§9-111.01 et seq.).
Revenue Sources The Council of the District of Columbia is prohibited under the Home Rule Act of 1973 from
Prohibited in State Law taxing the personal income of commuters, or any individual not a resident of the District (D.C.
Home Rule Act, §602).

Authorization
State-Level and Use
Citations and
Mechanism
or statute
General • • • • • Generally authorized in statute
obligation (D.C. Code Ann. §§1-204.61 et
bonds seq.); require further legislative
approval
GARVEE • • • Authorized in statute for up
bonds to $430 million (D.C. Code
Ann. §§9-107.51 et seq.); most
Advance • •
construction
Design-build • • • • Broadly authorized in statute
for District agencies (D.C. Code
Ann. §§2-356.01 et seq.); used
for road and transit projects
Public-private • • • • • Authorized in statute for uses
partnerships that include roads, transit, and
airports (D.C. Code Ann. §§2-
271.01 et seq., §§2-356.01 et
seq.); used for a local streets
project (see notes)
Notes:

• The DC Streets public-private partnership was a five-year operations and maintenance (O&M) concession to a private
firm that assumed responsibility for city streets, tunnels, bridges, signs, and other features, including snow and ice
maintenance. Although the original contract ended in 2005, a private operator continues to operate and maintain the
District’s tunnels.

Restrictions on General obligation bonds must be approved by the Council, subject to overall debt limits (D.C.
Finance Mechanisms Code Ann. §§1-204.61 et seq.). GARVEE bonding is capped at $430 million (D.C. Code Ann.
§9-107.52).

DOT Able to Retain and Yes. Excess funds are retained by DDOT. All excess funds that remain in the Highway Trust Fund after
Spend Excess Funds statutory requirements and project needs are met are transferred to the Local Transportation Fund to
be continually available for local streets, mass transit, and other projects (D.C. Code Ann. §9-109.02
and §9-111.01). No additional approval is required to spend these funds.
Legislative Approval Yes. DDOT must follow the District’s budget reprogramming laws, including requirements for Council
Required for DOT to Move approval, to move funds between projects (D.C. Code Ann. §§47-361 et seq.).
Control DOT Costs

Allocation of State N/A
Transportation
Revenues to Local
Entities
Local Revenue N/A
Sources Autho-
rized in State Law

References
Most of the information in this report was gathered from the survey responses, state websites, state statutes, and the
2011 edition of this report. Supplemental sources are listed below.
Participants in State Transportation Governance and Finance

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or “FAST Act.” Washington, DC,
FHWA, 2016. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/
———. Highway Statistics Series. FHWA, Washington, DC, 2015. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm
Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation Finance. Financing Transportation in the 21st Century: An Intergovernmental Per-
spective. National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC, 2008. http://www.ncsl.org/print/standcomm/sctran/
NAPAreport0108.pdf
Rall, J., and A. Myers. State Human Service Transportation Coordinating Councils: An Overview and State Profiles, 2014 Update.
National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, CO, 2015. http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/transportation/SCC_
transportation_final02.pdf
Sorenson, P. Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 5: Preparing State Transportation Agencies for an Uncertain Energy
Future. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2014. http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/170763.aspx
Transportation System Statistics

Association of American Railroads (AAR). Railroads and States (2012 Data). AAR, Washington, DC, 2016. https://www.aar.
org/data-center/railroads-states
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). State Transportation Statistics 2015. BTS, Washington, DC, 2015. http://www.rita.dot.
gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_transportation_statistics_2015/index.html
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Airport Facilities Data [Effective March 31, 2016]. FAA, Washington, DC, 2016.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Highway Statistics Series. FHWA, Washington, DC, 2015. https://www.fhwa.dot.
gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm
———. National Bridge Inventory: Highway Bridges by Deck Structure Type 2015. FHWA, Washington, DC, 2016. https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/deck15.cfm
———. Toll Facilities in the United States. FHWA, Washington, DC, 2016, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tollpage/
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). National Transit Database. FTA, Washington, DC, 2010. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/
ntdprogram/data.htm
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterborne Commerce of the United States: Calendar Year 2014: Part 5—National Summaries of
Domestic and Foreign Waterborne Commerce. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, 2015. http://www.navigation-
datacenter.us/wcsc/wcsc.htm

Baffour, V. The Fiscal Note Process in State Legislatures. North Carolina General Assembly, Fiscal Research Division, Raleigh,
NC, 1999. http://www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/FiscalNoteProcess.pdf
The Council of State Governments (CSG). The Book of the States 2015. CSG, Lexington, KY, 2015. http://knowledgecenter.csg.
org/kc/category/content-type/bos-2015
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Transportation Performance Management. FHWA, Washington, DC, 2016.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/
Kurtz, K. and B. Erickson. “Legislatures: All Over the Map.” State Legislatures 39, No. 1, 5, 2013.
http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/magazine/articles/2013/SL_0113.pdf
LexisNexis State Net. 2016 State Legislative Sessions. LexisNexis, Washington, DC, 2015.
Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA). Evaluation Report: Fiscal Notes. OLA, St. Paul, MN, 2012.
http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2012/fiscal.htm
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Bill Introductions by Non-Legislative Individuals or Entities. NCSL, Denver,
CO, 2016. Unpublished research.
———. Ensuring the Public Trust 2015: Program Policy Evaluation’s Role in Serving State Legislatures. NCSL, Denver, CO,
2015. http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/nlpes/NLPESEnsuringThePublicTrust2015_3.pdf
———. Limitations on Public Funds for Lobbying. NCSL, Denver, CO, 2015. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=20147
———. Requesting and Sponsoring Legislation. NCSL, Denver, CO, n.d. Unpublished research.
———. Separation of Powers: An Overview. NCSL, Denver, CO, n.d. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=13543
National Governors Association (NGA). Governors’ Powers and Authority. NGA, Washington, DC, 2015. http://www.nga.org/
cms/home/management-resources/governors-powers-and-authority.html
National Performance Management Advisory Commission. A Performance Management Framework for State and Local Govern-
ment: From Measurement and Reporting to Management and Improving. National Performance Management Advisory Commis-
sion, Chicago, IL, 2010. http://www.gfoa.org/pm-commission-framework
Ohio Legislative Service Commission. A Guidebook for Ohio Legislators. Ohio Legislative Service Commission, Columbus,
OH, 2015. http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/guidebook/
Tharp, S. Legislative Powers of Rules Review in the States and Congressional Powers of Rule Review [Report to the Administra-
tive Law Advisory Committee, Commonwealth of Virginia]. Administrative Law Advisory Committee, Richmond, VA, 2001.
http://codecommission.dls.virginia.gov/documents/alac/studies/2001/legrev1.pdf

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Survey of State Funding for Public Transpor-
tation: Final Report 2016—FY 2014 Data. AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2016. http://scopt.transportation.org/Pages/MTAPPub-
lications.aspx
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Excellence in Project Finance.
Use of Advance Construction in Financing Transportation Projects. AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2011. http://financingtrans-
portation.org/funding_financing/briefing_papers/advance_construction.aspx
American Petroleum Institute (API). Motor Fuel Taxes. API, Washington, DC, 2016. http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/
consumer-information/motor-fuel-taxes
BATIC Institute: An AASHTO Center for Excellence. Financing. AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2016. http://www.financing-
transportation.org/funding_financing/financing/
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Surface Transportation. CBO, Washington, DC, 2016. https://www.cbo.gov/topics/infra-
structure-and-transportation/surface-transportation
The Council of State Governments (CSG). Transportation Trust Funds and Lockbox Protections. CSG, Washington, DC, 2015.
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/transportation-trust-funds-and-lockbox-protections
Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA). 2015 State Statute Report. DBIA, Washington, DC, 2015. http://www.dbia.org/ad-
vocacy/state/Pages/default.aspx
Ebel, R. D. and J. E. Petersen, (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance. Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, 2012.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Innovative Program Delivery. Current GARVEE Activity. FHWA, Wash-
ington, DC, 2016. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/tools_programs/federal_debt_financing/garvees/garvee_state_by_
state.aspx
———. Private Activity Bonds. FHWA, Washington, DC, 2016. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/tools_programs/feder-
al_debt_financing/private_activity_bonds/
———. Public–Private Partnerships. FHWA Washington, DC, n.d. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/
———. State Infrastructure Banks. FHWA, Washington, DC, n.d. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/tools_programs/fed-
eral_credit_assistance/sibs/
———. Tools and Programs. FHWA, Washington, DC, n.d. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/tools_programs/
Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA). State Motor Fuels: Summary of State Laws. FTA, Washington, DC, 2015.
http://www.taxadmin.org/current-tax-rates
Goldman, T., S. Corbett, and M. Wachs. Local Option Transportation Taxes in the United States: Part Two: State-by-State Find-
ings. University of California at Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley, CA, 2001. http://its.berkeley.edu/sites/
default/files/publications/UCB/2001/RR/UCB-ITS-RR-2001-4.pdf

Hartman, K. State Efforts Promote Hybrid and Electric Vehicles. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Denver,
CO, 2015. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=19324
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). Most Americans Live in States with Variable-Rate Gas Taxes. ITEP, Wash-
ington, DC, 2016. http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/02/most-americans-live-in-states-with-variable-rate-gas-taxes-2.php
Montague DeRose and Associates, LLC. State Debt Limits. Montague DeRose and Associates, LLC, Westlake Village, CA,
2011. http://www.tre.wa.gov/documents/debtCommission-commStateDebtPresentation02111.pdf
Mullen, C. State Impact Fee Enabling Acts. Duncan Associates, Chicago, IL, 2015. http://www.impactfees.com/state-local/state.php
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Budget Cycle. NCSL, Denver, CO, 2008. http://www.ncsl.org/default.
aspx?TabId=12645
———. Separation of Powers: Appropriation Powers. NCSL, Denver, CO, 2010. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=20623
———. Transportation Funding and Finance Legislation Database. NCSL, Denver, CO, 2016. http://www.ncsl.org/default.
aspx?TabId=25720
The Pew Charitable Trusts. Funding Challenges in Highway and Transit: A Federal-State-Local Analysis. The Pew Charitable
Trusts, Washington, DC, 2015. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2015/02/24/funding-challeng-
es-in-highway-and-transit-a-federal-state-local-analysis
Public Works Financing. U.S. & Canadian Transportation Projects Scorecard. Public Works Financing, Washington, DC, 2013.
http://www.pwfinance.net/document/research_reprints/chart%201%20US-Canada.pdf
Puentes, R. and J. Thompson. Banking on Infrastructure: Enhancing State Revolving Funds for Transportation. Brook-
ings-Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation, Washington, DC, 2012. http://www.brookings.edu/research/
papers/2012/09/12-state-infrastructure-investment-puentes
Pula, K. Public–Private Partnerships for Transportation: Categorization and Analysis of State Statutes. National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL), Denver, CO, 2016. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=30006
Rall, J. State Laws, Legislation, and Programs Concerning Naming Rights and Sponsorship of Rest Areas. National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL), Denver, CO, 2012. unpublished research.
Rall, J., N. Farber, and J. Reed. Public–Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators. National Conference of
Shinkle, D., J. Rall, and A. Wheet. On the Move: State Strategies for 21st Century Transportation Solutions. National Conference
of State Legislatures (NCSL), Denver, CO, 2012. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=25044
Slone, S. State Infrastructure Banks. The Council of State Governments Knowledge Center, Washington, DC, 2011.
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/state-infrastructure-banks
Snell, R. The Power of the Purse: Legislatures that Write State Budgets Independently of the Governor. National Conference of
———. State Experiences with Annual and Biennial Budgeting. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Denver,
CO, 2011. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=12658

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC): State Laws and Incentives. DOE, Washington, DC,
2016. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/state
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). USDOT,
Washington, DC, 2016. https://cms.dot.gov/node/47581/tifia/projects-financed
U.S. Department of the Treasury. Recovery Act: Build America Bonds. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC,
2011. https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Pages/babs.aspx
Workman, S. and J. Rall. Taxation of Alternative Fuels. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Denver, CO. 2012.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=24406

American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001
www.transportation.org
TGF-2-OL ISBN 978-1-56051-668-2

50 State Review Nov16 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 State Review Nov16 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 State Review Nov16 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation

Governance and Finance

© 2016 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

TGF-2-OL | ISBN 978-1-56051-668-2

2 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Immediate Past President

Transportation Governance and Finance • 3

Chair Kansas Oregon

4 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Chair Iowa Ohio

Transportation Governance and Finance • 5

All data is assumed to be current as of July 2016 unless otherwise noted.

6 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Transportation Governance and Finance • 7

8 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Transportation Governance and Finance • 9

State Responding Organizations

10 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Transportation Governance and Finance • 11

12 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Table 2. Names and Characteristics of State Legislatures

Transportation Governance and Finance • 13

14 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Table 3. Categorization of States by Levels of Legislative Professionalization

State Departments of Transportation

Transportation Governance and Finance • 15

DOT Structure Modes Over Which DOT Has Jurisdiction

16 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Nevada Department of • • See state See state See state • •

New Hampshire Department of • • • F, P • •

New Mexico Department of • • • P • •

Ohio Department of • • • See state • • •

Utah Department of • • See state See state See state Ferries

Transportation Governance and Finance • 17

Virginia Department of • • • Ferries

* District of Columbia | F: Freight rail; P: Passenger rail

Table 5. Sizes of State DOTs in Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)

2,500 or less 2,501 to 5,000 5,001 to 7,500 7,501 or more

* Not including the Motor Vehicle Commission and NJ Transit

18 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Table 6. Major Stakeholders in Transportation Governance and Finance

Federal State Regional Local Other

Transportation Governance and Finance • 19

Table 7. State Transportation Officials that Serve on the Governor’s Cabinet

State Serves on Governor’s Cabinet

20 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

* Serves on mayor’s cabinet

State Transportation Boards, Councils, and Commissions

Transportation Governance and Finance • 21

State Transportation Board, Council, or Commission

Other State and Quasi-State Entities

22 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Table 9. Names and Types of Other State-Level Transportation Entities

Other State-Level Transportation Entities

Transportation Governance and Finance • 23

24 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation

Transportation Governance and Finance • 25

Other State-Level Transportation Entities

26 • A 50-State Review of State Legislatures and Departments of Transportation