California, Texas and New York will likely charge heavily on the trillion-dollar infrastructure package if the bill goes to President Joe Biden’s desk.
But much less populated states, such as Montana and Alaska, will get the most money per capita.
The administration said Californians should plan at least $ 44.56 million in infrastructure funds, the largest sum for any state, with only highways and public transportation accounting for about $ 34.8 billion. this total.
Texas reached No. 2 with an estimated allocation of $ 35.444 billion, between $ 26.9 billion in estimated highway funds and $ 3.3 billion in estimated public transportation funds. New York, in third place, is expected to receive $ 26.92 billion.
See the full list of estimated assignments for each state at the end of this article.
CNBC analysis shows that Vermont, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska lead when it comes to estimated per capita infrastructure spending, with at least $ 3,500 per resident. The California per capita estimate is less than $ 1,250 per resident.
The White House, hoping to deliver on Biden’s campaign promises before the 2022 midterm elections, has billed the plan as a generational investment. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the $ 1 trillion infrastructure bill earlier this month in an effort to rebuild the nation’s roads and bridges and fund new climate and broadband endurance initiatives. The Chamber’s goal is to approve the bill in October.
The administration says the infrastructure plan “will grow the economy, increase our competitiveness, create good jobs” and improve other metrics.
It is important to note that White House estimates are summaries based on the allocation of funds in previous legislation. Current legislation could change the formulas that determine what factors decide how much money a state or city receives.
Current White House estimates also set aside competitive grant programs for specific and economically significant one-off projects. Localities can often use these grants to help fund an isolated project if the federal government determines that a particular bridge or tunnel has an excessive economic impact in a region.
Improvements are likely to occur at the local level, as states and municipalities are the administrators of some 90% of non-defense public infrastructure assets and typically assume 75% of their maintenance cost, according to the Center for Budgets and Priority Policies, a progressive think tank.
Typically, Washington funds major surface infrastructure initiatives through the Department of Transportation, which grants grants to states. These grants can come from a variety of funds, including the Highway Trust Fund, which generates a significant amount of its revenue from gasoline taxes.
Calculations that determine how much money one state receives relative to another are set by law and can vary slightly over time as lawmakers update spending patterns. However, some factors remain consistent, said Vikram Rai, head of Citi’s municipal bond strategy.
“The Department of Transportation receives an assignment and they decide how to assign it to various states and localities,” Rai said. The number of factors that decide the size of a grant is many, but some factors are direct.
Rai explained that the population of a state usually weighs heavily on the amount it receives as a proportion of total funding. The thinking there is clear: the more people in a state, the more wear and tear on roads, bridges and other transportation surfaces in the state.
That’s why, in part, it’s not necessarily surprising to see New York, Texas, and California, as three of the country’s most populous states, at the top of the funding list.
Other factors that determine the size of the grant can be a little more complicated.
Grants can be larger or smaller depending on the number of large cities in a given state. Or, if the grant is earmarked for urban areas, the size is determined by the number of people living in a particular city.
In the 2015 FAST Act, an Obama-era transportation law, urban area subsidies were determined in part based on whether the city had more or less than 200,000 residents.
These grants were expanded or further reduced based on other factors: the presence of a commuter railroad, for example, or how many miles the city’s buses traveled on a particular day.
These factors are clear in current White House calculations.
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are expected to receive $ 15.2 billion for public transportation based on the funding formula. It is 24% of the total allocated to public transportation, although these states account for approximately 10% of the U.S. population, suggesting that the administration thinks the vast public transportation infrastructure of these three states deserves a extra attention.
On the other hand, Louisiana, which can fight potentially billions of dollars in damage from Hurricane Ida, is expected to get $ 1.01 million for bridge replacement and repair, seventh among all states and around 3.8% of the total dedicated to bridges.
The American Society of Civil Engineers said in a recent report that Louisiana, which relies heavily on bridges to transmit much of its low field, ranks fourth in the country for total bridge area, but second in number. of structurally deficient bridges per square meter.
The Federal Traffic Administration, a division of the Department of Transportation that oversees financial assistance to local public transportation systems, has released flow charts showing how FAST Act formulas determined the size of the grant.
Complete list of states
Correction: This story was updated to reflect the correct Louisiana range figures and estimated bridge allocation.