The 2010 transportation funding bill has $600 million for a TIGER-like grant program.  We're likely to see a similar program in the next transportation authorization bill, as well as future appropriations bills, during this administration.  So future applicants for grant funding might be well advised to spend some time analyzing the results of the Recovery Act TIGER program.

What was submitted?
The program was wildly oversubscribed. Over 1380 projects worth $56.5 billion from all 50 states were competing for $1.5 billion. 

57% were highway projects, 16% transit, 9% rail, 7% port and 11% “other”. The states with the largest number of project requests were Texas (125), California (117), Florida (115), New York (76), Illinois (49) and WA state (49). The states with the largest dollar amount requested were Texas ($5.1 billion), Florida ($4.2 billion), California ($3.2 billion), New York ($2.9 billion), Illinois ($2.3 billion) and Ohio ($2.3 billion).

What was funded?
WA state received the 5th highest amount of any state.   The Mercer Street and North Spokane Corridor projects were in top 20 for highest amount of funding, receiving $30m and $35m respectively (Spokane - 13th highest) (Mercer - 19th highest).  Mercer was one of the few projects to receive 100% of its request.

USDOT followed through on their commitment to pick projects across all modes.  If there was a "loser", it was traditional highway projects.  Many of the projects are multi-modal and challenging to pigeon-hole.  But the pro-transit group Reconnecting America calculated that transit projects got 26 percent of the money, multimodal projects got 25 percent, highways got 23 percent, rail got 19 percent, and ports got 7 percent.  About $52 million went to bike/ped projects.

USDOT also met its commitment to spread around the funding.  Projects in 41 states received funding.  Only two projects were funded at or above $100 million.  Another six projects received at or above $50 million;  32 of the 51 projects received less than $25 million.   Clearly, projects requesting a lower amount and which were leveraging previous funding were more attractive to USDOT.

As many have noted, it's not our father's DOT anymore.