Spending on preserving roads

was below national average

Missouri ranked 37^th nationally in how much it spent to preserve and maintain its roads, spending 53 percent less than the national average, according to a 2004 national study. In addition, MoDOT data showed road conditions did not improve between 1996 and 2003, and have remained below national averages since 1998.  (See page 5)

Though preserving roads was priority, money did not follow

MoDOT has historically spent more money expanding roads, than repairing or preserving them. In 2001 planning documents, MoDOT called for a shift in resources to make road preservation "top priority." But the dollars did not always follow. For example, in June 2004, when MoDOT received an extra $137 million in federal road dollars, only 22 percent went to preservation. Prior to the passage of Amendment 3, funding for 2006-2009 projects includes 56 percent spent on preservation, which MoDOT projections showed would not have been enough to achieve road condition goals. With the passage of Amendment 3, an additional $360 million will be spent on preservation, however, no assessment has been made of the impact these funds will have on the highway system as a whole, or the highway system's long-range needs.  (See page 8)

MoDOT performance data not

fully used in funding decisions

Auditors found information given commissioners to guide their road funding decisions contained little information regarding measures of past performance. For example, commissioners received projections of road conditions, but did not see data showing how road conditions had failed to improve under past funding levels. Performance reports also did not contain updated data. For example, a July 2004 road condition report used 2001 data, when 2002 and 2003 data was available. (See page 14)

Expansion projects are not assessed for cost-effectiveness

MoDOT has not adequately assessed the cost-effectiveness of potential expansion projects as recommended by federal highway authorities. In addition, rural district expansion projects have not been evaluated consistently or compared to other rural district expansion projects on a statewide basis.  (See page 18)