Highway Planning and Construction in Wisconsin

How Wisconsin meets CFDA 20.205

CFDA 20.205 is titled HIGHWAY PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION. Crossed with Wisconsin place of performance, obligations sum to $3,765,561,862.61 on 2,942 awards. The national highway-planning hub includes other states. Wisconsin’s spending hub includes other programs. Only this intersection is reported here. $3,765,561,862.61 is an obligation aggregate from USAspending.gov, not an outlay and not a count of reconstructed miles.

2,942 awards is a high-volume Federal-aid pattern: more instruments than many states post under the same catalog, which usually means many smaller project-level rows rather than a few statewide lumps. The join does not name WisDOT regions, list contractors, or count roundabouts. Packet facts stop at $3,765,561,862.61, 2,942 awards, WI, and 20.205. Correlation is not causation. 2,942 highway instruments carrying $3,765,561,862.61 is the high-count Federal-aid side of this slice, which usually means more project-level rows rather than a larger typical contract.

A high award count is not a bigger highway system

The catalog title names Highway Planning And Construction. A 2,942-row count does not prove Wisconsin built more than a state with fewer awards and a similar dollar total. Facts available: Wisconsin, CFDA 20.205, $3,765,561,862.61, 2,942 awards. Bid tabs, letting dates, and contractor names are not in the facts.

Dividing $3,765,561,862.61 by 2,942 yields about $1.28 million per award—smaller than a typical statewide formula lump, consistent with many project-scale instruments. Unique recipients are unpublished. 2,942 is not a census of work zones.

Wisconsin as the geography side of the pair

WI is the place-of-performance code. A statewide formula award can still appear as records tagged to Madison, Milwaukee, or another in-state address. Awards coded to Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, or Iowa stay outside $3,765,561,862.61 even when a corridor crosses those borders. The code does not convert $3.77 billion into a county project map.

Wisconsin federal spending is the all-program parent. 20.205 is one row on Wisconsin programs. $3.77 billion is not the state’s complete federal footprint. Open Highway Planning And Construction in Wisconsin for the filtered table, CFDA 20.205 for 20.205 without a Wisconsin filter, and All spending ties for other pairs. Do not add those parents into $3,765,561,862.61.

Reading 2,942 awards under $3.77 billion

$3,765,561,862.61 ÷ 2,942 is about $1.28 million per award. That average is not a median and not a typical construction contract. Net obligations can include downward modifications; the total shown is the aggregate in the facts. Treat 2,942 as a record count, not as 2,942 completed highways. A Madison or Milwaukee address on a 20.205 instrument does not convert $3,765,561,862.61 into a county project map, and a high row count does not rank Wisconsin’s highway system.

USAspending obligations can be positive new awards or net of downward modifications; $3,765,561,862.61 is the net total supplied in the facts. Without a transaction register, you cannot see how many of the 2,942 rows are continuations, modifications, or corrections. Later ingests can restate $3,765,561,862.61 without changing the join key of 20.205 and WI.

What the highway–Wisconsin pair does not prove

A large 20.205 total tagged to Wisconsin does not measure congestion, and it does not equal construction invoices already paid. FEC donations do not fund this USAspending cell. Correlation is not causation. The headline remains $3,765,561,862.61 on 2,942 awards for Highway Planning And Construction in Wisconsin.

Keep both sides of the join: Highway Planning And Construction and Wisconsin, obligations only. Do not annualize $3,765,561,862.61 without a year field—this packet publishes none. Do not treat 2,942 as a contractor census. Quote USAspending.gov and the overlay path rather than a construction-progress story.

Using the highway–Wisconsin overlay

The overlay target is the Wisconsin × CFDA 20.205 table. Open Highway Planning And Construction in Wisconsin when you want the same $3,765,561,862.61 / 2,942-award cell in the site’s data chrome. CFDA 20.205 drops the Wisconsin filter. Wisconsin federal spending drops the CFDA filter. Wisconsin programs lists other catalogs beside 20.205. All spending ties indexes other pairs.

This page exists because two tables meet: a CFDA program and a place-of-performance state. It does not exist to argue that Wisconsin won or lost federal money, that donations paid for the awards, or that obligations equal cash. The pair is 20.205 plus WI. Obligations of $3,765,561,862.61 are not outlays.

Questions

How much highway planning funding is obligated in Wisconsin?

USAspending records $3,765,561,862.61 in CFDA 20.205 obligations with Wisconsin place of performance on 2,942 awards. That is the pair total, not an outlay. Keep Highway Planning And Construction and Wisconsin together when citing $3,765,561,862.61. Obligations are not outlays, and FEC donations do not fund this USAspending cell.

Why does Wisconsin show 2,942 highway awards?

2,942 is a USAspending award-record count, not a project or contractor census. The implied mean is about $1.28 million per award. Unique recipients are unpublished. A high row count does not prove more miles built. Obligations of $3,765,561,862.61 are not outlays.

Is $3.77 billion Wisconsin’s full federal transportation spend?

No. $3,765,561,862.61 is only the 20.205 × Wisconsin cell. Other transportation catalogs appear on separate Wisconsin program pages. Nationwide 20.205 is not limited to Wisconsin. Original filings remain on USAspending.gov for this 20.205 × WI pair. Obligations are not outlays, and FEC donations do not fund this USAspending cell.

Are these highway dollars already paid to contractors?

The figure is an obligation aggregate, not an outlay. USAspending.gov is the source. This join does not name contractors. FEC donations do not fund this cell. The overlay is the live highway–Wisconsin table. Quote the overlay table and USAspending.gov rather than a policy claim.