Clickable Public Parks Table

Public Parks — 50-State Clickable Master Table

Public Parks — 50-State Clickable Master Table

Complete State-by-State Public Parks Infrastructure Allocation
ASCE National Public Parks Grade: C− — 2025
STATE TITLE ↕ CURRENT PUBLIC PARKS
SPENDING ↕		 % NATIONAL
CURRENT SPENDING ↕		 ADDITIONAL SPENDING
NEEDED FOR B− ↕		 PUBLIC PARKS
GRADE ↕
Alabama $1.25B2.009%$0.98B C
Alaska $1.28B2.057%$1.40B C-
Arizona $1.45B2.334%$0.98B C
Arkansas $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
California $1.51B2.428%$0.56B C+
Colorado $1.51B2.428%$0.56B C+
Connecticut $1.30B2.089%$0.56B C+
Delaware $1.25B2.009%$0.98B C
Florida $1.51B2.428%$0.56B C+
Georgia $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Hawaii $1.30B2.089%$0.56B C+
Idaho $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Illinois $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Indiana $1.19B1.913%$0.98B C
Iowa $1.07B1.722%$0.98B C
Kansas $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Kentucky $1.07B1.722%$0.98B C
Louisiana $1.25B2.009%$0.98B C
Maine $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Maryland $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Massachusetts $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Michigan $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Minnesota $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Mississippi $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Missouri $1.30B2.089%$0.56B C+
Montana $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Nebraska $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Nevada $1.07B1.722%$0.98B C
New Hampshire $1.07B1.722%$0.98B C
New Jersey $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
New Mexico $1.07B1.722%$0.98B C
New York $1.51B2.428%$0.56B C+
North Carolina $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
North Dakota $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Ohio $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Oklahoma $1.07B1.722%$0.98B C
Oregon $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Pennsylvania $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Rhode Island $1.11B1.791%$0.56B C+
South Carolina $1.07B1.722%$0.98B C
South Dakota $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Tennessee $1.30B2.089%$0.56B C+
Texas $1.51B2.428%$0.56B C+
Utah $1.30B2.089%$0.56B C+
Vermont $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Virginia $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Washington $1.51B2.428%$0.56B C+
West Virginia $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
Wisconsin $1.38B2.229%$0.56B C+
Wyoming $1.02B1.653%$1.40B C-
50 / 50 STATES POPULATED — Every state title is explicitly included in the table.
SOURCE / MODEL NOTICE: ASCE's 2025 national Public Parks grade is C−. ASCE's national investment table reports $106B in Public Parks needs, $62B funded for 2024–33, and a $44B funding gap. The 50-state grades and Public-Parks-specific allocation multipliers are model inputs and are not represented as an ASCE-published 50-state allocation dataset.
$5.41T National Infrastructure • Public Parks funded: $62B • Public Parks needs: $106B • Funding gap: $44B
Variable Category-Specific Allocation Percentage: Each state's Public Parks percentage is calculated independently from the Public Parks grade weight × Public-Parks-specific multiplier and then normalized so all 50 states equal 100%. No Transit, Rail, Ports, Aviation, Water, Dams, or another category's percentages are copied.
PUBLIC PARKS GRADE
CURRENT PUBLIC PARKS SPENDING
ADDITIONAL NEEDED FOR B−
NATIONAL SHARE

Comments

New comments are not allowed.

Popular posts from this blog

Storm Shield Strategy Simulation — Official Simulation Engine

Image
Copy Interactive Post -        Paste In Copilot          Copilot permits interactive answers and scoring.    Copy Text.  # 🌊 STORM SHIELD STRATEGY SIMULATION — UNIVERSAL INTERACTIVE ROUND TEMPLATE # (Reusable for ALL PHASES / ROUNDS — no examples, no previous data) # ROUND N — INTERACTIVE ENGINE --- ## STEP 1 — PROJECT ASSIGNMENT Copilot loads the round’s scenario and provides: - Base Score (0–100 master score framework) - Starting Budget (current approved budget level) - Current Cost Estimate - Overrun Percentage - National Impact Context (local vs national economic security) - Phase Context (e.g., Build / Financing / Contracts / Audit / Environment / Port / Real Estate / Climate / Storm Test / Final Construction / Maintenance) **User Action:** None — Copilot initializes the round. --- ## STEP 2 — RISK & COST BASELINE Copilot lists the round’s risk and cost conditions and sets: - Starting Score - Safety / Economic / Cost ...
Read more

Transit Infrastructure Grades (Quality Rankings)

Image
Aging vehicles — Old fleets causing breakdowns, delays, high costs, poor reliability. Station deterioration — Worn stations reducing safety, accessibility, comfort, and service quality. Maintenance backlogs — Deferred repairs increasing failures, costs, and operational disruptions. Capacity limitations — Insufficient service unable to meet rider demand or growth. Accessibility needs — Missing ADA features restricting mobility for disabled and elderly riders. 🚇 U.S. Transit Infrastructure Tier System (Quality Rankings) Based on Updated Transit Grades You Provided 🟢 TOP TIER — C / C− (Above National Baseline) States with relatively stronger transit systems, lower additional funding gaps, and better operational stability. California — C− Colorado — C− Connecticut — C− Illinois — C− Massachusetts — C− New Hampshire — C− New Jersey — C− ...
Read more

Clickable Transit Table

Transit — 50-State Clickable Master Table — ASCE Maryland Corrected Transit — 50-State Clickable Master Table ASCE State Grade Corrections • D+ National Average • Variable Category-Specific Allocation NATIONAL TRANSIT AVERAGE: D+ — 67.0 ASCE SOURCE 50-STATE MODEL AVERAGE 65.6 — D+ MARYLAND ASCE TRANSIT D+ NEW YORK ASCE TRANSIT D+ B− OR BETTER 0 STATES Reset STATE TITLE ↕ CURRENT TRANSIT SPENDING ↕ % NATIONAL CURRENT SPENDING ↕ ADDITIONAL SPENDING NEEDED FOR B− ↕ GRADE ↕ Alabama $9.42B 2.021% $3.29B D Alaska $8.70B 1.867% $2.93B D Arizona $8.71B 1.868% $2.56B D+ Arkansas $9.44B 2.027% $3.51B D- California $8.79B 1.886% $1.97B C- Colorado $8.63B 1.853% $2.26B C- Connecticut $8.06B 1.729% $1.81B C- Delaware $7.70B 1.653% $2.15B D+ Florida $10.05B 2.156% $2.96B D+ Georgia $9.78B 2.100% $3.16B D Hawaii $8.70B 1.867% $2.93B D Idaho $8.95B 1.920% $3.12B D Illinois $9.10B 1.954% $2.22B C- Indiana $9.52B 2.043% $3.21B D Iowa $8.95B 1.92...
Read more