# Funding and Finance of Transportation Projects in the United States of America/Introduction

The funding and finance of U.S. transportation projects are a testament to the country’s intricate and decentralized governance structure. In the United States, a vast network of federal, state, and local governments, along with a multitude of agencies, collectively shape the nation's transportation landscape. This complex arrangement is not a mere quirk of the system, but a deliberate feature designed to accommodate the varied needs of a diverse country. The seemingly bewildering array of institutions involved in delivering transportation services underscores the unique flexibility and responsiveness embedded within the American governmental framework.
To fully grasp the financial underpinnings of U.S. transportation, one must navigate the complex interplay of policies, funding streams, and institutional dynamics that have evolved over the decades, each layer adding depth to the nation's approach to building and maintaining its critical infrastructure. Central to this understanding is the distinction between funding and finance, two complementary but distinct concepts that are often interwoven in transportation projects.
Funding refers to the allocation of money that does not require repayment, typically sourced from tax revenues or government appropriations. Finance, in contrast, involves borrowing or leveraging private investments to fund projects, with the expectation that these funds will be repaid, often with interest. While funding provides the necessary resources upfront, finance helps to bridge gaps or enable large-scale projects that would otherwise be unfeasible through funding alone. Both mechanisms are essential in the development and maintenance of transportation infrastructure.
This Wikibooks page will guide readers through these intricate arrangements by exploring key concepts such as the distinction between funding and finance, capital expenditures and operations/maintenance, and the role of federalism in the highway and transit sectors. This report will predominantly concentrate on highway transportation, with a secondary examination of transit assets. Detailed analysis of other transportation modalities, such as aviation and maritime, will not be included at this time.
To bring the crucial funding and finance concepts to life, the paper will also feature two detailed case studies, illustrating how these arrangements and governance structures play out in real-world scenarios. These case studies will not only provide practical insights but also highlight the broader implications of the funding mechanisms that shape the U.S. transportation system.
One approach to understanding funding and finance in the United States is to divide the subject into two categories: Capital Funding and Finance, which refers to the funding and financing of assets or investments that provide long-term benefits such as infrastructure, equipment, and property, and Operational Funding and Finance, which involves funding and financing the day-to-day operations of an organization, covering expenses like salaries, utilities, and maintenance. This paper applies this methodology to analyze highway funding at the federal government level, starting with a brief overview of its historical and contemporary context. It then explores capital and operational funding and financing at the federal level before turning to the funding mechanisms at the state and local levels. At these lower levels of government, the distinction between capital and operational investments can be somewhat arbitrary compared to the federal level, so this paper does not separate them in these sections.

## Background on History of Highway Funding

In the early 20th century, the development of roadways in the United States was a dynamic but inconsistent process, with responsibilities not only divided between local and state governments but approached in very different ways. Local governments primarily oversaw the construction and maintenance of smaller, local roads, while state governments to differing degrees gradually assumed a larger role in the development of major highways and arterial routes. This shift in influence was driven by individual states' growing financial resources, which were bolstered by the collection of annual registration fees and motor fuel taxes. As the number of cars on the road increased and vehicle miles traveled expanded, state highway department budgets grew significantly, enabling them to play a more dominant role in determining freeway routes within urban areas.
By 1921, the federal government began playing a greater role in highway funding. However, this increased federal involvement was met with considerable debate and controversy regarding the appropriate level of federal oversight. Despite this increased federal involvement, states continued to take the lead in planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining the nation's primary roadways. Activities receiving federal funds were conducted in accordance with federal standards and required federal approval. Consequently, by the 1930s, a rudimentary national highway network had already been established, ensuring that the majority of Americans lived within close proximity to a numbered U.S. highway, exemplified by the iconic U.S. Route 66.
The pivotal moment in the history of federal highway funding in the U.S. occurred during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration. In the 1950s, Congress devised a financial strategy to support the ambitious vision of an interstate highway system that had been contemplated for several decades. This effort culminated in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which reinforced the evolving relationship between federal, state, and local governments. However, the groundwork for this division of roles was largely influenced by strategies deployed by the executive branch, particularly by key figures like Thomas MacDonald and others in the Office of Road Inquiry and the Bureau of Public Roads—predecessors to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Their efforts were instrumental in shaping expectations and building a framework for how roadway financing and responsibilities would be divided among local, state, and federal governments. This dynamic had a profound impact on the design and execution of road network improvements, influencing the development and connectivity of both intercity and urban areas throughout the 20th century.

## Background on Modern of Highway Funding Revenues and Expenses

Revenues and expenditures across various levels of government continue to be intricately linked. Funds are generated through a combination of fees and taxes imposed on highway users and other sources at the federal, state, and local levels. These revenues are allocated to cover the costs associated with constructing, replacing, rehabilitating, maintaining, and making other capital investments in highways and bridges. In 2021 the total revenue generated for highways and bridges by all government tiers amounted to $270.6 billion, while expenditures reached $301.1 billion. When revenues fall short of expenditures, as was the case in 2021. When revenues fall short of expenditures, as was the case in 2018, the shortfall is covered by drawing from highway reserve accounts at each governmental level.
Table 1 - Government Highway Revenues by Source, 2008-2018 :
| Revenue Source | Federal | State | Local | Total | Federal Share of Total | State Share of Total |
| Motor Fuel Taxes | $29.9 | $35.7 | $1.2 | $66.9 | 44.7% | 53.4% |
| Motor Vehicle Taxes | $5.9 | $28.1 | $2.8 | $36.8 | 16.0% | 76.3% |
| Tolls | $0.0 | $14.6 | $3.1 | $17.6 | 0.0% | 82.6% |
| Subtotal: User Fees | $35.8 | $78.4 | $7.1 | $121.3 | 29.5% | 64.6% |
| Property Taxes and Assessments | | | $11.6 | $11.6 | | |
| General Fund Appropriations | $4.5 | $8.1 | $26.9 | $39.4 | 11.4% | 20.5% |
| Other Taxes and Fees | $0.0 | $12.7 | $9.0 | $21.8 | 0.0% | 58.2% |
| Investment Income and Other Receipts | $0.7 | $12.9 | $8.4 | $22.0 | 3.0% | 58.6% |
| Bond Issue Proceeds | $0.0 | $14.7 | $7.0 | $21.7 | 0.0% | 67.6% |
| Total Revenues | $40.9 | $126.7 | $70.1 | $237.8 | 17.2% | 53.3% |
Notes: Dollar value are in billions. Motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle taxes and fees, and tolls refers to the portion of user charges that are used to fund highway spending, which excludes user fees used for mass transit and other non-highway purposes. Gross receipts generated by user charges totaled $160.5 billion in 2018, of which $121.3 billion was used for highways. The $4 billion General Fund Appropriation shown for Federal includes expenditures by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that were not paid for from the Highway Trust Fund.
Sources: Highway Statistics 2018, Table HF-10, and FHWA estimates.
From 2008 to 2018, total revenue experienced an annual growth rate of 2.1 percent. User charges, which encompass motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle taxes and fees, and tolls, collectively generated $121.3 billion. The most significant increase in revenue came from tolls, which surged from $9.1 billion to $17.6 billion, reflecting an average annual growth rate of 6.8 percent. User charges comprised approximately half of the total revenue, with motor fuel and motor vehicle taxes contributing 44 percent and tolls accounting for 7 percent. The remaining $116.5 billion was derived from diverse sources, including property taxes and assessments, General Fund appropriations, additional taxes and fees, investment income, and debt financing.
PIE CHART
PIE CHART
Figure 1 - Highway Expenditures by Type in 2018
Between 2008 and 2018, total expenditures experienced an annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. In 2018, the distribution of funding sources for these expenditures was as follows: the federal government contributed 20.4 percent, state governments provided 50.7 percent, and local governments accounted for 28.9 percent. Capital outlay constituted nearly half (48 percent) of the total expenditure, with maintenance and traffic services following at 24 percent. Administrative costs, highway patrol and safety, bond retirement, and debt interest each represented between 6 and 9 percent of the total highway expenditures for the year. During the same period, capital outlay increased at an average annual rate of 2.6 percent. Federal funding grew by 2.3 percent, while State and local spending rose by 2.9 percent. In 2018, the Federal government was responsible for 40.1 percent of capital outlay but only 20.4 percent of overall highway expenditures. Notably, about two-thirds (66.1 percent) of capital outlay was allocated to system rehabilitation, encompassing $61.2 billion for highways and $16.2 billion for bridges. Additionally, 19.8 percent of capital outlay was dedicated to system expansion, primarily involving highway extensions.
A later section of this report will provide an in-depth analysis of these revenue and expenditure sources, with a particular emphasis on the funding and financial mechanisms available at the federal level.
* 1 2 3 4 5 Taylor, Brian D.; Morris, Eric A.; Brown, Jeffrey R. (2023-02-21). The Drive for Dollars. Oxford University PressNew York. ISBN 0-19-760151-0.
* ↑ "Transportation Economic Trends: Government Transportation Revenue vs Expenditure". data.bts.gov. Retrieved 2024-09-26.