CONSOUDATION OF HIGHWAY PROGRAMS 

Staff Working Paper 

November 1981 

The Congress 0 f the United States 

Congressional Budget Office 
CONTENTS 

Page 

SUMMARY v 

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 

Purpose of Consolidation 1 

CHAPTER II. MECHANISMS FOR CONSOUDATION 6 

CHAPTERm. CURRENT PROPOSALS FOR 

CONSOUDATION 9 

CHAPTER IV. EVALUATING CONSOUDATION 

PROGRAMS. 19 

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS 27 

iii 
TABLES 

TABLE 1. 

TABLE 2. 

TABLE 3. 

TABLE 4. 

TABLE 5. 

TABLE 6. 

•• 1 •• __ •• ~'., ' .... _ 

FISCAL YEAR 1982 AUTHORIZATIONS 

BY PROGRAM • 

A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM CONSOUDATION AND 

ELIMINATION PROPOSED IN CURRENT 

HIGHWAY BILLS 

PROPOSED REAGAN HIGHWAY AUTHORIZATIONS 

(S. 841) AND RELEVANT PORTIONS OF CURRENT 

LAW. 

ELIMINATION OF EXISTING FISCAL YEAR 1982 

AUTHORITY ACCORDING TO REAGAN 

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 

S. 1024, PROPOSED HIGHWAY ACT OF 1982 

EXPLICITLY PROPOSED CONSOUDATIONS 

UNDER THE SENATE BILL, S. 1024 • 

iv 

4 

10 

.12 

13 

16 

17 
SUMMARY 

Increasing pressures to control the federal budget and to remove the 

federal government from state decisionmaking are reflected in recently 

proposed highway bills. Some of these proposals would reduce federal 

spending on highway and highway safety programs, and they would relax 

federal control over some aspects of these programs. In the current 

climate, consolidating today's numerous, tightly defined highway programs 

into fewer, more flexible programs offers a way to control federal spending 

while granting states more flexibility in setting priorities and selecting 

projects to meet them. 

In this session, both houses of Congress will enact new highway 

proposals. The Senate Public Works Committee considered two major bills 

that would reshape highway law: the Administration's bill and one reported 

by the committee. The Administration's plan eliminates some programs, and 

it broadens the scope of other programs so as to pick up some of the lost 

coverage. The Senate bill combines the present secondary system and some 

highway safety into a new rural program, combines the present urban 

program, hazard elimination, and economic development highways into a 

new urban program, merges parts of safety programs not consolidated 

elsewhere into a new safety program, and bundles most forest and public 

v 
land highways into a federal lands program. The bill passed by the House 

would generally extend current law through fiscal year 1982. 

As the Congress considers various highway proposals that come 

before it this year and next, consolidation promises to be an important 

theme of continuing concern. This paper reviews current legislative 

proposals for highways, focusing particularly on any changes that would 

consolidate the many programs now in existence into fewer, more generalpurpose programs. It is divided into four sections: 

o The purpose of program consolidation; 

o Mechanisms for consolidation; 

o Description of alternative legislative proposals; and 

o An evaluation of the consolidation features of these proposals. 

vi 
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE OF CONSOUDATION 

Consolidation can increase the effectiveness of federal highway 

expenditures. This largely results from the states having more discretion in 

choosing which federally supported projects to undertake. By improving 

targeting, consolidation may also lead to budget reductions in federal 

highway expenditures. 

During recent years, the number of small highway and highway safety 

programs that are funded by the federal government has grown rapidly, from 

16 programs in 1968 to more than 50 (16 are multi-year programs that did 

not receive specific authorizations for fiscal year 1982) in 1978. These 

programs have become highly specialized, including highway beautification, 

which finances removal of billboards from federal routes, and the territorial 

highway program, which finances roads in American Samoa. Consolidation 

will reduce the number of smaller highway programs. 

Currently, the federal government spends about $9 billion annually on 

highways. Under the 1978 act, authorizations amount to just under 

1 
$9 billion for fiscal year 1982. !.I lnterstate highway programs at $3.6 billion and a bridge replacement program at $900 million account for half of 

all federal fiscal year 1982 authorizations for highways. Another very large 

program, the $1.5 billion federal-aid primary system, provides funding to 

develop further and maintain the national system of primary routes, which 

prior to creation of lnterstate highways, formed the backbone of nations' 

road network and still forms the backbone of the states' road networks. The 

federal-aid secondary and urban programs provide another $1.2 billion for 

rural and urban highways that feed into the primary system. Y About 25 

smaller programs account for the remaining $1.8 billion. Many of these 

smaller programs are targeted at highly specific needs: for example, access 

highways to lakes and upgrading of rail-highway crossings. 

11 "During consideration of the 1978 legislation it was necessary to make 

substantial cuts in the fiscal year 1982 highway authorization in order 

to reduce the total authorizations in order to reduce the total authorizations for the Surface Transportation Assistance Act to a figure which 

would ensure Presidential approval. The intent of the Committee ••• was to review the level of authorizations for fiscal year 

1982 for the highway program during 1981." Committee on Environment and Public Works, Report No. 97-202, October 7, 1981. 

Y All federal-aid highways account for nearly 20 percent of the 3.9 million miles of U. S. highways, but, 79 percent of total vehicles miles 

traveled. In fiscal year 1981, primary and secondary-aid systems had 

authorizations of $1.8 billion and $600 million, respectively, as opposed 

to $1.5 billion and $400 million in fiscal year 1982. The $500 million 

drop between fiscal year 1981 and fiscal year 1982 reflected legislative 

concessions to achieve President Carter's total four year authorization 

ceiling for the 1978 act. It was expected that these funds would be 

restored by fiscal year 1982. For this reason, rigid comparisons 

between the 1978 act's fiscal year 1982 authorization levels and current 

proposals may be slightly distorted. 

2 
Most programs that are financed from the Highway Trust Fund (about 

90 percent of the spending summarized in Table 1) generally do not require 

appropriation before the Secretary of Transportation can obligate funds. 

Thus, most highway spending does not get detailed review in the appropriations process. In recent years, though, the Congress has enacted obligation 

ceilings as a mechanism for controlling overall highway spending. This year 

(fiscal year 1982) the obligation ceiling stands at $8.2 billion although the 

Administration has proposed $7.2 billion and the Senate bill is at $7.7 billion; 

as a result, some programs may receive no funding while others may receive 

partial funding. In another few cases, the implementing agency may not 

request funds under the Highway Act; in these cases, the agency usually has 

alternative sources of funding for specific projects. 

3 
TABLl<,; 1. FISCAL YEAR 198Z AUTHORIZATIONS SY PROGRAM 

' ..... 1978 Present FY82 Federal Contract Authority fe) Percent of FYSl 

Act Authorizations Share or Appropriated AuthorizaUODI 

Section Program Name Z3 USC (In millions) (In percent) Budget Authority (BA) Apponlooed Appropriated 

10Z Interstate System 103(.) 3,ZOO HTF !I 90 C Ye. NA 

104(b)(I) Interstate Minimums lZ5 HTF 90 C Y .. NA 

105 Interstate System ReslU'facing l75 HTF 75 ~I C Y .. NA 

104a(l) Federal-Aid Primary 103(b) 1,500 HTF !I 75 ~I C Yea NA 

104.(1) Federal-Aid Secondary 103(e) 400 HTF 75 ~ C Y .. NA 

104a(Z) Federal-Aid Urban 103(d) 800 HTF 75 ~ C Y .. NA 

104a(3) Forest Highways Z04 33 HTF 100 C NA 

1040(4) Public Lands Highways Z09 16 HTF 100 C No NA 

1040(5) Forest Development Roads 

and Trails Z05 140 General Fund 100 SA No 0.0 

104a(6) Public Lands Development 

Roads and Trails Z14 10 General Fund 100 BA No 0.0 

1040(7) Par k Roads and Trails Z06 30 100 0.0 

General Fund SA No 

1040(8) Parkways Z07 45 General Fund 100 BA No 0.0 

1040(9) Indian Reservation Roads 

and Bridges l08 83 General Fund 100 SA Yeo 0.0 

104.(10) Economic Growth Center 

Development Highways 143 50 HTF 75 ~ C Y .. NA 

Appalachian Development 

Highways, PL 89-4 

Redevelopment Act of 1965 lOI ll5 General Fund 80 BA Yea NA 

1040(11) Adminb:trath'e Expenses 

for Highway Beautification 1.5 100 C No NA 

104a(lZ) Territorial ZI5(a) 11 General Fund 100 BA y"" 60.0 

104.(13) Territorial (Northern 

Mariana Islands) Chapter t General Fund \00 BA No NA , 141(c) Bicycle Program Z17 10 HTF 75 BA NA 

, 

, 

10 General Fund BA 5.0 i 

1040(15) Great River Roadt , 

, Off System 148 10 General Fund 75 BA Ye. 0.0 I 

On System Z5 HTF 75 ~I C (Rel.U.-e N~s) NA 

- - - - -- -- - - - -- -- -- - - - - ---- -- - -- --- - ---- - - - - ---- - - --- - ---- -- - -- - -- ----- ----- ----------- ------------- (Continued! 
TABLE I. CONTINUED 

-,1978 

Act 

Section 

104.(16) 

104.(17) 

104.(18) 

104(c) 

114 

134(0) 

ZOZ(1) 

ZOl(l) 

lOl(3) 

lOl(5) 

lOl(6) 

lOl(8) 

l03(a) 

l06 

SOURCE: 

Progra m Name 

Control of Outdoor AdTertising 

Safer-Qff System Roads 

Access Highways to Lakes 

DOT Secretary Pr-Iority Primary 

System Discretionary Fund 

Emergency Relief 

DemonstratiOIl Projects 

Railroad Highway Crossingt 

NRTSA 

Highway Safety R&D (NRTSA) 

Highway Safety Programs 

Highway Sorety R&D (FRWA) 

Bridge Reconstruction 

Elimination of Hazards 

Rail-Higbway Crouings 

Accident Data 

TOTAL 

Congressional Budget Office. 

!/ Highway Trust Fund. 

Z3 USC 

131 

ll9 

155 

Il5 

g 

40l 

403 

40l 

307 (a) 

403 

144 

ISl 

130 

~I Can be increased. to 95 percent. Z3 USC lZO(a). 

£1 Parentheses indlcatf!s Inclusion in anothf!r program. 

Present FY8Z 

Authorizations 

(In mi llions) 

30 General Fund 

ZOO General Fund 

IS General Fund 

(1Z5) g 

ISO RTF 

100 U3 - RTF 

1/3 - General Fund 

100 RTF !J 

31 RTF gj 

10 RTF gj 

10 RTF 

900 RTF 

ZOO RTF 

190 RTF 

5 RTF 

8,931.5 

~I Receivf!d $11.3 mUllan and a fiscal Tear 1981 supplemental of $10 million. 

Federal 

Share 

(In percent) 

7S 

15 ':>.1 

75 

75 

100 

95 

75 

100 

75 ':!I 

100 

80 

90 

90 

100 

!/ Section 163 or Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, and Section 104, 1974 Highway Amendment Act. 

Y Includes SZO million fO!' maximum speed limit. 

gl Changed by Highway Sorety Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35). 

Contract Authority (C) 

or Appropriated 

Budget Authority (BA) Apport_d 

BA No 

BA T ... 

BA No 

C No 

C No 

BA No 

C Y •• 

BA 

C Y •• 

BA 

C Y .. 

C Yeo 

C Y •• 

BA No 

• 

P~eent of FY81 

AutbotbaUou 

Appr<>prlated 

ZZ.O 

0.0 

100.0 Y 

NA 

NA 

0.0 

NA 

54.0 

NA 

95.0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.0 
CHAPTER II. MECHANISMS FOR CONSOUDATION 

Programs could be consolidated in several ways. Com bining the 

objectives and funding of two or more programs into a single program offers 

the most direct approach to consolidation. Y Alternatively, permitting the 

states to transfer funds from one program to another may, indirectly, 

produce the same results as merging programs.?,.1 Finally, the activities 

eligible for funding under each program can be broadened. This section 

describes different means of achieving consolidation. 

Substantial flexibility can be granted to states by permitting them to 

shift funds from one program to another. For example, a state may receive 

apportionments under a dozen different programs. At present, each state 

11 This approach was taken in the 1976 Highway Act, which consolidated 

"three existing categories--the rural primary, urban extensions, and 

priority primary programs--into a new primary system program ••. ", 

and " ••• safety programs that had been established in 1973 for highhazard locations and roadside obstacles were also consolidated." The 

Highway Safety Act of 1981 merged the maximum speed limit program 

which had required appropriations with the main National Highway 

Trransportation Safety Administration program which stipulates contract authority. It also specified that $ZO million in the main NHTSA 

program be earmarked for reaching maximum speed limit objectives. 

Y This approach was taken in the 1974 Highway Act which increased 

transfer limits. The report stated that this change furthered "the 

objective of maximum flexibility in the use of federal-aid for highways 

(p.5, House Report No. 94-716, April 13, 1976). Previously, the 

Congress had permitted states to transfer between rural primary and 

rural secondary programs; according to the 1974 act, beginning in 1976, 

transfers were permitted between rural and urban programs as well. 

6 
would keep a dozen lists of projects listed by priority--one for each 

program. Unfunded projects on one list may have higher priority than a 

funded project on another list, but the state may postpone the high priority 

work in order to distribute its funds so as to match all available forms of 

federal support. If programs are consolidated or if the state is able to 

transfer apportionments from one program to other programs, then the state 

could merge its various lists into one and undertake projects that better 

reflect its overall highway and safety priorities. 

By limiting how much states may transfer between specific programs, 

the federal government can retain some control over programs. For 

example, the 1978 act permitted transfers up to 50 percent among federalaid highway programs. For programs in which there is a strong national 

interest, such transferability could be restricted so as to ensure greater 

adherence to national objectives. For programs with largely local objectives, the transfer ceiling could be quite high. 11 In short, increased 

transferability offers a workable way to balance national concerns with 

state and local priorities. 

II The 1973 act enabled local governments to use the urban system 

authorization's for transit capital projects as well as highwiiY projects. 

In addition, states were allowed to "trade in" segments of the Interstate 

system that were not of national importance and use the funds for 

transit capital projects. These substitute projects were subject to 

appropriations. The 1978 act permitted the substitution of other 

highway projects as well as mass transit. 

7 
Instead of creating new programs to meet new needs, existing 

programs may be widened to include an additional purpose. For example, 

some state highway networks rely on ferry boats and access roads to them. 

Since ferrys generally operate only where bridges are inconveniently distant, 

the ferry boats provide an essential link in the highway system. The 1970 

Highway Act, instead of adding another program, broadened the scope of an 

existing program to include ferry boat purchases. 

8 
CHAPTER m. CURRENT PROPOSALS FOR CONSOUDATION 

The Congress has three proposed highway bills presently before it: 

the Administration bill (5. 841), the Senate bill, (5. 1024), and the House bill 

(H. R. 3210). Essentially the House bill extends present programs, authorized in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, to run their 

course for one additional year through fiscal year 1982. 

The Reagan Administration does not explicitly propose to consolidate 

programs; rather it eliminates most all of the small programs and expands 

somewhat the coverage of the larger programs. The Senate proposal 

reduces the number of highway programs to 12, folding several smaller 

programs now in existence into these remaining programs, (Table 2). 1-1 

House Proposal (H. R. 3210) 

The House bill, which basically extends current law for one year, adds 

$100 million to the $900 million bridge program, and $50 million to the 

y Broadly speaking, the Administration and Senate highway proposals are 

similar; each maintains primary, secondary, urban, bridge, and safety 

categories, although specific provisions do vary. 

9 
TABLE Z. A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION AND EUMINATION PROPOSED IN 

CURRENT HIGHWAY BILLS 

Senate Bill 

(5. 10Z4) 

Amount Authorized 

(Fiscal Year 1982. billions) 8.6 ~ 

Number of Major 

Programs Authorized ~I 12.0 ,,-I 

Major Consolidation Initiatives Permits 100% transfers 

of apportionments between 

federal aid primary, rural, 

and urban programs. 

Consolidates several forest 

and public programs into two 

directed programs, one for 

forests and another for 

public lands. 

Consolidates several safety 

programs into federal aid 

programs and a single 

safety program. 

Eliminates priority primary 

set aside. 

Administration Bill 

(5. 841) 

8.8 "J 

14.0 

Eliminates priority primary set aside. 

House Sill 

(H. R. lZ10) 

9.6 sf 

34.0 

The House bill amounts 

to an extension of current law and the roughly 

40 programs remain 

intact. 

Major Program 

Terminations Some of the smaller programs not consolidated 

remain although in an 

inactive status. 

Urban and secondary aid It does not eliminate 

!,! Obligation ceiling of S1.Z biJIion. 

after fiscal year 1983. any programs. 

Forest development roads. 

Economic growth center 

highways. 

Safer-off system roads. 

Hazard elimination. 

Rail highway crossings. 

!!.! The Admini<Jtration has since proposed a ceiling of S1.Z billion. 

s./ Obligation ceiling of $8.2 billion. 

~! More than $50 mimon for fiscal year 198Z authorizations. 

f}/ Does not include National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which is covered by S. __ 

repqrted by the Senate Commerce Committee. 
$1,500 million primary aid program (earmarked for priority primary highways). H. R. 3210 also adds $525 million to the $275 million 3-R program 

and thereby establishes the Interstate highway 4R program. The 30, small 

and large, programs listed in Table 1 are retained. The increased funding is 

to the existing 1982 authorizations--relative to the 1981 program, the total 

increase is small. 

Reagan Proposal (5. 841) 

The Administration's proposal would make several important changes 

to current law. The most dramatic change affects the federal-aid highways 

(Table 3). The secondary and urban programs would be eliminated after 

fiscal year 1984, but the primary-program would be extended to cover some 

of their activities. 

For the programs that are kept, the Reagan proposal increases fiscal 

year 1982 authorizations by more than $1.1 billion compared to current 

authorizations. Numerous programs, amounting to $1.3 billion, are targeted 

for elimination (Table 4); forest development roads ($140 million), offsystem safety ($200 million), hazards elimination ($200 million), and rail 

highway crossings ($190 million) are the major categorical programs elimi11 
TABLE 3. PROPOSED REAGAN mGHWAY AUTHORIZATIONS (S.841) AND RELEVANT PORTIONS OF CURRENT LAW 

Present Reagan Proposal 

S.841 FY82. S.841 (Fiscal years in millions) 

Section !.I Program 2.3 USC Authority Section 1982. 1983 1984 1985 1986 

103 Interstate 103(e) 3,2.00 102 3,300 3,625 3,625 3,625 3,625 

106 (a) Interstate 4-R 275 106(a) 800 1,300 2,000 2,100 2,700 

104a(1) Federal-Aid Primary 103(b) 1,500 104a(1) 1,500 1,700 1,800 1,800 1,800 

104a(1) Federal-Aid Secondary 103 (c) 400 104a(1) 700 300 £.1 EI EI 

104a(2) Federal-Aid Urban 103 (d) 800 104a(2) 900 500 EI EI EI 

104a(3) Forest Highways 204 33 104a(3) 34 34 34 34 34 

104a(4) Public Lands Highway 209 16 104a(4) 16 16 16 16 16 

104a(5) Bridges 144 900 104a(5) 900 1,200 1,400 1,400 1,400 

114 Emergency Relief 125 150 114 150 150 150 150 150 

Interstate Transfer 275 pJ 200 225 375 375 375 

12.9(6) Appalachian Development 

Highway System l}/ 2.15 129 2.15 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.89 

2.02.(a)(l) NHTSA (Programs) 402. 2.00 2.02.(a)(l) 77 77 77 77 77 

2.0 2 (a)(2) NHTSA (R&D) 403 50 202(a)(2) 31 31 31 31 31 

202(a)(3) FHWA (R&D) 307(a) 10 202.(a)(3) 10 13 13 13 13 

Other Programs 1,182..5 __ 0 __ 0 __ 0 __ 0 o • 

TOTAL 8,931.5 8,833 9,405 9,771 9,891 10,510 

!.I Proposed Administration Law, S. 841. 

'21 Section lOI, P. L. 89-4, Appalachian Redevelopment Highways. 

,=-1 Eliminated after fiscal year 1983. 

/1/ Fic:,..:.l VP;t,. lQRl :.nn ... nnriations du~ to oDen-ended authorization 1973 UMTA Act. 
TABLE 4. 

1978 Act 

Section 

104a(5) 

104a(6) 

104a(7) 

104a(8) 

104a(9) 

104a(lO) 

104a(ll) 

104a(lZ) 

104a(13) 

141 (c) 

ELIMINATION OF EXISTING FISCAL YEAR 198Z AUTHORITY ACCORDING TO REAGAN 

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 

Program Name 

Forest Development Roads and Trails 

Public Lands Development Roads 

and Trails 

Park Roads and Trails 

Parkways 

Indian Reservation Roads and Bridges 

Economic Growth Center 

Development Highways 

Administrative Expenses for Carry 

Out 131 and 136 Title Z3 

Territorial 

Territorial (Northern Mariana Islands) 

Bicycle Program 

Section of 

Title Z3 

Z05 

Zl4 

z06 

Z07 

Z08 

143 

Z15(a) 

Chapter I 

CUrrent FY8Z 

Authorizations 

(In millions) ~ 

140 General Fund 

10 General Fund 

30 General Fund 

45 HTF 

83 General Fund 

50 HTF 

1.5 

11 General Fund 

1 General Fund 

10 RTF 

(Continued) 
TABLE 4. Continued 

Current FY82 

1978 Act Section of Authorizations 

Section Program Name Title 23 (In millions) '!./ 

104a(15) Great River Road: 

Off System 148 10 General Fund 

On System 25 HTF 

104a(16) Control of Outdoor Advertising 131 30 General Fund 

104a(17) Safer-Off System Roads 219 200 General Fund 

104a(18) Access Highways to Lakes 155 15 General Fund 

104(c) DOT Secretary Primary System 

Discretionary Fund 125 

134(c) Demonstration Projects Railroad 

Highway Crossings 100 

202(3) Highway Safety Programs 402 25 HTF 

202(8) Elimination of Hazards 152 200 HTF 

203(a) Rail-Highway Crossings 130 190 HTF 

206 Accident Data 5 HTF 
nated. However, during fiscal year 1981, over $700 million in authorizations 

for these programs were either never appropriated or, in the case of 

contract authority, never requested by the implementing agency. For 

instance, the forestry service develops logging roads in national forests 

through other programs. The Reagan changes then do not consolidate 

per se, but rather just eliminate presently inactive, unfunded programs. 

After accounting for programs with authorizations, but no money obligated, 

the Reagan Administration does propose about $400 million in small program 

cuts, and, at the same time, proposes modest increases in some large 

programs. 

Senate Proposal (S. 1024) 

The proposed Senate highway bill, reported by committee, has 

consolidation as one of its important features. Like the Reagan proposal, 

highway authorizations in 1982 amount to $8.6 billion and then grow to just 

over $10 billion (Table 5) by fiscal year 1986. The Senate bill proposes to 

consolidate about $500 million in smaller program authorizations into other 

programs in fiscal year 1982 (Table 6). It would gradually reduce aid to 

these activities, lowering federal support from $500 million in fiscal year 

1982 to $350 million in fiscal year 1986. 

15 
TABLE 5. S. 1024, PROPOSED HIGHWAY ACT OF 1982 

S. 1024 

S. 1024 FY82 (In fiscal years, in millions) 

Section Program 23 USC Authority 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 

102 Interstate <y 103(e) 3,325 3,300 3,500 3,400 3,400 3,500 

106 (a) 4-R 275 800 1,300 1,700 1,700 2,200 

104(a)(l) Primary 103(b) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,600 

104(a)(2) Rural (Secondary) 103(c) 400 600 500 500 500 400 

104(a)(3) Urban 103(d) 800 800 700 700 700 600 

104 (a)(4) Forest and Public Lands 204 

104(a)(5) 209 359 50 50 50 50 50 

104(a)(6) Bridges 144 900 1,100 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 

104(a)(7) Highway Safety 1:!! 205 100 100 50 50 50 

110 (a) Interstate Transfers 225 200 225 250 250 300 

119 Emergencies 125 150 150 150 150 150 150 

130(b) Economic Development sf 215 215 200 150 125 100 

Other Programs 429.5 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 8,781.51:!! 8,615 9,325 9,850 9,825 10,250 

<y Includes $125 million to cover minimum apportionments, because S. 1024, Interstate program 

includes former apportionments. 

1:!! Does not include National Highway Transportation Safety Administration authorization which may 

amount to $150 million. 

'2/ Mainly Appalachian Development Highways, Section 201, P. L. 89-4, Appalachia Redevelopment 

Highways. 
TABLE 6. EXPUCITLY PROPOSED CONSOUDATIONS UNDER THE SENATE BILL, S. 1024 

S. 1024 1978 Act 

Authorized Authorized Appropriated 

New Program (In millions) Current Program (In millions) (In millions) 

Primary Aid 1,500 Primary Aid '!./ 1,375 1,375 

Priority Primary 125 125 

Rural Aid 600 Secondary Aid 400 400 

Highway Safety 10 £! 

Urban Aid 800 Current Urban Aid 800 800 

Highway Safety £! 

Hazard Elimination 200 200 

Economic Growth 50 50 

Highway Safety Improvement 100 Railway Crossings 190 190 

Highway Safety R&D 10 10 

Evaluation of Highway Safety 5 5 

Federal Lands Highway 50 Forest Highways 173 33 

Public Lands Highways 26 16 

Parks and Roads 30 0 

Indian Reservation 83 0 

Parkways 45 0 

TOTAL 3,050 3,533 3,225 

'!.I Excluding priority primary of $125 million. 

£! S. 1024 consolidates many of the safety programs into the main federal-aid primary, secondary, and 

urban programs. As a result, states can apply for safety project funding through these main 

programs. In some cases, such as hazard elimination, the legislative language suggests that this 

program is to be consolidated into the new urban aid program. For about $20 million in current 

safety programs, the language is not sufficiently specific to make this linkage. Therefore, the 

$20 million is included in the column total but not as a line item. 
The Senate bill bundles highway programs into 1 Z groups, three of 

which--forest and public lands highways (or off-system highways), highway 

safety, and economic development--combine previously separate programs. 

Forest and public lands highway expenditures hold at $50 million. The 

Senate bill consolidates all remaining highway safety programs into a single 

program; highway safety programs begin at $100 million and decline to and 

hold steady $50 million after fiscal year 1984. Only the Appalachian 

Development Highway programs remains as a specific economic development program. Beginning fiscal year 198Z with $Z15 million it declines to 

$100 million by fiscal year 1986. 

The Senate bill also takes several steps to increase the transferability 

of funds between programs. First, it permits state and local governments to 

transfer up to 100 percent of apportionments between federal-aid highway 

system categories; existing law only permits 50 percent transfers. Second, 

it permits states, which have Interstate apportionments in excess of 

Interstate needs, to transfer those apportionments to other federal-aid 

system categories. And third, the proposed federal-aid rural and urban 

programs would finance all facets of comprehensive highway construction, 

and safety activities. y 

'!;./ The federal share on construction projects on these systems would 

decrease to 50 percent from 75 percent. 

18 
CHAPTER IV. EVALUATING CONSOUDATION PROGRAMS 

The design of the package of federal highway programs reflects four 

maj or considerations: 

o Federal program control; 

o State and local flexibility; 

o Budgetary control; and 

o Administrative costs. 

For the most part, the degree to which programs are consolidated 

represents a balance between the first two considerations--federal program 

control and state and local flexibility. In addition, the structure of the 

highway programs can also influence the Congress' ability to exert budgetary control as weI! as to reduce the administrative burden imposed on 

states. 

Federal Program Control 

Through various highway acts, the Congress has defined national 

concerns ranging from very broad programs, such as the 40,000 mile 

19 
Interstate highway program to very specific projects, such as the Bloomington Ferry Bridge. If the Congress consolidates some of its narrowly focused 

programs into mOre general programs, it relinquishes some of its leverage 

over state and local decisionmaking regarding the selection of highway 

projects. Highly targeted federal programs can ensure that specific 

Congressional concerns are enacted quickly, and not overlooked in favor of 

other concerns that may appear more urgent at the state level. On the 

other hand, too much Congressional involvement in highway programming 

could bring numerous projects before the Congress that might more efficiently have been controlled by the states. 

Administration Proposal. The Administration proposal substantially 

curtails Congressional influence over which projects the states undertake. 

By authorizing only six major and eight minor programs, the Administration 

proposes to eliminate the secondary and urban programs, which would 

become state and local responsibilities. Indeed, the Administration bill 

proposes to discontinue most small programs and some intermediate sized 

programs without broadening significantly the coverage of remaining programs. As a result, the Congress would reduce its ability to control many 

road-related features, notable safety features, and would also lose some of 

its ability to influence decisions related to specific projects. 

zo 
Senate Proposal. The Senate bill retains the urban and rural highway 

aid programs, but broadens their focus and eligibility requirements to cover 

activities formerly covered by other programs. For instance, the new rural 

program, which largely replaces the secondary program, covers safety 

improvements and even non-urban public transportation. The Senate bill 

permits each state to transfer as much as 100 percent of one federal-aid 

programs (all federal aid programs) to other federal-aid programs, greatly 

diminishing the Congress' ability to channel aid into currently defined 

program areas. 

House Bill. The House bill, which generally extends existing law 

with its numerous, narrowly defined highway programs, would give the 

Congress the greatest influence over details of state highway decisions. The 

"demonstration projects--railroad highway crossings" program illustrates 

the type of control that is retained. This program began with several 

specific sites, and to gain wider support, proponents have included other 

sites. The program has long passed the experimental stage--ZQ sites 

presently await funds. In effect, the Congress has placed itself in the 

position of a project manager by deciding the sequence and schedule of each 

project. The House bill would continue to place the Congress in this role. 

Zl 
While all three bills would continue to grant the states substantial 

flexibility under the largest and most general programs, such as the primary 

program, the House bill differs from the others by retaining strong federal 

control over numerous smaller programs. 

State and Local Flexibility 

State and local control, in part, is the flipside of federal program 

control. As the Congress consolidates programs, it also passes some of the 

authority and responsibilities back to states and localities. There are often 

sound reasons for doing this. Where the issues are of a truly local nature, 

states and localities can make more locally representative decisions than 

can the Congress. As a result, in many instances, the states can make more 

cost effective use of available funds if they are able to choose projects that 

reflect their knowledge of needs and priorities. 

State and local priorities may not reflect legitimate national concerns when roads serving national or interstate traffic are involved. Nor do 

they necessarily reflect national concerns on social goals related to roads, 

such as safety, energy conservation, or environmental quality. As a result, 
the Congress must balance the national interests in the highway program 

with the responsiveness and efficiency which increased state and local 

control can sometimes bring. 

Administration Bill. The Administration's bill shifts total control of 

the urban and secondary aid programs to the states and, after a two year 

phase-out, eliminates federal support to these programs; the states gain 

control but acquire total financial responsibility. The Administration's bill 

repeals the priority primary program returning $125 million annually to the 

primary program al;1d state control. Safety programs are drastically reduced 

both in number, from seven to three, and in dollars, from roughly $800 million to $260 million. These program eliminations and reductions do not 

repackage federal aid into programs that give states greater control. 

Rather, they extricate the federal government from various activities, 

leaving the states the responsibility of financing and controlling further 

activities in these areas. 

Senate Bill. The Senate bill would also shift financial responsibility, 

and program control to states and facilities, although more slowly than 

would the Administration's bill. Both the urban and rural program would be 

broadened, giving the states greater flexibility to apply these funds to 

highway safety improvement as well as highway construction or mainte23 
nance. The Senate bill would have the federal share of construction costs 

reduced to 50 percent from 75 percent, thereby increasing state financial 

responsibility along with additional control. 

House Bill. The many, relatively rigid programs contained in the 

House bill would require states to undertake a variety of projects in order to 

qualify for the associated program funds. It would grant states the least 

program control of any of the three options discussed here. In addition, 

states can transfer funds only between federal-aid highway systems--the 

Interstate, primary, and secondary systems--subject to two restrictions. 

First, states cannot transfer more than 50 percent of the funds apportioned 

under anyone of those programs. Second, states cannot increase the 

amount of federal funds spent on anyone program to more than 150 percent 

of the original amount provided. !I This provision gives states considerable 

flexibility in transferring funds between federal-aid highway programs, but 

limits the amount they can concentrate on any particular system. The 

House bill would continue this approach. 

!I Z3 U.S.C. l04d. 
Budgetary Control 

Consolidating numerous specialized programs into fewer, more general programs can soften the impact of budget arty reductions. First, 

consolidation eliminates close ties between budget line items and specific 

projects. No particular project is absolutely eliminated, so that projects of 

crucial importance need not be affected by budgetary changes. Second, 

legislative decisions about budgetary levels will turn to a greater extent on 

aggregate needs under eachprogram, and less on some patchwork of specific 

projects that must be amassed to gain legislative acceptance of a package. 

Administration Bill. By reducing the number of small programs, the 

Administration's plan concentrates federal support on programs having the 

greatest national interest. These are probably the programs most essential 

to the nation's economic well being. By focusing federal support here, the 

Congress can better isolate the remaining programs for budgetary scrutiny. 

Senate Bill. The Senate's bill is similar to the Administration's in 

terms of budget control. The Senate's bill, with its six major categories and 

six minor categories, is considerably more concentrated than current 

authorizations. As a result, it should provide the Congress with enhanced 

budgetarty control. 

25 
House Bill. Continuation of numerous, specialized programs tends to 

inhibit budgetary control. If programs cannot be consolidated or eliminated, 

budgetary control tends to be exercised through across-the-board cuts. Such 

cuts would be limited, in the case of highways, since several of the major 

highway programs are broadly considered to be of crucial economic importance, and the importance of preserving these programs at relatively high 

levels would tend to insulate the other programs from budgetary control. 

Adminis trative Costs 

Administrative costs, although of lesser importance than the considerations discussed above, nevertheless pose another source of gains that 

consolidation can bring. National cost accounting and control mechanisms, 

nationwide design standards, and other features of federal aid can impose 

costs which might be avoided if states had greater flexibility in matching 

program funds to projects. Although total federal spending on highways will 

increase under all three bills, some efficiencies in administrative costs 

might result from the less complicated program structures in the Senate and 

Administration bills. 

Z6 
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS 

Of the three bills before the Congress, the Senate bill makes the 

most use of consolidation. It broadens some existing programs, permits 

states to transfer additional apportionments between programs, and groups 

small programs into new programs having a common theme. The Administration bill for the most part eliminates, rather than consolidates, various 

special-purpose programs. The House bill essentially continues existing law, 

authorizing many small, segmented programs with a relatively extensive 

federal role. 

The Senate bill provides the least federal control over how federal 

funds will be spent; the House bill provides the most control. The Senate 

and Administration bills are similar in their treatment of the large highway 

programs, although they differ in two ways. First, the Senate bill folds the 

small programs into the larger programs. This provides a comprehensive 

approach to highway development as it incorporates safety, highway maintenance, and construction in the same program, thereby enabling each state 

to mix activities in these areas to meet its needs. Second, the Senate bill 

does not eliminate federal-aid secondary and urban programs as does the 

Administration bill. Rather, the Senate bill permits 100 percent transfers 

between federal-aid secondary and urban programs and other federal-aid 

programs. 

Z7 
States would generally gain control when the federal government 

relaxes it, so that the task of designing an appropriate program mix is 

largely a matter of balancing federal control over items of national interest 

with state and local concerns. The Senate bill grants states the greatest 

flexibility in how they use federal funds. The Administration bill does not 

significantly shift how available federal funds can be used under each 

program, but it significantly reduces the number of programs that the 

federal government would participate in. This leaves the states with new 

financing responsibilities along with new program flexibility. The House 

bill, which retains the greatest federal control over highway programs, 

correspondingly grants states the least flexibility in setting their own 

program priorities. 

Z8