United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 30, 2009 

The Honorable John McCain 

Acting Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 

 Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Coburn 

United States Senate 

Subject: Highway Trust Fund Expenditures on Purposes Other than Construction and 

Maintenance of Highways and Bridges during Fiscal Years 2004-2008. 

The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was created in 1956 to finance the construction of the 

Interstate Highway System. This system, built in partnership with state and local 

governments for over 50 years, has become central to transportation in the United States. 

Over these 50 years, the federal role in surface transportation has expanded to include 

broader goals and more programs. Although most surface transportation funds remain 

dedicated to highway infrastructure, federal surface transportation programs now serve 

additional transportation, environmental, and societal purposes such as construction of 

pedestrian walkways and safety enforcement facilities along border regions. 

The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) authorized $244.1 billion over 5 years for highways, highway safety, and 

public transportation, with the HTF serving as the funding source for most of the act’s 

programs.1

 In addition to authorizing funds for construction and maintenance of highways 

and bridges, the act specifies other purposes for which funding must or may be used, 

including, but not limited to, safety; metropolitan planning; transit; and transportation 

enhancement activities, such as trails for transportation purposes, pedestrian walkways, 

bicycle lanes and parking, and related projects. Some of these activities have elements 

related to, or that contribute to, construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. 

Within the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway Administration 

 

1

SAFETEA-LU is the current authorization act for surface transportation programs and will expire at 

the end of fiscal year 2009. The authorization act establishes or continues federal programs or agencies 

and establishes an upper limit on the amount of funds for the programs. SAFETEA-LU also provides 

annual contract authority over the authorization period for most highway programs funded through 

the HTF. Contract authority is a form of budget authority that permits obligations to be incurred in 

advance of appropriations. Contract authority is unfunded, and a subsequent appropriation is needed 

to liquidate, or pay, the obligations. 
(FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) are 

responsible for administering the grant programs funded by the HTF. In response to your 

concerns regarding resource challenges facing the nation’s current surface transportation 

programs and policies, this report provides information on the amount of HTF monies the 

DOT agencies obligated for purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways 

and bridges during fiscal years 2004 through 2008.2

 For a full description of how we 

determined projects that used HTF monies for purposes other than construction and 

maintenance of highways and bridges, see enclosure I of this report. 

To address our reporting objective, we obtained data from DOT on programs and projects 

that used HTF monies for purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways 

and bridges during fiscal years 2004 through 2008.3

 In the case of FHWA, we analyzed 

obligation data to report on the total cumulative obligated dollars and total number of 

projects for relevant project types during the 5-year period. We also reviewed publicly 

available authorization information for FHWA programs in the same time period. With regard 

to FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA, we analyzed data on authorization and obligations for all 

programs to report the total cumulative authorizations and obligations during the 5-year 

period. We interviewed agency officials and obtained additional information from DOT about 

steps taken to ensure the reliability of its data, and we determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We conducted our work from October 

2008 to June 2009 in accordance with all relevant sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance 

Framework. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain 

sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any 

limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for the findings. A more detailed description of our 

scope and methodology is contained in enclosure I of this report. 

Results in Brief 

During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, four agencies within the Department of Transportation 

obligated about $78 billion in HTF monies for purposes other than construction and 

maintenance of highways and bridges and had total authorizations of $243.1 billion during 

that time for all purposes. 4

 In particular, 

 

2

An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for payment. 

Once an obligation is made, the federal government must reimburse the states when they submit a 

voucher for completed work, which, because of the length of time it takes to complete projects, could 

be months or years after the obligation is made. See GAO, Highway Trust Fund: Improved Solvency 

Mechanisms and Communication Needed to Help Avoid Shortfalls in the Highway Account, GAO-09-

316 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6, 2009). 3

This period represents the fiscal year (2004) between transportation authorization bills and the four 

fiscal years (2005 through 2008) under SAFETEA-LU authorization for which complete data are 

available. 

4

Obligation amounts for FHWA, FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA include funding carried over from previous 

years. 

Page 2 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
• FHWA had total authorizations of about $195.3 billion and obligated nearly $28 billion 

for purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and bridges in 

accordance with its mission. 

• FTA had total authorizations of about $42.2 billion and obligated over $44 billion for 

purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and bridges in 

accordance with its mission.5

• NHTSA had total authorizations of about $3.2 billion and obligated $3.1 billion in HTF 

monies for purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and 

bridges in accordance with its mission. 

• FMCSA had total authorizations of about $2.4 billion and obligated approximately the 

same amount for purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and 

bridges in accordance with its mission. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment. DOT noted that 

activities such as safety, planning, and environmental activities contribute to or are 

preliminary work for highway construction and some programs that are not highway related, 

such as adding bicycle lanes on roads or bridges, may involve some highway or bridge 

construction. DOT also provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

Background 

Congress established the HTF in 1956 to hold highway user taxes to fund various surface 

transportation programs. In 1983, the HTF was divided into the Highway Account and the 

Mass Transit Account. Receipts for the HTF are derived from two main sources: federal 

excise taxes on motor fuels (gasoline, diesel, and special fuels taxes) and truck-related taxes 

(truck and trailer sales, truck tire, and heavy-vehicle use taxes). Receipts from the motor 

fuels tax constitute the single largest source of HTF revenue. The HTF also receives revenue 

attributable to gasoline used by nonhighway recreational users, such as snowmobiles, allterrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, off-highway light trucks, and other nonhighway 

motorized recreational vehicles. The Highway Account receives the majority of the tax 

receipts allocated to the fund.6

 

The HTF primarily supports four surface transportation agencies within the Department of 

Transportation. The Highway Account funds FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA and the programs 

they administer.7

 The Mass Transit Account funds FTA. As table 1 demonstrates, the Highway 

Account funds FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA, while according to FTA officials, FTA receives 

 

5

Obligation figures for FTA in this report are greater than total authorizations because they reflect 

combined HTF monies from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, and include funding carried over 

from previous years and funding transferred from FHWA for transit purposes. 

6

The 18.4 cents per gallon gasoline tax is split as follows: 15.44 cents per gallon to the Highway 

Account, 2.86 cents per gallon to the Mass Transit Account, 0.1 cent per gallon to the Leaking 

Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund is 

administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

7

The Highway Account provided $27 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to the Research 

and Innovative Technology Administration’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

Page 3 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
approximately 80 percent of its funding from the Mass Transit Account and the remainder 

from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. These agencies provide much of this funding 

directly to states, metropolitan planning agencies, and transit agencies through formula 

grants, and these recipients select projects to be funded, subject to federal eligibility 

requirements. 

Table 1: Sources of Authorized Funds for Key Department of Transportation Agencies, Fiscal Years 

2004-2008 

Funding source 

Agency HTF: Highway 

Account HTF: Mass Transit Account General Fund 

Federal Highway 

Administrationa

100% - - 

Federal Transit 

Administration 

- 80% in 2004 and 2006-2008 

85% for 2005 

20% in 2004 and 2006-2008 

15% in 2005 

National Highway 

Traffic Safety 

Administration 

100% in 2004-2007

83% in 2008 

- 17% in 2008 

Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration 

100% - - 

Source: GAO analysis of applicable laws and information from the Department of Transportation. 

a

In some instances, FHWA receives appropriated funds from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. For example, FHWA can 

receive emergency relief funds from the General Fund for the purpose of repairing roads and bridges damaged in natural 

disasters. 

Figure 1 shows total authorizations during fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for the four 

agencies. Total authorizations are for all programs, including, in the case of FHWA, those that 

support construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. 

Page 4 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Figure 1: Total Authorizations, Fiscal Years 2004-2008 

Total = $243.1 

$42.2

$195.3

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA, FTA, FMCSA, and NHTSA data.

$3.2

NHTSA

$2.4

FMCSA

FTA

FHWA

Total $243.1

•

•

•

•

(Dollars in billions)

Note: Authorizations include monies from the Highway Trust Fund as well as from the General Fund of the 

United States Treasury. The 2004 authorizations for all agencies were established through a series of extensions 

to the previous authorization. 

Because of a weakening economy and higher motor fuel prices, both of which affected key 

sources of HTF revenue, the HTF account balance dropped more precipitously than 

anticipated and was nearly depleted in August 2008. In September 2008, after a multiyear 

decline in the Highway Account balance, Congress passed legislation that provided $8 billion 

from the General Fund to replenish the account.8

 See the Related GAO Products page at the 

end of this report for a listing of our other reports related to the HTF. 

Department of Transportation Agencies Obligated Approximately $78 Billion 

in HTF Monies for Purposes Other than Construction and Maintenance of 

Highways and Bridges during Fiscal Years 2004-2008 

During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, four agencies within the Department of Transportation 

obligated about $78 billion in HTF monies for purposes other than construction and 

maintenance of highways and bridges and had total authorizations of $243.1 billion during 

that time for all purposes. FHWA uses HTF monies for transportation enhancements, 

planning, safety, research, transit capital projects, and other programs that are part of its 

mission. FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA funds are directed toward supporting transit, large 

commercial truck and bus safety, motor vehicle safety, planning, and other purposes. 

 

8

GAO, Highway Trust Fund: Improved Solvency Mechanisms and Communication Needed to Help 

Avoid Shortfalls in the Highway Account, GAO-09-316 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6, 2009). 

Page 5 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Federal Highway Administration: FHWA obligated nearly $28 billion from the HTF for 

purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and bridges during fiscal 

years 2004 through 2008. Of the nearly $28 billion, 13 percent ($3.8 billion) went toward 

transportation enhancement projects and the remaining 87 percent ($24.2 billion) went 

toward safety-, facility-, planning-, and other-related projects. 

Certain FHWA programs allow states, cities, and counties to use HTF monies for 

transportation enhancements—projects that, according to the Department of Transportation, 

help expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience. Such 

enhancements include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, landscaping and scenic 

beautification, and historic preservation related to surface transportation, among other 

purposes. In FHWA’s Surface Transportation Program, 10 percent of each state’s annual 

apportionment must be set aside for transportation enhancement activities and made 

available for distribution toward enhancements.9

 Several other FHWA programs, such as the 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program and the National Scenic 

Byways Program, also allow the use of funds for enhancement-type projects—for example, 

projects focused on pedestrians and bicyclists. 

As shown in table 2, FHWA obligated approximately $3.7 billion in HTF monies for 

transportation enhancement projects during fiscal years 2004 through 2008.10 Of all projects 

specified as transportation enhancements in FHWA’s database, those involving facilities for 

pedestrians and bicycles had the greatest amount of obligated federal funding during this 

period. FHWA obligated over $2 billion in federal funds for pedestrian and bicycle facility 

projects, which can include trails for transportation purposes, sidewalk construction and 

improvements, on-road bicycle lanes, and pedestrian lighting, among other activities. 

Landscaping and other scenic beautification projects had obligations of $850 million during 

the same 5-year period. 

 

9

For the purposes of the HTF, an apportionment is the distribution of federal funds to the states as 

prescribed by a statutory formula provided in law. Federal Highway Administration, Financing 

Federal Aid-Highways, FHWA-PL-07-017 (Washington, D.C.: March 2007). 10State, local, private, and other federal agency funding contributed another $2 billion from fiscal years 

2004 through 2008 for transportation enhancement activities. 

Page 6 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Table 2: FHWA’s Obligation of HTF Monies for Transportation Enhancement Projects by Type, Fiscal 

Years 2004-2008 

Transportation enhancement project 

HTF monies 

(Dollars in millions) Number of projects

Facilities for pedestrians and bicycles $2,005 5,547

Landscaping and other scenic beautification 850 2,772

Rehabilitation and operation of historic 

transportation buildings/structures/facilities 

224 366

Scenic or historic highway programs 215 859

Historic preservation 115 366

Safety and education for pedestrians/bicyclists 84 398

Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoffa 84 213

Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or 

historic sites 

57 154

Preservation of abandoned railway corridors 38 53

Archaeological planning and research 30 49

Establishment of transportation museums 28 55

Control and removal of outdoor advertising 19 25

Total $3,749 10,857b

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data. 

a

Number of projects and dollars also include projects related to the reduction of vehicle-caused wildlife mortality and 

maintaining habitat connectivity. 

b

Total project count may be overstated because a single project may be listed under more than one project type. 

In addition to transportation enhancement activities, FHWA, along with states, metropolitan 

planning organizations, and transit agencies, used HTF monies to support other projects such 

as safety, planning, research, traffic management engineering, ferryboats, and training. As 

shown in table 3, FHWA obligated approximately $24.2 billion in HTF monies for these 

activities during fiscal years 2004 through 2008.11 Safety activities accounted for 

approximately one-third of these funds. FHWA considers safety a crosscutting topic that 

encompasses speed and work zone management, construction, and other projects.12 In 

addition, approximately $3.1 billion in HTF monies was obligated for planning activities by 

states and metropolitan planning organizations during the 5-year period.13

 

 

11State, local, private, and other federal agency funding contributed another $15.6 billion from fiscal 

years 2004 through 2008 for projects other than construction and maintenance of highways and 

bridges. 

12Because safety is a crosscutting issue and part of many types of projects, including construction and 

maintenance projects, all funds directed toward safety may not be reflected. 13SAFETEA-LU specifies a deduction of 1.25 percent of the funds authorized for five different FHWA 

programs for metropolitan planning organizations. 

Page 7 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Table 3: FHWA’s Obligation of HTF Monies for Projects Other than Construction and Maintenance of 

Highways and Bridges by Type, Fiscal Years 2004-2008 

Nature of worka 

HTF monies

(Dollars in millions) Number of projects

Safety b $8,111 17,586

Other c 4,388 6,697

Planning 3,089 2,920

Traffic management engineering–HOVd 1,814 1,576

Utilitiese1,586 6,579

Research 1,321 1,401

Debt servicef 1,241 462

Rail/highway crossingg1,100 5,585

Environmental onlyh449 497

Administrationi 355 982

Transit 318 504

Trainingj 164 2,050

Ferryboats and facilitiesk121 63

Vehicle weight enforcement program 107 73

Youth conservation servicel13 50

Total $24,177 47,025m

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data. 

a

Some safety, planning, and research work can contribute or be a precursor to construction and maintenance of highways and 

bridges. 

b

This denotes projects wherein all or a significant portion of the project enhances safety in some way, for example, by 

constructing facilities dedicated to the enforcement of vehicle weight regulations. 

c

Miscellaneous work such as National Recreational Trails construction. States report costs in the “Other” category only if the 

major purpose of the project cannot be matched with any of the other specific improvement categories. This also includes 

approximately $256 million for about 5,000 individual Recreational Trails Program projects, which are often obligated as groups

of several individual projects within a single federal aid project 

d

Traffic operation improvements that are designed to reduce traffic congestion and to facilitate the flow of traffic, both people 

and vehicles, on existing systems. This includes automated toll collection equipment, road and bridge surveillance and control 

systems, and use of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. 

e

Acquisition of replacement right-of-way, preliminary engineering, or movement of utility services, in conjunction with a highway 

project 

f

Interest payments and retirement of principal under an eligible bond issue and any other cost incidental to the sale of an 

eligible bond issue. This includes capitalized interest, issuance costs, insurance or other credit enhancement fees, and other 

bond-related costs. 

g

Improvements and additions to protective devices such as signs, markings, flashing lights, and track circuitry. 

h

Improvements that do not provide any increase in the level of service, in the condition of the facility or in safety features. This 

includes noise barriers, beautification, and other environmentally related features not built as a part of any other improvement 

type. 

i

Administration for Recreational Trails Program projects, commercial vehicles, and other similar projects. 

j

Funding for training, supportive services, and on-the-job training. This is not training for FHWA employees. 

k

Construction of ferryboats and ferry terminal facilities. 

l

Use of youth conservation service is encouraged for Recreational Trails projects. 

m

Total project count may be overstated because a single project may be listed under more than one project type. 

Page 8 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Federal Transit Administration: FTA obligated over $44 billion for various transit activities 

during fiscal years 2004 through 2008, as shown in table 4. 14

 

Table 4: Federal Transit Administration Obligations, Fiscal Years 2004-2008

FTA program areaa Total obligations (Dollars in millions)

Formula and bus grantsb $27,270 

Capital investment grants / Discretionary Grants 15,978 

Research and University Research Centersc 421 

Job Access and Reverse Commuted322 

University Transportation Centerse 22f

Interstate Transfer-Transit 2 

Washington Metro 1 

Total $44,016 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data. 

a

Obligations are presented as provided by FTA. However, according to FTA officials, the program structure changed during the 

5-year period. Beginning in 2006, a shift occurred in Treasury accounts for certain programs, and obligations are presented in 

line with the Treasury account structure changes. For example, until fiscal year 2006, the Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Program received its own allocation, but it now falls under Formula and Bus Grants. 

b

Formula and Bus Grants was titled Formula Grants until fiscal year 2006. Obligations in the Formula Grants account are 

reflected in Formula and Bus Grants. 

c

Research and University Research Centers was formerly titled Transit Planning and Research. 

d

This program provides funding for local programs that offer job access and reverse commute services for low-income 

individuals who may live in the city core and work in suburban locations. 

e

Beginning in fiscal year 2006, University Transportation Centers was renamed and funded from Research and University 

Research Centers. 

f

Includes obligations for the University Transportation Centers program for funding fiscal years 2004 and 2005. 

FTA provides funds for financial and technical assistance to local and state public agencies to 

purchase, build, maintain, and operate transportation systems. FTA supports planning and 

operations for public transit systems, including bus, subway, and light rail. It primarily 

distributes money for these purposes through its Formula and Bus Grants and Capital 

Investment Grants programs. For example, one program under Formula and Bus Grants, the 

Bus and Bus Facility program, provides funding for the acquisition and replacement of buses 

for fleet or service expansion, among other purposes. The capital investment grants provide 

discretionary capital assistance for the construction of new fixed-guideway (for example, 

commuter rail or designated bus lanes) and extensions of existing systems through the New 

Starts and Small Starts programs. Other funds support research and planning activities and 

are distributed by both formula and discretionary grants. According to statute, FTA grant 

programs focus on providing assistance in developing improved public transportation 

equipment, facilities, techniques, and methods as well as encouraging the planning and 

establishment of areawide public transportation systems needed for economical and 

desirable urban development. Federal transit program funds are generally administered 

 

14According to FTA officials, the $44 billion includes monies from the Highway Trust Fund’s Mass 

Transit Account as well as from the General Fund of the Treasury. Specifically, in fiscal years 2004 and 

2005 FTA’s programs were split funded where trust funds and general funds were merged. Beginning 

in fiscal year 2006, FTA’s programs were funded either solely from general funds or trust funds. 

Page 9 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
through a federal-local partnership, although rural programs are administered at the state 

level. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: NHTSA obligated about $3.1 billion from 

the HTF during fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to support the improvement of highway safety, 

as shown in table 5. 

Table 5: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Obligations, Fiscal Years 2004-2008

NHTSA program 

Total obligations

(Dollars in millions)

Highway Traffic Safety Grants 

State and Community Highway Safety Grant Programs 

(formula grants) 

$952 

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants 449 

Safety Belt Performance Grants 313 

Occupant Protection Incentive Grants 110 

State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants 103 

High Visibility Enforcement Program 87 

Grant Administration 83 

Motorcyclist Safety Grants 18 

Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Incentive Grants 15 

Behavioral Research 488 

Vehicle Safety Researcha 422 

National Driver Register 19 

Total $3,059 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

Note: Excludes an additional $125.5 million that was obligated from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury in fiscal year 2008. 

a

Vehicle Safety Research funds research into fuel economy and vehicle safety compliance, among other programs. 

The largest portion of NHTSA’s federal highway safety funding during fiscal years 2004 

through 2008 was distributed by formula to states through the State and Community Highway 

Safety Grant Program (also referred to as formula grants for Highway Safety Programs). This 

funding supports programs that work to reduce accidents from speeding, encourage the 

proper use of seat belts and child seats, reduce accidents from driving while intoxicated, 

prevent and reduce accidents between motor vehicles and motorcycles, and improve law 

enforcement services in motor vehicle accident prevention and traffic supervision, among 

other things. 

Other NHTSA funding supports training programs and technical assistance for states. Federal 

highway safety grants are jointly administered through a federal-state partnership and costs 

are shared by the states. States that do not comply with certain federal safety provisions can 

be penalized by either having FHWA program funds transferred away or having them 

withheld. NHTSA also has a regulatory role in which it is to establish and enforce safety 

standards for passenger vehicles in areas such as tire safety and crashworthiness, as well as 

issue fuel economy standards. NHTSA also conducts testing, inspection, analysis, and 

investigations to identify noncompliance with vehicle safety standards. 

Page 10 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: FMCSA obligated approximately $2.4 billion 

from the HTF during fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to support the improvement of 

commercial motor vehicle safety, as shown in table 6. 

Table 6: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Obligations, Fiscal Years 2004-2008 

FMCSA program 

Total 

obligations 

(Dollars in 

millions)

Safety Program Grantsa

 Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Grant (MCSAP) $947 

Border Enforcement Grants 162 

Commercial Drivers License (CDL) Program Improvement Grant 114 

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Deployment (CVISN) 61 

Performance and Registration Information System Management Grant 

Program (PRISM) 

23 

Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) 20 

Commercial Vehicle Analysis Reporting System/Safety Data Improvement 

Program (CVARS/SaDIP) 

16 

Information Systems and Strategic Safety Initiatives (ISSSI) 15 

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs 

 Operating Expenses $754 

 Information Management 161 

 Regulatory Development 56 

Research and Technology 36 

 Outreach and Education 12 

 Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators Grants 4 

Total $2,381 

Source: GAO analysis of FMCSA data. 

a

FMCSA received a $3 million positive Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) adjustment for its Safety Program Grants in 

fiscal year 2007. RABA is designed to align Highway Account program levels with actual revenues and help ensure that the 

account is used to fund highway programs instead of accumulating large balances. See GAO, Highway Trust Fund: Improved 

Solvency Mechanisms and Communication Needed to Help Avoid Shortfalls in the Highway Account, GAO-09-316 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6, 2009). 

FMCSA is charged with establishing and enforcing standards for motor carrier vehicles and 

operations, hazardous materials, and movement of household goods, among other things. 

Similar to NHTSA, FMCSA provides funding to states through formula grant programs. The 

largest of the federal motor carrier safety grant programs, the Motor Carrier Safety 

Assistance Program (MCSAP), provides funding to states to reduce crashes involving 

commercial motor vehicles and incidents involving hazardous materials. FMCSA also 

conducts compliance reviews of motor carriers’ operations at their places of business as well 

as roadside inspections of drivers and vehicles, and can assess a variety of penalties 

including fines and orders for noncompliant motor carriers to cease interstate operations. 

Federal motor carrier safety grants are jointly administered through a federal-state 

partnership. 

Page 11 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this report for its review and 

comment. In response, DOT emphasized that some activities we reported on, such as safety, 

planning, and environmental activities, contribute to or are preliminary work for highway 

construction. Furthermore, some programs that are not highway related, such as adding 

bicycle lanes on roads or bridges; constructing pedestrian crosswalks, overpasses, and 

underpasses; and historic bridge rehabilitation, may involve some highway or bridge 

construction or rehabilitation. DOT noted that several FHWA programs, as designated by 

Congress, have purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and bridges 

and it believes FHWA is appropriately managing funds to achieve the purposes of those 

programs. DOT also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

____________________________________ 

As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until July 30, 2009, 30 days from the original 

issuance. We will then send copies to others who are interested and make copies available to 

others who request them. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site 

at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 

herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 

may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

enclosure II. 

Phillip Herr 

Director, Physical Infrastructure 

Enclosures - 2

Page 12 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 

The objective of this report is to provide information on the amount of Highway Trust Fund 

(HTF) monies that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) obligated for purposes other than 

construction and maintenance of highways and bridges during fiscal years 2004 through 2008. 

In this report, we use the term “purposes other than construction and maintenance of 

highways and bridges” to describe projects that do not consist of construction or 

maintenance work on interstate or local roads or bridges. FTA transit projects may also 

involve construction and maintenance, but not for highways and bridges. While many of the 

FHWA projects included in this category may be precursors to construction and maintenance 

projects, FHWA officials told us they are reasonably confident that the data they provided us 

describe only the non-construction-and-maintenance components of the overall projects. 

To address our reporting objective, with assistance from officials in FHWA’s Office of 

Financial Management, we identified a list of 27 “improvement type” codes in the agency’s 

Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) that are not related to construction and 

maintenance of roads and bridges.15 We requested and obtained the following data from 

FHWA’s FMIS for the period fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2008: (1) cumulative obligated 

dollars by improvement type code, (2) a cumulative breakdown of program spending for each 

improvement type, (3) a cumulative number of total projects within each improvement type, 

and (4) the total funding spent on projects under the identified improvement types. We 

analyzed the data to determine the total obligated funds and total number of projects for 

transportation enhancements (12 improvement type codes) and other projects not related to 

construction and maintenance of highways and bridges (the 15 remaining improvement type 

codes) over the 5-year period. 16 We also compared the obligated dollars with the total 

amount spent to determine the amount of state, local, private, and other federal agenc

dedicated to these projects. We interviewed officials from several FHWA departments about 

the agency’s use of Highway Trust Fund monies for purposes other than construction and 

maintenance of highways and bridges. In addition, we reviewed and reported on publicly 

available information on authorizations for FHWA programs for the 5-year period. 

y funds 

 

We requested, obtained, and analyzed FTA data on obligations for all programs in fiscal years 

2004 through 2008. FTA produced these data from its Transportation Electronic Award and 

Management (TEAM) system. We also reviewed publicly available information on FTA 

15According to FHWA, “improvement type” is a required field in FMIS that indicates the nature of work 

involved. For instance, each of the 12 eligible transportation enhancement activities has its own 

improvement type code, as do safety, transit, planning, and all other eligible activities under FHWA 

programs. Recipients may record multiple improvement types for a single project. However, FHWA 

officials were reasonably confident that the obligated dollars the agency provided correspond 

specifically to the designated improvement type. 

16FHWA officials noted that the total project count may be overstated, since a single project may be 

connected to more than one improvement type code. 

Page 13 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
authorizations for fiscal years 2004 through 2008.17 We requested, obtained, and analyzed 

NHTSA and FMCSA data on authorizations and obligations for all programs during the 5-year 

period. Both agencies produced this data through Delphi, which is DOT’s accounting system. 

We interviewed officials from FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA about the agencies’ uses of Highway 

Trust Fund monies for purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and 

bridges. These officials stated, and available documents corroborated, that none of the 

programs under these agencies are related to construction and maintenance of highways and 

bridges. We used the FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA data to report the total cumulative 

authorizations and obligations at the agency and program levels for fiscal years 2004 through 

2008. 

We also interviewed officials from FHWA, FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA and obtained written 

information from all four agencies about steps taken to ensure the reliability of their data. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We conducted our work from October 2008 to June 2009 in accordance with all relevant 

sections of our Quality Assurance Framework. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated 

objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and 

data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for the findings in this 

report. 

 

17FTA officials told us that they only track funding sources (general funds versus Mass Transit Account 

funds) at the authorization level. Because we were not able to identify the precise amount of Mass 

Transit Account monies included in obligation figures from FTA, we present total obligations (general 

funds combined with Mass Transit Account funds) in our report. 

Page 14 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Enclosure II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Phillip R. Herr, (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments 

In addition to the contact above, Sally Moino, Assistant Director; Virginia Chanley; Eric 

Hudson; Lisa Reynolds; and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this report. 

Page 15 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 
Page 16 GAO-09-729R Highway Trust Fund Expenditures 

Related GAO Products 

Highway Trust Fund: Options for Improving Sustainability and Mechanisms to Manage 

Solvency. GAO-09-845T. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2009. 

Transportation Programs: Challenges Facing the Department of Transportation and 

Congress. GAO-09-435T. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2009. 

Highway Trust Fund: Improved Solvency Mechanisms and Communication Needed to 

Help Avoid Shortfalls in the Highway Account. GAO-09-316. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 

2009. 

Surface Transportation: Principles Can Guide Efforts to Restructure and Fund Federal 

Programs. GAO-08-744T. Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2008. T

Physical Infrastructure: Challenges and Investment Options for the Nation's 

Infrastructure. GAO-08-763T. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008. 

Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More Focused, 

Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs. GAO-08-400. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 

2008. 

Surface Transportation: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Restructure Current 

Program. GAO-08-478T. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2008. 

Highway Trust Fund: Overview of Highway Trust Fund Estimates. GAO-06-572T. 

Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006. 

(546012)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs