Highway Trust Fund: DOT Has Opportunities to Improve Tracking and Reporting of Highway Spending
Published: 2014-10-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In recent years, dedicated revenues to the Highway Trust Fund have been eroding, resulting in fewer resources to fund surface transportation projects and requiring, between 2008 and 2014, transfers of over $50 billion in general revenues. Four operating administrations within DOT—FHWA, FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA—receive funding from the Highway Trust Fund for programs administered by these agencies, and FHWA receives the largest share (81 percent of the agency's authorizations in fiscal year 2013).
GAO was asked to review how Highway Trust Fund monies are being used to help ensure that sound choices and investment decisions about future funding are made. This report examines what is known about the types of projects, activities, and federal administrative functions and expenses supported by DOT using Highway Trust Fund monies in fiscal year 2013. To address this request, GAO obtained and analyzed fiscal year 2013 federal obligation data from DOT's operating administrations, reviewed relevant documentation, and interviewed FHWA, FTA, FMCSA, NHTSA, and DOT officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2013, operating administrations within the Department of Transportation (DOT) collected and reported some information on the types of activities and administrative expenses funded from the Highway Trust Fund, but did so with varying levels of detail. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) obligated about $41 billion in fiscal year 2013, most of which ($39 billion) was apportioned to states through the federal-aid highway program. FHWA tracks federal-aid highway program obligations in its Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS), for individual project segments or contracts. This process allows FHWA to collect and report information on the types of activities (such as obligations for the construction of new roads or bridges) funded with Highway Trust Fund monies.
However, FHWA does not collect and report aggregate project-level data for the majority of projects on a routine basis. Aggregate project-level data would allow FHWA to track and report the total overall obligations of an entire project. While FHWA tracks and reports aggregate obligations for its “major projects” (projects with a total cost of $500 million or more), it does not collect and report aggregate obligations for other projects, which represented nearly 88 percent of all fiscal year 2013 spending. FHWA could collect and report aggregate obligations for all projects in FMIS, and FMIS has two existing data fields that could be used to collect this information. But according to FHWA officials, doing so would result in increased costs to FHWA and states. FHWA officials attributed increased costs to, among other things, programming costs to make changes to FMIS to track these data; however, FHWA has not completed a cost analysis to estimate what the associated costs would be. FHWA is currently in the process of modernizing its FMIS database system. Exploring the costs, feasibility, and options for collecting and reporting consistent aggregate project-level obligations could aid FHWA in its oversight efforts, including its ability to more easily draw consistent data for its compliance reviews and to report information to Congress and the public about how the majority of federal funds from the Highway Trust Fund are being used.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA) also collect some information on activities funded with Highway Trust Fund monies. For example, FTA collects data on activities, such as obligations for bus and rail purchases, funded with Highway Trust Fund monies each year, and NHTSA and FMCSA collect and report data by grant program. In addition, within DOT, the FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA used Highway Trust Fund monies for a range of administrative expenses, such as personnel salaries and benefits and rent. FTA does not receive Highway Trust Fund monies for administrative expenses.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FHWA Administrator to explore the costs, feasibility, and options for collecting and publicly reporting consistent aggregate project-level spending data. DOT agreed with our recommendation. DOT also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The nation’s surface transportation systems are critical to the economy  and the movement of people and freight. Federal surface transportation  programs are primarily funded by taxes on motor fuels and other truck- related taxes that are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. In recent  years, dedicated revenues from fuel taxes to the Highway Trust Fund  have been eroding. Federal motor-fuel tax rates have not increased since  1993, and the 18.4 cents per-gallon tax on gasoline enacted in 1993 is  worth about 11.5 cents today. This trend is expected to continue as  demand for gasoline decreases with the introduction and adoption of  more fuel-efficient and alternative fuel vehicles in the years ahead. In  August 2014, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that to maintain  current spending levels plus inflation between 2014 and 2024, the  Highway Trust Fund will require about $157 billion more than it is  expected to take in over that period. To maintain current spending levels  and cover revenue shortfalls, between 2008 and 2014, Congress has  transferred over $50 billion in general revenues to the Highway Trust  Fund.  And in August 2014, an extension of federal-aid highway programs  through May 31, 2015, was enacted and will provide $10.8 billion in  funding to the Highway Trust Fund, of which $9.8 billion will be  transferred from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. This approach  may not be sustainable over the long term given competing demands for  federal funding and the federal government’s growing fiscal challenges.  Congress and the Administration need to agree on a long-term,  sustainable plan to fund surface transportation, and for this and other  reasons, funding surface transportation is on GAO’s High Risk List.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)  authorized Highway Trust Fund monies for programs administered by four  operating administrations within the Department of Transportation  (DOT)—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).  Most of this funding is administered by FHWA, which distributes most of  the funds to the states through formulas established in law under the  federal-aid highway program. FHWA tracks federal-aid highway program  obligations and the types of funded activities in its Fiscal Management  and Information System (FMIS).Delphi system. Highway Trust Fund monies are also used for other  purposes, including for administrative expenses of the DOT’s operating  administrations. Currently, FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA receive monies  from the Highway Trust Fund for administrative expenses, while FTA  does not receive funding from the Highway Trust Fund for such  expenses.
Non-state funding is tracked through the  While Highway Trust Fund dollars are used for a wide range of activities,  such as road or bridge improvements, information about these activities is  not readily available to Congress and the public. For example, DOT’s  annual fiscal-year budget reports provide information on total spending at  the program level, but do not provide detailed information about the types  of activities and administrative expenses funded with Highway Trust Fund  monies. Given the financial condition of the Highway Trust Fund, you  asked us to provide information about how this funding is being used to  help ensure that sound choices and investment decisions about future  funding are made. We examined what is known about the types of  projects, activities, and federal administrative functions and expenses  supported by DOT using Highway Trust Fund monies in fiscal year 2013.
To address our reporting objective, we obtained and analyzed data on  fiscal year 2013 obligations from the Highway Trust Fund for programs  and administrative expenses administered by FHWA, FTA, FMCSA, and  NHTSA— the DOT agencies that can directly obligate funds from the  Highway Trust Fund. Specifically, we examined national level data on  programs and activities that these agencies reported that could be readily  aggregated from the obligation data.  While each agency collects  additional information about its programs and activities at the state and  grantee level as part of its oversight and monitoring responsibilities, we  focused only on what national level information could be aggregated from  data on Highway Trust Fund obligations for fiscal year 2013. For FHWA,  we obtained and analyzed data on federal-aid highway program  obligations from FHWA’s FMIS database. For FTA, we obtained and  analyzed data on program obligations by program and by categories of  activities from FTA’s Transportation Electronic Award and Management  (TEAM) system. Finally, for NHTSA and FMCSA, we analyzed data on  obligations from Delphi, which is DOT’s accounting system, for all grants  funded from the Highway Trust Fund, to report total cumulative  obligations in fiscal year 2013. We interviewed agency officials from each  operating administration, reviewed agency documentation, and performed  other steps to ensure the reliability of each operating administration’s  data, and we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. In addition, we reviewed documents from and  conducted interviews with each operating administration and the Office of  the Secretary of Transportation (OST) to obtain additional information  about Highway Trust Fund obligations for programs and administrative  expenses. For FHWA, we reviewed agency documents and interviewed  FHWA officials to gather additional information about its process for  tracking project-level data in FMIS. We also reviewed relevant statutes,  regulations, legislation, and other literature including prior GAO reports  related to Highway Trust Fund obligations.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2014 to October 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more detailed description of  our scope and methodology is contained in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956 to hold highway  user taxes that fund various surface transportation programs. The primary  revenue sources for the Highway Trust Fund are 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).  Fuel taxes provide about 89 percent of the excise tax income to the  Highway Trust fund. The Highway Trust Fund is divided into two  separate accounts—Highway and Mass Transit Accounts. The Highway  Account receives the majority (approximately 89 percent in fiscal year  2013) of the tax receipts allocated to the Highway Trust fund, including  the majority of the fuel taxes. All truck-related taxes are also deposited  into the Highway Account.
The Highway Trust Fund primarily supports surface transportation  programs administered by four DOT operating administrations—FHWA,  FTA, FMCSA, and NHTSA. The Highway Account funds programs  administered by FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA, and the Mass Transit  Account funds FTA programs. For fiscal year 2013, MAP-21 authorized  approximately $51 billion from the Highway Trust Fund to four DOT  operating administrations, most of which was authorized to FHWA (see fig. 1).
These agencies provide much of this funding directly to states,  metropolitan-planning organizations, and transit agencies through formula  and discretionary grants, and recipients select projects to be funded,  subject to federal eligibility requirements.
FHWA is primarily funded from the Highway Trust Fund.percent of FHWA’s authorized funds are for the federal-aid highway  program. FHWA oversees this program and distributes much of this  funding to states through annual apportionments established by  statutory formulas. Apportioned funds are available for states to  obligate for construction, reconstruction, and improvement of  highways and bridges on eligible federal-aid highway routes, as well  as for other purposes authorized in law. While FHWA oversees and  distributes funds to States, the responsibility for selecting specific  highway projects generally rests with state DOTs and local-planning  organizations, which have discretion in determining how to allocate  available federal funds among various projects. Specifically, FHWA  relies on its division offices—52 division offices located in each state,  the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico—to oversee projects funded  through the federal-aid highway program and ensure these projects  comply with federal requirements. However, FHWA is accountable for  ensuring that the federal-aid highway program is delivered effectively,  efficiently, and in compliance with established federal law.
The remainder of FHWA’s Highway Trust Fund funding (about 10  percent) is authorized for other programs including the Federal Lands  Highway Program, which provides financial and engineering  assistance for a network of public roads that serve the transportation  needs of Federal and Indian Lands and FHWA’s research and  education activities. FHWA allocates Highway Trust funds to 28  agencies, such as the Department of Interior. See appendix II for  additional information about FHWA’s federal-aid highway and other  spending.
FTA receives funding from both the Mass Transit Account of the  Highway Trust Fund for its Formula and Bus Grants and from the  General Fund for its discretionary grants, which include the Capital  Investment Grants programs. FTA distributes this funding to grant  recipients for several activities, including financial and technical  assistance to local and state public agencies to purchase, build,  maintain, and operate transportation systems, and to support planning  and operations for public transit systems, including bus, subway, and  light rail. FTA works in partnership with states and other grant  recipients to administer federal transit programs, provide financial  assistance, policy direction, technical expertise, and some oversight.  State and local governments are ultimately responsible for executing  most federal transit programs by matching and distributing federal  funds and by planning, selecting, and supervising infrastructure  projects and safety programs in accordance with federal  requirements.
NHTSA receives funding from both the Highway Trust Fund and the  General Fund. It administers and distributes Highway Trust Fund  monies by formula to states through various federal highway-safety  grants, such as the State and Community Highway Safety Grant  Program, which is a formula grant. 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. NHTSA also coordinates through federal-state partnerships,  regulates and issues safety standards for passenger vehicles, and  addresses compliance issues with safety standards by performing  tests, inspections, and investigations.
FMCSA receives funding for programs from the Highway Trust Fund.
FMCSA is charged with establishing and enforcing standards for  motor carrier vehicles and operations, hazardous materials, and the  movement of household goods, among other things. 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.  The largest of the federal motor carrier safety-grant programs funded  from the Highway Trust Fund—the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance  Program Grants—provides funding to states to reduce crashes,  fatalities, and injuries related to commercial motor vehicle  transportation.
MAP-21 also authorized Highway Trust Fund funds to be used for  agency’s administrative expenses. Currently, FHWA, FMCSA, and  NHTSA all receive funding from the Highway Trust Fund for  administrative expenses. FTA does not currently receive funding from the  Highway Trust Fund for administrative expenses but requested such  funding for fiscal year 2015.
section_title: Highway Trust Fund Supported a Range of Activities, Such as Road and Bridge Improvements, and Expenses, but Collected and Reported Data Vary
paragraphs: FHWA collects and reports information on activities funded with  obligations from the Highway Trust Fund. FHWA tracks this data for  individual projects segments or contracts, but does not collect and report  aggregate spending data at the project level for the majority of projects on  a routine basis. FTA also collects data on the activities that are funded  with Highway Trust Fund obligations each year, while NHTSA and  FMCSA collect and report data on obligations from the Highway Trust  Fund by grant programs. FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA also receive  funding from the Highway Trust Fund for administrative expenses.  Information on administrative obligations is available in annual budget  requests.
subsections: section_title: FHWA Collects Some Information on Funded Highway Activities but Does Not Collect Some Project Data
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2013, FHWA obligated about $41 billion from the Highway  Trust Fund, most of which (about $39 billion) was apportioned to states  for activities to improve the nation’s roadway and bridge infrastructure  through the federal-aid highway program. Our analysis of fiscal year  2013 federal-aid highway program obligations shows that states obligated  most of this funding for road and bridge improvements (47 percent for   States  roads in addition to 17 percent for bridges) (see fig. 2 below).obligated about 20 percent of Highway Trust Fund monies for project  development activities including planning, engineering, and acquiring  rights-of-way. Additionally, 9 percent was obligated for safety,  enhancements and other improvements, including about 1 percent for  sidewalks and bicycle trails.
We further analyzed road and bridge improvements and found that about  90 percent of obligations went toward reconstruction, resurfacing, and  rehabilitation activities, while about 10 percent went toward new  construction. Additional information about road and bridge improvements  and funding by program are available in appendix II.
While FHWA collects information in FMIS on the type of activities funded  with Highway Trust Fund monies, it does not currently collect and report  aggregate spending data at the project level for the majority of projects on  a routine basis.individual project segments or contracts, but not for an entire project. For  example, as shown in figure 3, a new highway project generally has four  stages: (1) planning, (2) preliminary design and environmental review, (3)  final design and right-of-way acquisition and (4) construction. Each stage  can include multiple project segments or contracts over many years with  distinct obligations at any given time, and FHWA does not currently link  all project segments or contracts associated with an entire project in  FMIS. Although FHWA is able to collect and report federal obligations by  individual contract, it is not able to aggregate this information to collect  and report total federal obligations for an entire project.
section_title: FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA Collect Varying Levels of Data on Activities Funded with Highway Trust Fund Monies
paragraphs: FTA collects and reports information on activities funded with obligations  from the Highway Trust Fund. FTA, through its grant management  system—the Transportation Electronic Award and Management system,  reports information on federal obligations in its annual statistical  summaries, and makes this information publicly available on its website.  The statistical summaries provide information about federal funds  obligated each fiscal year for each of FTA’s grant programs by categories  of activities, such as obligations for “bus purchases” or “fixed guideway  modernization” (such as rail purchases).
FTA obligated approximately $9 billion in fiscal year 2013 from the Mass  Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund through its Formula and Bus  Grants programs. These grant programs provided funding for a range of  activities, such as to modernize existing rail systems, to increase access  to transportation in rural areas, and to restore, replace and acquire buses  and other equipment. As shown in table 1, FTA obligated about $3  billion for activities to modernize or improve existing fixed guideway  systems, which include among other things, purchases and rehabilitation  of rail equipment, and station enhancements. FTA also obligated about  $1.5 billion and $2 billion, respectively, for bus purchases and other bus  activities in fiscal year 2013.
FMCSA collects and reports obligations from the Highway Trust Fund at  the grant program level, in its grant management data system, Grant  Solutions, and Delphi, DOT’s accounting system. As shown in table 2,  FMCSA obligated about $298 million in fiscal year 2013, primarily through  grants to states to improve commercial motor carrier vehicle safety,  border enforcement, and vehicle license and information systems  programs. The largest of FMCSA’s grant programs, the Motor Carrier  Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), provided $213 million (about 71  percent of FMCSA’s total federal obligations) to states to help develop or  implement programs to reduce commercial motor vehicle-involved  accidents, fatalities, and injuries, through safety activities such as  inspections.enforcement ($32 million) and vehicle licensing and registration ($29  million) grant programs, as well as funding for investments in data  programs such as the Performance and Registration Information System  Management Grant Program ($5 million), among others. FMCSA collects  other information about its grant programs as part of its oversight and  monitoring responsibilities in other information systems. For example,  FMCSA collects data on activities that were funded with MCSAP grants in  its Analysis and Information Online Data Dashboard.
section_title: DOT Administrations Supported a Range of Administrative Expenses with Highway Trust Fund Monies
paragraphs: Within DOT, FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA receive Highway Trust Fund  monies for administrative expenses such as personnel salaries and  benefits and rent. There is no standard definition within DOT of what is  considered an administrative expense. According to DOT officials, MAP- 21 and appropriations language establish parameters for the types of  activities that can be funded with Highway Trust Fund monies. For  example, for FMCSA, administrative funds can be used for, among other  things, personnel costs, administrative infrastructure, rent, information  technology, programs for research, and such other expenses as may  from time to time become necessary to implement statutory mandates of  the Administration not funded from other sources.
As shown in table 4, in fiscal year 2013, DOT agencies obligated a total of  $752 million for administrative expenses funded from the Highway Trust  Fund. This accounted for about 2 percent of Highway Trust Fund  obligations by DOT’s operating administrations. MAP-21 also authorized  some of FHWA’s Highway Trust Fund administrative expense funding to  be used for specific programs including the Highway Use Tax Evasion  Projects program and On-The-Job Training Support Services  program. In fiscal year 2013, FHWA obligated $22 million for these  programs. DOT agencies report information on administrative expenses  paid from the Highway Trust Fund in their annual budget requests, which  are publicly available.
DOT operating administrations have limited flexibility with respect to how  Highway Trust Fund monies can be used for administrative expenses and  limited flexibility for reallocating full-time equivalents (FTE) funded from  the Highway Trust Fund. For example, NHTSA allocates FTEs by  program, and no individual NHTSA employee is paid out of both the  Highway Trust Fund and the general fund. NHTSA does have some  flexibility to fund FTEs from either the Highway Trust Fund or the General  Fund with allocations made at the fund level based on the type of work  assigned to the employee.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Motor fuel taxes that support the Highway Trust Fund are eroding,  resulting in fewer resources to fund surface transportation projects and  requiring, in recent years, infusions of funding from general revenues. We  have reported that continuing to fund the Highway Trust Fund through  general revenues may not be sustainable given competing demands and  the federal government’s fiscal challenges, and that Congress and the  Administration need to agree on a long-term plan for funding surface  transportation. Given this situation, ensuring that Highway Trust Fund  dollars are spent wisely and that its uses are transparent to Congress and  the public is important. About $39 billion of FHWA’s fiscal year 2013  Highway Trust Fund total obligations of $41 billion were distributed to  states through the federal-aid highway program and FHWA is  accountable for the efficient and effective use of these funds.
In recent years, FHWA has taken some positive steps to collect and  report aggregate spending data for its “major” projects, but does not  currently collect and report aggregate spending data for other projects,  which represented nearly 88 percent of all fiscal year 2013 federal-aid  highway obligations. FHWA could collect and report aggregate spending  data for all projects in FMIS since the database already has two existing  data fields that could be used to collect this information. According to  FHWA officials, collecting this data in FMIS could result in some  increased costs to states; however, FHWA does not have an estimate of  what the associated costs for tracking this information would be to states.  FHWA would have to collect further information on the costs and  resources required to make these data fields mandatory and would need  to develop data collection procedures to ensure state users are entering  and reporting consistent data. FHWA is currently in the process of  modernizing its FMIS database system, which could provide FHWA with  an opportunity to explore options for further refining FMIS to collect  consistent aggregate spending data for all projects or other options for  collecting this information. Improving FMIS to allow states to provide  project-level data could aid FHWA in its risk-based oversight of federal- aid highway programs by allowing FHWA to more easily draw consistent  data for its compliance assessment reviews. In addition, collecting  project-level data could assist FHWA in tracking and reporting information  to Congress and the public about how the majority of federal funds from  the Highway Trust Fund are being used.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve transparency and provide Congress and the public greater  visibility into the types of highway activities funded with Highway Trust  Fund monies, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct  the FHWA Administrator to explore the costs, feasibility, and options for  collecting and publicly reporting consistent aggregate project-level  spending data.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment.  DOT agreed with our recommendation and provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objective of this report was to examine what is known about the types  of projects, activities, and federal administrative functions and expenses  supported by the Department of Transportation (DOT) using Highway  Trust Fund monies in fiscal year 2013.
To identify the types of projects, activities, and administrative expenses  that have been undertaken using Highway Trust Fund monies in fiscal  year 2013, we obtained and analyzed data from 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) of fiscal year 2013  obligations for all programs and administrative expenses funded with  Highway Trust Fund monies. According to DOT, these are the DOT  agencies that can directly obligate funds from the Highway Trust Fund.  For FHWA data, we obtained and analyzed data from FHWA’s Fiscal  Management Information System (FMIS) system, which is FHWA’s major  financial information system for tracking highway projects financed with  federal-aid highway program funding. FHWA uses the information entered  in FMIS for planning and executing program activities, evaluating program  performance, and depicting financial trends and requirements relating to  current and future funding. Specifically, we obtained FHWA data for  projects with obligated funds in fiscal year 2013 (October 1, 2012, through  September 30, 2013). For the purposes of our analysis, we included  obligations for all 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and  excluded U.S. territories: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana  Islands, and the Virgin Islands from this total. The data set that FHWA  provided us, included data for the following data fields: (1) State, (2)  Project Number, (3) Fund Source, (4) Recode, (5) Improvement Type (6)  Fiscal year 2013 Federal Funds, and (7) Major Project. We analyzed the  data to determine the total obligated federal funds for 59 improvement   We categorized these improvement types into 13 broader GAO  types.categories and determined total federal obligations incurred for each of  these categories. (See table 5). About $3.9 million of the entries in the  FMIS database did not have an improvement type classification and for  the purposes of our analysis, we classified these entries as ‘other’. FHWA  also provided us with fiscal year 2013 Highway Trust Fund obligations  data for programs and administrative expenses not captured in FMIS.
We also reviewed documents from and conducted interviews with FHWA  officials to gather information about: (1) the capabilities of FHWA’s FMIS  database to track project-level data, (2) processes and protocols for  tracking and entering project-level data in FMIS, and (3) extent to which  FHWA uses FMIS data for project management and risk oversight  purposes. To assess the reliability of data collected in FMIS, we reviewed  available documentation and interviewed FHWA officials on the  procedures used by FHWA and state Departments of Transportation  (state DOT) to enter and verify financial information entered into FMIS.
We also conducted electronic testing for duplicate entries and missing  values in the data we extracted from FMIS. We found the FMIS data  elements we used in our report to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes  of reporting federal obligations for fiscal year 2013.
For FTA we requested, obtained, and analyzed FTA data on Highway  Trust Fund obligations for all programs in fiscal year 2013. FTA produced  these data from its Transportation Electronic Award and Management  (TEAM) system and provided us with total federal obligations by program  and by 13 categories of activities that GAO reclassified into 9 categories  of activities. We did not obtain administrative obligations data from FTA  because FTA does not receive funding from the Highway Trust Fund for  administrative expenses. Similarly, we requested, obtained, and analyzed  NTHSA and FMCSA data on Highway Trust Fund obligations for all  programs and administrative expenses during fiscal year 2013. Both  agencies produced this data through Delphi, which is DOT’s accounting  system. We also reviewed publicly available information on FTA, NHTSA,  and FMCSA fiscal year 2013 program and administrative obligations from  the Highway Trust Fund. We interviewed officials from FTA, NHTSA,  FMCSA, and obtained written information about steps taken to ensure the  reliability of their data from TEAM and from the Delphi system. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report. We reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, legislation, and other  literature including prior GAO reports on Highway Trust Fund  authorizations and the types of administrative expenses that can be  funded with Highway Trust Fund dollars. We interviewed officials from the  DOT, Office of Secretary of Transportation (OST) and the four DOT- operating administrations to obtain additional information on federal  obligations from the Highway Trust Fund; the administration’s process for  tracking and monitoring these obligations; and the flexibility DOT and its  operating administrations have to reallocate Highway Trust Fund dollars  among offices and other functions. There is no standard definition of  administrative expenses. However, for the purposes of our review,  administrative expenses were defined as salaries, benefits, travel, and  other service contracts.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2014 to October 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Detailed Analysis of FHWA’s Data on Projects and Other Uses of Highway Trust Fund Monies
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2013, FHWA spent $41 billion from the Highway Trust Fund.  Of this amount, $39 billion was apportioned to states through the federal- aid highway program. FHWA also spent about $2 billion of its $41 billion  from the Highway Trust Fund for other purposes, including transfers to  other DOT and non-DOT federal agencies ($610 million), Federal Lands  Transportation Program ($558 million), and research activities ($438  million), among others. In fiscal year 2013, FHWA allocated Highway  Trust monies to 28 agencies (8 DOT and 20 non-DOT agencies),  including DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration and the Department of  Interior, among others.
Our analysis of FHWA FMIS data of fiscal year 2013 obligations showed  that about 47 percent of total federal obligations went to road  improvements, and 17 percent went to bridge improvements. The majority  of both road and bridge projects went toward reconstruction, resurfacing,  and rehabilitation activities versus new construction. Specifically:
For roads, about 43 percent was dedicated to resurfacing and  rehabilitation of roads with most of the remainder going toward  reconstruction with increased or no added capacity.
For bridges, about 59 percent was dedicated for bridge rehabilitation  and replacement with no added capacity and most of the remainder  went toward rehabilitation and replacement with increased capacity  and other bridge improvements. (See figs. 4 and 5).
In addition, about 29 percent of FHWA federal-aid highway program  obligations from the Highway Trust Fund went toward project  development, safety, and other improvements. Project development  activities include funding for activities such as preliminary engineering  activities, construction engineering, research, and other planning  activities. Our analysis of this data showed that most of this funding went  toward construction engineering (32 percent) and preliminary engineering  (29 percent). (See fig. 6.) Safety, enhancements, and other improvements  include safety, safety education for pedestrians and bicyclists, and  highway crossing activities, among others. Our analysis of this data  showed that most of this funding went to safety activities (67 percent). An  additional 15 percent went toward facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.  (See fig. 7)
We also analyzed FHWA FMIS data of projects funded under each of  FHWA’s five core formula programs. These core programs account for  $31 billion (about 76 percent) of the $41 billion that FHWA obligated from  the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal year 2013. As discussed below, the  types of activities funded under each of these programs varied widely.  (See figs. 8-12).
The National Highway Performance Program (about $17 billion)  provides funding for improvements on the National Highway System  such as construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, and rehabilitation of  National Highway System segments. The majority of this funding was  obligated for resurfacing and rehabilitation of roads (21 percent),  project development activities (19 percent), and reconstruction of  roads to increase capacity (18 percent).
The Surface Transportation Program (approximately $11 billion) funds  the federal share of projects that states and localities may carry out on  federal-aid highway , including bridge projects, transit capital projects,  and bus facilities. The majority of STP funding was obligated for  resurfacing and rehabilitation of roads (26 percent), project  development activities (20 percent), and reconstruction of roads with  no added capacity (11 percent).
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (approximately $2 billion)  provides funding for activities that reduce the number of crashes,  traffic fatalities, and serious injuries on public roads. Most of this  funding was obligated for safety improvements (62 percent) and  project development activities (20 percent).
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program  (about $1 billion) provides funding to state and local governments for  transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of  the Clean Air Act. About 21 percent of this funding was obligated to  project development activities, and 24 percent was obligated to other  activities, which included activities such as traffic management on  high-occupancy vehicle lanes.
The Transportation Alternatives program (approximately $111 million)  provides funding for alternative transportation projects related to  surface transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle trails,  community improvement activities, construction, planning, and design  of infrastructure related projects and systems that provide safe routes  for non-drivers. About 50 percent of this funding was obligated for  sidewalks and bicycle trail activities, with most of the remainder  obligated for project development (17 percent) and other (18 percent)  activities.
section_title: Appendix III: Analysis of FHWA Major Projects by Improvement Type
paragraphs: Our analysis of fiscal year 2013 federal-aid highway program obligations  for “major” projects showed that over 40 percent of these funds were  used for road resurfacing and rehabilitation (24 percent) and project  development activities (19 percent). (See fig. 13.) About 6 percent of the  funds were used for new construction of roads and bridges, while 7  percent were utilized for safety improvements.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Transportation
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen, Assistant Director,  Melissa Bodeau, Melinda Cordero, Tara Jayant, Mitchell Karpman, Leslie  Locke, Maria Mercado, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Ruben Montes de Oca,  and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this report.