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

Letter

Background

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.

Highway Trust Fund Supported a Range of Activities, Such as Road and Bridge Improvements, and Expenses, but Collected and Reported Data Vary

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.

FHWA Collects Some Information on Funded Highway Activities but Does Not Collect Some Project Data

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.

FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA Collect Varying Levels of Data on Activities Funded with Highway Trust Fund Monies

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.

DOT Administrations Supported a Range of Administrative Expenses with Highway Trust Fund Monies

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendation for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments

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.

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix II: Detailed Analysis of FHWA’s Data on Projects and Other Uses of Highway Trust Fund Monies

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.

Appendix III: Analysis of FHWA Major Projects by Improvement Type

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.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Transportation

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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.