oversight

Federal Highway Programs: Status of Federal Highway Programs in the Absence of Reauthorization

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-11-04.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                   United States General Accounting Office

GAO                Testimony
                   Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and
                   Infrastructure, Committee on Environment and Public
                   Works, U.S. Senate


For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
                   FEDERAL HIGHWAY
9:30 a.m. EST
Tuesday            PROGRAMS
Nov. 4, 1997



                   Status of Federal Highway
                   Programs in the Absence of
                   Reauthorization
                   Statement of Phyllis F. Scheinberg,
                   Associate Director, Transportation Issues,
                   Resources, Community, and Economic
                   Development Division




GAO/T-RCED-98-38
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide information on the status of
federal surface transportation programs in the absence of funding from a
new federal highway reauthorization act. As you know, in 1991, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
authorized over $122 billion in federal funds for highway programs for
fiscal years 1992 through 1997.1 This authorization expired on
September 30, 1997, and no new federal highway funds have been
authorized for fiscal year 1998. The states can, however, use their
unobligated balances that remain from the ISTEA authorization period. For
all 50 states, these federal-aid highway balances totaled $12.1 billion at the
beginning of fiscal year 1998.2

Specifically, you asked that we compare unobligated federal highway fund
balances at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 with the highway funds that
the states obligated during the first part of fiscal year 1997. We performed
this analysis using actual obligation data for federal-aid highway projects
during the first 4 through 7 months of fiscal year 1997. For illustrative
purposes, however, this testimony will focus on the 6-month period.
(Details for the 4- through 7-month periods are presented in apps. I and II.)
At your request, our testimony will also address strategies that could
temporarily help the states continue to fund highway programs in the
absence of a federal highway authorization act.

Our work is based on the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)
obligation data for all 50 states. In addition, we contacted nine states to
obtain their views on how they would operate without new federal
highway funds in the short term. When we analyzed FHWA’s obligation data
for the 50 states, the analysis was limited to total obligation levels for
federal highway projects. We did not address other important areas, such
as the potential effects on the operations of agencies within the U. S.
Department of Transportation or the effects on particular programs, such
as transportation safety programs. In addition, we did not look at the
impact on transit programs.



1
 The full ISTEA authorization for all surface transportation programs, including mass transit, totaled
$155 billion for fiscal years 1992 through 1997.
2
 Funds that were not obligated at the end of fiscal year 1997 remained unobligated. These funds are the
subject of this testimony. The unobligated balances represent funds apportioned or allocated but not
yet committed by the states. The unobligated balances used in this statement pertain only to the states
and do not apply to the District of Columbia or the territories.



Page 1                                                                            GAO/T-RCED-98-38
In summary, we compared the level of unobligated highway fund balances
available at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 with the actual obligations
that the states made during the first part of fiscal year 1997. The total
unobligated balance of $12.1 billion exceeds the total actual obligations of
$8.1 billion that all states combined made during the first 6 months of
fiscal year 1997. However, a comparison of the unobligated balances of
individual states with their actual fiscal year 1997 obligations reveals that
some state highway programs may experience financial difficulties by the
middle of fiscal year 1998 if their obligation rates for this year are
comparable to those for fiscal year 1997. The analysis indicates that while
most states have unobligated balances that are greater than their actual
federal highway obligations in the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997, 14
states have an unobligated balance that is lower than their actual
obligations during that same period. The nine states that we contacted
identified various strategies that they would use to try to continue their
highway operations, such as relying more extensively on state funds.
However, some of these states also noted that they would soon be
postponing highway projects if new federal funds are not available within
the next few months.

It is important to note when making these types of comparisons that the
rates at which states obligated funds in fiscal year 1997 may not
correspond to their plans for obligating federal highway funds in fiscal
year 1998. Furthermore, some states may be limited in their ability to use
available unobligated balances because of restrictions on the specific
types of highway programs that the funds can be used for. Nonetheless,
the comparisons do indicate that while many states may be able to
continue financing highway projects for some time, some states may have
difficulty dealing even in the short term with the absence of new federal
highway funds.

A number of strategies could help the states respond to the absence of
new federal highway funds in the short term. For example, the Congress
could provide the states with the flexibility to use their unobligated
balances across the range of federal highway programs, rather than
keeping the balances tied to specific highway funding categories and
demonstration projects. Then, after reauthorization, the Congress could
“reimburse” the appropriate funding categories. The individual states
could also consider a number of strategies, such as temporarily
substituting state funds for federal highway funds. The states could also
begin highway projects by using advance construction, which enables a
state to access capital from a variety of sources, including its own funds



Page 2                                                       GAO/T-RCED-98-38
             and private capital, and later receive reimbursement through federal
             highway obligations. However, such strategies may delay other planned
             projects within individual states. Furthermore, these strategies may not be
             feasible for some states or for an extended period of time.


             ISTEA authorized over $122 billion for highway programs for fiscal years
Background   1992 through 1997. The authorization was funded primarily through
             federal highway user taxes such as those on motor fuels (gasoline,
             gasohol, and diesel), tires, and trucks. Funds from these sources are
             collected from users and credited to the Highway Trust Fund for highway
             and mass transit projects or related activities. The fund is divided into a
             highway account and a mass transit account.

             Except for a few minor deductions, such as those for federal
             administrative expenses, federal highway funds are provided to the states
             through FHWA, which is part of the U. S. Department of Transportation. The
             money is generally distributed to the states through various formula
             calculations.3 The current formula, established by ISTEA, determines the
             distribution of funds for 13 funding categories, such as the Interstate
             Maintenance, the National Highway System, and the Congestion Mitigation
             and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs.4

             During the ISTEA authorization period, FHWA annually apportioned to the
             states authority to obligate funds. And, if the Congress took no further
             action, the states could proceed to obligate all the authority apportioned
             to them by FHWA. However, the Congress also imposed an annual
             obligation limitation as part of the appropriation process on most
             elements of the federal highway program. These limits did not take back
             spending authority that was already apportioned to the states; rather, the
             obligation limits acted to control the obligation rate.

             The congressionally imposed obligation limits acted to control total
             obligations but left the states with some discretion to decide how they
             would use their obligation authority across the range of federal-aid
             programs. For example, in a particular year, a state could obligate all its
             Interstate Maintenance and National Highway System funds. But the state
             would then have to compensate by obligating a smaller part of its federal

             3
              ISTEA also authorized over $6.2 billion over 6 years for 539 statutorily designated demonstration
             projects.
             4
              Throughout this statement, unless otherwise noted, these funding categories will be referred to as
             programs.



             Page 3                                                                           GAO/T-RCED-98-38
                       highway funds from other categories. In addition, a few categories of
                       highway funding are exempt from obligation limitations—the two largest
                       are minimum allocation and demonstration projects.5

                       Once FHWA approves a project that a state proposes, the federal share of
                       the project’s cost is considered “obligated” against the state’s
                       apportionment. The state then proceeds—doing detailed design
                       engineering, advertising for bids, and selecting a contractor for the
                       construction work. The state incurs costs, pays the bills, and then seeks
                       reimbursement of the federal share from FHWA. Federal outlays—that is,
                       actual expenditures—do not occur until the state is reimbursed.
                       Furthermore, the funds are outlayed over a number of years.


                       At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the total unobligated federal highway
Comparing              fund balance for all states was $12.1 billion. This unobligated balance
Unobligated Highway    came from two sources. First, $9.6 billion in unobligated balances exists
Balances With          because the Congress annually imposed an obligation limit during the
                       ISTEA period to control spending for most federal highway funding
Previous Obligations   categories. Second, another $2.5 billion in unobligated authority remains
                       for a few highway funding categories that were exempt from the obligation
                       limitation. The two largest exempted programs were minimum allocation
                       ($0.65 billion) and demonstration projects ($1.85 billion).

                       From a national perspective, the total unobligated highway balance of
                       $12.1 billion at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 (including program funds
                       exempt from obligation limits) is nearly 1.5 times the $8.1 billion that all
                       states obligated during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997. This does not
                       mean, however, that each state’s unobligated balance is greater than its
                       obligations during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997. FHWA’s data show
                       that the unobligated balances for each of 14 states fall short by 1 percent
                       to 30 percent or by $1 million to almost $82 million of its actual obligations
                       during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997. Several states were in the 20
                       to 30 percent range. For example, Indiana’s total unobligated balance is
                       over $80 million less than its total highway obligations during the first 6
                       months of fiscal year 1997. This represents about a 28-percent difference.
                       Similarly, North Carolina’s total unobligated balance is about $94 million
                       less than the amount it obligated during this same period in fiscal year


                       5
                        Minimum allocation guarantees a state an amount such that its percentage of total apportionments
                       and prior-year allocations from certain highway funding categories is not less than 90 percent of the
                       state’s estimated percentage of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund’s Highway Account.
                       Furthermore, Emergency Relief Program funding was also exempt from the obligation limits, but
                       ISTEA’s annual authorization for this program was limited to $100 million.



                       Page 4                                                                            GAO/T-RCED-98-38
                           1997—a difference of about 26 percent. (App. I provides a state-by-state
                           comparison of the fiscal year 1998 unobligated balance of $9.6 billion
                           (from highway programs subject to the obligation limit) to actual state
                           obligations during the first 4 through 7 months of fiscal year 1997. App. II
                           provides a similar comparison based on the combined total unobligated
                           balance of $12.1 billion.)

                           It is important to note that these comparisons imply that the state’s
                           obligation rates for fiscal year 1997 correspond to those for fiscal year
                           1998, which may or may not be the case for individual states. Furthermore,
                           the total unobligated balance of $12.1 billion includes balances from
                           programs that were not subject to the obligation limitation. As of
                           October 1, 1997, seven states had little or no unobligated balances in these
                           program categories.


                           A number of strategies could help the states get through a short period
Strategies That Could      without a new highway funding authorization. At the federal level, the
Help the States in the     Congress could provide the states with the flexibility to use their
Short-Term                 unobligated balances across the range of federal highway programs, rather
                           than keeping the balances generally tied to specific highway programs and
                           demonstration projects. At the state level, some states may be able to
                           obtain state, local, or private resources to begin projects and later seek
                           federal reimbursement for these costs through advance construction
                           authority.


Flexibility Needed If      The unobligated balance of $9.6 billion (from programs subject to the
Unobligated Balances Are   obligation limit) represents the sum of the unobligated balances remaining
to Be Fully Used in the    from specific programs, such as the Interstate Maintenance, National
                           Highway System, Surface Transportation, and CMAQ programs. These
Short Term                 balances may now generally be obligated in accordance with the
                           individual program categories.

                           Throughout the ISTEA period, the obligation limits acted to control “total”
                           obligations, thus leaving the states discretion to decide how they would
                           use their obligation authority across the range of specific federal-aid
                           highway programs. For example, in a particular year, a state could have
                           opted to obligate all of its available National Highway System funds, but it
                           would have had to make up for its full use of these funds by obligating less
                           in another funding category, such as the CMAQ program.




                           Page 5                                                       GAO/T-RCED-98-38
Differences in the priorities that the states assigned to different highway
programs are now reflected in significant variances in the unobligated
balances that remain from ISTEA authorizations for these programs. For
example, the National Highway System had a total unobligated balance of
over $426 million at the beginning of fiscal year 1998, which represents
only about 13 percent of the total fiscal year 1997 apportionment for this
program. In comparison, the Surface Transportation program started fiscal
year 1998 with an unobligated balance of $4.2 billion, or nearly half of the
fiscal year 1997 apportionment for this program. Furthermore, the CMAQ
program had an unobligated balance of $1 billion, or 108 percent of the
fiscal year 1997 apportionment for this program. Because of the variances
in the unobligated balances remaining across federal highway programs,
these balances may not be consistent with state funding priorities or
projects that the states planned for this year.

To identify any problems that the states might have in using their
unobligated balances and to identify strategies that the states may use to
help them respond to the absence of new federal highway funds in the
short term, we contacted nine states—Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana,
Iowa, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. These differed in the extent to which they expected that their
unobligated federal highway balances would help them respond to any
short-term absence of new federal highway funds. Several of the states did
note that the usefulness of these unobligated balances will be somewhat
limited because they are tied to specific programs. For instance, a
Missouri transportation finance and budget manager estimated that in
early fiscal year 1998, the state will be able to use only $50 million of its
total of $169 million in unobligated funds because the balance of the
money is for categories such as CMAQ or transportation enhancements in
which the state does not have projects ready to go. Similarly, the
Transportation Director of Program Management for New York
commented that it is very difficult to say exactly when the state will use its
unobligated balance because some of this money is limited to programs
that (1) are not a state priority or (2) do not have projects that are ready to
go.

If the Congress were to enact legislation that would give the states the
flexibility to use unobligated balances interchangeably among federal
highway programs, then some states would be better positioned to more
fully use their unobligated federal highway funds. In addition, while
minimum allocation funding can be used for numerous federal highway
programs, demonstration project funds must be used only for the specific



Page 6                                                        GAO/T-RCED-98-38
                            projects for which the funds were authorized under current law. These
                            demonstration project funds, which generally were not subject to the
                            obligation limits, ended fiscal year 1997 with a total unobligated balance of
                            about $1.9 billion. If the Congress were to provide the states with the
                            flexibility to use program as well as demonstration project funds to meet
                            other highway program needs, a later reauthorization could provide for
                            reimbursement to the borrowed fund account.


States May Have to Rely     Federal highway funding represents one of the many financial sources
More on State Funding for   used to support the nation’s highways. The Department of
Highways                    Transportation’s statistics indicate that the revenue available for highways
                            totaled $92.5 billion in 1995, the latest year for which data are available.
                            About $59.6 billion of this revenue came from highway user
                            taxes—$18.3 billion from federal highway user taxes, $39.3 from state
                            highway user taxes, and $2 billion from local highway user taxes. The
                            balance came from a variety of sources, such as $5.1 billion from property
                            taxes and assessments and $7.6 billion from bond receipts.

                            To compensate for the lack of new federal highway funds being available
                            for part of fiscal year 1998, some states may be able to fund a
                            proportionately larger share of their planned highway projects in early
                            fiscal year 1998 with state funds. Later in fiscal year 1998, these states
                            could use the federal funds made available to them. This assumes that at
                            some unspecified time in fiscal year 1998, new federal highway funds will
                            be available; however, this uncertainty poses problems for some states. A
                            few of the nine states we contacted noted that they would be postponing
                            highway projects if new federal funds are not available within the next few
                            months.

                            The states also differ in their ability to provide greater funding in fiscal
                            year 1998. For instance, the Commissioner of North Dakota’s Department
                            of Transportation stated that the disastrous flood this year left North
                            Dakota without any additional state funds to pay for highway projects. In
                            contrast, Indiana’s Deputy Commissioner for Finance stated that the state
                            does not face a financial crisis in early fiscal year 1998. He noted that
                            Indiana’s Department of Transportation has, if necessary, the ability to use
                            $600 million in bonding authority to begin projects in fiscal year 1998.
                            However, if the states draw on their own resources, they may have to
                            delay other planned projects. Also, this short-term solution could have a
                            defined payback period. For instance, a Missouri transportation official
                            noted that the state expects to award highway contracts through



                            Page 7                                                      GAO/T-RCED-98-38
December 1997, using $100 million of state funds. He noted that this state
money will be borrowed from other state programs and must be returned
to the other accounts by June 30, 1998, the end of the state’s fiscal year.

One financial tool that may help some states is advance construction.
Under advance construction, a state can begin a highway project by
obtaining capital from a variety of sources, including its own funds and
private capital, and later receive reimbursement through federal highway
obligations. Indiana’s Deputy Commissioner for Finance stated that
without new federal funds, Indiana will begin its highway program using
advance construction with state funding. New York also indicated that it
would turn to advance construction to help with its highway financing.
The New York Transportation Director of Program Management remarked
that he expects to keep the state’s planned highway projects on schedule
in early fiscal year 1998 through the use of advance construction. He
stated that New York will use state money to keep the projects on
schedule and then backfill with federal funds once a new authorization is
passed.

In July 1997, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) conducted a survey to determine the
possible effects of a delay in the reauthorization of the federal surface
transportation program on state transportation programs. Many states
reported to AASHTO that they would use advance construction to continue
operations and project schedules. However, AASHTO noted that advance
construction will not help some states that have already heavily relied on
this technique.


Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to respond
to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.




Page 8                                                      GAO/T-RCED-98-38
Page 9   GAO/T-RCED-98-38
Appendix I

Unobiligated Federal Highway Balances
(Subject to the Obligation Limitation)
Compared With Fiscal Year 1997 Obligations

Dollars in thousands
                Unobligated
                    balance      Difference between          Difference between        Difference between        Difference between
                  subject to    unobligated balance         unobligated balance       unobligated balance       unobligated balance
                 obligation     and FY 1997 4-month         and FY 1997 5-month       and FY 1997 6-month       and FY 1997 7-month
                  limit as of      obligation total            obligation total          obligation total          obligation total
State               10/01/97       Amount     Percent          Amount     Percent        Amount     Percent        Amount       Percent
Alabama            $142,290        $70,523          98         $54,933        63         $18,011        14        -$13,762            -9
Alaska                 94,192       59,601        172           12,980        16          -5,331         -5        -19,351          -17
Arizona             144,747         61,638          74          48,153        50          35,920        33          27,297           23
Arkansas               87,129      -11,524         -12         -28,961        -25        -32,323        -27        -40,468          -32
California          816,665        535,661        191          494,274       153         406,101        99         215,761           36
Colorado            117,689         73,357        165           14,684        14          -1,177         -1        -28,065          -19
Connecticut         166,353         11,568              7      -12,887         -7        -32,651        -16       -117,730          -41
Delaware               54,052       48,091        807           46,936       660          40,646       303          20,332           60
Florida             225,197        136,682        154           75,480        50         -14,489         -6       -258,506          -53
Georgia             293,339        184,098        169          158,972       118         118,093        67          83,185           40
                                          a             a             a           a             a           a             a            a
Hawaii              139,085
Idaho                  50,407       22,596          81           5,743        13           5,457        12              39            0
Illinois            255,153        146,891        136           82,100        47         -14,927         -6       -236,031          -48
Indiana             182,028         47,488          35         -50,888        -22       -102,013        -36       -124,776          -41
Iowa                115,924         13,004          13             415            0      -25,943        -18        -27,335          -19
Kansas              128,419         57,528          81          51,050        66          45,803        55          35,262           38
Kentucky            134,226         92,030        218           60,001        81          11,759        10         -12,999            -9
Louisiana           270,665        211,548        358          196,015       263         192,316       245         176,085          186
Maine                  48,887       16,706          52              57            0      -10,845        -18        -10,548          -18
Maryland            158,942        116,473        274           41,191        35          20,355        15         -29,096          -15
Massachusetts       793,225        614,708        344          374,672        90         298,761        60         256,679           48
Michigan            217,146         93,236          75          52,661        32          11,239            5      -15,783            -7
Minnesota           178,687        141,349        379           38,120        27          28,273        19          16,178           10
Mississippi         102,719         46,798          84          38,873        61           7,882            8       -6,233            -6
Missouri            168,587         26,114          18         -67,796        -29       -100,490        -37       -111,528          -40
Montana                88,072       73,364        499           41,622        90          33,642        62          13,022           17
Nebraska               77,809       47,919        160           39,276       102          -5,837         -7         -7,870            -9
Nevada                 55,011       46,620        556           11,803        27          –1,210         -2         -3,184            -5
New                    59,340       43,848        283           34,426       138          11,932        25           3,535            6
Hampshire
New Jersey          274,799         85,692          45          41,416        18          28,863        12         -28,507            -9
New Mexico             69,402       44,746        181           42,160       155          38,298       123          24,543           55
New York            477,584        123,935          35         -57,004        -11       -121,836        -20       -154,403          -24
                                                                                                                             (continued)



                                              Page 10                                                               GAO/T-RCED-98-38
                                             Appendix I
                                             Unobiligated Federal Highway Balances
                                             (Subject to the Obligation Limitation)
                                             Compared With Fiscal Year 1997 Obligations




Dollars in thousands
                Unobligated
                    balance      Difference between         Difference between           Difference between            Difference between
                  subject to    unobligated balance        unobligated balance          unobligated balance           unobligated balance
                 obligation     and FY 1997 4-month        and FY 1997 5-month          and FY 1997 6-month           and FY 1997 7-month
                  limit as of      obligation total           obligation total             obligation total              obligation total
State               10/01/97       Amount        Percent      Amount       Percent          Amount       Percent          Amount       Percent
North               214,972        -15,865            -7       -90,838           -30       -143,299            -40       -178,181           -45
Carolina
North Dakota           50,447        5,887           13         -2,979            -6         -24,791           -33         -32,363          -39
Ohio                356,246        231,419          185       200,963           129         158,654             80          79,029          29
Oklahoma            159,309         74,298           87         57,668            57          47,037            42          15,515          11
Oregon                 92,166       42,543           86         24,747            37          15,926            21            -397           -0
Pennsylvania        456,826        325,819          249       298,829           189         213,084             87          84,355          23
Rhode Island           65,379       51,918          386         36,309          125           30,320            86          20,101          44
South               179,141        101,532          131         27,858            18          16,615            10           8,401           5
Carolina
South Dakota           69,729       12,996           23         -8,395           -11         -22,791           -25         -33,301          -32
Tennessee           196,644         67,328           52         20,013            11         -22,553           -10         -81,974          -29
Texas               619,695        193,004           45       136,984             28          58,399            10         -25,147           -4
Utah                   89,670       66,048          280         35,048            64          27,477            44          18,313          26
Vermont                71,618       58,166          432         50,025          232           36,629          105           26,728          60
Virginia            212,321         99,361           88         68,801            48          28,694            16           2,329           1
Washington          204,873        167,859          454         87,103            74          68,522            50            -493           -0
West Virginia       120,166         84,653          238         37,892            46          12,857            12         -13,368          -10
Wisconsin           163,333        -10,469            -6       -63,820           -28         -74,008           -31         -82,887          -34
Wyoming                53,579        7,042           15         -6,478           -11         -15,180           -22         -23,071          -30
Total            $9,563,884     $4,987,272          109    $2,893,616             43     $1,295,871             16      -$590,668            -6

                                             Note 1: Bold type indicates that previous obligations exceed the unobligated balance.

                                             Note 2: The comparison represents data for the states only and does not include data for the
                                             District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the North
                                             Marianas.
                                             a
                                             Not available.

                                             Source: GAO’s analysis based on FHWA’s data.




                                             Page 11                                                                        GAO/T-RCED-98-38
Appendix II

Unobligated Federal Highway Balances
(Subject to the Obligation Limitation and
Exempt) Compared With Fiscal Year 1997
Obligations
Dollars in thousands
                                 Difference between          Difference between        Difference between        Difference between
                       Total    unobligated balance         unobligated balance       unobligated balance       unobligated balance
                unobligated     and FY 1997 4-month         and FY 1997 5-month       and FY 1997 6-month       and FY 1997 7-month
                 balance as        obligation total            obligation total          obligation total          obligation total
State            of 10/01/97       Amount     Percent          Amount     Percent        Amount     Percent        Amount       Percent
Alabama            $198,888       $127,121        177         $111,531       128         $74,609        60         $42,836           27
Alaska                 94,192       59,601        172           12,980        16          -5,331         -5        -19,351          -17
Arizona             184,093        100,984        122           87,499        91          75,266        69          66,643           57
Arkansas            153,005         54,352          55          36,915        32          33,553        28          25,408           20
California        1,091,527        810,523        288          769,136       239         680,963       166         490,623           82
Colorado            117,689         73,357        165           14,684        14          -1,177         -1        -28,065          -19
Connecticut         167,954         13,169              9      -11,286         -6        -31,050        -16       -116,129          -41
Delaware               54,052       48,091        807           46,936       660          40,646       303          20,332           60
Florida             298,813        210,298        238          149,096       100          59,127        25        -184,890          -38
Georgia             487,021        377,780        346          352,654       262         311,775       178         276,867          132
                                          a             a             a           a             a           a             a            a
Hawaii              148,605
Idaho                  82,813       55,002        198           38,149        85          37,863        84          32,445           64
Illinois            284,971        176,709        163          111,918        65          14,891            6     -206,213          -42
Indiana             203,799         69,259          51         -29,117        -13        -80,242        -28       -103,005          -34
Iowa                136,787         33,867          33          21,278        18          -5,080         -4         -6,472            -5
Kansas              147,075         76,184        107           69,706        90          64,459        78          53,918           58
Kentucky            157,586        115,390        273           83,361       112          35,119        29          10,361            7
Louisiana           339,687        280,570        475          265,037       355         261,338       334         245,107          259
Maine                  57,472       25,291          79           8,642        18          -2,260         -4         -1,963            -3
Maryland            166,683        124,214        292           48,932        42          28,096        20         -21,355          -11
Massachusetts       799,910        621,393        348          381,357        91         305,446        62         263,364           49
Michigan            250,289        126,379        102           85,804        52          44,382        22          17,360            7
Minnesota           238,211        200,873        538           97,644        69          87,797        58          75,702           47
Mississippi         116,125         60,204        108           52,279        82          21,288        22           7,173            7
Missouri            187,257         44,784          31         -49,126        -21        -81,820        -30        -92,858          -33
Montana                88,072       73,364        499           41,622        90          33,642        62          13,022           17
Nebraska               84,959       55,069        184           46,426       120           1,313            2         -720            -1
Nevada                 55,012       46,621        556           11,804        27          -1,209         -2         -3,183            -5
New                    63,770       48,278        312           38,856       156          16,362        35           7,965           14
Hampshire
New Jersey          331,142        142,035          75          97,759        42          85,206        35          27,836            9
New Mexico             71,431       46,775        190           44,189       162          40,327       130          26,572           59
New York            529,008        175,359          50          -5,580         -1        -70,412        -12       -102,979          -16
                                                                                                                             (continued)



                                              Page 12                                                               GAO/T-RCED-98-38
                                             Appendix II
                                             Unobligated Federal Highway Balances
                                             (Subject to the Obligation Limitation and
                                             Exempt) Compared With Fiscal Year 1997
                                             Obligations




Dollars in thousands
                                 Difference between         Difference between           Difference between            Difference between
                       Total    unobligated balance        unobligated balance          unobligated balance           unobligated balance
                unobligated     and FY 1997 4-month        and FY 1997 5-month          and FY 1997 6-month           and FY 1997 7-month
                 balance as        obligation total           obligation total             obligation total              obligation total
State            of 10/01/97       Amount        Percent      Amount       Percent          Amount       Percent          Amount       Percent
North               264,629         33,792           15        -41,181           -13         -93,642           -26       -128,524           -33
Carolina
North Dakota           58,999       14,439           32          5,573            10         -16,239           -22         -23,811          -29
Ohio                495,754        370,927          297       340,471           219         298,162           151         218,537           79
Oklahoma            173,644         88,633          104         72,003            71          61,372            55          29,850          21
Oregon                 98,712       49,089           99         31,293            46          22,472            29           6,149           7
Pennsylvania        968,126        837,119          639       810,129           513         724,384           297         595,655           160
Rhode Island           85,502       72,041          535         56,432          194           50,443          144           40,224          89
South               201,518        123,909          160         50,235            33          38,992            24          30,778          18
Carolina
South Dakota           74,690       17,957           32         -3,434            -4         -17,830           -19         -28,340          -28
Tennessee           225,294         95,978           74         48,663            28           6,097             3         -53,324          -19
Texas               770,416        343,725           81       287,705             60        209,120             37        125,574           19
Utah                   92,600       68,978          292         37,978            70          30,407            49          21,243          30
Vermont                88,085       74,633          555         66,492          308           53,096          152           43,195          96
Virginia            333,797        220,837          196       190,277           133         150,170             82        123,805           59
Washington          204,887        167,873          454         87,117            74          68,536            50            -479           -0
West Virginia       307,110        271,597          765       224,836           273         199,801           186         173,576           130
Wisconsin           181,199          7,397             4       -45,954           -20         -56,142           -24         -65,021          -26
Wyoming                53,579        7,042           15         -6,478           -11         -15,180           -22         -23,071          -30
Total           $12,066,439     $7,489,827          164    $5,396,171             81     $3,942,319             49     $2,055,720           21

                                             Note 1: Bold type indicates that previous obligations exceed the unobligated balance.

                                             Note 2: The comparison represents data for the states only and does not include data for the
                                             District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the North
                                             Marianas.
                                             a
                                             Not available.

                                             Source: GAO’s analysis based on FHWA’s data.




(348059)                                     Page 13                                                                        GAO/T-RCED-98-38
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested