Transportation Infrastructure: Review of Project Selection Process for
Five FHWA Discretionary Programs (Letter Report, 11/07/97,
GAO/RCED-98-14).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) project selection process for five federal
discretionary programs, focusing on: (1) the selection process and
criteria DOT uses to fund projects under its discretionary highway
programs; and (2) how DOT's process has changed and how the changes may
have affected which projects DOT selects for discretionary funding.
GAO noted that: (1) DOT uses a two-phase process for selecting and
funding transportation projects for the five discretionary programs GAO
reviewed; (2) in the first phase, Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
program staff in the field and headquarters compile and evaluate the
applications that states submit for discretionary funding; (3) program
staff screen the applications by applying eligibility criteria
established by statute or administratively; (4) on the basis of written
criteria, program staff group the projects into four categories that
range in priority from most promising to not qualified and submit the
groupings to the Office of the Administrator; (5) the submission to the
Office of the Administrator provides information on each candidate
project, data on discretionary funds that each state received during
prior years, and the current level of congressional interest; (6) in the
second phase, the Office of the Administrator uses the information
submitted by the program staff, as well as other factors, to evaluate
the projects and make the final selections; (7) according to FHwA's
Acting Deputy Administrator, the Office of the Administrator has tried
to ensure that the dollars are spread fairly among all the states and
that the interests of members of Congress are addressed; (8) in contrast
to the analyses that the program staff complete in the first phase, the
Office of the Administrator does not document the factors it uses to
select the final projects or its rationale for making the final
selections; (9) DOT is authorized to establish procedures for reviewing
and selecting transportation projects under its discretionary programs;
(10) GAO's review of the selection process revealed that under the
current process, in place during fiscal years 1995-1997, the Office of
the Administrator relied more on its discretion and less on the program
staff's input and analyses than it did under an earlier process used
during fiscal years 1992-1994; (11) under this new process, which was
designed to provide the Office of the Administrator with more
flexibility in taking into account items such as the geographic
distribution of funding, 73 percent of the projects that the Office of
the Administrator selected were categorized as "most promising" or
"promising"; (12) the Office of the Administrator selected a declining
portion of projects from these categories over the 3-year period; and
(13) during fiscal years 1992-94, when staff ranked projects in order of
priority and recommended specific projects and funding amounts, the
Office of the Administrator selected over 98 percent of all projects
that the program staff recommended.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-98-14
TITLE: Transportation Infrastructure: Review of Project Selection
Process for Five FHWA Discretionary Programs
DATE: 11/07/97
SUBJECT: Road construction
Public roads or highways
Federal aid for highways
Discretionary grants
Bridges
Eligibility criteria
Grant award procedures
IDENTIFIER: FHwA Public Lands Highway Program
FHwA Interstate Discretionary Program
FHwA Interstate Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation,
and Reconstruction Program
FHwA Ferry Boats and Facilities Program
FHwA Discretionary Bridge Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
November 1997
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE -
REVIEW OF PROJECT SELECTION
PROCESS FOR FIVE FHWA
DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS
GAO/RCED-98-14
FHWA Discretionary Programs
(348037)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOT - Department of Transportation
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
GAO - General Accounting Office
ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-278026
November 7, 1997
The Honorable Bud Shuster
Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and
Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The Honorable Thomas E. Petri
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation
Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The Congress has authorized the Secretary of Transportation to select
and fund specific state transportation projects under several
discretionary highway programs. These funds supplement other funds
that states routinely receive through the federal-aid highway
program. These supplemental funds come from several discretionary
transportation programs, the first of these programs was authorized
in 1930, when the Congress established a Public Lands Highway
Program. While the Department of Transportation (DOT) distributes
the federal-aid funds to states on the basis of congressionally
approved formulas, the Secretary of Transportation can select
specific transportation projects for federal funding under the
discretionary programs.
Since fiscal year 1992, the Secretary has selected about 415 projects
totaling about $2.7 billion in federal funds through five of DOT's
discretionary programs. The funding for these five programs
represented, on average, about 87 percent of all Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) discretionary funding during fiscal years
1994-97. These funds have paid for the construction of highways,
bridges, and ferry boat facilities throughout the nation. As it
reauthorizes the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA), the Congress is reassessing the level of funding
necessary for the discretionary programs and the procedures the
Secretary has established to ensure that the best transportation
projects are being selected under these programs.
As part of the ISTEA reauthorization process, you asked us to (1)
describe the selection process and criteria that DOT uses to fund
projects under its discretionary highway programs and (2) determine
how DOT's process has changed and how the changes may have affected
which projects the Department selects for discretionary funding. The
five programs you asked us to review are the Public Lands Highways
Program, the Discretionary Bridge Program, the Interstate
Discretionary Program, the Interstate 4R Program, and the Ferry Boats
and Facilities Program. To respond to these objectives, we reviewed
and analyzed the documents and lists of selected projects pertinent
to the discretionary programs for fiscal years 1992 through 1997. In
Washington, D.C., and one regional office, we also interviewed FHWA
officials who have been responsible for implementing these programs.
Additional information on our methodology is provided at the end of
this report.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
DOT uses a two-phase process for selecting and funding transportation
projects for the five discretionary programs we reviewed. In the
first phase, FHWA program staff in the field and headquarters compile
and evaluate the applications that states submit for discretionary
funding. Program staff screen the applications by applying
eligibility criteria established by statute or administratively. On
the basis of written criteria, program staff group the projects into
four categories that range in priority from most promising to not
qualified and submit the groupings to the Office of the
Administrator. The submission to the Office of the Administrator
provides information on each candidate project, data on discretionary
funds that each state received during prior years, and the current
level of congressional interest. In the second phase, the Office of
the Administrator uses the information submitted by the program
staff, as well as other factors, to evaluate the projects and make
the final selections. According to FHWA's Acting Deputy
Administrator, the Office of the Administrator has tried to ensure
that the dollars are spread fairly among all the states and that the
interests of Members of Congress are addressed. In contrast to the
analyses that the program staff complete in the first phase, the
Office of the Administrator does not document the factors it uses to
select the final projects or its rationale for making the final
selections.
DOT is authorized to establish procedures for reviewing and selecting
transportation projects under its discretionary programs. Our review
of the selection process revealed that under the current process, in
place during fiscal years 1995-97, the Office of the Administrator
relied more on its discretion and less on the program staff's input
and analyses than it did under an earlier process used during fiscal
years 1992-94. Under this new process, which was designed to provide
the Office of the Administrator with more flexibility in taking into
account items such as the geographic distribution of funding, 73
percent of the projects that the Office of the Administrator selected
were categorized as "most promising" or "promising." In addition, the
Office of the Administrator selected a declining portion of projects
from these categories over the 3-year period. During fiscal years
1992-94, when staff ranked projects in order of priority and
recommended specific projects and funding amounts, the Office of the
Administrator selected over 98 percent of all projects that the
program staff recommended.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Beginning in 1930, the Congress established the first transportation
discretionary program under which the executive branch could select
specific transportation projects for federal funding, thus providing
the executive branch with some latitude in allocating federal funds
to the states. In that year, the Public Lands Program was
established to pay for road work on the nation's public lands. In
1978, the Congress set up the Discretionary Bridge and Discretionary
Interstate programs. The Discretionary Bridge Program was
established to replace or rehabilitate high-cost bridges while the
Discretionary Interstate Program aimed to accelerate the construction
of the Interstate Highway System. When the Interstate 4R
Discretionary Program was begun in 1982, its goal was to resurface,
restore, rehabilitate, and reconstruct the Interstate Highway System.
Finally, the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program, begun in 1991, was
intended to construct ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.
(See apps. I-V for additional information on ISTEA's provisions and
eligibility requirements for each of the discretionary programs
discussed in this report.)
The Secretary of Transportation is responsible for selecting projects
under the discretionary programs. The Secretary has delegated this
responsibility to the FHWA Administrator. FHWA's Office of
Engineering administers the programs, solicits applications from
states, and compiles the applications and information for selection.
States submit applications to FHWA's division offices, which either
send the applications to FHWA's regional offices for compilation with
other states' applications or to FHWA's headquarters, as they do for
Interstate Discretionary and 4R programs. Regional offices then send
the applications to FHWA's Washington, D.C., headquarters.
As table 1 shows, since fiscal year 1992, the five discretionary
programs we reviewed received over $2.7 billion in federal
funds--ranging from about $99 million provided for the Ferry Boats
and Facilities Program to almost $1.6 billion provided for the
Interstate Discretionary Program.
Table 1
DOT's Funding of Five Discretionary
Highway Programs, Fiscal Years 1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Program's name 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Discretionary $ 49.8 $ 61.3 $ 63.3 $ 52.6 $ 65.9 $ 60.6 $ 353.5
Bridge
Ferry Boats and 14.0 15.3 19.0 17.2 14.9 18.2 98.6
Facilities
Interstate 149.9 302.3 796.8 289.6 2.4 12.9 1,553.9
Discretionary
Interstate 55.9 65.5 68.9 65.4 66.2 66.4 388.3
Discretionary 4R
Public Lands 43.0 60.8 56.2 54.1 49.5 55.6 319.2
=========================================================================================
Fiscal year total $ 312.6 $505.2 $1,004.2 478.9 $198.9 $213.7 $2,713.5
$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
FY = fiscal year
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of data from DOT.
The states' requests for discretionary funds have generally exceeded
the amounts available for funding.\1 For example, in fiscal year
1997, the states submitted almost $682 million in requests for about
$61 million in discretionary bridge funds. Similarly, the states
submitted nearly $1.3 billion in requests for about $66 million
available in fiscal year 1997 from Interstate 4R funds. Although the
states have been able to build specific transportation projects and
facilities through discretionary funding, the amounts available
through these five programs represent only a small portion of the
highway funds that the states receive annually. For example, in
fiscal year 1997, FHWA's Office of the Administrator provided the
states with $213.7 million in discretionary funding for the five
programs we reviewed--about 1 percent of the estimated $20 billion
that FHWA provided the states with for that year.
--------------------
\1 Some states do not apply for discretionary funding because such
funding may affect their equity adjustments in the following year's
apportionment. Discretionary allocations that affect the states'
equity calculations include those for all of the programs we reviewed
except the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program.
FHWA USES A TWO-STEP PROCESS
FOR SELECTING DISCRETIONARY
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
FHWA uses a two-phase selection process involving both program staff
and the Office of the Administrator. As displayed in figure 1, the
first phase begins when program staff in the Office of Engineering
send a solicitation notice out to FHWA's regions calling for project
candidates from the states. Project candidates are compiled by the
regions and divisions and forwarded to the headquarters staff
offices. The headquarters staff with specific expertise in the
various discretionary program areas compile the regional submissions
and review and analyze each candidate. By applying program-specific
statutory and administrative criteria, program staff screen and
prioritize project applications for each discretionary program.
Figure 1: Chronology of FHWA's
Project Selection Process
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FHWA program staff use both statutory and administrative criteria and
other factors to identify and prioritize projects for each
discretionary program. As displayed in table 2, the criteria are
program specific and differ among the five discretionary programs.
For example, by using data to determine the physical condition of a
bridge, Discretionary Bridge Program staff calculate a numerical
score or rating factor for each candidate project. The rating factor
allows FHWA to prioritize the projects eligible for funding. In
contrast, Public Lands Program staff use factors, such as whether a
project is located in a state with 3 percent or more of the nation's
public lands, to screen and prioritize projects. Interstate
Discretionary and 4R Program staff consider whether other sources of
funding, such as unobligated Interstate Construction and National
Highway System funds, are available for projects, while Ferry Boats
and Facilities Program staff evaluate factors, such as a project's
benefits and the ability of federal funds to leverage private funds,
when they prioritize the candidate projects. After applying the
criteria, program staff identify ineligible projects and group the
eligible projects into four priority categories--most promising,
promising, qualified, and not qualified.\2
Table 2
Statutory and Administrative Criteria
for the Discretionary Programs
Statutory Administrative
Program criteria considerations
------------ -------------------------------- --------------------------------
Public Lands An eligible project is any kind Program criteria include the
Highways of transportation project history of funding distribution
eligible for assistance under among states, whether a project
title 23 that is within or is ready to advance to
adjacent to or provides access construction, commitment of
to public land area. Statutory other funding sources, past
criteria give preference to allocation of Public Lands
projects that are significantly Highways funds, relationship of
impacted by federal land and a project to the completion of a
resource management activities complete highway segment, and
and located in states with 3 safety and capacity
percent or more of the nation's improvements.
public lands (i.e., Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and
Wyoming).
Bridge Eligible projects are bridges First priority is given to
Discretionar that cost more than $10 million bridges that were previously
y or at least twice the state's funded and need additional funds
annual apportionment of bridge within the first three quarters
funds for the fiscal year in of the fiscal year. Priority is
which the request is made. then given to unfunded bridge
projects with the lowest rating
In 1982, Congress directed FHWA factors that need funding for
to establish a rating factor for the first three quarters of the
each candidate on the basis of fiscal year. Projects from
seven items, including bridge states that have transferred
condition, average daily their bridge apportionment funds
traffic, total project cost, to other federal-aid categories
etc. On the basis of these during the previous year are
items, FHWA developed the rating generally not considered
factor formula, which it uses to eligible for discretionary
prioritize candidate projects. bridge funding.
The lower the rating factor, the
higher the priority for
selection and funding.
Ferry Boats Eligible vehicular ferry Consideration is given to
and facilities must be on a route whether the project will result
Facilities classified as a public road, in a useable facility; what
except an Interstate route. other benefits exist; whether
Projects may include both ferry other funds, either state or
boats carrying cars and local, are committed to the
passengers and passengers only. project; and whether the project
Ferry boats and facilities must has received Ferry Boats and
be publicly owned. Facilities Discretionary
allocations in the past.
Interstate Interstate Discretionary funds Other factors include whether a
Discretionar must be used for any work state has utilized unobligated
y eligible for Interstate Interstate Construction and
Construction funds to complete Interstate Discretionary funds,
construction of the Interstate whether a project is critical to
system. Allocations may be made complete the Interstate system,
to any eligible project in any and which states have the
state except Massachusetts. greatest funding needs to
complete the Interstate system.
Interstate For a state to be eligible to A project from a state that has
4R receive Interstate 4R funds, it transferred either National
Discretionar (1) must demonstrate that it can Highway System or Interstate
y obligate all of its National Maintenance funds to its Surface
Highway System apportionments Transportation Program in the
during the fiscal year, (2) must preceding year will not be
be willing and able to obligate considered for funding.
Interstate 4R funds by September
1 of the fiscal year, (3) must
apply the funds to a ready-to-
commence project, and (4) must
begin work within 90 days of
obligation. In addition, ISTEA
directed the Secretary to give
priority consideration to
projects exceeding $10 million
on any high-volume route in an
urban area or high-truck volume
route in a rural area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FHWA.
The second phase of the selection process begins after FHWA's Office
of Engineering provides the Office of the Administrator with a report
for each discretionary program that lists the eligible projects and
includes other information, such as what funding the states received
in prior years through the discretionary programs and any
congressional interest or support for specific projects. The Office
of the Administrator receives the reports for all of the programs
simultaneously--generally in the fall--and begins the final selection
process at that time.
Using the discretion granted to the Administrator under each of the
programs, the Office of the Administrator can apply additional
considerations to the information received from the program staff
before making final selections. For example, according to FHWA's
acting Deputy Administrator, the Office of the Administrator may try
to spread the discretionary funds among as many states as possible to
ensure geographic equity. As a result, the final selections could
differ from the staffs' groupings if these groupings provided the
bulk of funding for only a few states in a given program. The
official also said that the Office of the Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary, also pays close attention to
requests from Members of Congress in making the final project
selections. In addition, congressional legislation, in the form of
earmarks, may require the Secretary to fund a particular project
through a discretionary program. Other considerations may include
whether the requesters would be willing to accept partial funding,
whether conditions pertaining to the project have changed since the
state originally requested funding, and other factors, such as
whether states have received an equitable share of funding over time.
The process is concluded when the Office of the Administrator sends
out the list of its selections.
The two phases differ in the extent of documentation available to
explain how decisions are made--that is, how program staff apply the
criteria to group the projects and how the Office of the
Administrator makes the final selections. Specifically, program
staff provide written documentation of the statutory and
administrative criteria used to screen candidate projects, as well as
the project's descriptions, the amounts of funding requested, prior
allocations to states, and congressional interest. In contrast,
officials in the Office of the Administrator could verbally describe
the additional factors they have considered in making the final
project selections but could not provide any written documentation
that either explained the additional selection factors they used or
how they applied these factors to each candidate project. In
addition, the final selection list that the Office of the
Administrator issues at the conclusion of the selection process does
not explain or justify why each project was selected.
--------------------
\2 The Discretionary Bridge Program has an additional category--Not
Qualified-Administrative--which includes projects that, for a variety
of reasons, program staff rank as the lowest of the eligible
projects. Projects included in this category would be those
requesting fourth quarter funding or those whose total cost is
extremely high.
STAFF PRIORITIES AND OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINAL
SELECTIONS DIFFER
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
The current process to select projects under the discretionary
programs has been in place since fiscal year 1995. In general, under
the current process, the Office of the Administrator relies more on
its discretion in making the selections than it did under an earlier
process that relied almost entirely on program staffs' analyses and
recommendations. We found that under the current process, there were
differences in the projects selected by the Office of the
Administrator and those given higher priority by the FHWA staff
responsible for evaluating and prioritizing the projects.
Our analysis of the discretionary program's selection process
revealed that two distinct processes existed during our review time
frames. During fiscal years 1992-94, program staff for each of the
discretionary programs we reviewed recommended specific projects and
funding amounts after ranking projects in order of priority. As
displayed in figure 2, the Office of the Administrator selected over
98 percent of all the projects that the program staff recommended in
fiscal years 1992-94 (180 projects selected from 183 staff
recommendations). For example, the Office of the Administrator
selected 15 of the 17 public lands projects recommended by FHWA
program staff in fiscal year 1992. Similarly, the Office of the
Administrator selected all of the six Interstate 4R projects
recommended by FHWA program staff for funding in fiscal year 1992.
Figure 2: FHWA's Office of the
Administrator's Selections of
Staff's Priority Projects as a
Percentage of Total Projects
Selected, Fiscal Year 1992-97
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
The high level of consistency between the staffs' recommendations and
the Office of the Administrator's selections changed after fiscal
year 1994. For the fiscal year 1995 funding cycle, the Office of the
Administrator directed the program staff to group the projects into
four categories--most promising, promising, qualified, and not
qualified--rather than provide specific project and funding
recommendations. According to FHWA's Acting Deputy Administrator,
the Office of the Administrator found it difficult to make equitable
decisions using the rank order lists and thus made the change to the
groupings. The official also said that the process did not give the
Office of the Administrator enough flexibility to take into account
other equally important considerations, such as the geographic
distribution of funding.
As figure 2 shows, beginning in fiscal year 1995, the Office of the
Administrator selected a declining proportion of projects from the
higher-priority categories. In fiscal year 1995, 92 percent of the
projects that the Office of the Administrator selected were projects
that staff had categorized as "promising" or "most promising"; 69
percent in fiscal 1996; and 59 percent in fiscal 1997--about 73
percent overall for the 3-year period. This tendency was
particularly evident in comparing the staffs' groupings and the final
project selections in three of the five programs we reviewed--Public
Lands, Interstate 4R, and Discretionary Bridge. For example, in
fiscal year 1997, while the Office of the Administrator selected 9 of
the 36 public lands projects categorized as "most promising," it also
selected 16 of 59 projects categorized as "qualified"--the
lowest-priority category for the public lands program that year.
Half of all public lands projects that the Office of the
Administrator selected that year came from the qualified category.
In the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program there was an initial
decline from 100 to 80 percent for fiscal year 1995, but the
selection of most promising and promising projects remained around 80
percent for fiscal 1996-97.
For the other discretionary program we reviewed--Interstate
Discretionary--the projects that the program staff categorized as
"higher priority" were the ones selected by the Office of the
Administrator. The results occurred under the selection procedures
in place during fiscal years 1992-97. The Office of the
Administrator selected 100 percent of the projects recommended by the
program staff during fiscal years 1992-94 and 100 percent of those
that the staff placed in the most promising category during fiscal
1995-97.\3 The change in the selection process did not affect the
Interstate Discretionary Program because the funds available for the
program during fiscal years 1993-97 exceeded the requests; all
eligible candidate projects were selected for full funding. (Details
on the Office of the Administrator's selections for fiscal years
1992-97 are provided in apps. I-V for the five programs we
reviewed.)
FHWA officials stated that the selection of projects in
lower-priority categories did not mean that the Office of the
Administrator was making poor transportation investments. FHWA
officials stated that most of the states' project submissions could
be considered good projects, given the tremendous Interstate
infrastructure needs and tight federal-aid funding. Therefore, they
believed it would be unlikely that the Office of the Administrator
could select a poor project for funding. In addition, our analyses
revealed no instance where the Office of the Administrator selected a
project that staff had classified as statutorily ineligible project
during fiscal years 1995-97.\4
--------------------
\3 For fiscal years 1995-97, the staff categorized all eligible
Interstate Discretionary projects as most promising; any other
projects were categorized as "not qualified."
\4 In fiscal year 1996, the Office of the Administrator selected one
project from the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program that the staff
determined to be statutorily ineligible. Funding for the project is
contingent upon a change in the ownership of the ferry boat facility
from private to public. Therefore, we categorized this project as
"other."
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
We provided DOT with draft copies of this report for review and
comment. We met with DOT officials--including the FHWA Acting
Administrator, Acting Deputy Administrator, and Associate
Administrator for Program Development--to discuss their comments.
DOT did not have any comments on the report's overall findings but
requested that the report be modified to address two general areas of
concern. First, the Department indicated that it wanted us to
broaden our discussion of the additional factors that the Office of
the Administrator uses to make final project selections. Second, the
Department suggested that we modify our analysis of the project
selection statistics to account for the financial limitations of the
programs. DOT said that because several of the discretionary
requests greatly exceeded the available funding, the promising and
most promising categories contained more projects than could be
selected. DOT noted that because our analyses did not take this
funding limitation into account, our analyses implied that the Office
of the Administrator chose many projects from the lower-priority
categories.
In response to DOT's comments, we included additional information on
the factors that the Office of the Administrator considers in making
project selections in the body of the report. We revised our
analysis of the projects the Office of the Administrator selected for
funding in fiscal years 1995-97 to address DOT's second concern. We
also included additional information in the appendixes on the funds
allocated to projects in each category for fiscal years 1995-97.
Other editorial comments provided by the Department have been
incorporated where appropriate.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
To identify the criteria and selection process that DOT used to
select projects for discretionary funding, we obtained from FHWA
officials information that documented the process followed for each
program during fiscal years 1992-97. The information from FHWA
described the number and dollar amount of projects submitted for
funding, the statutory and administrative criteria for eligibility
and selection, and the Office of the Administrator's final project
selections. Some of the documents also included information about
congressional interest and whether the Congress had earmarked any of
the program dollars. We discussed the programs with officials in
FHWA's Office of Engineering who had knowledge of each program, as
well as with FHWA's Acting Deputy Administrator, who summarized the
factors used by the Office of the Administrator to determine which
projects would receive funding. We also met with officials in one
FHWA regional office to discuss their role in the discretionary
programs.
To determine how changes in the process have affected which projects
DOT selects for discretionary funding, we examined the staffs'
analysis of the projects submitted for funding in each program, as
well as the Office of the Administrator's subsequent project
selections. We then compared the project selections resulting from
the process that the Department currently uses with the project
selections resulting from the process used during fiscal years
1992-94. We performed our review from July through September 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation, the
Acting Administrator, FHWA; cognizant congressional committees; and
other interested parties. We will make copies available to others
upon request.
Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VI.
John H. Anderson, Jr.
Director, Transportation Issues
PUBLIC LANDS HIGHWAYS
=========================================================== Appendix I
PROGRAM'S NAME:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.1
Public Lands Highways.
BACKGROUND:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.2
The Public Lands Program was initially established in 1930. The
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 changed the funding source for the
program from the general fund to the Highway Trust fund, effective in
fiscal year 1972. The funding level for public lands highways was
$16 million per year during fiscal years 1972-82. The Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (1982 STAA, P.L. 97-424)
increased the annual authorization level to $50 million for fiscal
years 1983-86, but the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act of 1987 (1987 STURAA, P.L. 100-17) reduced this
amount to $40 million for fiscal 1987-91. The program funds projects
that are within, adjacent to, or provide access to the areas served
by public lands highways--such as roads in national parks, forests,
or Indian reservations.
ELIGIBILITY:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.3
Public Lands Highways funds may be used on eligible public lands
highways, defined by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240) as (1) a forest road or (2) any
highway through unappropriated or unreserved public lands; nontaxable
Indian lands; or other federal reservations that are under the
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to
public travel. A variety of activities are eligible, including
planning, research, engineering, and construction. Projects ranging
from reconstructing a road to adding parking facilities are eligible.
FEDERAL SHARE:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.4
One hundred percent.
ISTEA'S PROVISIONS:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.5
ISTEA authorized the following funding levels for the Public Land
Highways Program: fiscal year 1992--$48.62 million; fiscal
1993--$58.14 million; fiscal 1994--$58.14 million; fiscal
1995--$58.14 million; fiscal 1996--$58.48 million; and fiscal
1997--$58.48 million. Funds remain available for the fiscal year
allocated plus 3 years.
FUNDING:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.6
See table I.1.
Table I.1
Amount of Public Lands Highways Funds
Requested and Allocated, Fiscal Years
1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year Requested Allocated
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1992 $158.9 $43.0
1993 178.0 60.8
1994 181.7 56.2
1995 139.8 54.0
1996 173.0 49.5
1997 249.0 55.6
======================================================================
Total $1,080.4 $319.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
ALLOCATIONS BY STATE:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.7
During fiscal years 1992-97, the top five recipient states received
about 37 percent of all Public Lands Highway allocations. (See table
I.2.)
Table I.2
Public Lands Highways Allocations for
Top Five States, Fiscal Years 1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage of
State Amount total
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
California $31.2 10
Nevada 25.4 8
Arizona 23.4 7
Oregon 19.9 6
Montana 19.8 6
======================================================================
Total, all states $319.1 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
PROJECT SELECTIONS:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.8
During fiscal years 1992-94, FHWA's Office of the Administrator
selected 97 percent of the projects that the FHWA staff recommended
for funding. (See table I.3.)
Table I.3
Staffs' Recommendations for the Public
Lands Highways Program and the Office of
the Administrator's Selections, Fiscal
Years 1992-94
Number of staff- Percentage of
Fi recommended Number of other staff-recommended
sc Number of projects that the projects that the projects that the
al projects Office of the Office of the Office of the
ye that the staff Administrator Administrator Administrator
ar recommended selected selected selected
-- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
19 17 15 3 88
92
19 19 19 1 100
93
19 23 23 2 100
94
==================================================================================
To 59 57 6 97
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, FHWA's Office of the Administrator
selected a declining percentage of projects grouped in the most
promising and promising categories. (See table I.4.)
Table I.4
Projects That the Office of the
Administrator Selected for Public Lands
Highways Funding, Fiscal Years 1995-97
Most promising and promising Qualified, not qualified, and
projects that the Office of other projects that the Office
the Administrator selected of the Administrator selected
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Total number
Fi of projects
sc that the
al Office of the
ye Administrator Percentage of Percentage of
ar selected Number total Number total
-- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
19 30 28 93 2 7
95
19 31 19 61 12\a 39
96
19 32 14 44 18\a 56
97
==================================================================================
To 93 61 66 32\b 34
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Office of the Administrator selected two projects in fiscal
year 1996 and two projects in fiscal 1997 that we categorized as
"other" because the program staff did not group these projects in one
of the four categories.
\b The Office of the Administrator did not select any projects that
the staff categorized as "not qualified" (statutorily ineligible.)
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, the Office of the Administrator
allocated a declining proportion of dollars to projects the staff
categorized as "most promising" or "promising." (See table I.5.)
Table I.5
Funds Allocated to Public Lands Highways
Discretionary Projects by Category,
Fiscal Years 1995-97
(Dollars in millions)
Dollars
allocated Dollars
for most allocated for
Total dollars promising/ qualified, not
allocated for promising qualified, and
projects that projects that other projects
the Office of the Office of that the Office
the the of the
Administrator Administrator Administrator
Fiscal year selected selected selected
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
1995 $55.9 $55.5 $0.4
1996 49.5 29.6 20.0
1997 55.6 22.1 33.5
======================================================================
Total $161.0 $107.2 $53.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE
========================================================== Appendix II
PROGRAM'S NAME:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.1
Discretionary Bridge.
BACKGROUND:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.2
The Discretionary Bridge Program was established by the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (1978 STAA, P.L. 95-599). The
1978 legislation required that $200 million be withheld from the
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program apportionment
for each of fiscal years 1979-82 to be used by the Secretary of
Transportation as a discretionary fund to replace or rehabilitate
bridges that cost more than $10 million each or twice the state's
apportionment. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
continued the program at the same funding level through fiscal year
1986. The act also provided that the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) establish a formal process to rank and select discretionary
bridge projects for funding. The act also decreed that discretionary
bridge projects be on a federal-aid highway system. The Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987
increased the discretionary set-aside to $225 million for each fiscal
year during 1987-91.
ELIGIBILITY:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.3
Eligible projects are bridge rehabilitation or replacement projects
that cost more than $10 million or at least twice the amount of
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program funds
apportioned to the state in which the bridge is located. The
discretionary bridge projects must be on a federal-aid system.
Candidate bridges must have a rating factor of 100 or less to be
eligible, unless they were selected prior to November 1983.
FEDERAL SHARE:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.4
Eighty percent. Bridge projects that are on the Interstate Highway
System and have been selected for discretionary bridge funding will
receive funding at 50 percent of the requested amount primarily
because other Interstate discretionary funds are available.
ISTEA'S PROVISIONS:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.5
ISTEA continued the program and authorized that $349.5 million be set
aside over the 6-year period fiscal 1992-97--$49 million for fiscal
1992, $59.5 million each for fiscal 1993-94, and $60.5 million each
for fiscal 1995-97.
FUNDING:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.6
See table II.1.
Table II.1
Amount of Discretionary Bridge Program
Funds Requested and Allocated, Fiscal
Years 1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year Requested Allocated
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1992 $570.7 $49.8
1993 420.4 61.3
1994 266.2 63.3
1995 365.3 52.6
1996 590.2 66.0
1997 691.1 60.6
======================================================================
Total $2,903.9 $353.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
ALLOCATIONS BY STATE:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.7
During fiscal years 1992-97, the top five recipient states received
about 69 percent of all Discretionary Bridge allocations. (See table
II.2.)
Table II.2
Discretionary Bridge Allocations for Top
Five States, Fiscal Years 1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage of
State Amount total
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
New York $68.8 20
Illinois 64.8 18
Minnesota 47.2 13
Colorado 39.1 11
Connecticut 22.8 6
======================================================================
Total, all states $353.6 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
PROJECT SELECTIONS:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.8
During fiscal years 1992-94, the Office of the Administrator selected
100 percent of the projects that the FHWA program staff recommended
for funding. (See table II.3.)
Table II.3
Staffs' Recommendations for the
Discretionary Bridge Program and the
Office of the Administrator's
Selections, Fiscal Years 1992-94
Number of staff- Percentage of
Fi recommended Number of other staff-recommended
sc Number of projects that the projects that the projects that the
al projects Office of the Office of the Office of the
ye that the staff Administrator Administrator Administrator
ar recommended selected selected selected
-- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
19 3 3 0 100
92
19 7 7 0 100
93
19 8 8 2 100
94
==================================================================================
To 18 18 2 100
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, FHWA's Office of the Administrator
selected a declining percentage of the projects the program staff had
categorized as "most promising" and "promising." (See table II.4.)
Table II.4
Projects That the Office of the
Administrator Selected for Discretionary
Bridge Funding, Fiscal Years 1995-97
Most promising and promising Qualified, not qualified, and
projects that the Office of other projects that the Office
the Administrator selected of the Administrator selected
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Total number
Fi of projects
sc that the
al Office of the
ye Administrator Percentage of Percentage of
ar selected Number total Number total
-- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
19 8 7 88 1 12
95
19 11 8 73 3\a 27
96
19 20 10 50 10\a 50
97
==================================================================================
To 39 25 64 14\b 36
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Office of the Administrator selected two projects in fiscal
year 1996 that we categorized as "other" because the program staff
did not group these projects in one of the five categories. The
Office of the Administrator also selected one project in fiscal 1996
and eight projects in fiscal 1997 that staff had categorized as "not
qualified" for administrative reasons--projects requesting fourth
quarter funding or whose total cost is extremely high.
\b The Office of the Administrator did not select any projects that
the staff categorized as "not qualified" (statutorily ineligible.)
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, the Office of the Administrator
allocated about $126 million to projects the staff had categorized as
either "most promising" or "promising." (See table II.5.)
Table II.5
Funds Allocated to Discretionary Bridge
Projects by Category, Fiscal Years 1995-
97
(Dollars in millions)
Dollars
allocated Dollars
for most allocated for
Total dollars promising/ qualified, not
allocated for promising qualified, and
projects that projects that other projects
the Office of the Office of that the Office
the the of the
Fiscal Administrator Administrator Administrator
year selected selected selected
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
1995 $52.6 $42.8 $9.8
1996 65.9 54.5 11.4
1997 60.6 28.7 31.9
======================================================================
Total $179.1 $126.0 $53.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
INTERSTATE DISCRETIONARY
========================================================= Appendix III
PROGRAM'S NAME:
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.1
Interstate Discretionary Program.
BACKGROUND:
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.2
Originally created by section 115(a) of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978 in order to accelerate construction of the
Interstate Highway System. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1982 and the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation and
Assistance Act of 1987 both continued and modified the Interstate
Discretionary Program.
ELIGIBILITY:
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.3
Interstate Discretionary funds may be used for the same purpose as
Interstate Construction funds--initial construction of remaining
portions of the Interstate System. However, only work eligible under
the provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 and included in
the 1981 Interstate Cost Estimate is eligible for Interstate
Discretionary funding.
FEDERAL SHARE:
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.4
Ninety percent; 80 percent for projects that provide additional
capacity, unless added capacity is High Occupancy Vehicle or
auxiliary lane (also 90-percent federal share).
ISTEA'S PROVISIONS:
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.5
Section 1020 of ISTEA revised 23 U.S.C. 118(b), (c) & (d) and
authorized a $100 million per year set-aside from the Interstate
Construction Program for the Interstate Discretionary Program
annually for fiscal years 1992-96.\1
FHWA also provided Interstate Discretionary funds from lapsed
Interstate Construction funds that had reached the end of their
availability period. The funds are available until expended.
Currently, there is a balance of approximately $61 million available
for future Interstate Discretionary allocations.
--------------------
\1 ISTEA reduced the amount of funds set aside from the Interstate
Construction Program for Interstate Discretionary funds from $300
million authorized under STURAA to $100 million.
FUNDING:
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.6
See table III.1.
Table III.1
Amount of Interstate Discretionary Funds
Requested and Allocated, Fiscal Years
1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year Requested Allocated
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1992 $747.8 $149.9
1993 275.7 302.3\a
1994 375.0 796.8\b
1995 272.4 289.6\c
1996 2.4 2.4
1997 103.3 12.9\d
======================================================================
Total $1,776.6 $1,553.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
\a All eligible projects were fully funded--South Carolina
subsequently returned their allocation. FHWA also allocated an
additional $51 million during the year to three states.
\b All eligible projects were fully funded--Massachusetts submitted
an application for $125 million but was not eligible. FHWA allocated
an additional $547 million during the year to 10 states.
\c All eligible projects were fully funded--the District of Columbia,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas each submitted applications that
were not eligible for funds. FHWA allocated an additional $168
million for base allocations to eight states. The base allocation
was a one-time allocation of Interstate Discretionary funds for
states whose final Interstate Construction apportionment would not
allow them to complete the Interstate System.
\d All eligible projects were fully funded--Pennsylvania submitted
applications for $63 million but was not eligible. In addition,
Washington state later withdrew its application for $27 million.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
ALLOCATIONS BY STATE:
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.7
During fiscal years 1992-97, the top five recipient states received
about 72 percent of all Interstate Discretionary allocations. (See
table III.2.)
Table III.2
Interstate Discretionary Allocations for
Top Five States, Fiscal Years 1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage of
State Amount total
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Hawaii $439.2 28
Washington 295.9 19
Pennsylvania 157.8 10
South Carolina 114.5 7
Virginia 110.4 7
======================================================================
Total, all states $1,553.9 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
PROJECT SELECTIONS:
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.8
During fiscal years 1992-94, FHWA's Office of the Administrator
selected 100 percent of the projects that FHWA staff recommended for
funding. (See table III.3.)
Table III.3
Staffs' Recommendations for the
Interstate Discretionary Program and the
Office of the Administrator's
Selections, Fiscal Years 1992-94
Percentage of
Number of staff- staff-
recommended recommended
Fi projects Number of other projects
sc Number of that the Office of projects that the that the Office of
al projects the Office of the the
ye that the staff Administrator Administrator Administrator
ar recommended selected selected selected
-- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
19 7 7 0 100
92
19 28 28 0 100
93
19 20 20 0\a 100
94
==================================================================================
To 55 55 0 100
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a FHWA allocated funds to an additional 12 projects during the year.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, FHWA's Office of the Administrator also
selected all of the eligible projects for full funding, since the
amount available for allocation exceeded the amount requested. (See
table III.4.)
Table III.4
Projects That the Office of the
Administrator Selected for Interstate
Discretionary Funding, Fiscal Years
1995-97
Most promising and promising Qualified, not qualified or
projects that the Office of other projects that the Office
the Administrator selected of the Administrator selected
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Total number
of
Fi projects that
sc the
al Office of the
ye Administrator Percentage of Percentage of
ar selected Number total Number total
-- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
19 15 15 100 0 0
95
19 1 1 100 0 0
96
19 3 3 100 0 0
97
==================================================================================
To 9 1 9 100 0 0
t
a
l
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, the staff categorized all eligible
projects as "most promising," and all eligible projects were funded.
(See table III.5.)
Table III.5
Funds Allocated to Interstate
Discretionary Projects by Category,
Fiscal Years 1995-97
(Dollars in millions)
Dollars
allocated Dollars
for most allocated for
Total dollars promising/ qualified, not
allocated for promising qualified, and
projects that projects that other projects
the Office of the Office of that the Office
the the of the
Fiscal Administrator Administrator Administrator
year selected selected selected
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
1995 $121.6\a $121.6 $0
1996 2.4 2.4 0
1997 12.9 12.9 0
======================================================================
Total $136.9 $136.9 $0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
\a The Office of the Administrator allocated an additional $168
million for base allocations to eight states. The base allocation
was a one-time allocation of Interstate Discretionary funds for
states whose final Interstate Construction apportionment would not
allow them to complete the Interstate System.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
INTERSTATE 4R DISCRETIONARY
========================================================== Appendix IV
PROGRAM'S NAME:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.1
Interstate 4R Discretionary Program.
BACKGROUND:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.2
Originally created by section 115 (a) of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982. Funds were provided for the program from
lapsed Interstate 4R apportionments, with additional criteria. The
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act of
1987 provided for a $200 million set-aside for each of the fiscal
years 1988-92 from the Interstate 4R authorization for the
continuation of the Interstate 4R discretionary fund and provided
criteria/factors to be used in the distribution of funds.
ELIGIBILITY:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.3
Interstate 4R discretionary funds may be used for resurfacing,
restoring, rehabilitating, and reconstructing the Interstate System,
including providing additional capacity.
FEDERAL SHARE:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.4
Ninety percent. The federal share may be increased up to 95 percent
in states with large areas of public lands and up to 100 percent for
safety, traffic control, and car/vanpool projects.
ISTEA'S PROVISIONS:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.5
Section 1020 of ISTEA amended 23 U.S.C. 118 (c)(2) and set aside $54
million for fiscal year 1992, $64 million each year for fiscal
1993-96, and $65 million for fiscal 1997. Of the amounts set aside,
ISTEA required that $16 million for fiscal year 1992 and $17 million
for each of fiscal 1993 and 1994 be used for improvements on the
Kennedy Expressway in Chicago, Illinois. ISTEA terminated the
apportioned Interstate 4R Fund Program and provided that the
Interstate 4R set-aside come from the National Highway System
program.
FUNDING:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.6
See table IV.1.
Table IV.1
Amount of Interstate 4R Discretionary
Funds Requested and Allocated, Fiscal
Years 1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year Requested Allocated
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1992 $434.7 $55.9
1993 784.2 65.5
1994 618.2 68.9
1995 577.9 65.4
1996 687.2 66.2
1997 1,280.4 66.4
======================================================================
Total $4,382.6 $388.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
ALLOCATIONS BY STATE:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.7
During fiscal years 1992-97, the top five recipient states received
about 70 percent of all Interstate 4R Discretionary allocations.
(See table IV.2.)
Table IV.2
Interstate 4R Discretionary Allocations
for Top Five States, Fiscal Years 1992-
97
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage of
State Amount total
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Oregon $81.6 21
Colorado 66.5 17
Illinois 55.3 14
Texas 40.0 10
Nebraska 29.3 8
======================================================================
Total, all states $388.3 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
PROJECT SELECTIONS:
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.8
During fiscal years 1992-94, FHWA's Office of the Administrator
selected 94 percent of the projects that FHWA staff recommended for
funding. (See table IV.3.)
Table IV.3
Staffs' Recommendations for the
Interstate 4R Program and the Office of
the Administrator's Selections, Fiscal
Years 1992-94
Number of staff- Percentage of
Fi recommended Number of other staff-recommended
sc Number of projects that the projects that the projects that the
al projects Office of the Office of the Office of the
ye that the Administrator Administrator Administrator
ar staff recommended selected selected selected
-- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
19 6 6 0 100
92
19 6 5 1 83
93
19 6 6 0 100
94
==================================================================================
To 18 17 1 94
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, about 76 percent of the projects that
FHWA's Office of the Administrator selected for funding were those
the staff grouped in the most promising and promising categories.
(See table IV.4.)
Table IV.4
Projects That the Office of the
Administrator Selected for Interstate 4R
Discretionary Funding, Fiscal Years
1995-97
Most promising and promising Qualified, not qualified, and
projects that the Office of other projects that the Office
the Administrator selected of the Administrator selected
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Total number
Fi of projects
sc that the
al Office of the
ye Administrator Percentage of Percentage of
ar selected Number total Number total
-- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
19 6 6 100 0 0
95
19 7 4 57 3 43
96
19 8 6 75 2 25
97
==================================================================================
To 21 16 76 5\a 24
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Office of the Administrator did not select any projects that
the staff categorized as "not qualified" (statutorily ineligible) or
any projects that we categorized as "other."
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, the Office of the Administrator
allocated $173 million to projects that the staff had categorized as
"most promising" or "promising." (See table IV.5.)
Table IV.5
Funds Allocated to Interstate 4R
Discretionary Projects by Category,
Fiscal Years 1995-97
(Dollars in millions)
Dollars
allocated Dollars
for most allocated for
Total dollars promising/ qualified, not
allocated for promising qualified, and
projects that projects that other projects
the Office of the Office of that the Office
the the of the
Fiscal Administrator Administrator Administrator
year selected selected selected
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
1995 $65.4 $65.4 $0
1996 66.2 51.8 14.3
1997 66.4 56.2 10.2
======================================================================
Total $198.0 $173.4 $24.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
FERRY BOATS AND FACILITIES
=========================================================== Appendix V
PROGRAM'S NAME:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.1
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.
BACKGROUND:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.2
In 1991, ISTEA created a discretionary funding program for the
construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities and
authorized funding from the Highway Trust Fund.
ELIGIBILITY:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.3
Ferry boats and facilities must be publicly owned. The operation of
the ferry facilities must be on a route classified as a public road,
except an Interstate route.
FEDERAL SHARE:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.4
Eighty percent.
ISTEA'S PROVISIONS:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.5
ISTEA authorized $100 million--$14 million in fiscal year 1992, $17
million each year for fiscal 1993-96, and $18 million for fiscal
1997. Funds are available until expended.
FUNDING:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.6
See table V.1.
Table V.1
Amount of Ferry Boats and Facilities
Program Funds Requested and Allocated,
Fiscal Years 1992-97
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year Requested Allocated
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1992 $66.9 $14.0
1993 109.0 15.3
1994 77.3 19.0
1995 84.0 17.2
1996 72.0 14.9
1997 98.6 18.2
======================================================================
Total $507.8 $98.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
ALLOCATIONS BY STATE:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.7
During fiscal years 1992-97, the top five recipient states received
about 50 percent of all Ferry Boats and Facilities allocations. (See
table V.2.)
Table V.2
Ferry Boats and Facilities Allocations
for Top Five States, Fiscal Years 1992-
97
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage of
State Amount total
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
North Carolina $14.6 15
Washington 14.5 15
Alaska 8.0 8
Michigan 6.2 6
New York 5.6 6
======================================================================
Total, all states $98.6 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
PROJECT SELECTIONS:
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.8
During fiscal years 1992-94, FHWA's Office of the Administrator
selected 100 percent of the projects that FHWA staff recommended for
funding. (See table V.3.)
Table V.3
Staffs' Recommendations for the Ferry
Boats and Facilities Program and the
Office of the Administrator's
Selections, Fiscal Years 1992-94
Percentage of
Number of staff- staff-
recommended recommended
Fi projects Number of other projects
sc Number of that the Office of projects that the that the Office of
al projects the Office of the the
ye that the staff Administrator Administrator Administrator
ar recommended selected selected selected
-- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
19 7 7 0 100
92
19 9 9 0 100
93
19 17 17 0 100
94
==================================================================================
To 33 33 0 100
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, about 81 percent of the projects that
FHWA's Office of the Administrator selected were those that the staff
had grouped in the most promising and promising categories. (See
table V.4.)
Table V.4
Projects that the Office of the
Administrator Selected for Ferry Boats
and Facilities Funding, Fiscal Years
1995-97
Most promising and promising Qualified, not qualified, and
projects that the Office of other projects that the Office
the Administrator selected of the Administrator selected
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Total number
Fi of projects
sc that the
al Office of the
ye Administrator Percentage of Percentage of
ar selected Number total Number total
-- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
19 15 12 80 3 20
95
19 18 15 83 3\a 17
96
19 20 16 80 4 20
97
==================================================================================
To 53 43 81 10\b 19
t
a
l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Office of the Administrator selected one project that the
staff had classified as statutorily ineligible. Funding for the
project is contingent upon a change in the ownership of the ferry
boat facility from private to public. Therefore, we categorized this
project as "other."
\b The Office of the Administrator did not select any other projects
that the staff categorized as "not qualified" (statutorily
ineligible) or any projects that we categorized as "other."
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
During fiscal years 1995-97, the FHWA Office of the Administrator
allocated about $40 million to projects the staff had categorized as
"most promising" or "promising." (See table V.5.)
Table V.5
Funds Allocated to Ferry Boats and
Facilities Discretionary Projects by
Category, Fiscal Years 1995-97
(Dollars in millions)
Dollars
allocated Dollars
for most allocated for
Total dollars promising/ qualified, not
allocated for promising qualified, and
projects that projects that other projects
the Office of the Office of that the Office
the the of the
Administrator Administrator Administrator
Fiscal year selected selected selected
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
1995 $17.3 $14.0 $3.3
1996 14.9 10.8 4.1
1997 18.2 15.4 2.8
======================================================================
Total $50.4 $40.2 $10.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of FHWA's data.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Joseph A. Christoff
Bonnie Pignatiello Leer
David I. Lichtenfeld
Gail F. Marnik
Jonathan Pingle
Phyllis F. Scheinberg
*** End of document. ***