Transportation Infrastructure: FHwA Should Assess and Compare the
Benefits of Projects When Awarding Discretionary Grants (Letter Report,
09/24/1999, GAO/RCED-99-263).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Federal Highway Administration's (FHwA) selection process for awarding
discretionary grants, focusing on: (1) determining how FHwA has
implemented the requirements specified in the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21); and (2) comparing the results of the
selection process for fiscal years (FY) 1998-1999 with the results of
the selection process for FY 1995 through FY 1997 that GAO previously
reported on.

GAO noted that: (1) FHwA has only partially implemented the requirements
in TEA-21; (2) FHwA developed and published criteria for selecting
projects in 1998 and reported its selections to the House and Senate
authorizing committees in 1999; (3) however, with the exception of the
Discretionary Bridge Program, FHwA staff do not evaluate or suggest
projects on the basis of a comparative analysis of the projects'
transportation benefits; (4) GAO's analysis of the process indicates
that FHwA staff primarily suggested projects based on their location to
ensure an equitable and geographic distribution of funds to the states;
(5) FHwA officials asserted that it would not be feasible to compare the
benefits of the projects when making selections, especially in the
Public Lands Highways and Ferry Boats and Facilities programs, because
each project has unique and, therefore, incomparable characteristics;
(6) however, this assertion is inconsistent with other FHwA programs
that compare and assess the transportation benefits of a wide array of
discretionary projects; (7) during the funding cycle for FY 1998 through
FY 1999, 98 percent of the projects that the Office of the Administrator
selected were projects that the staff had suggested for funding; (8)
this contrasts with the selection results in FY 1995 through FY 1997,
when the Office of the Administrator selected as little as 59 percent of
projects that staff considered promising and most promising; (9) GAO's
analysis of the funding results by congressional district for the
funding cycle in fiscal years 1998-1999 found that FHwA awarded a
slightly disproportionate amount of Public Lands Highways Program funds
to projects located in districts with Republican representation; (10)
according to FHwA officials, the anomaly in the Public Lands Highways
Program is primarily due to statutory direction that the Secretary give
preference to projects in states with at least 3 percent of the nation's
public lands, that is, western states that have predominately Republican
congressional districts; and (11) this result is different from GAO's
analysis of that program for FY 1995 through FY 1997, when FHwA awarded
a significantly disproportionate amount of funds to projects in
districts with Democratic representation.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-263
     TITLE:  Transportation Infrastructure: FHwA Should Assess and
	     Compare the Benefits of Projects When Awarding
	     Discretionary Grants
      DATE:  09/24/1999
   SUBJECT:  Discretionary grants
	     Eligibility criteria
	     Federal aid for highways
	     Grant administration
	     Public roads or highways
	     Statistical data
	     Comparative analysis
IDENTIFIER:  FHwA Public Lands Highway Program
	     FHwA Discretionary Bridge Program
	     FHwA Interstate Discretionary Program
	     FHwA Interstate Maintenance Program
	     FHwA Interstate Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation,
	     and Reconstruction Program
	     DOT Access to Jobs Program
	     FHwA Ferry Boats and Facilities 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 the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives

September 1999

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE -
FHWA SHOULD ASSESS AND COMPARE THE
BENEFITS OF PROJECTS WHEN AWARDING
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

GAO/RCED-99-263

FHWA Discretionary Programs

(348172)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOT - Department of Transportation
  FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
  FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
  FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
  TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21\st Century
  TIFIA - Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER

B-282799

September 24, 1999

The Honorable Bud Shuster
Chairman, Committee on
 Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The Congress has authorized the Secretary of Transportation to select
and fund state transportation projects under several discretionary
highway programs.  These funds supplement other funds that states
routinely receive through the federal-aid highway program.  In
November 1997, we reported on five discretionary programs.  That
report showed that from fiscal years 1995 through 1997, the Federal
Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of the Administrator selected
a declining proportion of projects that FHWA staff considered
promising and most promising.\1 In May 1998, we reported that from
fiscal years 1995 through 1997, the Office of the Administrator
awarded a disproportionate number of projects and funds to projects
located in Democratic congressional districts in the Public Lands
Highways Program.\2

As a result of these reports, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21\st Century as amended (TEA-21) required a number of changes to the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) process for awarding
discretionary grants administered by FHWA.  The act directed the
Secretary of Transportation to establish and publish criteria for
awarding grants under these discretionary programs that, to the
extent practicable, conform to an executive order that outlines
principles for federal infrastructure investments.\3 The executive
order directed federal agencies to make infrastructure investments
based on an analytical evaluation of the expected benefits and costs,
including an evaluation of the trade-offs among a variety of
investment options.  The act also directed the Secretary to issue
reports to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (the
authorizing committees) specifying the results of the project
selections and how projects were selected.  In addition, both the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees' reports on the Department
of Transportation's fiscal year 1999 appropriation expressed concerns
about the project selection process and directed FHWA to develop
specific merit-based criteria for the selection of discretionary
projects for funding. 

Because of delays in passing TEA-21, FHWA did not have time to
proceed with a separate funding cycle for fiscal year 1998 and,
hence, combined the solicitation and selection processes for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 into one funding cycle.  For the combined funding
cycle for fiscal years 1998-99, the Secretary selected 115 projects
totaling about $470 million in federal funds from the five
discretionary programs we previously reviewed.\4 As a part of the
Congress' oversight of FHWA's discretionary programs, you asked us to
(1) determine how FHWA has implemented the requirements specified in
TEA-21 and (2) compare the results of the selection process for
fiscal years 1998-99 with the results of the selection process for
fiscal years 1995 through 1997 that we previously reported on. 

--------------------
\1 Transportation Infrastructure:  Review of Project Selection
Process for Five FHWA Discretionary Programs (GAO/RCED-98-14, Nov. 
7, 1997).  The five programs reviewed in the report were the Public
Lands Highways Program, the Discretionary Bridge Program, the
Interstate Discretionary Program, the Interstate 4R Discretionary
Program, and the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program. 

\2 Transportation Infrastructure:  Supplemental Information on the
Federal Highway Administration's Project Selection Process for Five
Discretionary Programs (GAO/RCED-98-179R, May 19, 1998). 

\3 Executive Order No.  12893:  Principles for Federal Infrastructure
Investments, Jan.  26, 1994 (see app.  I). 

\4 Prior to passing TEA-21, the Congress passed the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 1997.  This act authorized about $29
million in Public Lands Highways funding but did not authorize
funding for the other four programs.  FHWA funded 10 projects with
this money during an initial funding cycle for fiscal year 1998, and
our analyses include the project selection results for this cycle
under the combined cycle for fiscal years 1998-99. 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

FHWA has only partially implemented the requirements in TEA-21.  FHWA
developed and published criteria for selecting projects in 1998 and
reported its selections to the House and Senate authorizing
committees in 1999.  In addition, FHWA considered the estimated cost
of each project when it determined which projects to fund and the
amount of funds to provide.  However, with the exception of the
Discretionary Bridge Program, FHWA staff do not evaluate or suggest
projects on the basis of a comparative analysis of the projects'
transportation benefits (e.g., improving safety, mobility, and air
quality).  Our analysis of the process indicates that FHWA staff
primarily suggested projects based on their location to ensure an
equitable and geographic distribution of funds to the states.  FHWA
officials asserted that it would not be feasible to compare the
benefits of the projects when making selections, especially in the
Public Lands Highways and Ferry Boats and Facilities programs,
because each project has unique and, therefore, incomparable
characteristics.  However, this assertion is inconsistent with other
Department programs that compare and assess the transportation
benefits of a wide array of discretionary projects. 

During the funding cycle for fiscal years 1998-99, 98 percent of the
projects that the Office of the Administrator selected were projects
that the staff had suggested for funding.  This contrasts with the
selection results in fiscal years 1995 through 1997, when the Office
selected as little as 59 percent of projects that staff considered
promising and most promising.  In addition, our analysis of the
funding results by congressional district for the funding cycle in
fiscal years 1998-99 found that FHWA awarded a slightly
disproportionate amount of Public Lands Highways Program funds to
projects located in districts with Republican representation. 
According to FHWA officials, the anomaly in the Public Lands Highways
Program is primarily due to statutory direction that the Secretary
give preference to projects in states with at least 3 percent of the
nation's public lands, that is, western states that currently have
predominately Republican congressional districts.  This result is
different from our analysis of that program for the fiscal years 1995
through 1997, when FHWA awarded a significantly disproportionate
amount of funds to projects in districts with Democratic
representation. 

This report makes a recommendation intended to ensure that FHWA funds
those projects that provide the greatest transportation benefits. 

   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.  In 1930, the
Public Lands Program was established to pay for roadwork on the
nation's public lands.  Since 1930, the Congress has established
several other discretionary programs, including the Discretionary
Bridge, the Interstate Discretionary, the Interstate 4R, and the
Ferry Boats and Facilities programs.  The Discretionary Bridge
Program was established to replace or rehabilitate high-cost bridges,
while the Interstate Discretionary Program aimed to accelerate the
construction of the Interstate Highway System.  The Interstate 4R
Discretionary Program was established to resurface, restore,
rehabilitate, and reconstruct the Interstate Highway System.  It was
later renamed the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program. 
Finally, the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program was established to
construct ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.  (See apps.  II
through VI for additional information on the five programs covered in
this report.)

TEA-21 reauthorized four of the five programsit did not reauthorize
the Interstate Discretionary Program.  However, FHWA had about $63
million in Interstate Discretionary funds that were carried over from
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
authorization and allocated this amount to states during the
selection process for fiscal years 1998-99.  TEA-21 increased the
funding levels for the four reauthorized programs.  (Table 1 shows
the funding levels for the five FHWA discretionary programs under
ISTEA and TEA-21.)

                                Table 1
                
                ISTEA and TEA-21 Funding Levels for Five
                      FHWA Discretionary Programs

                         (Dollars in millions)

                                   ISTEA (FY 1992-    TEA-21 (FY 1998-
Program                                        97)               2003)
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Discretionary Bridge                         349.5             525.0\a
Ferry Boats and Facilities                   100.0               220.0
Interstate Discretionary                     400.0               0.0\b
Interstate Maintenance                       375.0               550.0
 Discretionary (4R)
Public Lands Highways                        340.0               484.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Although TEA-21 did not reauthorize the Interstate Discretionary
Program, about $63 million was carried over from amounts authorized
by ISTEA. 

\b This amount includes funds authorized for the seismic retrofit of
bridges. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

Along with increasing the funding levels for the discretionary
programs, TEA-21 required some significant changes to DOT's process
for awarding discretionary grants.  In particular, TEA-21 required
DOT to establish and publish criteria for awarding discretionary
grants and directed that the criteria, to the extent practicable,
conform to Executive Order No.  12893:  Principles for Federal
Infrastructure Investments.  The order directed federal agencies
making infrastructure investment decisions to develop and implement
plans that are consistent with several principles.  A key principle
is that infrastructure investments are to be based on a systematic
analysis of the expected benefits and costs in accordance with
guidelines, including the following: 

  -- The benefits and costs should be quantified and assigned a
     dollar value to the maximum extent practicable. 

  -- An analysis of the benefits and costs should be done to enable
     informed trade-offs to be made among capital outlays, operating
     and maintenance costs, and nonmonetary costs borne by the
     public. 

  -- Analyses should compare a comprehensive set of options that
     include, among other things, managing demand, repairing
     facilities, and expanding facilities. 

FHWA has a two-phase process for selecting projects for discretionary
funding from these five programs.\5 In the first phase, states apply
for funds through an annual solicitation process by submitting
candidate projects to FHWA.  Using program-specific eligibility and
selection criteria, professional staff in FHWA's Office of
Infrastructure evaluate projects and place them in one of three
categorieswell qualified, qualified, and not qualified.\6 From
the list of well-qualified projects, program staff develop a funding
plan that expends all available funds and identifies specific
projects and funding amounts.  The funding plan, which FHWA calls an
allocation plan, also includes the staff's rationale for categorizing
projects as well qualified and suggesting specific projects and
funding amounts.  In the second phase, professional staff provide the
allocation plan to the Office of the Administrator.  Using its
discretion, the Office of the Administrator can select any project
that meets basic eligibility criteria, including projects that staff
did not suggest.  Once the Office of the Administrator makes the
final selections, staff notify FHWA's divisions and the states.  FHWA
subsequently allocates the funds for the selected projects.  For the
discretionary funding cycle for fiscal years 1998-99, states'
requests greatly exceeded the amount of available funding.  For
example, states submitted over $2.2 billion in requests for about
$135 million in Interstate Maintenance Discretionary funds. 
Similarly, states submitted over $714 million in requests for about
$126 million in Public Lands Highways funds. 

--------------------
\5 The Secretary of Transportation is responsible for selecting
projects under the discretionary programs but has delegated this
responsibility to the FHWA Administrator. 

\6 During fiscal years 1995 through 1997, FHWA program staff used the
categories of most promising, promising, qualified, and not
qualified. According to program staff, FHWA reduced the number of
categories for the process for fiscal year 1998-99 to make the
process simpler. 

   FHWA DID NOT FULLY ADDRESS THE
   TEA-21 REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

FHWA addressed most, but not all, of the requirements in TEA-21.  The
act required the Secretary to (1) establish and publish criteria for
selecting discretionary projects; (2) issue quarterly reports to the
House and Senate authorizing committees detailing the outcome of the
selection process; and (3) ensure, to the extent practicable, that
FHWA's selection criteria conform to an executive order on federal
infrastructure investments.  While FHWA established and published
selection criteria and issued a quarterly report on the outcome of
the selection process, FHWA generally did not establish criteria or
processes that allow it to compare and assess the transportation
benefits of projects before selecting projects for discretionary
funding. 

      FHWA ESTABLISHED AND
      PUBLISHED CRITERIA FOR
      SELECTING PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

To establish criteria for use in selecting projects for discretionary
funding, FHWA combined unpublished and informal criteria it had used
for the five programs in the past with additional criteria mandated
in TEA-21.  For example, under TEA-21, the Secretary established
criteria that gave priority to transportation projects in cities
hosting international Olympic events. 

FHWA's selection criteria are program-specific and address both
statutory requirements and administrative goals.  For example, in
response to statutory provisions, FHWA's selection criteria for the
Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program give priority to
candidate projects that cost at least $10 million.  FHWA's selection
criteria for the Public Lands Highways Program also address statutory
provisions and give preference to projects from states with at least
3 percent of the nation's public lands.\7 In addition to statutory
selection criteria, FHWA has developed administrative selection
criteria.  For example, FHWA selects projects to ensure that funds
are geographically distributed among many states or to ensure that
projects leverage other state or local funds.  (Apps.  II through VI
list the criteria used for each program.)

In response to TEA-21, FHWA also published its selection criteria
before it accepted candidate projects for the funding cycle for
fiscal years 1998-99.  FHWA published the criteria in the Federal
Register, on the agency's Internet Web site, and in solicitation
memorandums sent to the states.  FHWA also submitted its first
quarterly report to the House and Senate authorizing committees on
April 1, 1999, that reiterated its selection criteria for each
program, identified the projects selected for funding, and explained
the agency's reasons for selecting each project. 

--------------------
\7 These states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. 

      FHWA'S SELECTION PROCESS
      PLACES LITTLE EMPHASIS ON
      PROJECTS' TRANSPORTATION
      BENEFITS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

FHWA's selection criteria do not provide for an assessment or
comparison of candidate projects' benefits and costs.  Therefore,
FHWA's process for suggesting and selecting projects also does not
identify the projects with the greatest benefits.  Executive Order
No.  12893 directs executive departments and agencies with
infrastructure responsibilities to develop and implement
infrastructure investment and management plans consistent with the
principles outlined in the order.  A key principle is that
infrastructure investments are to be based on a systematic analysis
of expected benefits and costs, including both quantitative and
qualitative measures.  Among other things, the order also provides
that all types of benefits and costs, both market and nonmarket, are
to be quantified and monetized to the maximum extent practicable,
thus helping ensure wise investment decisions.  In a December 1998
memorandum to the FHWA's Office of the Administrator (and other
operating administrations), the DOT Deputy Secretary stated that the
agency should award discretionary grants on the basis of merit and in
compliance with the executive order. 

Our review of FHWA's process for evaluating projects found that,
while it considers the costs of projects, it does not compare and
assess their benefits.  Because of the limited funds available, FHWA
considers the estimated cost of each project as it determines which
projects it will fund and the amount of funds it will provide. 
However, our review of FHWA's selection criteria found that with the
exception of the Discretionary Bridge Program, the criteria did not
provide the information necessary for staff to determine which
projects offered the greatest transportation benefits.  Instead, the
criteria primarily assessed whether projects fostered the agency's
goals, such as providing an equitable and geographic distribution of
program funds and whether projects should be given preference in
order to meet statutory direction (such as whether a candidate
project for Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program funding cost
at least $10 million). 

We assessed the extent that professional staff cited the
transportation benefits of specific projects as reasons for
suggesting the projects for funding.\8 As table 2 shows, we found
that staff cited specific project benefits, such as improving safety,
adding needed capacity, and increasing mobility, for only 22 percent
of the projects (that is, 23 of 106 projects). 

                                Table 2
                
                 Staff Justifications Citing Projects'
                                Benefits

                                               Number of
                                                projects
                                 Number of         staff    Percentage
                                  projects     suggested     suggested
                                     staff        citing        citing
Program                          suggested      benefits      benefits
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Public Lands Highways                   55             0             0
Ferry Boats and Facilities              29             5            17
Interstate Maintenance                   6             2            33
Interstate Discretionary                 6             6           100
Discretionary Bridge                    10            10           100
Total                                  106            23            22
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

For example, in the Public Lands Highways Program, staff did not cite
the individual or relative benefits of any projects as reasons for
suggesting them for funding.  Instead, staff primarily cited
projects' locations (that is, whether projects were located in states
with at least 3 percent of the nation's public lands) or the need to
achieve an equitable and geographic distribution of funds.  In
contrast, in the Discretionary Bridge Program, staff often cited
bridges' deteriorating conditions and their priority need for repair
as reasons for funding projects.  These justifications were based
primarily on a statutorily directed formula that takes into account
factors such as the condition of a bridge, its state of repair, its
repair costs, and traffic volumes to score each project.  The score
reflects each bridge's overall conditionbridges with the lowest
scores have a greater repair need and therefore higher priority. 
While staff in the Interstate Discretionary Program cited specific
aspects of projects, such as closing a gap in the Interstate Highway
System, as reasons for suggesting projects, they made no attempt to
compare and assess the benefits of the various candidate projects. 
In the other two programs, we found that staff suggested projects
primarily to achieve an equitable and geographic distribution of
funds to the states. 

We shared the results of our analysis with FHWA officials, who stated
that they had not attempted to compare or assess the benefits of
projects when determining well-qualified candidates and suggesting
projects for funding in the Public Lands Highways, Interstate
Discretionary, Interstate Maintenance, and Ferry Boats and Facilities
programs.  FHWA officials asserted that it would not be feasible to
make such an assessment in the Public Lands Highways and Ferry Boats
and Facilities programs because each project has unique and,
therefore, incomparable characteristics.  In contrast, they said that
in the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program, it would be
feasible to obtain additional information from states such as the
condition of a roadway and its capacity to handle its current volume
of traffic.  FHWA professional staff could then use this information
to help them compare and assess the benefits of candidate projects. 

FHWA officials also asserted that even though staff did not fully
document the benefits of projects when they suggested them for
funding, staff had considered these benefits in their project
evaluations.  After reviewing our analysis, they provided us with a
summary of project benefits such as reducing traffic congestion and
increasing the capacity of ferry boat facilities that they said staff
considered when suggesting projects for funding.  While this summary
information indicated that the projects had transportation benefits,
it did not indicate the extent to which staff considered these
benefits when evaluating projects.  In addition, FHWA officials
stated that all of the projects that states submitted were
high-quality projects in need of federal funding.  Therefore, they
contend that it would be unlikely for the Office of the Administrator
to select a poor-quality project for funding.  However, they stated
that as part of the funding cycle for fiscal year 2000, they have
asked states to provide feedback on the selection criteria used for
these programs and, based on the comments, could make some
adjustments to the criteria for the funding cycle for fiscal year
2001. 

The approach FHWA used in the Public Lands Highways, Interstate
Discretionary, Interstate Maintenance Discretionary, and Ferry Boats
and Facilities programs contrasts with the comparative selection
approach used in the Discretionary Bridge Program and other programs
administered by the DOT.  For example, under its roughly $750 million
Airport Improvement Program, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) ranks projects based on how they meet the agency's goals for
safety, security, and infrastructure preservation.  FAA establishes a
cutoff point that identifies high-priority projects.  In addition,
the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Job Access (welfare to
work) program requires applicants to submit data on projects'
expected benefits, evaluates the benefit of each candidate project
based on four primary factors (including the need for transportation
services), and assigns an overall score to each candidate project. 
FTA's criteria take geographic distribution into consideration, but
FTA officials cited it as a secondary selection factor.  Also, under
the new Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) program, DOT quantifies the benefits of very diverse projects
(e.g., high-speed rail systems, highways, and mass transit projects),
assigns a numerical score to each project, and ranks the projects
prior to making selections for funding.  While we have not performed
a detailed analysis of the criteria used in these three programs,
they illustrate that it is possible to develop a system that awards
grants based on an comparative assessment of the benefits of diverse
transportation projects. 

--------------------
\8 During the first phase of the selection process, states submitted
620 candidate projects to FHWA.  After applying the selection
criteria in each of the five programs, FHWA professional staff
categorized 310 as well qualified.  Of the 310 well-qualified
projects, professional staff suggested 106 projects for funding. 

   THE OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
   GENERALLY SELECTED PROJECTS
   THAT WERE SUGGESTED BY STAFF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

For the selection process for fiscal years 1998-99, FHWA changed its
prior practices and allowed professional staff to suggest specific
projects and funding amounts to the Office of the Administrator.  The
Office of the Administrator generally adhered to the professional
staff's input and analyses; almost all of the projects selected were
those staff had suggested for funding.  These selection results
differ significantly from the results in fiscal years 1995 through
1997, when the Office of the Administrator selected a declining
proportion of projects that staff had placed in the promising and
most promising categories.  The results for fiscal years 1998-99 also
show that for the programs we reviewed, the Office of the
Administrator generally awarded a proportionate amount of
discretionary funds to projects located in Democratic, Republican,
and independent congressional districts. 

      FINAL SELECTIONS MIRRORED
      THE STAFF'S PRIORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Our analysis of the selection results for fiscal years 1998-99 shows
that the Office of the Administrator selected 98 percent of all
projects that staff suggested for funding (104 projects selected out
of the 106 suggested by the staff).  In addition, of the 115 total
projects that the Office of the Administrator selected, 110--or 96
percent--were those staff considered well qualified (see fig.  1). 
By either measure, the Office of the Administrator primarily selected
projects that staff considered the most qualified. 

   Figure 1:  FHWA's Office of the
   Administrator's Selections of
   Projects Recommended,
   Categorized, or Suggested by
   Staff as a Percentage of All
   Projects Selected, Fiscal Years
   1992-99

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

During the period of fiscal year 1992 through 1999, FHWA used three
different processes to evaluate and select projects.  From fiscal
year 1992 through 1994, staff recommended specific projects and
funding amounts to the Office of the Administrator.  From fiscal year
1995 through 1997, FHWA changed the process, and staff placed
projects into categories rather than recommending specific projects. 
For the selection process in fiscal years 1998-99, staff placed
projects in categories and suggested specific projects for funding. 
As shown in figure 1, the selection results for fiscal years 1998-99
are similar to those of fiscal years 1992 through 1994 but
significantly different from those of fiscal years 1995 through 1997. 
During the period of fiscal year 1995 through 1997, the Office of the
Administrator selected a declining percentage of projects that staff
considered promising and most promising, reaching a low of 59 percent
during fiscal year 1997.  According to FHWA professional staff, the
results for fiscal years 1998-99 reflect the added weight once again
given to the staff's input through the revised selection process. 

      FHWA GENERALLY AWARDED FUNDS
      IN PROPORTION TO REQUESTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

In four of the five programs we reviewed (the Discretionary Bridge,
Interstate Maintenance Discretionary, Interstate Discretionary, and
Ferry Boats and Facilities programs), the Office of the Administrator
generally awarded a proportionate amount of funds to projects located
in Democratic, Republican, and independent congressional districts. 
For example, the Office of the Administrator awarded 55 percent of
the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program funds to projects in
Republican districts and 45 percent to projects in Democratic
districts.  This distribution was consistent with the proportion of
states' requests, which was 49 percent of the funds for projects in
Republican districts, 41 percent for projects in Democratic
districts, 9 percent for projects that crossed Democratic and
Republican districts, and about 1 percent for projects in independent
districts (apps.  II through VI contain detailed selection results
for each of the five programs).\9 The results are consistent with
those of fiscal years 1995 through 1997, when the Office of the
Administrator also awarded a proportionate amount of funds in these
four programs to projects in Democratic, Republican, and independent
districts. 

In the Public Lands Highways Program, the Office of the Administrator
awarded 88 percent of the funds to projects in Republican districts,
which was slightly disproportionate to the states' requests for 74
percent of the funds for projects in Republican districts.  According
to FHWA staff, the results reflect a renewed emphasis on following
the statutory criteria that require FHWA to give preference to
projects located in states with at least 3 percent of the nation's
public lands, mostly western states with predominantly Republican
districts.  These results are significantly different from those of
fiscal years 1995 through 1997, and particularly fiscal year 1997,
when the Office of the Administrator awarded 91 percent of the Public
Lands Highways funds to projects in Democratic districts despite
states' requests for 62 percent of the funding for projects in
Republican districts.  At the time of our previous review, FHWA could
not provide a detailed justification to explain those results. 

--------------------
\9 In appendixes II through VI, we refer to projects that were
located in both a Democratic and a Republican district as other
projects. 

   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

TEA-21 provided FHWA with an opportunity to refine its awards process
for discretionary grants and to target limited funds to projects with
the highest transportation benefits.  While the selection results for
fiscal years 1998-99 revealed that FHWA's process was more
transparent than in prior years, the results also indicated that,
despite the principles outlined in Executive Order No.  12893, FHWA
continues to award most of its grants based on factors other than
transportation benefits.  We recognize that FHWA must address
statutory direction and that it attempts to achieve an equitable and
geographic distribution of funds.  However, a comparative assessment
of the transportation benefits of projects is also needed,
particularly given that states' funding requests greatly exceed
available funding.  While we acknowledge that it would be challenging
to develop a selection process that measures, compares, and assesses
the transportation benefits of candidate projects, FHWA's
Discretionary Bridge Program and other DOT programs have been able to
develop such processes. 

   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Given that states' requests for federal discretionary funding greatly
exceed available funds, a grant process that measures, compares, and
assesses the transportation benefits of projects would help ensure
that FHWA funds projects with the greatest transportation benefits. 
Accordingly, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct
the FHWA Administrator to develop the necessary process and criteria
to measure, compare, and assess the transportation benefits of
projects before making grant selections as outlined in Executive
Order No.  12893 and emphasized in TEA-21.  As a starting point, FHWA
should examine the process used by its own Discretionary Bridge
Program office as well as other operating administrations within the
Department of Transportation to learn how they developed their
processes. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for review and comment.  The Department's written
response to our report is included in appendix VII.  The Department
disagreed with our conclusion that FHWA had awarded discretionary
grants based on factors other than the projects' transportation
benefits.  The Department stated that all projects funded through
FHWA's discretionary programs have transportation benefits.  However,
the Department noted that the extent to which FHWA can compare the
benefits of one project with those of another is limited by the
degree to which the projects are similar and by the type and amount
of data available.  The Department noted that the Public Lands
Highways and Ferry Boats and Facilities programs consider projects
that are so dissimilar that a meaningful comparison among projects is
not possible.  For example, the Department stated that in the Public
Lands Highways Program, FHWA would be required to compare the
benefits of a parking lot in a wildlife refuge with the benefits of
restroom facilities at a national forest.  In addition, the
Department noted that these two programs do not have the type or
abundance of data needed to compare projects, as the Department has
with its Discretionary Bridge Program.  The Department also stated
that FHWA's criteria do conform, to the extent practicable, to
Executive Order No.  12893.  Despite the comparability issue and data
limitations, the Department offered several potential steps for
improving its selection processes.  It noted that FHWA can provide
better descriptions of the benefits of the projects selected for
funding, obtain more data from states on pavement condition and
levels of congestion and safety, and require states to prioritize
their requests and provide more detailed descriptions of projects'
benefits in their applications. 

While the Department of Transportation stated that the discretionary
projects FHWA selected have transportation benefits, we remain
concerned that FHWA does not evaluate or select projects based on a
comparative analysis of the projects' transportation benefits (e.g.,
improving safety, mobility, and air quality) to ensure that it
selects projects with the greatest transportation benefits.  Our
analysis of the projects indicates that FHWA primarily selects
projects for funding based on their location to ensure an equitable
and geographic distribution of funds to the states.  It is clear from
our review that achieving this distribution of projects is considered
to be more important than comparing the relative transportation
benefits.  We believe that providing an equitable and geographic
distribution of the funds should not replace the important goal of
making funding decisions based on a process that measures, compares,
and assesses each project's transportation benefits. 

We also believe the Department has overstated the extent to which
candidate projects are dissimilar and thus impossible to compare. 
For example, of the 116 Public Lands Highways projects that FHWA
evaluated in fiscal year 1998, 73 percent (85 projects) were projects
for designing, constructing, or repaving highways and bridges.  Many
of the remaining 31 projects were comparable projects intended to
improve access and mobility, such as constructing bike and pedestrian
paths.  Moreover, we have found that other Department programs
compare and assess the transportation benefits of dissimilar
candidate projects.  For example, the Department's new Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program quantifies the
benefits of very diverse high-speed rail, highway, and mass transit
projects; assigns a score to each project; and then ranks the
projects based on their relative benefits. 

We believe that the Department's suggestions for collecting better
data from applicants are good first steps in a longer effort to
improve the selection process.  Additional data will also enable the
Department to develop better processes and criteria for judging the
benefits of candidate projects.  By making these improvements, the
Department can ensure that these programs are consistent with other
discretionary programs that use data on expected benefits to compare
dissimilar projects. 

   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To determine how FHWA addressed the requirements of TEA-21, we
reviewed documentation outlining the process for selecting projects
in fiscal years 1998-99, including the solicitation memorandums that
FHWA sent to the states.  We also reviewed the criteria that FHWA
used to evaluate and select projects for funding.  We discussed the
selection process with professional staff responsible for
implementing and publishing the selection criteria as outlined in
TEA-21.  We also reviewed Executive Order No.  12893:  Principles for
Federal Infrastructure Investments and compared it with FHWA's
existing process to see whether FHWA's criteria were consistent with
the principles outlined in the order. 

To determine the results of the selection process and to compare the
results with those of prior fiscal years, we examined the staff's
analysis of the projects submitted for funding for the combined
1998-99 funding cycle.  We also reviewed the extent to which the
Office of the Administrator selected the projects that staff had
considered well qualified or suggested for funding and compared the
results with those of fiscal years 1992 through 1997.  Using data
that FHWA generates each year, we determined which congressional
districts the projects were in and the political affiliations
associated with those districts at the time the projects were
submitted.  We then determined the proportion of projects and funding
requests submitted by states and selected by FHWA that were located
in districts with Democratic, Republican, or independent
representation.  Finally, we compared our district analysis for the
funding cycle for fiscal years 1998-99 with our earlier analysis for
fiscal years 1995 through 1997.  We performed our review from May
1999 through August 1999 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We will send copies of this report to Rodney E.  Slater, Secretary of
Transportation; Kenneth R.  Wykle, Administrator of FHWA; cognizant
congressional committees; and other interested parties.  We will also
make copies available to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Key contributors to this report were
Joseph Christoff, David Lehrer, David Lichtenfeld, and Phyllis
Scheinberg. 

Sincerely yours,

John H.  Anderson, Jr.
Director, Transportation Issues

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.  12893: 
PRINCIPLES FOR FEDERAL
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
=========================================================== Appendix I

On January 26, 1994, the President signed an executive order
outlining the administration's priorities for federal infrastructure
investment.  The following is the full text of the order. 

   Figure I.1:  Text of Executive
   Order No.  12893

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

PUBLIC LANDS HIGHWAYS PROGRAM
========================================================== Appendix II

         BACKGROUND: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.1

The Public Lands Highways 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 the Public
Lands Highways Program was $16 million per year during fiscal years
1972 through 1982.  The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
increased the annual authorization level to $50 million for fiscal
years 1983 through 1986, but the Surface Transportation and Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 reduced this amount to $40 million
for fiscal years 1987 through 1991.  The program funds projects that
are within, adjacent to, or provide access to the areas served by
public lands highwayssuch as roads in national parks, forests, or
Indian reservations.  The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) authorized $340 million for fiscal
years 1992 through 1997.  The federal share under this program is 100
percent.  Funds remain available for the fiscal year allocated plus 3
years. 

         ELIGIBILITY: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.2

Public Lands Highways funds may be used on eligible public lands
highways, defined by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21\st
Century (TEA-21) as a forest road or 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 for funding, including planning,
research, engineering, and construction.  Projects ranging from
reconstructing a road to adding parking facilities are eligible. 

         TEA-21'S PROVISIONS: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.3

TEA-21 authorized $37.3 million for fiscal year 1998 and $83.6
million for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.  The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) combined the funds for fiscal years
1998 and 1999 when it last solicited candidate projects from the
states for this program. 

         PROJECT SELECTIONS: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.0.4

During fiscal years 1998-99, the Office of the Administrator selected
98 percent of the projects that the FHWA program staff suggested for
funding.  (See table II.1.)

                                    Table II.1
                     
                     Staff's Suggestions for the Public Lands
                      Highways Program and the Office of the
                     Administrator's Selections, Fiscal Years
                                     1998-99

                            Number of staff-                       Percentage of
                                   suggested   Number of other   staff-suggested
                               projects that     projects that     projects that
                 Number of     the Office of     the Office of     the Office of
             projects that               the               the               the
Fiscal           the staff     Administrator     Administrator     Administrator
years            suggested          selected          selected          selected
--------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
1998-99                 55                54                 6                98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

To determine the proportion of projects and funds FHWA awarded to
Democratic or Republican congressional districts, we examined all the
Public Lands Highways projects submitted and selected for fiscal
years 1998-99.  When compared with funding requests, FHWA awarded a
slightly disproportionate amount of funds to projects located in
Republican districts.  For example, projects located in Republican
districts represented 74 percent of the total dollars requested;
however, these projects represented 88 percent of the dollars FHWA
provided.  According to FHWA officials, these results primarily
reflect the application of the criteria that give priority to states
with at least 3 percent of the nation's public lands.  During fiscal
years 1998-99, these states had more Republican than Democratic
districts.  Tables II.2 and II.3 show the results of our analysis.\10

                               Table II.2
                
                Public Lands Highways Funding Requested
                   and Provided, Fiscal Years 1998-99

                         (Dollars in millions)

                           Funding                 Funding
Party                    requested  Percentage    provided  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                  $165.2          23       $13.5          11
Republican                   527.4          74       110.9          88
Independent                    3.5          <1         2.0           2
Other                         17.7           2         0.0           0
======================================================================
Total                       $713.8         100      $126.4         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

                               Table II.3
                
                Public Lands Highways Projects Requested
                   and Provided, Fiscal Years 1998-99

                          Projects                Projects
Party                    submitted  Percentage    selected  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                     126          35          18          30
Republican                     222          61          38          63
Independent                      7           2           4           7
Other                            6           2           0           0
======================================================================
Total                          361         100          60         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

To address the TEA-21 requirement to establish and publish selection
criteria for the projects it funds, FHWA published its existing
selection criteria for the Public Lands Highways Program in the
Federal Register on July 23, 1998.  Figure II.1 shows the criteria
that FHWA included in its fiscal years 1998-99 solicitation
memorandum to the states. 

   Figure II.1:  FHWA's Public
   Lands Highways Discretionary
   Program Project Selection
   Criteria

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  FHWA's fiscal years 1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the
states. 

--------------------
\10 The Conference Report on the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 directed
FHWA to fund certain projects.  Therefore, FHWA "pulled" $10 million
worth of funding for two projectsone in Arizona and one in Utahas a
result of the conference report.  FHWA committed to giving these two
projects top priority in fiscal year 2000.  Funding for these two
projects plus an additional $500,000 available was allocated to
projects in Hawaii ($2.5 million), Montana ($2.5 million), Kentucky
($2 million), and Alaska ($3.5 million).  Our analyses do not reflect
these allocations. 

DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE PROGRAM
========================================================= Appendix III

         BACKGROUND: 
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.1

The Discretionary Bridge Program was established by the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1978.  The act required that $200
million be withheld from the Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program apportionment for each of fiscal years 1979
through 1982 and 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 apportionment of the state in
which the bridge is located.  The Surface Transportation Assistance
Act of 1982 continued the program at the same funding level through
fiscal year 1986.  That act directed FHWA to establish a formal
process to rank and select Discretionary Bridge projects for funding
and decreed that the projects must 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 through 1991.  The federal share under
this program is 80 percent.  ISTEA authorized a total of $349.5
million for fiscal years 1992 through 1997. 

         ELIGIBILITY: 
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.2

Projects eligible for funding under the Discretionary Bridge Program
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 a bridge is located.  Discretionary Bridge projects must be
on a federal-aid system.  Each project is scored on factors such as
the bridge's condition, its repair costs, and traffic volumes, with
the lowest scores indicating the greatest needs.  To be eligible for
funding, candidate bridges must have a rating factor of 100 or less,
unless they were selected prior to November 1983. 

         TEA-21'S PROVISIONS: 
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.3

For fiscal year 1998, $25 million was authorized by TEA-21.  For each
of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003, $100 million was authorized
for bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects with a maximum of
$25 million of that amount made available only for projects for the
seismic retrofit of bridges, including projects in the New Madrid
fault region, which crosses five state lines between Illinois and
Arkansas. 

         PROJECT SELECTIONS: 
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.0.4

During fiscal years 1998-99, the Office of the Administrator selected
90 percent of the projects that the FHWA program staff suggested for
funding.  (See table III.1.)

                                   Table III.1
                     
                           Staff's Suggestions for the
                       Discretionary Bridge Program and the
                          Office of the Administrator's
                         Selections, Fiscal Years 1998-99

                            Number of staff-                       Percentage of
                                   suggested   Number of other   staff-suggested
                               projects that     projects that     projects that
                 Number of     the Office of     the Office of     the Office of
             projects that               the               the               the
Fiscal           the staff     Administrator     Administrator     Administrator
years            suggested          selected          selected          selected
--------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
1998-99                 10                 9                 3                90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

To determine the proportion of projects and funds FHWA awarded to
Democratic or Republican congressional districts, we examined all the
Discretionary Bridge projects submitted and selected for fiscal years
1998-99.  When compared with project submissions, FHWA awarded a
proportionate amount of projects and funds to Democratic and
Republican districts.  Tables III.2 and III.3 show the results of our
analysis. 

                              Table III.2
                
                 Discretionary Bridge Funding Requested
                   and Provided, Fiscal Years 1998-99

                         (Dollars in millions)

                           Funding                 Funding
Party                    requested  Percentage    provided  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                  $661.0          57       $68.5          63
Republican                   450.3          39        35.0          32
Independent                    0.0           0         0.0           0
Other                         44.1           4         5.5           5
======================================================================
Total                     $1,155.4         100      $109.0         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

                              Table III.3
                
                Discretionary Bridge Projects Requested
                   and Provided, Fiscal Years 1998-99

                          Projects                Projects
Party                    submitted  Percentage    selected  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                      36          55           7          58
Republican                      26          39           4          33
Independent                      0           0           0           0
Other                            4           6           1           8
======================================================================
Total                           66         100          12         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

FHWA had already established selection criteria for Discretionary
Bridge projects prior to the TEA-21 requirement.  Most of the
criteria were established following legislation passed in 1982. 
Figure III.1 shows the criteria that FHWA included in the fiscal
years 1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the states. 

   Figure III.1:  FHWA's
   Discretionary Bridge Program
   Project Selection Criteria

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  FHWA's fiscal years 1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the
states. 

INTERSTATE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM
========================================================== Appendix IV

         BACKGROUND: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.1

The program was originally created by section 115 (a) of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 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.  ISTEA authorized a $100 million per year
set-aside from the Interstate Construction Program for the Interstate
Discretionary Program annually for fiscal years 1993 through 1996. 
FHWA also provided Interstate Discretionary funds from lapsed
Interstate Construction funds that had reached the end of their
availability period.  TEA-21 did not reauthorize this program, and it
expired after the remaining funds were allocated during fiscal years
1998-99. 

         ELIGIBILITY: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.2

Interstate Discretionary funds may be used for the same purpose as
Interstate Construction fundsinitial construction of remaining
portions of the Interstate Highway 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.  The federal share for projects
under this program (including projects to add high-occupancy vehicle
or auxiliary lanes) is generally 90 percent; the federal share is 80
percent for projects that provide additional capacity.  The final
set-aside of Interstate Discretionary funds occurred with the fiscal
year 1996 Interstate Construction apportionment.  However, in fiscal
year 1999, a balance of Interstate Discretionary funds of about $63
million remained from the ISTEA authorization. 

         PROJECT SELECTIONS: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:0.0.3

During fiscal years 1998-99, the Office of the Administrator selected
100 percent of the projects that the FHWA program staff suggested for
funding.  (See table IV.1.)

                                    Table IV.1
                     
                      Staff's Suggestions for the Interstate
                     Discretionary Program and the Office of
                      the Administrator's Selections, Fiscal
                                  Years 1998-99

                            Number of staff-                       Percentage of
                                   suggested   Number of other   staff-suggested
                               projects that     projects that     projects that
                 Number of     the Office of     the Office of     the Office of
             projects that               the               the               the
Fiscal           the staff     Administrator     Administrator     Administrator
years            suggested          selected          selected          selected
--------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
1998-99                  6                 6                 0               100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

To determine the proportion of projects and funds FHWA awarded to
Democratic or Republican congressional districts, we examined all the
Interstate Discretionary projects submitted and selected for fiscal
years 1998-99.  When compared with project submissions, it appears
that FHWA selected a disproportionate number of projects located in
Democratic districts.  However, because of the small number of
projects submitted and selected, no meaningful conclusions can be
drawn from this analysis.  The funding FHWA provided was in
proportion to total funding requests.  Tables IV.2 and IV.3 show the
results of our analysis. 

                               Table IV.2
                
                    Interstate Discretionary Funding
                  Requested and Provided, Fiscal Years
                                1998-99

                         (Dollars in millions)

                           Funding                 Funding
Party                    requested  Percentage    provided  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                   $31.9          26       $19.2          30
Republican                    26.5          22        14.2          22
Independent                    0.0           0         0.0           0
Other                         64.1          52        30.0          47
======================================================================
Total                       $122.6         100       $63.4         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

                               Table IV.3
                
                   Interstate Discretionary Projects
                  Requested and Provided, Fiscal Years
                                1998-99

                    Projects                Projects
Party              submitted  Percentage    selected     Percentage
----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------------
Democratic                 3          27           3         50
Republican                 6          55           2         33
Independent                0           0           0         0
Other                      2          18           1         17
======================================================================
Total                     11         100           6        100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

Although TEA-21 did not reauthorize the program, FHWA established
selection criteria for projects funded by the program and published
them in the Federal Register on September 18, 1998.  FHWA used these
criteria to select projects for funding for fiscal years 1998-99. 
Figure IV.1 shows the criteria that FHWA included in its fiscal years
1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the states. 

   Figure IV.1:  FHWA's Interstate
   Discretionary Program Project
   Selection Criteria

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  FHWA's fiscal years 1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the
states. 

INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE
DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM
=========================================================== Appendix V

         BACKGROUND: 
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.1

The Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program, originally called
the Interstate 4R Discretionary Program, was created by section 115
(a) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.  Funds were
provided for the program from lapsed Interstate 4R apportionments. 
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 through 1992 from the Interstate 4R authorization for the
continuation of the Interstate 4R discretionary fund and provided
criteria and factors to be used in the distribution of funds.  ISTEA
set aside $375 million.  Of the amount set aside, $16 million was for
fiscal year 1992 and $17 million was for each of fiscal years 1993
and 1994 to be used for improvements on the Kennedy Expressway in
Chicago.  ISTEA terminated the apportioned Interstate 4R Fund Program
and provided that the Interstate 4R set-aside come from the National
Highway System Program. 

         ELIGIBILITY: 
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.2

Interstate Maintenance Discretionary funds may be used for
resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating, and reconstructing the
Interstate Highway System, including providing additional capacity. 
The federal share under this program is generally 90 percent. 

         TEA-21'S PROVISIONS: 
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.3

TEA-21 authorized $50 million for fiscal year 1998 and $100 million
for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for this program. 

         PROJECT SELECTIONS: 
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.0.4

During fiscal years 1998-99, the Office of the Administrator selected
100 percent of the projects that the FHWA program staff suggested for
funding.  The Office of the Administrator also selected two
additional projects.  (See table V.1.)

                                    Table V.1
                     
                      Staff's Suggestions for the Interstate
                      Maintenance Discretionary Program and
                        the Office of the Administrator's
                         Selections, Fiscal Years 1998-99

                            Number of staff-                       Percentage of
                                   suggested   Number of other   staff-suggested
                               projects that     projects that     projects that
                 Number of     the Office of     the Office of     the Office of
             projects that               the               the               the
Fiscal           the staff     Administrator     Administrator     Administrator
years            suggested          selected          selected          selected
--------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
1998-99                  6                 6                 2               100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

To determine the proportion of projects and funds FHWA awarded to
Democratic or Republican congressional districts, we examined all the
Interstate Maintenance projects submitted and selected for fiscal
years 1998-99.  When compared with project submissions, it appears
that FHWA selected a higher percentage of projects in Democratic
congressional districts.  However, because of the small number of
projects selected, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from this
analysis.  The funding FHWA provided was in proportion to total
funding requests.  Tables V.2 and V.3 show the results of our
analysis. 

                               Table V.2
                
                Interstate Maintenance Funding Requested
                   and Provided, Fiscal Years 1998-99

                         (Dollars in millions)

                           Funding                 Funding
Party                    requested  Percentage    provided  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                  $887.0          41       $59.7          45
Republican                 1,056.2          49        71.9          55
Independent                   10.4          <1         0.0           0
Other                        198.8           9         0.0           0
======================================================================
Total                     $2,152.3         100      $131.6         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

                               Table V.3
                
                    Interstate Maintenance Projects
                  Requested and Provided, Fiscal Years
                                1998-99

                          Projects                Projects
Party                    submitted  Percentage    selected  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                      43          45           5          63
Republican                      45          47           3          37
Independent                      1           1           0           0
Other                            7           7           0           0
======================================================================
Total                           96         100           8         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

To address the TEA-21 requirement to establish and publish selection
criteria for projects, FHWA published its existing selection criteria
for the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program in the Federal
Register on July 23, 1998.  Figure V.1 shows the criteria that FHWA
included in the fiscal years 1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the
states. 

   Figure V.1:  FHWA's Interstate
   Maintenance Discretionary
   Program Project Selection
   Criteria

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  FHWA's fiscal years 1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the
states. 

FERRY BOATS AND FACILITIES PROGRAM
========================================================== Appendix VI

         BACKGROUND: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:0.0.1

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.  ISTEA authorized
$100 million for fiscal years 1992 through 1997.  The federal share
under this program is 80 percent.  Funds are available until
expended. 

         ELIGIBILITY: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:0.0.2

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. 

         TEA-21'S PROVISIONS: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:0.0.3

TEA-21 authorized $30 million for fiscal year 1998 and $38 million
for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for this program.  TEA-21
further earmarked $20 million of the Ferry Boats and Facilities funds
for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for projects in three
statesAlaska ($10 million), New Jersey ($5 million), and Washington
($5 million).  Therefore, $18 million remains for allocation to the
other states for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003. 

         PROJECT SELECTIONS: 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:0.0.4

During fiscal years 1998-99, the Office of the Administrator selected
100 percent of the projects that the FHWA program staff suggested for
funding.  (See table VI.1.)

                                    Table VI.1
                     
                     Staff's Suggestions for the Ferry Boats
                     and Facilities Program and the Office of
                      the Administrator's Selections, Fiscal
                                  Years 1998-99

                            Number of staff-                       Percentage of
                                   suggested   Number of other   staff-suggested
                               projects that     projects that     projects that
                 Number of     the Office of     the Office of     the Office of
             projects that               the               the               the
Fiscal           the staff     Administrator     Administrator     Administrator
years            suggested          selected          selected          selected
--------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
1998-99                 29                29                 0               100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

To determine the proportion of projects and funds FHWA awarded to
Democratic or Republican congressional districts, we examined all the
Ferry Boats and Facilities projects submitted and selected for fiscal
years 1998-99.  When compared with project submissions, it appears
that FHWA awarded both a disproportionate percentage of projects and
funds to projects located in Democratic districts.  However, a
congressional earmark of $20 million to three statesAlaska, New
Jersey, and Washingtonrepresented more than 50 percent of the total
program allocation.  In allocating the remaining $18 million in
funds, FHWA officials chose to place all projects from the three
states into the qualified category.  The disproportionate results can
be attributed to the fact that a great number of projects from these
three states are primarily from Republican districts and accounted
for about 64 percent of projects submitted and 73 percent of the
funding requested from Republican districts.  When we removed the
projects and associated funding amounts for the three states and
recalculated the district analysis, we found the remaining results to
be proportionate.  Tables VI.2 and VI.3 show the results of our
analysis not excluding the earmarks. 

                               Table VI.2
                
                   Ferry Boats and Facilities Funding
                  Requested and Provided, Fiscal Years
                                1998-99

                         (Dollars in millions)

                           Funding                 Funding
Party                    requested  Percentage    provided  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                 $60.5\a          40       $28.4          48
Republican                  74.9\a          49        22.9          39
Independent                    0.0           0         0.0           0
Other                         17.6          12         8.0          13
======================================================================
Total                       $153.0         100     $59.3\b         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

\a This includes $2.6 million for projects located in Democratic
districts (New Jersey) and $55 million for projects located in
Republican districts (Alaska and Washington). 

\b Funding provided includes $20 million earmarked by the Congress. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

                               Table VI.3
                
                  Ferry Boats and Facilities Projects
                  Requested and Provided, Fiscal Years
                                1998-99

                          Projects                Projects
Party                    submitted  Percentage    selected  Percentage
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Democratic                    37\a          43          19          66
Republican                    42\a          49           7          24
Independent                      0           0           0           0
Other                            7           8           3          10
Total                           86         100          29         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This includes 2 projects in Democratic districts (New Jersey) and
27 projects in Republican districts (Alaska and Washington). 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

To address the TEA-21 requirement to establish and publish selection
criteria for projects, FHWA published its existing selection criteria
for the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program in the Federal Register on
July 23, 1998.  Figure VI.1 shows the criteria that FHWA included in
the fiscal years 1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the states. 

   Figure VI.1:  FHWA's Ferry
   Boats and Facilities
   Discretionary Program Project
   Selection Criteria

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  FHWA's fiscal years 1998-99 solicitation memorandum to the
states. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
========================================================== Appendix VI

(See figure in printed edition.)

*** End of document. ***