Federal Highway Programs: Status of Federal Highway Programs in the
Absence of Reauthorization (Testimony, 11/04/97, GAO/T-RCED-98-38).
GAO discussed the status of federal surface transportation programs in
the absence of funding from a new federal highway reauthorization act,
focusing on a comparison of unobligated federal highway fund balances at
the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 1998 with the highway funds that the
states obligated during the first part of FY 1997.
GAO noted that: (1) the total unobligated highway fund balance available
at the beginning of FY 1998 equals $12.1 billion and exceeds the total
actual obligations of $8.1 billion, made by the states during the first
6 months of FY 1997; (2) a comparison of the unobligated balances of
individual states with their actual FY 1997 obligations reveals that
some state highway programs may experience financial difficulties by the
middle of FY 1998 if their obligation rates for this year are comparable
to those for FY 1997; (3) while most states have unobligated balances
that are greater than their actual federal highway obligations in the
first 6 months of FY 1997, 14 states have an unobligated balance that is
lower than their actual obligations during the same period; (4) the nine
states that GAO contacted identified various strategies that they would
use to try to continue their highway operations, such as relying more
extensively on state funds; (5) some of these states also noted that
they would soon be postponing highway projects if new federal funds are
not available within the next few months; (6) the rates at which states
obligated funds in FY 1997 may not correspond to their plans for
obligating federal highway funds in FY 1998; (7) some states may be
limited in their ability to use available unobligated balances because
of restrictions on the specific types of highway programs that the funds
can be used for; (8) the comparisons indicate that while many states may
be able to continue financing highway projects for some time, some
states may have difficulty dealing even in the short term with the
absence of new federal highway funds; (9) a number of strategies could
help the states respond to the absence of new federal funds in the short
term; (10) for example, Congress could provide the states with the
flexibility to use their unobligated balances across the range of
federal highway programs, rather than keeping the balances tied to
specific highway funding categories and demonstration projects; (11)
Congress could then reimburse appropriate funding categories after
reauthorization; (12) individual states could also consider a number of
strategies, such as temporarily substituting state funds for federal
highway funds; (13) states could also begin highway projects by using
advance construction, which enables a state to access capital from a
variety of sources and later receive reimbursements through federal
highway obligations; (14) such strategies, however, may delay other
planned projects within individual states; and (15) these strategies may
not be feasible for some states or for an extended period of time.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-RCED-98-38
TITLE: Federal Highway Programs: Status of Federal Highway
Programs in the Absence of Reauthorization
DATE: 11/04/97
SUBJECT: Federal aid for highways
Unobligated budget balances
Federal/state relations
Intergovernmental fiscal relations
State-administered programs
Highway planning
Financial management
******************************************************************
** 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
Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate
For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
9:30 a.m. EST
Tuesday
Nov. 4, 1997
FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAMS - STATUS
OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAMS IN THE
ABSENCE OF REAUTHORIZATION
Statement of Phyllis F. Scheinberg,
Associate Director, Transportation Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division
GAO/T-RCED-98-38
GAO/RCED-98-38T
(348059)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ISTEA -
FHWA -
CMAQ -
AASHTO -
============================================================ Chapter 0
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information on the status of
federal surface transportation programs in the absence of funding
from a new federal highway reauthorization act. As you know, in
1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) authorized over $122 billion in federal funds for highway
programs for fiscal years 1992 through 1997.\1 This authorization
expired on September 30, 1997, and no new federal highway funds have
been authorized for fiscal year 1998. The states can, however, use
their unobligated balances that remain from the ISTEA authorization
period. For all 50 states, these federal-aid highway balances
totaled $12.1 billion at the beginning of fiscal year 1998.\2
Specifically, you asked that we compare unobligated federal highway
fund balances at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 with the highway
funds that the states obligated during the first part of fiscal year
1997. We performed this analysis using actual obligation data for
federal-aid highway projects during the first 4 through 7 months of
fiscal year 1997. For illustrative purposes, however, this testimony
will focus on the 6-month period. (Details for the 4- through
7-month periods are presented in apps. I and II.) At your request,
our testimony will also address strategies that could temporarily
help the states continue to fund highway programs in the absence of a
federal highway authorization act.
Our work is based on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
obligation data for all 50 states. In addition, we contacted nine
states to obtain their views on how they would operate without new
federal highway funds in the short term. When we analyzed FHWA's
obligation data for the 50 states, the analysis was limited to total
obligation levels for federal highway projects. We did not address
other important areas, such as the potential effects on the
operations of agencies within the U. S. Department of
Transportation or the effects on particular programs, such as
transportation safety programs. In addition, we did not look at the
impact on transit programs.
In summary, we compared the level of unobligated highway fund
balances available at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 with the
actual obligations that the states made during the first part of
fiscal year 1997. The total unobligated balance of $12.1 billion
exceeds the total actual obligations of $8.1 billion that all states
combined made during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997.
However, a comparison of the unobligated balances of individual
states with their actual fiscal year 1997 obligations reveals that
some state highway programs may experience financial difficulties by
the middle of fiscal year 1998 if their obligation rates for this
year are comparable to those for fiscal year 1997. The analysis
indicates that while most states have unobligated balances that are
greater than their actual federal highway obligations in the first 6
months of fiscal year 1997, 14 states have an unobligated balance
that is lower than their actual obligations during that same period.
The nine states that we contacted identified various strategies that
they would use to try to continue their highway operations, such as
relying more extensively on state funds. However, some of these
states also noted that they would soon be postponing highway projects
if new federal funds are not available within the next few months.
It is important to note when making these types of comparisons that
the rates at which states obligated funds in fiscal year 1997 may not
correspond to their plans for obligating federal highway funds in
fiscal year 1998. Furthermore, some states may be limited in their
ability to use available unobligated balances because of restrictions
on the specific types of highway programs that the funds can be used
for. Nonetheless, the comparisons do indicate that while many states
may be able to continue financing highway projects for some time,
some states may have difficulty dealing even in the short term with
the absence of new federal highway funds.
A number of strategies could help the states respond to the absence
of new federal highway funds in the short term. For example, the
Congress could provide the states with the flexibility to use their
unobligated balances across the range of federal highway programs,
rather than keeping the balances tied to specific highway funding
categories and demonstration projects. Then, after reauthorization,
the Congress could "reimburse" the appropriate funding categories.
The individual states could also consider a number of strategies,
such as temporarily substituting state funds for federal highway
funds. The states could also begin highway projects by using advance
construction, which enables a state to access capital from a variety
of sources, including its own funds and private capital, and later
receive reimbursement through federal highway obligations. However,
such strategies may delay other planned projects within individual
states. Furthermore, these strategies may not be feasible for some
states or for an extended period of time.
--------------------
\1 The full ISTEA authorization for all surface transportation
programs, including mass transit, totaled $155 billion for fiscal
years 1992 through 1997.
\2 Funds that were not obligated at the end of fiscal year 1997
remained unobligated. These funds are the subject of this testimony.
The unobligated balances represent funds apportioned or allocated but
not yet committed by the states. The unobligated balances used in
this statement pertain only to the states and do not apply to the
District of Columbia or the territories.
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
ISTEA authorized over $122 billion for highway programs for fiscal
years 1992 through 1997. The authorization was funded primarily
through federal highway user taxes such as those on motor fuels
(gasoline, gasohol, and diesel), tires, and trucks. Funds from these
sources are collected from users and credited to the Highway Trust
Fund for highway and mass transit projects or related activities.
The fund is divided into a highway account and a mass transit
account.
Except for a few minor deductions, such as those for federal
administrative expenses, federal highway funds are provided to the
states through FHWA, which is part of the U. S. Department of
Transportation. The money is generally distributed to the states
through various formula calculations.\3 The current formula,
established by ISTEA, determines the distribution of funds for 13
funding categories, such as the Interstate Maintenance, the National
Highway System, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
programs.\4
During the ISTEA authorization period, FHWA annually apportioned to
the states authority to obligate funds. And, if the Congress took no
further action, the states could proceed to obligate all the
authority apportioned to them by FHWA. However, the Congress also
imposed an annual obligation limitation as part of the appropriation
process on most elements of the federal highway program. These
limits did not take back spending authority that was already
apportioned to the states; rather, the obligation limits acted to
control the obligation rate.
The congressionally imposed obligation limits acted to control total
obligations but left the states with some discretion to decide how
they would use their obligation authority across the range of
federal-aid programs. For example, in a particular year, a state
could obligate all its Interstate Maintenance and National Highway
System funds. But the state would then have to compensate by
obligating a smaller part of its federal highway funds from other
categories. In addition, a few categories of highway funding are
exempt from obligation limitations--the two largest are minimum
allocation and demonstration projects.\5
Once FHWA approves a project that a state proposes, the federal share
of the project's cost is considered "obligated" against the state's
apportionment. The state then proceeds--doing detailed design
engineering, advertising for bids, and selecting a contractor for the
construction work. The state incurs costs, pays the bills, and then
seeks reimbursement of the federal share from FHWA. Federal
outlays--that is, actual expenditures--do not occur until the state
is reimbursed. Furthermore, the funds are outlayed over a number of
years.
--------------------
\3 ISTEA also authorized over $6.2 billion over 6 years for 539
statutorily designated demonstration projects.
\4 Throughout this statement, unless otherwise noted, these funding
categories will be referred to as programs.
\5 Minimum allocation guarantees a state an amount such that its
percentage of total apportionments and prior-year allocations from
certain highway funding categories is not less than 90 percent of the
state's estimated percentage of contributions to the Highway Trust
Fund's Highway Account. Furthermore, Emergency Relief Program
funding was also exempt from the obligation limits, but ISTEA's
annual authorization for this program was limited to $100 million.
COMPARING UNOBLIGATED HIGHWAY
BALANCES WITH PREVIOUS
OBLIGATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the total unobligated federal
highway fund balance for all states was $12.1 billion. This
unobligated balance came from two sources. First, $9.6 billion in
unobligated balances exists because the Congress annually imposed an
obligation limit during the ISTEA period to control spending for most
federal highway funding categories. Second, another $2.5 billion in
unobligated authority remains for a few highway funding categories
that were exempt from the obligation limitation. The two largest
exempted programs were minimum allocation ($0.65 billion) and
demonstration projects ($1.85 billion).
From a national perspective, the total unobligated highway balance of
$12.1 billion at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 (including program
funds exempt from obligation limits) is nearly 1.5 times the $8.1
billion that all states obligated during the first 6 months of fiscal
year 1997. This does not mean, however, that each state's
unobligated balance is greater than its obligations during the first
6 months of fiscal year 1997. FHWA's data show that the unobligated
balances for each of 14 states fall short by 1 percent to 30 percent
or by $1 million to almost $82 million of its actual obligations
during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997. Several states were
in the 20 to 30 percent range. For example, Indiana's total
unobligated balance is over $80 million less than its total highway
obligations during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997. This
represents about a 28-percent difference. Similarly, North
Carolina's total unobligated balance is about $94 million less than
the amount it obligated during this same period in fiscal year
1997--a difference of about 26 percent. (App. I provides a
state-by-state comparison of the fiscal year 1998 unobligated balance
of $9.6 billion (from highway programs subject to the obligation
limit) to actual state obligations during the first 4 through 7
months of fiscal year 1997. App. II provides a similar comparison
based on the combined total unobligated balance of $12.1 billion.)
It is important to note that these comparisons imply that the state's
obligation rates for fiscal year 1997 correspond to those for fiscal
year 1998, which may or may not be the case for individual states.
Furthermore, the total unobligated balance of $12.1 billion includes
balances from programs that were not subject to the obligation
limitation. As of October 1, 1997, seven states had little or no
unobligated balances in these program categories.
STRATEGIES THAT COULD HELP THE
STATES IN THE SHORT-TERM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
A number of strategies could help the states get through a short
period without a new highway funding authorization. At the federal
level, the Congress could provide the states with the flexibility to
use their unobligated balances across the range of federal highway
programs, rather than keeping the balances generally tied to specific
highway programs and demonstration projects. At the state level,
some states may be able to obtain state, local, or private resources
to begin projects and later seek federal reimbursement for these
costs through advance construction authority.
FLEXIBILITY NEEDED IF
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES ARE TO
BE FULLY USED IN THE SHORT
TERM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1
The unobligated balance of $9.6 billion (from programs subject to the
obligation limit) represents the sum of the unobligated balances
remaining from specific programs, such as the Interstate Maintenance,
National Highway System, Surface Transportation, and CMAQ programs.
These balances may now generally be obligated in accordance with the
individual program categories.
Throughout the ISTEA period, the obligation limits acted to control
"total" obligations, thus leaving the states discretion to decide how
they would use their obligation authority across the range of
specific federal-aid highway programs. For example, in a particular
year, a state could have opted to obligate all of its available
National Highway System funds, but it would have had to make up for
its full use of these funds by obligating less in another funding
category, such as the CMAQ program.
Differences in the priorities that the states assigned to different
highway programs are now reflected in significant variances in the
unobligated balances that remain from ISTEA authorizations for these
programs. For example, the National Highway System had a total
unobligated balance of over $426 million at the beginning of fiscal
year 1998, which represents only about 13 percent of the total fiscal
year 1997 apportionment for this program. In comparison, the Surface
Transportation program started fiscal year 1998 with an unobligated
balance of $4.2 billion, or nearly half of the fiscal year 1997
apportionment for this program. Furthermore, the CMAQ program had an
unobligated balance of $1 billion, or 108 percent of the fiscal year
1997 apportionment for this program. Because of the variances in the
unobligated balances remaining across federal highway programs, these
balances may not be consistent with state funding priorities or
projects that the states planned for this year.
To identify any problems that the states might have in using their
unobligated balances and to identify strategies that the states may
use to help them respond to the absence of new federal highway funds
in the short term, we contacted nine states--Arkansas, Connecticut,
Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and
South Dakota. These differed in the extent to which they expected
that their unobligated federal highway balances would help them
respond to any short-term absence of new federal highway funds.
Several of the states did note that the usefulness of these
unobligated balances will be somewhat limited because they are tied
to specific programs. For instance, a Missouri transportation
finance and budget manager estimated that in early fiscal year 1998,
the state will be able to use only $50 million of its total of $169
million in unobligated funds because the balance of the money is for
categories such as CMAQ or transportation enhancements in which the
state does not have projects ready to go. Similarly, the
Transportation Director of Program Management for New York commented
that it is very difficult to say exactly when the state will use its
unobligated balance because some of this money is limited to programs
that (1) are not a state priority or (2) do not have projects that
are ready to go.
If the Congress were to enact legislation that would give the states
the flexibility to use unobligated balances interchangeably among
federal highway programs, then some states would be better positioned
to more fully use their unobligated federal highway funds. In
addition, while minimum allocation funding can be used for numerous
federal highway programs, demonstration project funds must be used
only for the specific projects for which the funds were authorized
under current law. These demonstration project funds, which
generally were not subject to the obligation limits, ended fiscal
year 1997 with a total unobligated balance of about $1.9 billion. If
the Congress were to provide the states with the flexibility to use
program as well as demonstration project funds to meet other highway
program needs, a later reauthorization could provide for
reimbursement to the borrowed fund account.
STATES MAY HAVE TO RELY MORE
ON STATE FUNDING FOR
HIGHWAYS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2
Federal highway funding represents one of the many financial sources
used to support the nation's highways. The Department of
Transportation's statistics indicate that the revenue available for
highways totaled $92.5 billion in 1995, the latest year for which
data are available. About $59.6 billion of this revenue came from
highway user taxes--$18.3 billion from federal highway user taxes,
$39.3 from state highway user taxes, and $2 billion from local
highway user taxes. The balance came from a variety of sources, such
as $5.1 billion from property taxes and assessments and $7.6 billion
from bond receipts.
To compensate for the lack of new federal highway funds being
available for part of fiscal year 1998, some states may be able to
fund a proportionately larger share of their planned highway projects
in early fiscal year 1998 with state funds. Later in fiscal year
1998, these states could use the federal funds made available to
them. This assumes that at some unspecified time in fiscal year
1998, new federal highway funds will be available; however, this
uncertainty poses problems for some states. A few of the nine states
we contacted noted that they would be postponing highway projects if
new federal funds are not available within the next few months.
The states also differ in their ability to provide greater funding in
fiscal year 1998. For instance, the Commissioner of North Dakota's
Department of Transportation stated that the disastrous flood this
year left North Dakota without any additional state funds to pay for
highway projects. In contrast, Indiana's Deputy Commissioner for
Finance stated that the state does not face a financial crisis in
early fiscal year 1998. He noted that Indiana's Department of
Transportation has, if necessary, the ability to use $600 million in
bonding authority to begin projects in fiscal year 1998. However, if
the states draw on their own resources, they may have to delay other
planned projects. Also, this short-term solution could have a
defined payback period. For instance, a Missouri transportation
official noted that the state expects to award highway contracts
through December 1997, using $100 million of state funds. He noted
that this state money will be borrowed from other state programs and
must be returned to the other accounts by June 30, 1998, the end of
the state's fiscal year.
One financial tool that may help some states is advance construction.
Under advance construction, a state can begin a highway project by
obtaining capital from a variety of sources, including its own funds
and private capital, and later receive reimbursement through federal
highway obligations. Indiana's Deputy Commissioner for Finance
stated that without new federal funds, Indiana will begin its highway
program using advance construction with state funding. New York also
indicated that it would turn to advance construction to help with its
highway financing. The New York Transportation Director of Program
Management remarked that he expects to keep the state's planned
highway projects on schedule in early fiscal year 1998 through the
use of advance construction. He stated that New York will use state
money to keep the projects on schedule and then backfill with federal
funds once a new authorization is passed.
In July 1997, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) conducted a survey to determine the
possible effects of a delay in the reauthorization of the federal
surface transportation program on state transportation programs.
Many states reported to AASHTO that they would use advance
construction to continue operations and project schedules. However,
AASHTO noted that advance construction will not help some states that
have already heavily relied on this technique.
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
UNOBILIGATED FEDERAL HIGHWAY
BALANCES (SUBJECT TO THE
OBLIGATION LIMITATION) COMPARED
WITH FISCAL YEAR 1997 OBLIGATIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I
(Dollars in thousands)
Difference Difference Difference Difference
between between between between
unobligated unobligated unobligated unobligated
balance and FY balance and FY balance and FY balance and FY
1997 4-month 1997 5-month 1997 6-month 1997 7-month
obligation total obligation total obligation total obligation total
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Unobliga
ted
balance
subject
to
obligati
on limit
as of
10/01/ Percen Percen Percen Percen
State 97 Amount t Amount t Amount t Amount t
------- -------- -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------
Alabama $142,290 $70,523 98 $54,933 63 $18,011 14 - -9
$13,762
Alaska 94,192 59,601 172 12,980 16 -5,331 -5 -19,351 -17
Arizona 144,747 61,638 74 48,153 50 35,920 33 27,297 23
Arkansa 87,129 -11,524 -12 -28,961 -25 -32,323 -27 -40,468 -32
s
Califor 816,665 535,661 191 494,274 153 406,101 99 215,761 36
nia
Colorad 117,689 73,357 165 14,684 14 -1,177 -1 -28,065 -19
o
Connect 166,353 11,568 7 -12,887 -7 -32,651 -16 - -41
icut 117,730
Delawar 54,052 48,091 807 46,936 660 40,646 303 20,332 60
e
Florida 225,197 136,682 154 75,480 50 -14,489 -6 - -53
258,506
Georgia 293,339 184,098 169 158,972 118 118,093 67 83,185 40
Hawaii 139,085 \a \a \a \a \a \a \a \a
Idaho 50,407 22,596 81 5,743 13 5,457 12 39 0
Illinoi 255,153 146,891 136 82,100 47 -14,927 -6 - -48
s 236,031
Indiana 182,028 47,488 35 -50,888 -22 - -36 - -41
102,013 124,776
Iowa 115,924 13,004 13 415 0 -25,943 -18 -27,335 -19
Kansas 128,419 57,528 81 51,050 66 45,803 55 35,262 38
Kentuck 134,226 92,030 218 60,001 81 11,759 10 -12,999 -9
y
Louisia 270,665 211,548 358 196,015 263 192,316 245 176,085 186
na
Maine 48,887 16,706 52 57 0 -10,845 -18 -10,548 -18
Marylan 158,942 116,473 274 41,191 35 20,355 15 -29,096 -15
d
Massach 793,225 614,708 344 374,672 90 298,761 60 256,679 48
usetts
Michiga 217,146 93,236 75 52,661 32 11,239 5 -15,783 -7
n
Minneso 178,687 141,349 379 38,120 27 28,273 19 16,178 10
ta
Mississ 102,719 46,798 84 38,873 61 7,882 8 -6,233 -6
ippi
Missour 168,587 26,114 18 -67,796 -29 - -37 - -40
i 100,490 111,528
Montana 88,072 73,364 499 41,622 90 33,642 62 13,022 17
Nebrask 77,809 47,919 160 39,276 102 -5,837 -7 -7,870 -9
a
Nevada 55,011 46,620 556 11,803 27 -1,210 -2 -3,184 -5
New 59,340 43,848 283 34,426 138 11,932 25 3,535 6
Hampsh
ire
New 274,799 85,692 45 41,416 18 28,863 12 -28,507 -9
Jersey
New 69,402 44,746 181 42,160 155 38,298 123 24,543 55
Mexico
New 477,584 123,935 35 -57,004 -11 - -20 - -24
York 121,836 154,403
North 214,972 -15,865 -7 -90,838 -30 - -40 - -45
Caroli 143,299 178,181
na
North 50,447 5,887 13 -2,979 -6 -24,791 -33 -32,363 -39
Dakota
Ohio 356,246 231,419 185 200,963 129 158,654 80 79,029 29
Oklahom 159,309 74,298 87 57,668 57 47,037 42 15,515 11
a
Oregon 92,166 42,543 86 24,747 37 15,926 21 -397 -0
Pennsyl 456,826 325,819 249 298,829 189 213,084 87 84,355 23
vania
Rhode 65,379 51,918 386 36,309 125 30,320 86 20,101 44
Island
South 179,141 101,532 131 27,858 18 16,615 10 8,401 5
Caroli
na
South 69,729 12,996 23 -8,395 -11 -22,791 -25 -33,301 -32
Dakota
Tenness 196,644 67,328 52 20,013 11 -22,553 -10 -81,974 -29
ee
Texas 619,695 193,004 45 136,984 28 58,399 10 -25,147 -4
Utah 89,670 66,048 280 35,048 64 27,477 44 18,313 26
Vermont 71,618 58,166 432 50,025 232 36,629 105 26,728 60
Virgini 212,321 99,361 88 68,801 48 28,694 16 2,329 1
a
Washing 204,873 167,859 454 87,103 74 68,522 50 -493 -0
ton
West 120,166 84,653 238 37,892 46 12,857 12 -13,368 -10
Virgin
ia
Wiscons 163,333 -10,469 -6 -63,820 -28 -74,008 -31 -82,887 -34
in
Wyoming 53,579 7,042 15 -6,478 -11 -15,180 -22 -23,071 -30
Total $9,563,8 $4,987,2 109 $2,893,6 43 $1,295,8 16 - -6
84 72 16 71 $590,668
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Bold type indicates that previous obligations exceed the
unobligated balance.
Note 2: The comparison represents data for the states only and does
not include data for the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the North Marianas.
\a Not available.
Source: GAO's analysis based on FHWA's data.
UNOBLIGATED FEDERAL HIGHWAY
BALANCES (SUBJECT TO THE
OBLIGATION LIMITATION AND EXEMPT)
COMPARED WITH FISCAL YEAR 1997
OBLIGATIONS
========================================================== Appendix II
(Dollars in thousands)
Difference Difference Difference Difference
between between between between
unobligated unobligated unobligated unobligated
balance and FY balance and FY balance and FY balance and FY
1997 4-month 1997 5-month 1997 6-month 1997 7-month
obligation total obligation total obligation total obligation total
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Total
unobliga
ted
balance
St as of
at 10/01/ Percen Percen Percen Percen
e 97 Amount t Amount t Amount t Amount t
-- -------- -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------
Al $198,888 $127,121 177 $111,531 128 $74,609 60 $42,836 27
a
b
a
m
a
Al 94,192 59,601 172 12,980 16 -5,331 -5 -19,351 -17
a
s
k
a
Ar 184,093 100,984 122 87,499 91 75,266 69 66,643 57
i
z
o
n
a
Ar 153,005 54,352 55 36,915 32 33,553 28 25,408 20
k
a
n
s
a
s
Ca 1,091,52 810,523 288 769,136 239 680,963 166 490,623 82
l 7
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Co 117,689 73,357 165 14,684 14 -1,177 -1 -28,065 -19
l
o
r
a
d
o
Co 167,954 13,169 9 -11,286 -6 -31,050 -16 - -41
n 116,129
n
e
c
t
i
c
u
t
De 54,052 48,091 807 46,936 660 40,646 303 20,332 60
l
a
w
a
r
e
Fl 298,813 210,298 238 149,096 100 59,127 25 - -38
o 184,890
r
i
d
a
Ge 487,021 377,780 346 352,654 262 311,775 178 276,867 132
o
r
g
i
a
Ha 148,605 \a \a \a \a \a \a \a \a
w
a
i
i
Id 82,813 55,002 198 38,149 85 37,863 84 32,445 64
a
h
o
Il 284,971 176,709 163 111,918 65 14,891 6 - -42
l 206,213
i
n
o
i
s
In 203,799 69,259 51 -29,117 -13 -80,242 -28 - -34
d 103,005
i
a
n
a
Io 136,787 33,867 33 21,278 18 -5,080 -4 -6,472 -5
wa
Ka 147,075 76,184 107 69,706 90 64,459 78 53,918 58
n
s
a
s
Ke 157,586 115,390 273 83,361 112 35,119 29 10,361 7
n
t
u
c
k
y
Lo 339,687 280,570 475 265,037 355 261,338 334 245,107 259
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
Ma 57,472 25,291 79 8,642 18 -2,260 -4 -1,963 -3
i
n
e
Ma 166,683 124,214 292 48,932 42 28,096 20 -21,355 -11
r
y
l
a
n
d
Ma 799,910 621,393 348 381,357 91 305,446 62 263,364 49
s
s
a
c
h
u
s
e
t
t
s
Mi 250,289 126,379 102 85,804 52 44,382 22 17,360 7
c
h
i
g
a
n
Mi 238,211 200,873 538 97,644 69 87,797 58 75,702 47
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
Mi 116,125 60,204 108 52,279 82 21,288 22 7,173 7
s
s
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
Mi 187,257 44,784 31 -49,126 -21 -81,820 -30 -92,858 -33
s
s
o
u
r
i
Mo 88,072 73,364 499 41,622 90 33,642 62 13,022 17
n
t
a
n
a
Ne 84,959 55,069 184 46,426 120 1,313 2 -720 -1
b
r
a
s
k
a
Ne 55,012 46,621 556 11,804 27 -1,209 -2 -3,183 -5
v
a
d
a
Ne 63,770 48,278 312 38,856 156 16,362 35 7,965 14
w
H
a
m
p
s
h
i
r
e
Ne 331,142 142,035 75 97,759 42 85,206 35 27,836 9
w
J
e
r
s
e
y
Ne 71,431 46,775 190 44,189 162 40,327 130 26,572 59
w
M
e
x
i
c
o
Ne 529,008 175,359 50 -5,580 -1 -70,412 -12 - -16
w 102,979
Y
o
r
k
No 264,629 33,792 15 -41,181 -13 -93,642 -26 - -33
r 128,524
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
No 58,999 14,439 32 5,573 10 -16,239 -22 -23,811 -29
r
t
h
D
a
k
o
t
a
Oh 495,754 370,927 297 340,471 219 298,162 151 218,537 79
io
Ok 173,644 88,633 104 72,003 71 61,372 55 29,850 21
l
a
h
o
m
a
Or 98,712 49,089 99 31,293 46 22,472 29 6,149 7
e
g
o
n
Pe 968,126 837,119 639 810,129 513 724,384 297 595,655 160
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
Rh 85,502 72,041 535 56,432 194 50,443 144 40,224 89
o
d
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
So 201,518 123,909 160 50,235 33 38,992 24 30,778 18
u
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
So 74,690 17,957 32 -3,434 -4 -17,830 -19 -28,340 -28
u
t
h
D
a
k
o
t
a
Te 225,294 95,978 74 48,663 28 6,097 3 -53,324 -19
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
Te 770,416 343,725 81 287,705 60 209,120 37 125,574 19
x
a
s
Ut 92,600 68,978 292 37,978 70 30,407 49 21,243 30
ah
Ve 88,085 74,633 555 66,492 308 53,096 152 43,195 96
r
m
o
n
t
Vi 333,797 220,837 196 190,277 133 150,170 82 123,805 59
r
g
i
n
i
a
Wa 204,887 167,873 454 87,117 74 68,536 50 -479 -0
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
We 307,110 271,597 765 224,836 273 199,801 186 173,576 130
st
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
Wi 181,199 7,397 4 -45,954 -20 -56,142 -24 -65,021 -26
s
c
o
n
s
i
n
Wy 53,579 7,042 15 -6,478 -11 -15,180 -22 -23,071 -30
o
m
i
n
g
To $12,066, $7,489,8 164 $5,396,1 81 $3,942,3 49 $2,055,7 21
t 439 27 71 19 20
a
l
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Bold type indicates that previous obligations exceed the
unobligated balance.
Note 2: The comparison represents data for the states only and does
not include data for the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the North Marianas.
\a Not available.
Source: GAO's analysis based on FHWA's data.
*** End of document. ***