Highway Projects--Extent of Unobligated Balances for Demonstration Projects as of April 30, 2004
Gao ID: GAO-04-935R August 18, 2004Congress has provided funding for numerous highway demonstration projects in legislation authorizing surface transportation programs as well as in annual appropriations acts for the Department of Transportation (DOT). In some cases, the projects are identified in the legislation itself. In others, they are identified in committee reports accompanying the legislation. These projects are all designated for specific geographic locations within states and for specific purposes, and funds made available for them generally remain available for them until expended. This report includes information we provided to Congress on July 14, 2004, on unobligated funds no longer needed that could be rescinded from highway demonstration projects and also includes a recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation.
As of April 30, 2004, there were 80 highway demonstration projects with unobligated balances that were no longer needed by the states constructing the projects. These projects accounted for about $16.4 million in unobligated funds. These funds were provided in authorization or appropriations acts enacted from 1982 through 2000. The enclosure specifies the following for each of the 39 projects with unobligated balances over $100 as of April 30, 2004: (1) the state in which the project is located; (2) a brief project description; (3) the public law and, where appropriate, committee reports identifying the projects; (4) the budget authority made available; (5) the obligated amounts; and (6) unobligated amounts available for rescission. We also found that 41 of the 80 projects have very small unobligated balances of less than $20 each. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is not routinely identifying highway demonstration projects with unobligated balances that could be rescinded. Rather, according to an agency official, FHWA receives regular requests from GAO, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General (DOT IG), and other parties to identify unobligated balances. Although the review excluded demonstration projects, the DOT IG reported in March 2004 that a significant amount of unneeded obligations exists for highway- and transportation-related grants. As a result, the DOT IG recommended, among other things, that FHWA routinely work with states to identify unneeded obligations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Jayetta Hecker Team: Government Accountability Office: Physical Infrastructure Phone: (202) 512-8984GAO-04-935R, Highway Projects--Extent of Unobligated Balances for Demonstration Projects as of April 30, 2004
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-935R
entitled 'Highway Projects--Extent of Unobligated Balances for
Demonstration Projects as of April 30, 2004' which was released on
August 18, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
August 18, 2004:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Chairman:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ernest J. Istook:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Highway Projects--Extent of Unobligated Balances for
Demonstration Projects as of April 30, 2004:
Congress has provided funding for numerous highway demonstration
projects in legislation authorizing surface transportation programs as
well as in annual appropriations acts for the Department of
Transportation (DOT). In some cases, the projects are identified in the
legislation itself. In others, they are identified in committee reports
accompanying the legislation. These projects are all designated for
specific geographic locations within states and for specific purposes,
and funds made available for them generally remain available for them
until expended. This report includes information we provided your staff
on July 14, 2004, on unobligated funds no longer needed that could be
rescinded from highway demonstration projects and also includes a
recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation.
Results in Brief:
As of April 30, 2004, there were 80 highway demonstration projects with
unobligated balances that were no longer needed by the states
constructing the projects. These projects accounted for about $16.4
million in unobligated funds. These funds were provided in
authorization or appropriations acts enacted from 1982 through 2000.
Table 1 in the enclosure specifies the following for each of the 39
projects with unobligated balances over $100 as of April 30, 2004:
* the state in which the project is located;
* a brief project description;
* the public law and, where appropriate, committee reports identifying
the projects;
* the budget authority made available;
* the obligated amounts; and:
* unobligated amounts available for rescission.
We also found that 41 of the 80 projects have very small unobligated
balances of less than $20 each, and we have provided that information
separately to your staff.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is not routinely identifying
highway demonstration projects with unobligated balances that could be
rescinded. Rather, according to an agency official, FHWA receives
regular requests from GAO, the Department of Transportation's Inspector
General (DOT IG), and other parties to identify unobligated balances.
Although the review excluded demonstration projects, the DOT IG
reported in March 2004 that a significant amount of unneeded
obligations exists for highway-and transportation-related
grants.[Footnote 1] As a result, the DOT IG recommended, among other
things, that FHWA routinely work with states to identify unneeded
obligations.
Scope and Methodology:
To identify highway demonstration projects with unneeded unobligated
balances, we requested that FHWA analyze reports from its Fiscal
Management Information System (FMIS) to identify highway demonstration
projects with unobligated balances and then to verify the information
with state officials to identify those with remaining unobligated
balances that were unneeded. We verified the statutory sources of the
projects by reviewing the relevant statutes and associated reports. We
relied on FMIS to identify the amount of budget authority, as well as
obligated and unobligated amounts for each project, and did not
independently verify this information. To ensure the data in table 1
are correct, FHWA, at our request, verified the unobligated balances
and the status of the demonstration projects with state departments of
transportation; therefore, we determined the information was
sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our review from
March through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Conclusion:
FHWA is not taking action on a regular basis to identify projects with
unobligated balances that could be rescinded; rather, it responds to
requests from outside parties to identify such information. Regularly
tracking this information, sharing it with FHWA division offices and
state transportation officials to identify unneeded unobligated
balances, and submitting it to Congress could result in more timely
rescissions of unobligated balances that the states no longer need,
freeing funds for other purposes.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, to regularly compile a
list of highway demonstration projects that have unneeded, unobligated
balances available for rescission.
Agency Comments:
We provided DOT, including officials from the Office of Infrastructure,
Federal Highway Administration, with a draft of this report for review
and comment. DOT officials generally agreed with the findings and
recommendation in this report and provided technical comments, which we
incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of
Transportation; the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; and the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The report will also be
available on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact me at
(202) 512-2834 or Catherine Colwell at (312) 220-7655. Other key
contributors to this report were Ray Sendejas, Kimberly Berry, and
Stacey Thompson.
Signed by:
JayEtta Z. Hecker:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Enclosure:
Enclosure:
Table 1: Summary of 39 Demonstration Projects with Unobligated Balances
over $100 Available for Rescission as of April 30, 2004:
State: California;
Project description: Extend Highway 41 in Madera County;
Public law: TEA-21[A] (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $5,638,047.00;
Obligations: $5,159,942.00;
Unobligated balance: $478,105.00.
State: California;
Project description: Upgrade access road to Mare Island;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $500,000.00;
Obligations: $497,966.60;
Unobligated balance: $2,033.40.
State: California;
Project description: Conduct planning, preliminary engineering, and
design for Etiwanda Avenue/Interstate 10 interchange, San Bernardino
County;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $1,537,649.00;
Obligations: $0.00;
Unobligated balance: $1,537,649.00.
State: Colorado;
Project description: Construct alternative truck route in Montrose;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $4,305,417.00;
Obligations: $4,199,999.00;
Unobligated balance: $105,418.00.
State: Connecticut;
Project description: Implement Trinity College Area road improvements,
Hartford;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $5,235,694.00;
Obligations: $4,791,708.00;
Unobligated balance: $443,986.00.
State: Connecticut;
Project description: Construct overlook and access to Niantic Bay;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $2,367,980.00;
Obligations: $2,167,176.00;
Unobligated balance: $200,804.00.
State: Connecticut;
Project description: Pedestrian/disabled access improvements at Mark
Twain House Historic Site;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $512,550.00;
Obligations: $469,086.00;
Unobligated balance: $43,464.00.
State: Florida;
Project description: State Route 46A/Interstate 4 interchange, Sanford;
Public law: STURAA[B] (PL 100-17);
Budget authority: $6,980,748.00;
Obligations: $6,682,377.00;
Unobligated balance: $298,371.00.
State: Florida;
Project description: Highway Capacity Improvement Demo U.S. 231;
Public law: PL 101-516 (1990);
Budget authority: $2,599,978.00;
Obligations: $2,593,013.00;
Unobligated balance: $6,965.00.
State: Florida;
Project description: Interchange at U.S. 301 and University Parkway,
Sarasota;
Public law: ISTEA[C] (PL 102-240);
Budget authority: $2,341,029.00;
Obligations: $1,903,013.00;
Unobligated balance: $438,016.00.
State: Florida;
Project description: Engineering of improvements for State Route 3
between State Route 520 and State Route 528, Brevard County;
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102-240);
Budget authority: $156,069.00;
Obligations: $19,095.00;
Unobligated balance: $136,974.00.
State: Georgia;
Project description: Railroad relocation demonstration project,
overpass at 15th Street and Greene Street, Augusta;
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102-240);
Budget authority: $7,430,028.00;
Obligations: $0.00;
Unobligated balance: $7,430,028.00.
State: Georgia;
Project description: Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Atlanta;
Public law: STURAA (PL 100-17);
Budget authority: $19,944,994.00;
Obligations: $19,201,053.78;
Unobligated balance: $743,940.22.
State: Georgia;
Project description: Transportation improvements for 1996 Olympics and
ITS traffic management system, Atlanta (See PL 104-59 Sect 335);
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102- 240);
Budget authority: $56,672,402.00;
Obligations: $56,668,432.80;
Unobligated balance: $3,969.20.
State: Iowa;
Project description: Improvements to Fifth and Sixth Streets, Waterloo;
Public law: PL 102-143 (1991), House Conference Report 102-243;
Budget authority: $7,900,000.00;
Obligations: $7,718,006.48;
Unobligated balance: $181,993.52.
State: Kansas;
Project description: Interstate 70/110th Street interchange, Kansas
City;
Public law: PL 103-331 (1994), House Conference Report 103-752;
Budget authority: $3,846,400.00;
Obligations: $3,535,457.10;
Unobligated balance: $310,942.90.
State: Kentucky;
Project description: Conduct feasibility study for Northern Kentucky
High Priority Corridor (Interstate 74);
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $512,551.00;
Obligations: $383,061.61;
Unobligated balance: $129,489.39.
State: Maine;
Project description: Brunswick-Topsham Bypass;
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102-240);
Budget authority: $10,242,001.00;
Obligations: $10,148,004.87;
Unobligated balance: $93,996.13.
State: Mississippi;
Project description: Upgrade Alva-Stage Road, Montgomery County;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $1,153,237.00;
Obligations: $0.00;
Unobligated balance: $1,153,237.00.
State: New Jersey;
Project description: Route 17/4 Interchange Project, Paramus;
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102- 240);
Budget authority: $9,559,943.00;
Obligations: $9,508,099.06;
Unobligated balance: $51,843.94.
State: New Jersey;
Project description: Route 21 viaduct "NJ Transit Br" Acquisition,
Newark;
Public law: PL 102-388 (1992), House Conference Report 102-924;
Budget authority: $2,700,000.00;
Obligations: $2,695,000.00;
Unobligated balance: $5,000.00.
State: New Jersey;
Project description: Perth Amboy and Woodbridge Township: Study whether
additional river crossings required;
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102-240);
Budget authority: $2,438,571.00;
Obligations: $2,401,071.36;
Unobligated balance: $37,499.64.
State: New Jersey;
Project description: Construct road from the Military Ocean Terminal to
the Port Jersey Pier, Bayonne;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $3,075,299.00;
Obligations: $3,061,663.00;
Unobligated balance: $13,636.00.
State: New Jersey;
Project description: Improvements to County Route 605 in Delaware
Township and West Amwell Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey;
Public law: PL 106-346, Sec. 378;
Budget authority: $1,197,360.00;
Obligations: $1,163,977.57;
Unobligated balance: $33,382.43.
State: Ohio;
Project description: Upgrade one warning device on the rail line from
Marion to Ridgeway;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $76,882.00;
Obligations: $74,800.00;
Unobligated balance: $2,082.00.
State: Oregon;
Project description: Design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction
of the Ferry Street Bridge, including pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle
approach roadways, intersections, signalization, and structural bridge
changes, and related structures between East Broadway and Oakway Road,
Eugene. (See PL 104-59 Sect 330);
Public law: STURAA (PL 100-17);
Budget authority: $1,994,499.00;
Obligations: $1,985,630.32;
Unobligated balance: $8,868.68.
State: Oregon;
Project description: Upgrade Interstate 5, Salem;
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102-240);
Budget authority: $13,851,086.00;
Obligations: $13,825,580.60;
Unobligated balance: $25,505.40.
State: Oregon;
Project description: Upgrade access road and related facilities to port
of Port Orford;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $1,537,648.00;
Obligations: $0.00;
Unobligated balance: $1,537,648.00.
State: Oregon;
Project description: Construct bike path between Main Street/Highway
99 in Cottage Grove to Row River Trail, Cottage Grove;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $235,773.00;
Obligations: $0.00;
Unobligated balance: $235,773.00.
State: Pennsylvania;
Project description: Widen and extend Chestnut Avenue from Altoona to
Juniata;
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102-240);
Budget authority: $6,945,051.00;
Obligations: $6,940,000.00;
Unobligated balance: $5,051.00.
State: Pennsylvania;
Project description: Construct State Route 3019 over Great Trough Creek
in Huntingdon County;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $384,413.00;
Obligations: $375,000.00;
Unobligated balance: $9,413.00.
State: Pennsylvania;
Project description: Upgrade two sections of U.S. 6 in Tioga County;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105- 178);
Budget authority: $1,153,237.00;
Obligations: $1,148,676.57;
Unobligated balance: $4,560.43.
State: Pennsylvania;
Project description: Install traffic signal upgrade in Clearfield
Borough in Clearfield County;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $384,413.00;
Obligations: $375,000.00;
Unobligated balance: $9,413.00.
State: Pennsylvania;
Project description: Reconstruct the Interstate 81 Davis Street
interchange in Lackawanna;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $7,175,696.00;
Obligations: $7,175,595.00;
Unobligated balance: $101.00.
State: Rhode Island;
Project description: Historic rehab of Albion Bridge and Albion Trench
Bridge, Lincoln and Cumberland;
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102-240);
Budget authority: $1,950,857.00;
Obligations: $1,838,962.20;
Unobligated balance: $111,894.80.
State: Tennessee;
Project description: Access road in Clarksville and Fort Campbell;
Public law: STURAA (PL 100-17);
Budget authority: $3,988,999.00;
Obligations: $3,885,812.75;
Unobligated balance: $103,186.25.
State: Tennessee;
Project description: Study and construct a bicycle system to serve as
an alternative form of commuter transportation, reduce air pollution,
and enhance recreation, Murfreesboro (see PL 102-338 Section 378);
Public law: ISTEA (PL 102- 240);
Budget authority: $390,172.00;
Obligations: $36,000.00;
Unobligated balance: $354,172.00.
State: Utah;
Project description: Minimum allocation for any eligible title 23
project: AK, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, MT, NE, NH, OK, OR, PQ, RI, UT,
VT, WA, WI, WY. Note UT001 took $1,447,909 from these funds. [Rescinded
$154 ($96 of 308 funds and $58 of 309 funds) on 1/10/2000 as part of PL
103-211 rescission];
Public law: STURAA (PL 100-17);
Budget authority: $4,760,508.85;
Obligations: $4,755,210.50;
Unobligated balance: $5,298.35.
State: West Virginia;
Project description: Preliminary engineering, design and construction
of the Orgas to Chelayn Road, Boone County;
Public law: TEA-21 (PL 105-178);
Budget authority: $2,050,199.00;
Obligations: $1,936,000.00;
Unobligated balance: $114,199.00.
Total; $16,407,908.88.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
[A] Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
[B] Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of
1987.
[C] Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
[End of table]
(544086):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, Inactive
Obligations--Federal Highway Administration, Fl-2004-039 (Washington,
D.C., March 31, 2004).
