Chapter
How the Federal-Aid Highway Program Functions
Measuring the States’ Contributions
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DONOR-DONEE ISSUE
The Donor-Donee State Arguments
General Fund Transfers and the “User Pays” Principle
THE TRUST FUND SUFFICIENCY DILEMMA
ELEVATING THE DONORS AND PROTECTING THE DONEES: THE EQUITY BONUS PROGRAM
The State Percentage Guarantee
The Minimum Combined Allocation
Calculation of the FY2009 Equity Bonus Apportionment
Distribution of EB Funding
HOW THE DONOR-DONEE ISSUE IN SAFETEA REAUTHORIZATION MIGHT BE RESOLVED
Pass a Bill with No Equity Provision
“Living within the Trust Fund’s Means”
Integrate the Guaranteed Rate of Return into All Federal-Aid Highway Programs
Phase-in Increases in the Share Guarantee
Eliminate or Modify the “Hold Harmless” Provisions
Restrict the Program Scope of the EB
Modify the EB Calculation
Eliminate the Mass Transit Account
Eliminate the Highway Trust Fund
Extend the FY2009 Funding Level
APPENDIX A. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA; FY1983- FY1986)
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA; FY1987-FY1991)
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA; FY1992-FY1997)
Equity Adjustment Provisions
Reimbursement for Interstate Segments
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21; FY1998- FY2003)
Regional Conflict over Funding
TEA-21 Equity Provision Changes
Minimum 90.5% Share on Contributions
Minimum Guarantee Distribution
Interstate Maintenance Program
Surface Transportation Program
National Highway System Program
The Resolution of the TEA-21 Donor-Donee Debate
APPENDIX B. “SCOPE” ISSUES
The Impact of Scope on Earmarking
“Below the Line” Programs
“Above the Line” Programs
The Impact of Scope on Penalties
Chapter 2 HIGHWAY TRUST FUND: NEARLY ALL STATES RECEIVED MORE FUNDING THAN THEY CONTRIBUTED IN HIGHWAY TAXES SINCE 2005
RATE OF RETURN VARIES DEPENDING ON THE CALCULATION USED, BUT STATES RECEIVED MORE FUNDING FROM THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAN THEIR USERS CONTRIBUTED
States Received as Much or More Funding Than Their Highway Users Contributed
Rate of Return Varies, as Other Methods of Calculating State’s Rate of Return Provide Different Results
EQUITY BONUS PROVISIONS IN SAFETEA-LU ADDRESSED RATE OF RETURN AMONG STATES
ADDING GENERAL REVENUES INTO THE TRUST FUND AND OTHER CHALLENGES RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT RELYING ON STATES’ RATE-OF-RETURN TO DISTRIBUTE FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
APPENDIX I: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX II: FHWA ESTIMATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
APPENDIX III: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
End Notes for Appendix II
The Highway Trust Fund and Donor-Donee Debate over Distributions
( Transportation Issues, Policies and R&D )
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.