United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA HomeFeedback
Innovative Finance
an evaluation of the u.s. department of transportation state infrastructure bank pilot program

Appendix C: Federal-Aid Sources of SIB Capitalization Funds

As of February 28, 1997, the six States so far obligating funds to SIB capitalization had employed funding from five separate Federal-aid funding categories: Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP), NHS, Interstate Maintenance (IM), Minimum Allocation (MA), and the Surface Transportation Program (STP). Among these five categories, the NHS program has proven the most popular choice for SIB capitalization, with five of the six States obligating funds for this purpose. In dollar terms, however, States have relied most heavily on funding for the Interstate Maintenance program, which constitutes 30 percent of the total funds obligated to date for SIB capitalization. Exhibit C.1 displays the current SIB capitalization patterns across the six States that had obligated funds for SIB capitalization as of February 28, 1997.

Exhibit C.1: Obligations of ACAP, by Federal-Aid Highway Program, as of February 28, 1997

Dollars in thousands

IM

Bridge

NHS

STP

MA

Total

Arizona

5,167

-

3,471

-

2,445

11,082

Florida

13,000

-

7,000

-

-

20,000

Missouri

1,875

-

-

-

-

1,875

Ohio

1,000

8,000

1,000

10,000

-

20,000

Oregon

2,498

2,971

3,504

-

-

8,973

South Carolina

-

-

1,848

-

-

1,848

Texas

-

9,007

3,330

-

-

12,337

Total, by Program

23,540

19,978

20,152

10,000

2,445

76,115

Percent of Total

30%

26%

26%

13%

3%


Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration and relevant State DOTs.

This table reflects only obligations associated with ACAP declared in fiscal year 1996.

Most State officials note that they chose which categories to tap on the basis of the availability of reasonably large unobligated balances of apportioned funding in those categories. The presence of these balances indicated that there was sufficient "room" in the apportionment for that category to support additional obligations of associated funds. Most State officials report that there is little or no linkage between the Federal-aid highway categories usedto capitalize the SIBs and the highway projects ultimately expected to be supported by the SIB.


Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section

What's New | Related Links | The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) | Innovative Finance Home

FHWA Home | Feedback
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration