U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000

Skip to content
FacebookTwitter YouTube Flickr LinkedIn
U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Highway History

 

In 1998, with the Interstate System essentially complete, FHWA's Office of Engineering compiled information about development of the program. In making this information available to the public, we have not updated the material. All information is as of 1998 when the Office of Engineering compiled the report.

The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways

Part IV - Funding

Background

The following table shows annual and accumulated Interstate Construction fund authorizations from authorizing legislation. Starting with FY 1957, authorizations were contained in Section 108(b) of the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1956. Later authorizations were made in subsequent legislation by amending Section 108(b). The table does not reflect reductions to these authorizations due to rescissions or other similar legislation.

Annual Authorizations of Interstate Construction Funds
Fiscal YearAnnual AuthorizationAccumulated AuthorizationAuthorizing Legislation
19542525F.A. Hwy Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-413)
19552550F.A. Hwy Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-413)
1956175225F.A. Hwy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-350)
1957175
1,000
1,400		F.A. Hwy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-350)
F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627)
19581,7003,100F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627)
19592,2005,300F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381)
19602,5007,800F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381)
19611,8009,600F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
19622,20011,800F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627)
19632,40014,200F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
19642,60016,800F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
19652,70019,500F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
19662,80022,300F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
19673,00025,300P.L. 89-139
19683,40028,700F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574)
19693,80032,500F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574)
19704,00036,500F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495)
19714,00040,500F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495)
19724,00044,500F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495)
19734,00048,500F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495)
19742,60051,100F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
19753,00054,100F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
19763,00057,100F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
19773,25060,350F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
19783,25063,600F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
19793,25066,850F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
19803,25070,1001978 STAA (P.L. 95-599)
19813,50073,6001978 STAA (P.L. 95-599)
19823,50077,1001978 STAA (P.L. 95-599)
19833,10080,200F.A. Hwy Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-134)
19844,00084,2001982 STAA (P.L. 97-424)
19854,00088,2001982 STAA (P.L. 97-424)
19864,00092,2001982 STAA (P.L. 97-424)
19874,00096,2001982 STAA (P.L. 97-424)
19883,00099,2001987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
19893,150102,3501987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
19903,150105,5001987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
19913,150108,6501987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
19923,150111,8001987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
19931,800113,6001991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240)
19941,800115,4001991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240)
19951,800117,2001991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240)
19961,800119,0001991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240)


Annual Authorizations of Interstate Construction Funds Legislative History

FY 1954

-The F.A. Highway Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-413), in Section 2, authorized $25 million for FY 1954.

FY 1955

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-413), in Section 2, authorized $25 million for FY 1955.

FY 1956

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-350), in Section 2(a), authorized $175 million for FY 1956.

FY 1957

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-350), in Section 2(a), authorized $175 million for FY 1957.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized an additional $1,000 million
Total Authorization $1,175 million

FY 1958

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $1,700 million for FY 1958.

FY 1959

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,000 million for FY 1959.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381), in Sect. 7(a), increased the amount to $2,200 million.

FY 1960

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1960.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381), in Section 7(a), increased the amount to $2,500 million.

FY 1961

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1961.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381), in Section 7(a), increased the amount to $2,500 million.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, decreased the amount to $1,800 million.

FY 1962

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1962.

FY 1963

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1963.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,400 million.

FY 1964

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1964.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,600 million.

FY 1965

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1965.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,700 million.

FY 1966

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1966.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,800 million.

FY 1967

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1967.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,900 million.
-P.L. 89-139, in Section 1, increased the amount to $3,000 million.

FY 1968

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $1,500 million for FY 1968.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $3,000 million.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, increased the amount to $3,400 million.

FY 1969

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $1,025 million for FY 1969.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $3,000 million.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, increased the amount to $3,800 million.

FY 1970

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, authorized $3,000 million for FY 1970.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, increased the amount to $3,600 million.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, increased the amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1971

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, authorized $2,885 million for FY 1971.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, increased the amount to $3,600 million.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, increased the amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1972

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, authorized $2,885 million for FY 1972.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, decreased the amount to $2,685 million.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, increased the amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1973

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, authorized $4,000 million for FY 1973.

FY 1974

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, authorized $2,225 million for FY 1974.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605), in Section 102, increased the amount to $4,000 million.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, decreased the amount to $2,600 million.

FY 1975

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605), in Section 102, authorized $4,000 million for FY 1975.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, decreased the amount to $3,000 million.

FY 1976

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605), in Section 102, authorized $4,000 million for FY 1976.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, decreased the amount to $3,000 million.

FY 1977

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, authorized $3,250 million for FY 1977.

FY 1978

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, authorized $3,250 million for FY 1978.

FY 1979

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, authorized $3,250 million for FY 1979.

FY 1980

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1980.
-The 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599), in Section 102(a), decreased this amount to $3,250 million.

FY 1981

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1981.
-The 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599), in Section 102(a), decreased this amount to $3,500 million.

FY 1982

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1982.
-The 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599), in Section 102(a), decreased this amount to $3,500 million.

FY 1983

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1983.
-The 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599), in Section 102(a), decreased this amount to $3,200 million.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-134), in Sect. 4(a), decreased this amount to $3,100 million.

FY 1984

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1984.
-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-327), in Section 2, decreased this amount to $3,225 million.
-The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1985

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1985.
-The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1986

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1986.
-The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1987

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1987.
-The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1988

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1988.
-The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.
-The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, decreased this amount to $3,000 million.

FY 1989

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1989.
-The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.
-The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, decreased this amount to $3,150 million.

FY 1990

-The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1990.
-The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.
-The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, decreased this amount to $3,150 million.

FY 1991

-The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, authorized $3,150 million for FY 1991.

FY 1992

-The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, authorized $3,150 million for FY 1992.

FY 1993

-The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, authorized $1,400 million for FY 1993.
-The 1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240), in Section 1001(f), increased this amount to $1,800 million.

FY 1994

-The 1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240), in Section 1001(f), authorized $1,800 million for FY 1994

FY 1995

-The 1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240), in Section 1001(f), authorized $1,800 million for FY 1995

FY 1996

-The 1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240), in Section 1001(f), authorized $1,800 million for FY 1996

Basis for Apportioning Interstate Construction Funds

Background

In the first years of the Interstate Construction (IC) program (FY 1954 and FY 1955) Congress specified that IC funds be distributed to the States using the existing Federal-Aid Primary (FAP) program formula. For FY 1956 through 1959 Congress specified IC funds be apportioned one-half in the ratio of each State's population bears to total U.S. population and one-half based on the FAP formula.

In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Congress first called for preparation of an official Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE) and provided that IC funds would be apportioned thereafter to the States in the proportion of each State's share of the total cost of completing the Interstate System. Starting with the FY 1960 IC funds, the cost-to-complete factors developed in the ICE's were used for apportioning IC funds based on a series of 15 updated estimates. Prior to each IC apportionment, Congress would approve (in law) the ICE factors to be used for the next IC apportionment(s). This system worked satisfactorily until the later years of the program when IC funds were often apportioned late because Congress had not approved the latest ICE factors. The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) of 1987 addressed the problem and directed the Secretary to administratively adjust the latest ICE and make apportionments for FY 1988 through 1992, whenever Congress had not approved an ICE. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 continued the administrative adjustment process through the final apportionment for FY 1996.

One-Half Percent Minimum Apportionments

The IC funds authorized in the early years (FY 1954 through FY 1959) of the program were distributed to the States by formula based on the then existing formula for the Federal-Aid Primary program (FY 1954 and FY 1955) and in combination with population (FY 1956 through FY 1959). For FY 1957, FY 1958, and FY 1959, the 1956 Act provided for a minimum apportionment for the portion of the apportioned funds attributed to the population element in the formula.

There was no further provision for minimum apportionments until the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 which provided in Section 105(b)(1) that no State would receive less than one-half percent of the IC funds apportioned. This provision was used in apportioning IC funds for FY 1972 through FY 1992. The minimum apportionment provision was eliminated by the 1991 ISTEA.

Interstate Gap Closing Funds

Section 102(b)(1) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 provided that at least 30 percent of the IC apportionment made to each State for FY 1978 and FY 1979 must be expended by each State for the construction of intercity portions (including beltways) which would close essential gaps in the System. A State which did not have sufficient projects to meet the 30 percent requirement was exempted from the requirement upon approval of the Secretary.

The 30 percent requirement was not continued in subsequent legislation.

Interstate Discretionary (ID) Funds

Section 115(a) of the 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599) amended Section 118(b) of Title 23 providing that sums of IC funds not obligated within their availability period must be made available by the Secretary to any other State applying for the funds for use in completing the Interstate System.

Section 115(a) of the 1982 STAA modified 23 U.S.C. 118(b) by proving criteria for allocating ID funds (first to high-cost gap projects and second to projects of high cost in relation to a State's IC apportionment) and by providing the first setaside ($300 million annually) for the ID program.

The $300 million setaside was continued for each year through FY 1992. Section 1020(a) of the 1991 ISTEA reduced the setaside to $100 million annually for FY 1993 through FY 1996. The total ID funds from the set-aside provision totalled about $3.1 billion over the life of the program. Another $6.6 billion was distributed as ID funds as a result of lapses at the end of the availability period for IC funds, voluntary lapses (early) of IC funds, and IC fund apportionment declinations and turnbacks of unobligated IC funds.

As a result of these activities, approximately $9.8 billion has been allocated through the ID program to 41 States and Washington, D.C.

Massachusetts

As reported in the 1991 ICE, a major proportion (34%) of the remaining cost to complete the Interstate System nationally was attributed to the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel (CA/THT) project in Boston. In Section 1001(e) of the 1991 ISTEA, Congress removed Massachusetts from the ICE process and specified the amounts of IC funds to be apportioned to the State: $450 million for FY 1993, $800 million for FY 1994, $800 million for FY 1995, and $500 million for FY 1996.

Section 1020(a) of the 1991 ISTEA specified that Massachusetts would not be eligible for allocations of ID funds.

Basis for Annual Apportionments of Interstate Construction Funds
Fiscal YearAnnual Authorization ($Millions)Apportionment MethodAuthorizing Legislation
195425FAP FormulaSection 2, P.L. 82-413, F.A. Highway Act of 1952
195525FAP FormulaSection 2, P.L. 82-413, F.A Highway Act of 1952
1956175Population and FAP FormulaSection 2, P.L. 83-350, F.A Highway Act of 1954
1957175Population and FAP FormulaSection 2, P.L. 83-350, F.A Highway Act of 1954
1,000Section 108(c), P.L. 84-627, F.A. Hwy Act of 1956
19581,700Population and FAP FormulaSection 108(c), P.L. 84-627, F.A. Hwy Act of 1956
19592,200Population and FAP FormulaSection 108(c), P.L. 84-627, F.A. Hwy Act of 1956
19602,5001958 ICE, H.D. 300Section 8, P.L. 85-381, F.A. Hwy Act of 1958
19611,8001958 ICE, H.D. 300Section 103, P.L. 86-342, F.A. Hwy Act of 1959
19622,2001958 ICE, H.D. 300Section 103, P.L. 86-342, F.A. Hwy Act of 1959
19632,4001961 ICE, H.D. 49Section 102, P.L. 87-61, F.A. Hwy Act of 1961
19642,6001961 ICE, H.D. 49Section 102, P.L. 87-61, F.A. Hwy Act of 1961
19652,7001961 ICE, H.D. 49Section 102, P.L. 87-61, F.A. Hwy Act of 1961
19662,8001961 ICE, H.D. 49Section 102, P.L. 87-61, F.A. Hwy Act of 1961
19673,0001965 ICE, H.D. 42Section 2, P.L. 89-139, 1965 Act
19683,4001965 ICE, H.D. 42Section 3, P.L. 89-574, F.A. Hwy Act of 1966
19693,8001965 ICE, H.D. 42Section 3, P.L. 89-574, F.A. Hwy Act of 1966
19704,0001968 ICE, H.D. 199Section 3, P.L. 90-495, F.A. Hwy Act of 1968
19714,0001968 ICE, H.D. 199Section 3, P.L. 90-495, F.A. Hwy Act of 1968
19724,0001970 ICE, H.D. 91-317Section 103, P.L. 91-605, F.A. Hwy Act of 1970
19734,0001970 ICE, H.D. 91-317Section 103, P.L. 91-605, F.A. Hwy Act of 1970
19742,6001972 ICE, C.P. 92-29Section 103, P.L. 93-87, F.A. Hwy Act of 1973
19753,0001972 ICE, C.P. 92-29Section 103, P.L. 93-87, F.A. Hwy Act of 1973
19763,0001972 ICE, C.P. 92-29Section 103, P.L. 93-87, F.A. Hwy Act of 1973
19773,2501975 ICE, C.P. 94-14Senate Concurrent Resolution 62 Passed 12/16/75
19783,2501975 ICE (Rev), C.P. 94-38Section 103, P.L. 94-280, F.A. Hwy Act of 1976
19793,2501977 ICE (Rev), C.P. 95-16House Concurrent Resolution 282 Passed 9/30/77
19803,2501977 ICE (Rev), C.P. 95-49Section 103, P.L. 95-599, 1978 STAA
19813,5001979 ICE (Rev), C.P. 96-15Section 1, P.L. 96-144
19823,5001979 ICE (Rev), C.P. 96-15Section 1, P.L. 96-144
19833,1001981 ICE (Rev), C.P. 97-28Section 2, P.L. 97-134, F.A. Hwy Act of 1981
19844,0001981 ICE (Rev), C.P. 97-53Section 3, P.L. 97-327, F.A. Hwy Act of 1982
19854,0001983 ICE (Rev) C.P. 98-10One-half: Section 1, P.L. 98-229
1985 ICE (Rev) C.P. 99-2Remainder: Section 1(a), P.L. 99-4
19864,0001985 ICE (Rev) C.P. 99-2Section 1(b), P.L. 99-4
19874,0001985 ICE (Rev) C.P. 99-68Section 1, P.L. 99-104
19883,0001987 ICE (Rev) C.P. 100-5Section 102(a), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
19893,1501987 ICE (Admin Adjusted)Section 102(b)(2), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
19903,1501987 ICE (Admin Adjusted)Section 102(b)(2), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
19913,1501989 ICE (Admin Adjusted)Section 102(b)(2), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
19923,1501989 ICE (Admin Adjusted)Section 102(b)(2), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
19931,8001991 ICE (Admin Adjusted)Section 1001(d), P.L. 102-240, 1991 ISTEA
19941,8001991 ICE (Admin Adjusted)Section 1001(d), 1991 ISTEA
19951,8001991 ICE (Admin Adjusted)Section 1001(d), 1991 ISTEA
19961,8001991 ICE (Admin Adjusted)Section 1001(d), 1991 ISTEA

Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE) -- Apportionment Factors

Background

As discussed in Part III, a series of 15 Congressionally mandated estimates of the cost to complete the Interstate System were developed and reported to Congress between 1958 and 1991. Separate cost estimates were prepared by each State and the remaining cost was computed. Additional funding needs were developed taking into account remaining work and funds already available to fund the Federal share of cost of the remaining work.

Using these State estimates of additional total and Federal funding needed to complete the system, a set of apportionment factors was developed as a key element of each cost estimate report. These factors were subsequently approved by Congress and used, without adjustments, for Interstate Construction (IC) fund apportionments through FY 1975. For FY 1976 through FY 1988, Congress required the latest ICE be updated to reflect recent apportionments, allocations, lapses, withdrawals, etc. and approved an adjusted set of factors for IC apportionment use. For FY 1989 through FY 1996, Congress provided for an FHWA administrative adjustment to the latest ICE factors for use, without further Congressional approval, to apportion IC funds. In addition, for FY 1972 through FY 1992, the factors were adjusted to provide for a minimum ½% IC apportionment to each State. See Part III for additional details on the ICE process.

A table containing the unadjusted factors reported to Congress for each State from the 15 mandated estimates is on the following page.

Interstate Construction Apportionment Factors - from Interstate Cost Estimate Reports to Congress
States1958 ICE1961 ICE1965 ICE1968 ICE1970 ICE1972 ICE1975 ICE1977 ICE1979 ICE1981 ICERedefined
1981 ICE		1983 ICE1985 ICE 1987 ICE1989 ICE1991 ICE
Alabama1.972.092.181.951.882.072.422.542.032.342.893.312.964.883.980.72
Alaska                
Arizona1.371.421.551.551.872.042.782.231.561.561.391.971.811.09  
Arkansas0.991.060.790.630.490.760.670.500.510.500.27     
California10.169.669.797.757.056.535.206.538.5110.777.858.909.8813.0013.289.94
Colorado0.781.341.211.431.652.082.342.031.522.122.041.781.912.402.280.74
Connecticut1.221.432.121.852.622.913.482.762.623.232.373.182.323.564.390.61
Delaware0.350.380.180.250.220.16          
D. C.0.991.451.341.881.832.434.962.851.290.901.030.830.621.521.531.57
Florida2.592.102.211.762.563.173.403.024.674.345.756.968.326.253.641.02
Georgia2.411.861.442.031.882.502.722.153.854.173.324.443.552.702.041.92
Hawaii0.000.790.861.351.281.041.311.301.961.582.452.162.784.294.172.23
Idaho0.690.470.590.740.350.450.450.400.350.390.490.710.871.060.05 
Illinois5.135.275.745.656.744.954.295.374.321.931.550.840.530.33  
Indiana2.882.502.202.001.421.210.940.891.431.250.680.290.450.780.15 
Iowa0.951.281.221.051.241.071.121.301.260.951.190.130.02   
Kansas0.900.780.750.831.061.211.431.200.890.810.830.670.450.18  
Kentucky1.762.062.091.751.411.482.032.141.822.410.772.012.430.850.960.69
Louisiana2.642.922.542.483.043.043.863.053.233.625.804.555.654.922.840.55
Maine0.510.480.450.700.490.530.280.150.190.130.150.120.06   
Maryland2.251.851.632.063.303.844.353.974.986.137.076.592.774.385.174.21
Massachusetts2.792.162.182.583.523.120.053.181.822.143.292.184.117.7829.1634.10
Michigan3.933.942.984.203.773.592.812.552.432.201.781.862.202.171.311.03
Minnesota1.892.612.332.251.812.332.542.211.922.172.382.332.722.880.930.94
Mississippi1.101.231.101.060.850.900.750.960.720.710.240.210.330.14  
Missouri2.852.582.431.992.041.921.802.011.751.571.050.600.280.17  
Montana1.140.951.021.941.161.030.970.810.750.400.530.480.320.17  
Nebraska0.620.590.570.430.250.150.050.180.18       
Nevada0.520.510.630.640.410.490.530.880.870.590.600.560.280.01  
New Hampshire0.550.450.480.570.460.440.700.400.280.260.330.330.240.24  
New Jersey3.242.632.642.882.622.832.822.172.842.703.793.823.804.225.405.72
New Mexico1.201.011.201.060.910.930.940.961.430.690.370.190.131.00E-03  
New York4.954.795.114.927.093.863.705.104.514.475.596.769.300.450.78 
North Carolina0.540.830.921.341.731.832.141.941.861.500.891.141.462.121.591.48
North Dakota0.440.450.470.620.240.160.01         
Ohio6.516.896.194.393.203.082.873.182.411.941.771.911.181.301.430.99
Oklahoma0.911.221.050.770.730.730.430.720.580.840.760.740.620.490.24 
Oregon1.731.751.762.202.232.552.821.741.230.901.160.750.810.830.991.21
Pennsylvania4.084.524.845.184.974.934.115.215.354.725.326.545.147.934.9311.94
Rhode Island0.470.370.560.531.050.900.600.921.231.392.210.190.02   
South Carolina0.820.870.651.110.720.830.701.011.291.431.401.281.431.080.370.64
South Dakota0.420.660.910.590.480.360.210.170.240.120.06     
Tennessee2.972.552.182.501.201.392.401.992.172.301.540.640.440.400.340.15
Texas4.524.575.045.044.014.604.415.054.665.844.545.255.665.473.622.13
Utah0.941.461.531.461.391.171.201.101.561.251.712.132.081.790.13 
Vermont0.940.700.720.720.530.380.380.170.070.030.04     
Virginia4.243.073.112.422.594.365.094.083.533.533.754.054.522.971.114.74
Washington1.812.112.432.962.993.603.283.113.724.153.584.454.874.723.186.12
West Virginia1.251.522.302.493.062.312.322.252.041.812.822.130.670.50  
Wisconsin1.050.890.840.900.921.170.930.980.790.840.380.039.00E-03  4.63
Wyoming1.040.970.990.600.720.570.420.630.810.440.24     
TOTALS100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00
ZERO STATES(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)(3)(3)(4)(4)(8)(8) (12) (22) (26)

Deferral of Interstate Construction Fund Apportionments

Legislative History

Section 102(b) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-17) provided for the Secretary to administratively adjust the Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE) prior to making Interstate Construction (IC) fund apportionments to reflect credits, apportionments, allocations, lapses, withdrawals, transfers, etc. The section also included the following sentence:

If, before apportionment of funds under this subparagraph for any fiscal year, the Secretary and a State highway department agree that a portion of the apportionment to such State is not needed for such fiscal year, the amount of such portion shall be made available under Section 118(b)(2) of this title.

Under this provision a State could indicate it wished to decline receipt of part or all of an IC apportionment. The declination of the IC apportionment was actually a deferral since the amount of IC apportionment not received would be administratively taken into account in subsequent computations of IC apportionment factors. Each affected State would recover the declined apportionment in later years.

Actual Deferrals

There were only three instances of States declining (deferring) IC apportionments:

Massachusetts only accepted a portion of their FY 1990 apportionment and deferred receipt of $350 million. The deferral was presumably the result of top FHWA management discussions with Massachusetts during which the State's inability at that time to obligate IC funds was discussed. As a result of the deferral Massachusetts later received larger IC apportionments at a time when they could be used for the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. To have accepted the full apportionment would have left the State in the future with hugh IC unobligated balances without the obligation authority to use them.

In FY 1996, Florida ($31.6 million) and Kentucky ($10.4 million) declined receipt of their final IC apportionment because they did not need the funds to complete their Interstate Systems. While there were no further IC apportionments to afford an opportunity to recover the funds, both States subsequently received a greater share of equity adjustment funds offsetting much of the declined IC apportionment.

Minimum Apportionments of Interstate Construction Funds

Legislative History

Interstate Construction (IC) funds authorized in the early years (FY 1954 through FY 1959) of the program were distributed to the States by formula based on the then existing formula for the Federal-Aid Primary program (FY 1954 and FY 1955) and in combination with population (FY 1956 through FY 1959). As described below the 1956 Act first provided for a minimum apportionment for part of the apportioned funds for FY 1957, FY 1958, and FY 1959.

There was no further provision for minimum apportionments until the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 which provided in Section 105(b)(1) that no State would receive less than one-half percent of the IC funds apportioned. This provision and similar ones that followed were used in apportioning funds from FY 1972 through FY 1992, except for FY 1977. Minimum apportionments were eliminated by the 1991 ISTEA.

FY 1977

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 provided for 1/2% minimum IC apportionments for FY 1974, 1975, and 1976. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 provided for 1/2% minimum apportionments for FY 1978 and 1979.

FHWA could not release the FY 1977 IC apportionment, scheduled for October 1, 1975, until Congress approved the apportionment factors contained in the 1975 Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE). On December 16, 1975, in the absence of legislation approving the ICE factors, Senate Resolution 62 was concurred in by the House of Representatives, and directed the Secretary to use the 1975 ICE factors for the 1977 apportionment. Since the factors did not take into account the 1/2% minimum apportionment, there was no minimum apportionment for that year.

A summary of the legislative provisions concerning minimum IC apportionments is included in the following table:

Alaska

Since there were no Interstate routes originally designated in Alaska, the State did not share in the 1/2% minimum IC apportionments until enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976. Section 105(b)(1) of the act provided for the inclusion of Alaska in the FY 1978 apportionments and they continued to receive minimum IC apportionments through FY 1992.

Minimum Apportionments of Interstate Construction Funds

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 -- P.L. 84-627 -- Section 108(c)

For FY 1957, FY 1958, and FY 1959, provided that IC funds shall be apportioned among the States in the following manner: (1) one-half in the ratio of the population of each State bears to the total population of all States and provided that no State shall receive less than 3/4% of the IC funds so apportioned; and (2) one-half in the manner funds are apportioned for the Federal-Aid Primary System.

In effect for these 3 years each State received at least 3/8% apportionment.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 -- P.L. 91-605 -- Section 105(b)(1)

For FY 1972 and FY 1973, provided that no State shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. In addition to other authorizations, the section authorized $55 million for both fiscal years.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 -- P.L. 93-87 -- Section 104(b)

For FY 1974, FY 1975, and FY 1976, provided that no State shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. In addition to other authorizations, the section authorized $50 million for each such fiscal year. For the first time, the 1/2% provision recognized that the minimum apportionment may be in excess of funding needed to complete the system in a State and provided that the excess amounts could be transferred to certain other Title 23 accounts in the State.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 -- P.L. 94-280 -- Section 105(b)(1)

For FY 1978 and FY 1979, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. In addition to other authorizations, the section authorized $91 million for FY 1978 and $125 million for FY 1979.

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 -- P.L. 95-599 -- Section 104(b)(1)

For FY 1980, FY 1981, FY 1982, and FY 1983, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. In addition to other authorizations, the section authorized $125 million for each of the 4 years.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1982 -- P.L. 97-327 -- Section 4(b)

For FY 1984, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. The act, and subsequent acts, did not contain additional authorizations to fund the minimum apportionments as they would be a part of the total IC authorization.

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 -- P.L. 97-424 -- Section 103(c)

For FY 1984, FY 1985, FY 1986, and FY 1987, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned.

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 -- P.L. 100-17 -- Section 102(c)

For fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1987, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. Amended by the 1991 ISTEA (see below), the provision actually applied to IC funds apportioned for FY 1988, FY 1989, FY 1990, FY 1991, and FY 1992.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 -- P.L. 102-240 -- Section 102(h)

Amended Section 102(c) of the 1987 STURAA by terminating the minimum apportionment provision for fiscal years ending before October 1, 1991.

One-Half Percent Minimum Apportionments of Interstate Construction Funds for FY 1972 - 1992
($Millions of Dollars)
 FY 1972FY 1973FY 1974FY 1975FY 1976FY 1977FY 1978FY 1979FY 1980FY 1981FY 1982FY 1983FY 1984FY 1985FY 1986FY 1987FY 1988FY 1989FY 1990FY 1991FY 1992Total
FY 72-92
Alabama---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Alaska------------------15.615.615.616.816.814.917.717.917.917.912.913.713.713.513.6234.0
Arizona------------------------------------------------------13.713.513.640.7
Arkansas0.30.3------------------0.0------8.410.013.217.917.912.913.713.713.513.6135.3
California---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Colorado---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Connecticut---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Delaware11.011.08.49.89.7---15.615.615.616.816.814.917.717.917.917.912.913.713.713.513.6283.9
District of Columbia---------------------------------------3.24.7------------------7.9
Florida---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Georgia---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Hawaii---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Idaho5.75.71.31.51.5---2.13.13.24.74.72.32.70.7---------------10.411.961.5
Illinois------------------------------------------------8.410.613.713.413.659.6
Indiana---------------------------------5.36.36.17.22.9------2.09.313.652.6
Iowa---------------------------------1.01.37.213.817.912.913.713.713.513.6108.6
Kansas---------------------------------------0.10.33.111.813.713.713.513.669.6
Kentucky---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Louisiana---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Maine0.40.4---------7.310.88.310.210.210.212.112.914.317.912.913.713.713.513.6182.1
Maryland------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Michigan--------------- N---------------------------------------------0.0
Minnesota--------------- O---------------------------------------------0.0
Mississippi--------------- N---------------2.52.55.511.18.69.412.413.713.513.692.7
Missouri--------------- E---------------------1.12.510.710.313.713.713.513.678.8
Montana------------------------------0.50.64.35.68.78.711.413.713.513.680.4
Nebraska9.59.58.610.110.014.29.99.910.510.514.917.717.917.917.912.913.713.713.513.6256.2
Nevada3.43.40.20.20.2------------------0.30.44.84.210.712.613.713.713.513.694.7
New Hampshire1.71.71.41.71.7------3.03.17.07.06.47.77.17.512.87.09.312.413.513.6125.4
New Jersey---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
New Mexico---------------------------------5.76.88.211.317.912.913.713.713.513.6117.2
New York------------------------------------------------1.72.513.7---4.122.0
North Carolina---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
North Dakota10.010.08.49.89.7---15.315.615.616.816.814.917.717.917.917.912.913.713.713.513.6281.7
Ohio---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Oklahoma------------------2.92.9------------------------0.71.21.66.810.426.5
Oregon---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Pennsylvania---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Rhode Island---------------------------------------13.117.917.912.913.713.713.513.6116.3
South Carolina---------------------------------------------------------3.44.68.0
South Dakota0.80.83.44.03.9---9.39.310.48.48.413.616.217.017.917.912.913.713.713.513.6208.7
Tennessee---------------------------------------0.91.93.54.15.67.54.16.333.9
Texas---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Utah---------------------------------------------------------10.013.623.6
Vermont------2.62.62.6---4.310.310.314.314.314.016.617.217.917.912.913.713.713.513.6212.3
Virginia---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
Washington---------------------------------------------------------------0.0
West Virginia---------------------------------------------4.510.012.613.713.513.667.8
Wisconsin---------------------------------------6.915.317.912.913.713.713.513.6107.4
Wyoming------------------3.4------------9.110.913.717.917.912.913.713.713.513.6140.3
Totals42.842.834.439.739.30.089.896.092.2105.5105.5138.8164.9215.0261.0298.5252.9284.0323.7340.0362.83329.4

Interstate Discretionary (ID) Funds

Legislative History

In an effort to accelerate completion of the Interstate System and target funds to States which could meet an accelerated schedule, the ID program was established. The ID funds may be used for the same purposes as Interstate Construction (IC) funds, that is for work to complete the Interstate System eligible under the provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-134) and included in the 1981 Interstate Cost Estimate.

Section 115(a) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1978 (P.L. 95-599) amended Section 118(b) of Title 23 providing that sums of IC funds not obligated within their availability period must be made available by the Secretary to any other State applying for the funds for use in completing the Interstate System. Funds were allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis to States that had obligated all their IC apportionment.

Section 115(a) of the 1982 STAA modified 23 U.S.C. 118(b) by providing criteria for allocating ID funds (first to high-cost gap projects and second to projects of high cost in relation to a State's IC apportionment), and by providing the first setaside ($300 million annually for fiscal years starting after September 30, 1983) for the ID program.

Section 114(a) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act (STURAA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-17) retained the $300 million setaside which continued for each year through FY 1992. Section 149 provided for a takedown from several discretionary programs, including ID, to fund demonstration and priority projects. The takedown applied to ID allocations for FY 1987 through 1991 and amounted to about $40 million per year. The act also refined the priorities for allocating ID funds as follows:

  • First, for high cost projects on gap sections, and high cost projects for construction of high occupancy vehicle and other lanes on the Harbor Freeway (I-110) in Los Angeles, CA.
  • Second, for high cost projects in relation to a State's apportionment of IC funds.
  • Third, for conversion of advance construction Interstate (ACI) projects.

Section 1020(a) of the 1991 ISTEA reduced the setaside to $100 million annually for FY 1993 through FY 1996 and eliminated the priorities previously used in allocating ID funds.

ID Allocations

The total ID funds from the setaside provision totalled about $3.1 billion over the life of the program. Another $6.7 billion was distributed as ID funds as a result of lapses at the end of the availability period for IC funds, voluntary early lapses of IC funds, declinations of IC fund apportionments and turnbacks of unobligated IC funds not subject to lapse.

Through FY 1997, under the ID program approximately $9.8 billion has been allocated to 41 States and Washington, D.C.

  • Largest Annual Allocated Amount - FY 1988 - $1.47 billion to 14 States.
  • 2nd Largest Annual Allocated Amount - FY 1979 - $1.39 billion to 20 States.
  • Most funds allocated to 1 State in 1 year - FY 1988 - $266.5 million to California.
  • 2nd Most funds allocated to 1 State in 1 year - FY 1994 - $259.6 million to Washington.
  • Most funds allocated to 1 State - FY 1979-1997 - $794.6 million to Washington.
  • 2nd Most funds allocated to 1 State - FY 1979-1997 - $728.1 million to Florida.

As of 9/30/97 approximately $63.4 million remains available for allocation to the States.

Net allocations by year and State are shown in the following table:

Interstate Discretionary (ID) Fund Allocations for FY 1979 - 1997
($Millions of Dollars)
 FY 1979FY 1980FY 1981FY 1982FY 1983FY 1984FY 1985FY 1986FY 1987FY 1988FY 1989FY 1990FY 1991FY 1992FY 1993FY 1994FY 1995FY 1996FY 1997Total
FY 79-97
Alabama59.5---------73.812.613.4---(1.4)125.4(3.0)---------(4.8)(0.5)---(0.3)---274.7
Arizona------------29.165.1---163.141.370.8---------(2.1)0.3(3.0)---------364.6
Arkansas8.8---------------------(0.1)------------------------------8.7
California------------------------59.9266.5------------------26.6------353.0
Colorado---------6.9------14.2---------93.323.333.513.79.922.8---------217.6
Connecticut------------------------87.0105.7---9.167.213.5---------(1.2)(1.8)279.5
District of Columbia------------------------------------------------4.2------4.2
Florida223.8129.884.87.590.020.323.574.6------92.9(2.8)(1.5)(4.2)(0.3)(10.2)(0.0)---(0.2)728.1
Georgia115.518.1150.918.258.8---(27.4)15.6------(0.5)---------10.5------------359.7
Hawaii------------------------------88.595.653.099.6184.4161.1------7.5689.7
Idaho---------------------------55.752.9(7.6)---------(1.8)---------99.2
Illinois---------------53.332.430.317.8---(0.8)---(1.0)---------(1.4)------130.6
Indiana48.0---(1.5)(0.4)0.3(1.0)------37.7(3.2)(0.0)(0.9)(1.3)---------------(0.0)77.6
Iowa11.4------4.016.57.2---(0.6)---------------------------------38.5
Kansas---31.428.41.99.328.412.441.019.4(3.5)(0.1)------(0.2)---------(0.1)---168.3
Kentucky12.234.611.61.2------(0.5)---------(2.1)------------------------57.0
Louisiana------------------------------------------14.216.313.62.4---46.4
Maryland---100.7---9.7(0.9)------------76.4(0.5)104.3---(5.7)---37.166.2------387.3
Michigan------------------33.145.145.211.763.74.5------1.123.650.50.00.0278.6
Minnesota---------5.634.638.314.631.844.578.2101.013.89.58.181.9(3.1)(0.1)---5.4463.9
Mississippi7.3---(1.5)(0.2)---4.0---------------------------------------9.6
Missouri126.3---20.98.539.119.411.814.35.1(0.6)(0.9)---------(0.0)---------(1.7)242.1
Montana101.314.4---9.333.8---4.6------(0.4)(0.3)------------------------162.7
Nevada46.0---14.616.350.1---22.0---------(1.5)(0.5)---(0.0)------(0.7)------146.2
New Hampshire---------------3.19.0------------------------------------12.1
New Jersey------------------23.0------182.0(1.5)---55.5------(11.1)17.4------265.3
New Mexico15.7(0.3)---0.3---------------------------------------------15.7
New York---------------------------45.328.217.272.2------0.38.2------171.4
North Carolina58.3(0.7)---------(0.8)15.4---32.0(0.7)104.8(1.1)---------------------207.2
Ohio------------------32.3------------------------(1.4)---------30.9
Oklahoma------8.19.4------4.032.8---------------------------------54.3
Oregon------------------------11.9---0.0------(0.6)---(0.1)0.0------11.2
Pennsylvania---------------10.831.4---164.2233.3---------------90.741.1------571.5
South Carolina21.7(0.7)---(0.1)(0.6)---5.844.632.3------(1.3)42.629.2(0.0)85.2---------258.7
Tennessee118.0(0.5)19.05.731.019.022.2---6.1---------------------(0.1)------220.4
Texas93.557.38.158.6(1.5)18.935.6(2.3)(0.5)---(1.9)(0.7)(0.2)(0.1)(0.1)(0.0)5.7------270.4
Utah86.30.114.316.419.318.825.1---29.074.47.8------------------------291.5
Vermont------------------------------------------0.9------------0.9
Virginia70.7(0.1)(0.1)0.59.645.053.1132.414.2116.734.518.7---(1.9)0.087.47.9------588.6
Washington---------22.1---34.940.4157.0(16.4)36.3236.139.535.9(49.0)---259.60.0------796.4
West Virginia161.8106.5------99.020.528.8---47.1---(12.9)(1.4)(0.2)(0.1)---------------449.1
Wyoming2.0------2.3------(0.1)------------------------------------4.2
Totals1,388.1490.6357.6203.7591.3417.8480.1779.7676.41,470.0877.6309.6365.3100.0297.9753.0239.10.99.29,807.9
Footnotes:
  • The 1978 STAA created the Interstate Discretionary Program by making available to other States Interstate apportionments not obligated in any State within the prescribed period.
  • The 1982 STM supplemented the funds for this program by setting aside $300 million from annual apportionments of IC funds beginning in FY 1984.
  • The 1987 STURAA continued the $300 million setaside.
  • The 1991 ISTEA reduced the funds setaside to $100 million for each of FY 1992-1995, the final authorizations for this program.

"Double Dipping"

Background

One of the more controversial situations involving funding for construction of the Interstate System resulted from enactment of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-17). In effect, Section 102(b) of that act allowed States to voluntarily lapse Interstate Construction (IC) funds a year early, retain the obligation authority that originally accompanied the IC apportionment, and then recover the funds with new obligation authority through the Interstate Discretionary (ID) program. This created a "double dip" obligation authority windfall for certain States.

Section 114(a)

Section 114(a) of the STURAA amended 23 U.S.C. 118(b)(2)(A) as follows:

(i) APPORTIONMENTS BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 1989 - Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, sums apportioned before October 1, 1989, for the Interstate System in any State shall remain available for expenditure in the State until the end of the fiscal year for which authorized. Upon request of the State, the Secretary shall reduce the period of availability of such sums by one fiscal year.
(ii) APPORTIONMENTS THEREAFTER - Sums apportioned on or after October 1, 1989, for the Interstate System shall remain available for expenditure in the State until expended.

As a result States could voluntarily lapse unobligated IC funds after one year of availability rather than the customary two-year period. This provision only applied to:

  • IC funds apportioned on 4/2/87 upon passage of the STURAA that would lapse on 9/30/88 and were unobligated,
  • IC funds scheduled for apportionment on 10/1/87 that would normally lapse if unobligated at the end of their availability period on 9/30/89.
  • IC funds scheduled for apportionment on 10/1/88 that would normally lapse if unobligated at the end of their availability period on 9/30/90.

The IC funds voluntarily lapsed were redistributed under the ID program.

The Impact of Section 114(a)

As a result of these provisions the ID program received a huge influx of funds. On 10/1/87, 9 States voluntarily lapsed over $1.1 billion. On 10/1/88, an additional 5 States voluntarily lapsed $313 million. Finally, on 10/1/89, 2 States voluntarily lapsed $23 million.

The strategy for the lapses became readily apparent. In the first year, several States intended to voluntarily lapse their entire IC unobligated balance on 10/1/87 after having used their full FY 1987 obligation authority for other Federal-aid program categories. The States then could meet one of the criteria for receiving ID allocations - have fully obligated their apportioned IC funds - and be eligible to request ID funds for FY 1988. Of course, the FY 1988 ID allocations would be accompanied by new obligation authority, creating a "double dip" for such States in the obligation authority pool.

FHWA realized the potential for the double dip and issued a 7/9/87 notice which indicated that States which voluntarily lapsed IC funds a year early on 10/1/87 pursuant to Section 102(b), would be denied ID allocations in FY 1988. However, on 8/18/87, Congressman Glenn Anderson (California), Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, wrote FHWA Administrator Barnhart that this was not the intent of the legislation. The chairman indicated the provision was intended to enhance the ability of States which had a large backlog of unobligated IC funds to accelerate completion of the Interstate System by requesting ID allocations. On 8/27/87, the administrator wrote the chairman and acknowledged that the chairman's arguments were compelling. Also on 8/27/87, FHWA issued a new notice providing full flexibility to the States to take advantage of the IC voluntary lapse and then receive ID allocations in FY 1988.

Those States which took advantage of the of the 10/1/87 IC fund early lapse and received FY 1988 ID funds, found themselves at the end of FY 1988 with a zero balance of IC funds since all IC funds had to be fully obligated in order to receive ID funds. Thus, the "double dip" was not repeated by the same States in the following years.

Several States and members of Congress took FHWA to task for the unfairness of the double dip. But, no contrary action was ever taken and the matter ran its course over the 3-year period, 1987 to 1989. And the provision did speed completion of the Interstate System in participating States. An analysis of the table on the next page shows:

  • 12 States received ID allocations after voluntarily lapsing their unobligated IC funds.
  • The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Ohio voluntarily lapsed unobligated IC funds but did not subsequently seek ID allocations.
  • Over $1.4 billion was voluntarily lapsed under Section 102(b) and redistributed under the ID program. This accounted for half of the $2.8 billion distributed under the ID program for the FY 1988-1990 period.
  • The "double dipping" drained about $1,242 million in obligation authority from other Federal-aid programs to accompany the lapsed funds redistributed as ID allocations.
  • Section 102(b) did accelerate completion of the Interstate System in the 12 participating States by allocating to them ID funds with new obligation authority while requiring they fully obligate apportioned IC funds in the same year they received ID allocations. Conversely, the provision may have slowed Interstate completion in certain other States by limiting the amount of obligation authority received, especially in FY 1988.
"Double Dipping" -- FY 1988 - FY 1990
States Using the Provision of Section 102(b) of the 1987 STURAA
(Federal Funds, in $Thousands)
StateFirst YearSecond YearThird YearTotals
Voluntary Lapse 10/1/87FY 1988 ID AllocationsVoluntary Lapse 10/1/88FY 1989 ID AllocationsVoluntary Lapse 10/1/89FY 1990 ID AllocationsVoluntary LapsesID Allocations
Alabama88,262125,535000088,262125,535
California281,375266,5150000281,375266,515
Colorado0055,69393,446025,49855,693118,944
Dist of Columbia34,2570000034,2570
Florida00115,35394,81500115,35394,815
Hawaii0094,43688,534095,58894,436184,122
Idaho23,94757,725058,1850023,947115,910
Maryland66,01376,434000104,25166,013180,685
Massachusetts361,81600000361,8160
New Jersey94,928182,000022,0000094,928204,000
Ohio0030,365019,342049,7070
Oregon0017,67517,9693,948021,62317,969
Pennsylvania120,617233,2850000120,617233,285
Washington40,63837,6000238,000070,30040,638345,900
Other States0511,6610352,189070,7340934,584
Totals1,111,8551,490,756313,522965,13823,290366,3701,448,6672,822,264
Footnote:
  • 12 States voluntarily lapsed IC funds and subsequently received ID allocations.
  • The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Ohio voluntarily lapsed IC funds but did not seek ID allocations.

Transfers of Interstate Construction Funds In Accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119(d)

  • Section 116(c) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 (P.L. 97-424) added Section 119(d) to Title 23 which provided that the Secretary could approve a State transfer of not more than 50% of its Interstate Construction (IC) fund apportionment to the Interstate Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction (I-4R) account in an amount not to exceed the Federal share of cost of remaining work, on sections open-to-traffic, and eligible for IC funding as included in the most recent Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE). Upon approval of the transfer, the work represented by the transfer is removed from the ICE and loses its IC fund eligibility.
  • Section 116 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-17) modified Section 119(d) to remove the 50% limitation and permitted the IC funds to be transferred to the Federal-Aid Primary (FAP) account in addition to I-4R.
  • As a result of revisions to fund categories included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, IC funds could thereafter be transferred to the Interstate Maintenance (IM) or National Highway System (NHS) accounts.
  • Through 4/1/98, a total of 44 transfers have been approved in 19 States. As a result, the total cost of the Interstate System as reported in the Interstate Cost Estimate has been reduced by $1,350,616,016 and IC funds representing 90 percent of this amount and totalling $1,217,219,756 have been transferred to I-4R, FAP, IM, or NHS.
Transfers of Interstate Construction Funds to I-4R, FAP, IM & NHS In Accordance With 23 U.S.C. 119(d)
StateTotal FundsFederal FundsDate ApprovedFunds Transferred ToDescription of Work Transferred
Georgia38,005,00034,204,5004/27/92NHSI-75 and I-95 stage paving
22,726,00020,453,3146/30/93NHSAll remaining work on I-575, portion of I-285
15,173,00013,655,0578/11/94NHSAll remaining work on I-85, portion of I-185 & I-285
817,306735,5729/29/94NHSPortion of I-185
12,629,69411,366,7254/28/95NHSAll remaining work on I-185
89,351,00080,415,168 Georgia Totals
Illinois17,137,00015,423,3007/08/83I-4RInterchanges, stage paving & lighting - various routes
8,220,0007,398,0004/14/90I-4RAll remaining eligible work in Illinois
25,357,00022,821,300 Illinois Totals
Indiana9,744,0008,770,0008/02/83I-4RAll remaining work on I-64
Louisiana24,156,00021,740,0004/01/98NHSI-310 work at milepost 9.18
Maryland3,216,0002,894,4009/12/83I-4RNoise walls on I-170 (renumbered as I-595)
9,840,0008,856,0004/14/86I-4RAll remaining work on I-70
29,774,00026,796,0009/16/93NHSI-195 at BWI Airport & part of I-68 at MD 2 & MD 450
106,143,00095,529,0007/30/95NHSMisc work on I-68, I-70, I-97, I-195, I-270 and I-395
148,973,000134,075,400 Maryland Totals
Mississippi9,073,0008,165,7004/28/92I-4RAll remaining work in Mississippi
Missouri7,821,1007,039,0007/20/87FAPMisc work on I-44, I-55, I-70 and I-270
New Hampshire5,437,0004,893,30012/10/87FAPOverlays, interchange & landscaping on I-89 and I-93
16,937,00015,243,3006/14/88FAPI-93 interchange at Tilton, Exit 21
22,374,00020,136,600 New Hampshire Totals
New York23,107,00020,798,0009/13/83I-4RI-190 interchange at Buffalo & I-684/138 interchange
North Carolina58,823,11652,940,8047/31/89I-4RI-85 added lanes, Greensboro to Graham
 11,539,00010,385,1002/19/91I-4RI-85 added lanes, east of Greensboro
 13,635,00012,272,0006/24/91I-4RI-85 added lanes west of Charlotte & east of Greensboro
 6,400,0005,760,0009/06/91I-4RI-85 added lanes east of Gastonia
 36,240,00032,616,00011/01/91I-4RI-85 added lanes at Gastonia, Charlotte & Burlington
 12,653,00011,388,0006/11/92I-4RI-85 added lanes at Greensboro
 139,290,116125,361,904North Carolina Totals
Oklahoma8,276,0007,448,2208/16/89I-4RI-35 added lanes at Oklahoma City, MP 125 - 126
 6,539,0005,885,4448/17/90I-4RI-35 added lanes at Oklahoma City, MP 123 - 125
 8,889,0008,000,00012/11/92IMI-35 added lanes at Oklahoma City, MP 119.33 - 120
 23,704,00021,333,664Oklahoma Totals
Oregon9,855,0009,088,2814/09/91I-4RPE, R/W & Utilities on I-84, MP 14.04 - 15.61
 16,298,00015,030,0005/06/92IM, NHSPortion of I-5 E Marquam-Grand Ave Ramp
 36,008,80033,207,3158/10/95NHSRemainder of I-5 E Marquam Interchange & I-84, MP 14.04-15.61
 62,161,80057,325,596Oregon Totals
Pennsylvania179,557,000161,601,1419/02/83I-4RI-70, portions of MP 25.60 - 54.50
 44,033,00039,629,7009/28/84I-4RI-76, portions of MP 332.5 and 338.3
 125,012,000112,510,8005/07/85I-4RI-76, remainder of cost at MP 332.5 and 338.3
 68,435,00061,591,5009/30/85I-4RI-70, MP 25.6 and 47.4
 107,351,00096,615,9001/14/86I-4RI-70, all of MP 38.4 to 43.2 and portion of MP 43.2 and 43.8
 13,007,00011,706,3005/06/88I-4R???
 537,395,000483,655,341 Pennsylvania Totals
Rhode Island6,745,0006,070,5006/08/93IMAll remaining work on I-295
Tennessee4,844,0004,358,7476/29/93IMI-40 interchange ramps A and F at MP 0.51
 8,263,0007,435,9447/30/95IMAdditional work in I-40, MP 0.51 & 379.35
 13,107,00011,794,691Tennessee Totals
Texas96,516,00086,864,40011/12/91FAPVarious segments on I-10 and I-40
Virginia47,381,00042,642,9008/10/95NHSInterchs I-81 MP 147.09 & 236.69 & I-295 MP 3.53, 11.76, 24.69
Washington30,698,00027,831,0007/24/97NHSI-405, portion of work at MP 166.34
 12,685,00011,500,0009/30/97NHSI-405, portion of work at MP 158.81
 43,383,00039,331,000Washington Totals
Wisconsin20,977,00018,878,5915/25/83I-4RMisc work on I-43 and I-894
Totals$1,350,616,016$1,217,219,756   
INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION FUND TRANSFERS TO I-4R, FAP, 1M & NHS
Sorted by Approval Date
#StateTotal Costs from ICETransferred Amount Federal FundsDate Approved
1Wisconsin20,977,00018,878,5915/25/83
2Illinois17,137,00015,423,3007/08/83
3Indiana9,744,0008,770,0008/02/83
4Pennsylvania179,557,000161,601,1419/02/83
5Maryland3,216,0002,894,4009/12/83
6New York23,107,00020,798,0009/13/83
7Pennsylvania44,033,00039,629,7009/28/84
8Pennsylvania125,012,000112,510,8005/07/85
9Pennsylvania68,435,00061,591,5009/30/85
10Pennsylvania107,351,00096,615,9001/14/86
11Maryland9,840,0008,856,0004/14/86
12Missouri7,821,1007,039,0007/20/87
13New Hampshire5,437,0004,893,30012/10/87
14Pennsylvania13,007,00011,706,3005/06/88
15New Hampshire16,937,00015,243,3006/14/88
16North Carolina58,823,11652,940,8047/31/89
17Oklahoma8,276,0007,448,2208/16/89
18Illinois8,220,0007,398,0004/14/90
19Oklahoma6,539,0005,885,4448/17/90
20North Carolina11,539,00010,385,1002/19/91
21Oregon9,855,0009,088,2814/09/91
22North Carolina13,635,00012,272,0006/24/91
23North Carolina6,400,0005,760,0009/06/91
24North Carolina36,240,00032,616,00011/01/91
25Texas96,516,00086,864,40011/12/91
26Georgia38,005,00034,204,5004/27/92
27Mississippi9,073,0008,165,7004/28/92
28Oregon16,298,00015,030,0005/06/92
29North Carolina12,653,00011,388,0006/11/92
30Oklahoma8,889,0008,000,00012/11/92
31Rhode Island6,745,0006,070,5006/08/93
32Tennessee4,844,0004,358,7476/29/93
33Georgia22,726,00020,453,3146/30/93
34Maryland29,774,00026,796,0009/16/93
35Georgia15,173,00013,655,0578/11/94
36Georgia817,306735,5729/29/94
37Georgia12,629,69411,366,7254/28/95
38Maryland106,143,00095,529,0007/30/95
39Tennessee8,263,0007,435,9447/30/95
40Oregon36,008,80033,207,3158/10/95
41Virginia47,381,00042,642,9008/10/95
42Washington30,698,00027,831,0007/24/97
43Washington12,685,00011,500,0009/30/97
44Louisiana24,156,00021,740,0004/01/98
Totals$1,350,616,016$1,217,219,756 

Contact

Updated: 06/27/2017
Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse
U.S. DOT Home | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000