Support for
has been provided by these organizations and individuals:

John Hennessy III,

Options for Paying for Highway Spending

Posted by Content Coordinator on Tuesday, July 7th, 2015



In 2014, governments at various levels spent $165 billion to build, operate, and maintain highways, and they spent $65 billion on mass transit systems. For both types of infrastructure, most of that spending was by state and local governments; about one-quarter of that total came from the federal government, mostly through the Highway Trust Fund. For several decades, the trust fund’s balances were stable or growing, but more recently, annual spending for highways and transit has exceeded the amounts credited to the trust fund from taxes collected on gasoline, diesel fuel, and other transportation-related products and activities. Since 2008, in fact, lawmakers have transferred $65 billion from the U.S. Treasury’s general fund to the Highway Trust Fund so that the trust fund’s obligations could be met in a timely manner.

Moreover, with its current revenue sources, the Highway Trust Fund cannot support spending at the current rate. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that spending in fiscal year 2015 for highways and transit programs funded from the Highway Trust Fund will be $44 billion and $8 billion, respectively, whereas revenues collected for those purposes are projected to be $34 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By CBO’s estimate, at the end of fiscal year 2015, the balance in the trust fund’s highway account will fall to about $2 billion and the balance in its transit account will be about $1 billion.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) would probably need to delay payments to states at some point before the end of fiscal year 2015 in order to keep the fund’s balance above zero, as required by law. In fact, because of the timing of the deposits to the trust fund, DOT has stated that it would need to delay payments if cash balances fell below $4 billion in the highway account or below $1 billion in the transit account. Then, if nothing changes, the trust fund’s balance will be insufficient to meet all of its obligations in fiscal year 2016, and the trust fund will incur steadily accumulating shortfalls in subsequent years.

Several options (or combinations of those options) could be pursued to address projected shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund:

  • Spending on highways and transit could be reduced. If lawmakers chose to address the projected shortfalls solely by cutting spending, no new obligations from the fund’s highway account or its transit account could be made in fiscal year 2016; that would also be the case for the transit account in fiscal year 2017. Over the 2016–2025 period, the highway account would see a decrease of about one-third in the authority to obligate funds, and the transit account’s authority would decrease by about two thirds, compared with CBO’s baseline projections.
  • Revenues credited to the trust fund could be increased. Lawmakers could address the projected shortfalls by raising existing taxes on motor fuels or other transportation-related products and activities; by imposing new taxes on highway users, such as vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) taxes; or by imposing taxes on activities unrelated to transportation. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that a one-cent increase in taxes on motor fuels— primarily gasoline and diesel fuel—would initially raise about $1.7 billion annually for the trust fund, declining over the next 10 years to about $1.5 billion each year. If lawmakers chose to meet obligations projected for the trust fund solely by raising revenues, they would need to increase motor fuel taxes by roughly 10 cents per gallon, starting in fiscal year 2016.
  • The trust fund could continue to receive supplements from the Treasury’s general fund. Lawmakers could maintain funding for surface transportation programs at the average amounts provided in recent years, but to do so they would need to transfer $3 billion before the end of fiscal year 2015 and between $11 billion and $22 billion every year thereafter through 2025. Spending resulting from such general fund transfers could be paid for by reducing other spending or by increasing revenues from broad-based taxes, or such transfers could add to deficits and thus increase federal borrowing.

The projected shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund have generated interest in greater use of borrowing by state and local governments to finance highway projects. In particular, state and local governments (and some private entities) can use tax-preferred bonds that convey subsidies from the federal government in the form of tax exemptions, credits, or payments in lieu of credits to finance road construction. Similarly, some of those governments make use of direct loans from the federal government to finance projects.

Federal policies that encourage partnerships between the private sector and a state or local government may facilitate the provision of additional transportation infrastructure, but a review of those projects offers little evidence that public-private partnerships provide  additional resources for roads except in cases in which states or localities have chosen to restrict spending through self-imposed legal constraints or budgetary limits.

Only a small number of highway projects in the United States have involved public-private partnerships with private financing. Some that have been financed through tolls have failed financially because the private-sector partners initially overestimated their revenues and as a result have been unable to fully repay their projects’ debts. Perhaps as a response, projects that are still under construction rely less on tolls as a revenue source; more commonly, private partners are compensated from a state’s general funds, thus limiting the private risk of not being repaid and leaving the risk of lower-than-expected revenues to the public partner.

Regardless of its source, however, borrowing is only a mechanism for making future tax revenues or user fee revenues available to pay for projects sooner; it is not a new source of revenues. Borrowing can augment the funds available for highway projects, but revenues that are committed for repaying borrowed funds will be unavailable to pay for new transportation projects or other government spending in the future.

Spending for Highways and Transit, by Level of Government, 1956 to 2014

Download full version (PDF): The Status of the Highway Trust Fund and Options for Paying for Highway Spending

About the Congressional Budget Office
Since 1975, CBO has produced independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process. Each year, the agency’s economists and budget analysts produce dozens of reports and hundreds of cost estimates for proposed legislation. CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying the analysis.

Tags: , ,

Comments are closed.

Follow InfraUSA on Twitter Facebook YouTube Flickr


Show us your infra! Show us your infra!

Video, stills and tales. Share images of the Infra in your community that demands attention. Post your ideas about national Infra issues. Go ahead. Show Us Your Infra!  Upload and instantly share your message.

Polls Polls

Is the administration moving fast enough on Infra issues? Are Americans prepared to pay more taxes for repairs? Should job creation be the guiding determination? Vote now!


What do the experts think? This is where the nation's public policy organizations, trade associations and think tanks weigh in with analysis on Infra issues. Tell them what you think.  Ask questions.  Share a different view.


The Infra Blog offers cutting edge perspective on a broad spectrum of Infra topics. Frequent updates and provocative posts highlight hot button topics -- essential ingredients of a national Infra dialogue.