PA Turnpike News

[Rothman]

I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.

Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?

ixnay?

The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.

On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.

I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road.  It's more of a border toll.  It is a ripoff , though.

At least for the I-95 toll situation in DE, truckers do have a short & easy option to legally bypass that I-95 toll by using US 40 & MD 213 between DE 896 & MD 279.  Yes, such is a slower route than staying on I-95; but the savings in tolls may be justified.  Note: the northern DE 896 to DE/MD 279 bypass route has a through-truck prohibition imposed on it.

In contrast & depending on origin & destination; it's not always easy to fully-bypass the PA Turnpike  While there is I-80 to the north and I-68/70 to the south & west; such only are beneficial for long-distance through traffic.

But in the real world of highways, you can't escape the fact that the toll turnpikes in the Northeast are generally better maintained and provide better services than the toll-free Interstates. The New Jersey Turnpike is probably the best example.

It's also worth noting that prior to the 2007 collapse of I-35W in Minneapolis; most of the non-earthquake or non-weather-related highway collapses occurred on tolled facilities.  Two examples:

1.  The 1983 collapse of the Mianus River Bridge of the then-tolled CT Turnpike (I-95) due to a failure of two pin and hanger assemblies.  A condition to receive federal funding to replace the collapsed span was that the tolls for that road were to be removed within 2 years (such were).

2.  The 2006 tunnel ceiling collapse of one of the fairly new Big Dig ramp tunnels linking I-90 in Boston.  The I-90 portion, including the Ted Williams Tunnel is a tolled facility even though there was only one toll booth at the westbound tunnel entrance (pre-AET conversion).

Years prior to Act 44, the PA Turnpike has had a reputation for years if not decades of being one of the most expensive toll-road facilities in the nation but in being not in the best condition.

So tolled highways don't always mean better condition highways.

And didn't the Schoharie Bridge on the Thruway collapse sometime in the late '80s?  (Looking at you, Rothman)

ixnay

Ayup.  Contractor didn't have a good enough foundation for the piers and they got scoured out by the river.

[PHLBOS]

... the toll roads still have better motorist services than toll-free highways. That includes well equipped service areas you can access without leaving the highway and more resources to assist you with a car breakdown. NY Thruway Authority is particularly efficient in that regard. I imagine the NJTA is too. And Penn. Turnpike for years had emergency call boxes at frequent intervals. Don't know if they still do.

The PA Turnpike has either been phasing out or already phased out their call boxes.

Those service areas aren't because the roads are collecting tolls, though.

Actually, those service plazas were indeed initially built as part of the toll road system regardless of whether such had an Interstate number from day one (DE & MD) or was grandfathered in later on (MA, NY & PA).

And didn't the Schoharie Bridge on the Thruway collapse sometime in the late '80s?  (Looking at you, Rothman)

Ayup.  Contractor didn't have a good enough foundation for the piers and they got scoured out by the river.

I initially though of jotting that one down (incident happened in 1987); but from what I've further read, the scouring by the river was the result torrential rains & high water levels that took place prior to the collapse... i.e. a weather-related collapse.  Such was why I didn't include such in my earlier-listings.

[Beltway]

And didn't the Schoharie Bridge on the Thruway collapse sometime in the late '80s?  (Looking at you, Rothman)

Ayup.  Contractor didn't have a good enough foundation for the piers and they got scoured out by the river.

Where were the state construction inspectors and the resident engineer?

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the Schoharie Creek Bridge was the failure of the New York State Thruway Authority to maintain adequate riprap around the bridge piers, which led to severe erosion in the soil beneath the spread footings.  Contributing to the accident were ambiguous plans and specifications used for construction of the bridge, an inadequate NYSTA bridge inspection program, and inadequate oversight by the New York State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.  Contributing to the severity of the accident was the lack of structural redundancy in the bridge.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HAR8802.aspx

[jeffandnicole]

J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?

While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year.  Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million.  If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year.  On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.

[Rothman]

And didn't the Schoharie Bridge on the Thruway collapse sometime in the late '80s?  (Looking at you, Rothman)

Ayup.  Contractor didn't have a good enough foundation for the piers and they got scoured out by the river.

Where were the state construction inspectors and the resident engineer?

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the Schoharie Creek Bridge was the failure of the New York State Thruway Authority to maintain adequate riprap around the bridge piers, which led to severe erosion in the soil beneath the spread footings.  Contributing to the accident were ambiguous plans and specifications used for construction of the bridge, an inadequate NYSTA bridge inspection program, and inadequate oversight by the New York State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.  Contributing to the severity of the accident was the lack of structural redundancy in the bridge.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HAR8802.aspx

Exactly:  The public authority didn't do its job, which means the argument that they somehow are always better maintained isn't well founded.

Given the time period, NYSTA and other public authorities had great legal separation from the State (just like the CBBT -- heck, they still do).  Although the NTSB made those recommendations for NYSDOT and FHWA to have more oversight, given the legal framework, they amounted to a paper tiger.

Outside of a few projects where NYSDOT and NYSTA work together, NYSTA is still mainly responsible for their own infrastructure, despite the NTSB's quixotic recommendations for state and federal oversight. Their failings are their own.

(personal opinion expressed)

[vdeane]

Actually, those service plazas were indeed initially built as part of the toll road system regardless of whether such had an Interstate number from day one (DE & MD) or was grandfathered in later on (MA, NY & PA).

They were still grandfathered in no matter how long the corridors were in the plan.  My understanding is that MD and DE tolled I-95 not just for the heck of it (which wouldn't have been legal, anyways) but because they needed those portions done immediately and couldn't wait for the interstate construction funds to become available.

[PHLBOS]

Val, With all due respect, just where in my earlier posts did I state that such wasn't grandfathered? 

Additionally, I am very well aware of the reasoning why I-95 in DE & MD were built as tolled facilities even though such was part of the Interstate system from conception.

I guess the question here is (despite this being a PA Turnpike thread): has the prohibition of service plazas on newly-built Interstates existed from day one, or did such come along later as an amendment?  The fact that the Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway portions of I-95 were built with service plazas would indicate that the answer to that question is the latter.  Is such a correct assumption?

[Beltway]

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HAR8802.aspx

Exactly:  The public authority didn't do its job, which means the argument that they somehow are always better maintained isn't well founded.
Given the time period, NYSTA and other public authorities had great legal separation from the State (just like the CBBT -- heck, they still do).  Although the NTSB made those recommendations for NYSDOT and FHWA to have more oversight, given the legal framework, they amounted to a paper tiger.

I don't see how FHWA would be responsible, it was a state-built turnpike.

A turnpike authority is an independent state agency (at least most of them are), conceptually a small state DOT, so I don't really see how the state DOT should be blamed.

[Alps]

J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?

While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year.  Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million.  If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year.  On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.

Careful what you're reading. NJTA partners with NJDOT on many projects. These payments include the Pulaski rebuild and 139.

[noelbotevera]

Side question here, and totally unrelated to the topic at hand, but why are service plazas prohibited on Interstate highways?

Aside from offering food and gas, there's little difference between those and a welcome center or rest area with vending machines and a bathroom (in fact, NY's newer rest areas seem to blur the lines; example being those on the Northway, with the vending machines offering a decent variety of snacks and drinks).

I suspect there's probably legal shenanigans at play (don't want to commercialize Interstates? (though in that case, billboards shouldn't be on the highways...) some obscure commercial laws I don't know?), but people enter and exit a service plaza no different than they do entering or exiting the highway.

And considering how quite a bit of the Interstate system is based off of freeway systems in Europe, which likely already had service areas, I'm not sure why those were excised when creating (or revising) Interstate Highway standards.

[J N Winkler]

Side question here, and totally unrelated to the topic at hand, but why are service plazas prohibited on Interstate highways?

This has been discussed in other threads (a search should turn up interesting results), but to simplify, full-service plazas were ruled out early on for free Interstates to avoid competing with motorist services businesses at interchanges.

I suspect there's probably legal shenanigans at play (don't want to commercialize Interstates? (though in that case, billboards shouldn't be on the highways...) some obscure commercial laws I don't know?), but people enter and exit a service plaza no different than they do entering or exiting the highway.

Interstates are covered by a billboard ban in principle, though the situation is complex and many billboards are visible from Interstates because they are grandfathered in.  If memory serves, billboard control on Interstates started in the 1950's with a provision in federal law incentivizing state DOTs to impose billboard control within a set distance (I think 600 ft) of the right-of-way fence.

And considering how quite a bit of the Interstate system is based off of freeway systems in Europe, which likely already had service areas, I'm not sure why those were excised when creating (or revising) Interstate Highway standards.

European motorways did have service areas, but models varied--e.g., Germany had fuel-only service areas, while other countries had full-service provision--and by the time the Interstates received dedicated funding in 1956, full-service plazas were entrenched on the public-authority turnpikes.  This was the precedent that could be pointed to in arguing that granting concessions at service plazas amounted to undue preference.

[vdeane]

Val, With all due respect, just where in my earlier posts did I state that such wasn't grandfathered? 

Additionally, I am very well aware of the reasoning why I-95 in DE & MD were built as tolled facilities even though such was part of the Interstate system from conception.

I guess the question here is (despite this being a PA Turnpike thread): has the prohibition of service plazas on newly-built Interstates existed from day one, or did such come along later as an amendment?  The fact that the Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway portions of I-95 were built with service plazas would indicate that the answer to that question is the latter.  Is such a correct assumption?

Well, looking at the phrasing of the two posts:

Those service areas aren't because the roads are collecting tolls, though.

Actually, those service plazas were indeed initially built as part of the toll road system regardless of whether such had an Interstate number from day one (DE & MD) or was grandfathered in later on (MA, NY & PA).

Sure looks like this post is trying to make a distinction between the northeast toll roads and I-95 in MD and DE.

In any case, I'm not aware of any version of the plans that had no interstate corridor along roads like the Thruway and PA Turnpike.  Although looking in to the history of I-95 in DE and MD, it looks like the toll portions were constructed far later than I would have thought.  I thought they were built because MD and DE couldn't wait for Congress to finish wheeling and dealing and get the Interstate Highway Act passed, similar to the story for the NY Thruway.  Instead they were built well after the interstate system had begun because the states couldn't come up with the local match, which begs the question... how was any of that stuff allowed?  Wasn't the whole point of the interstate system that it was supposed to be a free network of highways?  Also, my understanding regarding the service area prohibition was that it was baked into the original law as a compromise to protect the interests of the businesses on the local roads.

[Beltway]

Although looking in to the history of I-95 in DE and MD, it looks like the toll portions were constructed far later than I would have thought.  I thought they were built because MD and DE couldn't wait for Congress to finish wheeling and dealing and get the Interstate Highway Act passed, similar to the story for the NY Thruway.  Instead they were built well after the interstate system had begun because the states couldn't come up with the local match, which begs the question... how was any of that stuff allowed?  Wasn't the whole point of the interstate system that it was supposed to be a free network of highways? 

There were federal funding limitations as well, that would have either delayed I-95 or delayed some other Interstate highway segment, at least in Maryland.

Planning for the Northeastern Expressway, as the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway was called originally, began in 1955.  The turnpike was envisioned as 42 miles of four-lane, divided highway running from White Marsh Boulevard to the Maryland-Delaware line.  Today, the highway, designated Interstate 95 as part of the national interstate highway system, is a popular travel route for interstate and commuter traffic.

The highway was developed as an interstate toll facility to hasten the construction of a safe and convenient thoroughfare through the northeastern part of Maryland.  If the highway had been built using traditional federal highway-funding programs, the turnpike would have been completed seven years later than planned.

The highway was dedicated at 4 p.m. on Nov. 14, 1963. President John F. Kennedy, with Governor Millard Tawes of Maryland and Governor Carvel of Delaware, officiated the ceremony.

https://mdta.maryland.gov/Toll_Facilities/JFK.html

So the state government didn't think it was worth waiting until 1970.

[PHLBOS]

Sure looks like this post is trying to make a distinction between the northeast toll roads and I-95 in MD and DE.

The only distinction I was trying to convey in that post was that unlike other toll facilities that were either built or already under construction prior to the Interstate Highway Act becoming law; the Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway was designated as an Interstate when both were built.  If I wasn't too clear on such, I apologize.

However, based on Beltway's above-recent post; the JFK Memorial Highway was planned a year prior to the Interstate Highway Act being signed, and the planning for the Delaware Turnpike dates as far back as 1951 (after doing some quick research).  Such was probably why both facilities included service plazas in those facilities' original construction even though both received the I-95 designation well before the construction phases.  So, the inclusion of service plazas were indeed other grandfathered cases even though their construction was much later than other tolled highways.

[Beltway]

However, based on Beltway's above-recent post; the JFK Memorial Highway was planned a year prior to the Interstate Highway Act being signed, and the planning for the Delaware Turnpike dates as far back as 1951 (after doing some quick research).  Such was probably why both facilities included service plazas in those facilities' original construction even though both received the I-95 designation well before the construction phases.  So, the inclusion of service plazas were indeed other grandfathered cases even though their construction was much later than other tolled highways.

Even though built during the post-1956 Interstate era (begun by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956), they still were funded with state-issued toll revenue bonds and (presumably) no federal-aid funding.

State built turnpikes that were not under the rules of the Interstate system concerning service plazas.

[jeffandnicole]

J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?

While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year.  Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million.  If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year.  On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.

Careful what you're reading. NJTA partners with NJDOT on many projects. These payments include the Pulaski rebuild and 139.

Reimbursements are usually listed and are very specific as to their intention.

According to this information from NJDOT, there's a payment roughly around the same amount ($204 million, vs. $198 million) from the NJ Turnpike Authority to support NJ Transit operations.  Also found within the State of New Jersey Budget:  https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcplaw/njta.shtm ; https://www.nj.gov/treasury/omb/publications/19bib/BIB.pdf , Page 59

In the FY19 NJTA Budget https://www.njta.com/media/4134/2019-annual-budget-final.pdf , there's a small line item for Pulaski Skyway of $180,000 (Page 125), a Feeder Road Reimbursement to NJDOT for $3.5 million (page 120), and a few small other reimbursement line items to various entities. 

Can't find anything current to substantiate such a huge amount for the Pulaski Skyway or 139.  In the FY17 Annual report, there is a line item for reimbursement of the Skyway construction, but much less - just over $1 million. https://www.njta.com/media/1661/fin_ann_bdg_2017.pdf , Page 105.

[vdeane]

Although looking in to the history of I-95 in DE and MD, it looks like the toll portions were constructed far later than I would have thought.  I thought they were built because MD and DE couldn't wait for Congress to finish wheeling and dealing and get the Interstate Highway Act passed, similar to the story for the NY Thruway.  Instead they were built well after the interstate system had begun because the states couldn't come up with the local match, which begs the question... how was any of that stuff allowed?  Wasn't the whole point of the interstate system that it was supposed to be a free network of highways? 

There were federal funding limitations as well, that would have either delayed I-95 or delayed some other Interstate highway segment, at least in Maryland.

Planning for the Northeastern Expressway, as the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway was called originally, began in 1955.  The turnpike was envisioned as 42 miles of four-lane, divided highway running from White Marsh Boulevard to the Maryland-Delaware line.  Today, the highway, designated Interstate 95 as part of the national interstate highway system, is a popular travel route for interstate and commuter traffic.

The highway was developed as an interstate toll facility to hasten the construction of a safe and convenient thoroughfare through the northeastern part of Maryland.  If the highway had been built using traditional federal highway-funding programs, the turnpike would have been completed seven years later than planned.

The highway was dedicated at 4 p.m. on Nov. 14, 1963. President John F. Kennedy, with Governor Millard Tawes of Maryland and Governor Carvel of Delaware, officiated the ceremony.

https://mdta.maryland.gov/Toll_Facilities/JFK.html

So the state government didn't think it was worth waiting until 1970.

How would there be delays on the federal end?  Didn't the federal government pay their 90% as interstate segments were built?

[J N Winkler]

How would there be delays on the federal end?  Didn't the federal government pay their 90% as interstate segments were built?

They did, but BPR/FHWA's obligation authority was (and still is) constrained by appropriations.  It comes down to a question of how much federal funding Congress chooses to make available in a given budget cycle.

[vdeane]

So did states have to coordinate what got built when with FHWA or something?  I was under the impression that they just built stuff and stuck the feds with the bill.

[cpzilliacus]

J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?

While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year.  Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million.  If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year.  On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.

I assume that this is probably a subsidy payment to New Jersey Transit.. 

Still, unlike Act 44 and Act 89, I am not aware of NJTA having to issue new debt to make this payment to NJDOT and (presumably) on to NJT.

[jeffandnicole]

J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?

While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year.  Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million.  If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year.  On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.

I assume that this is probably a subsidy payment to New Jersey Transit.. 

Still, unlike Act 44 and Act 89, I am not aware of NJTA having to issue new debt to make this payment to NJDOT and (presumably) on to NJT.

It would be built in to the bonds issued.  Even if they were to claim it's all toll-payer money, that toll-payer money isn't available for projects, which the bonds cover.  In the end, it doesn't matter which hand it comes from; it's still money that the NJTA can't use for themselves to benefit the toll road travelers directly.

[J N Winkler]

So did states have to coordinate what got built when with FHWA or something?  I was under the impression that they just built stuff and stuck the feds with the bill.

Yes.  FHWA is involved from the start as the state allocates construction funding, and also reviews the plans, specifications, and estimates.  During construction FHWA uses a voucher system to release funding incrementally as the work progresses to completion.

When a federal agency obligates funds in excess of appropriations, which is what would likely happen if FHWA played along with a "build it and stick the feds with the bill" strategy without any coordination with the states as to the incidence of expense, the result is called a coercive deficiency since it puts Congress in the position of having to appropriate additional funds to avoid default or breach of contract.  This undermines Congress' power of the purse and has been statute-barred since the Anti-Deficiency Act of 1870.

[vdeane]

Interesting.  Looks like many of the same bureaucracies created around federal funding for projects today were used even in the initial funding/construction of the interstate system.  Makes sense that they would want to review plans, to make sure everything was built to standards.

Re: the funding, it probably would have been easier for the states (especially in situations like MD and DE) if it was done as a "must pay" similar to Social Security, Medicare, etc., which would have worked back when the Highway Trust Fund was solvent.  Just put a disclaimer that "all bills for approved work will be paid on a first-come, first-served basis as money becomes available" and have some bureaucrats do the accounting.  Then they could have just built the roads and been paid back as gas tax money flowed in.

The whole difference between authorization and appropriation has always struck me as a little strange.  Why even have the authorization in the budget if it doesn't actually mean a whole lot in practice?  I'd just get rid of Congressional bills to appropriate funds and have a non-partisan legislative office do the accounting and distribute funds relative to revenue and the budget on a quarterly basis.  Then the agencies wouldn't be held hostage in political fights as often.

[Beltway]

So did states have to coordinate what got built when with FHWA or something?  I was under the impression that they just built stuff and stuck the feds with the bill.

Yes.  FHWA is involved from the start as the state allocates construction funding, and also reviews the plans, specifications, and estimates.  During construction FHWA uses a voucher system to release funding incrementally as the work progresses to completion.

A long and detailed webpage, but this details how the Interstate highway system was funded from 1956 to 1991.

Summary of the Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE) Process
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page03.cfm

Basically, every year, the Cost to Complete the system was calculated for each state, and distributions were made by BPR and later by FHWA to each of the states using a predetermined formula that firstly was constrained by the total federal funds available for that year, which was constrained by the amount of receipts into the road-user funded Highway Trust Fund.

A new method of distributing funds among the States was necessitated by the 1956 Act and was based on each State receiving a share of the annual Interstate Construction fund authorization in the same proportion as the cost to complete its System bore to the cost of the System in all States.  To achieve a simultaneous completion in all States, the Congress periodically required the BPR, and later FHWA, to develop a new estimate of the cost to complete the System and to serve as the basis for apportionments until the next estimate was prepared.

The purpose of the estimates was to derive the ratio of the Federal share of the estimated cost of completing the Interstate System in each State to the sum of the Federal share of these costs in all the States.  These ratios served as the basis for apportioning funds authorized for Interstate completion.  This method of apportionment was specified in 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(5)(A).  (Note that Interstate construction (IC) funds were apportioned a year in advance of authorization; thus fiscal year 1993 funds were apportioned in fiscal year 1992).

The federal transportation bill ISTEA of 1991 changed funding methods considerably, but by then the 42,500 mile original Interstate system was 99% by mileage complete or fully under construction by then.

[J N Winkler]

Interesting.  Looks like many of the same bureaucracies created around federal funding for projects today were used even in the initial funding/construction of the interstate system.  Makes sense that they would want to review plans, to make sure everything was built to standards.

This doesn't happen to nearly the same degree now, AFAIK, but back in the 1930's when scientific management was just beginning to come to the state agencies responsible for highways, the BPR would send out expediters to ensure that federal funds were spent only on eligible improvements (i.e., ones meeting published engineering standards) and that no money was siphoned off by graft or other forms of corruption.  Francis Turner, later "Mr. Interstate," was an expediter in Arkansas at an early stage in his career.

Re: the funding, it probably would have been easier for the states (especially in situations like MD and DE) if it was done as a "must pay" similar to Social Security, Medicare, etc., which would have worked back when the Highway Trust Fund was solvent.  Just put a disclaimer that "all bills for approved work will be paid on a first-come, first-served basis as money becomes available" and have some bureaucrats do the accounting.  Then they could have just built the roads and been paid back as gas tax money flowed in.

I don't know if an entitlement model was considered for Interstate funding disbursement.  In principle it could work if the payments were made out of a trust fund that was kept topped up to cover all outstanding authorizations for construction projects.

In the specific cases of Maryland and Delaware, I wonder about the in-state/out-of-state splits that were estimated as their respective turnpikes were being planned.  On the surface, 90% federal funding looks like "free money," but it isn't really if the amount that is available to a given state is approximately equal to what is collected from in-state residents through the federal fuel tax.  If a turnpike carries, say, 50% in-state and 50% out-of-state traffic, then a lesser share of the resources to build and operate are coming from in-state residents.  (In reverse, as applied to infrastructure that already exists, this is why the prospect of welcome-stranger tolling on current free Interstates such as I-15 in Arizona and I-80 in Wyoming is such a threat.)

The whole difference between authorization and appropriation has always struck me as a little strange.  Why even have the authorization in the budget if it doesn't actually mean a whole lot in practice?  I'd just get rid of Congressional bills to appropriate funds and have a non-partisan legislative office do the accounting and distribute funds relative to revenue and the budget on a quarterly basis.  Then the agencies wouldn't be held hostage in political fights as often.

In the federal-aid context, authorization gives the non-federal partner (generally a state DOT) reassurance that the federal share will eventually be paid, and appropriation prevents the feds from having to deal with surprise bills and "Oh, you authorized this twenty years ago--we are just now getting to it."

There are, in my view, two main reasons we now have frequent food fights over lapses in appropriations, to the extent that federal government shutdowns have become almost a routine way of doing business.  The first is that we now operate to a 1982 Attorney General opinion to the effect that a lapse in appropriations means an agency must shut down.  Previously, the prevailing legal interpretation was that an agency could operate in the absence of appropriations (at least for a short time) because it could not have been Congress' intent that it abruptly cease operating.  The second is that extreme political polarization, driven in part by rising income inequality, gives both parties incentive to resort to procedural hacks to gain leverage to push their respective policy preferences.