National Highway Performance Program

National Highway Performance Program
Name	National Highway Performance Program
Established	2012
Jurisdiction	United States Department of Transportation
Administered by	Federal Highway Administration
Funding sources	Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act

Contents

National Highway Performance Program

The National Highway Performance Program is a federal initiative administered by the Federal Highway Administration within the United States Department of Transportation to improve the condition and performance of the National Highway System, including portions of the Interstate Highway System, U.S. Route 1, U.S. Route 66, and other principal arterials. Created by provisions in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and continued under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, the program coordinates investment among state departments such as the California Department of Transportation, New York State Department of Transportation, and Texas Department of Transportation, while aligning with national priorities set by the United States Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government Accountability Office.

Overview

The program targets capital investment for the National Highway System and integrates policy objectives from statutes like the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act. It emphasizes preservation of assets such as bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory and pavements documented by state agencies including Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Florida Department of Transportation. Coordination occurs with metropolitan planning organizations such as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) and regional agencies like the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Objectives include improving reliability on corridors including the I-95 corridor, reducing congestion similar to measures used for the Boston Logan International Airport approach, and maintaining structural integrity akin to standards used by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Performance measures mirror statutory metrics in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act and relate to asset condition (pavement condition, bridge condition), system performance (travel time reliability on corridors such as I-70 and I-80), and freight movement on routes connected to hubs like the Port of Los Angeles and Port of New York and New Jersey. States report measures through systems aligned with the Highway Performance Monitoring System and consult guidance from the Federal Transit Administration for multimodal integration.

Funding mechanisms derive from federal highway user revenues and authorizations in laws including the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act and appropriations passed by the United States Congress and signed by presidents such as Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Administration occurs through the Federal Highway Administration with program guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation and implementation oversight by offices including the Office of Inspector General (United States Department of Transportation). Grant distribution uses formulas that consider lane-miles managed by agencies like the Ohio Department of Transportation, Georgia Department of Transportation, and Illinois Department of Transportation, and competitive elements analogous to programs run by the United States Department of Commerce and Economic Development Administration.

States develop asset management plans akin to frameworks used by the California High-Speed Rail Authority and submit project lists for NHS investment similar to capital programming by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area). Selection prioritizes projects on corridors such as I-95, I-10, and I-5 and in freight corridors connecting to the Port of Houston and Port of Long Beach. Implementation engages contractors familiar with standards from the American Society of Civil Engineers, construction specifications used by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and environmental reviews pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Coordination occurs with rail agencies such as Amtrak and regional providers including New Jersey Transit where modal interfaces require joint planning.

States submit performance data to the Federal Highway Administration and comply with audit practices inspired by the Government Accountability Office and investigations by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. Public reporting parallels transparency practices of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Railroad Administration, with performance reports influencing congressional oversight by committees such as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Interagency reviews may involve the Council on Environmental Quality when projects have broader environmental implications.

Proponents cite improved asset stewardship on corridors including the I-95 corridor and enhanced freight reliability to ports such as the Port of Savannah, while critics reference funding shortfalls highlighted by reports from the American Society of Civil Engineers and concerns raised by advocates like Surface Transportation Policy Project and Transportation for America. Criticisms include debates over formula allocation among states like California, Texas, and Florida, alleged underinvestment in non-Interstate principal arterials identified by the National Association of Counties, and disputes over environmental and community impacts documented in cases reviewed by the National Environmental Policy Act process and litigated in federal courts such as the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.