Surface and Maritime Transportation: Challenges and Strategies
for Enhancing Mobility (30-SEP-02, GAO-02-1132T).
The scope of the U.S. surface and maritime transportation
systems--which primarily includes roads, mass transit systems,
railroads, and ports and waterways--is vast. One of the major
goals of these systems is to provide and enhance mobility. With
increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface and maritime
transportation systems face a number of challenges in ensuring
continued mobility. These challenges include: (1) preventing
congestion from overwhelming the transportation system, and (2)
ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved
populations and achieving a balance between enhancing mobility
and giving due regard to environmental and other social goals.
There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the
nation, and numerous approaches are needed to address these
challenges. These strategies include: (1) focusing on the entire
surface and maritime transportation system rather than on
specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired mobility
outcomes, (2) using a full range of techniques to achieve desired
mobility outcomes, and (3) providing more options for financing
mobility improvements and considering additional sources of
revenue.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-1132T
ACCNO: A05204
TITLE: Surface and Maritime Transportation: Challenges and
Strategies for Enhancing Mobility
DATE: 09/30/2002
SUBJECT: Federal aid for transportation
Federal funds
Marine transportation operations
Mass transit funding
Mass transit operations
Public roads or highways
Transportation safety
Ground transportation operations
Strategic planning
Surface and Maritime Transportation: Challenges and Strategies
for Enhancing Mobility (30-SEP-02, GAO-02-1132T).
The scope of the U.S. surface and maritime transportation
systems--which primarily includes roads, mass transit systems,
railroads, and ports and waterways--is vast. One of the major
goals of these systems is to provide and enhance mobility. With
increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface and maritime
transportation systems face a number of challenges in ensuring
continued mobility. These challenges include: (1) preventing
congestion from overwhelming the transportation system, and (2)
ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved
populations and achieving a balance between enhancing mobility
and giving due regard to environmental and other social goals.
There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the
nation, and numerous approaches are needed to address these
challenges. These strategies include: (1) focusing on the entire
surface and maritime transportation system rather than on
specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired mobility
outcomes, (2) using a full range of techniques to achieve desired
mobility outcomes, and (3) providing more options for financing
mobility improvements and considering additional sources of
revenue.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-1132T
ACCNO: A05204
TITLE: Surface and Maritime Transportation: Challenges and
Strategies for Enhancing Mobility
DATE: 09/30/2002
SUBJECT: Federal aid for transportation
Federal funds
Marine transportation operations
Mass transit funding
Mass transit operations
Public roads or highways
Transportation safety
Ground transportation operations
Strategic planning
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-1132T
Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works U. S.
Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m. EDT Monday, September
30, 2002 SURFACE AND
MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
Challenges and Strategies for Enhancing Mobility
Statement of JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
GAO- 02- 1132T
Page 1 GAO- 02- 1132T
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We appreciate the opportunity
to testify on the challenges faced by the surface and maritime
transportation systems in maintaining and improving mobility. Your hearing
today focuses on important issues about the physical condition,
performance, and future investment requirements of the nation*s roadways
and bridges. 1 Our remarks will focus on the performance of the
transportation systems. More specifically, we will discuss the ultimate
desired outcome of transportation infrastructure improvements* enhanced
mobility* and the possible strategies for achieving that outcome. 2
The scope of the U. S. surface and maritime transportation systems* which
primarily includes roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and ports and
waterways 3 *is vast. One of the major goals of these systems is to
provide and enhance mobility. Mobility provides people with access to
goods, services, recreation, and jobs; provides businesses with access to
materials, markets, and people; and promotes the movement of personnel and
material to meet national defense needs. However, the U. S. surface and
maritime transportation systems have become congested and concerns have
been raised about the burden they impose on the nation*s quality of life
through wasted energy, time, and money; increased pollution; and threats
to public safety. Barriers to transportation accessibility for certain
population groups and the level of financial resources available to
address transportation problems are also major
1 We have not had an opportunity to review the Department of
Transportation*s Conditions and Performance Report that is expected to be
released at today*s hearing. 2 In a July 2001 testimony before the former
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, we reviewed the infrastructure investment
estimates of seven federal agencies and found that they focus mostly on
the condition of the infrastructure rather than the desired outcomes (e.
g., less traffic congestion) that can be expected from additional
infrastructure investments. We cautioned against relying mainly on
measures of need based primarily on the condition of existing
infrastructure and instead suggested comparing the costs and benefits of
alternative approaches for reaching outcomes, including noncapital
alternatives (such as strategies to manage demand rather than build new
infrastructure). See U. S. General Accounting Office, U. S.
Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Federal Agencies* Investment Estimates,
GAO- 01- 986T (Washington, D. C.: July 23, 2001).
3 In this testimony, we define the surface transportation modes to include
highways, mass transit systems, and railroads; and the maritime
transportation modes to include ports, inland waterways, and the
intermodal connections leading to them. Pipelines were not part of our
review.
Page 2 GAO- 02- 1132T
concerns. Balancing the goal of improving mobility with other social
goals, such as environmental preservation, will present challenges.
Our statement is based on a report that we are releasing today on surface
and maritime transportation mobility. 4 We will discuss (1) key challenges
in maintaining and improving mobility and (2) key strategies for
addressing the challenges. Our report is primarily based on expert opinion
drawn from two panels of surface and maritime transportation experts that
we convened in April 2002. Our work also included a review of reports
prepared by federal agencies, academics, and industry groups. Appendix I
provides further information on our scope and methodology and appendix II
contains a list of relevant GAO products.
In summary: With increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface
and maritime
transportation systems face a number of challenges in ensuring continued
mobility. These challenges include:
Preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation system.
Increasing passenger and freight travel has already led to increasing
levels of congestion at bottlenecks and peak travel times in some areas.
For example, the amount of traffic experiencing congestion during peak
travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982 to 66 percent in 2000 in 75
metropolitan areas studied by the Texas Transportation Institute. 5
Freight mobility is also affected by increasing congestion within specific
heavily used corridors and at specific bottlenecks that tend to involve
intermodal connections, such as border crossings, and road and rail
connections at major seaports within metropolitan areas. Furthermore,
congestion is increasing at aging and increasing unreliable locks on the
inland waterways.
Ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved populations
(including some elderly, poor, and rural populations that have restricted
mobility) and achieving a balance between
4 U. S. General Accounting Office, Surface and Maritime Transportation:
Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge, GAO-
02- 775 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 30, 2002).
5 David Shrank and Tim Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report (College Station,
Tex.: Texas Transportation Institute, June 2002).
Page 3 GAO- 02- 1132T enhancing mobility and giving due regard to
environmental and
other social goals. Policies and patterns of development that encourage
automobile dependence and favor provision of transit services with
inflexible routes and schedules* such as subway or bus* may disadvantage
some groups by limiting their access to needed services or jobs. The
surface and maritime transportation systems also face the challenge of
effectively addressing pollution problems caused by increased travel
levels. Emissions from passenger and freight vehicles, shipping waste
disposal practices, and excessive noise levels have contributed to the
degradation of air quality, disruption of ecosystems, and other problems.
There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the nation,
and our expert panelists indicated that numerous approaches are needed to
address these challenges. From these discussions, we believe that the wide
range of approaches can be clustered into three key strategies that may
help transportation decisionmakers at all levels of government address
mobility challenges. These strategies include the following:
Focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system rather
than on specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired mobility
outcomes. Transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local level
might shift focus from their current emphasis on single modes to consider
performance outcomes of all modes in addressing mobility challenges, and
to recognize interactions across modes between passenger and freight
traffic, and between public and private interests. This is important
because addressing the mobility challenges outlined above can involve a
scope beyond a local jurisdiction or a state line, and may require
coordination across multiple modes, types of travel, or types of
transportation providers and planners.
Use a full range of techniques to achieve desired mobility outcomes.
Using various techniques* such as new construction, corrective and
preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, operations and system management,
and pricing* to address complex mobility challenges, may be more effective
than placing emphasis on any one technique.
Provide more options for financing mobility improvements and consider
additional sources of revenue. This strategy* which involves providing
more flexibility in funding across modes, expanding financial support for
alternative financing mechanisms (e. g., credit
Page 4 GAO- 02- 1132T
assistance to state and local governments), and considering various
revenue- raising methods* may offer promise for addressing key mobility
problems.
The U. S. surface and maritime transportation systems facilitate mobility
through an extensive network of infrastructure and operators, as well as
through the vehicles and vessels that permit passengers and freight to
move within the systems. The systems include 3.9 million miles of public
roads, 121,000 miles of major private railroad networks, and 25,000 miles
of commercially navigable waterways. They also include over 500 major
urban public transit operators in addition to numerous private transit
operators, and more than 300 ports on the coasts, Great Lakes, and inland
waterways.
Maintaining transportation systems is critical to sustaining America*s
economic growth. Efficient mobility systems significantly affect economic
development: cities could not exist and global trade could not occur
without systems to transport people and goods. The pressures on the
existing transportation system are mounting, however, as both passenger
and freight travel are expected to increase over the next 10 years,
according to Department of Transportation (DOT) projections. Passenger
vehicle travel on public roads is expected to grow by 24.7 percent from
2000 to 2010. Passenger travel on transit systems is expected to increase
by 17.2 percent over the same period. Amtrak has estimated that intercity
passenger rail ridership will increase by 25.9 percent from 2001 to 2010.
Preliminary estimates by DOT indicate that tons of freight moved on all
surface and maritime modes* truck, rail, and water* are expected to
increase by 43 percent from 1998 through 2010, with the largest increase
expected to be in the truck sector. The key factors behind increases in
passenger travel, and the modes travelers choose, are expected to be
population growth, the aging of the population, and rising affluence. For
freight movements, economic growth, increasing international trade, and
the increasing value of cargo shipped may affect future travel levels and
the modes used to move freight.
The relative roles of each sector involved in surface and maritime
transportation activities* including the federal government, other levels
of government, and the private sector* vary across modes. For public
roads, the federal government owns few roads but has played a major role
in Background
Page 5 GAO- 02- 1132T
funding the nation*s highways. With the completion of the interstate
highway system in the 1980s* and continuing with passage of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) 6 and its successor
legislation, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21)
7 , in 1998* the federal government shifted its focus toward preserving
and enhancing the capacity of the system. While the federal government*s
primary role has been to provide capital funding for the interstate system
and other highway projects, state and local governments provide the bulk
of the funding for public roads in the United States and are responsible
for operating and maintaining all nonfederal roads, including the
interstate system.
For transit systems* which include a variety of multiple- occupancy
vehicle services designed to transport passengers on local and regional
routes* the federal government provides financial assistance to state and
local transit operators to develop new transit systems and improve,
maintain, and operate existing systems. The largest portion of capital
funding for transit comes from the federal government, while the primary
source for operating funds comes from passenger fares.
The respective roles of the public and private sector and the revenue
sources vary for passenger as compared with freight railroads. For
passenger railroads, the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created Amtrak
to provide intercity passenger rail service because existing railroads
found such service unprofitable. Since its founding, Amtrak has rebuilt
rail equipment and benefited from significant public investment in track
and stations, especially in the Northeast corridor, which runs between
Boston and Washington, D. C. The role of the federal government in
providing financial support to Amtrak is currently under review amid
concerns about the corporation*s financial viability and discussions about
the future direction of federal policy toward intercity rail service. For
freight railroads, the private sector owns, operates, and provides almost
all of the financing for freight railroads. Currently, the federal
government plays a relatively small role in financing freight railroad
infrastructure by offering some credit assistance to state and local
governments and railroads for capital improvements.
6 P. L. 102- 240 (Dec. 18, 1991). 7 P. L. 105- 178 (June 9, 1998).
Page 6 GAO- 02- 1132T
The U. S. maritime transportation system primarily consists of waterways,
ports, the intermodal connections (e. g., inland rail and roadways) that
permit passengers and cargo to reach marine facilities, and the vessels
and vehicles that move cargo and people within the system. The maritime
infrastructure is owned and operated by an aggregation of state and local
agencies and private companies, with some federal funding provided by the
Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Coast Guard, and DOT*s Maritime
Administration.
Funding authorization for several key federal surface transportation
programs will expire soon. For example, TEA- 21*s authorization of
appropriations expires in fiscal year 2003 and the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997 8 authorized federal appropriations for Amtrak
through the end of fiscal year 2002. In addition, the federal funding
processes and mechanisms for the maritime transportation system are
currently under review by two interagency groups. 9
There are several challenges to mobility. Three of the most significant
are growing congestion, ensuring access to transportation for certain
underserved populations, and addressing the transportation system*s
negative effects on the environment and communities.
Ensuring continued mobility involves preventing congestion from
overwhelming the transportation system. Congestion is growing at localized
bottlenecks (places where the capacity of the transportation system is
most limited) and at peak travel times on public roads, transit systems,
freight rail lines, and at freight hubs such as ports and borders where
freight is transferred from one mode to another. In particular:
For local urban travel, a study by the Texas Transportation Institute 10
showed that the amount of traffic experiencing congestion during peak
8 P. L. 105- 134 (Dec. 2, 1997). 9 The two groups are the Interagency
Committee on the Marine Transportation System and the Marine
Transportation System National Advisory Council. 10 Shrank and Lomax, 2002
Urban Mobility Report.
Key Mobility Challenges Include Growing Congestion and Other Problems
Congestion
Page 7 GAO- 02- 1132T
travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982 to 66 percent in 2000 in
the 75 metropolitan areas studied. In addition, the average time per day
that roads were congested increased over this period, from about 4.5 hours
in 1982 to about 7 hours in 2000. Increased road congestion can also
affect public bus and other transit systems that operate on roads. Some
transit systems are also experiencing increasing rail congestion at peak
travel times. 11 In addition, concerns have been raised about how
intercity and tourist travel interacts with local traffic in metropolitan
areas and in smaller towns and rural areas, and how this interaction will
evolve in the future. According to a report sponsored by the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, Mobility 2001, 12 capacity
problems for intercity travelers are severe in certain heavily traveled
corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, which links Washington, D. C.,
New York, and Boston. In addition, the study said that intercity travel
may constitute a substantial proportion of total traffic passing through
smaller towns and rural areas.
Congestion is expected to increase on major freight transportation
networks at specific bottlenecks, particularly where intermodal
connections occur, and at peak travel times. This expectation raises
concerns about how interactions between freight and passenger travel and
how increases in both types of travel will affect mobility in the future.
Trucks contribute to congestion in metropolitan and other areas where they
generally move on the same roads and highways as personal vehicles,
particularly during peak periods of travel. In addition, high demand for
freight, particularly freight moved on trucks, exists in metropolitan
areas where overall congestion tends to be the worst.
With international trade an increasing part of the economy and with
larger containerships being built, some panelists indicated that more
pressure will be placed on the already congested road and rail connections
to major U. S. seaports and at the border crossings with Canada and
Mexico.
11 For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority*s
studies on crowding found that, of the more than 200 peak morning rail
trips observed over a recent 6- month period, on average, 23 percent were
considered *uncomfortably crowded or crush loads.* See U. S. General
Accounting Office, Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA, but
Capital Planning Could Be Enhanced, GAO- 01- 744 (Washington, D. C.: July
2, 2001).
12 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River Associates,
Inc., Mobility 2001: World Mobility at the End of the Twentieth Century
and Its Sustainability (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, Aug. 2001).
Page 8 GAO- 02- 1132T
According to a DOT report, 13 more than one- half of the ports responding
to a 1997 survey of port access issues identified traffic impediments on
local truck routes as the major infrastructure problem. This congestion
has considerable implications for our economy given that 95 percent of our
overseas trade tonnage moves by water, and the cargo moving through the U.
S. marine transportation system contributes billions of dollars to the U.
S. gross domestic product. 14
Railroads are beginning to experience more severe capacity constraints
in heavily used corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, and within
major metropolitan areas, especially where commuter and intercity
passenger rail services share tracks with freight railroads. Capacity
constraints at these bottlenecks are expected to worsen in the future.
On the inland waterways, congestion is increasing at aging and
increasingly unreliable locks. According to the Corps of Engineers, the
number of hours that locks were unavailable due to lock failures increased
in recent years, from about 35,000 hours in 1991 to 55,000 hours in 1999,
occurring primarily on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. Also
according to the Corps of Engineers, with expected growth in freight
travel, 15 of 26 locks that they studied are expected to exceed 80 percent
of their capacity by 2020, as compared to 4 that had reached that level in
1999.
Some of the systemic factors that contribute to congestion include (1)
barriers to building enough capacity to accommodate growing levels of
travel; (2) challenges to effectively managing and operating
transportation systems; and (3) barriers to effectively managing how, and
the extent to which, transportation systems are used. First, there is
insufficient capacity at bottlenecks and during peak travel times to
accommodate traffic levels for a variety of reasons. For example,
transportation infrastructure (which is generally provided by the public
sector, except for freight railroads) takes a long time to plan and build,
is often costly, and can conflict with other social goals such as
environmental preservation and community maintenance. Furthermore, funding
and planning rigidities in the public
13 An Assessment of the U. S. Marine Transportation System (Washington, D.
C.: U. S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 1999). 14 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a
Framework for Infrastructure Investments, GAO- 02- 1033 (Washington, D.
C.: Sept. 9, 2002).
Page 9 GAO- 02- 1132T
institutions responsible for providing transportation infrastructure tend
to promote one mode of transportation, rather than a combination of
balanced transportation choices, making it more difficult to deal
effectively with congestion. In addition, some bottlenecks occur where
modes connect, and because funding is generally mode- specific, dealing
with congestion at these intermodal connections is not easily addressed.
Second, many factors related to the management and operation of
transportation systems can contribute to increasing congestion. Congestion
on highways is in part due to poor management of traffic flows on the
connectors between highways and poor management in clearing roads that are
blocked due to accidents, inclement weather, or construction. For example,
in the 75 metropolitan areas studied by the Texas Transportation
Institute, 54 percent of annual vehicle delays in 2000 were due to
incidents such as breakdowns or crashes. In addition, the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory reported that, nationwide, significant delays are
caused by work zones on highways; poorly timed traffic signals; and snow,
ice, and fog. 15
Third, some panelists said that congestion on transportation systems is
also due in part to inefficient pricing of the infrastructure because
users* whether they are drivers on a highway or barge operators moving
through a lock* do not pay the full costs they impose on the system and on
other users for their use of the system. If travelers and freight carriers
had to pay a higher cost for using transportation systems during peak
periods to reflect the full costs they impose, they might have an
incentive to avoid or reschedule some trips and to load vehicles more
fully, possibly resulting in less congestion.
Panelists also noted that the types of congestion problems that are
expected to worsen involve interactions between long- distance and local
traffic and between passengers and freight. Existing institutions may not
have the capacity or the authority to address them. For example, some
local bottlenecks may hinder traffic that has regional or national
significance, such as national freight flows from major coastal ports, or
can affect the economies and traffic in more than one state. Current state
and local planning organizations may have difficulty considering all the
15 S. M. Chin, O. Franzese, D. L. Greene, H. L. Hwang, and R. Gibson,
Temporary Losses of Capacity Study and Impacts on Performance, Report No.
ORNL/ TM- 2002/ 3 (Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May
2002).
Page 10 GAO- 02- 1132T
costs and benefits related to national or international traffic flows that
affect other jurisdictions as well as their own. Furthermore, in our
recent survey of states, most states reported that the increasing volume
of both car and truck traffic over the next decade would negatively affect
the physical condition of pavement and bridges and the safety of their
interstate highways. 16
Besides dealing with the challenge of congestion, ensuring mobility also
involves ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved
populations. Settlement patterns and dependence on automobiles limit
access to transportation systems for some elderly people and low- income
households, and in rural areas where populations are expected to expand.
The elderly have different mobility challenges than other populations
because they are less likely to have drivers* licenses, have more serious
health problems, and may require special services and facilities,
according to the Department of Transportation*s 1999 Conditions and
Performance
report. 17 People who cannot drive themselves tend to rely on family,
other caregivers, or friends to drive them, or find alternative means of
transportation. Many of the elderly also may have difficulty using public
transportation due to physical ailments. As a result, according to the
1999
Conditions and Performance report and a 1998 report about mobility for
older drivers, 18 they experience increased waiting times, uncertainty,
and inconvenience, and they are required to do more advance trip planning.
These factors can lead to fewer trips taken for necessary business and for
recreation, as well as restrictions on times and places that healthcare
can be obtained. As the population of elderly individuals increases over
the next 10 years, issues pertaining to access are expected to become more
prominent in society.
16 U. S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Interstate
Physical Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures
Continue, GAO- 02- 571 (Washington, D. C.: May 31, 2002).
17 Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, 1999
Status of the Nation*s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and
Performance (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Transportation, 2000).
18 Jon E. Burkhardt, Arlene M. Berger, Michael Creedon, and Adam T.
McGavock, Mobility and Independence: Changes and Challenges for Older
Drivers (July 1998). This report was developed under a cooperative
agreement with the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
under the auspices of the Joint DHHS/ DOT Coordinating Council on Access
and Mobility. Other Mobility Challenges
Page 11 GAO- 02- 1132T
Lower income levels can also be a significant barrier to transportation
access. The cost of purchasing, insuring, and maintaining a car is
prohibitive to some households, and 26 percent of low- income households
do not own a car, compared with 4 percent of other households, according
to the 1999 Conditions and Performance report. Among all low- income
households, about 8 percent of trips are made in cars that are owned by
others as compared to 1 percent for other income groups. Furthermore,
similar uncertainties and inconveniences apply to this group as to the
elderly regarding relying on others for transportation. In addition, in
case studies of access to jobs for low- income populations, Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) researchers found that transportation
barriers to job access included gaps in transit service, lack of knowledge
of where transit services are provided, and high transportation costs
resulting from multiple transfers and long distances traveled. 19
Rural populations, which according to the 2000 Census grew by 10 percent
over the last 10 years, also face access problems. Access to some form of
transportation is necessary to connect rural populations to jobs and other
amenities in city centers or, increasingly, in the suburbs. Trips by rural
residents tend to be longer due to lower population densities and the
relative isolation of small communities. Therefore, transportation can be
a challenge to provide in rural areas, especially for persons without
access to private automobiles. A report prepared for the FTA in 2001 20
found that 1 in 13 rural residents lives in a household without a personal
vehicle. In addition, according to a report by the Coordinating Council on
Access and Mobility, 21 while almost 60 percent of all nonmetropolitan
counties had some public transportation services in 2000, many of these
operations were small and offered services only to limited geographic
areas during limited times.
Finally, transportation can also negatively affect the environment and
communities by increasing the levels of air and water pollution. As a
result of the negative consequences of transportation, tradeoffs must be
made
19 Federal Transit Administration, Access to Jobs: Planning Case Studies
(Washington, D. C: U. S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 2001). 20
Community Transportation Association of America, Status of Rural Public
Transportation- 2000 (April 2001). 21 Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility, Planning Guidelines for Coordinated State and Local Specialized
Transportation Services (Washington, D. C: U. S. Department of
Transportation, Dec. 20, 2000).
Page 12 GAO- 02- 1132T
between facilitating increased mobility and giving due regard to
environmental and other social goals. For example, transportation vehicles
are major sources of local, urban, and regional air pollution because they
depend on fossil fuels to operate. Emissions from vehicles include sulfur
dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate
matter, and nitrous oxides. Vehicle emissions in congested areas can
trigger respiratory and other illnesses, and runoff from impervious
surfaces, such as highways, can carry pollutants into lakes, streams, and
rivers, thus threatening aquatic environments. 22
Freight transportation also has significant environmental effects. Trucks
are significant contributors to air pollution. According to the American
Trucking Association, trucks were responsible for 18.5 percent of nitrous
oxide emissions and 27.5 percent of other particulate emissions from
mobile sources in the United States. The Mobility 2001 report states that
freight trains also contribute to emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and nitrous oxide, although generally at levels considerably
lower than trucks. In addition, while large shipping vessels are more
energy efficient than trucks or trains, they are also major sources of
nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and diesel particulate emissions. According to
the International Maritime Organization, ocean shipping is responsible for
22 percent of the wastes dumped into the sea on an annual basis.
The experts we consulted presented numerous approaches for addressing the
types of challenges discussed throughout this statement, but they
emphasized that no single strategy would be sufficient. From these
discussions and our literature review, we have identified three key
strategies that may help transportation decisionmakers at all levels of
government address mobility challenges and the institutional barriers that
contribute to them. The strategies include (1) focusing on systemwide
outcomes, (2) using a full range of techniques, and (3) providing options
for financing surface and maritime transportation.
22 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal
Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water
Quality, GAO- 02- 12 (Washington, D. C., Oct. 31, 2001). Three Strategies
for
Addressing Mobility Challenges
Page 13 GAO- 02- 1132T
Shifting the focus of government transportation agencies at the federal,
state, and local levels to consider all modes and types of travel in
addressing mobility challenges* as opposed to focusing on a specific mode
or type of travel in planning and implementing mobility improvements*
could help achieve enhanced mobility. Addressing the types of mobility
challenges discussed earlier in this statement can require a scope beyond
a local jurisdiction, state line, or one mode or type of travel. For
example, congestion challenges often occur where modes connect or should
connect* such as ports or freight hubs where freight is transferred from
one mode to another, or airports that passengers need to access by car,
bus, or rail. These connections require coordination of more than one mode
of transportation and cooperation among multiple transportation providers
and planners, such as port authorities, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO), 23 and private freight railroads. Therefore, a
systemwide approach to transportation planning and funding, as opposed to
focus on a single mode or type of travel, could improve focus on outcomes
related to user or community needs. The experts we consulted provided a
number of examples of alternative transportation planning and funding
systems that might better focus on outcomes that users and communities
desire, including the following:
Performance- oriented funding system. The federal government would first
define certain national interests of the transportation system* such as
maintaining the entire interstate highway system or identifying freight
corridors of importance to the national economy* then set national
performance standards for those systems that states and localities must
meet. Federal funds would be distributed to those entities that address
national interests and meet the established standards. Any federal funds
remaining after meeting the performance standards could then be used for
whatever transportation purpose the state or locality deems most
appropriate to achieve state or local mobility goals.
Federal financial reward- based system. Federal support would reward
those states or localities that apply federal money to gain efficiencies
in their transportation systems, or tie transportation projects to land
use and other local policies to achieve community and environmental goals,
as well as mobility goals.
23 MPOs are organizations of city, county, state, and federal officials
that provide a regional forum for transportation planning. Focus on the
Entire
Surface and Maritime Transportation System Rather Than on Specific Modes
or Types of Travel to Achieve Desired Mobility Outcomes.
Page 14 GAO- 02- 1132T
System with different federal matching criteria for different types of
expenditures that might reflect federal priorities. For example, if
infrastructure preservation became a higher national priority than
building new capacity, matching requirements could be changed to a 50
percent federal share for building new physical capacity and an 80 percent
federal share for preservation.
System in which state and local governments pay for a larger share of
transportation projects, which might provide them with incentives to
invest in more cost- effective projects. Reducing the federal match for
projects in all modes may give states and localities more fiscal
responsibility for projects they are planning. If cost savings resulted,
these entities might have more funds available to address other mobility
challenges. Making federal matching requirements equal for all modes may
avoid creating incentives to pursue projects in one mode that might be
less effective than projects in other modes.
In addition, we recently reported on the need to view various
transportation modes, and freight movement in particular, from an
integrated standpoint, particularly for the purposes of developing a
federal investment strategy and considering alternative funding
approaches. 24 We identified four key components of a systematic framework
to guide transportation investment decisions including (1) establishing
national goals for the system, (2) clearly defining the federal role
relative to other stakeholders, (3) determining the funding tools and
other approaches that will maximize the impact of any federal investment,
and (4) ensuring that a process is in place for evaluating performance and
accountability.
Using a range of techniques to address mobility challenges may help
control congestion and improve access. This approach involves a strategic
mix of construction, corrective and preventive maintenance,
rehabilitation, operations and system management, and managing system use
through pricing or other techniques. No one type of technique would be
sufficient to address mobility challenges. Although these techniques are
currently in use, the experts we consulted indicated that planners should
more consistently consider a full range of techniques, as follows:
24 GAO- 02- 1033. Use a Full Range of
Techniques to Address Mobility Challenges
Page 15 GAO- 02- 1132T
Build new infrastructure. Building additional infrastructure is perhaps
the most familiar technique for addressing congestion and improving access
to surface and maritime transportation. Although there is a lot of unused
capacity in the transportation system, certain bottlenecks and key
corridors require new infrastructure.
Increase infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation. An emphasis on
enhancing capacity from existing infrastructure through increased
corrective and preventive maintenance and rehabilitation is an important
supplement to, and sometimes a substitute for, building new
infrastructure. Maintaining and rehabilitating transportation systems can
improve the speed and reliability of passenger and freight travel, thereby
optimizing capital investments.
Improve management and operations. Better management and operation of
existing surface and maritime transportation infrastructure is another
technique for enhancing mobility because it may allow the existing
transportation system to accommodate additional travel without having to
add new infrastructure. For example, the Texas Transportation Institute
reported that coordinating traffic signal timing with changing traffic
conditions could improve flow on congested roadways. One panelist noted
that shifting the focus of transportation planning from building capital
facilities to an *operations mindset* will require a cultural shift in
many transportation institutions, particularly in the public sector, so
that the organizational structure, hierarchy, and rewards and incentives
are all focused on improving transportation management and operations. 25
Increase investment in technology. Increasing public sector investment
in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies that are designed
to enhance the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the transportation
network, can serve as a way of increasing capacity and mobility without
making major capital investments. ITS includes technologies that improve
traffic flow by adjusting signals, facilitating traffic flow at toll
plazas, alerting emergency management services to the locations of
crashes, increasing the efficiency of transit fare payment systems, and
other actions. Other technological improvements include increasing
information available to users of the transportation system to
25 Joseph M. Sussman, *Transitions in the World of Transportation: A
Systems View,*
Transportation Quarterly 56 (2002): 21- 22.
Page 16 GAO- 02- 1132T
help people avoid congested areas and to improve customer satisfaction
with the system.
Use demand management techniques. Another approach to reducing
congestion without making major capital investments is to use demand
management techniques to reduce the number of vehicles traveling at the
most congested times and on the most congested routes. One type of demand
management for travel on public roads is to make greater use of pricing
incentives. In particular, some economists have proposed using congestion
pricing that involves charging surcharges or tolls to drivers who choose
to travel during peak periods when their use of the roads increases
congestion. These surcharges might help reduce congestion by providing
incentives for travelers to share rides, use transit, travel at less
congested (generally off- peak) times and on less congested routes, or
make other adjustments* and at the same time, generate more revenues that
can be targeted to alleviating congestion in those specific corridors.
In addition to pricing incentives, other demand management techniques that
encourage ride- sharing may be useful in reducing congestion. Ridesharing
can be encouraged by establishing carpool and vanpool staging areas,
providing free or preferred parking for carpools and vanpools, subsidizing
transit fares, and designating certain highway lanes as high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes that can only be used by vehicles with a specified
number of people in them (i. e., two or more).
Demand management techniques on roads, particularly those involving
pricing, often provoke strong political opposition. The panelists cited a
number of concerns about pricing strategies including (1) the difficulty
in instituting charges to use roads that previously had been available
*free*, (2) the equity issues that arise from the potentially regressive
nature of these charges (i. e., the surcharges constitute a larger portion
of the earnings of lower income households and therefore impose a greater
financial burden on them), and (3) the concern that restricting lanes or
roads to people who pay to use them is elitist because that approach
allows people who can afford to pay the tolls to avoid congestion that
others must endure.
Page 17 GAO- 02- 1132T
More options for financing surface and maritime transportation projects
and more sources of revenue may be needed to achieve desired mobility
outcomes and address those segments of transportation systems that are
most congested. Our panelists suggested three financing strategies:
Increase funding flexibility. The current system of financing surface
and maritime transportation projects limits options for addressing
mobility challenges. For example, separate funding for each mode at the
federal, state, and local level can make it difficult to consider possible
efficient and effective ways for enhancing mobility. Providing more
flexibility in funding across modes could help address this limitation.
Expand support for alternative financing mechanisms. The public sector
could also expand its financial support for alternative financing
mechanisms to access new sources of capital and stimulate additional
investment in surface and maritime transportation infrastructure. These
mechanisms include both newly emerging and existing financing techniques
such as providing credit assistance to state and local governments for
capital projects and using tax policy to provide incentives to the private
sector for investing in surface and maritime transportation
infrastructure. These mechanisms currently provide a small portion of the
total funding that is needed for capital investment and some of them could
create future funding difficulties for state and local agencies because
they involve greater borrowing from the private sector. 26
Consider new revenue sources. A possible future shortage of revenues may
limit efforts to address mobility challenges, according to many of the
panelists. For example, some panelists said that because of the increasing
use of alternative fuels, revenues from the gas tax are expected to
decrease, possibly limiting funds available to finance future
transportation projects.
One method of raising revenue is for counties and other regional
authorities to impose sales taxes for funding transportation projects. A
number of counties have already passed such taxes and more are being
considered nationwide. However, several panelists expressed concerns that
this method might not be the best option for addressing mobility
26 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure:
Alternative Financing Mechanisms for Surface Transportation, GAO- 02-
1126T (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 25, 2002). Provide Options for
Financing Mobility Improvements and Consider Additional Sources of Revenue
Page 18 GAO- 02- 1132T
challenges because (1) moving away from transportation user charges to
sales taxes that are not directly tied to the use of transportation
systems weakens the ties between transportation planning and finance and
(2) counties and other taxing authorities may be able to bypass
traditional state and metropolitan planning processes because sales taxes
provide them with their owns funding sources for transportation.
New or increased taxes or other fees imposed on the freight sector could
also help fund mobility improvements, for example, by increasing taxes on
freight trucking. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that raising
the ceiling on the tax paid by heavy vehicles to $1,900 could generate
about $100 million per year. 27 Another revenue raising method would be to
dedicate more of the revenues from taxes on alternative fuels, such as
gasohol, to the Highway Trust Fund rather than to Treasury*s general fund,
as currently happens. However, this would decrease the amount of funds
available for other federal programs. Finally, pricing strategies,
mentioned earlier in this statement as a technique to reduce congestion,
are also possible additional sources of revenue for transportation
purposes.
In summary, the nation faces significant challenges in maintaining and
enhancing mobility on its surface and maritime transportation systems,
particularly with the growing congestion that accompanies increased
passenger and freight travel. However, as the Congress considers
reauthorizing surface transportation legislation* and weighs the
structure, nature, and level of federal investment it will provide in
future years to support surface and other transportation activities* it
has an opportunity to consider new strategies for dealing with congestion
and promoting enhanced mobility. While no single approach is sufficient,
the key strategies that we have outlined today may help transportation
decisionmakers at all levels of government address mobility challenges and
the institutional barriers that contribute to them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have at
this time.
27 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Highway Financing: Factors
Affecting Highway Trust Fund Revenues, GAO- 02- 667T (Washington, D. C.,
May 9, 2002).
Page 19 GAO- 02- 1132T
For further information on this testimony, please contact JayEtta Z.
Hecker at (202) 512- 2834 or heckerj@ gao. gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Christine Bonham, Jay Cherlow,
Colin Fallon, Rita Grieco, David Hooper, Jessica Lucas, Sara Ann
Moessbauer, Jobenia Odum, Katherine Siggerud, and Andrew VonAh. Contacts
and
Acknowledgments
Page 20 GAO- 02- 1132T
Our work covered major modes of surface and maritime transportation for
passengers and freight, including public roads, public transit, railways,
and ports and inland waterways. To identify mobility challenges and
strategies for addressing those challenges, we primarily relied upon
expert opinion, as well as a review of pertinent literature. In
particular, we convened two panels of surface and maritime transportation
experts to identify mobility issues and gather views about alternative
strategies for addressing the issues and challenges to implementing those
strategies. We contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and
its Transportation Research Board (TRB) to provide technical assistance in
identifying and scheduling the two panels that were held on April 1 and 3,
2002. TRB officials selected a total of 22 panelists with input from us,
including a cross- section of representatives from all surface and
maritime modes and from various occupations involved in transportation
planning. In keeping with NAS policy, the panelists were invited to
provide their individual views and the panels were not designed to build
consensus on any of the issues discussed. We analyzed the content of all
of the comments made by the panelists to identify common themes about key
mobility challenges and strategies for addressing those challenges. Where
applicable, we also identified the opposing points of view about the
strategies.
The names and affiliations of the panelists are as follows. We also note
that two of the panelists served as moderators for the sessions, Dr.
Joseph M. Sussman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr.
Damian J. Kulash of the Eno Foundation, Inc.
Benjamin J. Allen is Interim Vice President for External Affairs and
Distinguished Professor of Business at Iowa State University.
Daniel Brand is Vice President of Charles River Associates, Inc., in
Boston, Mass.
Jon E. Burkhardt is the Senior Study Director at Westat, Inc., in
Rockville, Md.
Sarah C. Campbell is the President of TransManagement, Inc., in
Washington, D. C.
Christina S. Casgar is the Executive Director of the Foundation for
Intermodal Research and Education in Greenbelt, Md.
Anthony Downs is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Appendix
I: Scope and Methodology
Page 21 GAO- 02- 1132T
Thomas R. Hickey served until recently as the General Manager of the
Port Authority Transit Corporation in Lindenwold, N. J.
Ronald F. Kirby is the Director of Transportation Planning at the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Damian J. Kulash is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Eno
Transportation Foundation, Inc., in Washington, D. C.
Charles A. Lave is a Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University
of California, Irvine where he served as Chair of the Economics
Department.
Stephen Lockwood is Vice President of Parsons Corporation, an
international firm that provides transportation planning, design,
construction, engineering, and project management services.
Timothy J. Lomax is a Research Engineer at the Texas Transportation
Institute at Texas A& M University.
James R. McCarville is the Executive Director of the Port of Pittsburgh
Commission.
James W. McClellan is Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning at
the Norfolk Southern Corporation in Norfolk, Va.
Michael D. Meyer is a Professor in the School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology and was the Chair of
the school from 1995 to 2000.
William W. Millar is President of the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA).
Alan E. Pisarski is an independent transportation consultant in Falls
Church, Va., providing services to public and private sector clients in
the United States and abroad in the areas of transport policy, travel
behavior, and data analysis and development.
Craig E. Philip is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Ingram
Barge Company in Nashville, Tenn.
Page 22 GAO- 02- 1132T
Arlee T. Reno is a consultant with Cambridge Systematics in Washington,
D. C.
Joseph M. Sussman is the JR East Professor in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering and the Engineering Systems Division at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Louis S. Thompson is a Railways Advisor for the World Bank where he
consults on all of the Bank*s railway lending activities.
Martin Wachs is the Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies
at the University of California, Berkeley and he holds faculty
appointments in the departments of City and Regional Planning and Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the university.
Page 23 GAO- 02- 1132T
Transportation Infrastructure: Alternative Financing Mechanisms for
Surface Transportation. GAO- 02- 1126T. Washington, D. C.: September 25,
2002.
Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on the Timely Completion
of Highway Construction Projects. GAO- 02- 1067T. Washington, D. C.:
September 19, 2002.
Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for
Infrastructure Investments. GAO- 02- 1033. Washington, D. C.: September 9,
2002.
Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing
Mobility: A National Challenge. GAO- 02- 775. Washington, D. C.: August
30, 2002.
Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have Improved, but
Congestion and Other Pressures Continue. GAO- 02- 571. Washington, D. C.:
May 31, 2002.
Highway Financing: Factors Affecting Highway Trust Fund Revenues.
GAO- 02- 667T. Washington, D. C.: May 9, 2002.
Transportation Infrastructure: Cost and Oversight Issues on Major Highway
and Bridge Projects. GAO- 02- 702T. Washington, D. C.: May 1, 2002.
Intercity Passenger Rail: Congress Faces Critical Decisions in Developing
National Policy. GAO- 02- 522T. Washington, D. C.: April 11, 2002.
Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use
That Protects Air and Water Quality. GAO- 02- 12. Washington, D. C.:
October 31, 2001.
Intercity Passenger Rail: The Congress Faces Critical Decisions About the
Role of and Funding for Intercity Passenger Rail Systems. GAO- 01- 820T.
Washington, D. C.: July 25, 2001.
U. S. Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Federal Agencies* Investment
Estimates. GAO- 01- 986T. Washington, D. C.: July 23, 2001. Appendix II:
Related GAO Products
Page 24 GAO- 02- 1132T
Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA, but Capital Planning
Could Be Enhanced. GAO- 01- 744. Washington, D. C.: July 3, 2001.
Intercity Passenger Rail: Assessing the Benefits of Increased Federal
Funding for Amtrak and High- Speed Passenger Rail Systems. GAO- 01- 480T.
Washington, D. C.: March 21, 2001.
Performance and Accountability: Challenges Facing the Department of
Transportation. GAO- 01- 443T. Washington, D. C.: September 19, 2002.
Highway Funding: Problems With Highway Trust Fund Information Can Affect
State Highway Funds. RCED/ AIMD- 00- 148. Washington, D. C.: June 29,
2000.
Highway Infrastructure: FHWA*s Model for Estimating Highway Needs Is
Generally Reasonable, Despite Limitations. RCED- 00- 133. Washington, D.
C.: June 5, 2000.
Mass Transit: *Mobility Improvements* Is One of Many Factors Used to
Evaluate Mass Transit Projects. RCED- 00- 6R. Washington, D. C.: October
15, 1999.
(544057)
*** End of document. ***