Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on Approaches
to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time (09-APR-03,		 
GAO-03-398).							 
                                                                 
Constructing, improving, and repairing roads is fundamental to	 
meeting the nation's mobility needs. The Federal Highway	 
Administration (FHWA) supplies most of the money (about $20	 
billion in fiscal year 2003), and state departments of		 
transportation are primarily responsible for completing projects.
Many federal and state agencies (called resource agencies) help  
ensure that environmental and other concerns are considered.	 
These and other organizations have recognized that the time it	 
takes to complete complex federally funded highway projects is	 
too long--in some cases nearly 20 years. GAO was asked to report 
the views of knowledgeable officials on the most promising	 
approaches for reducing completion time for federally funded	 
highway projects. GAO obtained the views of 33 officials from	 
federal, state, and private organizations with interests in	 
federally funded roads. 					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-398 					        
    ACCNO:   A06592						        
  TITLE:     Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on   
Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time		 
     DATE:   04/09/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Education or training				 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Federal aid for highways				 
	     Highway planning					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Public roads or highways				 
	     Road construction					 
	     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-03-398

                                       A

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, U. S. Senate

April 2003 HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE Perceptions of Stakeholders on
Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time

GAO- 03- 398

Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Most Promising Approaches
Identified by Stakeholders Focus on Improving Project Management 7

Conclusions 19 Recommendation for Executive Action 19 Agency Comments and
Our Evaluation 19

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 21

Appendix II: Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time as Identified by Respondents 26

Tables Table 1: Most Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project
Completion Time, as Identified by Stakeholders 3

Table 2: Percent of Respondents Rating the 13 Most Promising Approaches
Highly, Including Average Rating 8 Table 3: Comparison of Rankings of 34
Approaches to Reduce

Highway Project Completion Time by Transportation and Resource Respondents
10 Table 4: Organizations Contacted to Determine Most Promising

Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time 22 Table 5:
Structured Interview Questions Used to Identify the Most

Promising Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time 24 Table 6:
Promising Approaches to Reduce Project Completion

Time Identified and Rated by Respondents, by Average Rating 26 Table 7:
Views on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project

Completion Time Often Varied by Respondent Affiliation 32

Abbreviations

FHWA Federal Highway Administration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.

Letter

April 9, 2003 The Honorable James M. Jeffords Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate

Dear Senator Jeffords: Constructing, improving, and repairing roads and
bridges are fundamental to meeting the nation's mobility needs to
facilitate commerce, national defense, and pleasure use and to promote
economic growth. Therefore, the Congress has an interest in seeing that
federally funded highway projects are completed in a timely manner. Many
of the organizations with a role in highway project completion have
recognized that completing major highway construction projects takes too
long* in some cases about 20 years. As a result, these organizations*
including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of
transportation, and other stakeholders* have acted to reduce project
completion time by developing initiatives in several areas and by
publicizing what they believe are successful strategies. The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century, enacted in 1998,
contained provisions designed to streamline

environmental reviews, a component of projects often cited as offering the
greatest opportunity for reducing the completion time of federally funded
highway projects. As the reauthorization of this act approaches, the
Congress may again consider approaches for reducing the time it takes to
complete a federally funded highway project so that transportation
benefits are realized sooner.

You requested that we report on knowledgeable officials* views on the most
promising approaches to reduce project completion time for federally
funded highway projects. To carry out this work, we asked officials from
various federal and state agencies with responsibilities relating to the
construction of federally funded roads, transportation engineering
organizations, transportation professional associations, historic

preservation organizations, environmental organizations, and tribal
organizations to identify the most promising approaches for reducing
project completion time by a substantial amount for federally funded

highway projects of all types and complexities. We asked these officials
to identify other stakeholders with expertise and asked those individuals
also to identify promising approaches. Overall, 42 stakeholders identified
49 approaches. We then asked these officials to rate each approach on its

potential for reducing project completion time. Thirty- three officials
representing different interests provided these ratings. The approach we
used makes two contributions. First, it captures the views of a wide range
of stakeholders that are identified by their peers as knowledgeable.
Second, it provides a systematic assessment of the perceived value of all
approaches involving all aspects of completing federally funded highway
projects that were identified by knowledgeable stakeholders. We did not
attempt to corroborate the need to implement these approaches or the
reasons why respondents rated individual approaches as they did. In
addition, we did not attempt to determine how effective the promising
approaches, where already implemented, were in reducing highway project
completion time. (See app. I for additional details on our scope and
methodology.)

Results in Brief Respondents from 33 organizations representing a wide
range of federal, state, tribal, and advocacy interests generally rated 13
approaches of the 49 that they identified as most promising for reducing
the time it takes to plan, gain approval for, design, and build a
federally funded highway project. (See table 1.) These approaches fell
into three key areas: (1) improving

project management, (2) delegating environmental review and permitting
authority, and (3) improving agency staffing and skills. One of these
approaches, establishing early partnerships and coordination among
stakeholders so that technical, environmental, policy, and other issues
can be resolved in a timely and predictable manner, was strongly supported
by 28 of 31 (90 percent) respondents. 1 Other approaches, although viewed
as promising by respondents overall, received less widespread support
across different groups of stakeholders that we contacted. Some state
departments of transportation are employing some of these approaches. For
example, according to FHWA, 34 states have agreements in which state
departments of transportation provide funding for personnel at state and
federal environmental agencies for expediting reviews. For the most part,
respondents were not able to estimate how much time adopting one or more
of these approaches might save. The respondents also acknowledged that the
usefulness of these approaches could vary by the type of project or
community values. For example, for projects that are not complex or
contentious, these approaches would not necessarily save the same amount
of time that they would for projects with complex characteristics

1 Two of the 33 respondents did not provide a rating for this approach.

or disagreement among stakeholders. We are making a recommendation to the
Department of Transportation to foster more widespread use of the 13 most
promising approaches, where appropriate. While it did not directly comment
on our proposed recommendation, the department generally agreed that the
13 most promising approaches discussed in our draft report represent
opportunities to reduce project completion time.

Table 1: Most Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time, as Identified by Stakeholders Key area Approach

Improving project Establish early partnerships and coordination - Involve
stakeholders early so that technical, environmental, policy, management
and other issues can be resolved in a timely and predictable manner.

Revise section 4( f) of the Department of Transportation Act - For
projects on public lands, use the protections found in section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for consideration of historic
properties and other historic resources. Use geographic information
systems - Use the data collected by federal and state resource agencies on
the location of historic properties and environmental resources in the
state to identify environmental and historic issues early

during environmental review. Establish time frames for resource agency
review - Provide specific time frames for resource agencies to respond to
environmental documents and produce any needed analyses. Reduce the 6-
year time frame for lawsuits filed under the National Environmental Policy
Act.

Prepare preliminary environmental assessment reports - Provide information
on any conditions and constraints prior to programming project cost and
project schedule. Establish project milestones and performance monitoring
systems - Specify key dates, such as when final design

must be completed, and manage the project to meet the dates. Employ
context sensitive design - Design projects that consider the community*s
environmental and social context so that projects are consistent with the
values of the community. Hold public information meetings early - Hold
public meetings early and more often to provide information on projects
that are planned or underway. Delegating review Use programmatic
agreements * Use agreements between transportation and resource agencies
at the federal and permitting and/ or state level to address commonly
occurring issues. authority

Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and National Environmental Policy Act
reviews - Unify reviews so that section 404 wetlands reviews are addressed
concurrently with other environmental issues.

Employ wetlands banking - Use agreements between state departments of
transportation and wetlands permitting agencies to create large areas of
wetlands in designated areas rather than addressing effects on small
wetlands at each construction site. Improving agency

Use interagency funding agreements - State departments of transportation
provide funding for staff at federal or state staffing and skills resource
agencies to ensure timely attention to environmental issues.

Provide training - Determine the skills available at state transportation
departments in relation to federal and state requirements to complete each
phase of highway projects and establish training programs for shortfalls.

Source: GAO.

Background Officials in federal transportation and environmental agencies,
state transportation agencies, and other stakeholder organizations (such
as

environmental organizations) generally agree that constructing a new
federally funded highway is complicated and time consuming. 2 According to
FHWA, constructing a new, major federally funded highway project that has
significant environmental impacts typically takes from 9 to 19 years to
plan, design, gain approval for, and complete construction. Projects take
this long to complete because there can be as many as 200 major steps
requiring actions, approvals or input from a number of federal, state, and
other stakeholders. Projects with significant environmental impacts also
face high levels of controversy that often results in a lack of sustained
support from stakeholders. Federally funded highway projects are typically

completed in four phases:  Planning: State and local planning
organizations and state departments

of transportation assess a project*s purpose and need and consider its
need in relation to other potential highway projects.

 Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of
transportation identify project cost, level of service, and construction
location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed project and
alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred alternative. 
Final design and right- of- way acquisition: State departments of

transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate
utilities.

 Construction: State departments of transportation award construction
contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.

The time required varies with the size of the project, its complexity, and
the public interest in the project, but officials in federal and state
agencies and other stakeholder organizations agree that delivering larger,
more complex projects may take longer than is typical for most highway
projects. In addition to needing more time because of their size and
complexity, these

2 U. S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary
Information on the Timely Completion of Highway Construction Projects,
GAO- 02- 1067T (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 19, 2002).

projects often take longer to complete because they must comply with more
federal and state requirements and because of the public concern over
environmental impacts they may generate.

FHWA provides financial assistance to states to build and improve highways
and roads; establishes requirements related to planning, design,
environmental review, and construction; and provides transportation
engineering services (such as planning and design) for federally owned
highways and bridges. For fiscal year 2003, FHWA expects to fund about $20
billion in highway infrastructure improvements and congestion mitigations.
The responsibility for designing, planning, and awarding contracts for
federally funded highway projects generally rests with state departments
of transportation and local planning organizations.

Before a federally funded highway project can be built, it must comply
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), among other things. Under the act, the consequences, if any, of
proposed transportation projects and alternative choices (such as
alternative

routings) on the natural and human (e. g., health) environment and on
historic properties must be identified and assessed. For a federally
funded highway project that will have a significant impact on the
environment, the state department of transportation prepares an
environmental impact statement, which FHWA must approve before the project
can be built. The environmental impact statement must describe the
project, characterize the surrounding environment, analyze the
environmental effects of a range of reasonable project alternatives, and
indicate plans for complying with environmental laws and mitigating
environmental damage, if any. Other federal agencies (called resource
agencies), such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Environmental Protection Agency, and Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, participate in the preparation and review of the
environmental impact statements for highway projects because of their
responsibilities under federal laws. These laws include section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, section 4( f) of the Department of Transportation Act,
and section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. 3 According to FHWA, only about 3 percent of all highway
projects (accounting for about 9 percent of the funds) that received
federal funding in 2001 had a significant enough impact on the environment
to require preparation of an environmental impact statement.

Factors throughout the duration of a highway project can extend completion
time; however, much attention has been given to the environmental
requirements and their effect on timely completion. Concerned about how
long highway projects take, the Congress included provisions in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century to streamline
environmental reviews. These provisions require FHWA to identify and work
with federal agencies that have environmental and historic preservation
jurisdiction over highway projects to cooperatively establish realistic
project development time frames among the agencies and to work with the
agencies to adhere to those time frames. Because

transportation projects are also affected by state and local environmental
requirements, the act allows individual states to participate in these
streamlining approaches, as long as all affected states* agencies
participate. Finally, the act also allows FHWA to approve state requests
to use their federal- aid highway funds to provide additional
environmental personnel

dedicated to conducting environmental reviews of transportation projects
in order to meet time limits established by the act.

3 Any transportation project that involves discharge of dredged or fill
material to navigable waters, including certain wetlands, requires a
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The permit review may require mitigation of project impacts
through specific measures to minimize or avoid damage to wetlands and
compensate for unavoidable impacts.

Section 4( f) of the Department of Transportation Act applies to project
use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation areas or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge, or public or private land of an historic site of
national, state, or local significance (as determined by the

federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park,
recreation areas refuge, or site). Property for which section 4( f) is
applicable can be approved for use of a transportation program or project
only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land,
and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic
site resulting from the use.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires
federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on
historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. Historic properties are
properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places
or that meet the criteria for the National Register.

Most Promising Knowledgeable officials from 33 organizations representing
a wide range of

Approaches Identified interests and responsibilities for the planning,
design, environmental

review, and construction of federally funded highways generally identified
by Stakeholders Focus

13 approaches from the 49 promising approaches they identified as most on
Improving Project

promising for reducing the time it takes to complete a federally funded
Management

highway project. (See table 2 for how respondents rated the 13 most
promising approaches. A more detailed discussion of the 13 approaches
follows table 2. Table 6 in app. II describes the 49 approaches identified
and the degree to which respondents told us each had potential for
reducing highway project completion time.) One of the 13 approaches,
establishing early partnerships and coordination among stakeholders so
that technical, environmental, policy, and other issues can be resolved in
a timely and predictable manner, was strongly supported by nearly all
respondents. Other approaches, although viewed as promising by respondents
overall, had less widespread support across different groups of
stakeholders. Some state departments of transportation are already
employing some of the 13 approaches, such as funding specialized staff,
including biologists and

historic preservation specialists, at federal and state resource agencies
to assist with environmental reviews. For the most part, respondents were
not able to estimate how much time adopting one or more of these 13
approaches might save.

Table 2: Percent of Respondents Rating the 13 Most Promising Approaches
Highly, Including Average Rating Percent of respondents rating approach

Average Nature of approach Approach

highly a rating b

Improving project Establish early partnerships and coordination 90 4.5

management Revise section 4( f) 70 4.0 Use geographic information systems
63 3.5 Establish time frames for environmental reviews 60 3. 6 Prepare
preliminary environmental assessment reports 53 3.6 Establish project
milestones and performance monitoring systems 52 3.6 Employ context
sensitive design 50 3.5 Hold public information meetings early 50 3.5
Delegating review Use programmatic agreements 68 4.0 and permitting Unify
Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA reviews 58 3.7 authority

Employ wetlands banking 46 3.5 Improving agency

Use interagency funding agreements 59 3.6 staffing and skills Provide
training 53 3.7

Source: GAO. a Percent of all respondents ranking the approach as either
having great or very great potential to

reduce highway project completion time. Not all respondents rated each
approach. Thirty or more of the 33 respondents (at least 91 percent) rated
11 of 13 approaches; 26 respondents (79 percent) rated the remaining 2
approaches. (See app. II.) b The 13 most promising approaches were those
with a rating of 3.5 or more on a 5- point scale, where

a rating of 3 represented a moderate potential for reducing completion
times and ratings of 4 and 5 represented great and very great potential
for reducing project completion time, respectively. (See app. I.)

Most of the approaches (8 of 13) rated by our respondents as most
promising fell into the category of strategies to improve project
management, focusing primarily on state- level activities. Respondents
also supported delegation of review and permitting authority (3 of 13
approaches, including the second and fourth highest rated approaches in
terms of average rating); and identifying improvements in agency staffing
and skills (2 of 13 approaches). None of the approaches in other broad
areas identified by respondents as promising* alternatives to current
construction contracting practices and improvements in disseminating
information* were among the top 13. Furthermore, our results indicated
that 9 of the 13 promising approaches (about 70 percent) were related
solely to the planning and environmental review phases of a highway

project; the remaining 4 approaches offered opportunities for improved
performance throughout the entire life of a project. As can be expected,
the level of support for each of these approaches varied within similar
organizations, such as state departments of transportation. (See table 7
in app. II.) However, at least half of those charged primarily with
funding and constructing highways (federal and state departments of
transportation and organizations representing highway interests) as well
as those organizations whose primary responsibilities or interests focus
on resource issues (e. g., federal resource agencies and associations
representing environmental interests) rated 6 of the 13 approaches (46
percent) as most promising.

While our results also showed a pattern that agencies and other
organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests in building
and funding highways ranked certain approaches higher than did agencies
and associations with a primary focus on resource issues, and vice versa,
most

of the 13 most promising approaches had widespread support across
organizations. (See table 3.) Regarding differences in rating, four
approaches* metropolitan capacity building, acculturation, travel model

improvement, and state funding of historic preservation activities* were
rated highly by respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests
involving resources and were rated significantly lower by respondents with
primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a
highway project. 4 This can be explained, in part, by the fact that
organizations we contacted identified roughly twice as many knowledgeable
persons at organizations with primary responsibilities or interests in
funding or constructing a highway project as they did for organizations
with primary responsibilities for or interests involving resources, and
the former group*s views outweighed the latter group*s views. Despite
these differences, 8 of the 13 most promising approaches overall were in
each group*s *top 13* approaches.

4 Acculturation, in part, is working to achieve recognition by
transportation staff of the inherent benefits of environmentally sound
projects and vice versa. See table 6 in app. II for a description of these
approaches.

Table 3: Comparison of Rankings of 34 Approaches to Reduce Highway Project
Completion Time by Transportation and Resource Respondents

Ranking among Ranking among

agencies or agencies or

Number of Number of

associations associations

respondents respondents

primarily affiliated primarily affiliated

primarily affiliated primarily affiliated

with funding, with natural or

with funding, with natural or

managing, or historic

managing, or historic

constructing environmental

constructing environmental

Approach highway projects

issues highway projects

issues Early partnership and coordination 1 1 20 11

Revise section 4( f) 2 1620 10

Establish time frames for NEPA process 3 2820 10

Programmatic agreements 4 9 20 11

Establish project milestones and performance monitoring systems 5 2020 11

Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA processes 6 25206

Formal elevation process 7 23 20 12

Wetlands banking 8 29206

Training 9 8 20 12

Geographic information systems 10 3 20 12

Preliminary environmental assessment reports 11 6 20 12

Interagency funding agreements 12 4 20 12 Allow early right- of- way
acquisition 13 31 19 10

Public information meetings 14 7 20 12 Partner with groups 15 14 19 12
Biennial reviews 16 27 18 11

Context sensitive design 17 2 20 12 Hire consultants or contractors 18 34
19 8 Internet 19 11 20 12 National conferences 20 21 20 11 Single agency
point of contact 21 33 20 10 Acculturation 22 5 19 12 Environmental
compliance mitigation systems 23 15 20 12 Metropolitan capacity building
24 13 18 8 Environmental information center 25 18 20 11 Aerial surveying
and imaging technology 26 19 18 10 Videotaped guidance on promising
approaches 27 22 20 11

(Continued From Previous Page)

Ranking among Ranking among

agencies or agencies or

Number of Number of

associations associations

respondents respondents

primarily affiliated primarily affiliated

primarily affiliated primarily affiliated

with funding, with natural or

with funding, with natural or

managing, or historic

managing, or historic

constructing environmental

constructing environmental

Approach highway projects

issues highway projects

issues

State funding of historic preservation activities 28 10 19 11 Professional
organization membership 29 30 19 10 Regular publications 30 17 20 12
Awards program to recognize agency achievements 31 26 19 11

Infer the presence of endangered species 32 24 20 9 Peer r eviews 33 3220
10 Travel model improvement 34 12 19 9 Source: GAO.

Notes: In all, respondents identified 49 promising approaches. This table
includes the 34 approaches where 75 percent or more of the respondents
rated an approach. See app. I for a discussion of our methodology and
table 6 in app. II for a description of the remaining 15 approaches.
Approaches in bold are the 13 approaches that respondents rated most
highly overall.

The table is ordered from most popular to least popular among respondents
with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing
a highway project, to better show similarities and differences in rating.

The respondents acknowledged that these approaches might not work for
every project or in every state because projects and communities vary
widely. For example, projects that are not complex or contentious would
not necessarily achieve the time savings that these approaches afford for
projects with complex characteristics or disagreement among stakeholders.

Strategies to Improve Among the 13 most promising approaches, 8 focused on
improving project

Project Management management at the state level. About half of these
approaches were directed at undertaking activities earlier than usual. One
promising

approach* establishing early partnerships and coordination* stood out.

Establishing early partnerships and coordination. Ninety percent of the
respondents rated establishing early partnerships and early coordination
as highly important to reducing the time needed to complete a highway
project. This approach addressed the commonly voiced concern that projects
are halted late during environmental review because

previously unrecognized environmental impacts are brought to light.
Respondents overwhelmingly told us that early identification of these
issues and concerted efforts to address them sooner rather than later was
the most promising approach for reducing the time it takes to complete a
federally funded highway project. Support for this approach was generally
unified across respondent affiliations, with 85 percent of those with
primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a

highway project and all of those with primary responsibilities for or
interests involving resources rating it highly.

Adding flexibility to historic property reviews by revising section 4( f).
About 70 percent of the respondents told us that adding flexibility to
reviews of the potential impacts of proposed highway projects on historic
properties and sites would either greatly or very greatly improve states*
abilities to manage their highway projects. Historic properties are
protected under two laws that are often viewed by stakeholders as
duplicative and adding time to project completion: section 4( f) of the
Department of Transportation Act and section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966. Section 4( f) legislation prohibits the
Department of Transportation from approving any highway project that uses,
among

other things, land of an historic site of national, state, or local
significance unless it finds that (1) there is no prudent and feasible
alternative that avoids such resources or causes less harm to them and (2)
the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to those
resources. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
requires that projects that include federal participation consider the
effects on any properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the
National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 establishes a flexible
consultive process that brings all parties into discussion, and was cited
by some respondents as allowing for more productive outcomes that preserve
the goals of the transportation project while creating meaningful
protections of historic properties. Those advocating change wanted section
4( f) requirements to offer the flexibility of section 106 requirements.
There was less agreement on the efficacy of this approach between those
with a primary responsibility for or interest in funding or constructing
highways (80 percent viewed this approach highly) and those whose primary
responsibilities or interests rest with resources (50 percent viewed this
approach highly). In some part, this lack of consensus reflected the
differing views of whether legislative changes are needed to implement
this approach or whether it could be accomplished

administratively. For example, the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials has established a historic preservation work
group to discuss and possibly seek solutions for section 4( f)

implementation, such as whether the requirements of section 4( f) could be
considered as met if all parties sign a memorandum of agreement under
section 106.

Use of geographic information systems data. Overall, 63 percent of the
knowledgeable officials indicated that the use of geographic information
systems data on the locations of historic property and environmental
resources in the state had great or very great potential to reduce highway
project completion time. Project duration can be extended when states are
unable to accurately identify environmental resources or historic
properties at the outset of environmental review when alternative road
alignments are initially developed. Without this information, a preferred

alternative may be selected, only to discover later that environmental
resources or historic properties lie within the project alignment,
delaying the project as impacts on the newly discovered resource are
assessed. To address this dilemma, state transportation agencies and
resource agencies

increasingly use geographic information systems databases. According to
respondents, by consulting these databases early during environmental
review, transportation agencies can determine which project alignments

would likely minimize any adverse impacts to natural or historic
environmental areas. In addition, respondents indicated that using these
databases would support integrated interagency reviews of a project*s
impact on the environment. Half of those with primary responsibilities for
or interests in funding or constructing a highway project and 83 percent
of those with primary responsibilities for or interests involving
resources rated this approach highly.

Establishing deadlines for resource agency reviews. The majority of
respondents also told us that projects could be managed better if more
predictability existed in how long reviews to determine the level of
impacts that proposed highway projects have on environmental and historic
properties could be expected to take. In this vein, about 60 percent of
the respondents highly supported establishing by law specific deadlines
for resource agencies to provide their assessments of how a proposed
highway project affects the environment or historic places. Some commented
that resource agencies have no requirement for providing timely comments
and feedback during creation of draft or final environmental impact
statements, without which FHWA cannot allow a project to proceed. In
addition, lawsuits challenging these FHWA decisions under NEPA can be
filed for up to 6 years after FHWA has approved funding for the project
after environmental review. Officials told us that lawsuits to challenge
projects that are filed after the project has been put out to bid resulted
in substantial

lost time and increased costs for state departments of transportation.
According to these officials, establishing a shorter statute of
limitations than the current 6 years for lawsuits to be filed would fully
preserve citizens* rights to bring legal challenge while also achieving
closure more quickly on any disputed issues. However, there was little
consensus on this

approach: 80 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or
interests in funding or constructing a highway project rated this approach
highly, but only 20 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or
interests involving resources did so.

Preparing preliminary environmental assessment reports. About half of all
respondents rated the idea of preparing preliminary environmental
assessment reports highly. As discussed previously, state highway
departments must assess the proposed project*s impacts on the environment,
if any. Respondents told us that obtaining information about a project*s
potential environmental impacts early, such as during the planning phase,
could help transportation officials identify issues sooner and help move
toward resolution earlier, thus saving time. Similar to establishing and
utilizing geographic information systems databases, respondents explained
that conducting field visits to the planned project sites, conducting
literature searches, and documenting a proposed project site through
photographs could help identify any environmental issues early. Slightly
less than half of those with primary responsibilities or interests in
funding or constructing a highway project (45 percent) and about two-
thirds of those with primary responsibilities or interests

involving resources (67 percent) rated this approach highly.

Establishing project milestones and performance monitoring systems. About
half of the knowledgeable officials rated highly the concept of
establishing project milestones and performance monitoring systems to help
state transportation officials manage projects. Project milestones
establish goals and expectations for as many as 200 major steps needed to
plan, design, gain approval for, and construct a federally funded highway
project. Performance monitoring allows state departments of

transportation to determine whether goals are being achieved and take
corrective action, if needed. Respondents indicated that off- the- shelf
project scheduling software could meet this need. Finally, state
transportation agencies do not typically capture information centrally on
time spent on various aspects of their highway projects. Such information

could be useful in managing the agencies* overall performance and help to
identify opportunities for improvement. 5 This approach was rated highly
more often by those with primary responsibilities for or interest in
funding or constructing a highway project (60 percent) than those with
primary responsibilities or interests involving resources (36 percent).

Use of context sensitive design. Fifty percent of the respondents
indicated that the use of context sensitive design has great or very great
potential to reduce highway project completion time. In context sensitive
design, engineering is driven by the needs of the community and the
environment as well as by technical considerations. Context sensitive
design goes beyond the early partnership and coordination approach
discussed above to plan a project that not only meets transportation needs
but also meets the underlying values of the community, such as strong
attachment to certain historic or environmental resources. This requires
an approach that involves all stakeholders, seeks to develop a highway
project that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic,
historic, and environmental resources while maintaining safety and
mobility. About onethird (30 percent) of those with primary
responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway
project rated this approach highly. In contrast, 83 percent of those with
primary responsibilities for or interests involving resources rated this
approach highly.

5 GAO- 02- 1067T.

Holding earlier, more frequent public meetings. About half of the
respondents viewed earlier and/ or more frequent public meetings as highly
useful in reducing the time to complete highway projects. Respondents
explained that public comments were sometimes not solicited until the
state department of transportation had already identified a preferred
alternative, rather than allowing for meaningful public input to address
community concerns at the outset of developing suitable alternatives. 6
Public information meetings allow transportation agencies to present

information to the public on projects that are planned or underway and to
obtain informal comments from community residents. Such meetings can help
project sponsors understand the views of the community while communicating
the project*s purpose and possible impacts. At the same time, early
opportunities for and incorporation of comments provides the community
buy- in as the department of transportation addresses their concerns.
About 40 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or interests
in funding or constructing a highway project rated this approach highly,
while two- thirds of those with primary responsibilities for or

interests involving resources rated this approach highly. Delegation of
Review and

A second set of promising approaches generally involved routinizing
Permitting Authority

decisions on commonly occurring issues. According to FHWA, over 90 percent
of highway projects are routine activities that do not impose extensive
environmental impacts nor require substantial review. However, these
routine activities may undergo lengthy or duplicative reviews that

respondents noted as potentially slowing project completion.

Using programmatic agreements. Using programmatic agreements between
federal and/ or state transportation and resource agencies to address
commonly occurring issues received the second highest rating from
respondents on average of the 13 most promising approaches. Sixtyeight
percent of the respondents indicated that programmatic agreements to
handle routine projects or commonly occurring resource effects (e. g.,
endangered species) or to delegate review authority from resource agencies
to transportation agencies have great or very great potential to reduce
project completion time. This approach was rated highly by 70 percent of
those respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests

6 FHWA requires that, during statewide transportation planning, state
officials proactively provide the public with complete information, timely
public notice, full public access to decisions, and opportunities for
early and continuing involvement.

in funding or constructing a highway project. Moreover, nearly two- thirds
of the respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests
involving resources rated the approach highly.

Unifying section 404 and other environmental requirements. Fiftyeight
percent of the respondents rated highly the idea of unifying the
requirements of section 404 of the Clean Water Act with other
environmental review requirements. Traditionally, FHWA and the states
completed environmental reviews of the proposed highway project before

approaching the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit involving a wetland
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Yet, even after FHWA had issued
its record of decision on environmental issues allowing the project to
move forward, a project might fail to obtain the needed permits from the
Corps and therefore be halted despite having cleared an extensive
environmental review. Officials told us that by effectively integrating
the two processes, approval of the section 404 permit could be concurrent
with FHWA*s final

action, resulting in reduced project completion time, more environmentally
sound projects, and increased relationship building. Knowledgeable
officials suggested that this approach could occur through merger
agreements or through changes in legislation. Sixty percent of the
respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or
constructing a highway project and 50 percent of respondents with primary
responsibilities for or interests involving resources rated the approach
highly. According to FHWA, 29 states have adopted agreements to unify NEPA
environmental reviews and section 404 Clean Water Act permit

reviews to ensure that the reviews are conducted concurrently.

Wetlands banking. Slightly less than half (46 percent) of the respondents
rated the concept of wetlands banking highly. As required under section
404 of the Clean Water Act, transportation agencies must compensate for
any wetlands that are disturbed by highway projects, as determined by the
Army Corps of Engineers and state environmental agencies. Transportation
agencies address these wetlands impacts by creating new wetlands areas

near the highway project site. The problem cited by some is that this
approach to wetlands is piecemeal rather than comprehensive. According to
respondents, these efforts can add significant time to highway projects,
especially if the wetlands are not detected until late in the project.
Under wetlands banking, state departments of transportation and wetland
permitting agencies enter into blanket agreements to create large areas of
wetlands rather than small wetlands at each construction site. While
saving time on project completion, proponents state that wetlands banking
can also provide more wildlife habitat and more ecologically significant

restoration and enhancement in larger areas. Fifty percent of the
respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or
constructing a highway project and 33 percent of the respondents with
primary responsibilities or interests involving resources rated this
approach highly.

Improving Agency Staffing Two of the 13 most promising approaches involved
improving staffing and Skills

through interagency funding agreements and increased training as a means
for reducing highway project completion time.

Using interagency funding agreements. About 60 percent of the respondents
rated highly the use of interagency funding agreements to provide staff at
resource agencies. As noted above, some believe that resource agencies do
not always provide needed feedback to FHWA or departments of
transportation on the environmental effects of proposed highway projects
in a timely manner. Various reasons for this were cited, but both
respondents with responsibilities for or interests in funding or
constructing a highway and respondents with responsibilities or interests
involving resources noted that staff shortages at resource agencies were a
significant reason for this problem. As a result, state departments of
transportation have increasingly used federal funds authorized under

section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century to pay
for technical staff positions at resource agencies, including biologists
and historic preservation specialists. According to FHWA, 34 states have
agreements that provide state and federal environmental agency personnel

for expediting reviews. The hired personnel devote their attention solely
to proposed federally funded highway projects, thus potentially improving
the timeliness of resource agency assessments of any environmental issues
associated with these projects. Slightly less than one- half of those with

responsibilities or interests in funding or constructing a highway project
(45 percent) rated this approach highly; however, over four- fifths of
those with responsibilities or interests involving resources (83 percent)
did so.

Increased training. Finally, about half of the respondents supported
increased training for state department of transportation officials
regarding understanding the requirements associated with completing a
highway project. 7 About 50 percent of those with primary responsibilities
for or 7 We did not ask the respondents to identify specific areas where
training would be

beneficial.

interests in funding or constructing a highway project and 58 percent of
those with primary responsibilities or interests in involving resources
rated this approach highly.

Conclusions Our results showed, overall, strong stakeholder support for 13
approaches to reduce the time it takes to complete a federally funded
highway project.

While stakeholders* support varied, 8 of these approaches had strong
support across groups representing different primary interests. We
recognize that it may be neither feasible nor appropriate to utilize each
of

these 13 approaches on every federally funded highway project. In
addition, some of these approaches, such as interagency funding
agreements, are already being utilized at the state level and still others
may require congressional action. Nonetheless, they do represent a
reasonable number of actions that can be considered further as to the
benefits, in relation to the costs, that they bring to reducing highway
project completion time. FHWA would need to work with other lead agencies
to assess how these actions would be implemented, including whether any

legislative changes would be required. Such assessments could lead to more
widespread adoption and corresponding increased transportation and
environmental benefits. Recommendation for

In order to reduce highway project completion time, we recommend that
Executive Action

the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, FHWA, to
consider the benefits of at least each of the 13 most promising approaches
discussed in this report relative to the costs and feasibility of
implementing them and take the actions needed to foster more widespread
adoption of those approaches that appear to be the most cost effective.
Agency Comments and

We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from the Department
Our Evaluation

of Transportation. Generally, the Department agreed that the 13 most
promising approaches discussed in our draft report represent opportunities
to reduce project completion time. While it did not directly comment on
our proposed recommendation, the Department noted that most, if not all,
of the promising approaches coincide with the streamlining activities that
the Department and its partners, such as state departments of
transportation and resource agencies, have been developing and
implementing under section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21 st Century.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to congressional committees with responsibilities for highway
issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, Federal
Highway Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
this

report will be available at no charge on our home page at http:// www.
gao. gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
either James Ratzenberger at ratzenbergerj@ gao. gov or me at siggerudk@
gao. gov. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512- 2834. Key
contributors to this report were Jennifer Clayborne, Kenya Jones, SaraAnn
Moessbauer, James Ratzenberger, Deena Richart, and Matthew Zisman.

Sincerely yours, Katherine Siggerud Acting Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Scope and Methodology To perform our work, we reviewed laws and
regulations governing the construction of federally funded highway
projects. We discussed these requirements, the time required to complete
projects, and initiatives to reduce this time with officials from the
Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, private
transportation engineering firms, and others. We also interviewed
officials from California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin departments of transportation about highway
project completion time and initiatives to reduce the completion times of
these projects. We chose these states either because they spent the most
federalaid highway funds or because officials we interviewed identified
these states as making efforts to reduce project time. We also reviewed
federal and private studies on highway project completion. To determine
transportation stakeholders* views on the most promising

approaches to substantially reduce project completion time for federally
funded highway projects, we reached out to 62 organizations with a role or
interest in highway project completion. (See table 4.) Of these
organizations, officials from 42 organizations agreed to participate in
structured interviews, including federal and state agencies with
responsibilities relating to the construction of federally funded roads,
transportation engineering organizations, transportation professional

associations, historic preservation organizations, environmental
organizations, tribal organizations and a university. To identify the 62
organizations, we initially contacted agencies and organizations that have
primary responsibility for highway project completion or that have been

vocal on the issue. We asked these officials to identify, for subsequent
interviews, other agencies or organizations undertaking or knowledgeable
about promising approaches for substantially reducing highway project
completion time. We continued to ask for names from the subsequent
organizations until no new names were identified.

Table 4: Organizations Contacted to Determine Most Promising Approaches to
Reduce Highway Project Completion Time Organization

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials American Concrete and Pavement
Association American Council of Engineering Companies American Highway
Users Alliance American Public Transportation Association American Road &
Transportation Builders Association American Society of Civil Engineers
Association of General Contractors California Department of Transportation
Center for Transportation and the Environment (North Carolina State
University) Construction Industry Institute Defenders of Wildlife Delaware
Department of Transportation Endangered Species Coalition Environmental
Council of the States Environmental Defense Federal Highway Administration
* Historic Preservation Federal Highway Administration * Infrastructure
Federal Highway Administration * Planning Federal Highway Administration *
Right- of- Way Federal Highway Administration * Technical Modeling Florida
Department of Transportation, State Highway Engineer's Office Georgia
Department of Transportation, Office of Environment/ Location Georgia
Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning, Data and Intermodal
Development Division Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering Georgia Regional Transportation Authority HDR,
Inc. Institute of Transportation Engineers Kentucky Heritage Council
Lafayette, Louisiana Metropolitan Planning Organization Maryland State
Highway Administration, Enhancement Program Maryland State Highway
Administration, Project Planning Division Minnesota Department of
Transportation National Association of Development Organizations

(Continued From Previous Page)

Organization

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers National
Coalition to Defend NEPA National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers National Trust for Historic Preservation National
Wildlife Federation Natural Resources Defense Council Navajo Nation,
Historic Preservation Department New Hampshire Department of
Transportation New Jersey Department of Transportation, Quality Management
Services North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
(Pre- construction) and Planning and Environment Unit Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, Engineering District 10 Rhode Island
Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission San Diego Association of
Governments Sierra Club Smart Growth America South Carolina Department of
Transportation Surface Transportation Policy Project Transportation
Development Institute Texas A& M University Tribal Preservation Programs
of the National Park Service University of Utah U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers U. S. Army Corps of Engineers * Wilmington, NC District U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vermont
Division for Historic Preservation Washington Department of Transportation
Source: GAO.

Using a structured interview, we asked knowledgeable officials at each of
the 42 organizations to provide information about the most promising
approaches for substantially reducing completion time for projects of all
types and complexities and in each project phase (i. e., planning,
preliminary engineering and environmental review, final design and
rightof- way acquisition, and construction). We also obtained information
from these contacts on opportunities to reduce project completion time
through

administrative changes, changes in federal or state law, improvement of
staff skills, and improvements in disseminating information about

approaches to reduce project completion time. For each approach cited as
the most promising for substantially reducing project completion time, we
asked these officials to provide information on: (1) the nature of the
approach, (2) reason( s) why the approach was taken, (3) agencies/
organizations involved with the approach, (4) size of the project, (5)
changes to federal or state law (if any) required for each approach, (6)

expected/ actual benefits, and (7) methods (if any) for measuring these
benefits. (See table 5 for the structured interview questions.)

Table 5: Structured Interview Questions Used to Identify the Most
Promising Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time

1. Please identify any initiatives your organization has taken to expedite
project delivery (e. g., earlier coordination between state departments of
transportation and environmental resource agencies; historic preservation
programmatic agreements; design/ build construction techniques). For each
initiative, please provide the following information: (1) description of
initiative; (2) why initiative was taken; (3) organizations participating
in initiative; (4) type of project to which initiative applies (size,
complexity); (5) project

phase to which initiative applies; (6) whether this initiative required
any changes to federal or state law; (7) expected/ actual benefit of
initiative; and (8) how benefit is measured.

2. Please identify any further opportunities that exist to measurably
reduce project delivery times through changes in federal or state law,
while keeping basic policies (e. g., metropolitan/ statewide planning;
environmentally responsible projects) in place. For each initiative,
please provide the following information: (1) law that should be changed;
(2) why change is needed; (3) organizations affected by change in law; (4)
type of project to which initiative applies (size, complexity); (5)
project phase to which change in law applies; (6) expected benefit of
change in law; and (7) how benefit would be measured.

3. Some have commented that highway oversight is historically focused on
engineering and contracting rather than oversight of management and
financial issues. Please discuss if this is the case and if any reforms in
this area are needed. Also, please identify any initiatives your
organization has taken that address human capital reform (e. g.,
refocusing staff efforts from oversight of engineering and contract issues
to management and financial issues) to improve project delivery. For each
initiative, please provide the following information: (1) description of
initiative; (2) why initiative was taken; (3) organizations participating
in initiative; (4) type

of project to which initiative applies (size, complexity); (5) project
phase to which initiative applies; (6) expected/ actual benefit of
initiative; and (7) how benefit is measured.

4. How well is information about initiatives to improve project delivery
times shared among federal and state agencies? Do you have any suggestions
to improve the current practices? Please describe how your organization
shares what it has learned with others and how you learn about initiatives
that other organizations are taking by providing the following: (1) method
of dissemination/ learning; (2) initiative to which this applies; and (3)
agencies involved. 5. Please identify any further opportunities that could
be pursued to expedite transportation project delivery. Please provide the

following information: (1) opportunity; (2) problem to be addressed; (3)
organizations affected; (4) project type to which opportunity applies
(size, complexity); (5) project phase to which opportunity applies; (6)
expected benefit of opportunity; and (7) how benefit would be measured. 6.
Are you aware of any promising initiatives that other organizations are
taking to improve highway project delivery times? If so, please

provide the following information: (1) organization; (2) nature of
initiative; (3) point of contact; (4) phone number; (5) email/ web
address.

Source: GAO.

To determine which of the identified approaches hold the most promise for
substantially reducing highway project completion time, we compiled a list

of 49 approaches identified by the respondents and asked each of the 42
officials we interviewed to rate the potential of each of the approaches
to reduce project completion time on a scale of 1 to 5. 1 Thirty- three
officials

agreed to participate in this aspect of our work. Of those not
participating, officials declined for a variety of reasons. We compiled
these ratings and calculated an average rating for each approach where at
least 75 percent of the 33 officials provided a rating. We identified the
most promising as those with an average rating of 3. 5 or higher. There
were 13 approaches with ratings of 3.5 or higher. None of the 13 most
promising approaches were rated by all 33 officials. Eleven of these 13
approaches were rated by 30 or more (91 percent) officials, while the
remaining 2 approaches were rated by 26 officials (79 percent). We did not
attempt to corroborate the

need to implement these approaches or obtain details on how they might be
structured. In addition, we did not attempt to determine how effective the
promising approaches, where already implemented, were in reducing highway
project completion time.

We conducted our work from September 2002 through March 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

1 1= little to no potential to reduce project completion time; 2= some
potential to reduce project completion time; 3= moderate potential to
reduce project completion time; 4= great potential to reduce project
completion time; 5= very great potential to reduce project completion
time. Respondents could also indicate whether they did not know or had no
basis to judge.

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion Time as
Identified by

Appendi x II

Respondents Of the 34 approaches that were assessed by at least 75 percent
of respondents, 19 (56 percent) were rated on average as having moderate,
great, or very great potential to reduce highway project completion time.
(See table 6.) The remaining 15 approaches (44 percent) were assessed as
having, on average, some, little, or no potential to reduce highway
project completion time. Fewer than 75 percent of the respondents provided
an assessment for 15 other approaches, and we did not report on these
results.

Table 6: Promising Approaches to Reduce Project Completion Time Identified
and Rated by Respondents, by Average Rating Percent of respondents
indicating approach Number of

Average has great or very

Approach Description respondents rating a great potential

Early partnership and All affected parties (e. g., federal government,
coordination state government, tribal, public) with input into the project
completion process (1) collaborate

early and throughout project planning so that technical, environmental,
policy, and program issues can be resolved in a predictable and timely
manner; and (2) develop collaborative work plans that are comprehensive,
realistic, and deliverable. 31 4. 5 90.3

Programmatic agreements Use programmatic agreements (i. e., between
transportation and resource agencies at the federal and/ or state level)
to review environmental impact of routine projects or

commonly occurring resource effects (i. e., commonly encountered species,
typical project types) or delegation of authority (i. e., reviews from
state historic preservation agency to state department of transportation).
31 4. 0 67.7

Revise section 4( f) process Use the protections found in section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act instead of the protections found in
section 4( f) of the Department of Transportation Act for consideration of
historic properties and other historic resources. 30 4. 0 70.0

Unify Clean Water Act Unify the Clean Water Act section 404 permit

section 404 and National and NEPA environmental review processes to

Environmental Policy Act ensure that projects that pass the NEPA (NEPA)
processes

review process also comply with section 404. 26 3. 7 57.7

(Continued From Previous Page)

Percent of respondents indicating approach Number of

Average has great or very

Approach Description respondents rating a great potential

Training Determine agency staff skill set and establish training programs
to eliminate knowledge shortfalls among transportation staff on
requirements to complete all phases of

highway projects. Ensure that new recruits to the transportation field
have orientation and training for all phases of project completion. 32 3.
7 53.1

Establish time frames for Provide specific time frames for resource

NEPA process agencies to respond to environmental documents and produce
any needed analyses. Reduce the 6- year time frame for lawsuits filed

under NEPA. 30 3. 6 60.0 Interagency funding State departments of
transportation fund agreements additional staff at state or federal
resource

agencies. Work of funded staff must have a measurable impact in reducing
time to complete environmental reviews on transportation projects. 32 3. 6
59.4 Preliminary environmental Provide information on any conditions and
assessment reports constraints early in the process, prior to

programming project cost and schedule. Reports are based on a field visit,
literature search, geographic information systems, and photo log review to
include a work plan for the subsequent environmental analysis for NEPA. 32
3. 6 53.1

Establish project milestones Specify key dates, such as when final design
and performance monitoring

must be completed, when the contract is let, systems

and when construction must conclude, and manage the project to meet the
dates. Use project- scheduling software available off the shelf that
indicates where project delays occur

as well as what is ahead of schedule. 31 3. 6 51.6 Context sensitive
design Projects must be designed to consider their

environmental and social context so that projects meet the needs of the
communities. These factors are incorporated into the

transportation planning process. 32 3. 5 50.0 Geographic information

Use of data collected by various federal and systems state resource
agencies to identify

environmental and historic issues early during environmental review,
determine alignments that minimize adverse impacts, and support integrated
interagency review. 32 3. 5 62.5

(Continued From Previous Page)

Percent of respondents indicating approach Number of

Average has great or very

Approach Description respondents rating a great potential

Public information meetings Hold public meetings early and often to
provide information on projects that are planned or underway. 32 3. 5 50.0

Wetlands banking Blanket agreements between state departments of
transportation and wetland permitting agencies to create large areas of
wetlands rather than small wetlands at each construction site. 26 3. 5
46.2

Partner with groups Identify groups that have developed best practices, or
offer technical expertise, to ensure that information is shared in order
to expedite project completion. 31 3. 3 41.9

Acculturation Work to achieve recognition in transportation staff of the
inherent benefits of environmentally sound projects; work to achieve
recognition of the value of transportation projects on behalf of resource
agencies. 31 3. 3 41.9

Formal elevation process Formalized process in which resource agencies
elevate unresolved issues through the chain of command, with the final
step being senior management. 32 3. 2 46.9

Internet Use the internet to provide technical training and reference
materials. Use the internet to allow access to agency guidance materials,
regulations, and federal and state laws. 32 3. 0 34.4 Allow early right-
of- way

To save time and money associated with acquisition relocation, acquire
potential project right- ofway during project design. 29 3. 0 34.5

Biennial reviews Conduct biennial reviews by state transportation agencies
to help identify bottlenecks. 29 3. 0 31.0

National conferences Hold national conferences to bring practitioners and
other stakeholders together to share information. 31 2. 9 25.8

Environmental information Fund and operate a central information

center storehouse for transportation and resource agencies. 31 2. 8 22.6

Aerial surveying and imaging Highly accurate digital terrain data models
and

technology maps can become available early in project design with
substantially reduced time, effort, and expense compared with only using
ground surveys. Contractors can manage the earthwork of a project with
significant precision. 28 2. 8 25.0

(Continued From Previous Page)

Percent of respondents indicating approach Number of

Average has great or very

Approach Description respondents rating a great potential

Hire consultants or Consultants or contractors provide technical
contractors analyses instead of agency staff who instead focus on project
management. 27 2. 8 25.9 State funding of historic

State governments provide funds for historic preservation activities
preservation activities outside the federal State

Historic Preservation Officers program. 30 2. 8 33.3 Metropolitan capacity

Work to improve the technical skills of building metropolitan planning
organizations so that planning can focus on policy decisions rather

than technical and administrative issues. 26 2. 8 38.5 Environmental
compliance

Provide a system to ensure that mitigation mitigation systems measures are
carried out as needed and

specified. 32 2. 8 28.1 Single agency point of

Rather than have multiple contacts for contact members of the public, have
one single contact, reducing confusion, and

communication delays. 30 2. 7 16.7 Videotaped guidance on

Videotaped presentations on methods to promising approaches reduce project
completion time. 31 2. 7 19.4

Travel model improvement Improve transportation modeling to more
accurately portray traffic patterns and growth. 28 2. 6 25.0

Awards programs to Design a national awards program to provide recognize
agency recognition for departments of transportation achievements

and resource agencies for innovative projects and leadership. 30 2. 5 13.3

Regular publications Organize and distribute publications on a regular
basis (i. e., weekly newsletters, monthly magazines, and quarterly web
magazines). 32 2. 5 25.0

Peer reviews Federal transportation officials provide state transportation
officials with recommendations on revising existing specifications or
procedures. Surveys of peers allow transportation and resource agency
officials to determine performance relative to peers. 30 2. 4 6.7

Infer the presence of Proceed under the assumption that endangered species
endangered species are present at a project

site, reducing the likelihood of later delay and ultimately saving costs.
30 2.4 6. 7

Professional organization Participation in engineering, accounting,
membership finance, management, and other discipline

organizations. 29 2. 2 17.2

(Continued From Previous Page)

Percent of respondents indicating approach Number of

Average has great or very

Approach Description respondents rating a great potential

Subsurface utility Provides accurate mapping of existing engineering
underground utilities during the project design

process using geophysics, surveying and civil engineering rather than
determining utility locations later during the construction phase. 24 b b
Clarify role of metropolitan

Clarify laws to reduce confusion of roles planning organizations between
state departments of transportation

and metropolitan planning organizations for creating and implementing
transportation plans. 24 b b

Incentive/ disincentive Giving the contractor a financial incentive for
construction contracting every day that the contract is completed early

and a financial disincentive for failure to complete a project on time. 23
b b

Use consultants or Expedite the procurement process for

contractors appraisal services and reduce fees and costs. 22 b b Design
build contracting One entity, the design- builder, forges a single
contract with the state transportation agency

to provide for architectural and engineering design and construction
services. 21 b b

A + B bidding for Involves cost and time in the low bid construction
contracts determination. Submitted bids consist of

dollar amount of all work to be performed, as well as total number of
calendar days required to complete the project. 21 b b

Advanced clearing and Contract for clearing vegetation and removing

grubbing contracts roots and stumps (grubbing) in the project right- of-
way in advance of the project. 21 b b

Change control policy for Establish procedures to monitor and limit

construction contracts contractor change orders. 21 b b Lane rental
construction Assess the contractor a fee for each day of contracts lane
closure in excess of the number of total

lane rental days originally bid by the contractor. 20 b b

Lump sum construction Contractor submits a lump sum price to

contracts complete a project as opposed to bidding on individual items. 20
b b Utility relocation contracts Include utility relocation in
construction contract. 20 b b Indefinite quantity,

Contractors bid on work items with the location indefinite completion to
be determined under future work orders contracting

(e. g., for installation of traffic signals on a citywide, or areawide
basis). 19 b b

(Continued From Previous Page)

Percent of respondents indicating approach Number of

Average has great or very

Approach Description respondents rating a great potential

Noncost selection factor Allow contracts to consider such factors as

contracting previous work quality, rather than selecting the lowest
bidder. 19 b b

System integrator contracts Allow contractors to serve as the construction
manager, including advertising, letting and awarding contracts using state
and federal acquisition guidelines. In addition to contract management,
the contractor will perform project supervision and system integration. 18
b b

Bid averaging method of Once a minimum number of bids are received,
contracting state determines the average bid and selects

contractor whose bid is closest to the average. 16 b b Source: GAO.

a Respondents rated each approach*s potential for reducing project
completion time using the following scale: 1= little to no potential to
reduce project completion time; 2= some potential to reduce project
completion time; 3= moderate potential to reduce project completion time;
4= great potential to reduce project completion time; 5= very great
potential to reduce project completion time. Respondents could also tell
us that they did not know or had no basis to judge.

b No statistic is reported because less than 75 percent of the 33
respondents provided a rating for this approach.

In some cases, respondents with similar primary interests or
responsibilities rated approaches similarly; in other cases, their views
diverged. (See table 7; approaches in bold are the 13 approaches that
respondents rated most highly overall.)

Table 7: Views on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time
Often Varied by Respondent Affiliation Views among agencies or
associations primarily

Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or affiliated with natural or historic environmental
constructing highway projects

issues Number of

Number of Number of

Number of Number of

Number of respondents

respondents respondents

respondents respondents

respondents indicating

indicating indicating

indicating indicating

indicating approach has

approach has approach has

approach has approach has

approach has Approach

great or very moderate

no to some great or very

moderate no to some

great potential potential

potential great potential

potential potential

Early partnership and coordination 17 2 1 11 0 0

Establish time frames for NEPA process 16 3 1 2 4 4

Revise section 4( f) 16 4 0 5 3 2

Programmatic agreements 14 5 1 7 4 0

Establish project milestones and performance monitoring systems 12 8 0 4 3
4

Formal elevation process 12 4 4 3 3 6

Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA processes 12 7 1 3 2 1

Geographic information systems 10 4 6 10 1 1

Wetlands banking 10 10 0 2 2 2

Training 10 8 2 7 5 0

Preliminary environmental assessment reports 9 74831

Interagency funding agreements 9 561011

Allow early right- of- way acquisition 8 9 2 2 0 8

Partner with groups 8 7 4 5 6 1

Public information meetings 8 84831 Biennial reviews 7 3 8 2 5 4 Hire
consultants or contractors 6 6 7 1 3 4

Context sensitive design 6 951011

(Continued From Previous Page)

Views among agencies or associations primarily Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or

affiliated with natural or historic environmental constructing highway
projects issues

Number of Number of

Number of Number of

Number of Number of

respondents respondents

respondents respondents

respondents respondents

indicating indicating

indicating indicating

indicating indicating

approach has approach has

approach has approach has

approach has approach has

Approach great or very

moderate no to some

great or very moderate

no to some great potential

potential potential

great potential potential

potential

National conferences 5 5 10 3 5 3 Internet 5 8 7 6 3 3 Metropolitan
capacity building 4 3 11 6 2 0

Acculturation 4 8 7 9 2 1 Single agency point of contact 4 9 7 1 3 6

Environmental compliance mitigation systems 4 5 11 5 4 3 Aerial surveying
and imaging technology 3 7 8 4 4 2

State funding of historic preservation activities 3 6 10 7 2 2

Professional organization membership 3 5 11 2 1 7 Environmental
information center 3 8 9 4 5 2 Video 3 6 11 3 5 3 Regular publications 3 4
13 5 1 6 Awards program to recognize agency achievements 2 7 10 2 6 3

Infer the presence of endangered species 2 5 13 3 3 3 Tr avel mod el
improvement 1 6 12 6 2 1 Peer revi ews 1 9 10 1 4 5 Source: GAO.

Notes: Includes the 34 approaches where more than 75 percent of the 33
respondents rated an approach.

The table is ordered from most popular to least popular among respondents
with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing
a highway project to better show similarities and differences in rating.
(542007)

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this

list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
GAO Mailing Lists* under *Order GAO Products* heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Respondents from 33 organizations identified 13 approaches as most
promising for reducing the time it takes to plan, design, gain approval
for, and build a federally funded highway project. These approaches fell
into three areas:

Improving project management. Most approaches (8 of 13) focused on state-
level activities that could be conducted earlier than customary, with 90
percent of respondents indicating that establishing early partnerships and

early coordination among all project stakeholders is highly important to
reducing project completion time. Other approaches included added
flexibility for states in determining impacts on historic properties and
imposing time limits on environmental reviews. Delegating environmental
review and permitting authority. Between half and two- thirds of the
respondents indicated that utilizing programmatic

agreements between transportation and resource agencies to address
commonly occurring issues, unifying overall environmental assessments with
reviews of project impacts on wetlands, and creating large banks of
wetlands to replace those lost at highway project sites offered
significant

promise for reducing project completion time. Improving agency staffing
and skills. Nearly 60 percent of the respondents indicated that using
interagency funding agreements in which state departments of
transportation can ensure timely attention to environmental reviews of
their projects by funding staff at federal or state resource agencies
offered significant promise to reduce project completion time. About half
of the respondents told us that adequate training of transportation staff
on the requirements of all steps in completing a highway project was also
a promising approach.

For the most part, the respondents were not able to estimate how much time
adopting one or more of these approaches might save. Respondents* views
varied both within similar types of organizations (such as state
departments of transportation) and across lines of responsibility or
interest. Generally, agencies and other organizations with primary
responsibilities for or interests in building and funding highways ranked
certain approaches higher than did agencies and associations with a
primary focus on resource issues, and vice versa. Nonetheless, most of the
13 most promising approaches had widespread support across organizations.

Although some of these approaches are in use across the country,
respondents acknowledged that the usefulness of these approaches could
vary by the type of project or community values. For example, projects
that are not complex or

contentious would not necessarily achieve the time savings that these
approaches afford for projects with complex characteristics or
disagreement among stakeholders. Constructing, improving, and repairing
roads is fundamental to meeting the nation's mobility

needs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) supplies most of the
money (about $20 billion in fiscal year 2003), and state departments of
transportation are primarily responsible for

completing projects. Many federal and state agencies (called resource
agencies) help ensure that environmental and other concerns are
considered. These and other

organizations have recognized that the time it takes to complete complex
federally funded highway

projects is too long* in some cases nearly 20 years. GAO was asked to
report the views of knowledgeable officials on the most promising
approaches for reducing completion time for federally funded highway
projects. GAO obtained the views of 33 officials from federal, state, and

private organizations with interests in federally funded roads. GAO
recommends that FHWA consider the benefits of the 13 most promising
approaches and take

actions needed to foster more widespread adoption of those that appear to
be the most cost effective. While not commenting on the recommendation,
the

Department of Transportation generally agreed that these approaches
represent opportunities to reduce project completion time.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 398. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512- 2834 or siggerudk@
gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 398, a report to the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works April 2003

HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

Perceptions of Stakeholders on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project
Completion Time

Page i GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Contents

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 1 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time United States
General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project
Completion Time

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 3 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 4 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 5 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 6 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 7 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 8 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 9 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 10 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 11 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 12 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 13 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 14 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 15 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 16 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 17 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 18 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 19 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 20 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 21 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time Appendix I

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 22 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 25 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Page 26 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time Appendix II

Appendix II Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time as Identified by Respondents

Page 27 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix II Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time as Identified by Respondents

Page 28 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix II Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time as Identified by Respondents

Page 29 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix II Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time as Identified by Respondents

Page 30 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix II Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time as Identified by Respondents

Page 31 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix II Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time as Identified by Respondents

Page 32 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

Appendix II Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project Completion
Time as Identified by Respondents

Page 33 GAO- 03- 398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***