Comparison of States' Highway Construction Costs (03-NOV-03,	 
GAO-04-113R).							 
                                                                 
We are reporting to Congress on whether Federal Highway 	 
Administration (FHWA) data can help transportation stakeholders  
understand how states' costs to build, reconstruct, and maintain 
federally financed highways, roads, and bridges (termed 	 
"constructing highways" for this report) compare. Durig our	 
review, we became aware of significant issues regarding the	 
quality of the data that FHWA collects and reports, a topic also 
discussed in this report.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-113R					        
    ACCNO:   A08825						        
  TITLE:     Comparison of States' Highway Construction Costs	      
     DATE:   11/03/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Cost analysis					 
	     Federal aid for highways				 
	     Financial analysis 				 
	     Public roads or highways				 
	     Transportation costs				 
	     Highway planning					 
	     Highway research					 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-113R

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

November 3, 2003

The Honorable Peter G. Fitzgerald

Chairman

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International
Security Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate

Subject: Comparison of States' Highway Construction Costs

In your recent letter to us concerning the impending reauthorization of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, you stated that the
return on federal investment could be increased through effective cost
competition for states' highway construction contracts. In this context,
you asked that we report on how states compare in terms of the cost of
highway construction. As agreed with your offices, we are reporting to you
on whether Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) data can help
transportation stakeholders understand how states' costs to build,
reconstruct, and maintain federally financed highways, roads, and bridges
(termed "constructing highways" for this report) compare. During our
review, we became aware of significant issues regarding the quality of the
data that FHWA collects and reports, a topic also discussed in this
report. On September 11, 2003, we briefed the Chairman on the results of
our work, and on September 22 we provided the Ranking Member's office with
the briefing slides we prepared. This report summarizes the briefing. The
slides that formed the basis for the briefing are enclosed.

Background

States, with support from localities, are primarily responsible for
building and maintaining the nation's highways, roads, and bridges, with
significant financial support from the federal government. From 1998
through 2001 (the latest years for which data are available), all levels
of government spent more than $80 billion each year for capital
construction and maintenance of their highways, roads, and bridges. Of
this amount, the federal government supplied about $30 billion annually.

                 GAO-04-113R States' Highway Construction Costs

Highway project costs can differ for a number of reasons.1 For example,
highways are more expensive to build in mountainous areas than in flat
areas. Projects in urban areas are more expensive than those in rural
areas. Projects with bridges cost more than similar projects that do not
require bridges. Compared with smaller projects, large projects may result
in lower unit costs because of economies of scale. More complicated
projects, such as those with a large number of interchanges or complicated
engineering problems, can cost more than less complicated projects. Other
factors that may affect cost are the degree of competition for contracts
and different state design standards.

For each contract exceeding $500,000, FHWA requires that each state, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (collectively called "states")
provide the agency with data (called bid price data) on the quantity of
materials used and the installed price of the materials (representing
materials, labor, overhead, and profit) from contracts to construct and
maintain roads on the National Highway System.2 States are required to
provide FHWA with this data for seven materials (common and unclassified
roadway excavation, structural reinforcement and structural steels,
bituminous and Portland cement concrete surfaces, and structural
concrete), as well as provide the total contract costs for road and bridge
aspects of the contract, and the location of the project. According to
FHWA, the bid price data are limited to seven materials because the
materials are common to all states; therefore, they act as good indicators
for changes in principal work items. FHWA makes summaries of its bid price
data, including a national composite index of all materials on which data
are collected, available to the public in its quarterly Price Trends for
Federal-Aid Highway

                                       3

Construction and in its annual Highway Statistics.

According to FHWA officials, the bid price data are the only data they
collect from states involving price and quantity, both of which are needed
to compare state highway construction costs. FHWA collects bid price data
so that it can use the national composite index to help (1) monitor
changes in the purchasing power of the federal-aid highway construction
dollar, and (2) develop, as one factor, projections of future highway
funding needs.

1Most federal funds that states receive to fund their highway projects are
apportioned to the states based on formulas and procedures prescribed by
law. With few exceptions, state decisions to undertake higher-or
lower-cost projects do not affect the level of funding they receive.
However, to the extent that states can avoid excessive costs on ongoing
projects, they will be able to undertake additional projects.

2The National Highway System consists of completed interstate highways,
urban and rural principal arterials, other strategic highways, and
intermodal connectors. The system comprises about 161,000 miles of
highway. Although the system represents about 4 percent of total highway
miles, it carries about 43 percent of the traffic (as measured by vehicle
miles traveled).

3In these publications, FHWA combines the two excavation items and reports
on six materials.

Summary

FHWA's database allows for comparisons of an individual state's costs over
time but does not allow for comparisons between states. In addition, FHWA
has concerns, which have not been formally disclosed to users, about the
quality of the data.

Comparing States' Construction Costs

FHWA's database containing its bid price data allows for comparisons of an
individual state's costs over time but does not allow for comparisons
between states.4 Costs are tracked by state, according to an index value
that is assigned quarterly. Each state received an index value of 100 for
the base year (1987). If one state's costs in the base year were twice
those of another state, both would have an index value of 100 for that
year, and the difference in those costs would not be shown, thus
preventing a comparison.

In addition, FHWA officials told us that the bid price data do not contain
details to determine why costs appear to differ either between states or
within a state. They told us that the installed cost of materials could
vary significantly, for example, because the quality of the materials or
the installation specification (e.g., smoothness of the surface) could be
very different. FHWA's bid price data do not contain this information.

FHWA is considering whether to discontinue collecting bid price data
because of the (1) apparent limited use of the data, and (2) level of
effort to collect data that apparently is not extensively used. In
commenting on a draft of this report, FHWA noted that it hired a
consultant to evaluate the usefulness of the data to stakeholders and to
explore potential alternative approaches to gathering information that
could be used within FHWA. FHWA also commented that it recently partnered
with the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials to
survey all state departments of transportation on the extent of use of the
published price trend data and alternative ways that FHWA could gather
these data (such as using data that are being collected by states for
their internal use).

We contacted 12 states, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and
several industry associations about the usefulness of the bid price data.
Generally, they told us they do not use the data. For example, a few
states told us that they maintain more complete data, and FHWA's data are
not compatible with their own. FHWA estimated that it takes states, in
total, about 975 hours annually to report the bid price

4In 2002, the Washington State Department of Transportation surveyed
states on the costs to build a 1.02-mile interchange whose design the
department believed was universal to all states. Reported costs ranged
from $4 million to $26.7 million, based on 25 states reporting. See the
enclosure to this report.

Quality of FHWA's Bid Price Data

FHWA's quality control procedures on its bid price data are limited. It
receives the bid price data either electronically or on paper from the
states, and FHWA officials then input the data into their database. FHWA
officials told us that they intermittently review submitted data for
obvious errors and completeness and follow up with states for correction.
However, they said they do not follow standard errorchecking procedures,
such as those contained in departmental guidelines, for reviewing state
submitted reports.5 They also told us that they have no procedures for
verifying the keypunching of data made by their data entry staff. An FHWA
official told us that FHWA is reluctant to invest time and money into
improving the quality of its data until it decides whether it will
continue to collect the data. While we agree that any substantial
investments in time and money may not be warranted if FHWA ultimately
decides to discontinue collecting bid price data, following standard
error-checking routines would increase FHWA's knowledge about the quality
of its data and the extent to which its concerns should be communicated to
data users.

FHWA recognizes that it has problems with the quality of its bid price
data. According to FHWA officials, underreporting and, to a lesser degree,
inconsistent reporting are the biggest problems affecting data quality.
Regarding underreporting, we examined data in the database for 3 years,
2000 through 2002. We found that the database did not contain data for
seven states for 1, 2, or all 3 years.6 In addition, we found instances in
which states that received relatively more highway funds from FHWA
reported far fewer contracts (and contract amounts) than states that
received significantly fewer funds from FHWA, suggesting that states that
received more funds may be underreporting.

We also found data inconsistencies. For example, about 19 percent of the
data for 2000 through 2002 were for a year other than the one being
reported on. Most often these incorrect data were for the previous year.
FHWA officials told us that, for the most part, states submitted these
data late.7 Instead of omitting the data, FHWA officials told us they
included the previous year's data to add robustness to the data reported
for the reporting year and because the information for the prior years had
already been disseminated. Among other problems, we found a $7 million
contract erroneously included in the database as a $7 billion contract,
thus potentially skewing some information (but not the unit costs for the
six materials reported) for that state.

5Guidelines for processing statistical data are available in The
Department of Transportation's Information Dissemination of Quality
Guidelines and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' Guide to Good
Statistical Practices in the Transportation Field.

6The one state that did not report data for all 3 years told us that it
was too much trouble. Three other states we contacted told us that they
made data available to FHWA's field office, which compiled it for
reporting purposes. We did not attempt to verify whether the states
reported the data or how FHWA processed submitted data.

7We did not attempt to determine when these data were submitted.

With the exception of the erroneous $7 billion contract amount, we did not
attempt to trace the data back to the states. Therefore, we cannot say
whether the state incorrectly reported the data for the problems we found
or whether the data were entered incorrectly at FHWA.8

FHWA has not formally disclosed its concerns with the quality of the bid
price data when it reported these data in its Price Trends for Federal-Aid
Highway Construction or Highway Statistics. An FHWA official told us that
he believes that most state departments of transportation and other users
are aware of the bid price data flaws because this information has been
provided informally to many stakeholders over the years and state
departments of transportation use the published summaries primarily to
cross-check other state highway construction cost data. After we raised
this concern, an FHWA official said that FHWA is considering how to advise
states and other users about the quality of the data that it is reporting.

Conclusions

As we were examining the use of FHWA's bid price data to determine whether
it could be used to compare states' highway construction costs, FHWA
officials alerted us to their concerns about the quality and usefulness of
its bid price data. We agree with FHWA that it is wasteful to collect and
disseminate data that is not used. However, there may be other state
construction data that FHWA could collect that would be useful to
stakeholders. Until FHWA decides whether it will discontinue, supplement,
or supplant bid price data collection, the quality of the bid price data
that FHWA reports to the public could be improved through use of more
systematic quality control procedures, such as through standard
error-checking routines and keypunching verification required by
departmental guidelines.

Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to determine whether continued federal and state efforts to
provide and analyze state construction cost data are warranted, we
recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Federal Highway
Administrator to determine whether the bid price data collected by FHWA is
useful to transportation stakeholders and, if not, to discontinue
collecting the data. Further, we recommend that the Secretary direct the
Federal Highway Administrator to determine whether it would be useful and
feasible to collect and disseminate other state construction cost data
that could supplement or supplant FHWA's bid price data.

While FHWA continues to collect and disseminate bid price data, we
recommend that the Secretary direct the Federal Highway Administrator
follow departmental guidelines for systematic quality control procedures,
such as standard error-checking routines and keypunching verification, to
improve the accuracy of the data reported.

8In commenting on a draft of this report, FHWA told us that the state
reported the $7 million contract amount as $7 billion. The state did not
respond to our requests for information.

Finally, until the quality of the bid price data is improved, we recommend
that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Federal Highway
Administrator to disclose its limitations in any published distribution of
the data.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from the Department of
Transportation. The department did not provide an overall opinion about
our draft report or directly comment on our proposed recommendations. The
department commented that in situations where data is provided by
nondepartmental sources such as states, the department's options for
ensuring the accuracy of the original source data are limited. In these
situations, departmental guidelines emphasize disseminating information to
users about data quality, the department's processing methods, and
analysis methods. Exploring ways to ensure the accuracy of data submitted
by others, such as states, was beyond the scope of our effort. Therefore,
we cannot comment on whether the department's options are limited or
whether cost-effective means and incentives exist to better ensure data
accuracy and completeness. However, the department's comment that its
guidelines emphasize communicating to users about data quality suggests
that it agrees with the proposed recommendation in our draft report (and
included in this final report) that it disclose the limitations of its bid
price data in any published distribution of the data.

The department also suggested that the report recognize FHWA's recent
efforts to determine if collecting bid price data should continue. We
added this information to this final report. The department also provided
a number of technical and clarifying comments, which we incorporated where
appropriate.

Scope and Methodology

To identify whether FHWA collects information on states' highway
construction costs that could help it and other stakeholders in overseeing
federal-aid highway programs, we contacted officials in FHWA and the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics in the Department of Transportation.
They identified FHWA's bid price data as the only

9

data set that included both quantity and cost information. To understand
the nature of the bid price data and their uses, we interviewed officials
in FHWA's Office of Program Administration; reviewed data collection forms
and instructions; reviewed FHWA documentation on how bid price data are
compiled into reports; and reviewed the primary public summary of the data
in Price Trends for Federal-Aid Highway Construction.

As part of our work to determine how FHWA's bid price data help it and
other stakeholders understand how states' costs to build federally
financed highways compare, we (1) examined how FHWA ensures the quality of
its bid price data, (2) tested the quality and reliability of the data,
and (3) asked selected stakeholders

9FHWA also requires that contractors provide it with certain labor cost
information. However, an FHWA official believes that few contractors
submit this information.

about their perceptions of the data's usefulness. Regarding how FHWA
ensures the quality of its bid price data, we discussed with FHWA
officials in its Office of Program Administration how the data are
submitted to FHWA and how the data are entered and maintained in the
database. We also discussed quality control procedures, such as ensuring
accuracy and completeness of data submissions and ensuring accuracy of
data entered into the database. We also contacted four states for which
FHWA's database did not contain any contract information for 2000, 2001,
or 2002, to ask if they had submitted data. These states were the District
of Columbia, Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. Finally, we reviewed
departmental guidelines for processing statistical data: The Department of
Transportation's Information Dissemination of Quality Guidelines and Guide
to Good Statistical Practices in the Transportation Field.

Regarding testing the quality and reliability of FHWA's bid price data, we
obtained electronic files from FHWA for 2000, 2001, and 2002. Our tests
focused primarily on checking

o  	contract award dates, to make sure they fell within the year in which
they were being reported (e.g., that all contracts in the 2000 database
had a start date within 2000);

o  contract award amounts for apparent extreme (high or low) amounts; and

o  	the number of contracts reported by each state in each year, to see if
they were relatively consistent from year to year and to see if some
states had not reported any contracts for at least 1 year.

We then discussed the results of our tests with FHWA officials. When we
found examples of incomplete data or inaccurate data, we did not attempt
to determine whether states submitted incorrect data or whether FHWA
incorrectly entered the data into its database.

Regarding understanding the usefulness of FHWA bid price data to
transportation stakeholders, we contacted private associations, state
highway officials, and federal agencies. We discussed the practical
applications, if any, of the FHWA bid price data. The private associations
we contacted were the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
International, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. We
contacted the state departments of transportation in California, the
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wyoming. We selected these
states because (1) they represented states with either a large, medium, or
small number of contracts in the database, or (2) we were contacting them
anyway about whether they had submitted bid price data from 2000 through
2002. The federal agencies were the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
and the Congressional Research Service.

Finally, we reviewed recent reports by the Department of Transportation's
Office of Inspector General and by us on FHWA cost oversight issues.10 We
conducted our work from July through October 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

                                  _ _ _ _ _ _

As arranged with your offices, 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 Federal Highway
Administrator; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. This report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
either James Ratzenberger at [email protected] or me at
[email protected]. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512-2834. Key
contributors to this report were Jay Cherlow, Hiroshi Ishikawa, Jennifer
Popovic, Robert Parker, and James Ratzenberger.

Peter Guerrero
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Enclosure

10See, for example, our recent reports: Transportation Programs:
Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds,
GAO-03-1040T (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2003); Federal-Aid Highways: Cost
and Oversight of Major Highway and Bridge Projects-Issues and Options,
GAO03-764T (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2003); and Transportation
Infrastructure: Cost and Oversight Issues on Major Highway and Bridge
Projects, GAO-02-702T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2002).

                       States' Highway Construction Costs

Briefing for the Chairman Subcommittee on Financial Management,

the Budget, and International Security Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
                               September 11, 2003

                                   Objective

Our objective was to determine whether Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) data can help transportation stakeholders understand how states'
highway construction costs compare.

During our review, we became aware of significant issues regarding the
quality of the data that FHWA collects and reports. This topic is also
covered in this briefing.

                                   Background

o 	States, with support from localities, are primarily responsible for
building, reconstructing, and maintaining the nation's highways, roads,
and bridges (termed "constructing highways" for this briefing).

o 	From fiscal year 1998 through 2001, the nation spent more than $80
billion each year for capital construction and maintenance on its
highways.

o 	Of this amount, the federal government provides nearly $30 billion each
year to states and local governments to help build and maintain highways.

                                   Background

o 	FHWA officials identified one database that FHWA maintains--bid price
data--that contains both materials quantity and price data, both of which
are needed to compare construction costs across states.

-	FHWA requires that states provide it with quantity and price information
(bid price data) for contracts on all federally financed highway projects
costing more than $500,000 on the National Highway System. FHWA collects
this information under its general oversight authority.

-	FHWA collects this information on the (1) installed costs (materials,
labor, overhead, and profit) of seven materials (common and unclassified
roadway excavation, structural reinforcement and structural steels,
bituminous and Portland cement concrete surfaces, and structural
concrete), (2) total roadway and bridge contract amounts, and (3) location
of the project.

-	According to FHWA, the bid price data are limited to seven materials
because the materials are common to all states; therefore, they can act as
good indicators for changes in prices of principal work items.

                                   Background

o  FHWA collects bid price data to

-	monitor changes in the purchasing power of the federal-aid highway
construction dollar and

-	use as one factor in developing projections of future highwayfunding
needs.

o 	FHWA makes a summary of this information available to the public in its
quarterly Price Trends for Federal-Aid Highway Construction and in its
annual Highway Statistics publications.

o 	FHWA's report shows how much an individual state's costs have changed
over time (for the materials reported) and shows national price trends for
the reported materials.

                             Scope and Methodology

o 	We examined the availability of data collected by FHWA to make
state-by-state comparisons of highway construction costs.

o 	We discussed FHWA's bid price data with transportation stakeholders
regarding the usefulness of the data for understanding highway
construction costs.

o 	We discussed the quality of the bid price data with FHWA and with state
departments of transportation and performed reliability tests.

o 	We reviewed recent products by the Department of Transportation's
Office of Inspector General and by GAO on oversight of cost issues related
to federally financed highway projects.

           Comparing States' Construction Costs Using Bid Price Data

o 	FHWA's database that contains its bid price data allows for comparisons
of an individual state's costs over time but does not allow comparisons
between states.

-	The database assigns each state's costs an index value of 100 for the
base year, 1987. The index value of 100 may represent different levels of
costs for different states, thus preventing any comparison.

-	In addition, FHWA officials told us that the installed cost of materials
can vary significantly, for example, due to the quality of the material or
the installation specification (e.g., smoothness of the surface). FHWA's
bid price data do not contain this information.

           Comparing States' Construction Costs Using Bid Price Data

o 	In order to collect data that would allow meaningful insights, FHWA
would have to be able to identify the factors that have the greatest
ability to explain cost differences (e.g., understanding differences due
to labor costs, different specifications for materials, and topographic
conditions).

o 	In addition, the benefits from collecting information on factors that
influence highway construction costs would have to be weighed against the
costs and feasibility of collecting it.

                               Usefulness of Data

o 	We contacted 12 states, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and
several industry associations about the usefulness of FHWA's bid price
data. They told us they generally do not use these data. For example, a
few states told us that they compile more extensive and complete cost data
for their own use, and the information requested by FHWA is not compatible
with their own systems.

o 	FHWA has estimated that, annually, it takes a total of about 975 hours
for states to report bid price data, based on 37 states reporting on a
total of about 1,300 contracts each year.

o 	FHWA is considering whether to discontinue collecting bid price data
because of the (1) apparent lack of use of the data and (2) level of
effort to collect the data. FHWA has not set a date for making this
decision.

                        Quality of FHWA's Bid Price Data

o 	Regarding data quality, FHWA officials are concerned about the
reliability of the bid price data primarily as a result of underreporting
and, to a lesser degree, inconsistent information contained in its
database.

o 	Regarding underreporting, FHWA officials believe that states do not
report all contracts over $500,000 for projects on the National Highway
System, but they have not attempted to determine the extent of
underreporting.

-	We found that 7 states did not report any contracts for 1 or more years
during the 3-year period we reviewed, 2000-2002.

-	We contacted 4 of these states. One told us that submitting bid price
data was too much work. The other three states told us that they supplied
cost information to FHWA state offices, who compiled it for inclusion in
the database. (We did not attempt to verify if information was provided to
FHWA or how FHWA compiled it.)

                        Quality of FHWA's Bid Price Data

o 	We also contacted 8 states that reported information to FHWA for each
of the 3 years, 2000 through 2002. Six of the states told us that they
believe that the information in FHWA's database includes all information
required to be reported. The other two states told us that FHWA state
offices compiled information from the states and they did not check on the
information included in the database. (We did not attempt to verify the
information submitted by states or how FHWA state offices acted on it.)

o 	Finally, we found instances in which states that received relatively
more highway funds from FHWA reported far fewer contracts (and contract
amounts) than states that received significantly less funds from FHWA,
suggesting that states that received more funds may be underreporting.

                        Quality of FHWA's Bid Price Data

o 	FHWA officials are also concerned about the accuracy of its bid price
data.

-	They told us that they review the submitted data for obvious errors and
return the data to states for correction.

-	They told us that they do not follow standard error-checking procedures,
such as those contained in departmental guidelines, for reviewing
submitted reports. An FHWA official told us that FHWA is reluctant to
invest time and money into improving the quality of its data until it
decides whether it will continue to collect the data.

                        Quality of FHWA's Bid Price Data

o 	We found a number of inconsistencies in FHWA's database for the years
we examined (2000-2002). Among other things:

-	About 19 percent of the data included for any one year was for a year
other than the one being reported on.

-	Most often, these incorrect data were for the previous year and were
submitted late, according to FHWA. FHWA officials told us that they
included the previous year's data (1) to add robustness to the data
reported for the reporting year and (2) because the information for the
previous years had already been published, rather than adjusting previous
years' results.

-	We found other obvious inconsistencies, such as data reported for 1900,
1906, and 1921 in the 2000-2002 period.

-	We found one instance where a $7 million contract was entered into the
database as a $7 billion contract, potentially seriously skewing some of
the results for that state.

o 	We did not attempt to determine whether the states submitted incorrect
information or whether FHWA incorrectly entered it into its database.

                        Quality of FHWA's Bid Price Data

o 	FHWA's Price Trends for Federal-Aid Highway Construction and Highway
Statistics do not disclose FHWA's concern about its data.

o 	An FHWA official told us that most state departments of transportation
are aware of the flaws with its bid price data and use it primarily as a
comparison with other data they maintain.

                   State Study of Highway Construction Costs

o 	Although FHWA's bid price data cannot presently be used to compare
states' construction costs, a 2002 Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) study sheds some light on this issue.

-	WSDOT asked other state departments of transportation to provide cost
information for constructing a highway interchange that it deemed would be
universal for all states.

-	Some costs, such as right of way acquisition, were not included because
they vary depending on project location.

-	WSDOT provided the design specifications and quantities to be used for
each material.

- WSDOT received responses from 24 other states.

                   State Study of Highway Construction Costs

o WSDOT found:

-	Reported costs ranged from about $1 million to $8.5 million per lane
mile.

-	The median reported cost was about $1.6 million per lane mile.

-	Five states reported costs significantly higher than other
states-ranging between about $3.1 million and $8.5 million per lane mile.
(See fig. 1.)

o 	We did not assess the reliability of the data reported in the WSDOT
study.

                   State Study of Highway Construction Costs

Figure 1: Cost to Build a Lane Mile of a Specified Type of Highway
Interchange in 25 States

(545039)

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. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of

GAO's Mission 	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.

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 full-

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older 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 email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "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: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

                  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Public Affairs 	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***