Highlights of a Forum: Transforming Transportation Policy for the
21st Century (19-SEP-07, GAO-07-1210SP).			 
                                                                 
The nation's economic vitality and the quality of life of its	 
citizens depend significantly on the security, availability, and 
dependability of its transportation network. The nation's	 
transportation network presents particularly complex policy	 
challenges, because it encompasses many modes on systems owned,  
funded, and operated by both the public and the private sectors. 
As the August collapse of a bridge span in Minneapolis		 
illustrated, policymakers currently face the challenge of	 
maintaining the safety and condition of the transportation	 
network--in a time of increasing fiscal constraint. Addressing	 
these challenges requires a fundamental reexamination and	 
transformation of the nation's transportation policies and	 
programs. This forum brought together government, academic, and  
transportation industry experts, along with GAO's own		 
transportation specialists. The discussion addressed (1) the	 
appropriate goals for the nation's transportation policy, (2) the
role of the federal government in achieving transportation goals,
(3) how transportation goals might be financed, and (4) next	 
steps in transforming transportation policy for the 21st century.
These highlights do not necessarily represent the views of any	 
one participant or the organizations that these participants	 
represent, including GAO.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1210SP					        
    ACCNO:   A76489						        
  TITLE:     Highlights of a Forum: Transforming Transportation Policy
for the 21st Century						 
     DATE:   09/19/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Economic analysis					 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Risk assessment					 
	     Risk management					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Transportation					 
	     Transportation costs				 
	     Transportation industry				 
	     Transportation planning				 
	     Transportation policies				 
	     Transportation safety				 
	     Incentives 					 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     CG Forum						 
	     GAO High Risk Series				 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-1210SP

   

     * [1]Introduction from the Comptroller General of the United Stat
     * [2]Participants Said That the Nation's Transportation Policy Go

          * [3]Federal Transportation Policy Is Unclear
          * [4]Most Participants Identified Enhancing Mobility and Maintain
          * [5]Goals Participants Identified for the Nation's Transportatio

     * [6]According to Participants, the Federal Government Should Est

          * [7]Federal Government's Role Should Focus on Establishing and S

               * [8]Use Incentives to Encourage Transportation Decisions That
                 Ar
               * [9]Strengthen the User-Pay Principle

          * [10]Participants Identified Other Roles for the Federal Governme

     * [11]Participants Said There Is No "Silver Bullet" for Transporta

          * [12]Various Funding Mechanisms Will Need to Be Used

               * [13]Participants Offered a Few Caveats about Financing
                 Mechanism

          * [14]Participants Provided Examples of Effective Pilot Projects

     * [15]Increased Consensus and Public Engagement Is Required to Tra

          * [16]The Seriousness of the Problem Must Be Understood
          * [17]Local Initiatives Offer Opportunities for Innovative Solutio

     * [18]Concluding Observations

          * [19]Moderator
          * [20]Participants

     * [21]GAO Contact
     * [22]Staff Acknowledgments
     * [23]Financing the Nation's Transportation System
     * [24]Improving Mobility
     * [25]Improving Transportation Safety
     * [26]Managing the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transport
     * [27]Building Human Capital Strategies
     * [28]Fostering Improved Financial Management
     * [29]Improving Transportation Security and Emergency Preparedness

          * [30]Order by Mail or Phone

Contents

Letter 1

Introduction from the Comptroller General of the United States 1
Participants Said That the Nation's Transportation Policy Goals Need
Clarification and Measured Outcomes 6
According to Participants, the Federal Government Should Establish Policy
and Encourage Decisions Consistent with Policy and Goals 10
Participants Said There Is No "Silver Bullet" for Transportation Financing
Crisis 13
Increased Consensus and Public Engagement Is Required to Transform
Transportation Policy, According to Participants 17
Concluding Observations 19
Appendix I List of Participants 20
Appendix II Forum Agenda 22
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 23
Related GAO Products 24
Financing the Nation's Transportation System 24
Improving Mobility 25
Improving Transportation Safety 27
Managing the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System
29
Building Human Capital Strategies 30
Fostering Improved Financial Management 31
Improving Transportation Security and Emergency Preparedness and Response
31

Table

Table 1: DOT's Strategic Objectives 9

Figures

Figure 1: Participant Survey Responses of the Most Important
Transportation Policy Goals 8
Figure 2: Participant Responses to Survey Question about Financing
Mechanisms 15

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product 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.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

Introduction from the Comptroller General of the United States

The nation's economic vitality and the quality of life of its citizens
depend significantly on the availability, dependability, and security of
its transportation network. For the past several decades, population,
income levels, and economic activity have risen considerably, and with
them have come considerable increases in travel demand. Transportation
infrastructure has not kept pace. The result is apparent: increasing
number of hours spent inching along clogged and deteriorating roads and
highways, especially at rush hours and other times of peak demand. The
economic implications are significant, ranging from wasted time and fuel
as cars idle in traffic to increased costs for business as the
unreliability of the systems grows. In addition to burdening the economy,
congestion can also harm the environment and the health of the nation's
citizenry--for example, through increased emissions from idling and
slow-moving cars.

The nation's transportation network presents particularly complex policy
challenges, because it encompasses many modes--air, water, highway,
transit, and rail--on systems owned, funded, and operated by both the
public and the private sectors. Furthermore, transportation decisions are
inextricably linked with economic, environmental, and energy policy
concerns. Addressing these challenges requires strategic and intermodal
approaches, effective tools and programs, and coordinated solutions
involving all levels of government and the private sector.1 Yet in many
cases, the government is still trying to do business in ways that are
based on conditions, priorities, and approaches that were established
decades ago and are not well suited to addressing 21st century challenges.
Addressing these challenges requires a fundamental reexamination of the
nation's transportation policies and programs.

Part of this reexamination involves exploring the existing transportation
programs and commitments, and determining whether these remain the best
approaches for the future. We have previously reported on the following
factors that highlight the need for transformation of the nation's
transportation policy.

1See GAO, Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing
Congress and the Department of Transportation, [31]GAO-07-545T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2007); and 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining
the Base of the Federal Government, [32]GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 1, 2005).

           o Future demand for transportation will strain the network.
           Projected population growth, technological changes, and increased
           globalization are expected to increase the strain on the nation's
           transportation system. For example, according to the
           Transportation Research Board, an expected population increase of
           100 million by 2040 could more than double the demand for
           passenger travel. Moreover, this population growth will be
           concentrated in certain regions and states, intensifying the
           demand for transportation in these areas.2 Likewise, freight
           traffic is projected to grow substantially, putting additional
           strain on ports, highways, railroads, and airports. Increasing
           congestion and unreliable transportation systems can have severe
           economic and environmental consequences. Congestion across
           modes--estimated to cost roughly $200 billion per year--is
           significant and projected to worsen.
           o National transportation goals and priorities are difficult to
           discern. Federal transportation statutes and regulations establish
           multiple, and sometimes conflicting, goals and outcomes for
           federal programs. For example, safety, travel-time savings,
           reduction of environmental impacts, security, economic
           development, and reliability are all statutorily defined factors
           for consideration in transportation planning and project
           development. However, federal transportation funding is not linked
           to system performance or to the accomplishment of goals or
           outcomes. Further, we have found that formal analyses often are
           not used in deciding among alternative projects, projects often do
           not meet anticipated outcomes, and evaluations of outcomes are
           typically not conducted.3 Without links between specific
           performance-related outcomes and federal grant funding levels
           there is little assurance that the projects selected and funded
           best meet the nation's most critical but undefined mobility needs.
           Furthermore, most federal highway grant funds are apportioned to
           state and local governments by formula, without regard to the
           needs, performance, capacity, or level of effort of recipients.
           o The federal government's role is often indirect. DOT implements
           national transportation policy and administers most federal
           transportation programs. Its responsibilities are considerable and
           reflect the extraordinary scale, use, and impact of the nation's
           transportation systems. While the department carries out some
           activities directly, such as air traffic control, it does not have
           direct control over the vast majority of the activities that it
           funds, such as local decisions on the priority of transportation
           projects. Additionally, DOT's framework of separate modal
           administrations makes it difficult for intermodal projects to be
           integrated into the transportation network. Further, while
           passenger and freight travel occurs on many different modes,
           federal funding and planning requirements focus largely on
           highways, transit, and aviation passenger travel. As a result,
           projects focused on the movement of freight--key to the efficient
           movement of goods and helping ensure that American products remain
           competitive in global markets--often encounter difficulties in
           accessing federal, state, and local funding sources. Unless major
           modes--air, water, highway, transit, and rail--are well integrated
           it is unlikely that mobility can be enhanced.4 
			  
2Transportation Research Board, Critical Issues in Transportation
(Washington, D.C.: 2006).

3GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information
on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results,
[33]GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005).			  

           o Transportation funding has not kept up with demand. Revenues
           from traditional funding mechanisms will be unable to keep pace at
           current tax rates, and the nation's long-term fiscal challenges
           constrain decision makers' ability to use other revenue sources
           for transportation needs. For example, within the Highway Trust
           Fund--the major source of federal highway and transit
           funding--revenues are eroding with inflation. Additionally,
           funding authorized in the recently enacted highway and transit
           program legislation is expected to outstrip the growth in trust
           fund receipts. According to recent estimates from the
           Congressional Budget Office and the President's budget, the trust
           fund balance will steadily decline and reach a negative balance of
           more than $14 billion by the end of fiscal year 2012.5 Further,
           according to DOT, investment by all levels of government remains
           well below the estimated amount needed to maintain the condition
           of the nation's highway and transit systems. As a result, the
           overall performance of the network is declining as exemplified by
           the Minneapolis, Minnesota bridge collapse that occurred in August
           2007. As a result of these concerns, GAO designated financing the
           nation's transportation infrastructure as a high-risk issue this
           year.6
			  
4See GAO, Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to
Address Intermodal Barriers, [34]GAO-07-718 (Washington, D.C.: June 20,
2007); Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has Improved, but Concerns about
Competition and Capacity Should Be Addressed, [35]GAO-07-94 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 6, 2006); Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address
Planning and Financing Limitations, [36]GAO-04-165 (Washington, D.C.: Dec.
19, 2003); Intermodal Transportation: Challenges to and Potential
Strategies for Developing Improved Intermodal Capabilities,
[37]GAO-06-855T (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006); and Intermodal
Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in
Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities, [38]GAO-05-727 (Washington,
D.C.: July 26, 2005).

5See GAO, Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing
Congress and the Department of Transportation, [39]GAO-07-545T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2007); and Highway Trust Fund: Overview of
Highway Trust Fund Estimates, [40]GAO-06-572T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4,
2006).

6GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [41]GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
31, 2007).			  

           In recognition of these and other issues, GAO and others have
           highlighted the need for a new approach to transportation policy.
           These include suggestions for systemic changes to the way
           transportation policies are designed and implemented, such as
           focusing policy on economic prosperity for the nation, adopting a
           systems perspective (rather than modal), and more effectively
           integrating priorities across levels of government.7 Further,
           experts have suggested that addressing the challenges facing
           transportation policy in the 21st century without worsening other
           problems will require simultaneous attention to such issues as
           mobility, safety, security, and environmental protection. However,
           the slow and often cumbersome decision-making process for
           transportation investments, a lack of consensus on what
           investments should be made, and a decline in federal funding and
           control of transportation infrastructure make transforming the
           nation's transportation policy a complex undertaking.

           GAO convened this forum on May 23, 2007, to help address the
           challenges facing transportation policy in the 21st century. The
           forum brought together government, academic, and transportation
           industry experts, along with GAO's own transportation specialists.
           The forum's purpose was to build knowledge and to support
           policymakers by identifying transportation-related issues and
           strategies that could improve government performance in an
           environment of increasing congestion and severe fiscal restraint.
           The discussion addressed (1) the appropriate goals for the
           nation's transportation policy, (2) the role of the federal
           government in achieving national transportation goals, (3) how the
           transportation network might be financed to meet these goals, and
           (4) the next steps in transforming the nation's transportation
           policy. (See app. I for a list of forum participants and app. II
           for the forum's agenda.) This forum was designed for the
           participants to discuss these issues openly, without individual
           attribution, in order to facilitate a rich and substantive
           discussion of these issues.
			  
7GAO, Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making Existing
Road Infrastructure Perform Better, [42]GAO-07-920 (Washington, D.C.: July
26, 2007).

           This report summarizes the ideas and themes that emerged at the
           forum, the collective discussion of participants, and comments
           received from participants based on a draft of this report. The
           report also presents the results of a survey that we sent to each
           participant prior to the forum. The survey was intended to solicit
           participant opinion on the forum discussion topics and the results
           of the survey were presented during the forum to help stimulate
           discussion. Twenty of the 22 participants completed the survey.
           The highlights summarized in this report do not necessarily
           represent the views of any individual participant or the
           organizations that these participants represent, including GAO.

           I want to thank all the forum participants for taking the time to
           share their knowledge, insights, and perspectives. We at GAO will
           benefit from these insights as we carry out our work for the
           Congress and the country. I look forward to working with the
           forum's participants on this and other issues of mutual interest
           and concern in the future.

           David M. Walker
			  Comptroller General of the United States

           September 19, 2007
			  
			  Participants Said That the Nation's Transportation Policy Goals Need
           Clarification and Measured Outcomes

           The nation's transportation policy has lost focus and national
           transportation goals need to be better defined and linked to
           performance measures that evaluate what the policy actually
           accomplishes. As the federal share of total transportation
           spending continues to decline, it has become increasingly
           important that federal transportation policy goals and their link
           to local decision making and spending be well defined. Further,
           measured outcomes, or performance results, should be used to drive
           federal transportation policy and funding decisions. Preforum
           survey results showed that participants rank enhancing mobility
           and maintaining global competitiveness as the most important goals
           for the nation's transportation policy. Additionally, DOT has
           identified its top priorities as safety, increasing mobility, and
           ensuring that the nation's transportation network enables economic
           growth and development.
			  
			  Federal Transportation Policy Is Unclear

           Participants generally agreed that federal transportation policy
           has lost its focus. Current federal policy goals can be
           contradictory and not well linked to incentives for local decision
           makers, according to participants. For example, one participant
           suggested that it would be reasonable for state departments of
           transportation (DOT) to favor the use of large, fuel-inefficient
           vehicles because higher gas consumption would mean more fuel tax
           revenue for the state, even though this goal would be inconsistent
           with goals for energy efficiency. There was general agreement that
           transportation policy needs to ensure that the various types of
           goals--mobility, energy, environmental, safety, and security--are
           aligned. Participants said the federal government has a primary
           role in creating such a policy framework for transportation
           investments and systems.

           While participants cited the importance of the federal government
           in shaping a transportation framework, they also said the current
           federal structure, with its modal administrations and stovepiped
           programs and funding, frequently inhibits consideration of a range
           of transportation options at both the regional and the national
           levels. This current federal structure has resulted in a
           noticeable shift by the public to focus on finding transportation
           solutions and additional transportation funding at the regional
           and local levels. Participants commented that states not only
           implement transportation programs, but, absent clear federal
           transportation goals, have considerable flexibility in how
           transportation dollars are used. This can result in little
           assurance that the projects selected and funded best meet critical
           but undefined national mobility needs.

           Participants said that measured performance results should be used
           to drive decisions about transportation policy and funding, but
           they also agreed there is currently no mechanism to evaluate
           transportation policy effectiveness or execution. Although the
           Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
           A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the current transportation
           authorizing legislation, contained transportation goals for states
           and metropolitan planning organizations, it falls short in
           administering the goals from the federal level, according to
           participants. Thus, participants emphasized that the federal
           government needs to invest in performance measures to be able to
           determine outcomes of its policies. Participants also said that
           the federal government, through authorizing statutes such as
           SAFETEA-LU or other means, needs to provide local transportation
           agencies with the tools for assembling transportation plans and
           assessing the performance of their systems. Prioritized goals and
           performance measures can be used on the local level to analyze and
           compare transportation alternatives and to make transportation
           decisions based on national as well as local priorities.
			  
			  Most Participants Identified Enhancing Mobility and Maintaining Global
           Competitiveness as Key Federal Transportation Goals

           Prior to the forum, we surveyed the participants, asking them to
           evaluate, from the federal perspective, the importance of various
           transportation goals including enhancing the mobility of people
           and goods; promoting local and regional economic development;
           maintaining global competitiveness; minimizing adverse
           environmental impacts of the transportation system; encouraging
           certain land use patterns; improving transportation safety; and
           facilitating the security of all transportation modes. The
           participants indicated that for them the two most important goals
           for the nation's transportation policy were enhancing the mobility
           of people and goods and maintaining global competitiveness (see
           fig.1). Improving transportation safety, minimizing adverse
           environmental impacts of the transportation system, and
           facilitating transportation security were also ranked as very
           important goals by a majority of participants. The lowest-rated
           goals for the nation's transportation policy were encouraging
           certain land use patterns and promoting local and regional
           economic development.

           In discussing the survey results at the forum, the participants
           again emphasized the appropriateness of enhancing mobility and
           maintaining global competitiveness as goals of the nation's
           transportation policy, noting that it is particularly challenging
           to address these goals from the local level. Several participants
           also stated that the nation's transportation policy should
           recognize emerging conditions such as reducing fuel dependence and
           minimizing the impact of the transportation system on global
           climate change. In contrast, other participants noted that the
           nation's transportation policy is too blunt an instrument to use
           in encouraging regional economic development, which therefore
           should not be included as a goal of national policy.

           Figure 1: Participant Survey Responses of the Most Important
           Transportation Policy Goals

           Note: Twenty of 22 participants responded to our survey.
			  
			  Goals Participants Identified for the Nation's Transportation Policy
			  Generally Coincide with DOT's Strategic Objectives

           Similar to the goals that the participants identified in the
           survey and through discussion, DOT has outlined five objectives in
           its strategic plan including safety, mobility, and global
           connectivity (see table 1). Although DOT has not prioritized these
           objectives, officials have said that safety should be the
           department's top priority. Participants noted that enhancing
           transportation safety has the potential for great economic gains
           for the nation. One participant said that each year tens of
           thousands of people are killed and millions are injured in
           transportation accidents in the United States, resulting in huge
           losses of economic productivity as well as enormous costs to the
           medical system. Additionally, currently there are few links
           between transportation expenditures and safety outcomes, but such
           links are needed, according to participants. Several participants
           pointed out that transportation accidents and safety issues are
           viewed as solvable problems in other countries, and the United
           States needs to take a different approach to safety, one in which
           the federal government is held accountable for results. The
           participants noted that the strategic objectives of DOT should be
           distinguished from the nation's larger transportation policy
           goals, although DOT is the primary mechanism through which
           transportation policy can be administered.

Table 1: DOT's Strategic Objectives

Strategic objective Description                                            
Safety              Enhance public health and safety by working toward the 
                       elimination of transportation-related deaths and       
                       injuries.                                              
Mobility            Advance accessible, efficient, intermodal              
                       transportation for the movement of people and goods.   
Global connectivity Facilitate a more efficient domestic and global        
                       transportation system that enables economic growth and 
                       development.                                           
Environmental       Promote transportation solutions that enhance          
stewardship         communities and protect the natural and built          
                       environment.                                           
Security            Balance homeland and national security transportation  
                       requirements with the mobility needs of the nation for 
                       personal travel and commerce.                          

Source: Department of Transportation Strategic Plan 2003-2008, September
2003.

According to Participants, the Federal Government Should Establish Policy and
Encourage Decisions Consistent with Policy and Goals

The federal government's role should focus on the policy side of
transportation, establishing policy, providing guidance for executing
policy, and supporting local and regional investments that correspond with
federal policy goals. Additionally, the federal government has an
important role to play in the movement of goods because of the impact on
the national and global economies. Participants noted ways that the
federal government could encourage transportation decisions that are
consistent with national transportation goals by, for example, including
using incentives and strengthening the user-pay principle. Preforum survey
results and forum discussions showed support for federal involvement in
other, more specific, areas as well, such as improving national
transportation data and research.

Federal Government's Role Should Focus on Establishing and Supporting National
Transportation Policy, Including Goods Movement

The federal government should focus on creating a planning framework for
state and local decision making and an oversight mechanism for measuring
goal performance, according to participants. In the previous century the
nation's transportation policy was focused on building a vast and complex
transportation infrastructure. Now, participants said, the federal and
state transportation departments need to shift from a dominant emphasis on
building to a complementary emphasis on managing this loosely connected
system of modes. According to several participants, although the federal
government has a minimal role in the direct oversight of transportation
projects, it still has enormous leverage--over state and local agencies
and the private sector--and needs to use it to achieve national
transportation policy and goals.

The cost of moving goods affects the global competitiveness of the United
States, and therefore requires federal attention, according to
participants. Participants said that in order to stay competitive, the
federal government needs to identify ways to maximize freight efficiency
and develop incentives for doing so. Participants said that the negative
impact of congestion is already affecting the nation's competitive edge,
and in the future, the demand for movement of goods will grow in response
to such factors as economic development in and growing trade with
countries such as China and India. One participant said that while it is
necessary to develop transportation infrastructure on a regional level,
links between regions must also be forged for moving goods, and it is
likely that the federal role will be key in doing so. Participants raised
several examples of increased congestion in important transportation
corridors due to cross-modal or cross-jurisdictional barriers. The ports
of Miami and Newark were noted as examples of locations where congestion
can be significant in moving large amounts of people and goods in and out
of ports due to particularly poor connectivity of modes and coordination
among the various stakeholders including the private sector as well as
federal, state, county, and local government agencies.

  Use Incentives to Encourage Transportation Decisions That Are Consistent with
  Nationally Defined Goals

Participants said that the federal government should establish and use
incentives to encourage state and local transportation agencies to act in
accordance with better defined national policy goals. They agreed that
transportation programs and funding need to be tied to incentives and
identified outcomes--as opposed to the current structure of federal
programs, which can function as revenue-sharing mechanisms (i.e., revenues
are distributed among the states and projects are determined at the state
or local levels). Participants suggested that by clearly defining national
transportation goals and priorities and using incentives for other levels
of government to contribute to those goals, the federal government can
provide the political leadership that state and local agencies need to (1)
implement projects with benefits that extend beyond their boundaries, and
(2) more broadly apply new financing mechanisms such as congestion
pricing. Moreover, participants noted, past experiences demonstrate that
the incentives do not need to involve large sums of money to encourage
state and local governments to act.

Participants pointed to cases in which using incentives and penalties have
resulted in desired policy changes. For example, SAFETEA-LU established an
incentive grant program to encourage states to pass primary safety belt
laws.8 Since the law was signed, 3 states have enacted primary safety belt
laws,9 bringing the total number of such states to 25.10 Additionally, the
federal government has used penalties to push for certain policy changes.
For example, penalties were used to encourage states to implement a "zero
tolerance" law which required states to enact and enforce laws making it
illegal for drivers under age 21 to drive with a blood alcohol
concentration of .02 percent or more. States were subject to the
withholding of federal-aid highway funds for not implementing such a law
beginning in 1999. All 50 states had established such laws by 1999.

8Primary enforcement seat belt laws allow police officers to stop vehicles
and write citations whenever they observe violations of safety belt laws.

9According to the regulations, states that enact and enforce a primary
safety belt use law are awarded a one-time grant award equal to 475
percent of the amount apportioned to the state under section 402(c) for
fiscal year 2003. Recipients are allowed to use the grant funds for a
variety of highway or roadway safety purposes.

10DOT has also recently initiated the Urban Partnership Agreement, a
program where DOT will support select metropolitan areas that agree to
pursue combined strategies (tolling, transit, telecommuting, and
technology) with a track record of effectiveness in reducing traffic
congestion. DOT will offer financial resources (including some combination
of grants, loans, and borrowing authority), regulatory flexibility, and
dedicated expertise and personnel in support of its Urban Partners.

  Strengthen the User-Pay Principle

Participants also stated that the federal government should strengthen and
expand the user-pay principle. This principle--that users should pay for
the infrastructure they use--is a long-standing tenet of transportation
policy in the United States. For instance, federal, state, and local
governments have imposed excise taxes on motor fuels and other taxes on
inputs into driving, such as taxes on tires, and charged fares for
transit. These taxes, in turn, may be used to pay for a variety of
transportation projects. Participants pointed out that the public
generally agrees that users should pay something commensurate with the
costs to provide transportation services, but that pricing initiatives are
often politically difficult for local agencies to implement--as
demonstrated by the fact that only a handful of state and local
governments have implemented various pricing strategies. One participant
suggested that the user-pay principle should be considered a fundamental
element of all federal programs and activities.

Participants Identified Other Roles for the Federal Government

All participants responding to our preforum survey agreed that the federal
government should have a role in minimizing adverse environmental impacts
of the transportation system, improving safety, and facilitating the
security of all modes. Additionally, our survey results showed that nearly
all (19 of 20) participants agreed that the federal government should have
a role in enhancing mobility and maintaining global competitiveness. Other
roles for the federal government mentioned by participants included:

           o Research and innovation. Several participants said that the
           federal government has a role in funding and developing research,
           technology, and innovation because it is difficult for local
           governments to fund these types of activities.

           o Data collection. Most participants agreed that the federal
           government should have a primary role in improving data
           collection. Participants said that reliable and comprehensive
           national transportation data are necessary for planning, decision
           making, and performance evaluation.
			  
           Participants Said There Is No "Silver Bullet" for Transportation
			  Financing Crisis			  

           There is a need to address transportation funding immediately, and
           no single mechanism will solve the existing and future funding
           crisis facing the nation's transportation system. Potential
           mechanisms identified by participants include increasing existing
           or levying new taxes, implementing tolling mechanisms and other
           user fees, instituting congestion pricing, and offering
           incentives. Our preforum survey results also showed support for a
           variety of other funding mechanisms, though none of the options
           were highly recommended by a majority of participants.
           Additionally, participants cited drawbacks to several of the
           mechanisms that were raised.
			  
           Various Funding Mechanisms Will Need to Be Used

           Participants generally agreed that it will take a variety of
           funding mechanisms to address projected transportation financing
           shortfalls. They said that the size and nature of the funding
           problems facing the transportation system simply cannot be solved
           by one approach. Participants suggested a number of user fee
           strategies, describing them as generally inexpensive to
           administer, although participants noted that restrictive federal
           policies can prevent state and local agencies from adopting them.
           In particular, participants generally agreed that pricing
           mechanisms, such as congestion pricing, show a great deal of
           promise and should be pursued. Participants said that the federal
           government needs to use its leverage with state and local
           transportation agencies to support the implementation of pricing
           initiatives, which some localities and regions currently are
           studying or interested in adopting. In general, participants
           agreed that whatever financing options are pursued, investments
           need to seek to align fees and taxes with use and benefits and be
           better linked to performance of all aspects of the transportation
           system including highways, transit, parking, and pedestrians.

           A variety of funding mechanisms were suggested by participants,
           including:

           o Taxes. Tax options raised by participants included increasing or
           utilizing property taxes, fuel taxes, or income taxes, as well as
           implementing a carbon tax. Participants pointed out that the use
           of different types of tax options at the state and local levels
           has been growing recently, and that there has been increasing
           acceptance of tax strategies by the public in cases where the
           resulting transportation benefits are well understood.

           o Congestion pricing. Participants also supported congestion
           pricing, which attempts to influence driver behavior by charging
           drivers higher prices during peak hours. However, participants
           noted that few states have actually implemented congestion pricing
           or other pricing techniques, which, they suggested, likely
           reflects initial public and political opposition to such
           proposals. The most common form of congestion pricing in the
           United States is high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, which are priced
           lanes that offer drivers of vehicles that do not meet the
           occupancy requirements the option of paying a toll to use lanes
           that are otherwise restricted for high-occupancy vehicles.11

           o Tolling. Participants said that tolling can be a good option
           because it brings in new sources of revenues, and as noted above,
           can help influence driver behavior and increase efficiency in
           resource allocation. Tolls can generate revenues that are
           consistent with the user-pay principle because the driver is
           directly paying to use the specific road and the revenues
           collected from the toll can go directly to pay for the road's
           construction, maintenance, and operation.

           o Public-private partnerships. Participants said that developing
           partnerships with private industry to help fund transportation
           projects can offer a number of benefits for transportation
           agencies, such as expediting project schedules, reducing costs,
           and providing access to private funding sources.12

           o Other user fees. Participants generally agreed that user fees
           are a good tool when levied on transportation, but emphasized the
           importance of dedicating the revenues raised to transportation.
           Participants also noted that DOT is encouraging user fees on the
           regional and local levels, and supported this effort.

           Our preforum survey results anticipated the forum discussion. In
           our preforum survey, participants recommended that the federal
           government support a variety of transportation financing
           mechanisms including better aligning taxes with the costs of the
           system, indexing the federal motor vehicle tax to inflation, and
           encouraging the increased use of toll roads. Participants were
           asked to indicate the extent to which they recommended these
           financing mechanisms as viable strategies to address the nation's
           transportation financing challenges and all of the mechanisms were
           recommended to some degree by nearly all participants. Each
           financing mechanism listed in the survey was recommended "to a
           great extent" by at least four participants (see fig. 2).
			  
11Also see GAO, Highway Finance: States' Expanding Use of Tolling
Illustrates Diverse Challenges and Strategies, [139]GAO-06-554
(Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2006).

12See our forthcoming report on public-private partnerships that is
estimated to be published in the fall of 2007.

           Figure 2: Participant Responses to Survey Question about Financing
           Mechanisms

           Note: Twenty of 22 participants responded to our survey.
			  
			    Participants Offered a Few Caveats about Financing Mechanisms

           Although participants agreed that the nation must address the
           transportation financing crisis, they also discussed some of the
           drawbacks to implementing new financing approaches. Several
           participants commented that an increase in the current fuel tax
           alone would not be sufficient to solve the transportation
           financing crisis. Additionally, a number of participants stated
           that the rules governing public-private partnerships may need to
           be regulated or standardized. A few participants cautioned against
           any reliance or planned use of the general fund as a
           transportation financing approach, noting that the general fund
           will have little left after debt financing and Social Security
           payments.

           Furthermore, participants raised concerns about the equity of
           pricing mechanisms. For example, one participant asked whether,
           when people move out of the city to avoid the increasing cost of
           living, is it fair to charge them (through pricing mechanisms) to
           come back into the city for employment? Another participant said
           that equity issues are also a concern associated with increasing
           taxes to support transportation, because such taxes place a
           disproportionate burden on lower income groups. Several
           participants noted that these concerns should not prevent the
           government from encouraging or pursuing them; rather, strategies
           to identify and compensate the affected groups of these funding
           mechanisms should be considered during policy development and
           implementation.
			  
			  Participants Provided Examples of Effective Pilot Projects

           Participants agreed that the public and the private sectors need
           to be better informed of and better educated about available
           funding mechanisms. They said that there is currently a general
           lack of understanding about transportation financing and tolling.
           For example, the public often opposes tolls, believing that they
           have already paid for the roads through gas taxes although it is
           widely acknowledged that the gas tax has not kept pace with the
           costs of operating, maintaining, and improving the current system.
           In addition, according to participants, the public often sees
           tolls as merely collecting revenues and does not understand that
           they can be used to manage traffic and achieve environmental
           benefits.

           Participants agreed that state and local governments' efforts to
           develop, test, and implement alternative financing mechanisms
           serve as an important test bed for identifying funding solutions
           for the nation's transportation financing crisis. Participants
           discussed Oregon's pilot project, the "Road User Fee Pilot
           Program," which tested a new road revenue system. The purpose of
           the program was to create and test a reliable, broad-based charge
           that would replace the fuel tax. The pilot project involved
           implementing an electronically collected mileage fee that assists
           in the management of road congestion levels. For example, the
           per-mile fee charged to drivers (at the gas pump as part of the
           fuel purchase) was greater for travel during rush hour than at
           off-peak travel times. One participant described this pilot
           pricing program as successful in altering driver behaviors and
           added that the program infrastructure allows for the easy
           implementation of additional pricing schemes.

           Participants also identified the Dallas-Fort Worth region as an
           example of an urban area that is using a variety of management and
           pricing schemes to raise revenue and alter travel behaviors. The
           approaches being used included managing separate highway lanes for
           trucks and commuters, using public-private partnerships and more
           effective pricing mechanisms to reduce demand for single-occupancy
           travel and shift travel times away from peak periods, charging
           tolls for traffic coming into the urban area from the suburbs or
           rural areas, and flexing toll revenues to subsidize a regional
           rail system. Additionally, the region has plans to build new
           highways, convert existing highways to high-occupancy toll lanes,
           and build a regional rail system, according to participants.
           Several participants agreed that while these types of state and
           local projects are important, federal incentives are needed to
           encourage local leaders to invest not just in a single corridor,
           but in the national transportation network.
			  
			  Increased Consensus and Public Engagement Is Required to Transform
           Transportation Policy, According to Participants
  
           While there is broad consensus among transportation experts of the
           need for a transformation of transportation policy to better meet
           current and future mobility needs, it is necessary to develop a
           constituency that will push for and support change. There is a
           need to educate and influence both political leaders and the
           broader public because transportation is not currently perceived
           as a significant national problem. The public and private sectors
           need to better understand the magnitude and consequences of these
           transportation challenges to be motivated to change the status
           quo. Additionally, local transportation initiatives underway may
           offer lessons on how to build consensus needed to address today's
           transportation challenges.
			  
			  The Seriousness of the Problem Must Be Understood

           Participants said that the current system has a lot of supporters
           and there is not currently enough unrest about the issues facing
           transportation infrastructure to motivate change on a large scale.
           Educating the public, the Congress, the private sector,
           environmental groups, and regional leaders on the consequences of
           the nation's transportation problems is a key step to initiating
           change, according to participants. Participants said that the
           public, and others, are not connecting the efficiency of the
           transportation system with their overall quality of life. In
           addition, the message that transportation affects the global
           economy and is fundamental to the nation's economic success is
           currently not widely recognized. Users must be convinced that it
           is in their interest to move towards change. Several participants
           agreed that emphasizing the impending "crisis" related to
           transportation might create an opportunity for change. Along these
           lines, they suggested messages for the public and others such as:

           o the current gas tax is insufficient for financing existing and
           new infrastructure;

           o the "congestion crisis" may stifle productivity, economic
           growth, and the ability of the United States to remain competitive
           in a global economy; and

           o global climate change is a crisis linked to carbon dioxide and
           other greenhouse gas emissions.

           The importance of an efficient national transportation system is
           not well understood, according to participants. They agreed that
           the competitive advantage of efficiently moving goods needs to be
           recognized and several mentioned that other countries, such as
           China, have invested in a global transportation framework in order
           to ensure that their economies are globally competitive. One
           participant suggested that business leaders can help lead the push
           for change; however, the private sector must have confidence that
           its investment will yield a return. For example, according to one
           participant, the private sector and others are willing to pay
           tolls for new infrastructure, but are likely to resist paying new
           tolls for existing roads and services unless they are being
           improved.
			  
			  Local Initiatives Offer Opportunities for Innovative Solutions

           Participants agreed that states and some regions have demonstrated
           strong leadership by implementing innovative pilot projects
           designed to alleviate highway congestion and improve mobility.
           Additionally, participants said that regional sales taxes and
           other dedicated transportation taxes have encountered recent
           success in cases where clear transportation benefits are
           understood by constituencies. Participants said that the federal
           government should take a more active role in supporting these
           types of transportation initiatives at the state, regional, and
           local levels. They suggested, for example, that the federal
           government eliminate some authority over parts of the system and
           revisit existing statutory restrictions on certain activities such
           as tolling.

           According to participants, while innovative local transportation
           initiatives are symptomatic of the current federal role in
           transportation, they also offer opportunities for the federal
           government to support transportation solutions that may be
           appropriate for replication on a larger scale. For example,
           funding solutions, such as congestion pricing, can be especially
           difficult to implement on the local level because of their
           inherently political nature. The federal government can provide
           "political cover" for state and local governments' initiatives.
           Such federal support is critical to moving promising local
           initiatives forward, according to participants.
			  
			  Concluding Observations

           As we have previously reported and participants discussed
           throughout the forum sessions, the magnitude of the nation's
           transportation challenges calls for an urgent response, including
           a plan for the future. The current lack of clear national
           transportation goals, a blurred federal role in transportation,
           and the current funding crisis are transportation issues that need
           to be articulated to the American public in a way that can be
           understood. The nation's people and businesses will be faced with
           the negative impacts of these transportation challenges in the
           very near future. The federal role in transportation needs to be
           better defined and focused on clearer national transportation
           priorities. Options to address transportation funding in the
           future are available, but there is no silver bullet solution, and
           implementation can be politically difficult on both the national
           and local levels because transportation financing options are
           generally not well understood by the public or the private sector.
           GAO and others will continue to assist the Congress and DOT as the
           federal government works to develop a national transportation
           policy for the 21st century that will improve the design of
           transportation programs, the delivery of services, and
           accountability for results.
			  
Appendix I: List of Participants

Moderator

David M. Walker U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Participants

William Ankner   Transportation Solutions                       
Anne Canby       Surface Transportation Policy Partnership      
Frank Chin       Citigroup                                      
Mortimer Downey  PB Consult Inc.                                
Tom Downs        ENO Transportation Foundation                  
Tyler Duvall     U.S. Department of Transportation              
Peter Goelz      O'Neil and Associates                          
Mike Gray        Dell, Inc.                                     
Bill Johnson     Port of Miami                                  
Daniel Kaplan    LECG                                           
David Lewis      HDR, Inc.                                      
Rich Macias      Southern California Association of Governments 
Robert Martinez  Norfolk Southern Corporation                   
Michael Meyer    Georgia Institute of Technology                
Norm Mineta      Hill & Knowlton, Inc.                          
Michael Morris   North Central Texas Council of Governments     
Robert Poole     Reason Foundation                              
Robert Puentes   Brookings Institution                          
Michael Replogle Environmental Defense                          
Nancy Sparks     FedEx Express                                  
James Whitty     Oregon Department of Transportation            
Bob Yaro         Regional Planning Association                  

Appendix II: Forum Agenda

8:30  Check-in                                                             
8:45  Welcome and introductory remarks                                     
                                                                              
         David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States            
9:15  Session 1: What are appropriate goals for the nation's               
         transportation policy?                                               
10:30 Break                                                                
10:45 Session 2: What is the role of the federal government in achieving   
         these goals?                                                         
12:00 Break                                                                
12:15 Working lunch                                                        
                                                                              
         Session 3: How can the transportation system be financed to meet     
         these goals?                                                         
1:30  Break                                                                
1:45  Session 4: What steps need to be taken to transform the nation's     
         transportation policy?                                               
3:00  Closing remarks                                                      
                                                                              
         David M. Walker, Comptroller General                                 
                                                                              
         Pat Dalton, Managing Director, PI                                    

           Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  GAO Contact
			  
           JayEtta Z. Hecker, Director (202) 512-8984
			  
			  Staff Acknowledgments

           In addition to the contact above, Nikki Clowers, Assistant
           Director, and Heather MacLeod managed all aspects of the work, and
           Jonathan Carver, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Chir-Jen Huang, Sara Ann
           Moessbauer, Steven Putansu, Terry Richardson, Stan Stenersen, and
           Bethany Widick made important contributions to organizing the
           forum and producing this report.
			  
			  Related GAO Products
			  
			  Financing the Nation's Transportation System

           Highway and Transit Investments: Flexible Funding Supports State
           and Local Transportation Priorities and Multimodal Planning.
           [43]GAO-07-772 . Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.

           Federal Aviation Administration: Viability of Current Funding
           Structure for Aviation Activities and Observations on Funding
           Provisions of Reauthorization Proposals. [44]GAO-07-1104T .
           Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2007.

           Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs
           and Funding Levels and the Administration's Proposed Changes in
           the Airport Improvement Program. [45]GAO-07-885 . Washington,
           D.C.: June 29, 2007.

           Airport Finance: Preliminary Analysis Indicates Proposed Changes
           in the Airport Improvement Program May Not Resolve Funding Needs
           for Smaller Airports. [46]GAO-07-617T . Washington, D.C.: March
           28, 2007.

           Federal Aviation Administration: Observations on Selected Changes
           to FAA's Funding and Budget Structure in the Administration's
           Reauthorization Proposal. [47]GAO-07-625T . Washington, D.C.,
           March 21, 2007.

           Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing
           Congress and the Department of Transportation. [48]GAO-07-545T .
           Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007.

           Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to
           Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures. [49]GAO-07-15
           . Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.

           Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has Improved, but Concerns
           about Competition and Capacity Should be Addressed. [50]GAO-07-94
           . Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2006.

           Aviation Finance: Observations on Potential FAA Funding Options.
           [51]GAO-06-973 . Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2006.

           National Airspace System Modernization: Observations on Potential
           Funding Options for FAA and the Next Generation Airspace System.
           [52]GAO-06-1114T . Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2006.

           Highway Finance: States' Expanding Use of Tolling Illustrates
           Diverse Challenges and Strategies. [53]GAO-06-554 . Washington,
           D.C.: June 28, 2006.

           Highway Trust Fund: Overview of Highway Trust Fund Estimates.
           [54]GAO-06-572T . Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006.

           Federal Aviation Administration: An Analysis of the Financial
           Viability of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. [55]GAO-06-562T .
           Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2006.

           Freight Transportation: Short Sea Shipping Option Shows Importance
           of Systematic Approach to Public Investment Decisions.
           [56]GAO-05-768 . Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005.

           Highlights of an Expert Panel: The Benefits and Costs of Highway
           and Transit Investments. [57]GAO-05-423SP . Washington, D.C.: May
           6, 2005.

           Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Preliminary Observations on Past,
           Present, and Future. [58]GAO-05-657T . Washington, D.C.: May 4,
           2005.

           Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information
           on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for
           Results. [59]GAO-05-172 . Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005.

           Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and
           Options for Future Program Design. [60]GAO-04-802 . Washington,
           D.C.: August 31, 2004.

           Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions.
           [61]GAO-04-744 . Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.
			  
			  Improving Mobility

           Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and
           Small Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the Small Starts
           Application Process. [62]GAO-07-917 . Washington, D.C.: July 27,
           2007.

           Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making
           Existing Road Infrastructure Perform Better. [63]GAO-07-920 .
           Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.

           Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to
           Address Intermodal Barriers. [64]GAO-07-718 . Washington, D.C.:
           June 20, 2007.

           Public Transportation: Preliminary Analysis of Changes to and
           Trends in FTA's New Starts and Small Starts Programs.
           [65]GAO-07-812T . Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2007.

           Commercial Aviation: Programs and Options for Providing Air
           Service to Small Communities. [66]GAO-07-793T . Washington, D.C.:
           April 25, 2007.

           Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to
           Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for
           Evacuations. [67]GAO-07-44 . Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006.

           Federal Transit Administration: Progress Made in Implementing
           Changes to the Job Access Program, but Evaluation and Oversight
           Processes Need Improvement. [68]GAO-07-43 . Washington, D.C.:
           November 17, 2006.

           Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to
           Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures. [69]GAO-07-15
           . Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.

           Freight Railroads: Industry Health has Improved, but Concerns
           about Competition and Capacity Should be Addressed. [70]GAO-07-94
           . Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2006.

           Commercial Aviation: Programs and Options for the Federal Approach
           to Providing and Improving Air Service to Small Communities.
           [71]GAO-06-398T . Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2006.

           Public Transportation: New Starts Program is in a Period of
           Transition. [72]GAO-06-819 . Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006.

           Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA's
           Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes. [73]GAO-06-910T .
           Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006.

           Intermodal Transportation: Challenges to and Potential Strategies
           for Developing Improved Intermodal Capabilities. [74]GAO-06-855T .
           Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.

           Commuter Rail: Commuter Rail Issues Should Be Considered in Debate
           over Amtrak. [75]GAO-06-470 . Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2006.

           Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of
           DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited
           English-Proficient Populations. [76]GAO-06-52 . Washington, D.C.:
           November 2, 2005.

           Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine
           Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities.
           [77]GAO-05-727 . Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005.

           Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Needs a Comprehensive Approach to
           Improving Project Oversight. [78]GAO-05-173 . Washington, D.C.:
           January 31, 2005.

           Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information
           on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for
           Results. [79]GAO-05-172 . Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005.

           Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and
           Options for Future Program Design. [80]GAO-04-802 . Washington,
           D.C.: August 31, 2004.
			  
			  Improving Transportation Safety

           Motor Carrier Safety: Preliminary Information on the Federal Motor
           Carrier Safety Administration's Efforts to Identify and Follow Up
           with High-risk Carriers. [81]GAO-07-1074T . Washington, D.C.: July
           11, 2007.

           Motor Carrier Safety: A Statistical Approach Will Better Identify
           Commercial Carriers That Pose High Crash Risks Than Does the
           Current Federal Approach. [82]GAO-07-585 . Washington, D.C.: June
           11, 2007.

           Rail Safety: The Federal Railroad Administration Is Better
           Targeting Safety Risks, but Needs to Assess Results to Determine
           the Impact of Its Efforts. [83]GAO-07-841T . Washington, D.C.: May
           22, 2007.

           Commercial Aviation: Potential Safety and Capacity Issues
           Associated with the Introduction of the New A380 Aircraft.
           [84]GAO-07-483 . Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2007.

           Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States Prepare
           for Increase in Older Driver Population. [85]GAO-07-413 .
           Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2007.

           Older Driver Safety: Survey of States on Their Implementation of
           Federal Highway Administration Recommendations and Guidelines, an
           E-Supplement. [86]GAO-07-517SP . Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2007.

           Aviation Safety: Improved Data Collection Needed for Effective
           Oversight of Air Ambulance Industry. [87]GAO-07-353 . Washington,
           D.C.: February 21, 2007.

           Underinflated Tires in the United States. [88]GAO-07-246R .
           Washington, D.C.: February 9, 2007.

           Rail Safety: The Federal Railroad Administration is Taking Steps
           to Better Target Its Oversight, but Assessment of Results is
           Needed to Determine Impact. [89]GAO-07-149 . Washington, D.C.:
           January 26, 2007.

           Aviation Safety: FAA's Safety Efforts Generally Strong but Face
           Challenges. [90]GAO-06-1091T . Washington, D.C.: September 20,
           2006.

           Natural Gas Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Benefits Public
           Safety, but Consistency of Performance Measures Should be
           Improved. [91]GAO-06-946 . Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2006.

           Natural Gas Pipeline Safety: Risk-Based Standards Should Allow
           Operators to Better Tailor Reassessments to Pipeline Threats.
           [92]GAO-06-945 . Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2006.

           Truck Safety: Share the Road Safely Pilot Initiative Showed
           Promise, but the Program's Future Success Is Uncertain.
           [93]GAO-06-916 . Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2006.

           Rail Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance FTA's
           State Safety Oversight Program. [94]GAO-06-821 . Washington, D.C.:
           July 26, 2006.

           Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Education and
           Outreach Programs Target Safety and Consumer Issues, but Gaps in
           Planning and Evaluation Remain. [95]GAO-06-103 . Washington, D.C.:
           December 19, 2005.

           Large Truck Safety: Federal Enforcement Efforts Have Been Stronger
           Since 2000, but Oversight of State Grants Needs Improvement.
           [96]GAO-06-156 . Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2005.

           Highway Safety: Further Opportunities Exist to Improve Data on
           Crashes Involving Commercial Motor Vehicles. [97]GAO-06-102 .
           Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2005.

           Aviation Safety: FAA's Safety Oversight System is Effective but
           Could Benefit from Better Evaluation of Its Programs' Performance.
           [98]GAO-06-266T . Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005.

           Aviation Safety: System Safety Approach Needs Further Integration
           into FAA's Oversight of Airlines. [99]GAO-05-726 . Washington,
           D.C.: September 28, 2005.

           Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car
           Assessment Program. [100]GAO-05-370 . Washington, D.C.: April 29,
           2005.

           Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic
           Safety Data Program are Needed. [101]GAO-05-24 . Washington, D.C.:
           November 4, 2004.
			  
			  Managing the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation
			  System

           Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of the
           Transition to the Future Air Traffic Control System.
           [102]GAO-07-784T . Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2007.

           Joint Planning and Development Office: Progress and Key Issues in
           Planning the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation
           System. [103]GAO-07-693T . Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2007.

           Federal Aviation Administration: Key Issues in Ensuring the
           Efficient Development and Safe Operation of the Next Generation
           Air Transportation System. [104]GAO-07-636T . Washington, D.C.:
           March 22, 2007.

           Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges
           in Planning and Implementing the Transformation of the National
           Airspace System. [105]GAO-07-649T . Washington, D.C.: March 22,
           2007.

           Federal Aviation Administration: Challenges Facing the Agency in
           Fiscal Year 2008 and Beyond. [106]GAO-07-490T . Washington, D.C.:
           February 14, 2007.

           Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges
           Associated with the Transformation of the National Airspace
           System. [107]GAO-07-25 . Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.

           Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of
           Progress and Challenges Associated with the Transformation of the
           National Airspace System. [108]GAO-06-915T . Washington, D.C.:
           July 25, 2006.

           Air Traffic Control Modernization: Status of the Current Program
           and Planning for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
           [109]GAO-06-653T . Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2006.

           Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of
           the Joint Planning and Development Office's Planning, Progress,
           and Challenges. [110]GAO-06-574T . Washington, D.C.: March 29,
           2006.

           National Airspace System: Transformation will Require Cultural
           Change, Balanced Funding Priorities, and Use of All Available
           Management Tools. [111]GAO-06-154 . Washington, D.C.: October 14,
           2005.

           National Airspace System: FAA Has Made Progress but Continues to
           Face Challenges in Acquiring Major Air Traffic Control Systems.
           [112]GAO-05-331 . Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.

           Federal Aviation Administration: Stronger Architecture Program
           Needed to Guide Systems Modernization Efforts. [113]GAO-05-266 .
           Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2005.
			  
			  Building Human Capital Strategies

           Aviation Security: TSA's Staffing Allocation Model is Useful for
           Allocating Staff among Airports, but Its Assumptions Should be
           Systematically Reassessed. [114]GAO-07-299 . Washington, D.C.:
           February 28, 2007.

           Aviation Safety: FAA Management Practices for Technical Training
           Mostly Effective; Further Actions Could Enhance Results.
           [115]GAO-05-728 . Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2005.

           Human Capital: Agencies Need Leadership and the Supporting
           Infrastructure to Take Advantage of New Flexibilities.
           [116]GAO-05-616T . Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2005.

           Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Needs a Comprehensive Approach to
           Improving Project Oversight. [117]GAO-05-173 . Washington, D.C.:
           January 31, 2005.
			  
			  Fostering Improved Financial Management

           FAA Budget Policies and Practices. [118]GAO-04-841R . Washington,
           D.C.: July 2, 2004.

           Federal Aircraft: Inaccurate Cost Data and Weaknesses in Fleet
           Management Planning Hamper Cost Effective Operations.
           [119]GAO-04-645 . Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2004.
			  
			  Improving Transportation Security and Emergency Preparedness and
			  Response

           Aviation Security: Foreign Airport Assessments and Air Carrier
           Inspections Help Enhance Security, but Oversight of These Efforts
           Can Be Strengthened. [120]GAO-07-729 . Washington, D.C.: May 11,
           2007.

           Aviation Security: Federal Efforts to Secure U.S.-Bound Air Cargo
           Are in the Early Stages and Could Be Strengthened. [121]GAO-07-660
           . Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2007.

           Passenger Rail Security: Federal Strategy and Enhanced
           Coordination Need to Prioritize and Guide Security Efforts.
           [122]GAO-07-583T . Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2007.

           Highway Emergency Relief: Reexamination Needed to Address Fiscal
           Imbalance and Long-Term Sustainability. [123]GAO-07-245 .
           Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2007.

           Passenger Rail Security: Federal Strategy and Enhanced
           Coordination Needed to Prioritize and Guide Security Efforts.
           [124]GAO-07-459T . Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2007.

           Aviation Security: Progress Made in Systematic Planning to Guide
           Key Investment Decisions, but More Work Remains. [125]GAO-07-448T
           . Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2007.

           Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to
           Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for
           Evacuations. [126]GAO-07-44 . Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006.

           Passenger Rail Security: Evaluating Foreign Security Practices and
           Risk Can Help Guide Security Efforts. [127]GAO-06-557T .
           Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2006.

           Undeclared Hazardous Materials: New DOT Efforts May Provide
           Additional Information on Undeclared Shipments. [128]GAO-06-471 .
           Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2006.

           Passenger Rail Security: Enhanced Federal Leadership Needed to
           Prioritize and Guide Security Efforts. [129]GAO-05-851 .
           Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2005.

           General Aviation Security: Increased Federal Oversight is Needed,
           but Continued Partnership with the Private Sector is Critical to
           Long-Term Success. [130]GAO-05-144 . Washington, D.C.: November
           10, 2004.

           Transportation Security: Federal Action Needed to Help Address
           Security Challenges. [131]GAO-03-843 . Washington, D.C.: June 30,
           2003.

           Transportation Security Research: Coordination Needed in Selecting
           and Implementing Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessments.
           [132]GAO-03-502 . Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003.
			  
			  GAO's Mission

           The Government Accountability 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 GAO Reports and Testimony

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [133]www.gao.gov ). Each
           weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
           correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
           newly posted products every afternoon, go to [134]www.gao.gov and
           select "Subscribe to Updates."
			  
			  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. Government Accountability 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: [135]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
			  E-mail: [136][email protected]
			  Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [137][email protected] (202)
           512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
			  
			  Public Affairs

           Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [138][email protected] (202) 512-4800
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
           Washington, D.C. 20548

(544136)

[140]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1210SP .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact JayEtta Hecker at (202) 512-8984 or
[email protected].

Highlights of a forum, [141]GAO-07-1210SP

September 2007

HIGHLIGHTS OF A FORUM

Transforming Transportation Policy for the 21st Century

The nation's economic vitality and the quality of life of its citizens
depend significantly on the security, availability, and dependability of
its transportation network. The nation's transportation network presents
particularly complex policy challenges, because it encompasses many modes
on systems owned, funded, and operated by both the public and the private
sectors. As the August collapse of a bridge span in Minneapolis
illustrated, policymakers currently face the challenge of maintaining the
safety and condition of the transportation network--in a time of
increasing fiscal constraint. Addressing these challenges requires a
fundamental reexamination and transformation of the nation's
transportation policies and programs.

This forum brought together government, academic, and transportation
industry experts, along with GAO's own transportation specialists. The
discussion addressed (1) the appropriate goals for the nation's
transportation policy, (2) the role of the federal government in achieving
transportation goals, (3) how transportation goals might be financed, and
(4) next steps in transforming transportation policy for the 21^st
century. These highlights do not necessarily represent the views of any
one participant or the organizations that these participants represent,
including GAO.

Participants said that the nation's transportation policy has lost focus
and that the nation's overall transportation goals need to be better
defined and linked to performance measures that evaluate what the
respective policies and programs actually accomplish. They noted that as
the federal share of total transportation spending continues to decline,
it has become increasingly important that federal transportation policy
goals and their link to local decision making and spending be well
defined. Further, according to participants, measured outcomes, or
performance results, should be used to drive federal transportation policy
and funding decisions. Participants indicated that enhancing mobility and
maintaining global competitiveness are the most important goals for the
nation's transportation policy.

Participants said that the federal government's role should focus on the
policy side of transportation--establishing policy, providing guidance for
executing policy, and supporting local and regional investments that
correspond with federal policy goals. Additionally, the federal government
has an important role to play in the movement of goods because of the
impact on the national and global economies. They noted ways that the
federal government could encourage transportation decisions that are
consistent with national transportation goals by, for example, developing
and using incentives and strengthening the user-pay principle.

Participants generally agreed that there is a need to address
transportation funding immediately, and no single mechanism will solve the
existing and future funding crisis facing the nation's transportation
system. Potential approaches identified by participants include levying
new taxes, implementing tolls, and utilizing congestion pricing
strategies. However, participants acknowledged potential drawbacks to
several of the funding mechanisms that were identified, such as a lack of
public support for tolling and equity concerns with certain pricing
mechanisms.

There was broad consensus among participants on the need for a
transformation of our current approach to transportation policy to better
meet current and future mobility needs in a strategic, integrated, and
sustainable manner. For a successful transformation, participants said it
is necessary to develop a constituency that will push for and support
change. Participants said that there is a need to educate and influence
both political leaders and the broader public because transportation is
not currently perceived as a significant national problem. The public and
private sectors need to better understand the magnitude and consequences
of these transportation challenges to be motivated to change the status
quo. Additionally, participants stated that local transportation
initiatives underway may offer lessons on how to build the consensus
needed to address today's transportation challenges.

References

Visible links
  31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-545T
  32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP
  33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
  34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-718
  35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-94
  36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-165
  37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
  38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727
  39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-545T
  40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-572T
  41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
  42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-920
  43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-772
  44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1104T
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-885
  46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-617T
  47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-625T
  48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-545T
  49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-15
  50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-94
  51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-973
  52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1114T
  53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-554
  54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-572T
  55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-562T
  56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-768
  57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-423SP
  58. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-657T
  59. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
  60. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-802
  61. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-744
  62. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-917
  63. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-920
  64. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-718
  65. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-812T
  66. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-793T
  67. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-44
  68. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-43
  69. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-15
  70. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-94
  71. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-398T
  72. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-819
  73. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-910T
  74. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
  75. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-470
  76. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-52
  77. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727
  78. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-173
  79. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
  80. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-802
  81. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1074T
  82. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-585
  83. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-841T
  84. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-483
  85. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-413
  86. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-517SP
  87. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-353
  88. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-246R
  89. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-149
  90. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1091T
  91. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-946
  92. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-945
  93. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-916
  94. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-821
  95. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-103
  96. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-156
  97. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-102
  98. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-266T
  99. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-726
 100. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-370
 101. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-24
 102. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-784T
 103. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-693T
 104. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-636T
 105. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-649T
 106. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-490T
 107. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-25
 108. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-915T
 109. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-653T
 110. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-574T
 111. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-154
 112. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-331
 113. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-266
 114. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-299
 115. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-728
 116. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-616T
 117. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-173
 118. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-841R
 119. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-645
 120. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-729
 121. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-660
 122. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-583T
 123. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-245
 124. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-459T
 125. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-448T
 126. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-44
 127. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-557T
 128. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-471
 129. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-851
 130. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-144
 131. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-843
 132. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-502
 133. http://www.gao.gov/
 134. http://www.gao.gov/
 135. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
 136. mailto:[email protected]
 137. mailto:[email protected]
 138. mailto:[email protected]
 139. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-554
 140. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1210SP
 141. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1210SP
*** End of document. ***