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. ***