    Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making
    Existing Road Infrastructure Perform Better (26-JUL-07,
    GAO-07-920).

    For the past several decades, the capacity of the nation's road
    network has not grown fast enough to keep pace with demand. The
    increasing congestion is apparent to millions of commuters and
    freight operators. Although road building is perhaps the most
    familiar antidote, Congress, the Department of Transportation
    (DOT), and transportation research have emphasized the need to
    more efficiently use the existing infrastructure as a means to
    control congestion. GAO was asked to examine various issues
    associated with increasing the efficient use of existing
    infrastructure. This report examines the following questions: (1)
    What factors inhibit the efficient use of the existing
    infrastructure of roads and highways? (2) What techniques have
    been developed for making the current infrastructure more
    efficient and what is known about the results? (3) How have local
    decision makers implemented these techniques? (4) What strategies
    exist for increasing the use of such techniques? To address these
    questions, GAO reviewed existing studies, examined efforts in
    five states, and sought transportation officials' views, among
    other things.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-920
        ACCNO:   A73393
      TITLE:     Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for
    Making Existing Road Infrastructure Perform Better
         DATE:   07/26/2007
      SUBJECT:   Highway traffic control systems
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Public roads or highways
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Traffic regulation
    	     Transportation costs
    	     Transportation planning

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-07-920

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background

              * [3]Pressure on Road System Continues to Build
              * [4]Capacity Has Not Kept Pace with Demand, and Is Not Likely to
              * [5]With Capacity Constrained, Other Approaches Are Receiving Mo
              * [6]Federal Government Is One of Many Stakeholders in Operating

         * [7]Three Broad Factors Inhibit Efficient Use of Roads

              * [8]Road Network's Design and Operation Fail to Adapt to Changin
              * [9]Traditional Funding Structure Does Not Provide Incentives fo
              * [10]Current Investment Decision-Making Process Has a Limited Foc

         * [11]Various Techniques Have Been Developed to Make the Current I
         * [12]Transportation Decision Makers Are Using Similar Approaches

              * [13]Officials Report Giving Congestion Mitigation Techniques Mor

                   * [14]Setting Goals That Incorporate Congestion Mitigation
                   * [15]Modifying Project Selection Process to Emphasize
                     Congestion
                   * [16]Restructuring Organizations to Align with Transportation
                     Pla
                   * [17]Adopting Policies or Regulations That Promote Congestion
                     Mit

              * [18]Agencies Report Developing New Methods to Fund the Use of Co

                   * [19]Imposing Tolls, Local Taxes, or Development Impact Fees
                   * [20]Developing Partnerships with Private Industry
                   * [21]Designating Specific Funding within Existing Resources

              * [22]Transportation Agencies Are Collaborating with Multiple Stak
              * [23]Persistent Issues Keep Congestion Mitigation Techniques from

         * [24]Various Strategies Exist for Increasing the Efficient Use of

              * [25]Three Strategies Crosscut All Levels of Governments

                   * [26]Consider How the Private Sector Can Be Used in Managing
                     Exis
                   * [27]Expand the Use of the User-Pay Concept
                   * [28]Measure Results and Manage the Existing Infrastructure
                     with

              * [29]Several Strategies Relate Mainly to State and Local Governme

                   * [30]Implement a Combination of Supply-Related and
                     Demand-Related
                   * [31]Apply Congestion Mitigation Techniques on a Regional
                     Basis
                   * [32]Integrate Transportation Planning More Fully with
                     Land-Use P
                   * [33]Building Support for Congestion Mitigation Techniques

              * [34]Several Strategies Relate Mainly to the Federal Government t

                   * [35]Link Federal-Aid Highway Funding to Performance
                   * [36]Increase Flexibility to State and Local Decision Makers
                   * [37]Placing Additional Focus on Projects That Provide
                     National P

         * [38]Concluding Observations
         * [39]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * [40]Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
         * [41]Appendix II: Congestion Mitigation Techniques and Benefits
         * [42]Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

              * [43]GAO Contact
              * [44]Staff Acknowledgments

                   * [45]Order by Mail or Phone

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

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    July 2007

    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

    Strategies Are Available for Making Existing Road Infrastructure Perform
    Better

    GAO-07-920

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 3
    Background 5
    Three Broad Factors Inhibit Efficient Use of Roads 13
    Various Techniques Have Been Developed to Make the Current Infrastructure
    More Efficient 18
    Transportation Decision Makers Are Using Similar Approaches for
    Implementing Congestion Mitigation Techniques, but Challenges Exist 24
    Various Strategies Exist for Increasing the Efficient Use of
    Infrastructure 32
    Concluding Observations 43
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44
    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46
    Appendix II Congestion Mitigation Techniques and Benefits 48
    Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51

    Tables

    Table 1: Examples of Long-range and Short-range Transportation Plans at
    Locations GAO Visited 25
    Table 2: Selected Congestion Mitigation Techniques That Enhance Capacity
    48
    Table 3: Select Congestion Mitigation Techniques That Influence Driver
    Behavior 49

    Figures

    Figure 1: Percentage Change of Vehicle Miles Traveled and New Construction
    of Lane Miles between 1980 and 2005 7
    Figure 2: Representation of Levels of Service on a Two-Lane Highway 10
    Figure 3: Percentage of Highway Capacity That Is Reduced When Vehicle
    Incidents Occur 15
    Figure 4: Select Congestion Management Techniques that Enhance Capacity
    and Influence Driver Behavior and Demand 21
    Figure 5: Express Lanes and General Purpose Lanes on State Route 91 in
    Orange County, California 23
    Figure 6: Florida Road Ranger Incident Response Vehicle 29
    Figure 7: Strategies for Making More Efficient Use of Existing
    Infrastructure 33
    Figure 8: Representation of the VII Mobility Applications 35
    Figure 9: Minnesota's "MnPass" Program 41

    Abbreviations

    DOT Department of Transportation
    FHWA Federal Highway Administration
    FTA Federal Transit Administration
    HOT high-occupancy toll lane
    HOV high-occupancy vehicle
    ICM Integrated Corridor Management
    ITS intelligent transportation system
    NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
    NTOC National Transportation Operations Coalition
    SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
    Act: A Legacy for Users
    TIP Transportation Improvement Program
    VII Vehicle Integration Initiative
    VMT vehicle miles traveled

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    July 26, 2007 July 26, 2007

    The Honorable James M. Inhofe
    Ranking Member
    Committee on Environment and Public Works
    United States Senate

    Dear Senator Inhofe:

    Mobility--that is, the movement of passengers and goods through the
    transportation system--is critical to the nation's economic vitality and
    its citizens' quality of life. Mobility gives people access to goods,
    services, recreation, and jobs; gives businesses access to materials,
    markets, and people; and promotes the movement of personnel and material
    to meet national defense needs. While the transportation system that
    provides this mobility is made up of air, marine, and various modes of
    surface transportation, the nation's road network is the transportation
    system that most citizens use daily. It is also the critical pathway for
    the movement of freight. Mobility--that is, the movement of passengers and
    goods through the transportation system--is critical to the nation's
    economic vitality and its citizens' quality of life. Mobility gives people
    access to goods, services, recreation, and jobs; gives businesses access
    to materials, markets, and people; and promotes the movement of personnel
    and material to meet national defense needs. While the transportation
    system that provides this mobility is made up of air, marine, and various
    modes of surface transportation, the nation's road network is the
    transportation system that most citizens use daily. It is also the
    critical pathway for the movement of freight.

    For the past several decades, the capacity of the national road network
    has not grown fast enough to keep pace with the growing demand.
    Population, income levels, and economic activity have risen considerably
    and with them have come significant increases in travel demand and freight
    movement on the surface transportation system. The result is apparent to
    millions of commuters and freight operators: increasing number of hours
    spent inching along clogged roads and highways, especially at rush hours
    and other times of peak demands. The economic implications are
    significant, ranging from wasted fuel and time as cars idle in traffic to
    increased logistics costs for business as the unreliability of the systems
    grows. While building additional roads is perhaps the most familiar way
    for addressing congestion, Congress, the Department of Transportation
    (DOT), and transportation research have emphasized the need to more
    efficiently use the existing infrastructure as a means to help control
    congestion. This could be done both by managing the existing network to
    enable it to handle more traffic and by managing the demands placed upon
    it. However, transportation stakeholders and experts have generally
    acknowledged that we are not using the existing infrastructure as
    efficiently as possible. For example, in its National Strategy to Reduce
    Congestion on America's Transportation Network, DOT notes that "at its
    most fundamental level, highway congestion is caused by the failure to For
    the past several decades, the capacity of the national road network has
    not grown fast enough to keep pace with the growing demand. Population,
    income levels, and economic activity have risen considerably and with them
    have come significant increases in travel demand and freight movement on
    the surface transportation system. The result is apparent to millions of
    commuters and freight operators: increasing number of hours spent inching
    along clogged roads and highways, especially at rush hours and other times
    of peak demands. The economic implications are significant, ranging from
    wasted fuel and time as cars idle in traffic to increased logistics costs
    for business as the unreliability of the systems grows. While building
    additional roads is perhaps the most familiar way for addressing
    congestion, Congress, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and
    transportation research have emphasized the need to more efficiently use
    the existing infrastructure as a means to help control congestion. This
    could be done both by managing the existing network to enable it to handle
    more traffic and by managing the demands placed upon it. However,
    transportation stakeholders and experts have generally acknowledged that
    we are not using the existing infrastructure as efficiently as possible.
    For example, in its National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's
    Transportation Network, DOT notes that "at its most fundamental level,
    highway congestion is caused by the failure to develop mechanisms to
    efficiently manage use of existing capacity and expand capacity at
    locations were the benefits are the greatest. Although more efficiently
    using existing infrastructure is intended to help manage congestion, the
    goal of such efforts is not to completely eliminate or prevent congestion.

    Given the importance of the nation's road network, the federal government
    has partnered with states in developing and maintaining it. In recent
    years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has provided nearly $34
    billion each year to states to build and improve roads and bridges and
    meet other transportation needs. Since transportation research and our
    work has indicated that the current system will not be able to meet future
    demand, you asked us to provide information on several key questions
    related to what is being done--and what else might be needed--in adjusting
    to this changing environment and ensuring our nation's mobility. More
    specifically, this report addresses the following questions:

               1. What factors inhibit the efficient use of the existing
               infrastructure of roads and highways?
               2. What techniques have been developed for making the current
               infrastructure more efficient and what is known about the results
               of these techniques?
               3. How have local decision makers implemented these techniques?
               4. What strategies exist for increasing the efficient use of
               existing infrastructure?

    To address these questions, we conducted a review of relevant literature,
    reports, studies, and our prior research and interviewed federal, state,
    and local transportation officials, as well as representatives from
    various industry associations with experience in developing, implementing,
    or analyzing these techniques. We also conducted site visits or interviews
    with state and local transportation officials in California, Colorado,
    Florida, Virginia,^1 and Washington. We selected this nongeneralizable
    sample of states based on the level of congestion of selected metropolitan
    areas within these states, including Denver; Northern Virginia; Orlando;
    San Diego; San Francisco/San Jose/Oakland; and Seattle; and additionally
    on the states' experience with using congestion mitigation techniques to
    achieve geographical diversity. We also visited Aurora and Boulder, Colo.;
    Altamonte Springs, Fla.; Hampton Roads, Va.; and Bellevue and Issaquah,
    Wash., to gain some insight into the implementation of congestion
    management techniques in smaller jurisdictions. During these site visits,
    we interviewed federal, state, and local transportation officials and
    toured operations centers. In addition, we reviewed studies and
    documentation on how these and other metropolitan areas and states have
    implemented congestion management techniques and their results. We
    conducted our work from September 2006 through July 2007 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. 1 for
    more information about our objectives, scope and methodology.)

    ^1These interviews were conducted by telephone.

    Results in Brief

    Three broad factors inhibit efficient use of roads and highways: design
    and operation factors; the revenue-raising structure; and a limited focus
    on selecting projects that produce the highest net social benefits in the
    current decision-making process. First, many roads were not designed and
    built to meet current traffic volumes, and operational changes--such as
    the timing of traffic signals--have not changed sufficiently to cope with
    the increased use. Second, the federal and state transportation
    revenue-raising structure, which collects the majority of revenues through
    motor fuel taxes and other user fees, does not provide incentives for
    drivers to take into account the external costs, such as increased travel
    time for other drivers, they impose in deciding when, where, and how to
    drive. For example, the tax rate on gasoline is the same regardless of
    whether drivers drive in congested or uncongested periods. Third, there is
    a limited focus in the current decision-making process on selecting
    projects that will produce the highest net social benefits. Decision
    makers also are limited in their ability to identify and put in place
    infrastructure investments that would produce the highest estimated social
    benefits because the current decision-making process is compartmentalized
    by mode and is not driven by economic analysis.

    Two categories of congestion mitigation techniques have been developed to
    improve the efficiency and better optimize the performance of the existing
    infrastructure. The first category includes techniques that enhance road
    capacity through better operations, such as incident response vehicles
    that quickly restore traffic flow after vehicle crashes, or the deployment
    of transportation technology, such as optimizing the timing of traffic
    signals to improve traffic flow. The second category includes techniques
    designed to better acknowledge the impact of using the road system during
    times of peak demand; these techniques influence drivers to make
    alternative choices, such as car pooling or shifting trips to less
    congested times. Studies and evaluations of projects indicate that these
    congestion mitigation techniques have the potential to provide benefits
    such as reduced congestion delays and improved traffic flows that maximize
    existing capacity. These studies and evaluations also indicate such
    techniques are most effective when tailored to the particular situation
    and used in combination.

    At locations we reviewed, officials chose varying congestion mitigation
    techniques but tended to implement them with a similar three-pronged
    approach: (1) changing planning and related processes to give them higher
    priority, (2) developing creative mechanisms to fund them, and (3)
    collaborating with multiple stakeholders to put them in place. For
    example, in considering which projects to select for funding, the
    metropolitan planning organization for the Denver region now awards points
    to projects that use certain congestion mitigation techniques, such as
    installing left-turn lanes, coordinating traffic lights, or managing
    incidents. Officials for the Denver region said they hope awarding points
    will provide incentives for local planners to include such techniques in
    their projects. Transportation officials said the mode-specific,
    "stove-piped" funding structure for transportation projects, together with
    a general lack of resources for transportation projects, constrained their
    ability to use these techniques. As a result, they said, they often have
    had to find alternative methods to supplement traditional funding sources.
    Officials also reported working with multiple partners to implement
    congestion mitigation techniques. They said the success of these
    techniques depends on coordination among many partners. While officials
    said the techniques produced benefits, these officials also called
    attention to various challenges that tended to preclude wider use. These
    challenges ranged from resolving jurisdictional authority to identifying
    sufficient funding to allow implementation on a broader scale. As a
    result, they said, the approach they used to implement these techniques
    could provide only marginal improvement to the efficiency of the road
    network.

    Various strategies exist for increasing the efficient use of
    infrastructure. We grouped the strategies by the level of government best
    suited to consider and implement them, given their current authorities,
    roles, and responsibilities. In some cases, all levels of government would
    need to be involved in implementing the strategy; in other cases, the
    federal government or a state government would be most appropriate to
    implement the strategy. We identified three strategies that cut across all
    levels of government, including (1) considering how the private sector can
    be used in managing existing road infrastructure, (2) expanding use of the
    user-pay concept for managing demand and generating revenue for
    transportation investments, and (3) developing a systematic
    performance-based management approach to increase the accountability of
    public expenditures and to link performance to investment decisions. We
    also identified strategies that would be most appropriate for state and
    local governments to consider, including applying congestion mitigation
    techniques on a regional basis and fully integrating transportation and
    land-use planning. For example, traffic signal timing is one technique
    that can provide significant benefits to drivers by providing for the
    smooth flow of traffic along streets and highways. To fully enhance
    mobility, jurisdictions need to coordinate the timing along an entire
    corridor, which often crosses multiple jurisdictions. Finally, we
    identified strategies that the federal government could consider to help
    increase the efficient use of infrastructure. These strategies include (1)
    linking funding more directly to performance, (2) increasing the
    flexibility provided to state and local governments to promote innovative
    solutions, and (3) focusing on projects (or transportation corridors) of
    national interest. For example, the federal government could also use
    incentives to link funding to particular outcomes, such as encouraging
    state and local governments to increase the efficient use and performance
    of existing infrastructure. According to transportation research and
    transportation officials and experts we interviewed, the strategies are
    not mutually exclusive and ideally would be implemented in a comprehensive
    manner.

    DOT, including FHWA, reviewed a draft of this report. DOT officials
    provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.

    Background

    Pressure on Road System Continues to Build

    Road usage, as measured by vehicle miles traveled (VMT), has grown over
    the last 25 years. From 1980 through 2005, the most recent years for which
    data are available, road usage grew at an average annual rate of 2.7
    percent from 1980 through 2005. A number of demographic and economic
    trends contribute to this increase in road usage, including the shift from
    urban to suburban areas by businesses and households, rising household
    incomes, and a greater reliance on trucks to move freight. For example,
    research shows that car ownership and VMT rise with income. The average
    U.S. household income (in 2005 dollars) grew from $47,263 in 1980 to
    $63,344 in 2005, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, fueling the number
    of cars on the road and the number of miles traveled.

    Increasing road usage has led to growing congestion in the nation's
    transportation system. In 2006, FHWA reported that congestion on U.S.
    highways between 1982 and 2003 had increased in extent, duration, and
    intensity. For example, in the largest U.S. cities, 67 percent of travel
    was impacted by congestion--up from 33 percent in 1982. As a result,
    drivers in urban areas are increasingly experiencing what FHWA calls
    recurring congestion, which is congestion that occurs day-in and day-out,
    such as slowdowns that occur during morning and afternoon commutes, even
    when road and weather conditions are ideal. This type of congestion occurs
    simply because so many cars and trucks are trying to use the road at the
    same time; the network as currently designed and operated simply cannot
    handle the volume. The imbalance between demand and supply also affects
    the network's ability to recover from what FHWA refers to as nonrecurring
    congestion, which is caused by crashes, weather, construction, or other
    event-driven variability. The increased volume of traffic often
    exacerbates the effects of such slowdowns and roadblocks in traffic flow.
    Both categories of congestion can lead to significant loss of productivity
    with real economic impacts. For example, the Texas Transportation
    Institute estimates that U.S. drivers experienced 3.7 billion hours of
    travel delay and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of fuel in 2003 due to
    congestion in the top 83 urban areas. The Texas Transportation Institute
    projected the total cost at $63 billion (in 2003 dollars). In addition to
    the economic effects, congestion can also lead to negative environmental
    impacts. For example, studies have shown potential negative health effects
    from living near busy roads, with one recent study showing that children
    in neighborhoods with higher levels of traffic pollutants have shown an
    increased prevalence of asthma and bronchitis symptoms.^2

    Capacity Has Not Kept Pace with Demand, and Is Not Likely to Do So

    Several strategies exist for addressing the growing congestion on roads,
    including constructing new infrastructure to add capacity, improving
    maintenance on existing capacity, and managing existing capacity through
    operational methods. While building new capacity is still a viable
    strategy in certain situations, such as in areas where there is available
    space to accommodate new roads or to add more lanes to existing roads,
    overall, the construction of new capacity is not keeping pace with the
    growing demand. For example, while VMT has almost doubled from 1980 to
    2005, growing at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent, during the same
    time, new construction of lane miles increased capacity at an average
    annual rate of 0.2 percent, so that by 2005 total capacity was only 6
    percent greater than in 1980. (See fig. 1.)

    ^2Janice J. Kim, et al., "Traffic-related Air Pollution near Busy Roads:
    The East Bay Children's Respiratory Health Study," American Journal of
    Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 170 (2004); 520-526.

    Figure 1: Percentage Change of Vehicle Miles Traveled and New Construction
    of Lane Miles between 1980 and 2005

    Note: Index = 1 for 1980.

    Many factors appear to have contributed to the slow increase in supply
    relative to demand, with the several listed below often cited as most
    critical.

               o The purchasing power of available funding for highway
               construction and maintenance is declining. Although transportation
               revenues have continued to increase in nominal terms, with total
               highway revenues for states growing an average of 3.6 percent per
               year between 1995 and 2004, the federal and state motor fuel tax
               rates--the mainstay of state highway revenue--have not kept up
               with inflation. According to DOT and FHWA data, this has resulted
               in a decline in the purchasing power in real terms of revenues
               generated by federal and state motor fuel tax rates since 1990.
               o An increasing proportion of available funds is being spent to
               preserve existing infrastructure. State and regional
               transportation decision makers are devoting more funding to
               highway investments that preserve, enhance, and maintain existing
               infrastructure than to investments that add capacity. Existing
               infrastructure is aging and keeping it functional is becoming more
               expensive. According to FHWA data, of the $70.3 billion spent
               nationally in 2004 on highway capital spending, 52 percent ($36.4
               billion) was spent on system preservation, compared with 39
               percent ($27.5 billion) for new construction.^3 In 1993, 45
               percent of the total was spent on system preservation.

               o The recent growth of road construction costs exceeds the overall
               rate of inflation. The cost of building new capacity and
               maintaining existing capacity has increased steadily over the last
               few years, at a rate that exceeds inflation. The composite bid
               price index^4 for highway construction has almost doubled since
               1987, according to FHWA. In particular, the price of construction
               materials has increased significantly in the last few years
               because of rising diesel and asphalt prices.

               o Road-building solutions are becoming less popular. In many
               locations, the public has grown increasingly resistant to carving
               out additional space for roads, both for environmental and for
               social reasons. As a result, state and local governments have
               increasingly identified quality of life and environmental
               sustainability as key principles in their long-term regional plans
               for managing growth and investing in transportation
               infrastructure. Transportation planners will have to make
               trade-offs between facilitating increased mobility--through adding
               new road capacity--and giving due regard to environmental and
               other social goals.

               Building new infrastructure to keep pace with demand may continue
               to be problematic in the future, because revenues from the Highway
               Trust Fund--the major source of federal highway and transit
               funding--are projected to continue to erode in real terms due to
               inflation. Additionally, funding authorized in the most recent
               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
               The overall fiscal imbalance the nation faces makes it difficult
               to find an easy fix for this problem by seeking to significantly
               expand federal contributions. As a result, in 2007, we placed
               financing of the nation's transportation infrastructure on our
               list of high-risk issues facing federal decision makers.^6

    ^3The remaining 9 percent was spent for system enhancements such as
    safety, operational, or environmental enhancements.

    ^4The composite bid price index is composed of six indicator items: common
    excavation, to indicate the price trend for all roadway excavation;
    Portland cement concrete pavement and bituminous concrete pavement, to
    indicate the price trend for all surfacing types; and reinforcing steel,
    structural steel, and structural concrete, to indicate the price trend for
    structures. The index is adjusted to account for inflation, so a doubling
    represents a substantial loss in purchasing power.

               With Capacity Constrained, Other Approaches Are Receiving More
    			  Attention

               Given these trends, state and local governments are turning to the
               other tools to manage congestion, including improving the
               efficiency of the existing road network. When considering how to
               better manage existing road infrastructure, two key concepts are
               important and will be referred to often in this report: maximizing
               the flow of vehicles and promoting efficient use of the road
               through users' choices.

               o Maximizing the flow of vehicles. This concept deals with
               achieving maximum flow of vehicles through a stretch of highway.
               Once a road reaches a certain capacity level, drivers' ability to
               travel at or near the posted speed limit begins to decrease,
               because traffic flow is increasingly affected by such things as an
               inability to change lanes to pass slower vehicles or a need to
               slow down to allow merging vehicles to enter. Transportation
               research uses "level of service"^7 to measure the speed and travel
               time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and
               convenience for a road. As figure 2 shows, level of service ranges
               from "free flow," where the amount of traffic is small enough to
               allow travel at the posted speed limit, to "stop and go flow,"
               where a road has become so packed with vehicles that drivers'
               speeds can fall to far lower than the speed limit. When the number
               of vehicles approaches maximum capacity, speeds are slowed to the
               point that a road can accommodate fewer total vehicles in a given
               period of time. As the figure shows, a road is considered to have
               a "stable flow" when the number of vehicles represents between
               roughly 50 to 85 percent of the road's maximum carrying capacity.

    ^5GAO, Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing
    Congress and the Department of Transportation, [46]GAO-07-545T
    (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2007); and GAO, Highway Trust Fund: Overview of
    Highway Trust Fund Estimates, [47]GAO-06-572T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4,
    2006).

    ^6GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [48]GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.:
    January 2007).

    ^7Definitions of level of service are dependent on the specific road type,
    such as multilane highways or urban streets. There are other measures that
    are used such as travel time reliability.

    Figure 2: Representation of Levels of Service on a Two-Lane Highway

               o Promoting efficient use through users' choices. This concept
               deals with ensuring that road users make choices about when to
               drive based on the full costs of using the road. Economists see
               congestion as a byproduct of drivers' decisions to use a specific
               road based only on the benefits they receive and the costs that
               they incur (for example, the gasoline they use and the time they
               spend) and not on the external costs they impose on others, such
               as increased travel time for others and increased pollution.^8
               From an economic perspective, a road is not efficiently "priced"
               when this condition occurs. To achieve more efficient use, some
               type of pricing mechanism, such as a toll or surcharge, would need
               to be implemented to take into account the cost that a driver
               imposes on others when using a congested road. Efficient road
               pricing is basically seen as a way to ration limited
               resources--for example, the use of a highway during times of peak
               demand, such as rush hour. A toll or surcharge, under such
               conditions, would create incentives for drivers to shift their
               travel to periods of lower demand, use other roads, or make other
               adjustments, when the costs of their decision to drive during
               congested periods exceed the benefits they receive.

               Although more efficiently using existing infrastructure is
               intended to help manage congestion, the goal of such efforts is
               not to completely eliminate or prevent congestion. For example, an
               exorbitantly priced toll on a road that discourages drivers from
               using it would create an inefficient use of the
               infrastructure--even though there would be no congestion on the
               road. Similarly, a road network that could disperse a crowd of
               90,000 from a football game and create no congestion would require
               many lanes that would likely be underused at all other times of
               the year. Economic efficiency is thus a balancing act.

               Congress has recognized the importance of improving the efficient
               use of the existing road infrastructure through the passage of
               Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
               A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU addresses both current
               and future challenges facing our nation's transportation system by
               promoting efficient and effective federal surface transportation
               programs. In particular, SAFETEA-LU establishes new requirements
               and programs to promote the efficient use of existing
               infrastructure. For example, SAFETEA-LU requires that DOT
               establish a real-time system management information program to
               build the capability to monitor, in real time, the traffic and
               travel conditions of major highways and to share this information
               with state and local governments to assist in relieving congestion
               and providing traveler information. According to FHWA officials, a
               notice of proposed rule making for this program is expected to be
               published in late 2007.

    ^8More specifically, economists consider a road efficiently used when, at
    the margin, an additional driver using the road perceives his or her
    personal benefits to exactly offset both his or her personal costs, as
    well as other social costs, which include such costs as the additional
    travel time he or she imposes on other drivers, the wear and tear on the
    road surface, and the pollution to the society. Economists call this point
    as an equilibrium at which the marginal benefits to the additional user
    equal the marginal social costs.

               Federal Government Is One of Many Stakeholders in Operating and
    			  Managing the Road Infrastructure

               Multiple stakeholders are involved in the construction,
               maintenance, and operation of the nation's road infrastructure.
               These stakeholders include the federal government, state and local
               governments, and the private sector.

               o The federal government, primarily through FHWA and the Federal
               Transit Administration (FTA), provides funding to state and local
               governments for road and transit infrastructure, establishes
               legislation and regulations that influence the performance and
               safety of the system, and administers transportation programs that
               cover a range of areas.
               o On the front lines of transportation decision making, state and
               local governments, through departments of transportation and
               metropolitan planning organizations, develop transportation plans
               and improvement programs, establish transportation funding
               mechanisms and build, maintain, and operate transportation
               infrastructure and services.
               o The private sector, when contracted by federal, state, or local
               governments, may build new roads, provide maintenance on existing
               roads, and supply traffic management equipment and, in recent
               models, design, finance, build, operate, and maintain the roads.

               In general, the federal government leaves many of the decisions
               about specific projects to states and localities, but it partners
               with these other levels of government in overall planning and
               administration, as well as funding the projects. The current
               framework for federal participation is set forth in authorizing
               statutes, most recently amended by SAFETEA-LU. SAFETEA-LU also
               amended certain requirements governing the way states and local
               governments plan and decide upon transportation projects. For
               example, the requirements describe various planning tasks that
               states and metropolitan planning organizations must perform to
               include (1) developing long- and short-range transportation
               programs and plans, (2) specifying financing for the
               transportation programs and projects identified, and (3) involving
               a wide range of stakeholders in the process that emphasizes
               cooperation and coordination. State and local government agencies
               must operate within the requirements set forth by SAFETEA-LU to
               receive federal funds.

    			  Three Broad Factors Inhibit Efficient Use of Roads

               Three broad factors limit efficient use of the road network.
               First, the design and operation of existing road networks fail to
               adapt to changing uses. Second, the traditional funding structure
               does not provide incentives for the efficient use of roads. Third,
               the current investment decision-making process has a limited focus
               on selecting projects that may produce the highest net social
               benefits.

    			  Road Network's Design and Operation Fail to Adapt to Changing Uses

               It is increasingly apparent that a considerable part of the
               nation's road network, particularly in urban areas, was neither
               designed and built to meet today's traffic volumes, nor has its
               operation changed sufficiently to better meet current usage
               patterns.

               o Problems with design. A road's design, which may have been
               adequate for a lower level of use, can create problems as traffic
               volumes increase. For example, existing exit and entrance ramps on
               freeways may be very short, allowing exiting vehicles little
               distance to move out of a fast-moving lane of traffic and allowing
               entering vehicles little distance to accelerate to highway speed.
               When the traffic volume is low, drivers exiting and entering the
               freeway may have ample time to shift lanes and maintain or
               increase speed, but as traffic volume increases, they may be
               unable to do so. As a result, the interchange can become a choke
               point. Similarly, some older roads do not have separate lanes for
               left-turning traffic at the intersection and, at peak hours,
               drivers making left turns can block considerable traffic behind
               them.

               o Problems with operations. Growing populations, longer trips, and
               other demographic and socioeconomic trends have contributed to
               changes in traffic volume and driving patterns, but operation of
               the road system has not necessarily changed to deal with these
               volumes or patterns. For example, because each local jurisdiction
               generally manages and operates its own streets, it may not have
               incentives to coordinate the timing of traffic signals on roads
               that cross many jurisdictions. As a result, the timing of traffic
               signals on these corridors may not operate in such a way to
               minimize the number of stops a driver would have to make. At peak
               hours, as traffic volumes increase, more traffic backs up at each
               stop, and traffic flow breaks down, creating a significant source
               of delay for drivers in their daily use of the major street
               system.

               Moreover, when a temporary disruption on the road occurs, these
               design and operation problems can hamper a road's ability to
               recover quickly. There are three main types of temporary
               disruptions--vehicle incidents, weather-related events (such as
               heavy rain), and work zones.^9 These temporary disruptions, which
               can cause congestion even on a road with low traffic volume, can
               grind the traffic on a whole road network to a halt if they occur
               on roads that already have design problems such as no left-turn
               lanes, or operational problems such as poorly timed traffic
               signals. According to FHWA, these three types of temporary
               disruptions account for about 50 percent of all congestion delays,
               with 25 percent of all delays related to vehicle incidents, 15
               percent to weather, and 10 percent to work zones. As figure 3
               shows, the impact of a vehicle incident is magnified depending on
               how much of a roadway is affected. Compounding the effect, local
               transportation agencies often do not have an effective protocol to
               share information quickly and may lack a coordinated approach to
               manage such incidents, such as who is responsible for clearing an
               accident, and how to do so. The difficulty of predicting the
               effect that such incidents will have on the time it takes
               shipments to traverse the road network can also induce freight
               operators to factor additional time into their schedules or
               businesses into warehousing additional inventory, thereby
               increasing the cost of conducting business.

    ^9One major FHWA program to mitigate work zone disruptions is the Highways
    for LIFE program. This program focuses on construction techniques, such as
    the use of prefabricated bridge and pavement elements and scheduling
    construction at night or on weekends that can reduce road closures,
    thereby limiting the impact of these events.

    Figure 3: Percentage of Highway Capacity That Is Reduced When Vehicle
    Incidents Occur

    Note: The percentages are estimates for three-lane highways only and may
    vary with actual circumstances.

    Traditional Funding Structure Does Not Provide Incentives for Efficient Use of
    Roads

    The federal and state transportation revenue-raising structure, which
    collects the majority of revenues through fuel taxes and other user fees,
    does not convey to drivers the full costs of their use of the road. These
    taxes and fees---such as fuel taxes or sales taxes--are not tied to the
    time when drivers actually use the road or which road they use. For
    example, the tax rate on gasoline is the same regardless of whether users
    drive in congested or uncongested periods. Except for these taxes and
    fees, drivers may generally perceive the use of the road as "free."
    However, the use of roads during congested periods can impose a variety of
    costs on other drivers and the society at large, such as the following:

               o When drivers enter an already crowded road, this creates even
               longer delays for everyone and thus an additional cost for
               everyone in loss of valuable time stuck in traffic.
               o Drivers may more likely get into an accident on a congested
               road. The greater potential of an accident occurring may create
               more uncertainty in predicting travel time, increasing costs for
               the traveling public and businesses because they need to schedule
               additional time to allow for possible delays.
               o Research shows that vehicles emit substantially more air
               pollution per mile when driven in congested traffic than in
               uncongested situations, which is a cost to society and is borne
               more heavily by the public living near the congested corridors.

               The existing revenue-raising structure provides no incentive for
               users to take these costs into account when making their driving
               decisions. From an economic perspective, a mechanism is needed
               that gives users price incentives to consider these costs in
               deciding when, where, and how to drive. Because the existing
               structure does not reflect the economic, social, and environmental
               costs of driving at peak periods, drivers who may have flexibility
               to share rides, use mass transit, use more indirect but less
               congested routes, or defer their trips to uncongested times have
               no financial incentives to do so. Without such incentives, the
               transportation system will be headed for more frequent occurrences
               of congestion that last longer, resulting in more time spent
               traveling, greater fuel consumption, and higher emissions in the
               long run.

    			  Current Investment Decision-Making Process Has a Limited Focus on
    			  Selecting Projects That May Produce the Highest Net Social Benefits

               The final factor inhibiting efficient use of the road network
               relates to the ability to identify--and put in
               place--infrastructure investments that are most likely to be
               efficiently used. Making the best use of scarce resources for
               transportation infrastructure requires a process that allows
               decision makers to identify which investments would produce the
               highest net social benefits; however, this information is limited
               in the current decision-making process. Two characteristics
               inhibit decisions on this basis. Specifically, the current process
               is highly compartmentalized by transportation mode and is not
               driven by systematic economic analysis. Both characteristics, as
               explained below, can lead to investment decisions that, from the
               standpoint of making the transportation network as efficient as
               possible, produce suboptimal results.

               o Funding is compartmentalized by transportation mode. Many
               transportation experts maintain--and our past work^10 tends to
               confirm--that the current structure of funding at the federal and
               state level is highly compartmentalized, or stove-piped. Funding
               is often tied to certain programs or types of projects, such as
               highways or transit, and it has also been increasingly designated
               for specific local uses.^11 This structure provides state,
               regional, and local agencies with little incentive to
               systematically compare the trade-offs between investment
               alternatives across different modes of transportation. As a
               result, they may choose to finance projects that do not produce
               the highest estimated social benefits to society. By definition,
               projects that produce the highest estimated social benefits
               further the efficient use of scarce resources for transportation
               infrastructure.^12 For example, due to the stove-piped funding,
               decision makers may decide to fund a smaller mass transit project
               instead of a high-occupancy toll (HOT)^13 lane network project,
               which could require additional funding designated for other
               programs. The HOT lane network project, despite its potentially
               higher cost than the smaller transit project, could create a more
               efficient use of the road by allowing single drivers to pay to use
               the existing car pooling lanes and therefore provide greater
               overall public benefits. In addition, the toll revenue collected
               from the paying drivers can be used to subsidize the riders of
               existing transit lines and, therefore, potentially increasing
               ridership and further reducing congestion.^14

    ^10GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information
    on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results,
    [49]GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005).

    ^11See also, Thomas M. Downs, "Is There a Future for the Federal Surface
    Transportation Program?", Journal of Transportation Engineering 131, 6
    (June 2005), and Ann Brach and Martin Wachs, "Earmarking in the U.S.
    Department of Transportation Research Programs," Transportation Research
    Part-A 39 (2005). Brach and Wachs observed that transportation research
    funds have been increasingly earmarked for specific institutions.

    ^12Clifford Winston and Ashley Langer, "The Effect of Government Highway
    Spending on Road Users' Congestion Costs," Journal of Urban Economics 60
    (2006), argued that the current system allocates federal funding and state
    funding based partly on formulae which place great weight on the size of a
    state's road system and on a jurisdiction's road mileage, respectively. To
    allocate resources more efficiently, this system would need to be revised
    to be based more on the level of congestion and, even then, it is still
    not as effective as congestion pricing.

    ^13"HOT" lanes allow drivers who drive by themselves to pay to use less
    congested carpool lanes and thereby speed up their trips.

               o Economic analysis does not drive decisions. Decisions about what
               projects to fund are seldom subjected to rigorous economic
               analysis. Our prior work found that economic analysis, such as
               benefits and costs analysis, is not systematically used in the
               decision-making process.^15 Many tools and methods to perform
               economic analysis are available, and these tools have the
               potential to provide decision makers with valuable information
               such as potential social, environmental, and safety effects of
               alternative transportation projects. For example, benefit and cost
               analyses integrate and monetize the quantifiable benefits and
               costs of each alternative, thereby allowing decision makers to
               more easily compare different investment alternatives. In most
               instances, however, such analyses are not performed and, if they
               are, they are often just one factor--and not necessarily the most
               important one--that decision makers consider. The limited extent
               to which formal economic analysis is systematically used makes it
               difficult for decision makers to assure they are funding projects
               that best ensure the efficient use of scarce resources.

    Various Techniques Have Been Developed to Make the Current Infrastructure More
    Efficient

               Our review of transportation literature and our discussions with
               transportation officials identified two main categories of
               congestion mitigation techniques that are currently being used to
               make the current infrastructure more efficient. The first category
               includes techniques that enhance existing road capacity through
               better operations and transportation technology. These types of
               congestion mitigation techniques range from incident response
               vehicles that more quickly restore traffic flow after accidents to
               the deployment of transportation technology, such as metering
               traffic onto freeways and optimizing the timing of traffic signals
               that can improve traffic flow.^16 For example, Washington State,
               recognizing that vehicle crashes can significantly reduce the
               capacity of freeways, implemented an incident response program
               consisting of camera surveillance, private tow companies, and
               roving patrol vehicles to enable a rapid response to incidents. To
               help clear incidents even faster, Washington State has a "steer
               it, clear it" law that requires drivers to move their vehicles off
               a main freeway if it is possible to do so. Another example of
               enhancing capacity through operations is utilizing access
               management, which is a set of techniques designed to control and
               limit vehicle access to highways, major arterials, and other
               roadways. For instance, transportation agencies have implemented
               access management techniques to improve traffic flow and reduce
               delays by increasing spacing between interchanges and redesigning
               intersections.

    ^14California, Colorado, Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Washington all have
    HOT lanes or have projects planned that will use variably priced tolls to
    alleviate congestion by managing the level of traffic. All of these states
    have received grants under FHWA's Value Pricing Pilot Program to either
    develop or implement the projects.

    ^15GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions,
    [50]GAO-04-744 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004).

               The second category of congestion mitigation techniques involves
               reducing congestion by influencing driver behavior on when and
               where to drive. These techniques range from employer transit
               subsidies and flexible work schedule programs to congestion
               pricing. By providing transit subsidies or flexible work
               schedules, employers make it easier for drivers to drive during
               less congested times or not drive to work at all. Congestion
               pricing also attempts to influence driver behavior by charging
               drivers higher prices during peak hours. As of today, a major
               example of states implementing road pricing techniques on highways
               in the United States is the converting of high-occupancy vehicles
               (HOV) lanes to 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 to HOV vehicles.^17 Another form of congestion pricing
               is called cordon pricing, which charges a fee for any vehicle that
               enters a congested area, such as a city center. Although this type
               of congestion pricing has only been implemented in foreign
               countries to date, cities in the United States such as New York
               and San Francisco are studying the potential implementation of
               cordon pricing.

    ^16Signal timing is one of many Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
    technologies. ITS technologies use communications, electronics, sensors,
    and computer hardware and software to improve the performance and safety
    of freeways, roads, and transit systems. Other congestion mitigation
    techniques using ITS technologies include traffic cameras, message signs,
    traveler information Web sites, traffic sensors, ramp meters, and
    electronic toll collection systems. See GAO, Highway Congestion:
    Intelligent Transportation Systems' Promise for Managing Congestion Falls
    Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate Their Strategic Use, [51]GAO-05-943
    (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2005).

    ^17For example, the occupancy requirement for some HOV lanes is at least
    three people; in these instances, a HOT lane would allow a vehicle with
    two people to use the lane if the driver pays a toll.

               These various techniques can often be used in tandem to produce a
               more robust congestion mitigation strategy. Figure 4 depicts a
               cross section of eight different techniques that both enhance
               existing capacity and influence driver behavior and demand. The
               strategies shown range from signal timing and extensive use of HOV
               and HOT lanes to workplace efforts designed to reduce traffic or
               shift it to less congested times of the day. For a more detailed
               list of congestion mitigation techniques see appendix II.

    Figure 4: Select Congestion Management Techniques that Enhance Capacity
    and Influence Driver Behavior and Demand

    Although studies and evaluations of specific projects that have
    implemented congestion mitigation techniques vary in quality and scope,
    transportation research has generally shown that such techniques have the
    potential to help reduce congestion and make better use of existing
    transportation infrastructure capacity.^18 Specifically, some examples of
    studies and evaluations suggest that techniques such as incident response
    programs, signal timing coordination, and HOT lanes help maximize existing
    capacity by providing improved traffic flows, reduced delays, and
    increased vehicle speeds. Following are examples:

               o In Washington State, transportation officials have monitored the
               results of their incident response program and found that the
               average time to clear incidents has decreased from 33 minutes to
               16 minutes, which in turn reduced the amount of time that the
               incident was creating congestion by about half.
               o A study of a traffic signal optimization project in the Denver
               area showed that the project resulted in a 13 percent reduction in
               vehicle travel times and a 17 percent improvement in travel speed.
               o An evaluation of the Express (HOT) lanes for the State Route 91
               project in Orange County, California, showed that although the HOT
               lanes represent only 33 percent of the capacity of State Route 91,
               they carry an average of 40 percent of the traffic during peak
               travel times (see fig. 5).

    ^18As we reported in 2005 in our review of ITS projects, though studies of
    ITS projects have found positive impacts, most of the studies we reviewed
    did not include information on the cost effectiveness of the ITS project,
    such as benefit-cost analyses (see [52]GAO-05-943 ).

               Figure 5: Express Lanes and General Purpose Lanes on State Route
               91 in Orange County, California

               In our review of transportation research and discussions with
               transportation officials, we found that congestion mitigation
               techniques are most effective when tailored to the particular
               situation. For example, because they encourage some additional
               traffic from single-occupancy vehicles, HOT lanes have generally
               been used in cities with congested freeways and underutilized HOV
               lanes. Similarly, because it discourages vehicles from entering a
               central urban zone, cordon pricing is used in large cities with
               developed transit systems that provide alternative modes of travel
               to the city centers. In addition, congestion mitigation techniques
               have been found to be more effective when used in combination. For
               example, the following techniques have been effective:

               o When a major accident occurs on a freeway, message signs with
               traffic information can be used to divert traffic to a parallel
               arterial, while incident response vehicles work to clear the
               freeway.
               o With the installation of ramp meters, lines of queuing vehicles
               sometimes can back up onto local arterials. To help address this
               problem, other techniques, such as optimizing signal timing, can
               be used to reduce the rate at which vehicles enter the freeway
               ramp.
               o Electronic toll collection technology can be used to collect
               tolls from HOT lane vehicles. This significantly reduces the
               delays caused by vehicles stopping to pay at toll booths.

    			  Transportation Decision Makers Are Using Similar Approaches for
    			  Implementing Congestion Mitigation Techniques, but Challenges Exist

               At locations we reviewed, officials chose varying congestion
               mitigation techniques but tended to implement them with a similar
               three-pronged approach: (1) changing planning and related
               processes to give them higher priority, (2) developing creative
               mechanisms to fund them, and (3) collaborating with multiple
               stakeholders to put them in place. However, officials told us that
               many of the congestion mitigation techniques they used had been
               able to provide benefits only at the margins because several
               persistent issues prevented them from using these congestion
               mitigation techniques more fully. These issues ranged from
               resolving jurisdictional authority to identifying sources that
               would provide sufficient funding for larger-scale projects.

    			  Officials Report Giving Congestion Mitigation Techniques More
    			  Priority in Their Transportation Planning

               State and local transportation officials we interviewed told us
               that they are changing their transportation planning priorities to
               reflect a greater emphasis on congestion mitigation techniques. To
               make these congestion mitigation techniques a priority, officials
               have established new goals and priorities, modified their project
               selection process, restructured their organizations, and adopted
               new policies and initiatives.

    			    Setting Goals That Incorporate Congestion Mitigation

               Officials from the transportation agencies we visited reported
               establishing goals related to using the existing road
               infrastructure more efficiently by implementing congestion
               mitigation techniques. They generally said they had incorporated
               these goals into both their long-range and short-range
               transportation plans.^19 Table 1 shows examples of these goals
               identified in their plans. Our review of these plans showed that
               the new goals reflect a shift in emphasis--that is, a movement
               from the traditional approach that has been and, in many cases
               still is focused on the construction of new road capacity or the
               maintenance of existing road infrastructure, to a greater emphasis
               on managing the system more efficiently.

    ^19Long-range plans identify transportation needs for the next 20 years.
    Short-term transportation plans, called Transportation Improvement
    Programs (TIP), describe projects selected to support long-range
    transportation plan goals. Federal law requires that, within these plans,
    each metropolitan planning organization consider at least seven factors,
    one of which is to promote efficient system management and operation.

    Table 1: Examples of Long-range and Short-range Transportation Plans at
    Locations GAO Visited

                     Added emphasis  on  managing  existing  infrastructure  more
    Location      efficiently
    San Diego, CA Long-range plan  (through  2030)  now includes  a  focus  on
                     making the best  use of the  existing transportation  system
                     and a  shift  in  emphasis  from  expanding  the  system  to
                     managing demand.  The  plan highlights  such  techniques  as
                     improving   traffic   information   provided   to   drivers,
                     continuing  the   current   incident   management   program,
                     developing new  HOT lanes,  improving transit  and  telework
                     programs,  and  continuing  their  van  pool  and  car  pool
                     programs.
    Orlando, FL   Long-range plans  include  a  goal of  better  managing  and
                     operating the  system,  specifically  prioritizing  incident
                     management programs,  and linking  land-use strategies  with
                     the transportation plan.
    Seattle, WA   The City of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan (the 20-year policy
                     plan)  recognizes  that  expanding  streets  and  roads   to
                     accommodate cars  is  generally unproductive.  In  addition,
                     opportunities to widen or  construct new streets in  Seattle
                     are  extremely  limited  because  of  its  built-out,  urban
                     environment.  The  plan  suggests  increasing  the  use   of
                     transit,   walking,   bicycling,   carpooling,   and   other
                     alternatives, such as addressing parking in the city.
    Denver, CO    Short-range transportation  plan  now includes  funding  for
                     intelligent transportation  systems  and  demand  management
                     programs, such  as  improving  ramp  metering  for  entering
                     highways, improving signal  timing on  roads, and  expanding
                     outreach to employers to promote telework and flextime work.
    Bellevue, WA  Long-range planning program routinely includes projects that
                     examine how land-use decisions influence system  performance
                     and their  short-range  transportation plan  includes  using
                     operations methods, such as real  time traffic flow and  ITS
                     applications to optimize traffic flow.

    Source: GAO.

      Modifying Project Selection Process to Emphasize Congestion Mitigation Goals

    Some transportation agencies we visited modified their transportation
    project selection process to provide greater emphasis to projects that use
    congestion mitigation techniques. For example, in considering which
    projects to select for funding, the metropolitan planning organization for
    the Denver region now awards points to projects that use certain
    congestion mitigation techniques, such as installing left-turn lanes,
    promoting car pools, coordinating traffic lights, or managing incidents.
    Officials said they hope awarding points will provide incentives for local
    planners to include such congestion mitigation techniques in their
    projects. Several other metropolitan planning organizations we
    interviewed, such as Virginia's Hampton Roads Planning District
    Commission, had modified their project selection process to promote
    projects that have a regional objective, which prior to these changes,
    would have had a low probability of funding under the previous allocation
    program. Officials said that by modifying the selection process, they can
    better align which projects are selected to their overall goal of using
    the existing infrastructure more efficiently.

      Restructuring Organizations to Align with Transportation Planning Goals

    To ensure that their organizations are aligned with transportation goals,
    transportation agencies in a number of locations we visited had
    restructured their organizations by creating new departments or
    committees. For example, Seattle's metropolitan planning organization, the
    Puget Sound Regional Council, created a new team dedicated to working on
    projects that improve the operations of the transportation system. This
    department was designed to work with other transportation agencies to
    improve mobility through implementing demand management, improving
    operational efficiency, and identifying capacity solutions at the corridor
    and regional planning levels. Orlando's metropolitan planning organization
    created a management and operations department and a subcommittee composed
    of local planners and traffic engineers, which is responsible for
    sustaining and increasing funding for projects that use congestion
    mitigation techniques, such as incident management, and strategies to
    manage driver behavior.

      Adopting Policies or Regulations That Promote Congestion Mitigation Techniques

    At some locations we visited, greater use of congestion mitigation
    techniques was also spurred by state policies. We found the following
    examples:

               o In 1991, Washington State's legislature passed a law designed to
               reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution, and petroleum
               consumption by requiring metropolitan planning organizations to
               foster employer-based programs that decrease the number of
               commuting trips made by people driving alone. Since the law was
               passed, the number of vehicle trips has dropped statewide. In the
               central Puget Sound region, where Seattle is located, the number
               of vehicle trips made during the morning commuter hours has
               dropped by 14,000, reducing peak travel delay by an estimated 11.6
               percent, on average, each weekday morning in the region.
               o California requires all urbanized areas to monitor the
               performance of the transportation system, develop programs to
               address short-term and long-term congestion, and better integrate
               transportation and land-use planning through congestion mitigation
               programs. In response, San Diego's metropolitan planning
               organization, the San Diego Association of Governments, developed
               a congestion mitigation program that encourages the use of
               strategies other than road widening or extensions to address
               congestion at low costs, such as encouraging transit use,
               establishing programs for car pools, and teleworking programs.
               o Oregon through its Interchange Area Management Plan rules has
               introduced new requirements that stipulate local governments
               jointly manage access on crossroads in the vicinity of
               interchanges. Specifically, regulations require that new
               intersections at crossroads be placed at least 1,320 feet from the
               interchange ramp terminals, thereby reducing the potential backups
               on the highway exit ramps.

    			  Agencies Report Developing New Methods to Fund the Use of Congestion
    			  Mitigation Techniques

               Transportation officials told us that the mode-specific, or
               stove-piped funding structure for transportation projects,
               together with a general lack of resources for transportation
               projects, constrains their ability to invest in congestion
               mitigation techniques. As a result, they said, they often have to
               find alternative methods to supplement traditional funding
               sources. The methods they cited included imposing additional
               tolls, local taxes, or development impact fees; developing
               partnerships with private industry; and designating separate
               funding.

    			    Imposing Tolls, Local Taxes, or Development Impact Fees

               A number of state and local governments in the locations we
               visited had imposed additional tolls, local taxes, and development
               impact fees to provide funding for the implementation of
               congestion mitigation techniques. Officials said they had done so
               because traditional funding sources were not generating sufficient
               resources. Many of these revenue sources were focused in a
               specific region and were geared toward implementing specific
               congestion mitigation techniques. For example, voters in the San
               Francisco region passed an increase in toll fees on the region's
               seven state-owned bridges to support the Regional Traffic Relief
               Plan, which funds such projects as expanding transit options, as
               well as improving transit connections and several freeway
               bottlenecks. Several other regions passed sales, property, or
               gasoline taxes. For example, San Diego passed a half-cent sales
               tax to implement a number of congestion mitigation techniques to
               help improve traffic congestion on the most highly congested
               corridors in the region. This included funding for new HOV and
               managed lanes along highways, new connectors to the highways, and
               transit improvements.

               Some localities generated additional transportation funding
               through another source--development impact fees.^20 They used this
               approach particularly when new development had a significant
               effect on the current road network. Florida, for example, has
               passed a law that regulates large-scale developments that have
               substantial impacts on the transportation system. This program
               allows local governments to assess new developments and assign
               fees related to their impact on the local infrastructure,
               including transportation. Between 1993 and 2004, this program
               provided local governments with $2 billion statewide for efforts
               to improve transportation infrastructure, including ways to reduce
               congestion.

    ^20Development impact fees are payments made by developers for the cost of
    additional infrastructure necessary as a result of the new development.

                 Developing Partnerships with Private Industry

               Transportation agencies reported developing partnerships with
               private industry to help fund congestion mitigation techniques.
               According to transportation experts, working with private
               companies can offer a number of benefits for the transportation
               agency, such as expediting the project schedule, reducing costs,
               and providing access to private funding sources. Examples we
               identified included the following:

               o In 1995, California's Department of Transportation partnered
               with a private company to develop a four-lane, 10-mile toll road
               of HOT lanes in the median of a freeway (State Route 91) in Orange
               and Riverside Counties. The company financed, managed, and
               collected revenues from the variable-priced tolls on the HOT
               lanes. In 2003, Orange County Transportation Authority purchased
               the HOT lanes and is now managing them.
               o In Virginia, a private company is installing equipment to
               collect traffic data on all of the state's highways and some major
               arterial roads, which could be used for local intelligent
               transportation systems and for transportation planning. The
               company will have permission to sell the information to private
               companies and individual drivers but will also allow the local
               jurisdictions to obtain and use the data for free.
               o State Farm Insurance entered a partnership with the Florida
               Turnpike to provide funding for the State Farm Safety Patrol--a
               24-hour roadway assistance and service program that provides free
               driver assistance to motorists along Florida's Turnpike. State
               Farm provides funding annually to the Florida Turnpike and, in
               exchange, places advertisements on the State Farm Safety Patrol
               vehicles. These vehicles help improve mobility by minimizing the
               duration of incidents, assisting disabled drivers, and removing
               road debris--all of which can help reduce vehicle crashes. (See
               fig. 6.)

               Figure 6: Florida Road Ranger Incident Response Vehicle

    			    Designating Specific Funding within Existing Resources

               Some transportation agencies we visited have designated a certain
               amount of funding out of their traditional transportation funding
               for congestion mitigation techniques. Officials at these agencies
               said doing so ensures that congestion mitigation projects receive
               some funding. For example, each year from 2007 to 2011, Denver's
               metropolitan planning organization plans to designate $20 million
               to $23 million of its state and federal funding for congestion
               mitigation techniques such as van and car pool programs and
               traffic signal improvements. Similarly, the Orlando metropolitan
               planning organization has designated $2 million annually of its
               state and federal funds for its intelligent traffic system
               program. Orlando officials said that they have decided to increase
               this funding to $4 million annually in the future because of the
               potential for improving efficiency.

    			  Transportation Agencies Are Collaborating with Multiple Stakeholders

               Transportation agencies we visited reported working with multiple
               partners to implement congestion mitigation techniques. According
               to officials, the success of these techniques depends on such
               coordination. For example, in Washington State, the Department of
               Transportation and the state patrol established standard operating
               procedures for such matters as data sharing, traffic management,
               and incident response. In several other states we visited,
               transportation agencies have established a goal of clearing a
               highway accident within 90 minutes of when the first responder
               arrives. Coordinating signal timing across jurisdictions was
               another technique for which transportation officials said
               collaboration was important.

               We found a number of examples where transportation agencies
               participate in multijurisdictional groups to help ensure that
               transportation plans encompass regional and comprehensive
               perspectives. For example, the Central Florida Metropolitan
               Planning Organization Alliance was created to coordinate regional
               transportation planning. This council consists of six metropolitan
               planning organizations that include ten counties in Central
               Florida, and its membership includes metropolitan planning
               organizations' board members and staff, and state transportation
               staff. Similarly, several metropolitan planning organizations that
               we visited have committees focused on regional planning.
               Participants on these committees include representatives from
               regional jurisdictions and transit agencies.

    			  Persistent Issues Keep Congestion Mitigation Techniques from
    			  Having Greater Effect

               While officials at the locations we visited were making greater
               use of these congestion mitigation techniques, they also said a
               number of issues prevented them from implementing these techniques
               to the extent desired. As a result, they said, that congestion
               mitigation techniques they were implementing could provide only
               marginal improvement to the efficiency of the road network. Issues
               they cited included the following:

               o Lack of authority. Officials of local government agencies said
               some congestion mitigation techniques need to be implemented by
               federal or state agencies and cannot be legally implemented by
               local transportation agencies. For example, while cities implement
               congestion mitigation techniques like intelligent transportation
               systems, they generally cannot implement large-scale techniques
               such as congestion pricing on major state highways. Being able to
               integrate congestion mitigation techniques comprehensively, they
               said, may be critical for seeing improvements on the road network.
               o Barriers to obtaining additional funding. Finding alternative
               funding for projects can be difficult, officials said. Efforts to
               impose new charges, such as toll fees on roads, may be opposed by
               the public, since the public can feel as though it is being
               charged twice for use of the roads. In some states, funding
               sources such as development impact fees are not authorized by law,
               and those that are authorized by law have a number of provisions
               on how local governments can use revenues that may affect their
               ability to use these fees to their fullest.
               o Lack of complete and reliable data. The lack of complete and
               reliable data hinders the ability of transportation officials to
               make fully informed decisions about implementing congestion
               mitigation techniques. For example, data about traffic flow
               throughout the day, rather than at a single time, are crucial to
               produce valid representations of travel needs and problems.
               However, reliable and complete data are not always available--
               which can result in forecasting errors or limit the ability to
               conduct outcome evaluations.^21
               o Difficulties in resolving jurisdictional issues. Many
               transportation officials we interviewed noted the struggle to
               align different perspectives when trying to work regionally on
               projects. Often, they said, there are competing ideas of which
               jurisdictions should be responsible for the management and funding
               of projects that cross boundaries.
               o Limitations of the current funding and decision-making process.
               Transportation officials noted that the current funding and
               decision-making processes, with their orientation to particular
               modes of transportation and their limited reliance on analysis of
               the costs and benefits of various transportation alternatives,
               provide a built-in preference for projects that build or maintain
               transportation infrastructure rather than try to use existing
               structure more efficiently. Although congestion mitigation
               techniques may produce the highest estimated social benefit, in
               times of constrained budgets, many officials said that obtaining
               money for congestion mitigation projects can be difficult.

    ^21FHWA is working with the National Transportation Operations Coalition
    (NTOC) and state and local governments on an ongoing project to develop a
    common set of operations performance measures and definitions. FHWA
    officials stated that piloting of the measures will take place as part of
    a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study in 2007,
    with results expected in early 2008.

               Various Strategies Exist for Increasing the Efficient Use of
    			  Infrastructure

               Various strategies exist for increasing the efficient use of
               infrastructure, according to the officials and experts we talked
               with and the studies we reviewed.^22 These strategies include
               applying congestion mitigation techniques on a regional basis and
               linking federal-aid highway funding to performance. We grouped
               these strategies by the level of government best suited to
               consider and implement them, given their current authorities,
               roles, and responsibilities (see fig. 7). In some cases, all
               levels of government would need to be involved in implementing the
               strategy; in other cases, the federal government or a state or
               local government would be most appropriate to implement the
               strategy. These strategies are not mutually exclusive and ideally
               would be implemented in a comprehensive manner, according to
               transportation research and transportation officials and experts
               we interviewed.

    ^22Institute of Transportation Engineers, Action Kit: Immediate Solutions
    for Transportation Operational Issues (Washington, D.C.: 2005); American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Future Needs of
    the U.S. Surface Transportation System (February 2007); Cambridge
    Systematics, Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to
    Problems (Cambridge, MA: July 19, 2004); Cambridge Systematics, Traffic
    Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion
    Mitigation (Cambridge, MA: Sept. 1, 2005); Transportation Research Board,
    Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems: Summary of Second
    National Conference (Washington, D.C.: 2005); Transportation Research
    Board, Linking Transportation and Land Use: A Peer Exchange (Washington,
    D.C.: July 2006).

               Figure 7: Strategies for Making More Efficient Use of Existing
               Infrastructure

    			  Three Strategies Crosscut All Levels of Governments

               We identified three strategies that would likely require the
               attention and involvement of all levels of the government to be
               successfully implemented. These strategies are (1) considering how
               the private sector can be used in managing existing road
               infrastructure, (2) determining the feasibility of expanding use
               of the user-pay concept for managing demand and generating revenue
               for transportation investments, and (3) developing a systematic
               performance-based management approach to increase the
               accountability of public expenditures and to link performance to
               investment decisions.

    			    Consider How the Private Sector Can Be Used in Managing Existing
    				 Infrastructure

               Public policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels could
               consider how the private sector can be used in the operation and
               management of the existing road infrastructure. Proponents believe
               that expanding the use of public-private partnerships could take
               advantage of the private sector's ability to manage assets with
               the intended outcome of providing a more efficiently operated road
               network. Private companies, driven by the need to make a return on
               investment, are incentivized to manage assets and provide services
               in efficient ways. Specifically, how efficiently they operate an
               asset directly affects the profits they derive from their
               investments and is directly linked to the overall success of the
               company. If a partnership is designed and structured
               appropriately, transportation agencies could leverage this
               incentive. To date, public-private partnerships in the United
               States have often been used to manage toll roads, such as State
               Route 91, as described earlier. In addition, a recently emerging
               public-private partnership model is where the private sector is
               awarded, through a long-term lease agreement, the concession to
               operate, maintain, and collect tolls on existing publicly owned
               highways. In return for the revenues collected by the tolls, these
               concessions often require that the private companies meet
               established performance standards, which can include maintaining
               the condition of the road to a specific standard, and allow
               increasing toll rates on an annual basis in line with
               inflation.^23

               The federal government and some state governments have also shown
               interest in developing public-private partnerships to support
               research and development of advanced technology that can help
               enhance the capacity of the existing road infrastructure.
               Transportation experts argue that advanced technology could
               potentially allow for more efficient use of the road network by
               improving safety and increasing the availability of transportation
               data to drivers and transportation planners. An example of
               governments partnering with private industry in supporting
               research and development of advanced technology is the Vehicle
               Infrastructure Integration (VII) program. The VII program uses
               technology installed in the road infrastructure and the individual
               vehicle to establish vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-roadside
               communications (see fig. 8). This system would use vehicles as
               collectors of real time traffic information and more complete data
               from highways and arterial roads, which would be processed and
               distributed to drivers, transportation planners, and traffic
               managers. In 2004, the federal government, the American
               Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 10
               state departments of transportation, and several vehicle
               manufacturers^24 formed an informal VII working group to examine
               the feasibility of widespread deployment and to establish an
               implementation strategy. The VII coalition, which is made up of
               the VII working group and the executive leadership team, will
               report its initial findings in 2008.

    ^23See our forthcoming report on public-private partnerships that will
    discuss in further detail the potential benefits and significant risks,
    and steps that must be taken to protect the public interest. This report
    is estimated to be published in the fall of 2007.

    ^24The VII Consortium is a nonprofit organization that is open to all
    vehicle manufacturers. Currently, the consortium membership includes BMW,
    Daimler Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and VW.

    Figure 8: Representation of the VII Mobility Applications

    Note: The VII information flow differs from the above graphic for many
    safety applications, where the data is sent to oncoming vehicles instead
    of the aggregator, and there is an interface to local signal control
    systems.

      Expand the Use of the User-Pay Concept

    The user-pay concept--that is, users should help pay for the
    infrastructure they use--is a long-standing aspect 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 or fees from registering
    vehicles or obtaining operating licenses. These taxes, in turn, are used
    to pay for highway projects. Similarly, some state and local governments
    charge tolls on certain roads. These tolls can generate revenues that are
    consistent with the user-pay principle because the driver is directly
    paying to use that specific road and the revenues collected from the toll
    go directly to pay for its construction, maintenance, and operation.^25

    The federal government and some state and local governments are studying
    new alternatives that expand the user-pay concept. At the federal level,
    Congress authorized a road user fees study,^26 which is to examine an
    option to assess highway user fees based on actual mileage driven. The
    final report is scheduled to be submitted to Congress in July 2009. At the
    state level, Oregon's Department of Transportation tested a pilot program
    that collects a mileage-based fee in lieu of the state gas tax. The
    program used on-vehicle mileage counting devices that record the number of
    miles driven and download mileage information at two gas stations that
    were equipped with mileage readers on the fuel pumps. Drivers are then
    charged a per-mile fee instead of the gas tax. The pilot program ended in
    March 2007, with a final study expected in September 2007.^27

      Measure Results and Manage the Existing Infrastructure with Them in Mind

    A performance-based management approach can increase accountability and
    performance of the existing infrastructure. As we have previously
    reported,^28 a performance-based management approach for transportation
    would include establishing performance targets, developing performance
    measures, and enhancing data quality.^29 An important element of a
    performance-based approach is evaluating the results of projects or
    conducting outcome evaluations. Such evaluations allow the public to hold
    the government accountable for results. Outcome evaluations also offer
    transportation agencies the opportunity to learn from the successes and
    shortcomings of past projects to better inform future planning and
    decision making. Further, such evaluations help to provide better analytic
    information to decision makers. For example, information from outcome
    evaluations could help inform decisions, such as determining whether a
    community would generate higher benefits from investing in a ramp metering
    system on a highway or adding a new lane instead, or whether investing in
    transit provides higher benefits and lower costs compared with building a
    new road. However, outcome evaluations are not required for highway
    projects as a condition of federal funding and are not typically
    performed. In contrast, SAFETEA-LU requires before and after studies as a
    condition of receiving New Starts funds for completed transit projects.^30

    ^25Some states are also increasingly funding transportation projects with
    alternative mechanisms that are not user-pay based. For example, some
    states are using revenues from sales taxes and the state's general fund
    for transportation projects.

    ^26The study will be conducted by University of Iowa Public Policy Center.

    ^27Oregon officials shared some preliminary observations with us in
    advance of the study's completion. Their preliminary conclusions were that
    the pilot project's successes were in the areas of zone differentiation
    (that is the counting devices was able to distinguish with accuracy when
    the car traveled into or out of different preprogrammed zones), mileage
    counting accuracy, transaction administration integration with gas tax
    collections, and mileage data transmission accuracy at the fuel pump. The
    largest lesson learned is that retrofitting of existing vehicles with
    mileage counting technology is highly problematic because technology
    applications for various vehicle makes and models are not standardized.

    ^28See GAO, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for
    Infrastructure Investments, [53]GAO-02-1033 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
    2002); GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning
    and Financing Limitations, [54]GAO-04-165 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19,
    2003); and [55]GAO-05-172 .

    ^29Transportation asset management, which is a systematic process of
    maintaining, upgrading, and operating transportation assets, is one type
    of technique that incorporates many of the concepts of a performance-based
    approach.

    For transportation agencies to be able to use a performance-based
    management approach, transportation experts highlighted the importance of
    being able to collect comprehensive and robust traffic data. However, the
    ability of transportation agencies to collect traffic data is limited for
    two major reasons. First, the majority of our nation's highways and
    arterials do not have the data collection infrastructure to be able to
    provide continued and comprehensive data. This lack of coverage can leave
    significant data gaps in a local road network. Second, even when state and
    local governments have built data collection infrastructure, providing
    funding for its maintenance is difficult and, therefore, this
    infrastructure can fall into disrepair and not provide the data. While the
    development of a performance-based management approach should not be
    totally dependent on the readily available data, transportation research
    does state that agencies should try to optimize the use of existing or
    accessible data in their performance management system.

    Several Strategies Relate Mainly to State and Local Governments

    Although some strategies cut across all levels of government, other
    options are more appropriately considered by state and local governments,
    given their current roles and responsibilities. We identified four
    strategies that state and local transportation agencies, with their
    primary responsibility for building, maintaining, and operating the road
    infrastructure, could consider in their efforts to increase the efficient
    use of existing infrastructure. These options are (1) implementing a
    combination of supply-related and demand-related congestion mitigation
    techniques, (2) applying congestion mitigation techniques on a regional
    basis, (3) fully integrating transportation and land-use planning, and (4)
    providing leadership to build support for implementing comprehensive
    congestion mitigation techniques.

    ^30Pub. L. No. 109-59, S 3011(a), codified at 49 U.S.C. S 5309(g)(2)(C).

      Implement a Combination of Supply-Related and Demand-Related Techniques

    Research on various congestion mitigation techniques indicates that
    efficient use of the existing road infrastructure is best accomplished
    through an approach that uses a combination of supply-related and
    demand-related techniques. Supply-related congestion mitigation techniques
    include enhancing the capacity and operation of the road supply by, for
    example, using intelligent traffic system and work zone management
    techniques. Demand-related congestion mitigation techniques, such as road
    pricing and a vanpool program, could improve the flow and performance of
    roads by reducing the number of drivers using existing roads during peak
    demand times. Although these congestion mitigation techniques can provide
    benefits when implemented individually, using them in a comprehensive
    manner will provide the greatest benefits, according to research. For
    example, implementing supply-related features of intelligent traffic
    systems can enhance the effectiveness of demand-related techniques like
    commuting on a flexible schedule by providing real-time traffic
    information to drivers so that they can adjust their departure times to
    avoid heavy congestion.

    To demonstrate the benefits of using a comprehensive approach for reducing
    congestion, DOT has initiated the Urban Partnership Agreement. This
    program will provide financial resources, including some combination of
    grants, loans, and borrowing authority, to transportation agencies that
    implement congestion reduction initiatives that combine tolling, transit,
    telecommuting, and technology as part of a systemwide, comprehensive
    strategy. In addition to the financial assistance, DOT will also provide
    regulatory flexibility and dedicate expertise and personnel to help
    transportation agencies implement congestion mitigation techniques. DOT
    announced the selection of nine cities as preliminary partners and is
    planning to announce the selection of between one-five final partners by
    August 8, 2007.

      Apply Congestion Mitigation Techniques on a Regional Basis

    Since road networks often cross multiple jurisdictions, state and local
    governments need to apply congestion mitigation techniques on a regional
    basis, according to transportation research. By working together,
    jurisdictions can ensure that their efforts to manage congestion include a
    combination of supply-related and demand-related congestion mitigation
    techniques. For example, traffic signal timing is one technique that can
    provide significant benefits to drivers by providing for the smooth flow
    of traffic along streets and highways. To fully enhance mobility, however,
    jurisdictions need to coordinate the timing along an entire corridor. A
    2005 report by the National Transportation Operations Coalition found that
    a majority--56 percent--of jurisdictions did not report strong efforts in
    coordinating traffic signal timing across jurisdictions.^31

    Because of the importance of implementing these techniques on a regional
    basis, especially when there are major road corridors involved, a growing
    number of transportation agencies have implemented corridor management
    plans. Corridor management plans can take many forms and can be
    implemented in a number of ways. A recent Transportation Research Board
    study^32 reported that transportation agencies have used a variety of
    different instruments to implement these corridor management plans, such
    as memorandums of understandings and intergovernmental agreements. For
    example, the Iowa Department of Transportation entered into agreement with
    three local jurisdictions to implement an access management plan, which
    established access management standards on U.S. Highway 6, which runs east
    to west through Des Moines. This type of coordination has also been
    supported by DOT, through its Integrated Corridor Management Initiative.
    This initiative will provide federal funding to an agency or organization
    that demonstrates support of the overall concept of corridor management,
    which could consist of multiple jurisdictions.

      Integrate Transportation Planning More Fully with Land-Use Planning

    Many transportation officials we spoke with stated that transportation
    planning by state and local government must be more fully integrated with
    land-use planning, such as zoning policies or growth management policies.
    There is a high level of interconnection between land use and
    transportation. For example, the traffic generated from a new major
    shopping center may overwhelm existing transportation infrastructure.
    However, in most areas, land use and transportation decisions are made by
    separate agencies or jurisdictions, with each having significant impact on
    the other's investment decisions. In cases where there is insufficient
    coordination between land use and transportation planners, transportation
    agencies may be required to make unanticipated expenditures for
    transportation infrastructure.

    ^31National Transportation Operations Coalition, "National Traffic Signal
    Report Card: Technical Report," 2005. A total of 378 respondents fully
    completed the self-assessment. The number of signals represented by
    responding agencies corresponds to about one-third of all signals in the
    United States.

    ^32National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis 377:
    Cooperative Agreements for Corridor Management (Washington, D.C.: 2004).

    During a Transportation Research Board-sponsored peer exchange on linking
    transportation and land use, transportation officials identified a number
    of efforts that are currently being used to better integrate
    transportation and land-use decisions. State transportation officials
    indicated that they have identified several new areas of activity that
    incorporate the concepts of smart growth and transportation planning.^33
    For example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's
    Transportation Project and Land Use Coordination Initiative provides
    federal transportation planning funds to local communities for studies and
    coordinated activities linking land-use planning and transportation.

      Building Support for Congestion Mitigation Techniques

    Our past work^34 has found that strong leadership is needed to help build
    support for implementing congestion mitigation techniques on a
    comprehensive basis. There are some techniques, such as the use of
    congestion pricing, which must sometimes overcome political and public
    opposition. Strong leadership can communicate the essential ideas and
    values of a project and, therefore, highlight the benefits that these
    techniques can provide for drivers. For example, in Minnesota, a task
    force of state and local officials, citizens, and business leaders was
    convened in 2001 to explore a range of road pricing options, including the
    conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes, and make recommendations to elected
    officials. Since tolling had been fairly controversial in the past, the
    task force was seen as a way to provide a more credible and independent
    review. Ultimately, with the task force's and Governor's support,
    legislation passed that converted HOV to HOT lanes on a major highway.
    Figure 9 provides a brief description of Minnesota's experience with HOT
    lanes.

    ^33The Urban Land Institute defines smart growth as development that is
    environmentally sensitive, economically viable, community-oriented, and
    sustainable.

    ^34See GAO, Highway Finance: States' Expanding Use of Tolling Illustrates
    Diverse Challenges and Strategies, [56]GAO-06-554 (Washington, D.C.: June
    28, 2006).

    Figure 9: Minnesota's "MnPass" Program

    Minnesota opened the MnPass Express Lanes in May 2005. The MnPass provides
    single-occupancy drivers the opportunity to pay a toll to use the HOV
    lanes on Interstate 394, which carries traffic to and from downtown
    Minneapolis and western suburbs. The results of the HOT lanes have been
    significant. A recent survey concluded that support for allowing single
    passenger vehicles to use the HOV lane for a fee remained high, with 65
    percent of respondents indicating this was a "good idea," 1 year after the
    HOT lane was implemented. In addition, this survey showed that 93 percent
    of users were satisfied with the electronic tolling used by MnPass, 88
    percent were satisfied with the traffic speed in the HOT lanes, and 72
    percent were satisfied with the safety of merging between the HOT lanes
    and general purpose lanes. The results are based on a survey of 1,228
    residents aged 18 years and older living within the study area in
    Minnesota.

    Source: NuStats, MnPass Evaluation Attitudinal Panel Survey Wave 3
    (Austin, TX.: August 2006).

    Several Strategies Relate Mainly to the Federal Government to Consider

    The federal government provides funding to state and local governments for
    road and transit infrastructure, establishes legislation and regulations
    that influence the performance and safety of the system, and administers
    transportation programs that cover a range of areas. Given these roles and
    responsibilities, there are several strategies that the federal government
    could consider to help promote the efficient use of infrastructure,
    including (1) linking funding more directly to performance, (2) increasing
    the flexibility provided to state and local government to promote innovate
    solutions, and (3) focusing on projects (or transportation corridors) of
    national interest.

      Link Federal-Aid Highway Funding to Performance

    The federal government could link funding to state and local efforts to
    improve the efficiency and performance of the existing road
    infrastructure. We have previously reported that the federal-aid highway
    funding is currently not linked to performance.^35 As a result, the
    federal government misses an opportunity to use financial incentives to
    improve performance and to hold agencies accountable for results. The
    federal government could use incentives that link funding to particular
    outcomes, such as implementing congestion mitigation techniques to
    encourage state and local governments to use existing infrastructure more
    efficiently. Incentives could also be used to increase state, regional,
    and local agencies' utilization of analytical information and tools to
    ensure that decision makers are making investment decisions that fully
    examine all alternatives, including congestion mitigation techniques.

    ^35See [57]GAO-05-172 .

      Increase Flexibility to State and Local Decision Makers

    The federal government could provide additional flexibility to state and
    local governments for implementing innovative solutions to reduce
    congestion and enhance mobility, according to transportation experts. This
    flexibility could take many forms. First, the federal government could
    build on trends giving states greater flexibilities and discretion with
    their federal-aid highway program funds.^36 Increasing flexibility and
    discretion would recognize the changing nature of FHWA's role and the
    federal-aid highway program, which has been functioning, to some extent,
    as a revenue sharing, general purpose grant program. Devolving funding
    responsibilities to the states in a manner consistent with that function
    would build on the flexibilities already present and would not require
    abandoning the program's regulatory component. For example, states and
    localities could use federal-aid highway funding to implement travel
    demand management techniques such as increasing the number of vanpools.

    The federal government could also continue to liberalize some of the
    long-standing federal restrictions on states and local governments' use of
    congestion mitigation techniques, such as road pricing techniques. By
    removing these restrictions, the federal government would allow state and
    local governments to expand the use of certain user-pay options. For
    example, because states have recognized that many HOV lanes have been
    underused and, therefore, have excess capacity, HOT lanes are becoming
    more widely accepted by state and local governments as a way to maximize
    existing road capacity by managing demand and offering drivers additional
    choices. SAFETEA-LU enhanced and clarified provisions on the states'
    ability to build or convert existing HOV lanes on interstate highways into
    HOT lanes, as long as states monitor and assess the operation of the lanes
    to ensure the lanes do not become degraded.^37 However, there are still
    restrictions on the states' ability to implement road pricing techniques
    on general purpose lanes. For example, SAFETEA-LU includes an explicit
    restriction on the use of road pricing techniques on Interstate 4 in
    Orange County, Florida.

    ^36States have broad flexibility to transfer funds between the various
    federal-aid grant programs. For example, states may transfer up to 50
    percent of their Interstate Maintenance and National Highway System
    Program funds to other programs, including the Surface Transportation
    Program, which has broad eligibility rules. In addition, authorizing
    statutes, most recently amended by SAFETEA-LU, provided the states broad
    authority to transfer federal-aid Highway funds to transit projects and
    vice versa.

    ^37The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued guidance on the terms
    and conditions on which FTA will classify HOV lanes that are converted to
    HOT lanes as "fixed guideway miles" for purposes of the transit funding
    formulas administered by FTA.

      Placing Additional Focus on Projects That Provide National Public Benefits

    The federal government could refocus its role and become more active in
    the management of the surface transportation infrastructure on projects
    that are within the national interest. In our prior work,^38 we have
    stated that government investment in transportation projects, such as
    freight improvement projects or intermodal projects at airports, may be
    warranted if there is the potential of producing benefits to the public
    and if these projects are unattractive to the private sector. Public
    benefits could include reducing the external costs of transportation, such
    as reducing fuel emissions and roadway congestion. Considering whether the
    project has the potential to reduce the external cost of transportation
    provides an indication of a project's potential for yielding a good
    return. The federal government could take a more active role, beyond
    funding and oversight, if certain projects could provide public benefits.
    For example, in our freight work, we highlighted that improving freight
    mobility through the implementation of a short sea shipping service may
    have the effect of shifting some freight from truck to water and, as a
    result, reduce external costs such as pollution and congestion. Federal
    options could range from providing public subsidies to the private sector
    to taking on a more active planning role, such as during the development
    of the interstate highway system. However, such options would involve a
    fundamental shift in federal transportation policy, and officials would
    have to implement this option carefully to ensure that this support would
    result in real economic benefits, from a national perspective, and not
    represent a transfer of economic activity from one area to another.

    Concluding Observations

    The demand on our nation's road infrastructure is expected to continue
    increasing for the foreseeable future. This continued demand comes at a
    time when many of the nation's major roadways are at capacity during peak
    hours--creating increasing levels of congestion throughout the nation.
    Given today's fiscal, environmental, and land-use concerns, the days when
    our nation could build our way out of congestion have passed.

    ^38GAO, Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine
    Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities, [58]GAO-05-727
    (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005); and GAO, Freight Transportation: Short
    Sea Shipping Option Shows Importance of Systematic Approach to Public
    Investment Decisions, [59]GAO-05-768 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005).

    In general, however, transportation policy is still focused on building or
    maintaining road capacity--not efficiently operating and managing the
    existing infrastructure. Many transportation experts emphasize that
    transportation policy should be refocused to allow decision-makers to use
    all the tools at their disposal to more efficiently operate and manage
    their infrastructure--including nonbuild congestion mitigation techniques,
    such as congestion pricing. Congress and DOT have recognized the
    importance and benefits of efficiently managing and operating the existing
    infrastructure. Some state and local governments have also adopted
    congestion mitigation techniques, such as HOT lanes. However, to date,
    such efforts at the state and local level have been confined to a limited
    number of locations and have not typically been a part of a more
    comprehensive strategy to operate and manage the existing infrastructure
    more efficiently. Until congestion mitigation techniques are used in a
    more comprehensive manner, the full potential of these techniques will not
    be realized. DOT's emphasis on increasing the efficient use of existing
    infrastructure in its national strategy to reduce congestion is an
    important step forward. As DOT moves forward with the implementation of
    this strategy, it will likely have the opportunity to explore strategies
    to provide incentives to state and local governments to consider and
    implement congestion mitigation techniques in a more comprehensive manner,
    including the strategies we identified.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided copies of this report to DOT for its review and comment. DOT
    officials provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as
    appropriate.

    We will send copies of this report to congressional committees with
    responsibilities for surface transportation programs, DOT officials,
    including the Secretary of Transportation, and the administrator of FHWA.
    We will make copies available to others on request. In addition, the
    report will be available at no charge on the GAO web site at
    [60]http://www.gao.gov .

    If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
    [61]heckerj@gao.gov or by telephone at (202) 512-2834. Contact points for
    our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
    the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
    report are listed in appendix III.

    Sincerely yours,

    JayEtta Z. Hecker
    Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    The objectives of this report were to (1) identify the factors that
    inhibit the efficient use of the existing infrastructure of roads and
    highways, (2) identify what techniques have been developed for making the
    current infrastructure more efficient and what is known about the results,
    (3) how local decision makers have implemented these techniques, and (4)
    what strategies exist for increasing the efficient use of existing
    infrastructure?

    To identify the factors that inhibit the efficient use of the existing
    infrastructure of roads and highways, we reviewed reports and studies
    issued by federal, state, and local agencies, transportation research
    organizations, and academia, as well as our past work in surface
    transportation. A GAO economist reviewed these reports and studies, which
    were identified by searching economics and transportation literature, and
    found their methodology and economic reasoning to be sound and
    sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

    To identify the techniques that have been developed to make more efficient
    use of the transportation infrastructure and what is known about the
    results of these techniques, we interviewed Department of Transportation's
    Federal Highway Administration officials and state and local
    transportation officials from our site visit locations, as well as
    representatives from various associations with experience implementing
    and/or analyzing the results of such techniques. We also reviewed
    transportation research by transportation organizations and studies and
    evaluations of individual projects conducted by federal, state, and local
    transportation agencies.

    To determine how local decision makers have implemented these techniques
    and what is known about the extent to which these approaches are making
    the current infrastructure more efficient, we conducted site visits or
    interviews of federal, state, and local transportation officials about
    urban areas in five states that have experience with implementing various
    congestion management techniques--Denver, Colo.; Northern Virginia, Va.;^1
    Orlando, Fla.; San Diego, San Francisco-Oakland, and San Jose, Calif.; and
    Seattle, Wash. We selected this nongeneralizable sample of states based on
    geographical diversity and after reviewing the Texas Transportation
    Institute's 2005 "Urban Mobility Report" to identify states with congested
    urban areas; and by interviewing agency officials, association
    representatives, and reviewing studies and reports to determine states
    that had a higher level of experience planning and implementing various
    congestion mitigation techniques. We also interviewed officials in Aurora
    and Boulder, Colo.; Altamonte Springs, Fla.; Hampton Roads, Va.;^2 and
    Bellevue and Issaquah, Wash. to gain some insight into the implementation
    of congestion mitigation techniques in smaller jurisdictions. We also
    reviewed how other states have implemented congestion mitigation
    techniques, and we note these in this report.

    ^1These interviews were conducted by telephone.

    To identify the strategies that might be employed for addressing
    anticipated strains on infrastructure over the long term, we reviewed
    public and private sector research, studies, and proposals on the
    development of new long term strategies and built on the perspectives
    gained from our past work in transportation infrastructure and congestion.
    This was supplemented with interviews of officials in the Department of
    Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
    stakeholders including the American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials, Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITS
    America, and Environmental Defense. We conducted our work from September
    2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
    auditing standards.

    ^2These interviews were conducted by telephone.

    Appendix II: Congestion Mitigation Techniques and Benefits

    Transportation agencies nationwide use a wide array of congestion
    mitigation techniques to manage congestion and maximize the existing
    transportation infrastructure. These techniques have the potential to
    provide benefits that improve efficiency by improving traffic flow,
    altering existing commuter patterns that cause congestion, and increasing
    the use of alternative transportation modes such as public transit and car
    pools. In general, these congestion mitigation techniques can be placed
    into two basic categories, techniques that are aimed at enhancing existing
    capacity, and techniques that influence driver behavior.

    Techniques that enhance capacity: These are techniques that are designed
    to increase the existing systems' capacity to improve travel flow. For
    example, incident management programs are designed to more rapidly deploy
    response vehicles that remove accident vehicles and debris and more
    quickly restore traffic flow after accidents. Table 2 provides a brief
    description of selected congestion mitigation techniques designed to
    enhance capacity, and the potential benefit of each technique.

    Table 2: Selected Congestion Mitigation Techniques That Enhance Capacity

    Technique                                 Benefit
    Traffic signal timing--coordinating the   Optimizing traffic signal timing
    timing of a series of traffic signals     increases vehicle speeds and
    along an arterial to reduce stops and     traffic volumes and reduces
    move vehicles at a uniform speed.         accidents on major arterials.
    Incident management program--is a planned Removing vehicles from the
    and coordinated program to detect,        accident scene helps to reduce
    respond to, and remove traffic incidents. incident-related congestion and
                                                 restore traffic capacity as
                                                 safely and quickly as possible.
    Work zone management--using techniques    Use of work zone management
    such as warning signs, reversible lanes,  techniques during road
    and public awareness campaigns during     construction helps to minimize
    road construction.                        construction delays and related
                                                 congestion.
    Bus, vanpool, and car pool lanes--setting Dedicated lanes for buses,
    aside dedicated high-occupancy vehicle    vanpools, and car pools provide
    (HOV) lanes for buses, vanpools, and car  a faster, more predictable
    pools on freeways.                        travel time. By increasing the
                                                 average number of people per
                                                 vehicle, HOV lanes increase the
                                                 overall capacity of the roadway.
    Access management--a set of techniques    Techniques such as controlling
    that state and local governments can use  signal spacing improves traffic
    to control vehicle access to highways,    flow and reduces congestion and
    major arterials, and other roadways, for  accidents.
    example, limiting access to freeways,
    increasing the spacing between signals
    and interchanges, and use of frontage and
    service roads.
    Integrated corridor management--the       Managing a corridor in an
    operational coordination of specific      integrated manner is aimed at
    transportation networks comprising a      reducing travel times, improving
    corridor, and the coordination of         travel predictability, and
    agencies responsible for corridor         increasing transit ridership in
    mobility.                                 the corridor.
    Asset management--a systematic process of An asset management program that
    maintaining, upgrading, and operating     includes regular maintenance and
    transportation assets cost effectively by rehabilitation of roads can
    applying engineering principles, sound    result in improved speed and
    business and economic practices, and a    reliability of passenger and
    framework for planning and decision       freight travel.
    making.

    Source: GAO.

    Techniques that influence driver behavior: These are techniques that are
    designed to reduce vehicle demand on the existing system by reducing the
    frequency of travel and travel during peak periods, altering the routes
    traveled, and providing incentives to use alternate transportation modes.
    For example, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes could charge single-occupancy
    vehicles a higher price during peak congestion times, and this provides
    incentives for drivers to travel at less congested times. Other policies,
    such as employer transit subsidies and flexible work schedule programs,
    can also shift drivers' use of the road network and thus reduce demand on
    the existing transportation infrastructure. Table 3 provides a brief
    description of selected congestion mitigation techniques designed to
    influence driver behavior and the potential benefit of each technique.

    Table 3: Select Congestion Mitigation Techniques That Influence Driver
    Behavior

    Technique                               Benefit
    High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes--a      HOT lanes can channel traffic into
    priced lane that offers drivers of      underutilized lanes and decrease
    vehicles that do not meet the occupancy congestion on regular lanes thus
    requirements the option of paying a     increasing the overall throughput
    toll to use lanes that are otherwise    of a corridor. HOT lanes can also
    restricted to high-occupancy vehicles.  shift demand to less congested
                                               times by charging a lower toll
                                               just before and after peak period.
    Cordon-based pricing--a form of         Charging a fee to enter a central
    congestion pricing where drivers are    business district during peak
    charged a fee to enter a congested area periods encourages travelers to
    such as a city center during peak       shift their behavior by either
    periods.                                traveling at another time or by
                                               using alternative transportation
                                               modes such as buses and trains.
    Employer transit and vanpool            Designed to provide an incentive
    subsidies--employers pay for employee   for employees to use transit
    monthly transit pass expenses.          services resulting in reduced
                                               traffic demand on the road
                                               network.
    Real Time Traveler Information Web      Providing information on
    sites--Web sites that provide           congestion, commute times, and
    up-to-the-minute information on traffic alternate routes allows a traveler
    conditions such as speeds, levels of    to change time of departure,
    congestion, and camera views of roads   route, or mode of transport to
    and incidents before the commuter       avoid congestion and arrive at a
    starts out.                             destination in timely manner.
    Worksite flextime--allows employees to  Encourages employees to avoid the
    set their own arrival and departure     most congested travel times,
    time to/from work--within established   reducing the demand on roadway
    time boundaries agreed to by their      and/or transit systems during
    employer.                               peak-demand periods.
    Telework policies--allow employees to   Working at home results in fewer
    work at home during a portion of the    trips to work and reduced demand
    workweek.                               on roads and transit systems.
    Land use and development policies and   Locating new residential
    incentives--policies and incentives     development near existing transit
    that encourage future growth near       facilities will make more
    existing road and transit services.     efficient use of existing transit
                                               services with the potential to
                                               reduce demand on existing roads.
    Parking management--managing the supply Managing parking supply and price
    and price of parking such as limiting   provides a disincentive for
    the amount of single-occupancy parking  driving alone and an incentive for
    spaces, charging higher parking fees,   using alternate modes of travel.
    or providing preferential parking for
    car pools and vanpools.

    Source: GAO.

    Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    JayEtta Z. Hecker, (202) 512-2834, heckerj@gao.gov

    Staff Acknowledgments

    In addition to the individual named above, Nikki Clowers, Assistant
    Director; Ashley Alley; Jay Cherlow; Anne Dilger; Brad Dubbs; Terence Lam;
    Maureen Luna-Long; Sara Ann Moessbauer; and Tim Schindler made key
    contributions to this report.

    (544129)

    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 ( [62]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
    [63]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: [64]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
    E-mail: [65]fraudnet@gao.gov
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [66]JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [67]AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    [68]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-920 .

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

    For more information, contact JayEtta Z. Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or
    heckerj@gao.gov.

    Highlights of [69]GAO-07-920 , a report to the Ranking Member, Committee
    on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate

    July 2007

    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

    Strategies Are Available for Making Existing Road Infrastructure Perform
    Better

    For the past several decades, the capacity of the nation's road network
    has not grown fast enough to keep pace with demand. The increasing
    congestion is apparent to millions of commuters and freight operators.
    Although road building is perhaps the most familiar antidote, Congress,
    the Department of Transportation (DOT), and transportation research have
    emphasized the need to more efficiently use the existing infrastructure as
    a means to control congestion.

    GAO was asked to examine various issues associated with increasing the
    efficient use of existing infrastructure. This report examines the
    following questions: (1) What factors inhibit the efficient use of the
    existing infrastructure of roads and highways? (2) What techniques have
    been developed for making the current infrastructure more efficient and
    what is known about the results? (3) How have local decision makers
    implemented these techniques? (4) What strategies exist for increasing the
    use of such techniques? To address these questions, GAO reviewed existing
    studies, examined efforts in five states, and sought transportation
    officials' views, among other things.

    GAO is not making recommendations in this report. In commenting on a draft
    of this report, DOT provided technical clarifications, which we
    incorporated as appropriate.

    Three broad factors inhibit efficient use of existing roads. First, many
    were not designed and built to meet today's traffic volumes, and their
    operation has not changed sufficiently to better meet current volumes.
    Second, the federal and state revenue-raising structure does not provide
    incentives for drivers to use roads efficiently because it does not
    capture all the costs involved in using roads at time of peak demand.
    Third, information about which investments produce the highest estimated
    social benefits is limited when decisions are made about how to address
    congestion.

    Two types of techniques have been developed for making current roads more
    efficient. One enhances capacity through better operations and use of
    technology, such as timing traffic signals to improve traffic flow. The
    other influences behavior about when and where to drive, through such
    specific means as flexible work schedules, and charging drivers tolls to
    use roads during peak hours. Research suggests that these techniques are
    most effective when tailored to the particular situation and used in
    combination.

    In the states GAO reviewed, officials chose varying techniques but tended
    to implement them with a similar three-pronged approach: (1) changing
    planning and related processes to give these techniques more priority, (2)
    developing creative mechanisms to fund them, and (3) collaborating with
    multiple stakeholders to put them in place. Officials said many of the
    techniques, while helpful, provided only marginal benefits, because
    several persistent challenges prevented greater use. These challenges
    ranged from resolving jurisdictional authority to finding alternative
    funding sources.

    Although many strategies exist for making greater use of these techniques,
    they vary depending on the level of government involved. Three strategies
    cut across all levels of government: (1) considering how the private
    sector can be used in managing existing road infrastructure, (2) expanding
    the user-pay concept for managing demand and generating revenue for
    transportation investments, and (3) measuring results and managing with
    them in mind. Several other strategies, such as applying techniques on a
    regional basis and integrating transportation planning more fully with
    land-use planning, relate primarily to state and local governments.
    Strategies at the federal level, where participation in transportation
    projects relates primarily to financial assistance and policies affecting
    system performance and safety, includes linking federal funding to
    performance, increasing flexibility for states and localities, and placing
    additional focus on projects with national benefits.

    Examples of Various Congestion Mitigation Techniques

    References

    Visible links
      46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-545T
      47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-572T
      48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
      49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
      50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-744
      51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943
      52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943
      53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-1033
      54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-165
      55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
      56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-554
      57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
      58. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727
      59. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-768
      60. http://www.gao.gov
      61. mailto:heckerj@gao.gov
      62. http://www.gao.gov/
      63. http://www.gao.gov/
      64. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
      65. mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
      66. mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
      67. mailto:AndersonP1@gao.gov
      68. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-920
      69. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-920
    *** End of document. ***