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][email protected] 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, [email protected]

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][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [66][email protected] (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][email protected] (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
[email protected].

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:[email protected]
  62. http://www.gao.gov/
  63. http://www.gao.gov/
  64. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  65. mailto:[email protected]
  66. mailto:[email protected]
  67. mailto:[email protected]
  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. ***