Transportation Infrastructure: States' Implementation of Transportation
Management Systems (Letter Report, 01/13/97, GAO/RCED-97-32).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed: (1) the status of
the states' development and implementation of transportation management
systems; (2) how the states expect to use the systems; and (3) the
factors that have facilitated or hindered the development and
implementation of the systems.

GAO found that: (1) as of September 1996, about half the states were
moving forward with all six transportation management systems even
though they were no longer mandatory; (2) the remaining states were
developing or implementing at least three of the systems originally
mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991; (3) all states were implementing the pavement management system,
and nearly all states were implementing the bridge, safety, and
congestion management systems; (4) congestion management systems were
being developed for all transportation management areas, where they are
still mandatory; (5) about 30 states were implementing the public
transportation and intermodal management systems; (6) the states were
developing the systems for use by decisionmakers in the planning process
and to help transportation officials conduct daily operations; (7) three
states that GAO visited recognized that marketing the systems to
potential users, such as executives, planners, and engineers, is
critical to ensuring the optimal use of the systems; (8) some states
have realized that to obtain the most uses from the systems, each needs
to be integrated with the others; (9) nationwide, over half the states
plan to integrate the systems; (10) three states that GAO reviewed
indicated that the 1991 mandate provided a catalyst, or "jump start," to
developing and implementing the new systems; (11) the mandate resulted
in the systems' receiving high-level support and top priority status in
these states; (12) although implementing the systems is now optional,
several states are continuing this effort because they view the systems
as beneficial to the decision-making process in that they provide more
accurate, timely information than was previously available; (13) on the
other hand, the removal of the federal mandate lessoned support for
developing certain systems; (14) some states reported that the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) failure to issue a clear and timely
rule on management systems following the 1991 mandate had caused
difficulties in implementing the public transportation, congestion, and
intermodal management systems; (15) several states told GAO that the
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) was helpful in providing initial
workshops and training to develop the systems; and (16) officials in all
seven states that GAO reviewed indicated that they continue to need fed*

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-32
     TITLE:  Transportation Infrastructure: States' Implementation of 
             Transportation Management Systems
      DATE:  01/13/97
   SUBJECT:  Urban transportation operations
             Transportation safety
             Management information systems
             Transportation legislation
             Public roads or highways
             Highway planning
             Federal/state relations
             State-administered programs
IDENTIFIER:  Maryland
             Michigan
             Montana
             New York
             North Carolina
             Oregon
             Texas
             Colorado
             Florida
             Missouri
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Committees

January 1997

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE -
STATES' IMPLEMENTATION OF
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

GAO/RCED-97-32

Transportation Management Systems

(342918)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BMS - Bridge Management System
  CMS - Congestion Management System
  DOT - U.S.  Department of Transportation
  FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
  FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  GAO - U.S.  General Accounting Office
  IMS - Intermodal Management System
  ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
  NHS - National Highway System
  PMS - Pavement Management System
  PTMS - Public Transportation Management System
  SMS - Safety Management System

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-272788

January 13, 1997

The Honorable John H.  Chafee
Chairman
The Honorable Max S.  Baucus
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable John W.  Warner
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
 and Infrastructure
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable Bud Shuster
Chairman
The Honorable James L.  Oberstar
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

The Honorable Thomas E.  Petri
Chairman
The Honorable Nick J.  Rahall, II
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
required states to develop and implement six systems for managing
highway pavement, bridges, highway safety, traffic congestion, public
transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal
transportation facilities and systems.  These management systems are
tools that provide information to assist state and local
decisionmakers in selecting cost-effective policies, programs, and
projects to protect and improve the nation's transportation
infrastructure.  Management systems take a variety of forms,
including computerized inventories of assets, software programs,
systematic procedures or processes for collecting and analyzing
information, and committees that develop recommendations to improve
the systems' performance. 

In 1995, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995--often
called the NHS Act--made the systems optional, except the congestion
management system in certain areas, and prohibited the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) from withholding funds from states
that elected not to implement any system.\1 In addition, the NHS Act
required GAO to examine issues concerning the states' implementation
of the management systems. 

In discussions with your offices, we agreed to identify (1) the
status of the states' development and implementation of the systems,
(2) how the states expect to use the systems, and (3) the factors
that have facilitated or hindered the development and implementation
of the systems.  We obtained general information from state and
federal reports on the status of development and implementation of
the systems in the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.  We
obtained more detailed information from state and local
transportation officials in the seven states we selected for case
studies of their experiences in developing, implementing, and using
the systems.\2 Additional information on our methodology is discussed
at the end of this letter. 


--------------------
\1 The NHS Act made statewide congestion management systems optional
but still required the systems in transportation management areas
(urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000 or other areas
so designated at the request of the governor and the metropolitan
planning organization or affected local officials). 

\2 Our case study states were Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas.  In addition, we obtained
anecdotal, less- comprehensive information about Colorado, Florida,
and Missouri. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

As of September 1996, about half the states were moving forward with
all six transportation management systems even though they were no
longer mandatory.  The remaining states were developing or
implementing at least three of the systems originally mandated by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.  All states
were implementing the pavement management system, and nearly all
states were implementing the bridge, safety, and congestion
management systems.  Congestion management systems were being
developed for all transportation management areas, where they are
still mandatory.  About 30 states were implementing the public
transportation and intermodal management systems. 

The states were developing the systems for use by decisionmakers in
the planning process and to help transportation officials conduct
daily operations.  Three states that we visited recognized that
marketing the systems to potential users--such as executives,
planners, and engineers--is critical to ensuring the optimal use of
the systems.  In addition, some states have realized that to obtain
the most uses from the systems, each needs to be integrated with the
others so that, for example, users can combine information from
several management systems to analyze the overall transportation
needs in a geographic area.  Nationwide, over half the states plan to
integrate the systems. 

Although pavement and bridge management systems have been around for
several decades, the other mandated systems were new to many states. 
Three states that we reviewed indicated that the 1991 mandate
provided a catalyst, or "jump start," to developing and implementing
the new systems.  The mandate resulted in the systems' receiving
high-level support and top-priority status in these states.  Although
implementing the systems is now optional, several states are
continuing this effort because they view the systems as beneficial to
the decision-making process in that they provide more accurate,
timely information than was previously available.  On the other hand,
the removal of the federal mandate lessened support for developing
certain systems.  In addition, some states reported that DOT's
failure to issue a clear and timely rule on management systems
following the 1991 mandate had caused difficulties in implementing
the public transportation, congestion, and intermodal management
systems.  However, several states told us that the Federal Highway
Administration was helpful in providing initial workshops and
training to develop the systems.  Finally, officials in all seven
states that we reviewed indicated that they continue to need federal
assistance in solving technical problems with software and/or
learning from other states' experiences in implementing and
integrating the systems. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The nation's public transportation infrastructure--its highways,
bridges, and transit systems--represents a multibillion-dollar
investment that allows for the essential movement of people and
goods.  During the 1990s, all levels of government provided annually
about $90 billion for highway and bridge programs and about $16
billion for transit programs.  The volume of infrastructure assets is
immense--over 8 million lane-miles of highways;\3 more than 576,000
bridges; and, for transit operations, nearly 130,000 vehicles, 7,439
miles of rail track, 2,271 rail stations, and 1,172 maintenance
facilities.  Management systems are tools that provide information to
assist state and local decisionmakers in selecting cost-effective
policies, programs, and projects to improve the efficiency and safety
of the nation's infrastructure and protect the public's investment in
it. 

In 1991, ISTEA required the states to develop and implement systems
for managing (1) the pavement of federal-aid highways, (2) bridges on
and off federal-aid highways, (3) highway safety, (4) traffic
congestion, (5) public transportation facilities and equipment, and
(6) intermodal transportation facilities and systems.  Before this
legislation, many states had begun developing some of these systems. 
Management systems for pavement, for example, were first developed in
the late 1960s, and the concepts of bridge and highway safety
management systems were introduced in the early 1980s.\4 Very few
states, however, had experience with congestion, public
transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal management
systems before the ISTEA mandate. 

The legislation required DOT to, among other things, issue
regulations for the states to develop and implement each system.  The
legislation also authorized DOT to withhold up to 10 percent of
federal highway and transit funds, beginning in fiscal year 1996,
from states that failed to implement the management systems.  ISTEA
called for the states to develop and implement the systems in
cooperation with metropolitan planning organizations\5 in urbanized
areas and the affected agencies receiving assistance under the
Federal Transit Act.  In addition, to help ensure that large urban
communities focus on congestion management and relief, ISTEA
specifically required that the planning process in transportation
management areas\6 include a congestion management system.\7

ISTEA required DOT to issue its regulations on management systems by
December 18, 1992, one year after the date of enactment.  The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) jointly issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the
management systems in June 1992, a proposed rule for the management
systems in March 1993, and an interim final rule in December 1993. 
The interim rule included technical requirements and compliance
schedules for each system and required the states to be implementing
all systems beginning in fiscal year 1995.  Table 1 provides a
general description of each of the six management systems, as defined
by DOT. 



                          Table 1
          
            DOT's Definitions of the Management
                          Systems

Management system   Definition
------------------  --------------------------------------
Pavement            This system provides information for
management system   use in implementing cost-effective
                    reconstruction, rehabilitation, and
                    preventative maintenance programs and
                    results in pavements designed to
                    accommodate current and forecasted
                    traffic in a safe, durable, and cost-
                    effective manner.

Bridge management   This system, among other things,
system              includes procedures for collecting,
                    processing, and updating bridge
                    inventory data; predicts bridge
                    deterioration; identifies projects to
                    improve bridge conditions, safety, and
                    serviceability; estimates costs; and
                    determines least-cost strategies for
                    bridge maintenance, repair, and
                    rehabilitation.

Safety management   This system is a systematic process
system              for reducing the number and severity
                    of traffic accidents by incorporating
                    opportunities to improve highway
                    safety in all phases of highway
                    planning, design, construction, and
                    maintenance. It includes collecting
                    and analyzing highway safety data;
                    disseminating public information and
                    providing educational activities; and
                    ensuring coordination among the
                    agencies responsible for different
                    safety elements (such as vehicle,
                    roadway, and human factors).

Congestion          This system is a systematic process
management system   that provides information on a
                    transportation system's performance
                    and alternative strategies to
                    alleviate congestion and enhance the
                    mobility of persons and goods. The
                    system includes monitoring and
                    evaluating transportation system
                    performance, identifying alternative
                    strategies to alleviate congestion,
                    assessing and implementing cost-
                    effective strategies, and evaluating
                    the effectiveness of the implemented
                    actions.

Public              This system is a systematic process
transportation      for collecting and analyzing
management system   information on the condition and cost
                    of transit assets (e.g., maintenance
                    facilities, stations, terminals,
                    equipment, and rolling stock) on a
                    continual basis, identifying needs,
                    and enabling decisionmakers to select
                    cost-effective strategies for
                    providing and maintaining transit
                    assets in serviceable condition.

Intermodal          This system is a systematic process
management system   for identifying linkages between modes
                    of transportation, defining strategies
                    for improving the effectiveness of
                    modal interactions, and evaluating and
                    implementing these strategies.
----------------------------------------------------------
DOT received over 200 sets of comments--primarily from state
transportation departments and metropolitan planning
organizations--on the proposed and interim rules.  Many of the
comments on the interim rule expressed concerns that (1) the data
requirements would be too burdensome; (2) the rule was too
prescriptive, not allowing states enough flexibility to tailor the
systems to their individual circumstances; and (3) the time frames
for compliance were too short.  However, despite their concerns, many
commenters supported the concept of management systems. 

Because of concerns such as those described above, the Congress
reconsidered the mandate for management systems.  In 1995, the NHS
Act made the six management systems optional for the states and
prohibited the Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds
from the states that elected not to implement the systems.  The act
did not affect the provisions for congestion management systems in
transportation management areas.  DOT issued a final rule on December
19, 1996, to reflect this legislative change of 1995. 


--------------------
\3 Lane-miles represent the number of lanes per section of roadway
multiplied by the actual length of the section. 

\4 In 1989, the Federal Highway Administration issued a rule
requiring all states to have a pavement management system that would
cover rural arterial and urban principal arterial routes under the
states' jurisdiction. 

\5 A metropolitan planning organization is an entity in an urban area
with a population greater than 50,000 that carries out certain
transportation planning activities. 

\6 Nationwide, there are 128 transportation management areas.  All
states and Puerto Rico have at least one transportation management
area, except Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 

\7 The legislation also placed restrictions on those transportation
management areas classified as nonattainment areas for ozone or
carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act.  These nonattainment areas
may not program federal funds for any highway project that will
result in a significant increase in the number of vehicles with
single occupants unless the project is part of an approved congestion
management system. 


   ALL STATES ARE IMPLEMENTING
   SOME SYSTEMS BUT CUSTOMIZING
   THEM TO MEET THEIR OWN NEEDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

All states reported they are implementing pavement management
systems, and nearly all states reported they are implementing the
bridge, safety, and congestion management systems.  Fewer states
reported implementing public transportation and intermodal management
systems.  Before ISTEA, our seven case-study states were all
implementing some management systems to varying degrees.  Each state,
however, had to enhance its existing systems and develop some new
ones in response to ISTEA and DOT's interim rule.  When the NHS Act
made the systems optional, these states decided to tailor the systems
to meet their own needs and time frames.  Most of the seven states
scaled back roadway coverage for some systems, and several
discontinued development of the public transportation and intermodal
management systems, which they deemed unnecessary. 


      TWENTY-FOUR STATES ARE
      IMPLEMENTING ALL SYSTEMS;
      REMAINING STATES ARE
      IMPLEMENTING SOME SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

As of September 1996, about half the states reported they were moving
forward with all six systems even though they were no longer
mandatory.  (See fig.  1.) The remaining states reported they were
developing or implementing at least three of the transportation
management systems originally mandated by ISTEA.  Two states--Wyoming
and South Carolina--decided to implement only three systems.  Wyoming
was going forward with the pavement, bridge, and safety management
systems; South Carolina reported it was developing or implementing
the pavement, bridge, and congestion management systems.  South
Carolina, however, planned to develop a safety management system
beginning in fiscal year 1997. 

   Figure 1:  Number of Management
   Systems Being Developed and
   Implemented by Each State

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As shown in figure 2, nearly all states reported they were developing
and implementing a pavement management system, a bridge management
system, a safety management system, and a congestion management
system.  Pavement and bridge management systems may be easier for the
states to develop and implement than other management systems because
many states had established inventories or a form of management
system for these assets before ISTEA.  Similarly, the states have had
experience with establishing systematic approaches to resolving
highway safety problems since the mid-1960s.  Most states were
developing and implementing congestion management systems, which
continue to be required in transportation management areas. 
Congestion management systems were being developed by state or local
agencies for all transportation management areas.  Moreover, several
states that did not have transportation management areas were
developing this system.  About two-thirds of the states reported they
were developing and implementing the public transportation management
system and the intermodal management system.  According to
transportation officials, fewer states may be proceeding with these
two systems because (1) the systems are newer and the states are less
familiar with them and (2) the states generally lack jurisdiction
over the assets covered in these systems.  (See apps.  I through VI
for more information on each management system.)

   Figure 2:  Number of States
   Developing and Implementing
   Each Management System

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

PMS = Pavement management system
BMS = Bridge management system
SMS = Safety management system
CMS = Congestion management system
PTMS = Public transportation management system
IMS = Intermodal management system

Note:  Data are for the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. 


      CASE-STUDY STATES WERE
      IMPLEMENTING SOME SYSTEMS
      WHEN ISTEA WAS ENACTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

For case-study purposes, we held discussions with transportation
officials in seven states--Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas--about their implementation of the
six management systems.  When ISTEA was enacted, these states already
had certain transportation management systems (see figure 3).  To
meet the mandate and DOT's interim rule, these states needed to
enhance their existing management systems and develop some new ones. 
New York, for example, had existing management systems for pavement,
bridges, safety, congestion, and public transportation.  To meet the
new requirements, the state began developing an intermodal management
system with separate components for passengers and freight and began
modifying the other systems.  For example, the state expanded its
public transportation inventory from buses and bus-related items to
include bus facilities and was developing a condition-rating system
and performance measures for these assets.  Michigan, on the other
hand, had only a pavement management system and a bridge inventory;
it had to modify these systems, adding pavement condition
information, such as ride quality, to the pavement management system
and adding analytical capabilities to its bridge inventory.  Michigan
began developing the other four systems pursuant to the ISTEA
mandate. 

   Figure 3:  Status of Management
   Systems in Seven States When
   ISTEA Was Enacted

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a System not automated. 

\b Inventory only. 

\c System limited to setting priorities for bridge
replacement/rehabilitation projects. 


      CASE-STUDY STATES
      CUSTOMIZING SYSTEMS TO MEET
      THEIR OWN NEEDS SINCE
      SYSTEMS BECAME OPTIONAL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Once the NHS Act made the systems optional, officials in the seven
states we reviewed told us that they had reassessed their needs and
decided whether to (1) proceed with the systems as originally
planned, (2) reduce the scope of the systems, and/or (3) discontinue
certain systems.  Among our case-study states, Michigan was the only
one that decided to implement the six management systems with no
change in scope to the plans it had developed on the basis of DOT's
interim rule.  Michigan transportation officials viewed the
management systems as an opportunity to improve decision-making and
as a way to address other departmental objectives. 

The other six states scaled back their coverage of certain systems. 
For example, ISTEA required the states to incorporate all federal-aid
highways, which included some roads under local jurisdiction, in
their pavement management systems.  After the NHS Act made the
systems optional, five of the states we reviewed--Maryland, Montana,
New York, Oregon, and Texas--decided to include only state-maintained
roads and the National Highway System in their pavement management
system, at least initially.  New York intends to include all
federal-aid highways by 1998.  North Carolina scaled back the
coverage of its pavement management system to include
state-maintained roads and only those portions of the National
Highway System maintained by the state.  Our case-study states also
scaled back the coverage of other systems, to varying degrees, after
the passage of the NHS Act.  For example, North Carolina and Texas
decided that their congestion management systems would cover only
their transportation management areas.  In earlier plans for their
congestion management systems, both states had intended to have
statewide coverage. 

Finally, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas decided to discontinue
certain management systems once they were no longer mandatory.  North
Carolina decided not to develop the intermodal management system;
Texas and Maryland decided not to implement the public transportation
and intermodal management systems.\8 In each case, state
transportation officials determined that the state's needs were being
met sufficiently by existing programs and/or activities.  (See apps. 
I through VI for examples of systems being implemented by our
case-study states.)


--------------------
\8 According to state officials, the Texas transportation department
has chosen not to implement a public transportation management
system.  The department's Public Transportation Division, however,
has been delegated the authority for and is developing its own
internal management system. 


      SOME CASE-STUDY STATES WERE
      EXTENDING TIME FRAMES FOR
      IMPLEMENTING SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

Five states we reviewed--Montana, New York, Maryland, Oregon, and
Texas--used the flexibility they gained from the passage of the NHS
Act to extend the time frames for implementing some systems beyond
those established in initial work plans.\9 Officials in these five
states found ISTEA's and DOT's initial time frames unrealistic and
replaced them with more accurate estimates for completing the initial
work on the management systems.  This work has often entailed hiring
staff or consultants to develop new systems or enhance the existing
ones.  In addition, implementing the systems has involved training
staff and inspectors on new software and, in states with a
decentralized transportation department, delivering the systems to
regions or districts within the state.  Before ISTEA, Montana's
pavement management system, for example, provided information to
decisionmakers that was often outdated by 3 to 4 years.  To meet
ISTEA's and DOT's requirements for a pavement management system,
state officials determined that improvements to the existing process
were needed.  The state hired a consulting firm to develop and
implement a state-of-the-art system that could be tailored to the
state's needs and also hired additional staff so that pavement
inspections could be conducted each year.  The system is expected to
be delivered to district offices for their use in conducting pavement
inspections within 1-1/2 years.  State transportation department
staff and consultants are training all users of the system. 


--------------------
\9 Under DOT's interim rule, the states were required to develop work
plans for each system that identified major activities and schedules
that would ensure the systems were operational by specified dates. 


   USE OF SYSTEMS FOR PLANNING AND
   DAILY DECISION-MAKING ENHANCED
   BY MARKETING AND INTEGRATION OF
   SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

States are developing the management systems for use by
decisionmakers in the planning process as well as in undertaking
day-to-day activities.  Three states that we visited recognized that
marketing the systems to potential users--such as planners,
engineers, and executives--is critical to ensuring the optimal use of
the systems.  In addition, some states have realized that to obtain
the most uses from the systems, they need to be integrated with one
another so that, for example, users can combine information from
several systems to analyze the overall transportation needs in a
geographic area.  Integration raises additional, cross-cutting
issues--such as establishing common data definitions--beyond those
that arise in developing individual systems.  Four of our case-study
states have begun integrating their systems and are addressing
integration issues through special committees and additional
resources.  Officials of one state told us they would like DOT to
provide them with additional technical assistance on integrating
systems. 


      STATES EXPECT TO USE SYSTEMS
      FOR PLANNING AND DAILY
      DECISION-MAKING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Many state decisionmakers intend to use the information from the
management systems in developing statewide and regional
transportation plans.  The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials surveyed its membership in May 1996 and
found that all 37 states that responded intended to integrate the
systems within their planning processes.  With respect to our seven
case-study states, each was using or intended to use the management
systems in its planning process.  For example, North Carolina's
transportation department used a ranked list of pavement projects
from its pavement management system in developing its 7-year
transportation improvement program.  Maryland's transportation
department has used its congestion management system to analyze four
highly congested highway corridors in the
Baltimore-Annapolis-Washington, D.C., areas.  Applying the state's
congestion management process, transportation planners (1) evaluated
the current level of congestion (using performance measures such as
the time spent in delays), (2) identified strategies to reduce the
congestion (such as improved traffic signal coordination, additional
bus service, and new high-occupancy-vehicle lanes), and (3) projected
levels of congestion in the year 2010 under the different strategies. 
The corridor studies were used in developing Maryland's long-range
transportation plans. 

Transportation officials from our seven case-study states also were
using or planned to use information from the management systems in
making decisions involving day-to-day activities.  For example, in
North Carolina, state and county maintenance engineers use
information on pavement condition from the pavement management system
to determine maintenance needs and priorities.  Similarly, district
offices in Texas use the pavement management system to identify
preventive maintenance and rehabilitation projects, to distribute
funding within the districts, and to evaluate the condition of
pavements after maintenance or rehabilitation. 

In January 1995, the Management Systems Integration Committee was
established by several states to assist states and local agencies in
using outputs from the transportation management systems in their
decision-making processes.  The committee--consisting of several
state, metropolitan planning organization, and FHWA
representatives--was established with financial and technical support
from FHWA.  The committee has identified four general components in
decision-making--long-range planning, short-range planning, program
implementation/daily decisions, and evaluation of implemented
actions--that can involve or benefit from management system
information.  It identifies best practices and offers recommendations
to the states on how information from management systems can assist
in making these decisions.  The committee met once during 1995 and
quarterly during 1996; at the time of our review, however, it had not
established time frames for completing its work. 


      MARKETING IS CRITICAL TO
      ENSURING OPTIMAL USE OF
      SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

In three states we reviewed, transportation officials were developing
strategies to increase the number of users of the systems both within
and outside of the state transportation departments.  For example, in
Montana, the developers of the pavement management system believed
that their existing system--a database of pavement condition
surveys--was not widely used or efficient.  As a result, they
developed a comprehensive marketing plan to expand the use of the new
system.  They identified potential users of the system within
Montana's transportation department (such as engineering, planning,
construction, and maintenance departments) as well as others (such as
FHWA, metropolitan planning organizations, and counties).  To achieve
greater use of the pavement management system, they--among other
things--planned to hold one-on-one meetings with prospective users,
hire a consultant to train users, and provide necessary technical
support.  Their goals were to (1) have the system operational by the
end of 1997, (2) expand the use of the system by state districts
within 2-1/2 years, and (3) have the system recognized as an integral
part of the statewide transportation management system within 5
years. 

Other states were also exploring ways to increase the uses of their
management systems.  In Oregon, for example, the systems' developers
were preparing a users' guide.  In New York, the systems' developers
had prepared slide presentations of their systems, which they were
using as a tool to market their systems to upper management, regions,
metropolitan planning organizations, and counties. 


      INTEGRATION OF SYSTEMS IS
      IMPORTANT TO THEIR
      USEFULNESS BUT POSES
      TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL
      PROBLEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Some states that we reviewed planned to use the management systems as
stand-alone tools to assist decisionmakers in their respective
departments.  Other states also planned to use or are using the
systems in an integrated/coordinated manner, such as using the output
from one system as input to another system.  For example, in New
York, safety evaluations suggested that resurfacing pavement with
high-friction asphalt will reduce wet-weather accident rates by 50
percent at locations with high accident rates.  Therefore, New York
now matches the locations that are identified by the pavement
management system as needing resurfacing with the locations
identified by the safety management system as having a high number of
wet-weather accidents to develop a list of projects that address both
considerations. 

DOT's interim rule called for the states to integrate the management
systems in terms of sharing common data and coordinating the outputs
of the systems so that they provide timely information for use in
developing transportation plans and programs.\10 Although system
integration is no longer required since the NHS Act made the systems
optional, at least 26 states planned to integrate parts of their
management systems, according to a May 1996 survey by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 
Coordination and integration of the systems helps to eliminate
duplication by identifying common features and data elements and
enhances the usefulness of the systems by enabling decisionmakers to
compare trade-offs at a program level or among transportation modes. 
In addition, the Management Systems Integration Committee takes the
position that integration among the systems will provide
decisionmakers with higher-quality information at less cost. 

Among the states that we reviewed, Michigan, Oregon, New York, and
Texas were actively pursuing the integration of their systems in
various ways.\11

Michigan, for example, was redesigning all of its data and placing
them into a single integrated database for use by the six management
systems as well as a maintenance management system that is being
developed to identify nonconstruction activities to extend the lives
of pavement and structures.  Oregon, on the other hand, had a pilot
project that was beginning to address integration issues as the
individual systems were being developed.  The pilot had identified 70
to 80 data elements that were shared by two or more systems and will
use this information to develop a common geographically based
database.  Texas and New York were developing geographical
information systems that will provide a basis for integrating
information among systems.\12

Integrating the management systems raises numerous issues, such as
establishing common definitions for data and common geographical
referencing systems.  To handle these issues, Michigan, New York, and
Oregon have established special committees and dedicated resources
beyond those that are needed to develop and implement the individual
systems.  For instance, New York has established an executive
steering committee and working groups to oversee the administrative
and technical coordination and integration of the systems.  Oregon
has dedicated full-time staff to a pilot project to identify and
resolve such issues as establishing common definitions for shared
data elements. 


--------------------
\10 Specifically, DOT's interim rule called for states to (1) use
databases that have common or coordinated reference systems and
methods for sharing data and (2) have a mechanism to address issues
related to more than one management system. 

\11 Montana plans to begin addressing integration in several years
after the individual systems are operational.  North Carolina was not
planning to integrate its systems.  Maryland was creating a
geographic information system that will include information from
several management systems but otherwise had no plans to integrate
the systems. 

\12 Geographical information systems are the computer hardware and
software that allow for the assembly, storage, manipulation, and
display of geographically referenced data (i.e., data that are
associated with specific places on earth, such as the location of a
bridge). 


   A VARIETY OF FACTORS HAS
   INFLUENCED IMPLEMENTATION OF
   MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Several factors have affected the states' development and
implementation of the transportation management systems, including
(1) the high-level support and top priority that the systems received
after they were mandated and (2) the potential benefits expected to
accrue from the systems.  On the other hand, the removal of the ISTEA
mandate lessened the support for and priority of the systems in some
states.  Finally, several states reported that the lack of clear,
timely guidance from DOT following the enactment of ISTEA hindered
the development and implementation of the systems as well. 


      HIGH-LEVEL SUPPORT AND
      POTENTIAL BENEFITS HAVE
      FACILITATED SYSTEMS'
      IMPLEMENTATION IN SEVERAL
      STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Several states we reviewed responded to the ISTEA mandate and DOT's
prescribed time frames by providing high-level support and top
priority to quickly develop and implement the six management systems. 
For instance, in New York we were told that the mandate provided a
"jump start" to the overall development and implementation of the
systems.  This effort became one of the state transportation
department's top priorities.\13 The state provided additional
resources and technical support for enhancing the pavement, bridge,
congestion, safety, and public transportation management systems and
for developing an intermodal management system.  State transportation
officials met with an assistant commissioner on a monthly basis, and
an executive steering committee oversaw the efforts to implement the
systems.  Officials from Michigan's transportation department also
stated that the mandate served as a catalyst and provided the state
with an opportunity to enhance what they had already begun.  Before
ISTEA, the state had started a pavement management system and used
the mandate to begin developing the other systems.  In addition, the
state appointed a steering committee to oversee the systems'
development and integration.  Montana transportation officials told
us that the mandate provided the push they needed to develop a better
pavement management system. 

Although implementation of the management systems is now optional,
many states see the potential benefits associated with the systems
and have continued supporting their further development and
implementation.  First, several states commented that the systems
reduce redundancy and provide more complete, accurate information in
one location.  For instance, Missouri's transportation department
views the systems as providing "one-stop shopping" for
decisionmakers, as compared with the current method of gathering
information from several different sources, which often takes several
weeks. 

Second, states view the management systems as a way to improve the
planning process by providing objective, timely information to
decisionmakers.  For example, a Colorado state transportation
official stated that in the past, decisions were often made without
much data and analysis and that management systems are now providing
better information on which to base decisions.  New York
transportation department officials believe that the management
systems are a mechanism to better manage the transportation system
and can be tailored to the state's decision-making environment. 
Montana transportation officials told us that the management systems
provide the state with a better idea of the budgetary and economic
impacts of various transportation decisions. 

Finally, many states found that in developing several systems,
benefits accrued from forging new relationships and improving
coordination and cooperation within and outside of their state
transportation departments.  A February 1996 Transportation Research
Board survey of the states found that over half of the respondents
indicated that the safety management process "opened new and
increased lines of communication" among various organizations.\14 We
found similar results with our case-study states.  For instance, in
New York, representatives from 45 agencies or groups now participate
on a technical advisory committee.  We were told that the safety
management system process brought together traditional and
nontraditional safety-related agencies to improve highway safety. 
For example, as a result of input from motorcyclists, the state
recently modified its policy on sealing pavement cracks.  The state
now fills cracks flush with the pavement surfaces rather than
applying heavy layers of crack-sealing materials.  Similarly, North
Carolina, Oregon, and Florida believe that their safety and/or
congestion management systems have facilitated lasting and valuable
interagency coordination. 


--------------------
\13 New York also has a law, passed in 1988, which requires the state
transportation department to establish a bridge management and
inspection system and report on its progress to the governor and
legislature annually.  This law was passed after a bridge on the New
York Thruway collapsed. 

\14 Safety Management System:  A National Status, Transportation
Research Circular Number 452, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council (Washington, D.C.:  Feb.  1996). 


      REMOVAL OF MANDATE AND LACK
      OF CLEAR FEDERAL GUIDANCE
      HINDERED SYSTEMS'
      IMPLEMENTATION IN SEVERAL
      STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

In several states, the removal in 1995 of the ISTEA mandate lessened
support for the development and implementation of transportation
management systems and resulted in some systems' being dropped.  For
instance, several Florida transportation officials told us that there
was substantial initial support for developing and implementing the
systems not only because of the federal mandate but also because
Florida law calls for the development and implementation of the six
management systems.  However, since the NHS Act made the
implementation of the systems optional in 1995, support for the
systems has lessened.  Florida is still going forward with all six
systems but has scaled back on their scope and has extended some
implementation time frames.  In Colorado, the lack of a mandate has
decreased the level of support for implementing all but the pavement
and bridge management systems. 

Some states reported that DOT's failure to issue a clear and timely
rule following the enactment of ISTEA on developing and implementing
the management systems has caused difficulties, particularly in terms
of the congestion, public transportation, and/or intermodal
management systems.  Although pavement and bridge management systems
have been around for several decades,\15 the other systems mandated
by ISTEA were new to many states--thus prompting concern and
uncertainty about how to implement them.  Some states commented that
DOT's interim rule was untimely and did not clearly specify what was
expected of them.  For instance, Maryland state officials noted that
the concept of an intermodal management system was not clearly
spelled out in either ISTEA or the interim rule.  Maryland has chosen
not to implement an intermodal management system.  Some states also
waited for the rule before developing some systems.  For example,
Montana transportation officials told us that the lack of a rule made
the development of the systems risky for the state.  The state
officials wanted to make sure they were headed in the right direction
before moving forward. 

Several states also indicated that they had received little or no
assistance from FTA on implementing the public transportation
management system.  For instance, an Oregon transportation department
official told us that the department had not received any guidance or
assistance from FTA clarifying the interim rule, providing examples
of a public transportation management system, or sponsoring
workshops/training classes.  Officials in other states told us that
it had not been communicated to them that FTA had a role to play in
providing assistance.  A North Carolina state official told us that,
while the state had received assistance from FTA on developing the
public transportation management system, the assistance was limited. 
We were told that by the time FTA clarified what was expected of the
states, many states had hired consultants or gone forward on their
own.  Montana, Oregon, and Texas hired the same consultant to assist
them in complying with the interim rule's requirements for
congestion, public transportation, and/or intermodal management
systems.  Oregon has since decided to scale back on the congestion
management system, while Texas has opted out of the public
transportation and intermodal management systems.  Montana is
implementing these systems according to the interim rule. 

FTA officials told us that they had, in fact, provided assistance on
implementing public transportation management systems by
issuing--jointly with FHWA--guidance on the systems in July and
December 1994, cosponsoring several training classes in 1994 and
1995, and helping guide the development of the Transportation
Research Board's Guidelines for Development of Public Transportation
Facilities and Equipment Management Systems in 1995.  In addition, in
September 1995, FTA issued an enhanced version of its National
Transit Analysis Tool software, which included a menu of management
system data.  According to FTA officials, the states' perception that
the agency was not helpful in developing their systems is due largely
to the fact that FTA has traditionally been oriented toward
metropolitan areas rather than toward states and, consequently, does
not understand states' needs very well.  In addition, FTA does not
have the staff, resources, and presence at the state level that FHWA
has.  FHWA, for example, has a division office for each state, while
FTA has regional offices encompassing a number of states.  According
to FTA officials, the agency is trying to enhance its relations with
the states.  For example, its planning office has recently
reorganized to establish a statewide planning division. 


--------------------
\15 See apps.  I and II for historical information on the pavement
and bridge management systems. 


      MORE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
      NEEDED IN IMPLEMENTING AND
      INTEGRATING SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

Most states would like additional federal assistance in implementing
the management systems.  The American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials surveyed the states in May 1996 and
found that a majority of the states that responded to the survey
would like both FHWA and FTA to provide more technical assistance by
sponsoring conferences and training courses, acting as an information
clearinghouse, establishing task forces, and funding research. 
Specifically, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials believes that FHWA can do a great deal to
help support the development and implementation of the management
systems. 

Our case-study states indicated that FHWA generally met their needs
by providing assistance in understanding the requirements of ISTEA
and the interim rule.  For instance, FHWA has (1) developed a catalog
of pavement management software, (2) developed a video to introduce
the states to safety management systems, (3) produced newsletters on
congestion and intermodal management systems, (4) sponsored
conferences and workshops on various systems, and (5) offered courses
on the management systems (cosponsored with FTA through FHWA's
training office--the National Highway Institute).  However, all seven
states told us that they now need additional technical
assistance--such as technical conferences and workshops--from FHWA
that focuses on different areas, such as developing and implementing
software, explaining geographic information systems technology,
establishing performance measures for systems, and integrating the
management systems.  For instance, Oregon transportation department
officials suggested that DOT could provide information on software
applications and sponsor technical workshops and conferences on a
regional basis.  New York officials would like assistance on
incorporating cost analysis information into a bridge management
system.  States and metropolitan planning organizations also told us
that DOT should establish an information clearinghouse that would
provide the results of research pertaining to the management systems
and examples of various states' best practices in implementing and
integrating systems. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The NHS Act, which made the management systems optional, resulted in
reduced federal involvement with the systems and an increase in the
states' role.  The states are continuing to develop and implement
most systems, but they are now doing so according to their own needs
and time frames rather than by following DOT's requirements.  States
are generally proceeding with the systems because they believe that
the systems are beneficial to the decision-making process by
providing more objective and timely information for decisionmakers
than is otherwise available. 

As the states proceed, they are facing technical problems that they
need help in addressing.  Many states have indicated that they would
like further federal assistance to address technical problems such as
integrating the systems, establishing performance measures, and
implementing geographical information system technology.  Early
assistance from FHWA helped the states to understand ISTEA's and
DOT's requirements as they began developing the systems.  Although
FTA has provided assistance on implementing the public transportation
management system, it has not adequately communicated the
availability of this assistance to the states.  While the management
systems are no longer mandatory, we believe there continues to be a
role for FHWA and FTA to play in helping the states address the
problems they now face in developing, implementing, and integrating
the systems that will best meet their needs. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To better assist the states and metropolitan planning organizations
in addressing the issues they are encountering as they further
implement the transportation management systems and to better
communicate the availability of the assistance provided within and
outside of DOT, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation
direct the Administrators, Federal Highway Administration and Federal
Transit Administration, to

  -- work with the states to more fully determine the types of
     technical assistance needed by the states and

  -- establish an information clearinghouse on (1) training,
     conferences, and workshops being offered, regionally and
     nationally; (2) the status of and the states' experience with
     the implementation and integration of the six management
     systems; (3) the available software applications and technology;
     (4) the systems' performance measures; (5) examples of the "best
     practices" of the states that are effectively implementing and
     integrating the systems; and (6) other issues identified by the
     states. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment.  We
received technical comments and updated information from officials in
FHWA's Metropolitan Planning Division and the chief of FTA's
Intermodal and Statewide Planning Division.  In particular, FTA asked
us to further clarify why the states perceived the agency as
unhelpful.  FTA officials believe the fundamental problem is the
agency's traditional orientation toward metropolitan areas, rather
than toward the states.  This problem, they noted, is made worse by
limited staff and resources.  We changed the report to reflect this
viewpoint.  In addition, we have incorporated other comments and
clarifications where appropriate.  Neither agency commented on our
recommendations. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

To evaluate the status of the states' implementation of the
management systems, we summarized the status reports submitted by the
state transportation departments to FHWA in early 1996.  We sent our
summary to FHWA's division offices to update the information to
September 1996 and obtain missing information.  The states have
different systems and describe them with varying amounts of detail
and terminology.  We made no attempt to establish uniformity or
consistency among the reports.  We also reviewed the results of the
May 1996 survey of the states on the status of implementing
management systems, conducted by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.  We did not independently
verify the information in the state reports or the survey results
and, therefore, do not attest to their accuracy.  We supplemented
this information with the results from seven case studies we
conducted with Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina,
Oregon, and Texas.  We selected these states to provide geographic
balance and a variety of experiences in implementing the management
systems.  We expanded the information gathered from our case studies
by obtaining anecdotal, less-comprehensive information from officials
of three additional states--Colorado, Florida, and Missouri--whom we
met with at a meeting of the Management Systems Integration Committee
in August 1996.  We also discussed the development and implementation
of the management systems with officials at FHWA's and FTA's
headquarters in Washington, D.C., and FHWA's region and/or division
offices in the case-study states. 

To determine how the states expect to use the systems and what
factors have hindered or facilitated the development of the systems,
we discussed these issues with state and local transportation
officials from the seven case-study states and the three additional
states and reviewed the supporting documentation.  In addition, we
obtained similar information from six metropolitan planning
organizations--those for Broward County, Florida; Albany, New York;
Raleigh, North Carolina; Portland, Oregon; and Houston-Galveston and
Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas.  We performed our work from May 1996
through December 1996 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of
Transportation; the Administrators, Federal Highway Administration
and Federal Transit Administration; the Director, Office of
Management and Budget; state departments of transportation; and
interested congressional committees.  We will also send copies to
other interested parties upon request.  Major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix VII. 

Phyllis F.  Scheinberg
Associate Director, Transportation and
 Telecommunications Issues


PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
=========================================================== Appendix I

A pavement management system is a systematic process that provides,
analyzes, and summarizes pavement information for use in selecting
and implementing cost-effective pavement construction,
rehabilitation, and preventative maintenance programs.  Unlike other
management systems that have begun in recent years, pavement
management systems were started two decades ago.  By the end of the
1980s, more than half of the states were developing or implementing
such systems.  In 1989, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
issued a rule requiring all states to have a pavement management
system that would cover the rural arterial and urban principal
arterial routes under the states' jurisdiction; the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) expanded the
scope to include all federal-aid highways.  The Department of
Transportation's (DOT) interim rule on management systems issued in
1993 required a pavement management system to cover all federal-aid
highways, except those that were federally owned, and include three
components:  (1) data collection and management, (2) analyses, and
(3) updates.  The components under data collection include an
inventory of physical pavement features; a history of construction,
rehabilitation, and maintenance; condition surveys that include ride,
roughness, and pavement distress; information on traffic volumes and
vehicle types; and a compilation of this information into a database. 
The second component includes (1) network-level analysis that
estimates the total costs of present and projected conditions and (2)
project-level analysis that determines investment strategies,
including a ranked list of recommended projects.  The final component
is an annual evaluation of the pavement management system, with
updates as necessary. 

Because most states had had a pavement management system in place for
a number of years, they used the ISTEA mandate to enhance what they
already had.  However, enhancing such a system still poses several
challenges for the states.  Most states do not have a complete
project history (i.e., preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction data) for the National Highway System.  Maintenance
information is the weakest link.  Many states have recently developed
a file in the pavement management system for preventive maintenance
activities.  In cases for which it is impractical to resurrect the
pavement's history because of time, labor, and cost, the states are
now beginning to track the project's history.  Other system
enhancements could include developing a relational database and a
multiyear list of projects that are justifiable and cost-effective,
measuring the structural carrying capacity of pavement at the network
level, and determining the remaining service life of various pavement
sections.  The states are using pavement management systems to help
manage their pavement networks.  Pennsylvania issues an annual
state-of-the-interstate report that uses data on pavement condition
and roughness and traffic counts to analyze the current and projected
rehabilitation needs of the state's interstate system.  Similarly,
Maine's management system identifies deficient roadway sections;
predicts deterioration; assesses current and future capital,
preservation, and maintenance needs; and determines the consequences
of various funding levels on all highways under the state's
jurisdiction.  Finally, Nevada's management system was developed to
quantify the backlog of pavement repairs on the state highway
network, identify project priorities, and monitor the state's
progress toward eliminating the backlog of pavement work.  The state
also uses its management system to identify the long-range funding
needed to maintain the highway network at a serviceable level. 

There is little or no uniformity among the states in the way they
measure, collect, and report pavement condition.  Because the states
have been developing their pavement management systems independently,
no two are the same.  As of September 1996, all states, Washington,
D.C., and Puerto Rico were developing a pavement management system,
but only six states were including all federal-aid
highways--including roads under local jurisdiction--as originally
called for in ISTEA.  (See fig.  I.1.) The remaining states, for the
most part, intend to include only state-maintained roads and those
within the National Highway System.  For example, Montana is
implementing a pavement management system for its state highway
system and the National Highway System.  The state is no longer
developing a system to cover nonstate federal-aid highways but will
encourage local governments to develop pavement management systems of
their own. 

   Figure I.1:  The States
   Implementing Pavement
   Management Systems, as Reported
   by the States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

F = System covers all federal-aid highways. 

Note:  We do not have information on the systems' coverage for New
Jersey, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C. 

Sources:  Status reports submitted by the states to FHWA during 1996;
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


      CASE-STUDY STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1

  -- Maryland's pavement management system covers all
     state-maintained roads and the National Highway System.  The
     state is also working with local governments interested in
     developing their own pavement management system.  The system
     components include data collection and management, analysis, and
     engineering feedback.  Additional performance analysis
     techniques are being developed to predict current and future
     maintenance and rehabilitation needs.

  -- Michigan's pavement management system includes all state
     highways, including the National Highway System.  The system
     includes data on surface distress and project- and network-level
     analyses that predict pavement conditions and future budget
     needs.  The system is being converted to a client/server
     environment and enhanced to include (1) ride quality, friction,
     and rut data; (2) an on-line "fix guide" system; and (3) a
     component to generate candidate programs that meet short- and
     long-term pavement condition goals.  In addition, performance
     measures and performance standards are being developed.  The
     state transportation department is assisting local agencies in
     developing pavement management systems for local roads.

  -- Montana is developing a pavement management system that will
     include all state-maintained roads and the National Highway
     System.  The state plans to consult with local agencies
     interested in developing their own pavement management system. 
     The components of the system will include data collection and
     audit, condition analysis, performance analysis, network and
     economic analysis, and feedback analysis.  The state expects to
     use the management system as a tool to make cost-effective
     project selections and maintenance strategies, analyze the
     state's project- and network-level conditions, and provide
     feedback on the consequences of decisions.  Montana's system is
     one of five pavement management systems selected for FHWA's
     pavement management analysis/multiyear prioritization
     demonstration project, which is designed to help states,
     metropolitan planning organizations, and local agencies learn
     more about the available pavement management analytical
     techniques that are used to set priorities for periods of
     multiple years.

  -- New York's pavement management system covers state-maintained
     roads and the National Highway System, with future plans to
     include local roads on the federal-aid system.  The management
     system is tailored to the state's decentralized decision-making
     environment where pavement decisions are made in the regional
     offices.  The system functions at two levels of
     decision-making--network level and project level.  The network
     level addresses the development of a multiyear program of
     projects while the project level addresses the technical aspects
     of treatment selection.

  -- North Carolina's pavement management system covers all
     state-maintained roads, which is about 98 percent of the roads
     eligible for federal funds.  The management system uses
     performance prediction modeling to determine service life for
     each pavement section and provides summaries by areas,
     functional classifications, and other desired categories.  A
     ranked list of recommended projects and treatments for
     interstate highways is used as input in the planning process. 
     Division offices of the state's transportation department will
     eventually be able to access and query pavement data and
     performance prediction modeling information for each section of
     road, which will assist in planning maintenance activities.

  -- Oregon's pavement management system covers all state-maintained
     roads and the National Highway System.  The state has
     established data collection and reporting procedures and has
     used the system to rank and recommend candidate projects for
     selection and development.  The pavement management system will
     soon be able to run "what if" scenarios with its new software. 
     In addition, most of the counties are developing their own
     pavement management systems.

  -- Texas' system covers all state-maintained roads and only those
     portions of the National Highway System that are in urbanized
     areas and are part of the state-maintained system.  The system
     components--data, scores, reports, and analysis--have all been
     implemented.  In fiscal year 1996, the output from the
     management system was used to help allocate about $485 million
     for five pavement-related statewide transportation plan
     categories.  In addition, district offices are using the system
     to identify preventive maintenance and rehabilitation projects,
     distribute funding, and monitor the progress of specific
     highways and treatments.


BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
========================================================== Appendix II

According to FHWA, about a third of the nation's roughly 577,000
bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.\1
To maintain these bridges, FHWA estimates that billions of dollars
will be required annually over the next 10 years or so.  Bridge
management systems are decision support tools for state
transportation agencies and are intended to identify current and
future bridge needs and determine the optimal use of limited funds to
address these needs. 

DOT's interim rule on management systems required each state to have
a management system that covered bridges on and off federal-aid
highways, except federally owned bridges, including bridges subject
to the National Bridge Inspection Standards.  The bridge management
system was required to include two components:  (1) a database and an
ongoing program for the collection and maintenance of the inventory,
inspection, cost, and supplemental data needed to support the
management system and (2) a procedure for applying network-level
analysis and "optimization" to the bridge inventory.\2 The analysis
component called for the ability to (1) predict bridge deterioration;
(2) identify actions to improve bridge condition, safety, and
serviceability; (3) estimate costs of actions; (4) estimate users'
expected cost savings for safety and serviceability improvements; (5)
determine least-cost maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation
strategies for bridge elements using life-cycle cost analysis or a
comparable procedure; (6) perform "multiperiod optimization"; (7) use
feedback from actions taken to update prediction and cost models; and
(8) generate summaries and reports for planning and programming.  DOT
acknowledged the Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems issued in
1993 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials as representing good practices and incorporated into the
interim rule many of the recommendations concerning minimum bridge
management system requirements. 

Before ISTEA, all states had established a database (the National
Bridge Inventory) and an ongoing bridge inspection program to meet
federal requirements for the National Bridge Inspection Standards. 
The requirements, first established under the Federal-Aid Highway Act
of 1968, covered only those bridges on the federal-aid system.  The
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 expanded the program to
include bridges on all public roads.  Although the information in the
National Bridge Inventory provides data on the overall condition of
the nation's bridges, it does not include details on the condition of
individual elements, which are used in a bridge management system. 

A bridge management system may be easier to implement than other
transportation management systems because (1) all states currently
have established databases and ongoing bridge inspection programs and
(2) off-the-shelf software packages are available.  In addition,
prior to ISTEA, some states were already developing or using this
management system.  Nonetheless, many states face challenges in
implementing the system.  For example, although some of the data used
in a bridge management system is already collected for the National
Bridge Inventory, the analytic components of the system may require
more detailed data on the condition of bridge elements (i.e.,
girders, bearings, columns, pier caps, decks, or joints) than are
required for the national inventory.  As a result, the states may
face additional work (1) to update their bridge inventories with the
new data on bridge elements and (2) to train bridge inspectors to
conduct element-level inspections.  In addition, a 1996 study found
that few state departments of transportation have adequate data on
which to base cost estimates for maintenance and repair actions
needed for their bridge management systems, few states monitor actual
expenditures in order to validate their cost estimates, and many
states have no organizational mechanism or systems in place to
uncover and solve problems in cost estimation.\3 According to this
study, these deficiencies can affect the credibility of some bridge
management systems and of the planning process in general.\4

As of September 1996, 48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico
were implementing a bridge management system.  (See fig.  II.1.) Only
Kentucky and Idaho reported that they had elected not to have one. 
Twenty states and Washington, D.C., reported that they intended to
include in their system all bridges on or off federal-aid highways;
one state (West Virginia) planned to include only structures on the
National Highway System; most of the remaining states planned to
include bridges under state and/or local jurisdiction.  In addition,
41 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico had adopted an
off-the-shelf software package--Pontis--for their management systems. 

Pontis was funded under an FHWA demonstration project, which began in
December 1991 and included FHWA, six participating states, and
private consultants.  The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials' version (3.0) of the software has been
available since July 1995, and version 3.1 was issued in July 1996. 
Key components of Pontis are (1) a master database, which includes
bridge inventory and condition data; maintenance, improvement, and
users' cost models; feasible actions for maintenance and improvement;
element deterioration prediction models; and updating procedures; (2)
a maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation optimization routine, which
uses prediction models and maintenance costs to choose maintenance
strategies for bridges; (3) an improvement model, which identifies
and ranks potential improvement actions (including widening, raising,
strengthening, or replacing the bridge) on the basis of cost savings
to users and level-of-service standards; and (4) an integration
model, which combines the maintenance strategies and improvement
actions into a single recommended network-level bridge program using
a benefit-cost ranking to set priorities. 

   Figure II.1:  The States
   Implementing Bridge Management
   Systems, as Reported by the
   States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

F = System covers all bridges on and off federal-aid highways. 

Note:  We do not have information on the coverage of the system for
Nevada, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

Sources:  Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; The
Status of the Nation's Highway Bridges:  Highway Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation Program and National Bridge Inventory, FHWA, June
1995; American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials' survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


--------------------
\1 FHWA defines a structurally deficient bridge as one that (1) has
been restricted to light vehicles only, (2) is closed, or (3)
requires immediate rehabilitation to remain open.  A functionally
obsolete bridge is one on which the deck geometry, load-carrying
capacity, clearance, or approach roadway alignment no longer meets
the usual criteria for the highway system of which it is an integral
part. 

\2 "Optimization" is a procedure that can be proven to maximize some
objective measure of value within the assumptions of a set of models. 

\3 Paul D.  Thompson and Michael J.  Markow, Collecting and Managing
Cost Data for Bridge Management Systems, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice 227, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council (Washington, D.C.:  1996). 

\4 Florida officials commented that historical costs are unnecessary
because it is a high priority to eliminate bridge problems.  The
state has sufficient bridge funding and a stated policy to fix
existing bridge infrastructure before making capacity improvements. 


      CASE-STUDY STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1

  -- Maryland uses the Pontis software for its bridge management
     system.  The system includes state-maintained bridges and all
     other bridges on the National Highway System (about 25,000
     bridges in total).  Before ISTEA, Maryland had a bridge
     management system, but it was not automated.

  -- Michigan's bridge management system has two components:  (1)
     Pontis, which will be used to analyze the state's bridge network
     and provide project recommendations, and (2) an in-house system
     that will contain additional bridge data to aid the state in
     managing its bridges.  The system, which will include all
     bridges in the state (about 10,500 bridges), is expected to be
     operational in early 1997.

  -- Montana has chosen the Pontis software for its bridge management
     system.  State officials expect to start conducting
     element-level bridge inspections in the fall of 1996 and expect
     the management system to be fully operational in 1997.  The
     management system will include all 4,800 bridges in the state.

  -- New York's bridge management system is being developed in-house
     and will cover all bridges in the state (about 19,000 bridges). 
     The system was required by a 1988 New York State law.  The key
     components of the system are (1) a bridge database that includes
     information on inventory and inspection, safety assurance,
     construction and maintenance, and current and projected bridge
     needs; (2) a bridge decision support system that will provide
     network-level analyses (needs analysis, strategy recommendation,
     cost estimation, ranking, optimization, and forecasting) and
     project-level analyses (individual bridge needs, life-cycle
     strategy, and work strategy selection); and (3) a bridge
     engineering support system that includes drafting, load rating,
     bridge design, and current, complete information on individual
     bridges.  The system is expected to be fully operational by
     October 1998.

  -- North Carolina's bridge management system has been developed in
     stages since the early 1980s.  The current system has been
     operational for 3 or 4 years.  Key features of North Carolina's
     system include (1) a bridge inventory record significantly
     expanded beyond FHWA's minimum requirements for the national
     inventory; (2) detailed bridge maintenance needs reported during
     inspections; (3) detailed history of maintenance work; (4) an
     economic assessment of alternatives for maintenance,
     rehabilitation, and replacement; (5) analyses based on both
     agency's and users' costs associated with level of service; (6)
     estimates of current backlog and prediction of optimum future
     needs for bridge maintenance and improvement; and (7)
     predictions of future system performance under various funding
     levels.  North Carolina's management system includes all bridges
     on the state roadway system (about 17,000 bridges) and municipal
     bridges.  North Carolina's system served as a model to the
     American Association of State Highway and Transportation
     Officials and others in developing guidelines for bridge
     management systems.

  -- Oregon is using Pontis software for its bridge management
     system.  The system will include all state and local bridges
     reported in the National Bridge Inventory (about 2,600 state
     bridges and about 4,000 local bridges).  State officials expect
     the system to be operational by the end of 1997.

  -- Texas' bridge management system has two components:  (1) Pontis
     and (2) an in-house program to process and load element-level
     condition data.  The in-house program was developed because the
     Pontis software was not capable of handling the large number of
     bridges in the state system (about 48,000 bridges).  According
     to state officials, they are unable to set definite time frames
     for implementing the system because of the large amounts of
     resources already being required to address other more critical
     bridge safety concerns.


SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
========================================================= Appendix III

The purpose of a safety management system is to provide
decisionmakers with improved tools and practices on which they can
base decisions to increase the safety of the highways.  The Highway
Safety Act of 1966 established the framework for a systematic
approach to resolving highway safety problems and required the states
to develop highway safety programs.  Subsequent legislation,
including the Highway Safety Act of 1973, Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982, Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986,
and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,
expanded the role of federal, state, and local governments in highway
safety activities. 

DOT's interim rule on management systems required a safety management
system to cover all public roads, except federally owned public
roads, and address six areas:  (1) coordinating and integrating
broad-based safety programs (such as motor carrier, corridor, and
community-based traffic safety activities) into a comprehensive
management approach; (2) identifying and investigating hazardous or
potentially hazardous highway safety problems and roadway locations
and features; (3) establishing countermeasures to correct the
hazards; (4) ensuring early consideration of safety in all highway
programs and projects; (5) identifying the safety needs of special
groups, such as older drivers and pedestrians, in the planning,
design, construction, and operation of highways; and (6) routinely
maintaining and upgrading safety hardware, highway elements, and
operational features.  The system was to be designed to be
comprehensive, meaning that it should incorporate a combination of
all safety elements (human, vehicle, and roadway).  Formalized
coordination and communication mechanisms among safety organizations
were to be established to ensure cooperation and efficiency. 
Furthermore, the states were required to consider and include
projects and programs identified by the safety management system in
their highway safety plans and in their enforcement plans for their
motor carrier safety assistance programs.  A February 1996
Transportation Research Board survey found that over 80 percent of
the states have developed a mission statement, a goal, or major
objectives to guide the safety management system implementation
process.\1 The states cited many positive outcomes resulting from the
safety management system initiative as well as barriers to
development and implementation.  The most frequently mentioned
positive outcomes include increased communication; improved
coordination and cooperation; increased awareness of safety needs;
and improved crash data collection, entry, and reporting.  The
barriers to developing and implementing this management system
mentioned by the states include inadequate funding, lack of
commitment and cooperation between agencies, lack of staff, and data
issues. 

As of September 1996, 48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico
were developing a safety management system (see fig.  III.1).  Of
these states, at least 30 were including all public roads or all
state-maintained roads in their systems; 2 states were including only
National Highway System roads.  Two states--South Carolina and
Ohio--reported they were not implementing the system.  However, South
Carolina planned to begin implementing the system in fiscal year
1997, and Ohio had components of a safety management system in place,
according to the Transportation Research Board's February 1996 study. 
The composition of a safety management system takes many forms--from
an administrative structure composed of a coordinating or executive
committee and subcommittees with members representing many agencies
to a large database that merges safety information from a number of
sources.  For instance, Virginia established a Transportation Safety
Policy Committee in order to better integrate and unify a
state-agency-level perspective pertaining to transportation safety
planning and program development.  Similarly, Wisconsin's safety
management system established coordination links with the Governor's
Councils, the County Highway Safety Commissions, other ISTEA
management systems, metropolitan planning organizations, and local
communities.  Oregon recognized that the many state and local
agencies were working together effectively, but frequently lacked
access to transportation safety data and analysis tools to identify
problems and solutions and evaluate the results of actions taken to
improve safety.  Oregon's safety management system focuses on
providing this information and merging various databases that exist
in a number of places. 

   Figure III.1:  The States
   Implementing Safety Management
   Systems, as Reported by the
   States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Sources:  Status reports submitted to FHWA during 1996; American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' survey,
May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


--------------------
\1 Safety Management System:  A National Status, Transportation
Research Circular Number 452, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council (Washington, D.C.:  Feb.  1996). 


      CASE-STUDY STATES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.1

  -- Maryland's safety management system covers all public roads. 
     The state has established a management system core team, which
     includes representatives from a number of state, federal, and
     local agencies.  The management system covers all safety
     components (highway, vehicle, and human), all public roads, and
     all phases of traffic safety.  The system is being used to
     develop the state's annual highway safety plan and state
     enforcement plan for motor carrier safety and will also provide
     input into the highway safety improvement plan.

  -- Michigan's safety management system is statewide, covering all
     roads in the state.  It is composed of two parts:  (1) a
     communications network with various safety organizations and
     agencies and (2) a computer component that analyzes various
     safety data.  The communications network (composed of 13 action
     teams) provides a means for coordinating the state's highway
     safety efforts in the areas of planning, developing,
     implementing, and evaluating safety projects and programs.  The
     management system will assist decisionmakers and planners in
     identifying safety problems and recommending courses of action.

  -- Montana's safety management system covers all highways in the
     state, but the elimination of hazards is concentrated mostly on
     state highways, which account for about 70 percent of the
     state's vehicle miles traveled.  A steering committee is the
     core of the management system.  Four working groups (hazard
     removal, work zone safety, community corridor, and injury
     prevention) identify safety issues and recommend courses of
     action.  The steering committee has representatives from several
     state agencies, the Montana Association of Counties, and the
     Montana League of Cities.  The state has found that the safety
     management system process provides information for selecting and
     implementing effective highway safety strategies and projects.

  -- New York's safety management system covers all highways in the
     state.  The management system consists of the state's safety
     goal, a safety information management system (the data
     component), a traffic records strategic study (a plan for
     improving traffic records for the accident and ticket records
     systems), and an advisory committee to communicate with the
     agencies promoting highway safety.  While the focus of the
     system is to improve the safety of the state highway network,
     the system will also provide a forum and process for the state
     to join with other local and metropolitan planning organization
     highway safety officials to provide support for individual and
     joint ventures to improve highway safety.

  -- North Carolina's safety management system covers all state
     roadways.  The backbone of the management system is a 75-member
     technical committee, with members from government and from
     public and private agencies representing drivers, vehicles,
     highways, and highway data.  The committee defines safety
     problems, identifies alternatives to address the problem(s), and
     recommends courses of action.  As a result of the safety
     management system process, the state is now receiving
     information on vehicle crashes on Marine Corps bases.  In the
     past, this information was not readily available but, according
     to state officials, is very useful given the high incidence of
     these crashes in the state.

  -- Oregon's safety management system initially covers all highways
     in the state but will eventually provide safety information on
     all public roads.  The management system comprises various
     databases that have existed in a number of places--at the state
     transportation department and other agencies.  The safety
     management system will merge these databases and will ultimately
     provide information on primary accident data, fatal accident
     reporting system, conviction data, corridor and jurisdiction
     analysis tools, emergency medical service, and citizens'
     complaints.  Oregon plans to use the system to identify safety
     problems, select among alternative solutions, track safety
     investments, evaluate the outcome of projects, and monitor the
     overall safety performance of the transportation system.

  -- The Traffic Operations Division of the Texas Department of
     Transportation has been delegated the authority and
     responsibility to develop and implement the state's safety
     management system.  The division is continuing to implement the
     system as outlined in its workplan with modifications.  The
     system is subject to review for support and annual funding.  The
     state's safety management system process includes
     representatives from federal, state, and local agencies.


CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
========================================================== Appendix IV

Traffic growth, leading to congestion, is an escalating problem,
particularly in many urban areas across the country.  In 1989, we
reported that half of all urban interstate roads operate under
congested conditions.\1 FHWA estimates that congestion in the
nation's 50 most populous urban areas costs over $39 billion a year
in time and fuel wasted.  Financial and environmental constraints
limit the ability of the state and local governments to provide
extensive new road capacity to reduce congestion.  As a result, some
of this congestion will have to be handled by better management and
increased use of public transit.  Congestion management systems are
designed to address the problem of traffic congestion by providing a
systematic process for obtaining information on transportation
systems' performance and identifying alternatives for alleviating
congestion and enhancing the mobility of both people and goods.  In
addition to requiring the states to develop congestion management
systems, ISTEA specifically required transportation management
areas\2 to include congestion management systems in their
transportation planning processes.  ISTEA also placed restrictions on
those transportation management areas classified as nonattainment
areas for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act.  These
nonattainment areas may not program federal funds for any highway
project that will result in a significant increase in
single-occupant-vehicle capacity unless the project is part of an
approved congestion management system. 

Under DOT's interim rule on management systems, the components of
congestion management systems were to include (1) performance
measures that define the extent of congestion and permit the
evaluation of alternatives for reducing congestion; (2) data
collection and system monitoring to identify the duration and
magnitude of congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of actions to
reduce congestion; (3) the identification and evaluation of
strategies for more efficiently using current and future
transportation systems; (4) implementation of strategies; and (5)
evaluations of the effectiveness of implemented strategies.  Among
other things, a congestion management system was also to identify all
transportation corridors and facilities with existing or potential
recurring congestion and consider strategies that reduce
single-occupant-vehicle travel.  Although the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 made implementation of this and other
management systems optional for the states, it did not affect the
provisions for transportation management areas to develop congestion
management systems. 

As with other transportation management systems, implementing a
congestion management system will be a challenge.  First, states may
experience difficulties in developing performance measures and
obtaining the necessary information to support these measures. 
According to FHWA, several types of performance measures may be
applicable to a congestion management system, including measures of
congestion, mobility, accessibility (e.g., the ease or difficulty in
accessing such areas as hospitals or shopping centers), and the
system's efficiency.  Although some measures, such as those based on
traffic volume, have been traditionally used and are relatively easy
to develop, others, such as those related to mobility (e.g., travel
time, speed, and person-miles traveled) are more difficult and costly
to develop, and the state of the art is not well advanced for these
mobility measures.  Second, the states may encounter difficulties
trying to compare transportation projects across modes.  This
comparison will be important in developing strategies to reduce or
control congestion.  We reported in October 1993 on the need for
better tools for making comparisons of transportation projects and
indicated that such comparisons are critical for identifying the
right mix of projects, regardless of mode, to address such problems
as congestion and air pollution.\3

Information from FHWA indicates that there continue to be significant
problems and costs associated with developing measures that are
sensitive to transportation choices and the impact of decisions among
transportation modes. 

As of September 1996, 46 states and Puerto Rico were implementing a
congestion management system.  (See fig.  IV.1.) Recognizing the
largely urban nature of congestion, 17 states and Puerto Rico were
developing the system only in transportation management areas, and
another 5 states (California, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, and
Virginia) were including these areas, if applicable, as well as other
urban areas.  Most of the remaining states that were implementing a
congestion management system reported that the systems will have
statewide coverage.  Four states and Washington, D.C., do not plan to
implement this system.  Of the four states not implementing a
congestion management system, two states (Vermont and Wyoming) have
no transportation management areas.\4 Although Arkansas reported that
it was not implementing this system, the metropolitan planning
organization for the Little Rock-North Little Rock area is developing
a congestion management system.  In addition, the state plans to
monitor future traffic growth and potential areas of congestion. 
Washington, D.C., reported that it would address congestion issues by
continuing to participate in the metropolitan area's congestion
management system process.  Delaware did not report why it was not
continuing to implement the system. 

   Figure IV.1:  The States
   Implementing Congestion
   Management Systems, as Reported
   by the States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

T = System covers only transportation management areas. 

Note:  We do not have information on the coverage of the systems in
Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, and Rhode Island. 

Sources:  Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996;
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


--------------------
\1 Traffic Congestion:  Trends, Measures, and Effects (GAO/PEMD-90-1,
Nov.  30, 1989). 

\2 Transportation management areas are urbanized areas with
populations greater than 200,000 or other areas so designated at the
request of the governor and the metropolitan planning organization or
affected local officials. 

\3 Transportation Infrastructure:  Better Tools Needed for Making
Decisions on Using ISTEA Funds Flexibly (GAO/RCED-94-25, Oct.  13,
1993). 

\4 Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West
Virginia also do not have any transportation management areas. 
However, as indicated in the figure, these states are implementing
systems nonetheless. 


      CASE-STUDY STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:0.1

  -- Maryland's congestion management system consists of 28
     transportation corridors throughout the state that will be
     examined to develop congestion improvement strategies.  Although
     the state did not have a congestion management system before
     ISTEA, in 1991 it completed a study of 24 commuter corridors
     across the state.  This study used a methodology--including
     travel demand forecasting, identification of travel demand
     management strategies, performance measures, and a method to
     compute the cost of capital improvements--that became the
     prototype for the state's congestion management system.  At the
     time of our review, the state had completed four additional
     corridor studies in the Baltimore-Annapolis-Washington, D.C.,
     areas.  These studies evaluated the current level of congestion,
     identified strategies to reduce congestion, and projected levels
     of congestion in the year 2010 under the different strategies. 
     The corridor studies were used in developing the state's
     long-range transportation plans.

  -- Michigan is developing a congestion management system that will
     include data for all state-maintained roads and the National
     Highway System, travel demand forecasts for urban areas and
     rural areas, and socioeconomic and demographic information at
     the levels of the county and smaller, defined "traffic analysis
     zones." State officials expect the management system to (1)
     provide input to long-range transportation plans and (2) help
     identify, rank, and implement individual projects.  At the time
     of our review, the congestion management system was available as
     an inventory tool.  State officials expect the system to be
     operational by early 1997.

  -- Montana is developing a congestion management system that will
     distinguish between the urban, rural, and seasonal congestion
     that results from tourism and agricultural activity.  The
     management system will address the entire state but use
     different performance-monitoring procedures in the seven urban
     areas.  The state department of transportation will be
     responsible for forecasting and measuring congestion on highway
     corridors outside of urban areas, and the metropolitan planning
     organizations and other urban planning agencies will generate
     data and measure congestion in the urban areas.  The urban areas
     will report data to the state, which will maintain a database
     for the congestion management system.  State officials expect to
     have initial output from the management system in March 1997. 
     The management system is expected to provide information for the
     statewide transportation plan and to generate project-specific
     information.

  -- New York is continuing to develop a statewide congestion
     management system that will measure and report congestion
     levels; improve existing methods used to evaluate mobility
     plans, programs, and projects; and implement an upgraded
     statewide congestion management system that emphasizes
     transportation system management and transportation demand
     management.  State officials expect the management system to be
     in use by regional offices by October 1997.  In addition,
     central offices of the state transportation department are
     assisting the metropolitan planning organizations and other
     local agencies in developing their own congestion management
     systems to be compatible with the statewide system.

  -- The four transportation management areas in North Carolina are
     developing their own local congestion management systems.  The
     transportation department is not implementing a congestion
     management system at the state level; rather, it intends to
     develop a statewide "needs" system that will incorporate many of
     the criteria set forth for the management system but will not be
     limited to projects to mitigate congestion.  State officials
     expect the needs systems to be operational in 1998.

  -- Oregon is developing a statewide congestion management system
     that will include corridors on the National Highway System,
     connectors to intermodal facilities, and other selected highway
     corridors.  The components of the system will include four
     documents:  (1) a congestion overview; (2) a congestion
     inventory, which will provide information on current and
     forecasted congestion; (3) a congestion solutions guideline,
     which will provide guidance on appropriate and effective
     congestion solutions; and (4) a congestion management system
     manual, which will provide documentation for the system.  State
     officials expect the management system to provide an analysis of
     congestion on the National Highway System to be published during
     1996.  The Portland transportation management area is developing
     its own congestion management system.

  -- Texas originally planned to develop a congestion management
     system for the entire state that would consist of subsystems for
     each of the state's 25 metropolitan planning organizations. 
     When the systems became optional, the state decided to include
     only the seven metropolitan areas that were designated as
     transportation management areas.  Each transportation management
     area is expected to develop its own congestion management
     system.  The state department of transportation has assisted
     local planning agencies in developing congestion management
     systems by sponsoring workshops, training, and guidance.


PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
=========================================================== Appendix V

In 1996, the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration
stated that a total of about $8 billion per year will need to be
invested over the next 20 years by all levels of government just to
maintain the nation's transit facilities and equipment in their
current state of repair.  About $13 billion per year will be needed
to improve the current quality of service.  Public transportation
management systems are expected to help the states and metropolitan
planning organizations identify where future investments should be
made to address these needs by systematically collecting and
analyzing information on the condition and cost of transit assets on
a continual basis.  Furthermore, a purpose of this system is to
provide input to the metropolitan and statewide transportation
planning processes to help decisionmakers select cost-effective
strategies for providing and maintaining transit assets in a
serviceable condition. 

Under DOT's interim rule on management systems, the systems'
components were to include (1) the development of measures and
standards for evaluating the condition of transit assets, (2) the
collection of data on the inventory of transit assets and their use,
(3) the identification and evaluation of strategies for maintaining
and replacing transit assets, and (4) the implementation of
strategies and projects (including costs and potential funding
sources) and the evaluation of strategies and projects for possible
inclusion in transportation plans.  This management system was to be
closely coordinated with the congestion and intermodal management
systems.  The identification of transit assets and their condition
was to include operators in urban, metropolitan areas as well as
rural areas.  In addition, this system was to cover the public
transportation management systems operated by the states, local
jurisdictions, public transportation agencies and authorities, and
private transit operators receiving funds under sections 3, 9, 16, or
18 of the Federal Transit Act,\1 as well as the systems operated by
contracted service providers with capital equipment funded under
those sections. 

As of September 1996, 33 states plus Puerto Rico had indicated that
they would continue to develop and implement a public transportation
management system.  (See fig.  V.1.) A total of 17 states and
Washington, D.C., said they were not implementing the system.  Of
those states implementing the system, 7 already have operational
systems in place,\2 and 5 said their systems would include all
transit operators in the state.  Among those states that said they
were not implementing this management system, at least two--Arkansas
and North Dakota--indicated that they may maintain some information
on and/or inventory of public transit vehicles.  Another
state--Kansas--that was not implementing a public transportation
management system said it plans to monitor the condition of vehicles
through annual inspections. 

   Figure V.1:  The States
   Implementing Public
   Transportation Management
   Systems, as Reported by the
   States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

F = System covers federally funded or FTA-funded transit operators. 

Note:  Those states that reported they were including FTA-funded
operators did not indicate whether their systems would include all of
these operators' vehicles and other major assets or only those
vehicles and assets funded by FTA.  We do not have information on the
coverage of the systems in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky,
Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, and Vermont. 

Sources:  Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996;
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


--------------------
\1 Former sections 3, 9, 16, and 18 are now found at 49 U.S.C.  5309,
5307, 5310, and 5311, respectively. 

\2 These states are Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.  Connecticut and New York
reported that their systems were in place even before ISTEA was
enacted. 


      CASE-STUDY STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.1

  -- Maryland has chosen not to implement a public transportation
     management system.  The state plans to continue using its
     current asset management system.

  -- Michigan's public transportation management system includes all
     transit operators in the state, including federally funded
     transit systems.  The management system's components include
     transit characteristics, annual requests for state and federal
     operating assistance, annual requests for funding for capital
     assets, annual application forms, an inventory of transit
     facilities and fleets, operating assistance reports, and
     performance measures.  The management system will be used by
     transit agencies in developing their annual funding applications
     and financial reports and by decisionmakers in analyzing and
     planning for future transit needs.

  -- Montana's public transportation management system will include
     all federally funded transit operators and will provide
     information on the condition and performance of transit assets. 
     These data will be available to local and state planning offices
     and public transportation providers and will assist
     decisionmakers in the development of programs and projects at
     the state level.  According to state officials, there is a real
     need for rural transit providers, and the management system will
     be a tool to assess the state's infrastructure needs.

  -- New York's public transportation management system includes
     operators with both federally and locally funded transit capital
     assets.  The focus will be on both current and predicted future
     use of assets.  Based on inventory data, performance measures,
     condition rating, and replacement costs, strategies and needs
     analyses will be developed for managing transit assets.  The
     results of these strategies and needs analyses will be used to
     allocate funds for transit assets.

  -- North Carolina's public transportation management system
     includes all transit facilities and vehicles within the state. 
     The system is used to manage grants for sections 16 and 18
     transit operators.  The system also includes an inventory of
     these operators and describes the condition and performance of
     their facilities and fleets.  The management system also allows
     the state to forecast future transit and funding needs and
     assists in making changes to the funding allocations.

  -- Oregon's public transportation management system will include
     federally and state-funded transit operators.  The system
     performs grants management services--for capital investments,
     operations, administration, and planning for public transit for
     the state--and provides an inventory of transit assets.  The
     components include measures and standards for evaluating the
     condition and performance of transit assets and systems.

  -- Texas' department of transportation has chosen not to implement
     a public transportation management system.  The Public
     Transportation Division of the state's transportation
     department, however, has been delegated authority to develop its
     own internal management system.  The division is developing this
     system with two main components:  (1) transit operators
     providing service for the elderly and disabled, rural areas, and
     urbanized areas and (2) metropolitan transit authorities in
     Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston,
     and San Antonio.


INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES AND SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
========================================================== Appendix VI

An intermodal transportation facilities and systems management system
represents a systematic process for identifying the key linkages
between one or more modes of transportation, especially where the
performance or use of one mode will affect another.  It is designed
to define strategies for improving the effectiveness of modal
interactions and to evaluate and implement strategies that will
enhance the overall performance of the transportation system.  DOT's
interim rule on management systems required an intermodal management
system to include components for (1) identifying intermodal
facilities, (2) identifying performance measures, (3) collecting data
from and monitoring intermodal facilities and systems, (4) evaluating
facility and system efficiency, and (5) developing and evaluating
strategies and actions to improve intermodal efficiency for the
movement of people and goods.  The system was to involve a process
that considered, among other things, opportunities afforded by modal
systems that allow users to select their preferred means of
transportation and coordination between planners, users, and
transportation providers to resolve travel demands by investment in
dependable, high-quality transportation service by either a single
mode of transportation or a combination of modes.  Furthermore, DOT
required that the development of this system be coordinated with the
congestion and public transportation management systems because of
their interrelationships. 

An intermodal management system may be one of the more difficult
transportation management systems to implement.  Historically, the
transportation planning process has been oriented more toward
highways and mass transit than toward intermodal issues.  As a
result, FHWA and others have noted that planning tools and data
sources on intermodal transportation and freight forecasting have not
been well developed.  FHWA and others have also noted potential
difficulties in developing performance measures for this management
system.  FHWA has noted that current measures of mobility are largely
geared toward the condition of a facility (e.g., vehicle capacity on
highway segments) and traditional measures of congestion, such as
volume and capacity, and not toward the mobility of people and goods
or accessibility to facilities.  Furthermore, it may be difficult to
obtain data on intermodal transportation movements, particularly
freight traffic flows.  As we recently reported, obtaining data on
freight transportation movements that private firms may consider
proprietary may be difficult, particularly if private firms are
unsure about how the data may be used.\1

As of September 1996, 30 states and Washington, D.C., had elected to
implement an intermodal management system, while 20 states and Puerto
Rico had elected not to implement such a system.  (See fig.  VI.1.)
Of the 30 states electing to implement an intermodal management
system, 19 have said they would implement a system on a statewide
basis and not just locally.  Implementation takes a variety of forms. 
For example, Minnesota and Idaho said they would develop intermodal
management systems but would focus more on freight issues than on
passenger issues.  New Jersey said it would focus more on passenger
issues.  For other states, the development of performance measures
and efficiency evaluations were creating difficulties.  For example,
Illinois said it would develop a system but would not incorporate
performance measures and facility performance evaluations.  Texas and
Utah, which were choosing not to develop the system, indicated that
they were incorporating the components of an intermodal management
system into their state transportation planning efforts.  (See table
VI.1.)

   Figure VI.1:  The States
   Implementing Intermodal
   Management Systems, as Reported
   by the States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

S = Statewide coverage of management system. 

Note:  We do not have information on the coverage of the systems in
Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington,
D.C. 

Sources:  Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996;
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 



                                    Table VI.1
                     
                       Status of States' Implementation of
                        Intermodal Management Systems (as
                             Reported by the States)

                                           Coverage
                                ------------------------------
                                Highway
                                connectors
                                from freight    Other (as
                Implementing    facilities to   reported by
State           system          NHS\a           the states)     Comments
--------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  ----------------
Alabama                                                         Part of system
                                                                will be
                                                                incorporated
                                                                into a
                                                                congestion
                                                                management
                                                                system

Alaska          X\b             X               Statewide

Arizona         X               X               Statewide       System focuses
                                                                on facilities

Arkansas        X               X               Statewide
                                                (highways,
                                                railways)

California      X               Not mentioned   System
                                                includes about
                                                50 major
                                                facilities and
                                                15 corridors
                                                of statewide
                                                significance

Colorado                                                        System has
                                                                passed the
                                                                concept stage; a
                                                                decision to
                                                                design and
                                                                implement the
                                                                system has not
                                                                been reached

Connecticut     X               X               Statewide       System will be
                                                                reviewed in 2-3
                                                                years to
                                                                determine
                                                                continuation

Delaware

Florida         X               X               Statewide       System will be
                                                significant     reviewed over
                                                facilities      next 1-2 years
                                                                to determine
                                                                continuation

Georgia                                                         Current work to
                                                                be concluded and
                                                                future work done
                                                                only if there is
                                                                demonstrable
                                                                benefit

Hawaii          X               X               No

Idaho           X               X               To be           System will
                                                determined      concentrate more
                                                                on freight
                                                                issues than on
                                                                passenger issues

Illinois        X               X               Statewide       Metropolitan
                                                inventory of    planning
                                                intermodal      organizations
                                                facilities      will be
                                                                responsible for
                                                                system in large
                                                                urban areas.
                                                                Performance
                                                                measures and
                                                                facility
                                                                performance
                                                                evaluations will
                                                                be eliminated

Indiana         X               X               Statewide       System to be
                                                (highways,      coordinated with
                                                railways,       congestion and
                                                waterways)      public
                                                                transportation
                                                                management
                                                                systems

Iowa            X               X               Statewide

Kansas                                                          Intermodal
                                                                activities will
                                                                be undertaken
                                                                through the
                                                                state's long-
                                                                range plan

Kentucky        X               Not mentioned   Not mentioned

Louisiana       On hold                                         System
                                                                implementation
                                                                on hold while a
                                                                decision is made
                                                                whether or not
                                                                to continue with
                                                                this system

Maine           X               X               Statewide
                                                (coastal ferry
                                                terminals,
                                                park-n-ride
                                                lots, rail
                                                terminals,
                                                airports,
                                                highways)

Maryland                                                        State will
                                                                support the
                                                                Baltimore
                                                                Freight Task
                                                                Force

Massachusetts   X               X               Regional        System is being
                                                (areas          coordinated with
                                                encompassed by  congestion and
                                                10 regional     public
                                                planning        transportation
                                                agencies)       management
                                                                systems

Michigan        X               X               Statewide       Coverage
                                                (waterways,     includes
                                                railways,       passenger and
                                                nonmotorized    freight
                                                and highway     activities
                                                facilities)

Minnesota       X               Not mentioned   Not mentioned   System will
                                                                include only
                                                                freight
                                                                initiative

Mississippi

Missouri        X               X               Statewide       Work has
                                                                primarily been
                                                                an inventory of
                                                                facilities and
                                                                rolling stock.
                                                                State is
                                                                combining system
                                                                with a public
                                                                transportation
                                                                management
                                                                system

Montana         X               X               All intermodal
                                                facilities and
                                                systems

Nebraska        X               X               To be           System may be
                                                determined      implemented
                                                                through the
                                                                state's long-
                                                                range plan

Nevada

New Hampshire   X               X               Statewide

New Jersey      X               Not mentioned   Not mentioned   Focus is mainly
                                                                on passengers;
                                                                system being
                                                                coordinated with
                                                                congestion and
                                                                public
                                                                transportation
                                                                management
                                                                systems

New Mexico      X               X               Statewide       Consultants
                                                                doing analysis
                                                                of railroads and
                                                                historic depots

New York        X               X               Not mentioned   System has
                                                                separate
                                                                components for
                                                                freight and
                                                                passengers;
                                                                freight
                                                                component to
                                                                focus on
                                                                connectors to
                                                                the NHS

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio            X               Not mentioned   Not mentioned

Oklahoma

Oregon          X               X               Statewide
                                                (connector
                                                routes and
                                                terminals);
                                                main
                                                transportation
                                                routes (the
                                                NHS, state
                                                roads, local
                                                roads)

Pennsylvania    X               X               Statewide       System being
                                                (local          implemented by
                                                planning        regional
                                                agencies        planning
                                                determine       agencies, which
                                                criteria for    develop and
                                                inclusion)      maintain
                                                                intermodal
                                                                facilities
                                                                inventory

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island    X               Not mentioned   Not mentioned

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee       X               X               Statewide       Metropolitan
                                                                planning
                                                                organizations
                                                                will be
                                                                encouraged to
                                                                give more
                                                                attention to
                                                                intermodal
                                                                issue.

Texas                                                           System will be
                                                                incorporated
                                                                into existing
                                                                planning efforts

Utah                                                            System will be
                                                                eliminated and
                                                                made part of the
                                                                planning process

Virginia                                                        Each
                                                                metropolitan
                                                                planning
                                                                organization
                                                                given the option
                                                                of developing a
                                                                system or not;
                                                                there will be no
                                                                statewide system

Vermont

Washington                                                      System will be
                                                                incorporated
                                                                into state's
                                                                transportation
                                                                plan

Washington,     X               Not mentioned   Not mentioned   System is
D.C.                                                            stagnant

West Virginia   X               X               Not mentioned   System and
                                                                facility
                                                                efficiency
                                                                portions of the
                                                                management
                                                                system will not
                                                                be implemented

Wisconsin       X               X               None

Wyoming
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a NHS = National Highway System. 

\b X = Yes. 

Sources:  Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996;
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


--------------------
\1 Intermodal Freight Transportation:  Projects and Planning Issues
(GAO/NSIAD-96-159, July 9, 1996). 


      CASE-STUDY STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:0.1

  -- Michigan's intermodal management system includes all intermodal
     facilities regardless of their size or connection to the
     National Highway System--e.g., passenger facilities, airports,
     railways, carpool parking lots, border crossings, freight
     facilities, ports, pipeline terminals, ferry and intercity bus
     service, and weigh stations.  The system includes an inventory
     of intermodal facilities, condition identification, performance
     measures, needs assessment, and proposed actions.

  -- Montana's intermodal management system will include inventorying
     state intermodal facilities and systems, identifying performance
     measures, collecting data, monitoring systems, and evaluating
     systems' and facilities' efficiency.  The state has several
     goals for the system, including improving the understanding of
     freight issues, addressing regional and international trade
     issues, and providing information on freight and passenger
     flows.

  -- New York's intermodal management system is divided into two
     components:  intermodal freight facilities connected to the
     National Highway System and intermodal passenger facilities,
     focusing on the downstate region.  The freight component will
     consist of a facility inventory, including facilities'
     attributes, conditions, and accessibility to the National
     Highway System.  An interagency committee will be the core of
     the passenger component, which will identify and develop
     strategies/evaluation tools for passengers' intermodal problems
     (such as ease of transfer between modes and availability of
     park-and-ride facilities).

  -- Oregon's intermodal management system focuses on roadways that
     connect intermodal facilities with main transportation routes. 
     Phase one, completed in April 1994, included developing an
     intermodal inventory and assessing performance measures and data
     requirements for the system.  Phase two, the statewide
     management system, will identify intermodal problems/needs,
     further specify performance measures, and develop a database. 
     The state is working with several advisory groups, such as the
     Intermodal Transportation Council, Passenger Task Force, and
     Statewide Intermodal Management System Advisory Committee, to
     assist in developing and implementing the system.

  -- Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas chose not to develop an
     intermodal management system when the mandate was removed.


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Susan A.  Fleming
Paul D.  Lacey
Ralph W.  Lamoreaux
Teresa F.  Spisak

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Helen T.  Desaulniers


*** End of document. ***