Transportation Infrastructure: States' Implementation of Transportation
Management Systems (Stmnt. for the Rec., 02/26/97, GAO/T-RCED-97-79).

GAO discussed the states' implementation of transportation management
systems.

GAO noted 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; (3) all states
were implementing a pavement management system, and nearly all states
were implementing bridge, safety, and congestion management systems; (4)
congestion management systems were being developed for all 128
transportation management areas, where they are still mandatory; (5)
about 30 states were implementing 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) some states have realized that
to obtain the most uses from the systems, the systems need to be
integrated so that, for example, users can combine information from
several management systems to analyze the overall transportation needs
in a geographic area; (8) nationwide, over half the states plan to
integrate the systems; (9) although pavement and bridge management
systems have been around for several decades, the other mandated systems
were new to many states; (10) three of the seven states that GAO
reviewed as case studies indicated that the 1991 legislative mandate
provided a catalyst or "jump start" to developing and implementing the
new systems and resulted in the systems receiving high-level support and
top priority status; (11) although implementing the systems is now
optional, several states are continuing their efforts because they view
the systems as beneficial to the decision-making process in that they
provide more accurate, timely information than was previously available;
(12) on the other hand, the removal of the federal mandate lessened
support for developing certain systems; (13) in addition, 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 public transportation,
congestion, and intermodal management systems; (14) several states
indicated that the Federal Highway Administration was helpful in
providing initial workshops and training to states to develop the
systems; and (15) officials in all seven states that GAO reviewed, howe*

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-97-79
     TITLE:  Transportation Infrastructure: States' Implementation of 
             Transportation Management Systems
      DATE:  02/26/97
   SUBJECT:  Urban transportation operations
             Transportation safety
             Management information systems
             Public roads or highways
             Transportation legislation
             Highway planning
             Federal/state relations
             State-administered programs
IDENTIFIER:  National Highway System
             Maryland
             Michigan
             Montana
             New York
             North Carolina
             Oregon
             Texas
             
******************************************************************
** 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


Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.  Senate

Hearing held on
February 26, 1997

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE -
STATES' IMPLEMENTATION OF
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Statement for the Record by Phyllis F.  Scheinberg, Associate
Director, Transportation Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-97-79

GAO/RCED-97-79T


(342933)


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

  DOT -
  NHS -
  AASHTO -
  FTA -
  FHWA -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement for the
record on the states' implementation of transportation management
systems.  These six systems--for managing highway pavement, bridges,
highway safety, traffic congestion, public transportation facilities
and equipment, and intermodal transportation facilities and
systems--were mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).  The National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act) made the six systems optional,
except the congestion management system in certain areas.\1 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.  In January 1997, we reported on the
status of the states' development and implementation of the systems,
how the states expect to use the systems, and the factors that have
facilitated or hindered the development and implementation of the
systems.\2 In summary, we found the following: 

  -- 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.  All states were
     implementing a pavement management system, and nearly all states
     were implementing bridge, safety, and congestion management
     systems.  Congestion management systems were being developed for
     all 128 transportation management areas, where they are still
     mandatory.\3 About 30 states were implementing public
     transportation and intermodal management systems.  The six
     transportation management systems take a variety of forms,
     including computerized inventories of assets, software programs,
     and systematic procedures for collecting and analyzing
     information. 

  -- The states were developing the systems for use by decisionmakers
     in the planning process and to help transportation officials
     conduct daily operations.  Some states have realized that to
     obtain the most uses from the systems, the systems need to be
     integrated 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 of the seven states that we reviewed as case
     studies\4 indicated that the 1991 legislative mandate provided a
     catalyst or "jump start" to developing and implementing the new
     systems and resulted in the systems receiving high-level support
     and top priority status.  Although implementing the systems is
     now optional, several states are continuing their efforts
     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 the U.S.  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 public
     transportation, congestion, and intermodal management systems. 
     Several states indicated that the Federal Highway Administration
     (FHWA) was helpful in providing initial workshops and training
     to states to develop the systems.  Officials in all seven states
     that we reviewed, however, stated 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. 


--------------------
\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 Transportation Infrastructure:  States' Implementation of
Transportation Management Systems (GAO/RCED-97-32, Jan.  13, 1997). 

\3 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. 

\4 The seven states we selected were 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. 


   ALL STATES ARE IMPLEMENTING
   SOME SYSTEMS BUT CUSTOMIZING
   THEM TO MEET THEIR OWN NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

As of September 1996, 24 states reported that they were moving
forward with all six systems, even though they were no longer
mandatory.  (See app.  I.) The remaining states reported they were
developing or implementing at least three of the transportation
management systems originally mandated by ISTEA.  Nearly all states
reported that they were developing and implementing management
systems for pavement, bridge, highway safety, and traffic congestion. 
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. 

Nearly all 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 these systems. 

About two-thirds of the states reported that 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.  II through VII for more information on
each management system.)

Once the NHS Act made the management systems optional, officials in
the seven states we reviewed told us that they 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 they had developed on the basis of DOT's
interim rule.\5 Transportation officials in that state viewed the
management systems as an opportunity to improve decision-making and
as a way to address other departmental objectives. 

The other six case-study states scaled back the extent to which they
were developing certain systems, especially pavement and congestion
management 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 roads on the National Highway
System in their pavement management system, at least initially.  In
addition, three states we reviewed--Maryland, North Carolina, and
Texas--decided to discontinue certain management systems--the
intermodal and/or the public transportation management systems--once
they were no longer mandatory.  In each case, state transportation
officials determined that the state's needs were being met
sufficiently by existing programs and/or activities.  Finally, 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.  Officials in these 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. 


--------------------
\5 ISTEA required DOT to issue regulations on the management systems
by December 18, 1992.  FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration
jointly issued an interim final rule in December 1993 and a final
rule in December 1996. 


   SYSTEMS USED FOR PLANNING AND
   DAILY DECISION-MAKING
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Many state decisionmakers intend to use information from the
management systems in developing statewide and regional
transportation plans.  The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 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 as well as using information from the
systems in making decisions involving day-to-day activities.  For
example, state and county maintenance engineers may use information
on pavement condition from the pavement management system to
determine maintenance needs and priorities. 

While some states planned to use the management systems as
stand-alone tools to assist decisionmakers in their respective
departments, other states also planned to use the systems in an
integrated/coordinated manner.  At least 26 states planned to
integrate parts of their managements systems, according to AASHTO's
May 1996 survey.  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.  Integrating the management systems, however,
raises numerous issues--such as establishing common data definitions
and common geographical referencing systems.  To handle these issues,
three states we reviewed have established special committees and
dedicated resources beyond those that are needed to develop and
implement the individual systems. 


   SEVERAL FACTORS HAVE INFLUENCED
   IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT
   SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Several states we reviewed responded to the ISTEA mandate 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.  The state provided
additional resources and technical support for enhancing five
existing systems and for developing a new one required by the
mandate.  Although the systems are now optional, many states have
continued to develop and implement them because of the potential
benefits associated with the systems.  For example, several
case-study states commented that the systems reduce redundancy and
provide more complete, accurate information in a single location.  In
addition, states view the management systems as a way to improve the
planning process by providing objective, timely information to
decisionmakers. 

In several case-study 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.  In addition, 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 caused
difficulties, particularly in terms of the congestion, public
transportation, and/or intermodal management systems.  These
difficulties resulted in one state delaying development of some
systems.  Another state, which found the concept of an intermodal
management system not clearly spelled out in either ISTEA or the
interim rule, decided not to implement the system.  While a number of
states acknowledged receiving assistance from FHWA, several
case-study states indicated that they had received little or no
assistance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on
implementing a public transportation management system.  FTA
officials told us that they had, in fact, provided assistance, which
included issuing guidance on the system and providing related
software. 

Most states would like additional federal assistance in implementing
the management systems.  AASHTO found that a majority of the states
responding to its May 1996 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.  In addition, our
case-study states indicated that they need additional technical
assistance from FHWA that focuses on areas such as developing
software for the systems, explaining geographic information systems
technology,\6 establishing performance measures for systems, and
integrating the management systems.  Finally, states told us that DOT
should establish an information clearinghouse that would provide the
results of the research pertaining to the management systems and
examples of best practices for various states' efforts to implement
and integrate systems. 


--------------------
\6 Geographic 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). 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

In conclusion, the NHS Act, which generally 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 federal requirements.  As the states proceed, however, they
are facing technical problems that they would like further federal
help in addressing.  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 face in
developing, implementing, and integrating the systems that will best
meet their needs. 

Our report recommended that DOT work with the states to more fully
determine the types of technical assistance needed.  In addition, we
recommended that DOT establish an information clearinghouse on (1)
training, conferences, and workshops being offered, regionally and
nationally; (2) the status of the states' experience with
implementing and integrating the six management systems; (3) the
available software applications and technology; (4) the systems'
performance measures; (5) examples of "best practices" of the states
that are effectively implementing and integrating the systems; and
(6) other issues identified by the states.  DOT has not commented on
our recommendations.  The department is required by law to respond to
our recommendations within 60 days of report issuance, which will not
occur until mid-March. 


NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BEING
DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED BY EACH
STATE
=========================================================== Appendix I



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


THE STATES IMPLEMENTING PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (AS REPORTED BY
THE STATES)
========================================================== Appendix II



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

F = System covers all federal-aid highways. 

Notes:  There is little or no uniformity among the states in the way
they measure, collect, and report pavement condition.  The states
have been developing their pavement management systems independently,
and no two are the same. 

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'
(AASHTO) survey, May 1996; GAO interviews with state officials in
1996. 


THE STATES IMPLEMENTING BRIDGE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (AS REPORTED BY
THE STATES)
========================================================= Appendix III



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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

Notes:  Pontis is an off-the-shelf software package for bridge
management systems.  AASHTO's version (3.0) of the software has been
available since July 1995, and version 3.1 was issued in July 1996. 

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; AASHTO's survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state
officials. 


THE STATES IMPLEMENTING SAFETY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (AS REPORTED BY
THE STATES)
========================================================== Appendix IV



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Notes:  South Carolina planned to begin implementing the system in
fiscal year 1997, and Ohio had components of a safety management in
place according to a 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. 

Sources:  Status reports submitted to FHWA during 1996; AASHTO's
survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


THE STATES IMPLEMENTING CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (AS REPORTED BY
THE STATES)
=========================================================== Appendix V



   (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;
AASHTO's survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


THE STATES IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
(AS REPORTED BY THE STATES)
========================================================== Appendix VI



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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

Note:  Of those states implementing the system, seven (Connecticut,
Iowa, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and
Tennessee) already have operational systems in place. 

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;
AASHTO's survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


THE STATES IMPLEMENTING INTERMODAL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (AS REPORTED BY
THE STATES)
========================================================= Appendix VII



   (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;
AASHTO's survey, May 1996; GAO's interviews with state officials. 


*** End of document. ***