This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-398 
entitled 'Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on 
Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time' which was 
released on May 12, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

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

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

April 2003:

Highway Infrastructure:

Perceptions of Stakeholders on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project 
Completion Time:

GAO-03-398:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-398, a report to the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works

Why GAO Did This Study:

Constructing, improving, and repairing roads is fundamental to meeting 
the nation's mobility needs.  The Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) supplies most of the money (about $20 billion in fiscal year 
2003), and state departments of transportation are primarily 
responsible for completing projects.  Many federal and state agencies 
(called resource agencies) help ensure that environmental and other 
concerns are considered.  These and other organizations have 
recognized that the time it takes to complete complex federally funded 
highway projects is too longin some cases nearly 20 years.  

GAO was asked to report the views of knowledgeable officials on the 
most promising approaches for reducing completion time for federally 
funded highway projects.  GAO obtained the views of 33 officials from 
federal, state, and private organizations with interests in federally 
funded roads.  

What GAO Found:

Respondents from 33 organizations identified 13 approaches as most 
promising for reducing the time it takes to plan, design, gain 
approval for, and build a federally funded highway project.  These 
approaches fell into three areas:

* Improving project management.  Most approaches (8 of 13) focused on 
state-level activities that could be conducted earlier than customary, 
with 90 percent of respondents indicating that establishing early 
partnerships and early coordination among all project stakeholders is 
highly important to reducing project completion time.  Other 
approaches included added flexibility for states in determining 
impacts on historic properties and imposing time limits on 
environmental reviews.

* Delegating environmental review and permitting authority.  Between 
half and two-thirds of the respondents indicated that utilizing 
programmatic agreements between transportation and resource agencies 
to address commonly occurring issues, unifying overall environmental 
assessments with reviews of project impacts on wetlands, and creating 
large banks of wetlands to replace those lost at highway project sites 
offered significant promise for reducing project completion time.

* Improving agency staffing and skills.  Nearly 60 percent of the 
respondents indicated that using interagency funding agreements in 
which state departments of transportation can ensure timely attention 
to environmental reviews of their projects by funding staff at federal 
or state resource agencies offered significant promise to reduce 
project completion time.  About half of the respondents told us that 
adequate training of transportation staff on the requirements of all 
steps in completing a highway project was also a promising approach.

For the most part, the respondents were not able to estimate how much 
time adopting one or more of these approaches might save.  
Respondents views varied both within similar types of organizations 
(such as state departments of transportation) and across lines of 
responsibility or interest.  Generally, agencies and other 
organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests in 
building and funding highways ranked certain approaches higher than 
did agencies and associations with a primary focus on resource issues, 
and vice versa.  Nonetheless, most of the 13 most promising approaches 
had widespread support across organizations.

Although some of these approaches are in use across the country, 
respondents acknowledged that the usefulness of these approaches could 
vary by the type of project or community values.  For example, 
projects that are not complex or contentious would not necessarily 
achieve the time savings that these approaches afford for projects 
with complex characteristics or disagreement among stakeholders.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that FHWA consider the benefits of the 13 most  
promising approaches and take actions needed to foster more widespread 
adoption of those that appear to be the most cost effective.  While 
not commenting on the recommendation, the Department of Transportation 
generally agreed that these approaches represent opportunities to 
reduce project completion time.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-398.

To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 
siggerudk@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Most Promising Approaches Identified by Stakeholders Focus on Improving 
Project Management:

Conclusions:

Recommendation for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project 
Completion time as Identified by Respondents:

Tables :

Table 1: Most Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project 
Completion Time, as Identified by Stakeholders:

Table 2: Percent of Respondents Rating the 13 Most Promising Approaches 
Highly, Including Average Rating:

Table 3: Comparison of Rankings of 34 Approaches to Reduce Highway 
Project Completion Time by Transportation and Resource Respondents:

Table 4: Organizations Contacted to Determine Most Promising 
Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time:

Table 5: Structured Interview Questions Used to Identify the Most 
Promising Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time:

Table 6: Promising Approaches to Reduce Project Completion Time 
Identified and Rated by Respondents, by Average Rating:

Table 7: Views on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time 
Often Varied by Respondent Affiliation:

Abbreviations:

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:

Letter April 9, 2003:

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

Dear Senator Jeffords:

Constructing, improving, and repairing roads and bridges are 
fundamental to meeting the nation's mobility needs to facilitate 
commerce, national defense, and pleasure use and to promote economic 
growth. Therefore, the Congress has an interest in seeing that 
federally funded highway projects are completed in a timely manner. 
Many of the organizations with a role in highway project completion 
have recognized that completing major highway construction projects 
takes too long--in some cases about 20 years. As a result, these 
organizations--including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 
state departments of transportation, and other stakeholders--have acted 
to reduce project completion time by developing initiatives in several 
areas and by publicizing what they believe are successful strategies. 
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century, enacted in 1998, 
contained provisions designed to streamline environmental reviews, a 
component of projects often cited as offering the greatest opportunity 
for reducing the completion time of federally funded highway projects. 
As the reauthorization of this act approaches, the Congress may again 
consider approaches for reducing the time it takes to complete a 
federally funded highway project so that transportation benefits are 
realized sooner.

You requested that we report on knowledgeable officials' views on the 
most promising approaches to reduce project completion time for 
federally funded highway projects. To carry out this work, we asked 
officials from various federal and state agencies with responsibilities 
relating to the construction of federally funded roads, transportation 
engineering organizations, transportation professional associations, 
historic preservation organizations, environmental organizations, and 
tribal organizations to identify the most promising approaches for 
reducing project completion time by a substantial amount for federally 
funded highway projects of all types and complexities. We asked these 
officials to identify other stakeholders with expertise and asked those 
individuals also to identify promising approaches. Overall, 42 
stakeholders identified 49 approaches. We then asked these officials to 
rate each approach on its potential for reducing project completion 
time. Thirty-three officials representing different interests provided 
these ratings. The approach we used makes two contributions. First, it 
captures the views of a wide range of stakeholders that are identified 
by their peers as knowledgeable. Second, it provides a systematic 
assessment of the perceived value of all approaches involving all 
aspects of completing federally funded highway projects that were 
identified by knowledgeable stakeholders. We did not attempt to 
corroborate the need to implement these approaches or the reasons why 
respondents rated individual approaches as they did. In addition, we 
did not attempt to determine how effective the promising approaches, 
where already implemented, were in reducing highway project completion 
time. (See app. I for additional details on our scope and 
methodology.):

Results in Brief:

Respondents from 33 organizations representing a wide range of federal, 
state, tribal, and advocacy interests generally rated 13 approaches of 
the 49 that they identified as most promising for reducing the time it 
takes to plan, gain approval for, design, and build a federally funded 
highway project. (See table 1.) These approaches fell into three key 
areas: (1) improving project management, (2) delegating environmental 
review and permitting authority, and (3) improving agency staffing and 
skills. One of these approaches, establishing early partnerships and 
coordination among stakeholders so that technical, environmental, 
policy, and other issues can be resolved in a timely and predictable 
manner, was strongly supported by 28 of 31 (90 percent) 
respondents.[Footnote 1] Other approaches, although viewed as promising 
by respondents overall, received less widespread support across 
different groups of stakeholders that we contacted. Some state 
departments of transportation are employing some of these approaches. 
For example, according to FHWA, 34 states have agreements in which 
state departments of transportation provide funding for personnel at 
state and federal environmental agencies for expediting reviews. For 
the most part, respondents were not able to estimate how much time 
adopting one or more of these approaches might save. The respondents 
also acknowledged that the usefulness of these approaches could vary by 
the type of project or community values. For example, for projects that 
are not complex or contentious, these approaches would not necessarily 
save the same amount of time that they would for projects with complex 
characteristics or disagreement among stakeholders. We are making a 
recommendation to the Department of Transportation to foster more 
widespread use of the 13 most promising approaches, where appropriate. 
While it did not directly comment on our proposed recommendation, the 
department generally agreed that the 13 most promising approaches 
discussed in our draft report represent opportunities to reduce project 
completion time.

Table 1: Most Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project 
Completion Time, as Identified by Stakeholders:

Key area: Improving project management:

Approach: Establish early 
partnerships and coordination - Involve stakeholders early so that 
technical, environmental, policy, and other issues can be resolved in a 
timely and predictable manner.

Approach: Revise section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act - 
For projects on public lands, use the protections found in section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for consideration of 
historic properties and other historic resources.

Approach: Use geographic information systems - Use the data collected 
by federal and state resource agencies on the location of historic 
properties and environmental resources in the state to identify 
environmental and historic issues early during environmental review.

Approach: Establish time frames for resource agency review - Provide 
specific time frames for resource agencies to respond to environmental 
documents and produce any needed analyses. Reduce the 6-year time frame 
for lawsuits filed under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Approach: Prepare preliminary environmental assessment reports - 
Provide information on any conditions and constraints prior to 
programming project cost and project schedule.

Approach: Establish project milestones and performance monitoring 
systems - Specify key dates, such as when final design must be 
completed, and manage the project to meet the dates.

Approach: Employ context sensitive design - Design projects that 
consider the community's environmental and social context so that 
projects are consistent with the values of the community.

Approach: Hold public information meetings early - Hold public meetings 
early and more often to provide information on projects that are 
planned or underway.

Key area: Delegating review and permitting authority:

Approach: Use 
programmatic agreements - Use agreements between transportation and 
resource agencies at the federal and/or state level to address commonly 
occurring issues.

Approach: Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and National Environmental 
Policy Act reviews - Unify reviews so that section 404 wetlands reviews 
are addressed concurrently with other environmental issues.

Approach: Employ wetlands banking - Use agreements between state 
departments of transportation and wetlands permitting agencies to 
create large areas of wetlands in designated areas rather than 
addressing effects on small wetlands at each construction site.

Key area: Improving agency staffing and skills:

Approach: Use 
interagency funding agreements - State departments of transportation 
provide funding for staff at federal or state resource agencies to 
ensure timely attention to environmental issues.

Approach: Provide training - Determine the skills available at state 
transportation departments in relation to federal and state 
requirements to complete each phase of highway projects and establish 
training programs for shortfalls.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]:

Background:

Officials in federal transportation and environmental agencies, state 
transportation agencies, and other stakeholder organizations (such as 
environmental organizations) generally agree that constructing a new 
federally funded highway is complicated and time consuming.[Footnote 2] 
According to FHWA, constructing a new, major federally funded highway 
project that has significant environmental impacts typically takes from 
9 to 19 years to plan, design, gain approval for, and complete 
construction. Projects take this long to complete because there can be 
as many as 200 major steps requiring actions, approvals or input from a 
number of federal, state, and other stakeholders. Projects with 
significant environmental impacts also face high levels of controversy 
that often results in a lack of sustained support from stakeholders. 
Federally funded highway projects are typically completed in four 
phases:

* Planning: State and local planning organizations and state 
departments of transportation assess a project's purpose and need and 
consider its need in relation to other potential highway projects.

* Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of 
transportation identify project cost, level of service, and 
construction location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed 
project and alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred 
alternative.

* Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of 
transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate 
utilities.

* Construction: State departments of transportation award construction 
contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.

The time required varies with the size of the project, its complexity, 
and the public interest in the project, but officials in federal and 
state agencies and other stakeholder organizations agree that 
delivering larger, more complex projects may take longer than is 
typical for most highway projects. In addition to needing more time 
because of their size and complexity, these projects often take longer 
to complete because they must comply with more federal and state 
requirements and because of the public concern over environmental 
impacts they may generate.

FHWA provides financial assistance to states to build and improve 
highways and roads; establishes requirements related to planning, 
design, environmental review, and construction; and provides 
transportation engineering services (such as planning and design) for 
federally owned highways and bridges. For fiscal year 2003, FHWA 
expects to fund about $20 billion in highway infrastructure 
improvements and congestion mitigations. The responsibility for 
designing, planning, and awarding contracts for federally funded 
highway projects generally rests with state departments of 
transportation and local planning organizations.

Before a federally funded highway project can be built, it must comply 
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA), among other things. Under the act, the consequences, if any, of 
proposed transportation projects and alternative choices (such as 
alternative routings) on the natural and human (e.g., health) 
environment and on historic properties must be identified and assessed. 
For a federally funded highway project that will have a significant 
impact on the environment, the state department of transportation 
prepares an environmental impact statement, which FHWA must approve 
before the project can be built. The environmental impact statement 
must describe the project, characterize the surrounding environment, 
analyze the environmental effects of a range of reasonable project 
alternatives, and indicate plans for complying with environmental laws 
and mitigating environmental damage, if any. Other federal agencies 
(called resource agencies), such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation, participate in the preparation and 
review of the environmental impact statements for highway projects 
because of their responsibilities under federal laws. These laws 
include section 404 of the Clean Water Act, section 4(f) of the 
Department of Transportation Act, and section 106 of the National 
Historic
Preservation Act.[Footnote 3] According to FHWA, only about 3 percent 
of all highway projects (accounting for about 9 percent of the funds) 
that received federal funding in 2001 had a significant enough impact 
on the environment to require preparation of an environmental impact 
statement.

Factors throughout the duration of a highway project can extend 
completion time; however, much attention has been given to the 
environmental requirements and their effect on timely completion. 
Concerned about how long highway projects take, the Congress included 
provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century to 
streamline environmental reviews. These provisions require FHWA to 
identify and work with federal agencies that have environmental and 
historic preservation jurisdiction over highway projects to 
cooperatively establish realistic project development time frames among 
the agencies and to work with the agencies to adhere to those time 
frames. Because transportation projects are also affected by state and 
local environmental requirements, the act allows individual states to 
participate in these streamlining approaches, as long as all affected 
states' agencies participate. Finally, the act also allows FHWA to 
approve state requests to use their federal-aid highway funds to 
provide additional environmental personnel dedicated to conducting 
environmental reviews of transportation projects in order to meet time 
limits established by the act.

Most Promising Approaches Identified by Stakeholders Focus on Improving 
Project Management:

Knowledgeable officials from 33 organizations representing a wide range 
of interests and responsibilities for the planning, design, 
environmental review, and construction of federally funded highways 
generally identified 13 approaches from the 49 promising approaches 
they identified as most promising for reducing the time it takes to 
complete a federally funded highway project. (See table 2 for how 
respondents rated the 13 most promising approaches. A more detailed 
discussion of the 13 approaches follows table 2. Table 6 in app. II 
describes the 49 approaches identified and the degree to which 
respondents told us each had potential for reducing highway project 
completion time.) One of the 13 approaches, establishing early 
partnerships and coordination among stakeholders so that technical, 
environmental, policy, and other issues can be resolved in a timely and 
predictable manner, was strongly supported by nearly all respondents. 
Other approaches, although viewed as promising by respondents overall, 
had less widespread support across different groups of stakeholders. 
Some state departments of transportation are already employing some of 
the 13 approaches, such as funding specialized staff, including 
biologists and historic preservation specialists, at federal and state 
resource agencies to assist with environmental reviews. For the most 
part, respondents were not able to estimate how much time adopting one 
or more of these 13 approaches might save.

Table 2: Percent of Respondents Rating the 13 Most Promising Approaches 
Highly, Including Average Rating:

Nature of approach: Improving project management: 


Approach: Establish early partnerships and coordination; Percent of 
respondents rating approach highly[A]: 90; Average rating[B]: 
4.5.

Approach: Revise section 4(f); Percent of respondents rating 
approach highly[A]: 70; Average rating[B]: 4.0.

Approach: Use geographic information systems; Percent of 
respondents rating approach highly[A]: 63; Average rating[B]: 
3.5.

Approach: Establish time frames for environmental reviews; 
Percent of respondents rating approach highly[A]: 60; Average 
rating[B]: 3.6.

Approach: Prepare preliminary environmental assessment reports; 
Percent of respondents rating approach highly[A]: 53; Average 
rating[B]: 3.6.

Approach: Establish project milestones and performance 
monitoring systems; Percent of respondents rating approach highly[A]: 
52; Average rating[B]: 3.6.

Approach: Employ context sensitive design; Percent of 
respondents rating approach highly[A]: 50; Average rating[B]: 
3.5.

Approach: Hold public information meetings early; Percent of 
respondents rating approach highly[A]: 50; Average rating[B]: 
3.5.

Nature of approach: Delegating review and permitting authority:
 
Approach: Use programmatic agreements; Percent of respondents 
rating approach highly[A]: 68; Average rating[B]: 4.0.

Approach: Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA reviews; 
Percent of respondents rating approach highly[A]: 58; Average 
rating[B]: 3.7.

Approach: Employ wetlands banking; Percent of respondents 
rating approach highly[A]: 46; Average rating[B]: 3.5.

Nature of approach: Improving agency staffing and skills:
 
Approach: Use interagency funding agreements; Percent of respondents 
rating approach highly[A]: 59; Average rating[B]: 3.6.

Approach: Provide training; Percent of respondents rating 
approach highly[A]: 53; Average rating[B]: 3.7.

[A] Percent of all respondents ranking the approach as either having great 
or very great potential to reduce highway project completion time. Not 
all respondents rated each approach. Thirty or more of the 33 
respondents (at least 91 percent) rated 11 of 13 approaches; 26 
respondents (79 percent) rated the remaining 2 approaches. (See app. 
II.):

[B] The 13 most promising approaches were those with a rating of 3.5 or 
more on a 5-point scale, where a rating of 3 represented a moderate 
potential for reducing completion times and ratings of 4 and 5 
represented great and very great potential for reducing project 
completion time, respectively. (See
app. I.):

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

Most of the approaches (8 of 13) rated by our respondents as most 
promising fell into the category of strategies to improve project 
management, focusing primarily on state-level activities. Respondents 
also supported delegation of review and permitting authority (3 of 13 
approaches, including the second and fourth highest rated approaches in 
terms of average rating); and identifying improvements in agency 
staffing and skills (2 of 13 approaches). None of the approaches in 
other broad areas identified by respondents as promising--alternatives 
to current construction contracting practices and improvements in 
disseminating information--were among the top 13. Furthermore, our 
results indicated that 9 of the 13 promising approaches (about 70 
percent) were related solely to the planning and environmental review 
phases of a highway project; the remaining 4 approaches offered 
opportunities for improved performance throughout the entire life of a 
project.

As can be expected, the level of support for each of these approaches 
varied within similar organizations, such as state departments of 
transportation. (See table 7 in app. II.) However, at least half of 
those charged primarily with funding and constructing highways (federal 
and state departments of transportation and organizations representing 
highway interests) as well as those organizations whose primary 
responsibilities or interests focus on resource issues (e.g., federal 
resource agencies and associations representing environmental 
interests) rated 6 of the 13 approaches (46 percent) as most promising.

While our results also showed a pattern that agencies and other 
organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests in 
building and funding highways ranked certain approaches higher than did 
agencies and associations with a primary focus on resource issues, and 
vice versa, most of the 13 most promising approaches had widespread 
support across organizations. (See table 3.) Regarding differences in 
rating, four approaches--metropolitan capacity building, 
acculturation, travel model improvement, and state funding of historic 
preservation activities--were rated highly by respondents with primary 
responsibilities for or interests involving resources and were rated 
significantly lower by respondents with primary responsibilities for or 
interests in funding or constructing a highway project.[Footnote 4] 
This can be explained, in part, by the fact that organizations we 
contacted identified roughly twice as many knowledgeable persons at 
organizations with primary responsibilities or interests in funding or 
constructing a highway project as they did for organizations with 
primary responsibilities for or interests involving resources, and the 
former group's views outweighed the latter group's views. Despite these 
differences, 8 of the 13 most promising approaches overall were in each 
group's "top 13" approaches.

Table 3: Comparison of Rankings of 34 Approaches to Reduce Highway 
Project Completion Time by Transportation and Resource Respondents:

Approach: Early partnership and coordination; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 1; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 1; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 11.

Approach: Revise section 4(f); Ranking among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 2; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 16; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 10.

Approach: Establish time frames for NEPA process; Ranking among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: 3; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 28; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 10.

Approach: Programmatic agreements; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 4; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 9; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 11.

Approach: Establish project milestones and performance monitoring 
systems; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 5; Ranking 
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or 
historic environmental issues: 20; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
20; Number of respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 11.

Approach: Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA processes; Ranking 
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: 6; Ranking among agencies 
or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 25; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 6.

Approach: Formal elevation process; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 7; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 23; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 12.

Approach: Wetlands banking; Ranking among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 8; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 29; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 6.

Approach: Training; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 9; 
Ranking among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with 
natural or historic environmental issues: 8; Number of respondents 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues: 12.

Approach: Geographic information systems; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 10; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 3; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 12.

Approach: Preliminary environmental assessment reports; Ranking among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: 11; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 6; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 12.

Approach: Interagency funding agreements; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 12; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 4; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 12.

Approach: Allow early right-of-way acquisition; Ranking among agencies 
or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 13; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 31; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 10.

Approach: Public information meetings; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 14; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 7; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 12.

Approach: Partner with groups; Ranking among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 15; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 14; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 19; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 12.

Approach: Biennial reviews; Ranking among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 16; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 27; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 18; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 11.

Approach: Context sensitive design; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 17; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 2; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 12.

Approach: Hire consultants or contractors; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 18; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 34; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 8.

Approach: Internet; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
19; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with 
natural or historic environmental issues: 11; Number of respondents 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues: 12.

Approach: National conferences; Ranking among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 20; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 21; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 11.

Approach: Single agency point of contact; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 21; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 33; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 10.

Approach: Acculturation; Ranking among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 22; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 5; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 19; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 12.

Approach: Environmental compliance mitigation systems; Ranking among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: 23; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 15; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 12.

Approach: Metropolitan capacity building; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 24; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 13; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 18; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 8.

Approach: Environmental information center; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 25; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 18; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 11.

Approach: Aerial surveying and imaging technology; Ranking among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: 26; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 19; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 18; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 10.

Approach: Videotaped guidance on promising approaches; Ranking among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: 27; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 22; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 11.

Approach: State funding of historic preservation activities; Ranking 
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: 28; Ranking among agencies 
or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 10; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 11.

Approach: Professional organization membership; Ranking among agencies 
or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 29; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 30; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 10.

Approach: Regular publications; Ranking among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 30; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 17; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 12.

Approach: Awards program to recognize agency achievements; Ranking 
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: 31; Ranking among agencies 
or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 26; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 11.

Approach: Infer the presence of endangered species; Ranking among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: 32; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 24; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 9.

Approach: Peer reviews; Ranking among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: 33; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 32; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily 
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 10.

Approach: Travel model improvement; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: 34; Ranking among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: 12; Number of respondents primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of 
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental 
issues: 9.

Source: GAO.

Notes: In all, respondents identified 49 promising approaches. This 
table includes the 34 approaches where 75 percent or more of the 
respondents rated an approach. See app. I for a discussion of our 
methodology and table 6 in app. II for a description of the remaining 
15 approaches.

Approaches in bold are the 13 approaches that respondents rated most 
highly overall.

The table is ordered from most popular to least popular among 
respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding 
or constructing a highway project, to better show similarities and 
differences in rating.

[End of table]

The respondents acknowledged that these approaches might not work for 
every project or in every state because projects and communities vary 
widely. For example, projects that are not complex or contentious would 
not necessarily achieve the time savings that these approaches afford 
for projects with complex characteristics or disagreement among 
stakeholders.

Strategies to Improve Project Management:

Among the 13 most promising approaches, 8 focused on improving project 
management at the state level. About half of these approaches were 
directed at undertaking activities earlier than usual. One promising 
approach--establishing early partnerships and coordination--stood out.

Establishing early partnerships and coordination. Ninety percent of the 
respondents rated establishing early partnerships and early 
coordination as highly important to reducing the time needed to 
complete a highway project. This approach addressed the commonly voiced 
concern that projects are halted late during environmental review 
because previously unrecognized environmental impacts are brought to 
light. Respondents overwhelmingly told us that early identification of 
these issues and concerted efforts to address them sooner rather than 
later was the most promising approach for reducing the time it takes to 
complete a federally funded highway project. Support for this approach 
was generally unified across respondent affiliations, with 85 percent 
of those with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or 
constructing a highway project and all of those with primary 
responsibilities for or interests involving resources rating it highly.

Adding flexibility to historic property reviews by revising section 
4(f). About 70 percent of the respondents told us that adding 
flexibility to reviews of the potential impacts of proposed highway 
projects on historic properties and sites would either greatly or very 
greatly improve states' abilities to manage their highway projects. 
Historic properties are protected under two laws that are often viewed 
by stakeholders as duplicative and adding time to project completion: 
section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and section 106 of 
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 4(f) 
legislation prohibits the Department of Transportation from approving 
any highway project that uses, among other things, land of an historic 
site of national, state, or local significance unless it finds that (1) 
there is no prudent and feasible alternative that avoids such resources 
or causes less harm to them and (2) the project includes all possible 
planning to minimize harm to those resources. Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that projects that 
include federal participation consider the effects on any properties 
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of 
Historic Places. Section 106 establishes a flexible consultive process 
that brings all parties into discussion, and was cited by some 
respondents as allowing for more productive outcomes that preserve the 
goals of the transportation project while creating meaningful 
protections of historic properties. Those advocating change wanted 
section 4(f) requirements to offer the flexibility of section 106 
requirements. There was less agreement on the efficacy of this approach 
between those with a primary responsibility for or interest in funding 
or constructing highways (80 percent viewed this approach highly) and 
those whose primary responsibilities or interests rest with resources 
(50 percent viewed this approach highly). In some part, this lack of 
consensus reflected the differing views of whether legislative changes 
are needed to implement this approach or whether it could be 
accomplished administratively. For example, the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials has established a historic 
preservation work group to discuss and possibly seek solutions for 
section 4(f) implementation, such as whether the requirements of 
section 4(f) could be considered as met if all parties sign a 
memorandum of agreement under section 106.

Use of geographic information systems data. Overall, 63 percent of the 
knowledgeable officials indicated that the use of geographic 
information systems data on the locations of historic property and 
environmental resources in the state had great or very great potential 
to reduce highway project completion time. Project duration can be 
extended when states are unable to accurately identify environmental 
resources or historic properties at the outset of environmental review 
when alternative road alignments are initially developed. Without this 
information, a preferred alternative may be selected, only to discover 
later that environmental resources or historic properties lie within 
the project alignment, delaying the project as impacts on the newly 
discovered resource are assessed. To address this dilemma, state 
transportation agencies and resource agencies increasingly use 
geographic information systems databases. According to respondents, by 
consulting these databases early during environmental review, 
transportation agencies can determine which project alignments would 
likely minimize any adverse impacts to natural or historic 
environmental areas. In addition, respondents indicated that using 
these databases would support integrated interagency reviews of a 
project's impact on the environment. Half of those with primary 
responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway 
project and 83 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or 
interests involving resources rated this approach highly.

Establishing deadlines for resource agency reviews. The majority of 
respondents also told us that projects could be managed better if more 
predictability existed in how long reviews to determine the level of 
impacts that proposed highway projects have on environmental and 
historic properties could be expected to take. In this vein, about 60 
percent of the respondents highly supported establishing by law 
specific deadlines for resource agencies to provide their assessments 
of how a proposed highway project affects the environment or historic 
places. Some commented that resource agencies have no requirement for 
providing timely comments and feedback during creation of draft or 
final environmental impact statements, without which FHWA cannot allow 
a project to proceed. In addition, lawsuits challenging these FHWA 
decisions under NEPA can be filed for up to 6 years after FHWA has 
approved funding for the project after environmental review. Officials 
told us that lawsuits to challenge projects that are filed after the 
project has been put out to bid resulted in substantial lost time and 
increased costs for state departments of transportation. According to 
these officials, establishing a shorter statute of limitations than the 
current 6 years for lawsuits to be filed would fully preserve citizens' 
rights to bring legal challenge while also achieving closure more 
quickly on any disputed issues. However, there was little consensus on 
this approach: 80 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or 
interests in funding or constructing a highway project rated this 
approach highly, but only 20 percent of those with primary 
responsibilities for or interests involving resources did so.

Preparing preliminary environmental assessment reports. About half of 
all respondents rated the idea of preparing preliminary environmental 
assessment reports highly. As discussed previously, state highway 
departments must assess the proposed project's impacts on the 
environment, if any. Respondents told us that obtaining information 
about a project's potential environmental impacts early, such as during 
the planning phase, could help transportation officials identify issues 
sooner and help move toward resolution earlier, thus saving time. 
Similar to establishing and utilizing geographic information systems 
databases, respondents explained that conducting field visits to the 
planned project sites, conducting literature searches, and documenting 
a proposed project site through photographs could help identify any 
environmental issues early. Slightly less than half of those with 
primary responsibilities or interests in funding or constructing a 
highway project (45 percent) and about two-thirds of those with primary 
responsibilities or interests involving resources (67 percent) rated 
this approach highly.

Establishing project milestones and performance monitoring systems. 
About half of the knowledgeable officials rated highly the concept of 
establishing project milestones and performance monitoring systems to 
help state transportation officials manage projects. Project milestones 
establish goals and expectations for as many as 200 major steps needed 
to plan, design, gain approval for, and construct a federally funded 
highway project. Performance monitoring allows state departments of 
transportation to determine whether goals are being achieved and take 
corrective action, if needed. Respondents indicated that off-the-shelf 
project scheduling software could meet this need. Finally, state 
transportation agencies do not typically capture information centrally 
on time spent on various aspects of their highway projects. Such 
information could be useful in managing the agencies' overall 
performance and help to identify opportunities for 
improvement.[Footnote 5] This approach was rated highly more often by 
those with primary responsibilities for or interest in funding or 
constructing a highway project (60 percent) than those with primary 
responsibilities or interests involving resources (36 percent).

Use of context sensitive design. Fifty percent of the respondents 
indicated that the use of context sensitive design has great or very 
great potential to reduce highway project completion time. In context 
sensitive design, engineering is driven by the needs of the community 
and the environment as well as by technical considerations. Context 
sensitive design goes beyond the early partnership and coordination 
approach discussed above to plan a project that not only meets 
transportation needs but also meets the underlying values of the 
community, such as strong attachment to certain historic or 
environmental resources. This requires an approach that involves all 
stakeholders, seeks to develop a highway project that fits its physical 
setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental 
resources while maintaining safety and mobility. About one-third (30 
percent) of those with primary responsibilities for or interests in 
funding or constructing a highway project rated this approach highly. 
In contrast, 83 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or 
interests involving resources rated this approach highly.

Holding earlier, more frequent public meetings. About half of the 
respondents viewed earlier and/or more frequent public meetings as 
highly useful in reducing the time to complete highway projects. 
Respondents explained that public comments were sometimes not solicited 
until the state department of transportation had already identified a 
preferred alternative, rather than allowing for meaningful public input 
to address community concerns at the outset of developing suitable 
alternatives.[Footnote 6] Public information meetings allow 
transportation agencies to present information to the public on 
projects that are planned or underway and to obtain informal comments 
from community residents. Such meetings can help project sponsors 
understand the views of the community while communicating the project's 
purpose and possible impacts. At the same time, early opportunities for 
and incorporation of comments provides the community buy-in as the 
department of transportation addresses their concerns. About 40 percent 
of those with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or 
constructing a highway project rated this approach highly, while two-
thirds of those with primary responsibilities for or interests 
involving resources rated this approach highly.

Delegation of Review and Permitting Authority:

A second set of promising approaches generally involved routinizing 
decisions on commonly occurring issues. According to FHWA, over 90 
percent of highway projects are routine activities that do not impose 
extensive environmental impacts nor require substantial review. 
However, these routine activities may undergo lengthy or duplicative 
reviews that respondents noted as potentially slowing project 
completion.

Using programmatic agreements. Using programmatic agreements between 
federal and/or state transportation and resource agencies to address 
commonly occurring issues received the second highest rating from 
respondents on average of the 13 most promising approaches. Sixty-eight 
percent of the respondents indicated that programmatic agreements to 
handle routine projects or commonly occurring resource effects (e.g., 
endangered species) or to delegate review authority from resource 
agencies to transportation agencies have great or very great potential 
to reduce project completion time. This approach was rated highly by 70 
percent of those respondents with primary responsibilities for or 
interests in funding or constructing a highway project. Moreover, 
nearly two-thirds of the respondents with primary responsibilities for 
or interests involving resources rated the approach highly.

Unifying section 404 and other environmental requirements. Fifty-eight 
percent of the respondents rated highly the idea of unifying the 
requirements of section 404 of the Clean Water Act with other 
environmental review requirements. Traditionally, FHWA and the states 
completed environmental reviews of the proposed highway project before 
approaching the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit involving a 
wetland under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Yet, even after FHWA 
had issued its record of decision on environmental issues allowing the 
project to move forward, a project might fail to obtain the needed 
permits from the Corps and therefore be halted despite having cleared 
an extensive environmental review. Officials told us that by 
effectively integrating the two processes, approval of the section 404 
permit could be concurrent with FHWA's final action, resulting in 
reduced project completion time, more environmentally sound projects, 
and increased relationship building. Knowledgeable officials suggested 
that this approach could occur through merger agreements or through 
changes in legislation. Sixty percent of the respondents with primary 
responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway 
project and 50 percent of respondents with primary responsibilities for 
or interests involving resources rated the approach highly. According 
to FHWA, 29 states have adopted agreements to unify NEPA environmental 
reviews and section 404 Clean Water Act permit reviews to ensure that 
the reviews are conducted concurrently.

Wetlands banking. Slightly less than half (46 percent) of the 
respondents rated the concept of wetlands banking highly. As required 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, transportation agencies must 
compensate for any wetlands that are disturbed by highway projects, as 
determined by the Army Corps of Engineers and state environmental 
agencies. Transportation agencies address these wetlands impacts by 
creating new wetlands areas near the highway project site. The problem 
cited by some is that this approach to wetlands is piecemeal rather 
than comprehensive. According to respondents, these efforts can add 
significant time to highway projects, especially if the wetlands are 
not detected until late in the project. Under wetlands banking, state 
departments of transportation and wetland permitting agencies enter 
into blanket agreements to create large areas of wetlands rather than 
small wetlands at each construction site. While saving time on project 
completion, proponents state that wetlands banking can also provide 
more wildlife habitat and more ecologically significant restoration and 
enhancement in larger areas. Fifty percent of the respondents with 
primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a 
highway project and 33 percent of the respondents with primary 
responsibilities or interests involving resources rated this approach 
highly.

Improving Agency Staffing and Skills:

Two of the 13 most promising approaches involved improving staffing 
through interagency funding agreements and increased training as a 
means for reducing highway project completion time.

Using interagency funding agreements. About 60 percent of the 
respondents rated highly the use of interagency funding agreements to 
provide staff at resource agencies. As noted above, some believe that 
resource agencies do not always provide needed feedback to FHWA or 
departments of transportation on the environmental effects of proposed 
highway projects in a timely manner. Various reasons for this were 
cited, but both respondents with responsibilities for or interests in 
funding or constructing a highway and respondents with responsibilities 
or interests involving resources noted that staff shortages at resource 
agencies were a significant reason for this problem. As a result, state 
departments of transportation have increasingly used federal funds 
authorized under section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21ST Century to pay for technical staff positions at resource agencies, 
including biologists and historic preservation specialists. According 
to FHWA, 34 states have agreements that provide state and federal 
environmental agency personnel for expediting reviews. The hired 
personnel devote their attention solely to proposed federally funded 
highway projects, thus potentially improving the timeliness of resource 
agency assessments of any environmental issues associated with these 
projects. Slightly less than one-half of those with responsibilities or 
interests in funding or constructing a highway project (45 percent) 
rated this approach highly; however, over four-fifths of those with 
responsibilities or interests involving resources (83 percent) did so.

Increased training. Finally, about half of the respondents supported 
increased training for state department of transportation officials 
regarding understanding the requirements associated with completing a 
highway project.[Footnote 7] About 50 percent of those with primary 
responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway 
project and 58 percent of those with primary responsibilities or 
interests in involving resources rated this approach highly.

Conclusions:

Our results showed, overall, strong stakeholder support for 13 
approaches to reduce the time it takes to complete a federally funded 
highway project. While stakeholders' support varied, 8 of these 
approaches had strong support across groups representing different 
primary interests. We recognize that it may be neither feasible nor 
appropriate to utilize each of these 13 approaches on every federally 
funded highway project. In addition, some of these approaches, such as 
interagency funding agreements, are already being utilized at the state 
level and still others may require congressional action. Nonetheless, 
they do represent a reasonable number of actions that can be considered 
further as to the benefits, in relation to the costs, that they bring 
to reducing highway project completion time. FHWA would need to work 
with other lead agencies to assess how these actions would be 
implemented, including whether any legislative changes would be 
required. Such assessments could lead to more widespread adoption and 
corresponding increased transportation and environmental benefits.

Recommendation for Executive Action:

In order to reduce highway project completion time, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, FHWA, to 
consider the benefits of at least each of the 13 most promising 
approaches discussed in this report relative to the costs and 
feasibility of implementing them and take the actions needed to foster 
more widespread adoption of those approaches that appear to be the most 
cost effective.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from the Department 
of Transportation. Generally, the Department agreed that the 13 most 
promising approaches discussed in our draft report represent 
opportunities to reduce project completion time. While it did not 
directly comment on our proposed recommendation, the Department noted 
that most, if not all, of the promising approaches coincide with the 
streamlining activities that the Department and its partners, such as 
state departments of transportation and resource agencies, have been 
developing and implementing under section 1309 of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21ST Century.

:

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of 
this report to congressional committees with responsibilities for 
highway issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, 
Federal Highway Administration; and the Director, Office of Management 
and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. 
In addition, this report will be available at no charge on our home 
page at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact either James Ratzenberger at ratzenbergerj@gao.gov or me at 
siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512-2834. 
Key contributors to this report were Jennifer Clayborne, Kenya Jones, 
SaraAnn Moessbauer, James Ratzenberger, Deena Richart, and Matthew 
Zisman.

Sincerely yours,

Katherine Siggerud
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:

Signed by Katherine Siggerud:

[End of section]

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To perform our work, we reviewed laws and regulations governing the 
construction of federally funded highway projects. We discussed these 
requirements, the time required to complete projects, and initiatives 
to reduce this time with officials from the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Coast Guard, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Road and 
Transportation Builders Association, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, private transportation engineering firms, and others. We 
also interviewed officials from California, Florida, North Carolina, 
Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin departments of transportation 
about highway project completion time and initiatives to reduce the 
completion times of these projects. We chose these states either 
because they spent the most federal-aid highway funds or because 
officials we interviewed identified these states as making efforts to 
reduce project time. We also reviewed federal and private studies on 
highway project completion.

To determine transportation stakeholders' views on the most promising 
approaches to substantially reduce project completion time for 
federally funded highway projects, we reached out to 62 organizations 
with a role or interest in highway project completion. (See table 4.) 
Of these organizations, officials from 42 organizations agreed to 
participate in structured interviews, including federal and state 
agencies with responsibilities relating to the construction of 
federally funded roads, transportation engineering organizations, 
transportation professional associations, historic preservation 
organizations, environmental organizations, tribal organizations and a 
university. To identify the 62 organizations, we initially contacted 
agencies and organizations that have primary responsibility for highway 
project completion or that have been vocal on the issue. We asked these 
officials to identify, for subsequent interviews, other agencies or 
organizations undertaking or knowledgeable about promising approaches 
for substantially reducing highway project completion time. We 
continued to ask for names from the subsequent organizations until no 
new names were identified.

Table 4: Organizations Contacted to Determine Most Promising Approaches 
to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time:

Organization: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Organization: American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials.

Organization: American Concrete and Pavement Association.

Organization: American Council of Engineering Companies.

Organization: American Highway Users Alliance.

Organization: American Public Transportation Association.

Organization: American Road & Transportation Builders Association.

Organization: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Organization: Association of General Contractors.

Organization: California Department of Transportation.

Organization: Center for Transportation and the Environment (North 
Carolina State University).

Organization: Construction Industry Institute.

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife.

Organization: Delaware Department of Transportation.

Organization: Endangered Species Coalition.

Organization: Environmental Council of the States.

Organization: Environmental Defense.

Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Historic Preservation.

Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Infrastructure.

Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Planning.

Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Right-of-Way.

Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Technical Modeling.

Organization: Florida Department of Transportation, State Highway 
Engineer's Office.

Organization: Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of 
Environment/Location.

Organization: Georgia Department of Transportation, Transportation 
Planning, Data and Intermodal Development Division.

Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Civil and 
Environmental Engineering.

Organization: Georgia Regional Transportation Authority.

Organization: HDR, Inc.

Organization: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Organization: Kentucky Heritage Council.

Organization: Lafayette, Louisiana Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Organization: Maryland State Highway Administration, Enhancement 
Program.

Organization: Maryland State Highway Administration, Project Planning 
Division.

Organization: Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Organization: National Association of Development Organizations.

Organization: National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation 
Officers.

Organization: National Coalition to Defend NEPA.

Organization: National Conference of State Historic Preservation 
Officers.

Organization: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Organization: National Wildlife Federation.

Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council.

Organization: Navajo Nation, Historic Preservation Department.

Organization: New Hampshire Department of Transportation.

Organization: New Jersey Department of Transportation, Quality 
Management Services.

Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of 
Highways (Pre-construction) and Planning and Environment Unit.

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering 
District 10.

Organization: Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage 
Commission.

Organization: San Diego Association of Governments.

Organization: Sierra Club.

Organization: Smart Growth America.

Organization: South Carolina Department of Transportation.

Organization: Surface Transportation Policy Project.

Organization: Transportation Development Institute.

Organization: Texas A&M University.

Organization: Tribal Preservation Programs of the National Park 
Service.

Organization: University of Utah.

Organization: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Organization: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington, NC District.

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Organization: Vermont Division for Historic Preservation.

Organization: Washington Department of Transportation.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

Using a structured interview, we asked knowledgeable officials at each 
of the 42 organizations to provide information about the most promising 
approaches for substantially reducing completion time for projects of 
all types and complexities and in each project phase (i.e., planning, 
preliminary engineering and environmental review, final design and 
right-of-way acquisition, and construction). We also obtained 
information from these contacts on opportunities to reduce project 
completion time through administrative changes, changes in federal or 
state law, improvement of staff skills, and improvements in 
disseminating information about approaches to reduce project completion 
time. For each approach cited as the most promising for substantially 
reducing project completion time, we asked these officials to provide 
information on: (1) the nature of the approach, (2) reason(s) why the 
approach was taken, (3) agencies/organizations involved with the 
approach, (4) size of the project, (5) changes to federal or state law 
(if any) required for each approach, (6) expected/actual benefits, and 
(7) methods (if any) for measuring these benefits. (See table 5 for the 
structured interview questions.):

Table 5: Structured Interview Questions Used to Identify the Most 
Promising Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time:

1. Please identify any initiatives your organization has taken to 
expedite project delivery (e.g., earlier coordination between state 
departments of transportation and environmental resource agencies; 
historic preservation programmatic agreements; design/build 
construction techniques). For each initiative, please provide the 
following information: (1) description of initiative; (2) why 
initiative was taken; (3) organizations participating in initiative; 
(4) type of project to which initiative applies (size, complexity); (5) 
project phase to which initiative applies; (6) whether this initiative 
required any changes to federal or state law; (7) expected/actual 
benefit of initiative; and (8) how benefit is measured.

2. Please identify any further opportunities that exist to measurably 
reduce project delivery times through changes in federal or state law, 
while keeping basic policies (e.g., metropolitan/statewide planning; 
environmentally responsible projects) in place. For each initiative, 
please provide the following information: (1) law that should be 
changed; (2) why change is needed; (3) organizations affected by change 
in law; (4) type of project to which initiative applies (size, 
complexity); (5) project phase to which change in law applies; (6) 
expected benefit of change in law; and (7) how benefit would be 
measured.

3. Some have commented that highway oversight is historically focused 
on engineering and contracting rather than oversight of management and 
financial issues. Please discuss if this is the case and if any reforms 
in this area are needed. Also, please identify any initiatives your 
organization has taken that address human capital reform (e.g., 
refocusing staff efforts from oversight of engineering and contract 
issues to management and financial issues) to improve project delivery. 
For each initiative, please provide the following information: (1) 
description of initiative; (2) why initiative was taken; (3) 
organizations participating in initiative; (4) type of project to which 
initiative applies (size, complexity); (5) project phase to which 
initiative applies; (6) expected/actual benefit of initiative; and (7) 
how benefit is measured.

4. How well is information about initiatives to improve project 
delivery times shared among federal and state agencies? Do you have any 
suggestions to improve the current practices? Please describe how your 
organization shares what it has learned with others and how you learn 
about initiatives that other organizations are taking by providing the 
following: (1) method of dissemination/learning; (2) initiative to 
which this applies; and (3) agencies involved.

5. Please identify any further opportunities that could be pursued to 
expedite transportation project delivery. Please provide the following 
information: (1) opportunity; (2) problem to be addressed; (3) 
organizations affected; (4) project type to which opportunity applies 
(size, complexity); (5) project phase to which opportunity applies; (6) 
expected benefit of opportunity; and (7) how benefit would be 
measured.

6. Are you aware of any promising initiatives that other organizations 
are taking to improve highway project delivery times? If so, please 
provide the following information: (1) organization; (2) nature of 
initiative; (3) point of contact; (4) phone number; (5) email/web 
address.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

To determine which of the identified approaches hold the most promise 
for substantially reducing highway project completion time, we compiled 
a list of 49 approaches identified by the respondents and asked each of 
the 42 officials we interviewed to rate the potential of each of the 
approaches to reduce project completion time on a scale of 1 to 
5.[Footnote 8] Thirty-three officials agreed to participate in this 
aspect of our work. Of those not participating, officials declined for 
a variety of reasons. We compiled these ratings and calculated an 
average rating for each approach where at least 75 percent of the 33 
officials provided a rating. We identified the most promising as those 
with an average rating of 3.5 or higher. There were 13 approaches with 
ratings of 3.5 or higher. None of the 13 most promising approaches were 
rated by all 33 officials. Eleven of these 13 approaches were rated by 
30 or more (91 percent) officials, while the remaining 2 approaches 
were rated by 26 officials (79 percent). We did not attempt to 
corroborate the need to implement these approaches or obtain details on 
how they might be structured. In addition, we did not attempt to 
determine how effective the promising approaches, where already 
implemented, were in reducing highway project completion time.

We conducted our work from September 2002 through March 2003 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project 
Completion Time as Identified by Respondents:

Of the 34 approaches that were assessed by at least 75 percent of 
respondents, 19 (56 percent) were rated on average as having moderate, 
great, or very great potential to reduce highway project completion 
time. (See table 6.) The remaining 15 approaches (44 percent) were 
assessed as having, on average, some, little, or no potential to reduce 
highway project completion time. Fewer than 75 percent of the 
respondents provided an assessment for 15 other approaches, and we did 
not report on these results.

Table 6: Promising Approaches to Reduce Project Completion Time 
Identified and Rated by Respondents, by Average Rating:

Approach: Early partnership and coordination; 
Description: All affected parties (e.g., federal government, state 
government, tribal, public) with input into the project completion 
process (1) collaborate early and throughout project planning so that 
technical, environmental, policy, and program issues can be resolved in 
a predictable and timely manner; and (2) develop collaborative work 
plans that are comprehensive, realistic, and deliverable; 
Number of respondents: 31; Average rating[A]: 4.5; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
90.3.

Approach: Programmatic agreements; Description: Use 
programmatic agreements (i.e., between transportation and resource 
agencies at the federal and/or state level) to review environmental 
impact of routine projects or commonly occurring resource effects 
(i.e., commonly encountered species, typical project types) or 
delegation of authority (i.e., reviews from state historic preservation 
agency to state department of transportation); Number of 
respondents: 31; Average rating[A]: 4.0; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 67.7.

Approach: Revise section 4(f) process; Description: 
Use the protections found in section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act instead of the protections found in section 4(f) of 
the Department of Transportation Act for consideration of historic 
properties and other historic resources; Number of 
respondents: 30; Average rating[A]: 4.0; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 70.0.

Approach: Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes; Description: Unify 
the Clean Water Act section 404 permit and NEPA environmental review 
processes to ensure that projects that pass the NEPA review process 
also comply with section 404; Number of respondents: 26; 
Average rating[A]: 3.7; Percent of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 57.7.

Approach: Training; Description: Determine agency 
staff skill set and establish training programs to eliminate knowledge 
shortfalls among transportation staff on requirements to complete all 
phases of highway projects. Ensure that new recruits to the 
transportation field have orientation and training for all phases of 
project completion; Number of respondents: 32; Average 
rating[A]: 3.7; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: 53.1.

Approach: Establish time frames for NEPA process; 
Description: Provide specific time frames for resource agencies to 
respond to environmental documents and produce any needed analyses. 
Reduce the 6-year time frame for lawsuits filed under NEPA; 
Number of respondents: 30; Average rating[A]: 3.6; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
60.0.

Approach: Interagency funding agreements; 
Description: State departments of transportation fund additional staff 
at state or federal resource agencies. Work of funded staff must have a 
measurable impact in reducing time to complete environmental reviews on 
transportation projects; Number of respondents: 32; 
Average rating[A]: 3.6; Percent of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 59.4.

Approach: Preliminary environmental assessment reports;  
Description: Provide information on any conditions and constraints 
early in the process, prior to programming project cost and schedule. 
Reports are based on a field visit, literature search, geographic 
information systems, and photo log review to include a work plan for 
the subsequent environmental analysis for NEPA; Number of 
respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 3.6; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 53.1.

Approach: Establish project milestones and performance 
monitoring systems; Description: Specify key dates, such as 
when final design must be completed, when the contract is let, and when 
construction must conclude, and manage the project to meet the dates. 
Use project-scheduling software available off the shelf that indicates 
where project delays occur as well as what is ahead of schedule:  
Number of respondents: 31; Average rating[A]: 3.6; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
51.6.

Approach: Context sensitive design; Description: 
Projects must be designed to consider their environmental and social 
context so that projects meet the needs of the communities. These 
factors are incorporated into the transportation planning process; 
Number of respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 3.5; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
50.0.

Approach: Geographic information systems; 
Description: Use of data collected by various federal and state 
resource agencies to identify environmental and historic issues early 
during environmental review, determine alignments that minimize adverse 
impacts, and support integrated interagency review; Number of 
respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 3.5; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 62.5.

Approach: Public information meetings; Description: 
Hold public meetings early and often to provide information on projects 
that are planned or underway; Number of respondents: 32; 
Average rating[A]: 3.5; Percent of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 50.0.

Approach: Wetlands banking; Description: Blanket 
agreements between state departments of transportation and wetland 
permitting agencies to create large areas of wetlands rather than small 
wetlands at each construction site; Number of respondents: 26; 
Average rating[A]: 3.5; Percent of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 46.2.

Approach: Partner with groups; Description: 
Identify groups that have developed best practices, or offer technical 
expertise, to ensure that information is shared in order to expedite 
project completion; Number of respondents: 31; Average 
rating[A]: 3.3; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: 41.9.

Approach: Acculturation; Description: Work to 
achieve recognition in transportation staff of the inherent benefits of 
environmentally sound projects; work to achieve recognition of the 
value of transportation projects on behalf of resource agencies:  
Number of respondents: 31; Average rating[A]: 3.3; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
41.9.

Approach: Formal elevation process; Description: 
Formalized process in which resource agencies elevate unresolved issues 
through the chain of command, with the final step being senior 
management; Number of respondents: 32; Average 
rating[A]: 3.2; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: 46.9.

Approach: Internet; Description: Use the internet 
to provide technical training and reference materials. Use the internet 
to allow access to agency guidance materials, regulations, and federal 
and state laws; Number of respondents: 32; Average 
rating[A]: 3.0; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: 34.4.

Approach: Allow early right-of-way acquisition; 
Description: To save time and money associated with relocation, acquire 
potential project right-of-way during project design; Number 
of respondents: 29; Average rating[A]: 3.0; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
34.5.

Approach: Biennial reviews; Description: Conduct 
biennial reviews by state transportation agencies to help identify 
bottlenecks; Number of respondents: 29; Average 
rating[A]: 3.0; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: 31.0.

Approach: National conferences; Description: Hold 
national conferences to bring practitioners and other stakeholders 
together to share information; Number of respondents: 31; 
Average rating[A]: 2.9; Percent of respondents indicating approach 
has great or very great potential: 25.8.

Approach: Environmental information center; 
Description: Fund and operate a central information storehouse for 
transportation and resource agencies; Number of respondents: 
31; Average rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 22.6.

Approach: Aerial surveying and imaging technology; 
Description: Highly accurate digital terrain data models and maps can 
become available early in project design with substantially reduced 
time, effort, and expense compared with only using ground surveys. 
Contractors can manage the earthwork of a project with significant 
precision; Number of respondents: 28; Average rating[A]: 
2.8; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 25.0.

Approach: Hire consultants or contractors; 
Description: Consultants or contractors provide technical analyses 
instead of agency staff who instead focus on project management;  
Number of respondents: 27; Average rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
25.9.

Approach: State funding of historic preservation activities; 
Description: State governments provide funds for historic 
preservation activities outside the federal State Historic Preservation 
Officers program; Number of respondents: 30; Average 
rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: 33.3.

Approach: Metropolitan capacity building; 
Description: Work to improve the technical skills of metropolitan 
planning organizations so that planning can focus on policy decisions 
rather than technical and administrative issues; Number of 
respondents: 26; Average rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 38.5.

Approach: Environmental compliance mitigation systems; 
Description: Provide a system to ensure that mitigation measures 
are carried out as needed and specified; Number of 
respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 28.1.

Approach: Single agency point of contact; 
Description: Rather than have multiple contacts for members of the 
public, have one single contact, reducing confusion, and communication 
delays; Number of respondents: 30; Average rating[A]: 
2.7; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 16.7.

Approach: Videotaped guidance on promising approaches; 
Description: Videotaped presentations on methods to reduce project 
completion time; Number of respondents: 31; Average 
rating[A]: 2.7; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: 19.4.

Approach: Travel model improvement; Description: 
Improve transportation modeling to more accurately portray traffic 
patterns and growth; Number of respondents: 28; Average 
rating[A]: 2.6; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: 25.0.

Approach: Awards programs to recognize agency achievements; 
Description: Design a national awards program to provide 
recognition for departments of transportation and resource agencies for 
innovative projects and leadership; Number of respondents: 30; 
Average rating[A]: 2.5; Percent of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 13.3.

Approach: Regular publications; Description: 
Organize and distribute publications on a regular basis (i.e., weekly 
newsletters, monthly magazines, and quarterly web magazines); 
Number of respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 2.5; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
25.0.

Approach: Peer reviews; Description: Federal 
transportation officials provide state transportation officials with 
recommendations on revising existing specifications or procedures. 
Surveys of peers allow transportation and resource agency officials to 
determine performance relative to peers; Number of 
respondents: 30; Average rating[A]: 2.4; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 6.7.

Approach: Infer the presence of endangered species; 
Description: Proceed under the assumption that endangered species are 
present at a project site, reducing the likelihood of later delay and 
ultimately saving costs; Number of respondents: 30; 
Average rating[A]: 2.4; Percent of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 6.7.

Approach: Professional organization membership; 
Description: Participation in engineering, accounting, finance, 
management, and other discipline organizations; Number of 
respondents: 29; Average rating[A]: 2.2; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 17.2.

Approach: Subsurface utility engineering; 
Description: Provides accurate mapping of existing underground 
utilities during the project design process using geophysics, surveying 
and civil engineering rather than determining utility locations later 
during the construction phase; Number of respondents: 24;  
Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach 
has great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: Clarify role of metropolitan planning 
organizations; Description: Clarify laws to reduce confusion 
of roles between state departments of transportation and metropolitan 
planning organizations for creating and implementing transportation 
plans; Number of respondents: 24; Average rating[A]: 
[B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: [B].

Approach: Incentive/disincentive construction contracting; 
Description: Giving the contractor a financial incentive for 
every day that the contract is completed early and a financial 
disincentive for failure to complete a project on time; Number 
of respondents: 23; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: Use consultants or contractors; 
Description: Expedite the procurement process for appraisal services 
and reduce fees and costs; Number of respondents: 22; 
Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: Design build contracting; Description: 
One entity, the design-builder, forges a single contract with the state 
transportation agency to provide for architectural and engineering 
design and construction services; Number of respondents: 21; : 
Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach 
has great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: A + B bidding for construction contracts; 
Description: Involves cost and time in the low bid determination. 
Submitted bids consist of dollar amount of all work to be performed, as 
well as total number of calendar days required to complete the 
project; Number of respondents: 21; Average rating[A]: 
[B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: [B].

Approach: Advanced clearing and grubbing contracts; 
Description: Contract for clearing vegetation and removing roots and 
stumps (grubbing) in the project right-of-way in advance of the 
project; Number of respondents: 21; Average rating[A]: 
[B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: [B].

Approach: Change control policy for construction contracts; 
Description: Establish procedures to monitor and limit 
contractor change orders; Number of respondents: 21; 
Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: Lane rental construction contracts; 
Description: Assess the contractor a fee for each day of lane closure 
in excess of the number of total lane rental days originally bid by the 
contractor; Number of respondents: 20; Average 
rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: [B].

Approach: Lump sum construction contracts; 
Description: Contractor submits a lump sum price to complete a project 
as opposed to bidding on individual items; Number of 
respondents: 20; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: Utility relocation contracts; 
Description: Include utility relocation in construction contract;  
Number of respondents: 20; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: Indefinite quantity,; indefinite completion 
contracting; Description: Contractors bid on work items with 
the location to be determined under future work orders (e.g., for 
installation of traffic signals on a citywide, or areawide basis);  
Number of respondents: 19; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: Noncost selection factor contracting; 
Description: Allow contracts to consider such factors as previous work 
quality, rather than selecting the lowest bidder; Number of 
respondents: 19; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].

Approach: System integrator contracts; Description: 
Allow contractors to serve as the construction manager, including 
advertising, letting and awarding contracts using state and federal 
acquisition guidelines. In addition to contract management, the 
contractor will perform project supervision and system integration; 
Number of respondents: 18; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent 
of respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 
[B].

Approach: Bid averaging method of contracting; 
Description: Once a minimum number of bids are received, state 
determines the average bid and selects contractor whose bid is closest 
to the average; Number of respondents: 16; Average 
rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or 
very great potential: [B].

Source: GAO.

[A] Respondents rated each approach's potential for reducing project 
completion time using the following scale: 1= little to no potential to 
reduce project completion time; 2= some potential to reduce project 
completion time; 3= moderate potential to reduce project completion 
time; 4= great potential to reduce project completion time; 5= very 
great potential to reduce project completion time. Respondents could 
also tell us that they did not know or had no basis to judge.

[B] No statistic is reported because less than 75 percent of the 33 
respondents provided a rating for this approach.

[End of table]

In some cases, respondents with similar primary interests or 
responsibilities rated approaches similarly; in other cases, their 
views diverged. (See table 7; approaches in bold are the 13 approaches 
that respondents rated most highly overall.):

Table 7: Views on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time 
Often Varied by Respondent Affiliation:

Approach:

Early partnership and coordination; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 17; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 2; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 11; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 0; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 0.

Establish time frames for NEPA process; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 16; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 3; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 4.

Revise section 4(f); Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 16; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 0; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 2.

Programmatic agreements; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 14; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 1; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 7; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 0.

Establish project milestones and performance monitoring systems; Views 
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 12; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 8; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 0; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 4.

Formal elevation process; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 12; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 4; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 6.

Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA processes; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 12; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1.

Geographic information systems; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 6; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.0: 4: 2: 0: 4: 6: 1: 1.

Wetlands banking; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 10; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 0; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 2.

Training; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 10; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has moderate potential: 8; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 2; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 7; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 0.

Preliminary environmental assessment reports; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 9; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 4; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 8; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1.

Interagency funding agreements; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 9; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 6; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1.

Allow early right-of-way acquisition; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 8; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 9; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 2; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 0; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 8.

Partner with groups; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 8; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 4; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 6; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1.

Public information meetings; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 8; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 8; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 4; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 8; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1.

Biennial reviews; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 7; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 8; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 4.

Hire consultants or contractors; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 6; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 7; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 1; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 4.

Context sensitive design; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 9; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 5; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1.

National conferences; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 10; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 3.

Internet; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 5; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has moderate potential: 8; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 7; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 3.

Metropolitan capacity building; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 11; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 0.

Acculturation; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 8; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 7; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 9; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1.

Single agency point of contact; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 9; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 7; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 1; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 6.

Environmental compliance mitigation systems; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 4; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 5; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 11; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 3.

Aerial surveying and imaging technology; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 8; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 2.

State funding of historic preservation activities; Views among agencies 
or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 6; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 10; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 7; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 2.

Professional organization membership; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 5; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 11; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 7.

Environmental information center; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 8; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 9; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 2.

Video; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with 
funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has moderate potential: 6; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 11; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 3.

Regular publications; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great 
potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, 
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 13; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 6.

Awards program to recognize agency achievements; Views among agencies 
or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 10; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 6; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 3.

Infer the presence of endangered species; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has moderate potential: 5; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 13; [Empty]; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 3.

Travel model improvement; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway 
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very 
great potential: 1; Views among agencies or associations primarily 
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 6; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has no to some potential: 12; [Empty]; Views among 
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 1.

Peer reviews; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated 
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of 
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 1; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, 
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents 
indicating approach has moderate potential: 9; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or 
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 10; Views among agencies or 
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic 
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has 
great or very great potential: 1; Views among agencies or associations 
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; 
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural 
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating 
approach has no to some potential: 5.

Source: GAO.

Notes: Includes the 34 approaches where more than 75 percent of the 33 
respondents rated an approach.

The table is ordered from most popular to least popular among 
respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding 
or constructing a highway project to better show similarities and 
differences in rating.

[End of table]

(542007):

FOOTNOTES

[1] Two of the 33 respondents did not provide a rating for this 
approach.

[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary 
Information on the Timely Completion of Highway Construction Projects, 
GAO-02-1067T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002).



[3] Any transportation project that involves discharge of dredged or 
fill material to navigable waters, including certain wetlands, requires 
a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act. The permit review may require mitigation of project 
impacts through specific measures to minimize or avoid damage to 
wetlands and compensate for unavoidable impacts. 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act applies to project 
use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation areas or 
wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or public or private land of an historic 
site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the 
federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, 
recreation areas refuge, or site). Property for which section 4(f) is 
applicable can be approved for use of a transportation program or 
project only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using 
that land, and the program or project includes all possible planning to 
minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl 
refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires 
federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings 
on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. Historic properties 
are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic 
Places or that meet the criteria for the National Register.

[4] Acculturation, in part, is working to achieve recognition by 
transportation staff of the inherent benefits of environmentally sound 
projects and vice versa. See table 6 in app. II for a description of 
these approaches.

[5] GAO-02-1067T.

[6] FHWA requires that, during statewide transportation planning, state 
officials proactively provide the public with complete information, 
timely public notice, full public access to decisions, and 
opportunities for early and continuing involvement.

[7] We did not ask the respondents to identify specific areas where 
training would be beneficial.

[8] 1=little to no potential to reduce project completion time; 2=some 
potential to reduce project completion time; 3=moderate potential to 
reduce project completion time; 4=great potential to reduce project 
completion time; 5=very great potential to reduce project completion 
time. Respondents could also indicate whether they did not know or had 
no basis to judge.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: