This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1132T 
entitled 'Surface and Maritime Transportation: Challenges and 
Strategies for Enhancing Mobility' which was released on September 30, 
2002.



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.



Testimony:



Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works

U.S. Senate:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT Monday, September 

30, 2002:



Surface and Maritime Transportation:



Challenges and Strategies for Enhancing Mobility:



Statement of JayEtta Z. Hecker

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:



GAO-02-1132T:



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:



We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the challenges faced by the 

surface and maritime transportation systems in maintaining and 

improving mobility. Your hearing today focuses on important issues 

about the physical condition, performance, and future investment 

requirements of the nations roadways and bridges.[Footnote 1] Our 

remarks will focus on the performance of the transportation systems. 

More specifically, we will discuss the ultimate desired outcome of 

transportation infrastructure improvements--enhanced mobility--and the 

possible strategies for achieving that outcome.[Footnote 2]



The scope of the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems--

which primarily includes roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and 

ports and waterways[Footnote 3]--is vast. One of the major goals of 

these systems is to provide and enhance mobility. Mobility provides 

people with access to goods, services, recreation, and jobs; provides 

businesses with access to materials, markets, and people; and promotes 

the movement of personnel and material to meet national defense needs. 

However, the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems have 

become congested and concerns have been raised about the burden they 

impose on the nations quality of life through wasted energy, time, and 

money; increased pollution; and threats to public safety. Barriers to 

transportation accessibility for certain population groups and the 

level of financial resources available to address transportation 

problems are also major concerns. Balancing the goal of improving 

mobility with other social goals, such as environmental preservation, 

will present challenges.



Our statement is based on a report that we are releasing today on 

surface and maritime transportation mobility. [Footnote 4] We will 

discuss (1) key challenges in maintaining and improving mobility and 

(2) key strategies for addressing the challenges. Our report is 

primarily based on expert opinion drawn from two panels of surface and 

maritime transportation experts that we convened in April 2002. Our 

work also included a review of reports prepared by federal agencies, 

academics, and industry groups. Appendix I provides further information 

on our scope and methodology and appendix II contains a list of 

relevant GAO products.



In summary:



* With increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface and 

maritime transportation systems face a number of challenges in ensuring 

continued mobility. These challenges include:



* Preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation system. 

Increasing passenger and freight travel has already led to increasing 

levels of congestion at bottlenecks and peak travel times in some 

areas. For example, the amount of traffic experiencing congestion 

during peak travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982 to 66 

percent in 2000 in 75 metropolitan areas studied by the Texas 

Transportation Institute.[Footnote 5] Freight mobility is also affected 

by increasing congestion within specific heavily used corridors and at 

specific bottlenecks that tend to involve intermodal connections, such 

as border crossings, and road and rail connections at major seaports 

within metropolitan areas. Furthermore, congestion is increasing at 

aging and increasing unreliable locks on the inland waterways. 



* Ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved populations 

(including some elderly, poor, and rural populations that have 

restricted mobility) and achieving a balance between enhancing mobility 

and giving due regard to environmental and other social goals. Policies 

and patterns of development that encourage automobile dependence and 

favor provision of transit services with inflexible routes and 

schedules--such as subway or bus--may disadvantage some groups by 

limiting their access to needed services or jobs. The surface and 

maritime transportation systems also face the challenge of effectively 

addressing pollution problems caused by increased travel levels. 

Emissions from passenger and freight vehicles, shipping waste disposal 

practices, and excessive noise levels have contributed to the 

degradation of air quality, disruption of ecosystems, and other 

problems.



* There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the 

nation, and our expert panelists indicated that numerous approaches are 

needed to address these challenges. From these discussions, we believe 

that the wide range of approaches can be clustered into three key 

strategies that may help transportation decisionmakers at all levels of 

government address mobility challenges. These strategies include the 

following:



* Focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system rather 

than on specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired mobility 

outcomes. Transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local 

level might shift focus from their current emphasis on single modes to 

consider performance outcomes of all modes in addressing mobility 

challenges, and to recognize interactions across modes between 

passenger and freight traffic, and between public and private 

interests. This is important because addressing the mobility challenges 

outlined above can involve a scope beyond a local jurisdiction or a 

state line, and may require coordination across multiple modes, types 

of travel, or types of transportation providers and planners.



* Use a full range of techniques to achieve desired mobility outcomes. 

Using various techniques--such as new construction, corrective and 

preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, operations and system 

management, and pricing--to address complex mobility challenges, may be 

more effective than placing emphasis on any one technique.



* Provide more options for financing mobility improvements and consider 

additional sources of revenue. This strategy--which involves providing 

more flexibility in funding across modes, expanding financial support 

for alternative financing mechanisms (e.g., credit assistance to state 

and local governments), and considering various revenue-raising 

methods--may offer promise for addressing key mobility problems.



Background:



The U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems facilitate 

mobility through an extensive network of infrastructure and operators, 

as well as through the vehicles and vessels that permit passengers and 

freight to move within the systems. The systems include 3.9 million 

miles of public roads, 121,000 miles of major private railroad 

networks, and 25,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways. They 

also include over 500 major urban public transit operators in addition 

to numerous private transit operators, and more than 300 ports on the 

coasts, Great Lakes, and inland waterways.



Maintaining transportation systems is critical to sustaining Americas 

economic growth. Efficient mobility systems significantly affect 

economic development: cities could not exist and global trade could not 

occur without systems to transport people and goods. The pressures on 

the existing transportation system are mounting, however, as both 

passenger and freight travel are expected to increase over the next 10 

years, according to Department of Transportation (DOT) projections. 

Passenger vehicle travel on public roads is expected to grow by 24.7 

percent from 2000 to 2010. Passenger travel on transit systems is 

expected to increase by 17.2 percent over the same period. Amtrak has 

estimated that intercity passenger rail ridership will increase by 25.9 

percent from 2001 to 2010. Preliminary estimates by DOT indicate that 

tons of freight moved on all surface and maritime modes--truck, rail, 

and water--are expected to increase by 43 percent from 1998 through 

2010, with the largest increase expected to be in the truck sector. The 

key factors behind increases in passenger travel, and the modes 

travelers choose, are expected to be population growth, the aging of 

the population, and rising affluence. For freight movements, economic 

growth, increasing international trade, and the increasing value of 

cargo shipped may affect future travel levels and the modes used to 

move freight.



The relative roles of each sector involved in surface and maritime 

transportation activities--including the federal government, other 

levels of government, and the private sector--vary across modes. For 

public roads, the federal government owns few roads but has played a 

major role in funding the nations highways. With the completion of the 

interstate highway system in the 1980s--and continuing with passage of 

the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

(ISTEA)[Footnote 6] and its successor legislation, the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)[Footnote 7], in 1998--the 

federal government shifted its focus toward preserving and enhancing 

the capacity of the system. While the federal governments primary role 

has been to provide capital funding for the interstate system and other 

highway projects, state and local governments provide the bulk of the 

funding for public roads in the United States and are responsible for 

operating and maintaining all nonfederal roads, including the 

interstate system.



For transit systems--which include a variety of multiple-occupancy 

vehicle services designed to transport passengers on local and regional 

routes--the federal government provides financial assistance to state 

and local transit operators to develop new transit systems and improve, 

maintain, and operate existing systems. The largest portion of capital 

funding for transit comes from the federal government, while the 

primary source for operating funds comes from passenger fares.



The respective roles of the public and private sector and the revenue 

sources vary for passenger as compared with freight railroads. For 

passenger railroads, the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created 

Amtrak to provide intercity passenger rail service because existing 

railroads found such service unprofitable. Since its founding, Amtrak 

has rebuilt rail equipment and benefited from significant public 

investment in track and stations, especially in the Northeast corridor, 

which runs between Boston and Washington, D.C. The role of the federal 

government in providing financial support to Amtrak is currently under 

review amid concerns about the corporations financial viability and 

discussions about the future direction of federal policy toward 

intercity rail service. For freight railroads, the private sector owns, 

operates, and provides almost all of the financing for freight 

railroads. Currently, the federal government plays a relatively small 

role in financing freight railroad infrastructure by offering some 

credit assistance to state and local governments and railroads for 

capital improvements.



The U.S. maritime transportation system primarily consists of 

waterways, ports, the intermodal connections (e.g., inland rail and 

roadways) that permit passengers and cargo to reach marine facilities, 

and the vessels and vehicles that move cargo and people within the 

system. The maritime infrastructure is owned and operated by an 

aggregation of state and local agencies and private companies, with 

some federal funding provided by the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast 

Guard, and DOTs Maritime Administration.



Funding authorization for several key federal surface transportation 

programs will expire soon. For example, TEA-21s authorization of 

appropriations expires in fiscal year 2003 and the Amtrak Reform and 

Accountability Act of 1997[Footnote 8] authorized federal 

appropriations for Amtrak through the end of fiscal year 2002. In 

addition, the federal funding processes and mechanisms for the maritime 

transportation system are currently under review by two interagency 

groups.[Footnote 9]



Key Mobility Challenges Include Growing Congestion and Other Problems:



There are several challenges to mobility. Three of the most significant 

are growing congestion, ensuring access to transportation for certain 

underserved populations, and addressing the transportation systems 

negative effects on the environment and communities.



Congestion:



Ensuring continued mobility involves preventing congestion from 

overwhelming the transportation system. Congestion is growing at 

localized bottlenecks (places where the capacity of the transportation 

system is most limited) and at peak travel times on public roads, 

transit systems, freight rail lines, and at freight hubs such as ports 

and borders where freight is transferred from one mode to another. In 

particular:



* For local urban travel, a study by the Texas Transportation 

Institute[Footnote 10] showed that the amount of traffic experiencing 

congestion during peak travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982 

to 66 percent in 2000 in the 75 metropolitan areas studied. In 

addition, the average time per day that roads were congested increased 

over this period, from about 4.5 hours in 1982 to about 7 hours in 

2000. Increased road congestion can also affect public bus and other 

transit systems that operate on roads. Some transit systems are also 

experiencing increasing rail congestion at peak travel times.[Footnote 

11] In addition, concerns have been raised about how intercity and 

tourist travel interacts with local traffic in metropolitan areas and 

in smaller towns and rural areas, and how this interaction will evolve 

in the future. According to a report sponsored by the World Business 

Council for Sustainable Development, Mobility 2001,[Footnote 12] 

capacity problems for intercity travelers are severe in certain heavily 

traveled corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, which links 

Washington, D.C., New York, and Boston. In addition, the study said 

that intercity travel may constitute a substantial proportion of total 

traffic passing through smaller towns and rural areas.



* Congestion is expected to increase on major freight transportation 

networks at specific bottlenecks, particularly where intermodal 

connections occur, and at peak travel times. This expectation raises 

concerns about how interactions between freight and passenger travel 

and how increases in both types of travel will affect mobility in the 

future. Trucks contribute to congestion in metropolitan and other areas 

where they generally move on the same roads and highways as personal 

vehicles, particularly during peak periods of travel. In addition, high 

demand for freight, particularly freight moved on trucks, exists in 

metropolitan areas where overall congestion tends to be the worst.



* With international trade an increasing part of the economy and with 

larger containerships being built, some panelists indicated that more 

pressure will be placed on the already congested road and rail 

connections to major U.S. seaports and at the border crossings with 

Canada and Mexico. According to a DOT report,[Footnote 13] more than 

one-half of the ports responding to a 1997 survey of port access issues 

identified traffic impediments on local truck routes as the major 

infrastructure problem. This congestion has considerable implications 

for our economy given that 95 percent of our overseas trade tonnage 

moves by water, and the cargo moving through the U.S. marine 

transportation system contributes billions of dollars to the U.S. gross 

domestic product.[Footnote 14]



* Railroads are beginning to experience more severe capacity 

constraints in heavily used corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, 

and within major metropolitan areas, especially where commuter and 

intercity passenger rail services share tracks with freight railroads. 

Capacity constraints at these bottlenecks are expected to worsen in the 

future.



* On the inland waterways, congestion is increasing at aging and 

increasingly unreliable locks. According to the Corps of Engineers, the 

number of hours that locks were unavailable due to lock failures 

increased in recent years, from about 35,000 hours in 1991 to 55,000 

hours in 1999, occurring primarily on the upper Mississippi and 

Illinois rivers. Also according to the Corps of Engineers, with 

expected growth in freight travel, 15 of 26 locks that they studied are 

expected to exceed 80 percent of their capacity by 2020, as compared to 

4 that had reached that level in 1999.

:



Some of the systemic factors that contribute to congestion include (1) 

barriers to building enough capacity to accommodate growing levels of 

travel; (2) challenges to effectively managing and operating 

transportation systems; and (3) barriers to effectively managing how, 

and the extent to which, transportation systems are used. First, there 

is insufficient capacity at bottlenecks and during peak travel times to 

accommodate traffic levels for a variety of reasons. For example, 

transportation infrastructure (which is generally provided by the 

public sector, except for freight railroads) takes a long time to plan 

and build, is often costly, and can conflict with other social goals 

such as environmental preservation and community maintenance. 

Furthermore, funding and planning rigidities in the public institutions 

responsible for providing transportation infrastructure tend to promote 

one mode of transportation, rather than a combination of balanced 

transportation choices, making it more difficult to deal effectively 

with congestion. In addition, some bottlenecks occur where modes 

connect, and because funding is generally mode-specific, dealing with 

congestion at these intermodal connections is not easily addressed.



Second, many factors related to the management and operation of 

transportation systems can contribute to increasing congestion. 

Congestion on highways is in part due to poor management of traffic 

flows on the connectors between highways and poor management in 

clearing roads that are blocked due to accidents, inclement weather, or 

construction. For example, in the 75 metropolitan areas studied by the 

Texas Transportation Institute, 54 percent of annual vehicle delays in 

2000 were due to incidents such as breakdowns or crashes. In addition, 

the Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported that, nationwide, 

significant delays are caused by work zones on highways; poorly timed 

traffic signals; and snow, ice, and fog.[Footnote 15]



Third, some panelists said that congestion on transportation systems is 

also due in part to inefficient pricing of the infrastructure because 

users--whether they are drivers on a highway or barge operators moving 

through a lock--do not pay the full costs they impose on the system and 

on other users for their use of the system. If travelers and freight 

carriers had to pay a higher cost for using transportation systems 

during peak periods to reflect the full costs they impose, they might 

have an incentive to avoid or reschedule some trips and to load 

vehicles more fully, possibly resulting in less congestion.



Panelists also noted that the types of congestion problems that are 

expected to worsen involve interactions between long-distance and local 

traffic and between passengers and freight. Existing institutions may 

not have the capacity or the authority to address them. For example, 

some local bottlenecks may hinder traffic that has regional or national 

significance, such as national freight flows from major coastal ports, 

or can affect the economies and traffic in more than one state. Current 

state and local planning organizations may have difficulty considering 

all the costs and benefits related to national or international traffic 

flows that affect other jurisdictions as well as their own. 

Furthermore, in our recent survey of states, most states reported that 

the increasing volume of both car and truck traffic over the next 

decade would negatively affect the physical condition of pavement and 

bridges and the safety of their interstate highways.[Footnote 16]



Other Mobility Challenges:



Besides dealing with the challenge of congestion, ensuring mobility 

also involves ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved 

populations. Settlement patterns and dependence on automobiles limit 

access to transportation systems for some elderly people and low-income 

households, and in rural areas where populations are expected to 

expand.



The elderly have different mobility challenges than other populations 

because they are less likely to have drivers licenses, have more 

serious health problems, and may require special services and 

facilities, according to the Department of Transportations 1999 

Conditions and Performance report.[Footnote 17] People who cannot drive 

themselves tend to rely on family, other caregivers, or friends to 

drive them, or find alternative means of transportation. Many of the 

elderly also may have difficulty using public transportation due to 

physical ailments. As a result, according to the 1999 Conditions and 

Performance report and a 1998 report about mobility for older 

drivers,[Footnote 18] they experience increased waiting times, 

uncertainty, and inconvenience, and they are required to do more 

advance trip planning. These factors can lead to fewer trips taken for 

necessary business and for recreation, as well as restrictions on times 

and places that healthcare can be obtained. As the population of 

elderly individuals increases over the next 10 years, issues pertaining 

to access are expected to become more prominent in society.



Lower income levels can also be a significant barrier to transportation 

access. The cost of purchasing, insuring, and maintaining a car is 

prohibitive to some households, and 26 percent of low-income households 

do not own a car, compared with 4 percent of other households, 

according to the 1999 Conditions and Performance report. Among all low-

income households, about 8 percent of trips are made in cars that are 

owned by others as compared to 1 percent for other income groups. 

Furthermore, similar uncertainties and inconveniences apply to this 

group as to the elderly regarding relying on others for transportation. 

In addition, in case studies of access to jobs for low-income 

populations, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) researchers found 

that transportation barriers to job access included gaps in transit 

service, lack of knowledge of where transit services are provided, and 

high transportation costs resulting from multiple transfers and long 

distances traveled.[Footnote 19]



Rural populations, which according to the 2000 Census grew by 10 

percent over the last 10 years, also face access problems. Access to 

some form of transportation is necessary to connect rural populations 

to jobs and other amenities in city centers or, increasingly, in the 

suburbs. Trips by rural residents tend to be longer due to lower 

population densities and the relative isolation of small communities. 

Therefore, transportation can be a challenge to provide in rural areas, 

especially for persons without access to private automobiles. A report 

prepared for the FTA in 2001[Footnote 20] found that 1 in 13 rural 

residents lives in a household without a personal vehicle. In addition, 

according to a report by the Coordinating Council on Access and 

Mobility,[Footnote 21] while almost 60 percent of all nonmetropolitan 

counties had some public transportation services in 2000, many of these 

operations were small and offered services only to limited geographic 

areas during limited times.



Finally, transportation can also negatively affect the environment and 

communities by increasing the levels of air and water pollution. As a 

result of the negative consequences of transportation, tradeoffs must 

be made between facilitating increased mobility and giving due regard 

to environmental and other social goals. For example, transportation 

vehicles are major sources of local, urban, and regional air pollution 

because they depend on fossil fuels to operate. Emissions from vehicles 

include sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, volatile organic 

compounds, particulate matter, and nitrous oxides. Vehicle emissions in 

congested areas can trigger respiratory and other illnesses, and runoff 

from impervious surfaces, such as highways, can carry pollutants into 

lakes, streams, and rivers, thus threatening aquatic 

environments.[Footnote 22]



Freight transportation also has significant environmental effects. 

Trucks are significant contributors to air pollution. According to the 

American Trucking Association, trucks were responsible for 18.5 percent 

of nitrous oxide emissions and 27.5 percent of other particulate 

emissions from mobile sources in the United States. The Mobility 2001 

report states that freight trains also contribute to emissions of 

hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide, although generally at 

levels considerably lower than trucks. In addition, while large 

shipping vessels are more energy efficient than trucks or trains, they 

are also major sources of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and diesel 

particulate emissions. According to the International Maritime 

Organization, ocean shipping is responsible for 22 percent of the 

wastes dumped into the sea on an annual basis.



Three Strategies for Addressing Mobility Challenges:



The experts we consulted presented numerous approaches for addressing 

the types of challenges discussed throughout this statement, but they 

emphasized that no single strategy would be sufficient. From these 

discussions and our literature review, we have identified three key 

strategies that may help transportation decisionmakers at all levels of 

government address mobility challenges and the institutional barriers 

that contribute to them. The strategies include (1) focusing on 

systemwide outcomes, (2) using a full range of techniques, and (3) 

providing options for financing surface and maritime transportation.



Focus on the Entire Surface and Maritime Transportation System Rather 

Than on Specific Modes or Types of Travel to Achieve Desired Mobility 

Outcomes.



Shifting the focus of government transportation agencies at the 

federal, state, and local levels to consider all modes and types of 

travel in addressing mobility challenges--as opposed to focusing on a 

specific mode or type of travel in planning and implementing mobility 

improvements--could help achieve enhanced mobility. Addressing the 

types of mobility challenges discussed earlier in this statement can 

require a scope beyond a local jurisdiction, state line, or one mode or 

type of travel. For example, congestion challenges often occur where 

modes connect or should connect--such as ports or freight hubs where 

freight is transferred from one mode to another, or airports that 

passengers need to access by car, bus, or rail. These connections 

require coordination of more than one mode of transportation and 

cooperation among multiple transportation providers and planners, such 

as port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPO),[Footnote 23] and private freight railroads. Therefore, a 

systemwide approach to transportation planning and funding, as opposed 

to focus on a single mode or type of travel, could improve focus on 

outcomes related to user or community needs. The experts we consulted 

provided a number of examples of alternative transportation planning 

and funding systems that might better focus on outcomes that users and 

communities desire, including the following:



* Performance-oriented funding system. The federal government would 

first define certain national interests of the transportation system--

such as maintaining the entire interstate highway system or identifying 

freight corridors of importance to the national economy--then set 

national performance standards for those systems that states and 

localities must meet. Federal funds would be distributed to those 

entities that address national interests and meet the established 

standards. Any federal funds remaining after meeting the performance 

standards could then be used for whatever transportation purpose the 

state or locality deems most appropriate to achieve state or local 

mobility goals.



* Federal financial reward-based system. Federal support would reward 

those states or localities that apply federal money to gain 

efficiencies in their transportation systems, or tie transportation 

projects to land use and other local policies to achieve community and 

environmental goals, as well as mobility goals.



* System with different federal matching criteria for different types 

of expenditures that might reflect federal priorities. For example, if 

infrastructure preservation became a higher national priority than 

building new capacity, matching requirements could be changed to a 50 

percent federal share for building new physical capacity and an 80 

percent federal share for preservation.



* System in which state and local governments pay for a larger share of 

transportation projects, which might provide them with incentives to 

invest in more cost-effective projects. Reducing the federal match for 

projects in all modes may give states and localities more fiscal 

responsibility for projects they are planning. If cost savings 

resulted, these entities might have more funds available to address 

other mobility challenges. Making federal matching requirements equal 

for all modes may avoid creating incentives to pursue projects in one 

mode that might be less effective than projects in other modes.



In addition, we recently reported on the need to view various 

transportation modes, and freight movement in particular, from an 

integrated standpoint, particularly for the purposes of developing a 

federal investment strategy and considering alternative funding 

approaches.[Footnote 24] We identified four key components of a 

systematic framework to guide transportation investment decisions 

including (1) establishing national goals for the system, (2) clearly 

defining the federal role relative to other stakeholders, (3) 

determining the funding tools and other approaches that will maximize 

the impact of any federal investment, and (4) ensuring that a process 

is in place for evaluating performance and accountability.



Use a Full Range of Techniques to Address Mobility Challenges:



Using a range of techniques to address mobility challenges may help 

control congestion and improve access. This approach involves a 

strategic mix of construction, corrective and preventive maintenance, 

rehabilitation, operations and system management, and managing system 

use through pricing or other techniques. No one type of technique would 

be sufficient to address mobility challenges. Although these techniques 

are currently in use, the experts we consulted indicated that planners 

should more consistently consider a full range of techniques, as 

follows:



* Build new infrastructure. Building additional infrastructure is 

perhaps the most familiar technique for addressing congestion and 

improving access to surface and maritime transportation. Although there 

is a lot of unused capacity in the transportation system, certain 

bottlenecks and key corridors require new infrastructure.



* Increase infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation. An emphasis 

on enhancing capacity from existing infrastructure through increased 

corrective and preventive maintenance and rehabilitation is an 

important supplement to, and sometimes a substitute for, building new 

infrastructure. Maintaining and rehabilitating transportation systems 

can improve the speed and reliability of passenger and freight travel, 

thereby optimizing capital investments.



* Improve management and operations. Better management and operation of 

existing surface and maritime transportation infrastructure is another 

technique for enhancing mobility because it may allow the existing 

transportation system to accommodate additional travel without having 

to add new infrastructure. For example, the Texas Transportation 

Institute reported that coordinating traffic signal timing with 

changing traffic conditions could improve flow on congested roadways. 

One panelist noted that shifting the focus of transportation planning 

from building capital facilities to an operations mindset will 

require a cultural shift in many transportation institutions, 

particularly in the public sector, so that the organizational 

structure, hierarchy, and rewards and incentives are all focused on 

improving transportation management and operations.[Footnote 25]



* Increase investment in technology. Increasing public sector 

investment in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies that 

are designed to enhance the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of 

the transportation network, can serve as a way of increasing capacity 

and mobility without making major capital investments. ITS includes 

technologies that improve traffic flow by adjusting signals, 

facilitating traffic flow at toll plazas, alerting emergency management 

services to the locations of crashes, increasing the efficiency of 

transit fare payment systems, and other actions. Other technological 

improvements include increasing information available to users of the 

transportation system to help people avoid congested areas and to 

improve customer satisfaction with the system.



* Use demand management techniques. Another approach to reducing 

congestion without making major capital investments is to use demand 

management techniques to reduce the number of vehicles traveling at the 

most congested times and on the most congested routes. One type of 

demand management for travel on public roads is to make greater use of 

pricing incentives. In particular, some economists have proposed using 

congestion pricing that involves charging surcharges or tolls to 

drivers who choose to travel during peak periods when their use of the 

roads increases congestion. These surcharges might help reduce 

congestion by providing incentives for travelers to share rides, use 

transit, travel at less congested (generally off-peak) times and on 

less congested routes, or make other adjustments--and at the same time, 

generate more revenues that can be targeted to alleviating congestion 

in those specific corridors.



In addition to pricing incentives, other demand management techniques 

that encourage ride-sharing may be useful in reducing congestion. Ride-

sharing can be encouraged by establishing carpool and vanpool staging 

areas, providing free or preferred parking for carpools and vanpools, 

subsidizing transit fares, and designating certain highway lanes as 

high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes that can only be used by vehicles 

with a specified number of people in them (i.e., two or more).



Demand management techniques on roads, particularly those involving 

pricing, often provoke strong political opposition. The panelists cited 

a number of concerns about pricing strategies including (1) the 

difficulty in instituting charges to use roads that previously had been 

available free, (2) the equity issues that arise from the potentially 

regressive nature of these charges (i.e., the surcharges constitute a 

larger portion of the earnings of lower income households and therefore 

impose a greater financial burden on them), and (3) the concern that 

restricting lanes or roads to people who pay to use them is elitist 

because that approach allows people who can afford to pay the tolls to 

avoid congestion that others must endure.



Provide Options for Financing Mobility Improvements and Consider 

Additional Sources of Revenue:



More options for financing surface and maritime transportation projects 

and more sources of revenue may be needed to achieve desired mobility 

outcomes and address those segments of transportation systems that are 

most congested. Our panelists suggested three financing strategies:



* Increase funding flexibility. The current system of financing surface 

and maritime transportation projects limits options for addressing 

mobility challenges. For example, separate funding for each mode at the 

federal, state, and local level can make it difficult to consider 

possible efficient and effective ways for enhancing mobility. Providing 

more flexibility in funding across modes could help address this 

limitation.



* Expand support for alternative financing mechanisms. The public 

sector could also expand its financial support for alternative 

financing mechanisms to access new sources of capital and stimulate 

additional investment in surface and maritime transportation 

infrastructure. These mechanisms include both newly emerging and 

existing financing techniques such as providing credit assistance to 

state and local governments for capital projects and using tax policy 

to provide incentives to the private sector for investing in surface 

and maritime transportation infrastructure. These mechanisms currently 

provide a small portion of the total funding that is needed for capital 

investment and some of them could create future funding difficulties 

for state and local agencies because they involve greater borrowing 

from the private sector.[Footnote 26]



* Consider new revenue sources. A possible future shortage of revenues 

may limit efforts to address mobility challenges, according to many of 

the panelists. For example, some panelists said that because of the 

increasing use of alternative fuels, revenues from the gas tax are 

expected to decrease, possibly limiting funds available to finance 

future transportation projects.



One method of raising revenue is for counties and other regional 

authorities to impose sales taxes for funding transportation projects. 

A number of counties have already passed such taxes and more are being 

considered nationwide. However, several panelists expressed concerns 

that this method might not be the best option for addressing mobility 

challenges because (1) moving away from transportation user charges to 

sales taxes that are not directly tied to the use of transportation 

systems weakens the ties between transportation planning and finance 

and (2) counties and other taxing authorities may be able to bypass 

traditional state and metropolitan planning processes because sales 

taxes provide them with their owns funding sources for transportation.



New or increased taxes or other fees imposed on the freight sector 

could also help fund mobility improvements, for example, by increasing 

taxes on freight trucking. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated 

that raising the ceiling on the tax paid by heavy vehicles to $1,900 

could generate about $100 million per year.[Footnote 27] Another 

revenue raising method would be to dedicate more of the revenues from 

taxes on alternative fuels, such as gasohol, to the Highway Trust Fund 

rather than to Treasurys general fund, as currently happens. However, 

this would decrease the amount of funds available for other federal 

programs. Finally, pricing strategies, mentioned earlier in this 

statement as a technique to reduce congestion, are also possible 

additional sources of revenue for transportation purposes.



In summary, the nation faces significant challenges in maintaining and 

enhancing mobility on its surface and maritime transportation systems, 

particularly with the growing congestion that accompanies increased 

passenger and freight travel. However, as the Congress considers 

reauthorizing surface transportation legislation--and weighs the 

structure, nature, and level of federal investment it will provide in 

future years to support surface and other transportation activities--it 

has an opportunity to consider new strategies for dealing with 

congestion and promoting enhanced mobility. While no single approach is 

sufficient, the key strategies that we have outlined today may help 

transportation decisionmakers at all levels of government address 

mobility challenges and the institutional barriers that contribute to 

them.



Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 

have at this time.



Contacts and Acknowledgments:



For further information on this testimony, please contact JayEtta Z. 

Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include Christine Bonham, Jay Cherlow, 

Colin Fallon, Rita Grieco, David Hooper, Jessica Lucas, Sara Ann 

Moessbauer, Jobenia Odum, Katherine Siggerud, and Andrew VonAh.



[End of section]



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



Our work covered major modes of surface and maritime transportation for 

passengers and freight, including public roads, public transit, 

railways, and ports and inland waterways. To identify mobility 

challenges and strategies for addressing those challenges, we primarily 

relied upon expert opinion, as well as a review of pertinent 

literature. In particular, we convened two panels of surface and 

maritime transportation experts to identify mobility issues and gather 

views about alternative strategies for addressing the issues and 

challenges to implementing those strategies. We contracted with the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and its Transportation Research 

Board (TRB) to provide technical assistance in identifying and 

scheduling the two panels that were held on April 1 and 3, 2002. TRB 

officials selected a total of 22 panelists with input from us, 

including a cross-section of representatives from all surface and 

maritime modes and from various occupations involved in transportation 

planning. In keeping with NAS policy, the panelists were invited to 

provide their individual views and the panels were not designed to 

build consensus on any of the issues discussed. We analyzed the content 

of all of the comments made by the panelists to identify common themes 

about key mobility challenges and strategies for addressing those 

challenges. Where applicable, we also identified the opposing points of 

view about the strategies.



The names and affiliations of the panelists are as follows. We also 

note that two of the panelists served as moderators for the sessions, 

Dr. Joseph M. Sussman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 

Dr. Damian J. Kulash of the Eno Foundation, Inc.



* Benjamin J. Allen is Interim Vice President for External Affairs and 

Distinguished Professor of Business at Iowa State University. 



* Daniel Brand is Vice President of Charles River Associates, Inc., in 

Boston, Mass. 



* Jon E. Burkhardt is the Senior Study Director at Westat, Inc., in 

Rockville, Md. 



* Sarah C. Campbell is the President of TransManagement, Inc., in 

Washington, D.C.



* Christina S. Casgar is the Executive Director of the Foundation for 

Intermodal Research and Education in Greenbelt, Md. 



* Anthony Downs is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. 



* Thomas R. Hickey served until recently as the General Manager of the 

Port Authority Transit Corporation in Lindenwold, N.J. 



* Ronald F. Kirby is the Director of Transportation Planning at the 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 



* Damian J. Kulash is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the 

Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., in Washington, D.C. 



* Charles A. Lave is a Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the 

University of California, Irvine where he served as Chair of the 

Economics Department. 



* Stephen Lockwood is Vice President of Parsons Corporation, an 

international firm that provides transportation planning, design, 

construction, engineering, and project management services. 



* Timothy J. Lomax is a Research Engineer at the Texas Transportation 

Institute at Texas A&M University. 



* James R. McCarville is the Executive Director of the Port of 

Pittsburgh Commission. 



* James W. McClellan is Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning at 

the Norfolk Southern Corporation in Norfolk, Va.



* Michael D. Meyer is a Professor in the School of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology and 

was the Chair of the school from 1995 to 2000. 



* William W. Millar is President of the American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA). 



* Alan E. Pisarski is an independent transportation consultant in Falls 

Church, Va., providing services to public and private sector clients in 

the United States and abroad in the areas of transport policy, travel 

behavior, and data analysis and development. 



* Craig E. Philip is President and Chief Executive Officer of the 

Ingram Barge Company in Nashville, Tenn. 



* Arlee T. Reno is a consultant with Cambridge Systematics in 

Washington, D.C. 



* Joseph M. Sussman is the JR East Professor in the Department of Civil 

and Environmental Engineering and the Engineering Systems Division at 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 



* Louis S. Thompson is a Railways Advisor for the World Bank where he 

consults on all of the Banks railway lending activities. 



* Martin Wachs is the Director of the Institute of Transportation 

Studies at the University of California, Berkeley and he holds faculty 

appointments in the departments of City and Regional Planning and Civil 

and Environmental Engineering at the university.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Related GAO Products:



Transportation Infrastructure: Alternative Financing Mechanisms for 

Surface Transportation. GAO-02-1126T. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 

2002.



Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on the Timely 

Completion of Highway Construction Projects. GAO-02-1067T. Washington, 

D.C.: September 19, 2002.



Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for 

Infrastructure Investments. GAO-02-1033. Washington, D.C.: September 

9, 2002.



Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for 

Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge. GAO-02-775. Washington, D.C.: 

August 30, 2002.



Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have Improved, 

but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue. GAO-02-571. Washington, 

D.C.: May 31, 2002.



Highway Financing: Factors Affecting Highway Trust Fund Revenues. GAO-

02-667T. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2002.



Transportation Infrastructure: Cost and Oversight Issues on Major 

Highway and Bridge Projects. GAO-02-702T. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 

2002.



Intercity Passenger Rail: Congress Faces Critical Decisions in 

Developing National Policy. GAO-02-522T. Washington, D.C.: April 11, 

2002.



Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land 

Use That Protects Air and Water Quality. GAO-02-12. Washington, D.C.: 

October 31, 2001.



Intercity Passenger Rail: The Congress Faces Critical Decisions About 

the Role of and Funding for Intercity Passenger Rail Systems. GAO-01-

820T. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2001.



U.S. Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Federal Agencies Investment 

Estimates. GAO-01-986T. Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2001.



Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA, but Capital Planning 

Could Be Enhanced. GAO-01-744. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2001.



Intercity Passenger Rail: Assessing the Benefits of Increased Federal 

Funding for Amtrak and High-Speed Passenger Rail Systems. GAO-01-480T. 

Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2001.



Performance and Accountability: Challenges Facing the Department of 

Transportation. GAO-01-443T. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002.



Highway Funding: Problems With Highway Trust Fund Information Can 

Affect State Highway Funds. RCED/AIMD-00-148. Washington, D.C.: June 

29, 2000.



Highway Infrastructure: FHWAs Model for Estimating Highway Needs Is 

Generally Reasonable, Despite Limitations. RCED-00-133. Washington, 

D.C.: June 5, 2000.



Mass Transit: Mobility Improvements Is One of Many Factors Used to 

Evaluate Mass Transit Projects. RCED-00-6R. Washington, D.C.: October 

15, 1999.



FOOTNOTES



[1] We have not had an opportunity to review the Department of 

Transportations Conditions and Performance Report that is expected to 

be released at todays hearing.



[2] In a July 2001 testimony before the former Subcommittee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works, we reviewed the infrastructure investment estimates of 

seven federal agencies and found that they focus mostly on the 

condition of the infrastructure rather than the desired outcomes (e.g., 

less traffic congestion) that can be expected from additional 

infrastructure investments. We cautioned against relying mainly on 

measures of need based primarily on the condition of existing 

infrastructure and instead suggested comparing the costs and benefits 

of alternative approaches for reaching outcomes, including noncapital 

alternatives (such as strategies to manage demand rather than build new 

infrastructure). See U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. 

Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Federal Agencies Investment 

Estimates, GAO-01-986T (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2001).



[3] In this testimony, we define the surface transportation modes to 

include highways, mass transit systems, and railroads; and the maritime 

transportation modes to include ports, inland waterways, and the 

intermodal connections leading to them. Pipelines were not part of our 

review.



[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Surface and Maritime 

Transportation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A 

National Challenge, GAO-02-775 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002).



[5] David Shrank and Tim Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report (College 

Station, Tex.: Texas Transportation Institute, June 2002).



[6] P.L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).



[7] P.L. 105-178 (June 9, 1998).



[8] P.L. 105-134 (Dec. 2, 1997).



[9] The two groups are the Interagency Committee on the Marine 

Transportation System and the Marine Transportation System National 

Advisory Council.



[10] Shrank and Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report. 



[11] For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritys 

studies on crowding found that, of the more than 200 peak morning rail 

trips observed over a recent 6-month period, on average, 23 percent 

were considered uncomfortably crowded or crush loads. See U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at 

WMATA, but Capital Planning Could Be Enhanced, GAO-01-744 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 2, 2001).



[12] Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River 

Associates, Inc., Mobility 2001: World Mobility at the End of the 

Twentieth Century and Its Sustainability (World Business Council for 

Sustainable Development, Aug. 2001).



[13] An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System 

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 1999).



[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Marine Transportation: Federal 

Financing and a Framework for Infrastructure Investments, GAO-02-1033 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2002).



[15] S.M. Chin, O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L. Hwang, and R. Gibson, 

Temporary Losses of Capacity Study and Impacts on Performance, Report 

No. ORNL/TM-2002/3 (Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

May 2002). 



[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Interstate 

Physical Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures 

Continue, GAO-02-571 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2002).



[17] Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, 

1999 Status of the Nations Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions 

and Performance (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

2000).



[18] Jon E. Burkhardt, Arlene M. Berger, Michael Creedon, and Adam T. 

McGavock, Mobility and Independence: Changes and Challenges for Older 

Drivers (July 1998). This report was developed under a cooperative 

agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 

under the auspices of the Joint DHHS/DOT Coordinating Council on Access 

and Mobility.



[19] Federal Transit Administration, Access to Jobs: Planning Case 

Studies (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 

2001).



[20] Community Transportation Association of America, Status of Rural 

Public Transportation-2000 (April 2001).



[21] Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines 

for Coordinated State and Local Specialized Transportation Services 

(Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Transportation, Dec. 20, 2000).



[22] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: 

Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and 

Water Quality, GAO-02-12 (Washington, D.C., Oct. 31, 2001).



[23] MPOs are organizations of city, county, state, and federal 

officials that provide a regional forum for transportation planning. 



[24] GAO-02-1033. 



[25] Joseph M. Sussman, Transitions in the World of Transportation: A 

Systems View, Transportation Quarterly 56 (2002): 21-22.



[26] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: 

Alternative Financing Mechanisms for Surface Transportation, 

GAO-02-1126T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2002).



[27] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Financing: Factors 

Affecting Highway Trust Fund Revenues, GAO-02-667T (Washington, D.C., 

May 9, 2002).