Report to the Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

June 2001 DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Status of Achieving

Key Outcomes and

Addressing Major

Management

Challenges

GAO-01-834
Page 1 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

June 22, 2001

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Thompson:

As you requested, we reviewed the Department of Transportation’s (DOT)

fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan

required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)

to assess DOT’s progress in achieving selected key outcomes that you

identified as important mission areas for the agency.1

 These are the same

outcomes we addressed in our June 2000 review of DOT’s fiscal year 1999

performance report and fiscal year 2001 performance plan to provide a

baseline by which to measure the agency’s performance from year to year.2

These selected key outcomes are:

• fewer transportation-related accidents, deaths, injuries, and property

losses;

• reduced flight delays through air traffic control modernization;

• less highway congestion and improved highway pavement condition; and

• reduced availability and/or use of illegal drugs.

As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for DOT as a framework, we

(1) assessed the progress DOT has made in accomplishing these outcomes

and the strategies the agency has in place to achieve them and

(2) compared DOT’s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year

2002 performance plan with the agency’s prior year performance report

and plan for these outcomes. Additionally, we agreed to analyze how DOT

addressed its major management challenges, including the

governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management

and information security that we and DOT’s Inspector General (IG)

identified. Appendix I provides detailed information on how DOT

 1

This report is one of a series of reports on the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act

agencies’ fiscal year 2000 performance reports and fiscal year 2002 performance plans.

2

Observations on the Department of Transportation’s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance

Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan (GAO/RCED-00-201R, June 30, 2000).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

addressed these challenges. (App. II contains DOT’s comments on a draft

of our report.)

Although the structure, coverage, and completeness of DOT’s consolidated

performance report and plan continue to be commendable, the report

makes it clear that DOT achieved only limited progress in 2000 toward

achieving the four selected outcomes and that the agency achieved fewer

goals than it did last year. Although DOT’s strategies appear reasonably

related to achieving its goals, in several cases the agency directly indicates

that its current strategies are not likely to result in achievement of the

goals.

• Planned outcome: fewer transportation-related accidents, deaths, injuries,

and property losses. The agency reported limited success in improving

transportation safety during 2000. Although it met each of its marine and

hazardous material transport safety goals, it did not achieve any of its

highway safety goals, including its goals to reduce the rates of highway

fatalities and injuries. DOT reported mixed success in achieving its

aviation, rail, and transit safety goals. In several areas, DOT indicated that

performance improved. For example, DOT reported that 71 percent of

front seat occupants of motor vehicles used their seatbelts in 2000,

representing the highest usage rate in the nation’s history. This rate,

however, was below DOT’s goal to increase seat belt usage to 85 percent

in 2000. For the most part, DOT’s goals are reasonable indicators of

progress toward improving transportation safety. However, DOT does not

have performance goals to reduce pipeline fatalities and injuries even

though pipeline fatalities are increasing and the agency’s strategies to

improve pipeline safety are geared, in part, toward reducing fatalities. DOT

reports strategies for meeting each goal in fiscal year 2002, and, for the

most part, the strategies appear reasonable. However, for some goals, the

agency reports that the strategies are likely to be insufficient to meet the

goals. For example, to reduce the number of collision hazards on airport

runways (called runway incursions), the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) has initiatives that include improving communications among

controllers, pilots, and ground crews. Nonetheless, the report indicated

that FAA was unsure of meeting this and other aviation safety goals in

2001.

• Planned outcome: reduced flight delays through air traffic control

modernization. DOT reported that it failed to meet its goal for reducing

aviation delays, which increased in 2000 for the third straight year, and it

does not expect to meet its goal in 2001 due to expected increases in air

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

travel. For 2000, DOT reported that approximately 70 percent of flight

delays were due to bad weather. DOT’s strategies for reducing delays may

help reduce some delays, but many of the strategies will not make a

difference in the next few years. For example, the report indicates that

FAA’s best means for reducing aviation delays, such as its plans to ensure

all-weather access to runways and build more runways, will happen only

in the long term. In the near term, the agency is continuing to modernize

its air traffic control systems. Since 1995, we have designated the air traffic

control modernization program as a high-risk information technology

initiative due to cost, schedule, and performance problems.

• Planned outcome: less highway congestion and improved highway

pavement condition. DOT reported mixed progress during 2000 in

achieving its goals in this area. The agency estimated that it met its goal to

improve pavement condition but did not meet its goal to reduce the rate of

highway delays. In addition, DOT exceeded its goal for installing

intelligent transportation systems in additional metropolitan areas. These

systems use information and communication technology to extend the

capacity of existing highways and could help lessen congestion. DOT’s

strategies for improving highway pavement condition and reducing

congestion appear reasonable. These strategies include continuing to fund

pavement maintenance efforts and to deploy additional intelligent

transportation systems.

• Planned outcome: reduced availability and/or use of illegal drugs. DOT

reported that for 2000 it did not achieve its goal to increase the seizure rate

for cocaine that is shipped into the country via the high seas. Although the

agency seized a record 60.2 metric tons of cocaine in 2000, this was not

sufficient for the agency to reach its goal—to seize 13 percent of the

estimated amount of cocaine being smuggled into the country through

maritime routes. Furthermore, the percentage of cocaine seized by the

agency fell from 12.2 percent in 1999 to 10.6 percent in 2000 because of

increases in the estimated amount of cocaine smuggled. For 2002, the

agency will continue to develop new tactics and vary its operations to

thwart maritime smuggling, but it indicated that it will be challenged to

meet its 2001 goal. The Coast Guard’s efforts are part of a multiagency

strategy to reduce the supply of illegal drugs entering the United States.

As was true last year, DOT’s combined performance plan and report are

well designed and well presented. The performance report provides a clear

and comprehensive discussion of performance information. For example,

DOT’s safety goals and measures continue to be meaningful, outcomeoriented, objective, measurable, and quantifiable. For each measure, the
Page 4 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

report provides a definition of the measure, data limitations and their

implications for assessing performance, procedures to verify and validate

data, and the source for the data. The performance plan provides details of

what the agency will do to try to meet its goals in the future. However, in

some cases, there appears to be a mismatch between DOT’s annual

strategies and goals. For example, DOT does not expect the strategies and

resources it is applying to several key goals to be sufficient to meet its

goals in 2001. The report and plan also addressed all of the management

challenges we have identified by including goals, measures, and/or

strategies to deal with them. This report makes recommendations to DOT

for improving the match between the agency’s strategies and its goals.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of

Transportation for its review and comment. In a letter, the agency

indicated that it agrees with our recommendations. Specifically, the

Department stated that annual performance targets should be realistic,

strategies will be reviewed to better align them with performance goals,

and pipeline injuries and fatalities should be included in DOT’s future

performance plans. DOT’s written comments are included as appendix II.

GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,

management, and accountability from activities and processes to the

results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable

information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been

provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA,

annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the

public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs

and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance,

(3) the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals,

and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate

performance information. These annual plans, issued soon after

transmittal of the president’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an

agency’s longer term goals and mission and day-to-day activities.3

 Annual

performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which

performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance

reports, due by March 31, represents a new and potentially more

substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to

assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to

 3

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan is the fourth of these annual plans under GPRA.

Background
Page 5 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

consider what steps are needed to improve performance and reduce costs

in the future.4

DOT’s mission is to ensure a safe transportation system that furthers our

vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American

people. The agency has identified five strategic goals for achieving that

mission: (1) eliminating transportation-related deaths and injuries;

(2) shaping an accessible, reliable transportation system; (3) supporting

economic growth; (4) protecting the environment; and (5) ensuring the

security of the transportation infrastructure and the country. DOT’s

combined performance plan and report is organized around these strategic

goals. Table 1 illustrates how the report’s four key outcomes and their

supporting performance measures correspond to DOT’s strategic goals.

 4

The fiscal year 2000 performance report is the second of these annual reports under

GPRA.
Page 6 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Table 1: DOT’s Strategic Goals, Selected Key Outcomes, and Performance Measures

DOT strategic goal Selected key outcomes and performance measures for 2000

Eliminate transportation-related deaths

and injuries

Outcome: Fewer transportation-related accidents, deaths, injuries, and property losses

Performance measures:

• Highway: reduce the rates of fatalities and injuries, reduce fatalities and injuries

involving large trucks, reduce the percentage of alcohol-related fatalities, and increase

the percentage of front seat occupants using seat belts.

• Aviation: reduce the rate of fatal commercial accidents and reduce the rates of runway

incursions, operational errors, and operational deviations.

• Marine: reduce the number of recreational boating fatalities, reduce the rate of

passenger vessel fatalities, and increase the number of mariners reported in imminent

danger who are rescued.

• Hazardous material transport: reduce the number of natural gas pipeline failures and

the number of serious hazardous material incidents.

• Rail/transit: reduce the rates of rail fatalities and crashes, reduce the rates of transit

fatalities and injuries, and reduce the rate of highway-rail grade-crossing accidents.

Shape an accessible, reliable

transportation system

Outcome: Reduced flight delays through air traffic control modernization

Performance measures:

• Reduce the rate of aviation delays.

• Increase the percentage of flight segments safely flown off air traffic control-preferred

routes.

Outcome: Less highway congestion and improved highway pavement condition

Performance measures:

• Increase the percentage of miles of the National Highway System that meet pavement

performance standards.

• Reduce the rate of delay on federal-aid highways.

• Increase the number of metropolitan areas that deploy Intelligent Transportation

System infrastructure.

Ensuring the security of the transportation

infrastructure and the country

Outcome: Reduced availability and/or use of illegal drugs

Performance measure:

• Increase the seizure rate of cocaine in maritime routes.

Note: This report does not focus on any key outcomes for DOT’s strategic goals to support economic

growth or protect the environment.

Source: DOT.
Page 7 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

This section discusses our analysis of DOT’s performance in achieving

selected key outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place,

particularly strategic human capital management5 and information

technology, for accomplishing these outcomes. Although DOT did not

include specific human capital or information technology strategies for the

four outcomes we reviewed, the Department did address these strategies

in other parts of its performance report. In discussing the outcomes, we

have also provided information drawn from our prior work on the extent

to which the agency provided assurance that the performance information

it is reporting is credible.

For fiscal year 2000, DOT’s progress in achieving fewer transportationrelated accidents, deaths, injuries, and property losses was limited. The

Department reported the least success in highway safety—it did not meet

any of its goals in this area. For example, DOT failed to meet its goals for

reducing highway-related fatalities and injuries, despite meeting both goals

in 1999. DOT’s best performance was in marine and hazardous material

transport safety—it met all of its goals in these areas. DOT’s progress in

and strategies for achieving its fiscal year 2000 goals are discussed below

for the areas of highway, aviation, marine, pipeline, rail, and transit safety.

Regarding highway safety, DOT had expected to achieve at least three of

the six key goals, but it did not meet any of them (see table 2). For

example, DOT did not meet its goal of less than 4,934 large truck-related

fatalities in 2000. On the basis of estimated data, DOT reported that 5,307

fatalities involving large trucks occurred in 2000, which was a slight

improvement from 1999 when 5,362 large truck-related fatalities occurred.

DOT provided explanations for not achieving its highway safety goals. For

example, DOT attributes the increase in highway fatalities to a continued

increase in motorcycle fatalities and deaths of young drivers. For three of

the unmet goals, performance improved compared to 1999. For example,

DOT has made progress in seatbelt use; the 71-percent rate of front seat

occupants using seat belts achieved in 2000 represents the highest in our

nation’s history. This rate, however, was below DOT’s goal to increase seat

belt usage to 85 percent. DOT’s highway safety data for 2000 are all

preliminary estimates. The report notes that timeliness of performance

 5

Key elements of modern human capital management include strategic human capital

planning and organizational alignment; leadership continuity and succession planning;

acquiring and developing staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and

creating results-oriented organizational cultures.

Assessment of DOT’s

Progress and

Strategies in

Achieving Selected

Key Outcomes

Transportation-Related

Accidents, Deaths,

Injuries, and Property

Losses
Page 8 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

information is a significant limitation of data from outside the agency—

highway safety data comes from police reports and state data—and

preliminary estimates are based on extrapolations of partial-year data.

DOT reports that its data on highway fatalities and injuries have been in

use for many years and are generally accepted as accurate. However, we

have reported that DOT lacks high-quality, up-to-date information on the

causes of large truck crashes; and, as a result, DOT has begun to improve

its data on the causes of these crashes.6

Table 2: DOT’s Reported Progress in Meeting its Highway Safety Performance

Goals

Highway safety performance goals 1999 goal 2000 goal 2001 goal

Reduce the rate of highway-related fatalities ●❍●

Reduce the rate of highway-related injuries ●❍●

Reduce the percentage of alcohol-related highway

fatalities

❍❍ ◗

Reduce the number of fatalities involving large

trucks

❍❍ ◗

Reduce the number of injuries involving large

trucks

❍❍ ◗

Increase the percentage of front seat occupants

using seat belts

❍❍❍

Legend: ● = met or expects to meet goal

❍ = did not meet goal or does not expect to meet goal

◗ = will be challenged to meet goal

Source: DOT.

For the most part, DOT’s strategies to improve highway safety appear

reasonable; however, they may be insufficient to meet many of the

agency’s 2001 goals in this area (see table 3). Some strategies, such as

improving and expanding oversight and enforcement activities and

improving safety data collection concerning motor carriers, address

concerns that have been raised by GAO and DOT’s IG (see app. I). The

strategies also include a large-scale safety awareness program targeted at

teenage drivers and the Safe Communities program, which provides grants

to develop and implement community-based transportation safety

programs. DOT’s evaluation of the Safe Communities program showed

success in some communities, such as Dallas, TX, where the use of child

safety seats more than doubled following the implementation of a child

 6

Truck Safety: Motor Carriers Office Hampered by Limited Information on Causes of

Crashes and Other Data Problems (GAO/RCED-99-182, June 29, 1999).
Page 9 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

safety seat loaner program. The agency is also proposing an increase in the

resources available to counter the increase in fatality and injury rates by

more than $30 million in fiscal year 2002. DOT does not indicate any

activities to specifically address motorcycle fatalities, which had increased

8 percent from 1999 to 2000.

In the area of aviation safety, DOT reported that it met its fiscal 2000 goal

for reducing the rate of fatal commercial aviation accidents but did not

achieve its other two goals—to reduce the rate of runway incursions7

 that

create dangerous situations that can lead to serious accidents and reduce

the rates of air traffic operational errors8

 and deviations.9 (See fig. 1.) For

the three unmet goals, performance worsened compared to 1999, and DOT

is skeptical that it will be able to reach the goals in 2001. DOT attributed

these trends to improved reporting and tracking as well as greater flight

volume in congested and restricted airspace.

 7

A runway incursion occurs when an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground

creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft taking off,

intending to take off, landing, or intending to land.

8

An operational error occurs when the rules and procedures that define separation

standards between aircraft are not applied or followed appropriately by a controller and a

separation between aircraft is less than required.

9

An operational deviation occurs when an aircraft enters airspace without prior

coordination.
Page 10 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Figure 1: Actual Runway Incursions and DOT’s Goals

Source: DOT.

DOT’s performance report indicated that there is no significant and/or

systematic error in the counts of accidents, runway incursions, operation

errors, or operational deviations. In addition, the Department reported

that it regularly checks or validates these data sets. On the basis of a joint

government/industry working group determination and a GAO

recommendation,10 DOT has switched to the use of departures rather than

flight hours for determining the rate of air carrier fatalities. To improve

aviation safety, FAA is implementing several initiatives designed to

address shortcomings in training; technology; communications; and

airport signs, marking, and lighting. FAA will also investigate the use of

 10See Aviation Safety: Safer Skies Initiative Has Taken Initial Steps to Reduce Accident

Rates by 2007 (GAO/RCED-00-111, June 28, 2000).
Page 11 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

new safety technologies. In addition, to reduce runway incursions, the

agency is undertaking initiatives to improve communications among

controllers, pilots, and ground crews. The aviation strategies appear

reasonable. Nonetheless, DOT reported that it was unsure of meeting any

of these aviation safety goals in 2001.

In the marine sector, DOT reported that it met all three of its safety

goals—to reduce the number of recreational boating fatalities, reduce the

rate of passenger vessel fatalities, and increase the number of mariners

reported in imminent danger who are rescued. Next year, DOT will

simplify the passenger fatality measure because the current measure has

been difficult to understand. DOT indicated that it expects to meet all

three goals in 2001.

The report acknowledges that the data on recreational boating fatalities

are probably underreported by at least 6 percent due to the need for

interpretation of what constitutes a recreational boating fatality at the

state level. In addition, in 2001, DOT will switch data sources for

passenger vessel fatalities. The report indicates that the new data source—

the Marine Information System for Safety and Law Enforcement—will be a

significant improvement, but the improved data quality may cause serious

difficulties in making comparisons to prior data. The agency’s strategies

for achieving its marine safety goals in 2002 appear reasonable. The

strategies include increasing staffing and training at rescue stations and

command centers and promoting the wearing of lifejackets by recreational

boaters. In 2000, DOT’s evaluation of its Recreational Boating Safety

Program concluded that wearing personal flotation devices could save the

lives of about 500 boaters each year. In addition, the agency intends to

work with the U.S. Navy and Air Force, which also have search and rescue

responsibilities, primarily for their own vessels and aircraft. The Air Force

is the lead agency for land-based search and rescue, and the Coast Guard

is the lead for maritime search and rescue.

Despite one of the deadliest pipeline accidents in recent years, DOT

projects that it met both of its goals for hazardous material transport

safety—reducing pipeline failures and serious hazardous material

transport incidents—because neither goal measures the increasing

number of fatalities. DOT statistics show that pipeline fatalities have been

increasing steadily over the past years (See fig. 2.). However, we recognize

that the overall number of fatalities from pipeline accidents remains low,

and that a single major accident can result in a significant increase in the

number of annual fatalities. Preliminary estimates also show that DOT will

meet its performance goal for reducing serious hazardous materials
Page 12 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

incidents in 2000. However, the fact that there were more incidents in 2000

than there were in 1999 will make it challenging for DOT to meet its 2001

goal.

Figure 2: Number of Fatalities Resulting from Pipeline Accidents

Source: GAO’s analysis of DOT’s data.

DOT acknowledged that the number of pipeline failures is likely

underreported, and federal, state, and industry teams have been formed to

improve the data. In addition, DOT reported that it is revising the

collection and processing of pipeline accident data to improve the

consistency and accuracy of the data on accident causes. To reduce the

risk of pipeline failures, DOT works to establish safety regulations and

ensure compliance. However, we have expressed concerns about certain

agency initiatives to improve pipeline safety. For example, DOT has

changed its approach to enforcing compliance with its regulations by

reducing its use of fines and, instead, working with pipeline operators to

identify and correct safety problems. We recommended that DOT

determine whether this approach has improved compliance with pipeline
Page 13 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

safety regulations. 11 A DOT official said that the Department is currently

evaluating the effectiveness of its approach of working with pipeline

operators to improve compliance.

DOT reported limited success in achieving its rail and transit safety

performance goals in 2000, when it met only two of five goals. (See table

3.) For 2001, the report indicated that the agency expects to meet only one

of these goals. The rate of highway-rail crossing accidents fell in 2000, but

DOT did not meet its goal. According to DOT, this goal was not met due, in

part, to a 15-percent increase in highway-rail crossing accidents on private

property, which the agency has limited authority or control over. DOT is

attempting to improve rail safety through its educational outreach

program and Safety Assurance and Compliance Program, in which the

agency works with major railroads to identify and solve systemic problems

affecting rail safety. To improve transit safety, the Federal Transit

Authority provides grants to states to improve public transit infrastructure

and works with states, local transit authorities, and the transit industry to

develop technology, provide training, and supply technical assistance that

advances safety.

Table 3: DOT’s Reported Progress in Meeting its Rail and Transit Safety

Performance Goals

Rail and transit safety goals 1999 goal 2000 goal 2001 goal

Reduce the rate of rail-related crashes ❍ ❍ Discontinued

Reduce the rate of rail-related fatalities ●● ◗

Reduce the rate of highway-rail gradecrossing accidents●❍ ●

Reduce the rate of transit-related fatalities ❍❍ ❍

Reduce the rate of transit-related injuries ● ● Report does

not indicate

expected

progress

Legend: ●= met or expects to meet goal

❍= did not meet goal or does not expect to meet goal

◗= will be challenged to meet goal

Source: DOT.

 11See Pipeline Safety: The Office of Pipeline Safety Is Changing How It Oversees the

Pipeline Industry (GAO/RCED-00-128, May 15, 2000).
Page 14 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

The agency reported that it did not meet its goal of reducing the number of

flight delays as aviation delays and cancellations continued to increase in

2000 to the highest levels recorded, when nearly one in four flights were

delayed, cancelled, or diverted. DOT indicated that bad weather accounted

for about 70 percent of the delays. DOT had met its goal for reducing

delays in 1999 but indicated that it would not meet its 2000 goal if the

country experienced particularly bad weather in 2000. Similarly, DOT

reported that it does not expect to achieve this goal in 2001 due to

expected increases in air travel.

DOT provides a clear and comprehensive discussion of the performance

data. The performance report provides a definition of the measure, data

limitations and their implications for assessing performance, procedures

to verify and validate data, and the source database. For example, the

report indicates that the lack of a common definition of delay has led to

confusion and disagreement as to the extent of aviation delays. To address

this problem, DOT formed a task force that recommended four new

categories for the causes of flight delays: (1) circumstances within an

airline’s control, (2) extreme weather, (3) circumstances within the

national aviation system, and (4) late flight arrivals. DOT expects to test

this new reporting format with airlines before formally implementing it.

DOT’s strategies to reduce flight delays, such as improved weather

tracking and reporting mechanisms, appear reasonable but do not appear

likely to achieve the goal in the near term. For example, the report

indicates that FAA’s best means for reducing aviation delays, such as its

plans for all-weather access to runways and the construction of more

runways, will happen only in the long term. In the near term, to meet the

growing demand for air travel and decrease the number of flight delays,

the agency is modernizing its air traffic control (ATC) system by acquiring

a network of radar, automated information processing, navigation, and

communications equipment. However, over the years, the agency’s ATC

modernization and other major capacity-enhancing programs have not met

expectations due to cost, schedule, and performance problems. We

designated the ATC modernization program as a high-risk information

technology initiative in 1995, and it continues to be a high-risk area.

According to projections, DOT reported that it failed to achieve its 2000

goal to reduce highway congestion—measured by hours of delay per 1,000

vehicle-miles traveled on federal-aid highways—despite establishing a

positive trend in 1999. However, in 2001, the agency expects to meet three

new highway congestion goals—reducing congested travel time, peak

Flight Delays

Highway Congestion and

Highway Pavement

Condition
Page 15 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

period travel time, and traveler delay—that will replace the 2000 goal. DOT

did not indicate why the agency failed to meet the 2000 goal. In addition,

DOT estimated that it met its 2000 goal for improving highway pavement

condition. Consequently, it plans to continue a number of initiatives

designed to promote the construction of smoother pavements and extend

pavement performance, such as providing funding for pavement

maintenance and conducting pavement research. DOT also reported that it

met its goal for increasing the number of metropolitan areas that have

intelligent transportation systems, which use information and

communication technology to extend the capacity of existing highway

infrastructure and could help lessen congestion. The Department intends

to fund intelligent transportation systems in additional metropolitan areas

in 2002 as part of its strategy to reduce highway congestion. DOT’s report

discussed the credibility of the information for each goal and added a

limitation that we identified in last year’s report. We found that the 1999

performance report failed to explain that states provided no information

for the highway pavement condition of about 7 percent of the miles on the

National Highway System. This limitation to the data is explained in the

2000 report. However, the 2000 report did not address other problems with

the pavement condition data that we identified, such as the fact that states

vary in their approaches to measuring and reporting the statistic used to

indicate pavement performance and do not uniformly follow DOT’s

guidance for making these measurements.

The Coast Guard is responsible, along with other federal agencies, for

reducing the amount of illegal drugs smuggled into the United States.

Although the agency seized a record 60.2 metric tons of cocaine in 2000,

this was not sufficient for the agency to reach its goal—to seize 13 percent

of the cocaine being smuggled into the country through maritime routes.

Furthermore, the percentage of cocaine seized by the agency fell from 12.2

percent in 1999 to 10.6 percent in 2000 because of increases in the overall

amount of cocaine smuggled. Consequently, the agency noted that it will

be challenged to meet its goal in 2001. The data quality for this indicator is

not as strong as it is for other indicators. The report notes that the

secretive nature of the illegal drug trade could cause estimates of the

amount of cocaine smuggled into this country to contain significant errors.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy attempts to refine and improve

this estimate each year, according to DOT.

DOT provided a general overview of its strategies for 2002 to reduce the

availability of illegal drugs, which included continuing to develop new

tactics and vary its operations to thwart maritime smuggling. DOT

Availability and/or Use of

Illegal Drugs
Page 16 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

reported that the Coast Guard’s efforts are part of an overall strategy to

reduce the illegal drug supply entering the United Sates. The multiagency

effort is coordinated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy; the

Coast Guard’s role in the effort is to serve as the lead federal agency for

maritime drug interdiction.

For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements

or remaining weaknesses in DOT’s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report

in comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report, and (2) fiscal year 2002

performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also

discusses the degree to which the agency’s fiscal year 2000 report and

fiscal year 2002 plan address concerns and recommendations by the

Congress, GAO, DOT’s Inspector General, and others.

As we found last year, DOT provides a clear and comprehensive

discussion of performance goals, measures, and data in this year’s report.

Overall, it is easy to ascertain DOT’s progress in meeting its goals because

the performance information is clearly articulated in the performance

report, which provides goal levels and the actual performance for all the

measures we reviewed. This represents an improvement over last year’s

performance report, for which we noted that DOT did not report actual

performance for two goals: highway delays and pavement condition. For

1999, the agency reported that actual data were not available. For 2000, the

agency estimated the level of performance. As was true last year, DOT’s

goals and measures are meaningful, outcome oriented, objective,

measurable, and quantifiable. In addition, summary tables list the fiscal

year 2000 goals, trend data, and checkmarks to indicate goals that were

met. For each performance measure, the agency provides a definition of

the measure, data limitations and their implications for assessing

performance, procedures for verifying and validating data, and the source

for the data.

The report also notes the agency’s attempts to improve the quality of its

goals. For example, in 2000, DOT deleted the maritime safety goal to

reduce the fatality rate among maritime workers and added the goal to

Comparison of DOT’s

Fiscal Year 2000

Performance Report

and Fiscal Year 2002

Performance Plan

With the Prior Year

Report and Plan for

Selected Key

Outcomes

Comparison of

Performance Reports for

Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000
Page 17 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

reduce the fatality rate on passenger vessels. The agency reported that it

made the change because it believed the new goal reflected a broader area

of safety performance. In 2001, the agency made additional improvements;

it simplified the passenger fatality measure to make it more

understandable and implemented a new information system to improve

the quality of its passenger fatality data. Regarding the highway pavement

condition data, however, the report does not address several weaknesses

we raised concerning last year’s report, such as the fact that states vary in

their approaches to measuring and reporting the statistic used to indicate

pavement performance and do not uniformly follow DOT’s guidance for

making these measurements.

DOT changed several performance measures for this year’s report. For

example, it implemented a recommendation made by GAO and others to

link its fatal commercial aviation accident measure to the number of

departures instead of flight hours. However, the report did not always

discuss its reasons for discontinuing or changing its performance

measures, which sometimes occurred when performance was declining.

For example, DOT discontinued its aviation safety performance goal of

reducing the rate of deviations—aircraft entering airspace without prior

coordination—but the report did not indicate why. DOT did not make its

1999 goal, and pilot deviations increased by 38 percent in 2000.

As was true in 1999, the 2000 performance report does not always explain

why DOT did not reach its performance goals or how its plans to mitigate

the external factors that affect outcomes. For example, DOT indicated that

it failed to meet its goals for reducing highway fatalities in part due to a

continuing increase in motorcycle fatalities. However, DOT’s plan does not

include any specific strategies for reducing motorcycle fatalities.

As it did last year, the 2000 performance report addressed the majority of

the management challenges identified by GAO, the Inspector General, and

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by including a discussion of

each management challenge in the section devoted to the relevant

performance indicator. The management challenges not directly or

indirectly linked to one of DOT’s goals were listed together after the goals.

Although the report discussed DOT’s progress toward resolving most of

the management challenges, it did not address aspects of the management

challenge to enhance competition in the freight rail industry and consumer

protection in the aviation and freight rail industries. DOT improved its

discussion of the management challenges by indicating whether GAO, the

DOT Inspector General, OMB, or some combination of these organizations

identified each challenge.
Page 18 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

As it did last year, DOT identifies in a clear, well-organized manner the

strategies and initiatives it will pursue for each of the 2002 performance

goals. For the four outcomes that we reviewed, these strategies did not

include strategic human capital management and information technology.

However, the report discusses these types of strategies elsewhere. The

report also provides the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 funding that DOT will

direct toward each performance goal. This information is an improvement

to last year’s report because it enhances the reader’s ability to compare the

agency’s initiatives and the resources committed to those initiatives.

The plan outlines DOT’s expectation for meeting its 2001 goals, and in

several cases the plan indicates that the agency does not expect to meet its

goals. This is especially true for the numerous goals that it did not meet in

2000. For example, in the short term, DOT may not be able to meet its goal

for reducing the rate of runway incursions. The rate of runway incursions

has increased over the last 6 years, with a very large upsurge in 2000,

moving the rate of incursions even further from DOT’s goal. As a result, for

the second straight year, DOT’s performance plan indicated that it is

unlikely that the agency will meet its goal for the upcoming year.

The plan also notes DOT’s continuing efforts to correct data limitations.

For example, DOT found that its performance measure for highway

congestion (delay per 1,000 vehicle-miles traveled) did not reflect the

actual performance of the highway system in places where congestion

regularly happens (e.g., congested, urban areas), and the measure was

difficult for the public to understand. As a result, next year DOT will

replace the one highway congestion performance measure with three new

measures that DOT believes will reflect changing travel conditions more

comprehensively by focusing on the different aspects of inefficient road

performance in areas where congestion regularly occurs.

The plan did not include a future performance goal for reducing pipeline

accident injuries and fatalities even though one would appear relevant for

several reasons. First, fatalities due to pipeline accidents are increasing.

Second, the plan includes goals to reduce injuries and fatalities related to

all of the other transportation sectors; and, third, DOT’s future plans for

pipeline safety are geared, in part, toward reducing fatalities.

As it did last year, in its discussion at the end of the relevant performance

goal, DOT’s 2002 performance plan addressed the majority of the

management challenges identified by GAO, the Inspector General, and

OMB. For some of the management challenges, DOT breaks out its plans

and goals by fiscal year. For example, in response to its management

Comparison of

Performance Plans for

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Page 19 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

challenge for computer security, DOT lays out a number of milestones for

improving computer security with specific dates leading up to May 2003,

when all DOT systems are expected to be adequately protected. However,

the plan acknowledged that DOT did not meet the first milestone on

schedule.

GAO has identified two governmentwide high-risk areas: strategic human

capital management12 and information security.13 We found that DOT’s

performance plan had a measure related to human capital but no

corresponding goal. In addition, the agency’s performance report

explained DOT’s progress in resolving certain human capital challenges.

For example, the report indicated that DOT made progress in

implementing its human resources management strategies in 2000 and has

established worker satisfaction as a new performance measure in 2002.

With respect to information security, we found that DOT’s performance

plan did have goals and measures related to information security, and the

agency’s performance report explained its progress in resolving a number

of its information security challenges. For example, the report focused on

FAA’s air traffic control information systems in response to a management

challenge raised by GAO, the Inspector General, and OMB.

In addition to the governmentwide challenges, GAO has identified six

major management challenges facing DOT. We found that DOT’s

performance report discussed the agency’s progress in resolving many of

these challenges. However, the report did not adequately discuss the

agency’s progress in enhancing competition in the freight rail industry and

consumer protection in both the freight rail and aviation industries. Table

4 illustrates how the goals and measures address the eight management

challenges that GAO identified.

 12GAO designated strategic human capital management as a high-risk area in 2001 because

serious challenges, such as skills imbalances, succession planning challenges, outdated

performance management systems, and understaffing are risking agencies’ ability to

accomplish their missions in an efficient, economic, and effective manner.

13We designated information security as a high-risk area in 1997 because growing evidence

indicated that controls over computerized federal operations were not effective and

because the related risks were escalating, in part due to increased reliance on the Internet.

Although progress has been made since then, recent audits show that federal operations

and assets continue to be highly vulnerable to computer-based attacks.

DOT’s Efforts to

Address its Major

Management

Challenges Identified

by GAO
Page 20 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Table 4: The Way DOT Addressed the Management Challenges Identified by GAO

DOD’s goals and measures are

Management challenge

Directly related to

challenge

Indirectly related to

challenge

Governmentwide challenges:

Information security X

Strategic human capital management X

DOT challenges:

Improve the safety and security of air, highway, and pipeline transportation X

Increase the accountability for financial management activities X

Improve the oversight of highway and transit projects X

Enhance major acquisitions and disposals X

Strengthen the financial condition of Amtrak X

Enhance competition and consumer protection in aviation and freight rail

industries

X

Source: GAO’s analysis of DOT information.

DOT has again produced a superior combined performance plan and

report that is clear, understandable, and well organized. It is easy for the

reader to quickly assess the agency’s progress in achieving key goals and

understand its plans for the future, including the budget resources that

DOT plans to direct toward achieving each goal. For readers seeking

additional information, the report also provides details on the agency’s

data for each performance measure, such as its definition, source,

limitations, and DOT’s efforts to verify and validate the data. These

characteristics make DOT’s report and plan a good model for other

agencies to emulate.

However, the report shows that DOT is generally achieving fewer of its

key performance goals than last year. For example, in 2000, DOT failed to

meet any of its goals for highway safety, including its goals for reducing

the rate of highway fatalities and injuries that it had met in 1999. The plan

is candid about the agency’s likelihood of not achieving some future goals.

Some of this is understandable; DOT cannot mitigate all external factors,

such as bad weather or human error. However, in several cases, DOT’s

annual strategies and goals appear mismatched. Overall, DOT met fewer of

its performance goals than last year, and it already projects that it will fall

short on several future goals in important areas, such as aviation, highway,

and transit safety. For goals in which DOT is not making adequate

progress, the Department needs to either change its strategies or lower its

expectations. In the case of pipeline safety, the mismatch between goals

and strategies appears to be due to the lack of an appropriate measure.

Specifically, DOT does not have performance goals to reduce pipeline

Conclusions
Page 21 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

fatalities and injuries, even though pipeline fatalities are increasing and the

agency’s strategies to improve pipeline safety are geared toward reducing

fatalities. In the other areas—highway, aviation, transit, and marine

transportation—DOT has safety goals to reduce fatalities and injuries.

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the operating

administrations and the Office of Budget and Program Performance to

improve the match between annual performance goals and strategies in

the following ways:

• Change strategies so that they help DOT achieve its performance goals or

lower performance goals to more achievable levels. In the latter case, the

Department should provide a justification for why the changes were

necessary, clearly note that the goals have been lowered, and identify any

long-term strategies that will bring performance into better alignment with

expectations.

• Establish performance goals for reducing the number of fatalities and

injuries caused by pipeline failures to match similar goals in the aviation,

highway, transit, and marine sectors.

As agreed, our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of

GPRA; the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000; guidance to agencies from

OMB for developing performance plans and reports (OMB Circular A-11,

Part 2); previous reports and evaluations by us and others; our knowledge

of DOT’s operations and programs; our identification of best practices

concerning performance planning and reporting; and our observations on

DOT’s other GPRA-related efforts. We also discussed our review with DOT

officials. The agency outcomes that were used as the basis for our review

were identified by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate

Governmental Affairs Committee as important mission areas for the

agency and do not reflect the outcomes for all of DOT’s programs or

activities. The major management challenges confronting DOT, including

the governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital

management and information security, were identified by GAO in our

January 2001 Performance and Accountability Series and High-Risk

Update and were identified by DOT’s Office of Inspector General in

December 2000. We did not independently verify the information

contained in the performance report and plan, although we did draw from

other GAO work in assessing the validity, reliability, and timeliness of

DOT’s performance data. We conducted our review from April 2001

through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards.

Recommendations for

Executive Action

Scope and

Methodology
Page 22 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of

Transportation for its review and comment. In a letter, the agency

indicated that it agrees with our recommendations. Specifically, the

Department stated that annual performance targets should be realistic,

strategies will be reviewed to better align them with performance goals,

and pipeline injuries and fatalities should be included in DOT’s future

performance plans. DOT’s written comments are included as appendix II.

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 to appropriate

congressional committees; the Secretary of Transportation; and the

Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made

available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-2834.

Key contributors to this report were Teresa Spisak and Keith Cunningham.

Sincerely yours,

JayEtta Z. Hecker

Director, Physical Infrastructure

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Transportation’s Efforts to Address Its

Major Management Challenges

Page 23 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

The following table identifies the major management challenges

confronting the Department of Transportation (DOT), which include the

governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management

and information security. The first column lists the management

challenges that we and/or DOT’s Inspector General (IG) have identified.

The second column discusses what progress, as discussed in DOT’s fiscal

year 2000 performance report, the agency made in resolving its challenges.

The third column discusses the extent to which DOT’s fiscal year 2002

performance plan includes performance goals and measures to address

the challenges that we and DOT’s IG identified. We found that DOT’s

performance report discussed the agency’s progress in resolving all of its

challenges. Of the agency’s nine major management challenges, its

performance plan (1) had goals and measures that were directly related to

5 of the challenges and (2) had goals and measures that were indirectly

applicable to four of the challenges.

Table 5: Major Management Challenges

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major

management challenge as

discussed in fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures

in the fiscal year 2002

performance plan

GAO-designated governmentwide high-risk

Strategic Human Capital Management: GAO identified

shortcomings at multiple agencies involving key

elements of modern human capital management,

including strategic human capital planning and

organizational alignment; leadership continuity and

succession planning; acquiring and developing staffs

whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency

needs; and creating results-oriented organizational

cultures.

The specific concern with DOT that we identified in our

January 2001 report is the “stovepiped” culture at FAA,

which has been one of several underlying causes of

acquisition problems in the agency’s multibillion-dollar

modernization program. The program has experienced

cost overruns, schedule delays, and significant

performance shortfalls.

DOT reported that during 2000, each

operating administration and the Office

of the Secretary completed a workforce

planning pilot and began to use

workforce analysis data to identify

competencies needed to perform new

or desired functions.

The agency did not discuss human

capital activities during 2000 that were

specific to FAA.

The plan includes a related

performance measure: the percent

of employees satisfied with

working for the Department. No

target has been set for 2002. In

addition, the plan indicated that

DOT has begun departmentwide

strategic workforce planning.

According to DOT, operating

administrations will identify current

and future human capital needs,

the competencies required to meet

these needs, and plans for

developing the current workforce

and/or recruiting to fill the gaps.

Time frames for completing these

activities are not identified in the

plan. However, the plan indicates

that further details are provided in

DOT’s Human Resource Strategic

Action Plan.

Information Security: Our January 2001 high-risk

update noted that the agencies’ and governmentwide

efforts to strengthen information security have gained

momentum and expanded. Nevertheless, recent audits

continue to show federal computer systems are riddled

with weaknesses that make them highly vulnerable to

The U.S. transportation system

increasingly relies on information and

telecommunication systems. DOT has a

goal to protect the nation’s critical

transportation infrastructure, which

includes information and

DOT’s plan includes a

performance goal to increase the

percentage of people who receive

threat information within 24 hours

to 90 percent of those persons

who need to take actions, such as

Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Transportation’s Efforts to Address Its

Major Management Challenges
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Transportation’s Efforts to Address Its

Major Management Challenges

Page 24 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major

management challenge as

discussed in fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures

in the fiscal year 2002

performance plan

computer-based attacks and place a broad range of

critical operations and assets at risk of fraud, misuse,

and disruption.

(The DOT IG also identified information security as a

management challenge.)

telecommunication systems. DOT did

not meet its 2000 target of informing

those who need to receive threat

information within 24 hours, but it noted

several initiatives that will help protect

DOT’s critical physical assets and

information systems. DOT completed a

master plan, in accordance with a

directive on Critical Infrastructure

Protection, to protect the Department’s

critical assets and information systems.

The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Coast Guard, and Saint

Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation, all with critical facilities,

began efforts to meet infrastructure

physical and logical improvement goals.

DOT established a Chief Information

Officer Council that is working with the

DOT Chief Information Officer to lead

intermodal efforts to ensure the

continued security of DOT’s

transportation information systems and

to make IT systems less vulnerable to

attack and other service disruptions,

including those caused by natural

disasters. In addition, FAA established

the Office of Information Systems

Security to provide information systems

security direction, guidance, and policy.

In spite of DOT’s efforts during the

fiscal year 2000 DOT Consolidated

Financial Statement audit, the IG found

that improved security and controls

were needed in DOT data centers and

computer networks, and major financial

application systems need to be

accredited and certified. Consequently,

the IG reported information security as

a material weakness during fiscal year

2000.

adjusting security procedures.

DOT did not develop specific goals

for information security. Instead, it

chose to incorporate its information

security work into broader goals

addressing critical infrastructure

protection issues.

DOT will issue a comprehensive IT

security program that will require a

certification of DOT IT systems in

accordance with Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

Circular A-130. To judge its

progress, DOT established specific

goals for the systems:

• By April 30, 2001, the IT

Security Program Plan will be

issued (did not accomplish this

goal by the planned date).

• Within 120 days after issuance

of the DOT IT Security Program

Plan, operating administrations

will develop an overall

strategy/plan for ensuring their

IT assets are in compliance with

this plan.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Transportation’s Efforts to Address Its

Major Management Challenges

Page 25 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major

management challenge as

discussed in fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures

in the fiscal year 2002

performance plan

GAO- and IG-designated major management

challenges

Improve the safety and security of air, highway, and

pipeline transportation. Specifically, improve:

1. the implementation of certain aviation safety

programs,

2. the screening of passengers at airports for

dangerous objects,

3. the security of air traffic control computer systems

and the facilities that house them,

4. its truck safety initiatives, and

5. the evaluation of pipeline safety measures and the

involvement of states in the safety programs.

Regarding fiscal year 1999, the report

indicated the following:

1. FAA met its performance targets

for reducing the rate of fatal air

carrier accidents and the number

of general aviation fatalities.

However, it did not meet its targets

for other commercial aviation

safety related performance

measures.

2. FAA did not meet its performance

target for increasing the detection

rate for explosives and weapons

that may be brought aboard

airplanes. As a result, FAA, among

others, will continue to implement

the Airport Security Improvement

Act to improve the success of

explosive detection equipment.

3. DOT did not have any direct or

indirect performance measures for

this challenge, but DOT and FAA

have taken a number of steps to

improve computer security. For

instance, they are taking a number

of steps to comply with Presidential

Decision Directive 63 that applied

to computer security. The agency

is also in the process of authorizing

and certifying computer security

systems, training FAA personnel,

and improving intrusion detection.

4. DOT did not reach its performance

targets for truck-related fatalities

and injuries. The Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration within

DOT worked to improve truck

safety by increasing compliance

reviews, strengthening

enforcement, improving information

systems, and initiating a crash

causation study.

5. DOT met its performance target for

reducing the number of natural gas

transmission pipeline failures.

The report includes:

1. Performance goals to reduce

the rate of fatal aviation

accidents for commercial air

carriers and the number of

general aviation fatalities, the

number of runway incursions,

and the rate of operational

errors.

2. A performance goal to

increase the detection rate for

explosives and weapons that

may be brought aboard

aircraft.

3. No performance goals directly

linked to air traffic control

security, but it did indicate that

it was unlikely that it would

meet its goal of completing its

information technology

security program plan and

assess, test, and certify all of

its information technology

systems in 2001. DOT also

plans to develop an

information technology

security program plan and

implementation strategy.

4. A performance measure to

reduce the number and rate of

fatalities in crashes involving

large trucks.

5. A performance measure to

reduce the number of failures

of natural gas transmission

pipelines.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Transportation’s Efforts to Address Its

Major Management Challenges

Page 26 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major

management challenge as

discussed in fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures

in the fiscal year 2002

performance plan

However, the report acknowledged

that fatalities due to pipeline

accidents remain a problem.

Acquisitions and disposals: Enhance major acquisitions

and disposals

1. FAA’s air traffic control modernization program

2. the Coast Guard’s Deepwater Project, and

3. surplus ship disposal

Regarding fiscal year 2000, the report

indicated:

1. FAA did not meet its performance

target for reducing aviation delay—

an indirect measure of its air traffic

control modernization program. As

a result, FAA is taking a number of

steps to address the challenges of

keeping its air traffic control

modernization program on

schedule and budget, including

setting baselines, applying new

management techniques, and

improving problem analysis.

2. The Coast Guard did not meet its

goal for increasing its seizure rate

for cocaine shipped via the sea—a

performance indicator that the

Deepwater Project is designed in

part to address.

3. None. The Maritime Administration

will begin its program of disposing

of obsolete ships in the National

Defense Reserve Fleet in 2001.

The report includes:

1. A performance measure to

reduce the rate of aviation

delays that is indirectly

applicable to air traffic

modernization. It also

acknowledges that keeping air

traffic control modernization

on schedule and on budget is

a significant management

challenge, and it lists a

number of tasks the agency

will take to help address the

challenge.

2. No performance measures

linked to the Coast Guard’s

Deepwater Project, but it did

describe some of the actions it

has taken to improve the

program, including updating

the Deepwater Legacy Asset

Baseline.

3. A performance goal of

scrapping at least three

vessels per year in fiscal

years 2001 and 2002.

Financial accountability. DOT’s lack of accountability

for its financial activities impairs its ability to manage

programs and exposes the Department to potential

waste, fraud, mismanagement, and abuse. From fiscal

years 1996 through 1998, the IG was unable to

express an opinion on the reliability of the DOT

consolidated financial statement. For fiscal year 1999,

the IG expressed an unqualified opinion on DOT’s

consolidated financial statement. However, in the case

of FAA, this required alternative procedures and laborintensive methods with regard to property, plant, and

equipment. According to the DOT IG, these procedures

and methods would not be sustainable in the future.

DOT also lacks a cost accounting system or alternative

means of accumulating the full costs of specific

projects or activities.

The FY 2000 Performance Report

states that DOT’s 2000 Consolidated

Financial Statement received a

“qualified” opinion from the IG due to

ongoing issues in FAA’s accounting for

property, plant, and equipment. The IG

also issued a qualified opinion on the

separate FAA financial statement. The

IG’s fiscal year 2000 audit report on

DOT ‘s consolidated financial statement

stated that FAA had to calculate the

property, plant, and equipment book

value using electronic spreadsheets

outside the existing property systems,

and the IG was unable to substantiate

the amounts. In addition, the IG

reported that DOT continued to lack

systems to allocate costs by major

The plan states that the DOT

Consolidated Financial Statement

“qualified” opinion issue will be

resolved with the full

implementation of Delphi, the

Department’s commercial off-theshelf core accounting system

replacement (No details of what

remains to be done or projected

completion date are provided in

the performance plan).

The plan also included goals for

FAA to:

• convert to the Delphi accounting

system in 2001,

• achieve unqualified audits in FY

2001 and FY 2002,
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Transportation’s Efforts to Address Its

Major Management Challenges

Page 27 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major

management challenge as

discussed in fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures

in the fiscal year 2002

performance plan

program.

As of September 30, 2000, FAA had

implemented its cost accounting system

in the En Route, Oceanic and Flight

Service Stations services portion of its

Air Traffic Services line of business.

FAA still needs to implement its cost

accounting system in the

Terminal/Tower portion of Air Traffic

Services and in its other five lines of

business. The FAA system will be in

addition to the cost accounting features

being included in the new DOT

accounting system (Delphi) currently

being implemented.

• implement cost accounting

throughout the agency by FY

2002, and

• establish fees for the provision

of ATC overflight services (no

projected implementation date

is provided in the performance

plan).

Strengthen the financial condition of Amtrak DOT did not meet its target for Amtrak

ridership of 23.7 million passengers—

an indirect measure of its financial

security—but ridership levels did

increase for the fourth straight year to

22.5 million. However, Amtrak also

experienced increases in labor costs,

depreciation, and train operating

expenses.

The plan includes a long-term

performance measure of achieving

financial self-sufficiency in 2002

and an annual goal of increasing

Amtrak’s intercity ridership.

Increased ridership is indirectly

linked to Amtrak’s financial

condition because it increases its

revenue.

GAO-designated major management challenges

Improve the oversight of highway and transit projects to

provide maximum transportation services for the

federal dollars.

The report indicated that DOT has

developed a comprehensive, standard

oversight approach to large projects

that includes vigorously enforcing

financial reporting requirements,

designating accountable oversight

managers, and taking special note of

high-risk projects.

The plan includes the following

goal to improve transit grant

oversight: reduce the deficiency

findings per triennial and State

management oversight reviews by

five percent per year. The plan

did not include a goal for improving

the oversight of highway projects.

Enhance competition and consumer protection in

aviation and freight rail industries to ensure reasonable

fares, rates, and service.

The report addressed the management

challenge of competition in the aviation

sector by stating that DOT informally

investigated major airline responses to

market entry by low-fare airlines and

provided feedback to the Justice

Department.

The report will have a new

performance target in 2002 for

customer satisfaction with the

transportation system and the

services provided by DOT—an

indirect measure of enhanced

competition.

IG-designated major management challenge

Improve surface transportation security. DOT did not meet its goal for the timely

dissemination of information regarding

transportation threats to those who

need to know—90 percent of the

people who need to act receive

infrastructure threat information within

24 hours. The agency achieved only

43-percent notification. However, DOT

DOT will continue to attempt to

achieve its timely information

dissemination goal of 90-percent

notification within 24 hours, and it

plans to implement its master plan

for protecting critical physical

assets.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Transportation’s Efforts to Address Its

Major Management Challenges

Page 28 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major

management challenge as

discussed in fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures

in the fiscal year 2002

performance plan

did complete a master plan to protect

the agency’s critical physical assets

and information systems in accordance

with a directive on critical infrastructure

protection, and FAA and the Coast

Guard began making security

improvements. The Saint Lawrence

Seaway Development Corporation

completed its security improvements.
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of Transportation

Page 29 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of Transportation
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of Transportation

(392008) Page 30 GAO-01-834 DOT's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs