a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, U.S. Senate

April 2003 HIGHWAY 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Perceptions of 

Stakeholders on 

Approaches to Reduce 

Highway Project 

Completion Time

GAO-03-398
Respondents from 33 organizations identified 13 approaches as most promising 

for reducing the time it takes to plan, design, gain approval for, and build a 

federally funded highway project. These approaches fell into three areas: 

• Improving project management. Most approaches (8 of 13) focused on 

state-level activities that could be conducted earlier than customary, with 90 

percent of respondents indicating that establishing early partnerships and 

early coordination among all project stakeholders is highly important to 

reducing project completion time. Other approaches included added 

flexibility for states in determining impacts on historic properties and 

imposing time limits on environmental reviews.

• Delegating environmental review and permitting authority. Between 

half and two-thirds of the respondents indicated that utilizing programmatic 

agreements between transportation and resource agencies to address 

commonly occurring issues, unifying overall environmental assessments 

with reviews of project impacts on wetlands, and creating large banks of 

wetlands to replace those lost at highway project sites offered significant 

promise for reducing project completion time.

• Improving agency staffing and skills. Nearly 60 percent of the 

respondents indicated that using interagency funding agreements in which 

state departments of transportation can ensure timely attention to 

environmental reviews of their projects by funding staff at federal or state 

resource agencies offered significant promise to reduce project completion 

time. About half of the respondents told us that adequate training of 

transportation staff on the requirements of all steps in completing a highway 

project was also a promising approach. 

For the most part, the respondents were not able to estimate how much time 

adopting one or more of these approaches might save. Respondents’ views 

varied both within similar types of organizations (such as state departments of 

transportation) and across lines of responsibility or interest. Generally, agencies 

and other organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests in building 

and funding highways ranked certain approaches higher than did agencies and 

associations with a primary focus on resource issues, and vice versa. 

Nonetheless, most of the 13 most promising approaches had widespread support 

across organizations. 

Although some of these approaches are in use across the country, respondents 

acknowledged that the usefulness of these approaches could vary by the type of 

project or community values. For example, projects that are not complex or 

contentious would not necessarily achieve the time savings that these 

approaches afford for projects with complex characteristics or disagreement 

among stakeholders.

Constructing, improving, and 

repairing roads is fundamental to 

meeting the nation's mobility 

needs. The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) supplies 

most of the money (about $20 

billion in fiscal year 2003), and 

state departments of transportation 

are primarily responsible for 

completing projects. Many federal 

and state agencies (called resource 

agencies) help ensure that 

environmental and other concerns 

are considered. These and other 

organizations have recognized that 

the time it takes to complete 

complex federally funded highway 

projects is too long—in some cases 

nearly 20 years. 

GAO was asked to report the views 

of knowledgeable officials on the 

most promising approaches for 

reducing completion time for 

federally funded highway projects. 

GAO obtained the views of 33 

officials from federal, state, and 

private organizations with interests 

in federally funded roads. 

GAO recommends that FHWA 

consider the benefits of the 13 most 

promising approaches and take 

actions needed to foster more 

widespread adoption of those that 

appear to be the most cost 

effective. While not commenting 

on the recommendation, the 

Department of Transportation 

generally agreed that these 

approaches represent opportunities 

to reduce project completion time. 

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

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-398, a report to the 

Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

April 2003

HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

Perceptions of Stakeholders on 

Approaches to Reduce Highway Project 

Completion Time 
Page i GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Most Promising Approaches Identified by Stakeholders Focus on 

Improving Project Management 7

Conclusions 19

Recommendation for Executive Action 19

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 19

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 21

Appendix II: Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project 

Completion Time as Identified by Respondents 26

Tables Table 1: Most Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project 

Completion Time, as Identified by Stakeholders 3

Table 2: Percent of Respondents Rating the 13 Most Promising 

Approaches Highly, Including Average Rating 8

Table 3: Comparison of Rankings of 34 Approaches to Reduce 

Highway Project Completion Time by Transportation and 

Resource Respondents 10

Table 4: Organizations Contacted to Determine Most Promising 

Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion 

Time 22

Table 5: Structured Interview Questions Used to Identify the Most 

Promising Approaches to Reduce Highway Project 

Completion Time 24

Table 6: Promising Approaches to Reduce Project Completion 

Time Identified and Rated by Respondents, by Average 

Rating 26

Table 7: Views on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project 

Completion Time Often Varied by Respondent 

Affiliation 32
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Abbreviations

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page 1 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 9, 2003 Letr

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

Dear Senator Jeffords:

Constructing, improving, and repairing roads and bridges are fundamental 

to meeting the nation's mobility needs to facilitate commerce, national 

defense, and pleasure use and to promote economic growth. Therefore, the 

Congress has an interest in seeing that federally funded highway projects 

are completed in a timely manner. Many of the organizations with a role in 

highway project completion have recognized that completing major 

highway construction projects takes too long—in some cases about 20 

years. As a result, these organizations—including the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation, and other 

stakeholders—have acted to reduce project completion time by developing 

initiatives in several areas and by publicizing what they believe are 

successful strategies. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 

enacted in 1998, contained provisions designed to streamline 

environmental reviews, a component of projects often cited as offering the 

greatest opportunity for reducing the completion time of federally funded 

highway projects. As the reauthorization of this act approaches, the 

Congress may again consider approaches for reducing the time it takes to 

complete a federally funded highway project so that transportation benefits 

are realized sooner. 

You requested that we report on knowledgeable officials’ views on the most 

promising approaches to reduce project completion time for federally 

funded highway projects. To carry out this work, we asked officials from 

various federal and state agencies with responsibilities relating to the 

construction of federally funded roads, transportation engineering 

organizations, transportation professional associations, historic 

preservation organizations, environmental organizations, and tribal 

organizations to identify the most promising approaches for reducing 

project completion time by a substantial amount for federally funded 

highway projects of all types and complexities. We asked these officials to 

identify other stakeholders with expertise and asked those individuals also 

to identify promising approaches. Overall, 42 stakeholders identified 49 

approaches. We then asked these officials to rate each approach on its 
Page 2 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

potential for reducing project completion time. Thirty-three officials 

representing different interests provided these ratings. The approach we 

used makes two contributions. First, it captures the views of a wide range 

of stakeholders that are identified by their peers as knowledgeable. 

Second, it provides a systematic assessment of the perceived value of all 

approaches involving all aspects of completing federally funded highway 

projects that were identified by knowledgeable stakeholders. We did not 

attempt to corroborate the need to implement these approaches or the 

reasons why respondents rated individual approaches as they did. In 

addition, we did not attempt to determine how effective the promising 

approaches, where already implemented, were in reducing highway project 

completion time. (See app. I for additional details on our scope and 

methodology.)

Results in Brief Respondents from 33 organizations representing a wide range of federal, 

state, tribal, and advocacy interests generally rated 13 approaches of the 49 

that they identified as most promising for reducing the time it takes to plan, 

gain approval for, design, and build a federally funded highway project. 

(See table 1.) These approaches fell into three key areas: (1) improving 

project management, (2) delegating environmental review and permitting 

authority, and (3) improving agency staffing and skills. One of these 

approaches, establishing early partnerships and coordination among 

stakeholders so that technical, environmental, policy, and other issues can 

be resolved in a timely and predictable manner, was strongly supported by 

28 of 31 (90 percent) respondents.1

 Other approaches, although viewed as 

promising by respondents overall, received less widespread support across 

different groups of stakeholders that we contacted. Some state 

departments of transportation are employing some of these approaches. 

For example, according to FHWA, 34 states have agreements in which state 

departments of transportation provide funding for personnel at state and 

federal environmental agencies for expediting reviews. For the most part, 

respondents were not able to estimate how much time adopting one or 

more of these approaches might save. The respondents also acknowledged 

that the usefulness of these approaches could vary by the type of project or 

community values. For example, for projects that are not complex or 

contentious, these approaches would not necessarily save the same 

amount of time that they would for projects with complex characteristics 

1

Two of the 33 respondents did not provide a rating for this approach.
Page 3 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

or disagreement among stakeholders. We are making a recommendation to 

the Department of Transportation to foster more widespread use of the 13 

most promising approaches, where appropriate. While it did not directly 

comment on our proposed recommendation, the department generally 

agreed that the 13 most promising approaches discussed in our draft report 

represent opportunities to reduce project completion time. 

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

Source: GAO.

Key area Approach

Improving project 

management

Establish early partnerships and coordination - Involve stakeholders early so that technical, environmental, policy, 

and other issues can be resolved in a timely and predictable manner.

Revise section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act - For projects on public lands, use the protections found in 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for consideration of historic properties and other historic 

resources.

Use geographic information systems - Use the data collected by federal and state resource agencies on the location 

of historic properties and environmental resources in the state to identify environmental and historic issues early 

during environmental review.

Establish time frames for resource agency review - Provide specific time frames for resource agencies to respond to 

environmental documents and produce any needed analyses. Reduce the 6-year time frame for lawsuits filed under 

the National Environmental Policy Act.

Prepare preliminary environmental assessment reports - Provide information on any conditions and constraints prior 

to programming project cost and project schedule. 

Establish project milestones and performance monitoring systems - Specify key dates, such as when final design 

must be completed, and manage the project to meet the dates. 

Employ context sensitive design - Design projects that consider the community’s environmental and social context so 

that projects are consistent with the values of the community. 

Hold public information meetings early - Hold public meetings early and more often to provide information on projects 

that are planned or underway.

Delegating review 

and permitting 

authority

Use programmatic agreements – Use agreements between transportation and resource agencies at the federal 

and/or state level to address commonly occurring issues.

Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and National Environmental Policy Act reviews - Unify reviews so that section 404 

wetlands reviews are addressed concurrently with other environmental issues. 

Employ wetlands banking - Use agreements between state departments of transportation and wetlands permitting 

agencies to create large areas of wetlands in designated areas rather than addressing effects on small wetlands at 

each construction site.

Improving agency 

staffing and skills

Use interagency funding agreements - State departments of transportation provide funding for staff at federal or state 

resource agencies to ensure timely attention to environmental issues.

Provide training - Determine the skills available at state transportation departments in relation to federal and state 

requirements to complete each phase of highway projects and establish training programs for shortfalls.
Page 4 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Background Officials in federal transportation and environmental agencies, state 

transportation agencies, and other stakeholder organizations (such as 

environmental organizations) generally agree that constructing a new 

federally funded highway is complicated and time consuming.2

 According 

to FHWA, constructing a new, major federally funded highway project that 

has significant environmental impacts typically takes from 9 to 19 years to 

plan, design, gain approval for, and complete construction. Projects take 

this long to complete because there can be as many as 200 major steps 

requiring actions, approvals or input from a number of federal, state, and 

other stakeholders. Projects with significant environmental impacts also 

face high levels of controversy that often results in a lack of sustained 

support from stakeholders. Federally funded highway projects are typically 

completed in four phases:

• Planning: State and local planning organizations and state departments 

of transportation assess a project’s purpose and need and consider its 

need in relation to other potential highway projects.

• Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of 

transportation identify project cost, level of service, and construction 

location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed project and 

alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred alternative. 

• Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of 

transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate 

utilities.

• Construction: State departments of transportation award construction 

contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.

The time required varies with the size of the project, its complexity, and the 

public interest in the project, but officials in federal and state agencies and 

other stakeholder organizations agree that delivering larger, more complex 

projects may take longer than is typical for most highway projects. In 

addition to needing more time because of their size and complexity, these 

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on 

the Timely Completion of Highway Construction Projects, GAO-02-1067T (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002).
Page 5 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

projects often take longer to complete because they must comply with 

more federal and state requirements and because of the public concern 

over environmental impacts they may generate.

FHWA provides financial assistance to states to build and improve 

highways and roads; establishes requirements related to planning, design, 

environmental review, and construction; and provides transportation 

engineering services (such as planning and design) for federally owned 

highways and bridges. For fiscal year 2003, FHWA expects to fund about 

$20 billion in highway infrastructure improvements and congestion 

mitigations. The responsibility for designing, planning, and awarding 

contracts for federally funded highway projects generally rests with state 

departments of transportation and local planning organizations.

Before a federally funded highway project can be built, it must comply with 

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 

among other things. Under the act, the consequences, if any, of proposed 

transportation projects and alternative choices (such as alternative 

routings) on the natural and human (e.g., health) environment and on 

historic properties must be identified and assessed. For a federally funded 

highway project that will have a significant impact on the environment, the 

state department of transportation prepares an environmental impact 

statement, which FHWA must approve before the project can be built. The 

environmental impact statement must describe the project, characterize 

the surrounding environment, analyze the environmental effects of a range 

of reasonable project alternatives, and indicate plans for complying with 

environmental laws and mitigating environmental damage, if any. Other 

federal agencies (called resource agencies), such as the Army Corps of 

Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, 

and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, participate in the 

preparation and review of the environmental impact statements for 

highway projects because of their responsibilities under federal laws. 

These laws include section 404 of the Clean Water Act, section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act, and section 106 of the National Historic
Page 6 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Preservation Act.3 According to FHWA, only about 3 percent of all highway 

projects (accounting for about 9 percent of the funds) that received federal 

funding in 2001 had a significant enough impact on the environment to 

require preparation of an environmental impact statement. 

Factors throughout the duration of a highway project can extend 

completion time; however, much attention has been given to the 

environmental requirements and their effect on timely completion. 

Concerned about how long highway projects take, the Congress included 

provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to 

streamline environmental reviews. These provisions require FHWA to 

identify and work with federal agencies that have environmental and 

historic preservation jurisdiction over highway projects to cooperatively 

establish realistic project development time frames among the agencies 

and to work with the agencies to adhere to those time frames. Because 

transportation projects are also affected by state and local environmental 

requirements, the act allows individual states to participate in these 

streamlining approaches, as long as all affected states’ agencies participate. 

Finally, the act also allows FHWA to approve state requests to use their 

federal-aid highway funds to provide additional environmental personnel 

dedicated to conducting environmental reviews of transportation projects 

in order to meet time limits established by the act.

3

Any transportation project that involves discharge of dredged or fill material to navigable 

waters, including certain wetlands, requires a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers 

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The permit review may require mitigation of 

project impacts through specific measures to minimize or avoid damage to wetlands and 

compensate for unavoidable impacts. 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act applies to project use of publicly 

owned land of a public park, recreation areas or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or public or 

private land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the 

federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation areas refuge, or 

site). Property for which section 4(f) is applicable can be approved for use of a 

transportation program or project only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to 

using that land, and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm 

to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the 

use.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to 

take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. Historic 

properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places or that 

meet the criteria for the National Register.
Page 7 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Most Promising 

Approaches Identified 

by Stakeholders Focus 

on Improving Project 

Management

Knowledgeable officials from 33 organizations representing a wide range of 

interests and responsibilities for the planning, design, environmental 

review, and construction of federally funded highways generally identified 

13 approaches from the 49 promising approaches they identified as most 

promising for reducing the time it takes to complete a federally funded 

highway project. (See table 2 for how respondents rated the 13 most 

promising approaches. A more detailed discussion of the 13 approaches 

follows table 2. Table 6 in app. II describes the 49 approaches identified and 

the degree to which respondents told us each had potential for reducing 

highway project completion time.) One of the 13 approaches, establishing 

early partnerships and coordination among stakeholders so that technical, 

environmental, policy, and other issues can be resolved in a timely and 

predictable manner, was strongly supported by nearly all respondents. 

Other approaches, although viewed as promising by respondents overall, 

had less widespread support across different groups of stakeholders. Some 

state departments of transportation are already employing some of the 13 

approaches, such as funding specialized staff, including biologists and 

historic preservation specialists, at federal and state resource agencies to 

assist with environmental reviews. For the most part, respondents were not 

able to estimate how much time adopting one or more of these 13 

approaches might save.
Page 8 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

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

Source: GAO.

a

Percent of all respondents ranking the approach as either having great or very great potential to 

reduce highway project completion time. Not all respondents rated each approach. Thirty or more of 

the 33 respondents (at least 91 percent) rated 11 of 13 approaches; 26 respondents (79 percent) rated 

the remaining 2 approaches. (See app. II.)

b

The 13 most promising approaches were those with a rating of 3.5 or more on a 5-point scale, where 

a rating of 3 represented a moderate potential for reducing completion times and ratings of 4 and 5 

represented great and very great potential for reducing project completion time, respectively. (See

app. I.)

Most of the approaches (8 of 13) rated by our respondents as most 

promising fell into the category of strategies to improve project 

management, focusing primarily on state-level activities. Respondents also 

supported delegation of review and permitting authority (3 of 13 

approaches, including the second and fourth highest rated approaches in 

terms of average rating); and identifying improvements in agency staffing 

and skills (2 of 13 approaches). None of the approaches in other broad 

areas identified by respondents as promising—alternatives to current 

construction contracting practices and improvements in disseminating 

information—were among the top 13. Furthermore, our results indicated 

that 9 of the 13 promising approaches (about 70 percent) were related 

solely to the planning and environmental review phases of a highway 

Nature of approach Approach

Percent of

respondents

rating approach

highlya

Average

ratingb

Improving project 

management

Establish early partnerships and coordination 90 4.5

Revise section 4(f) 70 4.0

Use geographic information systems 63 3.5

Establish time frames for environmental reviews 60 3.6

Prepare preliminary environmental assessment reports 53 3.6

Establish project milestones and performance monitoring systems 52 3.6

Employ context sensitive design 50 3.5

Hold public information meetings early 50 3.5

Delegating review 

and permitting 

authority

Use programmatic agreements 68 4.0

Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA reviews 58 3.7

Employ wetlands banking 46 3.5

Improving agency 

staffing and skills

Use interagency funding agreements 59 3.6

Provide training 53 3.7
Page 9 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

project; the remaining 4 approaches offered opportunities for improved 

performance throughout the entire life of a project. 

As can be expected, the level of support for each of these approaches 

varied within similar organizations, such as state departments of 

transportation. (See table 7 in app. II.) However, at least half of those 

charged primarily with funding and constructing highways (federal and 

state departments of transportation and organizations representing 

highway interests) as well as those organizations whose primary 

responsibilities or interests focus on resource issues (e.g., federal resource 

agencies and associations representing environmental interests) rated 6 of 

the 13 approaches (46 percent) as most promising.

While our results also showed a pattern that agencies and other 

organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests in building and 

funding highways ranked certain approaches higher than did agencies and 

associations with a primary focus on resource issues, and vice versa, most 

of the 13 most promising approaches had widespread support across 

organizations. (See table 3.) Regarding differences in rating, four 

approaches—metropolitan capacity building, acculturation, travel model 

improvement, and state funding of historic preservation activities—were 

rated highly by respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests 

involving resources and were rated significantly lower by respondents with 

primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a 

highway project.4

 This can be explained, in part, by the fact that 

organizations we contacted identified roughly twice as many 

knowledgeable persons at organizations with primary responsibilities or 

interests in funding or constructing a highway project as they did for 

organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests involving 

resources, and the former group’s views outweighed the latter group’s 

views. Despite these differences, 8 of the 13 most promising approaches 

overall were in each group’s “top 13” approaches. 

4

Acculturation, in part, is working to achieve recognition by transportation staff of the 

inherent benefits of environmentally sound projects and vice versa. See table 6 in app. II for 

a description of these approaches.
Page 10 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

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

Resource Respondents

Approach

Ranking among

agencies or

associations

primarily affiliated

with funding,

managing, or

constructing

highway projects

Ranking among

agencies or

associations

primarily affiliated

with natural or

historic

environmental

issues

Number of

respondents

primarily affiliated

with funding,

managing, or

constructing

highway projects

Number of

respondents

primarily affiliated

with natural or

historic

environmental

issues

Early partnership and coordination 1 1 20 11

Revise section 4(f) 2 16 20 10

Establish time frames for NEPA process 3 28 20 10

Programmatic agreements 4 9 20 11

Establish project milestones and 

performance monitoring systems 5 20 20 11

Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and 

NEPA processes 6 25 20 6

Formal elevation process 7 23 20 12

Wetlands banking 8 29 20 6

Training 9 8 20 12

Geographic information systems 10 3 20 12

Preliminary environmental assessment 

reports 11 6 20 12

Interagency funding agreements 12 4 20 12

Allow early right-of-way acquisition 13 31 19 10

Public information meetings 14 7 20 12

Partner with groups 15 14 19 12

Biennial reviews 16 27 18 11

Context sensitive design 17 2 20 12

Hire consultants or contractors 18 34 19 8

Internet 19 11 20 12

National conferences 20 21 20 11

Single agency point of contact 21 33 20 10

Acculturation 22 5 19 12

Environmental compliance mitigation systems 23 15 20 12

Metropolitan capacity building 24 13 18 8

Environmental information center 25 18 20 11

Aerial surveying and imaging technology 26 19 18 10

Videotaped guidance on promising 

approaches 27 22 20 11
Page 11 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Source: GAO.

Notes: In all, respondents identified 49 promising approaches. This table includes the 34 approaches 

where 75 percent or more of the respondents rated an approach. See app. I for a discussion of our 

methodology and table 6 in app. II for a description of the remaining 15 approaches. 

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

The table is ordered from most popular to least popular among respondents with primary 

responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway project, to better show similarities 

and differences in rating. 

The respondents acknowledged that these approaches might not work for 

every project or in every state because projects and communities vary 

widely. For example, projects that are not complex or contentious would 

not necessarily achieve the time savings that these approaches afford for 

projects with complex characteristics or disagreement among 

stakeholders.

Strategies to Improve 

Project Management

Among the 13 most promising approaches, 8 focused on improving project 

management at the state level. About half of these approaches were 

directed at undertaking activities earlier than usual. One promising 

approach—establishing early partnerships and coordination—stood out. 

Establishing early partnerships and coordination. Ninety percent of 

the respondents rated establishing early partnerships and early 

coordination as highly important to reducing the time needed to complete a 

highway project. This approach addressed the commonly voiced concern 

that projects are halted late during environmental review because 

State funding of historic preservation activities 28 10 19 11

Professional organization membership 29 30 19 10

Regular publications 30 17 20 12

Awards program to recognize agency 

achievements 31 26 19 11

Infer the presence of endangered species 32 24 20 9

Peer reviews 33 32 20 10

Travel model improvement 34 12 19 9

(Continued From Previous Page)

Approach

Ranking among

agencies or

associations

primarily affiliated

with funding,

managing, or

constructing

highway projects

Ranking among

agencies or

associations

primarily affiliated

with natural or

historic

environmental

issues

Number of

respondents

primarily affiliated

with funding,

managing, or

constructing

highway projects

Number of

respondents

primarily affiliated

with natural or

historic

environmental

issues
Page 12 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

previously unrecognized environmental impacts are brought to light. 

Respondents overwhelmingly told us that early identification of these 

issues and concerted efforts to address them sooner rather than later was 

the most promising approach for reducing the time it takes to complete a 

federally funded highway project. Support for this approach was generally 

unified across respondent affiliations, with 85 percent of those with 

primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a 

highway project and all of those with primary responsibilities for or 

interests involving resources rating it highly. 

Adding flexibility to historic property reviews by revising section 

4(f). About 70 percent of the respondents told us that adding flexibility to 

reviews of the potential impacts of proposed highway projects on historic 

properties and sites would either greatly or very greatly improve states’ 

abilities to manage their highway projects. Historic properties are 

protected under two laws that are often viewed by stakeholders as 

duplicative and adding time to project completion: section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act and section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. Section 4(f) legislation prohibits the Department 

of Transportation from approving any highway project that uses, among 

other things, land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance 

unless it finds that (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative that 

avoids such resources or causes less harm to them and (2) the project 

includes all possible planning to minimize harm to those resources. Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that projects 

that include federal participation consider the effects on any properties 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic 

Places. Section 106 establishes a flexible consultive process that brings all 

parties into discussion, and was cited by some respondents as allowing for 

more productive outcomes that preserve the goals of the transportation 

project while creating meaningful protections of historic properties. Those 

advocating change wanted section 4(f) requirements to offer the flexibility 

of section 106 requirements. There was less agreement on the efficacy of 

this approach between those with a primary responsibility for or interest in 

funding or constructing highways (80 percent viewed this approach highly) 

and those whose primary responsibilities or interests rest with resources 

(50 percent viewed this approach highly). In some part, this lack of 

consensus reflected the differing views of whether legislative changes are 

needed to implement this approach or whether it could be accomplished 

administratively. For example, the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials has established a historic preservation work 

group to discuss and possibly seek solutions for section 4(f) 
Page 13 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

implementation, such as whether the requirements of section 4(f) could be 

considered as met if all parties sign a memorandum of agreement under 

section 106.

Use of geographic information systems data. Overall, 63 percent of the 

knowledgeable officials indicated that the use of geographic information 

systems data on the locations of historic property and environmental 

resources in the state had great or very great potential to reduce highway 

project completion time. Project duration can be extended when states are 

unable to accurately identify environmental resources or historic 

properties at the outset of environmental review when alternative road 

alignments are initially developed. Without this information, a preferred 

alternative may be selected, only to discover later that environmental 

resources or historic properties lie within the project alignment, delaying 

the project as impacts on the newly discovered resource are assessed. To 

address this dilemma, state transportation agencies and resource agencies 

increasingly use geographic information systems databases. According to 

respondents, by consulting these databases early during environmental 

review, transportation agencies can determine which project alignments 

would likely minimize any adverse impacts to natural or historic 

environmental areas. In addition, respondents indicated that using these 

databases would support integrated interagency reviews of a project’s 

impact on the environment. Half of those with primary responsibilities for 

or interests in funding or constructing a highway project and 83 percent of 

those with primary responsibilities for or interests involving resources 

rated this approach highly.

Establishing deadlines for resource agency reviews. The majority of 

respondents also told us that projects could be managed better if more 

predictability existed in how long reviews to determine the level of impacts 

that proposed highway projects have on environmental and historic 

properties could be expected to take. In this vein, about 60 percent of the 

respondents highly supported establishing by law specific deadlines for 

resource agencies to provide their assessments of how a proposed highway 

project affects the environment or historic places. Some commented that 

resource agencies have no requirement for providing timely comments and 

feedback during creation of draft or final environmental impact statements, 

without which FHWA cannot allow a project to proceed. In addition, 

lawsuits challenging these FHWA decisions under NEPA can be filed for up 

to 6 years after FHWA has approved funding for the project after 

environmental review. Officials told us that lawsuits to challenge projects 

that are filed after the project has been put out to bid resulted in substantial 
Page 14 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

lost time and increased costs for state departments of transportation. 

According to these officials, establishing a shorter statute of limitations 

than the current 6 years for lawsuits to be filed would fully preserve 

citizens’ rights to bring legal challenge while also achieving closure more 

quickly on any disputed issues. However, there was little consensus on this 

approach: 80 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or interests 

in funding or constructing a highway project rated this approach highly, but 

only 20 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or interests 

involving resources did so.

Preparing preliminary environmental assessment reports. About half 

of all respondents rated the idea of preparing preliminary environmental 

assessment reports highly. As discussed previously, state highway 

departments must assess the proposed project’s impacts on the 

environment, if any. Respondents told us that obtaining information about 

a project’s potential environmental impacts early, such as during the 

planning phase, could help transportation officials identify issues sooner 

and help move toward resolution earlier, thus saving time. Similar to 

establishing and utilizing geographic information systems databases, 

respondents explained that conducting field visits to the planned project 

sites, conducting literature searches, and documenting a proposed project 

site through photographs could help identify any environmental issues 

early. Slightly less than half of those with primary responsibilities or 

interests in funding or constructing a highway project (45 percent) and 

about two-thirds of those with primary responsibilities or interests 

involving resources (67 percent) rated this approach highly.
Page 15 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Establishing project milestones and performance monitoring 

systems. About half of the knowledgeable officials rated highly the 

concept of establishing project milestones and performance monitoring 

systems to help state transportation officials manage projects. Project 

milestones establish goals and expectations for as many as 200 major steps 

needed to plan, design, gain approval for, and construct a federally funded 

highway project. Performance monitoring allows state departments of 

transportation to determine whether goals are being achieved and take 

corrective action, if needed. Respondents indicated that off-the-shelf 

project scheduling software could meet this need. Finally, state 

transportation agencies do not typically capture information centrally on 

time spent on various aspects of their highway projects. Such information 

could be useful in managing the agencies’ overall performance and help to 

identify opportunities for improvement.5

 This approach was rated highly 

more often by those with primary responsibilities for or interest in funding 

or constructing a highway project (60 percent) than those with primary 

responsibilities or interests involving resources (36 percent).

Use of context sensitive design. Fifty percent of the respondents 

indicated that the use of context sensitive design has great or very great 

potential to reduce highway project completion time. In context sensitive 

design, engineering is driven by the needs of the community and the 

environment as well as by technical considerations. Context sensitive 

design goes beyond the early partnership and coordination approach 

discussed above to plan a project that not only meets transportation needs 

but also meets the underlying values of the community, such as strong 

attachment to certain historic or environmental resources. This requires an 

approach that involves all stakeholders, seeks to develop a highway project 

that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and 

environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility. About onethird (30 percent) of those with primary responsibilities for or interests in 

funding or constructing a highway project rated this approach highly. In 

contrast, 83 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or interests 

involving resources rated this approach highly.

5

GAO-02-1067T.
Page 16 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Holding earlier, more frequent public meetings. About half of the 

respondents viewed earlier and/or more frequent public meetings as highly 

useful in reducing the time to complete highway projects. Respondents 

explained that public comments were sometimes not solicited until the 

state department of transportation had already identified a preferred 

alternative, rather than allowing for meaningful public input to address 

community concerns at the outset of developing suitable alternatives.6

 

Public information meetings allow transportation agencies to present 

information to the public on projects that are planned or underway and to 

obtain informal comments from community residents. Such meetings can 

help project sponsors understand the views of the community while 

communicating the project’s purpose and possible impacts. At the same 

time, early opportunities for and incorporation of comments provides the 

community buy-in as the department of transportation addresses their 

concerns. About 40 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or 

interests in funding or constructing a highway project rated this approach 

highly, while two-thirds of those with primary responsibilities for or 

interests involving resources rated this approach highly.

Delegation of Review and 

Permitting Authority 

A second set of promising approaches generally involved routinizing 

decisions on commonly occurring issues. According to FHWA, over 90 

percent of highway projects are routine activities that do not impose 

extensive environmental impacts nor require substantial review. However, 

these routine activities may undergo lengthy or duplicative reviews that 

respondents noted as potentially slowing project completion. 

Using programmatic agreements. Using programmatic agreements 

between federal and/or state transportation and resource agencies to 

address commonly occurring issues received the second highest rating 

from respondents on average of the 13 most promising approaches. Sixtyeight percent of the respondents indicated that programmatic agreements 

to handle routine projects or commonly occurring resource effects (e.g., 

endangered species) or to delegate review authority from resource 

agencies to transportation agencies have great or very great potential to 

reduce project completion time. This approach was rated highly by 70 

percent of those respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests 

6

FHWA requires that, during statewide transportation planning, state officials proactively 

provide the public with complete information, timely public notice, full public access to 

decisions, and opportunities for early and continuing involvement.
Page 17 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

in funding or constructing a highway project. Moreover, nearly two-thirds 

of the respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests involving 

resources rated the approach highly.

Unifying section 404 and other environmental requirements. Fiftyeight percent of the respondents rated highly the idea of unifying the 

requirements of section 404 of the Clean Water Act with other 

environmental review requirements. Traditionally, FHWA and the states 

completed environmental reviews of the proposed highway project before 

approaching the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit involving a wetland 

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Yet, even after FHWA had issued 

its record of decision on environmental issues allowing the project to move 

forward, a project might fail to obtain the needed permits from the Corps 

and therefore be halted despite having cleared an extensive environmental 

review. Officials told us that by effectively integrating the two processes, 

approval of the section 404 permit could be concurrent with FHWA’s final 

action, resulting in reduced project completion time, more environmentally 

sound projects, and increased relationship building. Knowledgeable 

officials suggested that this approach could occur through merger 

agreements or through changes in legislation. Sixty percent of the 

respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or 

constructing a highway project and 50 percent of respondents with primary 

responsibilities for or interests involving resources rated the approach 

highly. According to FHWA, 29 states have adopted agreements to unify 

NEPA environmental reviews and section 404 Clean Water Act permit 

reviews to ensure that the reviews are conducted concurrently.

Wetlands banking. Slightly less than half (46 percent) of the respondents 

rated the concept of wetlands banking highly. As required under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act, transportation agencies must compensate for 

any wetlands that are disturbed by highway projects, as determined by the 

Army Corps of Engineers and state environmental agencies. Transportation 

agencies address these wetlands impacts by creating new wetlands areas 

near the highway project site. The problem cited by some is that this 

approach to wetlands is piecemeal rather than comprehensive. According 

to respondents, these efforts can add significant time to highway projects, 

especially if the wetlands are not detected until late in the project. Under 

wetlands banking, state departments of transportation and wetland 

permitting agencies enter into blanket agreements to create large areas of 

wetlands rather than small wetlands at each construction site. While saving 

time on project completion, proponents state that wetlands banking can 

also provide more wildlife habitat and more ecologically significant 
Page 18 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

restoration and enhancement in larger areas. Fifty percent of the 

respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or 

constructing a highway project and 33 percent of the respondents with 

primary responsibilities or interests involving resources rated this 

approach highly.

Improving Agency Staffing 

and Skills 

Two of the 13 most promising approaches involved improving staffing 

through interagency funding agreements and increased training as a means 

for reducing highway project completion time.

Using interagency funding agreements. About 60 percent of the 

respondents rated highly the use of interagency funding agreements to 

provide staff at resource agencies. As noted above, some believe that 

resource agencies do not always provide needed feedback to FHWA or 

departments of transportation on the environmental effects of proposed 

highway projects in a timely manner. Various reasons for this were cited, 

but both respondents with responsibilities for or interests in funding or 

constructing a highway and respondents with responsibilities or interests 

involving resources noted that staff shortages at resource agencies were a 

significant reason for this problem. As a result, state departments of 

transportation have increasingly used federal funds authorized under 

section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to pay for 

technical staff positions at resource agencies, including biologists and 

historic preservation specialists. According to FHWA, 34 states have 

agreements that provide state and federal environmental agency personnel 

for expediting reviews. The hired personnel devote their attention solely to 

proposed federally funded highway projects, thus potentially improving the 

timeliness of resource agency assessments of any environmental issues 

associated with these projects. Slightly less than one-half of those with 

responsibilities or interests in funding or constructing a highway project 

(45 percent) rated this approach highly; however, over four-fifths of those 

with responsibilities or interests involving resources (83 percent) did so. 

Increased training. Finally, about half of the respondents supported 

increased training for state department of transportation officials regarding 

understanding the requirements associated with completing a highway 

project.7

 About 50 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or 

7

We did not ask the respondents to identify specific areas where training would be 

beneficial.
Page 19 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

interests in funding or constructing a highway project and 58 percent of 

those with primary responsibilities or interests in involving resources rated 

this approach highly.

Conclusions Our results showed, overall, strong stakeholder support for 13 approaches 

to reduce the time it takes to complete a federally funded highway project. 

While stakeholders’ support varied, 8 of these approaches had strong 

support across groups representing different primary interests. We 

recognize that it may be neither feasible nor appropriate to utilize each of 

these 13 approaches on every federally funded highway project. In 

addition, some of these approaches, such as interagency funding 

agreements, are already being utilized at the state level and still others may 

require congressional action. Nonetheless, they do represent a reasonable 

number of actions that can be considered further as to the benefits, in 

relation to the costs, that they bring to reducing highway project 

completion time. FHWA would need to work with other lead agencies to 

assess how these actions would be implemented, including whether any 

legislative changes would be required. Such assessments could lead to 

more widespread adoption and corresponding increased transportation 

and environmental benefits. 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

In order to reduce highway project completion time, we recommend that 

the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, FHWA, to 

consider the benefits of at least each of the 13 most promising approaches 

discussed in this report relative to the costs and feasibility of implementing 

them and take the actions needed to foster more widespread adoption of 

those approaches that appear to be the most cost effective. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from the Department 

of Transportation. Generally, the Department agreed that the 13 most 

promising approaches discussed in our draft report represent opportunities 

to reduce project completion time. While it did not directly comment on 

our proposed recommendation, the Department noted that most, if not all, 

of the promising approaches coincide with the streamlining activities that 

the Department and its partners, such as state departments of 

transportation and resource agencies, have been developing and 

implementing under section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century.
Page 20 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 

congressional committees with responsibilities for highway issues; the 

Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this 

report will be available at no charge on our home page at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

either James Ratzenberger at ratzenbergerj@gao.gov or me at 

siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512-2834. 

Key contributors to this report were Jennifer Clayborne, Kenya Jones, 

SaraAnn Moessbauer, James Ratzenberger, Deena Richart, and Matthew 

Zisman.

Sincerely yours,

Katherine Siggerud

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 21 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To perform our work, we reviewed laws and regulations governing the 

construction of federally funded highway projects. We discussed these 

requirements, the time required to complete projects, and initiatives to 

reduce this time with officials from the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders 

Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, private 

transportation engineering firms, and others. We also interviewed officials 

from California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and 

Wisconsin departments of transportation about highway project 

completion time and initiatives to reduce the completion times of these 

projects. We chose these states either because they spent the most federalaid highway funds or because officials we interviewed identified these 

states as making efforts to reduce project time. We also reviewed federal 

and private studies on highway project completion. 

To determine transportation stakeholders’ views on the most promising 

approaches to substantially reduce project completion time for federally 

funded highway projects, we reached out to 62 organizations with a role or 

interest in highway project completion. (See table 4.) Of these 

organizations, officials from 42 organizations agreed to participate in 

structured interviews, including federal and state agencies with 

responsibilities relating to the construction of federally funded roads, 

transportation engineering organizations, transportation professional 

associations, historic preservation organizations, environmental 

organizations, tribal organizations and a university. To identify the 62 

organizations, we initially contacted agencies and organizations that have 

primary responsibility for highway project completion or that have been 

vocal on the issue. We asked these officials to identify, for subsequent 

interviews, other agencies or organizations undertaking or knowledgeable 

about promising approaches for substantially reducing highway project 

completion time. We continued to ask for names from the subsequent 

organizations until no new names were identified.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 22 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

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

Organization

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

American Concrete and Pavement Association

American Council of Engineering Companies

American Highway Users Alliance

American Public Transportation Association

American Road & Transportation Builders Association

American Society of Civil Engineers

Association of General Contractors

California Department of Transportation

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

Construction Industry Institute

Defenders of Wildlife

Delaware Department of Transportation

Endangered Species Coalition

Environmental Council of the States

Environmental Defense

Federal Highway Administration – Historic Preservation

Federal Highway Administration – Infrastructure

Federal Highway Administration – Planning

Federal Highway Administration – Right-of-Way

Federal Highway Administration – Technical Modeling

Florida Department of Transportation, State Highway Engineer's Office

Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Environment/Location

Georgia Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning, Data and Intermodal Development Division

Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

HDR, Inc.

Institute of Transportation Engineers

Kentucky Heritage Council

Lafayette, Louisiana Metropolitan Planning Organization

Maryland State Highway Administration, Enhancement Program

Maryland State Highway Administration, Project Planning Division

Minnesota Department of Transportation

National Association of Development Organizations
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Source: GAO.

Using a structured interview, we asked knowledgeable officials at each of 

the 42 organizations to provide information about the most promising 

approaches for substantially reducing completion time for projects of all 

types and complexities and in each project phase (i.e., planning, 

preliminary engineering and environmental review, final design and rightof-way acquisition, and construction). We also obtained information from 

these contacts on opportunities to reduce project completion time through 

administrative changes, changes in federal or state law, improvement of 

staff skills, and improvements in disseminating information about 

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers

National Coalition to Defend NEPA

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

National Trust for Historic Preservation

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council

Navajo Nation, Historic Preservation Department

New Hampshire Department of Transportation

New Jersey Department of Transportation, Quality Management Services

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

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 10

Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission

San Diego Association of Governments

Sierra Club

Smart Growth America

South Carolina Department of Transportation

Surface Transportation Policy Project

Transportation Development Institute

Texas A&M University

Tribal Preservation Programs of the National Park Service

University of Utah

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Wilmington, NC District

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Vermont Division for Historic Preservation

Washington Department of Transportation

(Continued From Previous Page)

Organization
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

approaches to reduce project completion time. For each approach cited as 

the most promising for substantially reducing project completion time, we 

asked these officials to provide information on: (1) the nature of the 

approach, (2) reason(s) why the approach was taken, (3) 

agencies/organizations involved with the approach, (4) size of the project, 

(5) changes to federal or state law (if any) required for each approach, (6) 

expected/actual benefits, and (7) methods (if any) for measuring these 

benefits. (See table 5 for the structured interview questions.)

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

Completion Time

Source: GAO.

To determine which of the identified approaches hold the most promise for 

substantially reducing highway project completion time, we compiled a list 

1. Please identify any initiatives your organization has taken to expedite project delivery (e.g., earlier coordination between state 

departments of transportation and environmental resource agencies; historic preservation programmatic agreements; design/build 

construction techniques). For each initiative, please provide the following information: (1) description of initiative; (2) why initiative 

was taken; (3) organizations participating in initiative; (4) type of project to which initiative applies (size, complexity); (5) project 

phase to which initiative applies; (6) whether this initiative required any changes to federal or state law; (7) expected/actual benefit of 

initiative; and (8) how benefit is measured.

2. Please identify any further opportunities that exist to measurably reduce project delivery times through changes in federal or state 

law, while keeping basic policies (e.g., metropolitan/statewide planning; environmentally responsible projects) in place. For each 

initiative, please provide the following information: (1) law that should be changed; (2) why change is needed; (3) organizations 

affected by change in law; (4) type of project to which initiative applies (size, complexity); (5) project phase to which change in law 

applies; (6) expected benefit of change in law; and (7) how benefit would be measured.

3. Some have commented that highway oversight is historically focused on engineering and contracting rather than oversight of 

management and financial issues. Please discuss if this is the case and if any reforms in this area are needed. Also, please identify 

any initiatives your organization has taken that address human capital reform (e.g., refocusing staff efforts from oversight of

engineering and contract issues to management and financial issues) to improve project delivery. For each initiative, please provide 

the following information: (1) description of initiative; (2) why initiative was taken; (3) organizations participating in initiative; (4) type 

of project to which initiative applies (size, complexity); (5) project phase to which initiative applies; (6) expected/actual benefit of 

initiative; and (7) how benefit is measured.

4. How well is information about initiatives to improve project delivery times shared among federal and state agencies? Do you have 

any suggestions to improve the current practices? Please describe how your organization shares what it has learned with others

and how you learn about initiatives that other organizations are taking by providing the following: (1) method of 

dissemination/learning; (2) initiative to which this applies; and (3) agencies involved.

5. Please identify any further opportunities that could be pursued to expedite transportation project delivery. Please provide the 

following information: (1) opportunity; (2) problem to be addressed; (3) organizations affected; (4) project type to which opportunity 

applies (size, complexity); (5) project phase to which opportunity applies; (6) expected benefit of opportunity; and (7) how benefit 

would be measured.

6. Are you aware of any promising initiatives that other organizations are taking to improve highway project delivery times? If so, please 

provide the following information: (1) organization; (2) nature of initiative; (3) point of contact; (4) phone number; (5) email/web 

address.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 25 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

of 49 approaches identified by the respondents and asked each of the 42 

officials we interviewed to rate the potential of each of the approaches to 

reduce project completion time on a scale of 1 to 5.1

 Thirty-three officials 

agreed to participate in this aspect of our work. Of those not participating, 

officials declined for a variety of reasons. We compiled these ratings and 

calculated an average rating for each approach where at least 75 percent of 

the 33 officials provided a rating. We identified the most promising as 

those with an average rating of 3.5 or higher. There were 13 approaches 

with ratings of 3.5 or higher. None of the 13 most promising approaches 

were rated by all 33 officials. Eleven of these 13 approaches were rated by 

30 or more (91 percent) officials, while the remaining 2 approaches were 

rated by 26 officials (79 percent). We did not attempt to corroborate the 

need to implement these approaches or obtain details on how they might 

be structured. In addition, we did not attempt to determine how effective 

the promising approaches, where already implemented, were in reducing 

highway project completion time.

We conducted our work from September 2002 through March 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

1

1=little to no potential to reduce project completion time; 2=some potential to reduce 

project completion time; 3=moderate potential to reduce project completion time; 4=great 

potential to reduce project completion time; 5=very great potential to reduce project 

completion time. Respondents could also indicate whether they did not know or had no 

basis to judge.
Page 26 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Appendix II

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway 

Project Completion Time as Identified by 

Respondents ApendxiI

Of the 34 approaches that were assessed by at least 75 percent of 

respondents, 19 (56 percent) were rated on average as having moderate, 

great, or very great potential to reduce highway project completion time. 

(See table 6.) The remaining 15 approaches (44 percent) were assessed as 

having, on average, some, little, or no potential to reduce highway project 

completion time. Fewer than 75 percent of the respondents provided an 

assessment for 15 other approaches, and we did not report on these results.

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

Approach Description

Number of

respondents

Average

ratinga

Percent of

respondents

indicating approach

has great or very

great potential

Early partnership and 

coordination

All affected parties (e.g., federal government, 

state government, tribal, public) with input into 

the project completion process (1) collaborate 

early and throughout project planning so that 

technical, environmental, policy, and program 

issues can be resolved in a predictable and 

timely manner; and (2) develop collaborative 

work plans that are comprehensive, realistic, 

and deliverable. 31 4.5 90.3

Programmatic agreements Use programmatic agreements (i.e., between 

transportation and resource agencies at the 

federal and/or state level) to review 

environmental impact of routine projects or 

commonly occurring resource effects (i.e., 

commonly encountered species, typical 

project types) or delegation of authority (i.e., 

reviews from state historic preservation 

agency to state department of transportation). 31 4.0 67.7

Revise section 4(f) process Use the protections found in section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act instead of 

the protections found in section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act for 

consideration of historic properties and other 

historic resources. 30 4.0 70.0

Unify Clean Water Act 

section 404 and National 

Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) processes

Unify the Clean Water Act section 404 permit 

and NEPA environmental review processes to 

ensure that projects that pass the NEPA 

review process also comply with section 404. 26 3.7 57.7
Appendix II

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway 

Project Completion Time as Identified by 

Respondents

Page 27 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Training Determine agency staff skill set and establish 

training programs to eliminate knowledge 

shortfalls among transportation staff on 

requirements to complete all phases of 

highway projects. Ensure that new recruits to 

the transportation field have orientation and 

training for all phases of project completion. 32 3.7 53.1

Establish time frames for 

NEPA process

Provide specific time frames for resource 

agencies to respond to environmental 

documents and produce any needed analyses. 

Reduce the 6-year time frame for lawsuits filed 

under NEPA. 30 3.6 60.0

Interagency funding 

agreements

State departments of transportation fund 

additional staff at state or federal resource 

agencies. Work of funded staff must have a 

measurable impact in reducing time to 

complete environmental reviews on 

transportation projects. 32 3.6 59.4

Preliminary environmental 

assessment reports

Provide information on any conditions and 

constraints early in the process, prior to 

programming project cost and schedule. 

Reports are based on a field visit, literature 

search, geographic information systems, and 

photo log review to include a work plan for the 

subsequent environmental analysis for NEPA. 32 3.6 53.1

Establish project milestones 

and performance monitoring 

systems

Specify key dates, such as when final design 

must be completed, when the contract is let, 

and when construction must conclude, and 

manage the project to meet the dates. Use 

project-scheduling software available off the 

shelf that indicates where project delays occur 

as well as what is ahead of schedule. 31 3.6 51.6

Context sensitive design Projects must be designed to consider their 

environmental and social context so that 

projects meet the needs of the communities. 

These factors are incorporated into the 

transportation planning process. 32 3.5 50.0

Geographic information 

systems

Use of data collected by various federal and 

state resource agencies to identify 

environmental and historic issues early during 

environmental review, determine alignments 

that minimize adverse impacts, and support 

integrated interagency review. 32 3.5 62.5

(Continued From Previous Page)

Approach Description

Number of

respondents

Average

ratinga

Percent of

respondents

indicating approach

has great or very

great potential
Appendix II

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway 

Project Completion Time as Identified by 

Respondents

Page 28 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Public information meetings Hold public meetings early and often to 

provide information on projects that are 

planned or underway. 32 3.5 50.0

Wetlands banking Blanket agreements between state 

departments of transportation and wetland 

permitting agencies to create large areas of 

wetlands rather than small wetlands at each 

construction site. 26 3.5 46.2

Partner with groups Identify groups that have developed best 

practices, or offer technical expertise, to 

ensure that information is shared in order to 

expedite project completion. 31 3.3 41.9

Acculturation Work to achieve recognition in transportation 

staff of the inherent benefits of environmentally 

sound projects; work to achieve recognition of 

the value of transportation projects on behalf 

of resource agencies. 31 3.3 41.9

Formal elevation process Formalized process in which resource 

agencies elevate unresolved issues through 

the chain of command, with the final step 

being senior management. 32 3.2 46.9

Internet Use the internet to provide technical training 

and reference materials. Use the internet to 

allow access to agency guidance materials, 

regulations, and federal and state laws. 32 3.0 34.4

Allow early right-of-way 

acquisition

To save time and money associated with 

relocation, acquire potential project right-ofway during project design. 29 3.0 34.5

Biennial reviews Conduct biennial reviews by state 

transportation agencies to help identify 

bottlenecks. 29 3.0 31.0

National conferences Hold national conferences to bring 

practitioners and other stakeholders together 

to share information. 31 2.9 25.8

Environmental information 

center

Fund and operate a central information 

storehouse for transportation and resource 

agencies. 31 2.8 22.6

Aerial surveying and imaging 

technology

Highly accurate digital terrain data models and 

maps can become available early in project 

design with substantially reduced time, effort, 

and expense compared with only using ground 

surveys. Contractors can manage the 

earthwork of a project with significant 

precision. 28 2.8 25.0

(Continued From Previous Page)

Approach Description

Number of

respondents

Average

ratinga

Percent of

respondents

indicating approach

has great or very

great potential
Appendix II

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway 

Project Completion Time as Identified by 

Respondents

Page 29 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Hire consultants or 

contractors

Consultants or contractors provide technical 

analyses instead of agency staff who instead 

focus on project management. 27 2.8 25.9

State funding of historic 

preservation activities

State governments provide funds for historic 

preservation activities outside the federal State 

Historic Preservation Officers program. 30 2.8 33.3

Metropolitan capacity 

building

Work to improve the technical skills of 

metropolitan planning organizations so that 

planning can focus on policy decisions rather 

than technical and administrative issues. 26 2.8 38.5

Environmental compliance 

mitigation systems

Provide a system to ensure that mitigation 

measures are carried out as needed and 

specified. 32 2.8 28.1

Single agency point of 

contact

Rather than have multiple contacts for 

members of the public, have one single 

contact, reducing confusion, and 

communication delays. 30 2.7 16.7

Videotaped guidance on 

promising approaches

Videotaped presentations on methods to 

reduce project completion time. 31 2.7 19.4

Travel model improvement Improve transportation modeling to more 

accurately portray traffic patterns and growth. 28 2.6 25.0

Awards programs to 

recognize agency 

achievements

Design a national awards program to provide 

recognition for departments of transportation 

and resource agencies for innovative projects 

and leadership. 30 2.5 13.3

Regular publications Organize and distribute publications on a 

regular basis (i.e., weekly newsletters, monthly 

magazines, and quarterly web magazines). 32 2.5 25.0

Peer reviews Federal transportation officials provide state 

transportation officials with recommendations 

on revising existing specifications or 

procedures. Surveys of peers allow 

transportation and resource agency officials to 

determine performance relative to peers. 30 2.4 6.7

Infer the presence of 

endangered species

Proceed under the assumption that 

endangered species are present at a project 

site, reducing the likelihood of later delay and 

ultimately saving costs. 30 2.4 6.7

Professional organization 

membership

Participation in engineering, accounting, 

finance, management, and other discipline 

organizations. 29 2.2 17.2

(Continued From Previous Page)

Approach Description

Number of

respondents

Average

ratinga

Percent of

respondents

indicating approach

has great or very

great potential
Appendix II

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway 

Project Completion Time as Identified by 

Respondents

Page 30 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Subsurface utility 

engineering

Provides accurate mapping of existing 

underground utilities during the project design 

process using geophysics, surveying and civil 

engineering rather than determining utility 

locations later during the construction phase. 24 b b

Clarify role of metropolitan 

planning organizations

Clarify laws to reduce confusion of roles 

between state departments of transportation 

and metropolitan planning organizations for 

creating and implementing transportation 

plans. 24 b b

Incentive/disincentive 

construction contracting

Giving the contractor a financial incentive for 

every day that the contract is completed early 

and a financial disincentive for failure to 

complete a project on time. 23 b b

Use consultants or 

contractors

Expedite the procurement process for 

appraisal services and reduce fees and costs. 22 b b

Design build contracting One entity, the design-builder, forges a single 

contract with the state transportation agency 

to provide for architectural and engineering 

design and construction services. 21 b b

A + B bidding for 

construction contracts

Involves cost and time in the low bid 

determination. Submitted bids consist of 

dollar amount of all work to be performed, as 

well as total number of calendar days required 

to complete the project. 21 b b

Advanced clearing and 

grubbing contracts

Contract for clearing vegetation and removing 

roots and stumps (grubbing) in the project 

right-of-way in advance of the project. 21 b b

Change control policy for 

construction contracts

Establish procedures to monitor and limit 

contractor change orders. 21 b b

Lane rental construction 

contracts

Assess the contractor a fee for each day of 

lane closure in excess of the number of total 

lane rental days originally bid by the 

contractor. 20 b b

Lump sum construction 

contracts

Contractor submits a lump sum price to 

complete a project as opposed to bidding on 

individual items. 20 b b

Utility relocation contracts Include utility relocation in construction 

contract. 20 b b

Indefinite quantity,

indefinite completion 

contracting

Contractors bid on work items with the location 

to be determined under future work orders 

(e.g., for installation of traffic signals on a 

citywide, or areawide basis). 19 b b

(Continued From Previous Page)

Approach Description

Number of

respondents

Average

ratinga

Percent of

respondents

indicating approach

has great or very

great potential
Appendix II

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway 

Project Completion Time as Identified by 

Respondents

Page 31 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Source: GAO.

a

Respondents rated each approach’s potential for reducing project completion time using the following 

scale: 1= little to no potential to reduce project completion time; 2= some potential to reduce project 

completion time; 3= moderate potential to reduce project completion time; 4= great potential to reduce 

project completion time; 5= very great potential to reduce project completion time. Respondents could 

also tell us that they did not know or had no basis to judge.

b

No statistic is reported because less than 75 percent of the 33 respondents provided a rating for this 

approach.

In some cases, respondents with similar primary interests or 

responsibilities rated approaches similarly; in other cases, their views 

diverged. (See table 7; approaches in bold are the 13 approaches that 

respondents rated most highly overall.)

Noncost selection factor 

contracting

Allow contracts to consider such factors as 

previous work quality, rather than selecting the 

lowest bidder. 19 b b

System integrator contracts Allow contractors to serve as the construction 

manager, including advertising, letting and 

awarding contracts using state and federal 

acquisition guidelines. In addition to contract 

management, the contractor will perform 

project supervision and system integration. 18 b b

Bid averaging method of 

contracting

Once a minimum number of bids are received, 

state determines the average bid and selects 

contractor whose bid is closest to the average. 16 b b

(Continued From Previous Page)

Approach Description

Number of

respondents

Average

ratinga

Percent of

respondents

indicating approach

has great or very

great potential
Appendix II

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway 

Project Completion Time as Identified by 

Respondents

Page 32 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

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

Approach

Views among agencies or associations primarily 

affiliated with funding, managing, or 

constructing highway projects

Views among agencies or associations primarily 

affiliated with natural or historic environmental 

issues

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

great or very

great potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

moderate

potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

no to some

potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

great or very

great potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

moderate

potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

no to some

potential

Early partnership and 

coordination 17 2 1 11 0 0

Establish time frames 

for NEPA process 16 3 1 2 4 4

Revise section 4(f) 16 4 0 5 3 2

Programmatic 

agreements 14 5 1 7 4 0

Establish project 

milestones and 

performance 

monitoring systems 12 8 0 4 3 4

Formal elevation process 12 4 4 3 3 6

Unify Clean Water Act 

section 404 and NEPA 

processes 12 7 1 3 2 1

Geographic 

information systems 10 4 6 10 1 1

Wetlands banking 10 10 0 2 2 2

Training 10 8 2 7 5 0

Preliminary 

environmental 

assessment reports 974 83 1

Interagency funding 

agreements 9 5 6 10 1 1

Allow early right-of-way 

acquisition 8 9 2 2 0 8

Partner with groups 8 7 4 5 6 1

Public information 

meetings 884 83 1

Biennial reviews 7 3 8 2 5 4

Hire consultants or 

contractors 6 6 7 1 3 4

Context sensitive 

design 6 9 5 10 1 1
Appendix II

Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway 

Project Completion Time as Identified by 

Respondents

Page 33 GAO-03-398 Reducing Highway Project Completion Time 

Source: GAO.

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

approach.

The table is ordered from most popular to least popular among respondents with primary 

responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway project to better show similarities 

and differences in rating.

National conferences 5 5 10 3 5 3

Internet 5 8 7 6 3 3

Metropolitan capacity 

building 4 3 11 6 2 0

Acculturation 4 8 7 9 2 1

Single agency point of 

contact 4 9 7 1 3 6

Environmental 

compliance mitigation 

systems 4 5 11 5 4 3

Aerial surveying and 

imaging technology 3 7 8 4 4 2

State funding of historic 

preservation activities 3 6 10 7 2 2

Professional organization 

membership 3 5 11 2 1 7

Environmental 

information center 3 8 9 4 5 2

Video 3 6 11 3 5 3

Regular publications 3 4 13 5 1 6

Awards program to 

recognize agency 

achievements 2 7 10 2 6 3

Infer the presence of 

endangered species 2 5 13 3 3 3

Travel model 

improvement 1 6 12 6 2 1

Peer reviews 1 9 10 1 4 5

(Continued From Previous Page)

Approach

Views among agencies or associations primarily 

affiliated with funding, managing, or 

constructing highway projects

Views among agencies or associations primarily 

affiliated with natural or historic environmental 

issues

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

great or very

great potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

moderate

potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

no to some

potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

great or very

great potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

moderate

potential

Number of

respondents

indicating

approach has

no to some

potential

(542007)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO 

Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00