United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Committee on Environment and Public

Works, U.S. Senate

Hearing held on

February 26, 1997 Transportation

Infrastructure

States’ Implementation of

Transportation Management

Systems

Statement for the Record by Phyllis F. Scheinberg,

Associate Director, Transportation Issues, Resources,

Community, and Economic Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-97-79

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement for the record on

the states’ implementation of transportation management systems. These

six systems—for managing highway pavement, bridges, highway safety,

traffic congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and

intermodal transportation facilities and systems—were mandated by the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The

National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act) made the six

systems optional, except the congestion management system in certain

areas.1

 These management systems are tools that provide information to

assist state and local decisionmakers in selecting cost-effective policies,

programs, and projects to protect and improve the nation’s transportation

infrastructure. In January 1997, we reported on the status of the states’

development and implementation of the systems, how the states expect to

use the systems, and the factors that have facilitated or hindered the

development and implementation of the systems.2

 In summary, we found

the following:

• As of September 1996, about half the states were moving forward with all

six transportation management systems, even though they were no longer

mandatory. The remaining states were developing or implementing at least

three of the systems. All states were implementing a pavement

management system, and nearly all states were implementing bridge,

safety, and congestion management systems. Congestion management

systems were being developed for all 128 transportation management

areas, where they are still mandatory.3

 About 30 states were implementing

public transportation and intermodal management systems. The six

transportation management systems take a variety of forms, including

computerized inventories of assets, software programs, and systematic

procedures for collecting and analyzing information.

• The states were developing the systems for use by decisionmakers in the

planning process and to help transportation officials conduct daily

operations. Some states have realized that to obtain the most uses from

the systems, the systems need to be integrated so that, for example, users

1

The NHS Act made statewide congestion management systems optional but still required the systems

in transportation management areas (urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000 or other

areas so designated at the request of the governor and the metropolitan planning organization or

affected local officials).

2

Transportation Infrastructure: States’ Implementation of Transportation Management Systems

(GAO/RCED-97-32, Jan. 13, 1997).

3

All states and Puerto Rico have at least one transportation management area, except Idaho, Maine,

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Page 1 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
can combine information from several management systems to analyze the

overall transportation needs in a geographic area. Nationwide, over half

the states plan to integrate the systems.

• Although pavement and bridge management systems have been around for

several decades, the other mandated systems were new to many states.

Three of the seven states that we reviewed as case studies4

 indicated that

the 1991 legislative mandate provided a catalyst or “jump start” to

developing and implementing the new systems and resulted in the systems

receiving high-level support and top priority status. Although

implementing the systems is now optional, several states are continuing

their efforts because they view the systems as beneficial to the

decision-making process in that they provide more accurate, timely

information than was previously available. On the other hand, the removal

of the federal mandate lessened support for developing certain systems. In

addition, some states reported that the U.S. Department of

Transportation’s (DOT) failure to issue a clear and timely rule on

management systems following the 1991 mandate had caused difficulties

in implementing public transportation, congestion, and intermodal

management systems. Several states indicated that the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) was helpful in providing initial workshops and

training to states to develop the systems. Officials in all seven states that

we reviewed, however, stated that they continue to need federal assistance

in solving technical problems with software and/or learning from other

states’ experiences in implementing and integrating the systems.

All States Are

Implementing Some

Systems but

Customizing Them to

Meet Their Own

Needs

As of September 1996, 24 states reported that they were moving forward

with all six systems, even though they were no longer mandatory. (See

app. I.) The remaining states reported they were developing or

implementing at least three of the transportation management systems

originally mandated by ISTEA. Nearly all states reported that they were

developing and implementing management systems for pavement, bridge,

highway safety, and traffic congestion. Pavement and bridge management

systems may be easier for the states to develop and implement than other

management systems because many states had established inventories or

a form of management system for these assets before ISTEA.

Nearly all states were developing and implementing congestion

management systems, which continue to be required in transportation

management areas. Congestion management systems were being

4

The seven states we selected were Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,

and Texas. We selected these states to provide geographic balance and a variety of experiences in

implementing the management systems.

Page 2 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
developed by state or local agencies for all transportation management

areas. Moreover, several states that did not have transportation

management areas were developing these systems.

About two-thirds of the states reported that they were developing and

implementing the public transportation management system and the

intermodal management system. According to transportation officials,

fewer states may be proceeding with these two systems because (1) the

systems are newer and the states are less familiar with them and (2) the

states generally lack jurisdiction over the assets covered in these systems.

(See apps. II through VII for more information on each management

system.)

Once the NHS Act made the management systems optional, officials in the

seven states we reviewed told us that they reassessed their needs and

decided whether to (1) proceed with the systems as originally planned,

(2) reduce the scope of the systems, and/or (3) discontinue certain

systems. Among our case-study states, Michigan was the only one that

decided to implement the six management systems with no change in

scope to the plans they had developed on the basis of DOT’s interim rule.5

Transportation officials in that state viewed the management systems as

an opportunity to improve decision-making and as a way to address other

departmental objectives.

The other six case-study states scaled back the extent to which they were

developing certain systems, especially pavement and congestion

management systems. For example, ISTEA required the states to

incorporate all federal-aid highways, which included some roads under

local jurisdiction, in their pavement management systems. After the NHS

Act made the systems optional, five of the states we reviewed—Maryland,

Montana, New York, Oregon, and Texas—decided to include only

state-maintained roads and roads on the National Highway System in their

pavement management system, at least initially. In addition, three states

we reviewed—Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas—decided to

discontinue certain management systems—the intermodal and/or the

public transportation management systems—once they were no longer

mandatory. In each case, state transportation officials determined that the

state’s needs were being met sufficiently by existing programs and/or

activities. Finally, five states we reviewed—Montana, New York, Maryland,

Oregon, and Texas—used the flexibility they gained from the passage of

5

ISTEA required DOT to issue regulations on the management systems by December 18, 1992. FHWA

and the Federal Transit Administration jointly issued an interim final rule in December 1993 and a final

rule in December 1996.

Page 3 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
the NHS Act to extend the time frames for implementing some systems

beyond those established in initial work plans. Officials in these states

found ISTEA’s and DOT’s initial time frames unrealistic and replaced them

with more accurate estimates for completing the initial work on the

management systems.

Systems Used for

Planning and Daily

Decision-Making

Many state decisionmakers intend to use information from the

management systems in developing statewide and regional transportation

plans. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) surveyed its membership in May 1996 and found that all

37 states that responded intended to integrate the systems within their

planning processes. With respect to our seven case-study states, each was

using or intended to use the management systems in its planning process

as well as using information from the systems in making decisions

involving day-to-day activities. For example, state and county maintenance

engineers may use information on pavement condition from the pavement

management system to determine maintenance needs and priorities.

While some states planned to use the management systems as stand-alone

tools to assist decisionmakers in their respective departments, other states

also planned to use the systems in an integrated/coordinated manner. At

least 26 states planned to integrate parts of their managements systems,

according to AASHTO’s May 1996 survey. Coordination and integration of

the systems helps to eliminate duplication by identifying common features

and data elements and enhances the usefulness of the systems by enabling

decisionmakers to compare trade-offs at a program level or among

transportation modes. Integrating the management systems, however,

raises numerous issues—such as establishing common data definitions

and common geographical referencing systems. To handle these issues,

three states we reviewed have established special committees and

dedicated resources beyond those that are needed to develop and

implement the individual systems.

Several Factors Have

Influenced

Implementation of

Management Systems

Several states we reviewed responded to the ISTEA mandate by providing

high-level support and top priority to quickly develop and implement the

six management systems. For instance, in New York we were told that the

mandate provided a “jump start” to the overall development and

implementation of the systems. The state provided additional resources

and technical support for enhancing five existing systems and for

developing a new one required by the mandate. Although the systems are

Page 4 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
now optional, many states have continued to develop and implement them

because of the potential benefits associated with the systems. For

example, several case-study states commented that the systems reduce

redundancy and provide more complete, accurate information in a single

location. In addition, states view the management systems as a way to

improve the planning process by providing objective, timely information to

decisionmakers.

In several case-study states, the removal in 1995 of the ISTEA mandate

lessened support for the development and implementation of

transportation management systems and resulted in some systems being

dropped. In addition, some states reported that DOT’s failure to issue a

clear and timely rule following the enactment of ISTEA on developing and

implementing the management systems caused difficulties, particularly in

terms of the congestion, public transportation, and/or intermodal

management systems. These difficulties resulted in one state delaying

development of some systems. Another state, which found the concept of

an intermodal management system not clearly spelled out in either ISTEA or

the interim rule, decided not to implement the system. While a number of

states acknowledged receiving assistance from FHWA, several case-study

states indicated that they had received little or no assistance from the

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on implementing a public

transportation management system. FTA officials told us that they had, in

fact, provided assistance, which included issuing guidance on the system

and providing related software.

Most states would like additional federal assistance in implementing the

management systems. AASHTO found that a majority of the states

responding to its May 1996 survey would like both FHWA and FTA to provide

more technical assistance by sponsoring conferences and training courses,

acting as an information clearinghouse, establishing task forces, and

funding research. In addition, our case-study states indicated that they

need additional technical assistance from FHWA that focuses on areas such

as developing software for the systems, explaining geographic information

systems technology,6

 establishing performance measures for systems, and

integrating the management systems. Finally, states told us that DOT should

establish an information clearinghouse that would provide the results of

the research pertaining to the management systems and examples of best

practices for various states’ efforts to implement and integrate systems.

6

Geographic information systems are the computer hardware and software that allow for the assembly,

storage, manipulation, and display of geographically referenced data (i.e., data that are associated with

specific places on earth, such as the location of a bridge).

Page 5 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
In conclusion, the NHS Act, which generally made the management systems

optional, resulted in reduced federal involvement with the systems and an

increase in the states’ role. The states are continuing to develop and

implement most systems, but they are now doing so according to their

own needs and time frames rather than by following federal requirements.

As the states proceed, however, they are facing technical problems that

they would like further federal help in addressing. While the management

systems are no longer mandatory, we believe there continues to be a role

for FHWA and FTA to play in helping the states address the problems they

face in developing, implementing, and integrating the systems that will

best meet their needs.

Our report recommended that DOT work with the states to more fully

determine the types of technical assistance needed. In addition, we

recommended that DOT establish an information clearinghouse on

(1) training, conferences, and workshops being offered, regionally and

nationally; (2) the status of the states’ experience with implementing and

integrating the six management systems; (3) the available software

applications and technology; (4) the systems’ performance measures;

(5) examples of “best practices” of the states that are effectively

implementing and integrating the systems; and (6) other issues identified

by the states. DOT has not commented on our recommendations. The

department is required by law to respond to our recommendations within

60 days of report issuance, which will not occur until mid-March.

Page 6 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Page 7 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Appendix I 

Number of Management Systems Being

Developed and Implemented by Each State

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

2 states developing and implementing 3 systems

24 states developing and implementing 6 systems

AAAA AAAA AAAAA

A

A

15 states and Washington, D.C., developing and implementing 4 systems

9 states and Puerto Rico developing and implementing 5 systems

Page 8 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Appendix II 

The States Implementing Pavement

Management Systems (as Reported by the

States)

F

F

F

F F

F

50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems

F = System covers all federal-aid highways.

Notes: There is little or no uniformity among the states in the way they measure, collect, and

report pavement condition. The states have been developing their pavement management

systems independently, and no two are the same.

We do not have information on the systems’ coverage for New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island,

and Washington, D.C.

Sources: Status reports submitted by the states to FHWA during 1996; American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) survey, May 1996; GAO interviews with

state officials in 1996.

Page 9 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Appendix III 

The States Implementing Bridge

Management Systems (as Reported by the

States)

F

F

F F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

-Connecticut

-Delaware

-Massachusetts

-New Hampshire

-New Jersey

-Rhode Island

-Vermont

-Washington, D.C.

48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems

2 states not developing systems

States using Pontis software.

F

F- Washington, D.C.

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

Notes: Pontis is an off-the-shelf software package for bridge management systems. AASHTO’s

version (3.0) of the software has been available since July 1995, and version 3.1 was issued in

July 1996.

We do not have information on the coverage of the system for Nevada, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island,

and Vermont.

Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; The Status of the Nation’s

Highway Bridges: Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and National Bridge

Inventory, FHWA, June 1995; AASHTO’s survey, May 1996; GAO’s interviews with state officials.

Page 10 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Appendix IV 

The States Implementing Safety

Management Systems (as Reported by the

States)

48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems

2 states not developing systems

Notes: South Carolina planned to begin implementing the system in fiscal year 1997, and Ohio

had components of a safety management in place according to a February 1996 study.

The composition of a safety management system takes many forms—from an administrative

structure composed of a coordinating or executive committee and subcommittees with members

representing many agencies to a large database that merges safety information from a number of

sources.

Sources: Status reports submitted to FHWA during 1996; AASHTO’s survey, May 1996; GAO’s

interviews with state officials.

Page 11 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Appendix V 

The States Implementing Congestion

Management Systems (as Reported by the

States)

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

46 states and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems

4 states and Washington, D.C., not developing systems

T= System covers only transportation management areas.

Note: We do not have information on the coverage of the systems in Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, and

Rhode Island.

Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; AASHTO’s survey, May 1996;

GAO’s interviews with state officials.

Page 12 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Appendix VI 

The States Implementing Public

Transportation Management Systems (as

Reported by the States)

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

33 states and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems

17 states and Washington, D.C., not developing systems

F

F

F- Rhode Island

F

F

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

Note: Of those states implementing the system, seven (Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York,

North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee) already have operational systems in place.

We do not have information on the coverage of the systems in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,

Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, and Vermont.

Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; AASHTO’s survey, May 1996;

GAO’s interviews with state officials.

Page 13 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Appendix VII 

The States Implementing Intermodal

Management Systems (as Reported by the

States)

S

S

S

S

S S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

30 states and Washington, D.C., developing/implementing systems

20 states and Puerto Rico not developing systems

S

S = Statewide coverage of management system.

Note: We do not have information on the coverage of the systems in Kentucky, Minnesota, New

Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C..

Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; AASHTO’s survey, May 1996;

GAO’s interviews with state officials.

(342933) Page 14 GAO/T-RCED-97-79
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

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 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail 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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100