A

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2012 HIGHWAY PROJECTS

Some Federal and 

State Practices to 

Expedite Completion 

Show Promise

GAO-12-593
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-593, a report to 

congressional requesters

June 2012

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

Some Federal and State Practices to Expedite 

Completion Show Promise

Why GAO Did This Study

Projects to construct, improve, and 

repair roads and bridges are 

fundamental to meeting the nation’s 

mobility needs. However, completing 

highway projects—which generally 

involves four phases consisting of (1) 

planning, (2) preliminary design and 

environmental review, (3) final design 

and right-of-way acquisition, and (4) 

construction—can sometimes take a 

long time. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU 

established provisions to help expedite 

highway projects, including 

streamlining some portions of the 

environmental review process, allowing 

states to assume greater 

environmental review responsibilities 

under certain conditions, and 

establishing efforts that permitted 

delegation of some authority from the 

federal government to states. GAO 

was asked to (1) describe the process 

and factors that could affect highway 

project time frames, (2) examine state 

DOTs’ views on the benefits and 

challenges of the provisions to 

expedite highway projects established 

in SAFETEA-LU, and (3) describe 

additional initiatives that state DOTs 

and FHWA have implemented to 

expedite the completion of highway 

projects. GAO surveyed officials from 

52 state DOTs, including all states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; 

interviewed officials at FHWA, state 

DOTs, and federal resource agencies 

(agencies tasked with protecting 

natural, historic, or cultural resources); 

and analyzed legislation, regulations, 

and other reports and publications. 

U.S. DOT provided technical 

comments on a draft of this report, 

which GAO incorporated as 

appropriate.

What GAO Found

The process to complete highway projects is complicated and lengthy due to 

multiple factors. Specifically, highway projects can involve many stakeholders, 

including agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, 

and the public. These stakeholders perform a number of tasks—for major 

highway projects, as many as 200 steps from planning to construction—but their 

level of involvement varies. For example, resource agencies like the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service generally only become 

involved in a highway project if it affects the environmental or cultural resources 

that agency is tasked with protecting. Additional factors can lengthen project time 

frames, including the availability of funding, changes in a state’s transportation 

priorities, public opposition, or litigation.

State departments of transportation (DOT) that GAO surveyed generally agreed 

that the provisions meant to help expedite highway projects established in the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) could decrease time frames but found some provisions 

more useful than others. They most frequently agreed that the provision allowing 

for the use of protected public land—if such use has minor impacts on the 

property and is approved by relevant resource agencies—has the potential to 

save time and has few challenges to implementation. State DOTs reported that 

the other SAFETEA-LU provisions GAO studied have both potential benefits and 

challenges but, in some cases, they identified alternative solutions that could 

better serve their needs. For example, although respondents indicated that they 

could save time by implementing the issue resolution process established in 

SAFETEA-LU, they also noted that the use of written agreements between 

highway project stakeholders—such as federal resource agencies—could better 

serve their purposes. Survey respondents also indicated that they are generally 

not interested in implementing two SAFETEA-LU provisions that would delegate 

environmental review decision-making authority from the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) to states, primarily because the states did not want to 

accept federal court jurisdiction for the decisions made under those provisions.

States have implemented a variety of efforts to expedite highway projects and 

FHWA has initiated efforts to expedite projects by sharing innovative practices. 

For example, in 1997, the North Carolina DOT implemented a project 

development process that promotes early involvement of highway stakeholders 

and reduces permit processing times from years to months. Other state efforts 

are more recent, prompted by streamlining concepts promoted by FHWA 

beginning in 2010 under an effort known as Every Day Counts. Through Every 

Day Counts, FHWA encouraged states to consider implementing 15 specific 

innovative practices during 2011 and 2012, including 13 practices that could help 

expedite highway project completion. FHWA plans to introduce a new set of 

initiatives during 2012 for implementation during 2013 and 2014. FHWA 

developed performance measures for Every Day Counts and is currently 

collecting data to determine if these initiatives have had a positive impact on 

expediting highway projects. View GAO-12-593.To view an e-supplement 

with more data see GAO-12-637SP. For more 

information, contact David J.Wise at (202) 

512-2834 or wised@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Letter 1 

Background 2

The Process to Complete Highway Projects Is Complex and 

Lengthy Due to Multiple Factors 8

State DOTs Generally Agree That SAFETEA-LU Provisions Could 

Decrease Project Time Frames but Find Some Provisions More 

Useful Than Others 16

States and FHWA Have Initiated Efforts to Develop and Share 

Innovative Practices for Expediting Highway Projects 27

Concluding Observations 34

Agency Comments 34

Appendix I Objectives, Scope and Methodology 36

Appendix II Initiatives in the Federal Highway Administration’s Every Day 

Counts Effort 40

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47

Tables

Table 1: SAFETEA-LU Provisions Meant to Help Expedite Highway 

Projects 7

Table 2: Potential Time Savings and Other Key Findings States 

Reported Regarding SAFETEA-LU Provisions Meant to 

Help Expedite Highway Projects, Since 2005 17

Table 3: FHWA’s Every Day Counts Initiatives for 2011 and 2012 31

Table 4: Highway Project Stakeholders Interviewed 37

Table 5: Compensatory Mitigation Approaches Promoted by 

FHWA’s Every Day Counts 41

Figures

Figure 1: Federal Highway Projects by NEPA Action Class 4

Figure 2: Potential Stakeholders and Typical Steps Involved in a 

Major New Highway Project 9

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Figure 3: Prefabricated Bridge Elements at Construction Site 44

Figure 4: Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Technology at a Bridge 

Construction Site 45

Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and 

 Transportation Officials

CE categorical exclusion

DOT department of transportation

EA environmental assessment

EIS environmental impact statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

MPO metropolitan planning organization

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NGO nongovernmental organization

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

 Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

View GAO-12-637SP Key Components

Highway Projects: Survey of State Departments of Transportation 

(GAO-12-637SP), an e-supplement to GAO-12-593.

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 6, 2012

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Projects to construct, improve, and repair roads and bridges are 

fundamental to meeting the nation’s mobility needs. However, major 

federally funded highway projects can take a long time to complete. In 

2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established a number of provisions to 

help expedite the completion of highway projects, including streamlining 

some portions of the environmental review process, allowing states to 

assume greater environmental review responsibilities under certain 

conditions, and establishing pilot programs that permitted delegation of 

some authority from the federal government to states.

You requested that we report on the process associated with completing 

highway projects, as well as the impact of the SAFETEA-LU provisions 

meant to help expedite that process. Accordingly, this report (1) describes 

the process for planning, designing, and constructing federally funded 

highway projects and the factors that could affect project time frames; (2) 

presents state departments of transportation (DOT) views on the benefits 

and challenges of implementing provisions to expedite highway projects 

established by SAFETEA-LU; and (3) describes the additional initiatives 

that state DOTs and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have 

implemented to expedite highway projects.

To describe the process for completing highway projects, as well as the 

factors that could affect project time frames, we reviewed and analyzed 

relevant legislation—particularly SAFETEA-LU—regulations, 

congressional hearing statements, and other reports and publications. To 

collect information on practices involved in the highway project process, 

as well as factors that could affect time frames, we conducted interviews 

with officials from (1) FHWA; (2) federal resource agencies, that is 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

agencies tasked with protecting natural, historic, or cultural resources, 

such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS); and six state DOTs—Alaska, California, Missouri, 

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah—which were selected using a 

number of criteria, including participation in certain SAFETEA-LU 

provisions and geographic locations. These interviews are not 

generalizable to all states. To identify state DOT perspectives on the 

benefits and challenges associated with implementing SAFETEA-LU 

provisions meant to help expedite highway projects, we conducted a 

survey of 52 state DOTs, including all states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. We identified key provisions of SAFETEA-LU that were 

meant to help expedite highway projects, drafted the survey, pretested it 

with five state DOTs, and incorporated comments from external officials, 

including FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Our response rate was 100 percent. 

More information on our survey can be found in appendix I, as well as in a 

separate e-supplement, GAO-12-637SP. To describe the practices state 

DOTs and FHWA have implemented on their own to help expedite 

highway projects, we included a series of questions in our survey of state 

DOTs asking respondents to identify such practices. We also conducted 

interviews with state DOTs and FHWA and analyzed responses from 

these entities.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more information on our 

scope and methodology, see appendix I.

FHWA plays a key role in funding and overseeing the completion of 

highway projects. In addition to providing financial assistance and 

establishing standards for state DOTs to build and improve highways and 

roads, FHWA—through its division office in each state—provides 

technical expertise and fulfills oversight functions. State and local 

governments execute the programs by matching and distributing federal 

funds; planning, selecting, and supervising projects; and complying with 

federal requirements.

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Funding for highway projects represents a large federal investment—

about $39 billion in fiscal year 2011. Federally funded highway projects 

are typically developed in the following four phases:

1. Planning. State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) 

assess the need for a project in relation to other potential highway 

project needs.

2. Preliminary design and environmental review. State DOTs identify 

potential transportation solutions based on needs identified during 

planning, potential environmental and social effects of those solutions, 

project cost, and construction location; analyze the effect, if any, of 

the proposed project and potential alternatives on the environment; 

and select the preferred alternative.

3. Final design and right-of-way acquisition. State DOTs finalize design 

plans, acquire property, and relocate residents and businesses.

4. Construction. State DOTs award construction contracts, oversee 

construction, and accept the completed project.

In the preliminary design and environmental review phase, many activities 

are carried out pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) and other federal laws. Under NEPA, federal agencies must 

assess the effects of major federal actions—those they propose to fund, 

carry out or permit—that significantly affect the environment. NEPA has 

two principal purposes: (1) to ensure that an agency carefully considers 

detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts and (2) 

to ensure that this information will be made available to the public. NEPA 

generally requires federal agencies to prepare documentation showing 

the extent of the project’s environmental impacts. Per NEPA, the lead 

agencies—usually a state DOT and FHWA—will determine which of the 

three documentation types is needed as follows:

• Projects referred to as ‘categorical exclusions’ (CE) are determined to 

not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality 

of the environment. These projects require no or limited environmental 

review or documentation under NEPA. Examples of highway projects 

that are generally processed as CEs include resurfacing, constructing 

bicycle lanes, installing noise barriers, and landscaping. The vast 

majority of highway projects are processed as CEs (see fig. 1). Based 

on data collected in 2009, FHWA estimates that approximately 96 

percent of highway projects were processed as CEs.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Figure 1: Federal Highway Projects by NEPA Action Class

• An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for proposed 

projects that are determined to have a significant effect on the 

environment. In broad terms, FHWA starts the EIS process by 

publishing a notice of intent in the Federal Register. It then consults 

with resource agencies—such as USACE or FWS—and solicits 

comments from the public on a draft EIS, incorporates comments into 

a final EIS, and issues a record of decision. Among other things, the 

record of decision—which is the final step for agencies in the EIS 

process—identifies (1) the decision made; (2) the alternatives 

considered during the development of the EIS, including the 

environmentally preferred alternative; and (3) plans to mitigate 

environmental impacts. For the 32 projects in which FHWA was the 

lead agency and signed the EIS in fiscal year 2009, the average 

amount of time from signing the notice of intent to signing the record 

of decision was 83 months—almost 7 years.1

 

1

For the 30 projects in which FHWA was the lead agency and signed the EIS in fiscal year 

2010, the average amount of time from signing the notice of intent to signing the record of 

decision was 69 months. 

As noted, FHWA 

estimates that based on its 2009 data approximately 1 percent of all 

federal-aid highway projects in the United States were processed with 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

an EIS. While projects requiring an EIS are a small portion of all 

highway projects, they are likely to be high-profile, complex, and 

expensive projects. For these reasons, many efforts to expedite 

highway projects and reports which study those efforts, including this 

report, tend to focus on highway projects requiring an EIS.

• Project sponsors prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when it 

is not clear whether a project will have significant environmental 

impacts. An EA is intended to be a concise document that, among 

other things, briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for 

determining whether to prepare an EIS. If during the development of 

an EA, the project sponsor determines that the project will cause 

significant environmental impacts, the project sponsor will stop 

producing the EA and, instead, produce an EIS. However, an EA 

typically results in a finding of no significant impact, a document that 

presents the reasons why the agency has concluded that there are no 

significant environmental impacts to occur when the project is 

implemented. FHWA estimates that, based on its 2009 data, about 3 

percent of all federal-aid highway projects were processed using an 

EA.

Numerous federal, state, and local laws determine the processes and 

tasks highway projects are to complete throughout the four phases. For 

example, SAFETEA-LU contains provisions that establish policies related 

to transportation planning and the environmental review process. Various 

environmental laws—including NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the 

Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act—establish 

processes and environmental requirements that projects must meet. 

Right-of-way acquisition must be accomplished according to the 

requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, a law designed to provide 

fair treatment of property owners and tenants when they are displaced by 

federally funded programs, including the construction of a federal-aid 

highway. Federal-aid highway projects are typically subject to a number 

of federally required contract provisions, such as nondiscrimination, 

payment of a predetermined minimum wage, and accident prevention. 

There are also numerous state and local laws—for example, several 

states, including California and North Carolina, have laws roughly 

equivalent to the federal NEPA—that projects must comply with and 

which help guide projects through various tasks in the process.

In addition, a number of provisions created by SAFETEA-LU are intended 

to help expedite highway projects. We analyzed seven of those provisions 

that have been implemented (see table 1), focusing primarily on those in 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Title VI of SAFETEA-LU, which deals with transportation planning and 

project delivery.2 We surveyed officials from 52 state DOTs about the 

potential benefits and challenges associated with each of these 

SAFETEA-LU provisions and did not ask states to quantify these benefits 

or challenges. During survey pretesting, we learned that any number of 

variables could impact the time frames for completing a project, such as 

the SAFETEA-LU provisions we were asking about in our survey, the 

complexity of each highway project, or even the personalities of 

individuals working on tasks for the project. As such, our survey findings 

generally do not indicate specific values for the benefits and challenges 

(such as time savings) from implementing or using the SAFETEA-LU 

provisions, but rather represent state DOTs’ perspectives (i.e., the degree 

to which they agree or disagree that a particular factor could be a benefit 

or a challenge) on the potential benefits and challenges of those 

provisions.

 

2

An additional provision that we reviewed—SAFETEA-LU Section 6003 “State assumption 

of responsibilities for certain programs and projects,” codified at 23 U.S.C. § 325—has not 

yet been implemented. Numerical results from our survey on all the SAFETEA-LU 

provisions we studied, as well as more information on how we conducted our survey can 

be found in appendix I or in a separate e-supplement, GAO-12-637SP. 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Table 1: SAFETEA-LU Provisions Meant to Help Expedite Highway Projects

GAO term

SAFETEA-LU 

full title a Description

U.S. Code 

citation 

SAFETEA-LU 

section

180-Day Statute 

of Limitations

Limitations on 

claims

Bars claims seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval 

issued by a federal agency for highway projects unless they are 

filed within 180 days after publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing the final agency action, unless a shorter time 

is specified in the federal law under which the judicial review is 

allowed.

23 U.S.C. § 

139(l)

6002

Categorical 

Exclusion 

Approval 

Authority

State 

assumption of 

responsibility 

for categorical 

exclusions

Authorizes U.S. DOT to assign and a state to assume responsibility 

for determining whether certain projects can be categorically 

excluded from the NEPA process.

23 U.S.C. § 

326

6004

Design-Build 

Contracting

Design build b Repealed the minimum cost requirements for use of design-build 

contracting for federal-aid highway projects. Also required the 

Secretary of Transportation to make changes to the design-build 

regulations, generally to permit a state transportation department to 

release requests for proposals and award design-build contracts 

prior to the completion of the NEPA process; however, it also 

precludes a contractor from proceeding with final design or 

construction before completion of the NEPA process.

23 U.S.C. § 

112(b)(3)

1503(2)

Issue 

Resolution 

Process 

Issue 

identification 

and resolution

Established procedures to resolve issues between state DOTs and 

relevant resource agencies.

23 U.S.C. § 

139(h)

6002

Minor Impacts 

to Protected 

Public Land

Parks, 

recreation 

areas, wildlife 

and waterfowl 

refuges, and 

historic sites

Authorizes an historic site or publicly owned land from a park, 

recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge to be used for a 

transportation program or project if it is determined that such use 

would result in “de minimis impacts” to that resource.

23 U.S.C. § 

138(b)

6009

NEPA Approval 

Authority

Surface 

transportation 

project 

delivery pilot 

program

Allows no more than five states to assume many federal 

environmental review responsibilities, in addition to determining 

whether certain projects can be categorically excluded from the 

NEPA process.

23 U.S.C. § 

327

6005

Offering 

Financial 

Assistance to 

Stakeholder 

Agencies

Assistance to 

affected state 

and federal 

agencies

Allows a state to use its federal highway funds to support a federal 

or state agency participating in the environmental review process.

23 U.S.C. § 

139(j)

6002

Source: Pub. L. No. 109-59.

a

For purposes of this report, we have established terms for the SAFETEA-LU provisions we reviewed.

b

Design-build contracting is a contracting method that combines the responsibilities for designing and 

constructing a project in a single contract instead of the more traditional approach of separating these 

responsibilities.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Completing a highway project can involve many stakeholders—including 

federal, state, and local government agencies; nongovernmental 

organizations (NGO); and private citizens—and, for major highway 

projects, as many as 200 steps from planning through construction (see 

fig. 2). A number of additional factors can also affect project time frames.

The Process to 

Complete Highway 

Projects Is Complex 

and Lengthy Due to 

Multiple Factors
 

Page 9 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Figure 2: Potential Stakeholders and Typical Steps Involved in a Major New Highway Project

A wide range of stakeholders can be involved in highway projects, from 

federal, state, and local agencies with varying missions and 

responsibilities to NGOs, contractors, and private citizens. Different 

factors, however, will help determine the extent to which stakeholders will 

Wide Range of 

Stakeholders
 

Page 10 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

become involved in the project. For example, if a highway project will not 

affect endangered or threatened species, it is likely that FWS—which is 

responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act for freshwater 

and terrestrial species—will not become involved in the project. 

Additionally, some states have developed written agreements—known by 

a number of terms, including programmatic agreements or memoranda of 

agreement—with other state or federal agencies that can help to establish 

a process for consultation, review, and compliance with one or more 

federal laws, allowing for the project to be reviewed more quickly. 

Regardless, there are a host of stakeholders that could become involved 

in a highway project as follows:

• Transportation agencies. Federal and state transportation agencies 

are responsible for improving, maintaining, and planning highway 

systems with a focus on safety, reliability, effectiveness, and 

sustainability. Among other things, FHWA oversees planning and 

project completion by reviewing statewide long-range transportation 

plans, evaluating whether a project meets environmental protection 

requirements, and authorizing acquisition of property for highway 

projects it funds. State DOTs are typically the focal point for project 

planning and construction and are responsible for setting the relevant 

goals for the state, planning safe and efficient transportation, 

designing most projects, identifying and mitigating environmental 

impacts, acquiring property for highway projects, and awarding and 

overseeing construction contracts.

• Federal resource agencies. Federal resource agencies, such as those 

described below, are responsible for managing and protecting natural 

and cultural resources like wetlands, historic properties, forests, and 

wildlife:

• The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, established by the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, seeks to promote the 

preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of the nation’s 

historic resources. The council advises the President and the 

Congress on national historic preservation policies and ensures 

federal agencies take such issues into account when developing 

and implementing federal projects.

• USACE issues permits for the dredging and filling of waters of the

United States, including wetlands within the agency’s jurisdiction, 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

• The Environmental Protection Agency administers, among other 

things, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

• FWS implements the Endangered Species Act with respect to 

freshwater and terrestrial species.

• The National Marine Fisheries Service implements, among other 

things, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered 

Species Act with respect to most marine species and anadromous 

fishes (which spend portions of their life cycle in both fresh and 

salt water).

• The U.S. Forest Service transfers land for highway rights of way 

within the National Forest System to states through FHWA.

• State resource agencies. These state-level agencies are generally 

responsible for managing and protecting the state’s natural and 

cultural resources.

• State resource agencies, like their federal counterparts, participate 

in and review assessments of environmental impacts, in 

accordance with their responsibilities under federal or state laws.

• A state historic preservation office advises and consults with 

federal and other state agencies to identify historic properties and 

assess and resolve adverse effects to them under the National 

Historic Preservation Act.

• Local governments. Local governments involved in highway projects 

include MPOs and rural planning organizations.

• Every urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more has an 

MPO, an organization made up of representatives of local 

governments—county, city, and town government officials—for the 

purpose of transportation planning and coordination of highway 

and transit projects. According to a nonprofit organization that 

represents MPOs, there are almost 400 MPOs in the United 

States.

• Rural planning organizations are typically voluntary planning 

organizations that serve as a forum for local officials to develop 

consensus on regional transportation priorities for an area with a 

population of less than 50,000.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

• NGOs. NGOs advocate for a number of issues, including the 

environment and transportation. Examples of NGOs include the 

following:

• The Natural Resources Defense Council is an environmental 

organization that seeks to protect the environment by educating 

the public, lobbying government officials, and litigating, if

necessary.

• AASHTO advocates for transportation-related policies and 

provides technical transportation-related support to states.

• Contractors. Contractors generally are private sector companies that 

bid on contracts from federal and state transportation agencies to 

conduct various activities, such as conducting environmental studies 

or constructing a highway.

• Private citizens. Private citizens have the opportunity to provide 

comments and opinions in venues like public hearings.

In addition to the involvement of a large number of stakeholders, 

completing a major highway project takes a number of years because of 

the many tasks, requirements, and approvals involved throughout the four 

phases of a highway project. Major highway projects can involve as many 

as 200 steps from the initial planning phase through the construction 

phase that require actions, approvals, or input from a number of 

stakeholders.3

State DOTs and local planning organizations assess a project’s purpose 

and consider the need for the project in relation to the need for other 

potential highway projects. To receive federal transportation funding, any 

project in an urbanized area must emerge from the relevant MPO and 

state DOT planning processes. For nonmetropolitan areas not covered by 

an MPO, states must consult with and provide opportunities for local 

officials to participate in statewide planning. To meet federal planning 

requirements, states must develop 

 

3

As previously noted, FHWA estimates that based on its 2009 data approximately 1 

percent of all federal-aid highway projects in the United States were processed with an 

EIS. The vast majority of highway projects—96 percent—were processed as CEs under 

NEPA and generally did not require as many tasks to complete. 

Large Number of Steps in

the Process

Planning Phase
 

Page 13 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

(1) a long-range statewide transportation plan covering a 20-year period 

and (2) a state transportation improvement program—that is, the state 

program of transportation projects covering at least a 4-year period that 

are to be supported with federal surface transportation funds, as well as 

regionally significant projects requiring an action by FHWA, whether or 

not federally funded.

During preliminary design, a project’s location and design are identified, 

along with the effect, if any, of the proposed project and of potential 

alternatives on the environment; eventually, a preferred alternative is 

selected. Among other tasks, state DOTs identify the preliminary 

engineering issues, proposed alignment of roadways, and costs, as well 

as create topographic surveys and conduct traffic studies. During 

environmental review, the proposed project alternatives are examined 

and may require review, input, or feedback from relevant resource 

agencies such as USACE, FWS, or the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Environmental reviews require state and FHWA officials to address and 

comply with many federal laws—FHWA has identified over 40 

environmental laws—as well as applicable state laws. More complex 

projects require additional time for the completion of preliminary designs 

and environmental reviews. In addition, private citizens and local 

governments are asked to comment on the project and its potential 

effects. At the end of this phase, the preferred alternative is selected.

State DOTs finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate utilities 

in the final design and right-of-way acquisition phase. State DOTs 

develop detailed engineering plans consistent with environmental 

documents and updated environmental studies, and finalize cost 

estimates. If a significant amount of time has passed since the preliminary 

design work was performed, right-of-way maps and other information may 

need to be updated. Acquiring property for the project includes 

determining any restrictions to state ownership of the property, 

determining the identities of property owners, making offers to property 

owners based on just compensation, negotiating a purchase price, 

relocating property owners and tenants, and sometimes invoking eminent 

domain. Utilities must be located, marked, surveyed, and possibly 

relocated. If there are a significant number of underground utilities, 

professional engineers, geologists, and land surveyors may be needed to 

determine the exact location of the utilities.

State DOTs award construction contracts, oversee construction, and 

accept the completed project. State DOTs request and evaluate bids on 

projects and then award the contract. The federal government is not 

Preliminary Design and 

Environmental Review Phase

Final Design and Right-of-Way 

Acquisition Phase 

Construction Phase
 

Page 14 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

directly involved in construction, but does have an oversight role. For 

example, projects that receive federal-aid highway funds require FHWA 

concurrence on the award. During construction, the contractor and the 

state resolve any unexpected problems that may arise, such as removal 

of hazardous waste at the construction site. Once satisfied that 

construction has been carried out as agreed to with the contractor, the 

state must approve the final completion of construction.

In addition to the many stakeholders and tasks involved, a number of 

other factors can complicate the process and lead to longer highway 

project time frames such as the following:

The availability of funding for large highway projects can affect how long it 

takes to complete a project. For example, one state DOT informed us it 

has completed a number of EISs for highway projects, but that these 

projects are stalled due to a lack of funds. In addition, a state DOT official 

stated that since the state did not have enough funding to complete major 

highway projects, they are choosing to focus more on completing smaller, 

less expensive highway projects such as bridge replacements and 

repaving. Of those responding to our survey, most state DOTs identified 

funding as a challenge for all project phases but found it to be more of a 

challenge in both the planning phase and the preliminary design and 

environmental review phase.4

Changes in a state’s transportation priorities during a project’s duration 

can complicate time frames and delay the project. For example, one 

administration may favor a highway project when it is first planned and 

may provide the necessary financial support; however, a new 

administration with different priorities may come in before the project is 

completed and withdraw or reduce support and funding. If a project that 

was shelved garners support again, in some cases, FHWA, the state 

DOT, or resource agencies might have to reevaluate, rework, and update 

environmental- or NEPA-related documents and information to ensure 

 

4

Specifically, 27 of 51 states (53 percent) identified funding as a “very great” or 

“substantial” challenge during the planning phase; 27 of 52 states (52 percent) identified 

funding as a “very great” or “substantial” challenge during the preliminary design and 

environmental review phase; 20 of 51 states (39 percent) identified funding as a “very 

great” or “substantial” challenge during the final design and right-of-way acquisition phase; 

and 17 of 50 states (34 percent) identified funding as a “very great” or “substantial” 

challenge during the construction phase.

Additional Factors That 

Can Affect Time Frames

Funding Availability

Changing Transportation 

Priorities
 

Page 15 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

that the environmental impact information is current. This can lead to a 

longer project time frame.

Public opposition and litigation can also lengthen highway project time 

frames or even lead to the cancellation of a project. For example, the 

Elizabeth Brady Road project in Orange County, North Carolina was 

canceled by FHWA due to public and local government opposition to the 

project. After the project began the preliminary design and environmental 

review phase, local community and government officials determined that 

there was insufficient need for the project because the potential costs 

outweighed the project’s potential benefits. As a result, local government 

officials withdrew their support for the project and it was canceled. Public 

controversy related to a highway project can sometimes lead to litigation, 

which can also lengthen highway project time frames. Litigants might 

settle their lawsuit if, for example, a state DOT agrees to change the 

design of a project to limit its impact on a species or increase noise 

abatement measures. Lawsuits can also lead to longer completion time 

frames. For example, plaintiffs filed suit in 2006 against FHWA and the 

U.S. Forest Service for a highway project in Alaska, alleging that these 

parties failed to comply with a number of federal laws, including NEPA. 

The U.S. District Court found that the final EIS issued for the project was 

not valid and issued an injunction stopping all work on the project. Upon 

appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the District 

Court decision.5 In September 2011, nearly 5 years after the lawsuit was 

filed, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities began 

work to prepare a supplemental EIS—that is, an updated EIS—for the 

project. The agency anticipates issuing a record of decision for this 

project in late 2013.

 

5

Se. Alaska Conservation Council v. Fed. Highway Admin., 649 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2011).

Project Opposition
 

Page 16 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

States identified both benefits and challenges with each of the SAFETEALU provisions meant to help expedite highway projects but acknowledged 

alternative solutions for some of the provisions that better served their 

purposes. In our survey, state DOTs most frequently agreed that the 

Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land provision of SAFETEA-LU has 

the potential to save time (see table 2) and has relatively few challenges 

to implementation.6

 

6

In our survey, we asked states to report the extent to which their agency agreed or 

disagreed that benefits, including time savings, could be realized from each of the 

SAFETEA-LU provisions we studied. For reporting purposes, we have combined 

responses of “strongly agree” and “agree,” as well as “strongly disagree” and “disagree.” 

Not all states responded to all questions asked in the survey.

State DOTs Generally 

Agree That SAFETEALU Provisions Could 

Decrease Project 

Time Frames but Find 

Some Provisions

More Useful 

Than Others
 

Page 17 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Table 2: Potential Time Savings and Other Key Findings States Reported Regarding SAFETEA-LU Provisions Meant to Help 

Expedite Highway Projects, Since 2005

SAFETEA-LU 

provision

State agreement 

on potential 

time savings Key findings states reported in GAO survey

Minor Impacts to

Protected Public 

Land

92%

(47 of 51 states)

States generally did not identify potential challenges with this provision. 82% of states 

disagreed that participation requirements for this provision are too challenging to fulfill, and 

nearly all states responding (47 of 49) have used this provision at least once.

Design-Build 

Contracting

79%

(30 of 38 states)

Smaller highway projects, which comprise the majority of all highway projects, generally do 

not lend themselves to design-build contracting. Additionally, some states are prohibited by 

state statute from using this contracting method.

180-Day Statute of 

Limitations

78%

(32 of 41 states)

Some states expressed concern that a shorter statute of limitations could draw undue 

attention to the project and encourage litigation.

Offering Financial 

Assistance to 

Stakeholder 

Agencies

77%

(34 of 44 states)

Some states indicated that use of this provision has created a better working relationship 

between highway stakeholders; others noted that they saw limited results and have since 

stopped providing funding.

Categorical 

Exclusion Approval 

Authority

76%

(34 of 45 states)

Almost two-thirds of states (29 out of 49) agreed that programmatic agreements could serve 

their agency better than this initiative. Only three states—Alaska, California, and Utah—

participate in this program.

Issue Resolution 

Process 

61%

(22 of 36 states)

No state has used this provision, choosing instead to resolve issues at the lowest possible 

staff level or to follow procedures established in programmatic agreements.

NEPA Approval 

Authority

56%

(19 of 34 states)

States expressed reluctance to accept federal court jurisdiction in order to participate in this 

pilot program, an action they generally refer to as ‘waiving their sovereign immunity.’ Only 

one state—California—is participating in this pilot program.

Source: GAO.

Most respondents agreed that the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land 

provision of SAFETEA-LU has potential time savings benefits, and nearly 

all have used this provision at least once. This provision authorizes an 

historic site or publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife 

or waterfowl refuge, to be used for a transportation program or project if a 

DOT determines that such use would result in minor impacts (i.e., “de 

minimis impacts”) to that resource.7

 

7

With respect to historic sites, a DOT may make a finding of de minimis impact if, among 

other things, it receives written concurrence from the applicable state historic preservation 

officer or tribal historic preservation officer. With respect to parks, recreation areas, or 

wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the DOT may make a finding of de minimis impact if, among 

other things, it receives written concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the 

park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge.

The Department of Transportation 

Act of 1966 includes a provision—known as Section 4(f)—which 

stipulates that FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of 

Minor Impacts to Protected 

Public Land
 

Page 18 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges, or public and private historical sites unless (1) there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and (2) the action 

includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting 

from use.8

• Potential benefits. Of those responding to our survey, 92 percent of 

states (47 of 51 states) agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has 

the potential to save time. In addition, of those responding, 80 percent 

(41 of 51 states) identified the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land 

provision as having the potential to create staffing or personnel 

savings and 59 percent (29 of 49 states) identified the provision as 

having the potential to increase the number of projects completed.

Complying with Section 4(f) can result in additional time to 

receive project approval. One NGO we spoke with noted that use of the 

Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land provision of SAFETEA-LU is a 

more “common sense” approach that not only allows greater use of these 

protected properties when only very minor impacts are likely to occur, but 

also helps to expedite highway projects.

• Potential challenges. Most states who responded to our survey did not 

indicate significant challenges to implementing this SAFETEA-LU 

provision. For example, 82 percent of states (42 of 51 states) 

disagreed that the participation requirements for this provision are too 

challenging to fulfill, indicating that this provision may be easier to use 

or implement than the other provisions.

• Implementation/use. Of all the SAFETEA-LU provisions we studied, 

the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land provision was used most 

frequently. Of those states responding, almost all (47 of 49 states) 

had used this provision at least once, with 9 states indicating that they 

have used this provision for more than 50 percent of their highway 

projects since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment in 2005.

Most states responding to our survey agreed that the Design-Build 

Contracting provision within SAFETEA-LU has the potential to save time, 

but many states have not used this contracting method and, therefore, 

have not had the opportunity to take advantage of this provision. Under 

the traditional procurement approach, design and construction services 

must be separated and a construction contract, which generally goes to 

 

8

23 U.S.C. § 138(a) and (b).

Design-Build Contracting
 

Page 19 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

the lowest bidder, can be awarded only after the design is complete. 

Design-build contracting combines the responsibilities for designing and 

constructing a project in a single contract instead of separating these 

responsibilities. The Design-Build Contracting provision in SAFETEA-LU 

repealed the minimum cost requirements for use of design-build 

contracting for federal-aid highway projects; prior to enactment of 

SAFETEA-LU, federal-aid highway projects needed to have total costs 

exceed $50 million in order to use design-build contracting.

In our survey, state DOTs generally agreed that the Design-Build 

Contracting provision has the potential to save time, but noted some

challenges and limited use.

• Potential benefits. Of those responding, 79 percent of states (30 of 38 

states) agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to 

save time. Fewer states that responded agreed that other benefits 

could potentially be realized from use of design-build contracting: 45 

percent (17 of 38 states) noted that its use could potentially increase 

the number of highway projects completed, and 37 percent (14 of 38 

states) noted potential staff or personnel savings.

• Potential challenges. Most states did not indicate significant 

challenges to using this SAFETEA-LU provision in the survey 

questions we asked.9

• Implementation/use. Of those responding, 60 percent of states (26 of 

43 states) have used design-build contracting at least once since 

enactment of SAFETEA-LU. However, the majority of states that 

responded (24 of 43 states, or 56 percent) use design-build 

However, states did provide some challenges to 

design-build contracting in their written responses. For example, some 

states are prohibited by state statute from using design-build 

contracting for highway projects. Other states noted that problems in 

completing other project tasks, such as obtaining permits, can slow 

overall project completion time frames such that potential time savings 

achieved by design-build contracting might be negated.

 

9

We asked states the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that the following two 

issues are challenges that could be faced: (1) programmatic agreements could serve their 

agency better than this initiative and (2) state or agency policy discourages the use of this 

initiative. Only 4 out of 37 states agreed or strongly agreed that the first issue could be a 

challenge, and 8 out of 34 agreed or strongly agreed that the second could be a 

challenge.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

contracting for less than 10 percent of all highway projects. States 

noted both in our survey and in our interviews that smaller highway 

projects—such as resurfacing or landscaping projects that are 

processed as CEs—generally do not require extensive design work 

and, as a result, do not lend themselves to the use of design-build 

contracting.

Most states responding to our survey agreed that the 180-Day Statute of

Limitations provision has potential benefits, and many have had at least 

one highway project since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment that has taken 

advantage of it. Prior to enactment of SAFETEA-LU, individuals or 

organizations generally had up to 6 years in which they could file a 

judicial claim on a final agency action related to environmental 

requirements, such as NEPA requirements. This provision of SAFETEALU bars claims seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval 

issued by a federal agency for a highway project unless that claim is filed 

within 180 days of a notice in the Federal Register—FHWA generally 

publishes these notices—announcing the final agency action.

In our survey, state DOTs generally agreed that the 180-Day Statute of 

Limitations provision has the potential to save time, and many states have 

taken advantage of this provision since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment; 

however, some states expressed concerns that a shorter statute of 

limitations could actually encourage litigation.

• Potential benefits. Of those responding, 78 percent (32 of 41 states) 

agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to save 

time. 56 percent of those states responding (22 of 39 states) also 

agreed that this provision could result in staff or personnel savings. 

Only about one-third of those responding (15 of 41 states, or 37 

percent) agreed that the provision could result in more projects being 

completed.

• Potential challenges. When asked what challenges, if any, could be 

faced from this SAFETEA-LU provision, 8 states noted that a shorter 

180-Day Statute of Limitations
 

Page 21 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

statute of limitations may actually encourage litigation.10

• Implementation/use. Due in part to the above mentioned challenge, at 

least one state has chosen not to take advantage of the shorter 

statute of limitations. Of those states responding to our survey, 64 

percent (29 of 45 states) have used the 180-Day Statute of Limitations 

provision for at least one project since enactment of SAFETEA-LU, 

leaving 36 percent of states (16 of 45 states) as having never used 

the provision. Officials from one state DOT we interviewed did note 

that they have chosen to not pursue this shorter statute of limitations 

as they feel its use might draw undue attention to the project and 

encourage outside entities to litigate it.

In general, 

these 8 states noted that if the shorter statute of limitations was used, 

such use could be seen as suspect by outside entities and encourage 

them to question the project and file a lawsuit against it.

Most states responding to our survey agreed that the Offering Financial 

Assistance to Stakeholder Agencies provision of SAFETEA-LU has

potential benefits, including time and staffing or personnel savings, but 

fewer states have actually taken advantage of this provision. Under this 

SAFETEA-LU provision, a state DOT can use part of its federal highway 

funding to support staff for a federal or state agency participating in the 

environmental review process, such as the local USACE or FWS office. 

Funds provided in accordance with this provision may only be used for 

projects in a given state that support activities that directly and 

meaningfully contribute to expediting and improving transportation project 

planning and completion.

In our survey, state DOTs generally agreed that the Offering Financial 

Assistance to Stakeholder Agencies provision has the potential to save 

time, but its use is not as widespread as some of the other SAFETEA-LU 

provisions.

 

10We asked states to provide a written response to the following question: “What 

challenges, if any, could be faced from the statute of limitations provision established in 

SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?” Twenty-five states provided some form of a written 

response, with one state noting two challenges. Of those, 8 states provided a response 

indicating that a shorter statute of limitations could encourage others to file a lawsuit 

against a project; 10 provided a response indicating that they did not have a comment or 

that the provision was beneficial; and 8 states’ responses indicated a unique challenge.

Offering Financial Assistance 

to Stakeholder Agencies
 

Page 22 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

• Potential benefits. Of those responding, 77 percent of states (34 of 44 

states) agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to 

save time. The majority of those states responding also agreed that 

this provision could have potential staff or personnel savings (26 of 44 

states, or 59 percent), as well as increase the number of projects 

completed (25 of 44 states, or 57 percent).

• Potential challenges. States responding to our survey generally noted 

some challenges to using this SAFETEA-LU provision. Nineteen of 44 

states (43 percent) responding agreed that programmatic agreements 

could serve their agency better than this SAFETEA-LU provision. 

However, only 9 percent of states (4 of 43 states) agreed that a state 

or agency policy would discourage them from providing financial 

assistance to affected entities.

• Implementation/use. Of those responding, 58 percent of states (25 of 

43 states) have provided financial assistance to affected entities at 

least once. However, a large number (18 of 43 states, or 42 percent) 

have never taken advantage of this provision. In our interviews with 

state DOTs and federal resource agencies, interviewees also had 

mixed opinions on this SAFETEA-LU provision. For example, some 

interviewees stated that use of this SAFETEA-LU provision has 

created a better working relationship between the state DOT and the 

affected entity. However, other states we interviewed indicated that 

they had previously provided financial assistance to affected entities 

but had seen limited results and had stopped providing such funding. 

Staff from the federal resource agencies we spoke with were 

generally familiar with this SAFETEA-LU provision and, in some 

cases, found it to be helpful in expediting the completion of highway 

projects.

While most states responding to our survey agreed that the Categorical 

Exclusion Approval Authority provision within SAFETEA-LU has the 

potential to save time, only three states are participating in this program, 

and most states indicated that other techniques could achieve the same 

outcome as this program. This SAFETEA-LU provision authorizes U.S. 

DOT to assign and a state to assume responsibility for determining 

whether certain designated activities constitute actions that are 

categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS. As 

noted above, most highway projects in the United States are processed 

as CEs, thus many of the projects a state DOT leads could be affected by 

participation in this program. As of April 2012, only three states are 

participating in this program: Alaska, California, and Utah. These three 

states have signed memoranda of agreement with their respective FHWA 

Categorical Exclusion Approval 

Authority 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

division offices outlining the processes and procedures they are to follow 

once assuming authority to approve CEs. Per SAFETEA-LU, these 

agreements are to last no more than 3 years, but can be renewed by 

mutual agreement of both the state DOT and FHWA. States that choose 

to participate in this program are required to accept federal court 

jurisdiction for the decisions they make under the program.11

In our survey, state DOTs generally agreed that the Categorical Exclusion 

Approval Authority provision has the potential to save time, but several 

respondents supported the use of approaches other than this program to 

achieve a similar outcome.

Highway 

stakeholders often refer to this aspect of the Categorical Exclusion 

Approval Authority provision as requiring the state legislature to ‘waive its 

sovereign immunity.’ 

• Potential benefits. Of those responding, 76 percent (34 of 45 states) 

agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to save 

time. States also saw this provision as having the potential to increase 

the number of projects being completed (26 of 44 states, or 59 

percent) and create staffing or personnel savings (22 of 45 states, or 

49 percent).

• Potential challenges. The majority of those responding to our survey 

(29 of 49 states, or 59 percent), as well as some state DOTs we 

spoke with, indicated that the use of agreements—such as 

programmatic agreements or memoranda of agreement—could serve 

the state DOTs better than this SAFETEA-LU provision. Seventeen 

state DOTs noted in our survey that they have undertaken efforts to 

establish agreements with their respective FHWA division offices or 

federal and state resource agencies. Among other things, these 

agreements establish policies and procedures for the state DOTs to 

follow in certain situations and scenarios. For example, the Missouri 

DOT has entered into a programmatic agreement with the FHWA 

division office to allow the state DOT to classify certain activities 

specified in the agreement as CEs without submitting each project to 

FHWA for approval of an environmental classification of CE. 

 

11More specifically, 23 U.S.C. § 326(c)(3) states: “In a memorandum of understanding, the 

State shall consent to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the compliance, 

discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility of the Secretary [of Transportation] that 

the State assumes.”
 

Page 24 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Agreements such as these allow relevant agencies—in this case, the 

FHWA division office—to make certain that projects comply with 

relevant laws and regulations but relieve the agency of the burden of 

having to review every project that the state DOT undertakes.

• Implementation/use. As noted above, only three states—Alaska, 

California, and Utah—are participating in the program created by this 

SAFETEA-LU provision. All three state DOTs indicated that they have 

seen positive outcomes from their participation in the program.

States saw the Issue Resolution Process provision within SAFETEA-LU 

as having some potential to save time, but none has used this provision, 

and most saw the use of written agreements between parties—including 

programmatic agreements or memoranda of understanding—as a better 

alternative. This SAFETEA-LU provision established procedures for 

resolving issues that could delay completion of the environmental review 

process or could result in denial of approvals required for the project 

under specific laws, such as the Clean Water Act or the Endangered 

Species Act. In general terms, a meeting of the relevant agencies can be 

convened to resolve the issues at hand; if a resolution cannot be 

achieved, the lead agency—for most federal-aid highway projects, this 

would be FHWA—is to notify a number of interested parties, including the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Council on 

Environmental Quality within the Executive Office of the President.

In our survey, state DOTs indicated that this SAFETEA-LU provision has 

some potential to create time savings but generally saw the use of 

programmatic agreements as a better alternative for resolving issues 

between parties.

• Potential benefits. Of those responding, 61 percent (22 of 36 states) 

agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to save 

time. States generally did not agree that other potential benefits could 

arise from the use of this SAFETEA-LU provision: 37 percent (14 of 

38 states) agreed that its use has the potential to create staffing or 

personnel savings, and only 29 percent (11 of 38 states) agreed that 

its use could increase the number of projects completed.

• Potential challenges. The majority of the states responding to this 

portion of the survey (25 of 41 states, or 61 percent) indicated that 

established agreements, like a programmatic agreement, could better 

serve their agency than this SAFETEA-LU provision. Some of the 

Issue Resolution Process
 

Page 25 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

state DOTs we interviewed indicated that they had programmatic 

agreements in place with various parties, such as federal resource 

agencies, that established procedures by which issues could be 

identified and resolved. States and federal resource agencies told us 

that they would prefer if issues were identified and resolved at lower 

staff levels, rather than by management or executives, or through the 

process established in this SAFETEA-LU provision.

• Implementation/use. As noted above, this SAFETEA-LU provision has 

not been used or implemented, and highway stakeholders we 

interviewed noted that resolving these disputes using methods other

than this SAFETEA-LU provision are preferred.

The majority of states responding to our survey agreed that the NEPA 

Approval Authority provision within SAFETEA-LU has the potential to 

save time, but most states indicated that it is too burdensome to begin 

participating. This SAFETEA-LU provision required the establishment of a 

pilot program to permit not more than five states to assume certain 

federal environmental review responsibilities, such as the environmental 

reviews required under NEPA or other federal laws.12

In our survey, state DOTs agreed that the NEPA Approval Authority pilot 

program has the potential to save time, but a majority of respondents 

SAFETEA-LU listed 

five states that were given the opportunity to participate in this pilot 

program: Alaska, California, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. To date, 

California is the only state that is participating in this pilot program. Other 

states expressed interest but withdrew their applications to participate. 

Eventually, FHWA opened the pilot program to all states, but limited 

participation to a total of five states, as called for in SAFETEA-LU. Much 

like the Categorical Exclusion Approval Authority provision of SAFETEALU, states that choose to participate in this program are required to 

accept federal court jurisdiction for the decisions they make under the 

program, an action which is generally undertaken by the state legislature 

and which highway stakeholders often referred to as requiring the state 

legislature to ‘waive its sovereign immunity.’ 

 

12Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU, the DOT Secretary may not assign responsibility for any 

conformity determination required under section 176 of the Clean Air Act or any 

responsibility imposed on the Secretary related to transportation planning as established 

in 23 U.S.C. §§ 134, 135. See 23 U.S.C. § 327.

NEPA Approval Authority 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

indicated that participation requirements for this provision are too 

challenging to fulfill.

• Potential benefits. Of those responding, 56 percent of states (19 of 34 

states) agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to 

save time. States generally agreed that this provision does not have 

the potential to save staffing or personnel resources, or increase the 

number of projects completed.13

• Potential challenges. The majority of states responding to this section 

of our survey (27 of 33 states, or 82 percent) indicated that the 

participation requirements for this initiative are too challenging to fulfill. 

This message was reiterated in interviews we conducted with state 

DOTs. For example, officials from these agencies stated that 

accepting federal court jurisdiction for the environmental review 

decisions they make was something they, their agency management, 

or their state legislature—which would need to approve the 

acceptance of such responsibility—did not wish to take on.

• Implementation/use. As noted above, California is the only state that 

is currently participating in this pilot program. According to the 

California Department of Transportation, highway projects requiring 

an EA now take about 30 months less to complete than they 

previously did. In addition, staff from some of the federal resource 

agencies we spoke with indicated that California’s participation in the 

pilot program has generally been beneficial, with staff from one 

resource agency calling for California’s continued participation in the 

pilot program. While California has reported a time savings from its 

participation in the NEPA Approval Authority pilot program, other 

states with whom we spoke did not express interest in this pilot 

program, with most states citing the requirement to accept federal 

court jurisdiction for the decisions they make under the program as a 

key reason why they do not wish to participate. In addition, at least 

two states indicated that they appreciate having FHWA make these 

environmental decisions. More specifically, they stated that FHWA 

has the staff and expertise to make informed decisions regarding 

environmental impacts.

 

13Of the states responding, 6 out of 35 agreed that staffing or personnel savings could be 

realized, and 7 out of 35 agreed that an increased number of projects could be completed 

from using this provision.
 

Page 27 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

States have implemented a variety of efforts to expedite highway projects, 

and FHWA has initiated efforts to share innovative practices. Some state 

efforts began in the 1990s in response to challenges faced at that time. 

Other state efforts are more recent, prompted by new authorities provided 

by SAFETEA-LU or by streamlining concepts recently promoted by 

FHWA. FHWA is making efforts to share innovative practices to help 

expedite highway projects, most recently through an effort known as 

Every Day Counts. However, it is too soon to determine the effect these 

initiatives have had on highway project time frames.

Most states have made efforts to expedite projects with state DOTs 

playing a key role in choosing the techniques that are used. In our survey 

of state DOTs, we asked officials about initiatives they have undertaken 

since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU to expedite the four phases of 

highway projects. Most states—43—reported that they have implemented 

at least 1 initiative, 4 states reported undertaking no initiatives, 3 states 

did not respond for any phase, and 2 states reported no initiatives for 

some phases and no response for other phases. According to the survey, 

states most often implemented initiatives involving the preliminary design 

and environmental review phase (39 states). Twenty-two states reported 

implementing initiatives involving the planning phase, 15 states involving 

the final design and right-of-way acquisition phase, and 19 states 

involving the construction phase. We also asked officials about the 

potential benefits that could be realized from the initiatives they had 

undertaken. For each of the four phases of a highway project, time 

savings was the benefit most often cited by states.14

 

14For each of the four phases of highway projects, we asked states the extent to which 

they agreed or disagreed that time savings, staffing/personnel savings, and increased 

number of projects completed are potential benefits of initiatives they have undertaken. 

The numbers of states that agreed or strongly agreed that time savings are a potential 

benefit are: planning phase—18 out of 21 states; preliminary design and environmental 

review phase—36 out of 39 states; final design and right-of-way acquisition phase—15 out 

of 15 states; and construction phase—18 out of 18 states.

Staff savings was 

cited as a potential benefit by a majority of states for all phases except 

construction, when it was cited as a potential benefit by 39 percent of the 

states (7 of 18 states) responding. Increased number of projects 

completed was cited as a benefit by a majority of officials responding for 

all phases except construction, where it was cited as a potential benefit 

by half of the states responding (9 of 18).

States and FHWA 

Have Initiated Efforts 

to Develop and Share 

Innovative Practices 

for Expediting 

Highway Projects

States Have Implemented 

Streamlining Practices 

Spanning All Project 

Phases
 

Page 28 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

State DOTs reported implementing a variety of types of initiatives to 

expedite highway projects but generally not one type more than another. 

In fact, only 4 of more than 30 initiatives were reported by 10 or more 

states:

• Linking Planning and Environmental Review. Twenty-three states 

reported implementing steps that linked their planning and 

environmental review processes. Using information collected in the 

planning phase and carrying it through the environmental review 

phase can minimize duplication of effort and reduce delays in project 

implementation. For example, the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation designed a project development process, implemented 

in 1997, that promotes early involvement of state and federal 

stakeholders. Each project must pass seven concurrence points that 

cover aspects of project planning, environmental review, and 

permitting. This process reduces permit processing times from years 

to months, according to North Carolina Department of Transportation 

officials.

• Using Programmatic Agreements. Seventeen states reported 

implementing programmatic agreements. These written documents 

establish a process for consultation, review, and compliance with one 

or more federal laws between one or more parties, such as a state 

DOT and a resource agency. Programmatic agreements can help 

reduce project time frames. For example, an agreement between the 

Illinois Department of Transportation and FHWA created both a 

procedure for negotiating project-specific time frames for completing 

environmental reviews and completion time goals for EISs and EAs. 

After processing five EISs and four EAs under the agreement, project 

completion time was reduced by at least 2 years, according to a 2010 

AASHTO report for FHWA. Some state DOTs have used 

programmatic agreements for more than a decade, including at least 

four states that have used programmatic agreements since the 1990s. 

An agreement between the California Department of Transportation, 

FHWA, and four resource agencies has been in place since 1991.

• Using Design-Build Contracts. Eleven states reported implementing 

design-build contracts. Again, design-build contracting combines the 

responsibilities for designing and constructing a project in a single 

contract instead of separating these responsibilities. Design-build 

contracting can provide significant time savings compared with the 

design-bid-build approach where design and construction phases 

must take place in sequence, according to FHWA.
 

Page 29 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

• Using Other Nontraditional Construction Contracts. Eleven states 

reported implementing other nontraditional construction contracts. 

These included construction manager/general contractor contracts15

and other nontraditional contract approaches such as cost plus time 

bidding, lane rentals, and contractor completion incentives and 

disincentives.16

State DOTs also reported implementing several other highway project 

streamlining initiatives, including use of electronic bidding, clarifying the 

scope of preliminary design, linking the final design and right-of-way 

acquisition phase with prior project development phases, as well as early 

right-of-way purchases.

FHWA is sharing information on methods to expedite highway projects 

with state DOTs through an effort called Every Day Counts. This effort’s 

goals are to shorten project time frames and accelerate use of technology 

and innovation by convincing states to adopt proven, rapidly deployable 

innovations. Many of these innovations were in use by some states 

before they were selected for promotion through Every Day Counts: as 

discussed earlier, for example, California’s 1991 programmatic 

agreement or North Carolina’s 1997 project development process. FHWA 

selected its Every Day Counts innovations through a process that 

involved headquarters and division office staff, as well as outside 

organizations such as AASHTO, Associated General Contractors, and the 

American Road and Transportation Builders Association. Every Day 

Counts was introduced at AASHTO meetings in spring 2010 and 

subsequently promoted at 10 regional summits sponsored by FHWA and 

 

15The construction manager/general contractor method allows a state to hire a contractor 

early in the design process in order to benefit from the contractor’s constructability input 

as the design develops. The method can save time, compared with the traditional method, 

because construction can start before designs are complete. Under the traditional method, 

design and construction phases must take place in sequence.

16Cost plus time bidding is a contracting procedure that selects the low bidder based on a 

monetary combination of the contract bid items and the time needed to complete the 

project. Lane rental is a contracting technique by which a contractor is charged a fee for 

occupying existing highway lanes or shoulders during construction. The fee motivates the 

contractor to minimize the time that a lane or a shoulder is out of service, minimizing traffic 

delay to highway users. Contractor completion incentives and disincentives are contract 

provisions that pay the contractor a certain amount of money for each day a highway 

project is completed ahead of schedule and charge money for each day the contractor 

overruns scheduled time.

FHWA Is Sharing Practices 

Among States Though It Is 

Too Soon to Know the 

Outcome
 

Page 30 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

AASHTO. Each state was asked to decide on specific initiatives it wanted 

to pursue and develop a plan for implementing them during 2011 and 

2012. States were also asked to create transportation innovation councils 

to track attainment of goals. Under Every Day Counts, FHWA urged state 

DOTs to consider use of 15 specific initiatives—10 designed to shorten 

project time frames and 5 designed to accelerate technology deployment. 

The Every Day Counts initiatives described below include 3 of the 4 

initiatives that states have taken as described above. See table 3 for brief 

descriptions of the initiatives in FHWA’s Every Day Counts effort for 

implementation in 2011 and 2012 and appendix II for more detailed 

information on those Every Day Counts initiatives. FHWA expects to 

introduce a new set of initiatives in late 2012, to be implemented during 

2013 and 2014, and intends that another series of initiatives will follow for 

the period from 2015 to 2016. FHWA began, in October 2011, the 

process of soliciting ideas for new initiatives to implement in 2013, saying 

it would consider proposed initiatives based on factors such as 

transportation system impact, readiness for deployment, affordability, and 

urgency.
 

Page 31 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Table 3: FHWA’s Every Day Counts Initiatives for 2011 and 2012

Title Description

Initiatives to shorten project time frames

Linking planning and 

environmental review

Promotes use of planning documents and decisions from the project planning process in the 

environmental review process. This can minimize duplication of effort and reduce delays in project 

implementation.

Early consultation with FHWA 

environmental attorneys

Consulting with FHWA environmental attorneys at early decision points can help decision makers 

avoid problems later, saving time and costs.

Expanded use of programmatic 

agreements

A programmatic agreement formally spells out the terms of an agreement between a state DOT 

and other state and/or federal agencies.

Compensatory mitigation Various laws require compensatory mitigation for projects that cause unavoidable impacts to 

streams, wetlands, and other waters. Compensatory mitigation can be accomplished through 

mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs.

Clarifying scope of preliminary 

design

a

States can complete design activities not required for a NEPA determination under preliminary 

design. When performed concurrently with the NEPA process, these activities can expedite 

highway projects without affecting eligibility for federal aid.

Allowable right-of-way 

acquisition streamlining

To save time, states can acquire property using techniques such as appraisal waiver valuations, 

incentive payments to advance acquisition and relocation, and appraisals and negotiations of 

property acquisition (up to $10,000) by the same individual.

Effective coordination for utility 

relocation

States can effectively coordinate utility relocation during project development by techniques such 

as documenting the terms and considerations for accomplishing utility relocation, and financing the 

work in an effective and timely manner.

FHWA technical assistance for 

stalled projects

FHWA subject matter experts, drawn from offices nationwide, provide assistance to highway 

stakeholders to help resolve issues that would otherwise hold up the NEPA review. These staff can 

help resolve resource-specific issues concerning wetlands, endangered species, and cultural 

resources.

Use of design-build contracts Design-build contracts combine design and construction tasks into one contract, eliminating the 

separate bid phase and allowing certain aspects of design and construction to take place at the 

same time.

Use of construction 

manager/general contractor 

contracts

The owners of a project hire either a general contractor or design firm to serve as the construction 

manager, placing responsibility for design review, design modifications, system integration, and 

construction with that single contractor.

Initiatives to accelerate technology deployment

Warm mix asphalt paving Asphalt is produced and placed on the road at lower temperatures than the conventional hot-mix 

method. By extending the construction season, warm mix asphalt allows projects to be completed 

faster. 

Prefabricated bridge elements An old bridge can be demolished while the new bridge elements are built at the same time off-site, 

then brought to the project location ready to erect.

Integrated bridge support 

technology

Use of alternating layers of fill material and fabric reinforcement sheets to provide support for small 

bridges and reduce construction time. 

Pavement Safety Edge Saves lives by allowing drivers who stray off highways to return to the road safely. Instead of a 

vertical drop-off, the Safety Edge shapes the edge of the pavement to an angle that allows drivers 

to reenter the roadway safely.

Adaptive signal control 

technology

This technology adjusts the timing of red, yellow, and green lights to accommodate changing traffic 

patterns and ease traffic congestion.

Source: FHWA.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

a

FHWA has developed performance measures for Every Day Counts that 

are linked to U.S. DOT performance measures, but it is too soon to 

determine the effect these initiatives have had on expediting highway 

projects, according to an FHWA official. FHWA and other highway project 

stakeholders developed one or two performance measures for each of 

the Every Day Counts initiatives. For example, FHWA established the 

following performance measure for the “Expanding Use of Programmatic 

Agreements” under Every Day Counts: “FHWA will expand, revise, or 

create 15 programmatic agreements at the state and regional scale by 

December 30, 2011.” These performance measures support the overall 

goals of the Every Day Counts effort, which the FHWA administrator has 

stated are “to cut project delivery time in half and more quickly advance 

innovation into daily practice.” The Every Day Counts performance 

measures and goals that FHWA established are linked to a U.S. DOT 

performance measure, an attribute of successful performance 

measures.

A mitigation bank is a large-scale mitigation site approved through the federal Clean Water Act and 

other state programs for resource protection. In mitigation banking, infrastructure developers buy 

credits from the bank sponsor before any impacts occur. An in-lieu fee program conducts wetland, 

stream, or threatened or endangered species habitat restoration, creation, enhancement, or 

preservation. In-lieu fee programs must be administered by government entities or nonprofits. Users 

of the program pay the program sponsor for mitigation credits. See more detailed explanations of 

these programs in appendix II.

17 Specifically, since fiscal year 2010, U.S. DOT has had a 

performance measure to streamline environmental review with a target of 

48 months to complete an EIS for major transportation projects.18

 

17Past GAO work has identified nine attributes of successful performance measures, 

including linkage, meaning that performance goals and measures at the operational level 

should align with an agency’s goals and mission. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS 

Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, 

U.S. 

DOT noted in its fiscal year 2011 performance report that Every Day 

Counts is an effort to help reduce project times. Every Day Counts 

includes 13 specific initiatives to streamline time frames for all four 

phases of highway projects, including the environmental review phase. 

While FHWA has collected data to address the U.S. DOT target noted 

above and data on the Every Day Counts initiatives, states have only had 

about 1 year to implement the Every Day Counts initiatives and, 

according to an FHWA official, it is too soon to tell if those initiatives have 

had a positive effect on expediting the completion of highway projects. 

GAO-03-143 

(Washington. D.C: Nov. 22, 2002).

18The time to complete an EIS is generally measured from the date the notice of intent is 

issued to the date the record of decision is issued.
 

Page 33 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

For fiscal year 2011, FHWA reported that the median time to complete 

EISs was 79 months (about 6.6 years). However, FHWA also reported 

that 16 of the EISs completed during fiscal year 2011 were started before 

August 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was enacted, and the median time to 

complete those EISs was 110 months (about 9 years). For the 7 

remaining EISs completed during 2011, the median time to completion 

was 44 months (a little under 3.7 years). These data suggest that the full 

impact of the Every Day Counts initiatives on the time to complete EISs 

may not be discernable for several years, if ever, due to a number of 

reasons. Such reasons could include (1) the lengthy time frames needed 

to adopt complex initiatives such as linking planning and environmental 

review or compensatory mitigation,19

FHWA’s efforts to share promising practices depend on the willingness of 

state DOTs to adopt them. Each state has identified Every Day Counts 

initiatives to use, according to an FHWA report. An FHWA headquarters 

official provided the following examples of Every Day Counts initiatives 

that have achieved wide acceptance:

(2) the possibility of EISs being 

completed which had started before SAFETEA-LU was enacted or Every 

Day Counts began, or (3) the impact of the SAFETEA-LU provisions 

discussed above that were also meant to expedite highway projects.

• States have, since the introduction of Every Day Counts, generated 

56 new programmatic agreements, far more than the Every Day 

Counts goal of 15 programmatic agreements by December 2011.

• Nearly all states are using warm mix asphalt. Interest in the product 

increased after FHWA promoted it as an Every Day Counts initiative.

• Over 40 states are using prefabricated bridge elements. They report 

working on 663 bridges, far more than the Every Day Counts goal of 

designing or building 100 bridges by December 2012.

 

19One state, cited by FHWA as a case study at linking planning and environmental review, 

took 21 months getting from the summit meeting that introduced the new integrated 

planning system concept to the memorandum of understanding signed by 24 agencies 

that agreed to support the new system. Another state, cited by FHWA as a case study at 

implementing compensatory mitigation, spent 18 months developing its memorandum of 

agreement to implement the mitigation concept developed at a workshop.
 

Page 34 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Completing major highway projects involves a complex process that 

depends on a wide range of stakeholders conducting many tasks. The 

long time frames to complete highway projects are often caused by 

factors outside the control of state DOTs, such as a lack of available 

funds, changes in a state’s transportation priorities, or litigation. These 

factors can be project specific and may not be controllable by legislation, 

or by federal or state initiatives.

The SAFETEA-LU provisions meant to help expedite highway projects 

are generally viewed by state DOTs as having the potential to save time. 

However, given that state DOTs noted in our survey that there are other 

solutions outside of the SAFETEA-LU provisions that better serve their 

needs and are within their authority to implement, it is unlikely that state 

DOTs will greatly increase their participation in some of the SAFETEA-LU 

provisions we analyzed, particularly those that delegate environmental 

review decision-making authority from FHWA to state DOTs and require 

the state to accept federal court jurisdiction for such decisions. 

Regardless, keeping these provisions in law would continue to give state 

DOTs the ability to pursue these provisions should they later choose to do 

so.

FHWA’s Every Day Counts effort offers a structured approach to 

collecting and sharing information with state DOTs to help expedite 

highway projects. FHWA’s continued efforts to (1) track the progress of 

Every Day Counts using the performance measures it developed for each 

initiative and (2) use Every Day Counts as a way to keep introducing new 

initiatives for trial and adoption by state DOTs can help to ensure that 

promising practices are developed and shared among states. 

Additionally, use of the Every Day Counts effort could help U.S. DOT as it 

attempts to meet its performance measure to streamline environmental 

review.

We provided U.S. DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. 

U.S. DOT provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

Concluding 

Observations 

Agency Comments
 

Page 35 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

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

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees; the Secretary of Transportation; the 

Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov.

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

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III.

David J. Wise

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Our work for this report was focused on federal-aid highway projects and 

efforts to expedite those projects. In particular, this report addresses the 

following questions: (1) What is the process for planning, designing, and 

constructing federally funded highway projects, and what factors could 

affect project time frames? (2) What are state departments of 

transportation (DOT) views on the benefits and challenges of 

implementing initiatives to expedite highway projects established by the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU)? (3) What practices have state DOTs and the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) implemented to expedite 

highway projects? 

To describe the process for completing highway projects, as well as the 

factors that could affect project time frames, we reviewed and analyzed 

relevant legislation—particularly SAFETEA-LU—regulations, 

congressional hearing statements, and relevant reports and other 

publications. We also conducted a number of interviews in six states to 

collect information on practices involved in completing highway projects, 

as well as factors that could affect project time frames (see table 4). We 

chose these six states using several criteria, including participation in the 

environmental review delegation programs established under SAFETEALU (i.e., the Categorical Exclusion Approval Authority and the NEPA 

Approval Authority provisions), number of active and inactive 

environmental impact statements, amount of federal highway funding 

received in fiscal year 2011, and geographic location within the United 

States. The six states we chose to interview were Alaska, California, 

Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah. In each state, we 

interviewed the FHWA division office and the state DOT. To obtain more 

detailed information on processes to complete highway projects—but to 

minimize the burden on interviewees and in the interest of time—we 

interviewed regional offices of key resource agencies in two of the six 

states we selected: California and North Carolina.1

 

1

In general, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation—the federal resource agency 

responsible for historic preservation—delegates much of its authority under the National 

Historic Preservation Act to state historic preservation offices.

We chose these 

states based on geographic diversity, as well as previously conducted 

fieldwork. We selected six resource agencies to interview, as they were 

often cited in our preliminary review of reports, publications, and other 

documents, as well as in early interviews with state DOTs. The resource 

agencies we interviewed were: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and state historic 

preservation offices. There are potentially other federal—as well as state, 

local, and tribal—agencies that could have been interviewed, but we 

chose to limit our scope to these six federal agencies. These interviews 

are not generalizable to all states. Furthermore, for this report, we 

focused only on federal-aid highways and not other types of highways.

Table 4: Highway Project Stakeholders Interviewed

Agency

Headquarters 

office Alaska California Missouri

North 

Carolina Pennsylvania Utah

FHWA       

State DOT      

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation/State Historic Preservation 

Office

  

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers   

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency   

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service   

U.S. Forest Service   

National Marine Fisheries Service   

Source: GAO.

To identify state DOT perspectives on the benefits and challenges 

associated with implementing provisions meant to help expedite highway 

projects established in SAFETEA-LU, we (1) reviewed information 

obtained in the above mentioned interviews and (2) conducted a survey 

of state DOTs. To conduct this survey, we identified key provisions within 

SAFETEA-LU that we felt were meant to expedite highway projects based 

on our review of the legislation, analysis of relevant reports, and 

interviews with highway project stakeholders. We then developed a draft 

survey to gather state DOTs’ perspectives on the benefits and challenges 

associated with these SAFETEA-LU provisions. We selected five states in 

which to conduct pretests: California, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Utah, and 

Washington. In each pretest, we provided a state DOT official with a copy 

of our draft survey, asked them to complete it, and then contacted them 

after 1 hour to discuss the clarity of each question. Through this method, 

we were able to refine the questions and closed-ended responses in our 

survey. After the five pretests were completed, we provided a draft copy 

of the survey to FHWA and AASHTO for their review and comment. Both 

organizations provided technical comments that we incorporated, as 

appropriate. Using our professional judgment based on early interviews 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

with highway project stakeholders and our pretests, we determined that 

the survey should be sent to environmental officials at the state DOTs. 

However, because the survey considered other aspects of highway 

projects—for example planning, right-of-way acquisition, and 

construction—language was included in our transmittal e-mails and in the 

introduction of the survey to indicate that the state DOT official receiving 

our survey should consult with his or her colleagues when completing it. 

We felt that it would be far more cumbersome for respondents, and 

potentially less reliable, if we were to develop and transmit separate 

surveys for each highway project phase—that is, individual surveys that 

covered planning, preliminary design and environmental review, final 

design and right-of-way acquisition, and construction. Thus, one survey 

was developed and respondents were asked to share it and consult with 

colleagues when providing responses. We used lists of environmental 

officials at the state DOTs that were compiled by AASHTO and the 

Transportation Research Board to determine the relevant survey 

respondents. The full universe for this survey was 52 state DOTs: all 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We took steps, such as 

sending early notification e-mails, to help ensure that the list of 

respondents we created was accurate. We launched our survey on 

November 30, 2011. We sent e-mail reminders and telephoned survey 

respondents who had not completed the survey, urging them to do so as 

soon as possible. We eventually received responses from all 52 state 

DOTs. We reviewed these responses for inaccuracies or omissions, 

analyzed the data, and have presented the key findings in this report. The 

survey and its responses—with the exception of open-ended responses 

or other identifying information—is reproduced in our e-supplement for 

this report: see GAO-12-637SP. 

While all state DOTs were included in our survey and, therefore, our data 

are not subject to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting 

any survey may introduce nonsampling errors. For example, differences 

in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of information 

available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond to a 

question can introduce errors into the survey results. We included steps 

in both the data collection and data analysis stages to minimize such 

nonsampling errors. We collaborated with GAO survey specialists to 

design draft questionnaires and, as previously noted, versions of the 

questionnaire were pretested, revised, and sent to FHWA and AASHTO 

for review and comment. We examined the survey results and performed 

computer analyses to identify inconsistencies and other indications of 

error and addressed such issues, where possible. A second, independent 

analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses to minimize the 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

likelihood of errors in data processing. In addition, GAO analysts 

answered respondent questions and resolved difficulties that respondents 

had in answering our questions.

To describe the practices state DOTs have implemented on their own to 

help expedite highway projects, we included a series of questions in our 

survey of state DOTs asking respondents to identify practices they have 

implemented in each highway project phase: planning, preliminary design 

and environmental review, final design and right-of-way acquisition, and 

construction. State DOTs provided these responses in open-ended 

questions, which we analyzed. The practices we identified in this report 

were those that were cited most frequently by survey respondents. To 

collect additional information on efforts both state DOTs and FHWA have 

implemented to help expedite highway projects, we reviewed and 

analyzed information obtained during the interviews with FHWA (both 

headquarters and division offices), state DOTs, and resource agencies.
Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal Highway 

Administration’s Every Day Counts Effort

Page 40 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is sharing information on 

methods to expedite highway projects with state departments of 

transportation (DOT) through an effort called Every Day Counts. This 

effort’s goals are to shorten project time frames and accelerate 

technology and innovation by convincing states to adopt proven, rapidly 

deployable innovations. Under Every Day Counts, FHWA urged state 

DOTs to consider use of 15 specific initiatives. Every Day Counts 

promoted the following 10 initiatives to shorten project time frames:

• Linking planning and environmental review. This initiative promotes 

use of planning documents and decisions from the project planning 

process in the environmental review process. It takes environmental, 

community, and economic information collected early in the planning 

stage and carries it through project development, design, and 

construction. This can lead to decision making that minimizes 

duplication of effort, promotes environmental stewardship, and 

reduces delays in project implementation.

• Early consultation with FHWA environmental attorneys. Decisions 

made early in planning and project development are often the root 

causes of problems identified later in the environmental review 

process when National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 

Section 4(f) documents undergo legal scrutiny. Consulting with FHWA 

environmental attorneys at early decision points can help decision 

makers avoid problems later, saving time and costs.

• Expanded use of programmatic agreements. A programmatic 

agreement is a document that formally spells out the terms of an

agreement between a state DOT and other state and/or federal 

agencies. A programmatic agreement establishes a process for 

consultation, review, and compliance with one or more federal laws. 

According to FHWA, programmatic agreements have been effective in

producing time savings for completing highway projects.

• Compensatory mitigation. The federal Clean Water Act requires 

compensatory mitigation for projects that cause unavoidable impacts 

to streams, wetlands, and other waters of the United States. Mitigation 

for federally protected species may also be required through the 

Endangered Species Act. Some state laws and regulations also 

require compensatory mitigation. The permitting process under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act constitutes a major component of 

the project development and completion process. This initiative 

proposes expanded use of in-lieu fees and mitigation banking in order 

Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Every Day Counts 

Effort 
Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal Highway 

Administration’s Every Day Counts Effort

Page 41 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

to save time and expedite highway projects. See table 5 for information 

on these compensatory mitigation approaches. Some states have never 

used mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs, while others use them for 

the majority of their mitigation needs.

Table 5: Compensatory Mitigation Approaches Promoted by FHWA’s Every Day Counts

Mitigation bank In-lieu fee program

A mitigation bank is a large-scale mitigation site approved 

through the federal Clean Water Act and other state programs 

for resource protection. Each mitigation bank has a formal 

agreement between the bank sponsor and the Federal 

regulatory agencies. The agreement details the number of 

credits the bank can generate; the types of habitat the mitigation 

bank intends to create, restore, or enhance; and explains the 

long term management mechanism that will be utilized to ensure 

the site is protected in perpetuity. In mitigation banking, 

infrastructure developers buy credits from a bank sponsor before 

any impacts occur.

An in-lieu fee program conducts wetland, stream, or threatened or 

endangered species habitat restoration, creation, enhancement, or 

preservation. In-lieu fee programs may perform various 

environmental enhancement activities throughout a watershed 

rather than at one particular site. In-lieu fee programs establish a 

similar agreement to a mitigation bank agreement, but the sites are 

not always completely constructed prior to the environmental 

impacts taking place. Once enough money is received by the 

program, it implements the project in that watershed. Federal 

regulations require that in-lieu fee programs be administered by 

government entities or nonprofits. Users of the program pay a 

predetermined amount per mitigation credit to a program sponsor, 

who performs the actual mitigation.

Source: FHWA.

• Clarifying scope of preliminary design. Some consider preliminary 

design to involve only the activities needed to make a NEPA 

determination; they view everything else as final design activities. This 

cautious approach delays highway projects because it postpones 

essential planning until it is too late to be effective. States have the 

flexibility to pursue many design activities not required for a NEPA 

determination under preliminary design. When performed concurrently 

with the NEPA process, these activities can expedite projects without 

affecting eligibility for federal aid. For example, states can perform soil 

borings, preliminary traffic control plans, and grading plans.

• Allowable right-of-way acquisition streamlining. Before building a 

highway project, land and property must be acquired by federal, state, 

and local agencies through right-of-way practices and procedures. 

Instead of sequentially, these agencies may move elements of a 

project through the right-of-way process concurrently. This can 

significantly shorten the highway project development process. To 

save time, agencies can use these process flexibilities including
Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal Highway 

Administration’s Every Day Counts Effort

Page 42 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

• appraisal waiver valuations,

• incentive payments to advance acquisition and relocation, or

• appraisals and negotiations of property acquisition (up to $10,000) 

by the same individual.

• Effective coordination for utility relocation. Approximately half of all 

highway and bridge projects eligible for federal funding require the 

relocation or adjustments to accommodate utilities. Gas lines, water 

lines, waste plumbing, electrical wires, telephone lines, and other 

wiring are often affected by highway and bridge projects. Flexibilities 

in place under federal law and regulations foster effective utility 

coordination during project development by

• determining the best strategy for physically relocating utilities 

when needed,

• documenting the terms and considerations for accomplishing 

utility relocation activities, and

• financing the work in an effective and timely manner.

• FHWA technical assistance for stalled projects. This initiative focuses 

on new projects wherein problems are anticipated with conducting an 

effective project development process, or for “ongoing EISs” where 60 

months or more have elapsed since the publishing of the project’s 

notice of intent and no record of decision has been issued. FHWA 

technical assistance teams will resolve many issues that would 

otherwise hold up the NEPA review or otherwise delay a project’s 

progress. FHWA subject matter experts can help resolve resourcespecific issues concerning wetlands, endangered species, and 

cultural resources.

• Use of design-build contracts. Traditionally, a project is designed, put 

out for bid to construction firms, then built by the winning bidder 

(design-bid-build). As discussed above, design-build is an alternate 

contracting method in which the design and construction phases are 

combined into one contract, eliminating the separate bid phase and 

allowing certain aspects of design and construction to take place at 

the same time. This can provide significant time savings compared 

with the design-bid-build approach, where the design and construction 

phases must take place in sequence.
Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal Highway 

Administration’s Every Day Counts Effort

Page 43 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

• Use of construction manager/general contractor contracts. In a 

construction manager/general contractor project, typically, the owners 

of a project are able to hire a general contractor early in the design

phase so that the state may benefit from the contractor’s 

constructability input as the design develops. This contract type allows 

state DOTs to remain active in the design process while assigning 

risks to the parties most able to mitigate them. This can save time 

because a number of activities can be undertaken concurrently. 

FHWA allows this type of contract only on a trial basis because 

approval is necessary for any nontraditional construction contracting 

technique that deviates from the competitive bidding provisions in 

Section 112 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code.

FHWA promoted five tools to accelerate use of innovative technology, 

including three that can shorten the time needed to complete highway 

projects:1

• Warm mix asphalt paving. Warm mix asphalt is the generic term for 

technologies that allow asphalt to be produced and then placed on the 

road at lower temperatures than the conventional hot-mix method. In 

most cases, the lower temperatures result in significant cost savings 

and reduce greenhouse gas emissions because less fuel is required. 

Warm mix asphalt also has the potential to extend the construction 

season, allowing projects to be completed faster.

• Prefabricated bridge elements. Use of prefabricated bridge elements 

means that many time-consuming construction tasks no longer need 

to be done sequentially in work zones. An old bridge can be 

demolished while the new bridge elements are built at the same time 

off-site, then brought to the project location ready to erect. Because 

the bridge elements are usually fabricated under controlled climate 

conditions, weather has less impact on the quality, safety, and 

duration of the project. The use of prefabricated bridge elements also 

offers cost savings. The ability to rapidly install prefabricated bridge 

elements on-site can reduce the environmental impact of bridge 

construction in environmentally sensitive areas. See a photograph of 

prefabricated bridge elements being assembled in figure 3.

 

1

In addition to the innovations that expedite projects, Every Day Counts included two 

innovations that serve other purposes—a beveled-edge pavement that improves highway 

safety and adaptive signal control technology that reduces travel times and traffic delays.
Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal Highway 

Administration’s Every Day Counts Effort

Page 44 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Figure 3: Prefabricated Bridge Elements at Construction Site

• Integrated bridge support technology. Instead of conventional bridge 

support technology, an innovative bridge system technology uses 

alternating layers of compacted granular fill material and fabric 

reinforcement sheets to provide support for the bridge (see fig. 4). The 

technology, known as geosynthetic reinforced soil technology, offers 

advantages in the construction of small bridges, including the 

following:

• reduced construction time and cost,

• ease of construction with common equipment and materials,

• ease of maintenance, and

• flexible design that is easily modified in the field for unforeseen 

site conditions.
Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal Highway 

Administration’s Every Day Counts Effort

Page 45 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

Figure 4: Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Technology at a Bridge Construction Site

• Safety Edge. The Safety Edge, while not an initiative designed to save 

time in completing a highway project, is a simple but effective solution 

that can help save lives by allowing drivers who stray off highways to 

return to the road safely. Instead of a vertical drop-off, the Safety 

Edge shapes the edge of the pavement to 30 degrees—the optimal 

angle to allow drivers to reenter the roadway safely. FHWA’s goal is to 

accelerate the use of the Safety Edge technology, working with states 

to develop specifications and adopt this pavement edge treatment as 

a standard practice on all new and resurfacing pavement projects.

• Adaptive signal control technology. Poor traffic signal timing 

contributes to traffic congestion and delay. Conventional signal 

systems use preprogrammed, daily signal timing schedules. Adaptive 

signal control technology adjusts the timing of red, yellow and green 

lights to accommodate changing traffic patterns and ease traffic 

congestion. Though not designed to save time in completing a 

highway project, the main benefits of adaptive signal control 

technology over conventional signal systems are that it can
Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal Highway 

Administration’s Every Day Counts Effort

Page 46 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

• continuously distribute green light time equitably for all traffic 

movements,

• improve travel time reliability by progressively moving vehicles 

through green lights,

• reduce congestion by creating smoother flow, and

• prolong the effectiveness of traffic signal timing.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 47 GAO-12-593 Highway Projects

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834, or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Sara Vermillion (Assistant 

Director); Richard Bulman; Russell Burnett; Richard Calhoon; Steven 

Elstein; Lorraine Ettaro; Kathleen Gilhooly; Phillip Herr; Richard Johnson; 

Hannah Laufe; Faye Morrison; Joshua Ormond; Daniel Paepke; and Amy 

Rosewarne made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(546055)
The Government Accountability 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.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.