a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

September 2005 HIGHWAY 

CONGESTION

Intelligent 

Transportation 

Systems’ Promise for 

Managing Congestion 

Falls Short, and DOT 

Could Better Facilitate 

Their Strategic Use

GAO-05-943
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact JayEtta Z. 

Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or 

heckerj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-943, a report to 

congressional committees 

September 2005

HIGHWAY CONGESTION 

Intelligent Transportation Systems’ 

Promise for Managing Congestion Falls 

Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate 

Their Strategic Use 

The federal role in ITS deployment includes goal setting, funding, and 

facilitating states’ investment in ITS. In 1991, Congress set broad goals and 

established funding for ITS, and in 1998, Congress established a program to 

support ITS deployment. In a 1996 speech, the Secretary of Transportation 

established a vision for ITS deployment to save time and lives and improve 

quality of life. As part of this vision, the Secretary also established a goal 

that the 75 largest metropolitan areas deploy a complete ITS infrastructure 

by 2005 and measures to track progress toward this goal. DOT has taken 

several actions to support this goal, though it does not plan to update it. 

Progress has been made toward achieving DOT’s deployment goal, but 

DOT’s goal and measures have limitations and fall short of capturing ITS’s 

impact on congestion. Among other things, the measures do not capture the 

extent to which deployed ITS technologies are effectively operated, and we 

found that some metropolitan areas’ operations of ITS technologies are 

limited. For example, Chicago developed 10 traffic management centers to 

monitor and respond to traffic congestion by notifying emergency 

responders of traffic accidents, among other things; however, 6 centers do 

not have full-time operators, which is likely to limit their impact on 

congestion mitigation. 

Many of the ITS studies we reviewed suggest that ITS deployment can have 

benefits such as relieving congestion, traffic throughput, safety, and air 

quality. Results from some studies suggest that ITS benefits depend on 

effectively operating ITS technologies to meet local conditions. However, 

few studies provided information about cost effectiveness of the ITS 

deployments, which is essential for maximizing public investments. 

According to transportation officials GAO spoke with, barriers to ITS 

deployment and use include the limited public awareness of the impact of 

ITS, difficulty of funding ITS operations, limited technical expertise, and lack

of technical standards. DOT actions have had limited success in overcoming 

these barriers. 

A Chicago Metropolitan Area’s Traffic Management Center That Lacks Staff Dedicated 

throughout the Day 

Source: GAO.

Congestion is a serious and 

growing transportation problem for 

the nation. Many strategies—like 

adding new lanes—have the 

potential to alleviate congestion 

but can be costly and have limited 

application. Another strategy is the 

use of communications, 

electronics, and computer 

technologies—intelligent 

transportation systems (ITS)—to 

more effectively utilize existing 

transportation infrastructure by 

improving traffic flow. Congress 

established an ITS program in 1991, 

and the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) subsequently

set an ITS deployment goal. 

In this report GAO (1) describes 

the federal role in deployment; (2) 

assesses DOT’s ITS goal and 

measurement efforts; (3) identifies 

what ITS studies have found 

regarding the impacts of ITS 

deployment; and (4) identifies the 

barriers to ITS deployment and use. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of Transportation 

improve the measurement of ITS 

deployment and address some 

barriers to ITS deployment to help 

state and local governments select 

projects that cost effectively meet 

transportation goals. GAO 

provided a draft of this report to 

the Department of Transportation 

for its review and comment. The 

department generally agreed with 

the information in the report and 

agreed to consider the 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 8

The Federal Role in ITS Deployment Includes Goal Setting, Funding, 

and Activities to Support States’ Deployment of ITS 12

Although Progress Has Occurred, DOT’s ITS Goal and Measures 

Have Limitations and Fall Short of Capturing Impact on 

Congestion 18

Studies Have Found Positive Impacts of ITS Deployment Depend on 

Effective Operations, but Few Have Included Cost-Effectiveness 

Analyses 27

Several Barriers Limit the Widespread Deployment of ITS 30

Conclusions 37

Recommendations for Executive Action 38

Agency Comments 38

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 40

Organizations Contacted 44

Appendix II: Summary of DOT’s Deployment Tracking Methodology 46

Appendix III: Metropolitan Area Case Studies 49

Chicago, Illinois 49

San Francisco, California 53

Las Vegas, Nevada 58

Indianapolis, Indiana 60

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64

Tables Table 1: Examples of Deployment Impacts from Our Review of ITS 

Studies 28

Table 2: DOT’s Deployment Component Indicators and Threshold 

Values 47

Table 3: DOT’s Integrated Deployment Classification Scheme 48

Figures Figure 1: Select ITS Technologies Used to Manage Congestion 9

Figure 2: Examples of ITS Technologies That Can Be Deployed and 

Integrated in Metropolitan Areas 11

Figure 3: ITS Deployment Ratings for 75 Metropolitan Areas, 1997 

to 2004 21
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Figure 4: A Chicago Metropolitan Area’s Traffic Management 

Center That Lacks Staff Dedicated to Monitoring Traffic 

throughout the Day 53

Figure 5: Artist’s Depiction of Real-Time Travel Information in San 

Francisco 58

Figure 6: Indiana Hoosier Helper Van 63

Abbreviations

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 

program 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

ITS intelligent transportation systems 

JPO Joint Program Office

NHS National Highway System program 

NTOC National Transportation Operations Coalition

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SDO standards development organization

STP Surface Transportation Program 

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

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

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

permission from GAO. 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-05-943 Highway Congestion

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 14, 2005 Letr

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Chairman

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Christopher S. “Kit” Bond

Chairman

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert

Chairman

The Honorable Bart Gordon

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Science 

House of Representatives 

Increasing passenger and freight travel has led to growing congestion in the 

nation’s transportation system, which has posed a burden on the nation’s 

quality of life through wasted energy, time, and money; increased pollution; 

and threats to safety. According to transportation researchers, even with 

slow growth in jobs and travel in 2003, the cost of congestion to the nation’s 

economy in terms of extra fuel used and time spent in congestion was $63 

billion.1

 Moreover, passenger and freight traffic are expected to grow 

substantially in the future, increasing the challenge of preventing 

congestion from overwhelming the transportation system. For example, by 

2010, the Department of Transportation (DOT) forecasts that travel on 

roads will have increased by about 25 percent from 2000, while freight 

traffic will have increased by 43 percent from 1998. One tool available to 

help reduce congestion is the use of intelligent transportation systems 

(ITS), such as electronic technologies designed to monitor or control 

traffic flow, in order to improve transportation system operations, 

management, and performance.2

1

David Schrank and Tim Loma, Texas Transportation Institute, 2005 Urban Mobility Report

(College Station Texas, 2005).

2

ITS technologies are also used for a number of other purposes, including improving safety. 

However, safety impacts are not in the scope of this review.
Page 2 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

We have previously reported that there are a range of strategies to mitigate 

the effect of increasing congestion, including building capacity through 

construction, corrective and preventative maintenance, rehabilitation, 

managing system use through pricing or other techniques, and operations 

and system management, including the use of ITS.3

 We have also reported 

that using the full range of these strategies offers the promise of being more 

effective than placing emphasis on any one technique. For example, 

building new infrastructure can ease congestion, but it is not always a 

viable solution due to constraints such as the cost of construction or 

limited availability of land. Moreover, improving system operations, 

management, and performance through the strategic use of ITS 

technologies has the potential to reduce congestion without major capital 

investments. ITS technologies range in complexity from ramp meters, 

which are small traffic light-like devices that control the traffic flow on 

ramps leading to freeways or tollways, to fully integrated systems in which 

several technologies work together to process information and respond to 

traffic conditions. For example, a traffic-sensing device could collect data 

on traffic flow by monitoring traffic volume and speed, which could be 

used to alter the timing of freeway ramp meters and arterial road traffic 

signals to improve traffic flow as well as to alert travelers to specific traffic 

conditions using variable message boards or other devices.

Over the past 14 years, the federal government has provided billions of 

dollars for investment in surface transportation projects through the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and its 

successors, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).4

 Recognizing the potential of ITS as a 

tool to improve mobility, among other benefits, Congress established a 

federal ITS research program and some dedicated ITS funding in ISTEA 

and continued this program and funding in TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU. 

Dedicated funding for integrating ITS deployments from TEA-21 has 

3

GAO, Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing 

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

4

State and local governments provide an even greater share of the funding for surface 

transportation investments than the federal government. For example, in fiscal year 1999, 

state and local governments contributed 61 percent of the total public sector spending for 

public roads.
Page 3 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

averaged about $113 million a year.5 Although it continued to fund the ITS 

research program, SAFETEA-LU did not directly reauthorize the ITS 

integration deployment program. It did create a new program, known as 

the intelligent transportation infrastructure program, that will help states 

monitor real time traffic and travel conditions on major U.S. highways. In 

addition to dedicated ITS funding, state and local governments may choose 

to spend some of the billions of dollars of federal funds provided through 

other surface transportation programs on ITS technologies. Among many 

activities DOT has undertaken in support of the ITS program, in 1996, it 

established a goal that 75 of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas would 

have a complete intelligent transportation infrastructure by 2005.

SAFETEA-LU authorized billions of dollars more in federal funding for 

surface transportation projects through fiscal year 2009. As we have 

reported, for these funds to have the greatest effect on the congestion of 

the existing transportation system, transportation planners and decision 

makers need to select the appropriate mix of tools and resulting projects to 

efficiently use available funds. Making appropriate and cost-effective 

investment choices will become even more critical if, as we and other 

analysts have been reporting, the nation faces a sustained period of deficits 

and fiscal imbalance, resulting from the growing mandatory commitments 

for programs including Social Security and Medicare as well as a large 

investment in homeland security. Given these fiscal challenges, careful 

decisions will need to be made to ensure that transportation investments 

maximize the benefits of federal highway funds and achieve projected 

performance outcomes. However, as we have noted previously, there are 

currently no mechanisms in the federal-aid highway program that link 

federal funding to project performance.6

In order to assess the extent to which ITS is being effectively used as a tool 

to reduce congestion, this report has the following objectives:7

 (1) describe 

the federal role in ITS deployment; (2) assess progress toward DOT’s ITS 

deployment goal and DOT’s measures for assessing the status of ITS; (3) 

5

SAFETEA-LU authorized funding for the 2005 ITS integration deployment program. 

6

GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options for Future 

Program Design, GAO-04-802 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 31, 2004).

7

Although the federal ITS program has also included a research component and ITS 

technologies are used for a number of purposes, in this report we are focusing on the federal 

role in the deployment and use of ITS technologies to mitigate congestion rather than on the 

research and development of such technologies. 
Page 4 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

identify what ITS studies have found regarding the impacts of ITS 

deployment; and (4) identify barriers to ITS deployment and use. 

To describe the federal role in ITS deployment for mitigating congestion, 

we reviewed legislation, the Secretary of Transportation’s 1996 speech for 

the Transportation Research Board’s annual conference, as well as 

documents from DOT, including performance plans and other relevant 

materials. To assess progress toward DOT’s ITS deployment goal and DOT’s 

measures, we reviewed DOT’s status reports on ITS deployment and 

interviewed DOT ITS officials who track deployment of ITS technologies in 

over 75 metropolitan areas. We also selected four congested areas to study 

in depth by sorting the 75 largest U.S. metropolitan areas according to both 

congestion level and DOT’s integrated deployment rating and selecting two 

areas that DOT has determined have deployed ITS to a great extent and two 

areas that DOT has determined have deployed ITS to a lesser extent. 

During our visits to these four areas—Chicago, San Francisco, 

Indianapolis, and Las Vegas—we interviewed federal, state, and local 

transportation officials about their experiences with ITS and the ITS 

technologies deployed in each area. To identify the impacts of ITS 

deployment on congestion, we reviewed 38 studies issued since 2000 that 

we obtained from our site visits and DOT’s ITS benefits database, a 

repository of academic and government papers evaluating the deployment 

of ITS technologies in U.S. and international locations, including any costeffectiveness information encompassed in the studies. A DOT contractor 

reviewed the studies for methodological soundness before including them 

in DOT’s benefits database. We also reviewed the DOT benefit database 

studies we selected to ensure these studies were based on sound 

methodologies and determined these studies were sufficiently reliable for 

describing actual and potential impacts of ITS technologies. We selected 

only studies on U.S. deployments, since our review is focused on ITS 

deployment in the United States and the federal ITS program. In addition, 

we did not assess the potential benefits of any one technology, such as 

open road electronic tolling, on the nation’s transportation system. To 

determine barriers to ITS deployment in congested metropolitan areas, we 

discussed barriers to deploying and maintaining ITS technologies with the 

federal, state, and local transportation officials we visited at our four case 

study locations. Although ITS technologies can be used for many purposes, 

including improving highway safety, we focused this analysis on the role of 

ITS for mitigating congestion. We conducted our work from October 2004 

through August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. (See app. 1 for more information about our scope and 

methodology.)
Page 5 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Results in Brief The federal role in ITS deployment includes setting goals, providing 

funding, and performing other activities to facilitate states’ and localities’ 

investment in ITS. Congress set broad goals and established funding for ITS 

through ISTEA in 1991. In 1998, TEA-21 established the ITS integration 

program with the goal of improving ITS deployment through supporting the 

integration of ITS systems across and within metropolitan and rural areas. 

TEA-21 authorized about $113 million annually for the integration program 

since 1998, and each year since, Congress has designated these funds to 

specific states or projects. In addition, other federal-aid highway funds are 

available for states to use for ITS technologies. In a 1996 speech, the 

Secretary of Transportation, Federico Peña, DOT established a vision for 

ITS deployment to create an intelligent transportation infrastructure across 

the United States that would save time and lives and improve the quality of 

life for Americans. In this speech, Secretary Peña articulated an ITS 

deployment goal—to achieve a complete ITS infrastructure in the country’s 

75 largest metropolitan areas within 10 years—by the end of fiscal year 

2005 according to DOT officials. The Secretary also emphasized the 

importance of strategic investment in ITS technologies; projected impacts 

of increasing infrastructure capacity and reducing Americans’ travel time 

by at least 15 percent; and emphasized the cost effectiveness of ITS. The 

Secretary’s goal was incorporated into subsequent DOT performance plans 

with interim measures under its mobility and economic growth goal. DOT 

does not plan to update the deployment goal once it expires at the end of 

2005. DOT has undertaken several roles to facilitate states’ ITS deployment, 

such as showcasing ITS benefits through a benefits database available on 

its Web site. DOT also developed measures to track progress toward the 

ITS deployment goal. DOT biennially surveys the 75 metropolitan areas’ 

transportation-related agencies and rates the areas’ deployment levels 

according to its measures. 

Progress has been made toward achieving DOT’s deployment goal, but 

DOT’s goal and measures have limitations and fall short of capturing ITS’s 

impact on congestion. According to DOT, 62 of the 75 metropolitan areas 

had met its goal of deploying integrated ITS infrastructure in 2004. DOT 

defined the Secretary’s goal of complete intelligent transportation 

infrastructure to include two elements—deployment, meaning the extent 

that certain technologies are installed over certain areas such as freeways, 

and integration, meaning the extent of coordination between different 

agencies that deploy ITS technologies. However, although the Secretary’s 

goal calls for a “complete” ITS infrastructure, according to DOT’s criteria, 

metropolitan areas with relatively low thresholds of ITS infrastructure—
Page 6 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

such as 20 percent of freeway miles and 33 percent of signalized 

intersections covered by certain ITS technologies—may meet the goal. 

DOT officials stated they established these relatively low thresholds 

because they did not have a way to determine the extent to which ITS 

should be deployed in each metropolitan area, and they also stated that 

complete deployment is a very long-term goal that perhaps will never be 

reached. In addition, although DOT’s goal and measures give a sense of 

progress of ITS deployment, they fail to capture a number of important 

dimensions of evaluating the status of ITS that the Secretary alluded to in 

his 1996 speech: they do not take into account the level of ITS needed to 

accomplish local goals and priorities; they do not capture the extent to 

which deployed ITS technologies are being effectively operated; and they 

do not evaluate the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS. The lack of 

evaluation of outcomes, including impact or cost effectiveness, also has 

been identified as a limitation of other highway programs. The status of ITS 

in the four metropolitan areas we visited illustrate the shortfalls of DOT’s 

ITS deployment goal and measures. Although San Francisco and Chicago, 

both of which DOT counted toward meeting the deployment goal, have 

made considerable strides in implementing ITS, they face limitations 

related to operating their ITS technologies. For example, Chicago 

developed 10 traffic management centers, which monitor traffic conditions 

and can respond to traffic incidents by dispatching emergency vehicles to 

quickly clear highway accidents, thus reducing traffic delays. However 7 of 

the 10 centers do not have full-time operators, which limits the centers’ 

potential congestion mitigation benefits. Similarly, although neither 

Indianapolis nor Las Vegas were rated by DOT as contributing toward 

meeting the deployment goal, transportation officials in these metropolitan 

areas stated they had deployed the amount of ITS needed to meet their 

local needs. For example, Las Vegas was rated as not meeting the goal 

because the area had not yet deployed ITS technologies on freeways—a 

key measure in DOT’s rating of ITS deployment. However, Las Vegas 

officials said they had focused on deploying ITS on arterial roadways 

because they experienced more congestion on the arterials than on the 

freeways. 

While studies show that ITS technologies can provide benefits including 

reducing congestion and increasing safety, the studies also indicate that the 

existence and level of most benefits depends on the extent to which ITS 

technologies are effectively operated to coordinate with local traffic 

conditions. In addition, most studies do not include an analysis of cost 

effectiveness. Although congestion is a serious problem, ITS is one tool 

that has the potential to reduce the delay due to congestion. The Texas 
Page 7 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Transportation Institute, a leading transportation research institution, 

estimated that in 2003, congestion caused 3.7 billion hours of travel delay, 

while operations improvements, including ITS, reduced the hours of delay 

by 336 million hours in 85 urban areas. In addition to congestion benefits, 

ITS deployment can improve traffic throughput (number of vehicles 

accommodated on highways), safety, air quality, and traveler behavior. 

However, studies also suggest that the effectiveness of ITS technologies 

depends on local conditions and how state and local agencies implement 

and operate the ITS technology. For example, one study suggested that 

ramp metering in Detroit would be most effective during major events or 

traffic incidents when freeway congestion was higher, because during 

average conditions, the improvement of traffic flow on the freeway due to 

ramp metering did not outweigh the delays on entrance ramps and arterials 

leading to the freeway. In addition, 33 of the 38 studies we reviewed did not 

include a review of cost effectiveness. Cost information in relation to 

benefits is necessary to help states and localities choose the best tool for 

addressing their congestion problem while maximizing the return on their 

transportation investments. This is especially important because ITS 

applications may have different cost structures and life cycles as compared 

to other types of highway investments—for example, relatively low initial 

deployment costs but ongoing operational costs—that need to be 

understood in order to strategically evaluate ITS as a tool. 

State and local agencies responsible for deploying ITS technologies have 

faced several barriers to deploying ITS. One barrier to deployment is that 

state and local transportation officials often view other transportation 

investment options, such as adding a new lane to a highway, more 

favorably than ITS when deciding how to spend their limited transportation 

funds. DOT has worked to make ITS projects a more appealing option by 

emphasizing the benefits of ITS technologies through its benefits database 

on its Web site and field office support to local transportation officials. 

However, in prior work, we found that information on benefits does not 

have a decisive impact on the final investment choices made by state and 

local officials.8

 Another barrier to ITS deployment cited by state and local 

transportation officials is a lack of funding for ITS installations and 

operations. We also found that officials in four areas we visited were not 

aware that federal funds could be used for operational costs. DOT officials 

said they have attempted to inform state transportation agencies that 

8

GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions, GAO-04-744

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004).
Page 8 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

operational costs are eligible for federal assistance, but confusion on this 

issue remains. State transportation officials also told us that a lack of 

technical expertise has hindered ITS deployment. Finally, state 

transportation officials said that a lack of technical standards for ITS 

technologies makes it difficult to ensure that systems purchased by 

different localities can be integrated. DOT has taken steps to support the 

issuance of technical standards by standards organizations, but they have 

had difficulty keeping up with the pace of technological advances. 

According to transportation officials we spoke with, these barriers have 

reduced the amount of ITS deployed, and therefore have likely limited the 

impact of ITS on mitigating congestion on our nation’s roads.

Generally, the promise of ITS as an integrated tool for managing congestion 

has not yet been met. Although we recognize that DOT can not always 

influence ITS investments, limitations of DOT’s efforts in goal setting, 

measuring, and other activities such as evaluating outcomes have reduced 

DOT’s ability to facilitate state and local governments’ strategic investment 

in ITS. We are making a recommendation to improve DOT’s ITS 

deployment measures. We also are making recommendations to improve 

DOT’s efforts to address some barriers to ITS deployment to help state and 

local governments invest strategically in ITS. We provided a draft of this 

report to the Department of Transportation for its review and comment. 

DOT officials generally concurred with the report and agreed to consider 

the recommendations. 

Background ITS technologies use communications, electronics, sensors, and computer 

hardware and software to improve the performance or safety of freeway 

and transit systems that are designed to improve traffic flow. Traffic 

congestion results from many sources such as recurring high levels of daily 

traffic as well as nonrecurring events such as traffic incidents, special 

events and bad weather that can limit the usable physical capacity of 

existing roadways. Therefore strategies, such as ITS, that are designed to 

improve the operations or efficiency of existing roadways may improve 

traffic flow and reduce congestion. 

The ITS technologies that local transportation agencies deploy to manage 

traffic in congested areas typically are ones that have gone through 

research and development and are readily available. Some technologies, 

like pavement loop detectors (devices that indicate the presence or 

passage of vehicles), have been around for at least 40 years, while others, 

like adaptive traffic control systems (traffic light systems that are timed 
Page 9 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

according to current traffic conditions) are just beginning to be deployed. 

Figure 1 depicts some examples of ITS technologies that are used to 

address congestion. 

Figure 1: Select ITS Technologies Used to Manage Congestion

In highly congested metropolitan areas, ITS infrastructure tends to be more 

complex because it typically consists of a set of systems deployed by 

multiple agencies. For example, the state transportation department, city 

traffic department, transit agency, and toll authority may each deploy 

different ITS technologies that address their transportation needs. 

Transportation agencies may integrate their ITS technologies by 

coordinating ITS information sharing and other operations. For example, a 

city transportation department that deploys loop detectors designed to 

measure the number and speed of vehicles passing through an intersection 

Key ITS applications to

address congestion

ITS

technologies

Monitoring traffic

conditions

Closed-circuit television (CCTV)

Sensors such as loop detectors

Automatic vehicle identification

Video image processing

Metering traffic onto

freeways

Ramp meters

Optimizing the timing

of traffic signals

Signalized intersections under computerized control

Adaptive traffic signal systems that adjust timing to

respond to real-time traffic conditions

Implementing electronic

money transactions on

toll roads

Hardware or software that can communicate with

in-vehicle “tags” to process transactions

Faster and anticipatory

responses to traffic

incidents

Automatic incident detection (AID)

Automatic crash notification from vehicle

On-call publicly sponsored service patrols or towing

services

Providing travelers with

information on travel

conditions as well as

alternative routes

and modes

Dynamic message signs (DMS)

Highway advisory radio (HAR)

511 Traveler information phone number

Kiosks

Web-based Internet sites

Pagers

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA information.

N

C

E

ONGESTION XT 20 MILES

THRU PASS
Page 10 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

may use technology to provide the traffic volume data collected by the loop 

detector to the state highway agency, in order that a different ITS 

technology can create travel time reports for variable message signs. 

Integration like this can facilitate the flow of information between a 

number of technologies and involved institutions and improve the overall 

traffic flow throughout a system. ITS can be further refined—and made 

more “intelligent”—by the deployment of technologies that adjust 

automatically to current traffic conditions, such as adaptive traffic control 

systems. Figure 2 illustrates some of the ITS technologies that can be 

deployed and integrated to improve transportation system management.
Page 11 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Figure 2: Examples of ITS Technologies That Can Be Deployed and Integrated in Metropolitan Areas

Source: GAO.

N

C

E

ONGESTION XT 20 MILES

B

THRU PASS

Real time transit information

Traffic data analysis

Adaptive signal timing

Automated vehicle location

Loop detector

Dynamic message signs Open road tolling

Ramp meters

Video surveillance and monitoring
Page 12 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Funding for transportation projects, including ITS, comes from a variety of 

sources, including federal, state, and local governments; special taxing 

authorities and assessment districts; and user fees and tolls. Federal 

transportation funds primarily come from the federal Highway Trust 

Fund—the mechanism to account for federal highway user tax receipts. 

These funds are distributed to states through formulas that determine the 

amount of money given to each state. 

As we reported earlier, although DOT has established goals and 

performance measures for the federal-aid highway program to enhance 

mobility and economic growth, the program’s current structure does not 

link funding with performance or the accomplishment of these goals.9

 In 

addition, because the federal-aid highway program is primarily funded 

under a formula program, projects are not subject to an evaluation process 

at the federal level, and there are no federal requirements for performance 

evaluation of highway investments—although the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) does ensure that federal highway funding is being 

spent on an eligible roadway for eligible purposes. State and local 

transportation officials have the flexibility to select projects on the basis of 

their communities’ priorities and needs.10 ITS technologies, which can be 

developed as projects in their own right or as one component of a larger 

project (for example, a project to replace the surface of a roadway could 

include the installation of loop detectors), are among the many types of 

projects transportation officials may consider during the project selection 

process. 

The Federal Role in ITS 

Deployment Includes 

Goal Setting, Funding, 

and Activities to 

Support States’ 

Deployment of ITS

Congress set broad goals for ITS through ISTEA and TEA-21 and 

established funding for ITS deployment in TEA-21. In 1996, DOT 

established a goal for ITS deployment that was incorporated into DOT’s 

performance plans. DOT also has taken on several roles and activities 

related to facilitating ITS deployment.

9

GAO-04-802.

10GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on 

Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005).
Page 13 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Congress Set Broad Goals 

and Established Funding for 

ITS Deployment through 

Recent Legislation

The federal ITS program was established by ISTEA, when Congress 

authorized the program to support the development and field testing of ITS 

systems. During ISTEA, Congress provided the ITS program with about 

$1.3 billion for research and testing of ITS technologies such as adaptive 

traffic signal control and advanced vehicle control systems. This funding 

included $645 million for ITS under ISTEA and $624 million provided 

through the appropriations process. While ISTEA did not establish a 

deployment program per se, the field test program consisted of testing and 

evaluating the application of ITS technologies in real world conditions. 

In 1998, TEA-21 authorized a total of about $1.3 billion for ITS. It provided 

about $679 million—an average of about $113 million annually—for a 

newly established ITS integration program with the broad goal of 

improving ITS deployment through supporting and accelerating the 

integration of ITS systems across and within metropolitan and rural areas, 

and about $603 million primarily for ITS research.11 TEA-21 also directed 

DOT to fund projects that demonstrated or considered a number of 

elements, including cooperation among agencies and ensuring long-term 

operations and maintenance, among other things. In practice, however, the 

appropriations and authorizing committees together have fully designated 

the amount of funding for the ITS integration program through legislative 

earmarks. For example, in fiscal year 2001, Congress designated about $128 

million to 92 projects in 41 states and the District of Columbia. DOT 

reviews the projects to ensure that the projects being funded meet 

guidelines DOT established based on legislative direction, but has not had a 

role in directing the funding to specific projects.12

In addition to the congressionally designated funds, Congress has made 

federal funding available to state and local governments for ITS 

technologies through other federal transportation programs within the 

federal-aid highway program. For example, ITS projects are funded 

through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program 

(CMAQ), which provides funding for projects that contribute to air quality 

improvements and congestion mitigation in areas with poor air quality; the 

11These projects, like most federal-aid highway projects, would require some matching of 

federal funds. The federal share of the cost of a project from integration program funds 

cannot exceed 50 percent, with the total federal share from all sources of funding not to 

exceed 80 percent. 

12GAO-04-744.
Page 14 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

National Highway System program (NHS), which provides funding for 

improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS, including 

the Interstate System; and the Surface Transportation Program (STP), 

which provides funding for projects on any federal-aid highway. In general, 

FHWA distributes highway program funds to state transportation 

departments through formulas; and the states, in turn, allocate the funds to 

urban and rural areas primarily on the basis of local priorities and needs. 

Consistent with requirements protecting state and local agencies’ ability to 

select projects, the federal government does not control the allocation of 

these formula funds to projects. To determine which projects they will 

fund, state and local governments go through a planning process that 

involves the participation of many stakeholders and entails evaluating 

goals, finances, and other factors. DOT estimates that states and localities 

annually invest between $500 million to $1 billion in ITS projects, but DOT 

does not track the actual amounts invested in ITS. According to DOT and 

local transportation officials, tracking would be difficult because often ITS 

is funded as one element of a larger project, such as building a road, and 

the funds that go toward the ITS application are not separated from the 

funds for the overall project.

DOT Established a Goal for 

ITS Deployment in 1996 and 

Incorporated It into DOT’s 

Performance Plans

In a 1996 speech, 2 years before TEA-21 established the ITS integration 

program, the Secretary of Transportation, Federico Peña, established a 

broad vision for ITS deployment to create an intelligent transportation 

infrastructure across the United States that would save time and lives and 

improve the quality of life for Americans. In articulating this vision, 

Secretary Peña compared the potential for ITS to past accomplishments 

including building the interstate system and landing a man on the moon. He 

also compared it to the development of the Internet, saying that the next 

frontier for surface transportation would be in the information age, and 

that if Americans could surf on the information superhighways, they should 

be able to drive on high-tech highways. As part of this speech, the Secretary 

articulated an ITS deployment goal—to achieve a complete ITS 

infrastructure in the country’s 75 largest metropolitan areas within 10 

years—by the end of fiscal year 2005 according to DOT officials.13 The 

13The Secretary of Transportation also included a commitment to upgrading technologies in 

450 other communities and on rural roads and interstates. We did not focus on this area of 

the goal as DOT included the goal for the 75 metropolitan areas in its performance plan and 

has put greater effort into tracking and reporting progress toward this goal and because ITS 

for rural areas are less likely to be focused on congestion mitigation.
Page 15 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Secretary emphasized that achieving this goal would require partnerships 

between federal, state, and local officials and the private sector. 

The Secretary also projected several results or impacts of this goal: 

reduced congestion-related costs and commuting times and increased 

safety through reduced response time for emergency vehicles responding 

to traffic accidents, and he declared that DOT would measure progress 

toward this goal and report on it annually. He also included an outcomeoriented measure for the goal, declaring that the initiative would reduce the 

travel time of Americans by at least 15 percent, whether they traveled by 

car, bus, train, or subway—an amount that he declared was the equivalent 

to an extra week of vacation every year for Americans who commute one 

hour a day. 

In addition, the Secretary emphasized the importance of integration so that 

the different technologies could be used together. He described nine 

components that should make up ITS in the 75 metropolitan areas, 

including such systems as traffic control systems and freeway management 

systems.14 He stated that the federal role in making this goal a reality 

included developing a national architecture and standards for ITS 

technologies to ensure that local ITS investments would be interoperable, 

investing in model deployment sites to serve as examples for the rest of the 

country, and investing in training to expand technical expertise for 

deploying ITS technologies. He emphasized strategic investment to pay for 

this infrastructure, alluded to the fact that federal-aid funds could be used 

to fund it, and emphasized the cost effectiveness of ITS, saying that 

building the needed highway capacity for 50 cities in the next 10 years 

would cost $150 billion, while implementing an intelligent transportation 

infrastructure for these 50 cities would cost $10 billion and gain two-thirds 

of the capacity needed. 

The metropolitan deployment goal established by the Secretary in this 

speech was incorporated into subsequent DOT performance plans as a 

measure under the broader goal of mobility. In addition, in DOT’s 2004 

Performance Plan, ITS was included as a strategy to achieve another 

performance measure under the goal of mobility—to limit annual growth of 

14The other seven mentioned in the speech were transit management systems; incident 

management programs; electronic toll collection for roads and bridges; electronic fare 

payment systems for such things as the bus, train, and toll lanes; railroad-grade crossings; 

emergency response providers; and traveler information systems.
Page 16 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

urban area travel time under congested conditions to 0.2 percent below the 

otherwise expected increases in congestion. 

DOT officials indicated that they do not plan on updating the ITS 

deployment goal once it expires at the end of 2005. They noted that 

SAFETEA-LU provides for or implies several other challenging goals for 

the ITS program, such as reducing metropolitan congestion by not less than 

5 percent by 2010. DOT officials are reviewing the statute and considering 

how to implement these new provisions.

DOT Has Established 

Several Roles to Facilitate 

ITS Deployment

DOT has established several roles to facilitate ITS deployment in line with 

the federal roles laid out in the Secretary’s 1996 speech. Although DOT 

originally included creating funding incentives for ITS as one of its roles, it 

has since dropped that role because Congress, through the authorization 

and appropriations process, has fully designated the locations and amounts 

of funding from the ITS integration program during TEA-21. Other roles 

DOT has maintained include demonstrating ITS deployment, showcasing 

deployment benefits, facilitating the development of technical standards, 

and building technical expertise.15

To demonstrate deployment, DOT established model deployment sites to 

provide real-world examples of ITS technology’s potential application to 

other metropolitan areas across the country. In 1996, DOT chose the 

Phoenix, San Antonio, Seattle, and New York/New Jersey/Connecticut 

areas to lead a new program to demonstrate the value of ITS technology in 

improving transportation. This program called for public and private sector 

partners to develop and integrate ITS technology to reduce travel times, 

improve safety, and provide enhanced travel information to the public. To 

ensure that lessons from these sites were documented and available to be 

shared, DOT conducted and documented a comprehensive ITS evaluation 

for the Seattle, San Antonio, and Phoenix sites. In addition, a national 

evaluation was performed with a focus on synthesizing findings across the 

entire program. These evaluations are available in DOT’s benefits database. 

DOT established this benefits database in 1998 to showcase and expand the 

understanding of ITS benefits and transmit existing knowledge of ITS 

benefits to transportation professionals. The database is accessible on 

15DOT also continues to play a role in ITS research, which we did not examine in this study.
Page 17 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

DOT’s Web site and contains about 230 summaries of academic, 

government, and other studies of ITS deployments in the United States and 

internationally. The summaries in the database generally include 

information such as the type of ITS deployment, the location of the ITS 

deployment, and the results of the deployment. DOT also maintains a 

database on ITS costs. The purpose of this cost database, which contains a 

range of costs for various ITS technologies as reported from completed 

projects and from the initial phases of ITS projects, is to provide cost data 

to state and local transportation officials in the planning and initial cost 

estimation phases of ITS projects. While benefits and cost information are 

not directly linked, the two databases do use the same classification 

scheme for categorizing different ITS, and by browsing the various 

categories, users could obtain benefits and costs information for similar 

systems.

DOT is also facilitating the development of technical standards. These 

technical standards specify, in detail, how technological components will 

communicate with one another. By specifying how systems and 

components interconnect, the standards promote interoperability—the 

ability of systems to provide services and to accept services from other 

systems so that different ITS technologies can be integrated and operated 

together. DOT, through cooperative agreements with six standards 

development organizations (SDOs) such as the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers, develops nonproprietary, industry-based, consensus ITS 

standards. To date, SDOs have published 75 ITS standards, approved 

another 9, and have begun processing another 6. The SDOs are developing 

21 other standards and DOT officials expect that many will be completed 

by the end of 2005. In addition, to implement a requirement in TEA-21 that 

ITS projects conform to national architecture and standards, DOT finalized 

a rule in 2001 requiring ITS projects using federal funds be part of a 

regional architecture plan that establishes a process to ensure that ITS 

projects conform to national standards in order that they can be integrated 

with other areas. Regions and states then had until April 2005 to complete 

their regional ITS architectures. 

Further, to build technical expertise on ITS technologies, DOT has 

provided education, training, and technical assistance for ITS technologies 

through FHWA resource centers, divisions, and guides and pamphlets. DOT 

also has a professional capacity building program that is designed to 

provide state and local transportation officials the curriculum needed to 

install ITS applications. In addition, DOT headquarters office offers 

additional resources including a Peer-to-Peer program designed to link 
Page 18 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

technical experts from one local area to an agency in a different geographic 

location. 

DOT also used the nine components established in the Secretary’s speech 

to develop criteria to track progress toward the goal of having 75 of the 

largest metropolitan areas outfitted with a complete intelligent 

transportation infrastructure by 2005. DOT biennially surveys the areas’ 

transportation-related agencies and rates the areas’ deployment levels 

according to its criteria.16

Although Progress Has 

Occurred, DOT’s ITS 

Goal and Measures 

Have Limitations and 

Fall Short of Capturing 

Impact on Congestion 

Although progress has been made toward DOT’s ITS deployment goal, 

DOT’s goal and measures provide a misleading picture of the status of ITS, 

are not designed around local priorities, do not assess the level of 

operations of deployed ITS, and do not capture information on ITS impacts 

or cost effectiveness. In past work, we have found that analyses of impacts 

and cost effectiveness are absent from other federal-aid highway programs 

as well, in part due to the structure of the federal-aid highway program. The 

four metropolitan areas we visited illustrate limitations of DOT’s goal and 

measures. 

Some Progress Has Been 

Made Toward Achieving 

DOT’s Deployment Goal, but 

DOT’s Measures and Rating 

System Overstate the Status 

of ITS Deployment

DOT’s reporting on progress toward its deployment goal shows that many 

of the 75 metropolitan areas targeted in the goal have increased their level 

of ITS deployment since 1997, when DOT began tracking this progress, but 

DOT’s ratings overstate the actual status of ITS in these metropolitan areas. 

According to DOT, 62 of the 75 metropolitan areas had met DOT’s goal of 

deploying integrated ITS infrastructure in 2004, up from 36 metropolitan 

areas meeting the goal in 1997. While 13 of the 75 metropolitan areas still 

were rated as falling short of the goal in 2004, the increase in the number of 

metropolitan areas counted toward meeting the goal since 1997 suggests 

that a significant increase in the level of ITS has occurred in many of the 75 

metropolitan areas.

Although many metropolitan areas have made progress in deploying ITS, 

the measures and rating system that DOT uses to report progress toward 

16In 1994, DOT established the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO) to coordinate the ITS 

program among the modal administrations. The JPO staff perform many of the tasks 

mentioned here, such as tracking ITS deployment.
Page 19 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

the ITS deployment goal, particularly when compared to the language of 

the Secretary’s goal—for a “complete” intelligent transportation 

infrastructure—provides an overstated sense of success regarding the 

actual status of ITS in these metropolitan areas. Specifically, DOT defined 

the Secretary’s goal of complete intelligent infrastructure to include two 

measurable elements—deployment, meaning the extent that certain 

technologies have been installed over certain areas, such as freeways; and 

integration, meaning the extent of coordination between different agencies 

that deploy ITS technologies. DOT used the 9 components established in 

the Secretary’s speech to develop criteria to measure ITS deployment,17 and 

also developed criteria to measure integration between three entities in 

each metropolitan area—state governments, local governments, and public 

transit authorities. (For more information on DOT’s rating system, see app. 

2.) DOT also developed criteria to combine metropolitan areas’ measures 

for deployment and integration to come up with an overall rating of high, 

medium, or low. 

DOT considers its goal met when all 75 metropolitan areas are rated high or 

medium. However, it established fairly low thresholds for rating an area as 

high or medium because it did not have a way to determine the extent of 

ITS that should be deployed in each area based, for example, on local 

traffic conditions or priorities. For example, an area can be rated 

medium—and thus meet the goal—if its level of deployment includes 20 

percent of its freeway miles under electronic surveillance and 33 percent of 

its signalized intersections under computerized control—even if it has no 

ITS applications related to transit management, traveler information, or 

emergency management services.18 In addition, the area rated as medium 

would have to demonstrate its level of integration by including some 

coordination between state government, local government, and the transit 

authority. According to DOT, it set these thresholds at relatively low levels 

because few metropolitan areas have local ITS goals establishing the level 

of ITS deployment they deem appropriate. Without such local goals, DOT 

17DOT closely followed the nine components established by the Secretary in developing its 

criteria, but grouped them into five areas, including freeway management/incident 

management; transit management/electronic fare payment; arterial management; regional 

multimodal traveler information; and emergency management services. According to DOT 

officials, DOT did not consider tollway miles in its assessment, since tollway miles are such 

a small part of the expressway network. 

18An area is rated medium if it exceeds the threshold value for freeway 

management/incident management or transit management/electronic fare payment and at 

least one other component. 
Page 20 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

decided to measure (1) the extent of ITS deployment in locations where 

ITS could be deployed and (2) current integration compared to extensive 

integration between three government entities—but to use low thresholds 

for considering a metropolitan area to have met the goal.

DOT itself states that the metropolitan areas it rates as meeting the goal do 

not have a complete ITS infrastructure. For example, in its 2004 report on 

progress toward the goal, DOT states that even metropolitan areas that are 

deployment leaders may still have “miles to go” before deploying a 

complete ITS infrastructure—a level of deployment beyond DOT’s rating of 

high deployment, which DOT does not define. DOT officials told us that 

complete deployment is a very long-term endeavor that may never be 

reached and that it was important to get the “seeds” of deployment planted. 

DOT officials stated that according to its criteria, metropolitan areas that 

received high ratings had officials who demonstrated an understanding of 

ITS and were making improvements in deployment and integration to an 

already existing ITS infrastructure. However, those metropolitan areas may 

not have deployed or integrated ITS technologies to their fullest potential 

and may be experiencing significant challenges to more fully deploying and 

integrating these technologies. 

In spite of these issues, DOT’s criteria and the deployment information it 

collects have been useful in measuring the 75 metropolitan areas’ progress 

in increasing deployment and integration since 1996 and DOT intends to 

continue to track deployment even though it does not plan to update the 

deployment goal once it expires at the end of 2005. For example, the 

Tucson metropolitan area was rated low in 1997 but was rated as high in 

2004, suggesting that it has made substantial progress in deploying and 

integrating ITS. Similarly, DOT officials said their tracking methods provide 

a basic means of comparing the extent of ITS in one metropolitan area 

versus another. For example, in Chicago, which is rated high, 55 percent of 

the area’s freeway miles are covered by electronic surveillance, and several 

ITS deployments controlled by the state are linked to deployments 

controlled by local transportation or law enforcement agencies. On the 

other hand, in Las Vegas, which is rated low, none of the area’s freeway 

miles are covered by electronic surveillance, and the state DOT is just 

beginning to link its deployments with those of the local transportation and 

law enforcement agencies. DOT officials indicated that they intend to 

continue to track deployment after the 2005 deadline expires. Figure 3 

shows the number of the 75 metropolitan areas ranked high, medium, and 

low from 1997 to 2004. 
Page 21 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Figure 3: ITS Deployment Ratings for 75 Metropolitan Areas, 1997 to 2004 

DOT’s ITS Goal and 

Measures Fail to Capture 

Important Dimensions of 

Evaluating ITS Status, 

Including, Similar to Other 

Highway Programs, 

Evaluating Outcomes 

DOT’s ITS goal and measures fail to capture a number of important 

dimensions of evaluating ITS status that were alluded to in the Secretary’s 

1996 vision for ITS: they do not take into account the level of ITS needed to 

accomplish local goals and priorities; they do not capture the extent to 

which deployed ITS technologies are being effectively operated; and they 

do not evaluate the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS. The lack of 

evaluation of outcomes such as impact or cost effectiveness has also been 

identified as a limitation in other highway programs and is partly due to the 

structure of the federal-aid highway program. 

DOT’s ITS Goal and Measures Do 

Not Take into Account the Level 

of ITS Needed to Accomplish 

Local Goals

In establishing DOT’s vision for ITS deployment, the Secretary emphasized 

the need for strategic investment; however, DOT’s ITS goal and measures 

do not incorporate any evaluations of local ITS needs that could help 

ensure that ITS was used as a component of a balanced strategy to address 

local transportation conditions. Without an idea of what a metropolitan 

0

10

20

30

40

Low

Medium

High

1997 1999 2000 2002 2004

Number of metropolitan areas

Year

Source: GAO analysis of DOT deployment data.

11

25

39

22

27

26

24

28

23

27

30

18

28

34

13
Page 22 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

area’s integrated transportation system, including ITS, should consist of, it 

is difficult to determine what the right percentage of deployment of 

different technologies would be. In the absence of such information, DOT 

created a goal and thresholds for the measures that assumed that all 75 

metropolitan areas should exceed specified levels of ITS rather than 

reflecting local priorities established through local ITS strategies and goal 

setting. 

DOT officials acknowledge that the goal focuses on measuring what a 

metropolitan area could deploy rather than what a metropolitan area 

should deploy and that deployment goals should be specific to a 

metropolitan area and its specific transportation needs. According to a 

DOT official, a goal focused on what metropolitan areas should deploy 

would be ideal but would be difficult to establish because it would require 

establishing the transportation needs of each metropolitan area. According 

to a 2003 DOT ITS deployment report, this could be done, for example, 

through locally defined deployment goals that could then provide the basis 

for establishing a national goal. According to DOT, while this approach 

would be more meaningful, few metropolitan areas have completed ITS 

needs assessments or set deployment goals. 

DOT’s ITS Goal and Measures Do 

Not Capture the Extent of ITS 

Operations

Another dimension of evaluating ITS status not captured in DOT’s goal and 

measures is the extent to which deployed ITS technologies are operated 

and maintained effectively. Among other things, the 1996 DOT Secretary’s 

speech envisioned that ITS would increase the capacity of existing 

infrastructure, an outcome likely to depend on ITS technologies being 

operated effectively as well as deployed and integrated. However, although 

DOT tracks progress toward the goal by measuring deployment and 

integration, it does not track the operational level of ITS technologies in the 

75 metropolitan areas.19 This is a concern since there are indications that 

some metropolitan areas have not been fully operating systems that are 

deployed and integrated. For example, the National Transportation 

Operations Coalition recently gave a collective grade of D minus for the 

operations of about 83,000 of the 260,000 traffic signals across the U.S.20

19Although DOT does obtain some information on the operations of transportation 

management centers, it is not used to measure progress toward the deployment goal.

20The National Transportation Operations Coalition (NTOC) is an alliance of national 

associations, practitioners and private sector groups to represent the collective interests of 

stakeholders at state, local and regional levels, who have a wide range of experience in 

operations, planning and public safety.
Page 23 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

According to the study, a contributing factor to this low grade was that 

officials operating traffic signals are updating the signal timing plans so 

infrequently that they are not responding to current traffic conditions. 

DOT’s ITS Goal and Measures Do 

Not Capture Evaluation of 

Outcomes, Similar to Other 

Highway Programs 

Another limitation of DOT’s goal and measures in evaluating the status of 

ITS is that they do not include outcome-oriented measures such as the 

impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS. Although the Secretary’s 1996 speech 

envisioned that ITS would lead to positive impacts on congestion and even 

included an outcome measure of reducing travel time of Americans by at 

least 15 percent, DOT’s goal and measures focus on outputs such as a 

metropolitan area’s deployment of certain types of ITS on certain types of 

roads. However, DOT’s rating system does not consider the impact of such 

deployment on outcomes such as travel time or road capacity. 

In its 2004 Performance Plan, DOT identified ITS deployment as a strategy 

to help it meet the outcome-oriented goal of limiting annual growth of 

urban area travel time under congested conditions to 0.2 percent below the 

otherwise expected increases in congestion. However, it did not establish a 

method to measure whether ITS deployment was helping to meet this 

outcome. DOT’s 2004 Performance Plan also incorporates its ITS 

deployment goal as a performance measure for the strategic goal of 

mobility. However, the strategies and initiatives for achieving this 

performance measure also emphasize deployment and integration rather 

than impact. For example, DOT’s strategies include continued deployment 

of ITS applications, systems operations and training, and ITS standards 

setting. 

Moreover, in his 1996 speech, the Secretary emphasized the cost 

effectiveness of ITS investments in comparison to investments in 

increasing highway capacity through construction. However, no element of 

the cost-effectiveness of deployed ITS technologies is included in DOT’s 

measures. In addition, while DOT collects and summarizes benefits 

established by ITS studies in its ITS benefits database, and summarizes 

cost estimates in its cost database, it has not highlighted benefit-cost 

information on ITS technologies and has not incorporated such 

information into its goal or measures. Furthermore, although DOT’s cost 

database may help state and local transportation officials budget for ITS 

technologies they wish to deploy, such cost information is not directly 

linked to benefit information. Without this linkage, the cost information is 

of limited use in helping state and local transportation officials evaluate the 

value of ITS investments as a tool to reduce congestion in comparison to 

other alternatives. 
Page 24 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

DOT’s lack of measures for the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS 

deployment makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of ITS 

and the federal investment in ITS as a strategy to reduce congestion. 

However, this lack of evaluation also exists for many other federal-aid 

highway programs. According to a DOT official, it is critical to compare the 

benefits of ITS with the costs of implementation, and the ITS program 

should allocate resources to improving benefit-cost analyses. However, it 

would be difficult for DOT to obtain the information needed to evaluate the 

cost effectiveness of ITS deployment, as in many cases this information is 

not collected. 

As we have previously reported, in general there is no requirement for state 

and local governments to set goals for highway projects, nor to use specific 

analytical methods such as benefit-cost analysis to choose projects. 

Moreover, the federal-aid highway program does not have the mechanisms 

to link funding levels with the accomplishment of specific performancerelated goals and outcomes.21 In addition, we have found in previous work 

that such requirements would require legislative change because the 

federal agencies cannot require benefit-cost analysis as a condition of 

receiving highway funds.22

In addition, while TEA-21 requires recipients of congressionally designated 

ITS integration funds to report cost data annually and complete selfevaluations, it does not require formal benefit-cost analyses.23 In general, 

we found that evaluations of outcomes of completed highway projects are 

typically not conducted and, as a result, officials only have limited or 

anecdotal evidence of whether projects produced the intended results. 

Thus, transportation agencies miss opportunities to learn from successes 

and shortcomings of past projects or to evaluate how well investment 

strategies are meeting goals or priorities.24

21GAO-04-802.

22GAO-05-172.

23DOT has made available a software program known as the ITS Deployment Analysis 

System (IDAS) for state and local planners to estimate the benefits and costs of ITS 

investments.

24GAO-05-172.
Page 25 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Four Case Studies Illustrate 

Limitations of DOT’s Goal 

and Measures

The status of ITS in the four metropolitan areas we visited—two that were 

rated high by DOT and were therefore counted toward meeting the ITS 

deployment goal and two that were rated low by DOT and therefore were 

not counted toward meeting the goal—illustrate the shortfalls of DOT’s ITS 

deployment goal and measures. While the two metropolitan areas we 

visited that were counted toward meeting the goal have both made 

considerable investments in ITS technologies, both have limitations in 

terms of the level of operations of deployed ITS technologies, which may 

reduce their potential impact on congestion. Officials from the two 

metropolitan areas we visited that were considered not to have met the 

goal indicated that they had appropriate levels of ITS given their local 

conditions and needs. (See app. 3 for additional information on activities 

each metropolitan area has taken to support ITS deployment.) Specifically, 

we found: 

• The San Francisco Bay Area, which was ranked by the Texas 

Transportation Institute as the fifth most congested area in 2003,25 was 

rated high by DOT in part because of its level of ITS deployment—4,700 

traffic sensing detectors on its over 2,800 freeway miles. As a result, 29 

percent of the freeways featured sensing devices spaced every 1 mile or 

less, and 40 percent of the freeways featured sensing devices spaced 

every 2 miles or less in order to provide local transportation agencies 

information on traffic data such as speed and volume. However, about 

45 percent of these devices are out of service, reducing the ability of 

staff to collect traffic data.26 According to DOT Resource Center’s 

Operations Technical Service Leader, while having about half of the 

traffic detectors out of service happens in other areas, it is not typical. 

• Chicago, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the fourth 

most congested area in 2003, was also rated high by DOT, partly because 

area transportation agencies have the potential to monitor 55 percent of 

the area’s freeway miles. A combination of traffic sensors and 

management centers provide the area the ability to quickly spot traffic 

problems and take appropriate action such as providing the traveling 

25The ranking is based on the congestion measure—percent of daily travel under congested 

conditions.

26According to transportation officials we met with, if an agency has a working detection of 

traffic sensing within a mile, then it can develop a good estimation of travel time and 

congestion. 
Page 26 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

public information on traffic conditions, alternative transportation 

routes or options during special events affecting traffic to avoid traffic 

delays, and dispatching appropriate officials to clear incidents quickly to 

decrease delays. We found, however, that six of the ten traffic 

management centers do not have any staff dedicated to monitoring 

traffic conditions and that an additional center has only one part-time 

staffer. Periodically, staff will go to the centers to change message signs 

to alert travelers to likely congestion due to a planned event such as a 

construction project or sports game. However, without staff dedicated 

to monitoring traffic conditions on a regular basis, the centers can not 

be used to respond to unplanned or non-recurring incidents such as 

traffic accidents, which limit congestion mitigation benefits.

• Indianapolis, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the 25th

most congested city in the nation in 2003, was rated low by DOT 

because of a lack of investment in ITS technologies, and therefore was 

not counted toward meeting the goal. However, Indianapolis officials 

stated that the current level of ITS deployment and integration meets 

the area’s needs, as they do not consider the area very congested, and 

they do not see the need for many ITS technologies. 

• Las Vegas, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the ninth 

most congested city in the nation in 2003, was also rated low by DOT, 

partly because in order for a metropolitan area to be rated medium, it 

must meet the threshold of having either at least 20 percent of its 

freeways covered by ITS technologies or at least 33 percent of its transit 

covered by ITS technologies (to be rated high it would have to meet 

these thresholds plus additional thresholds). However, Las Vegas 

transportation officials told us that the metropolitan area has 

experienced high levels of congestion on the arterial roadways and 

relatively low levels of congestion on freeways. Therefore, rather than 

focusing on freeways or transit, transportation agencies in the Las Vegas 

metropolitan area have made considerable investments in deploying and 

integrating ITS technologies on their arterial roadways and only recently 

have begun investing in ITS technologies for freeways. Las Vegas 

transportation officials said that this strategy made the most sense for 

their specific local conditions. 
Page 27 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Studies Have Found 

Positive Impacts of ITS 

Deployment Depend 

on Effective 

Operations, but Few 

Have Included CostEffectiveness Analyses 

Studies evaluating ITS deployment have found improvements in 

congestion, throughput of traffic (number of vehicles accommodated on 

highways), safety, environmental quality, and traveler behavior.27 Studies 

also have found that the existence and level of most benefits depends on 

operating the ITS technology effectively given local conditions. Few of the 

studies analyzed the benefits of ITS investments in terms of the costs, 

information that could help state and local governments make sound 

investment decisions. 

Studies Indicate ITS 

Deployment Can Provide 

Benefits 

A number of studies show that ITS applications have provided some 

benefits either nationally or locally, including improvements in congestion, 

throughput of traffic, safety, environmental quality, or traveler behavior. 

Although congestion levels are high, ITS technologies are estimated to limit 

the increase in congestion. For example, the Texas Transportation 

Institute, a leading transportation research institution, estimated that in 

2003, congestion caused 3.7 billion hours of travel delay in 85 urban areas.28

However, the study also estimated that ramp metering, incident 

management, traffic signal coordination, and arterial access management 

combined reduced delay in 2003 in the same urban areas by 9 percent—336 

million hours, leading to a $5.6 billion reduction in annual costs due to 

reduced fuel consumption and hours of delay. The study also estimates that 

if ITS or similar operational treatments were deployed on all major 

freeways and streets in the 85 urban areas, it would reduce the delay by 15 

percent. Thus, although delay due to congestion is increasing, this increase 

is limited by ITS deployment. 

Many of the studies in DOT’s database focus on examining the impacts of 

particular ITS technologies deployed in particular locations. For example, 

one study measured the impacts of a regional system in the CincinnatiNorthern Kentucky metropolitan areas that uses traffic monitoring 

27Although DOT identified ITS deployment as a strategy to achieve the 2004 target to limit 

annual growth of urban area travel time under congested conditions to 0.2 percent, the ITS 

benefits database does not provide information relating to progress toward this goal. Rather, 

the information in the database focuses on individual ITS deployments and local 

improvements. 

28Schrank and Lomax. 
Page 28 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

technologies to detect incidents and provide traveler information. The 

study, which measured the impacts of the system on several factors such as 

traveler behavior, safety, and environmental quality, found that of 375 

survey respondents in the area, 56 percent changed their morning routes 

based upon the availability of traffic information provided by the system. In 

addition, modeling efforts estimated that the system had contributed to a 

3.2 percent reduction in fatalities by responding to incidents earlier, and a 

3.6 to 4.7 percent reduction in vehicle emissions. Table 1 provides 

examples of study findings related to several commonly studied impacts of 

ITS deployment. 

Table 1: Examples of Deployment Impacts from Our Review of ITS Studies

Source: GAO analysis of studies gathered by DOT.

Notes: Examples in this table are not necessarily representative of what would happen with a similar 

deployment in another location. 

Impacts Examples

Congestion • Deployment of E-Z Pass, an electronic tolling system, on the New Jersey Turnpike reduced 

delay for all vehicles at toll plazas by 85 percent.

• Adaptive traffic signal control reduced travel times at several intersections in Tucson, Ariz. by 

7.9 percent and delay by 17.9 percent.a

Throughput • A study in Minneapolis-St. Paul found that during peak traffic conditions, freeway throughput 

decreased by an average of 14 percent during the period that they turned off the ramp meters.

Safety • Evaluations of the Maryland based freeway and incident management program, known as 

CHART, showed a potential reduction in secondary incidents by 1,267 based on reported 

incidents.

• An integrated freeway and incident management system in San Antonio reduced the average 

annual secondary crash risk for all travelers by 2.8 percent.a

Environmental quality • Computerized operations of 40 traffic signals in the Tysons Corner area of Virginia decreased 

the total annual emissions for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile oxygen 

compounds by 134,611 kilograms. In addition, annual fuel consumption improved by 9 percent, 

thus an estimated savings of about $1.48 million.

• Traffic signal coordination among two jurisdictions in Phoenix, Ariz. indicated benefits of a 1.6 

percent reduction in fuel consumption. 

Traveler behavior • Over 600 users in the Seattle area ranked the state-sponsored traveler information Web site as 

their most useful source of traffic information. In addition, most of the respondents (88 to 94.8 

percent) reported they used the Web site to decide among alternative routes, when to start a 

trip, and had reliable indications of how long a trip would take.

• In the DC metro area, a simulation model estimated that commuters who used traveler 

information arrive on time and within 15 minutes of the target arrival time 79 percent of the time. 

Those not using the traveler information arrive on time and within 15 minutes of the target 42 

percent of the time.a
Page 29 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

a

These examples report on potential improvements using estimated data, rather than actual 

improvements using empirical data.

Anecdotally, several state and local officials we spoke with agreed that ITS 

applications have improved congestion in their areas. For example, Las 

Vegas officials stated the FAST program, an integrated traffic management 

system that adapts traffic signal plans to real-time conditions, had 

definitely improved traffic congestion on the Las Vegas arterials. One 

official stated that without the FAST system, the city of Las Vegas would be 

“shut down,” especially during events such as New Year’s Eve, NASCAR 

weekends, and major boxing events. 

Studies Suggest That ITS 

Benefits Depend on 

Effectively Operating ITS 

Technologies to Meet Local 

Conditions

The studies in DOT’s benefits database also suggest that the existence and 

level of benefits from ITS deployment depend on adapting the deployment 

to local conditions and monitoring the effect in order to make operating 

adjustments. For example, as discussed earlier, the National 

Transportation Operations Coalition recently found that across the country 

traffic signals are not operating as efficiently as they could be, resulting in 

unnecessary delay to travelers. A benefit database study of traffic signal 

timing in North Seattle found that a single signal-timing plan could not 

satisfy all traffic conditions. The study suggested that more benefits could 

be expected if signal systems were implemented so that they would 

respond to traffic levels based on demand and weather conditions. For 

example, agencies could develop longer timing plans when demand is 

heavy and shorter cycle lengths for light demand conditions. One 

researcher we talked to also emphasized that to effectively deploy traffic 

signal control systems, signal timing plans should be regularly adjusted to 

respond to changes in traffic patterns surrounding the intersection.29

Similarly, a study on deploying ramp meters on Detroit area freeways found 

that effectively operating the meters to maximize benefits meant using the 

meters only during specific traffic conditions. The study concluded that 

using ramp meters helped reduce congestion during major events or traffic 

incidents when traffic demand or congestion was high. During average 

conditions, however, the study found that the benefits of ramp metering in 

terms of moderating the flow of traffic on the freeway would not outweigh 

29In 1994, we reported that the potential benefits of properly designed, operated and 

maintained traffic control signal systems were not being realized. GAO, Transportation 

Infrastructure: Benefits of Traffic Control Signal Systems Are Not Being Fully Realized, 

GAO/RCED-94-105 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 1994).
Page 30 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

the delays on the entrance ramps and arterials leading to the freeway. The 

study found that by turning off metered ramps in the absence of major 

events or incidents, corridorwide delay would improve. 

Few ITS Studies Include 

Analysis of ITS Projects’ 

Cost Effectiveness 

Most of the ITS studies we reviewed did not include information on the 

cost effectiveness of ITS deployment, such as benefit-cost analyses. 

Analysis of benefits in relation to costs is essential to helping local decision 

makers determine whether and when ITS is a good investment. As we have 

shown in previous work, careful decisions need to be made to ensure that 

transportation investments maximize the benefits of each public dollar 

invested. Moreover, according to a recent study, compared to other 

highway projects, such as highway construction projects, many ITS 

applications have distinct cost structures and life cycles—for example, 

relatively low initial deployment costs but ongoing operational costs that 

do not apply to many construction projects—that need to be explicitly 

described and evaluated in order to determine the benefits and costs of ITS 

technologies compared to other alternatives.30

Thirty-three of the 38 studies we reviewed (87 percent) did not measure 

benefits in relation to total dollars invested. The five studies that did 

include an evaluation of benefits reported that the benefits of the ITS 

deployment examined were greater than the costs. 

Several Barriers Limit 

the Widespread 

Deployment of ITS

Transportation officials in the four metropolitan areas we visited identified 

four barriers that our previous work and DOT officials acknowledge limit 

the deployment and integration of ITS in metropolitan areas. These barriers 

include the limited appeal of ITS as an option for congestion mitigation, the 

difficulty of obtaining funding for implementing and operating ITS 

technologies along with confusion about the fact that ITS operational costs 

are eligible for federal funding, a lack of technical training in deploying and 

operating ITS technologies, and a lack of technical standards to help 

ensure that ITS technologies will be able to be integrated with other ITS 

systems within and across metropolitan and rural areas. These barriers 

have limited the amount of ITS deployed and therefore have likely limited 

the impact of ITS on mitigating congestion on our nation’s roads. 

30E. Bekiaris and Y J Nakanishi, Economic Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 

8 (Elsevier, 2004).
Page 31 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

ITS Projects Are Sometimes 

Seen as a Less Appealing 

Investment Option for 

Mitigating Congestion

According to transportation officials we spoke with, one barrier to ITS 

deployment is that in light of a high number of potential projects competing 

for limited transportation funds, system enhancements such as ITS are 

sometimes less appealing than transportation investment options that 

improve the physical condition of the roads.31 Demand for transportation 

funding usually exceeds the supply of these funds. For example, in the San 

Francisco Bay area, the MPO estimates that it needs an additional $419 

million above its available funding to fully deploy the area’s regional 

operations programs—including ITS applications. Furthermore, state and 

local governments face difficult decisions regarding the allocation of their 

highway and transit funds, especially when federal and state budget 

deficits exist. Within these funding constraints, transportation officials 

must prioritize and make trade-offs between projects that add new or 

preserve infrastructure and those that enhance the existing infrastructure, 

such as ITS. Thus, ITS must compete with other highway investments that 

add new infrastructure or preserve existing roads.32 In previous work, we 

found that state and regional transportation decision makers are 

increasingly giving priority to highway investments that preserve the 

existing infrastructure.33

In addition, ITS applications sometimes have limited public and political 

appeal. We have reported in prior work that public input and political 

considerations shape transportation investment decisions. However, unlike 

capital improvements that build or expand new roads and those that 

preserve existing roads, the benefits of traffic operations improvements 

such as ITS are not always visible to the public. According to DOT officials, 

deteriorating roadways, like those with potholes and other physical 

problems, affect the public’s ability to drive on the road. Conversely, many 

ITS applications that are not operating well or need maintenance, like 

nonworking message signs or delayed traffic signals, do not necessarily 

affect the public’s ability to drive on the road in an obvious way. As a result, 

drivers may not realize that a failing ITS application could be contributing 

to congestion. One state responded to this public perception issue by 

31System enhancements consist of traffic operations improvements and environmental 

enhancements. 

32System preservation projects would include capital improvements on existing roads and 

bridges intended to sustain the existing infrastructure, but not include routine maintenance 

activities. 

33GAO-04-744.
Page 32 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

ordering a shut down study so that levels of congestion with and without 

ITS could be compared. In 2000, the Minnesota legislature passed a bill to 

study the effectiveness of ramp meters due to public questioning of the 

effectiveness of ramp meters on freeways. The state undertook a study that 

demonstrated the effectiveness of the ramp meters and increased public 

support for the ramp meters.34 The state DOT conducted two, 5-week 

studies—one with the ramp meters in operation, the other without—and 

estimated that ramp meters annually saved 25,121 hours in travel time, 

2,583,620 hours of unexpected delay, and 5.5 million gallons of fuel. 

Consequently, commuter support for ramp meters significantly increased.35

However, in the absence of such studies, the public may not realize the 

potential benefits of ITS deployment and therefore may not support them 

as much as the more visually obvious benefits of such things as improved 

road surface conditions.

Moreover, several officials in the metropolitan areas we visited agreed that 

investments in system “enhancements,” such as ITS, are not as politically 

appealing as expanding roadways. Specifically, Chicago and San Francisco 

transportation officials stated that since ITS applications do not usually 

offer groundbreaking ceremonies, which offer positive media attention, 

politicians are generally not motivated to support ITS projects.

In its role of encouraging interest in ITS, DOT has taken steps to counter 

this lack of appeal for ITS technologies, such as establishing the benefits 

database we previously described. In addition, according to DOT officials, 

DOT division staff advertise the benefits of ITS or suggest it as a way to 

mitigate congestion to state and local transportation officials. Furthermore, 

DOT officials are planning to develop lessons learned information from 

studies of ITS technologies to share with states and localities on how to 

implement effective ITS applications. This is important information to 

begin disseminating as we found that DOT’s benefits database did not 

consistently provide information on lessons learned for maximizing the 

benefits of ITS, even when that information was included as part of a study 

34Cambridge Systematics, Inc., “Twin Cities Ramp Meter Evaluation” (prepared for 

Minnesota Department of Transportation pursuant to laws 2000, ch. 479, HF2891, Feb. 1, 

2001). 

35Over 250 respondents rated ramp meters on a scale from zero to 10, with a rating of 1 

meaning that respondents strongly disagreed with a statement and a rating of 10 suggesting 

that they strongly agreed. The respondents rated their overall satisfaction with ramp meters 

at 4.99, on average, in 2000. After the shutdown study was completed, the average rating 

increased to 6.13 in 2001. 
Page 33 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

summarized in the database. For example, a study of the impacts of call 

boxes in Georgia provided lessons-learned information on reducing 

maintenance costs to improve the cost-effectiveness of the deployment, 

but the summary in the ITS benefit database did not include this 

information. DOT officials acknowledge that lessons learned information is 

needed to provide practitioners with helpful advice on how to cost 

effectively deploy ITS. Consequently, DOT plans to unveil a new database 

in September 2005 that will provide lessons learned information from the 

ITS studies and other sources. 

Although DOT has undertaken these efforts to make ITS more appealing, 

DOT’s ability to affect state and local decisions to deploy ITS has been 

limited by its inability to use funding incentives to encourage ITS. As we 

previously noted, although TEA-21’s ITS integration program included 

funding to help state and local governments integrate ITS technologies, 

Congress has fully designated this funding. Moreover, the extent to which 

DOT’s benefits database is helping to counter the limited public appeal of 

ITS deployment is unclear. In 2004, we found that although useful, impact 

analysis such as benefit-cost information does not play a decisive role in 

many investment decisions.36

Lack of Operational 

Funding and 

Misunderstanding of 

Federal Funding Policy Are 

Barriers to Deployment 

Another barrier to deploying and operating ITS technologies, according to 

metropolitan transportation officials, is that once an ITS application has 

been deployed, state and local transportation agencies do not always fund 

operations on an ongoing basis, in light of other priorities for 

transportation investments. As previously mentioned, state and local 

governments face difficult decisions regarding the allocation of their 

highway and transit funds, especially when state and local governments 

face budget deficits. At times, funding for ongoing operations is not fully 

available. In the San Francisco Bay area, for example, the MPO estimates 

that it needs an additional $419 million above its available funding to fully 

deploy the area’s regional operations programs--including ITS applications. 

Similarly, although the Chicago area funded the establishment of 10 

transportation management centers, they have operators in 3 of the centers 

and a part-time operator in a fourth center due to a lack of operational 

funding. Finally, Indianapolis transportation officials said that operations 

were one of the first areas cut during budget crunches. 

36GAO-04-744.
Page 34 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

In addition to limited funds in state and local operation budgets, several 

state and local officials were not aware that they could use federal 

transportation funds, such as Surface Transportation Program funds, to 

operate and maintain ITS technologies. Operating costs for traffic 

monitoring, management, and control systems such as integrated traffic 

control systems, incident management programs, and traffic control 

centers are eligible for federal reimbursement from National Highway 

System and Surface Transportation Program funding.37 In addition, for 

projects located in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds may be 

used for operating costs for a 3-year period—as long as the funded systems 

measurably demonstrate reductions in traffic delays. The lack of 

understanding about the availability of federal funding for operations has at 

times led to poor financial decision making. In San Francisco, for example, 

FHWA officials told us that the state and local officials’ lack of knowledge 

that federal funds could be used to operate and manage ITS technologies 

had led some agencies to use federal funds to replace their technology 

systems at much higher costs than would be needed to operate and 

maintain their existing technologies. 

DOT officials are aware of this lack of understanding and have taken steps 

to inform state transportation agencies about the eligibility of ITS 

operational expenses for federal funding. DOT provides guidance on its 

Web site indicating that federal-aid policies allow federal assistance to be 

used for virtually any operational costs. DOT has issued policy manuals to 

its division offices to pass along to state officials that explain federal funds 

can be used for operational expenses. However, the misconception that 

federal funds can be used only for ITS capital expenses still exists in some 

locations. DOT officials believe they are making progress in educating 

transportation officials about funding for operating costs and believe that 

understanding will grow as transportation departments place more 

emphasis on operating roadways.

37Operating costs include labor costs, administrative costs, costs of utilities and rent, and 

other costs including system maintenance costs, associated with the continuous operation 

of the system. Routine maintenance items that are not critical to the successful operation of 

the system, such as the painting of traffic signal controller cabinets, would normally fall 

outside of eligible operating costs. 
Page 35 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

ITS Deployment Is 

Hampered by a Lack of 

Technical Expertise 

According to metropolitan transportation officials and as we previously 

reported in a 1997 report, another barrier state and local transportation 

agencies face when selecting and implementing ITS is a lack of appropriate 

skills and knowledge needed for selecting and operating ITS technologies.38

This lack of skills exists both in transportation agencies and, according to 

transportation officials in one metropolitan area, in consultants that 

agencies hired to help them purchase and deploy ITS technologies. 

According to DOT officials, it is often hard to find people who are 

knowledgeable in both of two fields that are important for fully 

understanding ITS applications—traffic systems and electrical engineering. 

Consequently, some transportation agencies hire contractors to perform 

some of the technology functions associated with ITS. In Las Vegas, 

however, transportation officials told us that consultants lacked needed 

skills as well. As a result, localities may face difficulties selecting and 

procuring appropriate systems for their areas. For example, according to 

an FHWA official, a lack of business knowledge led a San Francisco Bay 

Area agency to lease rather than purchase telecommunications lines 

needed for transmitting data from roadway sensors—a decision that ended 

up costing the agency money in the long run. 

According to DOT officials, DOT has taken numerous actions to address 

the lack of technical expertise; however, external factors have limited 

DOT’s ability to resolve this issue. DOT provides technical assistance 

through FHWA. FHWA divisions in each state work with state and local 

transportation agencies to provide needed technical assistance. FHWA’s 

resource center offices are staffed with technical experts in various fields 

including operations and ITS and thus provide state and local officials 

across the country with more specific technical expertise and support 

when needed.39 In addition, FHWA headquarters office offers a number of 

additional resources such as training programs, guidance documents, 

technical assistance, and a Peer-to-Peer program that facilitate the 

exchange of technical expertise across different locations. Finally, DOT 

also has a professional capacity-building program that is designed to help 

state and local transportation officials gain the expertise necessary to 

install ITS applications. In addition to DOT training, several universities 

38GAO, Urban Transportation: Challenges to Widespread Deployment of Intelligent 

Transportation Systems, GAO/RCED-97-74 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 1997).

39FHWA Resource Center offices are located in Baltimore, Chicago (Olympia Fields), 

Atlanta, and San Francisco. 
Page 36 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

have developed programs to provide intelligent transportation education to 

develop the skills needed in the ITS industry. Both the University of 

Michigan and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University have 

developed programs, as has the Consortium for Intelligent Transportation 

Education housed at the University of Maryland. DOT officials believe, 

however, that the lack of technical expertise will remain until an 

institutional change in transportation agencies occurs--a change that 

increases emphasis on operations. 

ITS System Integration Is 

Limited by Delayed 

Technical Standards

Another barrier that has limited the deployment and integration of ITS is 

that state and local decision makers do not have enough of the technical 

standards needed to select ITS equipment that can integrate with other 

systems.40 Having technical standards is important because purchasers 

who adhere to the standards can avoid being locked into proprietary 

systems that cannot integrate with those of other manufacturers and for 

which replacement equipment or service may not be available if the vendor 

goes out of business. According to transportation officials we spoke with, 

in some cases, the lack of standards may have discouraged state and local 

decision makers to invest in ITS technologies; in other cases, the lack of 

ITS standards may have led to the deployment of ITS technologies that 

could not easily be integrated with other technologies within or across 

metropolitan or rural areas. 

In each of the metropolitan areas we visited, state and local transportation 

officials stated that DOT has facilitated the issuance of standards slowly 

and that this has limited the confidence officials have in the technology 

they select. For example, an official in Chicago told us that the lack of 

standards has resulted in the agency not knowing if it is purchasing quality 

ITS applications. In another example, a San Francisco official stated that 

the slow completion of the standards development process at the national 

level caused transportation officials to pick a standard in the draft stage 

that they hope will have the ability to connect with future ITS deployment 

in the area.

According to DOT, although it has worked to facilitate the issuance of 

technical standards, technology has been developing faster than the SDOs 

40Standards promote interoperability—the ability of systems to provide services and to 

accept services from other systems and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to 

be operated effectively together. 
Page 37 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

that DOT works with can handle. Furthermore, the issuance of standards 

by SDOs is done voluntarily, and there is no private-sector market 

influencing speedy issuance—the SDOs do not have a profit incentive in 

issuing standards. DOT has accelerated development of over 100 standards 

and identified 17 standards critical to ensure ITS operability across the 

country. However, according to DOT officials, standard setting is a difficult, 

consensus driven, and time-consuming process.

Conclusions Generally, the promise of ITS for managing congestion has fallen short. 

Although DOT established a vision to build an intelligent transportation 

infrastructure across the United States to save time and lives and improve 

the quality of life for Americans, DOT’s deployment goal ends in 2005. 

Studies show that when implemented properly, ITS technologies can 

reduce congestion, as well as lead to other benefits such as improved 

safety and reduced emissions harmful to the environment. However, 

transportation agencies have been slow to adopt and deploy ITS 

technologies, facing many barriers along the way. Funding for ITS 

deployments, particularly for ongoing operations and maintenance costs, is 

critical to ensuring that ITS deployments are used effectively. However, 

such funding continues to be a problem for state and local governments. In 

addition, state and local transportation agencies do not always consider 

ITS when developing their transportation plans. Moreover, DOT does not 

have clear information on the extent to which areas have deployed ITS to 

meet their particular needs, nor does it have clear information on the 

operating status of ITS where it has been deployed. Limitations of DOT’s 

efforts in measuring the deployment of ITS technologies, among other 

things, have reduced its ability to help state and local governments invest 

strategically in ITS. 

Successful ITS deployment depends on selecting the appropriate level and 

types of ITS for the area, effectively integrating these technologies, and 

committing the necessary resources to operate and maintain them. We 

recognize that DOT has not been able to influence deployment through 

funding, and state and local governments are free to choose the extent to 

which they direct other federal highway funds to ITS. However, DOT has 

opportunities to assist metropolitan areas in developing appropriate, 

efficient, and cost effective transportation systems which include ITS. 

Although analyses of a project’s cost effectiveness often do not drive 

transportation investment decisions—many factors, political as well as 

other, influence project selections—such analyses should be part of the 

decision making process. And impact analysis for all highway projects, 
Page 38 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

including ITS projects, would help decision makers view all tools together 

and make well-reasoned decisions about investment of their limited funds 

to develop the best possible transportation system. In addition, as the 

Secretary of Transportation indicated in 1996, providing national guidance 

is important to ensure ITS deployment. Nationally tracking measures for 

ITS deployment and operations would continue to support awareness of 

progress toward improved mobility and help states and local areas 

considering ITS determine how they could deploy and operate ITS 

technologies to help mitigate congestion and realize other benefits. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following 

three actions:

• revise measures for ITS deployment to incorporate local needs and 

operational status for deployed ITS technologies; 

• develop new strategies to better advertise the availability of federal 

funds for operating ITS technologies; and

• encourage cost-effectiveness analyses and their use in transportation 

planning and decision making.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, officials from DOT’s ITS Joint 

Program Office and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation 

Policy provided comments through the Office of the Secretary’s audit 

liaison generally concurring with the report and agreeing to consider the 

recommendations. DOT officials provided technical clarifications and 

information, which we incorporated in the report, as appropriate. The 

officials also provided general comments about the ITS deployment goal. 

Although DOT officials did not comment on the recommendation to revise 

and update the goal and measures for ITS deployment, the officials said 

that they do not plan on updating the ITS deployment goal after it expires 

in 2005. In addition, officials noted that SAFETEA-LU repealed the ITS 

integration deployment program. However, ITS Joint Program Office 

officials have indicated that they intend to continue to track ITS 

deployment. In the absence of an ITS integration deployment program, we 

revised our recommendation so that it no longer calls for revising and 

updating the goal for ITS deployment. However, we continue to 
Page 39 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

recommend that DOT improve its ITS deployment measures to obtain clear 

and accurate information on ITS deployment that will support DOT’s 

efforts to help states and local areas select, implement, operate, and 

maintain ITS technologies to address increasing congestion and other 

transportation needs in their areas.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and to the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@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 major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix IV.

JayEtta Z. Hecker

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 40 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To address our first objective—to describe the federal role in ITS 

deployment and the goals and measures for the federal ITS program—we 

reviewed transportation legislation, DOT performance plans, and other 

documents related to ITS and the federal role. We reviewed TEA-21 goals 

for the ITS deployment incentives program. We also reviewed the Secretary 

of Transportation’s 1996 speech describing his vision for ITS deployment 

and met with DOT and FHWA officials to clarify the federal role in 

deploying ITS. Although ITS technologies can be used for many purposes, 

including highway safety, we focused this analysis on the role of ITS for 

mitigating congestion. 

To address our second objective—to develop information about the 

progress of ITS deployment toward DOT’s deployment goal and DOT’s 

measures—we reviewed reports that describe DOT’s deployment program 

and its methodology for rating metropolitan areas. We interviewed ITS 

officials who track deployment of ITS technologies in over 75 metropolitan 

areas. To determine progress toward the 2005 goal, we summarized ratings 

from DOT’s deployment reports and deployment and integration tracking 

database—which identify the number of metropolitan areas with high, 

medium, and low ratings—and obtained rating information for the period 

of 1997 to 2004.1

To assess the reliability of the deployment and integration tracking 

database, we interviewed officials from DOT’s Joint Program Office who 

are knowledgeable about how data are collected, analyzed, and reported, 

and we collected deployment data from the state and local transportation 

agencies that we visited to compare it with the data used in the database 

and DOT deployment reports. In addition, in 2000, the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) reviewed and reported on the data quality 

of the ITS deployment and integration tracking database. BTS noted that 

the database frequently had been monitored and improved upon. The 

report found some reporting errors and made recommendations for 

additional improvements. DOT implemented some of the 

recommendations. DOT has not conducted any subsequent quality reviews. 

Based on interviews with DOT officials and analysis of the data, we 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

1

In 1996, Secretary Peña established the goal that 75 of the largest metropolitan areas would 

be outfitted with a complete intelligent infrastructure by 2005. Since 1996, DOT has 

increased the number of metropolitan areas for which it tracks deployment from 75 to 78. 

However, to maintain reporting consistency across the 10-year goal, DOT only reports on 

the original 75 metropolitan areas.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

To discuss DOT’s measures for assessing the status of ITS deployment in 

metropolitan areas, we interviewed DOT officials and reviewed reports 

that explain the methodology DOT uses to rate the metropolitan areas 

(high, medium, and low) in terms of deployment and integration of ITS 

technologies. (See app. 2.) We reviewed the Secretary’s 1996 speech, recent 

DOT performance plans, and GAO reports that relate to impact analysis. 

We also interviewed federal, state, and local transportation officials from 

our four case study locations about their experiences with ITS and the ITS 

technologies deployed in each area. (For more information about site 

selection and agencies we contacted, see discussion later in this section.) 

We did not review the appropriateness of the rating that DOT had assigned 

to the 75 metropolitan areas. However, we did compare the overall rating 

that DOT assigned to the four metropolitan areas we studied in depth with 

the information we gathered from our interviews with transportation and 

planning officials in those areas. 

To address our third objective—to identify the impacts of ITS 

deployment—we reviewed 38 studies issued since 2000 from our site visits 

and DOT’s ITS benefits database, a repository of academic and government 

papers evaluating the deployment of ITS technologies in U.S. and 

international locations, including any cost effectiveness analysis included 

in the studies. We asked officials at each of the four locations if they 

documented the results of their ITS deployments. Las Vegas and San 

Francisco had conducted evaluations of their ITS deployments while 

Chicago and Indianapolis had not. Las Vegas conducted two evaluations for 

a traffic-signal-timing system on two major arterial roads. San Francisco 

conducted three evaluations for ramp meters deployed on two freeways in 

the metropolitan area. Therefore, we collected five studies from our site 

visits. We also reviewed 33 recent evaluations from the ITS benefits 

database. 

In order to summarize the benefits of ITS deployment on congestion, we 

reviewed those studies that relate to mobility and capacity/throughput. 

DOT used our criteria to develop a list of 76 studies. We further refined our 

review to studies published after 2000 that involved deployments in the 

U.S., ending up with 33 evaluations in total. DOT provided us with copies of 

the evaluations. We did not assess the potential benefits of any one 

technology, such as open road electronic tolling, on the nation’s 

transportation system. 

In order to assess the reliability of the benefits database, we interviewed 

the DOT manager responsible for the database about data sources, data 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

entry, and quality control procedures. We assessed the database summaries 

by comparing them with the complete evaluations. We found that they 

generally contained accurate information regarding the location of the 

deployment, the type of ITS technology, and the impacts of the ITS 

deployment. We determined that the benefits database was sufficiently 

reliable for our purpose of identifying evaluation reports. 

We also reviewed the 38 evaluations to ensure that findings from the 

studies were based on sound methodologies. A DOT contractor reviewed 

the studies for methodological soundness before including them in DOT’s 

benefits database. We also reviewed the studies we selected from the DOT 

benefit database to ensure that these studies were based on sound 

methodologies and determined these studies were sufficiently reliable for 

describing actual and potential impacts of ITS technologies. We created a 

data collection instrument to systematically collect information from each 

evaluation we selected, including information about the evaluation design, 

expected and documented benefits, and inclusion of cost information. We 

then compiled and analyzed the information from the data collection 

instruments. We determined that the results contained in the studies were 

sufficiently reliable for our purpose of describing what is known about the 

impacts of ITS deployment. 

To address our final objective—to identify factors that limit deployment 

and use of ITS—we used a case study approach and interviewed federal, 

state, and local transportation officials about barriers to deploying and 

maintaining ITS technologies. We also used case study information to 

illustrate limitations of DOT’s deployment integration rating measurement 

approach. We used level of congestion and DOT’s integrated deployment 

rating to select four congested metropolitan areas—two areas that DOT 

has determined have deployed ITS to a great extent and two areas that DOT 

has determined have deployed ITS to a lesser extent—to study in depth.2

We selected areas with either high or low levels of integrated deployment in 

order to try to capture information that could explain the different levels of 

deployment in those locations. For example, we were interested in finding 

out whether such areas encounter similar or different barriers to 

deployment. 

2

There are many ways to measure the level of congestion. In this report, we used DOT’s 

measure of congestion—the percent of travel under congested conditions--to identify 

congested metropolitan areas. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 43 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

To identify congested metropolitan areas, we applied DOT’s integrateddeployment congestion rating to the largest 75 metropolitan areas and 

sorted them according to congestion level. DOT measures congestion as 

the percent of travel under congested conditions. We used the Texas 

Transportation Institute 2004 Urban Mobility Report—which ranked 

congestion under DOT’s definition during our selection process—to 

identify congested metropolitan areas. The 2004 Urban Mobility Report 

used 2002 travel data to rank congestion levels. We then identified a list of 

congested metropolitan areas with varying levels of deployment. In our 

deliberations about which high deployment area to visit, we took into 

account practical considerations such as proximity of metropolitan area to 

the state capital. We selected Chicago and San Francisco, which were 

ranked fourth and fifth respectively in terms of congestion and which DOT 

rated as high in integrated deployment and Las Vegas and Indianapolis, 

which were ranked 15th and 26th respectively in terms of congestion and 

rated by DOT as low in integrated deployment. We determined that Las 

Vegas is the most congested location that DOT rated low, and Indianapolis 

is the second most congested location rated low. After we visited these 

locations, the Texas Transportation Institute issued its 2005 Urban Mobility 

Report using 2003 travel data to rank congestion levels. In that report, 

Chicago and San Francisco were ranked fourth and fifth respectively in 

terms of congestion, and Las Vegas and Indianapolis were ranked ninth and 

25th respectively. 

We developed a semistructured data collection instrument to use during 

interviews with transportation and planning officials in the metropolitan 

areas. The data collection instrument included questions about local 

transportation challenges, ITS decision-makers, ITS deployments, barriers 

and facilitators to deploying ITS, and future deployment. We obtained a list 

of contacts from the FHWA division offices and identified a group of state 

and local officials involved in ITS deployment in the metropolitan area. In 

each metropolitan area, we interviewed officials from the FHWA division 

office, the state department of transportation ITS office, state department 

of transportation district engineer, metropolitan planning organization, city 

department of transportation, and transit authority. (A complete list of 

agencies we contacted is included at the end of this section.) We conducted 

our site visits between November 2004 and March 2005. We conducted our 

work from October 2004 through August 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 44 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Organizations 

Contacted

Department of 

Transportation

Federal Highway Administration Operations Office 

ITS Joint Program Office

Chicago Metropolitan Area FHWA National Resource Center (Olympia Fields, Illinois)

FHWA Illinois Division 

Illinois Department of Transportation, ITS program office

Illinois Department of Transportation, District 1

Chicago Area Metropolitan Planning Organization/Chicago Area 

Transportation Study (CATS)

City of Chicago

Illinois State Toll Highway Authority

Regional Transportation Authority

Indianapolis Metropolitan 

Area

FHWA Indiana Division 

Indiana Department of Transportation, ITS program office

Indiana Department of Transportation, Greenfield District 

Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization

Indianapolis Department of Public Works

Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo)

Las Vegas Metropolitan Area FHWA Nevada Division 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Operations

Nevada Department of Transportation, District 1

Regional Transportation Commission/Freeway and Arterial 

System of Transportation Organization (FAST)

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

San Francisco Metropolitan 

Area

FHWA National Resource Center

FHWA California Division 

California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), ITS program office

CALTRANS, District 4
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 45 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

San Francisco Department of Traffic

San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI)

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Alameda County Congestion Management Agency

Highway Associations American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

American Highway Users Alliance

International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association

Intelligent Transportation Society of America

Other Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois

University of California, Berkeley, California
Page 46 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Appendix II

Summary of DOT’s Deployment Tracking 

Methodology ApendxiI

In 1996, Secretary Peña established the goal that 75 of the largest 

metropolitan areas would be outfitted with a complete intelligent 

transportation infrastructure by 2005.1

 DOT tracks the level of deployment 

and integration and reports on the progress toward this goal periodically in 

its deployment progress report. Metropolitan areas are rated as high, 

medium, or low in terms of deployment and integration of ITS technology. 

DOT considers any metropolitan area having a high or medium rating as 

contributing to fulfilling the goal. At the end of 2004, DOT rated 28 areas 

high, 34 medium, and 13 low. 

In order to track progress toward this goal, DOT set up the metropolitan 

ITS deployment tracking methodology. The tracking system includes data 

about nine specific ITS components, including freeway management, 

incident management, arterial management, emergency management, 

transit management, electronic toll collection, transit electronic fare 

payment, highway-rail intersections, and regional multimodal traveler 

information. DOT created a set of measurable indicators of progress 

toward the overall goal and created nine data collection instruments 

(surveys) that correspond to the ITS systems. DOT contracted with Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to collect the data from the entities in 

the 75 metropolitan areas associated with ITS deployment. These entities 

included transit agencies, toll authorities, municipal governments, and 

state transportation departments, among others. ORNL sent out the first 

deployment and integration surveys in 1997, which represented the 

baseline as of the end of fiscal year 1997. The data were initially collected 

by a fax/mail survey, which later became a Web-based survey. After 2000, 

ORNL surveyed all metropolitan areas on a biennial basis and completed a 

telephone interview with the metropolitan areas with a low rating in the 

interim years to determine whether their rating should be increased. It 

completed the 2004 survey in September 2004 and published the results in 

July 2005. According to DOT officials, the 2005 survey was released in July 

2005, and was a Web-based rather than telephone survey. The 2005 data will 

be available in 2006.

From the survey questions, DOT compiles data about the level of 

deployment of ITS systems and the level of integration. To measure ITS 

deployment, DOT created five ITS component categories (collapsing the 

1

Since 1996, DOT has increased the number of metropolitan areas on which it tracks 

deployment from 75 to 78. However, to maintain reporting consistency across the 10-year 

goal, DOT only reports on the original 75 metropolitan areas.
Appendix II

Summary of DOT’s Deployment Tracking 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

nine components mentioned above into five categories) and nine 

component indicators. For example, an indicator of the arterial 

management component is the percent of signalized intersections under 

computerized control. In order to assign a rating for deployment, DOT 

created threshold values for the ITS component indicators. (See table 2.) 

For example, the threshold value for the percent computerized signalized 

intersections is 33 percent. DOT then assigns a rating of high, medium, and 

low for deployment depending on how many thresholds the metropolitan 

area exceeded. An area is rated high in component deployment if it exceeds 

the threshold value for at least one of the indicators in each of the five 

components. An area is rated medium if it exceeds the threshold value for 

freeway management/incident management or transit 

management/electronic fare payment and at least one other component. An 

area is rated low in component deployment if it exceeds the threshold 

value for one or fewer components.

Table 2: DOT’s Deployment Component Indicators and Threshold Values

Source: DOT.

To measure the level of integration, DOT defined a set of links involving 

three major organizations that operate the infrastructure—state 

governments that manage freeway management and incident management 

components; local governments that manage most arterial management 

components; and public transit authorities that manage the transit 

management component. DOT created integration indicators about how 

ITS components Component indicators Threshold values

Freeway management/incident 

management

• Percent freeway miles under electronic surveillance

• Percent freeway miles with freeway service patrols

• Percent freeway miles with closed circuit TV 

(CCTV)

Greater than or equal to 20 percent

Transit management/electronic fare 

payment

• Percent buses equipped with automated vehicle 

location

• Percent buses equipped with electronic fare 

payment

Greater than or equal to 33 percent

Arterial management • Percent signalized intersections under 

computerized control

Greater than or equal to 33 percent

Regional multimodal traveler 

information 

• Percent geographic coverage of traveler information 

from freeway electronic surveillance and freeway 

CCTV cameras

Greater than or equal to 10 percent

Emergency management services • Percent emergency vehicles operating under 

computer-aided-dispatch (CAD)

Greater than or equal to 33 percent
Appendix II

Summary of DOT’s Deployment Tracking 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

agencies connect, like sharing traffic condition information with other 

agencies, and assigns a value greater than zero for any integration indicator 

when a link is present. DOT then rates the metropolitan area according to 

how many links are present. An area is rated high if all three links are 

present; medium if any two out of three links are present; and low if one or 

fewer links are present.

To measure the level of integrated deployment, DOT combines the 

component classification and the integration classification into a single 

classification. For example, a metropolitan area which DOT rated as high in 

ITS components and high in integration, will be rated as high overall. (See 

table 3.) 

Table 3: DOT’s Integrated Deployment Classification Scheme

Source: DOT.

Component classification Integration classification Combined classification

High High High

High Medium Medium

High Low Medium

Medium High High

Medium Medium Medium

Medium Low Low

Low High Medium

Low Medium Medium

Low Low Low
Page 49 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies ApendxiI

We studied four metropolitan areas that were among the 75 metropolitan 

areas included in DOT’s deployment database to help identify barriers to 

deployment and use of ITS technologies that address congestion and help 

assess DOT’s deployment measures.1

 We visited two metropolitan areas 

(Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California) that DOT rated as having 

a high level of integrated deployment and two areas (Las Vegas, Nevada, 

and Indianapolis, Indiana) that DOT rated as having a low level of ITS 

integrated deployment. The officials we interviewed and documents we 

received provided detailed information on each area’s transportation 

challenges, the extent to which the areas were using and planned to deploy 

different types of ITS technologies, and the factors that influenced ITS 

deployment and use in their areas. We were also able to observe the extent 

to which the two areas with more ITS deployed were operating their 

existing systems. In Las Vegas and Indianapolis, however, we did not 

observe much in terms of operations, likely because of the limited 

deployment in those areas. (See app. 1 for details on our scope and 

methodology for our case study selections.) 

Chicago, Illinois

Level of Congestion In 2003, Chicago was the fourth most congested area in the nation; 

commuters spent 42 percent of their travel time in congested conditions. 

Chicago travelers that year on average spent 58 hours delayed in traffic 

costing the area over $4.2 billion in lost wages and wasted fuel—about 150 

million gallons. 

Transportation System The Chicago metropolitan planning area consists of seven counties 

encompassing a population of about 8.1 million in 2000. The population is 

expected to reach 9.8 million by 2030. Seven interstates enter the Chicago 

region. In 2002, 20.5 million vehicle trips were made daily on the area’s 

24,092 miles of interstates, freeways, and principal and minor arterial 

roads, and an additional 1.5 million daily trips were made on transit 

1

We defined congestion as the percent of travel that is under congested conditions—DOT’s 

measure of congestion. 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 50 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

systems—Chicago has both rail and bus service. In 2003, over 165.7 million 

vehicle miles were traveled on area roadways daily.

Transportation Challenges Highway congestion is a major transportation challenge for the Chicago 

area. The roadway system has not grown fast enough to keep pace with the 

increase in roadway demand, especially with commercial truck driving. 

Currently, trucks comprise up to 40 percent of daily traffic on three of the 

area’s most congested freeways. Furthermore, by 2030 the number of 

trucks on Chicago area highways is expected to increase by 80 percent. 

Trucks use twice the average road space used by cars and will account for 

more than half of the additional vehicles and two thirds of the effective 

increase in traffic on the region’s roads. 

ITS Applications Chicago uses many ITS technologies. The Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT) operates 22 changeable message signs that display 

real-time traffic information on Chicago’s freeways. IDOT utilizes over 

2,400 loop detectors to collect such information. IDOT also utilizes 113 

ramp meters, closed circuit television cameras, and video surveillance 

cameras. Drivers with cellular telephones can also call *999 to notify IDOT 

of incidents on arterials and freeways. IDOT also operates three traffic 

management centers including the Gateway Traveler Information System 

which serves as the multimodal traveler information hub for the three-state 

Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor Coalition. Gateway collects, processes, 

validates, fuses, and distributes real-time traffic, travel-time, congestion, 

construction, incident, special event, and transit information from and to 

over a dozen operating agencies in the corridor to support more effective 

management and operation of the transportation system. In addition, IDOT 

operates an Emergency Traffic patrol providing over 100,000 expressway 

motorists with incident assistance annually. Finally, multiple agencies have 

the capability to monitor area traffic from 10 traffic management centers. 

On its arterial roadways, the Chicago DOT has designed six “smart 

corridors” connected by fiber optic signals. In those corridors, cameras and 

remote devices are used to improve efficiency through traffic signal 

preemptions or fast incident management. Some corridors, such as Lake 

Shore Drive, use dynamic message signs. The Chicago DOT also has a 

traffic management center with the capability of monitoring its roadways. 

In addition, transit agencies such as the Chicago Transit Authority have 

many ITS components on their trains and buses such as Automatic Vehicle 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 51 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Location, computer-aided dispatch and control, and real-time passenger 

information signs. 

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has also deployed ITS 

applications along its 150 miles of highways in the Chicago area. 

Specifically, the agency has an electronic toll collection system, a traffic 

incident management system to manage operations and incidents that is 

integrated with the Illinois State Police computer-aided dispatch, about 400 

closed-circuit televisions, and over 100 detectors that use speed 

measurements to provide travel time estimates. 

Factors Impacting ITS 

Deployment

Chicago has a high level of ITS deployment due to significant federal 

funding, congested conditions, and ITS advocates. Since 1991, Chicago has 

received over $43 million in federal funding for deployment of ITS 

applications. The Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee area was one of four locations 

the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 

funded as part of the ITS priority corridor program. ISTEA authorized the 

Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee area with over $18 million for ITS applications. 

Being a part of the ISTEA program also helped to create the coalitions 

between transportation agencies that were needed for further 

advancement of ITS after the program ended. In addition, transportation 

officials in Chicago stated that the level of congestion on Chicago’s 

roadways combined with limited ability to build additional roadways 

compelled them to look into operational improvements such as ITS 

technologies. Finally, Chicago’s high deployment level is also the result of 

its having ITS advocates at the state and local levels. IDOT has an ITS office 

that seeks opportunities to deploy ITS applications and secure the 

necessary funding for such applications. 

While Chicago transportation agencies have achieved a high level of ITS 

deployment, they have faced challenges in operating their ITS technologies. 

Transportation officials stated that their agencies lack funding for 

operations and were not aware that federal funds could be used for 

operations. Consequently, 6 of the 10 transportation management centers 

do not have operators monitoring traffic, updating message signs, and 

notifying incident management officials when necessary. (See fig. 4.) 

Future ITS Initiatives Chicago transportation agencies are proposing 85 ITS projects—ranging in 

size from small, low cost actions to multimillion-dollar efforts—at a total 

cost of over $304 million. These efforts include the following: 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 52 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

• IDOT proposes to develop a statewide 511 information program, install 

an additional 350 cameras for closed circuit television at 1-mile intervals 

or less, and install additional dynamic message signs on its roadways. 

• The Chicago DOT proposes to design and implement a city traffic 

management center and hub with interfaces to the city’s 911 center and 

IDOT Gateway Center to cover traffic management, traveler 

information, and incident management. 

• The Regional Transportation Authority is proposing to install transit 

signal prioritization, large message displays of train schedules at five 

locations, and regional traveler information kiosks in six locations.

• The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has begun a 10-year renovation 

to transfer its tollways into an “open road” system. The open road 

concept calls for cash-paying customers (those not using the electronic 

toll collection passes) to exit the mainline to pay tolls at new express 

plazas located at the sides of the roadway. Those using electronic passes 

will be able to experience end-to-end, unimpeded travel over the entire 

274-mile toll system.
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 53 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Figure 4: A Chicago Metropolitan Area’s Traffic Management Center That Lacks Staff 

Dedicated to Monitoring Traffic throughout the Day

San Francisco, 

California

Level of Congestion In 2003, the San Francisco Bay Area was ranked the fifth most congested 

area in the nation; commuters spent 41 percent of their travel time in 

congested conditions. Bay Area travelers that year on average spent 72 

hours delayed in traffic, costing the area over $2.6 billion in lost wages and 

wasted fuel—an excess of 96 million gallons. 

Source: GAO.
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 54 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Transportation System The San Francisco Bay Area consists of nine counties encompassing a 

population of about 7 million in 2004. The population is expected to reach 

8.8 million by 2030. In 2000, about 17 million trips were made daily on the 

area’s 21,218 miles of interstates, freeways, and principal and minor arterial 

roads. An additional 1.4 million daily trips were made on transit systems; 

San Francisco has ferry, rail, and bus service. In 2003, over 91.5 million 

vehicle miles were traveled on area roadways daily. 

Transportation Challenges Changes in the Bay Area’s demographics will have significant 

transportation implications in the future. The percentage of residents age 

65 or older is expected to increase from 10 percent currently to 25 percent 

in 2030. Meeting the mobility needs of the aging population will require 

changes in a number of areas, from the design of cars to increases in 

paratransit systems. In addition, average household incomes in the Bay 

Area are expected to rise in real terms from $92,000 in 2000 to $118,000 in 

2030. The level of auto ownership is likely to rise with this income increase, 

as more families will be able to purchase additional vehicles. 

The Bay Area also has a political culture that has significantly impacted 

transportation mobility. In the late 1950s, the city of San Francisco passed 

legislation opposing new freeway construction in the city limits. Almost all 

roads in the city are arterials. In addition, the Bay Area is expected to spend 

less on new freeway projects than any other large urban area in the 

country. 

The geography of San Francisco is a challenge for transportation solutions. 

The eight toll bridges in particular are consistently crowded since they are 

the main entrance and exits into the metropolitan area. San Francisco’s 

peninsula geography makes entrance and exit via a vehicle very 

challenging. Unless a commuter is driving from the north, drivers must take 

a bridge to enter San Francisco. 

California has also significantly decentralized transportation decision 

making. In 1997, the state passed legislation allocating 75 percent of the 

state’s transportation funds (including federal transportation funds) to 

local entities for regional improvement projects. The remaining 25 percent 

is for state administered interregional improvement programs. 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 55 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

ITS Applications Transportation agencies in San Francisco have deployed a wide variety of 

ITS technologies. The Bay Area is the largest metropolitan area in the 

country to activate a 511 service. The 511 service provides Bay Area callers 

and those who visit the 511 Web site with real-time traffic information 

about conditions and incidents including point-to-point driving times on 

routes throughout the area. The service also includes fare, schedule and 

trip planning information on the area’s public transit systems; online ridematching for ride-sharing, bicycle route information; and updates on 

construction projects and special events affecting traffic. The Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (the area’s MPO) partnered with the 

CALTRANS (the state DOT) and other transit agencies to launch the service 

in 2002. Since its inception, the 511 system has received praise from the 

Intelligent Transportation Society of America and the American Public 

Transportation Association.

Transportation agencies in the Bay Area also control freeway movement 

through communication and roadside equipment that supports ramp 

control, lane controls, and interchange controls. Agencies operating 

freeways, such as CALTRANS, also have traffic management centers that 

monitor freeways to report on traffic information and detect incidents. 

Area transportation agencies feature 4,700 traffic sensing detectors on its 

2,800 freeway miles. As a result, 29 percent of the freeways have a sensing 

device within 1 mile or less, and 40 percent of the freeways have a sensing 

device within 2 miles or less. About 45 percent of these devices, however, 

are out of service reducing the ability of staff to collect traffic data such as 

speed and volume.2

 According to a DOT official, having 45 percent of traffic 

detectors out of service is on the low-end nationally and is not typical. In 

addition, San Francisco area drivers can also utilize a highway-advisory 

radio station that provides traffic information to highway travelers. 

The San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) is leading an 

integrated transportation management system effort to utilize ITS 

technologies to make traffic flow on arterial streets. DPT has begun an 

integrated transportation management system program for eight city areas. 

DPT officials stated that they have completed the initial phase of the effort 

and have installed electric traffic controls and loop detectors at 35 

intersections and have 15 cameras, 5 video surveillance monitors, 4 fixed 

2

According to transportation officials we met with, if an agency has a working traffic sensing 

detector within a mile, then it can develop a good estimation of travel time and congestion. 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 56 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

variable message signs, and a traffic management center that provides the 

ability to monitor traffic. 

The Bay Area Toll Authority has an electronic toll collection program for 

bridge toll users. The system has three components: a transponder, which 

is placed inside the vehicle; an overhead antenna, which reads the 

transponder and collects the toll; and video cameras to identify toll 

evaders. The Toll Authority has added at least one electronic toll collection 

lane to each of the eight area bridges.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and six San 

Francisco Bay Area transit agencies have developed a regional fare 

payment system. The system enables customers to use a single card to ride 

Bay Area buses, trains, light rail lines, and ferries. The nine-county Bay 

Area will be the first region in the U.S. to have a single card that can be 

used on all forms of public transit. In addition, the Bay Area Rapid Transit 

agency has installed real-time information, such as expected arrival time of 

next transit vehicle, at every rail station platform. 

Factors Impacting ITS 

Deployment 

The San Francisco Bay Area’s level of ITS deployment is high due to active 

advocates, federal resources, and a cultural climate that favors managing 

over expanding the roadway system. The MTC has taken a strong role in 

advocating and moving ITS deployment forward. In addition, federal 

funding helped in deploying ITS applications. For example, an ITS earmark 

helped launch the agency’s ITS initiatives. Between 2004 and 2005, 

Congress earmarked over $3.7 million for ITS applications in the Bay Area. 

The Bay Area also has several cultural factors that have helped to facilitate 

ITS deployment. The transportation planners have maintained a decadeslong commitment to preserving and managing the roadway system over 

expansion. In addition, according to MTC officials, the Bay Area has a 

sense of pride toward developing technology systems since the nation’s 

technology hub, Silicon Valley, is in the region. 

While San Francisco transportation agencies have achieved a high level of 

ITS deployment, they have also faced challenges in operating their ITS 

technologies. Transportation officials stated that their agencies lack 

funding for operations, awareness that federal funds could be used for 

operations, and technical standards. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for 

example, the MTC estimates that it needs an additional $419 million above 

its available funding to fully deploy the area’s regional operations 

programs—including ITS applications. In addition, some local officials 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 57 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

were not aware that federal funds can be used to operate and manage ITS 

technologies, leading some agencies to use their federal funding to replace 

their technology systems at much higher costs than would be needed to 

operate and maintain their existing technologies. A lack of business 

knowledge also led an agency to lease rather than purchase 

telecommunication lines needed for transmitting data from roadway 

sensors—this decision ended up costing the agency money in the long run. 

In addition, a San Francisco official stated that the slow completion of the 

standards development process at the national level caused them to pick a 

standard in the draft stage, hoping the technology they chose would be able 

to connect with future ITS deployment in the area.

Future ITS Initiatives The MTC has taken the lead on future ITS initiatives and plans to 

collaborate with local agencies to further the deployment of the following 

applications:

• On the freeways, MTC is planning to improve the traffic operations 

system and enhance its transportation management center, freeway 

service patrol, incident management, technical assistance, and real time 

travel information. (See fig. 5 for planned use of traveler information.)

• On arterial roads, MTC, in cooperation with the San Francisco 

Department of Parking and Traffic, plans to implement smart parking. 

Smart parking would provide drivers with real-time information on 

available parking spots at city garages. This information may improve 

efficiency from drivers searching for available parking or double 

parking.

• On all roadways, MTC plans to increase coverage of the 511 traveler 

information system.

• On transit, MTC is partnering with other transit agencies to further the 

deployment of the smart card system and make it available to more 

commuters. 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 58 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Figure 5: Artist’s Depiction of Real-Time Travel Information in San Francisco 

Las Vegas, Nevada

Level of Congestion In 2003, Las Vegas was the ninth most congested area in the nation; 

commuters spent 39 percent of their travel time in congested conditions. 

Las Vegas drivers that year on average spent 30 hours delayed in traffic 

costing the area about $380 million in lost wages and wasted fuel—about 14 

million gallons. 

Transportation System The Las Vegas metropolitan planning area is a collection of five 

incorporated cities and unincorporated rural and urban areas, all located in 

Clark County and encompassing a population of about 1.6 million in 2003. 

The population is expected to reach almost 2.4 million by 2025. In 2003, 

over 3.6 million trips were made daily on the area’s 6,569 miles of 

roadways. An additional approximately 124,000 daily trips were made on 

Source: California Center for Innovative Transportation.

4TH ST

TOLL PLAZA

OAKLAND DOWNTOWN

 2 MIN

12 MIN

18 MIN
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 59 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

transit systems. In 2003, over 27.4 million vehicle miles were traveled on 

area roadways daily. 

Las Vegas is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation. Gaming, 

proximity to natural scenic attractions, a favorable climate, and direct 

access by air and ground resulted in a population boom between 1990 and 

2000. During that time, the population rose from 741,000 to about 1.38 

million—an increase of 86 percent. Phoenix, by comparison, which during 

the same time period was the second fastest growing area had a population 

increase of 45 percent. 

Transportation Challenges The Las Vegas population growth has outpaced transportation 

infrastructure development. The increase in population has placed an 

increased demand for transit and roadway services. Las Vegas, however, 

has only two major freeways, the U.S. 95 and the I-15. Although Clark 

County Public Works is planning on building a Beltway, motorists rely 

primarily on arterials for mobility. 

ITS Applications Las Vegas transportation agencies have coordinated efforts to establish an 

ITS system on the arterial roadways in the metropolitan area. The Las 

Vegas MPO manages the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation 

organization (FAST)—an integrated freeway and arterial management 

system designed to reduce congestion, and improve incident response time 

and management. FAST is designed to both monitor and control traffic. To 

monitor traffic, FAST plans to move into a new traffic management center 

in the summer of 2005 to monitor all roadways. However, none of the area’s 

freeway miles currently are covered by electronic surveillance, and the 

state DOT is just beginning to link its ITS sensory technologies with those 

deployed by the local transportation and law enforcement agencies. 

Factors Impacting ITS 

Deployment 

Some of the barriers that have impacted ITS deployment in Las Vegas 

include funding inflexibilities, staffing limitations, and technological 

barriers. A few transportation officials stated the federal integration 

deployment program funds are specifically designated for integration and 

not strictly for deployment. This requirement made it difficult for Las Vegas 

to use a congressional earmark since it has already highly integrated its 

limited ITS deployment. In addition, transportation officials stated that 

most agencies do not have enough staff to keep up with developing 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 60 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

technologies. Finally, needed equipment is not always readily available. 

Transportation officials stated that the ITS market is small, making it 

difficult to find equipment that meets standards and is not expensive. 

Future ITS Initiatives The FAST organization plans to deploy ramp meters, dynamic message 

signs, and a 511 statewide traveler information system for area roadways. 

In addition, the Las Vegas area plans to provide real-time information on 

one of the two area freeways and at transit area kiosks. 

Indianapolis, Indiana

Level of Congestion In 2003, Indianapolis was the twenty-fifth most congested area in the 

nation; commuters spent 34 percent of their travel time in congested 

conditions. Indianapolis drivers that year on average spent 38 hours 

delayed in traffic costing the area about $362 million in lost wages and 

wasted fuel—about 14 million gallons. 

Transportation System The Indianapolis metropolitan area includes Marion County and portions of 

Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks, Johnson, and Morgan counties encompassing 

a population of about 1.4 million in 2000. The population is expected to 

reach about 1.7 million by 2030. The city and county are a unified, 

consolidated government entity. In 2002, over 5.5 million vehicles traveled 

daily on the area’s 5,644 lane miles of roadway. An additional 28,000 trips 

were made on the transit systems. In 2003, over 30.6 million vehicle miles 

were traveled on area roadways daily. The area has five major Interstates. 

Transportation Challenges Indianapolis has an entrenched car culture. Drivers use the Interstates for 

local trips and generally do not use public transit. Between 2002 and 2030, 

the Indianapolis MPO forecasts that daily vehicle trips will increase from 

5.5 million to over 6 million trips. Transportation officials stated that the 

area has no natural barriers to limit sprawl. In addition, the transit system 

has been underutilized because of the continuing challenges with the 

number of routes, convenience, and a culture that does not support public 

transit. 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 61 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Indianapolis has isolated instances of congestion. Many large special 

events attracting tourists, such as the Indianapolis 500, NASCAR, and 

NCAA tournaments create heavy episodic congestion. Although the entire 

metropolitan area is not considered very congested, certain locations in the 

metropolitan area experience heavier congestion than others. 

ITS Applications Indianapolis features few ITS applications. In 2004, the Indiana DOT 

opened a traffic management center. The traffic management center has 

incorporated cameras, sensors, and other technologies on about 25 percent 

of the Interstates and is charged with posting traffic information via 

changeable message signs, highway advisory radio, pagers, and real-time 

on the Web to inform drivers. The state DOT also runs the Hoosier Helper 

program—an emergency roadside assistance program that assists stranded 

motorists, removes debris from roadways, and sends for help in emergency 

situations. (See fig. 6.) On arterial roads, the Indianapolis Department of 

Public Works also has a traffic control center where the agency can control 

and coordinate signals and view intersections. 

Factors Impacting ITS 

Deployment 

Some of the barriers that have impacted ITS deployment in Indianapolis 

include a lack of congestion, agency coordination, ITS staff and technical 

expertise. The public does not perceive congestion levels to be significant. 

The public is not knowledgeable or interested in ITS technologies and may 

object to ITS deployment. According to a transportation official, the 

Indianapolis community may not welcome the deployment of ITS 

technologies such as ramp metering, causing local agencies to avoid 

implementing or upgrading ITS applications. Furthermore, some local 

agencies are not willing to commit to ITS, fearing it will take away funds 

from other programs. ITS deployment is not part of the locally established 

planning process and, therefore, planners do not consider it in their 

roadway building alternatives. In addition, transportation agencies in 

Indianapolis generally do not coordinate their ITS efforts. The state DOT 

traffic management system, for example, does not have a link to the city’s 

traffic management center operated by the Department of Public Works; 

the agencies are operating independently. ITS staff is limited and lacks 

technical expertise. The ITS staff located at some agencies have increasing 

workload constraints that hinder the deployment of ITS. This ITS staff also 

lack technical expertise—there are few engineers that can provide the 

skills and knowledge needed to deploy ITS systems. 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 62 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Future ITS Initiatives The state DOT is advancing its traffic management system, while the 

Indianapolis Department of Public Works is determining the ITS needs for 

arterial roadways. The state DOT is moving into advanced phases of its 

advanced traffic management system and plans to install a total of 125 

cameras spaced approximately every mile and a system of vehicle 

detection underneath the pavement placed every half mile on high-volume 

roads and one-mile on lower volume roads to measure the overall traffic 

flow. The agency plans full implementation of the system by 2008. The 

Indianapolis Department of Public Works is in the process of examining its 

ITS goals and the potential of ITS technologies such as a traffic 

management center with real time traffic information. The Department of 

Public Works also plans to centralize traffic control with the capabilities to 

respond to incidents, weather, and events over the next 5 to 10 years. 

In addition, an DOT official stated that technical expertise in ITS is 

growing. The state DOT is expanding its ITS and traffic management staff. 

FHWA is offering additional training to the MPO staff as well. 
Appendix III

Metropolitan Area Case Studies

Page 63 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Figure 6: Indiana Hoosier Helper Van

Source: GAO.
Page 64 GAO-05-943 Highway Congestion

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact JayEtta Z. Hecker, (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Cathy Colwell, Assistant Director; 

Samer Abbas; Kimberly Berry; Jay Cherlow; Jason Kelly; Gail Marnik; Sara 

Ann Moessbauer; and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this 

report.

(544097)
GAO’s Mission 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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

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

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548