GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

May 14, 2004 

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr. 

House of Representatives 

Subject: District of Columbia’s Department of Transportation’s Reorganization 

and Use of Federal-Aid Funding 

The District of Columbia’s (the District) transportation system is critical to the 

District’s residents and businesses, the federal government, and the millions of 

tourists who visit the nation’s capital annually. For example, the District’s 

transportation system serves nearly 600,000 residents and almost 500,000 workers 

who commute into and out of the city each day and is also utilized by many of the 

capital’s nearly 20 million visitors each year. Along with the Washington 

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s mass transit system, the District’s nearly 1,500 

miles of road and 213 highway bridges are important components of the District’s 

transportation system and are vital to the region’s mobility and security. To help 

build and maintain its bridges and roads, the District receives federal highway funds 

from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). All of the District’s bridges and 

about 30 percent of its roads are eligible for these funds; the remaining roads are 

maintained under the local transportation program using District funds. In 2003, the 

District expended a total of about $242 million on its bridge and road infrastructure, 

of which almost $158 million were federal-aid expenditures. 

To better manage its transportation services, the District reorganized its 

transportation infrastructure functions, creating a stand-alone Department of 

Transportation in 2002. According to the Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center (Volpe Center),1 a lack of resources and inadequate attention to emerging 

infrastructure problems allowed local road conditions to decay to the point that in 

1999, nearly 50 percent of local roads were rated fair or poor by FHWA. In addition, 

the District Department of Transportation’s (DDOT) stakeholders believed that the 

organization was reactive, lacked vision, failed to communicate with citizens, and 

was unable to quickly respond to problems. Furthermore, we noted in 20002

 that 

according to FHWA, the District’s average processing times for transportation 

 

1

The Volpe Center is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Special Programs 

Administration, and is known for its transportation and logistics expertise. 

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Historical Information on the District of Columbia’s Department of 

Public Works Federal-Aid Highways Program (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000). 
Page 2 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

infrastructure design and construction contracts were lengthy—over 25 and 21 

months, respectively, from notification of obligation ceiling to notice to proceed. To 

bring enhanced attention to transportation planning and management functions, as 

well as to improve processing times and overall performance, the Department of 

Transportation separated from the Department of Public Works and adopted a 

project management team approach to improve the planning, design, and 

construction of infrastructure projects. The reorganization is expected to provide 

more focus and leadership on transportation services and increase accountability for 

service delivery. 

In 2000 and 2001,3

 we provided you two reports that contained information on the 

District’s use of federal-aid funds and its plans to reorganize the transportation 

department to improve performance. In your most recent request, you asked us to 

provide information on (1) the District’s reorganization of its transportation 

department, (2) the department’s performance measurement system, and (3) the 

District’s use of federal-aid funds, including the average time frames for processing 

design and construction contracts. To provide information on the reorganization, we 

interviewed senior officials, including the Director of DDOT, and reviewed 

documents on the establishment of the new department and its structure. To obtain 

information on the performance measurement system, we spoke with officials from 

DDOT and the District’s Office of Deputy Mayor/City Administrator. To obtain 

information on the District’s use of federal-aid funds, we interviewed DDOT and 

FHWA officials and obtained federal-aid funding and contract data from DDOT 

officials. We determined that the federal-aid data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of our review. We conducted our work from January 2003 through March 

2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. This 

report summarizes the information we provided to your staff during our March 26, 

2004, briefing. The briefing slides, which provide more details about our analysis, are 

attached as enclosure I. 

Background 

The District Department of Transportation Establishment Act of 2002 created a 

cabinet-level agency responsible for the management of transportation infrastructure 

and operations.4

 Prior to the formation of DDOT, the responsibility for these 

functions was within the Department of Public Works (DPW). The impetus for the 

reorganization was to bring enhanced attention to transportation planning and 

management functions and elevate transportation issues to a cabinet-level status. 

The District worked with the Volpe Center to develop a plan on how to structure the 

new department. On the basis of the Volpe Center’s review of organizational 

structures and practices in other cities and state transportation agencies of similar 

 

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Restructuring of the District of Columbia Department of Public 

Work’s Division of Transportation, GAO-01-347R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001). 4

D.C. Law 14-137 (2002). 
Page 3 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

size5 and on interviews with stakeholders, DDOT adopted a project management team 

approach—teams are now responsible for transportation projects from inception to 

completion. 6 DDOT believes that this new approach will result in a departmentwide 

change in the delivery of transportation goods and services by providing faster 

delivery of services to customers and strengthening relationships with stakeholders. 

DDOT provides transportation functions for the District in its dual capacity as a city 

and a state. Because DDOT is considered a state DOT, it receives funding for 

roadway construction and improvement projects through various programs 

collectively known as the Federal-Aid Highway Program.7

 Federal funding is made 

available to the states and the District at the start of each fiscal year through 

apportionments from FHWA that are based on formulas provided in law.8 With few 

exceptions, the funds that the federal government provides to the states and the 

District for highways must be matched by funds from other sources—in the District’s 

case, local revenues. The funding requirement for most federal highway programs is 

80 percent federal and 20 percent state/local funding. According to FHWA, highway 

construction projects may take as few as 3 years or as many as 20 years to complete, 

depending on the size and complexity of the project. 

Summary 

In summary, we found the following: 

• DDOT is making significant progress with its organizational transformation 

efforts. In 2003, we reported on the results of a forum to identify and discuss 

useful practices and lessons learned from major private and public sector 

organizational mergers and transformations.9

 The result of this work was the 

identification of key practices that have consistently been followed throughout 

successful transformations. According to DDOT officials, the agency is 

implementing many of the organizational transformational practices, including 

establishing core values and a new performance management system linked to 

the agency’s goals. Even though DDOT is off to a good start, several 

transformational challenges remain. For example, DDOT is still in the midst of 

establishing a more results-oriented culture, in essence shifting from an 

environment of “it’s not my job” to “how can I help you.” DDOT is still in the 

process of aligning its workforce to its mission and establishing more effective 

recruitment and retention programs. We have reported that a change of 

culture is at the heart of a successful organizational transformation. In 

 

5

The eight cities included Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Memphis, Milwaukee, San 

Francisco, and Seattle. In addition, four state DOTs were interviewed: Delaware, Maine, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont. 

6

DDOT has restructured its infrastructure project management organization around ward-based teams. 7

Most of the funding for these programs is derived from highway user taxes, such as excise taxes on 

motor fuels and tires, taxes on the sale of trucks and trailers, and taxes on the use of heavy vehicles. 

8

For highway programs that do not have apportionment formulas, funds are distributed through 

allocations to states with qualifying projects. 

9

U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers 

and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003). 
Page 4 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

addition, DDOT faces the challenge of updating and improving its information 

systems for performance measurement, personnel recordkeeping, and 

workforce planning. DDOT is planning, or has plans to address, many of its 

remaining challenges; however, the agency has not developed an overall plan 

to support a fully integrated and successful organizational transformation. 

Because a transformation is a substantial commitment that could take years to 

complete, it requires long-term planning and leadership commitment to ensure 

success. We believe, and DDOT officials agree, that DDOT could benefit from 

a comprehensive transformational plan that would include implementation 

goals, measures, and a time line to show progress toward its transformation. 

• DDOT is in the process of developing a comprehensive performance 

measurement system that is relevant to its organizational mission and 

incorporates industry best practices. DDOT officials reported that a number 

of past performance indicators were narrow in scope and difficult to measure. 

For example, one measure was to identify the total number of trips by persons 

on bicycles in the District. DDOT officials acknowledged that the 

performance system utilized in fiscal year 2003 did not provide its customers 

with an accurate measurement of how DDOT is performing in terms of its 

overall goals—such as safety and mobility. (See enc. II for additional 

information on DDOT’s FY 2003 performance indicators.) While DDOT 

officials also indicated that the quality of the performance data varied, they 

also noted that the quality of some performance data was poor. This affects 

the department’s ability to accurately measure its performance. According to 

these officials, the majority of the performance data are entered manually and 

vary widely in their accuracy, completeness, and reliability. DDOT officials 

recognize these problems and have sought to remedy the situation by seeking 

guidance about industry best practices. As a result, DDOT is developing a 

new performance measurement system to obtain information about overall 

performance and to establish a connection between strategic goals and the 

results of day-to-day operations. This new performance system will contain 

six broad strategic goals including safety, infrastructure, customer service, 

mobility, environment, and operations, which will be supported by 60 key 

result measures10 such as a reduction in the number of pothole complaints per 

mile. (See enc. III for additional information on DDOT’s new performance 

system.) Many states, such as Maryland and Pennsylvania, have implemented 

similar performance frameworks. To complement this new framework, DDOT 

officials are implementing a technology plan that addresses the quality of the 

performance data. This plan, which they expect to be fully implemented in 2 

years, will automate data entry and update and integrate the information 

systems. 

 

10According to a DDOT official, baseline performance data for the new performance system is still 

being developed. DDOT plans to produce its first public annual report on the results of these 

measures in the fall of 2004. Due to the District’s budget cycles, these new performance measures will 

not be reflected in the agency’s official performance contract until FY 2006, but they will be tracked 

and published at the end of FY 2004. 
Page 5 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

• The District’s total expenditures for transportation projects increased from 

about $123 million in fiscal year 1999 to about $242 million in fiscal year 2003 

(see enc. IV). For fiscal years 1989 through 2003, none of the District’s federalaid highways apportionments lapsed, and the District used all funds up to its 

obligation ceiling,11 with the exception of $2.2 million in 1994 that was not 

obligated because a project was dropped from its plans (see enc. V). In 

addition, DDOT officials told us that their obligated unexpended federal-aid 

balance decreased to $330.8 million as of June 26, 2003, down from $530.5 

million as reported in our 2000 report.12 An unexpended federal-aid balance 

can result from bridge projects that incur expenses over several years. Finally, 

our recent review of construction contract processing times showed that 

average time frames have improved from 21.6 months in fiscal year 1997 

through fiscal year 1999 to an average of 19 months in fiscal year 2000 through 

fiscal year 2002.13 We did not assess processing times for design contracts 

because only two design contracts were awarded in fiscal year 2000, and none 

were awarded in fiscal year 2001 due to the ebb and flow of design and 

construction work. A new process for design contracts was implemented in 

fiscal year 2002 that utilizes open-ended contracts from which multiple task 

orders can be issued. DDOT now issues task orders as needed instead of 

issuing individual contracts, which involves a more lengthy process. In 

addition, DDOT officials told us that they are implementing an automated 

procurement system and a software system that will enhance DDOT's ability 

to manage its transportation programs. 

Conclusions 

DDOT is in the early stages of its reorganization and is off to a good start. It is 

important that DDOT fully implement its information technology plan and apply the 

organizational transformation key practices to ensure success. In addition, the 

agency could benefit from a transformational strategy that effectively makes the case 

for what type of organization DDOT believes it should become and provides a road 

map for getting there. An effective transformation strategy would include 

implementation goals, measures, and a time line to show progress made. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Mayor of the District of Columbia direct and support the 

Director of the District Department of Transportation as he develops and implements 

a comprehensive plan for its transformation that reflects key practices and addresses 

the challenges the agency is facing. Such a comprehensive plan should include 

 

11Obligation limitations act as a ceiling on the obligations that can be made in each fiscal year. 

12Barney Circle project money represented $143.3 million of the previous $530.5 balance. Barney Circle 

was a multipart transportation project that was rejected by the D.C. Council due to citizen opposition 

and environmental issues. 

13The average time frames for processing 40 construction contracts were calculated from FHWA’s 

notification of obligation ceiling to the District’s notice to proceed to the contractor. 
Page 6 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

implementation goals, measures, and a time line to show progress toward the 

agency’s transformation. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this report to DDOT and the Mayor’s Office for their review 

and comment. DDOT’s Special Assistant for Management Support provided us with 

comments from the Mayor’s Office and DDOT. They generally agreed with our 

findings and recommendation and provided some technical comments, which we 

have incorporated into this report where appropriate. 

Scope and Methodology 

To provide information on the reorganization of the transportation department, we 

interviewed District and federal officials, including the Director of DDOT, on the 

status of and issues related to the reorganization and reviewed documents on the 

establishment of the new department and its structure. To provide information on 

the Department’s performance management system, we conducted interviews with 

officials from DDOT, the District’s Office of the Inspector General, and the District’s 

Office of Deputy Mayor/City Administrator on the new department’s performance 

indicators. 

To provide information on the District’s use of federal-aid funding, we interviewed 

DDOT and FHWA officials and obtained federal-aid and contract data from DDOT 

officials. FHWA verified figures related to the federal-aid monies. We also 

interviewed DDOT officials concerning the data provided, applied logical tests to the 

data, and found no obvious errors of completion or accuracy. In addition, we 

reviewed DDOT’s financial audits, which did not identify any findings regarding the 

federal-aid monies. Along with the corroborating evidence, we believe that the 

federal funding data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. 

As agreed with your staff, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report 

earlier, we plan no further distribution until 14 days from the date of this letter. At 

that time, we will provide copies to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of 

Senate and House Subcommittees with jurisdiction over District of Columbia matters. 

We are also sending copies to the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Interim 

Inspector General of the District of Columbia, the Chief Financial Officer of the 

District of Columbia, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 
Page 7 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

available 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 goldsteinm@gao.gov or at (202) 512-

2834. Individuals making key contributions to this report are listed in enclosure VI. 

Sincerely yours, 

Mark L. Goldstein 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Enclosures
Page 8 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

District Department of Transportation 

(Reorganization and Federal-Aid Funding)

Briefing to Representative Ernest J. Istook, Jr.

March 26, 2004
Page 9 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

2

Objectives

Our objectives were to provide information on the following:

• the status of the District’s reorganization of its transportation 

department;

• the District Department of Transportation’s (DDOT) 

performance measurement system; and

• the District’s use of federal-aid highway funds, including 

average time frames for processing design and construction 

contracts.
Page 10 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

3

Scope and Methodology

• Reviewed federal and District laws and regulations.

• Interviewed officials at DDOT, U.S. DOT’s Volpe Center, and 

Federal Highway Administration.

• Reviewed reports and studies on performance measures, 

best practices for human capital management, and 

organizational transformation.

• Analyzed data on the District’s federal-aid funds, including 

time frames for processing construction contracts

• Analyzed and assessed reliability of DDOT’s federal funding 

data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 

for the purposes of our review.

• Conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.
Page 11 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

4

Background

• In July 2000, we reported that the District used 99.8 percent of its 

obligation ceiling.1 We also noted that according to FHWA, DDOT’s 

processing times for design and construction contracts were lengthy—25.7 

months and 21.6 months, respectively. In March 2001, we reported that 

the Acting Director of the Division of Transportation had begun to 

reorganize the agency to improve performance.2

• Department of Transportation Establishment Act of 2002 created a new 

District DOT responsible for the management of transportation 

infrastructure and operations.

• Prior to the formation of DDOT, these functions were located within the 

Department of Public Works (DPW) (see fig.1). 

• Purpose of the reorganization was to (1) improve the agency’s 

performance, (2) bring enhanced attention to transportation planning and 

management functions, and (3) elevate transportation issues to a cabinetlevel status. 1 U.S. General Accounting Office, Historical Information on the District of Columbia’s Department of Public Works Federal-Aid Highways Program 

(Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000).

2 U.S. General Accounting Office, Restructuring of the District of Columbia Department of Public Work’s Division of Transportation, GAO-01-347R 

(Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2001).
Page 12 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

5

Background

Figure 1: Comparison of DPW and DDOT Organizational Charts
Page 13 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

6

Background

• District DDOT management worked with the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center3 and, as a result, developed 

a project management team approach.4

• DDOT believes that the new approach will provide faster 

delivery of services to customers and strengthen 

relationships with stakeholders.

4 DDOT staff members work together on four multidisciplinary project teams. Each team is responsible for the development 

and management of projects in two wards of the District.

3 The Volpe Center is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Special Programs Administration and is known for its 

transportation and logistics expertise.
Page 14 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

7

Background

• DDOT receives funding for roadway construction and 

improvement projects through FHWA’s federal-aid highway 

program.

• DDOT and state DOTs receive an apportionment from FHWA 

based on statutory formulas.5

• The funding share for federally supported projects is usually 80

percent federal and 20 percent state/local funding.

• The District’s total expenditures for transportation projects increased from about $123 million in FY 1999 to about $242 

million in FY 2003 (see fig. 2).

5 Most of the funding for these programs is derived from highway user taxes, such as excise taxes on motor

fuels and taxes on the use of heavy vehicles. 
Page 15 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

8

Background
Page 16 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

9

Objective 1: DDOT’s Reorganization

• DDOT is undergoing an organizational transformation.

• GAO’s July 20036 report on implementation steps to assist mergers 

and transformations identified several key practices followed by public 

and private sector organizations that have led to success (fig. 3 shows 

these key practices).

• According to DDOT officials, the agency is implementing many of the 

organizational transformation best practices.

• Top leadership is defining the organizational changes.

• Core values have been established—responsiveness, customer 

service, and service delivery.

• New performance management system is linked to agency goals.

6 U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).
Page 17 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

10

Objective 1: Status of DDOT’s Reorganization

Figure 3: Key Practices for Successful Mergers and Organizational Transformations
Page 18 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

11

Objective 1: DDOT’s Reorganization

• DDOT has also implemented the following: 

• Organized into four teams (see fig. 4) that are responsible for transportation projects from inception to completion. 

• Adopted industry best practices, such as team building, and has streamlined design contracts processes.

• Increased staffing levels from 344 in FY 2001 to 626 in FY 2003.

• Hired and attracted key talent.

• For example, a national search resulted in a new Chief 

Engineer.
Page 19 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

12

Objective 1: DDOT’s Reorganization
Page 20 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

13

Objective 1: DDOT’s Reorganization

• DDOT has made significant progress in its transformation 

efforts.

• DDOT has a framework in place for addressing its 

organizational culture, performance problems, and 

customer relations.

• DDOT is also implementing strategies to seek employee 

input and help individuals maximize their full potential in 

the new organization.
Page 21 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

14

Objective 1: DDOT’s Reorganization

• According to DDOT, several transformation challenges remain:

• continuing to change its organizational culture

• moving away from “it’s not my job” to “how can I help you”

• staff feeling valued with career path opportunities

• transferring a number of functions into DDOT (e.g. Taxi Cab Commission)

• hiring staff and retaining senior management

• updating and improving DDOT information systems such, as personnel record-keeping and workforce planning information 

• developing a comprehensive workforce plan that includes identifying critical workforce skills and competencies, needed now 

and in the future
Page 22 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

15

Objective 1: DDOT’s Reorganization

• DDOT is planning or has plans to address many of the 

remaining challenges. However, the agency has not 

developed an overall plan for its transformation. Because a 

transformation is a substantial commitment that could take 

years to complete, it must be carefully and closely managed. 

We believe, and DDOT officials agree, that DDOT could 

benefit from developing the following:

• a comprehensive strategic plan for its transformation that 

would include implementation goals, measures, and a 

timeline to show progress toward its transformation.
Page 23 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

16

Objective 2: Performance Management 

Framework

• DDOT is refining its performance measurement system.

• Purpose of new system is to obtain information about overall agency performance (e.g. better mobility or 

improved safety)—establishing a connection between 

strategic goals and the results of day-to-day business 

processes.

• New performance framework includes six broad strategic goals and 60 key indicators (see fig. 5) that will better 

measure the agency’s overall performance.

• System is aligned with industry best practices.

• Many states have implemented similar performance 

frameworks (e.g., Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 

Louisiana).
Page 24 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

17

Objective 2: Performance Management 

Framework
Page 25 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

18

Objective 2: Performance Management 

Framework

• Performance data quality is poor and affects DDOT’s ability to 

accurately measure its progress in meeting goals.

• According to DDOT, information is generally inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

• The majority of data are entered manually and subject to staff interpretation (e.g., police officers hand-write accident reports).

• Information systems need technology upgrade (outdated and not integrated).

• DDOT is implementing a technology plan to address the quality of

its performance data.

• Data entry will be automated .

• Information systems will be updated and integrated.

• DDOT says it needs 24 months to fully implement technology initiatives.
Page 26 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

19

Objective 3: Federal-Aid Funding

Table 1: District’s Expenditure of Federal-Aid Funds Has Generally Increased

(in millions)

Source: DDOT.
Page 27 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure I 

20

Objective 3: Federal-Aid Funding

• For FY 1995 - 2003, none of the District’s federal-aid apportionments 

lapsed, and the District expended 100 percent of its obligation ceiling.7

• We did not assess processing times for design contracts because a 

new process was implemented in FY 2002 that utilizes open-ended 

contracts (e.g. multiple task orders can be issued).

• Average time frames for processing construction contracts have 

improved. 

• Processing time decreased from an average of 21.6 months in FY 

1997 -1999 to an average of 19 months in FY 2000 - 2002.8

• Business processes changed (e.g. contracts now approved as a 

group vs. on an individual basis)

7 FHWA distributes most federal-aid highway funds through annual apportionments according to statutory formulas. The District 

and state DOTs have 4 years to obligate or commit funds before they lapse. Obligation limitations act as a ceiling on the 

obligations that can be made in each fiscal year.

8 We could not compare this information with other states because FHWA does not collect comparable data on procurement 

processes. 
Page 28 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure I 

21

Conclusions/Recommendation

• DDOT is in the early stages of its reorganization and is off to a good 

start. It is important that DDOT fully implement its information 

technology plan as well as apply the transformational principles to 

ensure success. 

• However, the agency could benefit from a transformation strategy

that effectively makes the case for what type of organization DDOT 

believes it should become and provides a roadmap for getting 

there. The strategy should include:

• implementation goals, measures, and a timeline to show progress toward its transformation

• Therefore, we plan to recommend that the Mayor direct the Director 

of DDOT to develop and implement a comprehensive strategic plan 

for its transformation that reflects key practices and addresses the 

challenges the agency is facing.
Page 29 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure II 

DDOT’s FY 2003 Performance Measurement System
Page 30 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure III 

DDOT’s New Performance Measurement System Comprises of 6 Strategic 

Goals and 60 Key Result Measures14

Strategic Goal 1: Safety: Maintain a safe transportation system 

• Combined metric 

o Reduce total vehicle, pedestrian, and bike fatalities and injuries by 4 

percent each year 

o Maintain a relatively low ratio of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) 

• Vehicles: Improve vehicular safety 

o Reduce the number of vehicular fatalities 

o Reduce the number of vehicular crashes 

o Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes 

• Pedestrians: Improve pedestrian safety 

o Reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities 

o Reduce the number of crash-related pedestrian injuries 

• Bikes: Improve bicyclist safety 

o Reduce the number of bicyclist fatalities 

o Reduce the number of crash-related bicyclist injuries 

• Prevention: Enhance preventive measures that result in greater safety 

conditions for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists 

o Percent of malfunctioning signals repaired within 24 hours (80 percent) 

o Percent of damaged stop or yield signs responded to within 24 hours 

(100 percent) 

o Maintain a high level of seat belt usage within the District (87 percent) 

o Reduce the number of crashes at targeted/top 10 intersections 

o Number of pedestrian crosswalks improved and constructed 

Strategic Goal 2: Infrastructure: Maintain a secure and high-quality transportation 

infrastructure 

• Combined metric: 

o Maintain acceptable level of combined Infrastructure Quality Index 

• Streets and sidewalks: Improve the ride quality of the District’s roads 

and the overall quality of its sidewalks 

o Increase the District’s Pavement Quality Index (72 percent) 

o Achieve desired percent of blocks repaved 

o Reduce the percent of streets that have low Pavement Quality Index 

scores 

 

14DDOT’s new performance measurement system is in development with its first public annual 

performance report expected in fall 2004. 
Page 31 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure III 

o Complete stated number of blocks to be paved within the year (200) 

o Number of sidewalk blocks created, repaired, or repaved 

o Percent of potholes filled within 72 hours (95 percent) 

• Bridges: Improve the structural security of the District’s bridges 

o Reduce the percent of bridge deck on bridges that are structurally 

deficient or at risk of deficiency 

o Reduce the number of bridges on major commuter routes that are 

structurally deficient or at risk of deficiency 

• Trees: Improve the status of the District’s tree population 

o Interact with a targeted percentage of the District’s urban tree 

population (21 percent) 

o Maintain a lower percent of empty “plantable” urban tree spaces 

o Maintain a low percent of dead or diseased trees 

o Resolve tree complaints not related to a major storm, within acceptable 

time frames 

• Streetlight / Traffic system: Maintain a reliable streetlight and traffic 

infrastructure 

o Number of streetlight complaints 

o Percentage of streetlight repairs completed within established time 

frame 

o Level of streetlight illumination within tested areas 

o Number of new streetlights installed 

o Percentage of traffic signals that are Light Emitting Diode (LED) 

Strategic Goal 3: Mobility and flexibility: Enhance transportation mobility, access, and 

alternatives 

• Vehicle mobility: Improve traffic mobility 

o Maintain an acceptable relative delay rate on tested routes 

o Ratio of peak to off-peak travel time or speed on tested routes 

o Percent of excavation permitees completing projects within 45-day time 

frame (85 percent) 

• Alternatives: Promote accessible transportation options 

o Increase the number of mass transit riders in the District (1 percent) 

o Increase the numbers of commuters biking to work on tested routes 

o Increase the percent of people who walk, bike, or transit to work 

o Increase the number of miles of dedicated bikeways in the District 

o Number of metrobus vehicle miles traveled 

o Number of D.C. Transit Commute Benefits Program participants 

o Number of School Transit Subsidy Travel Cards issued by DDOT 

• Incident management: Reduce the impact of recurring incidences on 

traffic mobility 
Page 32 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure III 

o Respond to crashes and restore full traffic on (roadway operations 

patrol) ROP-patrolled routes within established time frames 

o Ensure that major roads are passable within 12 hours after a snow 

event (85 percent) 

Strategic Goal 4: Environmental stewardship: Manage the transportation system in an 

environmentally friendly manner 

• Air and water quality: Decrease the amount of pollutants in the 

District 

o Reduce the quantity of air pollutants in the District (3 percent/ year) 

o Reduce the quantity of water pollutants on District streets (3 percent/ 

year) 

• Environmental policies: 

o Begin implementation of “Environmental Management System” 

o Complete environmental assessment for Minnesota Ave. and TR bridge 

o Complete studies on light rail demonstration project, K & H St. 

transitway, and N.Y. Ave. Intermodal Transportation 

Strategic Goal 5: Customer service: Build a customer-friendly organization 

• Customer requests: Respond to correspondence mail in a timely 

manner 

o Response to correspondence from the Mayor’s Customer Service Unit 

(MCU) on time (95 percent) 

o Respond to U.S. mail on time (100 percent) 

o Rating of 4-5 on all four telephone service quality criteria: (1) courtesy, 

(2) knowledge, (3) etiquette and (4) overall impression 

o Resolve and close Hansen (DDOT’s work order system) requests on 

time 

o Percent of excavation permitees issued within 30 days of application 

o Number of combined complaints 

• Customer perceptions: Promote positive public perceptions 

o Percent of individuals polled, in an annual survey, who rate the 

Department’s services as good or better (70 percent) 

o Reduction in the number of complaints per snow event 

o Reduction in the number of pothole complaints per lane mile 

maintained 

Strategic Goal 6: Financial and project management: Manage the District’s 

transportation resources responsibly 

• Project financing: Utilize financial resources predictably and 

effectively 

o Percent of projects obligated on schedule (90 percent) 

o Increase the amount of funds obtained from private/alternative sources 

o Ratio of administrative to operational spending 
Page 33 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure III 

• Project delivery: Deliver projects on time and on schedule 

o Maintain an acceptable total cost vs. estimated cost ratio, excluding 

“acceptable” change orders (90 percent) 

o Percent of projects requiring no change orders due to design 

deficiencies or latent conditions (80 percent) 

o Percent of bid responses will be within 10% of engineer’s estimate (80 

percent) 

o Maintain an acceptable total time vs. estimated time for project 

completion, excluding “acceptable” delays 

o Maintain a high percentage of project phases authorized on time 
Page 34 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure IV 

District’s Expenditures of Federal-Aid, Matching, and Local Funds for FYs 1989 

through 2003 for Transportation Programs 

Dollars in millions

Fiscal 

year

Federal-aid 

expenditures

District 

matching 

expenditures

Total expenditures 

of federal-aid and 

matching fundsa District local 

expenditures

Total 

expenditures

2003 157.8 42.6 200.4 41.8 242.2

2002 150.8 44.0 194.8 32.7 227.5

2001 179.8 47.2 227.0 25.5 252.5

2000 120.8 28.0 148.8 17.6 166.4

1999 88.4 22.3 110.7 12.0 122.7

1998 84.0 24.6 108.6 6.5 115.1

1997 68.3 23.8 92.1 0.0 b 92.1

1996 47.4 6.8c 54.3 0.0 b 54.3

1995 61.7 16.1c 77.8 0.0 b 77.8

1994 75.0 25.6 100.6 24.0 124.6

1993 47.7 15.3 63.1 23.6 86.6

1992 65.3 18.4 83.7 17.3 101.0

1991 85.0 22.4 107.4 14.7 122.1

1990 75.6 13.6 89.2 11.2 100.4

1989 60.5 15.1 75.6 12.9 88.5

Source: GAO analysis of DPW and DDOT data. 

 

a

Figures may not add due to rounding. 

b

These are the years of the District’s financial crisis when limited District monies were available. 

c

The District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, P.L. 104-21 (1995), waived the District’s cost 

share for certain federal-aid projects in the District during fiscal years 1995 and 1996. The law further 

provided repayment of the waived costs and set forth a repayment schedule. The District repaid these 

funds in 1996 and 1997. 

b

 These are the years of the District’s financial crisis when limited District monies were available. 

c

 The District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Public Law 104-21 (1995), waived the 

District’s cost share for certain federal-aid projects in the District during fiscal years 1995 and 1996. 

The law further provided repayment of the waived costs and set forth a repayment schedule. The 

District repaid these funds in 1996 and 1997. 

b

 These are the years of the District’s financial crisis when limited District monies were available. 
Page 35 GAO-04-644R District Department of Transportation 

Enclosure V 

Apportionments, Obligations, and Obligation Ceilings for the District’s Federal-Aid 

Highway Program for FYs 1989 through 2003 

Dollars in millions

Fiscal 

year Apportionment

Apportionment 

lapseda Obligation 

ceiling

Obligation ceiling 

obligated

Obligation ceiling 

not obligated

2003 103.1 0.0 105.5 105.5 0.0

2002 122.3 0.0 106.8 106.8 0.0

2001 121.0 0.0 98.5 98.5 0.0

2000 114.0 0.0 92.3 92.3 0.0

1999 101.8b 0.0 91.6 91.6 0.0

1998 91.8 0.0 77.3 77.3 0.0

1997 92.8 0.0 78.9 78.9 0.0

1996 81.4 0.0 81.9 81.9 0.0

1995 105.5 0.0 92.4 92.4 0.0

1994 92.9 0.0 82.5 80.3 2.2c

1993 98.5 0.0 81.7 81.7 0.0

1992 93.0 0.0 96.4 96.4 0.0

1991 140.9d 0.0 154.0 154.0 0.0

1990 94.4 0.0 97.3 97.3 0.0

1989 106.5 0.0 104.6 104.6 0.0

Source: GAO analysis of DPW and DDOT data. 

 

a

 These are monies the District was apportioned but did not obligate within the 4-year time frame. 

b

 We did not include high priority apportionments for fiscal year 1999 because special rules apply to 

them, according to a District official. Their total value was $4.7 million in apportionments and $4.1 

million in obligation ceiling. 

c

 DPW received an additional $2.4 million in obligation ceiling during the August redistribution, but a 

project was dropped from their plans so they could not obligate the funds. 

d

 DPW was given discretionary funding that increased the original apportionment. 
Page 36 GAO-04-644R District of Department of Transportation

Enclosure VI 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts: Mark Goldstein (202) 512-2834 

 Susan Fleming (202) 512-4431 

Acknowledgments: In addition to the individuals named above, Daniel Hoy, 

Ronald King, Ron La Due Lake, Norma Samuel, Lisa 

Wright-Solomon, and Michael Yacura made key 

contributions to this report. 

(543040) 
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. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

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

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

including charts and other graphics. 

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

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

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

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

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

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

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

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs