DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION

Key Issues and Management 

Challenges, 2013

Statement of Phillip R. Herr, Managing Director, 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, 

House of Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, March 14, 2013

GAO-13-402T 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-402T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives 

March 14, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Key Issues and Management Challenges, 2013

Why GAO Did This Study

The nation’s transportation system—

including highways, airways, pipelines, 

and rail systems that move both people 

and freight—is critical to the economy 

and affects the daily lives of most 

Americans. However, this system is 

under growing strain, and estimates of 

the cost to repair and upgrade the 

system to meet current and future 

demands are in the hundreds of 

billions of dollars. At the same time, 

traditional funding sources—in 

particular motor fuel and truck-related 

taxes—are eroding and the federal 

government faces long-term fiscal 

challenges. Addressing these 

challenges will require looking across 

federal activities and reexamining all 

types of federal spending and tax 

expenditures. 

DOT is the principal agency 

responsible for implementing national 

transportation policy and administering 

most federal transportation programs.

This statement discusses four key 

management challenges facing DOT: 

(1) leveraging surface transportation 

investments to further national 

interests, (2) improving surface and 

aviation transportation safety, (3) 

effectively implementing the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System 

and (4) improving information security. 

This statement is based on GAO’s 

previous reports and testimonies, 

which are listed at the end of the 

statement. GAO has made a number 

of recommendations to DOT to more 

effectively leverage the departments’ 

investments and enhance the safety of 

the traveling public, among other 

areas. DOT actions underway to 

address these recommendations are 

described in this statement. 

What GAO Found

Leveraging surface transportation investments to further national interests: 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) faces several challenges leveraging 

investment in surface transportation networks to meet national goals and 

priorities. For example, DOT has to transition to a goal-oriented, performancebased approach for highway and transit programs, as required by the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Successfully implementing 

a performance-based approach entails new responsibilities for DOT since, as 

GAO has previously reported, its program oversight has generally been processoriented rather than outcome-oriented. DOT also faces challenges related to 

targeting funds to priorities like the nation’s freight network, effectively managing 

discretionary grant and credit assistance programs, and effectively overseeing 

other programs, such as the federal-aid highway program.

Improving surface and aviation transportation safety: GAO’s recent work on 

safety across all modes has highlighted the need for improved data reliability and 

oversight. For example, data are critical for identifying commercial motor vehicles 

that pose the highest safety concerns. In 2012, GAO recommended that the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) develop a data-driven 

approach to target carriers operating illegally by attempting to disguise their 

former identities and expand this approach to examine all new motor carriers. 

FMCSA is currently working to develop such a data-driven approach. Aviation 

safety-data collection and oversight also can be improved. For example, 

limitations in flight activity (e.g., flight hours) and other data preclude a complete 

assessment of general aviation safety. GAO recommended, among other things, 

that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) require the collection of general 

aviation aircraft flight-hour data in ways that minimize the impact on the general 

aviation community and set safety improvement goals for individual general 

aviation-industry segments, which FAA is working to address. 

Effectively implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen): NextGen is intended to transform the current radar-based system to 

an aircraft-centered, satellite navigation-based system. FAA faces three key 

challenges going forward. One challenge is delivering procedures and 

capabilities that provide aircraft operators with a return on investment in NextGen 

avionics to incentivize further investments. FAA also faces challenges keeping 

key NextGen acquisitions within cost estimates and on schedule. NextGen 

implementation will be affected by how well FAA manages the program’s 

interdependencies, as delays in one program can affect timeframes for other 

programs and overall acquisition and maintenance costs. Finally, FAA faces 

challenges managing the transition to NextGen. FAA will have to balance its 

priorities to ensure that NextGen implementation stays on course while 

continuing to maintain current equipment and facilities. FAA’s modeling indicates 

that even if all NextGen technologies are implemented, 14 airports—including 

some of the 35 busiest—may not be able to meet projected increases in demand.

Improving information security: DOT faces challenges effectively protecting its

computer systems and networks. GAO and others have found that DOT has not 

consistently implemented effective controls to ensure that financial and sensitive 

information is adequately protected from unauthorized access and other risks. 

View GAO-13-402T. For more information, 

contact Phil Herr at (202) 512-2834 or 

herrp@gao.gov. 
 

Page 1 GAO-13-402T 

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss key 

issues and management challenges facing the Department of 

Transportation (DOT), as Congress deliberates transportation policy and 

funding issues. A safe and efficient transportation system is critical to our 

economy and affects the daily lives of most Americans. Our nation has 

built vast systems of roadways, airways, railways, transit systems, 

pipelines, and waterways that help move people and goods. However, 

these systems are under growing strain, and the cost to repair and 

upgrade them to meet current and future demands is estimated in the 

hundreds of billions of dollars. The economic and environmental 

implications are significant—including wasted fuel, lost time, and 

increased costs to businesses—as cars idle in traffic and airline 

passengers confront delays.

The need for increased investment to repair and upgrade the 

transportation system is occurring at the same time the federal 

government faces long-term fiscal challenges. Absent policy changes, the 

federal government will confront increasingly large, persistent, and 

ultimately unsustainable federal deficits and debt. Addressing these 

challenges will require looking across federal activities and reexamining 

all types of federal spending and tax expenditures.1 To a large degree, 

our transportation programs operate on a “user pay” system, wherein 

users contribute to the building and upkeep of transportation systems. For 

surface transportation programs, for example, motor fuel and other truckrelated taxes support the Highway Trust Fund. However, Congress has 

transferred general revenues to the Highway Trust Fund in recent years 

to avoid shortfalls and sustain authorized levels of funding. Such transfers 

may not be sustainable given competing demands for funds and the 

federal government’s fiscal challenges. Congress and the administration 

need to agree on a long-term plan for funding surface transportation; for 

this and other reasons, funding surface transportation remains on GAO’s 

High Risk List in 2013.2

 

1

GAO-13-148SP. 

2

GAO-13-283. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-402T 

Although our nation’s transportation system is owned and operated by 

multiple levels of government and the private sector, DOT is the principal 

agency responsible for implementing national transportation policy and 

administering most federal transportation programs. My statement today 

focuses on four key issues and management challenges DOT faces:

• leveraging surface transportation investments to further national 

interests,

• improving surface and aviation transportation safety,

• effectively implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen), and

• improving information security.

My statement is based on a body of work that we have completed from 

June 2007 through March 2013, including recommendations we have 

made to both DOT and Congress. This body of work was conducted in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. A list of related GAO products 

is included as an appendix to this statement, along with footnoted

references to these products throughout the statement.

Given the condition and needs of the transportation system and the 

federal government’s fiscal outlook, DOT faces several challenges in 

leveraging investment in surface transportation networks to further 

national interests. More specifically, DOT faces challenges related to 

(1) transitioning to a goal-oriented, performance-based approach, 

(2) targeting funds to national priorities such as our freight network, 

(3) effectively managing discretionary grant and credit assistance 

programs, and (4) effectively overseeing programs and spending.

Since I testified on this topic last year, there has been progress in 

clarifying federal goals and roles and linking federal programs to 

performance, as GAO has recommended. In past work, we reported that 

many federal transportation programs do not effectively address key 

challenges, have unclear federal goals and roles, and lack links to 

Leveraging Surface 

Transportation 

Investments to 

Further National 

Interests
 

Page 3 GAO-13-402T 

performance. As a result, we made several recommendations and 

matters for congressional consideration to address these findings.3 In July 

2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP-21)4 that included provisions to move toward a 

more performance-based highway and transit program. For highways, for 

example, the act identified seven national performance goals for areas 

including pavement and bridge conditions, fatalities and injuries, and 

traffic congestion. MAP-21 also provides for the creation of performance 

measures and targets and links funding to performance, thus enhancing 

accountability for results.

Successfully implementing a performance-based approach entails new 

responsibilities for DOT and its operating administrations. For example, 

MAP-21 requires that the Secretary of Transportation initiate a rulemaking 

to establish the required performance measures for highways in 

consultation with states and others. After performance measures are set, 

states and other grantees must establish performance targets for those 

measures and report their progress to the Secretary. While some 

operating administrations, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), have been working toward such a performancebased framework for several years, the work to implement MAP-21 

requirements will require collaborating with multiple nonfederal partners 

over several years. DOT also faces institutional challenges in 

implementing performance-based programs. First, its administration and 

oversight of programs have tended to be process-oriented, rather than 

outcome-oriented. For example, we have reported that the Federal 

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) and the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) oversight of statewide and metropolitan planning 

focuses on process rather than specific transportation outcomes, making 

it unclear if states’ investment decisions are improving the condition and 

performance of the nation’s transportation system.5 For FTA’s triennial 

review program, which evaluates grantee adherence to federal 

requirements, we found that FTA evaluates the process—specifically, the 

timeliness of steps in the process—but not the outcome and quality of the 

program.6 Second, based on our work on FHWA’s oversight of the 

 

3

GAO-08-400, GAO-09-868, GAO-09-219, GAO-11-77, and GAO-11-234. 

4

Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (2012). 

5

GAO-09-868 and GAO-11-77. 

6

GAO-09-603. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-402T 

federal-aid highway program, FHWA will have to overcome risks related 

to its partnership approach with the states to move to a more

performance-based approach to monitor states’ progress and hold states 

accountable for meeting performance targets. We found advantages to 

FHWA’s partnership approach with the states but also identified risks 

such as lax oversight, a reluctance to take corrective action, and a lack of 

independence in decision making.7

Recent actions, including those set forth in MAP-21, also provide 

opportunities to better align investments in areas of national interest—

such as the freight network—to national goals. The movement of freight 

over highways, railroads, and waterways is critical to the economy and 

the livelihood of Americans who rely on freight transportation for food, 

clothing, and other essential commodities. We have previously reported 

that the fragmented federal approach to freight surface transportation has 

resulted in programs having different oversight and funding requirements 

and a lack of coordination.8 Last year, MAP-21 established a national 

freight policy and mandated that DOT develop a National Freight 

Strategic Plan including national goals and performance targets, as GAO 

has recommended.9 In order to implement this more holistic, 

performance-based approach, DOT will have to effectively coordinate 

sector transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local levels and 

private sector entities that play a role in freight mobility. These entities 

and agencies have not necessarily worked in a coordinated manner in the 

past. DOT will also have to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps), the lead federal agency responsible for maintaining and 

improving navigable waterways. DOT and the Corps signed a 

memorandum of understanding in March 2012 to identify and capitalize 

on opportunities to improve the nation’s marine transportation 

infrastructure investments. Specifically, DOT and the Corps agreed to 

develop project prioritization criteria and coordinate project evaluation and 

selection processes as they relate to DOT grant programs and the Corps’ 

project prioritization. Historically, however, there has been limited 

coordination between the two agencies. Involving the Corps is essential, 

 

7

GAO-12-474. 

8

GAO-12-342SP. 

9

GAO-08-287, GAO-07-718, GAO-07-770. 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-402T 

since the vast majority of the nation’s freight is imported and exported via 

navigable waterways through our nation’s ports.

Beyond challenges associated with implementing these changes driven 

primarily by MAP-21, DOT also faces challenges effectively managing 

existing discretionary grant programs. Most federal surface-transportation 

funding has been delivered through formula grant programs that have 

only an indirect relationship to needs and allow states and other grantees 

considerable flexibility in selecting projects to fund. Meritorious projects of 

national or regional significance, in particular those that connect 

transportation modes or cross geographic boundaries, may not compete 

well for these formula grants.10 Therefore, allocating some portion of 

federal funds for surface transportation on a competitive basis—as is 

done in many discretionary programs11—for projects of national or 

regional significance in particular, is a direction we have recommended to 

more effectively address the nation’s surface transportation challenges.12

Below we highlight key issues based on our work on two DOT 

discretionary programs.13

• Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 

program: The TIGER program represented an important step toward 

investing in projects of regional and national significance on a meritbased, competitive basis. Since 2009, DOT has held four rounds of 

competition and awarded more than $3 billion in grants to highway, 

transit, rail, port, and other projects. In March 2011 we reported that 

while DOT developed a sound set of criteria to evaluate applications 

and select grantees, there was a lack of documentation of final award 

 

10GAO-11-234. 

11Under discretionary grants, or a merit-based approach, agency officials have the 

authority to determine which eligible grant applicant will receive awards based on eligibility 

and selection criteria as established by law, regulation, or on an administrative basis and 

how much each will be awarded.

12GAO-08-400 and GAO-11-234. 

13We have also done work on three national and regional infrastructure programs—

Projects of Regional and National Significance, the National Corridor Infrastructure 

Improvement Program, and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure program. See 

GAO-09-219. 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-402T 

decisions.14 As a result, we recommended that DOT better document 

these decisions. DOT has not implemented this recommendation. In 

its work on the TIGER program, DOT’s Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) found that while grantees had developed performance 

measures, as required, these measures were generally not outcome 

based and thus could not be used to assess whether projects were 

meeting the expected outcomes articulated in their applications, such 

as improving the state of infrastructure and enhancing safety.15 Going 

forward, documenting key decisions for all major steps in the review of 

competitive grant applications will help improve transparency and help 

to ensure the credibility of DOT’s award decisions. In addition, 

establishing a process for evaluating program performance based on 

project outcomes will be important for DOT to be able to measure the 

impacts of these investments.

• High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant program: The 

HSIPR program, administered by the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), provides funds to states and others to develop high-speed rail 

and inter-city passenger-rail corridors and projects. Congress 

appropriated $8 billion for high-speed rail and inter-city passenger rail 

in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) and $2.5 billion in the fiscal year 2010 DOT Appropriations Act.16

As of October 2012, about $9.9 billion has been obligated for 150 

projects in 34 states and the District of Columbia—with more than one

third designated for a single project in California.17 While most of the 

program’s funds have been obligated, we have highlighted key 

 

14GAO-11-234. DOT’s criteria for awarding TIGER grants included improving the state of 

repair of existing infrastructure, increasing economic competitiveness, and enhancing 

safety. Projects were evaluated, based in part, on their ability to foster partnerships, 

leverage additional (nonfederal) funding, and create complete fully operable segments 

upon completion. 

15Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, DOT Established Timely 

Controls for the TIGER Discretionary Grants Program but Opportunities Exist to 

Strengthen Oversight, Report Number MH-2012-188 (Sept. 20, 2012). 

16The HSIPR grant program has not received appropriations since fiscal year 2010, and 

future federal funding is uncertain. For fiscal year 2011, $400 million in unobligated funds 

were rescinded. 

17We have ongoing work assessing the reliability of the California High Speed Rail 

project’s cost estimates and financing plans, evaluating the reasonableness of ridership 

and revenue forecasts, and examining the comprehensiveness of potential project 

economic impacts. We expect to issue our report on this work in April 2013. 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-402T 

challenges that FRA faces managing this program. In 2009, we 

recommended that FRA develop guidelines and methods for ensuring 

reliability of ridership and other forecasts used to determine the 

viability of high-speed rail projects.18 According to FRA, this 

recommendation is in the process of being implemented, and FRA 

officials stated that the agency is working to develop a comprehensive 

approach for improving the reliability of ridership forecasts. The DOT 

OIG reported that FRA faces substantial challenges to ensure the 

HSIPR program meets reporting, transparency, and program and 

financial management requirements under the Recovery Act and that

Recovery Act funding that has been obligated for HSIPR projects is 

not wasted. In addition, FRA will have to transition from its role of 

awarding grants to overseeing the implementation of HSIPR-funded 

projects, including overseeing the implementation of the California 

High Speed Rail project, which has a current cost estimate of $68.4 

billion.

In addition, DOT faces challenges implementing and managing changes 

to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 

program, which provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit 

to surface transportation projects.19 MAP-21 made several changes to the 

TIFIA program, including a dramatic increase in the funding available for 

the program. Such changes—coupled with TIFIA’s already complex 

mission to leverage limited federal resources and stimulate private capital 

investment in transportation infrastructure by providing credit assistance 

to projects of national or regional significance—constitute new 

challenges. MAP-21 authorized $750 million for fiscal year 2013 and $1 

billion for fiscal year 2014 to pay the subsidy cost of credit assistance, 

compared to $122 million in authorized budget authority in previous 

years.20 MAP-21 also made changes to the process DOT uses to select 

projects and increased the portion of project costs TIFIA loans can cover 

from 33 to 49 percent. As we reported in 2012, with the increase in 

budget authority, DOT will likely have a higher number of applications to 

 

18GAO-09-317. 

1923 U.S.C. §§ 601-609. 

20DOT also uses budget authority to pay the program’s administrative expenses. The 

subsidy cost of credit assistance covers the estimated long-term cost to the government 

(which includes defaults, delinquencies, and interest subsidies) of providing assistance.

According to DOT, $10 million in TIFIA budget authority can generally be leveraged to 

provide $100 million in credit assistance.
 

Page 8 GAO-13-402T 

review and credit agreements to negotiate.21 DOT faces challenges 

implementing these changes—including updating guidance, issuing new 

regulations, and ensuring that adequate staff and expertise exist to 

efficiently manage the expanded program—all while TIFIA credit 

assistance remains in high demand. Moreover, as the TIFIA portfolio 

grows, now totaling more than $10 billion in loans and other assistance, 

DOT will have to monitor an increasing number of projects as they 

proceed through what is expected to be decades of loan repayment to 

manage current and future risk from potential nonrepayment.

DOT also faces challenges overseeing other programs going forward.

The federal-aid highway program, and thus FHWA’s oversight role, has 

expanded over the years to encompass broader goals, more 

responsibilities, and a variety of approaches. FHWA has taken steps to 

improve its approach to managing this program’s risks by, for example, 

requiring field offices to identify risks, assess them based on their 

potential impact and the likelihood they will occur, and develop response 

strategies in their planned oversight activities.22 However, in addition to 

overcoming the risks associated with its partnership with the states, 

opportunities for improvement in other areas remain. In 2011, for this 

Subcommittee, we reviewed FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program, which 

provides funds to states to repair roads damaged by natural disasters and 

catastrophic failures, and were unable to determine the basis on which 

FHWA made many eligibility determinations because of missing or 

incomplete documentation. Without clear and standardized procedures 

for FHWA officials to make and document eligibility decisions, FHWA 

lacks assurance that only eligible projects are approved to receive scarce 

relief funds.23 In June 2012, in response to a GAO recommendation, 

FHWA reviewed each state’s balance of unused emergency relief funds 

on a monthly basis so that unused funding can be more easily identified 

and withdrawn. This resulted in savings of about $231 million in unused 

allocations in fiscal year 2012, which was made available to other priority 

Emergency Relief Program projects. In addition, FTA is implementing a 

new Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program established in July 

2012 in MAP-21,24 for which Congress recently appropriated this 

 

21GAO-12-641. 

22GAO-09-751. 

23GAO-12-45. 

24Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20017, 26 Stat. 405, 703-706. 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-402T 

program’s first funds—$10.9 billion—to restore transit services affected 

by Hurricane Sandy.25 As FTA implements this new program and 

distributes funds, assurance that only eligible projects receive funds and 

that processes support effective and efficient delivery of relief services is 

of particular importance.

Another challenge that DOT and the states continue to face is improving 

safety. The vast majority of transportation-related fatalities and injuries 

occur on our roadways, involving drivers and passengers in cars and 

large trucks, motorcyclists, pedestrians, and cyclists. We have seen a 

remarkable decline in traffic fatalities and injuries in recent years. 

Specifically, traffic fatalities and injuries decreased nearly 24 percent over 

the last decade, from about 43,000 fatalities and 2.9 million injuries in 

2002 to about 32,000 fatalities and 2.2 million injuries in 2011. (See fig. 

1.) While these trends are encouraging, NHTSA’s early estimates of 

traffic fatalities for the first 9 months of 2012 project a 7 percent increase 

in fatalities, which would be the first increase since 2005. Continued 

federal and state efforts to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries are needed, 

particularly in areas where the risks of crashes, fatalities, and injuries are 

high, such as motorcyclist, teen-driver, and distracted-driving crashes.26

 

25Supplemental Appropriations to Approve and Streamline Disaster Assistance for 

Hurricane Sandy, Pub. L. No. 113-2, 127 Stat. 4, 35-36 (2013). 

26GAO-10-544 and GAO-13-42. 

Improving Surface 

and Aviation 

Transportation Safety
 

Page 10 GAO-13-402T 

Figure 1: Traffic Fatality Rates and Total Number of Fatalities, 2002 to 2011

While other surface transportation modes—such as rail, transit, and 

pipeline—are relatively safe when compared to roadways, accidents can 

and do occur. For example, a natural gas pipeline explosion in San 

Bruno, California, in September 2010 killed 8 people and damaged or 

destroyed over 100 homes, and a hazardous liquid pipeline rupture near 

Marshall, Michigan, in July 2010 spilled over 840,000 gallons of crude oil 

into a wetland area. Likewise, although 2012 was the safest year in rail 

industry history, three notable freight rail accidents occurred during the 

summer of 2012—including the derailment of a freight train in Columbus, 

Ohio, which caused the evacuation of homes in the area because of a fire 

caused by exploding ethanol tank cars.

In addition, while the nation’s aviation system is one of the safest in the 

world, with air travel projected to increase over the next 20 years, efforts 

to ensure continued safety are increasingly important. To enhance safety, 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is shifting to a data-driven, riskbased safety oversight approach—called a safety management system 

(SMS) approach. Implementation of SMS is intended to allow FAA to 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-402T 

proactively identify system-wide trends in aviation safety and manage 

emerging hazards before they result in incidents or accidents.

Our recent work on transportation safety across all modes has highlighted 

the need for improvement in data and oversight. With the move toward a 

more performance-based approach in MAP-21, high-quality data are 

essential to identify progress and ensure accountability. As DOT moves 

closer to a data-driven, performance-based structure, a robust oversight 

approach is critical to ensure that states are establishing appropriate 

goals and making sufficient progress toward those goals.

• For traffic safety data, states maintain six core types of data systems 

that are used to identify priorities for highway and traffic safety 

programs.27 In 2010, we reported that NHTSA’s periodic assessments 

designed to help states evaluate the quality of their data systems 

were in some cases incomplete or inconsistent.28 We recommended 

actions for DOT to make those assessments more useful for states, 

and DOT plans to complete implementation of those actions this 

spring.

• Data are also critical for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) to target resources and identify which of the 

hundreds of thousands of commercial motor vehicles operating on our 

nation’s roads pose the highest safety concerns. For example, we 

recently reported that FMCSA only examines about 2 percent of new 

motor carrier applicants that register annually to identify carriers 

operating illegally under new identities. We recommended that 

FMCSA develop a data-driven approach to target new carriers 

attempting to disguise their former identities and expand this new 

approach to examine all motor carriers.29 FMCSA is currently 

developing a plan to enhance its ability to identify unsafe motor 

carriers that try to disguise their former identities and expects to 

complete the development of a data-driven approach by February 

2013. Further, industry representatives, shippers and brokers, and 

other stakeholders are questioning the validity of certain aspects, 

 

27The six core types of systems are vehicle, driver, roadway, crash, citation and 

adjudication, and injury surveillance.

28GAO-10-454. 

29GAO-12-364. 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-402T 

such as the accuracy and consistency of data inputs and the reliability 

of carrier performance scores resulting from FMCSA’s Compliance, 

Safety, Accountability (CSA) initiative—a data-driven approach to 

select the highest risk carriers for intervention. We are currently 

evaluating this approach and plan to report on this and other aspects 

of the CSA program later this year.

• FRA is responsible for overseeing efforts made by railroads in 

developing positive train control (PTC), a communications-based 

system designed to prevent some serious train accidents; progress in 

these efforts has been a concern. Federal law requires major freight 

and passenger railroads to implement this system on most major 

routes by the end of 2015. In 2010, we reported that delays in 

developing some system components as well as costs that publicly 

funded commuter railroads would incur to implement the system 

raised the risk that railroads would not meet the 2015 deadline.30 In 

2012, in response to our recommendation, FRA reported to Congress 

on the railroads’ progress in implementing PTC noting that it was 

unlikely most railroads would be able to meet the 2015 deadline. 

Further, FRA identified obstacles and recommended factors to 

consider in developing additional legislation. We are currently 

reviewing how FRA estimated the costs and benefits of PTC in its 

rulemaking process and to what extent railroads will be able to 

leverage PTC technology to achieve benefits in addition to the 

anticipated safety improvements.

• MAP-21 authorized FTA to establish and enforce basic safety 

standards for transit rail systems and required the agency to develop 

a new safety oversight program, with a continued role for state safety 

oversight offices that meet certain requirements. We have noted that 

FTA would face challenges in building up its internal capability to 

develop and carry out such a program, and that state safety oversight 

agencies would face similar challenges.31 As FTA moves forward, 

reliable rail-transit safety data as well as clear and specific goals and 

measures based on these data will be essential in allowing FTA to 

monitor safety trends, determine whether safety programs are 

achieving their intended purposes, target resources, and make 

informed decisions about the safety strategy. In 2011, we 

 

30 GAO-11-133. 

31GAO-10-314T. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-402T 

recommended improvements in FTA’s rail-transit safety database and 

related goals and measures.32 FTA officials have informed us that 

they have taken steps to improve this database, including establishing 

the appropriate internal controls over their data collection process to 

prevent data-reporting errors. FTA officials have also informed us that, 

as part of their efforts to develop their new safety strategy, they are 

working on developing new goals and measures for the agency’s railtransit safety efforts.

• Data collection and oversight for the safety of our nation’s 2.5-million 

mile pipeline network can also be improved. For example, while the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

requires pipeline operators to develop incident response plans to 

minimize the risks of leaks and ruptures, PHMSA has not linked 

performance measures or targets to measurable response-time goals 

and does not collect reliable data on actual incident response times. 

In January 2013, we recommended that PHMSA improve incident 

response data and use these data to evaluate whether to implement a 

performance-based framework for incident response times.33 In 

addition, part of the nation’s pipeline network consists of more than 

200,000 miles of onshore “gathering” pipelines, many of which are not 

federally regulated because they have generally been located away 

from populated areas and operate at relatively low pressures. 

However, urban development is encroaching on these pipelines, and 

the increased extraction of oil and natural gas from shale deposits is 

resulting in new gathering pipelines that can be larger in diameter and 

operate at higher pressures. Thus, in March 2012, we recommended 

that PHMSA collect data on these pipelines to assess their safety 

risks.34 In response, PHMSA has initiated a rulemaking to collect data 

on gathering pipelines. 

• Our work has found that FAA continues to experience data-related 

challenges that affect oversight efforts, including limitations with the 

analysis it conducts and the data it collects, as well as the absence of 

data in some areas. For example, we reported that several challenges 

remain that may affect FAA’s ability to implement SMS in an efficient 

 

32GAO-11-199. 

33GAO-13-168. We have not yet received DOT’s response to this recommendation.

34GAO-12-388. 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-402T 

and timely matter, challenges related to data sharing and data quality, 

capacity to conduct SMS-based analyses and oversight, and 

standardization of policies and procedures. As a result, in September 

2012 we made several recommendations to FAA regarding the 

implementation of SMS that FAA is working to address.35 We also 

identified data and oversight concerns in FAA’s efforts to reduce the 

general aviation accident rate. For example, while we can draw some 

conclusions about general aviation accident characteristics, limitations 

in flight activity (e.g., flight hours) and other data preclude a complete 

assessment of general aviation safety. GAO has recommended, 

among other things, that FAA require the collection of general aviation 

aircraft flight-hour data in ways that minimize the impact on the 

general aviation community, set safety improvement goals for 

individual general aviation-industry segments, and develop 

performance measures for significant activities that aim to improve 

general aviation safety.36 FAA is currently working to implement these 

recommendations. FAA’s data-related challenges are affecting other 

efforts, such as the development of standards for unmanned aerial 

systems (UAS) operations, a key step in the integration of these 

systems into the national airspace system. The standardsdevelopment process has been hindered, in part, because of FAA’s 

inability to use safety, reliability, and performance data from the 

Department of Defense, by the need for additional data from other 

sources, and by the complexities of UAS issues in general. FAA is 

working to address these data limitations; its success in doing so is 

important in moving forward with the standards-development process 

as well as supporting research and development efforts needed to 

address the obstacles affecting safe integration of UAS operations.37

 

35GAO-12-898. 

36GAO-13-36. 

37GAO-13-346T. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-402T 

Another area that I would like to address is the implementation of 

NextGen. This complex multiagency undertaking is intended to transform 

the current radar-based system into an aircraft-centered, satellite 

navigation-based system and is estimated to cost between $15 billion and 

$22 billion through 2025. FAA has taken several steps to improve 

NextGen implementation and is continuing to address critical issues that 

we, stakeholders, and others have identified, including three key 

challenges that affect NextGen implementation: delivering and 

demonstrating NextGen benefits, keeping key NextGen acquisitions 

within cost estimates and on schedule, and balancing NextGen 

implementation with maintaining and operating the current air traffic 

control system during the transition.

FAA must deliver systems, procedures, and capabilities that provide 

aircraft operators with a return on their investments in NextGen avionics. 

For example, a large percentage of the current fleet is equipped to fly 

more precise performance-based navigation (PBN) procedures, which 

use satellite-based guidance to route aircraft and improve approaches at 

airports, and can save operators money through reduced fuel use and 

shorter flight time. However, operators have expressed concern that FAA, 

to date, has not produced the most useful or beneficial PBN routes and 

procedures, and therefore, operators do not yet see benefits resulting 

from their investments in advanced avionics systems. As a means to 

leverage existing technology, to provide immediate benefit to the industry, 

and to respond to industry advisory group recommendations, FAA began 

an initiative to better use PBN procedures to resolve airspace problems in 

and provide benefits to 13 selected areas around multiple busy airports, 

known as “metroplexes.”

38 FAA is working to design its metroplex and 

other PBN initiatives to avoid some of the challenges—such as lack of air 

traffic controller involvement—that have limited the use of PBN 

procedures and, in turn, limited the potential benefits of existing PBN 

 

38The NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) has made recommendations to help FAA 

identify and prioritize improvements that could provide more immediate benefits, including 

recommending that FAA focus NextGen capabilities at metroplexes that have the greatest 

impact on aviation system performance. FAA’s initiative, the Optimization of Airspace and 

Procedures in the Metroplex (Metroplex), is under way in eight metropolitan areas across 

the country, including Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and planning is under way for five 

other areas.

Effectively 

Implementing the 

Next Generation Air 

Transportation 

System (NextGen)

Delivering and 

Demonstrating NextGen 

Benefits 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-402T 

procedures.39 If operators cannot realize benefits from existing equipment 

investments, they may be hesitant to invest in the new technologies 

necessary to fully realize NextGen benefits.

While some operational improvements can be made with existing aircraft 

equipment, realizing more significant NextGen benefits requires a critical 

mass of properly equipped aircraft. Reaching that critical mass is a 

significant challenge because the first aircraft operators to purchase and 

install NextGen-capable technologies will not obtain a return on their 

investment until many other operators also adopt NextGen technologies. 

FAA estimates that the NextGen avionics needed on aircraft to realize 

significant midterm NextGen capabilities will cost private operators about 

$6.6 billion from 2007 through 2018. However, aircraft operators may be 

hesitant to make these investments if they do not have confidence that 

benefits will be realized from their investments. The FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 201240 created a program to facilitate public-private 

financing for equipping general-aviation and air-carrier aircraft with 

NextGen technologies. According to FAA, the goal for such a program 

would be to encourage deployment of NextGen-capable aircraft sooner 

than would have occurred without such funding assistance in place. FAA 

is soliciting industry input about how to design and implement a loan 

guarantee program but has yet to decide on how to incentivize this 

transition.

As we have previously reported, FAA should regularly provide 

stakeholders, interested parties, Congress, and the American people with 

a clear picture of where NextGen’s implementation stands, and whether 

the capabilities being implemented are resulting in positive outcomes and 

improved performance for operators and passengers. We have 

recommended that FAA develop a timeline and action plan to work with 

industry and federal partner agencies to develop an agreed-upon list of 

 

39For example, FAA has found that some PBN procedures developed without air traffic 

controllers’ involvement have been used infrequently, if at all, because of problems with 

the procedure design or other challenges. In response, FAA has worked to include 

stakeholders, such as air traffic controllers and airlines, in the study and design of new 

PBN procedures. As we have previously reported, effective outreach to affected 

stakeholders can help anticipate and address potential community concerns—particularly 

with regard to noise. If not addressed, these concerns can delay efforts to use airspace 

more efficiently.

40Pub. L. No. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11 (2012). 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-402T 

outcome-based performance metrics, as well as goals for NextGen both 

at a broad level and in specific NextGen improvement areas.41 In addition, 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires FAA to report on 

measures of the agency’s progress in implementing NextGen capabilities 

and operational results.42 FAA has taken steps to establish NextGen 

metrics, but much work remains, including finalizing agency targets for 

specific improvement areas and making a link between NextGen 

performance goals and metrics and NextGen improvements. For 

example, publicly available information about FAA’s plans for 

implementing additional capabilities through 2018 lacks specifics about 

the timing and locations of implementation; this lack of details has been 

cited as an obstacle to incentivizing aircraft operators to equip with new 

technologies. Measuring performance of near-term NextGen 

improvements will be critical for FAA management and stakeholders to 

assess impacts, make investment decisions, and monitor NextGen 

progress. We will report on this issue in more detail as part of our ongoing 

near-term NextGen implementation work for the Congress.

NextGen has significantly increased the number, cost, and complexity of 

FAA’s acquisition programs; it is imperative that these programs remain 

on time and within budget, particularly given current budget constraints 

and the interdependencies of many NextGen-acquisitions. Since our 

February 2012 report on major air traffic control acquisition programs, the 

key NextGen-related acquisition programs have generally continued to 

proceed on time and on budget.43 However, past delays with the En 

Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) program—a critical program for 

NextGen—illustrate how delays can affect overall acquisition and 

maintenance costs as well as time frames for other programs. As we 

previously reported, ERAM’s delayed implementation from December 

2010 to August 2014 and cost increase of $330 million were associated 

with insufficient testing to identify software issues before deployment at 

key sites and insufficient stakeholder involvement during system 

 

41GAO-10-629. 

42Pub. L. No. 112–95, § 214, 126 Stat. 50-51.

43GAO-12-223. 

Keeping Key NextGen 

Acquisitions within Cost 

Estimates and on Schedule
 

Page 18 GAO-13-402T 

development and deployment.44 The delays with ERAM added an 

estimated $18 million per year to the costs of maintaining the system that 

ERAM was meant to replace and delayed other key NextGen 

acquisitions.45 Since new budget and schedule baselines for the ERAM 

program were established in June 2011, according to FAA reports, the 

program has made progress toward its deployment goals. The successful 

implementation of NextGen—both in the midterm (through 2020) and in 

the long term (beyond 2020)—will be affected by how well FAA manages 

such program interdependencies.

Particularly in light of constrained budget resources, FAA will have to 

balance its priorities to help ensure that NextGen implementation stays on 

course. Sustaining the current legacy equipment and facilities remains 

critical, as these will continue to be the core of the national airspace 

system for a number of years, and some of the components will be part of 

NextGen. For example, while FAA transitions to satellite-based aircraft 

surveillance through the deployment of Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance-Broadcast Out (ADS-B Out) technology, the agency expects 

to continue to operate and maintain current radar technology through at 

least 2020. At that time, FAA is scheduled to make decisions about which 

radar systems the agency will decommission and which will be 

maintained as the back-up system for ADS-B. If either ADS-B’s 

deployment or airlines’ efforts to purchase and install this technology is 

delayed, then FAA may have to maintain and operate some of its radars 

longer than expected.46

In addition, to fully realize NextGen’s capabilities, facilities that handle air 

traffic control must be reconfigured. In November 2011, FAA approved an 

 

44GAO-12-1011T also noted that ERAM’s schedule delays and cost increases were also 

attributable to unanticipated risks associated with operational complexities at the selected 

sites and insufficient communication between the program office and field sites.

45In part because of ERAM’s delay, FAA pushed the Data Communications (Data Comm) 

program’s start date from September 2011 to May 2012, revised the original plan for the 

first segment of System Wide Information Management (SWIM) to mitigate the impact of 

ERAM delays on the SWIM program, and delayed the start date for segment 2A of SWIM 

from 2010 to July 2012.

46We have ongoing work that is further exploring how FAA is preparing for the transition to 

NextGen and balancing the demands of the legacy and NextGen systems. 

Managing the Transition to 

NextGen
 

Page 19 GAO-13-402T 

initial plan to consolidate en route centers and terminal radar approachcontrol facilities (TRACONs) into large, integrated facilities over the next 

two decades. However, FAA has yet to make key decisions on how to 

proceed with this consolidation, and has delayed its decision on where to 

build the first integrated facility until June 2013. While FAA develops its 

facilities plan, it faces the immediate task of maintaining and repairing 

existing facilities so that the current air-traffic control system continues to 

operate safely and reliably during the NextGen transition. According to 

FAA, in 2011, 65 percent of its terminal facilities and 74 percent of its en 

route facilities were in either poor or fair condition with a total deferredmaintenance backlog of $310 million for these facilities. Once FAA 

develops and implements a facility consolidation plan, it can identify 

which legacy facilities to repair and maintain and, in doing so, potentially 

reduce overall facility repair and maintenance costs.47 FAA has 

acknowledged the need to keep long-term plans in mind so that it does 

not invest unnecessarily in facilities that will not be used for NextGen.

Although NextGen is projected to keep delays at many airports from 

getting worse than would be expected without these improvements, 

NextGen alone is not likely to sufficiently expand the capacity of the 

national airspace system. For example, FAA’s NextGen modeling 

indicates that even if all ongoing and planned NextGen technologies are 

implemented, 14 airports—including some of the 35 busiest—may not be 

able to meet the projected increases in demand (table 1).48 The 

transformation to NextGen will also depend on the ability of airports to 

handle greater capacity. For example, decisions regarding using existing 

capacity more efficiently include certifying and approving standards that 

allow the use of closely spaced parallel runways. At some airports, 

policies may need to be developed to address situations where demand 

exceeds capacity (e.g., pricing, administrative rules, service priorities). 

Infrastructure projects to increase capacity, such as building additional 

runways, can be a lengthy process and will require substantial advance 

planning as well as safety and cost analyses. Also, the improved 

efficiency in runway and airspace use that should result from some 

 

47As required by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, we are reviewing FAA 

facility conditions, including identifying any conditions that could interfere with employees’ 

ability to effectively and safely perform their duties. Pub. L. No. 112–95, § 610(a)(3), (c), 

126 Stat., 117. 

48FAA is in the process of updating this analysis and anticipates completing its report in 

September 2013.
 

Page 20 GAO-13-402T 

NextGen technologies may exacerbate other airport capacity constraints, 

such as taxiways, terminal gates, or parking areas. Finally, increasing 

capacity must be handled within the context of limiting increases in 

emissions and noise that can affect the communities around airports.

Table 1: Airports Projected to Need Additional Capacity in 2015 and 2025 Even if Planned NextGen Improvements Occur

Airports projected to need capacity in 2015 and 2025 

even if planned improvements occur

Airports projected to need capacity in 2025 even if planned 

improvements occur

Newark Liberty International (EWR) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International (ATL)

LaGuardia (LGA) Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL)

Long Beach (LGB) John F. Kennedy International (JFK)

Oakland International (OAK) McCarran International (LAS)

Philadelphia International (PHL) Midway International (MDW)

John Wayne (SNA) Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX)

San Diego International (SAN)

San Francisco International (SFO)

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Note: FAA is in the process of updating this analysis and anticipates completing its report in 

September 2013.

DOT relies extensively on more than 400 computerized information 

systems to carry out its financial and mission-related operations. Effective 

information security controls are required to ensure that financial and 

sensitive information is adequately protected from inadvertent or 

deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, and improper disclosure, modification, 

or destruction. Ineffective controls can also impair the accuracy, 

completeness, and timeliness of information used by management. The 

need for effective information security is further underscored by the 

evolving and growing cyber threats to federal systems and the increase in 

the number of security incidents reported by DOT and other federal 

agencies.

DOT has been challenged to effectively protect its computer systems and 

networks. Our analysis of Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OIG, 

and GAO reports shows that the department has not consistently 

implemented effective controls in accordance with National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) and OMB guidance in response to the 

Improving 

Information Security
 

Page 21 GAO-13-402T 

Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).49 For example, in 

March 2012, OMB reported that DOT had a 44.2 percent compliance rate 

with certain FISMA requirements.50 Although this is a 14.4 percent 

increase from fiscal year 2010, it is still below many other major federal 

agencies. In addition, OMB reported that DOT’s implementation of 

automated continuous-monitoring capabilities for asset and configuration 

management were both below 50 percent of the agency’s information 

technology assets. Further, we have reported on the need for federal 

agencies, including DOT, to improve their workforce planning, hiring, and 

development activities for cybersecurity personnel.51 We recommended 

that DOT, among other things, update its departmentwide cybersecurity 

workforce plan or ensure that departmental components have plans that 

fully address gaps in critical skills and competencies and that support 

requirements for its cybersecurity workforce strategies. The department 

neither concurred nor nonconcurred with our recommendations.

In summary, as the principal agency responsible for implementing 

national transportation policy and administering most federal 

transportation programs, DOT faces several key challenges going forward 

in leveraging surface transportation investments, improving surface and 

aviation transportation safety, effectively implementing NextGen, and 

improving information security. Addressing these challenges in an 

environment of increasing need and increasing fiscal challenges will 

require looking at the entire range of federal activities and reexamining 

federal spending and tax expenditures to improve and enhance these 

systems that are vital to the nation’s economy. 

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

 

49Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 1001, 116 Stat. 2135, codified at 44 U.S.C. ch. 35, subchapter II. 

50OMB, Fiscal Year 2011 Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Federal 

Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2012).

51GAO-12-8. 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-402T 

For further information on the statement, please contact Phillip R. Herr at 

(202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the last page of this 

statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement were 

Melissa Bodeau, Jonathan Carver, Steve Cohen, Matthew Cook, Gerald 

Dillingham, Susan Fleming, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, Brandon Haller, Nicole 

Jarvis, Heather Krause, Hannah Laufe, Edward Laughlin, Joanie Lofgren, 

Maureen Luna-Long, Heather MacLeod, Maria Mercado, SaraAnn 

Moessbauer, Sara Vermillion, Dave Wise, Gregory Wilshusen, and Susan 

Zimmerman.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-13-283. Washington, D.C.: February 

2013.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Continued Coordination, Operational Data, 

and Performance Standards Needed to Guide Research and 

Development. GAO-13-346T. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2013.

Pipeline Safety: Better Data and Guidance Needed to Improve Pipeline 

Operator Incident Response. GAO-13-168. Washington, D.C: January 23, 

2013.

Highway Trust Fund: Pilot Program Could Help Determine Viability of 

Mileage Fees for Certain Vehicles. GAO-13-77. Washington, D.C.: 

December 13, 2012.

The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, Fall 2012 Update. 

GAO-13-148SP. Washington: D.C.: December 3, 2012.

Maritime Infrastructure: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Effectiveness 

of Federal Efforts to Support the Marine Transportation System. 

GAO-13-80. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2012.

General Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Help Identify and 

Mitigate Safety Risks. GAO-13-36. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2012.

Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Faces Implementation 

Challenges. GAO-12-1011T. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012. 

Surface Transportation: Financing Program Could Benefit from Increased 

Performance Focus and Better Communication. GAO-12-641. 

Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2012.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Related GAO 

Products 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-402T 

Highway Infrastructure: Federal-State Partnership Produces Benefits and 

Poses Oversight Risks. GAO-12-474. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2012.

Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on Federally 

Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety.

GAO-12-388. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2012.

Motor Carrier Safety: New Applicant Reviews Should Expand to Identify 

Freight Carriers Evading Detection. GAO-12-364. Washington, D.C.: 

March 22, 2012.

2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. 

GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

Air Traffic Control Modernization: Management Challenges Associated 

with Program Costs and Schedules Could Hinder NextGen 

Implementation. GAO-12-223. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2012.

Cybersecurity Human Capital: Initiatives Need Better Planning and 

Coordination. GAO-12-8. Washington, D.C.: November. 29, 2011.

Highway Emergency Relief: Strengthened Oversight of Eligibility 

Decisions Needed. GAO-12-45. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2011.

Aviation Safety: Enhanced Oversight and Improved Availability of RiskBased Data Could Further Improve Safety. GAO-12-24. Washington, 

D.C.: October 5, 2011.

Highway Trust Fund: All States Received More Funding Than They 

Contributed in Highway Taxes from 2005 to 2009. GAO-11-918. 

Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2011.

NextGen Air Transportation System: Mechanisms for Collaboration and 

Technology Transfer Could be Enhanced to More Fully Leverage Partner 

Agency and Industry Resources. GAO-11-604. Washington, D.C.: June 

30, 2011.

Surface Transportation: Competitive Grant Programs Could Benefit from 

Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of Key 

Decisions. GAO-11-234. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2011. 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-402T 

Intercity Passenger Rail: Recording Clearer Reasons for Awards 

Decisions Would Improve Otherwise Good Grantmaking Practices.

GAO-11-283. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2011.

Rail Transit: FTA Programs Are Helping Address Transit Agencies’ Safety 

Challenges, but Improved Performance Goals and Measures Could 

Better Focus Efforts. GAO-11-199. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2011.

Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to Transition to 

Performance-Based Planning and Federal Oversight. GAO-11-77. 

Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2010.

NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA’s Metrics Can Be Used to 

Report on Status of Individual Programs, but Not of Overall NextGen 

Implementation or Outcomes. GAO-10-629. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 

2010. 

High Speed Rail: Learning From Service Start-ups, Prospects for 

Increased Industry Investment, and Federal Oversight Plans.

GAO-10-625. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2010.

Aviation Safety: Improved Data Quality and Analysis Capabilities Are 

Needed as FAA Plans a Risk-Based Approach to Safety Oversight. 

GAO-10-414. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.

Traffic Safety Data: State Data System Quality Varies and Limited 

Resources and Coordination Can Inhibit Further Progress. GAO-10-454. 

Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010.

Rail Transit: Observations on FTA’s State Safety Oversight Program and 

Potential Change in Its Oversight Role. GAO-10-314T. Washington, D.C.: 

December 10, 2009.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance 

Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight. GAO-09-868. 

Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.

Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Has Improved Its Risk Management 

Approach, but Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Project Costs. 

GAO-09-751. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2009.
 

Page 25 GAO-13-402T 

Public Transportation: FTA’s Triennial Review Program Has Improved, 

But Assessments of Grantees’ Performance Could Be Enhanced. 

GAO-09-603. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2009.

High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on 

Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear 

Federal Role. GAO-09-317. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2009.

Surface Transportation: Clear Federal Role and Criteria-Based Selection 

Process Could Improve Three National and Regional Infrastructure 

Programs. GAO-09-219. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2009.

Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More 

Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs. GAO-08-400. 

Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008.

Freight Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve 

Freight Mobility. GAO-08-287. Washington, D.C.: January 7, 2008.

Railroad Bridges and Tunnels: Federal Role in Providing Safety Oversight 

and Freight Infrastructure Investment Could Be Better Targeted. 

GAO-07-770. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2007.

Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address 

Intermodal Barriers. GAO-07-718. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2007.

(541105)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.