Testimony

Before the Committee on Environment and Public

Works

U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Monday, September 30, 2002 SURFACE AND

MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION

Challenges and Strategies

for Enhancing Mobility

Statement of JayEtta Z. Hecker

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

GAO-02-1132T
Page 1 GAO-02-1132T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the challenges faced by the

surface and maritime transportation systems in maintaining and improving

mobility. Your hearing today focuses on important issues about the

physical condition, performance, and future investment requirements of

the nation’s roadways and bridges.1

 Our remarks will focus on the

performance of the transportation systems. More specifically, we will

discuss the ultimate desired outcome of transportation infrastructure

improvements—enhanced mobility—and the possible strategies for

achieving that outcome.2

The scope of the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems—

which primarily includes roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and ports

and waterways3

—is vast. One of the major goals of these systems is to

provide and enhance mobility. Mobility provides people with access to

goods, services, recreation, and jobs; provides businesses with access to

materials, markets, and people; and promotes the movement of personnel

and material to meet national defense needs. However, the U.S. surface

and maritime transportation systems have become congested and

concerns have been raised about the burden they impose on the nation’s

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

pollution; and threats to public safety. Barriers to transportation

accessibility for certain population groups and the level of financial

resources available to address transportation problems are also major

 1

 We have not had an opportunity to review the Department of Transportation’s Conditions

and Performance Report that is expected to be released at today’s hearing.

2

 In a July 2001 testimony before the former Subcommittee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, we reviewed the

infrastructure investment estimates of seven federal agencies and found that they focus

mostly on the condition of the infrastructure rather than the desired outcomes (e.g., less

traffic congestion) that can be expected from additional infrastructure investments. We

cautioned against relying mainly on measures of need based primarily on the condition of

existing infrastructure and instead suggested comparing the costs and benefits of

alternative approaches for reaching outcomes, including noncapital alternatives (such as

strategies to manage demand rather than build new infrastructure). See U.S. General

Accounting Office, U.S. Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Federal Agencies’

Investment Estimates, GAO-01-986T (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2001).

3

 In this testimony, we define the surface transportation modes to include highways, mass

transit systems, and railroads; and the maritime transportation modes to include ports,

inland waterways, and the intermodal connections leading to them. Pipelines were not part

of our review.
Page 2 GAO-02-1132T

concerns. Balancing the goal of improving mobility with other social goals,

such as environmental preservation, will present challenges.

Our statement is based on a report that we are releasing today on surface

and maritime transportation mobility. 4

 We will discuss (1) key challenges

in maintaining and improving mobility and (2) key strategies for

addressing the challenges. Our report is primarily based on expert opinion

drawn from two panels of surface and maritime transportation experts

that we convened in April 2002. Our work also included a review of

reports prepared by federal agencies, academics, and industry groups.

Appendix I provides further information on our scope and methodology

and appendix II contains a list of relevant GAO products.

In summary:

• With increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface and maritime

transportation systems face a number of challenges in ensuring continued

mobility. These challenges include:

• Preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation

system. Increasing passenger and freight travel has already led to

increasing levels of congestion at bottlenecks and peak travel times in

some areas. For example, the amount of traffic experiencing

congestion during peak travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982

to 66 percent in 2000 in 75 metropolitan areas studied by the Texas

Transportation Institute.5

 Freight mobility is also affected by increasing

congestion within specific heavily used corridors and at specific

bottlenecks that tend to involve intermodal connections, such as

border crossings, and road and rail connections at major seaports

within metropolitan areas. Furthermore, congestion is increasing at

aging and increasing unreliable locks on the inland waterways.

• Ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved

populations (including some elderly, poor, and rural populations

that have restricted mobility) and achieving a balance between

 4

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing

Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge, GAO-02-775 (Washington, D.C.:

Aug. 30, 2002).

5

 David Shrank and Tim Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report (College Station, Tex.: Texas

Transportation Institute, June 2002).
Page 3 GAO-02-1132T

enhancing mobility and giving due regard to environmental and

other social goals. Policies and patterns of development that

encourage automobile dependence and favor provision of transit

services with inflexible routes and schedules—such as subway or

bus—may disadvantage some groups by limiting their access to needed

services or jobs. The surface and maritime transportation systems also

face the challenge of effectively addressing pollution problems caused

by increased travel levels. Emissions from passenger and freight

vehicles, shipping waste disposal practices, and excessive noise levels

have contributed to the degradation of air quality, disruption of

ecosystems, and other problems.

• There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the nation, and

our expert panelists indicated that numerous approaches are needed to

address these challenges. From these discussions, we believe that the wide

range of approaches can be clustered into three key strategies that may

help transportation decisionmakers at all levels of government address

mobility challenges. These strategies include the following:

• Focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system

rather than on specific modes or types of travel to achieve

desired mobility outcomes. Transportation agencies at the federal,

state, and local level might shift focus from their current emphasis on

single modes to consider performance outcomes of all modes in

addressing mobility challenges, and to recognize interactions across

modes between passenger and freight traffic, and between public and

private interests. This is important because addressing the mobility

challenges outlined above can involve a scope beyond a local

jurisdiction or a state line, and may require coordination across

multiple modes, types of travel, or types of transportation providers

and planners.

• Use a full range of techniques to achieve desired mobility

outcomes. Using various techniques—such as new construction,

corrective and preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, operations and

system management, and pricing—to address complex mobility

challenges, may be more effective than placing emphasis on any one

technique.

• Provide more options for financing mobility improvements and

consider additional sources of revenue. This strategy—which

involves providing more flexibility in funding across modes, expanding

financial support for alternative financing mechanisms (e.g., credit
Page 4 GAO-02-1132T

assistance to state and local governments), and considering various

revenue-raising methods—may offer promise for addressing key

mobility problems.

The U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems facilitate mobility

through an extensive network of infrastructure and operators, as well as

through the vehicles and vessels that permit passengers and freight to

move within the systems. The systems include 3.9 million miles of public

roads, 121,000 miles of major private railroad networks, and 25,000 miles

of commercially navigable waterways. They also include over 500 major

urban public transit operators in addition to numerous private transit

operators, and more than 300 ports on the coasts, Great Lakes, and inland

waterways.

Maintaining transportation systems is critical to sustaining America’s

economic growth. Efficient mobility systems significantly affect economic

development: cities could not exist and global trade could not occur

without systems to transport people and goods. The pressures on the

existing transportation system are mounting, however, as both passenger

and freight travel are expected to increase over the next 10 years,

according to Department of Transportation (DOT) projections. Passenger

vehicle travel on public roads is expected to grow by 24.7 percent from

2000 to 2010. Passenger travel on transit systems is expected to increase

by 17.2 percent over the same period. Amtrak has estimated that intercity

passenger rail ridership will increase by 25.9 percent from 2001 to 2010.

Preliminary estimates by DOT indicate that tons of freight moved on all

surface and maritime modes—truck, rail, and water—are expected to

increase by 43 percent from 1998 through 2010, with the largest increase

expected to be in the truck sector. The key factors behind increases in

passenger travel, and the modes travelers choose, are expected to be

population growth, the aging of the population, and rising affluence. For

freight movements, economic growth, increasing international trade, and

the increasing value of cargo shipped may affect future travel levels and

the modes used to move freight.

The relative roles of each sector involved in surface and maritime

transportation activities—including the federal government, other levels of

government, and the private sector—vary across modes. For public roads,

the federal government owns few roads but has played a major role in

Background
Page 5 GAO-02-1132T

funding the nation’s highways. With the completion of the interstate

highway system in the 1980s—and continuing with passage of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)6

 and its

successor legislation, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA-21)7

, in 1998—the federal government shifted its focus toward

preserving and enhancing the capacity of the system. While the federal

government’s primary role has been to provide capital funding for the

interstate system and other highway projects, state and local governments

provide the bulk of the funding for public roads in the United States and

are responsible for operating and maintaining all nonfederal roads,

including the interstate system.

For transit systems—which include a variety of multiple-occupancy

vehicle services designed to transport passengers on local and regional

routes—the federal government provides financial assistance to state and

local transit operators to develop new transit systems and improve,

maintain, and operate existing systems. The largest portion of capital

funding for transit comes from the federal government, while the primary

source for operating funds comes from passenger fares.

The respective roles of the public and private sector and the revenue

sources vary for passenger as compared with freight railroads. For

passenger railroads, the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created

Amtrak to provide intercity passenger rail service because existing

railroads found such service unprofitable. Since its founding, Amtrak has

rebuilt rail equipment and benefited from significant public investment in

track and stations, especially in the Northeast corridor, which runs

between Boston and Washington, D.C. The role of the federal government

in providing financial support to Amtrak is currently under review amid

concerns about the corporation’s financial viability and discussions about

the future direction of federal policy toward intercity rail service. For

freight railroads, the private sector owns, operates, and provides almost all

of the financing for freight railroads. Currently, the federal government

plays a relatively small role in financing freight railroad infrastructure by

offering some credit assistance to state and local governments and

railroads for capital improvements.

 6

 P.L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).

7

 P.L. 105-178 (June 9, 1998).
Page 6 GAO-02-1132T

The U.S. maritime transportation system primarily consists of waterways,

ports, the intermodal connections (e.g., inland rail and roadways) that

permit passengers and cargo to reach marine facilities, and the vessels and

vehicles that move cargo and people within the system. The maritime

infrastructure is owned and operated by an aggregation of state and local

agencies and private companies, with some federal funding provided by

the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, and DOT’s Maritime

Administration.

Funding authorization for several key federal surface transportation

programs will expire soon. For example, TEA-21’s authorization of

appropriations expires in fiscal year 2003 and the Amtrak Reform and

Accountability Act of 19978

 authorized federal appropriations for Amtrak

through the end of fiscal year 2002. In addition, the federal funding

processes and mechanisms for the maritime transportation system are

currently under review by two interagency groups.9

There are several challenges to mobility. Three of the most significant are

growing congestion, ensuring access to transportation for certain

underserved populations, and addressing the transportation system’s

negative effects on the environment and communities.

Ensuring continued mobility involves preventing congestion from

overwhelming the transportation system. Congestion is growing at

localized bottlenecks (places where the capacity of the transportation

system is most limited) and at peak travel times on public roads, transit

systems, freight rail lines, and at freight hubs such as ports and borders

where freight is transferred from one mode to another. In particular:

• For local urban travel, a study by the Texas Transportation Institute10

showed that the amount of traffic experiencing congestion during peak

 8

 P.L. 105-134 (Dec. 2, 1997).

9

 The two groups are the Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System and

the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council.

10 Shrank and Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report.

Key Mobility

Challenges Include

Growing Congestion

and Other Problems

Congestion
Page 7 GAO-02-1132T

travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982 to 66 percent in 2000 in the

75 metropolitan areas studied. In addition, the average time per day that

roads were congested increased over this period, from about 4.5 hours in

1982 to about 7 hours in 2000. Increased road congestion can also affect

public bus and other transit systems that operate on roads. Some transit

systems are also experiencing increasing rail congestion at peak travel

times.11 In addition, concerns have been raised about how intercity and

tourist travel interacts with local traffic in metropolitan areas and in

smaller towns and rural areas, and how this interaction will evolve in the

future. According to a report sponsored by the World Business Council for

Sustainable Development, Mobility 2001,

12 capacity problems for intercity

travelers are severe in certain heavily traveled corridors, such as the

Northeast corridor, which links Washington, D.C., New York, and Boston.

In addition, the study said that intercity travel may constitute a substantial

proportion of total traffic passing through smaller towns and rural areas.

• Congestion is expected to increase on major freight transportation

networks at specific bottlenecks, particularly where intermodal

connections occur, and at peak travel times. This expectation raises

concerns about how interactions between freight and passenger travel and

how increases in both types of travel will affect mobility in the future.

Trucks contribute to congestion in metropolitan and other areas where

they generally move on the same roads and highways as personal vehicles,

particularly during peak periods of travel. In addition, high demand for

freight, particularly freight moved on trucks, exists in metropolitan areas

where overall congestion tends to be the worst.

• With international trade an increasing part of the economy and with larger

containerships being built, some panelists indicated that more pressure

will be placed on the already congested road and rail connections to major

U.S. seaports and at the border crossings with Canada and Mexico.

 11 For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s studies on crowding

found that, of the more than 200 peak morning rail trips observed over a recent 6-month

period, on average, 23 percent were considered “uncomfortably crowded or crush loads.”

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at

WMATA, but Capital Planning Could Be Enhanced, GAO-01-744 (Washington, D.C.: July 2,

2001).

12 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River Associates, Inc., Mobility 2001:

World Mobility at the End of the Twentieth Century and Its Sustainability (World

Business Council for Sustainable Development, Aug. 2001).
Page 8 GAO-02-1132T

According to a DOT report,13 more than one-half of the ports responding to

a 1997 survey of port access issues identified traffic impediments on local

truck routes as the major infrastructure problem. This congestion has

considerable implications for our economy given that 95 percent of our

overseas trade tonnage moves by water, and the cargo moving through the

U.S. marine transportation system contributes billions of dollars to the

U.S. gross domestic product.14

• Railroads are beginning to experience more severe capacity constraints in

heavily used corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, and within major

metropolitan areas, especially where commuter and intercity passenger

rail services share tracks with freight railroads. Capacity constraints at

these bottlenecks are expected to worsen in the future.

• On the inland waterways, congestion is increasing at aging and

increasingly unreliable locks. According to the Corps of Engineers, the

number of hours that locks were unavailable due to lock failures increased

in recent years, from about 35,000 hours in 1991 to 55,000 hours in 1999,

occurring primarily on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. Also

according to the Corps of Engineers, with expected growth in freight

travel, 15 of 26 locks that they studied are expected to exceed 80 percent

of their capacity by 2020, as compared to 4 that had reached that level in

1999.

Some of the systemic factors that contribute to congestion include (1)

barriers to building enough capacity to accommodate growing levels of

travel; (2) challenges to effectively managing and operating transportation

systems; and (3) barriers to effectively managing how, and the extent to

which, transportation systems are used. First, there is insufficient capacity

at bottlenecks and during peak travel times to accommodate traffic levels

for a variety of reasons. For example, transportation infrastructure (which

is generally provided by the public sector, except for freight railroads)

takes a long time to plan and build, is often costly, and can conflict with

other social goals such as environmental preservation and community

maintenance. Furthermore, funding and planning rigidities in the public

 13An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Transportation, Sept. 1999).

14 U.S. General Accounting Office, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a

Framework for Infrastructure Investments, GAO-02-1033 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,

2002).
Page 9 GAO-02-1132T

institutions responsible for providing transportation infrastructure tend to

promote one mode of transportation, rather than a combination of

balanced transportation choices, making it more difficult to deal

effectively with congestion. In addition, some bottlenecks occur where

modes connect, and because funding is generally mode-specific, dealing

with congestion at these intermodal connections is not easily addressed.

Second, many factors related to the management and operation of

transportation systems can contribute to increasing congestion.

Congestion on highways is in part due to poor management of traffic flows

on the connectors between highways and poor management in clearing

roads that are blocked due to accidents, inclement weather, or

construction. For example, in the 75 metropolitan areas studied by the

Texas Transportation Institute, 54 percent of annual vehicle delays in 2000

were due to incidents such as breakdowns or crashes. In addition, the Oak

Ridge National Laboratory reported that, nationwide, significant delays are

caused by work zones on highways; poorly timed traffic signals; and snow,

ice, and fog.15

Third, some panelists said that congestion on transportation systems is

also due in part to inefficient pricing of the infrastructure because users—

whether they are drivers on a highway or barge operators moving through

a lock—do not pay the full costs they impose on the system and on other

users for their use of the system. If travelers and freight carriers had to pay

a higher cost for using transportation systems during peak periods to

reflect the full costs they impose, they might have an incentive to avoid or

reschedule some trips and to load vehicles more fully, possibly resulting in

less congestion.

Panelists also noted that the types of congestion problems that are

expected to worsen involve interactions between long-distance and local

traffic and between passengers and freight. Existing institutions may not

have the capacity or the authority to address them. For example, some

local bottlenecks may hinder traffic that has regional or national

significance, such as national freight flows from major coastal ports, or

can affect the economies and traffic in more than one state. Current state

and local planning organizations may have difficulty considering all the

 15 S.M. Chin, O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L. Hwang, and R. Gibson, Temporary Losses of

Capacity Study and Impacts on Performance, Report No. ORNL/TM-2002/3 (Oak Ridge,

Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May 2002).
Page 10 GAO-02-1132T

costs and benefits related to national or international traffic flows that

affect other jurisdictions as well as their own. Furthermore, in our recent

survey of states, most states reported that the increasing volume of both

car and truck traffic over the next decade would negatively affect the

physical condition of pavement and bridges and the safety of their

interstate highways.16

Besides dealing with the challenge of congestion, ensuring mobility also

involves ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved

populations. Settlement patterns and dependence on automobiles limit

access to transportation systems for some elderly people and low-income

households, and in rural areas where populations are expected to expand.

The elderly have different mobility challenges than other populations

because they are less likely to have drivers’ licenses, have more serious

health problems, and may require special services and facilities, according

to the Department of Transportation’s 1999 Conditions and Performance

report.17 People who cannot drive themselves tend to rely on family, other

caregivers, or friends to drive them, or find alternative means of

transportation. Many of the elderly also may have difficulty using public

transportation due to physical ailments. As a result, according to the 1999

Conditions and Performance report and a 1998 report about mobility for

older drivers,18 they experience increased waiting times, uncertainty, and

inconvenience, and they are required to do more advance trip planning.

These factors can lead to fewer trips taken for necessary business and for

recreation, as well as restrictions on times and places that healthcare can

be obtained. As the population of elderly individuals increases over the

next 10 years, issues pertaining to access are expected to become more

prominent in society.

 16 U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical

Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue, GAO-02-571

(Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2002).

17 Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, 1999 Status of the

Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000).

18 Jon E. Burkhardt, Arlene M. Berger, Michael Creedon, and Adam T. McGavock, Mobility

and Independence: Changes and Challenges for Older Drivers (July 1998). This report was

developed under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (DHHS), under the auspices of the Joint DHHS/DOT Coordinating Council on

Access and Mobility.

Other Mobility Challenges
Page 11 GAO-02-1132T

Lower income levels can also be a significant barrier to transportation

access. The cost of purchasing, insuring, and maintaining a car is

prohibitive to some households, and 26 percent of low-income households

do not own a car, compared with 4 percent of other households, according

to the 1999 Conditions and Performance report. Among all low-income

households, about 8 percent of trips are made in cars that are owned by

others as compared to 1 percent for other income groups. Furthermore,

similar uncertainties and inconveniences apply to this group as to the

elderly regarding relying on others for transportation. In addition, in case

studies of access to jobs for low-income populations, Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) researchers found that transportation barriers to job

access included gaps in transit service, lack of knowledge of where transit

services are provided, and high transportation costs resulting from

multiple transfers and long distances traveled.19

Rural populations, which according to the 2000 Census grew by 10 percent

over the last 10 years, also face access problems. Access to some form of

transportation is necessary to connect rural populations to jobs and other

amenities in city centers or, increasingly, in the suburbs. Trips by rural

residents tend to be longer due to lower population densities and the

relative isolation of small communities. Therefore, transportation can be a

challenge to provide in rural areas, especially for persons without access

to private automobiles. A report prepared for the FTA in 200120 found that

1 in 13 rural residents lives in a household without a personal vehicle. In

addition, according to a report by the Coordinating Council on Access and

Mobility,21 while almost 60 percent of all nonmetropolitan counties had

some public transportation services in 2000, many of these operations

were small and offered services only to limited geographic areas during

limited times.

Finally, transportation can also negatively affect the environment and

communities by increasing the levels of air and water pollution. As a result

of the negative consequences of transportation, tradeoffs must be made

 19 Federal Transit Administration, Access to Jobs: Planning Case Studies (Washington,

D.C: U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 2001).

20 Community Transportation Association of America, Status of Rural Public

Transportation-2000 (April 2001).

21 Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines for Coordinated

State and Local Specialized Transportation Services (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department

of Transportation, Dec. 20, 2000).
Page 12 GAO-02-1132T

between facilitating increased mobility and giving due regard to

environmental and other social goals. For example, transportation

vehicles are major sources of local, urban, and regional air pollution

because they depend on fossil fuels to operate. Emissions from vehicles

include sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, volatile organic

compounds, particulate matter, and nitrous oxides. Vehicle emissions in

congested areas can trigger respiratory and other illnesses, and runoff

from impervious surfaces, such as highways, can carry pollutants into

lakes, streams, and rivers, thus threatening aquatic environments.22

Freight transportation also has significant environmental effects. Trucks

are significant contributors to air pollution. According to the American

Trucking Association, trucks were responsible for 18.5 percent of nitrous

oxide emissions and 27.5 percent of other particulate emissions from

mobile sources in the United States. The Mobility 2001 report states that

freight trains also contribute to emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon

monoxide, and nitrous oxide, although generally at levels considerably

lower than trucks. In addition, while large shipping vessels are more

energy efficient than trucks or trains, they are also major sources of

nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and diesel particulate emissions. According to the

International Maritime Organization, ocean shipping is responsible for 22

percent of the wastes dumped into the sea on an annual basis.

The experts we consulted presented numerous approaches for addressing

the types of challenges discussed throughout this statement, but they

emphasized that no single strategy would be sufficient. From these

discussions and our literature review, we have identified three key

strategies that may help transportation decisionmakers at all levels of

government address mobility challenges and the institutional barriers that

contribute to them. The strategies include (1) focusing on systemwide

outcomes, (2) using a full range of techniques, and (3) providing options

for financing surface and maritime transportation.

 22 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives

Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water Quality, GAO-02-12

(Washington, D.C., Oct. 31, 2001).

Three Strategies for

Addressing Mobility

Challenges
Page 13 GAO-02-1132T

Shifting the focus of government transportation agencies at the federal,

state, and local levels to consider all modes and types of travel in

addressing mobility challenges—as opposed to focusing on a specific

mode or type of travel in planning and implementing mobility

improvements—could help achieve enhanced mobility. Addressing the

types of mobility challenges discussed earlier in this statement can require

a scope beyond a local jurisdiction, state line, or one mode or type of

travel. For example, congestion challenges often occur where modes

connect or should connect—such as ports or freight hubs where freight is

transferred from one mode to another, or airports that passengers need to

access by car, bus, or rail. These connections require coordination of more

than one mode of transportation and cooperation among multiple

transportation providers and planners, such as port authorities,

metropolitan planning organizations (MPO),23 and private freight railroads.

Therefore, a systemwide approach to transportation planning and funding,

as opposed to focus on a single mode or type of travel, could improve

focus on outcomes related to user or community needs. The experts we

consulted provided a number of examples of alternative transportation

planning and funding systems that might better focus on outcomes that

users and communities desire, including the following:

• Performance-oriented funding system. The federal government would

first define certain national interests of the transportation system—such

as maintaining the entire interstate highway system or identifying freight

corridors of importance to the national economy—then set national

performance standards for those systems that states and localities must

meet. Federal funds would be distributed to those entities that address

national interests and meet the established standards. Any federal funds

remaining after meeting the performance standards could then be used for

whatever transportation purpose the state or locality deems most

appropriate to achieve state or local mobility goals.

• Federal financial reward-based system. Federal support would reward

those states or localities that apply federal money to gain efficiencies in

their transportation systems, or tie transportation projects to land use and

other local policies to achieve community and environmental goals, as

well as mobility goals.

 23 MPOs are organizations of city, county, state, and federal officials that provide a regional

forum for transportation planning.

Focus on the Entire

Surface and Maritime

Transportation System

Rather Than on Specific

Modes or Types of Travel

to Achieve Desired

Mobility Outcomes.
Page 14 GAO-02-1132T

• System with different federal matching criteria for different types

of expenditures that might reflect federal priorities. For example, if

infrastructure preservation became a higher national priority than building

new capacity, matching requirements could be changed to a 50 percent

federal share for building new physical capacity and an 80 percent federal

share for preservation.

• System in which state and local governments pay for a larger share

of transportation projects, which might provide them with

incentives to invest in more cost-effective projects. Reducing the

federal match for projects in all modes may give states and localities more

fiscal responsibility for projects they are planning. If cost savings resulted,

these entities might have more funds available to address other mobility

challenges. Making federal matching requirements equal for all modes may

avoid creating incentives to pursue projects in one mode that might be less

effective than projects in other modes.

In addition, we recently reported on the need to view various

transportation modes, and freight movement in particular, from an

integrated standpoint, particularly for the purposes of developing a federal

investment strategy and considering alternative funding approaches.24 We

identified four key components of a systematic framework to guide

transportation investment decisions including (1) establishing national

goals for the system, (2) clearly defining the federal role relative to other

stakeholders, (3) determining the funding tools and other approaches that

will maximize the impact of any federal investment, and (4) ensuring that a

process is in place for evaluating performance and accountability.

Using a range of techniques to address mobility challenges may help

control congestion and improve access. This approach involves a strategic

mix of construction, corrective and preventive maintenance,

rehabilitation, operations and system management, and managing system

use through pricing or other techniques. No one type of technique would

be sufficient to address mobility challenges. Although these techniques are

currently in use, the experts we consulted indicated that planners should

more consistently consider a full range of techniques, as follows:

 24 GAO-02-1033.

Use a Full Range of

Techniques to Address

Mobility Challenges
Page 15 GAO-02-1132T

• Build new infrastructure. Building additional infrastructure is perhaps

the most familiar technique for addressing congestion and improving

access to surface and maritime transportation. Although there is a lot of

unused capacity in the transportation system, certain bottlenecks and key

corridors require new infrastructure.

• Increase infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation. An

emphasis on enhancing capacity from existing infrastructure through

increased corrective and preventive maintenance and rehabilitation is an

important supplement to, and sometimes a substitute for, building new

infrastructure. Maintaining and rehabilitating transportation systems can

improve the speed and reliability of passenger and freight travel, thereby

optimizing capital investments.

• Improve management and operations. Better management and

operation of existing surface and maritime transportation infrastructure is

another technique for enhancing mobility because it may allow the

existing transportation system to accommodate additional travel without

having to add new infrastructure. For example, the Texas Transportation

Institute reported that coordinating traffic signal timing with changing

traffic conditions could improve flow on congested roadways. One

panelist noted that shifting the focus of transportation planning from

building capital facilities to an “operations mindset” will require a cultural

shift in many transportation institutions, particularly in the public sector,

so that the organizational structure, hierarchy, and rewards and incentives

are all focused on improving transportation management and operations.25

• Increase investment in technology. Increasing public sector

investment in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies that

are designed to enhance the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the

transportation network, can serve as a way of increasing capacity and

mobility without making major capital investments. ITS includes

technologies that improve traffic flow by adjusting signals, facilitating

traffic flow at toll plazas, alerting emergency management services to the

locations of crashes, increasing the efficiency of transit fare payment

systems, and other actions. Other technological improvements include

increasing information available to users of the transportation system to

 25 Joseph M. Sussman, “Transitions in the World of Transportation: A Systems View,”

Transportation Quarterly 56 (2002): 21-22.
Page 16 GAO-02-1132T

help people avoid congested areas and to improve customer satisfaction

with the system.

• Use demand management techniques. Another approach to reducing

congestion without making major capital investments is to use demand

management techniques to reduce the number of vehicles traveling at the

most congested times and on the most congested routes. One type of

demand management for travel on public roads is to make greater use of

pricing incentives. In particular, some economists have proposed using

congestion pricing that involves charging surcharges or tolls to drivers

who choose to travel during peak periods when their use of the roads

increases congestion. These surcharges might help reduce congestion by

providing incentives for travelers to share rides, use transit, travel at less

congested (generally off-peak) times and on less congested routes, or

make other adjustments—and at the same time, generate more revenues

that can be targeted to alleviating congestion in those specific corridors.

In addition to pricing incentives, other demand management techniques

that encourage ride-sharing may be useful in reducing congestion. Ridesharing can be encouraged by establishing carpool and vanpool staging

areas, providing free or preferred parking for carpools and vanpools,

subsidizing transit fares, and designating certain highway lanes as high

occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes that can only be used by vehicles with a

specified number of people in them (i.e., two or more).

Demand management techniques on roads, particularly those involving

pricing, often provoke strong political opposition. The panelists cited a

number of concerns about pricing strategies including (1) the difficulty in

instituting charges to use roads that previously had been available “free”,

(2) the equity issues that arise from the potentially regressive nature of

these charges (i.e., the surcharges constitute a larger portion of the

earnings of lower income households and therefore impose a greater

financial burden on them), and (3) the concern that restricting lanes or

roads to people who pay to use them is elitist because that approach

allows people who can afford to pay the tolls to avoid congestion that

others must endure.
Page 17 GAO-02-1132T

More options for financing surface and maritime transportation projects

and more sources of revenue may be needed to achieve desired mobility

outcomes and address those segments of transportation systems that are

most congested. Our panelists suggested three financing strategies:

• Increase funding flexibility. The current system of financing surface

and maritime transportation projects limits options for addressing mobility

challenges. For example, separate funding for each mode at the federal,

state, and local level can make it difficult to consider possible efficient and

effective ways for enhancing mobility. Providing more flexibility in

funding across modes could help address this limitation.

• Expand support for alternative financing mechanisms. The public

sector could also expand its financial support for alternative financing

mechanisms to access new sources of capital and stimulate additional

investment in surface and maritime transportation infrastructure. These

mechanisms include both newly emerging and existing financing

techniques such as providing credit assistance to state and local

governments for capital projects and using tax policy to provide incentives

to the private sector for investing in surface and maritime transportation

infrastructure. These mechanisms currently provide a small portion of the

total funding that is needed for capital investment and some of them could

create future funding difficulties for state and local agencies because they

involve greater borrowing from the private sector.26

• Consider new revenue sources. A possible future shortage of revenues

may limit efforts to address mobility challenges, according to many of the

panelists. For example, some panelists said that because of the increasing

use of alternative fuels, revenues from the gas tax are expected to

decrease, possibly limiting funds available to finance future transportation

projects.

One method of raising revenue is for counties and other regional

authorities to impose sales taxes for funding transportation projects. A

number of counties have already passed such taxes and more are being

considered nationwide. However, several panelists expressed concerns

that this method might not be the best option for addressing mobility

 26 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: Alternative

Financing Mechanisms for Surface Transportation, GAO-02-1126T (Washington, D.C.:

Sept. 25, 2002).

Provide Options for

Financing Mobility

Improvements and

Consider Additional

Sources of Revenue
Page 18 GAO-02-1132T

challenges because (1) moving away from transportation user charges to

sales taxes that are not directly tied to the use of transportation systems

weakens the ties between transportation planning and finance and (2)

counties and other taxing authorities may be able to bypass traditional

state and metropolitan planning processes because sales taxes provide

them with their owns funding sources for transportation.

New or increased taxes or other fees imposed on the freight sector could

also help fund mobility improvements, for example, by increasing taxes on

freight trucking. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that raising

the ceiling on the tax paid by heavy vehicles to $1,900 could generate

about $100 million per year.27 Another revenue raising method would be to

dedicate more of the revenues from taxes on alternative fuels, such as

gasohol, to the Highway Trust Fund rather than to Treasury’s general fund,

as currently happens. However, this would decrease the amount of funds

available for other federal programs. Finally, pricing strategies, mentioned

earlier in this statement as a technique to reduce congestion, are also

possible additional sources of revenue for transportation purposes.

In summary, the nation faces significant challenges in maintaining and

enhancing mobility on its surface and maritime transportation systems,

particularly with the growing congestion that accompanies increased

passenger and freight travel. However, as the Congress considers

reauthorizing surface transportation legislation—and weighs the structure,

nature, and level of federal investment it will provide in future years to

support surface and other transportation activities—it has an opportunity

to consider new strategies for dealing with congestion and promoting

enhanced mobility. While no single approach is sufficient, the key

strategies that we have outlined today may help transportation

decisionmakers at all levels of government address mobility challenges

and the institutional barriers that contribute to them.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may

have at this time.

 27See U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Financing: Factors Affecting Highway

Trust Fund Revenues, GAO-02-667T (Washington, D.C., May 9, 2002).
Page 19 GAO-02-1132T

For further information on this testimony, please contact JayEtta Z.

Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. Individuals making key

contributions to this testimony include Christine Bonham, Jay Cherlow,

Colin Fallon, Rita Grieco, David Hooper, Jessica Lucas, Sara Ann

Moessbauer, Jobenia Odum, Katherine Siggerud, and Andrew VonAh.

Contacts and

Acknowledgments
Page 20 GAO-02-1132T

Our work covered major modes of surface and maritime transportation for

passengers and freight, including public roads, public transit, railways, and

ports and inland waterways. To identify mobility challenges and strategies

for addressing those challenges, we primarily relied upon expert opinion,

as well as a review of pertinent literature. In particular, we convened two

panels of surface and maritime transportation experts to identify mobility

issues and gather views about alternative strategies for addressing the

issues and challenges to implementing those strategies. We contracted

with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and its Transportation

Research Board (TRB) to provide technical assistance in identifying and

scheduling the two panels that were held on April 1 and 3, 2002. TRB

officials selected a total of 22 panelists with input from us, including a

cross-section of representatives from all surface and maritime modes and

from various occupations involved in transportation planning. In keeping

with NAS policy, the panelists were invited to provide their individual

views and the panels were not designed to build consensus on any of the

issues discussed. We analyzed the content of all of the comments made by

the panelists to identify common themes about key mobility challenges

and strategies for addressing those challenges. Where applicable, we also

identified the opposing points of view about the strategies.

The names and affiliations of the panelists are as follows. We also note

that two of the panelists served as moderators for the sessions, Dr. Joseph

M. Sussman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. Damian

J. Kulash of the Eno Foundation, Inc.

• Benjamin J. Allen is Interim Vice President for External Affairs and

Distinguished Professor of Business at Iowa State University.

• Daniel Brand is Vice President of Charles River Associates, Inc., in Boston,

Mass.

• Jon E. Burkhardt is the Senior Study Director at Westat, Inc., in Rockville,

Md.

• Sarah C. Campbell is the President of TransManagement, Inc., in

Washington, D.C.

• Christina S. Casgar is the Executive Director of the Foundation for

Intermodal Research and Education in Greenbelt, Md.

• Anthony Downs is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Page 21 GAO-02-1132T

• Thomas R. Hickey served until recently as the General Manager of the Port

Authority Transit Corporation in Lindenwold, N.J.

• Ronald F. Kirby is the Director of Transportation Planning at the

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

• Damian J. Kulash is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Eno

Transportation Foundation, Inc., in Washington, D.C.

• Charles A. Lave is a Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University

of California, Irvine where he served as Chair of the Economics

Department.

• Stephen Lockwood is Vice President of Parsons Corporation, an

international firm that provides transportation planning, design,

construction, engineering, and project management services.

• Timothy J. Lomax is a Research Engineer at the Texas Transportation

Institute at Texas A&M University.

• James R. McCarville is the Executive Director of the Port of Pittsburgh

Commission.

• James W. McClellan is Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning at the

Norfolk Southern Corporation in Norfolk, Va.

• Michael D. Meyer is a Professor in the School of Civil and Environmental

Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology and was the Chair of

the school from 1995 to 2000.

• William W. Millar is President of the American Public Transportation

Association (APTA).

• Alan E. Pisarski is an independent transportation consultant in Falls

Church, Va., providing services to public and private sector clients in the

United States and abroad in the areas of transport policy, travel behavior,

and data analysis and development.

• Craig E. Philip is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Ingram

Barge Company in Nashville, Tenn.
Page 22 GAO-02-1132T

• Arlee T. Reno is a consultant with Cambridge Systematics in Washington,

D.C.

• Joseph M. Sussman is the JR East Professor in the Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering and the Engineering Systems Division at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

• Louis S. Thompson is a Railways Advisor for the World Bank where he

consults on all of the Bank’s railway lending activities.

• Martin Wachs is the Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at

the University of California, Berkeley and he holds faculty appointments in

the departments of City and Regional Planning and Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the university.
Page 23 GAO-02-1132T

Transportation Infrastructure: Alternative Financing Mechanisms for

Surface Transportation. GAO-02-1126T. Washington, D.C.: September 25,

2002.

Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on the Timely

Completion of Highway Construction Projects. GAO-02-1067T.

Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002.

Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for

Infrastructure Investments. GAO-02-1033. Washington, D.C.: September 9,

2002.

Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for

Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge. GAO-02-775. Washington,

D.C.: August 30, 2002.

Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have Improved,

but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue. GAO-02-571. Washington,

D.C.: May 31, 2002.

Highway Financing: Factors Affecting Highway Trust Fund Revenues.

GAO-02-667T. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2002.

Transportation Infrastructure: Cost and Oversight Issues on Major

Highway and Bridge Projects. GAO-02-702T. Washington, D.C.: May 1,

2002.

Intercity Passenger Rail: Congress Faces Critical Decisions in

Developing National Policy. GAO-02-522T. Washington, D.C.: April 11,

2002.

Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land

Use That Protects Air and Water Quality. GAO-02-12. Washington, D.C.:

October 31, 2001.

Intercity Passenger Rail: The Congress Faces Critical Decisions About

the Role of and Funding for Intercity Passenger Rail Systems. GAO-01-

820T. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2001.

U.S. Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Federal Agencies’ Investment

Estimates. GAO-01-986T. Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2001.

Appendix II: Related GAO Products
Page 24 GAO-02-1132T

Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA, but Capital

Planning Could Be Enhanced. GAO-01-744. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2001.

Intercity Passenger Rail: Assessing the Benefits of Increased Federal

Funding for Amtrak and High-Speed Passenger Rail Systems. GAO-01-

480T. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2001.

Performance and Accountability: Challenges Facing the Department of

Transportation. GAO-01-443T. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002.

Highway Funding: Problems With Highway Trust Fund Information

Can Affect State Highway Funds. RCED/AIMD-00-148. Washington, D.C.:

June 29, 2000.

Highway Infrastructure: FHWA’s Model for Estimating Highway Needs

Is Generally Reasonable, Despite Limitations. RCED-00-133. Washington,

D.C.: June 5, 2000.

Mass Transit: ‘Mobility Improvements’ Is One of Many Factors Used to

Evaluate Mass Transit Projects. RCED-00-6R. Washington, D.C.: October

15, 1999.

(544057)