GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

MILITARY BASE 

REALIGNMENTS 

AND CLOSURES 

Transportation Impact 

of Personnel Increases 

Will Be Significant, 

but Long-Term Costs 

Are Uncertain and 

Direct Federal 

Support Is Limited

September 2009 

GAO-09-750 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2009

MILITARY BASE REALIGNMENTS AND 

CLOSURES 

Transportation Impact of Personnel Increases Will Be 

Significant, but Long-Term Costs Are Uncertain and 

Direct Federal Support Is Limited 

Highlights of GAO-09-750, a report to 

congressional committees 

As part of the 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

round, the Department of Defense 

(DOD) plans to relocate over 

123,000 military and DOD civilian 

personnel, thereby increasing the 

staffing at 18 bases nationwide. In 

addition, DOD and local officials 

expect thousands of dependents 

and DOD contractor employees to 

relocate to communities near the 

BRAC 2005 growth bases. These 

actions will greatly increase traffic 

in the surrounding communities. 

BRAC recommendations must be 

implemented by September 2011. 

The House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations directed GAO to 

assess and report on the impact of 

BRAC-related growth on 

transportation systems and on the 

responses of federal, state, and 

local governments. Accordingly, 

GAO determined the (1) expected 

impact on transportation in 

communities affected by BRAC 

decisions, and (2) federal, state, 

and local response to the expected 

impacts. To perform its work, GAO 

obtained information from the 18 

communities with expected 

substantial BRAC growth; visited 8 

of these communities; interviewed 

federal civilian and military 

officials and state and local 

officials; and reviewed DOD data, 

transportation plans, and 

environmental studies. 

GAO provided copies of this report 

to the Departments of Defense and 

Transportation for their review. 

The Departments provided 

technical comments, which GAO 

incorporated as appropriate. 

Growth resulting from BRAC decisions will have a significant impact on 

transportation systems in some communities, but estimates of the total cost to 

address those impacts are uncertain. In addition to BRAC, other defense 

initiatives will result in growth in communities and also add to transportation 

needs. BRAC growth will result in increased traffic in communities ranging 

from very large metropolitan areas to small communities, creating or 

worsening congested roads at specific locations. Traffic impacts can also 

affect larger relocation decisions, and were important in DOD’s decision to 

acquire an additional site for Fort Belvoir, Virginia, an acquisition that DOD 

estimates will cost $1.2 billion. According to a DOD Office of Economic 

Adjustment (OEA) survey, 17 of 18 BRAC growth communities identified 

transportation as one of their top challenges. Near-term transportation 

projects to address these challenges could cost about $2.0 billion, of which 

about $1.1 billion is related to projects in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., 

area. BRAC-related transportation infrastructure costs are subject to a 

number of uncertainties. For example, not all potential projects are included 

in the estimate, military staffing levels at some growth installations are in flux 

and the location decisions of military and civilian personnel have not yet been 

made, and pre-existing, non-military community growth makes a direct link 

between transportation projects to military growth difficult. 

The federal government has provided limited direct assistance to help 

communities address BRAC transportation impacts, and state and local 

governments have adopted strategies to expedite projects within the time 

frame allowed by BRAC. For example, DOD’s Defense Access Roads 

Program has certified transportation projects for funding at three affected 

communities. Also, OEA has provided planning grants and funded traffic 

studies and local planning positions. While federal highway and transit 

programs can be used for many BRAC-related transportation needs, 

dedicated funds are not available. Instead, BRAC-related transportation 

projects must compete with other proposed transportation projects. 

Communities had identified funding for about $500 million of the 

estimated $2.0 billion needed to address their near term project needs. 

Some state and local governments have adopted strategies to expedite 

highway projects, such as prioritizing short-term high-impact projects, 

because the time frames for completing BRAC personnel moves are much 

shorter than the time frames for such projects. While legislation mandates 

that BRAC growth be completed by 2011, major highway and transit 

projects usually take 9 to 19 years. To complete some critical projects 

before BRAC growth occurs, state and local officials are reprioritizing 

planned projects and implementing those that can be completed quickly. 

For example, Maryland prioritized certain lower-cost intersection projects 

that will improve traffic flow. In Texas, officials used an innovative 

financing approach to generate funding quickly for a major highway 

project at Fort Bliss. 

View GAO-09-750 or key components. For 

more information, contact Phillip Herr (202) 

512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-750 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 3 

Military Growth Will Have a Significant Impact on Transportation 

in Affected Communities, but the Full Extent and Cost of That 

Impact Are Uncertain 8 

DOD Funding for Transportation Projects Is Limited, and Projects 

Must Compete for DOT Funds, but State and Local Governments 

Have Adopted Strategies to Expedite Projects 17 

Agency Comments 31 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 32 

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 34 

Related GAO Products 35 

Tables 

Table 1: Sources of Growth at and near Selected Military Bases 5 

Table 2: Estimated Growth from All DOD Sources at and near 

BRAC-Affected Military Bases Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2012, as of March 2008 6 

Table 3: Typical Time Necessary to Complete a Federally Financed 

Major New Construction Highway Project 22 

Figures 

Figure 1: Military Bases Affected by BRAC Growth 4 

Figure 2: Current Fort Belvoir and Vicinity 11 

Figure 3: Eglin Air Force Base and Vicinity 15 

 Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Abbreviations 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

CTB Commonwealth of Virginia Transportation Board 

DAR Defense Access Roads Program 

DOD Department of Defense 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EUL enhanced use lease 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

MARC Maryland Area Regional Commuter Train Service 

MDOT Maryland Department of Transportation 

MPO metropolitan planning organization 

OEA Office of Economic Adjustment 

SDDC Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command 

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation 

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
Page 1 GAO-09-750 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 9, 2009 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Chairman 

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

 Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John W. Olver 

Chairman 

The Honorable Tom Latham 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

 Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

As part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) plans to relocate over 123,000 DOD military 

and civilian personnel, thereby increasing the staffing at numerous bases 

nationwide. In addition, other DOD initiatives, such as those designed to 

realign U.S. military capabilities worldwide and increase the size of the 

nation’s permanent military forces, are expected to add about another 

59,000 DOD personnel at these bases. DOD and local officials further 

expect thousands of dependents and DOD contractor employees to 

relocate to communities near these bases. Thus, several U.S. bases could 

each see the addition of more than 10,000 military and civilian personnel. 

While studies indicate that communities surrounding these growth bases 

will realize economic benefits in the long term, the expected population 

growth will greatly increase traffic in the surrounding communities. The 

growth attributable to BRAC and other military initiatives will occur 

quickly because the initiatives are in progress and, by law, the BRAC 

realignments must be completed by September 2011. Some of the affected 

bases are in congested urban areas while others are in areas with smaller 

communities that have limited transportation infrastructure. 

State and local governments are largely responsible for determining the 

funding priorities for transportation improvements needed to respond to 

BRAC 2005 and the other military growth initiatives. Some federal 

 Military Base Realignments and Closures 
 

assistance is, however, available through DOD’s Office of Economic 

Adjustment (OEA), which provides guidance and planning grants to 

communities affected by military relocation decisions; DOD’s Defense 

Access Roads (DAR) program, which may make some military 

construction funds available for road improvements outside a military 

base; and the Department of Transportation (DOT), which provides 

federal funds for states, transit agencies, and local units of government to 

use for highway and transit improvements that are approved through the 

metropolitan or statewide transportation process. 

The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, in the House report 

accompanying the fiscal year 2008 Departments of Transportation, and 

Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, directed that GAO assess and report on the impact of BRAC military 

growth decisions on transportation and the response of the federal, state, 

and local governments.1

 Because neither DOD nor community planners 

typically attempt to isolate the impact of BRAC-related growth from the 

impact of other military growth initiatives, data are not available for an 

assessment of the impact of BRAC decisions alone. Accordingly, we 

determined (1) the expected impact of military growth on transportation 

in communities affected by BRAC decisions, including the estimated costs, 

and (2) the federal, state, and local response to the expected impact. 

To perform our work, we identified and gathered information from 

communities in the vicinity of the 18 military bases that OEA determined 

will be substantially and seriously affected by growth resulting from the 

BRAC 2005 realignments, visited 8 of these BRAC bases and nearby 

communities, and observed local transportation conditions. We selected 

these eight bases and nearby communities because they (1) varied in size, 

including very large metropolitan areas over 1 million, smaller 

metropolitan areas of 200,000 to 1 million, and smaller urban areas of less 

than 200,000; (2) had completed environmental studies; and (3) had 

identified transportation as a concern. In addition, we interviewed state 

and local transportation officials and DOD, Army, Navy, and Air Force 

officials about the impact of BRAC decisions on transportation and their 

responses. We also reviewed relevant state and local planning documents, 

such as state transportation improvement plans, local transportation 

plans, and detailed traffic studies. We analyzed information OEA collected 

from affected local governments showing their cost estimates and funding 

 

1

H.R. 110-238, at 61 (2007). 

Page 2 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

available for growth-related projects. Finally, we reviewed federal 

environmental studies on the impact of BRAC decisions and the treatment 

of transportation issues in those documents and interviewed Army, Navy, 

and Air Force officials responsible for the oversight of these 

environmental studies. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through September 

2009 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. Appendix I provides a 

more detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

We provided copies of this report to the Departments of Defense and 

Transportation for their review and comment. Both provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 

BRAC 2005 was the fifth round of decisions designed to streamline the 

nation’s defense infrastructure. Unlike past BRAC rounds, which have 

generally focused on reducing excess physical infrastructure, this round 

also presents military growth challenges for DOD, states, and local 

governments. Its implementation will increase the numbers of on-base 

personnel, military families, and defense-related contractors at and near 18 

military bases. Furthermore, because the BRAC realignments must, by 

law, be completed by September 15, 2011,2

 these community changes will 

be rapid, as personnel will arrive quickly once the bases are readied. 

Figure 1 shows the 18 bases where BRAC growth will affect neighboring 

communities. Other military growth communities exist, but their growth is 

not a result of BRAC. 

Background 

 

2

BRAC 2005 requires DOD to complete the implementation of the BRAC 2005 

recommendations for closing or realigning bases within a 6-year time frame, which ends 

September 15, 2011. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. No. 

101-510, title XXIX, § 2904(a)(5), 104 Stat. 1485, 1812 Nov. 5, 1990 (as amended). 

Page 3 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

Figure 1: Military Bases Affected by BRAC Growth 

Sources: U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, Office of Economic Adjustment, and Map Resources (map).

Colo.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Ky.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

N.C.

Va.

Wash. Army

Ft. Lewis

Army

Ft. Carson

Army

Ft. Riley

Army

Ft. Sill

Army

Ft. Sam

Houston Air Force

Eglin AFB

Army

Redstone

Arsenal

Army

Fort Benning

Army

Ft. Bragg

Army

Ft. Knox

Army

Aberdeen

Proving Ground Army

Ft. Meade

Navy

National Naval

Medical Center

Army

Ft. Bliss

Army

Ft. Belvoir

Marine Corps

Quantico

Marine Corps

Camp Lejeune/

Air Station Cherry Point/

Air Station New River

Army

Ft. Lee

Md.

Installation identified transportation as a major challenge

Installation did not identify transportation as a major challenge

Other Military Growth 

Initiatives 

While BRAC 2005 is taking place, other major initiatives will increase 

growth at and near some BRAC-affected bases. These include two major 

military reorganizations. First, the Global Defense Posture Realignment 

initiative will move about 70,000 military and civilian personnel from 

overseas to U.S. bases by 2011 to better support current strategies and 

address emerging threats. Second, the Army’s force modularity effort will 

restructure the Army from a division-based force to a more readily 

deployable modular, brigade-based force. Some of these brigade units will 

relocate to other existing bases. A third initiative, Grow the Force, is not a 

reorganization but will increase the permanent strength of the military to 

enhance overall U.S. forces. This initiative will add about 74,000 soldiers 

and about 27,000 marines. Finally, troop drawdowns from Iraq could 

Page 4 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

increase personnel numbers at some BRAC-affected bases. These other 

military initiatives will also be implemented over a longer time frame than 

BRAC decisions, which are scheduled to be completed in 2011.3

Though not a major force initiative, DOD’s enhanced use lease (EUL) 

activities will also affect growth and development in military communities. 

EULs allow the military to lease its land to private developers to build 

offices and other facilities that generate operating income for the military. 

In some cases, the growth from EUL activities may exceed the BRACrelated growth. For example, the EUL at Fort Meade, which is planned to 

include up to 2 million square feet of office space, could house up to 

10,000 new workers by 2013. This EUL activity will generate more new 

jobs in the Fort Meade area than the 6,600 additional military and civilian 

DOD personnel attributable to BRAC. 

Because all these initiatives are taking place at the same time, the forces 

driving growth at military bases and the surrounding communities are 

more complex than they would be if they were the result of BRAC 

decisions alone. As table 1 indicates, six of the eight bases we visited 

expect to be affected by various defense initiatives in addition to BRAC. 

Table 1: Sources of Growth at and near Selected Military Bases 

Base BRAC

Grow the 

Force 

Global Defense 

Posture 

Realignment 

Force 

modularity

Enhanced 

use lease 

Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, Md. 

Yes Yes No No Yes 

Bethesda National 

Naval Medical Center, 

Md. 

Yes No No No No 

Eglin Air Force Base, 

Fla. 

Yes No No No Yes 

Fort Belvoir, Va. Yes No No No No 

Fort Bliss, Tex. Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

Fort Carson, Colo. Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

Fort Knox, Ky. Yes Yes No No Yes 

Fort Meade, Md. Yes No No No Yes 

Source: GAO analysis of data from selected bases. 

 

3

Because of these military growth initiatives, some bases that are not BRAC growth bases 

will nevertheless see personnel increases. 

Page 5 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

During fiscal years 2006 through 2012, the populations of the communities 

in the vicinity of the 18 BRAC bases identified in figure 1 are expected to 

increase by an estimated 181,800 military and civilian personnel, plus an 

estimated 173,200 dependents, for a total increase of about 355,000 

persons, as shown in table 2. At two bases, Fort Bliss and Fort Belvoir, 

DOD has estimated that the on-base populations alone will more than 

double. In addition, defense-related contractors who follow and settle near 

the relocated commands will compound the growth and traffic near some 

bases, and the impact of these contractor relocations is not reflected in the 

military growth figures. For example, at Fort Meade, Maryland, DOD has 

estimated that an additional 10,000 contractor personnel may relocate near 

to or on the base. 

Table 2: Estimated Growth from All DOD Sources at and near BRAC-Affected Military Bases Fiscal Years 2006 through 2012, 

as of March 2008 

Base 

Total change in 

military and 

civilian DOD 

population

Total change in 

population of 

military and civilian 

DOD dependents

Total 

population 

increase 

Current total 

regional 

populationa

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. 3,400 2,200 5,600 2,512,000

Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, 

Md. 2,500 Not available 2,500 4,331,000

Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, and New 

River, N.C. 13,400 18,700 32,100 108,000

Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.b 3,600 5,900 9,500 190,000

Fort Belvoir, Va.c24,100 12,700 36,800 4,331,000

Fort Benning, Ga. 12,700 6,100 18,800 247,000

Fort Bliss, Tex. 28,000 41,700 69,700 722,000

Fort Bragg, N.C. 18,900 17,100 36,000 301,000

Fort Carson, Colo. 10,400 14,400 24,800 514,000

Fort Knox, Ky. (2,900) 4,500 1,600 117,000

Fort Lee, Va. 10,200 4,600 14,800 138,000

Fort Lewis, Wash.d13,500 17,400 30,900 3,422,000

Fort Meade, Md. 7,000 4,200 11,200 2,512,000

Fort Sam Houston,Tex. 10,900 6,100 17,000 1,416,000

Fort Sill, Okla. 3,700 (400) 3,300 81,000

Fort Riley, Kans. 10,900 15,000 25,900 109,000

Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. 3,600 1,000 4,600 202,000

Redstone Arsenal, Ala. 7,900 2,000 9,900 291,000

Total 181,800 173,200 355,000 

Page 6 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

Sources: GAO, Army Stationing and Installation Plan, Air Force BRAC Program Office, Navy BRAC Program Office, and DOT’s 

metropolitan planning organization (MPO) database. 

Note: The table does not reflect the results of a June 2009 DOD announcement removing a combat 

brigade from both Fort Bliss and Fort Carson growth. 

a

Total regional population based on population of the MPO area, except for Fort Riley, Kansas. Fort 

Riley does not fall within an area governed by an MPO. The population statistic shown for Fort Riley 

is for three counties affected by BRAC growth. MPOs are regional organizations responsible for 

developing regional transportation plans. 

b

Data for Eglin Air Force Base is for the beginning of fiscal year 2013. 

c

The number of dependents moving to the Fort Belvoir area is difficult to estimate due to the location 

of some personnel to a site in Alexandria, Virginia, and the fact that some personnel moving to Fort 

Belvoir already live within commuting distance of the base. 

d

Fort Lewis’s regional population includes figures for two MPOs. 

OEA is DOD’s primary source for assisting communities adversely affected 

by defense program changes, including base closures or realignments. 

OEA provides guidance and assistance to growth communities through 

growth management planning grants, guidance, and expertise to help 

communities with significantly adverse consequences as a result of BRAC 

decisions. OEA has identified those communities that are expected to be 

impacted by BRAC-related growth and that have expressed a need for 

planning assistance. As part of this assistance, OEA has provided support 

to communities to hire planners or consultants to perform studies 

identifying infrastructure needs created by military growth. Additionally, 

DOD’s Defense Access Roads (DAR) Program may allow Military 

Construction funds to help address highway needs created by military 

activities. The focus of DAR is not typical traffic growth, which should be 

addressed through normal federal, state, and local transportation 

programs, but rather unusual changes and military necessity. 

Federal Transportation 

Funding Available to Help 

Address Impact of Military 

Growth 

National security is one of the explicit goals of the Federal-Aid Highway 

Program; however, DOT does not have special programs to deal with 

military growth. Nevertheless, many federal transportation grant programs 

provide state and local governments with funding that they can use to help 

address BRAC-related transportation challenges. The Federal-Aid Highway 

program consists of seven core formula grant programs and several 

smaller formula and discretionary grant programs.4

 Broad flexibility 

 

4

The majority of highway infrastructure funding is distributed through seven core highway 

programs. These programs are the National Highway System, Surface Transportation 

Program, Interstate Maintenance, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program, and Equity Bonus Program. The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) also administers a number of smaller discretionary grants programs to provide 

federal highway infrastructure assistance to the states. 

Page 7 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

provisions allow for states to transfer funds between core programs and 

also to eligible transit projects. Federal capital transit programs include 

formula grants to transit agencies and states.5

 Additionally, transit capital 

investment grants provide discretionary funds for the construction and 

extension of fixed-guideway systems such as rail or bus rapid transit lines. 

Federal transportation programs also require states to set their own 

priorities for addressing transportation needs. 

Traffic Impacts Can Be 

Identified through Level of 

Service Measures 

Traffic growth impacts can be analyzed by the effect of the addition of 

automobiles on traffic flow. Generally, traffic flow on roadways is 

measured by “level of service,” a qualitative grading system. The 

Transportation Research Board defines service levels for roadways using 

“A through F” grades. Service level “A” defines roadways with no delays 

and unimpeded traffic flow at posted speed limits. Service level “F” is 

defined as a failing service level and describes roadways with traffic 

conditions that most drivers consider to be unacceptable. Drivers on these 

roadways experience long delays and poor to nonexistent traffic flow. 

Even small increases in traffic can have a large impact when roads are 

already congested. 

Affected communities expect BRAC and other military growth initiatives 

to have a significant impact on local transportation. In response to an OEA 

survey, nearly all BRAC growth communities identified transportation as a 

top growth challenge. Transportation studies done in communities of 

varying size show how BRAC-related growth is expected to result in a 

deterioration of traffic conditions. Affected communities identified about 

$2 billion in expected costs for transportation projects that they consider 

needed to address military growth in the near term, before the September 

2011 deadline. The costs of longer-term projects to address the impact of 

military growth on transportation in these communities beyond the BRAC 

deadline are uncertain. 

Military Growth Will 

Have a Significant 

Impact on 

Transportation in 

Affected 

Communities, but the 

Full Extent and Cost 

of That Impact Are 

Uncertain 

 

5

The formula and bus grants provide capital and operating assistance to transit agencies 

and states through a combination of seven relatively large and five smaller formula and 

discretionary programs. The largest of these programs is the Urbanized Area Formula 

Grants program. 

Page 8 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

Many communities affected by BRAC growth recognize that changes 

resulting from that growth will place additional demands on their 

transportation systems. In 2007, OEA asked growth communities, 

including 18 current BRAC growth communities,6

 to determine which of 

the problems they would face as a result of military growth would create 

the greatest challenges.7

 Of 18 current BRAC-growth communities,8 17 

identified transportation as one of their top three priorities. These 17 

communities ranged in size from very large metropolitan areas to 

relatively small communities, and the extent of the impact depended in 

part on the size of the affected community. 

Some BRAC growth bases are located in metropolitan areas with 

populations of well over 1 million. In these areas, the military growth may 

be small relative to the community’s total population, but the community 

nevertheless anticipates localized effects on already congested urban 

roadways. At the National Naval Medical Center, for example—a BRAC 

growth base located in Bethesda, Maryland, a densely populated 

Washington suburb—a planned consolidation with Walter Reed Army 

Medical Center, located in Washington, D.C., will create additional traffic 

not only from 2,500 additional hospital employees, but also from patients 

and visitors, resulting in an about 1,900 estimated additional trips to the 

hospital campus per day. While small compared to the regional population, 

these additional employees, patients, and visitors will travel to the base 

using either the Washington Metrorail system or by bus or auto on an 

already congested roadway system. The medical center is located near two 

major arterial roads, two state highways, and an Interstate highway (I-495, 

the Capitol Beltway). It is also located across from the National Institutes 

of Health, where over 18,000 personnel are employed. According to 

Maryland transportation planners, the additional traffic resulting from the 

BRAC action will lead to further deterioration of traffic conditions in the 

area. Specifically, without intersection improvements, the number of 

intersections with failing conditions is projected to increase from three to 

Impact of Military Growth 

on Transportation Is 

Significant, but Will Vary 

across Communities 

Very Large Metropolitan Areas 

 

6

OEA does not differentiate in how they support the communities impacted by BRAC and 

those affected by other DOD activities. OEA is currently providing assistance to 25 local 

areas, plus the Territory of Guam, affected by DOD mission growth. 

7

The categories of projects included communications, education, energy and utilities, 

planning and zoning, social, transportation, water and sewer, and workforce. 

8

We defined the communities in the vicinity of each affected base as a single community. 

Thus, a “community” may be a county, city, or several smaller localities near an affected 

base. 

Page 9 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

five. In addition, traffic conditions may deteriorate at 10 other 

intersections, but not to the point of failure. Traffic analyses done for DOD 

as part of an environmental impact statement (EIS)9

 reviewed 27 major 

intersections in the vicinity and estimated that with no improvements, the 

increases in traffic would result in failing or deteriorating service levels at 

15 of those intersections during peak periods, compared with current 

conditions. Such declining service levels mean significant delays will 

occur, likely increasing base employees’ and others’ commute times. 

Fort Belvoir is located in Fairfax County, Virginia, where employment and 

development have grown rapidly and transportation improvements have 

not kept pace with growth. The planned net addition of 24,100 personnel 

at the base will increase congestion on the already congested Interstate 

highway (I-95). Local planners anticipate additional BRAC-related 

congestion on a number of other nearby Interstate, federal, and local 

highways (I-395, I-495, U.S. Route 1, and the Fairfax County Parkway). The 

physical layout of Fort Belvoir also complicates commuter access, in that 

the base is situated on two major land parcels—the main post and the 

Engineer Proving Ground—separated by a busy highway (see fig. 2). In 

addition, gate and road closures after the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks have already concentrated traffic near the base. The BRAC Fort 

Belvoir EIS estimated that, with the planned increase in personnel, the 

number of failing intersections near the base would increase from 2 to 6 

during the morning peak period, and the level of service would deteriorate 

by at least one level at 13 intersections. 

 

9

The EIS is detailed assessment of environmental impacts. It describes the project, 

characterizes the surrounding environment, analyzes the environmental impact of a range 

of project alternatives, and indicates plans for complying with environmental laws and 

mitigating any environmental damage caused by the project. 

Page 10 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

Figure 2: Current Fort Belvoir and Vicinity 

FORT BELVOIR

1 mile

Fairfax County Parkway

Mt. Vernan

R

d.

Woodlawn Connector Rd. Mt. Vernan Parkway

Southwest

Area

Davison

Airfield

Tulley

Gate

South

Post

North

Post

Engineer

Proving

Ground

Kingman

Gate

Farrar

Gate

Woodlawn

Gate Walker

Gate

Pence

Gate

Telegraph

Gate

Belvoir Rd.

Gunston Rd.

Kingman Rd.

Beulah St.

Telegraph Rd.

95

1

Accotink

Bay

Pohick Bay

Source: DOD.

Virginia

Railway

Express (Lorton)

Traffic and development density problems at Fort Belvoir identified during 

the environmental review process were so severe that DOD decided to 

acquire and develop an additional site, at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion, 

to accommodate about 6,400 employees of DOD’s Washington 

Headquarters Services and additional organizations. DOD officials told us, 

for example, that they would have had to construct a parking structure 

separate from the potential office site on the other side of U.S. Route 1, as 

well as an additional pedestrian bridge structure across the highway, 

estimated to cost $90 million. Army officials also determined that the 

existing Engineer Proving Ground location at Fort Belvoir was not large 

Page 11 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

enough to accommodate office space and parking for so many additional 

personnel. However, even with the acquisition of the new site, congestion

will grow on roadways near the current base, and local officials estimate 

that initial transportation improvements to address the impact of growth, 

including an additional access ramp to Interstate 95, could cost as muc

$458 million. Over the longer term, state and local officials expect the 

costs of 

h as 

transportation improvements to address congestion to be much 

higher. 

C., 

ng 

ded 

ections of road near 

the base, potentially resulting in significant delays. 

t 2 

ng 

C decision 

xpected the EUL to contribute 

significantly to the new traffic. 

ty, 

tern 

ary 

Fort Meade, Maryland, located in the corridor between Washington, D.

and Baltimore, is also located in a region of significant growth. Traffic 

delays are already prevalent at many intersections near the base, where

drivers have few roadway alternatives, and county officials expect the 

growth at Fort Meade to exacerbate these conditions. Given the planni

cycle for major highway construction and the state’s large backlog of 

transportation projects, the state will likely be precluded from addressing 

these needs before BRAC 2005 actions are completed. The EIS conclu

that significant adverse effects on area roadways would be expected 

during and after 2011. For example, it concluded that the growth at Fort 

Meade would cause failing traffic conditions on 12 s

The effects of BRAC decisions, however, cannot be isolated from the 

effects of other transportation challenges that the region around Fort 

Meade will face, especially the challenges resulting from the construction

of an EUL facility at the base. This facility is designed to include abou

million square feet of office space and could house up to 10,000 new 

workers by 2013. EUL activities could generate more new jobs in the Fort 

Meade area than the military growth initiatives that are scheduled to bri

about 7,000 additional military and civilian DOD personnel to the area. 

Although Maryland transportation planners have not separately estimated 

the effects of BRAC and the EUL on transportation, they said that the EUL 

is planned to be constructed at about the same time as the BRA

is to be implemented and they e

Finally, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, consists of about 72,000 

acres—including 33,000 acres of water—primarily within Harford Coun

Maryland, north of Baltimore. The base is located on the northwes

shore of Chesapeake Bay, and most of the base is located on two 

peninsulas—one to the north and one to the south. The number of milit

and civilian personnel working at the base is scheduled to increase by 

about 3,400 through 2012. According to Army officials, the Army also has

Page 12 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

entered into an EUL agreement with a developer to build up to 3 mill

square feet of office space within the base for up to 3,000 additional 

workers. Transportation planners expect this growth to aggravate traffic 

conditions on area roadways, which include a major Interstate highw

federal and state highways, and county roads. For example, the EIS 

completed for this base examined 17 off-post intersections and foun

without improvements to roadways and greater use of bus and rail 

systems by base personnel, levels of service would deteriorate at seven 

intersections near the base and would fail at three intersections. At the

ion 

ay, 

d that 

time of the EIS, none of these intersections had failing service levels. 

e 

ring Fort Bliss, were growing rapidly 

before the BRAC 2005 decisions. 

, 

he 

where 

affic near the gate and at the interchange will lead to more 

accidents. 

rving 

ost 

oose 

Smaller Metropolitan Areas Military growth may also affect transportation in metropolitan areas with

populations of less than 1 million. While the additional traffic may cause

congestion, these communities generally do not face the same physical 

constraints as the largest metropolitan areas. Military growth bases may

be located in or adjacent to these areas, but also extend far outside th

built-up urban sections. Colorado Springs, Colorado, bordering Fort 

Carson, and El Paso, Texas, borde

Fort Carson is located to the south of Colorado Springs, and Interstate 25

two state highways, and a major county road are the major routes to t

base. In Colorado Springs, a study by the Pikes Peak Area Council of 

Governments found that traffic around Fort Carson will increase by at 

least 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2015, largely because of an influx of 

about 24,800 troops and dependents. Fort Carson officials estimate that 

over 24,000 vehicles will pass through one major base gate every day by 

2012, an increase of about 150 percent or 14,600 additional vehicles per 

day. Vehicles must approach the gate from a highway interchange 

traffic is already congested. Local officials are concerned that the 

increased tr

In El Paso, Texas, where Fort Bliss is located, officials identified a need 

for new roads to address mobility problems in the rapidly growing region, 

including increased congestion on I-10, the only Interstate highway se

the city. BRAC and other military growth initiatives will bring alm

70,000 additional military personnel and dependents to the base, 

significantly increasing El Paso’s population. Local officials expect that 

many of the new personnel at Fort Bliss who will live off-base will ch

to live in east and northeast El Paso. To accommodate the expected 

increases in traffic on roadways connecting east and northeast El Paso

and Fort Bliss, the state of Texas worked with a private developer to 

Page 13 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

construct a 7.4 mile roadway—Spur 601—connecting east and northeast 

El Paso to the base. State and local officials expect the new roadwa

provide base personnel with easy access to b

y to 

ase gates and reduce 

congestion for all commuters in the vicinity. 

ch as 

kely 

rail transit is generally not available and bus 

transit can be limited. 

, 

er 

n 

s. 

t 

ts. 

nt 

to 

nsit 

ffic than the change in the net number of base 

personnel would indicate. 

ads 

se 

Smaller Urban Areas Military growth may also affect transportation in less heavily populated 

communities. Here, road networks are less extensive than road networks 

in metropolitan areas, forcing the additional traffic onto roadways su

two lane rural roads not always designed for higher traffic levels. In 

addition, smaller urban areas affected by BRAC growth are also less li

to have transit options—

For example, in Radcliff, Kentucky, the community adjacent to Fort Knox

one highway serves the community’s business district and also provides 

access to all three gates at the base. As many as 48,000 vehicles travel ov

portions of this road between Elizabethtown, Kentucky, and Fort Knox 

each day, causing traffic congestion. In addition, some military and civilia

personnel at Fort Knox commute to the base using two-lane rural road

Even though Fort Knox expects to see a net reduction of about 2,900

personnel, changing demographics at the base will greatly increase 

congestion on the main highway. For example, as part of BRAC 2005, For

Knox will lose military trainees who live and largely remain on-base, but 

gain civilian employees who will live off-base, along with their dependen

A 2007 study of traffic conditions near Fort Knox performed for a local 

metropolitan planning organization concluded that without significa

improvements, the existing roadway system would be incapable of 

providing the capacity required to accommodate traffic increases caused 

by the change in personnel at the base. The study also concluded that the 

BRAC personnel changes would cause travel conditions on the roadway 

deteriorate greatly. Furthermore, while Radcliff, Kentucky, has a tra

provider—a social agency offering dial-a-ride and vanpool services 

including vanpools to the base—this provider does not offer regularly 

scheduled bus service. According to transit agency officials, the provider 

hopes to move toward regular service that could transport commuters to 

the base. Conditions at Radcliff, Kentucky, illustrate how growth can have 

a more severe impact on tra

Similarly, at Eglin Air Force Base, a limited roadway network serving the 

724 square-mile facility channels traffic along relatively few major ro

and causes congestion. The base spans three counties in northwest 

Florida, and some communities along the coast are constricted by the ba

Page 14 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

(see fig. 3). According to local officials, improving transportation is the 

main growth-related challenge facing communities near Eglin Air Force 

Base. Local and regional transportation studies have focused primarily on

the impact of growth on the major roadways that accommodate most of 

the traffic in the area and serve as hurricane evacuation routes for area 

residents. Three main roads traverse the base from north to south. One 

major road, bracketed by the base and the Gulf of Mexico, runs east to 

west along the base’s southern boundary. With the planned increas

3,600 personnel and without transportation improvements, traffic 

conditions will decline during peak traffic hours, with fai

dary. With the planned increase of 

ling levels of 

service projected at 17 locations, compared with 9 now. 

Figure 3: Eglin Air Force Base and Vicinity 

90

331

98

98

87

85

20

285

Harold

Holt

Baker

Milligan Crestview Mossy Head

Portland

Freeport

Santa Rosa

Beach

Destin

Navarre

Holley East

Bay

Gulf of Mexico

Santa Rosa Sound

Choctawhatchee Bay

10

NOLF

Choctaw

Camp

Rudder

Hurlburt

Field

Eglin Main

Base

Valparaiso

Duke

Field

De Funiak Springs

Fort Walton Beach

Niceville

Shalimar

0 5 10

Miles

Source: DOD.

Poquito

EGLIN AFB

Page 15 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

Near-Term Projects to 

Address Growth Are 

Estimated to Cost $2.0 

Billion; Longer-Term 

Project Costs and Impacts 

Are Uncertain 

Using community estimates, OEA projected that the cost of addressing the 

most immediate effects of military growth on transportation in the 

affected communities would be about $2.0 billion. This estimate includes 

transportation projects that had to meet four criteria: the project had to 

(1) be clearly and substantially linked to military growth, (2) have detailed 

cost estimates and funding sources that were specific and could be 

validated, (3) have a demonstrated gap in funding, and (4) be essential to 

prepare for military growth by September 2011. Many projects were 

largely designed to improve intersections and to widen and extend 

roadways near growth bases. Over half of these costs are for 

transportation improvements concentrated near three bases in the 

metropolitan Washington, D.C., area—Bethesda National Naval Medical 

Center, Fort Belvoir, and Fort Meade. Communities near these three bases 

have identified 11 critical transportation projects estimated to cost over 

$1.1 billion. 

The impact of military growth on transportation could be greater than the 

affected communities have estimated thus far, and the costs of projects to 

address those impacts are still uncertain for several reasons. First, some 

potential projects are not included in the $2.0 billion estimate, and, if built, 

will result in additional costs beyond the $2.0 billion estimate. Texas 

Department of Transportation officials told us they had identified 

additional projects designed, at least in part, to address military growth, 

which they estimate will cost about $327 million. However, according to El 

Paso officials, the community is able to fund the projects and, although the 

number of military personnel arriving in El Paso is very substantial, it is 

not a large percentage of the existing community’s population. In some 

cases uncertainty remains regarding the transportation impacts. For 

example, officials at growth-affected communities near Camp Lejeune, 

North Carolina, were still identifying what levels of growth would occur 

and the impact of military growth on transportation. Additionally, some 

communities were unsure where arriving personnel and contractors would 

choose to live. For example, officials from Fort Belvoir were unsure how 

many personnel would relocate near the base, and officials at Fort Knox 

did not know if some new personnel would choose to commute from the 

Louisville area. Finally, many communities anticipate future growth 

anyway, and it is not always clear whether its impact on transportation is 

clearly and substantially linked to military growth. Studies and other 

evidence clearly linking projects to military growth are not always 

available. For example, OEA officials told us they have no evidence 

available to link three costly potential longer-term projects to military 

growth. These three projects, which are not included in the $2.0 billion 

estimate and which OEA officials said are among the four costliest 

Page 16 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

unfunded longer-term projects that affected communities identified, are 

estimated to cost a total of about $1.6 billion and include expanding public 

transit in the Washington, D.C., area. OEA officials expect to complete an 

updated assessment of military growth projects, costs, and funding needs 

in late 2009. 

The federal response to the expected impact of military growth on 

transportation includes helping with planning, estimating project costs, 

and providing some funding for projects. Both DOD and DOT have 

programs that can help states and localities; however, projects to address 

the impact of military growth must compete with other projects for 

funding. State and local officials are prioritizing highway projects that can 

be completed with existing funding and identifying alternative 

transportation approaches, such as transit and biking, to help address the 

growth expected in their communities. 

DOD Funding for 

Transportation 

Projects Is Limited, 

and Projects Must 

Compete for DOT 

Funds, but State and 

Local Governments 

Have Adopted 

Strategies to Expedite 

Projects 

OEA Provides Planning 

Assistance to 

Communities, but DOD 

Funding for Transportation 

Projects Is Limited and 

BRAC-Related Projects 

Must Compete with Other 

State Transportation 

Priorities under DOT 

Programs 

OEA is DOD’s primary source of assistance for communities adversely 

affected by Defense program changes. OEA provides technical and 

financial assistance to help communities address adverse consequences of 

BRAC decisions. However, as we have previously reported, OEA is not at 

an appropriate organizational level within DOD to coordinate the 

assistance from multiple federal and other government agencies that 

affected communities need. Accordingly, we recommended that DOD 

provide high-level agency leadership to ensure interagency and 

intergovernmental coordination.10 DOD agreed with this recommendation. 

OEA has funded local coordinator positions to assist in coordinating local 

activities responding to BRAC, including transportation-related activities. 

For example, Harford County, Maryland, established a BRAC Planning 

 

10GAO, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities 

Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth, GAO-08-665 (Washington, D.C.: June 

17, 2008). 

Page 17 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

Commission for Aberdeen Proving Ground. This Commission, with OEA 

funding, helped establish the Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor 

Consortium, which includes eight jurisdictions in three states—Delaware, 

Maryland, and Pennsylvania. With Harford County as the lead agency, the 

Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor Regional BRAC Office 

administer grants and coordinates regional BRAC responses. 

OEA also has funded studies, such as traffic studies, which help states and 

local communities define the impact of military growth on transportation. 

For example, OEA has provided transportation planning grants to 

Maryland and Virginia. According to local officials, OEA also has funded 

transportation studies for communities near several of the bases we 

visited, including those near Eglin Air Force Base and Fort Knox. These 

studies can provide communities with more detailed, precise information 

about the transportation impact of military growth than the initial 

environmental studies performed by DOD. 

Under the DAR program, administered by the Military Surface Deployment 

and Distribution Command (SDDC), DOD may pay for public highway 

improvements needed to address the impact on traffic of sudden or 

unusual defense-related actions. DAR enables DOD to help pay indirectly 

for improvements to highways DOD designates as important to the 

national defense. Under DAR, DOD can use funds provided in military 

construction appropriations to pay for all or part of the cost of 

constructing and maintaining roads designated as “defense access roads.” 

However, proposals for funding these roads must compete with proposals 

for funding all other military construction projects, and projects must 

meet specific criteria. 

Defense Access Roads Program 

Has Provided Limited Funding 

for Community Transportation 

Needs 

Local government and military base officials we interviewed said they 

considered DAR funding difficult to obtain because of the program’s 

narrow eligibility criteria.11 For example, if a road is already heavily used 

or congested, traffic may not double as a result of military growth even 

though traffic may increase significantly. In addition, the DAR criteria do 

 

11Projects are eligible for funding if they meet one of the following criteria: (1) the 

installation needs a new access road to accommodate a defense action, (2) a defense action 

causes traffic to double, (3) the installation needs a new or improved access road to 

accommodate a temporary surge in traffic to or from the installation due to a defense 

action, (4) the installation needs a new or improved access road to accommodate special 

military vehicles such as heavy equipment transport vehicles, or (5) the installation needs a 

road to replace one closed because of military necessity. 

Page 18 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

not specifically refer to transit-related improvements. The DAR program 

has not funded large numbers of defense access road projects. From 2000 

to 2009, the program received applications to certify of 27 projects. Of 

those, 17 have been certified and funded, 6 have been certified and are 

pursuing funding, 3 are currently being evaluated for certification, and 1 

did not met the funding criteria. Since 2005, the program has provided 

about $22 million annually for transportation improvements, including 

projects that are not BRAC-related. 

In 2008, we reported that for 11 bases whose populations were scheduled 

to increase by at least 25 percent, DOD had certified and requested 

funding for one DAR project—$36.0 million for access ramps and a 

parkway at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.12 Since that time, DOD has approved and 

provided funds for additional projects at two BRAC growth bases: $8.3 

million for access roads at Fort Carson, Colorado, and $21.8 million for a 

road-widening project at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 

In October 2008, DOD reported to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services addressing DAR criteria. The report concluded that the current 

DAR criteria provide flexibility for addressing communities’ concerns 

about the impact of traffic. However, the report also recognized the 

difficulty in linking safety issues to the criteria and acknowledged that the 

impact of DOD growth on safety is a particular concern. Consequently, 

DOD was considering expanding or modifying the criteria to make 

projects eligible for DAR certification when population growth at a base 

increases traffic congestion to the point that it presents a public safety 

risk. DOD directed SDDC to provide by December 2009 an independent 

study on the merits of specific criteria to address safety issues related to 

growth. The study will be coordinated with DOT. 

DOT does not have special programs to address BRAC growth. However, a 

number of existing federal transportation grant programs provide funding 

that state and local governments can use to help address BRAC-related 

transportation challenges. Federal laws and requirements specify an 

overall approach for transportation planning agencies to use in planning 

BRAC-Related Transportation 

Projects Must Compete for 

DOT Funds with Other State 

and Regional Transportation 

Priorities 

 

12GAO, Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road Improvements 

Surrounding Growth Installations, GAO-08-602R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2008). The 11 

installations with 25 percent growth were Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Belvoir, Virginia; 

Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg; North Carolina; Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort Lee, Virginia; 

Fort Lewis, Washington; Fort Riley, Kansas; Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Marine Corps Base 

Quantico, Virginia; and National Navy Medical Center, Maryland. 

Page 19 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

and selecting projects for federal funding. Under this process, localities—

acting through metropolitan planning organizations13—and states develop 

long-range plans and short-range programs to identify transportation 

needs and projects. BRAC-related projects must be incorporated into 

metropolitan area long-range transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs—for improvements located in metropolitan area—

as well as state transportation improvement programs, before federal 

funding may be used. Decisions about which projects are to be funded 

take place at the state and local level. As a result, BRAC-related projects 

must compete with other state, regional, and local transportation 

priorities. 

Communities Lack 

Funding and Time to 

Complete Major 

Transportation Projects 

before BRAC Growth 

Occurs 

Because of the short BRAC growth time frames, communities near the 

affected bases have estimated that they have less funding than they need 

for critical, short-term, growth-related transportation projects. According 

to our analysis of the data 17 growth communities provided to OEA, these 

communities had identified, as of August 2008, sources for about $0.5 

billion of the $2.0 billion they indicated they would need for 46 short-term 

transportation projects.14 Transportation projects constituted about 93 

percent of the short-term infrastructure funding needs identified by 

communities. 

Since February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (the Recovery Act) has provided additional funding for transportation 

projects.15 Recovery Act funds may be used for BRAC-related projects, but 

the projects already need to be advanced in the normal development cycle, 

because these funds must be obligated very quickly or states risk losing 

them. The act requires that DOT obligate for each state, by June 30, 2009, 

50 percent of the highway funds made available to each state, and 100 

percent of these funds by March 1, 2010. If these requirements are not met 

 

13Metropolitan planning organizations are regional transportation policy bodies made up of 

representatives from various governmental and other organizations. The Federal Highway 

Act of 1970 required the development of such agencies in areas with populations of 50,000 

or greater to carry out cooperative planning at the metropolitan level. 

14One of the 18 communities had not yet submitted the data. OEA is in the process of 

updating this information. According to OEA officials and preliminary data, overall 

transportation project costs and available funding both appear to have declined for shortterm transportation projects, but available funding has declined more sharply. As a result, 

the funding gap may have risen. 

15Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat.115 (Feb. 17, 2009). 

Page 20 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

for a state, the unobligated funds are to be redistributed to other states.16

Thus, even though BRAC transportation projects ideally should be 

completed more quickly than typical highway projects, the time frames for 

using Recovery Act funds may be too short for some BRAC projects. 

However, states are using Recovery Act funds for BRAC-related 

transportation projects at two of the eight bases we visited—Eglin Air 

Force Base and Fort Belvoir. Florida is using $46 million in Recovery Act 

funds for an intersection grade separation project near Eglin Air Force 

Base and Virginia is using about $60 million in Recovery Act funds for its 

Fairfax County Parkway project. Texas and Maryland officials did not 

report applying Recovery Act funds for any of the 46 transportation 

projects OEA officials identified as related to military growth. However, 

they reasoned that applying Recovery Act funds for highway projects or to 

transit agencies generally could help improve mobility in the region. DOT 

is continuing to obligate Recovery Act funds, and the total amount of these 

funds that ultimately will be used to respond to BRAC transportation 

needs is not known at this time. 

According to community and state transportation planners, communities 

that will be affected by BRAC growth will often not be able to complete 

major transportation projects designed to address that growth before it 

occurs. The BRAC growth time frame is shorter than the average time 

frame for developing significant new infrastructure projects. As noted, 

legislation mandates that BRAC actions be completed by September 2011, 

6 years from the date the President submitted his approval of the 

recommendations to Congress. According to the Maryland Department of 

Transportation, major roadway improvement and construction projects 

typically take 10 to 15 years to plan, fund, design, and construct. As shown 

in table 3, Federal Highway Administration data suggest similar time 

frames for completing major highway construction projects. 

 

16GAO, Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Current and Planned Uses of Funds While 

Facing Fiscal Stresses, GAO-09-829 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2008). 

Page 21 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

Table 3: Typical Time Necessary to Complete a Federally Financed Major New 

Construction Highway Project 

Phase Time to complete, in years

Planning 4-5

Preliminary design and environmental review 1-5

Final design and right-of-way acquisition 2-3

Construction 2-6

Total 9-19

Source: FHWA. 

Note: The durations of the phases are approximate. The preliminary design/environmental review 

steps and the final design/right-of-way acquisition steps often overlap. 

Some state and local governments have encountered difficulties in 

responding to transportation needs before the BRAC moves take place. 

• Kentucky state and local governments will not complete a key “connector” 

road designed to alleviate traffic near Fort Knox until 2013—2 years after 

the deadline for completing the BRAC realignment. 

• Texas state and local government officials do not expect to finish 

widening a major road to better accommodate increased traffic on the 

perimeter of Fort Bliss or constructing a new freeway allowing traffic to 

more directly access the base until at least 4 years after growth at the base 

occurs. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) observed that transit operational improvements such as increasing 

the frequency of service can be implemented in less time than is required 

for construction of new transportation facilities. In addition, Urbanized 

Area Formula grants administered by the FTA can be used for near-term 

service extensions as a stopgap measure to meet a surge in demand, but 

not as an alternative to a long-term capital project. 

Page 22 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

State and Local 

Governments Are 

Employing Several 

Strategies to Complete 

Some Critical Projects 

before BRAC Growth 

Occurs 

Given the estimated shortfall in affected communities’ funding for critical 

near-term projects and the difficulties posed by the Recovery Act’s short 

obligation time frames, local officials are adopting various strategies to 

complete some projects before the BRAC 2005 implementation deadline. 

In particular, officials are reprioritizing planned projects, assigning higher 

priorities to projects that will help mitigate the impact of BRAC growth on 

transportation, and immediately implementing projects that they can 

complete before or during BRAC growth. 

Three Maryland bases—Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Fort Meade, and the 

Bethesda National Naval Medical Center—are expected to grow by over 

12,000 personnel as a result of BRAC. These three bases are located within 

large metropolitan areas. Officials expect the growth to have a severe 

impact on intersections and roadways near all three bases. 

Three Maryland Bases: 

Aberdeen Proving Grounds, 

Fort Meade, and Bethesda 

National Naval Medical Center 

State government in Maryland has taken the lead role in responding to 

BRAC growth within the state. For example, the governor created a BRAC 

subcabinet, which coordinates the responses of several state agencies, 

including the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT). In 

addition, MDOT has responded to time and funding constraints for 

addressing the impact of growth at the three bases by implementing a 

strategy to identify lower-cost improvements for immediate 

implementation while continuing to plan higher-dollar, higher-capacity 

projects that take longer to plan, engineer, and construct. 

MDOT officials consider improvements to key intersections near the three 

bases as critical short-term BRAC projects but are concerned that the 

improvements may not be completed before growth occurs. State and 

local transportation officials determined the potential impact of military 

growth on traffic at the three bases within the next 5 to 7 years and 

identified 58 intersections where they expect traffic conditions to fail 

during that time because of this growth. In addition, the officials identified 

intersection improvements, such as additional turn lanes and other minor 

projects, to maintain acceptable traffic conditions near the bases in the 

short term. MDOT prioritized these improvements based on level of 

service, cost of improvements, environmental and socio-economic impact, 

and proximity to the bases, giving highest priority to improvements at 16 

intersections. State and local government officials said they plan to fund 

and complete these improvements but are uncertain whether they will 

have sufficient funds to do so. For example, the state has programmed 

Page 23 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

• $31.6 million for improvements to six intersections near Fort Meade, but 

another $65 million to $100 million may be needed to complete the 

projects; 

• $31.9 million for improvements to six intersections near Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, but $90 million to $155 million more may be needed to complete 

the projects; and 

• $31.3 million for improvements to four intersections near Bethesda 

National Naval Medical Center, but $160 million to $215 million more may 

be needed to complete the projects. 

These shortfalls reflect a broader difficulty in funding Maryland’s 

transportation capital program. The state has deferred over $2.2 billion in 

transportation projects as transportation revenues have declined. Partially 

offsetting this shortfall is $610 million in Recovery Act funds for highways 

and transit. However, according to an MDOT official, Recovery Act funds 

are not a good fit for the BRAC-related intersection improvements because 

the projects are not ready for funds to be obligated, and the Recovery Act 

has tight obligation deadlines for highway and transit funds. 

MDOT also initiated evaluations of how direct commuter and local bus 

and shuttle services could be expanded to help accommodate growth at 

the three bases. Furthermore, according to an MDOT official, MDOT is 

exploring the possibility of obtaining a discretionary grant under the 

Recovery Act for a maintenance and storage facility to help support and 

grow local bus service to the Fort Meade area. MDOT officials are also 

exploring other short-term projects to address the growth, including 

bicycle and pedestrian path improvements, better access to transit 

systems, and efforts to promote car- and vanpools, teleworking, and 

transit systems. 

MDOT’s long-term projects to address growth at the bases include rail 

improvements. Maryland officials had identified these projects before the 

2005 BRAC decisions to address regional growth, but the projects are also 

needed to improve access to the bases, since growth will create additional 

demand for rail and transit services. State officials plan to invest $201.3 

million from 2008 through 2013 to increase capacity and improve service 

on the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) system statewide. 

Finally, a key project for addressing the transportation impact of growth at 

Bethesda National Naval Medical Center is improved access to the Medical 

Center Metrorail station. Roads in this community are already at or near 

Page 24 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

capacity, and with no room for significant roadway expansion; local and 

state officials expect a significant portion of the commuters to use the 

Metrorail system. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has 

studied five alternatives, including improving the existing street crossing, 

two pedestrian tunnel designs, a pedestrian bridge design and a new 

elevator entrance. Cost estimates for these options varied from $700,000 

for the improving the existing crossing to $59.4 million for the elevator 

entrance option. A preferred alternative has not been selected. Maryland 

state officials told us that they are working with transit authority officials 

to plan the project. In May 2008, Bethesda National Naval Medical Center 

officials requested that DOD provide $21 million for the project through 

the DAR program. 

As discussed, Fort Belvoir will gain about 24,100 military and civilian 

personnel. Fairfax County, where Fort Belvoir is located, is within the 

Washington, D.C., metropolitan area—one of the most congested 

transportation regions in the nation. Because of traffic and other 

development issues at Fort Belvoir, the Army acquired additional property 

for the base in Alexandria, Virginia, and 6,400 of the new personnel will relocate there. 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

State and local officials also identified and addressed their highest-priority 

transportation projects immediately while recognizing that longer-term 

projects may not be completed before BRAC growth occurs at Fort 

Belvoir. In total, the officials estimated $390 million in costs for five shortterm projects that they consider critical for responding to BRAC growth at 

Fort Belvoir. In addition, they identified about $1.6 billion in costs for 

short-term and longer-term projects not included in the $2 billion estimate 

of nationwide project costs. Virginia has thus far allocated about $96 

million in Recovery Act funds to BRAC-related projects. Of this sum, the 

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has allocated about $60 

million to extend the Fairfax County Parkway near Fort Belvoir. This 

Recovery Act funding, together with funding from other sources, has 

enabled VDOT to allocate the estimated $175 million needed to complete 

this road. However, VDOT has not been able to obtain any of the estimated 

$165 million needed to complete the two other short-term projects near 

the base—constructing a traffic interchange and widening Interstate 95. In 

Virginia, as in Maryland, transportation revenues have fallen. Specifically, 

the projected funding for projects listed in Virginia’s 6-year transportation 

Page 25 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

improvement plan has declined by almost 40 percent since 2007.17

According to VDOT officials, this decrease in projected funding is mainly 

due to a 2007 Virginia Supreme Court decision disallowing the Northern 

Virginia Transportation Authority’s imposition of taxes and user fees to 

obtain revenue for transportation projects.18

In addition to highways, several transit systems serve Fairfax County, 

including the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority bus and 

Metrorail, Fairfax County bus services, and Virginia Rail Express. 

However, transit access to the base itself is limited, and there is no rail 

connection. Likewise, the new base location in Alexandria does not have a 

direct rail connection. Some local officials see an extension of Metrorail to 

the Fort Belvoir area as a way to address the transportation impact of 

growth near the base. 

About 10,400 Army personnel, plus an additional 14,400 dependents, were 

expected to relocate to Fort Carson. However, a June 2009 DOD decision 

not to locate a combat brigade there will lower this estimate.19 Fort Carson 

is located in El Paso County, Colorado, adjacent to the city of Colorado 

Springs. Colorado state and local officials expect the growth to have a 

significant impact on traffic conditions throughout El Paso County and in 

adjacent counties. 

Fort Carson, Colorado 

After learning about planned BRAC-related military, civilian, and 

contractor personnel increases at Fort Carson, local transportation 

officials reprioritized their planned transportation projects during 2006 

and 2007. This reprioritization allowed them to include projects designed 

to address the impact of military growth among their planned short-term 

projects. Although state and local officials have completed two key 

projects, they lack sufficient funding to complete other growth-related 

projects before the growth occurs. 

 

17The Commonwealth of Virginia Transportation Board (CTB) maintains a 6-year 

transportation improvement plan, which allocates funds for transportation projects 

proposed for construction, development, or study. 

18The Virginia Supreme Court held that the Virginia General Assembly did not have the 

authority to delegate its power of taxation to a nonelected body such as the Northern 

Virginia Transportation Authority. Marshall v. Northern Va. Transp. Auth., 657 S.E. 2d 71 

(2008). 

19Currently, a combat brigade typically contains about 3,800 soldiers. 

Page 26 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

State and local officials used a combination of state and local funds to 

complete needed improvements to Interstate and state highways and to a 

major roadway near the base. However, local transportation officials 

estimate that additional projects designed to address the impact of military 

growth could cost as much as $1 billion. The officials told us that although 

they have made BRAC growth-related projects a priority, additional 

projects will not be completed before September 2011 because of funding 

constraints. Local transportation agencies obtain their funding mainly 

from sales and fuel tax receipts, and local officials noted that these tax 

receipts are declining. The officials also told us that the fiscal year 2010 

state transportation budget could be reduced by over $400 million from 

the fiscal year 2009 funding level, further reducing the funding available 

for projects designed to address the growth at Fort Carson. The officials 

told us that, should the fiscal year 2010 funding be reduced, the state’s 

transportation funding would be at its lowest level in 10 years. 

Officials for Mountain Metro Transit, the transit services provider for 

Colorado Springs, told us that their agency does not provide service inside 

the gates at Fort Carson. They stated that most buildings at the base are 

not within a reasonable walking distance from the entrance and exit gates 

and that providing transit service would necessitate creating an on-base 

shuttle system from the gates to several buildings on base. City and transit 

officials told us that funding for transit services could be cut by 10 percent, 

further limiting the agency’s ability to address the transportation effects of 

growth. In addition, Fort Carson officials told us that demand for transit 

services is low among base personnel. 

As a result of the BRAC 2005 legislation and other initiatives, about 28,000 

personnel were to relocate to Fort Bliss in El Paso County, Texas, by 2011. 

However, a June 2009 DOD decision not to relocate a combat brigade 

there will lower this number. State and local officials expect the growth to 

adversely affect conditions on local roadways and transit systems. 

However, the officials added that they do not consider the impact of 

military growth to be significant because the additional personnel 

represent a small percentage of the city’s total population of about 

750,000. 

Fort Bliss, Texas 

Local officials have identified 31 road projects and four transit projects 

that will help address the impact of military growth at Fort Bliss. 

According to their estimate, the total cost of these projects will be 

Page 27 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

between $623 million and $830 million.20 The officials told us that they are 

capable of funding most of these projects within 5 years. They added that 

most of the projects that will address the impact of military growth will 

also address nonmilitary growth and were planned before the decisions to 

increase personnel at Fort Bliss. However, they told us that they will not 

be able to complete a major road-widening project until at least 4 years 

after the growth occurs. 

Officials in Texas used an innovative financing approach to generate 

funding sufficient to complete a critical BRAC growth-related project 

within a short time frame. This approach, which El Paso city officials 

worked on with Texas Department of Transportation officials, will provide 

funding to construct Spur 601, a $367 million highway project that will 

ease access to Fort Bliss and relieve congestion in east and northeast El 

Paso. The financing approach, “pass through” financing, will repay a 

project developer to finance (through the Camino Real Regional Mobile 

Authority), design, acquire the right-of-way for, and construct the highway 

over several years. The regional authority will use state highway funds to 

repay the private developer, based on miles traveled by vehicles on the 

highway. 

El Paso city officials plan to develop new bus services near Fort Bliss and 

citywide as part of their plans to address the transportation effects of 

military and nonmilitary growth. However, Fort Bliss officials told us that 

demand for transit services is low among base personnel because the base 

encompasses a large geographic area, the base gates are not within 

walking distance of most buildings, and the base does not have a shuttle 

service to transport transit customers from the gates to their on-base 

destinations. Fort Bliss officials added that they attempted to establish an 

on-base bus service but discontinued it because of low demand for the 

service. 

Fort Knox officials expect the base to gain about 1,600 military and civilian 

personnel and dependents by September 2011; however, the militaryrelated population living off-base will grow by about 5,000. A local 

metropolitan planning organization study of traffic conditions near Fort 

Knox concludes that without significant improvements, the existing 

Fort Knox, Kentucky

 

20As of March 2009, El Paso officials had not provided an estimate of short-term projects to 

OEA. Thus, these potential projects are not included in the estimated $2 billion in shortterm BRAC-related transportation projects. 

Page 28 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

roadway system will be incapable of providing the capacity required to 

accommodate traffic increases caused by the change in personnel at the 

base. 

Likewise, Kentucky state and local officials said they completed a roadway 

improvement project that they considered essential to addressing the 

transportation impact of expected BRAC organizational changes at Fort 

Knox, but they do not have sufficient funding to complete other projects 

designed to address that impact before the changes occur. State and local 

officials report that the transportation projects needed to address the 

impact of growth at Fort Knox will cost about $244 million. Shortly after 

state and local officials learned about the planned changes at Fort Knox, 

state officials prioritized the widening of a roadway that provides access 

to the base. According to a state official, the state completed the $13 

million improvement project in March 2008. Since then, state officials have 

been able to set aside an additional $50 million in bond funds for the 

remaining projects. Local officials told us that state law leaves them with 

few other revenue-raising options for transportation improvements. For 

example, the Kentucky constitution prohibits the state General Assembly 

from granting city and county governments the authority to levy sales 

taxes, thus limiting their options to fund growth-related transportation 

improvements.21 Accordingly, local officials said the state government 

must fund most transportation improvements. The officials told us that the 

state must use most available funds for roadway maintenance and does 

not have sufficient funds remaining to address growth-related projects at 

Fort Knox before 2011. 

Local officials are working to increase park-and-ride services to reduce 

anticipated roadway congestion but do not have the financial capacity to 

purchase additional buses and expand service. Local officials consider 

expanding key roadway capacity a higher priority than expanding transit 

services. Local transit services are limited, and the transit provider does 

not have the capacity to significantly expand services and help address the 

transportation impact of adding about 5,000 people to the off-base 

population. The Transit Authority of Central Kentucky provides bus and 

vanpool services for the communities near Fort Knox. According to transit 

authority officials, their bus and vanpool system provides services for 

about 135 passengers each day. Despite their limited ability to address the 

effects of the expected growth at Fort Knox, authority officials plan to 

 

21KY. CONST. § 181. 

Page 29 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

operate larger buses and provide increased service as demand for transit 

services increases. 

State officials do not expect to complete key projects until 2013 or 2014—2 

to 3 years after the growth occurs. The projects include a bypass roadway 

to improve traffic conditions on a major roadway leading to the base and a 

new roadway serving residential areas where local officials expect most of 

the new personnel to reside. 

Eglin Air Force Base, located in Okaloosa, Walton, and Santa Rosa 

counties, will gain about 3,600 military and civilian personnel and 5,900 

dependents by September 2011. State, local, and Air Force officials expect 

congestion on major roadways to worsen with this growth. As noted, a 

limited roadway network serving the 724 square-mile facility channels 

traffic along relatively few major roads and causes congestion. 

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida 

Like officials in Maryland and Virginia, Florida state and local officials are 

prioritizing transportation projects and initially funding projects that they 

can complete before planned BRAC growth at Eglin Air Force Base 

occurs. Local and state officials have not estimated the total costs needed 

to address the impact of growth, but they have identified short- and longterm projects they consider critical to addressing the impact. State and 

county officials are initially funding some projects that address immediate 

needs of the communities that will be affected by the growth. These 

projects are considered critical to accommodating increased traffic levels 

and maintaining access to the base without unreasonable delays, including 

widening major roads near the base from four to six lanes. Another critical 

but currently unfunded project is construction of an overpass to allow 

personnel to access a nearby airfield without stopping traffic on a state 

highway. 

Florida state and local officials told us that they do not have the funding 

necessary to complete planned long-term projects. They added that longterm projects include improving and constructing roadways in and near 

several communities that will be affected by the growth and expanding 

transit services. Expanding transit services could be important to 

accommodate growth-related traffic increases because environmental 

concerns preclude widening several key roadway segments near the 

installation. 

Page 30 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
 

We provided copies of this report to the Departments of Defense and 

Transportation for their review and comment. Both provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional 

committees and the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, the Army, the 

Air Force, and the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Copies 

are available to others at no cost on GAO’s Web Site at www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-2834, or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

Phillip Herr 

listed in appendix II. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 31 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine the expected impact of military growth on transportation in 

communities affected by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

decisions, we reviewed the 18 military bases identified by the Office of 

Economic Adjustment (OEA) that will be substantially and seriously 

affected by growth resulting from the BRAC 2005 realignments. We 

analyzed relevant OEA reports, including reports that identified projects 

designed to address the impact of growth. We reviewed environmental 

impact statements and assessments for the 16 of these bases that had 

completed environmental documents at the time of our review. To obtain 

more detailed information on how community transportation likely would 

be affected, we selected 8 of the 18 bases, and their nearby communities, 

to visit. We selected these locations based on several of factors. We 

classified bases into three groups, including very large metropolitan areas 

of over 1 million people, smaller metropolitan areas of 200,000 to 1 million 

people, and smaller urban areas of under 200,000 people, and selected 

communities within each grouping, considering whether the 

environmental study was complete, and whether community officials 

identified transportation as a concern. The bases selected are listed in 

table 1 of this report. We interviewed Army, Navy, and Air Force officials 

responsible for implementing the BRAC decisions about the expected 

growth at these installations and the impact of the growth on 

transportation in the communities. For the eight communities, we 

analyzed state and community participation in the environmental review 

processes, and relevant studies to determine the transportation effects of 

growth, including state transportation improvement plans, local 

transportation plans, and detailed traffic studies, where available. We did 

not independently assess the transportation models used in these traffic 

studies, or independently calculate employment or population growth in 

the communities. In addition, we interviewed state and local 

transportation and other local officials responsible for addressing the 

impact of military growth about how that growth would affect 

transportation in these communities. We also observed conditions on 

roadways local officials expect to be affected by BRAC growth in the 

selected communities. 

To determine the estimated costs to address the transportation impact of 

military growth and the status of their efforts to fund growth-related 

projects, we analyzed information OEA collected from affected local 

governments showing their cost estimates and funding available for 

growth-related projects. We interviewed OEA project managers 

responsible for coordinating data gathering from affected local 

governments and local government officials about the effort and the 

process and standards for including projects as part of OEA’s assessment. 

Page 32 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

We also analyzed the data to determine the total costs of both the critical 

short-term projects and the longer-term projects. We also compared 

projects included in the data with projects identified in the environmental 

studies DOD conducted for the growth locations to establish a link 

between the proposed projects and military growth actions. 

To determine the federal, state, and local response to the expected impact 

of BRAC growth on transportation, we reviewed DOD’s Defense Access 

Roads (DAR) program guidance and interviewed base and DOD Military 

Surface Deployment and Distribution Command officials to determine 

which BRAC growth-related projects base commanders had submitted for 

program funding and the amount of program funding committed. We also 

interviewed OEA officials on the role OEA provides in supporting BRACaffected communities. In addition, to obtain information on how military 

resources would help address the impact of growth on transportation, we 

interviewed Army, Navy, and Air Force officials responsible for 

implementing individual bases’ efforts to help state and local governments 

address that impact. We interviewed Federal Highway Administration and 

Federal Transit Administration officials about their agencies’ roles in 

helping affected communities address the impact of military growth on 

transportation and about the funding available to affected communities to 

address that impact. We reviewed local and state short- and long-term 

transportation improvement plans for the selected communities to identify 

transportation projects planned to address BRAC growth, communities’ 

prioritization of these projects, and communities’ strategies for funding 

and completing the projects. We also interviewed state and local officials 

at the eight selected communities about their strategies for addressing that 

impact, including how they would prioritize BRAC-related projects with 

other transportation projects, obtain needed funding, and coordinate with 

DOD and other federal officials, and their views on the environmental 

impact process. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through September 

2009 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. 

Page 33 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
Appendix II: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 34 GAO-09-750 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Phillip Herr, Director (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Robert Ciszewski, Catherine 

Colwell, Steve Cohen, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Brian Lepore, Les Locke, Mike 

Mgebroff, and Stephanie Purcell made key contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Military High Level Leadership Needed to Help Guam Address 

Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth. GAO-09-500R. Washington, 

D.C.: April 9, 2009. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges in 

Implementing Recommendations on Time and Is Not Consistently 

Updating Savings Estimates. GAO-09-217. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 

2009. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Army Is Developing Plans to 

Transfer Functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, Maryland, but Challenges Remain. GAO-08-1010R. 

Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help 

Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth. 

GAO-08-665. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road 

Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. GAO-08-602R. 

Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008. 

Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More 

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

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

Defense Infrastructure: Army and Marine Corps Grow the Force 

Construction Projects Generally Support the Initiative. GAO-08-375. 

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

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower 

Savings Projected for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC 

Recommendations. GAO-08-315. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: Realignment of Air Force Special Operations 

Command Units to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. GAO-08-244R. 

Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2008. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have 

Increased and Estimated Savings Have Decreased. GAO-08-341T. 

Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2007. 

Page 35 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
Related GAO Products 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have 

Increased and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve. GAO-08-159. Washington, 

D.C.: December 11, 2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Impact of Terminating, 

Relocating, or Outsourcing the Services of the Armed Forces Institute of 

Pathology. GAO-08-20. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transfer of Supply, Storage, 

and Distribution Functions from Military Services to Defense Logistics 

Agency. GAO-08-121R. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007. 

Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely 

Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial 

Personnel Growth. GAO-07-1007. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Plan Needed to Monitor 

Challenges for Completing More Than 100 Armed Forces Reserve 

Centers. GAO-07-1040. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Observations Related to the 

2005 Round. GAO-07-1203R. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2007. 

Military Base Closures: Projected Savings from Fleet Readiness Centers 

Are Likely Overstated and Actions Needed to Track Actual Savings and 

Overcome Certain Challenges. GAO-07-304. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 

2007. 

Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate 

Challenges and Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely 

Implementation of Air National Guard Recommendations. GAO-07-641. 

Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007. 

Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental 

Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property. 

GAO-07-166. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2007. 

Military Bases: Observations on DOD’s 2005 Base Realignment and 

Closure Selection Process and Recommendations. GAO-05-905. 

Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2005. 

Page 36 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
Related GAO Products 

Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s 2005 Selection Process and 

Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. GAO-05-785. 

Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005. 

(542138) Page 37 GAO-09-750 Military Base Realignments and Closures
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

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

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

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

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper