Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge
Published: 2002-08-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems include roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and ports and waterways. One of the major goals of these systems is to provide and enhance mobility, that is, the free flow of passengers and goods. Mobility provides people with access to goods, services, recreation, and jobs; provides businesses with access to materials, markets and people; and promotes the movement of personnel and material to meet national defense needs. During the past decade, total public sector spending increased for public roads and transit, remained constant for waterways, and decreased for rail. Passenger and freight travel are expected to increase over the next 10 years, according to Department of Transportation projections. Passenger vehicle travel on public roads is expected to grow by 24.7 percent from 2000 to 2010. Passenger travel on transit systems is expected to increase by 17.2 percent over the same period. Amtrak has estimated that intercity passenger rail ridership will increase by 25.9 percent from 2001 to 2010. The key factors behind increases in passenger travel, and the modes travelers choose, are expected to be population growth, the aging of the population, and rising affluence. According to GAO's expert panelists and other sources, with increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface and maritime transportation systems face a number of challenges that involve ensuring continued mobility while maintaining a balance with other social goals, such as environmental preservation. These challenges include (1) preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation system, (2) ensuring access to transportation for certain undeserved populations, and (3) addressing the transportation system's negative effects on the environment and communities. There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the nation, and GAO's expert panelists indicated that numerous approaches are needed to address these challenges. Strategies included are to (1) focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system rather than on specific modes and types of travel, (2) use a full range of tools to achieve desired mobility outcomes, and (3) provide more options for financing mobility improvements and consider additional sources of revenue.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The scope of the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems—which  primarily include roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and ports and  waterways—is vast. One of the major goals of these systems is to provide  and enhance mobility, that is, the free flow of passengers and goods.  Mobility provides people with access to goods, services, recreation, and  jobs; provides businesses with access to materials, markets, and people;  and promotes the movement of personnel and material to meet national  defense needs. Among the social and economic benefits of enhanced  mobility are improved economies and, for some, better quality of life and  access to job opportunities. In 2000, the surface and maritime  transportation systems carried 2.7 trillion miles of travel by passenger  vehicles and trucks, 8.7 billion trips on public transit, 22.5 million trips on  intercity passenger rail (Amtrak), and in 1998, about 13.5 billion tons of  freight on all modes.
While the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems provide many  benefits, they have also generated some concerns about congestion and the  burden they impose on the nation’s quality of life through wasted energy,  time, and money; increased pollution and threats to public safety; barriers  to transportation accessibility for certain population groups; and the level  of financial resources available to address transportation problems.  Several key pieces of legislation that authorize funding for federal surface  transportation programs will expire soon. For example, the Transportation  Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)—which authorizes federal  funding for highways, mass transit, and a variety of other surface  transportation programs—expires in fiscal year 2003 and the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 that authorizes federal  appropriations for Amtrak expires at the end of fiscal year 2002. In  addition, the federal funding processes and mechanisms for the maritime  transportation system are currently under review by two interagency  groups. As the Congress considers reauthorizing surface transportation  legislation, it will weigh the structure, nature, and level of federal  investment it will provide in future years to enhance mobility and support  other surface and maritime transportation activities.
Given the social and economic importance of the surface and maritime  transportation systems and to inform the Congress in its reauthorization  deliberations, you asked us to provide information on the following  questions: 1. What have been the trends over the past 10 years in surface and  maritime transportation expenditures made by the public sector?  2. What are the projected trends in the levels of passenger and freight  travel on surface and maritime transportation modes over the next 10  years and what are the key factors that influence those trends? 3. What key challenges in maintaining and improving mobility have  experts and other sources identified?  4. What are some key strategies for addressing the challenges?
In addressing the first two questions, we analyzed databases and other  information obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)  and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers). We did not  verify the accuracy of these data. In addressing the third and fourth  questions, we relied upon the results of two panels of surface and maritime  transportation experts that we convened in April 2002. The 22 experts were  selected by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and its Transportation  Research Board with input from us; they included a cross-section of  representatives from all surface and maritime modes and from various  occupations involved in transportation planning. We also reviewed reports  prepared by federal agencies, academics, and industry groups to address  the third and fourth questions. Appendix VI provides further information  on our scope and methodology.
In this report we discuss three types of travel that have important  distinctions: local passenger travel, intercity passenger travel, and freight  travel. Local travel includes commuting trips to and from work, shopping  trips, and other personal trips such as for school, social, or recreational  purposes. The main types of vehicles and modes of transportation used for  local trips include automobiles and mass transit, including city buses,  commuter rail, subways, and ferries. Intercity passenger travel is different  from local travel because it represents longer distances traveled, and it  occurs on some different modes of transportation, primarily automobile,  air service, intercity bus, and intercity rail. Freight generally moves by  trucks on public roads; by barges and various cargo ships on the inland,  intra-coastal, coastal, and Great Lakes waterways; by trains on rail on  private right-of-way; and by airplane. The choice of mode is influenced by  the type, weight, and value of goods being shipped; available modes of  transportation in the region; and cost, speed, and other service  requirements.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems facilitate mobility  through an extensive network of infrastructure and operators, as well as  through the vehicles and vessels that permit passengers and freight to  move within the systems. The systems include 3.9 million miles of public  roads, 121,000 miles of major private railroad networks, and 25,000 miles of  commercially navigable waterways. They also include over 500 major  urban public transit operators in addition to numerous private transit  operators, and more than 300 ports on the coasts, Great Lakes, and inland  waterways.
Maintaining the transportation system is critical to sustaining America’s  economic growth. Efficient mobility systems are essential facilitators of  economic development—cities could not exist and global trade could not  occur without systems to transport people and goods. DOT has adopted  improved mobility—to “shape an accessible, affordable, reliable  transportation system for all people, goods, and regions”—as one of its  strategic goals. To achieve this goal, it has identified several desired  outcomes, including (1) improving the physical condition of the  transportation system, (2) reducing transportation time from origin to  destination, (3) increasing the reliability of trip times, (4) increasing access  to transportation systems, and (5) reducing the cost of transportation  services.
The relative roles, responsibilities, and revenue sources of each sector  involved in surface and maritime transportation activities—including the  federal government, other levels of government, and the private sector— vary across modes. For public roads, ownership is divided among federal,  state, and local governments—over 77 percent of the roads are owned by  local governments; 20 percent are owned by the states, including most of  the Interstate Highway System; and 3 percent are owned by the federal  government. While the federal government owns few roads, it has played  a major role in funding the nation’s highways. For example, from 1954  through 2001, the federal government invested over $370 billion (in  constant 2001 dollars) in the Interstate Highway System.
With the completion of the interstate system in the 1980s—and continuing  with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of  1991 (ISTEA) and its successor legislation, TEA-21, in 1998—the federal  government shifted its focus toward preserving and enhancing the capacity  of the system. Under the Federal Aid Highway Program, the Federal  Highway Administration (FHWA) provides funds to states to construct,  improve, and maintain the interstate highway system and other parts of the  U.S. road network and to replace and rehabilitate bridges. TEA-21  established, among other things, a mechanism for ensuring that the level of  federal highway program funds distributed to the states would be more  closely linked than before to the highway user tax receipts credited to the  Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. These user taxes include  excise taxes on motor fuels (gasoline, gasohol, diesel, and special fuels)  and truck-related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and the  use of heavy vehicles. FHWA distributes highway program funds to the  states through annual apportionments according to statutory formulas that  consider a variety of factors including vehicles miles traveled on the  interstate system, motor fuel usage by each state’s highway users, and  other factors. The federal share for project funding is usually 80 percent  but can vary among programs, road types, and states. State and local  governments then “match” federal funds with funds from other sources,  such as state or local revenues.
While the federal government’s primary role has been to provide capital  funding for the interstate system and other highway projects, state and  local governments provide the bulk of the funding for public roads in the  United States and are responsible for operating and maintaining all   nonfederal roads including the interstate system. The sources of state  highway revenues include user charges, such as taxes on motor fuels and  motor vehicles and tolls; proceeds of bond issues; General Fund  appropriations; and other taxes and investment income. The sources of  local highway revenues include many of the user charges and other sources  used by state governments, as well as property taxes and assessments.
The U.S. transit system includes a variety of multiple-occupancy vehicle  services designed to transport passengers on local and regional routes.  Capital funding for transit came from the following sources in 2000: 47  percent of the total came from the federal government, 27 percent from  transit agencies and other nongovernmental sources, 15 percent from local  governments, and 11 percent from states. In that same year, the sources of  operating funds for transit included passenger fares (36 percent of  operating funds); state governments (20 percent); local governments (22  percent); other funds directly generated by transit agencies and local  governments through taxes, advertising, and other sources (17 percent);  and the federal government (5 percent).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial assistance to  states and local transit operators to develop new transit systems and  improve, maintain, and operate existing systems. This assistance includes  (1) formula grants to provide capital and operating assistance to urbanized  and nonurbanized areas and to organizations that provide specialized  transit services to the elderly and disabled persons; (2) competitive capital  investment grants for constructing new fixed guideway systems and  extensions to existing ones, modernizing fixed guideway systems, and  investing in buses and bus-related facilities; (3) assistance for transit  planning and research; and (4) grants to local governments and nonprofit  organizations to connect low-income persons and welfare recipients to  jobs and support services. Funding for federal transit programs is generally  provided on an 80 percent/20 percent federal to local match basis. Federal  support for transit projects comes from the Highway Trust Fund’s highway  and transit accounts and from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.
The respective roles of the public and private sector and the revenue  sources vary for passenger as compared with freight railroads. With regard  to passengers, the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created Amtrak to  provide intercity passenger rail service because existing railroads found  such service unprofitable. Since its founding, Amtrak has rebuilt rail  equipment and benefited from significant public investment in track and  stations, especially in the Northeast corridor, which runs between Boston,  Mass., and Washington, D.C. The federal government, through the Federal  Railroad Administration (FRA), has provided Amtrak with $39 billion (in  2000 dollars) for capital and operating expenses from 1971 through 2002.  Federal payments are a significant revenue source for Amtrak’s capital  budget, but not its operating budget. In fiscal year 2001, for example, the  sources of Amtrak’s capital funding were private sector debt financing  (59 percent of total revenues), the federal government (36 percent), and  state and local transportation agencies (5 percent). In that same year, the  sources of funding for Amtrak’s operating budget were passenger fares  (59 percent of total revenues), other business activities and commuter  railroads (34 percent), and the federal government and state governments  (7 percent). The role of the federal government in providing financial  support to Amtrak is currently under review amid concerns about the  corporation’s financial viability and discussions about the future direction  of federal policy toward intercity rail service.
With regard to freight, the private sector owns, operates, and provides  almost all of the financing for freight railroads. Since the 1970s, the railroad  industry has experienced many changes including deregulation and  industry consolidation. Currently, the federal government plays a relatively  small role in financing freight railroad infrastructure by offering some  credit assistance to state and local governments and railroads for capital  improvements.
The U.S. maritime transportation system primarily consists of waterways,  ports, the intermodal connections (e.g., inland rail and roadways) that  permit passengers and cargo to reach marine facilities, and the vessels and  vehicles that move cargo and people within the system. The maritime  infrastructure is owned and operated by an aggregation of state and local  agencies and private companies, with some federal funding provided by the  Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, and DOT’s Maritime  Administration. The Corps of Engineers provides funding for projects to  deepen or otherwise improve navigation channels, maintain existing  waterways, and construct and rehabilitate inland waterway infrastructure,  primarily locks and dams. Funding for channel operations and  maintenance generally comes from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund  supported by a tax on imports, domestic commodities, and other types of  port usage. The costs of deepening federal channels are shared by the  federal government and nonfederal entities. The Inland Waterways Trust  Fund, supported by a fuel tax, funds one-half of the inland and intra-coastal  capital investments. Coast Guard funding promotes (1) mobility by  providing aids to navigation, icebreaking services, bridge administration,  and traffic management activities; (2) security through law enforcement  and border control activities; and (3) safety through programs for  prevention, response, and investigation. DOT’s Maritime Administration  provides loan guarantees for the construction, reconstruction, or  reconditioning of eligible export vessels and for shipyard modernization  and improvement. It also subsidizes the operating costs of some companies  that provide maritime services and provides technical assistance to state  and local port authorities, terminal operators, the private maritime  industry, and others on a variety of topics (e.g., port, intermodal, and  advanced cargo handling technologies; environmental compliance; and  planning, management, and operations of ports).
section_title: Trends in Public Expenditures for Surface and Maritime Transportation Vary by Mode
subsections: section_title: Public Sector Expenditures
paragraphs: Public sector spending (in 1999 dollars) has increased for public roads and  transit between fiscal years 1991 and 1999, but stayed constant for  waterways and decreased for rail, as shown in figure 1.
Total public sector spending for public roads increased by 18.4 percent  between fiscal years 1991 and 1999, from $80.6 billion to $95.5 billion (in  1999 dollars). Of those totals, the relative shares contributed by the  federal government and by state and local governments remained constant  from 1991 to 1999, as shown in figure 2. Contributions from state and local  governments’ own funds—that is, independent of federal grants to state  and local governments—were approximately 75 percent, with the federal  government contributing the remaining 25 percent.
The increases in total public spending for roads reflect federal  programmatic spending increases resulting from ISTEA in 1992 and TEA-21  in 1998, as well as increases in total state and local spending. In particular,  since the passage of TEA-21, the federal government’s contribution to total  public expenditures on roads increased by 26.8 percent (in 1999 dollars)  from $21.2 billion in fiscal year 1998 to $26.9 billion in fiscal year 2000, the  latest year for which federal expenditure data are available. Although data  on federal expenditures are not currently available for fiscal years after  2000, federal appropriations for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 reached $32.1  billion and $33.3 billion, respectively. Federal funding increases in those  years largely resulted from adjustments required by the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) provisions in TEA-21. Since TEA-21, the federal  government has shifted its focus toward preserving and enhancing the  capacity of public roads, while state and local government expenditures  have been focused on maintaining and operating public roads. Appendix I  contains additional information on the levels of capital investment and  maintenance spending by the public sector.
Total public spending for transit increased by 14.8 percent between fiscal  years 1991 and 1999 to just over $29 billion (in 1999 dollars). This mainly  reflects increases in state and local expenditures, as federal expenditures  for transit actually decreased slightly over this period to $4.3 billion in 1999.  In fiscal year 2000, however, federal spending on transit increased by 21.5  percent from $4.3 billion to $5.2 billion (in 1999 dollars). Although federal  data on expenditures are not currently available for fiscal years after 2000,  appropriations for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 reached $6.3 billion and $6.8  billion, respectively. State and local expenditures, independent of federal  grants, increased to over $24 billion in 1999, accounting for over 85 percent  of total public sector expenditures for transit, a share that has increased  somewhat since 1991, as shown in figure 3.
Public sector spending on ports and waterways has remained between $7.2  and $7.9 billion (in 1999 dollars), between fiscal years 1991 and 1999. This  spending pattern reflects fairly steady levels of federal spending by the  Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and the Maritime Administration for  water transportation expenditures. Expenditures by the Corps of  Engineers and the Coast Guard comprise the bulk of federal spending for  water transportation, and have remained at about $1.5 billion and $2 billion  (in 1999 dollars) per year, respectively. State and local expenditures,  however, increased by 27.7 percent, from $2.4 billion in fiscal year 1991 to  $3.1 billion in fiscal year 1999, and accounted for about 41 percent of total  public water transportation expenditures in fiscal year 1999, having grown  from about 34 percent of the total in fiscal year 1991, as shown in figure 4.
The public sector’s role in the funding of freight railroads is limited since  the private sector owns, operates, and provides almost all of the financing  for freight railroads. In addition, since public sector expenditures for  commuter rail and subways are considered public transit expenditures,  public expenditures discussed here for passenger rail are limited to funding  for Amtrak. Federal support for Amtrak has fluctuated somewhat  throughout the 1990s, but has dropped off substantially in recent years,  with fiscal years 2001 and 2002 appropriations of $520 and $521 million,  respectively. Sufficient data are not currently available to characterize  trends in state and local governments’ spending for intercity passenger  rail.
section_title: Private Sector Expenditures
paragraphs: The private sector plays an important role in the provision of  transportation services in each mode. For example, while the private sector  does not invest heavily in providing roads, it purchases and operates most  of the vehicles for use on publicly provided roads. For freight rail, the  private sector owns and operates most of the tracks as well as the freight  trains that run on the tracks. In the maritime sector, many ports on the  inland waterways are privately owned, as are freight vessels and towboats.  Data on private sector expenditures on a national level are limited.  However, available data show that private expenditures for transportation  on roads, rail, and waterways rose throughout the 1990s. According to the  U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’ Survey of Current Business,  individuals and businesses spent about $397 billion in 2000 for the purchase  of new cars, buses, trucks, and other motor vehicles, a 57-percent increase  from 1993 levels (in 2000 dollars). In addition to the purchase of vehicles,  the private sector also invests in and operates toll roads and lanes;  however, data on these investments are not currently available on a  national level. According to the Survey of Current Business, freight  railroads and other businesses spent over $11 billion for railroad  infrastructure and rail cars in 2000, a 66-percent increase from 1991 (in  2000 dollars). In addition, private sector investment on ships and boats  more than doubled between 1991 and 2000, to about $3.7 billion (in 2000  dollars). However, private investment in waterways also includes port  facilities for loading and unloading ships and for warehousing goods. Data  on these investments are also currently not available on a national level.
section_title: Passenger and Freight Travel Are Expected to Increase on All Modes
paragraphs: Federal projections show passenger and freight travel increasing over the  next 10 years on all modes, due to population growth, increasing  affluence, economic growth, and other factors. Passenger vehicle travel on  public roads is expected to grow by 24.7 percent from 2000 to 2010.  Passenger travel on transit systems is expected to increase by 17.2 percent  over the same period. Intercity passenger rail ridership is expected to  increase by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010. Finally, preliminary estimates by  DOT also indicate that tons of freight moved on all surface and maritime  modes—truck, rail, and water—are expected to increase by about 43  percent from 1998 through 2010, with the largest increase expected to be in  tons moved by truck.
However, several factors in the forecast methodologies limit their ability to  capture the effects of changes in travel levels on the surface and maritime  transportation systems as a whole (see app. II for more information about  the travel forecast methodologies). For example, a key assumption  underlying most of the national travel projections we obtained is that  capacity will increase as levels of travel increase; that is, the projections  are not limited by possible future constraints on capacity such as  increasing congestion. On the other hand, if capacity does not increase,  future travel levels may be lower than projected. In addition, differences  in travel measurements hinder direct comparisons between modes and  types of travel. For example, intercity highway travel is not differentiated  from local travel in FHWA’s projections of travel on public roads, so  projections of intercity highway travel cannot be directly compared to  intercity passenger travel projections for other modes, such as rail. For  freight travel, FHWA produces projections of future tonnage shipped on  each mode; however, tonnage is only one measure of freight travel and  does not capture important aspects of freight mobility, such as the  distances over which freight moves or the value of the freight being moved.
subsections: section_title: Travel on Public Roads Is Projected to Grow Fairly Steadily
paragraphs: As shown in figure 5, vehicle miles traveled for passenger vehicles on  public roads are projected to grow fairly steadily through 2010, by 24.7  percent over the 10-year period from 2000 through 2010, with an average  annual increase of 2.2 percent. This is similar to the actual average annual  rate of growth from 1991 to 2000, which was 2.5 percent. At the projected  rate of growth, vehicle miles traveled would reach 3.2 trillion by 2010. The  20-year annual growth rate forecasts produced by individual states ranged  from a low of 0.39 percent for Maine to a high of 3.43 percent for Utah.  (See app. II for more detailed information on state forecasts.)
In addition to passenger vehicles, trucks carrying freight contribute to the  overall levels of travel on public roads. Vehicle miles traveled by freight  trucks are also projected to increase by 2010, but such traffic makes up a  relatively small share of total vehicle miles traveled. According to forecasts  by FHWA, freight truck vehicle miles are expected to grow by 32.5 percent  from 2000 to 2010, but will constitute less than 10 percent of total vehicle  miles traveled nationwide in 2010. However, within certain corridors,  trucks may account for a more substantial portion of total traffic. The  projected average annual growth rate for truck travel is 2.9 percent for 2000  to 2010, compared to an actual average annual growth rate of 3.9 percent  from 1991 to 2000. We discuss freight travel in more detail later in this  report, after the discussion of passenger travel.
section_title: Transit Travel Is Projected to Increase
paragraphs: For transit, FTA projects that the growth in passenger miles traveled  between 2000 and 2010 will average 1.6 percent annually, for a total growth  of 17.2 percent. Actual growth from 1991 through 2000 averaged 2.1 percent  annually. (See fig. 6.) At the projected growth rate, annual passenger miles  traveled on the nation’s transit systems would be approximately 52.9 billion  by 2010. The transit forecast is a national weighted average and the  individual forecasts upon which it is based vary widely by metropolitan  area. For example, transit forecasts for specific urbanized areas range from  a -0.05 percent average annual decrease in Philadelphia to a 3.56 percent  average annual increase in San Diego.
section_title: Intercity Passenger Travel Is Projected to Increase
paragraphs: Both DOT and Amtrak project future increases in intercity passenger  travel. Although automobiles dominate intercity travel, FHWA’s projections  of vehicle miles traveled do not separately report long-distance travel in  cars on public roads. After automobiles, airplanes and intercity buses are  the next most used modes and intercity passenger rail is the least used.  However, we do not report on air travel since it is outside the scope of this  report, or on bus travel, because while FHWA projected increases in the  number of miles traveled by all types of buses, we were unable to obtain  specific projections of intercity ridership on buses. For intercity passenger  rail, Amtrak predicts a cumulative increase in total ridership of 25.9 percent  from 23.5 million passengers in 2001 to 29.6 million passengers in 2010, a  contrast with the relatively flat ridership of recent years, which has  remained between 20 and 23 million passengers per year (see app. II for  further details about Amtrak’s projections).
section_title: Factors Expected to Affect Future Passenger Travel Include Population Growth, Increasing Affluence, and Improved Communications
paragraphs: According to FHWA, FTA, and many of our panelists, a number of factors  are likely to influence not only the amount of travel that will occur in the  future, but also the modes travelers choose. First, the U.S. Census Bureau  predicts that the country’s population will reach almost 300 million by 2010,  which will result in more travelers on all modes. This population growth,  and the areas in which it is expected to occur, could have a variety of  effects on mode choices. In particular, the population growth that is  expected in suburban areas could lead to a larger increase in travel by  private vehicles than by transit because suburban areas generally have  lower population densities than inner cities, and also have more dispersed  travel patterns, making them harder to serve through conventional public  transit. Rural areas are also expected to experience high rates of  population growth and persons living there, like suburban residents, are  more reliant on private vehicles and are not easily served by conventional  public transit. While these demographic trends tend to decrease transit’s  share of total passenger travel as compared to travel by private vehicle, the  overall growth in population is expected to result in absolute increases in  the level of travel on transit systems as well as by private vehicle. Another  important factor that could affect mode choice is that the population aged  85 and over will increase 30 percent by 2010, according to data from the  Census Bureau. The aging of the population might increase the market for  demand-responsive transit services and improved road safety features,  such as enhanced signage.
Second, DOT officials and our panelists believed that the increasing  affluence of the U.S. population would play a key role in future travel, both  in overall levels and in the modes travelers choose. They noted that, as  income rises, people tend to take more and longer trips, private vehicle  ownership tends to increase, and public transit use generally decreases.  Third, communication technology could affect local and intercity travel,  but the direction and extent of the effect is uncertain. For example,  telecommuting and videoconferencing are becoming more common, but  are not expected to significantly replace face-to-face meetings unless the  technology improves substantially. Finally, changes in the price (or  perceived price), condition, and reliability of one modal choice as  compared to another are also likely to affect levels of travel and mode  choices. For example, changes in the petroleum market that affect fuel  prices, or changes in government policy that affect the cost of driving or  transit prices could result in shifts between personal vehicles and transit;  however, it is difficult to predict the extent to which these changes would  occur. Also, if road congestion increases, there could be a shift to transit or  a decrease in overall travel. See appendix III for a more detailed discussion  of these factors.
section_title: The Amount of Freight Moved Is Expected to Increase to 19.3 Billion Tons by 2010
paragraphs: Trucks move the majority of freight tonnage and are expected to continue  moving the bulk of freight into the future. FHWA’s preliminary forecasts of  international and domestic freight tonnage across all surface and maritime  modes project that total freight moved will increase 43 percent, from 13.5  billion tons in 1998 to 19.3 billion tons in 2010. According to the forecasts,  by 2010, 14.8 billion tons are projected to move by truck, a 47.6-percent  increase; 3 billion tons by rail, a 31.8-percent increase; and 1.5 billion tons  by water, a 26.6-percent increase, as shown in figure 7. Trucks are  expected to remain the dominant mode, in terms of tonnage, because  production of the commodities that typically move by truck, such as  manufactured goods, is expected to grow faster than the main commodities  moved by rail or on water, such as coal and grain.
Tonnage is only one measure of freight travel and does not capture  important aspects of freight mobility, such as the distances over which  freight moves or the value of the freight being moved. Ton-miles measure  the amount of freight moved as well as the distance over which it moves,  and historically, rail has been the dominant mode in terms of ton-miles for  domestic freight. In 1998, the base year of FHWA’s projections, domestic  rail ton-miles totaled over 1.4 trillion, while intercity truck ton-miles totaled  just over one trillion, and domestic ton-miles on the waterways totaled  672.8 billion. Air is the dominant mode in terms of value per ton according to DOT’s Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000, at $51,000 per  ton (in 1997 dollars). However, in terms of total value, trucks are the  dominant mode. According to the Annual Report, trucks moved nearly  $5 trillion (in 1997 dollars) in domestic goods, as opposed to $320 billion by  rail and less than $100 billion by inland waterway.
International freight is an increasingly important aspect of the U.S.  economy. For international freight, water is the dominant mode in terms of  tonnage. According to a DOT report, more than 95 percent of all overseas  products and materials that enter or leave the country move through ports  and waterways. More specifically, containers, which generally carry  manufactured commodities such as consumer goods and electrical  equipment and can be easily transferred to rail or truck, dominate in terms  of value, accounting for 55 percent of total imports and exports, while only  accounting for 12 percent of foreign tonnage. Containers are the fastest  growing segment of the maritime sector. While FHWA predicts that total  maritime freight tonnage will grow by 26.6 percent, the Corps of Engineers  projects that volumes of freight moving in containers will increase by  nearly 70 percent by 2010. In addition, ships designed to carry containers  are the fastest growing segment of the maritime shipping fleet and are also  increasing in size. Although freight vessels designed to carry bulk freight  (e.g., coal, grain, or oil) are the largest sector of the freight vessel fleet, the  number of containerships is increasing by 8.8 percent annually, which is  double the growth rate of any other type of vessel according to the Corps of  Engineers. Also, most of the overall capacity of the containership fleet is  now found in larger containerships, with a capacity of more than 3,000  twenty-foot containers, and ships with capacities of three times that  amount are currently on order.
section_title: Factors Expected to Affect Freight Travel Include Increasing International Trade and Economic Growth
paragraphs: According to reports by the Transportation Research Board and the Bureau  of Transportation Statistics, increasing international trade and economic  growth are expected to influence volumes of future freight travel. In  addition, the increasing value of cargo shipped and changes in policies  affecting certain commodities can affect overall levels of freight traffic as  well as the choice of mode for that traffic. The North American Free Trade  Agreement has contributed to the increases in tonnage of imports by rail  (24-percent increase) and by truck (20-percent increase), from Mexico and  Canada between 1996 and 2000, while expanding trade with the Pacific Rim  has increased maritime traffic at west coast container ports. With  increasing affluence, economic growth often results in a greater volume of  goods produced and consumed, leading to more freight moved, particularly  higher-value cargo. In addition, the increasing value of cargo affects the  modes on which that cargo is shipped. High-value cargo, such as  electronics and office equipment, tends to be shipped by air or truck, while  rail and barges generally carry lower-value bulk items like coal and grains.  Changes in environmental regulations and other policies also affect the  amount, cost, and mode choice for moving freight. For example, a change  in demand for coal due to stricter environmental controls could affect rail  and water transportation, the primary modes for shipping coal. See  appendix III for a more detailed discussion of the factors that influence  freight travel.
section_title: Key Mobility Challenges Include Growing Congestion, Limited Access to the Transportation System for Certain Groups, and Effects on the Environment and Communities
paragraphs: To identify key mobility challenges and the strategies for addressing those  challenges that are discussed later in this report, we relied upon the results  of two panels of surface and maritime transportation experts that we  convened in April 2002, as well as reports prepared by federal and other  government agencies, academics, and industry groups. According to our  expert panelists and other sources, with increasing passenger and freight  travel, the surface and maritime transportation systems face a number of  challenges that involve ensuring continued mobility while maintaining a  balance with other social goals, such as environmental preservation.  Ensuring continued mobility involves preventing congestion from  overwhelming the transportation system and ensuring access to  transportation for certain underserved populations. In particular, more  travel can lead to growing congestion at bottlenecks and at peak travel  times on public roads, transit systems, freight rail lines, and at freight hubs  such as ports and borders where freight is transferred from one mode to  another. In addition, settlement patterns and dependence on the  automobile limit access to transportation systems for some elderly people  and low-income households, and in rural areas where populations are  expected to expand. Increasing travel levels can also negatively affect the  environment and communities by increasing the levels of air, water, and  noise pollution.
subsections: section_title: Congestion Is Growing at Bottlenecks and at Peak Travel Times
paragraphs: Many panelists explained that congestion is generally growing for  passenger and freight travel and will continue to increase at localized  bottlenecks (places where the capacity of the transportation system is  most limited), at peak travel times, and on all surface and maritime  transportation modes to some extent. However, panelists pointed out that  transportation systems as a whole have excess capacity and that  communities may have different views on what constitutes congestion.  Residents of small cities and towns may perceive significant congestion on  their streets that may be considered insignificant to residents in major  metropolitan areas. In addition, because of the relative nature of  congestion, its severity is difficult to determine or to measure and while  one measure may be appropriate for some situations, it may be inadequate  for describing others.
subsections: section_title: Congestion in Passenger Travel and on Freight Networks
paragraphs: For local urban travel, a study by the Texas Transportation Institute  showed that the amount of traffic experiencing congestion in peak travel  periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982 to 66 percent in 2000 in the 75  metropolitan areas studied. In addition, the average time per day that roads  were congested increased over this period, from about 4.5 hours in 1982 to  about 7 hours in 2000. Increased road congestion can also affect public bus  and other transit systems that operate on roads. Some transit systems are  also experiencing increasing rail congestion at peak travel times. For  example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA)  recent studies on crowding found that rail travel demand has reached and,  in some cases, exceeded scheduled capacity—an average of 140  passengers per car—during the peak morning and afternoon hours. Of the  more than 200 peak morning rail trips that WMATA observed over a recent  6-month period, on average, 15 percent were considered “uncomfortably  crowded” (125 to 149 passengers per car) and 8 percent had “crush loads”  (150 or more passengers per car).
In addition to local travel, concerns have been raised about how intercity  and tourist travel interacts with local traffic in metropolitan areas and in  smaller towns and rural areas, and how this interaction will evolve in the  future. According to a report sponsored by the World Business Council for  Sustainable Development, Mobility 2001, capacity problems for intercity  travelers are generally not severe outside of large cities, except in certain  heavily traveled corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, which links  Washington, D.C., New York, and Boston. However, at the beginning and  end of trips, intercity bus and automobile traffic contribute to and suffer  from urban congestion. In addition, the study said that intercity travel may  constitute a substantial proportion of total traffic passing through smaller  towns and rural areas. Also, according to a GAO survey of all states, state  officials are increasingly concerned about traffic volumes on interstate highways in rural areas, and high levels of rural congestion are expected in  18 states within 10 years.
Congestion is also expected to increase on major freight transportation  networks at specific bottlenecks, particularly where intermodal  connections occur, and at peak travel times, according to the panelists.  They expressed concern regarding interactions between freight and  passenger travel and how increases in both types of travel will affect  mobility in the future. Trucks contribute to congestion in metropolitan  areas where they generally move on the same roads and highways as  personal vehicles, particularly during peak periods of congestion. In  addition, high demand for freight, particularly freight moved on trucks,  exists in metropolitan areas where overall congestion tends to be the  worst.
With international trade an increasing part of the economy and with larger  containerships being built, some panelists indicated that more pressure  will be placed on the already congested road and rail connections to major  U.S. seaports and at the border crossings with Canada and Mexico. For  example, according to a DOT report, more than one-half of the ports  responding to a 1997 survey of port access issues identified traffic  impediments on local truck routes as the major infrastructure problem.
According to one panelist from the freight rail industry, there is ample  capacity on most of the freight rail network. However, railroads are  beginning to experience more severe capacity constraints in particular  heavily used corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, and within major  metropolitan areas, especially where commuter and intercity passenger rail  services share tracks with freight railroads. Capacity constraints at these  bottlenecks are expected to worsen in the future. The panelist explained  that congestion on some freight rail segments where the tracks are also  used for passenger rail service—for which there is growing demand— reduces the ability of freight railroads to expand service on the existing  tracks to meet the growing demand for freight movements on those  segments.
On the inland waterways, according to two panelists from that industry,  there is sufficient capacity on most of the inland waterway network,  although congestion is increasing at small, aging, and increasingly  unreliable locks. According to the Corps of Engineers, the number of hours  that locks were unavailable due to lock failures increased in recent years,  from about 35,000 hours in 1991 to 55,000 hours in 1999, occurring  primarily on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. In addition, according  to a Corps of Engineers analysis of congestion on the inland waterways,  with expected growth in freight travel, 15 locks would exceed 80 percent of  their capacity by 2020, as compared to 4 that had reached that level in 1999.
section_title: Other Systemic Factors Contributing to Congestion
paragraphs: According to our expert panelists, while increasing passenger and freight  travel contribute to increasing congestion at bottlenecks and at peak travel  times, other systemic factors contribute to congestion, including barriers to  building enough capacity to accommodate growing levels of travel,  challenges to effectively managing and operating transportation systems,  and barriers in effectively managing how, and the extent to which,  transportation systems are used.
At bottlenecks and at peak travel times, there is insufficient capacity to  accommodate the levels of traffic attempting to use the infrastructure. One  reason for the insufficient capacity is that transportation infrastructure,  which is generally publicly provided (with the major exception of freight  railroads), can take a long time to plan and build, and it may not be possible  to build fast enough to keep pace with increasing and shifting travel  patterns. In addition, constructing new capacity is often costly and can  conflict with other social goals such as environmental preservation and  community maintenance. As a result, approval of projects to build new  capacity, which requires environmental impact statements and community  outreach, generally takes a long time, if it is obtained at all.
In addition, a number of panelists indicated that funding and planning  rigidities in the public institutions responsible for providing transportation  infrastructure tend to promote one mode of transportation, rather than a  set of balanced transportation choices. Focus on a single mode can result  in difficulties dealing effectively with congestion. For example, as  suburban expressways enable community developments to grow and move  farther out from city centers, jobs and goods follow these developments.  This results in increasing passenger and freight travel on the expressways,  and a shifting of traffic flows that may not easily be accommodated by  existing transportation choices. One panelist indicated that suburban  expressways are among the least reliable in terms of travel times because,  if congestion occurs, there are fewer feasible alternative routes or modes  of transportation. In addition, some bottlenecks occur where modes  connect, because funding is generally mode-specific, and congestion at  these intermodal connections is not easily addressed. According to FHWA,  public sector funding programs are generally focused on a primary mode of  transportation, such as highways, or a primary purpose, such as improving  air quality. This means that intermodal projects may require a broader  range of funding than might be available under a single program.
Panelists also noted that the types of congestion problems that are  expected to worsen in the future involve interactions between long- distance and local traffic and between passengers and freight, and existing  institutions may not have the capacity or the authority to address them. For  example, some local bottlenecks may hinder traffic that has regional or  national significance, such as national freight flows from major coastal  ports, or can affect the economies and traffic in more than one state.  Current state and local planning organizations may have difficulty  considering all the costs and benefits related to national or international  traffic flows that affect other jurisdictions as well as their own.
The concept of capacity is broader than just the physical characteristics of  the transportation network (e.g., the number of lane-miles of road). The  capacity of transportation systems is also determined by how well they are  managed and operated (particularly publicly owned and operated  systems), and how the use of those systems is managed. Many factors  related to the management and operation of transportation systems can  contribute to increasing congestion. Many panelists said that congestion on  highways was in part due to poor management of traffic flows on the  connectors between highways and poor management in clearing roads that  are blocked due to accidents, inclement weather, or construction. For  example, in the 75 metropolitan areas studied by the Texas Transportation  Institute, 54 percent of annual vehicle delays in 2000 were due to incidents  such as breakdowns or crashes. In addition, the Oak Ridge National  Laboratory reported that, nationwide, significant delays are caused by  work zones on highways; poorly timed traffic signals; and snow, ice, and  fog.
In addition, according to a number of panelists, congestion on  transportation systems is also in part due to inefficient pricing of the  infrastructure because users—whether they are drivers on a highway or  barge operators moving through a lock—do not pay the full costs they  impose on the system and on other users for their use of the system. They  further argued that if travelers and freight carriers had to pay a higher cost  for using transportation systems during peak periods to reflect the full  costs they impose, they would have an incentive to avoid or reschedule  some trips and to load vehicles more fully, resulting in less congestion.
section_title: Effects of Congestion
paragraphs: Congestion affects travel times and the reliability of transportation  systems. As discussed earlier in this report, the Texas Transportation  Institute found that 66 percent of peak period travel on roadways was  congested in 2000, compared to 33 percent in 1982 in the 75 metropolitan  areas studied. According to the study, this means that two of every three   vehicles experience congestion in their morning or evening commute. In  the aggregate, congestion results in thousands of hours of delay every day,  which can translate into costs such as lost productivity and increased fuel  consumption. In addition, a decrease in travel reliability imposes costs on  the traveler in terms of arriving late to work or for other appointments, and  in raising the cost of moving goods resulting in higher prices for  consumers.
Some panelists noted that congestion, in some sense, reflects full use of  transportation infrastructure, and is therefore not a problem. In addition,  they explained that travelers adjust to congestion and adapt their travel  routes and times, as well as housing and work choices, to avoid congestion.  For example, according to the Transportation Statistics Annual Report  2000, median commute times increased about 2 minutes between 1985 and  1999, despite increases in the percentage of people driving to work alone  and the average commuting distance. For freight travel, one panelist made  a similar argument, citing that transportation costs related to managing  business operations have decreased as a percentage of gross national  product, indicating that producers and manufacturers adjust to  transportation supply, by switching modes or altering delivery schedules to  avoid delays and resulting cost increases.
However, the Mobility 2001 report describes these adaptations by  individuals and businesses as economic inefficiencies that can be very  costly. According to the report, increasing congestion can cause avoidance  of a substantial number of trips resulting in a corresponding loss of the  benefits of those trips. In addition to negative economic effects, travelers’  adaptation to congested conditions can also have a number of negative  social effects on other people. For example, according to researchers from  the Texas Transportation Institute, traffic cutting through neighborhoods to  avoid congestion can cause community disruptions and “road rage” can be  partly attributed to increasing congestion.
section_title: Certain Underserved Groups Have Limited Access to Transportation
paragraphs: The FHWA and FTA’s 1999 Conditions and Performance report states that  significant accessibility barriers persist for some elderly people and low- income households. In addition, several panelists stated that rural  populations also face accessibility difficulties.
subsections: section_title: Elderly Persons
paragraphs: According to the Conditions and Performance report, the elderly have  different mobility challenges than other populations because they are less  likely to have drivers’ licenses, have more serious health problems, and  may require special services and facilities. According to 1995 data, 45  percent of women and 16 percent of men over age 75 did not have drivers’  licenses, which may limit their ability to travel by car. Many of the elderly  also may have difficulty using public transportation due to physical  ailments. People who cannot drive themselves tend to rely on family, other  caregivers, or friends to drive them, or find alternative means of  transportation. As a result, according to the 1999 Conditions and  Performance report and a 1998 report about mobility for older drivers,  they experience increased waiting times, uncertainty, and inconvenience,  and they are required to do more advance trip planning. These factors can  lead to fewer trips taken for necessary business and for recreation, as well  as restrictions on times and places that health care can be obtained. Access  to more flexible, demand-responsive forms of transit could enhance the  mobility of the elderly, particularly in rural areas, which are difficult to  serve through transit systems; however, some barriers to providing these  types of services exist. For example, according to one of our panelists,  some paratransit services are not permitted to carry able-bodied people,  even if those people are on the route and are willing to pay for the service.  As the elderly population increases over the next 10 years, issues  pertaining to access are expected to become more prominent in society.
section_title: Low-Income Households
paragraphs: Lower income levels can also be a significant barrier to transportation  access. The cost of purchasing, insuring, and maintaining a car is  prohibitive to some households, and 26 percent of low-income households  do not own a car, compared with 4 percent of other households, according  to the 1999 Conditions and Performance report. Among all low-income  households, about 8 percent of trips are made in cars that are owned by  others as compared to 1 percent for other income groups. Furthermore, the  same uncertainties and inconveniences apply to this group as to the elderly  regarding relying on others for transportation. Transportation access is  important for employment opportunities to help increase income, yet this  access is not always available. This is because growth in employment  opportunities tends to occur in the suburbs and outlying areas, while many  low-income populations are concentrated in the inner cities or in rural  areas. In case studies of access to jobs for low-income populations, FTA  researchers found that transportation barriers to job access included gaps  in transit service, lack of knowledge of where transit services are provided,  and high transportation costs resulting from multiple transfers and long  distances traveled. Another problem they noted was the difficulty in  coordinating certain types of work shifts with the availability of public  transportation service. Without sufficient access to jobs, families face more  obstacles to achieving the goal of independence from government  assistance. Limited transportation access can also reduce opportunities for  affordable housing and restrict choices for shopping and other services.
section_title: Rural Populations
paragraphs: Rural populations, which according to the 2000 Census grew by 10 percent  over the last 10 years, also face access problems. Access to some form of  transportation is necessary to connect rural populations to jobs and other  amenities in city centers or, increasingly, in the suburbs. The Mobility 2001  report states that automobiles offer greater flexibility in schedule and  choice of destinations than other modes of transportation, and often also  provide shorter travel times with lower out-of-pocket costs. The report also  notes that conventional transit systems are best equipped to serve high  levels of travel demand that is concentrated in a relatively limited area or  along well-defined corridors, such as inner cities and corridors between  those areas and suburbs. Trips by rural residents tend to be long due to low  population densities and the relative isolation of small communities.  Therefore, transportation can be a challenge to provide in rural areas,  especially for persons without access to private automobiles. A report  prepared for the FTA in 2001 found that 1 in 13 rural residents lives in a  household without a personal vehicle. In addition, the elderly made 31  percent of all rural transit trips in 2000 and persons with disabilities made  23 percent. However, according to a report by the Coordinating Council on  Access and Mobility, while almost 60 percent of all nonmetropolitan  counties had some public transportation services in 2000, many of these  operations were small and offered services to limited geographic areas  during limited times.
section_title: Transportation’s Effects on the Environment and Communities Are a Growing Concern
paragraphs: While ISTEA and TEA-21 provided funds aimed at mitigating adverse  effects of transportation, concerns persist about such effects on the  environment and communities. As a result of the negative consequences of  transportation, tradeoffs must be made between facilitating increased  mobility and giving due regard to environmental and other social goals. For  example, transportation vehicles are major sources of local, urban, and  regional air pollution because they depend on fossil fuels to operate.  Emissions from vehicles include sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide,  volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and nitrous oxides. In  addition, the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,  methane, and nitrous oxide are increasing and greenhouse gases have been  linked to reduction in atmospheric ozone and climate changes. According  to Mobility 2001, improved technologies can help reduce per-vehicle  emissions, but the increasing numbers of vehicles traveling and the total  miles traveled may offset these gains. In addition, congested conditions on  highways tend to exacerbate the problem because extra fuel is consumed  due to increased acceleration, deceleration, and idling. Vehicle emissions in  congested areas can trigger respiratory and other illnesses, and runoff from  impervious surfaces can carry lawn chemicals and other pollutants into  lakes, streams, and rivers, thus threatening aquatic environments.
Freight transportation also has significant environmental effects. Trucks  are significant contributors to air pollution. According to the American  Trucking Association, trucks were responsible for 18.5 percent of nitrous  oxide emissions and 27.5 percent of other particulate emissions from  mobile sources in the United States. The Mobility 2001 report states that  freight trains also contribute to emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon  monoxide, and nitrous oxide, although generally at levels considerably  lower than trucks. In addition, while large shipping vessels are more energy  efficient than trucks or trains, they are also major sources of nitrogen,  sulfur dioxide, and diesel particulate emissions. According to the  International Maritime Organization, ocean shipping is responsible for 22  percent of the wastes dumped into the sea on an annual basis. Barges  moving freight on the inland waterway system are among the most energy  efficient forms of freight transportation, contributing relatively lower  amounts of noxious emissions compared with trucks and freight trains,  according to the Corps of Engineers. However, the dredging and damming  required to make rivers and harbors navigable can cause significant  disruption to ecosystems.
Noise pollution is another factor exacerbated by increasing levels of  transportation. While FHWA, FTA, and many cities have established criteria  for different land uses close to highways and rail lines to protect against  physically damaging noise levels, average noise levels caused by road  traffic in some areas can still have adverse consequences on people’s  hearing. In addition, several studies have found that residential property  values decrease as average noise levels rise above a certain threshold.  Freight also contributes to noise pollution. According to Mobility 2001,  shipping is the largest source of low-frequency, underwater noise, which  may have adverse effects on marine life, although these effects are not yet  fully understood. These noise levels are particularly serious on highly  trafficked shipping routes. In addition, dredging also contributes to noise  pollution.
Growing awareness of the environmental and social costs of transportation  projects is making it more difficult to pursue major transportation  improvements. According to a number of panelists, the difficulty in  quantifying and measuring the costs and benefits of increased mobility also  hinders the ability of transportation planners to make a strong case to local  decisionmakers for mobility improvements. In addition, transportation  planning and funding is mode-specific and oriented toward passenger  travel, which hinders transportation planners’ ability to recognize  systemwide and multi-modal strategies for addressing mobility needs and  other social concerns.
section_title: Strategies for Addressing Mobility Challenges Include Focusing on Systemwide Outcomes, Using a Full Range of Tools, and Providing Options for Financing Surface and Maritime Transportation
paragraphs: The panelists presented numerous approaches for addressing the types of  challenges discussed throughout this report, but they emphasized that no  single strategy would be sufficient. From these discussions and our other  research, we have identified three key strategies that may aid  transportation decisionmakers at all levels of government in addressing  mobility challenges and the institutional barriers that contribute to them.  These strategies include the following: 1. Focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system rather  than on specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired mobility  outcomes. A systemwide approach to transportation planning and  funding, as opposed to focus on a single mode or type of travel, could  improve focus on outcomes related to customer or community needs. 2. Use a full range of tools to achieve those desired outcomes. Controlling  congestion and improving access will require a strategic mix of  construction, corrective and preventive maintenance, rehabilitation,  operations and system management, and managing system use through  pricing and other techniques. 3. Provide more options for financing mobility improvements and  consider additional sources of revenue. Targeting financing to  transportation projects that will achieve desired mobility outcomes  might require more options for raising and distributing funds for  surface and maritime transportation. However, using revenue sources  that are not directly tied to the use of transportation systems could  allow decisionmakers to bypass transportation planning requirements  which, in turn, could limit the ability of transportation agencies to focus  on and achieve desired outcomes.
subsections: section_title: Focus on the Entire Surface and Maritime Transportation System Rather Than on Specific Modes or Types of Travel to Achieve Desired Mobility Outcomes
paragraphs: Some panelists said that mobility should be viewed on a systemwide basis  across all modes and types of travel. Addressing the types of mobility  challenges discussed earlier in this report can require a scope beyond a  local jurisdiction or a state line and across more than one mode or type of  travel. For example, congestion challenges often occur where modes  connect or should connect—such as ports or freight hubs where freight is  transferred from one mode to another, or airports that passengers need to  access by car, bus, or rail. These connections require coordination of more  than one mode of transportation and cooperation among multiple  transportation providers and planners, such as port authorities,  metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), and private freight railroads.  Some panelists therefore advocated shifting the focus of government  transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local levels to consider all  modes and types of travel in addressing mobility challenges—as opposed  to focusing on a specific mode or type of travel in planning and  implementing mobility improvements.
Some panelists said that current transportation planning institutions, such  as state transportation departments, MPOs, or Corps of Engineers regional  offices, may not have sufficient expertise, or in some cases, authority to  effectively identify and implement mobility improvements across modes or  types of travel. They suggested that transportation planning by all entities  focus more closely on regional issues and highlighted the importance of  cooperation and coordination among modal agencies at the federal, state,  and local level, between public and private transportation providers, and  between transportation planning organizations and other government and  community agencies to address transportation issues. For example, several  panelists said that the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles is a good example  of successful cooperation and coordination among agencies. This corridor  is designed to improve freight mobility for cargo coming into the ports of  Los Angeles and Long Beach and out to the rest of the country. Planning,  financing, and building this corridor required cooperation among private  railroads, the local port authorities, the cities of Los Angeles and Long  Beach, community groups along the entire corridor, the state of California,  and the federal government.
Several panelists said that a greater understanding of the full life-cycle  costs and benefits of various mobility improvements is needed to take a  more systemwide approach to transportation planning and funding. The  panelists said the cost-benefit frameworks that transportation agencies  currently use to evaluate various transportation projects could be more  comprehensive in considering a wider array of social and economic costs  and benefits, recognizing transportation systems’ links to each other and to  other social and financial systems.
Many panelists advocated a systemwide, rather than mode-specific,  approach to transportation planning and funding that could also improve  focus on outcomes that users and communities desire from the  transportation system. For example, one panelist described a performance  oriented funding system, in which the federal government would first  define certain national interests of the transportation system—such as  maintaining the entire interstate highway system or identifying freight  corridors of importance to the national economy—then set national  performance standards for those systems that states and localities must  meet. Federal funds would be distributed to those entities that are  addressing national interests and meeting the established standards. Any  federal funds remaining after meeting the performance standards could  then be used for whatever transportation purpose the state or locality  deems most appropriate to achieve state or local mobility goals. Another  panelist expanded the notion of setting national performance standards to  include a recognition of the interactions between transportation goals and  local economic development and quality of life goals, and to allow localities  to modify national performance goals given local conditions. For example,  a national performance standard, such as average speeds of 45 miles per  hour for highways, might be unattainable for some locations given local  conditions, and might run contrary to other local goals related to economic  development.
Some panelists described several other types of systems that could focus  on outcomes. For example, one panelist suggested a system in which  federal support would reward those states or localities that apply federal  money to gain efficiencies in their transportation systems, or tie  transportation projects to land use and other local policies to achieve  community and environmental goals, as well as mobility goals. Another  panelist described a system in which different federal matching criteria for  different types of expenditures might reflect federal priorities. For  example, if infrastructure preservation became a higher national priority  than building new capacity, matching requirements could be changed to a  50 percent federal share for building new physical capacity and an 80  percent federal share for preservation. Other panelists suggested that  requiring state and local governments to pay for a larger share of  transportation projects might provide them with incentives to invest in  more cost-effective projects. If cost savings resulted, these entities might  have more funds available to address other mobility challenges. Some of  the panelists suggested reducing the federal match for projects in all modes  to give states and localities more fiscal responsibility for projects they are  planning. Other panelists also suggested that federal matching  requirements should be equal for all modes to avoid creating incentives to  pursue projects in one mode that might be less effective than projects in  other modes.
section_title: Use a Full Range of Tools to Address Mobility Challenges
paragraphs: Many panelists emphasized that using a range of various tools to address  mobility challenges may help control congestion and improve access. This  involves a strategic mix of construction, corrective and preventive  maintenance, rehabilitation, operations and system management, and  managing system use through pricing or other techniques. Many of the  panelists said that no one type of technique would be sufficient to address  mobility challenges. Although these techniques are currently in use,  panelists indicated that planners should more consistently consider a full  range of techniques.
subsections: section_title: Build New Infrastructure
paragraphs: Building additional infrastructure is perhaps the most familiar technique  for addressing congestion and improving access to surface and maritime  transportation. Several panelists expressed the view that although there is  a lot of unused capacity in the transportation system, certain bottlenecks  and key corridors require new infrastructure. However, building new  infrastructure cannot completely eliminate congestion. For example,  according to the Texas Transportation Institute, it would require at least  twice the level of current road expansion to keep traffic congestion levels  constant, if that were the only strategy pursued. In addition, while adding  lanes may be a useful tool to deal with highway congestion for states with  relatively low population densities, this option may not be as useful or  possible for states with relatively high population densities—particularly in  urban areas, where the ability to add lanes is limited due to a shortage of  available space. Furthermore, investments in additional transportation  capacity can stimulate increases in travel demand, sometimes leading to  congestion and slower travel speeds on the new or improved  infrastructure.
section_title: Increase Infrastructure Maintenance and Rehabilitation
paragraphs: Other panelists said that an emphasis on enhancing capacity from existing  infrastructure through increased corrective and preventive maintenance  and rehabilitation is an important supplement to, and sometimes a  substitute for, building new infrastructure. In 1999, the President’s  Commission to Study Capital Budgeting reported that, because  infrastructure maintenance requires more rapid budgetary spending than  new construction and has a lower visibility, it is less likely to be funded at a  sufficient level. However, one panelist said that for public roads, every  dollar spent on preventive maintenance when the roads are in good  condition saves $4 to $5 over what would have to be spent to maintain  roads in fair condition or $10 to maintain roads once they are in poor  condition. Maintaining and rehabilitating transportation systems can  improve the speed and reliability of passenger and freight travel, thereby  optimizing capital investments.
section_title: Improve Management and Operations
paragraphs: Better management and operation of existing surface and maritime  transportation infrastructure is another technique for enhancing mobility  advocated by some panelists. Improving management and operations may  allow the existing transportation system to accommodate additional travel  without having to add new infrastructure. For example, the Texas  Transportation Institute reported that coordinating traffic signal timing  with changing traffic conditions could improve flow on congested  roadways. In addition, according to an FHWA survey, better management of  work zones—which includes accelerating construction activities to  minimize their effects on the public, coordinating planned and ongoing  construction activities, and using more durable construction materials— can reduce traffic delays caused by work zones and improve traveler  satisfaction. Also, according to one panelist, automating the operation of  locks and dams on the inland waterways could reduce congestion at these  bottlenecks. Another panelist, in an article that he authored, noted that  shifting the focus of transportation planning from building capital facilities  to an “operations mindset” will require a cultural shift in many  transportation institutions, particularly in the public sector, so that the  organizational structure, hierarchy, and rewards and incentives are all  focused on improving transportation management and operations. He  also commented on the need to improve performance measures related to  operations and management so that both the quality and the reliability of  transportation services are measured.
Several panelists suggested that contracting out a greater portion of  operations and maintenance activities could allow public transportation  agencies to focus their attention on improving overall management and  developing policies to address mobility challenges. This practice could  involve outsourcing operations and maintenance to private entities through  competitive bidding, as is currently done for roads in the United Kingdom.  In addition, by relieving public agencies of these functions, contracting  could reduce the cost of operating transportation infrastructure and  improve the level of service for each dollar invested for publicly owned  transportation systems, according to one panelist.
Developing comprehensive strategies for reducing congestion caused by  incidents is another way to improve management and operation of surface  and maritime transportation modes. According to the Texas Transportation  Institute, incidents such as traffic accidents and breakdowns cause  significant delays on roadways. One panelist said that some local  jurisdictions are developing common protocols for handling incidents that  affect more than one mode and transportation agency, such as state  transportation departments and state and local law enforcement, resulting  in improved communications and coordination among police, firefighters,  medical personnel, and operators of transportation systems. Examples of  improvements to incident management include employing roving crews to  quickly move accidents and other impediments off of roads and rail and  implementing technological improvements that can help barges on the  inland waterways navigate locks in inclement weather, thereby reducing  delays on that system.
section_title: Increase Investment in Technology
paragraphs: Several panelists also suggested that increasing public sector investment in  technologies—known as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)—that  are designed to enhance the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the  transportation network, can serve as a way of increasing capacity and  mobility without making major capital investments. DOT’s ITS program has  two major areas of emphasis: (1) deploying and integrating intelligent  infrastructure and (2) testing and evaluating intelligent vehicles. ITS  includes technologies that improve traffic flow by adjusting signals,  facilitating traffic flow at toll plazas, alerting emergency management  services to the locations of crashes, increasing the efficiency of transit fare  payment systems, and other actions. Appendix IV describes the different  systems that are part of DOT’s ITS program.
Other technological improvements suggested by panelists included  increasing information available to users of the transportation system to  help people avoid congested areas and to improve customer satisfaction  with the system. For example, up-to-the-minute traffic updates posted on  electronic road signs or over the Internet help give drivers the information  necessary to make choices about when and where to travel. It was  suggested that the federal government could play a key role in facilitating  the development and sharing of such innovations through training  programs and research centers, such as the National Cooperative Highway  Research Program, the Transit Cooperative Research Program, and  possible similar programs for waterborne transportation. However,  panelists cautioned that the federal government might need to deal with  some barriers to investing in technology development and implementation.  One panelist said that there are few incentives for agencies to take risks on  new technologies. If an agency improves its efficiency, it may result in the  agency receiving reduced funding rather than being able to reinvest the  savings.
section_title: Use Demand Management Techniques
paragraphs: Finally, another approach to reducing congestion without making major  capital investments is to use demand management techniques to reduce the  number of vehicles traveling at the most congested times and on the most  congested routes. For public roads, demand management generally means  reducing the number of cars traveling on particularly congested routes  toward downtown during the morning commuting period and away from  downtown during the late afternoon commuting period. One panelist, in a  book that he authored, said that “the most effective means of reducing peak-hour congestion would be to persuade solo drivers to share  vehicles.”
One type of demand management for travel on public roads is to make  greater use of pricing incentives. In particular, many economists have  proposed using congestion pricing that involves charging surcharges or  tolls to drivers who choose to travel during peak periods when their use of  the roads increases congestion. Economists generally believe that such  surcharges or tolls enhance economic efficiency by making drivers take  into account the external costs they impose on others in deciding when and  where to drive. These costs include congestion, as well as pollution and  other external effects. The goal of congestion pricing would be to charge a  toll for travel during congested periods that would make the cost (including  the toll) that a driver pays for such a trip equal or close to the total cost of  that trip, including external costs. These surcharges could help reduce  congestion by providing incentives for travelers to share rides, use transit,  travel at less congested (generally off-peak) times and on less congested  routes, or make other adjustments—and at the same time, generate more  revenues that can be targeted to alleviating congestion in those specific  corridors. According to a report issued by the Transportation Research  Board, technologies that are currently used at some toll facilities to  automatically charge users could also be used to electronically collect  congestion surcharges without establishing additional toll booths that  would cause delays. Peak-period pricing also has applicability for other  modes of transportation. Amtrak and some transit systems use peak-period  pricing, which gives travelers incentives to make their trips at less  congested times.
In addition to pricing incentives, other demand management techniques  that encourage ride-sharing can be useful in reducing congestion. Ride- sharing can be encouraged by establishing carpool and vanpool staging  areas, providing free or preferred parking for carpools and vanpools,  subsidizing transit fares, and designating certain highway lanes as high  occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes that can only be used by vehicles with a  specified number of people in them (two or more). HOV lanes can provide  an incentive for sharing rides because they reduce the travel time for a  group traveling together relative to the time required to travel alone. This  incentive is likely to be particularly strong when the regular lanes are  heavily congested. Several panelists also recommended use of high  occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, which combine pricing techniques with the  HOV concept. Experiments with HOT lanes, which allow lower occupancy  vehicles or solo drivers to pay a fee to use HOV lanes during peak traffic  periods, are currently taking place in California. HOT lanes can provide  motorists with a choice: if they are in a hurry, they may elect to pay to have  less delay and an improved level of service compared to the regular lanes.  When HOT lanes run parallel to regular lanes, congestion in regular lanes  may be reduced more than would be achieved by HOV lanes.
Demand management techniques on roads, particularly those involving  pricing, often provoke strong political opposition. Several panelists said  that instituting charges to use roads that have been available “free” is  particularly unpopular because many travelers believe that they have  already paid for the roads through gasoline and other taxes and should not  have to pay “twice.” Other concerns about congestion pricing include  equity issues because of the potentially regressive nature of these charges  (i.e., the surcharges constitute a larger portion of the earnings of lower  income households and therefore impose a greater financial burden on  them). In addition, some people find the concept of restricting lanes or  roads to people who pay to use them to be elitist because that approach  allows people who can afford to pay the tolls to avoid congestion that  others must endure. Several of the panelists suggested that tolls might  become more acceptable to the public if they were applied to new roads or  lanes as a demonstration project so that the tolls’ effectiveness in reducing  congestion and increasing commuter choices could be evaluated.
section_title: Provide Options for Financing Mobility Improvements and Consider Additional Sources of Revenue
paragraphs: Several panelists indicated that targeting the financing of transportation to  achieving desired mobility outcomes, and addressing those segments of  transportation systems that are most congested, would require more  options for financing surface and maritime transportation projects than are  currently available, and might also require more sources of revenue in the  future.
subsections: section_title: Increase Funding Flexibility
paragraphs: According to many panelists, the current system of financing surface and  maritime transportation projects limits options for addressing mobility  challenges. For example, several panelists said that separate funding for  each mode at the federal, state, and local level can make it difficult to  consider possible efficient and effective ways for enhancing mobility, and  providing more flexibility in funding across modes could help address this  limitation. In addition, some panelists argued that “earmarking” or  designation by the Congress of federal funds for particular transportation  projects bypasses traditional planning processes used to identify the  highest priority projects, thus potentially limiting transportation agencies’  options for addressing the most severe mobility challenges. According to  one panelist, bypassing transportation planning processes can also result in  logical connections or interconnections between projects being  overlooked.
section_title: Expand Support for Alternative Financing Mechanisms
paragraphs: Several panelists acknowledged that the public sector could expand its  financial support for alternative financing mechanisms to access new  sources of capital and stimulate additional investment in surface and  maritime transportation infrastructure. These mechanisms include both  newly emerging and existing financing techniques such as providing credit  assistance to state and local governments for capital projects and using tax  policy to provide incentives to the private sector for investing in surface  and maritime transportation infrastructure (see app. V for a description of  alternative financing methods). The panelists emphasized, however, that  these mechanisms currently provide only a small portion of the total  funding that is needed for capital investment and are not, by themselves, a  major strategy for addressing mobility challenges. Furthermore, they  cautioned that some of these mechanisms, such as Grant Anticipation  Revenue Vehicles, could create difficulties for state and local agencies to  address future transportation problems, because agencies would be reliant  on future federal revenues to repay the bonds.
section_title: Consider New Revenue Sources
paragraphs: Many panelists stated that a possible future shortage of revenues presents a  fundamental limitation to addressing mobility challenges. Some panelists  said that, because of the increasing use of alternative fuels, revenues from  the gas tax are expected to decrease in the future, possibly hindering the  public sector’s ability to finance future transportation projects. In addition,  one panelist explained that MPOs are required to produce financially  constrained long-range plans, and the plans in the panelist’s organization  indicate that future projections of revenue do not cover the rising costs of  planned transportation projects.
One method of raising revenue is for counties and other regional  authorities to impose sales taxes for funding transportation projects. A  number of counties have already passed such taxes and more are being  considered nationwide. However, several panelists expressed concerns  that this method might not be the best option for addressing mobility  challenges. For example, one panelist stated that moving away from  transportation user charges to sales taxes that are not directly tied to the  use of transportation systems weakens the ties between transportation  planning and finance. Counties and other authorities may be able to bypass  traditional state and metropolitan planning processes because these sales  taxes provide them with their own sources of funding for transportation.
A number of panelists suggested increasing current federal fuel taxes to  raise additional revenue for surface transportation projects. In contrast,  other panelists argued that the federal gas tax could be reduced. They said  that, under the current system, states are receiving most of the revenue  raised by the federal gas tax within their state lines and therefore there is  little need for the federal government to be involved in collecting this  revenue, except for projects that affect more than one state or are of  national significance. However, other panelists said that this might lead to a  decrease in gas tax revenues available for transportation, because states  may have incentives to use this revenue for purposes other than  transportation or may not collect as much as is currently collected.
Given that freight tonnage moved across all modes is expected to increase  by 43 percent during the period from 1998 to 2010, new or increased taxes  or other fees imposed on the freight sector could also help fund mobility  improvements. For example, one panelist from the rail industry suggested  modeling more projects on the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles, where  private rail freight carriers pay a fee to use infrastructure built with public  financing. Another way to raise revenue for funding mobility improvements  would be to increase taxes on freight trucking. According to FHWA, heavy  trucks (weighing over 55,000 pounds) cause a disproportionate amount of  damage to the nation’s highways and have not paid a corresponding share  for the cost of pavement damage they cause. This situation will only be  compounded by the large expected increases in freight tonnage moved by  truck over the next 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated  that raising the ceiling on the tax paid by heavy vehicles to $1,900 could  generate about $100 million per year.
Another revenue raising strategy includes dedicating more of the revenues  from taxes on alternative fuels, such as gasohol, to the Highway Trust Fund  rather than to the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund, as currently happens.  Finally, panelists also said that pricing strategies, mentioned earlier in this  report as a tool to reduce congestion, are also possible additional sources  of revenue for transportation purposes.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided DOT, the Corps of Engineers, and Amtrak with draft copies  of this report for their review and comment. We obtained oral comments  from officials at DOT and the Corps of Engineers. These officials generally  agreed with the report and provided technical comments that we  incorporated as appropriate. In addition, officials from the Federal  Railroad Administration within DOT commented that the report was timely  and would be vital to the dialogue that occurs as the Congress considers  the reauthorization of surface transportation legislation. Amtrak had no  comments on the report.
Our work was primarily performed at the headquarters of DOT and the  Corps of Engineers (see app. VI for a detailed description of our scope and  methodology). We conducted our work from September 2001 through  August 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the  date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  congressional committees with responsibilities for surface and maritime  transportation programs; DOT officials, including the Secretary of  Transportation, the administrators of the Federal Highway Administration,  Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and  Maritime Administration, the Director of the Bureau of Transportation  Statistics, and the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Commander  and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the President of  Amtrak, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will  make copies available to others on request. This report will also be  available on our home page at no charge at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at  heckerj@gao.gov or Kate Siggerud at siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively, we  can be reached at (202) 512-2834. GAO contacts and acknowledgments are  listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Expenditures for Capital, Operations, and Maintenance
paragraphs: Comparing the proportion of public spending devoted to various purposes  across modes is difficult due to differences in the level of public sector  involvement and in the definition of what constitutes capital versus  operations and maintenance expenses in each mode. For example, the  operation of public roads is essentially a function of private citizens  operating their own vehicles, while operations for mass transit includes  spending for bus drivers and subway operators, among other items. In  addition, maintenance expenditures can differ greatly from one mode to  another in their definition and scope. For example, maintenance for a  public road involves activities such as patching, filling potholes, and fixing  signage, while maintenance for channels and harbors involves routine  dredging of built up sediment and disposal or storage of the dredged  material. Given these significant differences in scope, different modes  classify and report on maintenance expenses in different ways.
For public roads, capital expenditures (which includes new construction,  resurfacing, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of roads)  constituted about one-half of total annual public sector expenditures over  the last 10 years, with small increases in recent years. Of total capital  expenditures in fiscal year 2000, 52 percent was used for system  preservation, such as resurfacing and rehabilitation, while 40 percent was  used for construction of new roads and bridges and other system  expansions. These percentages have fluctuated somewhat throughout the  1990s. However, as shown in figure 8, the percentage of capital outlays  spent on system preservation expenses increased from 45 percent to 52  percent between fiscal years 1993 and 2000, while construction of new  roads and bridges and other system expansions declined from 49 percent to 40 percent over the same period.
For transit, capital expenditures accounted for about 26 percent of total  annual public sector expenditures in 1999. The federal government spends  more heavily on capital than on operations for transit. The federal share of  capital expenditures fluctuated throughout the 1990s but in fiscal year 2000  stood at about 50 percent, the same as it was in fiscal year 1991. The federal  share of total operating expenses declined from about 5 percent in fiscal  year 1991 to about 2 percent in fiscal year 2000.
Federal government support to Amtrak for operating expenses and capital  expenditures has fluctuated throughout the 1990s. Annual operating grants  fluctuated between $300 and $600 million and capital grants between $300  and $500 million. In addition to these grants, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provided Amtrak with $2.2 billion for capital and operating purposes  in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Federal support declined in fiscal years 2000  and 2001, however, with the federal government providing grants to Amtrak  of $571 and $521 million, respectively.
For water transportation, spending by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  (Corps of Engineers) for construction of locks and dams for inland  waterway navigation fell while expenditures for operations and  maintenance remained at around $350 to $400 million, as shown in figure 9.
By contrast, Corps of Engineers expenditures for the construction,  operations, and maintenance of federal channels and harbors have  increased over the past decade. During fiscal years 1991 through 2000,  construction expenditures increased from $112 million to $252 million (in  2000 dollars), while operations and maintenance expenditures increased  from $631 million to $671 million (in 2000 dollars). In addition to the Corps  of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration also  spend significant amounts for water transportation, although these  agencies have limited responsibility for construction or maintenance of  water transportation infrastructure.
section_title: Travel Forecast Methodologies
paragraphs: Demographic factors and economic growth are the primary variables  influencing national travel projections for both passenger and freight  travel. However, the key assumption underlying most of these travel  projections is that the capacity of the transportation system is  unconstrained; that is, capacity is assumed to expand as needed in order to  accommodate future traffic flows. As a result, national travel projections  need to be used carefully in evaluating how capacity improvements or  increasing congestion in one mode of transportation might affect travel  across other modes and the entire transportation system.
subsections: section_title: Passenger Travel on Public Roads
paragraphs: Future travel growth will be influenced by demographic factors. A travel  forecast study conducted for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)  used economic and demographic variables such as per capita income and  population to project a 24.7 percent national cumulative increase in vehicle  miles traveled for passenger vehicles on public roads between 2000 and  2010. The study estimated that for every 1-percent increase in per capita  income or population, vehicle miles traveled would increase nearly 1  percent.
This forecast is unconstrained, however, in that it does not consider  whether increased congestion or fiscal constraints will allow travel to grow  at the rates projected. In part to deal with this limitation, FHWA uses  another model to forecast a range of future vehicle miles traveled based on  differing levels of investment. These projections recognize that if additional  road capacity is provided, more travel is expected to occur than if the  capacity additions are not provided. If congestion on a facility increases,  some travelers will respond by shifting to alternate modes or routes, or will  forgo some trips entirely. These projections are not available at this time  but will be included in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 2002  report to Congress entitled Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and  Transit: Conditions and Performance.
While it is clear that travelers choose between modes of travel for reasons  of convenience and cost, among other things, none of the FHWA travel  forecasts consider the effects of changes in levels of travel on other modes,  such as transit or rail. FHWA officials said that they would like to have a  data system that projects intermodal travel, but for now such a system does  not exist. The models also cannot reflect the impact of major shocks on the  system, such as natural disasters or the terrorist attacks of September 2001.
section_title: Passenger Travel on Transit
paragraphs: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) makes national-level forecasts  for growth in transit passenger miles traveled by collecting 15- to 25-year  forecasts developed by metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) in the  33 largest metropolitan areas in the country. FTA calculates a national  weighted average using the MPO forecasts and regional averages. MPOs  create their forecasts as part of their long-range planning process. Unlike  the first forecast for road travel discussed above, the 1999 Conditions and  Performance report stated that the MPO forecasts for vehicle miles  traveled and passenger miles traveled incorporate the effects of actions  that the MPOs are proposing to shape demand in their areas to attain air  quality and other developmental goals. The MPO plans may include transit  expansion, congestion pricing, parking constraints, capacity limits, and  other local policy options. MPO forecasts also have to consider funding  availability.
section_title: Intercity Passenger Travel
paragraphs: Amtrak provided us with systemwide forecasts of ridership, which are  based on assumed annual economic growth of between 1 and 1.5 percent,  fare increases equal to the national inflation rate, and projected ridership  increases on particular routes, including new or changing service on  certain routes scheduled to come on line over the forecast period. For  short-distance routes, Amtrak uses a model that estimates total travel over  a route by any mode, based on economic and demographic growth. The  model then estimates travel on each mode competing in the corridor based  on cost and service factors in each mode. For long distance routes, Amtrak  uses a different model that projects future rail ridership using variables that have been determined to influence past rail ridership, such as  population, employment, travel time for rail, and level of service for rail.  This model does not consider conditions on other competing modes.
section_title: Freight Travel Across Modes
paragraphs: In forecasting growth in national freight travel, models developed by  FHWA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers) use  growth in trade and the economy as key factors driving freight travel.  Projected growth in each particular mode is determined by growth in the  production of the specific mix of commodities that historically are shipped  on that mode. Therefore, any projected shift in freight movement from one  mode to another is due to projected changes in the mix of commodities, or  projected changes in where goods are produced and consumed.
Because current or future conditions and the capacity of the freight  transportation system cannot be factored into the national forecasts, a  number of factors—including growing congestion, as well as the benefits of  specific projects that might relieve congestion—are not considered in the  projections. In addition, future trends in other factors that affect shippers’  choices of freight modes—such as relative cost, time, or reliability—are not  easily quantifiable and are also linked to each system’s capacity and the  congestion on each system. As such, these factors are not included in  FHWA’s or Corps of Engineers’ national forecasting models.
Underlying the commodity forecasts used by FHWA and the Corps of  Engineers are a number of standard macro-economic assumptions  concerning primarily supply side factors, such as changes in the size of the  labor force and real growth in exports due to trade liberalization. Changes  in border, airport, and seaport security since September 11 may affect  assumptions that are imbedded in these commodity forecasts. For  example, increased delays and inspections at the border or at a port may  create problems for shippers to meet just-in-time requirements, possibly  resulting in a short-term shift to an alternative mode, or a limiting of trade.
Although current national freight forecasts are not capacity-constrained,  FHWA is developing a “Freight Analysis Framework” to provide alternative  analyses, assessing certain capacity limitations. The main impediment to  developing this capability is determining capacity on each mode. There are  commonly accepted measures of road capacity that are being incorporated,  but rail and waterway capacity is not as easily measured.
section_title: State Forecasts of Vehicle Miles Traveled
paragraphs: FHWA provided us with state-level forecasts of total vehicle miles traveled  on public roads from 2000 to 2010, derived from data in the Highway  Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) sample data set. This data set  contains state-reported data on average annual daily traffic for  approximately 113,000 road segments nationwide. For each sample  section, HPMS includes measures of average annual daily traffic for the  reporting year and estimates of future traffic for a specified forecast year,  which is generally 18 to 25 years after the reporting year. It should be noted  that the HPMS sample data do not include sections on any roads classified  as local roads or rural minor collectors.
Because the individual HPMS segment forecasts come from the states, we  do not know exactly what models were used to develop them. According to  officials at FHWA, the only national guidance comes from the HPMS Field  Manual, which says that future average annual daily traffic should come  from a technically supportable state procedure or data from MPOs or other  local sources. The manual also says that HPMS forecasts for urbanized  areas should be consistent with those developed by the MPO at the  functional system and urbanized area level.
section_title: Factors Influencing Future Travel
subsections: section_title: Local and Intercity Travel
paragraphs: For both local and intercity passenger travel, population growth is  expected to be one of the key factors driving overall travel levels. Where  that growth will occur will likely have a large effect on travel patterns and  mode choices. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. population  will grow to almost 300 million by 2010. Although this represents a slower  growth rate than in the past, it would still add approximately 18.4 million  people to the 2000 population, and will likely also substantially increase the  number of vehicles on public roads as well as the number of passengers on  transit and intercity rail.
The Census Bureau reported that since 1990, the greatest population  growth has been in the South and West. According to one panelist, these  regions’ metropolitan areas traditionally have lower central city densities  and higher suburban densities than the Midwest and East. These areas are  therefore harder to serve through transit than metropolitan areas with  higher population densities, where transit can be more feasible. However,  according to some transportation experts, it may not be possible to build  new transit infrastructure in these areas due to environmental or other  concerns. The population growth that is expected in suburban areas could  lead to a larger increase in travel by private vehicles than by transit because  suburban areas generally have lower population densities than inner cities,  and also have more dispersed travel patterns, making them less easy to  serve through conventional public transit. Although overall population  growth will likely be greatest in suburban parts of metropolitan areas, high  rates of growth are also predicted for rural areas. As is the case in suburbs,  these rural areas are difficult to serve with anything but private  automobiles because of low population densities and geographical  dispersion of travel patterns, so travel by private vehicle may increase.  Immigration patterns are also expected to contribute to changes in travel  levels, but the extent will depend on immigration policies. For example,  according to a senior researcher with the American Public Transportation  Association, higher rates of immigration tend to increase transit use.
In addition to overall population growth, another demographic trend that  will likely affect mode choices is the aging of the population. According to  data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of people aged 55 and over  is projected to increase 26 percent between 2001 and 2010. The most  rapidly growing broad age group is expected to be the population aged 85  and older, which is projected to increase 30 percent by 2010. According to  the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration’s  1999 Conditions and Performance report, the elderly have different  mobility issues than the nonelderly because they are less likely to have  drivers’ licenses, have more serious health problems, and may require  special services and facilities. According to a report prepared for the World  Business Council for Sustainable Development (Mobility 2001), cars  driven by the elderly will constitute an increasing proportion of traffic,  especially in the suburbs and rural areas, where many elderly people tend  to reside. Increases in the number of older drivers can pose safety  problems, in that the elderly have a higher rate of crashes per mile driven  than younger drivers, and that rate rises significantly after age 85. The  Mobility 2001 report also says that the driver fatality rate of drivers over 75  years of age is higher than any other age group except teenagers. Growth of  the elderly population may therefore increase the importance of providing  demand-responsive transit services and improving signs on public roads  to make them clearer and more visible.
Along with population growth, the increasing affluence of the U.S.  population is expected to play a key role in local and intercity passenger  travel levels and in the modes travelers choose. The 1999 Conditions and  Performance report states that rates of vehicle ownership are lower in low- income households, leading those households to rely more on transit  systems. According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) officials and  Mobility 2001, transit use—particularly use of buses—generally decreases  as income increases. Increasing affluence also influences intercity travel  levels. The 1999 Conditions and Performance report says that people with  high incomes take approximately 30 percent more trips than people with  low incomes, and the trips tend to be longer. Long-distance travel for  business and recreation increases with income. Also, as income increases,  travel by faster modes, such as car and air, increases, and travel by intercity  bus tends to decrease.
Several participants in our surface and maritime transportation panels (see  app. VI) also indicated that improvements in communication technology  will likely affect the amount and mode of intercity travel, but the direction  and extent of the effect is uncertain. One panelist said that there is no  additional cost to communicating over greater distances, so  communications will replace travel to some extent, particularly as  technologies improve. However, two other panelists said that  communication technology might increase travel by making the benefit of  travel more certain. For example, the Internet can provide people with  current and extensive information about vacation destinations, potentially  increasing the desire to travel. According to Mobility 2001, it is unclear  whether telecommunications technology will substitute for the physical  transportation of people and goods. Telecommuting and teleconferencing  are becoming more common, but technological improvements would have  to be significant before they can substitute for actual presence at work or  in face-to-face meetings. In addition, while home-based workers do not  have to commute, they tend to travel approximately the same amount as  traditional workers, but differ in how their travel is distributed among trip  purposes.
The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, are  expected to have some effect on passenger travel levels and choices about  which mode to use, but U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) officials  and participants in the panels did not believe the long-term changes would  be significant, provided that no more attacks occur. Federal Highway  Administration and Federal Railroad Administration officials speculated  that increased delays in air travel due to stricter security procedures might  shift some travel from air to other modes, such as car or rail, although they  expected this effect to be negligible in the long term unless additional  incidents occur.
Finally, changes in the price (or perceived price), condition, and reliability  of one modal choice as compared with another are also likely to affect  levels of travel and mode choices. For example, changes in the petroleum  market that affect fuel prices, or changes in government policy that affect  the cost of driving or transit prices, could result in shifts between personal  vehicles and transit; however, it is difficult to predict the extent to which  these changes will occur. According to Mobility 2001, automobiles offer  greater flexibility in schedule and choice of destinations than other modes  of transportation, and often also provide shorter travel times with lower  out-of-pocket costs. However, if heavy and unpredictable road congestion  causes large variations in automobile travel time, there could be a shift to  transit or a decrease in overall travel.
section_title: Freight Travel
paragraphs: According to several reports by DOT and transportation research  organizations, increasing international trade, economic growth, the  increasing value of cargo shipped, and changes in policies affecting certain  commodities are expected to influence future volumes of freight travel and  the choice of mode by which freight is shipped.
Increasing international trade and national trade policies are expected to  affect commodity flows, volumes, and mode choice. According to the  Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000, the globalization of  businesses can shift production of goods sold in the United States to  locations outside of the country, increasing total ton-miles and changing  the average length of haul of shipments. This shift in production could also  affect freight mode choice, with more commodities being shipped by  multiple modes as distances increase. According to Mobility 2001, truck  transportation tends to be cheaper, faster, and more energy efficient than  rail and barges for shipping high-value cargo. However, as distances  increase, rail and intermodal transportation (linking rail and truck travel)  become more cost-efficient options. Various trade policies also affect  freight flows and volumes. For example, the North American Free Trade  Agreement has contributed to the increased volume of trade moving on  rail and highways. According to data from the Bureau of Transportation  Statistics’ Transborder Surface Freight Database, between 1996 and 2000,  tonnage of imports by rail from Mexico and Canada increased by about 25  percent, and imports by truck increased 20 percent. In the maritime sector,  expanding trade with the Pacific Rim increased traffic at west coast  container ports.
According to the Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000, economic  growth results in a greater volume of goods produced and consumed,  leading to more freight moved. As the economy grows, disposable income  per capita increases and individual purchasing power rises, which can  cause businesses to ship more freight per capita. According to the report,  freight ton-miles per capita increased more than 30 percent, from 10,600 in  1975 to 14,000 in 1999.
The increasing value of cargo and the continuing shift toward a more  service-oriented economy and more time-sensitive shipments has affected  the volume of freight shipments and the choice of modes on which freight  is shipped. According to the Transportation Statistics Annual Report  2000, there is a continuing shift toward production of high-value, low- weight products, which leads to changes in freight travel levels and mode  choice. For example, it takes more ton-miles to ship $1,000 worth of steel  than it does to ship $1,000 worth of cell phones. High-value cargo, such as  electronics and office equipment, tends to be shipped by air or truck, while  rail and barges generally carry lower-value bulk items, such as coal and  grain. According to Mobility 2001, the growth of e-commerce and just-in- time inventory practices depend upon the ability to deliver goods quickly  and efficiently. A report prepared for the National Cooperative Highway  Research Program states that the effects of just-in-time inventory  practices are to increase the number of individual shipments, decrease  their length of haul, and increase the importance of on-time delivery. Both  reports indicate that such practices may shift some freight from slower  modes, such as rail, to faster modes, such as truck or air. In addition, the  Mobility 2001 report states that as the demand for specialized goods and  services grows, the demand for smaller, more specialized trucks increases.  Items ordered from catalogs or on-line retailers are often delivered by  specialized trucks.
Policies affecting particular commodities can have a large impact on the  freight industry. For example, policies concerning greenhouse gas  emissions can affect the amount of coal mined and shipped. Because coal  is a primary good shipped by rail and water, reduction in coal mining would  have a significant effect on tonnage for those modes. Changes in the type of  coal mined as a result of environmental policies—such as an increase in  mining of low-sulfur coal—can also affect the regional patterns of  shipments, resulting in greater ton-miles of coal shipped. Also, increasing  emissions controls and clean fuel requirements may raise the cost of  operating trucks and result in a shift of freight from truck to rail or barge.  For example, according to Mobility 2001, recently released rules from the  Environmental Protection Agency implementing more stringent controls  for emissions from heavy-duty vehicles are predicted to increase the  purchase price of a truck by $803. Other environmental regulations also  affect the cost of shipping freight, as when controls on the disposal of  material dredged from navigation channels increase the costs of expanding  those channels. Policies regarding cargo security may also affect the flow  of goods into and out of the United States. For example, several of our  panelists indicated that implementing stricter security measures will  increase the cost of shipping freight as companies invest in the personnel  and technology required. Tighter security measures could also increase  time necessary to clear cargo through Customs or other inspection  stations.
section_title: Intelligent Transportation Systems
paragraphs: The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) program of Intelligent  Transportation Systems (ITS) offers technology-based systems intended to  improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the surface  transportation system. The ITS program applies proven and emerging  technologies—drawn from computer hardware and software systems,  telecommunications, navigation, and other systems—to surface  transportation. DOT’s ITS program has two areas of emphasis: (1)  deploying and integrating intelligent infrastructure and (2) testing and  evaluating intelligent vehicles. Under the first area of emphasis, the  intelligent infrastructure program is composed of the family of  technologies that can enhance operations in three types of infrastructure:  (1) infrastructure in metropolitan areas, (2) infrastructure in rural areas,  and (3) commercial vehicles. Under the ITS program, DOT provides grants  to states to support ITS activities. In practice, the Congress has designated  the locations and amounts of funding for ITS. DOT solicits the specific  projects to be funded and ensures that those projects meet criteria  established in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Metropolitan intelligent transportation systems focus on deployment and  integration of technologies in urban and suburban geographic areas to  improve mobility. These systems include:  Arterial management systems that automate the process of adjusting  signals to optimize traffic flow along arterial roadways;   Freeway management systems that provide information to motorists  and detect problems whose resolution will increase capacity and  minimize congestion resulting from accidents;   Transit management systems that enable new ways of monitoring and  maintaining transit fleets to increase operational efficiencies through  advanced vehicle locating devices, equipment monitoring systems, and  fleet management;  Incident management systems that enable authorities to identify and  respond to vehicle crashes or breakdowns with the most appropriate  and timely emergency services, thereby minimizing recovery times;   Electronic toll collection systems that provide drivers and  transportation agencies with convenient and reliable automated  transactions to improve traffic flow at toll plazas and increase the  operational efficiency of toll collection;  Electronic fare payment systems that use electronic communication,  data processing, and data storage techniques in the process of fare  collection and in subsequent recordkeeping and funds transfer;  Highway-rail intersection systems that coordinate traffic signal  operations and train movement and notify drivers of approaching trains  using in-vehicle warning systems;   Emergency management systems that enhance coordination to ensure  the nearest and most appropriate emergency service units respond to a  crash;   Regional multimodal traveler information systems that provide road and  transit information to travelers to enhance the effectiveness of trip  planning and en-route alternatives;  Information management systems that provide for the archiving of data  generated by ITS devices to support planning and operations; and   Integrated systems that are designed to deliver the optimal mix of  services in response to transportation system demands.
Rural Intelligent Transportation Systems are designed to deploy high  potential technologies in rural environments to satisfy the needs of a  diverse population of users and operators. DOT has established seven  categories of rural intelligent transportation projects. They are as follows:  Surface Transportation Weather and Winter Mobility - technologies that  alert drivers to hazardous conditions and dangers, including wide-area  information dissemination of site-specific safety advisories and  warnings;   Emergency Services - systems that improve emergency response to  serious crashes in rural areas, including technologies that automatically  mobilize the closest police, ambulances, or fire fighters in cases of  collisions of other emergencies;  Statewide/Regional Traveler Information Infrastructure – system  components that provide information to travelers who are unfamiliar  with the local rural area and the operators of transportation services;   Rural Crash Prevention – technologies and systems that are directed at  preventing crashes before they occur, as well as reducing crash severity;   Rural Transit Mobility – services designed to improve the efficiency of  rural transit services and their accessibility to rural residents;  Rural Traffic Management – services designed to identify and implement  multi-jurisdictional coordination, mobile facilities, and simple solutions  for small communities and operations in areas where utilities may not  be available; and  Highway Operations and Maintenance – systems designed to leverage  technologies that improve the ability of highway workers to maintain  and operate rural roads.
The Commercial Vehicle ITS program focuses on applying technologies to  improve the safety and productivity of commercial vehicles and drivers,  reduce commercial vehicles’ operations costs, and facilitate regulatory  processes for the trucking industry and government agencies. This is  primarily accomplished through the Commercial Vehicle Information  Systems and Networks—a program that links existing federal, state, and  motor carrier information systems so that all entities can share information  and communicate with each other in a more timely and accurate manner.
The second area of emphasis in DOT’s ITS program—testing and evaluating  intelligent vehicles—is designed to foster improvements in the safety and  mobility of vehicles. This component of the ITS program is meant to  promote traffic safety by expediting the commercial availability of  advanced vehicle control and safety systems in four classes of vehicles: (1)  light vehicles, including passenger cars, light trucks, vans, and sport utility  vehicles; (2) commercial vehicles, including heavy trucks and interstate  buses; (3) transit vehicles, including all nonrail vehicles operated by transit  agencies; and (4) specialty vehicles, including those used for emergency  response, law enforcement, and highway maintenance.
section_title: Alternative Financing Methods
paragraphs: Transportation officials at all levels of government recognize that funding  from traditional sources (i.e., state revenues and federal aid) does not  always keep pace with demands for new, expanded, or improved surface  and maritime transportation infrastructure. Accordingly, the U.S.  Department of Transportation (DOT) has supported a broad spectrum of  emerging or established alternative financing mechanisms that can be used  to augment traditional funding sources, access new sources of capital and  operating funds, and enable transportation providers to proceed with  major projects sooner than they might otherwise. These mechanisms fall  into several broad categories: (1) allowing states to pay debt financing  costs with future anticipated federal highway funds, (2) providing federal  credit assistance, and (3) establishing financing institutions at the state  level. In addition, state, local, and regional governments engage in  public/private partnerships to tap private sector resources for investment  in transportation capital projects. The federal government helps subsidize  public/private partnerships by providing them with tax exemptions.
The federal government allows states to tap into Federal-aid highway funds  to repay debt-financing costs associated with highway projects through the  use of Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE). Under this  program, states can pledge a share of future obligations of federal highway  funds toward repayment of bond-related expenses, including a portion of  the principal and interest payments, insurance costs, and other costs. A  project must be approved by DOT’s Federal Highway Administration to be  eligible for this type of assistance.
The federal government also provides credit assistance in the form of  loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for a variety of surface and  maritime transportation programs, as follows:  Under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of  1998 (TIFIA), the federal government provides direct loans, loan  guarantees, and lines of credit aimed at leveraging federal funds to  attract nonfederal coinvestment in infrastructure improvements. This  program is designed to provide financing for highway, mass transit, rail,  airport, and intermodal projects, including expansions of multi-state  highway trade corridors; major rehabilitation and replacement of transit  vehicles, facilities, and equipment; border crossing infrastructure; and  other investments with regional and national benefits.
Under the Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program  (RRIF), established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st  Century (TEA-21) in 1998, the federal government is authorized to  provide direct loans and loan guarantees for railroad capital  improvements. This type of credit assistance is made available to state  and local governments, government-sponsored authorities, railroads,  corporations, or joint ventures that include at least one railroad.  However, as of June 2002, no loans or loan guarantees had been granted  under this program.
Under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, known as the Federal  Ship Financing Guarantees Program, the federal government provides  for a full faith and credit guarantee of debt obligations issued by (1) U.S.  or foreign shipowners for the purpose of financing or refinancing U.S. or  eligible export vessels that are constructed, reconstructed, or  reconditioned in U.S. shipyards; and (2) U.S. shipyards for the purpose  of financing advanced shipbuilding technology.
A third way that the federal government helps transportation providers  finance capital projects is by supporting State Infrastructure Banks (SIB).  SIBs are investment funds established at the state or regional level that can  make loans and provide other types of credit assistance to public and  private transportation project sponsors. Under this program, the federal  government allows states to use federal grants as “seed” funds to finance  capital investments in highway and transit construction projects. The  federal government currently supports SIBs in 39 states.
In addition to these alternative financing mechanisms directly supported by  the federal government, state, local, and regional governments sometimes  engage in public/private partnerships to tap private sector resources for  investment in transportation capital projects. The federal government also  helps subsidize public/private partnerships by providing them with tax  subsidies. One such subsidy is specifically targeted towards investment in  ground transportation facilities—the tax exemption for interest earned on  state and local bonds that are used to finance high-speed rail facilities and  government-owned docks, wharves, and other facilities. In addition, a  Department of the Treasury study indicates that the rates of tax depreciation allowed for railroads, railroad equipment, ships, and boats are  likely to provide some subsidy to investors in those assets.
Partnerships between state and local governments and the private sector  are formed for the purpose of sharing the risks, financing costs, and  benefits of transportation projects. Such partnerships can be used to  minimize cost by improving project quality, maintaining risk-management,  improving efficiency, spurring innovation, and accessing expertise that may  not be available within the agency. These partnerships can take many  forms; some examples include:  Partnerships formed to develop, finance, build, and operate new toll  roads and other roadways;  Joint development of transit assets whereby land and facilities that are  owned by transit agencies are sold or leased to private firms and the  proceeds are used for capital investment in, and operations of, transit  systems;   “Turnkey” contracts for transit construction projects whereby the  contractor (1) accepts a lower price for the delivered product if the  project is delayed or (2) receives a higher profit if the project is  delivered earlier or under budget; and  Cross-border leases that permit foreign investors to own assets used in  the United States, lease them to an American entity, and receive tax  benefits under the laws of their home country. This financing  mechanism offers an “up front” cost savings to transit agencies that are  acquiring vehicles or other assets from a foreign firm.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our work covered major modes of surface and maritime transportation for  passengers and freight, including public roads, public transit, railways, and  ports and inland waterways. To determine trends in public expenditures for  surface and maritime transportation over the past 10 years, we relied on  U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) reports and databases that  document annual spending levels in each mode of transportation. We  analyzed trends in total public sector and federal expenditures across  modes during the 10-year period covering fiscal years 1991 through 2000,  and we compared the proportion of public expenditures devoted to capital  activities versus operating and maintaining the existing infrastructure  during that same time period. We adjusted the expenditure data to account  for inflation using separate indexes for expenditures made by the federal  government and state and local governments. We used price indexes from  the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’ National  Income and Products Accounts.
To determine projected levels of freight and passenger travel over the next  10 years, we identified projections made by DOT’s modal administrations,  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Amtrak for the period covering  calendar years 2001 through 2010. We interviewed officials responsible for  the projections and reviewed available documentation to identify the  methodology used in preparing the projections and the key factors driving  them. We also obtained data on past levels of freight and passenger travel,  covering fiscal years 1991 through 2000, from DOT’s modal administrations,  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Amtrak. We analyzed the factors  driving the trends for three types of travel—local, intercity, and freight— that have important distinctions in the types of vehicles and modes used for  the travel.
To identify mobility challenges and strategies for addressing those  challenges, we primarily relied upon expert opinion, as well as a review of  pertinent literature. In particular, we convened two panels of surface and  maritime transportation experts to identify mobility issues and gather  views about alternative strategies for addressing the issues and challenges  to implementing those strategies. We contracted with the National  Academy of Sciences (NAS) and its Transportation Research Board (TRB)  to provide technical assistance in identifying and scheduling the two panels  that were held on April 1 and 3, 2002. TRB officials selected a total of 22  panelists with input from us, including a cross-section of representatives  from all surface and maritime modes and from various occupations  involved in transportation planning. In keeping with NAS policy, the  panelists were invited to provide their individual views and the panels were  not designed to build consensus on any of the issues discussed. We  analyzed the content of all of the comments made by the panelists to  identify common themes about key mobility challenges and strategies for  addressing those challenges. Where applicable, we also identified the  opposing points of view about the challenges and strategies.
The names and backgrounds of the panelists are as follows. We also note  that two of the panelists served as moderators for the sessions, Dr. Joseph  M. Sussman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. Damian J.  Kulash of the Eno Foundation, Inc.
Benjamin J. Allen is Interim Vice President for External Affairs and  Distinguished Professor of Business at Iowa State University. Dr. Allen  serves on the editorial boards of the Transportation Journal and  Transport Logistics, and he is currently Chair of the Committee for the  Study of Freight Capacity for the Next Century at TRB. His expertise  includes transportation regulation, resource allocation, income  distribution, and managerial decisionmaking and his research has been  published in numerous transportation journals.
Daniel Brand is Vice President of Charles River Associates, Inc., in  Boston, Mass. Mr. Brand has served as Undersecretary of the  Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Associate Professor of  City Planning at Harvard University, and Senior Lecturer in the  Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Civil Engineering Department.  Mr. Brand edited Urban Transportation Innovation, coedited Urban  Travel Demand Forecasting, and is the author of numerous  monographs and articles on transportation.
Jon E. Burkhardt is the Senior Study Director at Westat, Inc., in  Rockville, Md. His expertise is in the transit needs of rural and small  urban areas, in particular, the needs of the elderly population in such  areas. He has directed studies on the ways in which advanced  technology can aid rural public transit systems, the mobility challenges  for older persons, and the economic impacts of rural public  transportation.
Sarah C. Campbell is the President of TransManagement, Inc., in  Washington, D.C., where she advises transportation agencies at all levels  of government, nonprofit organizations, and private foundations on  transportation issues. Ms. Campbell is currently a member of the  Executive Committee of the TRB. She was a founding director of the  Surface Transportation Policy Project and currently serves as chairman  of its board of directors.
Christina S. Casgar is the Executive Director of the Foundation for  Intermodal Research and Education in Greenbelt, Md. Ms. Casgar’s  expertise is in transportation and logistics policies of federal, state, and  local levels of government, particularly in issues involving port  authorities. She has also worked with the TRB as an industry  investigator to identify key issues and areas of research regarding the  motor carrier industry.
Anthony Downs is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Mr.
Downs’s research interests are in the areas of democracy,  demographics, housing, metropolitan policy, real estate, real estate  finance, “smart growth,” suburban sprawl, and urban policy. He is the  author of New Visions for Metropolitan America (1994), Stuck in  Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion (1992), and several  policy briefs published by the Brookings Institution.
Thomas R. Hickey served until recently as the General Manager of the  Port Authority Transit Corporation in Lindenwold, N.J. Mr. Hickey has  23 years of public transit experience, and he is a nationally recognized  authority in the field of passenger rail operations and the design of  intermodal facilities.
Ronald F. Kirby is the Director of Transportation Planning at the  Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Dr. Kirby is  responsible for conducting long-range planning of the highway and  public transportation system in the Washington, D.C., region, assessing  the air quality implications of transportation plans and programs,  implementing a regional ridesharing program, and participating in  airport systems planning in the region. Prior to joining the Council of  Governments, he conducted transportation studies for the Urban  Institute and the World Bank.
Damian J. Kulash is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the  Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., in Washington, D.C. Dr. Kulash  established a series of forums at the Foundation addressing major  issues affecting all transportation modes including economic returns on  transportation investment, coordination of intermodal freight  operations in Europe and the United States, and development of a U.S.  transportation strategy that is compatible with national global climate  change objectives. He has published numerous articles in transportation  journals and directed studies at the Congressional Budget Office and the  TRB.
Charles A. Lave is a Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the  University of California, Irvine where he served as Chair of the  Economics Department. Dr. Lave has been a visiting scholar at the  Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, and he  served on the Board of Directors of the National Bureau of Economic  Research from 1991 through 1997. He has published numerous articles  on transportation pricing and other topics.
Stephen Lockwood is Vice President of Parsons Corporation, an  international firm that provides transportation planning, design,  construction, engineering, and project management services. Mr.  Lockwood is also a consultant to the American Association of State  Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA), and other transportation organizations. Prior  to joining Parsons, he served as Associate Administrator for Policy at  FHWA.
Timothy J. Lomax is a Research Engineer at the Texas Transportation  Institute at Texas A&M University. Dr. Lomax has published extensively  on urban mobility issues and he developed a methodology used to  assess congestion levels and costs in major cities throughout the United  States. He is currently conducting research, funded by nine state  transportation departments, to improve mobility measuring capabilities.
James R. McCarville is the Executive Director of the Port of Pittsburgh  Commission. He also serves as the President of the trade association,  Inland Rivers’ Ports and Terminals, Inc., and is a member of the Marine  Transportation System National Advisory Council, a group sponsored by  the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. Mr. McCarville previously served  as a consultant to the governments of Brazil, Uruguay, and Mexico on  matters of port organization, operational efficiency, and privatization.
James W. McClellan is Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning at the  Norfolk Southern Corporation in Norfolk, Va., where he previously held  positions in corporate planning and development. Prior to joining  Norfolk Southern, he served in various marketing and planning  positions with the New York Central Railroad, DOT’s Federal Railroad  Administration, and the Association of American Railroads.
Michael D. Meyer is a Professor in the School of Civil and  Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology and  was the Chair of the school from 1995 to 2000. He previously served as  Director of Transportation Planning for the state of Massachusetts. Dr.  Meyer’s expertise includes transportation planning, public works  economics and finance, public policy analysis, and environmental  impact assessments. He has written over 120 technical articles and has  authored or co-authored numerous texts on transportation planning and  policy.
William W. Millar is President of the American Public Transportation  Association (APTA). Prior to joining APTA, he was executive director of  the Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, Pa. Mr. Millar is a  nationally recognized leader in public transit and has served on or as  Chair of the executive committees of TRB, the Transit Development  Corporation, APTA, and the Pennsylvania Association of Municipal  Transportation Authorities.
Alan E. Pisarski is an independent transportation consultant in Falls  Church, Va., providing services to public and private sector clients in the  United States and abroad in the areas of transport policy, travel  behavior, and data analysis and development. He has served as an  advisor to numerous transportation and statistics agencies and  transportation trade associations. He has also conducted surface  transportation reviews for AASHTO and FHWA.
Craig E. Philip is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Ingram  Barge Company in Nashville, Tenn. He has served in various  professional and senior management capacities in the maritime, rail,  and intermodal industries and has held adjunct faculty positions at  Princeton University and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Philip serves on the  Executive Committee of the American Waterways Operators  Association, the Marine Transportation System National Advisory  Council, and the National Academy of Sciences’ Marine Board, and he is  immediate past Chairman of the National Waterways Conference.
Arlee T. Reno is a consultant with Cambridge Systematics in  Washington, D.C. Mr. Reno has expertise in performance-based planning  and measurement, multimodal investment analysis, urban  transportation costs, alternative tax sources, and revenue forecasting  for highway agencies. He has conducted reviews for the FHWA,  AASHTO, and numerous state transportation agencies.
Joseph M. Sussman is the JR East Professor in the Department of Civil  and Environmental Engineering and the Engineering Systems Division  at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Sussman is the author  of Introduction to Transportation Systems (2000) and specializes in  transportation systems and institutions, regional strategic  transportation planning, intercity freight and passenger rail, intelligent  transportation systems, simulation and risk assessment methods, and  complex systems and he has authored numerous publications in those  areas. He has served as Chair of TRB committees and as the Chairman  of its Executive Committee in 1994, and he serves on the Board of  Directors of ITS America and ITS Massachusetts.
Louis S. Thompson is a Railways Advisor for the World Bank where he  consults on all of the Bank’s railway lending activities. Prior to joining  the Bank, Mr. Thompson held a number of senior positions in DOT’s  Federal Railroad Administration, including Acting Associate  Administrator for Policy, Associate Administrator for Passenger and  Freight Services, Associate Administrator for Intercity Services, and  Director of the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project. He has also  served as an economics and engineering consultant.
Martin Wachs is the Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at  the University of California, Berkeley and he holds faculty appointments  in the departments of City and Regional Planning and Civil and  Environmental Engineering at the university. Dr. Wachs has published  extensively in the areas of transportation planning and policy, especially  as related to elderly populations, fare and subsidy policies, crime in  public transit, ethics, and forecasting. He currently serves as Chairman  of the TRB and has served on various transportation committees for the  state of California.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above, Christine Bonham, Jay Cherlow, Helen  DeSaulniers, Colin Fallon, Rita Grieco, Brandon Haller, David Hooper,  Jessica Lucas, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Jobenia Odum, and Andrew Von Ah of  GAO, as well as the experts identified in appendix VI, made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs