Highway Projects: Some Federal and State Practices to Expedite Completion Show Promise
Published: 2012-06-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Projects to construct, improve, and repair roads and bridges are fundamental to meeting the nations mobility needs. However, completing highway projectswhich generally involves four phases consisting of (1) planning, (2) preliminary design and environmental review, (3) final design and right-of-way acquisition, and (4) constructioncan sometimes take a long time. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU established provisions to help expedite highway projects, including streamlining some portions of the environmental review process, allowing states to assume greater environmental review responsibilities under certain conditions, and establishing efforts that permitted delegation of some authority from the federal government to states. GAO was asked to (1) describe the process and factors that could affect highway project time frames, (2) examine state DOTs views on the benefits and challenges of the provisions to expedite highway projects established in SAFETEA-LU, and (3) describe additional initiatives that state DOTs and FHWA have implemented to expedite the completion of highway projects. GAO surveyed officials from 52 state DOTs, including all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; interviewed officials at FHWA, state DOTs, and federal resource agencies (agencies tasked with protecting natural, historic, or cultural resources); and analyzed legislation, regulations, and other reports and publications. U.S. DOT provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The process to complete highway projects is complicated and lengthy due to multiple factors. Specifically, highway projects can involve many stakeholders, including agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the public. These stakeholders perform a number of tasksfor major highway projects, as many as 200 steps from planning to constructionbut their level of involvement varies. For example, resource agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service generally only become involved in a highway project if it affects the environmental or cultural resources that agency is tasked with protecting. Additional factors can lengthen project time frames, including the availability of funding, changes in a states transportation priorities, public opposition, or litigation.
State departments of transportation (DOT) that GAO surveyed generally agreed that the provisions meant to help expedite highway projects established in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) could decrease time frames but found some provisions more useful than others. They most frequently agreed that the provision allowing for the use of protected public landif such use has minor impacts on the property and is approved by relevant resource agencieshas the potential to save time and has few challenges to implementation. State DOTs reported that the other SAFETEA-LU provisions GAO studied have both potential benefits and challenges but, in some cases, they identified alternative solutions that could better serve their needs. For example, although respondents indicated that they could save time by implementing the issue resolution process established in SAFETEA-LU, they also noted that the use of written agreements between highway project stakeholderssuch as federal resource agenciescould better serve their purposes. Survey respondents also indicated that they are generally not interested in implementing two SAFETEA-LU provisions that would delegate environmental review decision-making authority from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to states, primarily because the states did not want to accept federal court jurisdiction for the decisions made under those provisions.
States have implemented a variety of efforts to expedite highway projects and FHWA has initiated efforts to expedite projects by sharing innovative practices. For example, in 1997, the North Carolina DOT implemented a project development process that promotes early involvement of highway stakeholders and reduces permit processing times from years to months. Other state efforts are more recent, prompted by streamlining concepts promoted by FHWA beginning in 2010 under an effort known as Every Day Counts. Through Every Day Counts, FHWA encouraged states to consider implementing 15 specific innovative practices during 2011 and 2012, including 13 practices that could help expedite highway project completion. FHWA plans to introduce a new set of initiatives during 2012 for implementation during 2013 and 2014. FHWA developed performance measures for Every Day Counts and is currently collecting data to determine if these initiatives have had a positive impact on expediting highway projects.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Projects to construct, improve, and repair roads and bridges are  fundamental to meeting the nation’s mobility needs. However, major  federally funded highway projects can take a long time to complete. In  2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established a number of provisions to  help expedite the completion of highway projects, including streamlining  some portions of the environmental review process, allowing states to  assume greater environmental review responsibilities under certain  conditions, and establishing pilot programs that permitted delegation of  some authority from the federal government to states.
You requested that we report on the process associated with completing  highway projects, as well as the impact of the SAFETEA-LU provisions  meant to help expedite that process. Accordingly, this report (1) describes  the process for planning, designing, and constructing federally funded  highway projects and the factors that could affect project time frames; (2)  presents state departments of transportation (DOT) views on the benefits  and challenges of implementing provisions to expedite highway projects  established by SAFETEA-LU; and (3) describes the additional initiatives  that state DOTs and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have  implemented to expedite highway projects.
To describe the process for completing highway projects, as well as the  factors that could affect project time frames, we reviewed and analyzed  relevant legislation—particularly SAFETEA-LU—regulations,  congressional hearing statements, and other reports and publications. To  collect information on practices involved in the highway project process,  as well as factors that could affect time frames, we conducted interviews  with officials from (1) FHWA; (2) federal resource agencies, that is  agencies tasked with protecting natural, historic, or cultural resources,  such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service (FWS); and six state DOTs—Alaska, California, Missouri,  North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah—which were selected using a  number of criteria, including participation in certain SAFETEA-LU  provisions and geographic locations. These interviews are not  generalizable to all states. To identify state DOT perspectives on the  benefits and challenges associated with implementing SAFETEA-LU  provisions meant to help expedite highway projects, we conducted a  survey of 52 state DOTs, including all states, the District of Columbia, and  Puerto Rico. We identified key provisions of SAFETEA-LU that were  meant to help expedite highway projects, drafted the survey, pretested it  with five state DOTs, and incorporated comments from external officials,  including FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and  Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Our response rate was 100 percent.  More information on our survey can be found in appendix I, as well as in a  separate e-supplement, GAO-12-637SP. To describe the practices state  DOTs and FHWA have implemented on their own to help expedite  highway projects, we included a series of questions in our survey of state  DOTs asking respondents to identify such practices. We also conducted  interviews with state DOTs and FHWA and analyzed responses from  these entities.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more information on our  scope and methodology, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FHWA plays a key role in funding and overseeing the completion of  highway projects. In addition to providing financial assistance and  establishing standards for state DOTs to build and improve highways and  roads, FHWA—through its division office in each state—provides  technical expertise and fulfills oversight functions. State and local  governments execute the programs by matching and distributing federal  funds; planning, selecting, and supervising projects; and complying with  federal requirements.
Funding for highway projects represents a large federal investment— about $39 billion in fiscal year 2011. Federally funded highway projects  are typically developed in the following four phases:  1.  Planning. State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)  assess the need for a project in relation to other potential highway  project needs. 2.  Preliminary design and environmental review. State DOTs identify  potential transportation solutions based on needs identified during  planning, potential environmental and social effects of those solutions,  project cost, and construction location; analyze the effect, if any, of  the proposed project and potential alternatives on the environment;  and select the preferred alternative. 3.  Final design and right-of-way acquisition. State DOTs finalize design  plans, acquire property, and relocate residents and businesses. 4.  Construction. State DOTs award construction contracts, oversee  construction, and accept the completed project.
In the preliminary design and environmental review phase, many activities  are carried out pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969  (NEPA) and other federal laws. Under NEPA, federal agencies must  assess the effects of major federal actions—those they propose to fund,  carry out or permit—that significantly affect the environment. NEPA has  two principal purposes: (1) to ensure that an agency carefully considers  detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts and (2)  to ensure that this information will be made available to the public. NEPA  generally requires federal agencies to prepare documentation showing  the extent of the project’s environmental impacts. Per NEPA, the lead  agencies—usually a state DOT and FHWA—will determine which of the  three documentation types is needed as follows:
Projects referred to as ‘categorical exclusions’ (CE) are determined to  not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality  of the environment. These projects require no or limited environmental  review or documentation under NEPA. Examples of highway projects  that are generally processed as CEs include resurfacing, constructing  bicycle lanes, installing noise barriers, and landscaping. The vast  majority of highway projects are processed as CEs (see fig. 1). Based  on data collected in 2009, FHWA estimates that approximately 96  percent of highway projects were processed as CEs.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for proposed  projects that are determined to have a significant effect on the  environment. In broad terms, FHWA starts the EIS process by  publishing a notice of intent in the Federal Register. It then consults  with resource agencies—such as USACE or FWS—and solicits  comments from the public on a draft EIS, incorporates comments into  a final EIS, and issues a record of decision. Among other things, the  record of decision—which is the final step for agencies in the EIS  process—identifies (1) the decision made; (2) the alternatives  considered during the development of the EIS, including the  environmentally preferred alternative; and (3) plans to mitigate  environmental impacts. For the 32 projects in which FHWA was the  lead agency and signed the EIS in fiscal year 2009, the average  amount of time from signing the notice of intent to signing the record  of decision was 83 months—almost 7 years. As noted, FHWA  estimates that based on its 2009 data approximately 1 percent of all  federal-aid highway projects in the United States were processed with  an EIS. While projects requiring an EIS are a small portion of all  highway projects, they are likely to be high-profile, complex, and  expensive projects. For these reasons, many efforts to expedite  highway projects and reports which study those efforts, including this  report, tend to focus on highway projects requiring an EIS.
Project sponsors prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when it  is not clear whether a project will have significant environmental  impacts. An EA is intended to be a concise document that, among  other things, briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for  determining whether to prepare an EIS. If during the development of  an EA, the project sponsor determines that the project will cause  significant environmental impacts, the project sponsor will stop  producing the EA and, instead, produce an EIS. However, an EA  typically results in a finding of no significant impact, a document that  presents the reasons why the agency has concluded that there are no  significant environmental impacts to occur when the project is  implemented. FHWA estimates that, based on its 2009 data, about 3  percent of all federal-aid highway projects were processed using an  EA.
Numerous federal, state, and local laws determine the processes and  tasks highway projects are to complete throughout the four phases. For  example, SAFETEA-LU contains provisions that establish policies related  to transportation planning and the environmental review process. Various  environmental laws—including NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the  Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act—establish  processes and environmental requirements that projects must meet.  Right-of-way acquisition must be accomplished according to the  requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property  Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, a law designed to provide  fair treatment of property owners and tenants when they are displaced by  federally funded programs, including the construction of a federal-aid  highway. Federal-aid highway projects are typically subject to a number  of federally required contract provisions, such as nondiscrimination,  payment of a predetermined minimum wage, and accident prevention.  There are also numerous state and local laws—for example, several  states, including California and North Carolina, have laws roughly  equivalent to the federal NEPA—that projects must comply with and  which help guide projects through various tasks in the process.
In addition, a number of provisions created by SAFETEA-LU are intended  to help expedite highway projects. We analyzed seven of those provisions  that have been implemented (see table 1), focusing primarily on those in  Title VI of SAFETEA-LU, which deals with transportation planning and  project delivery. We surveyed officials from 52 state DOTs about the  potential benefits and challenges associated with each of these  SAFETEA-LU provisions and did not ask states to quantify these benefits  or challenges. During survey pretesting, we learned that any number of  variables could impact the time frames for completing a project, such as  the SAFETEA-LU provisions we were asking about in our survey, the  complexity of each highway project, or even the personalities of  individuals working on tasks for the project. As such, our survey findings  generally do not indicate specific values for the benefits and challenges  (such as time savings) from implementing or using the SAFETEA-LU  provisions, but rather represent state DOTs’ perspectives (i.e., the degree  to which they agree or disagree that a particular factor could be a benefit  or a challenge) on the potential benefits and challenges of those  provisions.
section_title: The Process to Complete Highway Projects Is Complex and Lengthy Due to Multiple Factors
paragraphs: Completing a highway project can involve many stakeholders—including  federal, state, and local government agencies; nongovernmental  organizations (NGO); and private citizens—and, for major highway  projects, as many as 200 steps from planning through construction (see  fig. 2). A number of additional factors can also affect project time frames.
A wide range of stakeholders can be involved in highway projects, from  federal, state, and local agencies with varying missions and  responsibilities to NGOs, contractors, and private citizens. Different  factors, however, will help determine the extent to which stakeholders will  become involved in the project. For example, if a highway project will not  affect endangered or threatened species, it is likely that FWS—which is  responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act for freshwater  and terrestrial species—will not become involved in the project.  Additionally, some states have developed written agreements—known by  a number of terms, including programmatic agreements or memoranda of  agreement—with other state or federal agencies that can help to establish  a process for consultation, review, and compliance with one or more  federal laws, allowing for the project to be reviewed more quickly.  Regardless, there are a host of stakeholders that could become involved  in a highway project as follows:
Transportation agencies. Federal and state transportation agencies  are responsible for improving, maintaining, and planning highway  systems with a focus on safety, reliability, effectiveness, and  sustainability. Among other things, FHWA oversees planning and  project completion by reviewing statewide long-range transportation  plans, evaluating whether a project meets environmental protection  requirements, and authorizing acquisition of property for highway  projects it funds. State DOTs are typically the focal point for project  planning and construction and are responsible for setting the relevant  goals for the state, planning safe and efficient transportation,  designing most projects, identifying and mitigating environmental  impacts, acquiring property for highway projects, and awarding and  overseeing construction contracts.
Federal resource agencies. Federal resource agencies, such as those  described below, are responsible for managing and protecting natural  and cultural resources like wetlands, historic properties, forests, and  wildlife:
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, established by the  National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, seeks to promote the  preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of the nation’s  historic resources. The council advises the President and the  Congress on national historic preservation policies and ensures  federal agencies take such issues into account when developing  and implementing federal projects.
USACE issues permits for the dredging and filling of waters of the  United States, including wetlands within the agency’s jurisdiction,  under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency administers, among other  things, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
FWS implements the Endangered Species Act with respect to  freshwater and terrestrial species.
The National Marine Fisheries Service implements, among other  things, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered  Species Act with respect to most marine species and anadromous  fishes (which spend portions of their life cycle in both fresh and  salt water).
The U.S. Forest Service transfers land for highway rights of way  within the National Forest System to states through FHWA.
State resource agencies. These state-level agencies are generally  responsible for managing and protecting the state’s natural and  cultural resources.
State resource agencies, like their federal counterparts, participate  in and review assessments of environmental impacts, in  accordance with their responsibilities under federal or state laws.
A state historic preservation office advises and consults with  federal and other state agencies to identify historic properties and  assess and resolve adverse effects to them under the National  Historic Preservation Act.
Local governments. Local governments involved in highway projects  include MPOs and rural planning organizations.
Every urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more has an  MPO, an organization made up of representatives of local  governments—county, city, and town government officials—for the  purpose of transportation planning and coordination of highway  and transit projects. According to a nonprofit organization that  represents MPOs, there are almost 400 MPOs in the United  States.
Rural planning organizations are typically voluntary planning  organizations that serve as a forum for local officials to develop  consensus on regional transportation priorities for an area with a  population of less than 50,000.
NGOs. NGOs advocate for a number of issues, including the  environment and transportation. Examples of NGOs include the  following:
The Natural Resources Defense Council is an environmental  organization that seeks to protect the environment by educating  the public, lobbying government officials, and litigating, if  necessary.
AASHTO advocates for transportation-related policies and  provides technical transportation-related support to states.
Contractors. Contractors generally are private sector companies that  bid on contracts from federal and state transportation agencies to  conduct various activities, such as conducting environmental studies  or constructing a highway.
Private citizens. Private citizens have the opportunity to provide  comments and opinions in venues like public hearings.
subsections: section_title: Large Number of Steps in the Process
paragraphs: In addition to the involvement of a large number of stakeholders,  completing a major highway project takes a number of years because of  the many tasks, requirements, and approvals involved throughout the four  phases of a highway project. Major highway projects can involve as many  as 200 steps from the initial planning phase through the construction  phase that require actions, approvals, or input from a number of  stakeholders.
State DOTs and local planning organizations assess a project’s purpose  and consider the need for the project in relation to the need for other  potential highway projects. To receive federal transportation funding, any  project in an urbanized area must emerge from the relevant MPO and  state DOT planning processes. For nonmetropolitan areas not covered by  an MPO, states must consult with and provide opportunities for local  officials to participate in statewide planning. To meet federal planning  requirements, states must develop   (1) a long-range statewide transportation plan covering a 20-year period  and (2) a state transportation improvement program—that is, the state  program of transportation projects covering at least a 4-year period that  are to be supported with federal surface transportation funds, as well as  regionally significant projects requiring an action by FHWA, whether or  not federally funded.
During preliminary design, a project’s location and design are identified,  along with the effect, if any, of the proposed project and of potential  alternatives on the environment; eventually, a preferred alternative is  selected. Among other tasks, state DOTs identify the preliminary  engineering issues, proposed alignment of roadways, and costs, as well  as create topographic surveys and conduct traffic studies. During  environmental review, the proposed project alternatives are examined  and may require review, input, or feedback from relevant resource  agencies such as USACE, FWS, or the Environmental Protection Agency.  Environmental reviews require state and FHWA officials to address and  comply with many federal laws—FHWA has identified over 40  environmental laws—as well as applicable state laws. More complex  projects require additional time for the completion of preliminary designs  and environmental reviews. In addition, private citizens and local  governments are asked to comment on the project and its potential  effects. At the end of this phase, the preferred alternative is selected.
State DOTs finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate utilities  in the final design and right-of-way acquisition phase. State DOTs  develop detailed engineering plans consistent with environmental  documents and updated environmental studies, and finalize cost  estimates. If a significant amount of time has passed since the preliminary  design work was performed, right-of-way maps and other information may  need to be updated. Acquiring property for the project includes  determining any restrictions to state ownership of the property,  determining the identities of property owners, making offers to property  owners based on just compensation, negotiating a purchase price,  relocating property owners and tenants, and sometimes invoking eminent  domain. Utilities must be located, marked, surveyed, and possibly  relocated. If there are a significant number of underground utilities,  professional engineers, geologists, and land surveyors may be needed to  determine the exact location of the utilities.
State DOTs award construction contracts, oversee construction, and  accept the completed project. State DOTs request and evaluate bids on  projects and then award the contract. The federal government is not  directly involved in construction, but does have an oversight role. For  example, projects that receive federal-aid highway funds require FHWA  concurrence on the award. During construction, the contractor and the  state resolve any unexpected problems that may arise, such as removal  of hazardous waste at the construction site. Once satisfied that  construction has been carried out as agreed to with the contractor, the  state must approve the final completion of construction.
section_title: Additional Factors That Can Affect Time Frames
paragraphs: In addition to the many stakeholders and tasks involved, a number of  other factors can complicate the process and lead to longer highway  project time frames such as the following:  The availability of funding for large highway projects can affect how long it  takes to complete a project. For example, one state DOT informed us it  has completed a number of EISs for highway projects, but that these  projects are stalled due to a lack of funds. In addition, a state DOT official  stated that since the state did not have enough funding to complete major  highway projects, they are choosing to focus more on completing smaller,  less expensive highway projects such as bridge replacements and  repaving. Of those responding to our survey, most state DOTs identified  funding as a challenge for all project phases but found it to be more of a  challenge in both the planning phase and the preliminary design and  environmental review phase.
Changes in a state’s transportation priorities during a project’s duration  can complicate time frames and delay the project. For example, one  administration may favor a highway project when it is first planned and  may provide the necessary financial support; however, a new  administration with different priorities may come in before the project is  completed and withdraw or reduce support and funding. If a project that  was shelved garners support again, in some cases, FHWA, the state  DOT, or resource agencies might have to reevaluate, rework, and update  environmental- or NEPA-related documents and information to ensure  that the environmental impact information is current. This can lead to a  longer project time frame.
Public opposition and litigation can also lengthen highway project time  frames or even lead to the cancellation of a project. For example, the  Elizabeth Brady Road project in Orange County, North Carolina was  canceled by FHWA due to public and local government opposition to the  project. After the project began the preliminary design and environmental  review phase, local community and government officials determined that  there was insufficient need for the project because the potential costs  outweighed the project’s potential benefits. As a result, local government  officials withdrew their support for the project and it was canceled. Public  controversy related to a highway project can sometimes lead to litigation,  which can also lengthen highway project time frames. Litigants might  settle their lawsuit if, for example, a state DOT agrees to change the  design of a project to limit its impact on a species or increase noise  abatement measures. Lawsuits can also lead to longer completion time  frames. For example, plaintiffs filed suit in 2006 against FHWA and the  U.S. Forest Service for a highway project in Alaska, alleging that these  parties failed to comply with a number of federal laws, including NEPA.  The U.S. District Court found that the final EIS issued for the project was  not valid and issued an injunction stopping all work on the project. Upon  appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the District   In September 2011, nearly 5 years after the lawsuit was  Court decision.filed, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities began  work to prepare a supplemental EIS—that is, an updated EIS—for the  project. The agency anticipates issuing a record of decision for this  project in late 2013.
section_title: State DOTs Generally Agree That SAFETEA- LU Provisions Could Decrease Project Time Frames but Find Some Provisions More Useful Than Others
paragraphs: States identified both benefits and challenges with each of the SAFETEA- LU provisions meant to help expedite highway projects but acknowledged  alternative solutions for some of the provisions that better served their  purposes. In our survey, state DOTs most frequently agreed that the  Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land provision of SAFETEA-LU has  the potential to save time (see table 2) and has relatively few challenges  to implementation.
Most respondents agreed that the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land  provision of SAFETEA-LU has potential time savings benefits, and nearly  all have used this provision at least once. This provision authorizes an  historic site or publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife  or waterfowl refuge, to be used for a transportation program or project if a  DOT determines that such use would result in minor impacts (i.e., “de  minimis impacts”) to that resource. The Department of Transportation  Act of 1966 includes a provision—known as Section 4(f)—which  stipulates that FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of  land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl  refuges, or public and private historical sites unless (1) there is no  feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and (2) the action  includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting  from use. Complying with Section 4(f) can result in additional time to  receive project approval. One NGO we spoke with noted that use of the  Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land provision of SAFETEA-LU is a  more “common sense” approach that not only allows greater use of these  protected properties when only very minor impacts are likely to occur, but  also helps to expedite highway projects.
Potential benefits. Of those responding to our survey, 92 percent of  states (47 of 51 states) agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has  the potential to save time. In addition, of those responding, 80 percent  (41 of 51 states) identified the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land  provision as having the potential to create staffing or personnel  savings and 59 percent (29 of 49 states) identified the provision as  having the potential to increase the number of projects completed.
Potential challenges. Most states who responded to our survey did not  indicate significant challenges to implementing this SAFETEA-LU  provision. For example, 82 percent of states (42 of 51 states)  disagreed that the participation requirements for this provision are too  challenging to fulfill, indicating that this provision may be easier to use  or implement than the other provisions.
Implementation/use. Of all the SAFETEA-LU provisions we studied,  the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land provision was used most  frequently. Of those states responding, almost all (47 of 49 states)  had used this provision at least once, with 9 states indicating that they  have used this provision for more than 50 percent of their highway  projects since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment in 2005.
Most states responding to our survey agreed that the Design-Build  Contracting provision within SAFETEA-LU has the potential to save time,  but many states have not used this contracting method and, therefore,  have not had the opportunity to take advantage of this provision. Under  the traditional procurement approach, design and construction services  must be separated and a construction contract, which generally goes to  the lowest bidder, can be awarded only after the design is complete.  Design-build contracting combines the responsibilities for designing and  constructing a project in a single contract instead of separating these  responsibilities. The Design-Build Contracting provision in SAFETEA-LU  repealed the minimum cost requirements for use of design-build  contracting for federal-aid highway projects; prior to enactment of  SAFETEA-LU, federal-aid highway projects needed to have total costs  exceed $50 million in order to use design-build contracting.
In our survey, state DOTs generally agreed that the Design-Build  Contracting provision has the potential to save time, but noted some  challenges and limited use.
Potential benefits. Of those responding, 79 percent of states (30 of 38  states) agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to  save time. Fewer states that responded agreed that other benefits  could potentially be realized from use of design-build contracting: 45  percent (17 of 38 states) noted that its use could potentially increase   the number of highway projects completed, and 37 percent (14 of 38  states) noted potential staff or personnel savings.
Potential challenges. Most states did not indicate significant  challenges to using this SAFETEA-LU provision in the survey   However, states did provide some challenges to  questions we asked.design-build contracting in their written responses. For example, some  states are prohibited by state statute from using design-build  contracting for highway projects. Other states noted that problems in  completing other project tasks, such as obtaining permits, can slow  overall project completion time frames such that potential time savings  achieved by design-build contracting might be negated.
Implementation/use. Of those responding, 60 percent of states (26 of  43 states) have used design-build contracting at least once since  enactment of SAFETEA-LU. However, the majority of states that  responded (24 of 43 states, or 56 percent) use design-build  contracting for less than 10 percent of all highway projects. States  noted both in our survey and in our interviews that smaller highway  projects—such as resurfacing or landscaping projects that are  processed as CEs—generally do not require extensive design work  and, as a result, do not lend themselves to the use of design-build  contracting.
Most states responding to our survey agreed that the 180-Day Statute of  Limitations provision has potential benefits, and many have had at least  one highway project since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment that has taken  advantage of it. Prior to enactment of SAFETEA-LU, individuals or  organizations generally had up to 6 years in which they could file a  judicial claim on a final agency action related to environmental  requirements, such as NEPA requirements. This provision of SAFETEA- LU bars claims seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval  issued by a federal agency for a highway project unless that claim is filed  within 180 days of a notice in the Federal Register—FHWA generally  publishes these notices—announcing the final agency action.
In our survey, state DOTs generally agreed that the 180-Day Statute of  Limitations provision has the potential to save time, and many states have  taken advantage of this provision since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment;  however, some states expressed concerns that a shorter statute of  limitations could actually encourage litigation.
Potential benefits. Of those responding, 78 percent (32 of 41 states)  agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to save  time. 56 percent of those states responding (22 of 39 states) also  agreed that this provision could result in staff or personnel savings.  Only about one-third of those responding (15 of 41 states, or 37  percent) agreed that the provision could result in more projects being  completed.
Potential challenges. When asked what challenges, if any, could be  faced from this SAFETEA-LU provision, 8 states noted that a shorter  statute of limitations may actually encourage litigation.these 8 states noted that if the shorter statute of limitations was used,  such use could be seen as suspect by outside entities and encourage  them to question the project and file a lawsuit against it.
Implementation/use. Due in part to the above mentioned challenge, at  least one state has chosen not to take advantage of the shorter  statute of limitations. Of those states responding to our survey, 64  percent (29 of 45 states) have used the 180-Day Statute of Limitations  provision for at least one project since enactment of SAFETEA-LU,  leaving 36 percent of states (16 of 45 states) as having never used  the provision. Officials from one state DOT we interviewed did note  that they have chosen to not pursue this shorter statute of limitations  as they feel its use might draw undue attention to the project and  encourage outside entities to litigate it.
Most states responding to our survey agreed that the Offering Financial  Assistance to Stakeholder Agencies provision of SAFETEA-LU has  potential benefits, including time and staffing or personnel savings, but  fewer states have actually taken advantage of this provision. Under this  SAFETEA-LU provision, a state DOT can use part of its federal highway  funding to support staff for a federal or state agency participating in the  environmental review process, such as the local USACE or FWS office.  Funds provided in accordance with this provision may only be used for  projects in a given state that support activities that directly and  meaningfully contribute to expediting and improving transportation project  planning and completion.
In our survey, state DOTs generally agreed that the Offering Financial  Assistance to Stakeholder Agencies provision has the potential to save  time, but its use is not as widespread as some of the other SAFETEA-LU  provisions.
Potential benefits. Of those responding, 77 percent of states (34 of 44  states) agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to  save time. The majority of those states responding also agreed that  this provision could have potential staff or personnel savings (26 of 44  states, or 59 percent), as well as increase the number of projects  completed (25 of 44 states, or 57 percent).
Potential challenges. States responding to our survey generally noted  some challenges to using this SAFETEA-LU provision. Nineteen of 44  states (43 percent) responding agreed that programmatic agreements  could serve their agency better than this SAFETEA-LU provision.  However, only 9 percent of states (4 of 43 states) agreed that a state  or agency policy would discourage them from providing financial  assistance to affected entities.
Implementation/use. Of those responding, 58 percent of states (25 of  43 states) have provided financial assistance to affected entities at  least once. However, a large number (18 of 43 states, or 42 percent)  have never taken advantage of this provision. In our interviews with  state DOTs and federal resource agencies, interviewees also had  mixed opinions on this SAFETEA-LU provision. For example, some  interviewees stated that use of this SAFETEA-LU provision has  created a better working relationship between the state DOT and the  affected entity. However, other states we interviewed indicated that  they had previously provided financial assistance to affected entities  but had seen limited results and had stopped providing such funding.  Staff from the federal resource agencies we spoke with were  generally familiar with this SAFETEA-LU provision and, in some  cases, found it to be helpful in expediting the completion of highway  projects.
While most states responding to our survey agreed that the Categorical  Exclusion Approval Authority provision within SAFETEA-LU has the  potential to save time, only three states are participating in this program,  and most states indicated that other techniques could achieve the same  outcome as this program. This SAFETEA-LU provision authorizes U.S.  DOT to assign and a state to assume responsibility for determining  whether certain designated activities constitute actions that are  categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS. As  noted above, most highway projects in the United States are processed  as CEs, thus many of the projects a state DOT leads could be affected by  participation in this program. As of April 2012, only three states are  participating in this program: Alaska, California, and Utah. These three  states have signed memoranda of agreement with their respective FHWA  division offices outlining the processes and procedures they are to follow  once assuming authority to approve CEs. Per SAFETEA-LU, these  agreements are to last no more than 3 years, but can be renewed by  mutual agreement of both the state DOT and FHWA. States that choose  to participate in this program are required to accept federal court  jurisdiction for the decisions they make under the program. Highway  stakeholders often refer to this aspect of the Categorical Exclusion  Approval Authority provision as requiring the state legislature to ‘waive its  sovereign immunity.’  In our survey, state DOTs generally agreed that the Categorical Exclusion  Approval Authority provision has the potential to save time, but several  respondents supported the use of approaches other than this program to  achieve a similar outcome.
Potential benefits. Of those responding, 76 percent (34 of 45 states)  agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to save  time. States also saw this provision as having the potential to increase  the number of projects being completed (26 of 44 states, or 59   percent) and create staffing or personnel savings (22 of 45 states, or  49 percent).
Potential challenges. The majority of those responding to our survey  (29 of 49 states, or 59 percent), as well as some state DOTs we  spoke with, indicated that the use of agreements—such as  programmatic agreements or memoranda of agreement—could serve  the state DOTs better than this SAFETEA-LU provision. Seventeen  state DOTs noted in our survey that they have undertaken efforts to  establish agreements with their respective FHWA division offices or  federal and state resource agencies. Among other things, these  agreements establish policies and procedures for the state DOTs to  follow in certain situations and scenarios. For example, the Missouri  DOT has entered into a programmatic agreement with the FHWA  division office to allow the state DOT to classify certain activities  specified in the agreement as CEs without submitting each project to  FHWA for approval of an environmental classification of CE.
Agreements such as these allow relevant agencies—in this case, the  FHWA division office—to make certain that projects comply with  relevant laws and regulations but relieve the agency of the burden of  having to review every project that the state DOT undertakes.
Implementation/use. As noted above, only three states—Alaska,  California, and Utah—are participating in the program created by this  SAFETEA-LU provision. All three state DOTs indicated that they have  seen positive outcomes from their participation in the program.
States saw the Issue Resolution Process provision within SAFETEA-LU  as having some potential to save time, but none has used this provision,  and most saw the use of written agreements between parties—including  programmatic agreements or memoranda of understanding—as a better  alternative. This SAFETEA-LU provision established procedures for  resolving issues that could delay completion of the environmental review  process or could result in denial of approvals required for the project  under specific laws, such as the Clean Water Act or the Endangered  Species Act. In general terms, a meeting of the relevant agencies can be  convened to resolve the issues at hand; if a resolution cannot be  achieved, the lead agency—for most federal-aid highway projects, this  would be FHWA—is to notify a number of interested parties, including the  Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Council on  Environmental Quality within the Executive Office of the President.
In our survey, state DOTs indicated that this SAFETEA-LU provision has  some potential to create time savings but generally saw the use of  programmatic agreements as a better alternative for resolving issues  between parties.
Potential benefits. Of those responding, 61 percent (22 of 36 states)  agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to save  time. States generally did not agree that other potential benefits could  arise from the use of this SAFETEA-LU provision: 37 percent (14 of  38 states) agreed that its use has the potential to create staffing or  personnel savings, and only 29 percent (11 of 38 states) agreed that  its use could increase the number of projects completed.
Potential challenges. The majority of the states responding to this  portion of the survey (25 of 41 states, or 61 percent) indicated that  established agreements, like a programmatic agreement, could better  serve their agency than this SAFETEA-LU provision. Some of the  state DOTs we interviewed indicated that they had programmatic  agreements in place with various parties, such as federal resource  agencies, that established procedures by which issues could be  identified and resolved. States and federal resource agencies told us  that they would prefer if issues were identified and resolved at lower  staff levels, rather than by management or executives, or through the  process established in this SAFETEA-LU provision.
Implementation/use. As noted above, this SAFETEA-LU provision has  not been used or implemented, and highway stakeholders we  interviewed noted that resolving these disputes using methods other  than this SAFETEA-LU provision are preferred.
The majority of states responding to our survey agreed that the NEPA  Approval Authority provision within SAFETEA-LU has the potential to  save time, but most states indicated that it is too burdensome to begin  participating. This SAFETEA-LU provision required the establishment of a  pilot program to permit not more than five states to assume certain  federal environmental review responsibilities, such as the environmental  reviews required under NEPA or other federal laws. SAFETEA-LU listed  five states that were given the opportunity to participate in this pilot  program: Alaska, California, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. To date,  California is the only state that is participating in this pilot program. Other  states expressed interest but withdrew their applications to participate.  Eventually, FHWA opened the pilot program to all states, but limited  participation to a total of five states, as called for in SAFETEA-LU. Much  like the Categorical Exclusion Approval Authority provision of SAFETEA- LU, states that choose to participate in this program are required to  accept federal court jurisdiction for the decisions they make under the  program, an action which is generally undertaken by the state legislature  and which highway stakeholders often referred to as requiring the state  legislature to ‘waive its sovereign immunity.’  In our survey, state DOTs agreed that the NEPA Approval Authority pilot  program has the potential to save time, but a majority of respondents  indicated that participation requirements for this provision are too  challenging to fulfill.
Potential benefits. Of those responding, 56 percent of states (19 of 34  states) agreed that this SAFETEA-LU provision has the potential to  save time. States generally agreed that this provision does not have  the potential to save staffing or personnel resources, or increase the  number of projects completed.
Potential challenges. The majority of states responding to this section  of our survey (27 of 33 states, or 82 percent) indicated that the  participation requirements for this initiative are too challenging to fulfill.  This message was reiterated in interviews we conducted with state  DOTs. For example, officials from these agencies stated that  accepting federal court jurisdiction for the environmental review  decisions they make was something they, their agency management,  or their state legislature—which would need to approve the  acceptance of such responsibility—did not wish to take on.
Implementation/use. As noted above, California is the only state that  is currently participating in this pilot program. According to the  California Department of Transportation, highway projects requiring  an EA now take about 30 months less to complete than they  previously did. In addition, staff from some of the federal resource  agencies we spoke with indicated that California’s participation in the  pilot program has generally been beneficial, with staff from one  resource agency calling for California’s continued participation in the  pilot program. While California has reported a time savings from its  participation in the NEPA Approval Authority pilot program, other  states with whom we spoke did not express interest in this pilot  program, with most states citing the requirement to accept federal  court jurisdiction for the decisions they make under the program as a  key reason why they do not wish to participate. In addition, at least  two states indicated that they appreciate having FHWA make these  environmental decisions. More specifically, they stated that FHWA  has the staff and expertise to make informed decisions regarding  environmental impacts.
section_title: States and FHWA Have Initiated Efforts to Develop and Share Innovative Practices for Expediting Highway Projects
paragraphs: States have implemented a variety of efforts to expedite highway projects,  and FHWA has initiated efforts to share innovative practices. Some state  efforts began in the 1990s in response to challenges faced at that time.  Other state efforts are more recent, prompted by new authorities provided  by SAFETEA-LU or by streamlining concepts recently promoted by  FHWA. FHWA is making efforts to share innovative practices to help  expedite highway projects, most recently through an effort known as  Every Day Counts. However, it is too soon to determine the effect these  initiatives have had on highway project time frames.
subsections: section_title: States Have Implemented Streamlining Practices Spanning All Project Phases
paragraphs: Most states have made efforts to expedite projects with state DOTs  playing a key role in choosing the techniques that are used. In our survey  of state DOTs, we asked officials about initiatives they have undertaken  since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU to expedite the four phases of  highway projects. Most states—43—reported that they have implemented  at least 1 initiative, 4 states reported undertaking no initiatives, 3 states  did not respond for any phase, and 2 states reported no initiatives for  some phases and no response for other phases. According to the survey,  states most often implemented initiatives involving the preliminary design  and environmental review phase (39 states). Twenty-two states reported  implementing initiatives involving the planning phase, 15 states involving  the final design and right-of-way acquisition phase, and 19 states  involving the construction phase. We also asked officials about the  potential benefits that could be realized from the initiatives they had  undertaken. For each of the four phases of a highway project, time   Staff savings was  savings was the benefit most often cited by states.cited as a potential benefit by a majority of states for all phases except  construction, when it was cited as a potential benefit by 39 percent of the  states (7 of 18 states) responding. Increased number of projects  completed was cited as a benefit by a majority of officials responding for  all phases except construction, where it was cited as a potential benefit  by half of the states responding (9 of 18).
State DOTs reported implementing a variety of types of initiatives to  expedite highway projects but generally not one type more than another.  In fact, only 4 of more than 30 initiatives were reported by 10 or more  states:
Linking Planning and Environmental Review. Twenty-three states  reported implementing steps that linked their planning and  environmental review processes. Using information collected in the  planning phase and carrying it through the environmental review  phase can minimize duplication of effort and reduce delays in project  implementation. For example, the North Carolina Department of  Transportation designed a project development process, implemented  in 1997, that promotes early involvement of state and federal  stakeholders. Each project must pass seven concurrence points that  cover aspects of project planning, environmental review, and  permitting. This process reduces permit processing times from years  to months, according to North Carolina Department of Transportation  officials.
Using Programmatic Agreements. Seventeen states reported  implementing programmatic agreements. These written documents  establish a process for consultation, review, and compliance with one  or more federal laws between one or more parties, such as a state  DOT and a resource agency. Programmatic agreements can help  reduce project time frames. For example, an agreement between the  Illinois Department of Transportation and FHWA created both a  procedure for negotiating project-specific time frames for completing  environmental reviews and completion time goals for EISs and EAs.  After processing five EISs and four EAs under the agreement, project  completion time was reduced by at least 2 years, according to a 2010  AASHTO report for FHWA. Some state DOTs have used  programmatic agreements for more than a decade, including at least  four states that have used programmatic agreements since the 1990s.  An agreement between the California Department of Transportation,  FHWA, and four resource agencies has been in place since 1991.
Using Design-Build Contracts. Eleven states reported implementing  design-build contracts. Again, design-build contracting combines the  responsibilities for designing and constructing a project in a single  contract instead of separating these responsibilities. Design-build  contracting can provide significant time savings compared with the  design-bid-build approach where design and construction phases  must take place in sequence, according to FHWA.
Using Other Nontraditional Construction Contracts. Eleven states  reported implementing other nontraditional construction contracts.  These included construction manager/general contractor contracts  and other nontraditional contract approaches such as cost plus time  bidding, lane rentals, and contractor completion incentives and  disincentives.
State DOTs also reported implementing several other highway project  streamlining initiatives, including use of electronic bidding, clarifying the  scope of preliminary design, linking the final design and right-of-way  acquisition phase with prior project development phases, as well as early  right-of-way purchases.
section_title: FHWA Is Sharing Practices Among States Though It Is Too Soon to Know the Outcome
paragraphs: FHWA is sharing information on methods to expedite highway projects  with state DOTs through an effort called Every Day Counts. This effort’s  goals are to shorten project time frames and accelerate use of technology  and innovation by convincing states to adopt proven, rapidly deployable  innovations. Many of these innovations were in use by some states  before they were selected for promotion through Every Day Counts: as  discussed earlier, for example, California’s 1991 programmatic  agreement or North Carolina’s 1997 project development process. FHWA  selected its Every Day Counts innovations through a process that  involved headquarters and division office staff, as well as outside  organizations such as AASHTO, Associated General Contractors, and the  American Road and Transportation Builders Association. Every Day  Counts was introduced at AASHTO meetings in spring 2010 and  subsequently promoted at 10 regional summits sponsored by FHWA and  AASHTO. Each state was asked to decide on specific initiatives it wanted  to pursue and develop a plan for implementing them during 2011 and  2012. States were also asked to create transportation innovation councils  to track attainment of goals. Under Every Day Counts, FHWA urged state  DOTs to consider use of 15 specific initiatives—10 designed to shorten  project time frames and 5 designed to accelerate technology deployment.  The Every Day Counts initiatives described below include 3 of the 4  initiatives that states have taken as described above. See table 3 for brief  descriptions of the initiatives in FHWA’s Every Day Counts effort for  implementation in 2011 and 2012 and appendix II for more detailed  information on those Every Day Counts initiatives. FHWA expects to  introduce a new set of initiatives in late 2012, to be implemented during  2013 and 2014, and intends that another series of initiatives will follow for  the period from 2015 to 2016. FHWA began, in October 2011, the  process of soliciting ideas for new initiatives to implement in 2013, saying  it would consider proposed initiatives based on factors such as  transportation system impact, readiness for deployment, affordability, and  urgency.
FHWA has developed performance measures for Every Day Counts that  are linked to U.S. DOT performance measures, but it is too soon to  determine the effect these initiatives have had on expediting highway  projects, according to an FHWA official. FHWA and other highway project  stakeholders developed one or two performance measures for each of  the Every Day Counts initiatives. For example, FHWA established the  following performance measure for the “Expanding Use of Programmatic  Agreements” under Every Day Counts: “FHWA will expand, revise, or  create 15 programmatic agreements at the state and regional scale by  December 30, 2011.” These performance measures support the overall  goals of the Every Day Counts effort, which the FHWA administrator has  stated are “to cut project delivery time in half and more quickly advance  innovation into daily practice.” The Every Day Counts performance  measures and goals that FHWA established are linked to a U.S. DOT  performance measure, an attribute of successful performance  measures. Specifically, since fiscal year 2010, U.S. DOT has had a  performance measure to streamline environmental review with a target of  48 months to complete an EIS for major transportation projects. U.S.  DOT noted in its fiscal year 2011 performance report that Every Day  Counts is an effort to help reduce project times. Every Day Counts  includes 13 specific initiatives to streamline time frames for all four  phases of highway projects, including the environmental review phase.  While FHWA has collected data to address the U.S. DOT target noted  above and data on the Every Day Counts initiatives, states have only had  about 1 year to implement the Every Day Counts initiatives and,  according to an FHWA official, it is too soon to tell if those initiatives have  had a positive effect on expediting the completion of highway projects.
For fiscal year 2011, FHWA reported that the median time to complete  EISs was 79 months (about 6.6 years). However, FHWA also reported  that 16 of the EISs completed during fiscal year 2011 were started before  August 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was enacted, and the median time to  complete those EISs was 110 months (about 9 years). For the 7  remaining EISs completed during 2011, the median time to completion  was 44 months (a little under 3.7 years). These data suggest that the full  impact of the Every Day Counts initiatives on the time to complete EISs  may not be discernable for several years, if ever, due to a number of  reasons. Such reasons could include (1) the lengthy time frames needed  to adopt complex initiatives such as linking planning and environmental  review or compensatory mitigation, (2) the possibility of EISs being  completed which had started before SAFETEA-LU was enacted or Every  Day Counts began, or (3) the impact of the SAFETEA-LU provisions  discussed above that were also meant to expedite highway projects.
FHWA’s efforts to share promising practices depend on the willingness of  state DOTs to adopt them. Each state has identified Every Day Counts  initiatives to use, according to an FHWA report. An FHWA headquarters  official provided the following examples of Every Day Counts initiatives  that have achieved wide acceptance:
States have, since the introduction of Every Day Counts, generated  56 new programmatic agreements, far more than the Every Day  Counts goal of 15 programmatic agreements by December 2011.
Nearly all states are using warm mix asphalt. Interest in the product  increased after FHWA promoted it as an Every Day Counts initiative.
Over 40 states are using prefabricated bridge elements. They report  working on 663 bridges, far more than the Every Day Counts goal of  designing or building 100 bridges by December 2012.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Completing major highway projects involves a complex process that  depends on a wide range of stakeholders conducting many tasks. The  long time frames to complete highway projects are often caused by  factors outside the control of state DOTs, such as a lack of available  funds, changes in a state’s transportation priorities, or litigation. These  factors can be project specific and may not be controllable by legislation,  or by federal or state initiatives.
The SAFETEA-LU provisions meant to help expedite highway projects  are generally viewed by state DOTs as having the potential to save time.  However, given that state DOTs noted in our survey that there are other  solutions outside of the SAFETEA-LU provisions that better serve their  needs and are within their authority to implement, it is unlikely that state  DOTs will greatly increase their participation in some of the SAFETEA-LU  provisions we analyzed, particularly those that delegate environmental  review decision-making authority from FHWA to state DOTs and require  the state to accept federal court jurisdiction for such decisions.  Regardless, keeping these provisions in law would continue to give state  DOTs the ability to pursue these provisions should they later choose to do  so.
FHWA’s Every Day Counts effort offers a structured approach to  collecting and sharing information with state DOTs to help expedite  highway projects. FHWA’s continued efforts to (1) track the progress of  Every Day Counts using the performance measures it developed for each  initiative and (2) use Every Day Counts as a way to keep introducing new  initiatives for trial and adoption by state DOTs can help to ensure that  promising practices are developed and shared among states.  Additionally, use of the Every Day Counts effort could help U.S. DOT as it  attempts to meet its performance measure to streamline environmental  review.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided U.S. DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment.  U.S. DOT provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees; the Secretary of Transportation; the  Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; and other interested  parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our work for this report was focused on federal-aid highway projects and  efforts to expedite those projects. In particular, this report addresses the  following questions: (1) What is the process for planning, designing, and  constructing federally funded highway projects, and what factors could  affect project time frames? (2) What are state departments of  transportation (DOT) views on the benefits and challenges of  implementing initiatives to expedite highway projects established by the  Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy  for Users (SAFETEA-LU)? (3) What practices have state DOTs and the  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) implemented to expedite  highway projects?
To describe the process for completing highway projects, as well as the  factors that could affect project time frames, we reviewed and analyzed  relevant legislation—particularly SAFETEA-LU—regulations,  congressional hearing statements, and relevant reports and other  publications. We also conducted a number of interviews in six states to  collect information on practices involved in completing highway projects,  as well as factors that could affect project time frames (see table 4). We  chose these six states using several criteria, including participation in the  environmental review delegation programs established under SAFETEA- LU (i.e., the Categorical Exclusion Approval Authority and the NEPA  Approval Authority provisions), number of active and inactive  environmental impact statements, amount of federal highway funding  received in fiscal year 2011, and geographic location within the United  States. The six states we chose to interview were Alaska, California,  Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah. In each state, we  interviewed the FHWA division office and the state DOT. To obtain more  detailed information on processes to complete highway projects—but to  minimize the burden on interviewees and in the interest of time—we  interviewed regional offices of key resource agencies in two of the six  states we selected: California and North Carolina. We chose these  states based on geographic diversity, as well as previously conducted  fieldwork. We selected six resource agencies to interview, as they were  often cited in our preliminary review of reports, publications, and other  documents, as well as in early interviews with state DOTs. The resource  agencies we interviewed were: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.  Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and state historic  preservation offices. There are potentially other federal—as well as state,  local, and tribal—agencies that could have been interviewed, but we  chose to limit our scope to these six federal agencies. These interviews  are not generalizable to all states. Furthermore, for this report, we  focused only on federal-aid highways and not other types of highways.
To identify state DOT perspectives on the benefits and challenges  associated with implementing provisions meant to help expedite highway  projects established in SAFETEA-LU, we (1) reviewed information  obtained in the above mentioned interviews and (2) conducted a survey  of state DOTs. To conduct this survey, we identified key provisions within  SAFETEA-LU that we felt were meant to expedite highway projects based  on our review of the legislation, analysis of relevant reports, and  interviews with highway project stakeholders. We then developed a draft  survey to gather state DOTs’ perspectives on the benefits and challenges  associated with these SAFETEA-LU provisions. We selected five states in  which to conduct pretests: California, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Utah, and  Washington. In each pretest, we provided a state DOT official with a copy  of our draft survey, asked them to complete it, and then contacted them  after 1 hour to discuss the clarity of each question. Through this method,  we were able to refine the questions and closed-ended responses in our  survey. After the five pretests were completed, we provided a draft copy  of the survey to FHWA and AASHTO for their review and comment. Both  organizations provided technical comments that we incorporated, as  appropriate. Using our professional judgment based on early interviews  with highway project stakeholders and our pretests, we determined that  the survey should be sent to environmental officials at the state DOTs.  However, because the survey considered other aspects of highway  projects—for example planning, right-of-way acquisition, and  construction—language was included in our transmittal e-mails and in the  introduction of the survey to indicate that the state DOT official receiving  our survey should consult with his or her colleagues when completing it.  We felt that it would be far more cumbersome for respondents, and  potentially less reliable, if we were to develop and transmit separate  surveys for each highway project phase—that is, individual surveys that  covered planning, preliminary design and environmental review, final  design and right-of-way acquisition, and construction. Thus, one survey  was developed and respondents were asked to share it and consult with  colleagues when providing responses. We used lists of environmental  officials at the state DOTs that were compiled by AASHTO and the  Transportation Research Board to determine the relevant survey  respondents. The full universe for this survey was 52 state DOTs: all  states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We took steps, such as  sending early notification e-mails, to help ensure that the list of  respondents we created was accurate. We launched our survey on  November 30, 2011. We sent e-mail reminders and telephoned survey  respondents who had not completed the survey, urging them to do so as  soon as possible. We eventually received responses from all 52 state  DOTs. We reviewed these responses for inaccuracies or omissions,  analyzed the data, and have presented the key findings in this report. The  survey and its responses—with the exception of open-ended responses  or other identifying information—is reproduced in our e-supplement for  this report: see GAO-12-637SP.
While all state DOTs were included in our survey and, therefore, our data  are not subject to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting  any survey may introduce nonsampling errors. For example, differences  in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of information  available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond to a  question can introduce errors into the survey results. We included steps  in both the data collection and data analysis stages to minimize such  nonsampling errors. We collaborated with GAO survey specialists to  design draft questionnaires and, as previously noted, versions of the  questionnaire were pretested, revised, and sent to FHWA and AASHTO  for review and comment. We examined the survey results and performed  computer analyses to identify inconsistencies and other indications of  error and addressed such issues, where possible. A second, independent  analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses to minimize the  likelihood of errors in data processing. In addition, GAO analysts  answered respondent questions and resolved difficulties that respondents  had in answering our questions.
To describe the practices state DOTs have implemented on their own to  help expedite highway projects, we included a series of questions in our  survey of state DOTs asking respondents to identify practices they have  implemented in each highway project phase: planning, preliminary design  and environmental review, final design and right-of-way acquisition, and  construction. State DOTs provided these responses in open-ended  questions, which we analyzed. The practices we identified in this report  were those that were cited most frequently by survey respondents. To  collect additional information on efforts both state DOTs and FHWA have  implemented to help expedite highway projects, we reviewed and  analyzed information obtained during the interviews with FHWA (both  headquarters and division offices), state DOTs, and resource agencies.
section_title: Appendix II: Initiatives in the Federal Highway Administration’s Every Day Counts Effort
paragraphs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is sharing information on  methods to expedite highway projects with state departments of  transportation (DOT) through an effort called Every Day Counts. This  effort’s goals are to shorten project time frames and accelerate  technology and innovation by convincing states to adopt proven, rapidly  deployable innovations. Under Every Day Counts, FHWA urged state  DOTs to consider use of 15 specific initiatives. Every Day Counts  promoted the following 10 initiatives to shorten project time frames:
Linking planning and environmental review. This initiative promotes  use of planning documents and decisions from the project planning  process in the environmental review process. It takes environmental,  community, and economic information collected early in the planning  stage and carries it through project development, design, and  construction. This can lead to decision making that minimizes  duplication of effort, promotes environmental stewardship, and  reduces delays in project implementation.
Early consultation with FHWA environmental attorneys. Decisions  made early in planning and project development are often the root  causes of problems identified later in the environmental review  process when National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and  Section 4(f) documents undergo legal scrutiny. Consulting with FHWA  environmental attorneys at early decision points can help decision  makers avoid problems later, saving time and costs.
Expanded use of programmatic agreements. A programmatic  agreement is a document that formally spells out the terms of an  agreement between a state DOT and other state and/or federal  agencies. A programmatic agreement establishes a process for  consultation, review, and compliance with one or more federal laws.  According to FHWA, programmatic agreements have been effective in  producing time savings for completing highway projects.
Compensatory mitigation. The federal Clean Water Act requires  compensatory mitigation for projects that cause unavoidable impacts  to streams, wetlands, and other waters of the United States. Mitigation  for federally protected species may also be required through the  Endangered Species Act. Some state laws and regulations also  require compensatory mitigation. The permitting process under  Section 404 of the Clean Water Act constitutes a major component of  the project development and completion process. This initiative  proposes expanded use of in-lieu fees and mitigation banking in order   to save time and expedite highway projects. See table 5 for information  on these compensatory mitigation approaches. Some states have never  used mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs, while others use them for  the majority of their mitigation needs.
Clarifying scope of preliminary design. Some consider preliminary  design to involve only the activities needed to make a NEPA  determination; they view everything else as final design activities. This  cautious approach delays highway projects because it postpones  essential planning until it is too late to be effective. States have the  flexibility to pursue many design activities not required for a NEPA  determination under preliminary design. When performed concurrently  with the NEPA process, these activities can expedite projects without  affecting eligibility for federal aid. For example, states can perform soil  borings, preliminary traffic control plans, and grading plans.
Allowable right-of-way acquisition streamlining. Before building a  highway project, land and property must be acquired by federal, state,  and local agencies through right-of-way practices and procedures.  Instead of sequentially, these agencies may move elements of a  project through the right-of-way process concurrently. This can  significantly shorten the highway project development process. To  save time, agencies can use these process flexibilities including appraisal waiver valuations,  incentive payments to advance acquisition and relocation, or appraisals and negotiations of property acquisition (up to $10,000)  by the same individual.
Effective coordination for utility relocation. Approximately half of all  highway and bridge projects eligible for federal funding require the  relocation or adjustments to accommodate utilities. Gas lines, water  lines, waste plumbing, electrical wires, telephone lines, and other  wiring are often affected by highway and bridge projects. Flexibilities  in place under federal law and regulations foster effective utility  coordination during project development by determining the best strategy for physically relocating utilities documenting the terms and considerations for accomplishing  utility relocation activities, and financing the work in an effective and timely manner.
FHWA technical assistance for stalled projects. This initiative focuses  on new projects wherein problems are anticipated with conducting an  effective project development process, or for “ongoing EISs” where 60  months or more have elapsed since the publishing of the project’s  notice of intent and no record of decision has been issued. FHWA  technical assistance teams will resolve many issues that would  otherwise hold up the NEPA review or otherwise delay a project’s  progress. FHWA subject matter experts can help resolve resource- specific issues concerning wetlands, endangered species, and  cultural resources.
Use of design-build contracts. Traditionally, a project is designed, put  out for bid to construction firms, then built by the winning bidder  (design-bid-build). As discussed above, design-build is an alternate  contracting method in which the design and construction phases are  combined into one contract, eliminating the separate bid phase and  allowing certain aspects of design and construction to take place at  the same time. This can provide significant time savings compared  with the design-bid-build approach, where the design and construction  phases must take place in sequence.
Use of construction manager/general contractor contracts. In a  construction manager/general contractor project, typically, the owners  of a project are able to hire a general contractor early in the design  phase so that the state may benefit from the contractor’s  constructability input as the design develops. This contract type allows  state DOTs to remain active in the design process while assigning  risks to the parties most able to mitigate them. This can save time  because a number of activities can be undertaken concurrently.  FHWA allows this type of contract only on a trial basis because  approval is necessary for any nontraditional construction contracting  technique that deviates from the competitive bidding provisions in  Section 112 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code.
FHWA promoted five tools to accelerate use of innovative technology,  including three that can shorten the time needed to complete highway  projects:
Warm mix asphalt paving. Warm mix asphalt is the generic term for  technologies that allow asphalt to be produced and then placed on the  road at lower temperatures than the conventional hot-mix method. In  most cases, the lower temperatures result in significant cost savings  and reduce greenhouse gas emissions because less fuel is required.  Warm mix asphalt also has the potential to extend the construction  season, allowing projects to be completed faster.
Prefabricated bridge elements. Use of prefabricated bridge elements  means that many time-consuming construction tasks no longer need  to be done sequentially in work zones. An old bridge can be  demolished while the new bridge elements are built at the same time  off-site, then brought to the project location ready to erect. Because  the bridge elements are usually fabricated under controlled climate  conditions, weather has less impact on the quality, safety, and  duration of the project. The use of prefabricated bridge elements also  offers cost savings. The ability to rapidly install prefabricated bridge  elements on-site can reduce the environmental impact of bridge  construction in environmentally sensitive areas. See a photograph of  prefabricated bridge elements being assembled in figure 3.
Integrated bridge support technology. Instead of conventional bridge  support technology, an innovative bridge system technology uses  alternating layers of compacted granular fill material and fabric  reinforcement sheets to provide support for the bridge (see fig. 4). The  technology, known as geosynthetic reinforced soil technology, offers  advantages in the construction of small bridges, including the  following: reduced construction time and cost, ease of construction with common equipment and materials, ease of maintenance, and  flexible design that is easily modified in the field for unforeseen  site conditions.  time in completing a highway project, is a simple but effective solution  that can help save lives by allowing drivers who stray off highways to  return to the road safely. Instead of a vertical drop-off, the Safety  Edge shapes the edge of the pavement to 30 degrees—the optimal  angle to allow drivers to reenter the roadway safely. FHWA’s goal is to  accelerate the use of the Safety Edge technology, working with states  to develop specifications and adopt this pavement edge treatment as  a standard practice on all new and resurfacing pavement projects.
Adaptive signal control technology. Poor traffic signal timing  contributes to traffic congestion and delay. Conventional signal  systems use preprogrammed, daily signal timing schedules. Adaptive  signal control technology adjusts the timing of red, yellow and green  lights to accommodate changing traffic patterns and ease traffic  congestion. Though not designed to save time in completing a  highway project, the main benefits of adaptive signal control  technology over conventional signal systems are that it can continuously distribute green light time equitably for all traffic  movements, improve travel time reliability by progressively moving vehicles  through green lights, reduce congestion by creating smoother flow, and prolong the effectiveness of traffic signal timing.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Sara Vermillion (Assistant  Director); Richard Bulman; Russell Burnett; Richard Calhoon; Steven  Elstein; Lorraine Ettaro; Kathleen Gilhooly; Phillip Herr; Richard Johnson;  Hannah Laufe; Faye Morrison; Joshua Ormond; Daniel Paepke; and Amy  Rosewarne made key contributions to this report.