Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to Transition to Performance-Based Planning and Federal Oversight
Published: 2010-12-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Through the statewide transportation planning process, states decide how to spend federal transportation funds--almost $46 billion in fiscal year 2009. Draft legislation to reauthorize federal surface transportation legislation would, among other things, revise planning requirements to recognize states' use of rural planning organizations (RPO) and require performance measurement. As requested, GAO examined (1) states' planning activities and RPOs' satisfaction that rural needs are considered, (2) states' planning challenges, (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) approach to overseeing statewide planning, and (4) states' use of performance measurement and opportunities to make statewide planning more performance based. GAO analyzed planning documents; surveyed departments of transportation in 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., and 569 RPOs; interviewed officials in 6 states; and held an expert panel on performance-based planning.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: States conduct a variety of long- and short-range planning activities, and the majority of RPOs surveyed reported being generally satisfied that rural needs are considered. To develop required long-range statewide transportation plans (long-range plans), states conduct research activities, such as inventorying assets and modeling traffic. While the resulting plans generally include some performance elements, such as goals, many plans do not include performance targets. Such targets are not required, but prior GAO work shows that targets are useful tools to indicate progress toward achieving goals. To develop required short-range plans--state transportation improvement programs (STIP)--states assess needs and determine funding allocations. However, in selecting projects, states assigned greater importance to factors such as political and public support than to economic analysis of project benefits and costs. While the majority of surveyed RPOs reported being satisfied that their rural needs were considered, some RPOs reported less satisfaction with their role in allocating funds for rural areas. States commonly cited insufficient or uncertain funding to implement transportation projects among the primary challenges to long- and short-range planning. States also reported that involving the public and addressing transportation data limitations were significant long-range planning challenges. Short-range planning challenges included meeting federal requirements to demonstrate the availability of sufficient project funding and to update the STIP to reflect changes. USDOT has a limited role in the oversight of long-range plans, and pursuant to federal law, its STIP oversight focuses on states' compliance with procedures. Furthermore, USDOT is not required to review long-range plans, states are not required to update them on a schedule, and some states reported infrequent updates. For example, 10 states reported not updating plans since the most recent surface transportation authorization in 2005. Limited USDOT oversight and infrequent updates present risks, including the ineffective use of federal planning funds. For the STIP, USDOT's oversight focuses, as required, on states' compliance with federal planning procedures. Information on whether states achieve outcomes such as reducing congestion is limited. While states are not required to set performance outcomes in planning, most states reported using performance measurement in the areas of safety and asset condition. Several challenges limit broader use of performance measures, including identifying indicators for qualitative measures such as livability and collecting data across transportation modes. Through our expert panel and interviews, we identified several elements that could improve states' use of performance measures, including national goals, federal and state collaboration on developing performance measures, appropriate targets, and revised federal oversight focusing on monitoring states' progress in meeting outcomes. To make statewide planning more performance based, Congress should consider requiring states to update their long-range plans on a prescribed schedule, identifying outcomes for statewide planning and directing USDOT to assess states' progress in achieving them, and requiring USDOT and states to collaboratively develop performance measures. USDOT provided technical comments which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The statewide transportation planning process, administered through each  state’s department of transportation (state DOT), is the forum through  which states decide how to spend significant amounts of federal surface  transportation funds. In fiscal year 2009, the U.S. Department of  Transportation (USDOT) apportioned almost $46 billion to states and  urbanized areas for highway and transit projects to be developed through  the statewide transportation planning process. This amount included  almost $36 billion for highway infrastructure projects through the Federal  Highway Administration (FHWA) and approximately $10 billion in transit  grants to urbanized areas and states through the Federal Transit  Administration (FTA). The statewide transportation planning process is  informed by transportation planning performed by metropolitan planning  organizations (MPO) that lead transportation planning in urbanized  areas—geographic areas with a population of 50,000 or more. Although  states must comply with federal planning requirements administered  jointly by FHWA and FTA, states have considerable discretion to allocate  federal funds and select projects. We recently reported that in fiscal years  2007 and 2008, all states received more federal funding for highway  programs than users contributed to the Highway Account of the Highway  Trust Fund, the primary source of federal highway and transit funds. At  the same time, estimates of the costs to repair or upgrade aging  transportation infrastructure—as well as expand capacity to meet  increased demand—top hundreds of billions of dollars. Hence, decisions  made in the statewide transportation planning process are critical to  ensuring that limited federal transportation funds are spent wisely and  deliver intended results.
Funding for federal surface transportation programs, including statewide  transportation planning, is authorized under the Safe, Accountable,  Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users  (SAFETEA-LU), which expired in September 2009. The Surface  Transportation Extension Act of 2010 extended the funding authorization  for SAFETEA-LU programs through December 31, 2010. Congress is  currently developing legislation for a new surface transportation  authorization. In recent years, we have asked Congress to consider  refocusing surface transportation programs to make them more  performance based. In 2009, the House Committee on Transportation and  Infrastructure issued draft legislation to reauthorize surface transportation  programs that proposes moving statewide transportation planning toward  a more performance-based framework. The draft legislation would also  recognize state-designated rural planning organizations (RPO)—planning  bodies representing areas with a population of less than 50,000 people— and direct states to coordinate with such organizations in the statewide  transportation planning process. To help inform congressional efforts, you  asked us to provide information on current statewide transportation  planning activities, challenges, and oversight. Accordingly, we examined    planning activities conducted by state DOTs and the extent to which RPOs  are satisfied that rural needs are considered in statewide planning,   challenges encountered by state DOTs in carrying out planning    FHWA’s and FTA’s approach to overseeing statewide transportation  planning, and  the extent to which state DOTs are using performance measurement for  planning and opportunities to make statewide planning more performance  based.
To gather information for addressing all these issues, we reviewed and  analyzed federal and state planning documents and applicable laws and  regulations, and surveyed state DOTs in all 50 states, the District of  Columbia, and Puerto Rico, receiving responses from 100 percent of those  surveyed. We also interviewed federal, state, and local planning officials  in Louisiana, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington state, and West  Virginia. These states were selected to obtain a diverse mix of planning  contexts based on geography, percentage of the population covered by  MPOs, and stakeholder recommendations, among other factors. To  determine the extent to which RPOs are satisfied that rural needs are  considered in statewide planning, we surveyed 569 regional planning and  development organizations in the 50 states to identify those organizations  that coordinate or conduct surface transportation planning in  nonmetropolitan areas, referred to as RPOs in this report. We received  responses from 409 organizations, or 72 percent of those surveyed. To  describe FHWA’s and FTA’s approach to overseeing statewide  transportation planning, we reviewed FHWA and FTA documents and  interviewed officials at USDOT headquarters, six FHWA division offices,  and four FTA regional offices. To identify opportunities to make statewide  planning more performance based, we convened a panel of transportation  planning experts through the National Academy of Sciences, and we  interviewed transportation planning stakeholders.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through  December 2010 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. See appendix I for  more detailed information on our scope and methodology and appendix II  for additional information on the results of our RPO survey. In addition,  see the electronic supplement to this report—GAO-11-78SP—for a  complete list of frequencies for questions from both surveys.
We provided a copy of this report to USDOT for review and comment.  USDOT officials provided technical comments which we incorporated into  the report, as appropriate.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Each state, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, is required  to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive statewide  transportation planning process. The statewide transportation planning  process addresses both urbanized and nonmetropolitan areas of the state  and includes both highway and transit needs. For urbanized areas with a  population of 50,000 or more, state DOTs must coordinate planning  activities with MPOs—federally recognized and funded organizations  representing local governments that lead transportation planning activities  in metropolitan areas. To receive federal transportation funding, any  project in an urbanized area must emerge from the relevant MPO and state  DOT planning process. For nonmetropolitan areas not covered by an MPO,  states must consult with and provide opportunities for local officials to  participate in statewide planning. Some states choose to fulfill this  requirement by consulting with RPOs, which are typically voluntary  planning organizations that serve as a forum for local officials to develop  consensus on regional transportation priorities. In some cases, RPOs may  serve a wide geographic area comprising multiple rural counties whose  combined population may greatly exceed 50,000. States without RPOs may  consult directly with nonmetropolitan local officials with responsibility for  transportation planning to fulfill their consultation requirements.
To meet federal planning requirements, states must develop a long-range  statewide transportation plan and a state transportation improvement  program (STIP) (see fig. 1). The long-range statewide transportation plan  establishes a state’s strategic vision and direction for its transportation  investments for at least a 20-year period. This plan may vary in content  from state to state, from a broad, policy-oriented document to a document  containing specific project information. However, the plan must provide  for the development and implementation of a multimodal transportation  system for all areas of the state, and for public comment before it is  published. Currently, there are no requirements for the long-range  statewide transportation plan to include specific project information, a  financial plan demonstrating how the plan is to be funded and  implemented, performance measures for achieving goals, or a regularly  updated schedule, and the state is not required to obtain federal approval  for the plan. The STIP 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 or FTA, whether or not federally funded.  Each project must be consistent with the long-range statewide  transportation plan and approved long-range metropolitan transportation  plans. The STIP must be fiscally constrained, meaning it shall include a  project, or an identified phase of a project, only if full funding can  reasonably be anticipated within the time period contemplated for  completion of the project. Although federal planning statutes and  regulations do not define specific national goals or outcomes that states  should address in their planning documents, the statewide planning  process must provide for the consideration and implementation of specific  statutorily defined planning factors in developing both the long-range  statewide transportation plan and the STIP, which include economic  vitality, safety and security, accessibility and mobility, protecting and  enhancing the environment, and promoting energy conservation, among  others.
MPOs are also required to produce a long-range transportation plan,  referred to as a metropolitan transportation plan, and a transportation  improvement program (TIP). The metropolitan transportation plan spans  at least 20 years and includes long- and short-range strategies and actions  to ensure an effective, integrated multimodal transportation system. The  TIP spans at least 4 years and includes all projects in the MPO’s  jurisdiction that are to receive federal surface transportation funding or  that are of regional significance. The TIP must, at a minimum, be updated  every 4 years, and the metropolitan transportation plan must be updated  every 4 or 5 years. Both the TIP and the metropolitan transportation plan  must be fiscally constrained. In addition, MPOs serving urbanized areas  with a population of more than 200,000 are required to develop a  congestion management process that identifies actions and strategies to  reduce congestion. States participate in the metropolitan planning process  by, for example, reviewing and approving the MPO’s TIP. If the state  approves the TIP, the state must incorporate it, without change, into the  STIP.
At least every 4 years, state DOTs are required to submit an updated STIP  to FHWA and FTA for review and approval, in which the state certifies that  the transportation planning process has been carried out in accordance  with federal planning requirements. FHWA and FTA must review each  state DOT’s STIP and make a joint finding on the extent to which the STIP  is based on a planning process that meets or substantially meets the  federal planning requirements, including but not limited to whether the  state has demonstrated fiscal constraint in the STIP, used a documented  process for involving the public and consulting with nonmetropolitan local  officials, and included MPO TIP projects in the STIP. USDOT is not  required to review or approve long-range statewide transportation plans,  but states must provide copies of any new or amended plans to USDOT for  informational purposes.
The Federal-Aid Highway Program is administered through a federal-state  partnership. State and local governments execute the programs by  matching and distributing federal funds; planning, selecting, and  supervising projects; and complying with federal requirements. FHWA,  through its division office in each state, delivers technical expertise and  fulfills oversight functions. Federal transit programs are generally  administered through a federal-local partnership, although rural programs  are administered at the state level. FTA, through its headquarters and 10  regional offices, provides financial assistance, establishes requirements,  performs oversight, and conducts research. Grant recipients such as local  transit agencies are responsible for matching federal funds and for  planning, selecting, and executing projects while complying with federal  requirements.
In supporting the statewide transportation planning process, FHWA  provides states with the bulk of the federal funding for planning and  research (see fig. 2). Through its State Planning and Research (SPR)  program, FHWA provides sums equal to 2 percent of each state’s formula  apportionment for several Federal-Aid Highway programs. In fiscal year  2009, FHWA provided states with a total of more than $680 million in SPR  funds. FHWA regulations give states significant flexibility in applying SPR  funds for planning—as long as FHWA has determined that the state has  collected data that FHWA requires on the performance, condition, and use  of the nation’s transportation systems, including the condition of road and  pavement surfaces. These data are collected through FHWA’s Highway  Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and they constitute some of the  performance data that states collect on the condition of their public  roads. A state may apply up to 75 percent of its annual SPR allocation to  activities of its choosing to support long- and short-range planning  requirements, but generally must expend no less than 25 percent of its  annual SPR funds on research, development, and technology transfer  activities. State DOTs may apply their SPR funds to in-house planning  activities or allocate amounts to support the planning activities of MPOs,  RPOs, or other planning partners. States must document activities  proposed to be accomplished with SPR funds, and FHWA must approve  these activities. FTA apportions planning funds to states through its State  Planning and Research Program (SPRP). As with their SPR funds, states  may authorize some of their SPRP assistance to support the planning  activities of MPOs, local governments, or other planning organizations.  State DOTs are encouraged to provide FTA with an SPRP work program in  their SPRP grant applications.
In recent years, we have recommended that federal transportation  programs be based on well-defined goals and that planning be more  performance based and better linked to outcomes. We have previously  reported that, for many surface transportation programs, goals are  numerous and conflicting and federal oversight of these programs has no  relationship to the performance of either the transportation system or of  the grantees receiving federal funds. Performance measurement, a  central component of performance-based planning, is the ongoing  monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments. As our prior work  has shown, measuring performance allows organizations to track the  progress they are making toward their goals and gives managers crucial  information on which to base their organizational and management  decisions. Recently, we asked Congress to consider making federal and  metropolitan transportation programs more performance based by  requiring MPOs to identify specific transportation planning outcomes and  requiring DOT to assess MPOs’ progress in achieving these outcomes  through a certification review process. Draft legislation authorizing  surface transportation programs would require USDOT to set  transportation planning performance measures for MPOs and require  MPOs to develop performance targets to meet those measures. In  addition, we have recommended that FHWA link its activities and staff  expectations to its oversight goals and measures and to develop an overall  plan for its oversight activities tied to goals and measures.
section_title: State DOTs Conduct a Variety of Long- and Short-Range Planning Activities, and Surveyed RPOs Are Generally Satisfied Their Needs Are Considered
subsections: section_title: State DOTs Conduct Several Research Activities to Develop Long-Range Plans, but Many Plans Do Not Include Performance Elements and Project- Specific Information
paragraphs: Through our survey and interviews, we found that state DOTs commonly  conduct several research activities in developing their long-range  statewide transportation plans, including developing inventories and  reviewing existing transportation assets, conducting corridor studies, and  using transportation demand models. In addition, most state DOTs  reported that their long-range statewide transportation plans include some  performance-based planning elements, such as broad goals and objectives  for the state’s transportation system, but most state DOTs reported that  their plans do not include other key elements, such as quantitative  performance targets and project and cost information.
subsections: section_title: Long-Range Planning Research Activities
paragraphs: Developing inventories and reviewing existing transportation  assets. Forty-six state DOTs reported that they inventoried major  elements of their existing transportation system, such as interstate  highways and bridges, and 34 state DOTs reported that they reviewed the  condition of existing assets to determine those with the greatest need.  USDOT officials and transportation stakeholders told us that many state  DOTs have focused their statewide long-range planning efforts on  maintaining the condition and operation of their existing assets. States  must collect pavement condition and other data and annually report these  data to FHWA’s HPMS program, generally using SPR funds to pay for the  data collection. States must also inspect and report on the condition of  their bridges, generally every 2 years, through FHWA’s National Bridge  Inspection Program. As we previously reported, many states use bridge  management systems for gathering and analyzing data on bridge  conditions, such as structural adequacy and safety. These systems help  states manage their bridge assets and more efficiently allocate limited  resources among competing priorities. For example, Pennsylvania DOT  (PennDOT) and Montana DOT (MDOT) maintain road and bridge  management systems to track the condition of pavement surfaces and the  structural sufficiency of bridges.  MDOT reported that information  generated by these systems is used to track the actual performance of the  highway system after investments are implemented, to show progress in  meeting long-range goals.
Conducting corridor studies. In our survey, 34 state DOTs reported  conducting regional and statewide corridor studies for the statewide  planning process. Through corridor studies, state DOTs can focus their  research on roadways with critical importance by monitoring variables  such as traffic flow and congestion, trip time, and crash and safety data.  Federal planning regulations encourage states to consider strategies to  address corridors where congestion threatens the efficient functioning of  the state’s transportation system. For example, officials with Colorado  DOT reported that its long-range plan is corridor-based, in that the state  worked with MPOs and RPOs across the state to define a vision for each of  the 350 corridor segments in the state and to establish need categories for  each corridor that consider financial abilities and limitations.
Using transportation demand models. In our survey, 29 state DOTs  reported using a statewide transportation demand model, also known as a  travel demand model, and about half of all state DOTs reported using such  models to develop scenarios to inform their long-range statewide  transportation plan. Used to forecast future travel demand, the models  provide planners with important information on how population growth  and proposed investments could affect the operation of the transportation  system. Such models, however, are complex and require extensive  technical capacity and current information on roadway and transit system  characteristics and operations, as well as current and projected  demographic information. According to stakeholders that we interviewed,  some states do not have sufficient data to produce travel demand models  that can be used to forecast future transportation needs across the state.  Some of the highway performance data that states collect through FHWA’s  HPMS program could be useful for travel demand modeling—including  data on population and land area, the number of vehicle miles traveled on  some public roads, and the percentage of vehicle miles traveled by various  vehicle types. Officials from one MPO we interviewed reported that  statewide travel demand modeling is less valuable than such modeling in  MPO areas, where congestion is a greater concern. To address modeling  and other technical aspects of planning, the vast majority of state DOTs  (45) reported that they procured contractor services in developing their  statewide long-range plans.
section_title: Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan Elements
paragraphs: Nearly all state DOTs reported including broad goals and objectives in  their long-range statewide transportation plans, but, according to our  survey, many plans do not include quantitative performance targets and  project-specific information, such as fiscally constrained financial plans,  project lists, and cost estimates (see fig. 3). Although federal statutes or  planning regulations do not require states to include quantitative  performance targets in their long-range statewide transportation plans,  some states reported including them, and we have previously reported that  similar targets should be included in similar strategic plans developed by  federal agencies. In addition, project-specific information is not required  to be included in long-range statewide transportation plans, although some  states provide these elements in their plans.
Broad goals and objectives. All 52 state DOTs reported including broad  state transportation goals, and nearly all (50) reported including objectives  in their long-range statewide transportation plans. According to USDOT,  goals represent the desired outcomes for the transportation system as a  whole, and objectives are specific, measurable statements that identify  what is to be accomplished in order to attain the goals. Such goals and  objectives in long-range statewide transportation plans should lead to  strategies and investments that support the attainment of objectives.  Federal planning regulations do not establish specific national goals or  desired outcomes for states to address in their long-range statewide  transportation plans, although states must consider specific statutorily  defined planning factors in their planning process.
Quantitative performance targets. Fewer state DOTs (18) reported  including quantitative performance targets to measure progress in  achieving state transportation goals. Although quantitative performance  targets are not federally required for long-range statewide transportation  plans, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)  requires federal agencies in their strategic plans to develop performance  goals that are objective, quantifiable, and measurable, and to establish  performance measures that adequately indicate progress toward achieving  those goals. Our guidance to federal agencies developing GPRA-required  annual performance plans states that an agency’s performance goals and  measures usually should include a quantifiable, numerical target level or  other measurable value. Although not required, performance targets  within long-range statewide transportation plans could provide a  performance standard by which the state DOT can demonstrate to the  public what effect its investment decisions are having on achieving the  goals established in the plan. Similarly, 13 state DOTs reported that their  long-range statewide transportation plan provides a method for the public  to track progress in implementing the plan. For example, PennDOT  publishes an annual implementation report that details actions for  achieving plan strategies and specific responsibilities and time lines for  implementing the plan.
Project-specific elements. The majority of state DOTs reported that  their long-range plans did not include project-specific information, such as  a financial plan describing how the plan would be funded, project lists, or  cost estimates. Specifically, fewer than half of all state DOTs (20) reported  that their most recent long-range statewide transportation plan included a  financial plan demonstrating fiscal constraint. According to federal  planning regulations, a financial plan demonstrates consistency between  reasonably available and projected sources of federal, state, local, and  private revenues and the costs of implementing proposed transportation  system improvements. Although state DOTs are not required to provide a  financial plan in the long-range statewide transportation plan, federal law  requires MPOs to provide this information in their long-range,  metropolitan transportation plan. Fewer state DOTs (13) reported that  they include in their long-range plan a list of specific projects to be  programmed, or cost estimates for those projects (12).
These survey results are consistent with the information provided by  USDOT officials and stakeholders that we interviewed, who told us that  many long-range statewide transportation plans are policy-based  documents that provide broad, general goals for the state, but do not  provide project-level information on how the state will achieve these  goals. Similarly, federal planning regulations permit long-range statewide  transportation plans to be comprised of policies, strategies, or both, but  not necessarily specific projects, over the minimum 20-year forecast  period. State DOT officials that we interviewed provided reasons for not  including project-specific information in their long-range statewide  transportation plan. For example, PennDOT officials reported that they do  not include such information because they do not want to duplicate or  override the projects included in metropolitan transportation plans where  such elements are required. USDOT officials reported that the decision  whether to provide project-specific information in long-range statewide  transportation plans offers trade-offs to states. For example, including  projects in long-range plans can provide a greater level of transparency  into the state’s project selection process; however the public may see  these plans as the final decision-making process, giving state DOTs less  flexibility to alter the plan in the future.
section_title: State DOTs Conduct Several Research and Funding Allocation Activities to Develop the STIP and Base Project Selection on a Range of Factors
paragraphs: In developing a STIP—the list of projects prioritized by the state to receive  federal funding over a 4-year period—state DOTs reported performing  several activities to assess transportation needs and determine funding  allocation amounts. After completing these activities, state DOTs reported  they base their selection of projects on a range of factors, including  funding availability and priorities established by the governor, as well as  political and public support for specific projects.
subsections: section_title: STIP Development Activities
paragraphs: Research to assess needs. State DOTs commonly reported assessing  their transportation needs by using available transportation data and by  meeting with local officials in state regions—activities that they also  reported performing in developing their long-range statewide  transportation plans. Forty-three state DOTs reported reviewing the  condition of existing transportation assets to identify those with the  greatest need, and the same number of state DOTs also reported meeting  with local officials in state regions to determine needs. For example,  MDOT officials reported that Montana uses a “Performance Programming  Process” to assess areas of need based on pavement, bridge, highway- safety and congestion data collected by the state. The planners use the  data to develop an optimal funding allocation program based on needs,  and district engineers, in consultation with local elected officials across  the state, nominate projects for inclusion in the STIP.
Allocating funding. Through our survey and interviews with state DOT  officials, we found that state DOTs used a combination of approaches to  determine how to allocate available funding across competing  transportation needs and state regions. For example, 47 state DOTs  reported allocating funding across different project types, such as bridge  or road maintenance, or transit projects. Forty state DOTs reported  allocating transportation funding across geographic regions based on  need, and 35 reported using predetermined formulas to allocate funding to  different regions in the state. Although formula allocations may help states  decide how to distribute funding across competing regions, we have  previously reported that the use of formulas to distribute federal highway  funds to states results in federal allocations that have only an indirect  relationship to needs and no relationship to performance or outcomes. In  some cases, state DOTs use formula allocations that consider needs to  distribute STIP funding. For example, PennDOT officials said that, as a  general rule, they attempt to allocate at least 80 percent of state and  federal transportation funding toward preservation and maintenance  activities, while applying much of that funding toward reducing the  number of structurally deficient bridges in the state. Within its bridge  program, PennDOT uses formulas to distribute federal and state funding to  planning regions based on the percentage of bridge deck area in the region  considered to be structurally deficient, with a goal of allocating 85 percent  of bridge money to improve structurally deficient bridges.
section_title: STIP Project Selection Factors
paragraphs: State DOTs reported that they select projects for inclusion in their STIP  based on a range of factors, but funding availability and political and  public support were of greater importance than the results of economic  analysis of a transportation project’s benefits. Economic analysis was one  of the factors that state DOTs cited less often as important in selecting  STIP projects (see fig. 4). In addition, state DOTs must incorporate the  approved TIPs of MPOs within the state, without change, into the STIP.
Funding availability. Nearly all state DOTs reported that the availability  of federal and state funds was of great or very great importance in  determining which projects to include in the STIP, as the amount of  funding that is available determines the number and scale of projects that  the state can undertake. As noted in our prior work, although  transportation revenues have, until recently, increased in nominal terms,  the federal and state motor fuel tax rates have not kept up with inflation;  and the purchasing power in real terms of revenues generated by federal  and state motor fuel taxes has been declining since 1990. Consequently,  state and regional transportation decision makers in recent years have  devoted more funding to highway investments that preserve, enhance, and  maintain existing infrastructure than to investments that add capacity.  Most state DOTs (46) also cited the availability of state or local funds to  match federal funds as being of great or very great importance in selecting  STIP projects. For example, West Virginia DOT (WVDOT) officials told us  that WVDOT is responsible for maintaining 92 percent of the road miles in  the state, and because many of the counties in the state are economically  distressed they are unable to provide a local match for local road  improvements.
Governor’s priorities and political and public support. About two- thirds (35) of state DOTs also identified the governor’s funding priorities  as a factor of great or very great importance in selecting transportation  projects. For example, Pennsylvania’s governor set a goal to reconstruct or  replace 1,145 bridges in the state by 2010, and PennDOT’s most recent  STIP indicates that in fiscal year 2009, PennDOT allocated almost half of  its STIP funding toward bridge projects. Other STIP project selection  factors that more than half of state DOTs cited as being of great or very  great importance were public (32) and political (30) support for specific  transportation projects. For example, in interviews with officials at  Washington state DOT, we learned that the state legislature increased  state gas tax revenues by 5 cents per gallon in 2003 and by 9.5 cents per  gallon over a 4-year period in 2005, raising about $11 billion for highway,  bridge, ferry, and other improvements. To help raise support for the tax  increases, state legislators needed to identify for voters the specific  projects to be funded with the tax revenues, and the legislature, with  assistance from the Washington state DOT, wrote the projects into the  state legislation.
Federal earmarks. The majority of state DOTs (27) also reported that  federal earmarks, also known as congressional directives, were of great or  very great importance in selecting STIP projects. In 2007, the USDOT  Inspector General reported that SAFETEA-LU included a total of 7,808  earmarks for fiscal year 2006 for FHWA and FTA programs, accounting for  just more than $8 billion. FHWA and FTA provide such funds through  grants to state and local agencies, which then must include the earmarked  projects in the STIP to be implemented. In prior work on the  administration of federal earmarks within USDOT and other federal  agencies, FHWA and FTA officials reported that earmarks can sometimes  displace higher priority projects with lower priority projects in order to  comply with these earmarks. In our review, FHWA officials in one  division office told us that some projects funded through federal earmarks  may circumvent the statewide planning process by funding projects that  are not state priorities. In addition, federal earmarks may provide only  partial or initial funding for a project, leaving the state and local  governments to obtain future funding to complete a project and cover  future maintenance costs.
Economic analysis. In our survey, we found that economic analysis was  one of the factors that state DOTs cited less often as important in selecting  STIP projects (see fig. 4). Eleven state DOTs reported that the results of  economic analyses of STIP projects—such as benefit-cost, cost- effectiveness, or economic-impact analysis—were of great or very great  importance in selecting projects. According to FHWA guidance,  economic analysis takes a long-term view of infrastructure performance  and costs and enables state DOTs to target scarce resources to the best  uses (those that maximize benefits to the public) and to account for their  decisions. In the planning process, economic analysis can be applied with  collected performance data to make project selection more performance  based by screening project alternatives based on expected performance  benefits—such as reductions in travel time—with expected costs for  implementing an alternative. In prior work, we found that state DOT  decisions about transportation investments are based on many things  besides the results of economic analysis of a project’s benefits and costs,  such as the availability of funding or public perception of a project.  Although federal planning regulations do not specify analytical tools to be  applied for evaluating project merits—nor do they require that the most  cost-beneficial projects be chosen—such analyses, when combined with  other selection factors, including needs expressed by the community and  local officials, can result in better-informed transportation investment  decision-making.
USDOT has taken steps in recent years to encourage states to conduct  economic analyses, including benefit-cost analysis, to plan for new  transportation investments. For example, the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated approximately $1.5 billion for  competitively awarded surface transportation projects intended to have a  significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. USDOT  distributed this funding through its Transportation Investment Generating  Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. In administering the TIGER  program, USDOT generally required state and other grant applicants to  conduct benefit-cost analyses that compared a project’s expected benefits  to its costs, by measuring factors such as the project’s impact on fuel  savings, travel time, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, and public  health. Although we have not reviewed the economic analyses performed  by states as part of this work, according to USDOT, grant requests were  not approved if USDOT concluded that project costs would likely exceed  public benefits.
section_title: States Use Several Methods to Consult with Nonmetropolitan Local Officials, and the Majority of Surveyed RPOs Are Satisfied That State DOTs Sufficiently Consider Their Needs
paragraphs: State DOTs reported using several methods to consult with  nonmetropolitan local officials during the statewide planning process.  Many state DOTs reported consulting directly with local elected officials,  while others reported relying on RPOs to consult with nonmetropolitan  local officials. In some cases, states reported that they both consult  directly with local elected officials and use RPOs.
Direct consultation. The majority of state DOTs reported that they  consult directly with nonmetropolitan local officials. For example, 39 state  DOTs reported that they hold annual planning meetings with  nonmetropolitan local officials in their state. For example, state DOT and  local planning officials told us that these meetings may occur either in a  series of formal state DOT presentations at various locations throughout  the state (often referred to as road shows) or less formally through regular  interactions between state DOT district engineers and local elected  officials on an as-needed basis. According to local officials in three of the  states we visited, the quality of this direct consultation can vary. For  example, an official for an organization representing councils of  government in one state said that each state DOT transportation district  has a separate consultation process, which is effective in some districts  but not in others. In another state, local officials said that their state DOT’s  road show, which the state uses as a way to consult with local officials,  was not an effective form of consultation because many of the decisions  on transportation projects had already been made by state DOT  headquarters officials.
Consultation through RPOs. Fewer states reported using RPOs to fulfill  consultation requirements or to perform specific planning consultation  activities at the local level. In some cases, states have formalized their  relationships with these organizations through written contractual  agreements, while in other cases, they have no formal agreements in place.  Almost half of all state DOTs (25) reported having written contractual  agreements with RPOs to consult with local officials in nonmetropolitan  areas (see fig. 5). Fifteen state DOTs reported that they gave their RPOs a  role in the planning process by requiring the RPOs to develop their own  long-range plans or TIPs. In addition to the 25 state DOTs that reported  having written contractual agreements with RPOs, 11 state DOTs reported  that other organizations conduct rural transportation planning activities in  their state without a contract. (For more information on RPO  characteristics and activities, see app. II.)
Stakeholders and officials we interviewed offered some potential reasons  for the greater prevalence of RPOs in some states and described some of  the benefits of RPOs. For example, one stakeholder said that RPOs are  more prevalent in nonmetropolitan regions with growing populations that  require a coordinated planning effort to manage growth. A state DOT  official in one state with a slowly growing population added that the state  DOT does not see much need for formal consultation organizations  because the state’s slow population growth creates relatively little demand  for consultation on new transportation projects. Stakeholders that we  interviewed reported that RPOs help state DOTs carry out their  responsibility for consulting with local nonmetropolitan officials by, for  example, (1) helping competing jurisdictions develop consensus on and  prioritize regional transportation projects to be included in the STIP, (2)  facilitating state DOT consultation with elected officials from multiple  local governments, and (3) helping state DOTs better anticipate project  challenges such as issues with environmental reviews for implementing  projects.
subsections: section_title: RPO Views on the Extent to Which Rural Transportation Needs Are Considered
paragraphs: In our separate survey of RPOs, 63 percent reported that they were either  satisfied or very satisfied that the state DOT’s consultation process gave  their transportation needs sufficient consideration. In general, RPOs  reported more satisfaction than their counterparts if they had helped  prioritize rural projects for their area or had received planning funds or a  written contractual agreement from their state DOT.
Through our survey, we also asked RPOs about their participation in  certain state DOT planning activities. The majority of respondents with  relevant experience reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their  ability to participate in several state DOT research and outreach planning  activities; however, the RPOs that responded expressed lower levels of  satisfaction with their participation in other activities, including those that  involve prioritizing or allocating funds for rural areas (see fig. 6).
RPO officials we interviewed in some states expressed varying degrees of  satisfaction with their ability to participate in statewide planning activities.  For example, RPO officials in one state that reported having written  contractual agreements with its RPOs, reported that the state DOT was  generally receptive to the projects that the RPO included in their TIP and  made efforts to ensure that RPO projects were considered for funding.  RPO officials in this state said that the state DOT and the RPOs work  together early in the planning process to agree on the statewide funding  priorities. RPOs then use this information to develop projects that address  the statewide priorities. However, in another state, where the RPOs also  had written contractual agreements with the state DOT, an RPO official  said that, although RPOs are required to develop both long- and short- range transportation plans for their regions, the state DOT does not  necessarily use their project recommendations to select STIP projects.  Other RPO officials said that they did not know how the state DOT  ultimately selected its STIP projects and that they were unable to  influence decision-making to ensure their RPO’s needs were considered.
section_title: Funding, Public Involvement, and Administrative Requirements Are the Primary Challenges in Statewide Planning
subsections: section_title: State DOTs Report Facing Funding Challenges in Developing Long-Range Plans and STIPs
paragraphs: In our survey, we asked each of the 52 state DOTs, including Washington,  D.C. and Puerto Rico, to identify the top three challenges that they  encountered in developing both their long-range statewide transportation  plans and their STIPs. When we combined the state DOTs’ responses for  both plans, two funding challenges emerged as the state DOTs’ top  challenges: (1) insufficient funds from federal or state and local sources to  meet their transportation project needs and (2) funding and cost  uncertainty—including uncertainty forecasting future revenues and costs  for implementing transportation projects. However, these funding  challenges are the result, at least in part, of revenue decisions made at the  state and local levels. For example, one strategy that Congress has used to  meet the goals of the Federal-Aid Highway Program has been to increase  federal investment. However, as we have previously reported, states and  localities are permitted to use increased federal funds to substitute for or  replace what they otherwise would have spent from state resources. As a  result, not all of the increased federal investment has increased the total  investment in highways.
Transportation needs outweigh available funds. Seventeen state  DOTs cited insufficient funds to meet state-defined transportation project  needs as being among their most significant challenges in developing the  long-range statewide transportation plan and 22 state DOTs cited  insufficient funds to meet project needs as being among their most  significant STIP development challenges. In both cases, the state DOTs  were referring to funding available to implement projects, not to conduct  statewide planning activities. DOT officials from several states said that  their transportation needs outweighed their existing revenue, in part  because of reduced or stagnant revenues from state gas taxes coupled  with demand for maintaining aging transportation infrastructure. Several  state DOTs reported that insufficient funding requires planners to make  difficult trade-offs between preserving existing assets and modernizing  transportation networks to address future concerns such as increased  congestion or livability and mobility. FTA officials reported that because  of insufficient funds for transit, there are few large transit expansion  projects in development across the country. Consequently, most planning  for transit occurs within the transit agencies as they look for ways to  reconfigure their existing routes to adapt to population patterns and  maximize service levels for existing routes.
Funding and cost uncertainty. Seventeen state DOTs cited funding and  cost uncertainty as a significant long-range planning challenge, and 15  state DOTs cited it as a significant STIP development challenge. In survey  responses and interviews, officials from several state DOTs reported that  uncertain funding levels from both federal and state sources hindered  their ability to address long- and short-range planning needs. For example,  officials from one state DOT reported that funding uncertainty is a  particular challenge as many transportation projects span multiple years  and thus require careful long-range planning to prevent exhaustion of  funding prior to their completion. Officials from several state DOT’s  reported that a lack of a federal surface transportation authorization also  contributed to funding uncertainty. Furthermore, USDOT officials  reported that some state legislatures place restrictions on how state gas  tax funds may be spent, which limits states’ flexibility in allocating their  limited budgets from year to year. Several other state DOTs reported that  they experienced challenges developing accurate cost estimates for  projects, especially when developing the STIP. For example, officials in  one state reported that, until recent years, planners did not have access to  useful cost estimating tools to project future project costs. Without such  cost-estimating tools, officials reported that project selection and funding  decisions were made outside the planning process and subject to political  interests. Officials reported that the state has recently made investments  to upgrade its cost-estimating capabilities to prioritize the most cost- effective and greatest need pavement and bridge projects; thereby  improving the role of planning to inform project selection decisions.
section_title: State DOTs Face Challenges Involving the Public, Addressing Data Limitations, and Other Long-Range Issues
paragraphs: In addition to funding challenges, state DOTs identified several significant  long-range planning challenges. Twenty state DOT’s reported that  involving the public in the long-range planning process was a significant  challenge. In addition, 18 state DOTs cited data limitations—including  insufficient data and challenges analyzing and modeling data—as a  significant long-range planning challenge. Fewer state DOTs identified  prioritizing competing needs, complying with federal requirements, and  other issues as significant long-range planning challenges (see fig. 7).
Involving the public. Through our survey and interviews, state DOTs  identified several challenges encountered in involving the public in long- range planning, as well as several activities commonly used by states to  improve public involvement. First, several state DOTs reported that they  experienced challenges in getting the public to attend long-range planning  outreach sessions, in part because of the long-range plan’s 20-year horizon  and, in some cases, a lack of project-specific information. For example, in  developing its current long-range statewide transportation plan, one state  DOT reported that it held about 20 public meetings and workshops across  the state; however, less than a dozen members of the public attended  meetings in some rural areas of the state. Another state DOT reported that  the methods it used to solicit public feedback—public notices or display  ads in newspapers—were ineffective because of reduced newspaper  readership and constraints on spending to purchase such ads.
State DOTs reported conducting a variety of activities to address the  challenge of involving the public. In particular, 46 state DOTs reported  maintaining a Web site to provide public information and receive public  feedback on the long-range statewide transportation plan, and slightly  fewer (42) reported presenting their long-range statewide transportation  plan in a statewide road show. States also reported that they took steps to  involve hard-to-reach populations and special interests. For example, 39  state DOTs reported that they reached out to special needs populations— including low-income, disabled, and elderly residents—and 37 state DOTs  reported holding meetings with freight industry representatives on their  long-range plan. To identify transportation needs for nonmetropolitan  areas of the state when developing the long-range plan, 37 state DOTs  reported that they tasked DOT personnel or contractors to perform this  activity, and fewer (24) relied on RPOs to identify such needs.
Data limitations. State DOTs identified several types of data limitations  as a significant challenge in developing the long-range statewide  transportation plan. Specifically, 13 state DOTs identified analyzing and  modeling existing data as a significant challenge, and 5 state DOTs  identified insufficient data as such a challenge. For example, 3 state DOTs  reported challenges gathering or making use of truck freight data in  developing the long-range statewide transportation plan, such as in  segregating freight trips from passenger traffic in analyzing corridor  studies. Other long-range planning data challenges identified by state  DOTs include the costliness of collecting data, retaining adequate staff, a  lack of analytical tools to model and analyze data, and developing and  using performance measures in the long-range statewide transportation  plan.
Other long-range planning challenges. Among the other long-range  planning challenges identified, 12 state DOTs reported that prioritizing  competing needs—such as the needs of urban and rural areas—was a  significant challenge. For example, in interviews with state DOT officials  and other stakeholders, we learned that rural areas are likely to advocate  for corridor projects or improvements to support economic development  in their region, while urban areas often focus on reducing congestion or  adding capacity. Eight state DOTs reported facing staffing challenges,  including 2 state DOTs that reported they have insufficient staff to address  the long-range statewide transportation plan among their other planning  activities.
section_title: State DOTs Face Compliance, Administrative, and Other Challenges in Developing the STIP
paragraphs: In addition to funding challenges, almost half of state DOTs (22) cited  complying with federal requirements, including demonstrating fiscal  constraint and others, as a significant STIP development challenge. Fewer  state DOTs (16) identified administrative challenges with maintaining the  STIP, including updating the STIP to reflect amendments or other  modifications, as a significant challenge. Other frequently mentioned STIP  challenges were prioritizing competing needs—a commonly cited long- range planning challenge—and coordinating with planning partners, such  as MPOs or RPOs (see fig. 8).
Complying with federal requirements. A total of 22 state DOTs cited  challenges related to complying with federal requirements in developing  the STIP. In particular, 13 state DOTs cited challenges demonstrating fiscal  constraint—a federal requirement that states demonstrate that all projects  on the STIP can be implemented using committed, available, or reasonably  available revenue sources. Two stakeholders that we interviewed reported  that some FHWA division offices interpret the fiscal constraint rule rigidly  and require states to provide very detailed cost and revenue estimates,  while others allow for greater flexibility in their review to account for  limitations in developing accurate estimates of future revenues and project  costs. Despite the challenge that demonstrating fiscal constraint presents  to state DOTs, FHWA officials reported that it serves an important  accountability and transparency function in that it requires states to set  reasonable expectations among MPOs and the public about which projects  can be implemented given available revenues. In addition to challenges  with demonstrating fiscal constraint, 9 state DOTs cited complying with  other planning requirements—such as ensuring that a state’s MPOs  complete required air-quality conformity analyses—as a significant  challenge.
Maintaining the STIP. About a third of state DOTs (16) reported that  maintaining the STIP (e.g., amending the STIP as changes occur) was a  significant administrative challenge. Federal planning regulations allow  states to add or delete projects on the STIP or to revise project cost  estimates at any time. In general, major changes to STIP project costs,  initiation dates, or scope are known as amendments, and minor changes  are considered administrative modifications. STIP amendments require  the state DOT to provide a public comment period and demonstrate that  the STIP remains fiscally constrained for FHWA and FTA approval.  According to data collected by FHWA division offices, in fiscal year 2009  some states made a substantial number of amendments to their STIPs for  that year. For example, FHWA’s New York Division reported that it  approved more than 2,000 amendments to the New York DOT’s STIP in  fiscal year 2009, and FHWA’s Pennsylvania Division office approved 500  amendments to PennDOT’s STIP for that same year. According to FHWA  officials we interviewed, states often have good reasons for making such  amendments—particularly in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, when states  needed to plan projects for significant amounts of federal funding made  available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  Furthermore, some states, such as New York and Pennsylvania, have more  assets and older infrastructure than other states, which could necessitate  more frequent maintenance and repairs and STIP amendments, according  to FHWA officials.
Other STIP challenges. Almost a third of state DOTs (15) reported that  prioritizing competing needs was a significant STIP development  challenge—a challenge also identified by 12 states in developing their  long-range statewide transportation plans, as previously reported. Fewer  states cited coordinating with planning partners (11) as a significant  challenge. For example, in our survey 1 state DOT reported that it has 27  planning partners, including MPOs and RPOs that develop their own TIPs  and are responsible for programming some federal-aid highway funds in  their own regions. The state reported that it is challenging to coordinate  the development of 27 TIPs and consolidate those projects into one STIP.  Other less frequently cited STIP development challenges by state DOTs  include involving the public (7), delivering transportation projects on time  and on budget (4), and linking planning and programming (4).
section_title: USDOT Has Limited Oversight Authority of Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plans, and STIP Oversight Focuses on Process
subsections: section_title: USDOT Has Limited Oversight Authority of Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plans, and Some States’ Plans Are Updated Infrequently
paragraphs: USDOT has limited oversight authority over long-range statewide  transportation plans. Federal planning regulations require states to  continually evaluate, revise, and periodically update the long-range  statewide transportation plan; however, regulations do not prescribe a  schedule or time frame for those updates. In addition, although USDOT is  not required to review or approve long-range statewide transportation  plans, states must provide copies of any new or amended long-range  statewide transportation plans to USDOT for informational purposes.  This requirement differs from the requirement for MPOs in developing the  long-range metropolitan transportation plan, which must be updated on a  predetermined schedule every 4 or 5 years.
Through our survey, we found that state DOTs vary in how often they  update their long-range statewide transportation plan, and some states  reported infrequent updates. Twenty-one state DOTs reported issuing an  updated long-range statewide transportation plan within 5 years of their  previously issued plan. However, 18 state DOTs reported taking between 6  and 10 years to update their plan, and 7 state DOTs reported taking 11  years or more to do so (see fig. 9). Five other state DOTs reported that  they had issued one plan and had thus never updated that plan. Of those  state DOTs that reported updating their plan at least once, the average  amount of time between updates was about 7 years. However, the amount  of time reported between updates varied considerably, from 2 years to as  many as 18 years.  years.
State DOT and USDOT officials offered several reasons for infrequently  updating the long-range statewide transportation plan: (1) two state DOTs  reported they have insufficient staff to address the long-range statewide  transportation plan among their other planning priorities; (2) one state  DOT reported that it had updated its plan, but the plan was not adopted by  the state’s transportation commission and legislature; and (3) USDOT  officials said some states issue what they referred to as policy-based plans  that are not updated regularly because they do not include projects and  therefore do not change much over time. USDOT officials suggested that if  state DOTs were required to include project-specific information in their  plans, plans would likely be updated more regularly.
State DOT and FHWA officials reported that periodic updates to the long- range statewide transportation plan offer important benefits to state DOTs  and the public, including setting realistic public expectations for what the  state DOT can expect to accomplish. For example, officials with one state  DOT that we interviewed told us that it recently completed an update of  the state’s plan issued in 2002. The update was prompted by a new  governor and a review of the existing plan, which found that the plan  included approximately $20 to $30 billion worth of projects that had not  been funded or implemented because of insufficient revenues. In updating  the plan, the state DOT focused its public outreach and consultations with  local officials on setting more realistic expectations for future  investments. The recently issued, updated plan includes a funding scenario  based on current, flat revenue expectations, and identifies four key  corridors in the state where improvements could be made, subject to  additional revenues. Similarly, FHWA officials that we interviewed told us  that, although a state’s long-range plan is vital for setting and  communicating the state’s future transportation goals and strategies, the  process of updating the long-range plan is equally important to the state  DOT as the final document itself. Officials noted that states that take a  committed approach to planning—such as by continually monitoring  system performance, conducting ongoing research, and reaching out to the  public and stakeholders—increase the likelihood of developing a plan that  stakeholders will accept.
While regularly updating the long-range statewide transportation plan has  inherent benefits, infrequently updating it presents several risks:  Infrequent updates limit USDOT’s ability to determine whether states  are using federal planning funds effectively to address long-range  planning needs. State DOTs receive substantial amounts of funding from  FHWA and FTA for statewide planning, including funds for developing  long-range statewide transportation plans. For example, in fiscal year  2009, FHWA provided $682 million in SPR funds to state DOTs to support  their planning activities, including developing long-range statewide  transportation plans and STIPS and annually collecting and reporting  pavement condition and other data to FHWA’s HPMS program. States  must document and annually report on activities that they propose to be  accomplished with SPR funds, and FHWA must approve these activities.  In our survey, four states reported not completing an update of their long- range statewide transportation plan between 2000 and 2009. In that 10-year  period, those states received approximately $640 million in state planning  funds, an average of $16 million per state over that period. Because those  states did not update their long-range statewide transportation plan over  that period, it is unclear how they applied SPR funding to address their  long-range planning needs. It is also unclear whether the investment  decisions made over that period were based on the states’ current  transportation goals and strategies.
Some plans may not reflect the current federal surface transportation  authorization. Federal surface transportation authorization legislation  creates new planning requirements and funding opportunities that states  should address in their long-range statewide transportation plans. For  example, through SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted in August 2005,  Congress revised several federal planning provisions and established  several new funding programs for state DOTs to consider in their planning  process. Among these were three federal transportation programs  designed to target funds to infrastructure projects that have high costs,  involve national or regional impacts, and cannot easily or specifically be  addressed within existing federal surface transportation programs. In  responding to our survey, 10 state DOTs reported that they have not  updated their long-range statewide transportation plans since 2004, prior  to SAFETEA-LU’s passage. Consequently, those states’ long-range  statewide transportation plans likely do not reflect amended statewide   planning requirements or consider some of the new transportation  programs and funding opportunities established by SAFETEA-LU.
Some states’ STIPs may not be consistent with state priorities in  outdated plans. According to federal planning requirements, each project  included in the STIP must be consistent with the long-range statewide  transportation plan. States with a long-range plan that is not periodically  updated may lack a plan that has been through the public participation  and consultation processes and addresses the state’s current  transportation conditions or provides new strategies to address changing  conditions.
section_title: USDOT’s Oversight of STIPs Focuses on Process
paragraphs: USDOT’s review and approval of state DOT STIPs is the primary means  through which FHWA and FTA oversee the statewide planning process. As  part of the STIP review process, state DOTs must submit to FHWA and  FTA for joint review, at least every 4 years, an updated STIP, and in doing  so, the state DOT must certify that its planning process was carried out in  accordance with federal statutes and planning regulations, including the  requirement for demonstrating fiscal constraint (see fig. 1). Although there  is no single, established process for conducting these joint reviews, FHWA  division office personnel generally lead the STIP review process with  assistance from the FTA regional office, on behalf of both agencies. They  do so, in part, because FHWA division offices focus on the activities of a  single state DOT, whereas FTA regional offices have multiple states in  their portfolio. The majority of state DOTs submit a new STIP for FHWA’s  and FTA’s approval either on an annual or biannual basis, and many state  DOTs amend their STIP over the course of a year, requiring FHWA and  FTA to review the amended document to ensure that it remains fiscally  constrained. When that review is complete, FHWA and FTA send the state  DOT a letter indicating that they have approved the STIP in its entirety,  approved the STIP subject to certain corrective actions, or partially  approved the STIP for a portion of the state.
Pursuant to federal law, USDOT’s oversight of the STIP is focused on a  state DOT’s compliance with planning process requirements. In addition,  USDOT’s STIP oversight does not consider transportation planning  outcomes. Specifically, through the STIP review and approval process,  FHWA and FTA make a joint finding on the extent to which the STIP is  based on a statewide planning process that meets or substantially meets  federal planning requirements—for example, by ascertaining whether the  state DOT has demonstrated fiscal constraint over the 4 years covered by  the STIP. However, federal statutes or planning regulations do not require  states to establish or attain specific performance thresholds or outcomes  in the statewide planning process, such as improving highway safety,  reducing congestion, or maintaining the state of repair of a state’s  transportation assets. We have previously recommended to USDOT, as  well as to Congress, that adopting performance measures and goals for  programs can aid in measuring and evaluating the success of the  programs, thereby potentially leading to better decisions about  transportation investments. As discussed in the next section of this  report, some states do not have the performance measures and targets  they would need to determine whether they have attained such thresholds  or outcomes. According to USDOT officials and other stakeholders that  we interviewed, FHWA and FTA’s joint review of a state DOT’s STIP does  not evaluate the effectiveness of the state’s planning process in achieving  such transportation outcomes—instead, it focuses solely on whether the  state has a process in place to meet federal planning requirements and  whether the state-certified STIP meets those requirements.
We have previously reported that, in addition to ensuring compliance with  regulations, oversight provides a means by which the federal government  can ensure that federal funds are being used to achieve planned outcomes.  If FHWA and FTA jointly determine and document that the submitted or  amended STIP does not meet federal planning requirements, FHWA and  FTA can withhold future apportioned surface transportation program  funds until substantial compliance is demonstrated. However, USDOT’s  internal planning guidance indicates that, in general, FHWA and FTA do  not disapprove STIPs. Instead, the planning guidance indicates that the  STIP is reviewed to determine if any portion of the document meets the  federal requirements and can be partially approved. In our review, we  examined FHWA and FTA planning findings for the most recent STIP  submitted by each of the 52 state DOTs, not including amendments. We  found that FHWA and FTA approved all 52 STIPs, including 35 in their  entirety, 13 subject to corrective actions, and 4 partially. USDOT officials  reported that in many cases, FHWA and FTA collaborate closely with the  state DOT throughout the planning process and are able to address any  issues that could result in a corrective action following the STIP review.  As a result, FHWA and FTA officials are often familiar with the content of  a STIP before they review it and the review can occur without findings.
section_title: Most States Reported Making Some Use of Performance Measurement for Planning, but a Performance-Based Framework Offers Opportunities to Improve Statewide Planning
subsections: section_title: Most States Reported Using Some Performance Measures and Targets, but Several Challenges Limit Greater Use of Performance Measurement in Planning
paragraphs: In our survey and interviews, state DOTs reported using performance  measurement—specifically performance measures and targets—in the  statewide transportation planning process. Overall, the majority of state  DOTs reported making use of performance data in developing their long- range statewide transportation plan (32) and their STIP (36). The most  commonly used performance measures and quantifiable performance  targets were reported in the areas of safety and asset condition, with lower  levels of usage of project delivery and mobility measures (see table 1). Not  surprisingly, state DOTs also reported that safety and asset condition  measures were considered to be most useful to the statewide planning  process. Although many states reported using some performance  measures, stakeholders and USDOT officials told us that only a select few  states have made significant attempts to integrate performance  measurement into their statewide planning process to inform investment  decisions.
Safety measures. Almost all state DOTs (50) reported using safety  measures in the past 12 months, and 49 state DOTs reported having  quantifiable performance targets for these measures. Fewer state DOTs  (40) considered safety measures of great or very great use in the planning  process. The extensive use of safety measures is due, in part, to the federal  requirement that state DOTs develop a strategic highway safety plan that  establishes statewide goals and objectives to reduce highway fatalities and  serious injuries on all public roads. Of those state DOTs reporting that  safety measures were of great or very great use, several cited crash data as  being particularly useful for identifying high-crash locations or  intersections and prioritizing improvements in those areas. Others  reported that safety measures were used to evaluate the effectiveness of  specific safety programs, such as seat belt use or motorcycle safety, or to  develop the strategic highway safety plan.
Asset condition measures. The vast majority of state DOTs (49) also  reported using measures for the conditions of their roads, pavement, and  bridges, and most of these state DOTs also reported having performance  targets for these measures. The widespread availability and usage of these  measures is likely related to the requirement that state DOTs collect and  report data to FHWA on the condition of their roads and bridges. Forty- four state DOTs considered bridge condition measures to be of great or  very great use and 42 state DOTs considered road condition measures to  be of great or very great use in their planning process. DOTs reported  referring to these measures to make funding allocation decisions, identify  assets most in need of improvement, and prioritize competing projects.
Project measures. Forty-three state DOTs reported using project cost  performance measures, 42 state DOTs used project timeliness  performance measures, and 39 state DOTs used performance measures on  progress made in implementing the STIP. Fewer state DOTs reported  having performance targets for these measures, and fewer still reported  that these measures were of great or very great use in statewide planning.  While states are not required to use project measures, state DOTs find that  monitoring project costs and timeliness can help mitigate cost overruns  and project delays. For example, officials with one state DOT said that  tracking how well project costs compare to project estimates enables   them to schedule a high percentage of available funding based on the state  DOT’s history of delivering projects on time and on budget.
Mobility measures. Overall, fewer state DOTs reported using performance  measures or having performance targets for mobility measures, including  vehicle congestion, truck freight, intermodal connectivity, and transit  congestion (see table 1). Vehicle congestion measures were the most  widely used mobility measures, with 42 state DOTs reporting using these  measures and 35 state DOTs reporting having quantitative performance  targets for these measures. State DOTs reporting that mobility measures  were of great or very great use identified several uses for the measures,  including factoring congestion data into their funding allocation models  and using vehicle congestion data as a preliminary screen for determining  whether to widen a road in the future.
Despite efforts to use performance measures in planning, state DOTs  identified several significant challenges that limit their ability to make  broader use of performance measures. The challenges that state DOT’s  cited most frequently in our survey as being a great or very great challenge  were identifying indicators for qualitative measures such as livability,  collecting data to track multimodal performance, and securing sufficient  resources to develop and maintain a performance management system.  Only six state DOTs reported that institutional resistance to using  performance measures was a great or very great challenge to using  performance measures for transportation planning (see fig. 10).
Identifying indicators for qualitative measures. Forty-one state DOTs  reported that identifying indicators for qualitative measures such as  livability was a great or very great challenge. USDOT officials,  stakeholders, and state DOTs that we interviewed reported that there is  little consensus among states on how qualitative variables—such as  livability, mobility, or congestion—should be defined or what indicators  should be used to measure such concepts. Congestion, for example, has  several widely recognized indicators—including number of cars, delay  times, and person throughput—yet no single standard exists for reliably  collecting or using these data to compare performance across locales.  Several stakeholders and USDOT officials noted that even for commonly  collected quantitative measures, such as road and pavement surface  conditions, there is a lack of consensus among state DOTs on whether  pavement roughness measures or other indicators, such as remaining  surface life, are most useful.
Collecting data to track system performance across multiple modes.
Twenty-nine state DOTs reported that collecting data to track multimodal  performance—such as delay times for highway and transit travel—was a  great or very great challenge. Stakeholders reported that some states do  not have tools and performance measures that would allow them to  consider and compare investments in strategies for managing traffic and  transit operations alongside investments in more conventional highway  infrastructure improvements. Moreover, although state DOTs generally  collect performance data to manage state-owned transportation assets, the  percentage of roads that are owned and maintained by the state DOT  varies across states. Furthermore, stakeholders and state DOT officials  reported that states often have insufficient data on truck or freight  volumes across their transportation networks that could support long- range systemwide planning.
Securing sufficient resources to develop and maintain a performance  management system. In our survey, 28 state DOTs reported that securing  sufficient resources for a performance management system was a great or  very great challenge. As noted previously, FHWA annually apportions  substantial amounts of SPR funds to states for statewide planning and  research activities, including collecting data on the performance and  condition of public roads for FHWA’s HPMS program. In fiscal year 2009,  for example, states received a total amount of more than $680 million to  fund planning and research activities. Nonetheless, in our interviews,  planning officials noted that collecting and maintaining such data is time- consuming and expensive. For example, states must continually collect  road and bridge condition data, which may be housed in separate  databases and in different data formats. Planning officials also told us that  developing the internal processes to properly collect and use data to make  decisions can take many years. For example, officials at the Washington  state DOT said that although they began measuring transportation asset  performance in the 1990s, it took them a number of years to identify the  most meaningful indicators and refine the data collection and analysis  procedures to enable performance-based investment decision making. The  officials reported that over time, performance management processes  were implemented agency wide to address all of Washington state DOT’s  program and modal responsibilities.
section_title: A Performance-Based Framework Offers Opportunities to Improve Statewide Planning
paragraphs: Through interviews with transportation planning stakeholders and through  our expert panel, we identified several elements of a performance-based  framework that offer opportunities to facilitate states’ use of performance  measurement and improve the statewide planning process. Those  elements include (1) national transportation goals, (2) collaboratively  developed performance measures, (3) appropriate performance targets,  and (4) revised federal oversight of statewide planning. Elements of this  framework are also consistent with performance measurement  requirements that apply to federal agencies, according to prior GAO  work, and a recent FHWA report on the experience of other countries in  applying performance management to transportation programs.
National transportation goals. Transportation planning stakeholders  we interviewed and participants in our expert panel commonly cited clear  national transportation goals as a critical ingredient in performance-based  planning. According to several stakeholders, national goals are necessary  to provide clear policy direction for federal transportation investments. In  previous work, we have noted that for many surface transportation  programs, goals are numerous and conflicting, and we recommended that  Congress consider refocusing surface transportation programs so that they  have well-defined goals with direct links to an identified federal interest  and role. FHWA’s international scan report also recommends, as a first  step in developing a performance measurement program, that a limited  number of high-level national transportation policy goals be articulated  and linked to a clear set of measures and targets, set at the state and local  levels. National goals could provide states with an articulated federal  interest and help states establish specific transportation outcomes in the  statewide planning process, such as improving highway safety or  maintaining the state of repair of a state’s transportation assets. FHWA  planning officials we interviewed said that national goals and associated  performance measures would need to be incorporated into statewide and  MPO long-range transportation plans to align state and local long-range  priorities with national objectives. Such alignment would then be reflected  in the STIPs and TIPs, which must be consistent with the long-range  statewide transportation plans, making it easier for FHWA and FTA  reviewers to ensure that federal surface transportation funds were being  allocated to address national transportation goals.
Collaboratively developed performance measures. Stakeholders and  panelists also commonly said that specific performance measures, linked  to national goals, should be developed in close collaboration with the state  and local stakeholders responsible for implementing performance-based  planning. We previously reported that seeking the involvement of  stakeholders and limiting the number of performance measures to a vital  few are important practices in developing and implementing successful  performance management systems within federal agencies. Stakeholders  told us that states and MPOs should be closely involved in developing  appropriate performance measures because of the wide range of  transportation contexts across states. Without a collaborative process to  identify a vital set of performance measures that states and local planners  can use, the federal government and states will lack assurance that the  resources and effort directed to monitor performance will provide useful  information to the federal government on the overall condition of the  nation’s transportation system.
While our previous work indicates that obtaining agreement among  competing stakeholders in developing performance management systems  is not easy, officials in one state DOT that we interviewed cited USDOT’s  efforts to collaborate with states on the development of appropriate  performance measures. Specifically, USDOT’s National Highway Traffic  Safety Administration (NHTSA) partnered with the Governors Highway  Safety Association (GHSA)—which represents states’ highway safety  offices—to jointly develop traffic safety performance measures for states  to use in their strategic highway safety plans. NHTSA and GHSA brought  state and local stakeholders together to develop and agree on a minimum  set of 14 performance measures for states to use in developing and  implementing behavioral highway safety plans and programs.  Participants in our expert panel suggested that FHWA and FTA could  bring a national perspective and technical expertise to help states develop  appropriate measures, particularly for emerging measures such as  livability—a challenge that, as noted, state DOTs identified as limiting  greater use of performance measurement in planning.
Appropriate performance targets. Stakeholders we interviewed and  our expert panelists expressed various opinions on the value and  implementation of performance targets in statewide planning. The Office  of Management and Budget’s guidance to federal agencies on  implementing GPRA requires federal agencies to set performance goals  that include performance targets and time frames, as part of the annual  performance plans that federal agencies develop to show progress in  achieving goals. Our prior work has shown that performance targets help  promote accountability and allow organizations to track their progress  toward goals and give managers important information on which to base  their organizational and management decisions. However, several  panelists said that if performance targets were set at the federal level and  if federal funding allocations were contingent on achieving those targets,  states could be penalized for not achieving outcomes that could be beyond  their direct control. Other panelists indicated that targets could be useful if  linked to performance incentives rather than penalties, and established at  the state or local level in consultation with the federal government.  According to FHWA’s international scan report, among the countries  examined it was common for different levels of government to set  performance targets jointly and collaborate on ways to achieve targets,  rather than for one level of government to set a target and then penalize  another for missing it.
Revised federal oversight of statewide planning. As previously noted  in this report, FHWA and FTA’s joint oversight of statewide planning  focuses on state DOTs’ compliance with planning process requirements  and does not consider transportation planning outcomes. Several  stakeholders and panelists told us that this process-oriented oversight is of  limited value to state DOTs in improving the effectiveness of statewide  planning. USDOT officials reported that a performance-based planning  framework would require legislative changes to transition USDOT’s  statewide planning oversight role to focus on transportation outcomes,  such as whether states are making progress in improving highway safety  or maintaining the nation’s transportation assets in a state of good repair.  USDOT’s recent international scan report found that linking national goals  to state or regional performance measures appeared to create a strong  focus on outcomes instead of process among the nations reviewed.  Additionally, panelists reported that regular reporting by state DOTs to  USDOT on progress made in achieving outcomes could improve  communication between the states and the federal government, and  enable USDOT to provide technical assistance as states’ need for it  becomes apparent.
Although implementing a performance-based framework will not be easy,  our state DOT survey results suggest that many state DOTs could be  receptive to increasing their use of performance measurement. In prior  work, we have noted that the ultimate benefit of collecting performance  information—improved decision making and results—is only fully realized  when this information is used to support management planning and  decision-making functions. Our work evaluating the extent to which  federal agencies’ use performance information to make decisions  demonstrates that such organizational change does not occur quickly.  However, as previously noted, only six state DOTs in our survey reported  that institutional resistance to using performance measures was a great or  very great challenge to using performance measures for transportation  planning. Given the progress some state DOTs have already made in using  performance-measurement, other state DOTs may be well-positioned to  move toward a performance-based planning framework.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Statewide transportation planning is an important process for deciding  how to spend substantial amounts of federal surface transportation  funds—almost $46 billion in fiscal year 2009. However, the current,  statewide transportation planning framework does not provide the federal  government with sufficient information to ensure that states’ planning  activities are contributing to improved transportation outcomes—such as  improving the state of repair of transportation assets—and that states are  fully considering the long-range needs of the nation’s transportation  infrastructure. For example, because federal oversight of statewide  planning focuses on process, rather than specific transportation outcomes,  it is unclear whether states’ investment decisions are improving the  condition and performance of the nation’s transportation system.
A performance-based planning framework offers opportunities to focus  statewide planning on achieving transportation outcomes. Encouragingly,  our state DOT survey results suggests that states have already taken some  important steps in this direction by setting broad goals in their long-range  statewide transportation plans and using performance measures and  targets to monitor the safety and condition of many roads and bridges.  However, some long-range statewide transportation plans are infrequently  updated, and individual state efforts toward performance-based planning  are not part of a coordinated federal approach. As a result, the federal  government has limited ability to measure the results of its investment in  statewide planning. Nonetheless, our results suggest that many states  could be ready to transition to a performance-based planning framework,  with the appropriate assistance and collaboration of the federal  government. USDOT, through NHTSA, has experience working with states  to make states’ strategic highway safety plans more performance based.  This experience could be useful to FHWA, FTA, and states as they  endeavor to address both national and state transportation concerns in a  performance-based planning framework. As Congress moves forward with  reauthorizing federal surface transportation programs, it has an  opportunity to take the legislative action needed to shift to a performance- based approach for statewide planning and oversight, through which the  federal government, states, and local planners can collaboratively address  their transportation concerns.
section_title: Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: Congress should consider transitioning statewide transportation planning  and oversight toward a more performance-based approach. Actions to  accomplish this transition could include  identifying specific transportation outcomes for states to address in  statewide transportation planning and charging USDOT with assessing  states’ progress in achieving these outcomes through its STIP review and  approval process, requiring states to update their long-range statewide transportation plans  on a prescribed schedule to ensure the effective use of federal planning  funds and to address statewide planning outcomes, and requiring USDOT and states to collaboratively develop appropriate  performance measures to track progress in achieving planned  transportation outcomes.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to USDOT for review and comment on  November 5, 2010. USDOT officials provided technical comments which  we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify the planning activities conducted by state departments of  transportation (state DOT) we reviewed federal statutes and regulations  governing the statewide planning process and conducted a Web-based  survey of 52 state DOTs, including those in Puerto Rico and the District of  Columbia. To identify survey participants, we used contacts provided by  the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’  (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Planning, current as of March 4, 2010.  In designing the survey questions, we interviewed a range of  transportation policy stakeholders, including state DOT planning officials  and officials with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the  Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and we consulted GAO staff with  appropriate subject-matter expertise. In addition, we conducted three  pretests of the survey of state DOTs and obtained feedback on the survey  from two external planning experts and from FHWA and FTA officials to  ensure that the questions were clear and did not place an undue burden on  officials, that the terminology was used correctly, and that the  questionnaire was comprehensive and unbiased. We made changes to the  content and format of the questionnaire based on their feedback. We  conducted the survey from April 20, 2010, to June 18, 2010, and received  responses from all 52 state DOTs, for a 100 percent response rate. The  complete results of the state DOT survey can be found at GAO-11-78SP.
Because we administered the state DOT survey to the complete universe  of potential respondents, there are no sampling errors. However, the  practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,  commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in  how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information that  are available to respondents, or in how the data are entered into a  database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the  survey results. We encountered a nonsampling survey error in analyzing  the state DOT survey responses. Specifically, in some instances,  respondents provided conflicting, contradictory, or unnecessary  information in portions of the survey. We addressed these errors by  contacting the state DOT officials involved and clarifying their responses.
To obtain more in-depth information on state DOT statewide planning  activities, we reviewed planning documents from and interviewed officials  in six states: Louisiana, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington state,  and West Virginia. In each state we interviewed officials from state DOTs,  FHWA division offices, FTA regional offices, rural planning organizations  (RPO), metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), and, when present,  tribal planning organizations. To ensure that we identified a range of states  for our case studies, we considered  recommendations from transportation planning stakeholders; the percentage of road miles owned by the state;  the presence of MPOs in the state and the percentage of the population  covered by MPOs; the presence of federally recognized tribes; and the representation of FTA regions.
These criteria allowed us, in our view, to obtain information from a  diverse mix of state DOTs and other state planning organizations, but the  findings from our case studies cannot be generalized to all states because  the states selected were part of a nonprobability sample. We used  information obtained during the case studies throughout this report.
To gather information on the extent to which RPOs are satisfied that rural  needs are considered in statewide planning, we conducted a second Web- based survey of regional planning and development organizations from all  50 states. We sent surveys to the 564 organizations in a database collected  by the National Association of Development Organizations that included a  range of different types of organizations that conduct regional planning  activities, including RPOs, councils of government (COG), regional  planning commissions, economic development agencies, county and city  planning offices, and others similar organizations. Because the database  did not contain organizations in Delaware, Hawaii, and Rhode Island, we  identified a total of five organizations from those states that conduct  regional planning activities and sent surveys to those organizations.  Because the National Association of Development Organizations database  includes organizations that conduct a variety of regional planning  activities, including transportation planning, we asked each surveyed  organization to identify the specific planning activities that it performs. In  this report, we provided information only from those organizations that  reported that they coordinate or conduct surface transportation or transit  planning in the nonmetropolitan areas of their region. For the purposes of  this report, organizations that indicated that they perform this activity are  considered RPOs. To ensure the reliability of the database, we spoke with  National Association of Development Organizations officials about the  characteristics of the database and determined that it was sufficiently  reliable for our needs. In developing the survey questions, we interviewed  transportation planning stakeholders and pretested the survey with a total  of five RPOs in four states to determine that the questions were clear and  did not place an undue burden on officials, that the terminology was used  correctly, and that the questionnaire was comprehensive and unbiased. We  made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire based on  their feedback. We conducted the survey from May 17, 2010, to June 25,  2010, and received completed surveys from 72 percent of the organizations  surveyed. The complete results of this survey can be found at  GAO-11-78SP.
To gather information on the challenges that state DOTs face in the  statewide transportation planning process, we relied primarily on data  collected in the state DOT survey, in which we asked state DOT  respondents to identify through open-ended responses the three most  significant challenges encountered in developing both the long-range  statewide transportation plan and the state transportation improvement  program (STIP). We then performed a content analysis on the open-ended  question responses through the following process. We identified a total of  13 categories of challenges identified by state DOTs in their responses,  including funding, stakeholder involvement, and staffing, among others.  We developed a codebook that defined each category, and two GAO  analysts independently assigned codes to each response. Afterwards, the  analysts met to resolve any differences in their coding until they reached  consensus. We then removed duplicate responses—instances in which a  state DOT reported the same challenge for the same plan more than  once—to ensure that only unique challenges reported by state DOTs were  reported in our analysis. Finally, we analyzed the coded responses to  determine how many state DOTs encountered each challenge in  developing both the long-range statewide transportation plan and the  STIP.
To obtain information on FHWA’s and FTA’s approach to overseeing  statewide transportation planning, we interviewed FHWA and FTA  officials in headquarters and in the six states where we interviewed state  DOT officials (Louisiana, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington  State, and West Virginia). Specifically, we interviewed officials in the six  FHWA division offices in the six states and in the four FTA regional offices  with responsibility for those states (FTA regions 3, 6, 8, and 10). We also  reviewed FHWA and FTA planning guidance and the planning findings  from FHWA and FTA’s joint review of each state DOT’s most recent STIP,  to determine what joint action FHWA and FTA took following their  review.
To identify the extent to which state DOTs are using performance  measurement for planning and opportunities to make statewide planning  more performance based, we analyzed data collected through our state  DOT survey and interviews with state DOT officials. We also contracted  with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a balanced, diverse  panel of 14 experts to discuss performance measurement in statewide  transportation planning. We worked closely with the National Academy’s  Transportation Research Board to identify and select panelists with  experience in the implementation of performance measurement in, and  knowledge of, the statewide transportation planning processes. The  panelists convened in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on July 14, 2010, and their  discussion was divided into three moderated subsessions. The subsessions  addressed the appropriate roles of the federal government and the states  in making statewide planning more performance based, how performance  measures could be used to better link statewide planning to programming  decisions, and the advantages and disadvantages of linking federal funding  to achieving transportation performance goals.  The moderator facilitated  a discussion among the panelists to gather their perspectives on each  topic. In keeping with the National Academy’s policy, the panelists were  invited to provide their individual views, and the panel was not designed to  reach a consensus on any of the issues that we asked the panelists to  discuss. Results of the discussions were used to inform key elements of a  framework to make statewide transportation planning more performance  based. We did not verify the panelists’ statements. The views expressed by  the panelists do not necessarily represent the views of GAO or the  National Academy. Participants in the expert panel are listed in table 2.
The expert discussion cited in this report should be interpreted in the  context of two key limitations and qualifications. First, although we were  able to secure the participation of a balanced, highly qualified group of  experts, other experts in this field could not be included because we  needed to limit the size of the panel. Although many points of view were  represented, the panel was not representative of all potential views.
Second, even though GAO, in cooperation with the National Academy,  conducted preliminary research and heard from national experts in their  fields, a day’s conversation cannot represent the current practice in this  vast area. More thought, discussion, and research must be done to develop  greater agreement on what we really know, what needs to be done, and  how to do it. These two key limitations and qualifications provide  contextual boundaries. Nevertheless, the panel provided a rich dialogue on  making statewide transportation planning more performance based, and  the panelists provided insightful comments in responding to the questions  they were asked.
To gather additional information related to all of our research objectives,  we interviewed a range of transportation planning stakeholders  representing state, local, and private-sector groups, including AASHTO,  the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the Bipartisan  Policy Center, Cambridge Systematics Inc., the I-95 Corridor Coalition, the  National Association of Counties, the National Association of  Development Organizations, the National Association of Regional  Councils, and National Academy’s Transportation Research Board.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through  December 2010 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Information on the Participation of Rural Planning Organizations in Statewide Transportation Planning
paragraphs: RPOs that we surveyed reported information on the following topics  discussed in this appendix: (1) RPO service areas, (2) planning funds  received by RPOs, (3) planning activities performed by RPOs, (4) needs of  nonmetropolitan areas served by RPOs, (5) activities performed by state  DOTs to consult with RPOs, and (6) RPOs’ satisfaction with their state  DOT’s consultation activities. The complete results of this survey are  available in GAO-11-78SP.
subsections: section_title: RPO Service Areas
paragraphs: In general, RPOs are voluntary organizations of local elected officials and  representatives of local transportation systems that serve nonmetropolitan  areas not represented by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO).      MPOs represent urbanized areas with more than 50,000 people.  However,  because RPOs may serve multiple nonmetropolitan municipalities, the  population of the combined RPO service areas may be greater than 50,000.  In our survey, we found that the size of the population serviced by RPOs  varied greatly, with 57 percent reporting a population smaller than 150,000  and 43 percent reporting a population in their service area greater than  150,000. RPOs reported, on average, that they serve 5 counties and 36  municipalities, such as cities, towns, or villages. RPOs reported that the  number of full-time staff performing rural transportation planning  averaged 2 and ranged from 0 to 18.
section_title: Planning Funds Received by RPOs
paragraphs: RPOs may receive state or federal funding to conduct nonmetropolitan  planning (see table 3). Of RPOs responding to our survey, 80 percent  reported receiving funding in fiscal year 2009 from their state DOT. In  addition, 41 percent reported that their state DOT provided them with  state planning and research (SPR) funds from FHWA and 14 percent  reported that their state DOT provided them with State Planning and  Research Program (SPRP) funds from FTA.
section_title: Planning Activities Performed by RPOs
paragraphs: We asked RPOs about the types of planning activities that they conduct. Of  the 15 activities RPOs were asked about, 12 were performed by more than  50 percent of RPOs (see fig. 11). More than 80 percent of RPOs reported  gathering or coordinating input from public and local officials; conducting  community planning activities, such as improving accessibility for seniors  and disabled persons; and providing technical assistance to local  governments, such as Geographic Information System mapping or  transportation modeling. Most RPOs reported conducting other types of  planning, such as bike and pedestrian, land-use, and transit service  planning, among others. About a third to a half of RPOs reported planning  for different modes, freight, or air quality and emissions and conducting  other planning activities, such as tribal transportation planning,  demographic forecasting, and scenic byway planning.
section_title: Needs of Nonmetropolitan Areas Served by RPOs
paragraphs: According to RPOs, maintaining or improving existing roads and bridges  and safety are their highest-priority transportation needs. Specifically, 60  to 90 percent of RPOs reported that maintaining or improving existing  roads, maintaining or improving existing bridges, and improving the safety  of existing assets were of higher priority (see fig. 12). Twenty-six to 29  percent reported that higher-priority needs for their region include  improving public transit, such as by reducing congestion or improving  accessibility; other needs, such as bike and pedestrian trails, and  economic development; and improving truck freight mobility. Less than 20  percent of RPOs reported that improving rail freight mobility, increasing  road or highway capacity to address congestion, or improving air quality,  such as by reducing surface transportation emissions, were higher-priority  needs.
section_title: Activities Performed by State DOTs to Consult with RPOs
paragraphs: State DOTs are required by federal guidelines to have a documented  process in place to consult with nonmetropolitan areas of the state on  transportation planning issues. We asked RPOs if, over the past year, their  state DOT performed selected activities to consult with them in the  statewide planning process. RPOs reported that their state DOT performed  a wide range of different activities to consult with them. For example, 81  percent of RPOs reported that their state DOT provided funding to their  region to conduct surface transportation planning activities (see fig. 13).  Thirty-five percent of RPOs reported that the state DOT asked local  officials to serve on policy-making or advisory boards, or to participate in  other activities, such as state DOT meetings to discuss specific regional  projects.
section_title: RPOs’ Satisfaction with Their State DOT’s Consultation Activities
paragraphs: Overall, 63 percent of RPOs reported being satisfied or very satisfied that  their state DOT sufficiently considers their region’s needs (see page 25 of  this report). However, fewer RPOs reported being satisfied or very  satisfied with their ability to participate in specific state DOT consultation  activities (see fig. 14). More than 50 percent of RPOs reported being  satisfied or very satisfied with their ability to participate in state DOT  activities that gather public input in the statewide planning process,  conduct transportation studies, develop portions of statewide long-range  transportation plans, or select rural projects in their area to be included in  the STIP. Between 30 to 46 percent of RPOs reported being satisfied or  very satisfied with state DOT activities that determine the transportation  funding priorities for rural areas; allocate federal planning funds to rural  areas; set performance goals, measures, or targets for their area; and  develop transportation models to inform decisions.
Overall, 16 percent of RPOs reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied  with their state DOT sufficiently considers their region’s needs.  Dissatisfaction with specific state DOT planning activities ranged from 13  to 24 percent (see fig. 14). RPOs most frequently reported dissatisfaction  with state DOT activities related to determining the transportation  priorities for rural areas of the state. Specific reasons RPOs cited for  dissatisfaction vary, but include feeling that their needs are not prioritized,  that there is a lack of support for rural planning, and that information  gathered through consultation activities is not used to inform the  statewide planning process.
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), Matt Barranca, Richard Brown, Elizabeth Curda, Brad Dubbs,  Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Kathleen Gilhooly, Georgeann Higgins, Hannah  Laufe, Jillian McMichael, Jean McSween, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Jay Smale,  and Don Watson made key contributions to this report.