Surface Transportation: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Restructure Current Program
Published: 2008-02-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The nation has reached a critical juncture with its current surface transportation policies and programs. Demand has outpaced the capacity of the system, resulting in increased congestion. In addition, without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund--the major source of federal highway and transit funding--is projected to incur significant deficits in the years ahead. Furthermore, the nation is on a fiscally unsustainable path. Recognizing many of these challenges and the importance of the transportation system to the nation, Congress established The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (Commission) to examine current and future needs of the system and recommend needed changes to the surface transportation program, among other things. The Commission issued its report in January 2008. This testimony discusses 1) principles to assess proposals for restructuring the surface transportation program and 2) GAO's preliminary observations on the Commission's recommendations. This statement is based on GAO's ongoing work for the Ranking Member of this Committee, the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Senator DeMint, as well as a body of work GAO has completed over the past several years for Congress.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO has called for a fundamental reexamination of the nation's surface transportation program because, among other things, the current goals are unclear, the funding outlook for the program is uncertain, and the efficiency of the system is declining. A sound basis for reexamination can productively begin with identification of and debate on underlying principles. Through prior analyses of existing programs, GAO identified a number of principles that could help drive an assessment of proposals for restructuring the federal surface transportation program. These principles include (1) defining the federal role based on identified areas of national interest, (2) incorporating performance and accountability for results into funding decisions, and (3) ensuring fiscal sustainability and employing the best tools and approaches to improve results and return on investment. GAO developed these principles based on prior analyses of existing surface transportation programs as well as a body of work that GAO developed for Congress, including its High-Risk, Performance and Accountability, and 21st Century Challenges reports. The principles do not prescribe a specific approach to restructuring, but they do highlight key attributes that will help ensure that a restructured surface transportation program addresses current challenges. In its report, the Commission makes a number of recommendations for restructuring the federal surface transportation program. The recommendations include significantly increasing the level of investment by all levels of government in surface transportation, consolidating and reorganizing the current programs, speeding project delivery, and making the current program more performance- and outcome-based and mode-neutral, among other things. GAO is currently analyzing the Commission's recommendations using the principles that GAO developed for evaluating proposals for restructuring the surface transportation program. Although this analysis is not complete, GAO's preliminary results indicate that some of the Commission's recommendations appear to be aligned with the principles, while others may not be aligned. For example, although the Commission identifies areas of national interest and recommends reorganizing the individual surface transportation programs around these areas, it generally recommends that the federal government pay for 80 percent of project costs without considering whether this level of funding reflects the national interest or should vary by program or project.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We appreciate the opportunity to present our preliminary observations  about the recent report of The National Surface Transportation Policy and  Revenue Study Commission (Commission). The Commission was given a  broad mandate that includes examining the current condition and future  needs of the surface transportation system, identifying alternative revenue  sources, and providing specific recommendations regarding changes to the  surface transportation program’s design and operations, federal policies,  and legislation. The Commission’s January 2008 report is the culmination  of over 18 months of work to fulfill the mandate set by Congress, and we  applaud the Commission’s efforts.
The Commission’s report comes at a time when our nation has reached a  critical junction with the current surface transportation program. For  example, the Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 to finance the  construction of the interstate highway system. That system is now  complete. However, the federal highway program’s financing and delivery  mechanisms have not substantially changed, and the program’s continued  relevance in the 21st century is unclear. The federal role in surface  transportation has also grown over the years, and the Highway Trust Fund  now funds a variety of highway, transit, and even some rail programs. In  addition, without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue  sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund is projected to  incur significant deficits in the years ahead. As a result, in 2007, we added  financing the nation’s transportation system to GAO’s High Risk List.  Furthermore, the growing demand has outpaced the capacity of the  transportation system over the past several decades. The result is  apparent: increasing number of hours spent inching along clogged roads  and highways, especially at rush hours and other times of peak demand.  The economic implications are significant, ranging from wasted fuel and  time as cars idle in traffic to increased costs for businesses as the system  grows more unreliable. In addition to burdening the economy, congestion  can harm the environment and health of the nation’s citizens.
Addressing these challenges is complicated by the breadth of the nation’s  surface transportation network—encompassing highway, transit, and rail  systems and ports that are owned, funded, and operated by both the public  and the private sectors. Moreover, surface transportation policy decisions  are inextricably linked with aviation, economic, environmental, and energy  policy concerns. In addition, the federal government’s financial condition  and fiscal outlook are worse than many may understand. Specifically, the  federal budget is on an imprudent and unsustainable path—heightening  concern about the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund because other  federal revenue sources may not be available to help solve the nation’s  current transportation challenges. Addressing these challenges requires  strategic and intermodal approaches, effective tools and programs, and  coordinated solutions involving all levels of the government and the  private sector. Yet in many cases, the government is still trying to do  business in ways that are based on conditions, priorities, and approaches  that were established decades ago and are not well suited to addressing  21st century challenges. Consequently, we have called for a fundamental  reexamination of the nation’s transportation policies and programs.
My remarks today focus on (1) principles to assess proposals for  restructuring the surface transportation program and (2) our preliminary  observations on the Commission’s recommendations. My comments are  based on our ongoing work for the Ranking Member of this Committee,  the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,  Senator DeMint, as well as a body of work that we have completed over  the past several years for Congress. We conducted our work on the  Commission’s recommendations in January and February 2008 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Transportation programs, like other federal programs, need to be viewed  in the context of the nation’s fiscal position. Long-term fiscal simulations  by GAO, the Congressional Budget Office, and others all show that despite  a 3-year decline in the federal government’s unified budget deficit, we still  face large and growing structural deficits driven by rising health care costs  and demographic trends. As the baby boom generation retires, entitlement  programs will grow and require increasing shares of federal spending.  Absent significant changes to tax and spending programs and policies, we  face a future of unsustainable deficits and debt that threaten to cripple our  economy and quality of life. This looming fiscal crisis requires a  fundamental reexamination of all government programs and  commitments. Although the long-term outlook is driven by rising health  care costs, all areas of government should be re-examined. This involves  reviewing government programs and commitments and testing their  continued relevance and relative priority for the 21st century. Such a  reexamination offers an opportunity to address emerging needs by  eliminating outdated or ineffective programs, more sharply defining the  federal role in relation to state and local roles, and modernizing those  programs and policies that remain relevant. We are currently working with  Congress to develop a variety of tools to help carry out a reexamination of  federal programs.
The nation’s surface transportation programs are particularly ready for  reexamination. This would include asking whether existing program  constructs and financing mechanisms are relevant to the challenges of the  21st century, and making tough choices in setting priorities and linking  resources to results. We have previously reported on the following factors  that highlight the need for transformation of the nation’s transportation  policy.
Future demand for transportation will strain the network. Projected  population growth, technological changes, and increased globalization are  expected to increase the strain on the nation’s transportation system.  Congestion across modes is significant and projected to worsen.
National transportation goals and priorities are difficult to discern.
Federal transportation statutes and regulations establish multiple, and  sometimes conflicting, goals and outcomes for federal programs. In  addition, federal transportation funding is generally not linked to system  performance or to the accomplishment of goals or outcomes.  Furthermore, the transportation program, like many other federal  programs, is subject to congressional directives, which could impede the  selection of merit-based projects.
The federal government’s role is often indirect. The Department of  Transportation (DOT) implements national transportation policy and  administers most federal transportation programs. While DOT carries out  some activities directly, it does not have control over the vast majority of  the activities it funds. Additionally, DOT’s framework of separate modal  administrations makes it difficult for intermodal projects to be integrated  into the transportation network.
Future transportation funding is uncertain. Revenues to support the  Highway Trust Fund—the major source of federal highway and transit  funding—are eroding. Receipts for the Highway Trust Fund, which are  derived from motor fuel and truck-related taxes (e.g., truck sales) are  continuing to grow. However, the federal motor fuel tax of 18.4 cents per  gallon has not been increased since 1993, and thus the purchasing power  of fuel tax revenues has eroded with inflation. Furthermore, that erosion  will continue with the introduction of more fuel-efficient vehicles and  alternative-fueled vehicles in the coming years, raising the question of  whether fuel taxes are a sustainable source of financing transportation. In  addition, funding authorized in the recently enacted highway and transit  program legislation is expected to outstrip the growth in trust fund  receipts. Finally, the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges constrain  decision makers’ ability to use other revenue sources for transportation  needs.
Recognizing many of these challenges and the importance of the  transportation system to the nation, Congress established The National  Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission  (Commission) in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation  Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The mission of the  Commission was, among other things, to examine the condition and future  needs of the nation’s surface transportation system and short and long- term alternatives to replace or supplement the fuel tax as the principal  revenue source to support the Highway Trust Fund. In January 2008, the  Commission released a report with numerous recommendations to place  the trust fund on a sustainable path and to reform the current structure of  the nation’s surface transportation programs. Congress also created the  National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission in  SAFETEA-LU and charged it with analyzing future highway and transit  needs and the finances of the Highway Trust Fund and recommending  alternative approaches to financing transportation infrastructure. This  Commission issued its interim report this past week, and its final report is  expected by spring of 2009. In addition, various transportation industry  associations and research groups have issued, or plan to issue in the  coming months, proposals for restructuring and financing the surface  transportation program.
section_title: Principles to Assess Proposals for Restructuring the Surface Transportation Program
paragraphs: Through our prior analyses of existing programs, we identified a number  of principles that could help drive an assessment of proposals for  restructuring the federal surface transportation programs. These  principles include (1) defining the federal role based on identified areas of  national interest, (2) incorporating performance and accountability for  results into funding decisions, and (3) ensuring fiscal sustainability and  employing the best tools and approaches to improve results and return on  investment.
subsections: section_title: Define Federal Role Based on Identified Areas of National Interest
paragraphs: Our previous work has shown that identifying areas of national interest is  an important first step in any proposal to restructure the surface  transportation program. In identifying areas of national interest, proposals  should consider existing 21st century challenges and how future trends  could have an impact on emerging areas of national importance—as well  as how the national interest and federal role may vary by area. For  example, experts have suggested that federal transportation policy should  recognize emerging national and global imperatives, such as reducing the  nation’s dependence on foreign fuel sources and minimizing the impact of  the transportation system on global climate change. Once the various  national interests in surface transportation have been identified, proposals  should also clarify specific goals for federal involvement in the surface  transportation program as well as define the federal role in working  toward each goal. Goals should be specific and outcome-based to ensure  that resources are targeted to projects that further the national interest.  The federal role should be defined in relation to the roles of state and local  governments, regional entities, and the private sector. Where the national  interest is greatest, the federal government may play a more direct role in  setting priorities and allocating resources as well as fund a higher share of  program costs. Conversely, where the national interest is less evident,  state and local governments, and others could assume more responsibility.  For example, efforts to reduce transportation’s impact on greenhouse gas  emissions may warrant a greater federal role than other initiatives, such as  reducing urban congestion, since the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions  are widely dispersed, whereas the impacts of urban congestion may be  more localized.
The following illustrative questions can be used to determine the extent to  which proposals to restructure the surface transportation program define  the federal role in relation to identified areas of national interest and goals.
To what extent are areas of national interest clearly defined?    To what extent are areas of national interest reflective of future trends?    To what extent are goals defined in relation to identified areas of national  interest?
To what extent is the federal role directly linked to defined areas of  national interest and goals?
To what extent is the federal role defined in relation to the roles of state  and local governments, regional entities, and the private sector?
To what extent does the proposal consider how the transportation system  is linked to other sectors and national policies, such as environmental,  security, and energy policies?
section_title: Incorporate Performance and Accountability into Funding Decisions
paragraphs: Our previous work has shown that an increased focus on performance and  accountability for results could help the federal government target  resources to programs that best achieve intended outcomes and national  transportation priorities. Tracking specific outcomes that are clearly  linked to program goals could provide a strong foundation for holding  grant recipients responsible for achieving federal objectives and  measuring overall program performance. In particular, substituting  specific performance measures for the current federal procedural  requirements could help make the program more outcome-oriented. For  example, if reducing congestion were an established federal goal, outcome  measures for congestion, such as reduced travel time could be  incorporated into the programs to hold state and local governments  responsible for meeting specific performance targets. Furthermore,  directly linking the allocation of resources to the program outcomes  would increase the focus on performance and accountability for results.  Incorporating incentives or penalty provisions into grants can further hold  grantees and recipients accountable for achieving results.
The following illustrative questions can be used to determine the extent to  which proposals to restructure the surface transportation program  incorporate performance and accountability mechanisms.
Are national performance goals identified and discussed in relation to  state, regional, and local performance goals?
To what extent are performance measures outcome-based?    To what extent is funding linked to performance?
To what extent does the proposal include provisions for holding  stakeholders accountable for achieving results?
To what extent does the proposal create data collection streams and other  tools as well as a capacity for monitoring and evaluating performance?
section_title: Ensure Fiscal Sustainability and Employ the Best Tools and Approaches to Improve Results and Return on Investment
paragraphs: We have previously reported that the effectiveness of any overall federal  program design can be increased by incorporating strategies to ensure  fiscal sustainability as well as by promoting and facilitating the use of the  best tools and approaches to improve results and return on investment.  Importantly, given the projected growth in federal deficits, constrained  state and local budgets, and looming Social Security and Medicare  spending commitments, the resources available for discretionary programs  will be more limited—making it imperative to maximize the national  public benefits of any federal investment through a rigorous examination  of the use of such funds. The federal role in transportation funding must  be reexamined to ensure that it is sustainable in this new fiscal reality. A  sustainable surface transportation program will require targeted  investment, with adequate return on investment, from not only the federal  government, but also state and local governments, and the private sector.  The user-pay concept—that is, users paying directly for the infrastructure  they use—is a long-standing aspect of transportation policy and should, to  the extent feasible and appropriate, remain an essential tenet as the nation  moves toward the development of a fiscally sustainable transportation  program. For example, a panel of experts recently convened by GAO  agreed that regardless of funding mechanisms pursued, investments need  to seek to align fees and taxes with use and benefits.
A number of specific tools and approaches can be used to improve results  and return on investment including using economic analysis, such as  benefit-cost analysis in project selection; requiring grantees to conduct  post-project evaluations; creating incentives to better utilize existing  infrastructure; providing states and localities greater flexibility to use  certain tools, such as tolling and congestion pricing; and requiring  maintenance of effort provisions in grants. The suitability of the tool and  approach used varies depending on the level of federal involvement or  control that policymakers desire for a given area of policy. Using these  tools and approaches could help surface transportation programs more  directly address national transportation priorities and become more  fiscally sustainable.
The following illustrative questions can be used to determine the extent to  which proposals to restructure the surface transportation program ensure  fiscal sustainability and employ the best tools and approaches to improve  results and return on investment.
To what extent do the proposals reexamine current and future spending  on surface transportation programs?
Are the recommendations affordable and financially stable over the long- term? To what extent are the recommendations placed in the context of  federal deficits, constrained budgets, and other spending commitments  and to what extent do they meet a rigorous examination of the use of  federal funds?
To what extent do the proposals discuss how costs and revenues will be  shared among federal, state, local, and private stakeholders?
To what extent are recommendations considered in the context of trends  that could affect the transportation system in the future, such as  population growth, increased fuel efficiency, and increased freight traffic?
To what extent do the proposals build in capacity to address changing  national interests?
To what extent do the proposals address the need better to align fees and  taxes with use and benefits?
To what extent are efficiency and equity tradeoffs considered?    To what extent do the proposals provide flexibility and incentives for  states and local governments to choose the most appropriate tool in the  toolbox?
section_title: Preliminary Observations on the Commission’s Recommendations
paragraphs: The Commission makes a number of recommendations designed to  restructure the federal surface transportation program so that it meets the  needs of the nation in the 21st century. The recommendations include  significantly increasing the level of investment by all levels of government  in surface transportation, consolidating and reorganizing the current  programs, speeding project delivery, and making the current programs  more performance- and outcome-based and mode-neutral, among other  things. We are currently analyzing the Commission’s recommendations  using the principles that we have developed for evaluating proposals to  restructure the surface transportation program. Although our analysis is  not complete, our preliminary results indicate that some of the  Commission’s recommendations address issues included in the principles.
For example, to make the surface transportation program more  performance-based, the Commission recommends the development of  outcome-based performance standards for various programs. Other  recommendations, however, appear to be aligned less clearly with the  principles.
subsections: section_title: Preliminary Observations on the Commission’s Recommendations As They Relate to the National Interest and Federal Role
paragraphs: In its report, the Commission identifies eight areas of national interest and  recommends organizational restructuring of DOT to eliminate modal  stovepipes. In particular, the report notes that the national interest in  transportation is best served when (1) facilities are well maintained, (2)  mobility within and between metropolitan areas is reliable, (3)  transportation systems are appropriately priced, (4) modes are rebalanced  and travel options are plentiful, (5) freight movement is explicitly valued,  (6) safety is assured, (7) transportation decisions and resource impacts are  integrated, and (8) rational regulatory policy prevails. We and others have  also identified some of these and other issues as possible areas of national  interest for the surface transportation program. For example, at a recent  forum on transportation policy convened by the Comptroller General,  experts identified enhancing the mobility of people and goods, maintaining  global competitiveness, improving transportation safety, minimizing  adverse environmental impacts of the transportation system, and  facilitating transportation security as the most important transportation  policy goals.  The Commission report also recommends restructuring  DOT to consolidate the current programs and to eliminate modal  stovepipes. We have also identified the importance of breaking down  modal stovepipes. Specifically, we have reported that the modal structure  of DOT and state and local transportation agencies can inhibit the  consideration of a range of transportation options and impede  coordination among the modes. Furthermore, in the forum on  transportation policy, experts told us that the current federal structure,  with its modal administrations and stovepiped programs and funding,  frequently inhibits consideration of a range of transportation options at  both the regional and national levels.
Some of the Commission’s recommendations related to the national  interest and the federal role also raise questions for consideration.  Although consolidating and reorganizing the existing surface  transportation programs, as the Commission recommends, could help  eliminate modal stovepipes, it is not clear to what extent eliminating any  of the existing programs was considered. Given the federal government’s  fiscal outlook, we have reported that we cannot accept all of the federal  government’s existing programs, policies, and activities as “givens.”  Rather, we have stated that we need to rethink existing programs, policies,  and activities by reviewing their results relative to the national interests  and by testing their continued relevance and relative priority. It is not  clear from the Commission’s report that such a “zero-based” review of the  current and proposed surface transportation programs took place.
The Commission also recommends an 80/20 cost sharing arrangement for  transportation projects under most programs—that is, the federal  government would fund 80 percent of the project costs and the grantee  (e.g., state government) would fund 20 percent. In addition, the  Commission recommends that the federal government should pay 40  percent of national infrastructure capital costs. These proposed cost share  arrangements suggest that the recommended level and share of federal  funding reflects the benefits the nation receives from investment in the  project—that is, the national interest. However, the report offers no  evidence that this is the case. Rather, the proposed cost share  arrangements appear to reflect the historical funding levels of many  surface transportation programs without considering whether this level of  funding reflects the national interest or should vary by program or project.  For example, the Commission recommends that the federal government  pay for 80 percent of the proposed intercity passenger rail system.  However, we have found that the nation’s intercity passenger rail system  appears to provide limited public benefits for the level of federal  expenditures required to operate it, raising questions as to whether an 80  percent federal share is justified.
section_title: Preliminary Observations on the Commission’s Recommendations As They Relate to Performance and Accountability
paragraphs: The Commission proposes to make the surface transportation program  performance- and outcome-based, and its recommendations include  several performance and accountability mechanisms. In particular, the  Commission recommends the development of national outcome-based  performance standards for the different federal programs. The  Commission recommends that states and major metropolitan areas also be  required to include performance measures in their own transportation  plans, along with time frames for meeting national performance standards.  To receive federal funding, projects must be listed in state and local plans,  be shown to be cost-beneficial, and be linked to specific performance  targets. In addition, the Commission recognizes the importance of data in  measuring the effectiveness of transportation programs and overall project  performance and recommends that an important goal of the proposed  research, development, and technology program be to improve the  nation’s ability to measure project performance data.
Although the Commission emphasizes the need for a performance- and  outcome-based program, it is unclear to what extent some of the  Commission’s recommendations are aligned with such principles. For  example, the Commission recommends that overall federal funding be  apportioned to states based on state and local transportation plans, rather  than directly linking the distribution of funds to state and local  governments’ performance in meeting identified national transportation  goals. In addition, although the Commission recognizes the importance of  data in evaluating the effectiveness of projects, the Commission does not  recommend the use of post-project, or outcome, evaluations. Our previous  work has shown that post-project evaluations provide an opportunity to  learn from the successes and shortcomings of past projects to better  inform future planning and decision making and increase accountability  for results.
section_title: Preliminary Observations on the Commission’s Recommendations As They Relate to Fiscal Sustainability and the Use of the Best Tools and Approaches
paragraphs: The Commission recommends a range of financing mechanisms and tools  as necessary components of a fiscally sustainable transportation program.  These mechanisms include an increase in the federal fuel tax, investment  tax credits, and the introduction of new fees, such as a new fee on freight  and a new transit ticket tax. Experts at our forum on transportation policy  also advocated the use of various financing mechanisms, including many  of the mechanisms recommended by the Commission, arguing that there is  no “silver bullet” for the current and future funding crisis facing the  nation’s transportation system. The Commission also recognizes that  states will need to use other tools to generate revenues for their share of  the recommended increase in investment and to manage congestion.  Therefore, the Commission supports fewer federal restrictions on tolling  and congestion pricing on the interstate highways system and  recommends that Congress encourage the use of public-private  partnerships where appropriate. In addition, the Commission recognizes  the growing consensus that, with more fuel-efficient and more alternative- fuel vehicles, an alternative to the fuel tax will be required in the next 15 to  20 years. To facilitate a transition to new revenue sources, the  Commission recommends that Congress require a study of specific  mechanisms, such as mileage-based user fees.
It is unclear, however, whether some of the Commission’s  recommendations are fiscally sustainable—both over the short and the  long-term—and encourage the use of the best tools and approaches. For  example, the Commission recommends a substantial investment— specifically, $225 billion per year—in the surface transportation program  by all stakeholders. However, the level of investment called for by the  Commission reflects the most expensive “needs” scenario examined by the  Commission, raising questions about whether this level of investment is  warranted and whether federal, state, and local governments can generate  their share of the investment in light of competing priorities and fiscal  constraints. In addition, while much of the increased investment in the  surface transportation program would come from increased fuel taxes and  other user fees, some funding would come from general revenues. Such  recommendations need to be considered in the context of the overall fiscal  condition of the federal government. Finally, while the Commission  recommends enhanced opportunities for states to implement alternative  tools such as tolling, congestion pricing, and public-private partnerships, it  also recommends that Congress place a number of restrictions on the use  of these mechanisms, such as requirements that states cap toll rates (at  the level of the CPI minus a productivity adjustment), prohibit the use of  revenues for non-transportation purposes, avoid toll rates that  discriminate against certain users, and fully consider the effect tolling  might have on diverting traffic to other facilities. The potential federal  restrictions must be carefully crafted to avoid undermining the potential  benefits.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: In conclusion, the magnitude of the nation’s transportation challenges  calls for an urgent response, including a plan for the future. The  Commission’s report offers one way forward. Over the coming months,  other options to restructure and finance the surface transportation  program will likely be put forward by a range of transportation  stakeholders. Ultimately, Congress and other federal policymakers will  have to determine which option—or which combination of options—best  meets the needs of the nation. There is no silver bullet solution to the  nation’s transportation challenges and many of the options, such as  reorganizing a large federal agency or allowing greater private sector  investment in the nation’s infrastructure, could be politically difficult to  implement both nationally and locally. The principles that we identified  provide a framework for evaluation. Although the principles do not  prescribe a specific approach to restructuring, they do provide key  attributes that will help ensure that a restructured surface transportation  program addresses current challenges. We will continue to assist the  Congress as it works to evaluate the various options and develop a  national transportation policy for the 21st century that will improve the  design of transportation programs, the delivery of services, and  accountability for results.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the  Committee might have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgement
paragraphs: For further information on this statement, please contact JayEtta Z.  Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. Individuals making key  contributions to this testimony were Elizabeth Argeris, Nikki Clowers,  Barbara Lancaster, Matthew LaTour, Nancy Lueke, and Katherine  Siggerud.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Action Is Needed to Avoid the Possibility of a  Serious Economic Disruption in the Future. GAO-08-411T. Washington,  D.C.: January 29, 2008.
Freight Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can Help  Improve Freight Mobility. GAO-08-287. Washington, D.C.: January 7, 2008  A Call For Stewardship: Enhancing the Federal Government’s Ability to  Address Key Fiscal and Other 21st Century Challenges. GAO-08-93SP.  Washington, D.C.: December 2007.
Highlights of a Forum: Transforming Transportation Policy for the 21st  Century. GAO-07-1210SP. Washington, D.C.: September 2007.
Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and  Small Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the Small Starts  Application Process. GAO-07-917. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007.
Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making Existing  Road Infrastructure Perform Better. GAO-07-920. Washington, D.C.: July  26, 2007.
Highway and Transit Investments: Flexible Funding Supports State and  Local Transportation Priorities and Multimodal Planning. GAO-07-772.  Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.
Railroad Bridges and Tunnels: Federal Role in Providing Safety  Oversight and Freight Infrastructure Investment Could Be Better  Targeted. GAO-07-770. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2007.
Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address  Intermodal Barriers. GAO-07-718. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2007.
Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing  Congress and the Department of Transportation. GAO-07-545T.  Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, D.C.: January  2007.
Fiscal Stewardship: A Critical Challenge Facing Our Nation. GAO-07- 362SP. Washington, D.C.: January 2007.
Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to  Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures. GAO-07-15.  Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.
Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has Improved, but Concerns about  Competition and Capacity Should be Addressed. GAO-07-94. Washington,  D.C.: October 6, 2006.
Highway Finance: States’ Expanding Use of Tolling Illustrates Diverse  Challenges and Strategies. GAO-06-554. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2006.
Highway Trust Fund: Overview of Highway Trust Fund  Estimates. GAO-06-572T. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006.
Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation Systems’ Promise for  Managing Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate Their  Strategic Use. GAO-05-943. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2005.
Freight Transportation: Short Sea Shipping Option Shows Importance of  Systematic Approach to Public Investment Decisions. GAO-05-768.  Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005.
Highlights of an Expert Panel: The Benefits and Costs of Highway and  Transit Investments. GAO-05-423SP. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2005.  21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal  Government. GAO-05-325SP. Washington, D.C.: February 2005.
Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information  on Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for  Results. GAO-05-172. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005.
Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options  for Future Program Design. GAO-04-802. Washington, D.C.: August 31,  2004.
Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment  Decisions. GAO-04-744. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.
Highways and Transit: Private Sector Sponsorship of and Investment in  Major Projects Has Been Limited. GAO-04-419. Washington, D.C.:      March 25, 2004.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.