Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transportation Impact of Personnel Increases Will Be Significant, but Long-Term Costs Are Uncertain and Direct Federal Support Is Limited
Published: 2009-09-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to relocate over 123,000 military and DOD civilian personnel, thereby increasing the staffing at 18 bases nationwide. In addition, DOD and local officials expect thousands of dependents and DOD contractor employees to relocate to communities near the BRAC 2005 growth bases. These actions will greatly increase traffic in the surrounding communities. BRAC recommendations must be implemented by September 2011. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations directed GAO to assess and report on the impact of BRAC-related growth on transportation systems and on the responses of federal, state, and local governments. Accordingly, GAO determined the (1) expected impact on transportation in communities affected by BRAC decisions, and (2) federal, state, and local response to the expected impacts. To perform its work, GAO obtained information from the 18 communities with expected substantial BRAC growth; visited 8 of these communities; interviewed federal civilian and military officials and state and local officials; and reviewed DOD data, transportation plans, and environmental studies. GAO provided copies of this report to the Departments of Defense and Transportation for their review. The Departments provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Growth resulting from BRAC decisions will have a significant impact on transportation systems in some communities, but estimates of the total cost to address those impacts are uncertain. In addition to BRAC, other defense initiatives will result in growth in communities and also add to transportation needs. BRAC growth will result in increased traffic in communities ranging from very large metropolitan areas to small communities, creating or worsening congested roads at specific locations. Traffic impacts can also affect larger relocation decisions, and were important in DOD's decision to acquire an additional site for Fort Belvoir, Virginia, an acquisition that DOD estimates will cost $1.2 billion. According to a DOD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) survey, 17 of 18 BRAC growth communities identified transportation as one of their top challenges. Near-term transportation projects to address these challenges could cost about $2.0 billion, of which about $1.1 billion is related to projects in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area. BRAC-related transportation infrastructure costs are subject to a number of uncertainties. For example, not all potential projects are included in the estimate, military staffing levels at some growth installations are in flux and the location decisions of military and civilian personnel have not yet been made, and pre-existing, non-military community growth makes a direct link between transportation projects to military growth difficult. The federal government has provided limited direct assistance to help communities address BRAC transportation impacts, and state and local governments have adopted strategies to expedite projects within the time frame allowed by BRAC. For example, DOD's Defense Access Roads Program has certified transportation projects for funding at three affected communities. Also, OEA has provided planning grants and funded traffic studies and local planning positions. While federal highway and transit programs can be used for many BRAC-related transportation needs, dedicated funds are not available. Instead, BRAC-related transportation projects must compete with other proposed transportation projects. Communities had identified funding for about $500 million of the estimated $2.0 billion needed to address their near term project needs. Some state and local governments have adopted strategies to expedite highway projects, such as prioritizing short-term high-impact projects, because the time frames for completing BRAC personnel moves are much shorter than the time frames for such projects. While legislation mandates that BRAC growth be completed by 2011, major highway and transit projects usually take 9 to 19 years. To complete some critical projects before BRAC growth occurs, state and local officials are reprioritizing planned projects and implementing those that can be completed quickly. For example, Maryland prioritized certain lower-cost intersection projects that will improve traffic flow. In Texas, officials used an innovative financing approach to generate funding quickly for a major highway project at Fort Bliss.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, the  Department of Defense (DOD) plans to relocate over 123,000 DOD military  and civilian personnel, thereby increasing the staffing at numerous bases  nationwide. In addition, other DOD initiatives, such as those designed to  realign U.S. military capabilities worldwide and increase the size of the  nation’s permanent military forces, are expected to add about another  59,000 DOD personnel at these bases. DOD and local officials further  expect thousands of dependents and DOD contractor employees to  relocate to communities near these bases. Thus, several U.S. bases could  each see the addition of more than 10,000 military and civilian personnel.  While studies indicate that communities surrounding these growth bases  will realize economic benefits in the long term, the expected population  growth will greatly increase traffic in the surrounding communities. The  growth attributable to BRAC and other military initiatives will occur  quickly because the initiatives are in progress and, by law, the BRAC  realignments must be completed by September 2011. Some of the affected  bases are in congested urban areas while others are in areas with smaller  communities that have limited transportation infrastructure.
State and local governments are largely responsible for determining the  funding priorities for transportation improvements needed to respond to  BRAC 2005 and the other military growth initiatives. Some federal  assistance is, however, available through DOD’s Office of Economic  Adjustment (OEA), which provides guidance and planning grants to  communities affected by military relocation decisions; DOD’s Defense  Access Roads (DAR) program, which may make some military  construction funds available for road improvements outside a military  base; and the Department of Transportation (DOT), which provides  federal funds for states, transit agencies, and local units of government to  use for highway and transit improvements that are approved through the  metropolitan or statewide transportation process.
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, in the House report  accompanying the fiscal year 2008 Departments of Transportation, and  Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations  Act, directed that GAO assess and report on the impact of BRAC military  growth decisions on transportation and the response of the federal, state,  and local governments. Because neither DOD nor community planners  typically attempt to isolate the impact of BRAC-related growth from the  impact of other military growth initiatives, data are not available for an  assessment of the impact of BRAC decisions alone. Accordingly, we  determined (1) the expected impact of military growth on transportation  in communities affected by BRAC decisions, including the estimated costs,  and (2) the federal, state, and local response to the expected impact.
To perform our work, we identified and gathered information from  communities in the vicinity of the 18 military bases that OEA determined  will be substantially and seriously affected by growth resulting from the  BRAC 2005 realignments, visited 8 of these BRAC bases and nearby  communities, and observed local transportation conditions. We selected  these eight bases and nearby communities because they (1) varied in size,  including very large metropolitan areas over 1 million, smaller  metropolitan areas of 200,000 to 1 million, and smaller urban areas of less  than 200,000; (2) had completed environmental studies; and (3) had  identified transportation as a concern. In addition, we interviewed state  and local transportation officials and DOD, Army, Navy, and Air Force  officials about the impact of BRAC decisions on transportation and their  responses. We also reviewed relevant state and local planning documents,  such as state transportation improvement plans, local transportation  plans, and detailed traffic studies. We analyzed information OEA collected  from affected local governments showing their cost estimates and funding  available for growth-related projects. Finally, we reviewed federal  environmental studies on the impact of BRAC decisions and the treatment  of transportation issues in those documents and interviewed Army, Navy,  and Air Force officials responsible for the oversight of these  environmental studies.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through September  2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides a  more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
We provided copies of this report to the Departments of Defense and  Transportation for their review and comment. Both provided technical  comments, which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: BRAC 2005 was the fifth round of decisions designed to streamline the  nation’s defense infrastructure. Unlike past BRAC rounds, which have  generally focused on reducing excess physical infrastructure, this round  also presents military growth challenges for DOD, states, and local  governments. Its implementation will increase the numbers of on-base  personnel, military families, and defense-related contractors at and near 18  military bases. Furthermore, because the BRAC realignments must, by  law, be completed by September 15, 2011, these community changes will  be rapid, as personnel will arrive quickly once the bases are readied.  Figure 1 shows the 18 bases where BRAC growth will affect neighboring  communities. Other military growth communities exist, but their growth is  not a result of BRAC.
subsections: section_title: Other Military Growth Initiatives
paragraphs: While BRAC 2005 is taking place, other major initiatives will increase  growth at and near some BRAC-affected bases. These include two major  military reorganizations. First, the Global Defense Posture Realignment  initiative will move about 70,000 military and civilian personnel from  overseas to U.S. bases by 2011 to better support current strategies and  address emerging threats. Second, the Army’s force modularity effort will  restructure the Army from a division-based force to a more readily  deployable modular, brigade-based force. Some of these brigade units will  relocate to other existing bases. A third initiative, Grow the Force, is not a  reorganization but will increase the permanent strength of the military to  enhance overall U.S. forces. This initiative will add about 74,000 soldiers  and about 27,000 marines. Finally, troop drawdowns from Iraq could  increase personnel numbers at some BRAC-affected bases. These other  military initiatives will also be implemented over a longer time frame than  BRAC decisions, which are scheduled to be completed in 2011.
Though not a major force initiative, DOD’s enhanced use lease (EUL)  activities will also affect growth and development in military communities.  EULs allow the military to lease its land to private developers to build  offices and other facilities that generate operating income for the military.  In some cases, the growth from EUL activities may exceed the BRAC- related growth. For example, the EUL at Fort Meade, which is planned to  include up to 2 million square feet of office space, could house up to  10,000 new workers by 2013. This EUL activity will generate more new  jobs in the Fort Meade area than the 6,600 additional military and civilian  DOD personnel attributable to BRAC.
Because all these initiatives are taking place at the same time, the forces  driving growth at military bases and the surrounding communities are  more complex than they would be if they were the result of BRAC  decisions alone. As table 1 indicates, six of the eight bases we visited  expect to be affected by various defense initiatives in addition to BRAC.
During fiscal years 2006 through 2012, the populations of the communities  in the vicinity of the 18 BRAC bases identified in figure 1 are expected to  increase by an estimated 181,800 military and civilian personnel, plus an  estimated 173,200 dependents, for a total increase of about 355,000  persons, as shown in table 2. At two bases, Fort Bliss and Fort Belvoir,  DOD has estimated that the on-base populations alone will more than  double. In addition, defense-related contractors who follow and settle near  the relocated commands will compound the growth and traffic near some  bases, and the impact of these contractor relocations is not reflected in the  military growth figures. For example, at Fort Meade, Maryland, DOD has  estimated that an additional 10,000 contractor personnel may relocate near  to or on the base.
OEA is DOD’s primary source for assisting communities adversely affected  by defense program changes, including base closures or realignments.  OEA provides guidance and assistance to growth communities through  growth management planning grants, guidance, and expertise to help  communities with significantly adverse consequences as a result of BRAC  decisions. OEA has identified those communities that are expected to be  impacted by BRAC-related growth and that have expressed a need for  planning assistance. As part of this assistance, OEA has provided support  to communities to hire planners or consultants to perform studies  identifying infrastructure needs created by military growth. Additionally,  DOD’s Defense Access Roads (DAR) Program may allow Military  Construction funds to help address highway needs created by military  activities. The focus of DAR is not typical traffic growth, which should be  addressed through normal federal, state, and local transportation  programs, but rather unusual changes and military necessity.
section_title: Federal Transportation Funding Available to Help Address Impact of Military Growth
paragraphs: National security is one of the explicit goals of the Federal-Aid Highway  Program; however, DOT does not have special programs to deal with  military growth. Nevertheless, many federal transportation grant programs  provide state and local governments with funding that they can use to help  address BRAC-related transportation challenges. The Federal-Aid Highway  program consists of seven core formula grant programs and several  smaller formula and discretionary grant programs. Broad flexibility  provisions allow for states to transfer funds between core programs and  also to eligible transit projects. Federal capital transit programs include  formula grants to transit agencies and states. Additionally, transit capital  investment grants provide discretionary funds for the construction and  extension of fixed-guideway systems such as rail or bus rapid transit lines.  Federal transportation programs also require states to set their own  priorities for addressing transportation needs.
section_title: Traffic Impacts Can Be Identified through Level of Service Measures
paragraphs: Traffic growth impacts can be analyzed by the effect of the addition of  automobiles on traffic flow. Generally, traffic flow on roadways is  measured by “level of service,” a qualitative grading system. The  Transportation Research Board defines service levels for roadways using  “A through F” grades. Service level “A” defines roadways with no delays  and unimpeded traffic flow at posted speed limits. Service level “F” is  defined as a failing service level and describes roadways with traffic  conditions that most drivers consider to be unacceptable. Drivers on these  roadways experience long delays and poor to nonexistent traffic flow.  Even small increases in traffic can have a large impact when roads are  already congested.
section_title: Military Growth Will Have a Significant Impact on Transportation in Affected Communities, but the Full Extent and Cost of That Impact Are Uncertain
paragraphs: Affected communities expect BRAC and other military growth initiatives  to have a significant impact on local transportation. In response to an OEA  survey, nearly all BRAC growth communities identified transportation as a  top growth challenge. Transportation studies done in communities of  varying size show how BRAC-related growth is expected to result in a  deterioration of traffic conditions. Affected communities identified about  $2 billion in expected costs for transportation projects that they consider  needed to address military growth in the near term, before the September  2011 deadline. The costs of longer-term projects to address the impact of  military growth on transportation in these communities beyond the BRAC  deadline are uncertain.
subsections: section_title: Impact of Military Growth on Transportation Is Significant, but Will Vary across Communities
paragraphs: Many communities affected by BRAC growth recognize that changes  resulting from that growth will place additional demands on their  transportation systems. In 2007, OEA asked growth communities,  including 18 current BRAC growth communities, to determine which of  the problems they would face as a result of military growth would create  the greatest challenges. Of 18 current BRAC-growth communities, 17  identified transportation as one of their top three priorities. These 17  communities ranged in size from very large metropolitan areas to  relatively small communities, and the extent of the impact depended in  part on the size of the affected community.
subsections: section_title: Very Large Metropolitan Areas
paragraphs: Some BRAC growth bases are located in metropolitan areas with  populations of well over 1 million. In these areas, the military growth may  be small relative to the community’s total population, but the community  nevertheless anticipates localized effects on already congested urban  roadways. At the National Naval Medical Center, for example—a BRAC  growth base located in Bethesda, Maryland, a densely populated  Washington suburb—a planned consolidation with Walter Reed Army  Medical Center, located in Washington, D.C., will create additional traffic  not only from 2,500 additional hospital employees, but also from patients  and visitors, resulting in an about 1,900 estimated additional trips to the  hospital campus per day. While small compared to the regional population,  these additional employees, patients, and visitors will travel to the base  using either the Washington Metrorail system or by bus or auto on an  already congested roadway system. The medical center is located near two  major arterial roads, two state highways, and an Interstate highway (I-495,  the Capitol Beltway). It is also located across from the National Institutes  of Health, where over 18,000 personnel are employed. According to  Maryland transportation planners, the additional traffic resulting from the  BRAC action will lead to further deterioration of traffic conditions in the  area. Specifically, without intersection improvements, the number of  intersections with failing conditions is projected to increase from three to  five. In addition, traffic conditions may deteriorate at 10 other  intersections, but not to the point of failure. Traffic analyses done for DOD  as part of an environmental impact statement (EIS) reviewed 27 major  intersections in the vicinity and estimated that with no improvements, the  increases in traffic would result in failing or deteriorating service levels at  15 of those intersections during peak periods, compared with current  conditions. Such declining service levels mean significant delays will  occur, likely increasing base employees’ and others’ commute times.
Fort Belvoir is located in Fairfax County, Virginia, where employment and  development have grown rapidly and transportation improvements have  not kept pace with growth. The planned net addition of 24,100 personnel  at the base will increase congestion on the already congested Interstate  highway (I-95). Local planners anticipate additional BRAC-related  congestion on a number of other nearby Interstate, federal, and local  highways (I-395, I-495, U.S. Route 1, and the Fairfax County Parkway). The  physical layout of Fort Belvoir also complicates commuter access, in that  the base is situated on two major land parcels—the main post and the  Engineer Proving Ground—separated by a busy highway (see fig. 2). In  addition, gate and road closures after the September 11, 2001, terrorist  attacks have already concentrated traffic near the base. The BRAC Fort  Belvoir EIS estimated that, with the planned increase in personnel, the  number of failing intersections near the base would increase from 2 to 6  during the morning peak period, and the level of service would deteriorate  by at least one level at 13 intersections.
Traffic and development density problems at Fort Belvoir identified during  the environmental review process were so severe that DOD decided to  acquire and develop an additional site, at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion,  to accommodate about 6,400 employees of DOD’s Washington  Headquarters Services and additional organizations. DOD officials told us,  for example, that they would have had to construct a parking structure  separate from the potential office site on the other side of U.S. Route 1, as  well as an additional pedestrian bridge structure across the highway,  estimated to cost $90 million. Army officials also determined that the  existing Engineer Proving Ground location at Fort Belvoir was not large  enough to accommodate office space and parking for so many additional  personnel. However, even with the acquisition of the new site, congestion will grow on roadways near the current base, and local officials estimate  that initial transportation improvements to address the impact of growth,  including an additional access ramp to Interstate 95, could cost as muc $458 million. Over the longer term, state and local officials expect the  costs of transportation improvements to address congestion to be much  higher.
Fort Meade, Maryland, located in the corridor between Washington, D. and Baltimore, is also located in a region of significant growth. Traffic  delays are already prevalent at many intersections near the base, where drivers have few roadway alternatives, and county officials expect the  growth at Fort Meade to exacerbate these conditions. Given the planni cycle for major highway construction and the state’s large backlog of  transportation projects, the state will likely be precluded from addressing  ded  these needs before BRAC 2005 actions are completed. The EIS conclu that significant adverse effects on area roadways would be expected  during and after 2011. For example, it concluded that the growth at Fort  ections of road near  Meade would cause failing traffic conditions on 12 s the base, potentially resulting in significant delays.
The effects of BRAC decisions, however, cannot be isolated from the  effects of other transportation challenges that the region around Fort  Meade will face, especially the challenges resulting from the construction of an EUL facility at the base. This facility is designed to include abou million square feet of office space and could house up to 10,000 new  workers by 2013. EUL activities could generate more new jobs in the Fort  Meade area than the military growth initiatives that are scheduled to bri about 7,000 additional military and civilian DOD personnel to the area.  Although Maryland transportation planners have not separately estimated  the effects of BRAC and the EUL on transportation, they said that the EUL  C decision  is planned to be constructed at about the same time as the BRA is to be implemented and they expected the EUL to contribute  significantly to the new traffic.
Finally, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, consists of about 72,000  acres—including 33,000 acres of water—primarily within Harford Coun tern  Maryland, north of Baltimore. The base is located on the northwes shore of Chesapeake Bay, and most of the base is located on two  peninsulas—one to the north and one to the south. The number of milit and civilian personnel working at the base is scheduled to increase by  about 3,400 through 2012. According to Army officials, the Army also has ary  entered into an EUL agreement with a developer to build up to 3 mill square feet of office space within the base for up to 3,000 additional  workers. Transportation planners expect this growth to aggravate traffic  conditions on area roadways, which include a major Interstate highw ay,  federal and state highways, and county roads. For example, the EIS  completed for this base examined 17 off-post intersections and foun without improvements to roadways and greater use of bus and rail  systems by base personnel, levels of service would deteriorate at seven  intersections near the base and would fail at three intersections. At thetime of the EIS, none of these intersections had failing service levels.
section_title: Smaller Metropolitan Areas
paragraphs: Military growth may also affect transportation in metropolitan areas with populations of less than 1 million. While the additional traffic may causecongestion, these communities generally do not face the same physical  constraints as the largest metropolitan areas. Military growth bases may be located in or adjacent to these areas, but also extend far outside th built-up urban sections. Colorado Springs, Colorado, bordering Fort  Carson, and El Paso, Texas, borde before the BRAC 2005 decisions.  ring Fort Bliss, were growing rapidly  Fort Carson is located to the south of Colorado Springs, and Interstate 25 two state highways, and a major county road are the major routes to the  base. In Colorado Springs, a study by the Pikes Peak Area Council of  Governments found that traffic around Fort Carson will increase by at  least 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2015, largely because of an influx of  about 24,800 troops and dependents. Fort Carson officials estimate that  over 24,000 vehicles will pass through one major base gate every day by  2012, an increase of about 150 percent or 14,600 additional vehicles per  day. Vehicles must approach the gate from a highway interchange where  traffic is already congested. Local officials are concerned that the  increased traffic near the gate and at the interchange will lead to more  accidents.
In El Paso, Texas, where Fort Bliss is located, officials identified a need  for new roads to address mobility problems in the rapidly growing region,  including increased congestion on I-10, the only Interstate highway se the city. BRAC and other military growth initiatives will bring alm ost  70,000 additional military personnel and dependents to the base,  significantly increasing El Paso’s population. Local officials expect that  many of the new personnel at Fort Bliss who will live off-base will ch to live in east and northeast El Paso. To accommodate the expected  increases in traffic on roadways connecting east and northeast El Paso and Fort Bliss, the state of Texas worked with a private developer to  oose  construct a 7.4 mile roadway—Spur 601—connecting east and northeast  El Paso to the base. State and local officials expect the new roadway to  provide base personnel with easy access to base gates and reduce  congestion for all commuters in the vicinity.
section_title: Smaller Urban Areas
paragraphs: Military growth may also affect transportation in less heavily populated  communities. Here, road networks are less extensive than road networks  in metropolitan areas, forcing the additional traffic onto roadways su two lane rural roads not always designed for higher traffic levels. In  addition, smaller urban areas affected by BRAC growth are also less li to have transit options— rail transit is generally not available and bus  transit can be limited.
For example, in Radcliff, Kentucky, the community adjacent to Fort Knox one highway serves the community’s business district and also provides  access to all three gates at the base. As many as 48,000 vehicles travel ov portions of this road between Elizabethtown, Kentucky, and Fort Knox  each day, causing traffic congestion. In addition, some military and civilia personnel at Fort Knox commute to the base using two-lane rural road Even though Fort Knox expects to see a net reduction of about 2,900 personnel, changing demographics at the base will greatly increase  congestion on the main highway. For example, as part of BRAC 2005, For Knox will lose military trainees who live and largely remain on-base, but  gain civilian employees who will live off-base, along with their dependen A 2007 study of traffic conditions near Fort Knox performed for a local  metropolitan planning organization concluded that without significa improvements, the existing roadway system would be incapable of nt  providing the capacity required to accommodate traffic increases caused  by the change in personnel at the base. The study also concluded that the  BRAC personnel changes would cause travel conditions on the roadway  deteriorate greatly. Furthermore, while Radcliff, Kentucky, has a tra nsit  provider—a social agency offering dial-a-ride and vanpool services  including vanpools to the base—this provider does not offer regularly  scheduled bus service. According to transit agency officials, the provider  hopes to move toward regular service that could transport commuters to  the base. Conditions at Radcliff, Kentucky, illustrate how growth can have  a more severe impact on tra ffic than the change in the net number of base  personnel would indicate.  s. ts.
Similarly, at Eglin Air Force Base, a limited roadway network serving the  724 square-mile facility channels traffic along relatively few major roads  and causes congestion. The base spans three counties in northwest  Florida, and some communities along the coast are constricted by the ba se  (see fig. 3). According to local officials, improving transportation is the  main growth-related challenge facing communities near Eglin Air Force  Base. Local and regional transportation studies have focused primarily on the impact of growth on the major roadways that accommodate most of  the traffic in the area and serve as hurricane evacuation routes for area  residents. Three main roads traverse the base from north to south. One  major road, bracketed by the base and the Gulf of Mexico, runs east to  west along the base’s southern boundary. With the planned increas dary. With the planned increas e of  e of  3,600 personnel and without transportation improvements, traffic  3,600 personnel and without transportation improvements, traffic  conditions will decline during peak traffic hours, with fai conditions will decline during peak traffic hours, with failing levels of  service projected at 17 locations, compared with 9 now. ling levels of  service projected at 17 locations, compared with 9 now.
section_title: Near-Term Projects to Address Growth Are Estimated to Cost $2.0 Billion; Longer-Term Project Costs and Impacts Are Uncertain
paragraphs: Using community estimates, OEA projected that the cost of addressing the  most immediate effects of military growth on transportation in the  affected communities would be about $2.0 billion. This estimate includes  transportation projects that had to meet four criteria: the project had to  (1) be clearly and substantially linked to military growth, (2) have detailed  cost estimates and funding sources that were specific and could be  validated, (3) have a demonstrated gap in funding, and (4) be essential to  prepare for military growth by September 2011. Many projects were  largely designed to improve intersections and to widen and extend  roadways near growth bases. Over half of these costs are for  transportation improvements concentrated near three bases in the  metropolitan Washington, D.C., area—Bethesda National Naval Medical  Center, Fort Belvoir, and Fort Meade. Communities near these three bases  have identified 11 critical transportation projects estimated to cost over  $1.1 billion.
The impact of military growth on transportation could be greater than the  affected communities have estimated thus far, and the costs of projects to  address those impacts are still uncertain for several reasons. First, some  potential projects are not included in the $2.0 billion estimate, and, if built,  will result in additional costs beyond the $2.0 billion estimate. Texas  Department of Transportation officials told us they had identified  additional projects designed, at least in part, to address military growth,  which they estimate will cost about $327 million. However, according to El  Paso officials, the community is able to fund the projects and, although the  number of military personnel arriving in El Paso is very substantial, it is  not a large percentage of the existing community’s population. In some  cases uncertainty remains regarding the transportation impacts. For  example, officials at growth-affected communities near Camp Lejeune,  North Carolina, were still identifying what levels of growth would occur  and the impact of military growth on transportation. Additionally, some  communities were unsure where arriving personnel and contractors would  choose to live. For example, officials from Fort Belvoir were unsure how  many personnel would relocate near the base, and officials at Fort Knox  did not know if some new personnel would choose to commute from the  Louisville area. Finally, many communities anticipate future growth  anyway, and it is not always clear whether its impact on transportation is  clearly and substantially linked to military growth. Studies and other  evidence clearly linking projects to military growth are not always  available. For example, OEA officials told us they have no evidence  available to link three costly potential longer-term projects to military  growth. These three projects, which are not included in the $2.0 billion  estimate and which OEA officials said are among the four costliest  unfunded longer-term projects that affected communities identified, are  estimated to cost a total of about $1.6 billion and include expanding public  transit in the Washington, D.C., area. OEA officials expect to complete an  updated assessment of military growth projects, costs, and funding needs  in late 2009.
section_title: DOD Funding for Transportation Projects Is Limited, and Projects Must Compete for DOT Funds, but State and Local Governments Have Adopted Strategies to Expedite Projects
paragraphs: The federal response to the expected impact of military growth on  transportation includes helping with planning, estimating project costs,  and providing some funding for projects. Both DOD and DOT have  programs that can help states and localities; however, projects to address  the impact of military growth must compete with other projects for  funding. State and local officials are prioritizing highway projects that can  be completed with existing funding and identifying alternative  transportation approaches, such as transit and biking, to help address the  growth expected in their communities.
subsections: section_title: OEA Provides Planning Assistance to Communities, but DOD Funding for Transportation Projects Is Limited and BRAC-Related Projects Must Compete with Other State Transportation Priorities under DOT Programs
paragraphs: OEA is DOD’s primary source of assistance for communities adversely  affected by Defense program changes. OEA provides technical and  financial assistance to help communities address adverse consequences of  BRAC decisions. However, as we have previously reported, OEA is not at  an appropriate organizational level within DOD to coordinate the  assistance from multiple federal and other government agencies that  affected communities need. Accordingly, we recommended that DOD  provide high-level agency leadership to ensure interagency and  intergovernmental coordination. DOD agreed with this recommendation.
OEA has funded local coordinator positions to assist in coordinating local  activities responding to BRAC, including transportation-related activities.  For example, Harford County, Maryland, established a BRAC Planning  Commission for Aberdeen Proving Ground. This Commission, with OEA  funding, helped establish the Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor  Consortium, which includes eight jurisdictions in three states—Delaware,  Maryland, and Pennsylvania. With Harford County as the lead agency, the  Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor Regional BRAC Office  administer grants and coordinates regional BRAC responses.
OEA also has funded studies, such as traffic studies, which help states and  local communities define the impact of military growth on transportation.  For example, OEA has provided transportation planning grants to  Maryland and Virginia. According to local officials, OEA also has funded  transportation studies for communities near several of the bases we  visited, including those near Eglin Air Force Base and Fort Knox. These  studies can provide communities with more detailed, precise information  about the transportation impact of military growth than the initial  environmental studies performed by DOD.
subsections: section_title: Defense Access Roads Program Has Provided Limited Funding for Community Transportation Needs
paragraphs: Under the DAR program, administered by the Military Surface Deployment  and Distribution Command (SDDC), DOD may pay for public highway  improvements needed to address the impact on traffic of sudden or  unusual defense-related actions. DAR enables DOD to help pay indirectly  for improvements to highways DOD designates as important to the  national defense. Under DAR, DOD can use funds provided in military  construction appropriations to pay for all or part of the cost of  constructing and maintaining roads designated as “defense access roads.”  However, proposals for funding these roads must compete with proposals  for funding all other military construction projects, and projects must  meet specific criteria.
Local government and military base officials we interviewed said they  considered DAR funding difficult to obtain because of the program’s  narrow eligibility criteria. For example, if a road is already heavily used  or congested, traffic may not double as a result of military growth even  though traffic may increase significantly. In addition, the DAR criteria do  not specifically refer to transit-related improvements. The DAR program  has not funded large numbers of defense access road projects. From 2000  to 2009, the program received applications to certify of 27 projects. Of  those, 17 have been certified and funded, 6 have been certified and are  pursuing funding, 3 are currently being evaluated for certification, and 1  did not met the funding criteria. Since 2005, the program has provided  about $22 million annually for transportation improvements, including  projects that are not BRAC-related.
In 2008, we reported that for 11 bases whose populations were scheduled  to increase by at least 25 percent, DOD had certified and requested  funding for one DAR project—$36.0 million for access ramps and a  parkway at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Since that time, DOD has approved and  provided funds for additional projects at two BRAC growth bases: $8.3  million for access roads at Fort Carson, Colorado, and $21.8 million for a  road-widening project at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
In October 2008, DOD reported to the Senate Committee on Armed  Services addressing DAR criteria. The report concluded that the current  DAR criteria provide flexibility for addressing communities’ concerns  about the impact of traffic. However, the report also recognized the  difficulty in linking safety issues to the criteria and acknowledged that the  impact of DOD growth on safety is a particular concern. Consequently,  DOD was considering expanding or modifying the criteria to make  projects eligible for DAR certification when population growth at a base  increases traffic congestion to the point that it presents a public safety  risk. DOD directed SDDC to provide by December 2009 an independent  study on the merits of specific criteria to address safety issues related to  growth. The study will be coordinated with DOT.
section_title: BRAC-Related Transportation Projects Must Compete for DOT Funds with Other State and Regional Transportation Priorities
paragraphs: DOT does not have special programs to address BRAC growth. However, a  number of existing federal transportation grant programs provide funding  that state and local governments can use to help address BRAC-related  transportation challenges. Federal laws and requirements specify an  overall approach for transportation planning agencies to use in planning  and selecting projects for federal funding. Under this process, localities— acting through metropolitan planning organizations—and states develop  long-range plans and short-range programs to identify transportation  needs and projects. BRAC-related projects must be incorporated into  metropolitan area long-range transportation plans and transportation  improvement programs—for improvements located in metropolitan area— as well as state transportation improvement programs, before federal  funding may be used. Decisions about which projects are to be funded  take place at the state and local level. As a result, BRAC-related projects  must compete with other state, regional, and local transportation  priorities.
section_title: Communities Lack Funding and Time to Complete Major Transportation Projects before BRAC Growth Occurs
paragraphs: Because of the short BRAC growth time frames, communities near the  affected bases have estimated that they have less funding than they need  for critical, short-term, growth-related transportation projects. According  to our analysis of the data 17 growth communities provided to OEA, these  communities had identified, as of August 2008, sources for about $0.5  billion of the $2.0 billion they indicated they would need for 46 short-term  transportation projects. Transportation projects constituted about 93  percent of the short-term infrastructure funding needs identified by  communities.
Since February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of  2009 (the Recovery Act) has provided additional funding for transportation  projects. Recovery Act funds may be used for BRAC-related projects, but  the projects already need to be advanced in the normal development cycle,  because these funds must be obligated very quickly or states risk losing  them. The act requires that DOT obligate for each state, by June 30, 2009,  50 percent of the highway funds made available to each state, and 100  percent of these funds by March 1, 2010. If these requirements are not met  for a state, the unobligated funds are to be redistributed to other states.  Thus, even though BRAC transportation projects ideally should be  completed more quickly than typical highway projects, the time frames for  using Recovery Act funds may be too short for some BRAC projects.  However, states are using Recovery Act funds for BRAC-related  transportation projects at two of the eight bases we visited—Eglin Air  Force Base and Fort Belvoir. Florida is using $46 million in Recovery Act  funds for an intersection grade separation project near Eglin Air Force  Base and Virginia is using about $60 million in Recovery Act funds for its  Fairfax County Parkway project. Texas and Maryland officials did not  report applying Recovery Act funds for any of the 46 transportation  projects OEA officials identified as related to military growth. However,  they reasoned that applying Recovery Act funds for highway projects or to  transit agencies generally could help improve mobility in the region. DOT  is continuing to obligate Recovery Act funds, and the total amount of these  funds that ultimately will be used to respond to BRAC transportation  needs is not known at this time.
According to community and state transportation planners, communities  that will be affected by BRAC growth will often not be able to complete  major transportation projects designed to address that growth before it  occurs. The BRAC growth time frame is shorter than the average time  frame for developing significant new infrastructure projects. As noted,  legislation mandates that BRAC actions be completed by September 2011,  6 years from the date the President submitted his approval of the  recommendations to Congress. According to the Maryland Department of  Transportation, major roadway improvement and construction projects  typically take 10 to 15 years to plan, fund, design, and construct. As shown  in table 3, Federal Highway Administration data suggest similar time  frames for completing major highway construction projects.
Some state and local governments have encountered difficulties in  responding to transportation needs before the BRAC moves take place.
Kentucky state and local governments will not complete a key “connector”  road designed to alleviate traffic near Fort Knox until 2013—2 years after  the deadline for completing the BRAC realignment.
Texas state and local government officials do not expect to finish  widening a major road to better accommodate increased traffic on the  perimeter of Fort Bliss or constructing a new freeway allowing traffic to  more directly access the base until at least 4 years after growth at the base  occurs.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Federal Transit Administration  (FTA) observed that transit operational improvements such as increasing  the frequency of service can be implemented in less time than is required  for construction of new transportation facilities. In addition, Urbanized  Area Formula grants administered by the FTA can be used for near-term  service extensions as a stopgap measure to meet a surge in demand, but  not as an alternative to a long-term capital project.
section_title: State and Local Governments Are Employing Several Strategies to Complete Some Critical Projects before BRAC Growth Occurs
paragraphs: Given the estimated shortfall in affected communities’ funding for critical  near-term projects and the difficulties posed by the Recovery Act’s short  obligation time frames, local officials are adopting various strategies to  complete some projects before the BRAC 2005 implementation deadline.  In particular, officials are reprioritizing planned projects, assigning higher  priorities to projects that will help mitigate the impact of BRAC growth on  transportation, and immediately implementing projects that they can  complete before or during BRAC growth.
subsections: section_title: Three Maryland Bases: Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Fort Meade, and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center
paragraphs: Three Maryland bases—Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Fort Meade, and the  Bethesda National Naval Medical Center—are expected to grow by over  12,000 personnel as a result of BRAC. These three bases are located within  large metropolitan areas. Officials expect the growth to have a severe  impact on intersections and roadways near all three bases.
State government in Maryland has taken the lead role in responding to  BRAC growth within the state. For example, the governor created a BRAC  subcabinet, which coordinates the responses of several state agencies,  including the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT). In  addition, MDOT has responded to time and funding constraints for  addressing the impact of growth at the three bases by implementing a  strategy to identify lower-cost improvements for immediate  implementation while continuing to plan higher-dollar, higher-capacity  projects that take longer to plan, engineer, and construct.
MDOT officials consider improvements to key intersections near the three  bases as critical short-term BRAC projects but are concerned that the  improvements may not be completed before growth occurs. State and  local transportation officials determined the potential impact of military  growth on traffic at the three bases within the next 5 to 7 years and  identified 58 intersections where they expect traffic conditions to fail  during that time because of this growth. In addition, the officials identified  intersection improvements, such as additional turn lanes and other minor  projects, to maintain acceptable traffic conditions near the bases in the  short term. MDOT prioritized these improvements based on level of  service, cost of improvements, environmental and socio-economic impact,  and proximity to the bases, giving highest priority to improvements at 16  intersections. State and local government officials said they plan to fund  and complete these improvements but are uncertain whether they will  have sufficient funds to do so. For example, the state has programmed   $31.6 million for improvements to six intersections near Fort Meade, but  another $65 million to $100 million may be needed to complete the  projects;   $31.9 million for improvements to six intersections near Aberdeen Proving  Ground, but $90 million to $155 million more may be needed to complete  the projects; and   $31.3 million for improvements to four intersections near Bethesda  National Naval Medical Center, but $160 million to $215 million more may  be needed to complete the projects.
These shortfalls reflect a broader difficulty in funding Maryland’s  transportation capital program. The state has deferred over $2.2 billion in  transportation projects as transportation revenues have declined. Partially  offsetting this shortfall is $610 million in Recovery Act funds for highways  and transit. However, according to an MDOT official, Recovery Act funds  are not a good fit for the BRAC-related intersection improvements because  the projects are not ready for funds to be obligated, and the Recovery Act  has tight obligation deadlines for highway and transit funds.
MDOT also initiated evaluations of how direct commuter and local bus  and shuttle services could be expanded to help accommodate growth at  the three bases. Furthermore, according to an MDOT official, MDOT is  exploring the possibility of obtaining a discretionary grant under the  Recovery Act for a maintenance and storage facility to help support and  grow local bus service to the Fort Meade area. MDOT officials are also  exploring other short-term projects to address the growth, including  bicycle and pedestrian path improvements, better access to transit  systems, and efforts to promote car- and vanpools, teleworking, and  transit systems.
MDOT’s long-term projects to address growth at the bases include rail  improvements. Maryland officials had identified these projects before the  2005 BRAC decisions to address regional growth, but the projects are also  needed to improve access to the bases, since growth will create additional  demand for rail and transit services. State officials plan to invest $201.3  million from 2008 through 2013 to increase capacity and improve service  on the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) system statewide.
Finally, a key project for addressing the transportation impact of growth at  Bethesda National Naval Medical Center is improved access to the Medical  Center Metrorail station. Roads in this community are already at or near  capacity, and with no room for significant roadway expansion; local and  state officials expect a significant portion of the commuters to use the  Metrorail system. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has  studied five alternatives, including improving the existing street crossing,  two pedestrian tunnel designs, a pedestrian bridge design and a new  elevator entrance. Cost estimates for these options varied from $700,000  for the improving the existing crossing to $59.4 million for the elevator  entrance option. A preferred alternative has not been selected. Maryland  state officials told us that they are working with transit authority officials  to plan the project. In May 2008, Bethesda National Naval Medical Center  officials requested that DOD provide $21 million for the project through  the DAR program.
section_title: Fort Belvoir, Virginia
paragraphs: As discussed, Fort Belvoir will gain about 24,100 military and civilian  personnel. Fairfax County, where Fort Belvoir is located, is within the  Washington, D.C., metropolitan area—one of the most congested  transportation regions in the nation. Because of traffic and other  development issues at Fort Belvoir, the Army acquired additional property  for the base in Alexandria, Virginia, and 6,400 of the new personnel will re- locate there.
State and local officials also identified and addressed their highest-priority  transportation projects immediately while recognizing that longer-term  projects may not be completed before BRAC growth occurs at Fort  Belvoir. In total, the officials estimated $390 million in costs for five short- term projects that they consider critical for responding to BRAC growth at  Fort Belvoir. In addition, they identified about $1.6 billion in costs for  short-term and longer-term projects not included in the $2 billion estimate  of nationwide project costs. Virginia has thus far allocated about $96  million in Recovery Act funds to BRAC-related projects. Of this sum, the  Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has allocated about $60  million to extend the Fairfax County Parkway near Fort Belvoir. This  Recovery Act funding, together with funding from other sources, has  enabled VDOT to allocate the estimated $175 million needed to complete  this road. However, VDOT has not been able to obtain any of the estimated  $165 million needed to complete the two other short-term projects near  the base—constructing a traffic interchange and widening Interstate 95. In  Virginia, as in Maryland, transportation revenues have fallen. Specifically,  the projected funding for projects listed in Virginia’s 6-year transportation  improvement plan has declined by almost 40 percent since 2007.  According to VDOT officials, this decrease in projected funding is mainly  due to a 2007 Virginia Supreme Court decision disallowing the Northern  Virginia Transportation Authority’s imposition of taxes and user fees to  obtain revenue for transportation projects.
In addition to highways, several transit systems serve Fairfax County,  including the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority bus and  Metrorail, Fairfax County bus services, and Virginia Rail Express.  However, transit access to the base itself is limited, and there is no rail  connection. Likewise, the new base location in Alexandria does not have a  direct rail connection. Some local officials see an extension of Metrorail to  the Fort Belvoir area as a way to address the transportation impact of  growth near the base.
section_title: Fort Carson, Colorado
paragraphs: About 10,400 Army personnel, plus an additional 14,400 dependents, were  expected to relocate to Fort Carson. However, a June 2009 DOD decision  not to locate a combat brigade there will lower this estimate. Fort Carson  is located in El Paso County, Colorado, adjacent to the city of Colorado  Springs. Colorado state and local officials expect the growth to have a  significant impact on traffic conditions throughout El Paso County and in  adjacent counties.
After learning about planned BRAC-related military, civilian, and  contractor personnel increases at Fort Carson, local transportation  officials reprioritized their planned transportation projects during 2006  and 2007. This reprioritization allowed them to include projects designed  to address the impact of military growth among their planned short-term  projects. Although state and local officials have completed two key  projects, they lack sufficient funding to complete other growth-related  projects before the growth occurs.
State and local officials used a combination of state and local funds to  complete needed improvements to Interstate and state highways and to a  major roadway near the base. However, local transportation officials  estimate that additional projects designed to address the impact of military  growth could cost as much as $1 billion. The officials told us that although  they have made BRAC growth-related projects a priority, additional  projects will not be completed before September 2011 because of funding  constraints. Local transportation agencies obtain their funding mainly  from sales and fuel tax receipts, and local officials noted that these tax  receipts are declining. The officials also told us that the fiscal year 2010  state transportation budget could be reduced by over $400 million from  the fiscal year 2009 funding level, further reducing the funding available  for projects designed to address the growth at Fort Carson. The officials  told us that, should the fiscal year 2010 funding be reduced, the state’s  transportation funding would be at its lowest level in 10 years.
Officials for Mountain Metro Transit, the transit services provider for  Colorado Springs, told us that their agency does not provide service inside  the gates at Fort Carson. They stated that most buildings at the base are  not within a reasonable walking distance from the entrance and exit gates  and that providing transit service would necessitate creating an on-base  shuttle system from the gates to several buildings on base. City and transit  officials told us that funding for transit services could be cut by 10 percent,  further limiting the agency’s ability to address the transportation effects of  growth. In addition, Fort Carson officials told us that demand for transit  services is low among base personnel.
section_title: Fort Bliss, Texas
paragraphs: As a result of the BRAC 2005 legislation and other initiatives, about 28,000  personnel were to relocate to Fort Bliss in El Paso County, Texas, by 2011.  However, a June 2009 DOD decision not to relocate a combat brigade  there will lower this number. State and local officials expect the growth to  adversely affect conditions on local roadways and transit systems.  However, the officials added that they do not consider the impact of  military growth to be significant because the additional personnel  represent a small percentage of the city’s total population of about  750,000.
Local officials have identified 31 road projects and four transit projects  that will help address the impact of military growth at Fort Bliss.  According to their estimate, the total cost of these projects will be  between $623 million and $830 million. The officials told us that they are  capable of funding most of these projects within 5 years. They added that  most of the projects that will address the impact of military growth will  also address nonmilitary growth and were planned before the decisions to  increase personnel at Fort Bliss. However, they told us that they will not  be able to complete a major road-widening project until at least 4 years  after the growth occurs.
Officials in Texas used an innovative financing approach to generate  funding sufficient to complete a critical BRAC growth-related project  within a short time frame. This approach, which El Paso city officials  worked on with Texas Department of Transportation officials, will provide  funding to construct Spur 601, a $367 million highway project that will  ease access to Fort Bliss and relieve congestion in east and northeast El  Paso. The financing approach, “pass through” financing, will repay a  project developer to finance (through the Camino Real Regional Mobile  Authority), design, acquire the right-of-way for, and construct the highway  over several years. The regional authority will use state highway funds to  repay the private developer, based on miles traveled by vehicles on the  highway.
El Paso city officials plan to develop new bus services near Fort Bliss and  citywide as part of their plans to address the transportation effects of  military and nonmilitary growth. However, Fort Bliss officials told us that  demand for transit services is low among base personnel because the base  encompasses a large geographic area, the base gates are not within  walking distance of most buildings, and the base does not have a shuttle  service to transport transit customers from the gates to their on-base  destinations. Fort Bliss officials added that they attempted to establish an  on-base bus service but discontinued it because of low demand for the  service.
section_title: Fort Knox, Kentucky
paragraphs: Fort Knox officials expect the base to gain about 1,600 military and civilian  personnel and dependents by September 2011; however, the military- related population living off-base will grow by about 5,000. A local  metropolitan planning organization study of traffic conditions near Fort  Knox concludes that without significant improvements, the existing  roadway system will be incapable of providing the capacity required to  accommodate traffic increases caused by the change in personnel at the  base.
Likewise, Kentucky state and local officials said they completed a roadway  improvement project that they considered essential to addressing the  transportation impact of expected BRAC organizational changes at Fort  Knox, but they do not have sufficient funding to complete other projects  designed to address that impact before the changes occur. State and local  officials report that the transportation projects needed to address the  impact of growth at Fort Knox will cost about $244 million. Shortly after  state and local officials learned about the planned changes at Fort Knox,  state officials prioritized the widening of a roadway that provides access  to the base. According to a state official, the state completed the $13  million improvement project in March 2008. Since then, state officials have  been able to set aside an additional $50 million in bond funds for the  remaining projects. Local officials told us that state law leaves them with  few other revenue-raising options for transportation improvements. For  example, the Kentucky constitution prohibits the state General Assembly  from granting city and county governments the authority to levy sales  taxes, thus limiting their options to fund growth-related transportation  improvements. Accordingly, local officials said the state government  must fund most transportation improvements. The officials told us that the  state must use most available funds for roadway maintenance and does  not have sufficient funds remaining to address growth-related projects at  Fort Knox before 2011.
Local officials are working to increase park-and-ride services to reduce  anticipated roadway congestion but do not have the financial capacity to  purchase additional buses and expand service. Local officials consider  expanding key roadway capacity a higher priority than expanding transit  services. Local transit services are limited, and the transit provider does  not have the capacity to significantly expand services and help address the  transportation impact of adding about 5,000 people to the off-base  population. The Transit Authority of Central Kentucky provides bus and  vanpool services for the communities near Fort Knox. According to transit  authority officials, their bus and vanpool system provides services for  about 135 passengers each day. Despite their limited ability to address the  effects of the expected growth at Fort Knox, authority officials plan to  operate larger buses and provide increased service as demand for transit  services increases.
State officials do not expect to complete key projects until 2013 or 2014—2  to 3 years after the growth occurs. The projects include a bypass roadway  to improve traffic conditions on a major roadway leading to the base and a  new roadway serving residential areas where local officials expect most of  the new personnel to reside.
section_title: Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
paragraphs: Eglin Air Force Base, located in Okaloosa, Walton, and Santa Rosa  counties, will gain about 3,600 military and civilian personnel and 5,900  dependents by September 2011. State, local, and Air Force officials expect  congestion on major roadways to worsen with this growth. As noted, a  limited roadway network serving the 724 square-mile facility channels  traffic along relatively few major roads and causes congestion.
Like officials in Maryland and Virginia, Florida state and local officials are  prioritizing transportation projects and initially funding projects that they  can complete before planned BRAC growth at Eglin Air Force Base  occurs. Local and state officials have not estimated the total costs needed  to address the impact of growth, but they have identified short- and long- term projects they consider critical to addressing the impact. State and  county officials are initially funding some projects that address immediate  needs of the communities that will be affected by the growth. These  projects are considered critical to accommodating increased traffic levels  and maintaining access to the base without unreasonable delays, including  widening major roads near the base from four to six lanes. Another critical  but currently unfunded project is construction of an overpass to allow  personnel to access a nearby airfield without stopping traffic on a state  highway.
Florida state and local officials told us that they do not have the funding  necessary to complete planned long-term projects. They added that long- term projects include improving and constructing roadways in and near  several communities that will be affected by the growth and expanding  transit services. Expanding transit services could be important to  accommodate growth-related traffic increases because environmental  concerns preclude widening several key roadway segments near the  installation.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided copies of this report to the Departments of Defense and  Transportation for their review and comment. Both provided technical  comments, which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional  committees and the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, the Army, the  Air Force, and the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Copies  are available to others at no cost on GAO’s Web Site at www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-2834, or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the expected impact of military growth on transportation in  communities affected by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)  decisions, we reviewed the 18 military bases identified by the Office of  Economic Adjustment (OEA) that will be substantially and seriously  affected by growth resulting from the BRAC 2005 realignments. We  analyzed relevant OEA reports, including reports that identified projects  designed to address the impact of growth. We reviewed environmental  impact statements and assessments for the 16 of these bases that had  completed environmental documents at the time of our review. To obtain  more detailed information on how community transportation likely would  be affected, we selected 8 of the 18 bases, and their nearby communities,  to visit. We selected these locations based on several of factors. We  classified bases into three groups, including very large metropolitan areas  of over 1 million people, smaller metropolitan areas of 200,000 to 1 million  people, and smaller urban areas of under 200,000 people, and selected  communities within each grouping, considering whether the  environmental study was complete, and whether community officials  identified transportation as a concern. The bases selected are listed in  table 1 of this report. We interviewed Army, Navy, and Air Force officials  responsible for implementing the BRAC decisions about the expected  growth at these installations and the impact of the growth on  transportation in the communities. For the eight communities, we  analyzed state and community participation in the environmental review  processes, and relevant studies to determine the transportation effects of  growth, including state transportation improvement plans, local  transportation plans, and detailed traffic studies, where available. We did  not independently assess the transportation models used in these traffic  studies, or independently calculate employment or population growth in  the communities. In addition, we interviewed state and local  transportation and other local officials responsible for addressing the  impact of military growth about how that growth would affect  transportation in these communities. We also observed conditions on  roadways local officials expect to be affected by BRAC growth in the  selected communities.
To determine the estimated costs to address the transportation impact of  military growth and the status of their efforts to fund growth-related  projects, we analyzed information OEA collected from affected local  governments showing their cost estimates and funding available for  growth-related projects. We interviewed OEA project managers  responsible for coordinating data gathering from affected local  governments and local government officials about the effort and the  process and standards for including projects as part of OEA’s assessment.
We also analyzed the data to determine the total costs of both the critical  short-term projects and the longer-term projects. We also compared  projects included in the data with projects identified in the environmental  studies DOD conducted for the growth locations to establish a link  between the proposed projects and military growth actions.
To determine the federal, state, and local response to the expected impact  of BRAC growth on transportation, we reviewed DOD’s Defense Access  Roads (DAR) program guidance and interviewed base and DOD Military  Surface Deployment and Distribution Command officials to determine  which BRAC growth-related projects base commanders had submitted for  program funding and the amount of program funding committed. We also  interviewed OEA officials on the role OEA provides in supporting BRAC- affected communities. In addition, to obtain information on how military  resources would help address the impact of growth on transportation, we  interviewed Army, Navy, and Air Force officials responsible for  implementing individual bases’ efforts to help state and local governments  address that impact. We interviewed Federal Highway Administration and  Federal Transit Administration officials about their agencies’ roles in  helping affected communities address the impact of military growth on  transportation and about the funding available to affected communities to  address that impact. We reviewed local and state short- and long-term  transportation improvement plans for the selected communities to identify  transportation projects planned to address BRAC growth, communities’  prioritization of these projects, and communities’ strategies for funding  and completing the projects. We also interviewed state and local officials  at the eight selected communities about their strategies for addressing that  impact, including how they would prioritize BRAC-related projects with  other transportation projects, obtain needed funding, and coordinate with  DOD and other federal officials, and their views on the environmental  impact process.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through September  2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Robert Ciszewski, Catherine  Colwell, Steve Cohen, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Brian Lepore, Les Locke, Mike  Mgebroff, and Stephanie Purcell made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Military High Level Leadership Needed to Help Guam Address  Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth. GAO-09-500R. Washington,  D.C.: April 9, 2009.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges in  Implementing Recommendations on Time and Is Not Consistently  Updating Savings Estimates. GAO-09-217. Washington, D.C.: January 30,  2009.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Army Is Developing Plans to  Transfer Functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to Aberdeen  Proving Ground, Maryland, but Challenges Remain. GAO-08-1010R.  Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help  Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth.  GAO-08-665. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road  Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. GAO-08-602R.  Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008.
Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More  Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs. GAO-08-400.  Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Army and Marine Corps Grow the Force  Construction Projects Generally Support the Initiative. GAO-08-375.  Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower  Savings Projected for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC  Recommendations. GAO-08-315. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Realignment of Air Force Special Operations  Command Units to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. GAO-08-244R.  Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2008.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have  Increased and Estimated Savings Have Decreased. GAO-08-341T.  Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have  Increased and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve. GAO-08-159. Washington,  D.C.: December 11, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Impact of Terminating,  Relocating, or Outsourcing the Services of the Armed Forces Institute of  Pathology. GAO-08-20. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transfer of Supply, Storage,  and Distribution Functions from Military Services to Defense Logistics  Agency. GAO-08-121R. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007.
Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely  Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial  Personnel Growth. GAO-07-1007. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Plan Needed to Monitor  Challenges for Completing More Than 100 Armed Forces Reserve  Centers. GAO-07-1040. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Observations Related to the  2005 Round. GAO-07-1203R. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2007.
Military Base Closures: Projected Savings from Fleet Readiness Centers  Are Likely Overstated and Actions Needed to Track Actual Savings and  Overcome Certain Challenges. GAO-07-304. Washington, D.C.: June 29,  2007.
Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate  Challenges and Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely  Implementation of Air National Guard Recommendations. GAO-07-641.  Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007.
Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental  Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property.  GAO-07-166. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2007.
Military Bases: Observations on DOD’s 2005 Base Realignment and  Closure Selection Process and Recommendations. GAO-05-905.  Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2005.
Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s 2005 Selection Process and  Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. GAO-05-785.  Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005.