Department of Transportation: Key Issues and Management Challenges, 2013
Released: 2013-03-14T00:00:00

Letter

Leveraging Surface Transportation Investments to Further National Interests

Given the condition and needs of the transportation system and the federal government’s fiscal outlook, DOT faces several challenges in leveraging investment in surface transportation networks to further national interests. More specifically, DOT faces challenges related to (1) transitioning to a goal-oriented, performance-based approach, (2) targeting funds to national priorities such as our freight network, (3) effectively managing discretionary grant and credit assistance programs, and (4) effectively overseeing programs and spending.

Since I testified on this topic last year, there has been progress in clarifying federal goals and roles and linking federal programs to performance, as GAO has recommended. In past work, we reported that many federal transportation programs do not effectively address key challenges, have unclear federal goals and roles, and lack links to performance. As a result, we made several recommendations and matters for congressional consideration to address these findings. In July 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) that included provisions to move toward a more performance-based highway and transit program. For highways, for example, the act identified seven national performance goals for areas including pavement and bridge conditions, fatalities and injuries, and traffic congestion. MAP-21 also provides for the creation of performance measures and targets and links funding to performance, thus enhancing accountability for results.

Successfully implementing a performance-based approach entails new responsibilities for DOT and its operating administrations. For example, MAP-21 requires that the Secretary of Transportation initiate a rulemaking to establish the required performance measures for highways in consultation with states and others. After performance measures are set, states and other grantees must establish performance targets for those measures and report their progress to the Secretary. While some operating administrations, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), have been working toward such a performance- based framework for several years, the work to implement MAP-21 requirements will require collaborating with multiple nonfederal partners over several years. DOT also faces institutional challenges in implementing performance-based programs. First, its administration and oversight of programs have tended to be process-oriented, rather than outcome-oriented. For example, we have reported that the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) oversight of statewide and metropolitan planning focuses on process rather than specific transportation outcomes, making it unclear if states’ investment decisions are improving the condition and performance of the nation’s transportation system. For FTA’s triennial review program, which evaluates grantee adherence to federal requirements, we found that FTA evaluates the process—specifically, the timeliness of steps in the process—but not the outcome and quality of the program. Second, based on our work on FHWA’s oversight of the federal-aid highway program, FHWA will have to overcome risks related to its partnership approach with the states to move to a more performance-based approach to monitor states’ progress and hold states accountable for meeting performance targets. We found advantages to FHWA’s partnership approach with the states but also identified risks such as lax oversight, a reluctance to take corrective action, and a lack of independence in decision making.

Recent actions, including those set forth in MAP-21, also provide opportunities to better align investments in areas of national interest— such as the freight network—to national goals. The movement of freight over highways, railroads, and waterways is critical to the economy and the livelihood of Americans who rely on freight transportation for food, clothing, and other essential commodities. We have previously reported that the fragmented federal approach to freight surface transportation has resulted in programs having different oversight and funding requirements and a lack of coordination. Last year, MAP-21 established a national freight policy and mandated that DOT develop a National Freight Strategic Plan including national goals and performance targets, as GAO has recommended. In order to implement this more holistic, performance-based approach, DOT will have to effectively coordinate sector transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local levels and private sector entities that play a role in freight mobility. These entities and agencies have not necessarily worked in a coordinated manner in the past. DOT will also have to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the lead federal agency responsible for maintaining and improving navigable waterways. DOT and the Corps signed a memorandum of understanding in March 2012 to identify and capitalize on opportunities to improve the nation’s marine transportation infrastructure investments. Specifically, DOT and the Corps agreed to develop project prioritization criteria and coordinate project evaluation and selection processes as they relate to DOT grant programs and the Corps’ project prioritization. Historically, however, there has been limited coordination between the two agencies. Involving the Corps is essential, since the vast majority of the nation’s freight is imported and exported via navigable waterways through our nation’s ports.

Beyond challenges associated with implementing these changes driven primarily by MAP-21, DOT also faces challenges effectively managing existing discretionary grant programs. Most federal surface-transportation funding has been delivered through formula grant programs that have only an indirect relationship to needs and allow states and other grantees considerable flexibility in selecting projects to fund. Meritorious projects of national or regional significance, in particular those that connect transportation modes or cross geographic boundaries, may not compete well for these formula grants. Therefore, allocating some portion of federal funds for surface transportation on a competitive basis—as is done in many discretionary programs—for projects of national or regional significance in particular, is a direction we have recommended to more effectively address the nation’s surface transportation challenges. Below we highlight key issues based on our work on two DOT discretionary programs.

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program: The TIGER program represented an important step toward investing in projects of regional and national significance on a merit- based, competitive basis. Since 2009, DOT has held four rounds of competition and awarded more than $3 billion in grants to highway, transit, rail, port, and other projects. In March 2011 we reported that while DOT developed a sound set of criteria to evaluate applications and select grantees, there was a lack of documentation of final award decisions. As a result, we recommended that DOT better document these decisions. DOT has not implemented this recommendation. In its work on the TIGER program, DOT’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that while grantees had developed performance measures, as required, these measures were generally not outcome based and thus could not be used to assess whether projects were meeting the expected outcomes articulated in their applications, such as improving the state of infrastructure and enhancing safety. Going forward, documenting key decisions for all major steps in the review of competitive grant applications will help improve transparency and help to ensure the credibility of DOT’s award decisions. In addition, establishing a process for evaluating program performance based on project outcomes will be important for DOT to be able to measure the impacts of these investments.

High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant program: The HSIPR program, administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), provides funds to states and others to develop high-speed rail and inter-city passenger-rail corridors and projects. Congress appropriated $8 billion for high-speed rail and inter-city passenger rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and $2.5 billion in the fiscal year 2010 DOT Appropriations Act. As of October 2012, about $9.9 billion has been obligated for 150 projects in 34 states and the District of Columbia—with more than one third designated for a single project in California. While most of the program’s funds have been obligated, we have highlighted key challenges that FRA faces managing this program. In 2009, we recommended that FRA develop guidelines and methods for ensuring reliability of ridership and other forecasts used to determine the viability of high-speed rail projects. According to FRA, this recommendation is in the process of being implemented, and FRA officials stated that the agency is working to develop a comprehensive approach for improving the reliability of ridership forecasts. The DOT OIG reported that FRA faces substantial challenges to ensure the HSIPR program meets reporting, transparency, and program and financial management requirements under the Recovery Act and that Recovery Act funding that has been obligated for HSIPR projects is not wasted. In addition, FRA will have to transition from its role of awarding grants to overseeing the implementation of HSIPR-funded projects, including overseeing the implementation of the California High Speed Rail project, which has a current cost estimate of $68.4 billion.

In addition, DOT faces challenges implementing and managing changes to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit to surface transportation projects. MAP-21 made several changes to the TIFIA program, including a dramatic increase in the funding available for the program. Such changes—coupled with TIFIA’s already complex mission to leverage limited federal resources and stimulate private capital investment in transportation infrastructure by providing credit assistance to projects of national or regional significance—constitute new challenges. MAP-21 authorized $750 million for fiscal year 2013 and $1 billion for fiscal year 2014 to pay the subsidy cost of credit assistance, compared to $122 million in authorized budget authority in previous years. MAP-21 also made changes to the process DOT uses to select projects and increased the portion of project costs TIFIA loans can cover from 33 to 49 percent. As we reported in 2012, with the increase in budget authority, DOT will likely have a higher number of applications to review and credit agreements to negotiate. DOT faces challenges implementing these changes—including updating guidance, issuing new regulations, and ensuring that adequate staff and expertise exist to efficiently manage the expanded program—all while TIFIA credit assistance remains in high demand. Moreover, as the TIFIA portfolio grows, now totaling more than $10 billion in loans and other assistance, DOT will have to monitor an increasing number of projects as they proceed through what is expected to be decades of loan repayment to manage current and future risk from potential nonrepayment.

DOT also faces challenges overseeing other programs going forward. The federal-aid highway program, and thus FHWA’s oversight role, has expanded over the years to encompass broader goals, more responsibilities, and a variety of approaches. FHWA has taken steps to improve its approach to managing this program’s risks by, for example, requiring field offices to identify risks, assess them based on their potential impact and the likelihood they will occur, and develop response strategies in their planned oversight activities. However, in addition to overcoming the risks associated with its partnership with the states, opportunities for improvement in other areas remain. In 2011, for this Subcommittee, we reviewed FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program, which provides funds to states to repair roads damaged by natural disasters and catastrophic failures, and were unable to determine the basis on which FHWA made many eligibility determinations because of missing or incomplete documentation. Without clear and standardized procedures for FHWA officials to make and document eligibility decisions, FHWA lacks assurance that only eligible projects are approved to receive scarce relief funds. In June 2012, in response to a GAO recommendation, FHWA reviewed each state’s balance of unused emergency relief funds on a monthly basis so that unused funding can be more easily identified and withdrawn. This resulted in savings of about $231 million in unused allocations in fiscal year 2012, which was made available to other priority Emergency Relief Program projects. In addition, FTA is implementing a new Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program established in July 2012 in MAP-21, for which Congress recently appropriated this program’s first funds—$10.9 billion—to restore transit services affected by Hurricane Sandy. As FTA implements this new program and distributes funds, assurance that only eligible projects receive funds and that processes support effective and efficient delivery of relief services is of particular importance.

Improving Surface and Aviation Transportation Safety

Another challenge that DOT and the states continue to face is improving safety. The vast majority of transportation-related fatalities and injuries occur on our roadways, involving drivers and passengers in cars and large trucks, motorcyclists, pedestrians, and cyclists. We have seen a remarkable decline in traffic fatalities and injuries in recent years. Specifically, traffic fatalities and injuries decreased nearly 24 percent over the last decade, from about 43,000 fatalities and 2.9 million injuries in 2002 to about 32,000 fatalities and 2.2 million injuries in 2011. (See fig. 1.) While these trends are encouraging, NHTSA’s early estimates of traffic fatalities for the first 9 months of 2012 project a 7 percent increase in fatalities, which would be the first increase since 2005. Continued federal and state efforts to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries are needed, particularly in areas where the risks of crashes, fatalities, and injuries are high, such as motorcyclist, teen-driver, and distracted-driving crashes.

While other surface transportation modes—such as rail, transit, and pipeline—are relatively safe when compared to roadways, accidents can and do occur. For example, a natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California, in September 2010 killed 8 people and damaged or destroyed over 100 homes, and a hazardous liquid pipeline rupture near Marshall, Michigan, in July 2010 spilled over 840,000 gallons of crude oil into a wetland area. Likewise, although 2012 was the safest year in rail industry history, three notable freight rail accidents occurred during the summer of 2012—including the derailment of a freight train in Columbus, Ohio, which caused the evacuation of homes in the area because of a fire caused by exploding ethanol tank cars.

In addition, while the nation’s aviation system is one of the safest in the world, with air travel projected to increase over the next 20 years, efforts to ensure continued safety are increasingly important. To enhance safety, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is shifting to a data-driven, risk- based safety oversight approach—called a safety management system (SMS) approach. Implementation of SMS is intended to allow FAA to proactively identify system-wide trends in aviation safety and manage emerging hazards before they result in incidents or accidents.

Our recent work on transportation safety across all modes has highlighted the need for improvement in data and oversight. With the move toward a more performance-based approach in MAP-21, high-quality data are essential to identify progress and ensure accountability. As DOT moves closer to a data-driven, performance-based structure, a robust oversight approach is critical to ensure that states are establishing appropriate goals and making sufficient progress toward those goals.

For traffic safety data, states maintain six core types of data systems that are used to identify priorities for highway and traffic safety programs. In 2010, we reported that NHTSA’s periodic assessments designed to help states evaluate the quality of their data systems were in some cases incomplete or inconsistent. We recommended actions for DOT to make those assessments more useful for states, and DOT plans to complete implementation of those actions this spring.

Data are also critical for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to target resources and identify which of the hundreds of thousands of commercial motor vehicles operating on our nation’s roads pose the highest safety concerns. For example, we recently reported that FMCSA only examines about 2 percent of new motor carrier applicants that register annually to identify carriers operating illegally under new identities. We recommended that FMCSA develop a data-driven approach to target new carriers attempting to disguise their former identities and expand this new approach to examine all motor carriers. FMCSA is currently developing a plan to enhance its ability to identify unsafe motor carriers that try to disguise their former identities and expects to complete the development of a data-driven approach by February 2013. Further, industry representatives, shippers and brokers, and other stakeholders are questioning the validity of certain aspects, such as the accuracy and consistency of data inputs and the reliability of carrier performance scores resulting from FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) initiative—a data-driven approach to select the highest risk carriers for intervention. We are currently evaluating this approach and plan to report on this and other aspects of the CSA program later this year.

FRA is responsible for overseeing efforts made by railroads in developing positive train control (PTC), a communications-based system designed to prevent some serious train accidents; progress in these efforts has been a concern. Federal law requires major freight and passenger railroads to implement this system on most major routes by the end of 2015. In 2010, we reported that delays in developing some system components as well as costs that publicly funded commuter railroads would incur to implement the system raised the risk that railroads would not meet the 2015 deadline. In 2012, in response to our recommendation, FRA reported to Congress on the railroads’ progress in implementing PTC noting that it was unlikely most railroads would be able to meet the 2015 deadline. Further, FRA identified obstacles and recommended factors to consider in developing additional legislation. We are currently reviewing how FRA estimated the costs and benefits of PTC in its rulemaking process and to what extent railroads will be able to leverage PTC technology to achieve benefits in addition to the anticipated safety improvements.

MAP-21 authorized FTA to establish and enforce basic safety standards for transit rail systems and required the agency to develop a new safety oversight program, with a continued role for state safety oversight offices that meet certain requirements. We have noted that FTA would face challenges in building up its internal capability to develop and carry out such a program, and that state safety oversight agencies would face similar challenges. As FTA moves forward, reliable rail-transit safety data as well as clear and specific goals and measures based on these data will be essential in allowing FTA to monitor safety trends, determine whether safety programs are achieving their intended purposes, target resources, and make informed decisions about the safety strategy. In 2011, we recommended improvements in FTA’s rail-transit safety database and related goals and measures. FTA officials have informed us that they have taken steps to improve this database, including establishing the appropriate internal controls over their data collection process to prevent data-reporting errors. FTA officials have also informed us that, as part of their efforts to develop their new safety strategy, they are working on developing new goals and measures for the agency’s rail- transit safety efforts.

Data collection and oversight for the safety of our nation’s 2.5-million mile pipeline network can also be improved. For example, while the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) requires pipeline operators to develop incident response plans to minimize the risks of leaks and ruptures, PHMSA has not linked performance measures or targets to measurable response-time goals and does not collect reliable data on actual incident response times. In January 2013, we recommended that PHMSA improve incident response data and use these data to evaluate whether to implement a performance-based framework for incident response times. In addition, part of the nation’s pipeline network consists of more than 200,000 miles of onshore “gathering” pipelines, many of which are not federally regulated because they have generally been located away from populated areas and operate at relatively low pressures. However, urban development is encroaching on these pipelines, and the increased extraction of oil and natural gas from shale deposits is resulting in new gathering pipelines that can be larger in diameter and operate at higher pressures. Thus, in March 2012, we recommended that PHMSA collect data on these pipelines to assess their safety risks. In response, PHMSA has initiated a rulemaking to collect data on gathering pipelines.

Our work has found that FAA continues to experience data-related challenges that affect oversight efforts, including limitations with the analysis it conducts and the data it collects, as well as the absence of data in some areas. For example, we reported that several challenges remain that may affect FAA’s ability to implement SMS in an efficient and timely matter, challenges related to data sharing and data quality, capacity to conduct SMS-based analyses and oversight, and standardization of policies and procedures. As a result, in September 2012 we made several recommendations to FAA regarding the implementation of SMS that FAA is working to address. We also identified data and oversight concerns in FAA’s efforts to reduce the general aviation accident rate. For example, while we can draw some conclusions about general aviation accident characteristics, limitations in flight activity (e.g., flight hours) and other data preclude a complete assessment of general aviation safety. GAO has recommended, among other things, that FAA require the collection of general aviation aircraft flight-hour data in ways that minimize the impact on the general aviation community, set safety improvement goals for individual general aviation-industry segments, and develop performance measures for significant activities that aim to improve general aviation safety. FAA is currently working to implement these recommendations. FAA’s data-related challenges are affecting other efforts, such as the development of standards for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) operations, a key step in the integration of these systems into the national airspace system. The standards- development process has been hindered, in part, because of FAA’s inability to use safety, reliability, and performance data from the Department of Defense, by the need for additional data from other sources, and by the complexities of UAS issues in general. FAA is working to address these data limitations; its success in doing so is important in moving forward with the standards-development process as well as supporting research and development efforts needed to address the obstacles affecting safe integration of UAS operations.

Effectively Implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)

Another area that I would like to address is the implementation of NextGen. This complex multiagency undertaking is intended to transform the current radar-based system into an aircraft-centered, satellite navigation-based system and is estimated to cost between $15 billion and $22 billion through 2025. FAA has taken several steps to improve NextGen implementation and is continuing to address critical issues that we, stakeholders, and others have identified, including three key challenges that affect NextGen implementation: delivering and demonstrating NextGen benefits, keeping key NextGen acquisitions within cost estimates and on schedule, and balancing NextGen implementation with maintaining and operating the current air traffic control system during the transition.

Delivering and Demonstrating NextGen Benefits

FAA must deliver systems, procedures, and capabilities that provide aircraft operators with a return on their investments in NextGen avionics. For example, a large percentage of the current fleet is equipped to fly more precise performance-based navigation (PBN) procedures, which use satellite-based guidance to route aircraft and improve approaches at airports, and can save operators money through reduced fuel use and shorter flight time. However, operators have expressed concern that FAA, to date, has not produced the most useful or beneficial PBN routes and procedures, and therefore, operators do not yet see benefits resulting from their investments in advanced avionics systems. As a means to leverage existing technology, to provide immediate benefit to the industry, and to respond to industry advisory group recommendations, FAA began an initiative to better use PBN procedures to resolve airspace problems in and provide benefits to 13 selected areas around multiple busy airports, known as “metroplexes.” FAA is working to design its metroplex and other PBN initiatives to avoid some of the challenges—such as lack of air traffic controller involvement—that have limited the use of PBN procedures and, in turn, limited the potential benefits of existing PBN procedures. If operators cannot realize benefits from existing equipment investments, they may be hesitant to invest in the new technologies necessary to fully realize NextGen benefits.

While some operational improvements can be made with existing aircraft equipment, realizing more significant NextGen benefits requires a critical mass of properly equipped aircraft. Reaching that critical mass is a significant challenge because the first aircraft operators to purchase and install NextGen-capable technologies will not obtain a return on their investment until many other operators also adopt NextGen technologies. FAA estimates that the NextGen avionics needed on aircraft to realize significant midterm NextGen capabilities will cost private operators about $6.6 billion from 2007 through 2018. However, aircraft operators may be hesitant to make these investments if they do not have confidence that benefits will be realized from their investments. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 created a program to facilitate public-private financing for equipping general-aviation and air-carrier aircraft with NextGen technologies. According to FAA, the goal for such a program would be to encourage deployment of NextGen-capable aircraft sooner than would have occurred without such funding assistance in place. FAA is soliciting industry input about how to design and implement a loan guarantee program but has yet to decide on how to incentivize this transition.

As we have previously reported, FAA should regularly provide stakeholders, interested parties, Congress, and the American people with a clear picture of where NextGen’s implementation stands, and whether the capabilities being implemented are resulting in positive outcomes and improved performance for operators and passengers. We have recommended that FAA develop a timeline and action plan to work with industry and federal partner agencies to develop an agreed-upon list of outcome-based performance metrics, as well as goals for NextGen both at a broad level and in specific NextGen improvement areas. In addition, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires FAA to report on measures of the agency’s progress in implementing NextGen capabilities and operational results. FAA has taken steps to establish NextGen metrics, but much work remains, including finalizing agency targets for specific improvement areas and making a link between NextGen performance goals and metrics and NextGen improvements. For example, publicly available information about FAA’s plans for implementing additional capabilities through 2018 lacks specifics about the timing and locations of implementation; this lack of details has been cited as an obstacle to incentivizing aircraft operators to equip with new technologies. Measuring performance of near-term NextGen improvements will be critical for FAA management and stakeholders to assess impacts, make investment decisions, and monitor NextGen progress. We will report on this issue in more detail as part of our ongoing near-term NextGen implementation work for the Congress.

Keeping Key NextGen Acquisitions within Cost Estimates and on Schedule

NextGen has significantly increased the number, cost, and complexity of FAA’s acquisition programs; it is imperative that these programs remain on time and within budget, particularly given current budget constraints and the interdependencies of many NextGen-acquisitions. Since our February 2012 report on major air traffic control acquisition programs, the key NextGen-related acquisition programs have generally continued to proceed on time and on budget. However, past delays with the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) program—a critical program for NextGen—illustrate how delays can affect overall acquisition and maintenance costs as well as time frames for other programs. As we previously reported, ERAM’s delayed implementation from December 2010 to August 2014 and cost increase of $330 million were associated with insufficient testing to identify software issues before deployment at key sites and insufficient stakeholder involvement during system development and deployment. The delays with ERAM added an estimated $18 million per year to the costs of maintaining the system that ERAM was meant to replace and delayed other key NextGen acquisitions. Since new budget and schedule baselines for the ERAM program were established in June 2011, according to FAA reports, the program has made progress toward its deployment goals. The successful implementation of NextGen—both in the midterm (through 2020) and in the long term (beyond 2020)—will be affected by how well FAA manages such program interdependencies.

Managing the Transition to NextGen

Particularly in light of constrained budget resources, FAA will have to balance its priorities to help ensure that NextGen implementation stays on course. Sustaining the current legacy equipment and facilities remains critical, as these will continue to be the core of the national airspace system for a number of years, and some of the components will be part of NextGen. For example, while FAA transitions to satellite-based aircraft surveillance through the deployment of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out (ADS-B Out) technology, the agency expects to continue to operate and maintain current radar technology through at least 2020. At that time, FAA is scheduled to make decisions about which radar systems the agency will decommission and which will be maintained as the back-up system for ADS-B. If either ADS-B’s deployment or airlines’ efforts to purchase and install this technology is delayed, then FAA may have to maintain and operate some of its radars longer than expected.

In addition, to fully realize NextGen’s capabilities, facilities that handle air traffic control must be reconfigured. In November 2011, FAA approved an initial plan to consolidate en route centers and terminal radar approach- control facilities (TRACONs) into large, integrated facilities over the next two decades. However, FAA has yet to make key decisions on how to proceed with this consolidation, and has delayed its decision on where to build the first integrated facility until June 2013. While FAA develops its facilities plan, it faces the immediate task of maintaining and repairing existing facilities so that the current air-traffic control system continues to operate safely and reliably during the NextGen transition. According to FAA, in 2011, 65 percent of its terminal facilities and 74 percent of its en route facilities were in either poor or fair condition with a total deferred- maintenance backlog of $310 million for these facilities. Once FAA develops and implements a facility consolidation plan, it can identify which legacy facilities to repair and maintain and, in doing so, potentially reduce overall facility repair and maintenance costs. FAA has acknowledged the need to keep long-term plans in mind so that it does not invest unnecessarily in facilities that will not be used for NextGen.

Although NextGen is projected to keep delays at many airports from getting worse than would be expected without these improvements, NextGen alone is not likely to sufficiently expand the capacity of the national airspace system. For example, FAA’s NextGen modeling indicates that even if all ongoing and planned NextGen technologies are implemented, 14 airports—including some of the 35 busiest—may not be able to meet the projected increases in demand (table 1). The transformation to NextGen will also depend on the ability of airports to handle greater capacity. For example, decisions regarding using existing capacity more efficiently include certifying and approving standards that allow the use of closely spaced parallel runways. At some airports, policies may need to be developed to address situations where demand exceeds capacity (e.g., pricing, administrative rules, service priorities). Infrastructure projects to increase capacity, such as building additional runways, can be a lengthy process and will require substantial advance planning as well as safety and cost analyses. Also, the improved efficiency in runway and airspace use that should result from some NextGen technologies may exacerbate other airport capacity constraints, such as taxiways, terminal gates, or parking areas. Finally, increasing capacity must be handled within the context of limiting increases in emissions and noise that can affect the communities around airports.

Improving Information Security

DOT relies extensively on more than 400 computerized information systems to carry out its financial and mission-related operations. Effective information security controls are required to ensure that financial and sensitive information is adequately protected from inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, and improper disclosure, modification, or destruction. Ineffective controls can also impair the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of information used by management. The need for effective information security is further underscored by the evolving and growing cyber threats to federal systems and the increase in the number of security incidents reported by DOT and other federal agencies.

DOT has been challenged to effectively protect its computer systems and networks. Our analysis of Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OIG, and GAO reports shows that the department has not consistently implemented effective controls in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and OMB guidance in response to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). For example, in March 2012, OMB reported that DOT had a 44.2 percent compliance rate with certain FISMA requirements. Although this is a 14.4 percent increase from fiscal year 2010, it is still below many other major federal agencies. In addition, OMB reported that DOT’s implementation of automated continuous-monitoring capabilities for asset and configuration management were both below 50 percent of the agency’s information technology assets. Further, we have reported on the need for federal agencies, including DOT, to improve their workforce planning, hiring, and development activities for cybersecurity personnel. We recommended that DOT, among other things, update its departmentwide cybersecurity workforce plan or ensure that departmental components have plans that fully address gaps in critical skills and competencies and that support requirements for its cybersecurity workforce strategies. The department neither concurred nor nonconcurred with our recommendations.

In summary, as the principal agency responsible for implementing national transportation policy and administering most federal transportation programs, DOT faces several key challenges going forward in leveraging surface transportation investments, improving surface and aviation transportation safety, effectively implementing NextGen, and improving information security. Addressing these challenges in an environment of increasing need and increasing fiscal challenges will require looking at the entire range of federal activities and reexamining federal spending and tax expenditures to improve and enhance these systems that are vital to the nation’s economy.

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information on the statement, please contact Phillip R. Herr at (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement were Melissa Bodeau, Jonathan Carver, Steve Cohen, Matthew Cook, Gerald Dillingham, Susan Fleming, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, Brandon Haller, Nicole Jarvis, Heather Krause, Hannah Laufe, Edward Laughlin, Joanie Lofgren, Maureen Luna-Long, Heather MacLeod, Maria Mercado, SaraAnn Moessbauer, Sara Vermillion, Dave Wise, Gregory Wilshusen, and Susan Zimmerman.

Related GAO Products

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-13-283. Washington, D.C.: February 2013.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Continued Coordination, Operational Data, and Performance Standards Needed to Guide Research and Development. GAO-13-346T. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2013.

Pipeline Safety: Better Data and Guidance Needed to Improve Pipeline Operator Incident Response. GAO-13-168. Washington, D.C: January 23, 2013.

Highway Trust Fund: Pilot Program Could Help Determine Viability of Mileage Fees for Certain Vehicles. GAO-13-77. Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2012.

The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, Fall 2012 Update. GAO-13-148SP. Washington: D.C.: December 3, 2012.

Maritime Infrastructure: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Effectiveness of Federal Efforts to Support the Marine Transportation System. GAO-13-80. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2012.

General Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Help Identify and Mitigate Safety Risks. GAO-13-36. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2012.

Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Faces Implementation Challenges. GAO-12-1011T. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.

Surface Transportation: Financing Program Could Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better Communication. GAO-12-641. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2012.

Highway Infrastructure: Federal-State Partnership Produces Benefits and Poses Oversight Risks. GAO-12-474. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2012.

Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety. GAO-12-388. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2012.

Motor Carrier Safety: New Applicant Reviews Should Expand to Identify Freight Carriers Evading Detection. GAO-12-364. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2012. 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

Air Traffic Control Modernization: Management Challenges Associated with Program Costs and Schedules Could Hinder NextGen Implementation. GAO-12-223. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2012.

Cybersecurity Human Capital: Initiatives Need Better Planning and Coordination. GAO-12-8. Washington, D.C.: November. 29, 2011.

Highway Emergency Relief: Strengthened Oversight of Eligibility Decisions Needed. GAO-12-45. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2011.

Aviation Safety: Enhanced Oversight and Improved Availability of Risk- Based Data Could Further Improve Safety. GAO-12-24. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2011.

Highway Trust Fund: All States Received More Funding Than They Contributed in Highway Taxes from 2005 to 2009. GAO-11-918. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2011.

NextGen Air Transportation System: Mechanisms for Collaboration and Technology Transfer Could be Enhanced to More Fully Leverage Partner Agency and Industry Resources. GAO-11-604. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011.

Surface Transportation: Competitive Grant Programs Could Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of Key Decisions. GAO-11-234. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2011.

Intercity Passenger Rail: Recording Clearer Reasons for Awards Decisions Would Improve Otherwise Good Grantmaking Practices. GAO-11-283. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2011.

Rail Transit: FTA Programs Are Helping Address Transit Agencies’ Safety Challenges, but Improved Performance Goals and Measures Could Better Focus Efforts. GAO-11-199. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2011.

Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to Transition to Performance-Based Planning and Federal Oversight. GAO-11-77. Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2010.

NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA’s Metrics Can Be Used to Report on Status of Individual Programs, but Not of Overall NextGen Implementation or Outcomes. GAO-10-629. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2010.

High Speed Rail: Learning From Service Start-ups, Prospects for Increased Industry Investment, and Federal Oversight Plans. GAO-10-625. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2010.

Aviation Safety: Improved Data Quality and Analysis Capabilities Are Needed as FAA Plans a Risk-Based Approach to Safety Oversight. GAO-10-414. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.

Traffic Safety Data: State Data System Quality Varies and Limited Resources and Coordination Can Inhibit Further Progress. GAO-10-454. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010.

Rail Transit: Observations on FTA’s State Safety Oversight Program and Potential Change in Its Oversight Role. GAO-10-314T. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2009.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight. GAO-09-868. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.

Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Has Improved Its Risk Management Approach, but Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Project Costs. GAO-09-751. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2009.

Public Transportation: FTA’s Triennial Review Program Has Improved, But Assessments of Grantees’ Performance Could Be Enhanced. GAO-09-603. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2009.

High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role. GAO-09-317. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2009.

Surface Transportation: Clear Federal Role and Criteria-Based Selection Process Could Improve Three National and Regional Infrastructure Programs. GAO-09-219. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2009.

Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs. GAO-08-400. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008.

Freight Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve Freight Mobility. GAO-08-287. Washington, D.C.: January 7, 2008.

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.

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.