The nation’s public transportation infrastructure—its highways, bridges, and transit systems—represents a multibillion-dollar investment that allows for the essential movement of people and goods. During the 1990s, all levels of government provided annually about $90 billion for highway and bridge programs and about $16 billion for transit programs. The volume of infrastructure assets is immense—over 8 million lane-miles of highways; more than 576,000 bridges; and, for transit operations, nearly 130,000 vehicles, 7,439 miles of rail track, 2,271 rail stations, and 1,172 maintenance facilities. Management systems are tools that provide information to assist state and local decisionmakers in selecting cost-effective policies, programs, and projects to improve the efficiency and safety of the nation’s infrastructure and protect the public’s investment in it. In 1991, ISTEA required the states to develop and implement systems for managing (1) the pavement of federal-aid highways, (2) bridges on and off federal-aid highways, (3) highway safety, (4) traffic congestion, (5) public transportation facilities and equipment, and (6) intermodal transportation facilities and systems. Before this legislation, many states had begun developing some of these systems. Management systems for pavement, for example, were first developed in the late 1960s, and the concepts of bridge and highway safety management systems were introduced in the early 1980s. Very few states, however, had experience with congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal management systems before the ISTEA mandate. The legislation required DOT to, among other things, issue regulations for the states to develop and implement each system. The legislation also authorized DOT to withhold up to 10 percent of federal highway and transit funds, beginning in fiscal year 1996, from states that failed to implement the management systems. ISTEA called for the states to develop and implement the systems in cooperation with metropolitan planning organizations in urbanized areas and the affected agencies receiving assistance under the Federal Transit Act. In addition, to help ensure that large urban communities focus on congestion management and relief, ISTEA specifically required that the planning process in transportation management areas include a congestion management system. ISTEA required DOT to issue its regulations on management systems by December 18, 1992, one year after the date of enactment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the management systems in June 1992, a proposed rule for the management systems in March 1993, and an interim final rule in December 1993. The interim rule included technical requirements and compliance schedules for each system and required the states to be implementing all systems beginning in fiscal year 1995. Table 1 provides a general description of each of the six management systems, as defined by DOT. DOT received over 200 sets of comments—primarily from state transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations—on the proposed and interim rules. Many of the comments on the interim rule expressed concerns that (1) the data requirements would be too burdensome; (2) the rule was too prescriptive, not allowing states enough flexibility to tailor the systems to their individual circumstances; and (3) the time frames for compliance were too short. However, despite their concerns, many commenters supported the concept of management systems. Because of concerns such as those described above, the Congress reconsidered the mandate for management systems. In 1995, the NHS Act made the six management systems optional for the states and prohibited the Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds from the states that elected not to implement the systems. The act did not affect the provisions for congestion management systems in transportation management areas. DOT issued a final rule on December 19, 1996, to reflect this legislative change of 1995. All states reported they are implementing pavement management systems, and nearly all states reported they are implementing the bridge, safety, and congestion management systems. Fewer states reported implementing public transportation and intermodal management systems. Before ISTEA, our seven case-study states were all implementing some management systems to varying degrees. Each state, however, had to enhance its existing systems and develop some new ones in response to ISTEA and DOT’s interim rule. When the NHS Act made the systems optional, these states decided to tailor the systems to meet their own needs and time frames. Most of the seven states scaled back roadway coverage for some systems, and several discontinued development of the public transportation and intermodal management systems, which they deemed unnecessary. As of September 1996, about half the states reported they were moving forward with all six systems even though they were no longer mandatory. (See fig. 1.) The remaining states reported they were developing or implementing at least three of the transportation management systems originally mandated by ISTEA. Two states—Wyoming and South Carolina—decided to implement only three systems. Wyoming was going forward with the pavement, bridge, and safety management systems; South Carolina reported it was developing or implementing the pavement, bridge, and congestion management systems. South Carolina, however, planned to develop a safety management system beginning in fiscal year 1997. As shown in figure 2, nearly all states reported they were developing and implementing a pavement management system, a bridge management system, a safety management system, and a congestion management system. Pavement and bridge management systems may be easier for the states to develop and implement than other management systems because many states had established inventories or a form of management system for these assets before ISTEA. Similarly, the states have had experience with establishing systematic approaches to resolving highway safety problems since the mid-1960s. Most states were developing and implementing congestion management systems, which continue to be required in transportation management areas. Congestion management systems were being developed by state or local agencies for all transportation management areas. Moreover, several states that did not have transportation management areas were developing this system. About two-thirds of the states reported they were developing and implementing the public transportation management system and the intermodal management system. According to transportation officials, fewer states may be proceeding with these two systems because (1) the systems are newer and the states are less familiar with them and (2) the states generally lack jurisdiction over the assets covered in these systems. (See apps. I through VI for more information on each management system.) For case-study purposes, we held discussions with transportation officials in seven states—Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas—about their implementation of the six management systems. When ISTEA was enacted, these states already had certain transportation management systems (see figure 3). To meet the mandate and DOT’s interim rule, these states needed to enhance their existing management systems and develop some new ones. New York, for example, had existing management systems for pavement, bridges, safety, congestion, and public transportation. To meet the new requirements, the state began developing an intermodal management system with separate components for passengers and freight and began modifying the other systems. For example, the state expanded its public transportation inventory from buses and bus-related items to include bus facilities and was developing a condition-rating system and performance measures for these assets. Michigan, on the other hand, had only a pavement management system and a bridge inventory; it had to modify these systems, adding pavement condition information, such as ride quality, to the pavement management system and adding analytical capabilities to its bridge inventory. Michigan began developing the other four systems pursuant to the ISTEA mandate. Management systems in place before ISTEA Management systems to be developed System not automated. Inventory only. System limited to setting priorities for bridge replacement/rehabilitation projects. Once the NHS Act made the systems optional, officials in the seven states we reviewed told us that they had reassessed their needs and decided whether to (1) proceed with the systems as originally planned, (2) reduce the scope of the systems, and/or (3) discontinue certain systems. Among our case-study states, Michigan was the only one that decided to implement the six management systems with no change in scope to the plans it had developed on the basis of DOT’s interim rule. Michigan transportation officials viewed the management systems as an opportunity to improve decision-making and as a way to address other departmental objectives. The other six states scaled back their coverage of certain systems. For example, ISTEA required the states to incorporate all federal-aid highways, which included some roads under local jurisdiction, in their pavement management systems. After the NHS Act made the systems optional, five of the states we reviewed—Maryland, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Texas—decided to include only state-maintained roads and the National Highway System in their pavement management system, at least initially. New York intends to include all federal-aid highways by 1998. North Carolina scaled back the coverage of its pavement management system to include state-maintained roads and only those portions of the National Highway System maintained by the state. Our case-study states also scaled back the coverage of other systems, to varying degrees, after the passage of the NHS Act. For example, North Carolina and Texas decided that their congestion management systems would cover only their transportation management areas. In earlier plans for their congestion management systems, both states had intended to have statewide coverage. Finally, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas decided to discontinue certain management systems once they were no longer mandatory. North Carolina decided not to develop the intermodal management system; Texas and Maryland decided not to implement the public transportation and intermodal management systems. In each case, state transportation officials determined that the state’s needs were being met sufficiently by existing programs and/or activities. (See apps. I through VI for examples of systems being implemented by our case-study states.) Five states we reviewed—Montana, New York, Maryland, Oregon, and Texas—used the flexibility they gained from the passage of the NHS Act to extend the time frames for implementing some systems beyond those established in initial work plans.