Highway Infrastructure
Interstate Physical Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue Gao ID: GAO-02-571 May 31, 2002Federal spending on Interstate highways has contributed to changes in residential and business land-use patterns. In 1991, GAO raised concerns about the condition of Interstate highways and rising levels of congestion. The original purposes for the Interstate system were to provide for efficient long-distance travel, support defense, and connect metropolitan and industrial areas. Today, the most important role that the Interstates perform, other than supporting safe travel, is moving freight traffic across their states. The federal government provides funding for, and oversight of, the Interstate system while the states do most of the maintaining and planning for the future of the system. Combined federal and state spending on the Interstate System increased from $13.0 billion in 1992 to 16.2 billion in 2000. States are required to pay ten percent of the cost of an Interstate project; however, GAO found that the average nonfederal share of urban Interstate projects was 15 percent and 11 percent for rural projects. Interstate highways are in better physical condition and are safer than other classes of roads, although they are generally more congested. The states expect that increased traffic, the aging of the infrastructure, and funding constraints will affect their ability to maintain physical and safety conditions of the Interstate Systems and to alleviate congestion, but the costs to address the factors pressuring their Interstates were difficult to determine.
GAO-02-571, Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-571
entitled 'Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have
Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue' which was
released on June 07, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as
alternative text descriptions for reformatted tables and agency comment
letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or
format in the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file
is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
GAO: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
May 2002: Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have
Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue.
GAO-02-571:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Role of the Interstate Highway System Has Expanded Over Time:
Both the Federal and State Governments Have a Role in Managing and
Funding the Interstate System:
Since 1992, Most Interstate Highway Investments Have Been for
Preservation or Capacity Additions:
Most Interstate Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion Has Grown:
Increases in Traffic, the Age of the Interstates, and Funding
Constraints May Negatively Affect Interstate Conditions; However,
the Costs to Address These Factors Are Uncertain:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Survey of States‘ Views on the Future of the Interstate
System:
Appendix III: State Planning Processes:
Appendix IV: Tools for Addressing Congestion:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: The Number of States Identifying the Negative Effects
of These Factors on Interstate Highway Conditions:
Table 2: Percent Increase/Decrease in Planning Interstate
Project Cost (2002-2006):
Figure 1: Types of Interstate Pavement Projects from 1992
through 2000, by Miles:
Figure 2: Overview of Interstate Section:
Figure 3: Urban and Rural Interstate Mileage, 1990 through 2000:
Figure 4: Number of States Characterizing the Role of Their
Interstate Highways as Very Great for Particular Purposes:
Figure 5: Apportionments for Interstate Highways, 1990 through
2000:
Figure 6: Capital Outlays for Interstate Highways from All
Funding Sources, 1992 through 2000:
Figure 7: Nonfederal Share of Interstate Projects:
Figure 8: Obligations for Interstate Highways, 1992 through
2000:
Figure 9: Interstate Pavement Project Miles, 1992 through 2000:
Figure 10: Interstate Pavement Project Dollars, 1992 through
2000:
Figure 11: Percentage of Poor Interstate Pavement--Urban Versus
Rural, 1990 through 2000:
Figure 12: Survey Responses abotu Current Pavement Conditions:
Figure 13: Percentage of Roads with Poor Pavement--Interstates
Versus Other Major Arterials (2000):
Figure 14: Interstate Pavement Conditions Today and Expected 10
Years From Now, Given Expected Levels of Funding:
Figure 15: Number of Deficient Interstate Bridges from 1992
through 2000:
Figure 16: Fatality Rates on the Interstate Highway System, 1990
through 2000, in Terms of Fatalities per 100 Million VMT:
Figure 17: U.S. Average Urban Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled
by Class of Road, 1990 through 2000:
Figure 18: Average Rural Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by
Class of Road, 1990 through 2000:
Figure 19: Percent Increase in Urban Travel Time During the Peak
Period by Class of Road, 1990 through 2000:
Figure 20: Percent Change of Variables Related to Congestion,
1990 through 2000:
Figure 21: Number of States Expecting Performance on Their
Interstate Systems to Fall Behind in the Next Decade:
Figure 22: Year Interstate Bridges Were Built:
Abbreviations:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
IM: Interstate Maintenance Program:
ISTEA: Intermeddle Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991:
NHS: National Highway System:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:
STIP: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program:
STRAHNET: Strategic Highway Network:
VMT: vehicle miles traveled:
May 31, 2002:
The Honorable Don Young Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Interstate Highway System, begun nearly a half century ago, has
become central to transportation in the United States. Federal
officials consider the Interstate Highway System the backbone of the
nation‘s transportation system--connecting people with work, school,
community services, marketplaces, and each other, while providing a
greater level of safety than other roads. Federal spending on
Interstate highways has also contributed to changes in residential and
business land-use patterns. From 1954 through 2001, the federal
government has invested over $370 billion [Footnote 1] in Interstate
highways--nearly half of all federal highway apportionments during this
period.
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act provided
funding for the completion of the Interstate Highway System. Since that
time, the federal government and the states have focused primarily on
preserving and enhancing the capacity of the existing system. With age
and constant use, the system‘s roads and bridges have required
significant levels of maintenance. Moreover, 24 percent of all car and
truck travel occurs on the Interstate System, contributing to growing
levels of congestion. In 1991, we raised concerns about the condition
of Interstate highways and the rising levels of congestion. Now, as
Congress begins to plan the next reauthorization of federal highway
programs, it is appropriate to examine the Interstate Highway System
again.
Concerned about the condition of Interstate highways and bridges now
and into the future, you asked us to determine (1) how the role of the
Interstate Highway System has changed over time; (2) the roles of the
federal and state governments in managing and funding the Interstate
System; (3) the financial resources that states and the federal
government have devoted to the system; (4) how physical conditions,
safety, and congestion of the Interstate System have changed and how
they compare to other classes of roads; and (5) the factors that could
affect future Interstate conditions and the cost of addressing these
factors.
To provide you with information addressing your concerns about the
Interstate Highway System, we conducted a nationwide mail survey of all
50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (referred to in
this report as states). We received responses from all 52 states. Our
survey focused on state officials‘ views of the Interstate Highway
System‘s role in their states‘ transportation system, including changes
in their roles over the past 20 years. The survey also asked state
officials for their views of the Interstate System in 10 years and
their perceptions of the current condition of the system‘s
infrastructure, safety, and congestion. A summary of responses to the
survey appears in appendix II of this report. [Footnote 2] We also
visited five states--Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and
Pennsylvania--to obtain more detailed information on their Interstate
Systems and their plans for managing them. We also:
* reviewed the Interstate Highway System‘s history and obtained data on
how it is currently used;
* interviewed Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials at
headquarters and division (state) offices and Department of Defense
(DOD) officials;
* obtained information from FHWA on funding for the system; and:
* obtained information from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
on pavement conditions, bridge conditions, safety conditions, and
congestion levels.
We did not review the impact of federal funding through the federal aid
highway program on states‘ patterns or levels of investment in their
Interstate and other roads and bridges. (See app. I for a more detailed
discussion of our methodology.):
Results in Brief:
The role of the Interstate Highway System has expanded over time. The
original purposes were to provide for efficient long-distance travel,
support defense, and connect metropolitan and industrial areas. The
majority of the state transportation officials we surveyed said that,
today, the most important role that the Interstates perform, other than
supporting safe travel, is moving freight traffic across their states.
They also said that the original purposes continue to be important but
that the Interstate‘s importance for freight movement had increased
greatly in importance over the last 20 years. For example, truck
traffic on the Interstates accounted for over 41 percent of total truck
miles traveled in 2000. The states also reported that Interstate
highways are important for their economic development. In addition, the
role of urban mobility has also grown in importance. While the original
planners of the Interstate Highway System may not have seen them as
essential to moving people within cities, 39 states now report that
Interstate highways are very important for travel within urban areas;
these highways account for only 4 percent of the capacity on urban
roads, but they carry 24 percent of all metropolitan traffic. Finally,
30 states responded that getting people to airports is an increasingly
important role for Interstate highways--a reflection of the increase in
air travel.
The federal government‘s role is primarily to provide funding for and
oversight of the system, while the states do most of the ’hands-on“
work of maintaining and planning for the future of the Interstate
System. Since 1991, when it provided final funding for the completion
of the Interstate System, Congress has continued to provide funding for
the maintenance of the system. However, the percentage of funds the
federal government has provided specifically for use on the Interstate
System has declined from more than half of all federal highway aid
prior to 1992 to 17.5 percent during the period 1992 through 2001. FHWA
was originally heavily involved in selecting Interstate routes,
overseeing their construction, and ensuring that they were adequately
maintained, but state departments of transportation now handle many of
these duties. FHWA continues to have oversight responsibilities for
significant Interstate projects carried out by the states, as well as
the state‘s planning process that leads to the allocation:
of state and federal funds to projects on various classes of roads.
[Footnote 3] States are expected to plan and carry out their
investments in Interstate and other highways and to ensure that
Interstate highways are adequately maintained. States also fund a
portion of Interstate projects, though to a much smaller extent than
the federal government.
Combined federal and state spending on the Interstate System increased
from about $13.0 billion in 1992 to about $16.2 billion in 2000. States
are generally required to pay 10 percent of the cost of an Interstate
project; however, we found that the average nonfederal (state and
other) share of urban Interstate projects was about 15 percent and 11
percent for rural projects. [Footnote 4] This federal and state
spending focused largely on the preservation and maintenance of the
existing system. As shown in figure 1, the kinds of projects undertaken
after 1991 show the shift from construction to maintenance: of all
miles of Interstate projects undertaken, 1.4 percent was for new
construction, 5.6 percent was for widening the roads, and the remaining
93.0 percent was for projects to reconstruct, relocate, restore and
rehabilitate, or resurface pavement.
Figure 1. Types of Interstate Pavement Projects from 1992 through 2000,
by Miles:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
Over the past decade, the physical condition of the Interstate Highway
System has improved; the safety of the system has stayed steady; and
congestion has increased. Interstate highways are also in better
physical condition and are safer than other classes of roads, although
they are generally more congested. When surveyed about the condition of
the pavement on their Interstate highways, 39 states responded that
their pavement is in good or excellent condition. This is consistent
with FHWA statistics, which show that pavement condition improved over
the past decade--8.6 percent of the pavement was in poor condition in
1990, compared with 3.4 percent in 2000. However, pavement condition
varies across the country. For example, while half of the states have
less than 2 percent of their Interstate pavement in poor condition, 4
states have more than 12 percent of their pavement in poor condition.
In addition, the number of structurally deficient Interstate bridges
declined by over 22 percent from 1992 through 2000. States also
reported that their Interstates continue to provide a safe means of
travel, and federal data reinforce this view. Interstate fatality rates
remained about steady over the past decade, and Interstates continue to
have lower fatality rates than other types of roads. On the other hand,
DOT and other data show that congestion on urban Interstate highways
increased and is generally worse than on all other classes of roads.
Traffic is increasingly dense on urban Interstates, and the amount of
time required for an average trip during peak travel periods increased
by about 12 percent from 1990 through 2000. States also identified
congestion on some of their rural Interstate roads as an emerging
issue.
The states expect that increases in traffic, the aging of the
infrastructure, and constraints on funding will affect their ability to
maintain physical and safety conditions of their Interstate Systems and
to alleviate congestion, but the costs to address the factors
pressuring their Interstates were difficult to determine. First, FHWA
and almost all states expect the volume of both car and truck traffic
to increase over the next 10 years, and most states reported that the
expected increase in traffic would negatively affect the physical
condition of pavement and bridges, safety, and levels of congestion on
their Interstates. In addition, states expect the continued aging of
the Interstates to have a negative effect on the conditions of their
pavement and bridges. Transportation officials we spoke with were also
concerned that large, expensive projects might restrict the
availability of funds for maintaining the rest of their systems.
Finally, budgetary pressures at the state and federal level may make it
difficult to increase spending on the Interstate System. It is
difficult to determine the cost of addressing these factors, in part
because the federally required short-term plans that states develop for
investing in their highways are designed to provide a realistic list of
projects that can be completed with expected revenue. As a result,
states‘ plans might not identify the funding needed to address all of
the pressures states expect on their Interstate highways. Some states
we visited prepared longer-term plans that estimated the funding
necessary to meet their goals for their highway systems, including
their Interstates, and these plans showed a gap between expected
revenue and what states would like to invest.
We obtained comments on a draft of this report from DOT and DOD
officials. They generally agreed with the report.
Background:
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 established the Interstate Highway
System but did not provide specific funding for construction. In the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Congress declared that the completion
of a ’National System of Interstate and Defense Highways“ was essential
to the national interest. The act called for new system design
standards, began an accelerated construction program, established a new
method for apportioning funds among states, and set the federal
government‘s cost share for Interstate construction projects at 90
percent. [Footnote 5] At the same time, the Highway Revenue Act of 1956
introduced a dedicated source for federal highway expenditures,
providing that revenue from certain federal motor fuel and other motor
vehicle related taxes be credited to the Highway Trust Fund. The
federal government, from 1954 through 2001, invested over $370 billion
on Interstates through apportionments to the states, more than on any
other class of road. Today, FHWA, within DOT, administers a variety of
federal highway programs supported by the trust fund--collectively
referred to as the Federal-Aid Highway Program.
The Interstate Highway System, as it came to be known, has particular
design characteristics. Its roads are generally divided highways with
at least four lanes of traffic and wide shoulders. The Interstate
avoids intersections by having other roads pass over or under it, and
it has access control--that is, vehicles generally join or leave the
flow of traffic by a limited number of access or exit ramps. (See fig.
2.) Certain characteristics were meant to facilitate military movement,
such as the requirement for 16 feet of clearance under bridges that
pass over Interstate highways. [Footnote 6] A distinctive red, white,
and blue shield denotes Interstate highways.
Figure 2. Overview of Interstate Section:
[See PDF for image]
[End of Figure]
The Interstate Highway System, as of 2000, extended over 46,000 miles
in length and 209,655 lane miles. [Footnote 7] In 1991, Congress
provided final funding for the completion of the Interstate System.
From 1990 through 2000, Interstate mileage grew by about 3.1 percent,
or 1,405 miles in length, or 11,491 lane miles during the decade.
Growth occurred primarily in urban areas. Overall, urban mileage
climbed by 1,885 miles, or 16.2 percent, during this period, while
rural Interstate mileage declined by 480 miles, or 1.4 percent. (See
fig. 3.) Some of the urban mileage gain occurred as new road mileage
expanded the system. The rest occurred as urban boundaries grew to take
in Interstate highway miles that were originally in rural areas.
Figure 3. Urban and Rural Interstate Mileage, 1990 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
According to FHWA, Interstate highways are a principal part of an
overall network of roads throughout the nation. The Interstate System
composes 29 percent of the estimated 161,000-mile National Highway
System (NHS) designated by Congress in 1995. The NHS also includes
other arterial roads of national interest. The entire Interstate
Highway System is also part of the Strategic Highway Network
(STRAHNET), an approximately 61,000-mile network of roads designated as
important to the U.S. military. [Footnote 8]
Currently, both the federal government and states fund the construction
and maintenance activities on the Interstate Highway System. Each year,
billions of dollars are provided to the states for the construction and
repair of highways through various highway programs. Under one such
program--the Interstate Maintenance Program (IM)--federal funds
support projects for resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating, or
reconstructing portions of the Interstate System. Those projects
generally require a 10 percent state match, while projects on other
classes of roads generally require a 20 percent match. Under certain
circumstances, states may transfer funds among various highway
programs. For example, subject to certain limitations, states may
transfer IM funds to other programs and use them on other classes of
roads (with a 20 percent match). Similarly, states may also transfer
funds from other funding categories to their IM program and use them
for qualifying projects on Interstate highways. The Interstate
Maintenance Discretionary Program provides funding for the kinds of
projects funded under the IM program. In addition, Bridge Discretionary
Program funds can be used on Interstate bridges. FHWA solicits
candidates for the discretionary programs and selects projects for
funding from applications. Finally, the Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program provides funds for states to replace or
rehabilitate deficient highway bridges located on any public road,
including the Interstate System.
In 1991, we reported on Interstate conditions. [Footnote 9] In that
report, we raised concerns about the poor condition of Interstate
highways and about FHWA‘s oversight of them. Among other things, we
suggested that the DOT report to Congress on the levels of investment
required for Interstate maintenance and on the progress being made to
achieve adequate maintenance. DOT included information in Appendix A of
the 1999 Conditions and Performance Report [Footnote 10] that was
partially responsive to this recommendation.
The Role of the Interstate Highway System Has Expanded Over Time:
According to state officials, the Interstate Highway System plays an
important and expanding role in the country‘s transportation system.
The original purposes of the system were to provide for efficient long-
distance travel, support defense requirements, and connect metropolitan
and industrial areas. Most states agree that these roles continue to be
important but emphasized that several additional important roles have
emerged in recent years. For example, most state officials see the
Interstates as increasingly supporting economic growth and moving
freight, as well as getting passengers to airports and supporting urban
travel.
Interstates Were Developed to Support Long-Distance Travel and National
Defense and Connect Metropolitan Areas:
The Interstate Highway System was primarily developed to address (1)
the public‘s demand for efficient long-distance travel, (2) the needs
of the military, and (3) the nation‘s economic development through the
connection of metropolitan and industrial areas. [Footnote 11] The
expectations for the Interstate Highway System are described in the
following sections.
* The public‘s desire for easy long-distance travel manifested itself
in
the early 1900s through an increase in car ownership and a growing
interest in cross-country travel. Along with this increase in vehicle
ownership came a significant increase in travel and tourism, quickly
making cross- country travel a major recreational activity for millions
of Americans.
* The system allows the nation‘s military a means to expeditiously
reach
military cross-country installations and ports for deployment. In 1922,
the United States Army developed the ’Pershing Map,“ which illustrated
for the first time the major roads of prime importance during times of
war. Each of the routes that the Army identified in the map was
included with those roads eligible for federal aid. The military
importance of the Interstate System was emphasized in 1956 when
legislation named the Interstate Highway System the National System of
Interstate and Defense Highways.
* By connecting metropolitan and industrial areas, the Interstate
System
was also meant to promote the nation‘s economic growth and development.
Without an efficient, far reaching national highway system, merchants
found it difficult to move their goods to market in a timely manner.
The 1944 Interregional Highways report [Footnote 12] explained that the
Interstate System was also intended to serve the nation‘s economic
needs in agricultural production, mineral production, forestry, and
manufacturing centers.
Interstates‘ Role in Moving Freight and Supporting Economic Development
Have Increased in Importance:
According to state officials, the previously mentioned roles continue
to be important, but the role of the Interstate System in freight
movement has increased significantly. State officials we spoke with
said that the Interstate System plays a significant role in their
economy by facilitating the movement of goods by truck. State officials
are concerned about economic development in their states and see the
Interstates, especially in terms of freight movement, as playing a
significant role in economic development. In responding to our survey,
officials reported that today, after affording safe transportation, the
most important roles of the Interstates include moving freight and
supporting economic development. (See fig. 4 for the number of states
classifying the importance of different Interstate functions.)
Officials from 33 states indicated that supporting their state‘s
general economic development is a very great role for the Interstate
System. Officials from 35 states responded that moving freight through
their state is a very great role for their Interstates, and 30 states
believed that moving freight within their state is a very great role.
Figure 4. Number of States Characterizing the Role of Their Interstate
Highways as Very Great for Particular Purposes:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey data.
[End of Figure]
According to state officials, moving freight on their Interstate System
is an important focus of their transportation programs. For example,
state of Florida transportation officials told us that although
reducing congestion for cars is important, maintaining mobility for
freight traffic on their Interstate System is very important for
industries in their state. For example, three Interstate routes connect
the state‘s dairy industry with other areas of Florida, which consume
85 percent of the milk produced in the state. In addition, Ohio‘s
survey response indicated that the Interstate System was very important
for moving freight. The state estimates that its Interstate and
multilane freeway system currently carry about 85 percent of all the
state‘s freight and ’Keeping the state‘s Interstate [S]ystem moving
smoothly and freely is not only important to the economy of the state,
but also to the nation‘s economy.“:
The role of the Interstate System in carrying freight has increased
significantly over the past 20 years. According to our survey results,
45 of the state departments of transportation reported that the role of
the Interstate System in moving freight through their state had
increased; officials from 43 states responded that the Interstates had
a greater role moving freight within the state.
Our nation‘s freight is currently moving extensively by truck on the
Interstate System, and this movement is important to economic
development. The most recent U.S. Commodity Flow Survey (1997)
[Footnote 13] reported that trucks carry over 69 percent of the tons
shipped in the United States and 72 percent of the value of goods
shipped in the country. In addition, truck traffic on the Interstates
made up over 41 percent of total truck miles traveled in 2000. An FHWA
report and a consultant‘s report explain that freight movement has
significantly contributed to improving the country‘s economic
efficiency and productivity by, among other things, making ’just-in-
time“ delivery more feasible, thereby reducing warehouse and
manufacturing costs.
Roles Supporting Urban Mobility Are Becoming More Important for
Interstates:
Officials from 39 states identified the Interstate System‘s support of
travel within metropolitan areas as a great or very great role.
Officials from 33 of the states said that this role has become greater
in the past 20 years. When the Interstate System was planned, it was
expected to provide efficient travel through the country and to connect
major metropolitan areas where feasible. However, according to FHWA,
Congress never expected the Interstate System to accommodate local
traffic. Now a number of trips on urban Interstates, such as commuting
trips, are completed within an urban area, rather than going through or
beyond the urban area. For example, while urban Interstates make up
about 4 percent of all urban lane miles, they carry about 24 percent of
all urban traffic. According to states, the Interstate System provides
efficient urban travel, and as such, urban users want easy access to
it. In addition, according to North Dakota officials, the urban area of
Fargo, North Dakota has encompassed Interstate 29 and the Interstate is
now sometimes used as a local street.
Finally, some of the states that we surveyed said that Interstate
highways are increasingly important for moving people to specific
locations that may not have been seen as important when the Interstate
was designed. For example, 30 states reported that moving people to
airports is a greater or much greater role now than previously. Airport
enplanements have grown rather steadily over the past 20 years--
increasing by almost 129 percent from 1980 through 2000.
Both the Federal and State Governments Have a Role in Managing and
Funding the Interstate System:
Since establishing the Interstate Highway System, the federal
government has provided both funding for and oversight of the system.
While still providing funding for the system, the federal government‘s
oversight focus is currently on ensuring that states have the
procedures in place to manage the Interstates, as well as providing
some project-level oversight. State departments of transportation
manage most of the ’hands-on“ work of constructing, maintaining, and
planning for the future of the Interstate System. States also fund a
portion of Interstate projects, though to a much smaller extent than
the federal government.
The Federal Government Funds the Interstate Highway System and Oversees
States‘ Management of the System:
Congress, FHWA, and the Department of Defense (DOD) play important
roles with respect to the Interstate Highway System, including funding
and overseeing state planning activities, and financing the majority of
construction and maintenance of the system.
Congress Establishes and Funds Highway Programs:
By passing authorization and appropriations legislation, Congress plays
a significant role with respect to federal highway programs, including
Interstate-related programs. Authorization legislation, such as the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991(ISTEA) and the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21), enacted in
1998, provide funding for various highway programs and related
activities, establish mechanisms for the distribution of those funds,
and set forth eligibility requirements for the highway programs,
including the Interstate programs, limiting how the funds made
available may be used. Among other things, annual appropriation acts
make amounts from the Highway Trust Fund available for payment of
obligations incurred for various highway programs.
Funding for the Interstate System has been a major part of total
federal highway funding, since 1954, when federal funding for
Interstate construction began. However, the proportion of
apportionments to states, specifically for the Interstate activities,
[Footnote 14] has decreased over time as compared with overall highway
program apportionments.
* In 1960, the annual Interstate apportionment was $12.2 billion (in
2001
dollars), or 72.8 percent of that year‘s federal highway apportionments
to states.
* From 1954 through 1991, total apportionments for Interstate
construction and preservation reached $331.2 billion, or 56.8 percent
of federal highway funding apportioned to states for the period.
* From 1992 through 2001, Interstate highway apportionments were $39.1
billion, or 17.5 percent of funding apportioned to states. With ISTEA,
Congress scaled back funding apportioned to states specifically for
Interstate highways to $23.9 billion or 20.3 percent of federal highway
apportionments from 1992 through 1997. In addition, Interstate
apportionments were $15.2 billion, or 14.3 percent, of federal highway
apportionments for the next 4 years under TEA-21. (See fig. 5.) ISTEA
also created the NHS and the Surface Transportation Program. [Footnote
15] Those programs accounted for 18.0 percent and 21.8 percent,
respectively, of the $223.8 billion in federal highway apportionments
made to the states from 1992 through 2001.
As Congress considers reauthorization of the surface transportation
programs in 2003, it will face decisions about the continued level of
federal involvement in managing and financing the Interstate System.
Figure 5. Apportionments for Interstate Highways, 1990 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
Note: In 2001 dollars.
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
Even after providing final funding for Interstate completion in 1991,
Congress has continued to designate new Interstate routes. In 1991,
Congress also found that the Interstate System, or comparable highways,
did not adequately serve many of the nation‘s regions and identified
high- priority corridors for development on the NHS to help meet the
demands for increased capacity. Since 1991, 43 of these high-priority
corridors have been designated, 10 of which were designated to become
part of the Interstate System. [Footnote 16] In addition, authorization
and appropriations acts have designated funding specifically for
certain identified high-priority projects, which may include improving
access to Interstate highways, reconstructing Interstate interchanges,
extending Interstate highways, or performing work on roads other than
Interstates.
FHWA Oversees State Activities:
FHWA‘s role in managing the Interstate System has changed from project-
specific oversight to primarily overseeing state processes and
procedures and specific projects. While FHWA was heavily involved in
selecting routes for the Interstate System, for overseeing their
construction, and ensuring that the system was adequately maintained,
much of the responsibility for managing them now falls to the states.
FHWA is also responsible for overseeing certain high-cost projects on
the Interstate System. [Footnote 17] FHWA reviews and approves project
designs; approves plans, specifications, and estimates; concurs in
contract awards; and inspects projects. [Footnote 18]
Today, FHWA does not have significant responsibilities for Interstate
maintenance. For about two decades--until 1998 [Footnote 19]--each
state was required by statute to annually certify that the Interstate
highways in their state were being maintained in accordance with
federal requirements. The law authorized sanctions against states that
did not adequately maintain their Interstate highways; but, they were
rarely applied. TEA-21 repealed the statutory provisions regarding
maintenance certification in 1998. However, if FHWA finds that highways
constructed with federal funds are not being properly maintained, it is
required to inform the state and withhold federal approval of future
state-highway projects in all or part of the state if the condition is
not corrected within 90 days.
Although construction of the Interstate System is essentially complete,
the agency may approve additions to the existing Interstate Highway
System when states request such an addition. When FHWA receives
requests for additions to the existing system from states, it
considers, among other things, whether the proposed new segment is a
logical addition or connection to the Interstate System and whether it
meets Interstate geometric [Footnote 20] and safety standards. Although
both Congress and FHWA designate specific additions to the Interstates,
the nation does not currently have a centralized system for determining
whether new routes are needed and building them. Similarly, the agency
approves adding access points (interchanges and ramps) to the existing
system and system design exceptions.
FHWA is also responsible for overseeing states‘ planning processes by
reviewing and approving statewide transportation improvement programs
(STIPs). These federally required plans cover at least 3 years and
describe the state‘s planned construction, maintenance, and other
highway projects, including Interstate projects. FHWA‘s review of the
STIP primarily focuses on whether the required processes were followed
rather than on the content of the plan. (See app. III for more details
about the planning process.):
FHWA also has other responsibilities related to the Interstate System.
For example, the agency sets performance goals, as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act), for
pavement quality, bridge condition, highway congestion, and safety.
[Footnote 21] Although FHWA does not have Interstate-specific
performance goals, its performance goals do include Interstate
highways. For example, FHWA‘s safety goal is to reduce highway
fatalities and injuries by 20 percent by 2008. FHWA‘s performance goal
for pavement quality applies to the NHS, which includes the entire
Interstate System. These are FHWA‘s goals, and states are not required
to meet them for their Interstates or other roads. Finally, other FHWA
responsibilities include providing technical assistance and management
tools, such as investment-analysis models, to aid in the planning
process at state transportation agencies; conducting transportation-
related research; and disseminating the results throughout the country.
DOD Works with FHWA and States to Meet Defense Requirements:
DOD played an important role in establishing the Interstate Highway
System. However, state officials reported that this role has not
increased significantly in the past 20 years. DOD participated in
selecting the Interstate highway routes, and according to DOD and FHWA
officials, DOD works with federal and state transportation officials to
ensure that the Interstate System meets its national defense
requirements. In 1981, DOD, in partnership with FHWA, identified public
highways to make up the STRAHNET. [Footnote 22] This network of
highways gives the military the ability to move equipment and personnel
expeditiously over the highway system from military installations to
ports for deployment. The STRAHNET consists of 61,044 miles plus 1,700
miles of connectors that link over 200 important military installations
and ports to the network. All of the nation‘s Interstate highways are
included in the STRAHNET. STRAHNET and its major connectors were
incorporated into the NHS in 1995. [Footnote 23] This continues to
emphasize the military importance of these highways. According to DOD
officials, the working relationship between DOD and FHWA, and the
conditions on the Interstate System, are adequate.
States Plan, Construct, Maintain, and Help Fund the Interstate System:
States handle many of the responsibilities for managing the Interstates
as well as providing some funding. State responsibilities include
developing plans for maintaining the physical and operational
conditions and the safety of Interstate highways. States are required
to develop at least two planning documents--a 20-year Statewide
Transportation Plan and a short- term Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) that covers at least 3 years. The plans
outline how the states will use available funds to maintain the
physical and operational conditions and the safety of their
Interstates. To develop these planning documents and maintain their
Interstates, states use a variety of approaches. See appendix III for a
description of states‘ planning processes. In addition, state
departments of transportation are responsible for the day-to-day
operations of constructing and maintaining the Interstates. Finally,
state governments provide some funding for the Interstate Highway
System; however, they spend less on the Interstates than does the
federal government. States raise highway funds to match federal funds
and to pay for other state highway projects and programs.
Since 1992, Most Interstate Highway Investments Have Been for
Preservation or Capacity Additions:
The federal and state governments have invested heavily in Interstate
highways. Because 97.4 percent of the system‘s length in 2000 was
complete before 1992, much of the subsequent investment was to preserve
and maintain the existing system. When states added to the system‘s
size, they did so mainly in urban areas. From 1992 through 2000, the
type of Interstate pavement and bridge construction projects also
shifted from new construction to primarily maintenance.
Overall Spending on Interstates Has Grown:
Outlays, that is, expenditures of federal, state, and other funds for
projects on Interstate highways have generally increased since 1992.
State spending of federal, state, and local funds for Interstates grew
from $13.0 billion in 1992 to $16.2 billion in 2000. States reported
total capital outlays for Interstates of $105 billion, or an average of
$11.7 billion per year in 2001 dollars from 1992 through 2000. (See
fig. 6.) Besides capital outlays, states also had routine Interstate
maintenance outlays that averaged $1.6 billion per year. These outlays,
which generally consist of nonfederal funds, were for routine tasks
like sealing cracks and patching potholes, which help keep the pavement
in good condition, but did not cover capital improvements like
resurfacing, rehabilitation, or reconstruction.
Figure 6. Capital Outlays for Interstate Highways from All Funding
Sources, 1992 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Note: In 2001 dollars.
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
States Have Spent More on Urban Interstates:
From 1992 through 2000, states allocated more of their Interstate
investments of federal, state, and other funds to urban highways (68.4
percent of outlays) than to rural highways (31.6 percent of outlays).
Furthermore, states have invested higher levels of state or local funds
in urban projects than in rural projects. Specifically, federal
Interstate obligation data for projects show that, from 1992 through
2000, rural:
Interstate projects averaged 11.2 percent in state or local funding,
while urban projects averaged 15.1 percent in state or local funding.
[Footnote 24] (See fig. 7.):
Figure 7. Nonfederal Share of Interstate Projects:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
States Are Spending More for Preservation of Pavement and Bridges:
States spent available funds for different types of projects on their
Interstate Systems, including pavement, bridge, and other related items
(including safety, traffic operations, and environmentally related
projects). FHWA reported obligations of $48.5 billion for Interstate
highway projects from 1992 through 2000. Of this amount, 66.2 percent,
or $32.1 billion, was for pavement projects, 19.7 percent, or $9.6
billion, was for bridge projects, and the rest, $6.8 billion, was for
other related items. (See fig. 8.):
Figure 8. Obligations for Interstate Highways, 1992 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Expenditures total $48.5 billion (in 2001 dollars).
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
Accounting for the largest area of expenditures, Interstate pavement
projects since 1992 were clearly focused on existing roadways. Among
pavement project miles, 98.6 percent were to improve existing highways;
only 1.4 percent for new construction. (See fig. 9.) Costs for
improving existing highways were $29.0 billion, or 90.2 percent of
total pavement costs. Only 424 miles, or 1.4 percent of Interstate
projects‘ length, were for new construction. (See fig. 10.) Costs for
new construction were $3.1 billion, or 9.8 percent of total pavement
costs.
Figure 9. Interstate Pavement Project Miles, 1992 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
Figure 10. Interstate Pavement Project Dollars, 1992 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
Interstate pavement construction projects from 1990 through 2000
shifted toward maintaining the existing system. Based on FHWA
obligation data, new pavement construction project miles declined
during the period, while reconstruction project miles tended to decline
during the period and pavement maintenance project miles--restoration
and rehabilitation, and resurfacing--increased.
In addition, Interstate bridge projects [Footnote 25] were more likely
for preservation or replacement than for new construction. Among the
11,530 bridge projects reported, 10,363, or 89.9 percent, were
replacement or rehabilitation projects.
Most Interstate Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion Has Grown:
The Interstate‘s physical conditions (pavement and bridge) and safety
are in good overall shape; however, congestion has grown. Pavement
conditions improved from 1992 to 2000, and officials from 39 states now
regard their pavement as good or excellent. Officials from a majority
of state highway departments predict pavement will still be in good
condition 10 years from now. However, officials from 23 states predict
that, in 10 years, they will be falling behind in dealing with the
condition of their Interstate pavement. Bridge conditions parallel
pavement conditions: since 1992, bridge conditions have generally
improved, and officials from a majority of states report bridge
conditions are currently good or excellent, but officials from 19
states predict the condition of their bridges will worsen 10 years from
now. Safety on the Interstate System has remained relatively stable.
Interstate fatality rates declined from 1990 to 1992 and remained
fairly stable after 1992. A majority of state officials rated the
safety of travel on their Interstates as good or excellent today, and
41 predicted it will remain so 10 years from now. Moreover, DOT data
showed that pavement, bridge, and safety conditions are better on
Interstates than on other roads. But unlike pavement, bridge, and
safety factors, Interstate congestion has gotten worse. One measure
showed that rush hour travel time on urban Interstates increased 12
percent from 1990 through 2000. State officials in nearly half of the
states reported that urban congestion is already high, and officials
from 41 states predicted it will be high 10 years from now. State
officials reported high rural congestion in only 1 state now, but
expected it in 18 states within 10 years.
Pavement Conditions Have Improved:
Generally, Interstate pavement conditions have improved since 1990.
According to FHWA data, 8.6 percent of Interstate pavement, or 3,897
miles, was in poor condition in 1990. By 2000, the share of poor
Interstate miles [Footnote 26] had dropped to 3.4 percent, or 1,560
miles. In addition, pavement data for 1990 through 2000 show that urban
Interstates have a higher percentage of poor mileage than rural
Interstates, but both have improved since 1990 (see fig. 11). The
improvement pattern was not continuous partly because FHWA asked the
states to adopt a new condition measure. States had historically
reported pavement condition using a subjective rating scale. By 1992,
states were also reporting pavement data with a more objective
statistic called the International Roughness Index. In 1993, FHWA
adopted the roughness index as a required statistic for reporting
pavement conditions on Interstates. States needed new measuring devices
to adopt the International Roughness Index. When these devices were
later upgraded, some states such as North Dakota, noticed an
improvement in their pavement condition statistics.
Figure 11. Percentage of Poor Interstate Pavement--Urban Versus Rural,
1990 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
Two factors may have contributed to the long-term improvement in
Interstate pavement. First, the federal government has increased its
commitment to pavement quality, along with highway funding in general.
FHWA has supported quality pavement management by promoting better
planning and techniques for building smoother, longer-lasting roads. In
addition, state highway programs have received increased federal
funding since TEA-21 ’guaranteed“ certain overall funding levels based
on Highway Trust Fund revenue . (See fig. 6 for increases in Interstate
capital outlays during this period.) Second, state transportation
departments have increased their commitment to Interstate pavement
quality. This commitment may be ongoing, as in Florida, which adopted a
statutory requirement in 1984 requiring goals for the quality of the
pavement on its state highways. Or the commitment may come in response
to customer feedback, as when Pennsylvania initiated a pavement upgrade
program in response to truckers‘ surveys criticizing conditions on the
state‘s roads.
Interstate Pavement Is in Good Overall Condition, but Some Sections Are
in Poor Condition:
Of 51 respondents, 39 states reported that their Interstate pavement is
currently in good or excellent condition; 9 said that their pavement is
in fair condition; 3 reported poor Interstate pavement conditions; and
none reported very poor conditions. (See fig. 12.) In addition, state
pavement data submitted to FHWA for 2000 showed that for the nation as
a whole, 63.5 percent of pavement was in good or very good condition,
[Footnote 27] 18.2 percent was in fair condition, and 18.3 percent was
in mediocre or poor condition. Half of the states reported that less
than 2.0 percent of their pavement was in poor condition. FHWA‘s
pavement categories describe a pavement‘s need for upcoming improvement
as interpreted from a roughness index.
Figure 12. Survey Responses about Current Pavement Conditions:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO‘s survey.
[End of Figure]
Rural Interstate pavement, which gets less heavy traffic, is in better
condition than urban Interstate pavement, according to data that the
states supply to FHWA. According to an FHWA report on pavement
conditions in 2000, only 14.4 percent of rural mileage is in poor or
mediocre condition, compared with 28.2 percent of urban mileage.
While the overall condition of Interstate pavement is generally good,
it is much worse in certain states than our aggregate survey responses
or nationwide pavement condition statistics suggest. For example,
according to FHWA data, while 18.3 percent of the nation‘s Interstate
pavement is in mediocre or poor condition, 10 states have at least one-
third of their pavement in mediocre or poor condition. Four of these
states have more than 12.0 percent of their pavement in poor condition,
compared with a nationwide rate of 3.4 percent for pavement in the poor
condition category. Missouri, one of our case study states, has 4.1
percent of its Interstate pavement in the poor category, fairly close
to the nationwide level.
However, 40.1 percent of its Interstate pavement is in mediocre
condition. [Footnote 28] According to a draft long-range transportation
plan, many of Missouri‘s Interstates need total reconstruction. State
officials said that they plan to focus on I-70 between St. Louis and
Kansas City, one of the oldest segments on the Interstate System,
where, by state criteria, one-third to one-half of the pavement is poor
or very poor.
Compared with ’other major arterials,“ Interstates are in better
condition in both rural and urban areas. According to Interstate
standards, [Footnote 29] in urban areas, 6.5 percent of Interstates are
in poor condition, compared with 27.0 percent of other ’urban major
arterials.“ In rural areas, 2.1 percent of Interstates are in poor
condition, compared with 4.0 percent of ’other major arterials.“ (See
fig. 13.):
Figure 13. Percentage of Roads with Poor Pavement--Interstates Versus
Other Major Arterials (2000):
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
FHWA has no requirements or standards for states to keep their
Interstate highways in a particular condition. However, FHWA‘s Fiscal
Year 2002 Performance Plan included a pavement condition goal for the
NHS, which includes the Interstate Highway System. FHWA originally
determined that, by 2008, 93 percent of NHS pavement should have
acceptable ride quality-- meaning an International Roughness Index of
170 inches per mile or less. As a whole, the NHS had met this goal as
of 2000, and the Interstate portion of the NHS met this goal by 1996.
Since the 2008 goal had already been met, FHWA revised its performance
goal. The current goal emphasizes that highly traveled roads should be
in good condition and requires that, in 2002, 92 percent of vehicle
miles on the NHS will be traveled on pavement that meets the acceptable
ride standard.
Expectations of Future Interstate Pavement Conditions Vary:
We did not find agreement on whether Interstate pavement conditions
will be as good in a decade as they are now. A majority of state
officials:
responding to our survey predict [Footnote 30] that Interstate pavement
will still be in excellent or good condition 10 years from now.
However, 21 respondents predict that their pavement will be in fair or
worse condition. Compared with their assessments of current conditions,
our respondents‘ assessments of future conditions predict less pavement
in good or excellent condition and more pavement in fair, poor, or very
poor condition. Officials from 23 states predict that, in 10 years,
they will be falling behind in dealing with the condition of their
Interstate pavement. In addition, officials from 44 states predict that
the portion of their transportation spending devoted to improving
Interstate pavement conditions will increase (27 states) or stay the
same (17 states). (See fig. 14.):
Figure 14. Interstate Pavement Conditions Today and Expected 10 Years
from Now, Given Expected Levels of Funding:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO‘s survey.
[End of Figure]
DOT recently predicted [Footnote 31] that, given expected future
investment levels, states could improve Interstate pavement conditions
over a 10-year planning period. However, DOT‘s primary funding
projection could be higher than states assumed in responding to our
survey. DOT projected that states would increase their Interstate
funding levels from 2.8 to 3.0 percent annually in constant dollar
terms from 2003 to 2007, consistent with historic trends. State
officials might not assume such funding increases, according to a FHWA
official. Thus, the funding level in DOT‘s analysis might be higher
than state officials expect, which could account for DOT‘s prediction
of better future pavement conditions.
Interstate Bridge Conditions Have Generally Improved:
The number of deficient Interstate bridges has declined over the last 8
years. Specifically, the number of structurally deficient bridges
declined by over 22 percent from 1992 through 2000. In addition, FHWA
information also shows that the bridge deck area associated with
structurally deficient Interstate bridges decreased by over 27 percent
during the same period. [Footnote 32] Structurally deficient bridges
can have restrictions on the weight of vehicles using them or may need
to be closed and repaired before they can be used again. In addition,
the number of functionally obsolete bridges declined by more than 10
percent over the same period. However, the deck area associated with
functionally obsolete bridges increased 9 percent over this period.
Functionally obsolete bridges are not up to design standards and
generally face less serious problems than structurally deficient
bridges--for example, shoulders that are not as wide as the roadway
leading to the bridge. Figure 15 shows the decreasing trend in number
of deficient bridges. [Footnote 33]
Figure 15. Number of Deficient Interstate Bridges from 1992 through
2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA data.
[End of Figure]
Interstate Bridge Conditions Are Currently Good:
Overall, state officials responding to our survey reported that their
bridges are currently in good condition. Of the states responding to
our survey, 31 said that the overall condition of their Interstate
bridges is good or excellent; another 19 said it is fair. As of April
2001, 5 percent of the nation‘s Interstate bridges were structurally
deficient. In addition, another 16 percent were functionally obsolete.
Interstate bridges are generally in better condition than those on
other classes of roads. According to 1998 FHWA data, about 27 percent
of urban Interstate bridges were deficient, [Footnote 34] compared with
a range from over 27 percent for ’urban other freeways and expressways“
to over 38 percent for both ’urban minor arterials“ and ’urban
collectors.“ In addition, 16 percent of rural Interstate bridges were
deficient, compared with a range from 17 percent for ’rural other
principal arterials“ to over 36 percent for ’rural local roads.“:
Expectations of Future Interstate Bridge Conditions Vary:
Some state officials said that they are optimistic about future bridge
conditions--24 expect conditions 10 years from now to be good or
excellent. However, others are aware of problems bridges could face in
the future. Nineteen state respondents believed that their state would
fall behind in maintaining the condition of their bridges over the next
10 years, given the expected level of funding. However, they were not
as concerned about falling behind on their Interstate bridges, as they
were about the problems they would face with congestion and pavement
condition. (See fig. 21.) In addition, officials from 32 states expect
to increase the portion of their budget spent on Interstate bridges.
Interstate Safety Has Been Mainly Stable:
The fatality rate on the Interstate System has been relatively steady,
after falling early in the 1990s. The number of fatalities on
Interstate highways has increased over the past decade, but so has the
level of traffic, as indicated by the number of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). [Footnote 35] (See fig. 16.):
Figure 16. Fatality Rates on the Interstate Highway System, 1990
through
2000, in Terms of Fatalities Per 100 Million VMT:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This figure contains data from the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, but it does not contain data from Puerto Rico.
Source: FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[End of Figure]
Safety Is Better on Interstates Than on Other Roads:
Relatively speaking, Interstate highways are the safest of all highway
classifications. We recently reported [Footnote 36] that among urban
road types, ’other principal arterial“ roads had the highest 1999
fatality rate [Footnote 37] at 1.27-- compared with 0.61, the lowest
fatality rate, on urban Interstate roads. Similarly, we reported that
among the rural road types, ’rural local roads“ had the highest 1999
fatality rate at 3.79--compared with 1.24, the lowest fatality rate, on
rural Interstate roads. In addition, 45 states we surveyed said that
the current level of safety on their Interstates was good or excellent.
Several factors, including unique design characteristics, may
contribute to the Interstate System‘s higher level of safety. According
to a 1999 FHWA report, [Footnote 38] most of the Interstate mileage in
the country met geometric design criteria that support safe
transportation in 1997. These criteria refer to the physical layout or
alignment of a roadway. FHWA and states recognize guidelines
established by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [Footnote 39] as the appropriate
design standards for many of their roads. The Interstate System meets
these guidelines to a great extent--over 99 percent of urban Interstate
mileage and about 97 percent of rural Interstate mileage. Almost all of
the rural Interstate mileage not meeting the guidelines is in rural
Alaska; about 50 percent of the urban Interstate mileage not meeting
the guidelines is in Puerto Rico. Other design characteristics are also
important to safety:
* According to FHWA, the vast majority of Interstate mileage has full
access control [Footnote 40]--which FHWA policy classifies as critical
to maintaining Interstate safety and mobility. Research shows that
highways without access control have higher crash rates than those with
access control.
* According to FHWA, the vast majority of Interstate mileage also
consists of divided highways with at least four lanes. AASHTO‘s
guidance reports that a study on the effect of the Interstate Highway
System on crashes found a lower crash rate on divided highways than on
undivided highways.
* The uniformity of Interstate highway design plays a part in safety by
reducing the number of decisions drivers make and thus minimizing the
number of crashes related to driver error.
FHWA also believes that other factors, including increased seat belt
use and reduced alcohol-impaired driving, have contributed to lowering
the fatality rate and the number of fatalities on the nation‘s
highways-- including Interstate highways.
Interstates Are Expected to Remain Safe:
State officials responding to our survey expect the safety of
Interstate travel in their states to remain relatively safe. Among 51
responses, 41 said the safety of Interstate travel in 10 years will be
good or excellent, 9 said travel safety would be fair, and 1 said
safety would be poor. A majority of officials--29--said the portion of
state transportation spending for improving safety in their states
would stay about the same over the next 10 years, though 19 predicted
some increase or a moderate increase.
Interstate Highways Have Become More Congested:
As congestion on the country‘s roadways has increased, so has
congestion on the Interstate System. Whether measured in terms of
traffic density or travel time, congestion has increased over the past
decade. Furthermore, Interstate highways are generally more congested
than other freeways and other principal arterials.
While there is no single indicator for congestion, we looked at FHWA‘s
’daily vehicle miles traveled per lane mile“ [Footnote 41] to measure
traffic density. [Footnote 42] As figures 17 and 18 show, the overall
density of traffic on all major U.S. roads has been increasing over the
past decade and traffic density is higher on urban highways than on
rural ones. [Footnote 43] In addition, the traffic density on urban
Interstate highways is higher than on other classes of urban road. (See
fig. 17.):
Figure 17. U.S. Average Urban Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by
Class
of Road, 1990 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
Although the density of traffic on urban Interstate highways is higher
than on rural Interstates, traffic on rural Interstate highways is
increasing at a faster rate than on any other classes of road. From
1990 through 2000, the daily vehicle lane miles traveled on rural
Interstates increased at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent. By
comparison, the daily vehicle lane miles traveled on rural principal
arterials increased at an annual rate of 1.9 percent. (See fig. 18.) In
addition, daily vehicle miles traveled on urban Interstates increased
at an annual average rate of 1.7 percent, and the rate increased by 1.3
percent on other urban freeways and expressways.
Figure 18. U.S. Average Rural Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by
Class
of Road, 1990 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FHWA‘s Highway Statistics.
[End of Figure]
While daily vehicle lane miles traveled measures traffic density, it
does not indicate the effect of congestion on drivers, especially the
amount of time it takes them to reach their destinations. The Texas
Transportation Institute [Footnote 44] has developed measures that
address a central concern of urban drivers-- how travel time is
affected by congestion. One measure--the travel time index--indicates
how much more time it takes to travel during a peak period than at
other times of day. The travel time index indicates that urban
Interstate congestion has increased from 1990 through 2000, and
congestion levels are higher on the urban Interstate System than on any
other class of roads, including urban freeways and expressways and
urban principal arterials. (See fig. 19.):
During the past decade, the travel time index increased by about 12
percent. This statistic provides information about drivers‘ experiences
as well as the level of congestion on the road because it accounts for
delays due both to the traffic demand on the road and to roadway
incidents, like accidents. For example, a travel time index of 1.63
means that a trip that takes 30 minutes in an off-peak (noncongested)
period would, on average, take 63 percent longer, or almost 19 extra
minutes in the peak period--in other words, the trip would take an
average of about 49 minutes rather than 30 minutes when the road is
congested. In addition, the Texas Transportation Institute data show
that delay from incidents is greater than recurring delay from traffic.
Specifically, their Mobility Report 2001 states that delay from
incidents accounts for 54 percent of total delay. [Footnote 45]
Figure 19. Percent Increase in Urban Travel Time During the Peak Period
by Class of Road, 1990 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Interstates show a 3 percentage point decrease in travel time
from 1990 to 1992. According to Texas Transportation Institute
officials, this is partially due to the urban boundary redefinitions
that usually get included in the first and second years after a Census.
Source: Texas Transportation Institute data obtained through FHWA.
[End of Figure]
Many Factors Account for Growth in Congestion:
Many factors can contribute to congestion. As figure 20 shows,
increases in overall population and the number of licensed drivers are
factors that could each cause more cars to be on the road during peak
hours. The Census Bureau reports that, from 1990 to 2000, the
population increased by about 13 percent nationwide. In addition,
according to FHWA, the number of licensed drivers increased by 14
percent during the past decade. These, along with other factors,
resulted in a 39 percent increase in the number of miles traveled in
the United States in the past decade. Freight movement by truck also
increased by 40 percent over the first 8 years of the decade. However,
Interstate capacity in terms of lane miles increased by only 6 percent
over the past decade. Finally, expansion of metropolitan areas and the
choices people make about where they live and work also contribute to
congestion.
Figure 20. Percent Change of Variables Related to Congestion, 1990
through
2000:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Freight data were only available for 1990 to 1998.
Source: Prepared by GAO based on data from FHWA‘s Highway Statistics,
U.S. Census Bureau‘s Census 2000 Brief , and Bureau of Transportation
Statistics‘ National Transportation Statistics 2000.
[End of Figure]
Currently Worse on Urban Interstates, Congestion Is Expected to
Increase on Both Urban and Rural Interstates:
Officials from 24 states rated the present level of congestion on their
urban Interstates as ’high“ or ’very high,“ and officials from 21
states rated their urban Interstate congestion as ’average.“ By
contrast, no officials rated rural congestion as ’very high,“ and just
one official rated the level of congestion on rural Interstates as
’high“; officials from 27 states rated congestion on their rural
Interstates as ’average.“:
In response to our survey, nearly all states expressed concern about
future congestion on their urban Interstates. For example,
* 42 states predicted that, 10 years from now, they would be falling
behind in terms of alleviating urban congestion and:
* 41 states expected to rate urban congestion in the next 10 years as
high or very high. (See app. II.):
State respondents generally do not expect that their efforts to
alleviate congestion will be entirely successful. Although 34 states
indicated that they expect to spend a greater portion of their budget
on urban congestion over the next 10 years, 42 states believe they will
be falling behind in dealing with urban congestion. In addition, in its
1999 Condition and Performance report, FHWA predicted that congestion
would worsen--that is, average travel time costs would continue rising-
-if investment and allocations stay at the current expected levels. In
its reauthorization of surface transportation programs, Congress could
decide to select methods for investing federal resources in the
Interstates and other highway programs to help address local congestion
problems in urban areas. To assist in making these decisions, we asked
states about policies and tools that can be used in alleviating
congestion. (See app. IV for the states‘ responses.):
Although states are particularly concerned about urban congestion
levels, they also think that rural congestion will increase, especially
on specific routes. Officials from 18 states expect to rate rural
congestion as ’high“ or ’very high“ in the next 10 years. For example,
rural congestion is increasing on the I-70 corridor--a 140-mile-long
stretch through the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. This section serves in
moving skiers and truckers through the mountains. However, traffic
congestion has become an increasing problem along this corridor, in
part due to population growth in the surrounding areas--and will
continue to worsen over the years.
Increases in Traffic, the Age of the Interstates, and Funding
Constraints May Negatively Affect Interstate Conditions; However, the
Costs to Address These Factors Are Uncertain:
States expect certain factors, especially the levels of truck and car
traffic, the age of the Interstates‘ pavement and bridges, and funding
constraints to negatively affect the conditions of their Interstates
over the next 10 years. FHWA data also indicate that traffic,
especially the volume of truck traffic, will increase. In addition,
many states believe they will be ’falling behind“ in satisfying the
users of their systems, especially in terms of congestion. (See fig.
21.) Transportation officials have also indicated that large-dollar
projects may negatively affect states‘ financial ability to maintain
their systems. States responding to our survey indicated that they plan
to spend larger portions of their budgets addressing these Interstate
pressures. However, identifying the states‘ cost to maintain and
improve their systems is difficult. States‘ STIPs, required to include
only projects that can be built with estimated revenues, show how
states plan to use the funding they estimate will be available, rather
than the funding they estimate will be needed for their Interstates.
Some states have developed plans that provide some insight into what it
will cost to maintain conditions or reach specific goals. These
estimates indicate that states perceive Interstate needs as larger than
estimated funding.
Figure 21. Number of States Expecting Performance on Their Interstate
Systems to Fall Behind in the Next Decade:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO‘s survey.
[End of Figure]
Increasing Truck Traffic to Have Greatest Negative Effect on Interstate
Conditions:
According to our survey, states expect truck traffic to have a negative
effect on the most elements of Interstate conditions including physical
conditions (pavement and bridges), safety, and rural congestion. (See
table 1.) For example, all 52 states expect truck traffic to increase
over the next 10 years, and 49 states said that they expect this to
negatively affect the condition of their pavement. Current estimates
used by FHWA also show freight movement by truck increasing by 28
percent from the end of 2001 through the end of 2010. [Footnote 46]
Finally, an alliance of primarily southern and southeastern states
released a 2001 study that estimates an annual 6.9 percent increase in
Latin American truck traffic in the United States (resulting in almost
a doubling in 10 years). Ninety-six percent of this truck traffic will
be on Interstates.
Table 1. The Number of States Identifying the Negative Effects of These
Factors on Interstate Highway Conditions:
Factor: Truck traffic volume; Elements of Interstate condition:
Pavement: 49; Elements of Interstate condition: 46; Elements of
Interstate condition: 45; Elements of Interstate condition: Urban
congestion: 49; Elements of Interstate condition: 43.
Factor: Traffic volume; Elements of Interstate condition: Pavement: 44;
Elements of Interstate condition: 41; Elements of Interstate condition:
43; Elements of Interstate condition: Urban congestion: 51; Elements of
Interstate condition: 41.
Factor: Percent of truck traffic; Elements of Interstate condition:
Pavement: 48; Elements of Interstate condition: 45; Elements of
Interstate condition: 44; Elements of Interstate condition: Urban
congestion: 44; Elements of Interstate condition: 40.
Factor: Age of structures; Elements of Interstate condition: Pavement:
38; Elements of Interstate condition: 45; Elements of Interstate
condition: [A]; Elements of Interstate condition: Urban congestion:
[A]; Elements of Interstate condition: [A].
Note: Fifty-one of 52 states replied to questions about how these
factors affect pavement, safety, and rural congestion.
[A] Not applicable.
Source: GAO survey data.
[End of table]
State officials‘ concerns about increases in truck traffic may reflect,
in part, the estimated highway costs of damage to the pavement or
bridge of each additional truck-mile driven compared with the cost of a
car. A recent:
FHWA study [Footnote 47] explains that while car drivers pay about the
same share of user taxes as their share of highway costs, heavy truck
operators commonly pay less than their share of highway costs.
Specifically, FHWA estimated that an additional mile of Interstate car
travel cost of 0.1 cent in terms of pavement damage, while an
additional mile of Interstate truck travel had a pavement damage cost
as high as 12.7 cents on rural Interstates and 40.9 cents on urban
Interstates. In 1994, we recommended that FHWA conduct this highway
cost-allocation study. [Footnote 48]
In addition to increases in truck traffic, estimates that FHWA uses
show that passenger traffic will increase by 17 percent from the end of
2001 through the end of 2010--an increase from 2.7 trillion vehicle
miles traveled to 3.1 trillion. States are also concerned about
increases in traffic volume. Of the 52 states we surveyed, 51 predict
that overall traffic volumes will increase over the next 10 years.
Fifty-one of the states expect this increase in traffic volume to
negatively affect urban congestion, and 41 of 51 respondents believe
that the changes in traffic volume will negatively affect rural
congestion.
Another factor negatively affecting the condition of Interstate
pavement and bridges is the age of the infrastructure. For example,
half of the Interstate bridges are currently over 33 years old. Figure
22 shows when all Interstate bridges were built. Officials from one
state we visited explained that many of their state‘s Interstate
bridges were built about 40 years ago and are reaching the end of their
estimated 50-year design life. [Footnote 49] In addition, 45 states
believe age may jeopardize their bridge conditions, while 38 states
expect age to negatively affect their pavement conditions 10 years from
now.
Figure 22. Year Interstate Bridges Were Built:
[See PDF for image]
Note: When the Interstate was built, it incorporated some portions of
already existing roadways; therefore, some Interstate bridges were
built before the official establishment of the program.
Source: FHWA data.
[End of Figure]
Cost of Large-Dollar Projects and Other Economic Conditions Could
Negatively Affect States‘ Highway Programs:
Transportation officials are concerned that some states may face an
increasing number of large-dollar projects such as work on bridges or
interchanges that may constrain spending for those states‘ other
projects for a number of years. For example, Missouri is looking at
reconstructing the 200-mile I-70 corridor at a cost of $2.5 billion to
$3.0 billion. In addition, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which moves
north-south traffic on I-95 around Washington, D.C., is expected to
cost over $2 billion and is being funded by two states and FHWA.
According to a Maryland official, over the 6-year project, funding for
the bridge accounts for 45 percent of expenditures on major projects in
the state‘s capital budget.
In addition, 40 states are facing budget shortfalls for 2002.
Furthermore, the amount of funds available for federal highway programs
may decrease for fiscal year 2003, [Footnote 50] depending on
congressional action. These potential reductions in federal and state
funds could reduce the funds available for maintaining the Interstates
and increase states‘ estimated funding shortfalls.
Costs to Maintain Interstates Are Uncertain:
It is difficult to identify state needs on the Interstate System and to
determine what level of funding is needed to meet these needs. When
surveyed, most states indicated that they expect to spend the same or
increasing portions of their transportation budgets to maintain
Interstate conditions. However, when states provided information on
their planned expenditures, the amounts did not show a consistent
upward trend, rather they varied considerably from year to year. (See
table 1 in app. III.) State and FHWA officials explained that one
common reason for these increases and decreases is that work on
Interstates is not done in a vacuum; that is, Interstate projects must
be weighed against projects on other classes of roads, such as
expressways or ’principal arterials.“ For example, North Dakota
officials explained that they are completing projects, which are
focused on improving the condition of their Interstate highways. They
expect to shift their attention and funding toward projects on other
classes of roads.
In addition, states‘ federally required plans do not usually provide
information on all needs and related costs. States‘ short-term STIPs do
not identify funds needed to maintain Interstate conditions because
they include lists of proposed projects that can be built with
estimated revenues. [Footnote 51] Therefore, as state and federal
officials explain, STIPs reflect affordability rather than identifying
projects that are needed and would be constructed if additional funding
were available. In addition to STIPs, states are required to develop
long-term (20-year) plans. However, these plans may not contain
specific projects and cost estimates, and thus do not provide
information on states‘ needs and related costs.
Nevertheless, some states have developed additional transportation
plans that identify long-term funding gaps for various parts of their
highway networks, including the Interstates. [Footnote 52] For example,
North Dakota is developing a needs estimate for its state roads
(excluding urban Interstates). The state defined its need by using
criteria for pavement, bridge, design, and safety conditions. State
officials estimated the funds needed to bring the roads (except urban
Interstates) to the desired physical condition and level of performance
as nearly a billion dollars more than available. According to state
officials, eliminating the backlog will require either an increase in
revenue or a decrease in service. In addition, in 2001, Florida
officials estimated that to meet capacity needs on its Intrastate
System [Footnote 53] (including Interstates), it would need $20 billion
more through 2010 than the $11 billion it expects to have. Missouri‘s
draft 2000 long-term plan also indicates that the state‘s needs
outweigh the available funds.
Concluding Observations:
Interstate highways continue to play a vital role in moving people and
freight in this country. Over the past few decades, however, they have
taken on an important and expanded role in facilitating travel within
urban areas. They have also become central to moving freight and, as a
result, to economic growth. These roles will continue to be important;
however, they have consequences that will challenge the federal
government and state and local governments in assuring that Interstate
highways continue to provide efficient travel and remain in relatively
good condition. In particular, the challenges for Interstate highways
include:
* finding effective methods of easing traffic congestion, particularly
in
urban areas;
* providing for efficient freight movement given increases in both
passenger and freight traffic; and:
* responding to the effect of traffic on roads and bridges given the
continued aging of these structures.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT and DOD for their review and
comment. DOT officials, including the Team Leader for Highway Needs and
Investment Analysis within FHWA, provided oral comments. They generally
agreed with the observations in the report, and they also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.
DOD officials, including the Chief, Office of Special Assistant for
Transportation Engineering, Military Traffic Management Command,
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We conducted our review from March 2001 through April 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to cognizant congressional committees; the Secretary of
Transportation; and the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834. Appendix V lists the key contacts and
contributors to this report.
Sincerely yours,
JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by JayEtta Z. Hecker.
(392005):
FOOTNOTES
[1] All dollar figures in this report are constant 2001 dollars, unless
otherwise noted.
[2] The federal government announced in January 2002 that the level of
federal highway funding to states would decline in fiscal year 2003
because of a decrease in revenue to the federal Highway Trust Fund. All
respondents returned their surveys before that date, so they could not
take this potential decrease in funding into account in their
responses.
[3] In a previous report, we expressed concern over how well FHWA
performs this oversight of large dollar projects--U.S. General
Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: Managing the Costs of
Large-Dollar Highway Projects, GAO/RCED-97-47 (Washington, D.C.:
1997). We also testified about FHWA‘s oversight on May 1, 2002--U.S.
General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: Cost and
Oversight Issues on Major Highway and Bridge Projects, GAO-02-702T
(Washington, D.C.: May 2002).
[4] These percentages refer only to the nonfederal share of projects
that use federal funding.
[5] The federal share of Interstate project costs was set at 90
percent, but in states with large areas of federal public land, the
federal share is increased proportionately up to a 95-percent limit.
[6] The states are required to coordinate with DOD on exceptions to the
16-foot vertical clearance standard. According to DOD officials, DOD
typically concurs with the exemptions.
[7] Lane miles are the number of lanes in a mile of road. For example,
a four-lane road, 2 miles long, would equal 8 lane miles.
[8] The NHS is a system of designated highways that serve major
population centers, international border crossings, intermodal
transportation facilities, and major travel destinations. The NHS
includes all Interstate highways, plus other principal arterials, the
STRAHNET, major STRAHNET connectors, high-priority corridors, and
intermodal connectors. There is a separate funding category
specifically for the NHS.
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure:
Preserving the Nation‘s Investment in the Interstate Highway System,
GAO/RCED-91-147 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2, 1991).
[10] 1999 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance, U.S. Department of Transportation (May
2000). DOT prepared this report in response to requirements for reports
to Congress on the condition, performance, and future capital
investment requirements of the nation‘s highway and transit systems.
This edition also includes the results of a study on Interstate needs
required by Section 1107(c) of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21ST Century.
[11] The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 stated that the system was to:
serve the principal metropolitan areas, cities and industrial centers;
support the national defense; and connect with routes of continental
importance in Canada and Mexico.
[12] The National Interregional Highway Committee was appointed by the
president in 1941 ’to investigate the need for a limited system of
national highways—“ The committee included highway officials and
planners from the federal, state, and local governments.
[13] ’1997 Economic Census-Transportation-1997 Commodity Flow Survey,“
U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Commerce (Dec.
1999).
[14] Apportionments refer to funds distributed by statutory formula for
various types of highway programs or activities. Since 1954, funds have
been apportioned for projects on the Interstate System; however, the
focus of Interstate funding provisions has changed over time from
construction to preservation and maintenance.
[15] The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible
transportation funding for states and localities. Eligible uses include
projects on any federal-aid highway, bridges on any public road, and
transit projects.
[16] Designation of a road as a future Interstate highway does not
necessarily guarantee specific funds for construction of the road.
[17] In May 2002, we testified on how FHWA is carrying out oversight on
large dollar projects--U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation
Infrastructure: Cost and Oversight Issues on Major Highway and Bridge
Projects, GAO-02-702T (Washington, D.C.: May 2002).
[18] By law, FHWA may not assume more oversight responsibility than was
permitted under TEA-21, unless agreed to by a state. As a result, with
respect to Interstates, states may be responsible for all resurfacing,
restoring, and rehabilitation projects, and construction and
reconstruction projects less than $1 million. The extent of FHWA‘s
oversight for Interstate projects is typically an agreement with each
state‘s department of transportation.
[19] The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 required the
Secretary of Transportation to establish guidelines for ensuring the
maintenance of the Interstate System. In 1980, DOT promulgated related
regulations--requiring states to develop an initial Interstate
maintenance program and to annually certify that they were adequately
maintaining the Interstate System in accordance with the program‘s
guidelines. FHWA inspected state maintenance efforts and determined
whether a state should be certified as having adequately maintained its
Interstates.
[20] Geometric standards are guidelines FHWA adopts from the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials‘ policy for
constructing the physical layout of roads such as shoulder width.
[21] The Results Act is intended to shift the focus of government
decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and
processes to the results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. The
act requires federal agencies to establish performance goals and report
yearly on the extent to which these goals were achieved.
[22] According to the Military Traffic Management Command, while DOD
has worked with FHWA and the states to identify routes important to the
national defense since at least 1956, the first STRAHNET was designated
in 1981.
[23] See footnote 8.
[24] States need match only 10 percent of a lane addition project‘s
costs if the added lanes are high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Otherwise,
states must match 20 percent of a lane addition project‘s cost.
Moreover, these percentages refer only to the nonfederal share of
Federal-Aid projects.
[25] FHWA‘s bridge project classifications are as follows: new bridge-
-new bridge that did not replace or relocate an existing bridge; bridge
replacement--total replacement of a deficient bridge with a new bridge
in the same traffic corridor; major bridge rehabilitation-major work to
restore a bridge‘s structural integrity or to correct major safety
defects; minor bridge rehabilitation--minor structural repairs,
patching, curbs and gutters, etc.
[26] Since 1995, FHWA‘s Highway Statistics reports have portrayed
pavement conditions in International Roughness Index unit categories
without quality descriptions. Thus, FHWA reported that 1,560 miles of
Interstate pavement in 2000 had a roughness index over 170 inches per
mile. We use the term ’poor“ to describe this pavement, following the
descriptive approach used in DOT‘s Condition and Performance reports.
[27] Our survey asked states to rate their pavement quality on a scale
of very poor to excellent. This scale was not necessarily designed to
match FHWA‘s pavement condition categories that are based on
International Roughness Index data.
[28] According to an official in Missouri‘s Department of
Transportation, the state has a higher percentage of pavement it
considers poor for state purposes. However, we used state data as
reported in FHWA‘s Highway Statistics 2000.
[29] Unlike our analysis in figure 13, FHWA generally uses lower
condition standards to rate classes of roads that are not Interstates.
FHWA‘s criteria for the best road categories (very good and good) are
the same no matter which class of roads is being considered. But the
ranges of fair, mediocre, and poor roads are more stringent for
Interstates than for other roads. For example, non-Interstate highways
are considered to be in poor condition once their roughness index
exceeds 170 inches per mile.
[30] We asked state officials to predict future pavement condition,
given expected levels of funding. See appendix II, Survey of States‘
Views on the Future of the Interstate System, question 6. The same
funding assumption applies to all survey predictions discussed later in
this report.
[31] 1999 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges and Transit:
Condition and Performance, May 2, 2000, Appendix A Interstate Needs.
According to DOT‘s analysis, expected future investments could produce
improvements of 3.8 to 6.7 percent in the average pavement condition
statistic. This prediction assumes that federal funding for Interstates
could increase through 2003 as provided for in TEA-21 and would remain
at the 2003 level in constant dollar terms through 2007. DOT also
analyzed the impact of lower funding levels on future pavement
conditions, showing that pavement conditions could decline, consistent
with the results of our survey.
[32] FHWA provided this information for Interstate bridges that are
eligible for federal-aid funds but had not received funding during the
past 10 years.
[33] We are focusing our discussion on the number of deficient bridges
because, according to FHWA, this is a more widely used indicator than
bridge component ratings. In addition, component ratings are more
difficult to discuss on a national level because they provide more
detail and a broader perspective on the specific condition of a
bridge‘s deck, superstructure and substructure.
[34] Includes both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete
bridges.
[35] VMT is a measure of the level of travel on roads: 1 VMT is equal
to one vehicle traveling 1 mile on a road.
[36] U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Highway Funding by Program
and Type of Roadway, With Related Safety Data, GAO-01-836R (Washington,
D.C.: July 16, 2001).
[37] The fatality rate here is measured as the number of deaths per 100
million VMTs. DOT uses fatality rate rather than crash rate because the
data are more reliable.
[38] See footnote 10.
[39] A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2001).
[40] Access control means that access to the highway is regulated to
limit interference with through traffic.
[41] Daily vehicle miles of travel per lane mile is a basic measure of
how much travel is being accommodated on our highway systems since it
is a count-based metric. Daily vehicle miles traveled is the average
daily traffic of a section of roadway multiplied by the length (in
miles) of that section of roadway.
[42] FHWA used this indicator in its Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Highway
Administration Performance Plan and the biennial Conditions and
Performance report.
[43] The five classes of roads that we compared were (1) urban
Interstates, (2) urban freeways and expressways, (3) urban other
principal arterial streets, (4) rural Interstates, and (5) rural other
principal arterial streets.
[44] The Texas Transportation Institute has been conducting an Urban
Mobility Study since 1982. The study‘s purpose is to develop useful
congestion figures from generally available data sources and to provide
information on trends in mobility levels. To accomplish this goal, the
Institute considers multiple congestion measures--one of which we will
focus on in this report.
[45] The 2001 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute and
The Texas A&M University System (May 2001). This estimate may be low
since according to the Mobility Report, the high percentages of
congestion due to incidents are found in areas where congestion levels
are lower, and the Institute‘s report only covers 68 urban areas.
[46] FHWA has developed a Freight Productivity Program to understand
freight demands, assess implications for the surface transportation
system, and develop policy and program initiatives to improve freight
efficiency. The Freight Analysis Framework is the policy and systems
analysis tool developed to support this effort.
[47] Addendum to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study Final
Report, May 2000.
[48] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway User Fees: Updated Data
Needed to Determine Whether All Users Pay Their Fair Share, GAO/RCED-
94-181 (Washington, D.C.: June 7, 1994). We recommended that DOT
conduct a new highway cost-allocation study, which it accomplished in
August 1997 and updated in May 2000. We also said that Congress should
consider policy options to increase equity and promote more efficient
use of the nation‘s highways.
[49] Pavement has shorter life expectancy than bridges, usually ranging
from 15 to 40 years depending on factors including the type of material
used. Routine and preventive maintenance can extend the life of the
bridges. In addition, one state‘s transportation plan indicated that
the older bridges are not necessarily in danger of falling down,
although they may be outdated.
[50] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Financing: Factors
Affecting Highway Funding Fluctuations and Revenue Trends, GAO-02-527T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2002).
[51] See appendix III for description of state planning processes and
role of required federal planning documents.
[52] We did not verify the accuracy of these plans.
[53] Florida‘s Intrastate Highway System is about 3,750 miles of the
state highway system, which serves regional commerce and high-speed and
long-distance travel. The state‘s system encompasses the Interstate
System as well as the turnpike and other major expressways and
arterials, which carry 32 percent of the state‘s traffic and 70 percent
of its truck traffic on the state highway system.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
With the upcoming reauthorization of the surface transportation
programs, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
asked us to report on Interstate highways and bridges. Accordingly,
this report examines the condition of the Interstate System, including,
(1) how the role of the Interstate System has changed over time; (2)
the roles of the federal and state governments in managing and funding
the Interstate System; (3) the financial resources that states and the
federal government have devoted to the system; (4) how physical
conditions, safety, and congestion of the Interstate System have
changed and how they compare to other classes of roads; and (5) the
factors that could affect future Interstate conditions and the cost of
addressing these factors.
To determine how the role of the Interstate System has changed over
time, we reviewed historical documents. We also conducted a nationwide
mail survey of state transportation agencies in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Our survey focused on state
officials‘ views on the changing role of Interstate highways in their
states‘ transportation systems; the usefulness of various approaches
for addressing operations and maintenance of their Interstate highways
and bridges; their views on the Interstate System in 10 years; and
their perceptions of the current condition of their Interstate System‘s
infrastructure, safety, and congestion. We received survey responses
from all 52 governments--most states responded to most of the
questions. A summary of responses to the survey appears in appendix II
of this report.
To develop our mail survey, we discussed potential survey topics with
state officials in two states to determine how to design our survey
questionnaire. Then, we conducted pretests of our questionnaire with
transportation officials in four states. We selected states for our
survey development phase to provide perspectives from a variety of
geographic areas and from states with various types of weather,
population patterns, and other factors that affect Interstate planning.
Each of the four pretests consisted of a visit with state officials by
our staff to ensure that (1) questions were readable and clear, (2)
terms used were clear, (3) the survey did not place undue burden on
state governments that would result in a lack of cooperation, and (4)
the survey was independent and unbiased in its point of view.
Appropriate changes were incorporated into the final survey based on
our pretesting. In addition to our pretesting, we discussed our
questionnaire with an official at FHWA headquarters and representatives
of the AASHTO in Washington, D.C. We incorporated comments from these
discussions, as appropriate.
To determine which officials should receive our survey, we used
AASHTO‘s Reference Book to identify the appropriate state officials. We
verified our selection by contacting FHWA division officials in most of
the 52 locations. During the return period, an unprecedented terrorist
incident occurred on September 11, 2001. Although it is possible that
the responses completed after this date may have differed from those
received beforehand, our analysis of the question of the role of the
Interstates in moving military personnel and equipment shows that
answers did not differ for these two time periods. We received the last
survey included in our analysis on November 21, 2001.
To address our second objective, we reviewed historical Federal-Aid
Highway Program data obtained from FHWA, which discussed why the
Interstate System was developed and the roles Congress, FHWA, DOD, and
states played and how they have evolved into the current roles. We also
interviewed FHWA and DOD staff about their roles and identified current
federal requirements related to the Interstates. Finally, we examined
federal apportionments to the states for Interstates as well as other
activities.
For our third objective, we analyzed FHWA‘s obligation of funds for
Interstate-related projects. We also reviewed outlays from all levels
of government for Interstate-related projects, as reported by states on
an annual basis.
For the fourth objective, we used the responses to our survey described
previously. To compare conditions of Interstate highways to other
classes of roads as well as obtain trend information on Interstate
highway conditions, we reviewed DOT‘s published data on actual highway
conditions and its forecasts of potential future conditions. To learn
how officials assess Interstate highway conditions in their states, we
interviewed officials in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and
Pennsylvania. We selected these states to obtain perspectives from a
variety of regions with various types of weather, population
differences, and other factors that affect Interstate planning.
In addition, to determine the current condition of the Interstate
System in terms of congestion, we relied on a number of measures
reported by FHWA. We requested FHWA to obtain Texas Transportation
Institute analysis of congestion levels on Interstate highways in
comparison with other classes of roads. We also reviewed DOT‘s Bureau
of Transportation Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau data on factors
related to congestion trends. Furthermore, to assess safety, we
reviewed data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration‘s
Fatality Analysis Reporting System, and FHWA data on trends in fatality
rates and number of fatalities.
To address the last objective, we analyzed state survey responses and
discussed the factors with state and FHWA officials during our site
visits, as necessary. We focused on factors such as demographic changes
or changes in traffic, but we did not focus on the influence of federal
funding through the existing Federal-Aid Highway Program on state‘s
decisions about their investment in Interstate roads and bridges. To
examine states‘ plans for Interstate investment, we asked states to
provide information on their planned costs for their Interstate
highways in our survey. We reviewed states‘ written plans for
investment in Interstate highways and other roads. Again, we also
visited the five states mentioned earlier to obtain more detailed
information on their planning. Additionally, we interviewed FHWA
division officials to obtain a general overview of FHWA‘s approach to
assisting states with their Interstate System plans.
We conducted our review from March 2001 through April 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Survey of States‘ Views on the Future of the Interstate
System:
[See PDF for image]
[End of Section]
Appendix III: State Planning Processes:
States must meet specific planning requirements set forth by federal
law. In addition, state transportation agencies may face state-level
requirements. Within these requirements, states develop plans to
allocate available funds throughout their transportation systems.
Federal law requires each state to develop at least two planning
documents--a 20-year Statewide Transportation Plan and a short-term
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that covers at
least 3 years. The STIP should include a list of proposed projects that
is financially constrained--that is, projects that can be built with
estimated revenues. States must submit their proposed STIPs to FHWA and
the Federal Transit Administration for joint approval at least every 2
years; however, the STIPs may be amended at any time, subject to
federal approval.
Some states also have policies or laws that direct the use of their
funds. These directives are taken into consideration when planning
projects. For example, Florida officials are concerned about the safety
and preservation of the current system. First, the state addresses
safety in all their transportation projects. Next, it is the state‘s
policy to preserve the existing system before spending anything on new
construction. In addition, Florida law requires that at least 50
percent of the amount of new funds available for capacity construction
must go towards the state‘s Intrastate system. [Footnote 1] Also, in
Arizona, according to a statewide agreement, 50 percent of the funding
available to the Arizona Department of Transportation must be spent on
state highway projects within the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan
areas, and the remaining 50 percent must be spent on state highway
projects outside these two metropolitan areas.
To develop these planning documents and maintain their Interstate
highways, states use a variety of planning approaches. For example,
Florida has a complex system relying on policies, measurable
objectives, and performance monitoring to make its investment
decisions. Florida officials develop a 20-year long-range policy plan.
Based on this 20-year plan, they develop a 10-year program and
resources plan containing program funding levels given estimated
revenues. Finally, the officials develop and update annually a 5-year
list of projects. To help select specific projects that meet their
goals, Florida officials use decision support software to consider a
multitude of data, including pavement condition surveys, biennial
bridge inspections, routine maintenance, safety data, and analyses of
congestion levels. Arizona is revising its long-term planning process.
In the meantime, Arizona is using an interim process to develop its 5-
year construction program.
To identify states‘ plans to meet Interstate needs over the next few
years, we asked states to provide information on the level of funding
directed toward the Interstates. Table 2 shows the amount states plan
to spend in 2001 and the increases and decreases compared with 2001
throughout the 5 subsequent years. The states in bold indicate states
included in our site visits.
Table 2. Percent Increase/Decrease in Planning Interstate Project Cost
(2002-2006):
State: Alabama; Cost: 2001: $135,311,556; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 111; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 147; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -31; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 61;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Alaska; Cost: 2001: $106,590,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 35; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 16; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 31; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 43.
State: Arizona; Cost: 2001: $89,194,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 5; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 35; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 20; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 32;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 112.
State: Arkansas; Cost: 2001: $387,600,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 18; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -95; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: California; Cost: 2001: $1,500,000,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -37; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 3; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: 19; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -8; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 7.
State: Colorado; Cost: 2001: $582,495,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 10; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -9; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -4; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -6;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -9.
State: Connecticut; Cost: 2001: $190,460,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -12; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 12; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005:
-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Delaware; Cost: 2001: $43,406,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -44; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -22; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -44; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -70;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -70.
State: District of Columbia; Cost: 2001: $50,000,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 0; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -18; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -34; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Florida; Cost: 2001: $747,600,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 146; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -4; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 34; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 17;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -29.
State: Georgia; Cost: 2001: $107,883,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 305; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 770; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 194; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 204;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 187.
State: Hawaii; Cost: 2001: $13,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -9; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 477; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 81; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Idaho; Cost: 2001: $102,484,500; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004:
-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Illinois; Cost: 2001: $463,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 45; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 39; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -23;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -31.
State: Indiana; Cost: 2001: $165,691,860; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -52; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -32; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Iowa; Cost: 2001: $46,816,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 116; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 91; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 115; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 276;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 186.
State: Kansas; Cost: 2001: $117,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -4; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 63; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -20; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -24;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -66.
State: Kentucky; Cost: 2001: $145,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 14; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 3; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004:
-6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -22; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -45.
State: Louisiana; Cost: 2001: $75,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 0; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 0; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004:
-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Maine; Cost: 2001: $12,700,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 32; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -28; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Maryland; Cost: 2001: $63,100,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 25; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 34; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 15; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -23;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -69.
State: Massachusetts; Cost: 2001: $113,900,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -27; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -67; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -63; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -68; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -70.
State: Michigan; Cost: 2001: $445,120,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 0; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -18; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -36; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -51;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -58.
State: Minnesota; Cost: 2001: $101,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 169; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 99; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -37; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -65;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -73.
State: Mississippi; Cost: 2001: $250,000,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -78; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -48; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -52; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -40; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Missouri; Cost: 2001: $250,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 42; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 21; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -62; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -92;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -89.
State: Montana; Cost: 2001: $77,826,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -21; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -25; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -37; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Nebraska; Cost: 2001: $70,402,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 14; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 13; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -4; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 8; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 4.
State: Nevada; Cost: 2001: $159,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 85; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 81; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 44; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 12.
State: New Hampshire; Cost: 2001: $46,000,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -42; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -64; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -41; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -68; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -44.
State: New Jersey; Cost: 2001: $87,658,800; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 22; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 48; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: New Mexico; Cost: 2001: $85,100,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -45; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -46; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -41; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -59;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -52.
State: New York; Cost: 2001: $195,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -26; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -13; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 56; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -23;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -28.
State: North Carolina; Cost: 2001: $233,640,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -31; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -21; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -24; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -61; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -47.
State: North Dakota; Cost: 2001: $48,156,176; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 24; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 35; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -14; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: 24; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -1.
State: Ohio; Cost: 2001: $331,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 82; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 5; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004:
-17; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 17; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -23.
State: Oklahoma; Cost: 2001: $51,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 41; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -8; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -67; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -56;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -30.
State: Oregon; Cost: 2001: $96,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -20; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -30; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 2;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Pennsylvania; Cost: 2001: $345,951,240; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 5; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -7; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005:
-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Puerto Rico; Cost: 2001: $93,958,800; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 61; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 74; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -98; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -87; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -90.
State: Rhode Island; Cost: 2001: $45,900,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 2; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 16; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: 62; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: 64; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 80.
State: South Carolina; Cost: 2001: $245,893,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -11; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -25; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -27; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -36; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: South Dakota; Cost: 2001: $86,151,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -21; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -28; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -26; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -28; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -25.
State: Tennessee; Cost: 2001: $192,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 19; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -3; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -17; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Texas; Cost: 2001: $1,155,967,467; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 11; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: 17; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 24; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 24;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Utah; Cost: 2001: $787,142,151; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -19; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -37; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -47; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Vermont; Cost: 2001: $17,983,620; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 52; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004:
-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Virginia; Cost: 2001: -; [Empty]; Percent increases/decreases
from 2001 costs: 2002: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2003: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004: -; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Washington; Cost: 2001: $181,035,354; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 52; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 8; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: -49; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -55; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: West Virginia; Cost: 2001: $68,865,000; [Empty]; Percent
increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -23; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 65; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2004: 64; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2005: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.
State: Wisconsin; Cost: 2001: $119,050,584; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -5; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -3; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: 14; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 63;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 32.
State: Wyoming; Cost: 2001: $95,555,300; [Empty]; Percent increases/
decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -26; Percent increases/decreases from
2001 costs: 2003: -32; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs:
2004: -35; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -43;
Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -23.
Note: Dollar amounts were adjusted to 2001 dollars. The state data may
be either fiscal or calendar year.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of the states‘ responses to survey question 31.
(See app. II.) :
[End of table]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Florida‘s Intrastate Highway System is about 3,750 miles of the
state highway system, which includes Interstate highways in the state.
See footnote 51.
[End of Section]
Appendix IV: Tools for Addressing Congestion:
States‘ views differ on effectiveness of congestion relief tools. We
surveyed the states about the tools they were using to relieve
congestion and the tools‘ usefulness. Although we identified below some
of the tools mentioned on our survey, based on our case study states,
we found that different tools may be more effective in one state than
in another. For example, adding lanes may be a useful tool to deal with
congestion for states with relatively low population density; however,
this tool may not be useful for states with relatively high population
densities--particularly in their urban areas, where the ability of
adding lanes is limited since many urban areas have the maximum number
of lanes that will fit into available space.
States reported using a variety of tools and varied in their assessment
of the tools‘ usefulness. For example:
Increasing capacity through the addition of lanes. Forty-four states
indicated that adding lanes to increase capacity is very useful or
moderately useful.
Redesigning problematic highway sections. Three-fourths of the 52
states found redesigning highway sections to address traffic
bottlenecks to be very useful or moderately useful.
Using traffic incident management tools. About two-thirds of the state
departments of transportation stated that traffic incident management
tools (e.g., protocols for handling accidents) were very useful or
moderately useful.
Using technology for handling high-volume traffic--such as variable
message signs, ramp metering, and electronic tolls--42 states found
these to be useful.
Providing alternative transportation modes to reduce Interstate traffic
(e.g., buses, rail, and ferries)--12 states found these to be very
useful or moderately useful.
Providing incentives to drivers to reduce congestion. While 30 states
used these techniques--for example, reserving lanes for high-occupancy
vehicle and varying tolls by time of day--only 15 states believed them
to be very useful or moderately useful.
[End of Section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
JayEtta Z. Hecker (202) 512-2834 Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-2834:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Carolyn Boyce, Richard Calhoon,
Jennifer Clayborne, Catherine Colwell, Fran Featherston, Timothy J.
Guinane, and Josephine Perez made key contributions to this report.
[End of Section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548
