Highway Infrastructure
Preliminary Information on the Timely Completion of Highway Construction Projects Gao ID: GAO-02-1067T September 19, 2002The United States is the most mobile nation on the planet. Constructing, improving, and repairing roads and bridges is fundamental to meeting the nation's mobility needs to facilitate commerce, national defense, and pleasure use and to promote economic growth. Therefore, it is important that highway projects using federal financial support are completed in as timely a manner as possible. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and based on its professional judgment, it typically takes from 9 to 19 years to plan, gain approval for, and construct a new, major federally funded highway project that has significant environmental impacts. However, these projects constitute only 3 percent of all federally funded projects, according to FHWA. Officials in federal and state agencies and other knowledgeable organizations indicate that delivering larger, more complex or controversial projects may take longer to complete than is typical for most highway projects. In addition to needing more time because of their size and complexity, they often take longer to complete because they must comply with more federal and state requirements and because of the public interest that they may generate. Federal and state agencies have undertaken several initiatives to improve completion times for highway construction projects. Most of these initiatives address opportunities for reducing the time required to obtain environmental approvals.
GAO-02-1067T, Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on the Timely Completion of Highway Construction Projects
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1067T
entitled 'Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on the Timely
Completion of Highway Construction Projects' which was released on
September 19, 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 text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of 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 the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT September 19, 2002:
Highway Infrastructure:
Preliminary Information on the Timely Completion of Highway
Construction Projects:
Statement of Katherine Siggerud
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-02-1067T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the timely completion
of highway projects that receive federal financial assistance from the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). My testimony today will discuss (1)
the time involved in planning, gaining approval for, and constructing
federally financed highway projects; (2) events that arise that affect
completion time; and (3) federal and state initiatives to improve the
completion times of highway projects.
The United States is the most mobile nation on the planet.
Constructing, improving, and repairing roads and bridges is fundamental
to meeting the nation‘s mobility needs to facilitate commerce, national
defense, and pleasure use and to promote economic growth. Therefore, it
is important that highway projects using federal financial support are
completed in as timely a manner as possible. My statement presents
preliminary results of our ongoing work for this committee on the
construction of new roads. My statement is based on our review of
federal laws and regulations governing the construction of federally
funded highway projects; studies and other analyses of the time it
takes to complete new federally financed roads; and discussions with
various federal agency officials who have responsibilities relating to
the construction of federally financed roads, transportation
engineering organizations, transportation professional associations,
and state transportation officials in seven states. We also reviewed
the time it took to complete six new highway construction projects in
California, Florida, and Texas.
Federal and state governments do not maintain information centrally
(or, in some cases, at all) on the time it takes to complete highway
projects; and there is no accepted measuring stick with which to gauge
whether project performance is timely. Our discussion of the typical
amount of time it takes to complete major construction projects that
involve building new roads is based on a best estimate prepared by
FHWA. According to FHWA, it based its estimate on the professional
judgment of its staff and several state departments of transportation.
We also discussed typical times to complete major new highway
construction projects with several professional associations and state
departments of transportation. In those instances where they had
anecdotal information, their estimates fell within the FHWA time
frames. (See app. I for additional details, including how we picked the
six projects to review.) We are continuing to examine this issue and
expect to report to you on the final results of our work in Spring
2003, to aid in your consideration of the reauthorization of TEA-21.
In summary:
* According to FHWA, and based on its professional judgment, it
typically takes from 9 to 19 years to plan, gain approval for, and
construct a new, major federally funded highway project that has
significant environmental impacts. However, these projects constitute
only about 3 percent of all federally funded projects, according to
FHWA. These highway projects are often carried out in four phases. (See
table 1.):
Table 1: Typical Time Necessary to Complete a Federally Financed Major
New Construction Highway Project:
Phase: Planning; Time to complete, in years: 4-5.
Phase: Preliminary design and environmental review; Time to complete,
in years: 1-5.
Phase: Final design and right-of-way acquisition; Time to complete, in
years: 2-3.
Phase: Construction; Time to complete, in years: 2-6.
Phase: Total; Time to complete, in years: 9-19.
Note: The durations of the phases are approximate. The preliminary
design/environmental review steps and the final design/right-of-way
acquisition steps often overlap.
Source: FHWA.
[End of table]
The time required varies with the size of the project, its complexity,
and the public interest in the project. Some projects may take as few
as 3 years or as many as 20 years or more to complete. The six new
highway construction projects that we reviewed ranged from a $1.7
million project in Florida to upgrade an existing dirt road to a two-
lane paved road, which took 8 years to complete, to a $50 million
project to build a six-lane,
15 mile divided highway in Texas, which took over 15 years to complete
(excluding the planning phase, for which information was not
available). Constructing a new, major roadway typically takes this long
to complete because there can be as many as 200 major steps involved
throughout a project‘s life, with approvals or input required from a
number of federal, state, and other stakeholders.
* Not surprisingly, officials in federal and state agencies and other
knowledgeable organizations indicate that delivering larger, more
complex or controversial projects may take longer to complete than is
typical for most highway projects. In addition to needing more time
because of their size and complexity, they often take longer to
complete because they must comply with more federal and state
requirements and because of the public interest that they may generate.
A survey of 33 state departments of transportation conducted by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
agree that larger projects take longer to complete.[Footnote 1]
However, both our work and the association‘s survey are based on
anecdotal information and officials‘ memories, as no federal or state
baseline information exists on how long highway projects take. While
there are many reasons for new highway construction projects to take a
long time to complete, most studies on the topic focused on the timely
resolution of environmental issues to improve project completion times,
rather than examining all aspects of highway projects. The officials we
contacted generally stated that environmental reviews resulted in
better project decisions; but reaching those decisions was difficult
and time consuming, complicated by such factors as incomplete permit
applications, limited resources at environmental agencies, and
environmental opposition to projects.
* Federal and state agencies have undertaken several initiatives to
improve completion times for highway construction projects. Most of
these initiatives address opportunities for reducing the time required
to obtain environmental approvals. For example, FHWA is working with
federal agencies that conduct environmental and historic preservation
reviews to promote uniform practices and to clarify and update
guidance. At the state level, according to FHWA, 34 states are using
interagency funding agreements to hire additional staff at state and
federal environmental agencies to facilitate environmental reviews and
approval. With respect to nonenvironmental issues, North Carolina and
Texas, for example, are identifying utilities that need to be moved
earlier in the design phase than was previously done. This is intended
to reduce delays during the construction phase. Texas and Florida are
providing monetary incentives to contractors to finish construction
more quickly.
Background:
In fiscal year 2001, FHWA obligated over $20 billion to the states for
roadway projects.[Footnote 2] Generally, states are required to use
their own funds to pay up to 20 percent of the project costs. Federally
funded highway projects vary in size, from new lane striping to
resurfacing an existing road to building a new road or interchange.
Most federally funded highway projects are minor rehabilitation or
reconstruction projects rather than major new road construction
projects. Of the approximately 27,000 miles of roadway projects funded
in 2000 (latest data available), about 26,000 miles (96 percent)
involved either the addition of capacity, preservation, or improvements
(such as widening lanes, resurfacing, and rehabilitation of roadways).
Only about 1,100 miles of new road construction projects were underway.
Although federal, state, and local governments all have a role in the
construction of federally financed highway projects, the state
department of transportation is typically the focal point for these
activities. It is responsible for setting the transportation goals for
the state. To do so, it works with the state‘s transportation
organizations and local governments and metropolitan planning
organizations.[Footnote 3] State departments of transportation are
responsible for planning safe and efficient transportation between
cities and towns in the state. They are also responsible for designing
most projects, acquiring property for highway projects, and awarding
contracts for highway construction. Local governments also carry out
many transportation planning functions, such as scheduling improvements
and maintenance for local streets and roads. Citizens and community
action organizations also generally have the opportunity to provide
their views and have them considered.
At the federal level, FHWA is the primary agency involved in
transportation project decisionmaking. FHWA oversees the
transportation planning and project activities of state departments of
transportation and metropolitan planning organizations by approving
state transportation plans, certifying that states have met
requirements involving environmental protection, and approving
acquisition of property for certain state highway projects. FHWA also
provides advice and training on transportation topics ranging from
pavement technology to efficient operations of highway systems, and it
provides funding to the states for transportation planning and
projects. Because any transportation project using federal funding must
be examined for potential effects on the environment before federal
decisions are made, FHWA also works with other federal agencies and
state, local, and tribal governments; public and private organizations;
and the public to understand a project‘s potential impact on the
environment and historic properties.[Footnote 4] Other federal agencies
with environmental and historic preservation responsibilities that
often are affected by federally funded highway projects include:
* the Environmental Protection Agency (air and water quality; wetlands
preservation);
* the Fish and Wildlife Service (endangered species) and the Bureau of
Land Management (may own lands on which a highway is to be constructed)
within the Department of the Interior;
* National Marine Fisheries Service (for example, effects on fish and
spawning grounds) within the Department of Commerce;
* the Army Corps of Engineers (effects on wetlands);
* the Coast Guard (bridge and navigation responsibilities); and:
* the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (protecting historic
sites).
Concerned about how long the completion of highway projects takes,
Congress included provisions in TEA-21 to streamline environmental
review. These provisions require FHWA to identify and work with federal
agencies that have environmental and historic preservation jurisdiction
over highway and transit projects to cooperatively establish realistic
project development time frames among the transportation and
environmental agencies and to work with these agencies to adhere to
those time frames. Because transportation projects are also affected by
state and local environmental requirements, TEA-21 allows individual
states to participate in these streamlining initiatives, as long as all
affected states‘ agencies participate. Finally, FHWA can approve state
requests to use their federal-aid highway and mass transit funds to
provide additional federal environmental personnel to help expedite
environmental reviews.
Time to Complete Highway Projects:
According to FHWA, and based on its professional judgment, planning,
gaining approval for, and constructing a federally funded major highway
project that involves new construction and has a significant
environmental impact typically takes from 9 to 19 years. However, these
projects constitute about 3 percent of all federally funded projects,
according to FHWA. Some projects may take as few as 3 years or as many
as 20 years or more to complete. The six new construction projects that
we reviewed did not all meet FHWA‘s criteria yet fell within the time
range FHWA estimates that it takes to complete more complex projects.
These six projects ranged from 8 years to upgrade an existing dirt road
in Florida to a two-lane paved road to over 15 years to build a six-
lane, 15 mile divided highway in Texas (excluding the planning phases
on both projects, for which information was not available).
Completing a new, major highway construction project takes a number of
years because of the many tasks, requirements, approvals, and
stakeholders involved. As many as 200 major steps can be involved in
developing a transportation project from the identification of project
need to the start of construction, depending on the project type and
complexity. (See fig. 1.) Smaller projects (such as new lane striping)
as well as larger projects (such as constructing a new highway) must go
through many steps that require multiple stakeholder reviews and
approvals. Because most federally funded highway construction projects
are minor rehabilitation or reconstruction projects rather than major
new road construction projects, these projects generally will not
require extensive planning studies and will not have significant
environmental impacts. As a result, according to FHWA, most federally
funded highway construction projects advance from planning to
construction within 1 year but may take up to 4-6 years, depending on
the individual project‘s characteristics.
Figure 1: Typical Amount of Time Involved in Planning, Approving, and
Building a Major New Highway Project:
[See PDF for imaage]
Note: The durations of the phases are approximate. The preliminary
design/environmental review steps and the final design/right-of-way
acquisition steps often overlap.
Source: FHWA.
[End of figure]
According to FHWA, the planning phase for a major new construction
project typically takes from 4 to 5 years. In this phase, most projects
must first be identified in long-range (for example, covering a 20 year
period) and short-range (for example, covering a 3 to 5 year period)
state transportation plans.[Footnote 5] Planners look at transportation
alternatives and work with the public to select the alternatives that
make the most sense for their areas and that are consistent with
federal requirements, such as helping to adhere to air quality
standards for the area. Short-range plans may have some citizen
involvement and must be approved by state and local transportation
officials as well as FHWA. States and metropolitan areas must
demonstrate that funding is available for the projects included in the
short-range plans. Finally, the length of the planning phase for a
project will depend on whether the project is located in an urbanized
area that does not meet federal air quality standards.[Footnote 6]
The preliminary design and environmental review phase typically takes
from 1 to 5 years depending on the complexity of the design and
possible environmental impacts that must be considered, according to
FHWA. During preliminary design, states identify the preliminary
engineering issues, proposed alignment of the roadway, cost, and
project details, such as turn-lane identification. The proposed project
and alternatives to it are examined for any impacts on the natural
environment (such as on endangered species) and public health and
welfare (such as on safety and historic preservation). These
environmental reviews require state and FHWA officials to address and
comply with as many as 60 federal laws, as well as applicable state
laws. More complex projects require more time for the completion of
preliminary designs and environmental reviews. Transportation and
environmental officials told us that reaching a decision on how to
address projects with significant environmental impacts has taken
several years. A 2001 FHWA study on the amount of time required for
environmental reviews of projects with significant environmental
impacts found that the average amount of time taken to complete these
reviews in 1998 was about 5 1/2 years.[Footnote 7] In comparison, these
officials told us that projects in which the environmental impact was
initially unclear and later determined to be insignificant took less
time. These officials also told us that completing environmental
reviews for projects that FHWA had determined as having no significant
environmental impact from the start of the review process, including
those categories of projects statutorily excluded from environmental
review (for example, landscaping or installation of road signs), took
only a matter of months. The previously cited anecdotal survey of 33
state departments of transportation conducted by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in 2000 found
that reviews involving projects for which the environmental impact was
determined to be insignificant or the initial environmental impact was
unclear took an average of nearly 2 years and about 3 1/2 years,
respectively. FHWA has found that 91 percent of federally funded
roadway projects have no significant environmental impact and, in
another 6 percent of the projects, the initial impact was unclear.
Final design and acquiring the right of way for a major new highway
construction project typically takes from 2 to 3 years, according to
FHWA. During this phase, state departments of transportation must
develop detailed engineering plans consistent with environmental
documents and updated environmental studies, and must finalize cost
estimates. If a significant amount of time has passed since the
preliminary design work was performed, right-of-way maps and other
information may need to be updated. Acquiring property for the project
includes determining any restrictions to state ownership of the
property; determining the identities of property owners; making offers
to property owners based on appraisal price; negotiating a purchase
price; and sometimes invoking eminent domain.[Footnote 8] This phase
may take a significant amount of time, especially if residents must be
relocated. Utilities must also be located, marked, and surveyed, which
can be complicated if there are many underground utilities that require
professional engineers, geologists, and licensed land surveyors for
determining the exact location of utilities.
According to FHWA, the construction phase typically takes from 2 to
6 years. To begin construction, the state department of transportation
must request and evaluate bids on the project and award a contract.
Projects that receive federal-aid highway funds require FHWA
concurrence on the award. During construction, the contractor and the
state must resolve any unexpected problems that may arise, such as
removal of hazardous waste discovered at the construction site. Once
satisfied that construction has been carried out as agreed to with the
contractor, the state must approve the final completion of
construction.[Footnote 9]
Many Events May Affect Project Completion Time:
Not surprisingly, officials in federal and state agencies and other
knowledgeable organizations indicate that larger, more complex or
controversial projects take longer to complete than is usual for most
highway projects. This is because large, complex projects are subject
to more requirements, involve more federal stakeholders, and attract
more public interest. For example, in the previously cited survey of 33
state departments of transportation, projects that involve many federal
agencies took longer to complete than projects requiring only state-
level review. The survey reported that state-only reviews typically
occur for simpler, less complicated projects, which involve fewer
stakeholders. However, both the information we collected and the state
survey are anecdotal and based on interviewees‘ memories, because
states do not maintain centralized information on project completion
times. State officials told us that an effort to capture those data
systematically would require resources that the state departments of
transportation could use more productively to complete projects.
Although the six medium-sized and large highway projects in California,
Florida, and Texas that we reviewed did not meet all of FHWA‘s criteria
for a major project, they still took from nearly 7 years to over 15
years to complete, excluding the planning phase for which data were not
available. (See table 2.) The time required to complete these six
projects fell within the typical time FHWA has estimated that it takes
to complete more complex projects. Only two of the six projects, both
in California, were required to complete the preparation of an
environmental impact statement.
Table 2: Duration of Six Medium-sized and Large New Construction
Highway Projects in California, Florida, and Texas:
[See PDf for image]
N/A - not available.
[A] Total time may not equal the sum of each phase. In some instances
total time is less than the sum of each phase because phases overlap,
most noticeably with the two projects in Texas. In addition, the State
Route 115 project in Florida was a spin-off of an existing project. As
a result, there is a
15-month gap between the end of the preliminary design and
environmental review phase and the start of the final design and right-
of-way acquisition phase for this spin-off project.
Source: GAO analysis of state documentation and discussions with state
department of transportation officials.
[End of table]
Another way of assessing project timeliness is to compare how long it
takes to complete a project with how long state transportation
officials expected completion to take. For the six projects we
reviewed, state officials established milestones for each phase of the
project (excluding the planning phase, for which state officials could
not provide information) but not always for the project
overall.[Footnote 10] We attempted to compare the time it took to
complete each phase against the time expected for the projects that we
reviewed. For the two California projects, the project phases were
generally completed within a year of established time frames. However,
aspects of the two projects in Texas took substantially longer to
complete than planned. For example, the preliminary design and
environmental review phase for the U.S. 290 project took 6 years and 7
months longer to complete than planned. In addition, the right-of-way
acquisition for this project took 4 years and
7 months longer to complete than planned. For the Texas State Highway
146 project, the preliminary design and environmental review phase took
2 years and 8 months longer to complete than planned, and the right-of-
way acquisition took 2 years longer to complete than planned. State
officials were able to provide a qualitative recollection or in some
cases documentation of events that affected their ability to complete
highway projects on time. (See table 3.) For example, three of the six
projects encountered problems in both the final design and right-of-way
acquisition phase and in the construction phase.
Table 3: Events Affecting Selected Projects:
Project: State Route 198 (California); Planning: Funding shortages;
Preliminary design
and environmental review: No events cited; Final design and right-of-
way acquisition: Following earthquakes, project shelved in favor of
seismic retrofit work around the state; Construction: Weather delays;
contract
change orders; contractor performance issues.
Project: State Route 168 (California); Planning: Not available[A];
Preliminary design
and environmental review: No events cited; Final design and right-of-
way acquisition: No events cited; Construction: No events cited.
Project: Fort Green/Ona Road (Florida); Planning: Not available[A];
Preliminary design
and environmental review: No events cited; Final design and right-of-
way acquisition: Contractor had to devote time and resources to other
ongoing projects; redesigns on account of drainage problems; property
owners resisted right-of-way acquisition; Construction: Quality issues
with paving
material used; poor contractor performance; weather delays.
Project: State Road 115 (Florida); Planning: No events cited;
Preliminary design and
environmental review: No events cited; Final design and right-of-way
acquisition: No events cited; Construction: Weather delays; vibration
damage
complaints from adjacent homeowners necessitated change in construction
equipment.
Project: State Highway 146 (Texas); Planning: No events cited;
Preliminary design and
environmental review: Design changes to accommodate large truck
vertical clearance necessitated changes to schematics and environmental
documents; Final design and right-of-way acquisition: Lengthy process
to hire design consultant; parcels of land had numerous title problems;
one property owner died during negotiations leading to probate issues;
unidentified natural gas line; Construction: No events cited.
Project: U.S. Highway 290 (Texas); Planning: No events cited;
Preliminary design and
environmental review: Various access design changes to accommodate
historic property; wetlands previously undiscovered at the site had to
be addressed; Final design and right-of-way acquisition: Property
owners refused state‘s purchase offer necessitating condemnation;
utility adjustments; Construction: Slope stability problems required an
extensive
redesign effort.
[A] State officials could not provide this information.
Source: GAO review of project documentation and discussion with state
department of transportation officials.
[End of table]
Most studies we identified on timely completion of highway projects
have examined the timely resolution of environmental issues for
improving project completion times. For example, the previously cited
2001 FHWA study indicated that some larger, more complex projects tend
to take longer than is typical in the preliminary design and
environmental review phase. In an attempt to establish a baseline for
evaluating project completion times, FHWA analyzed the time required
for 37 projects with significant environmental impacts to complete the
environmental review process. (As noted above, projects of this class
are usually major projects rather than small, less complex ones.) This
analysis indicated that the average amount of time taken to complete
these reviews was 5 years and
7 months--exceeding the 5 years that a ’typical“ major highway project
was expected to take for the entire preliminary design and
environmental review phase. According to FHWA, these types of projects
constitute only about 3 percent of all federally funded highway
projects. Most federally funded projects are minor rehabilitation or
reconstruction projects that do not have significant environmental
impacts.
The survey of 33 state departments of transportation conducted in 2000
for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials indicated that state departments of transportation may
underestimate the time that completing an environmental review would
require. The survey indicated that the environmental reviews for 31 to
48 percent of projects with no significant environmental impacts, and
for 43 to 64 percent of projects with potential environmental impacts,
took longer to complete than expected. According to the survey results,
these projects took three times longer than planned to complete federal
environmental review requirements related to public lands and historic
resources, historic resources and cultural resources, and wetlands.
Federal and state transportation officials and transportation
engineering organizations identified the timely resolution of
environmental issues as providing the greatest opportunity for reducing
the time it takes to complete highway projects. These officials
generally stated that environmental reviews resulted in better project
decisions, but that reaching the decisions was difficult and time
consuming. For example, officials with the Army Corps of Engineers in
Texas told us that the permit applications that it receives are
sometimes incomplete or inaccurate, resulting in added time to process
environmental permits related to waterways. In addition, officials with
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Transportation identified staffing shortfalls and workloads at the Fish
and Wildlife Service as contributing to increased time to perform
environmental consultations. Finally, officials with the Environmental
Protection Agency stated that public opposition to major transportation
projects can result in greater scrutiny of environmental analyses or
the proposed mitigation of environmental impacts, and therefore
increases the length of the environmental review phase.
Initiatives to Improve the Timely Completion of Highway Projects:
Federal and state agencies have undertaken several initiatives to
improve completion times for highway construction projects. Most of
these initiatives address environmental review; however, some states
have undertaken initiatives to improve completion times in other
aspects of a project, such as construction. Generally, the impact of
these initiatives is unclear because of the brevity of time they have
been in place.
At the federal level, FHWA environmental streamlining efforts have
included working with federal agencies involved in environmental and
historic preservation reviews to conduct agency-specific training
workshops in 2001 and 2002. FHWA has conducted these workshops for
field staff to promote uniform practices and to clarify and update
guidance. In addition, FHWA has started tracking the time to complete
environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects this year. A
recent FHWA report indicated that since the enactment of the TEA-21
environmental streamlining provisions in 1998, the average review time
for projects with significant environmental impacts has decreased from
70 months to 62 months.[Footnote 11] FHWA officials told us that the
improved review times could be a result of such things as reinvented
processes, programmatic agreements, and accelerated review times. FHWA
has also developed guidance for states on how to use federal-aid
highway funds to reimburse federal agencies that meet agreed-upon
targets for environmental reviews. FHWA has catalogued environmental
streamlining best practices and publicized them on its Web site.
State departments of transportation are using interagency funding
agreements to hire additional staff at state and federal environmental
agencies to facilitate environmental review and approval.[Footnote 12]
According to FHWA, 34 states are using these agreements. A 2001 survey
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials indicated that the people in these positions made permit
reviews more efficient and consistent, improved communication between
agencies, and fostered greater trust and understanding, thus
facilitating project approvals and making the process less
controversial.[Footnote 13]
Forty-one states have some level of delegated authority for historic
resources that allows them to process many projects quickly, according
to FHWA. For example, the Vermont Agency of Transportation has an
agreement with the state historic preservation office that allows the
transportation department rather than the state historic preservation
office to enforce historic preservation requirements. According to
Vermont transportation agency officials, this agreement has resulted
in, among other things, expedited permit acquisition, enhanced public
participation, effective internal and inter-agency communication, and
the best possible treatment of historic properties. These officials
estimate that this agreement has shaved weeks from routine projects and
will shave months from more complex ones.
Outside of the environmental review process, states such as Florida,
North Carolina, and Texas are identifying utilities in certain urban
areas earlier in the design phase, in order to avoid delays during
construction. Texas and Florida have also developed strategies to
accelerate construction for some projects by increasing contractor
incentives for early completion, and Florida has documented savings in
time and cost from this approach.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony, please contact Katherine
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony were Jennifer Clayborne, Kenya Jones,
Heather Martin, James Ratzenberger, Deena Richart, Stacey Thompson, and
Matthew Zisman.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To perform our work, we reviewed laws and regulations governing the
construction of federally financed highway projects. We discussed these
requirements, the time required to complete projects, and initiatives
to reduce this time with officials from FHWA, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army
Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American
Society of Civil Engineers, private transportation engineering firms,
and others. We also interviewed officials from California, Florida,
North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin departments
of transportation about highway project completion times and
initiatives to improve the timely completion of these projects. We
chose these states either because they spent the most federal-aid
highway funds or because officials we interviewed identified these
states as making efforts to reduce project time. We also reviewed
federal and private studies on highway project completion.
We reviewed the time it took to complete six new highway construction
projects in California, Florida, and Texas. We selected three of the
four states that spent the most National Highway System and Surface
Transportation Program Funds in fiscal year 2000 (latest data
available). These represent the primary sources of federal funds for
new road construction. In each state, we selected two new construction
projects that were completed between June 30, 1999, and June 30, 2002.
In each state we selected the largest project (in terms of federal
funds received) and a medium-sized project. In selecting these
projects, we had no knowledge of the project itself or of how long it
took to complete. We did not independently verify the information in
the FHWA information system that contained these data. For the six
projects, we obtained documentation and interviewed state department of
transportation officials to determine how the projects were planned,
approved, and carried out.
We conducted our work from May 2002 through September 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
FOOTNOTES
[1] TransTech Management, Inc., Environmental Streamlining: A Report on
Delays Associated with the Categorical Exclusion and Environmental
Assessment Processes (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2000).
[2] Most of the funding for roadway projects comes from the Highway
Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is derived from highway user taxes
such as excise taxes on motor fuels, tires, and the sale of trucks and
trailers, and from taxes on the use of heavy vehicles.
[3] Among other things, metropolitan planning organizations propose
short-and long-term solutions to transportation and transportation-
related concerns.
[4] Environmental review is governed by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, which established a national environmental policy
requiring that any project using federal funding or approval, including
transportation projects, examine the effects of the proposal and
alternative choices on the environment and historic properties before a
federal decision is made.
For federally funded highway projects that FHWA determines will have a
significant impact on the environment, FHWA must prepare a statement
that describes the project, characterizes the surrounding environment,
analyzes the environmental effects of all reasonable construction
alternatives, and indicates plans for complying with applicable
environmental laws and mitigating environmental damage. Other federal
agencies with responsibilities for these laws, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, and Fish and
Wildlife Service, often cooperate in the preparation of these
statements. If it is clearly known that a highway project will not
individually or cumulatively have significant environmental impacts,
FHWA issues a statement indicating this. However, if it is not
initially clear whether significant impacts would occur, FHWA must
conduct additional analysis. If significant impacts are then
identified, FHWA must prepare a statement for significant impacts as
described above. Otherwise, FHWA issues a statement that it found no
significant impacts.
[5] TEA-21 requires a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a
metropolitan area‘s Transportation Improvement Program that contains
individual transportation projects. FHWA requires the development of
these improvement programs on at least a
2 year cycle.
[6] The Environmental Protection Agency sets maximum safe amounts of
pollution that a region or state can have in the air. How much
pollution is allowed from cars, trucks, and buses to the air will vary
depending on the area‘s climate, wind, and other pollution sources and
factors.
[7] Federal Highway Administration, Evaluating the Performance of
Environmental Streamlining: Development of a NEPA Baseline for
Measuring Continuous Performance (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001).
[8] Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private
property for public use in exchange for just compensation by virtue of
the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction.
[9] In some cases, FHWA approves the final completion of construction.
[10] Florida officials could not provide information on planned
completion times for the phases of the two projects we reviewed.
Therefore, we could not determine if project phases were completed
within planned time frames.
[11] Federal Highway Administration, Highway and Transit Environmental
Streamlining Progress Summary (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002).
[12] Under these agreements, state departments of transportation are
providing funding or positions to agencies that are involved in
environmental and historic preservation reviews.
[13] Venner Consulting, AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment,
Natural Resources Subcommittee internal survey and white paper, July
2001.
