Surface and Maritime Transportation
Challenges and Strategies for Enhancing Mobility Gao ID: GAO-02-1132T September 30, 2002The scope of the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems--which primarily includes roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and ports and waterways--is vast. One of the major goals of these systems is to provide and enhance mobility. With increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface and maritime transportation systems face a number of challenges in ensuring continued mobility. These challenges include: (1) preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation system, and (2) ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved populations and achieving a balance between enhancing mobility and giving due regard to environmental and other social goals. There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the nation, and numerous approaches are needed to address these challenges. These strategies include: (1) focusing on the entire surface and maritime transportation system rather than on specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired mobility outcomes, (2) using a full range of techniques to achieve desired mobility outcomes, and (3) providing more options for financing mobility improvements and considering additional sources of revenue.
GAO-02-1132T, Surface and Maritime Transportation: Challenges and Strategies for Enhancing Mobility
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1132T
entitled 'Surface and Maritime Transportation: Challenges and
Strategies for Enhancing Mobility' which was released on September 30,
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 10:00 a.m. EDT Monday, September
30, 2002:
Surface and Maritime Transportation:
Challenges and Strategies for Enhancing Mobility:
Statement of JayEtta Z. Hecker
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-02-1132T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the challenges faced by the
surface and maritime transportation systems in maintaining and
improving mobility. Your hearing today focuses on important issues
about the physical condition, performance, and future investment
requirements of the nation‘s roadways and bridges.[Footnote 1] Our
remarks will focus on the performance of the transportation systems.
More specifically, we will discuss the ultimate desired outcome of
transportation infrastructure improvements--enhanced mobility--and the
possible strategies for achieving that outcome.[Footnote 2]
The scope of the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems--
which primarily includes roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and
ports and waterways[Footnote 3]--is vast. One of the major goals of
these systems is to provide and enhance mobility. Mobility provides
people with access to goods, services, recreation, and jobs; provides
businesses with access to materials, markets, and people; and promotes
the movement of personnel and material to meet national defense needs.
However, the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems have
become congested and concerns have been raised about the burden they
impose on the nation‘s quality of life through wasted energy, time, and
money; increased pollution; and threats to public safety. Barriers to
transportation accessibility for certain population groups and the
level of financial resources available to address transportation
problems are also major concerns. Balancing the goal of improving
mobility with other social goals, such as environmental preservation,
will present challenges.
Our statement is based on a report that we are releasing today on
surface and maritime transportation mobility. [Footnote 4] We will
discuss (1) key challenges in maintaining and improving mobility and
(2) key strategies for addressing the challenges. Our report is
primarily based on expert opinion drawn from two panels of surface and
maritime transportation experts that we convened in April 2002. Our
work also included a review of reports prepared by federal agencies,
academics, and industry groups. Appendix I provides further information
on our scope and methodology and appendix II contains a list of
relevant GAO products.
In summary:
* With increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface and
maritime transportation systems face a number of challenges in ensuring
continued mobility. These challenges include:
* Preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation system.
Increasing passenger and freight travel has already led to increasing
levels of congestion at bottlenecks and peak travel times in some
areas. For example, the amount of traffic experiencing congestion
during peak travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982 to 66
percent in 2000 in 75 metropolitan areas studied by the Texas
Transportation Institute.[Footnote 5] Freight mobility is also affected
by increasing congestion within specific heavily used corridors and at
specific bottlenecks that tend to involve intermodal connections, such
as border crossings, and road and rail connections at major seaports
within metropolitan areas. Furthermore, congestion is increasing at
aging and increasing unreliable locks on the inland waterways.
* Ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved populations
(including some elderly, poor, and rural populations that have
restricted mobility) and achieving a balance between enhancing mobility
and giving due regard to environmental and other social goals. Policies
and patterns of development that encourage automobile dependence and
favor provision of transit services with inflexible routes and
schedules--such as subway or bus--may disadvantage some groups by
limiting their access to needed services or jobs. The surface and
maritime transportation systems also face the challenge of effectively
addressing pollution problems caused by increased travel levels.
Emissions from passenger and freight vehicles, shipping waste disposal
practices, and excessive noise levels have contributed to the
degradation of air quality, disruption of ecosystems, and other
problems.
* There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the
nation, and our expert panelists indicated that numerous approaches are
needed to address these challenges. From these discussions, we believe
that the wide range of approaches can be clustered into three key
strategies that may help transportation decisionmakers at all levels of
government address mobility challenges. These strategies include the
following:
* Focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system rather
than on specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired mobility
outcomes. Transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local
level might shift focus from their current emphasis on single modes to
consider performance outcomes of all modes in addressing mobility
challenges, and to recognize interactions across modes between
passenger and freight traffic, and between public and private
interests. This is important because addressing the mobility challenges
outlined above can involve a scope beyond a local jurisdiction or a
state line, and may require coordination across multiple modes, types
of travel, or types of transportation providers and planners.
* Use a full range of techniques to achieve desired mobility outcomes.
Using various techniques--such as new construction, corrective and
preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, operations and system
management, and pricing--to address complex mobility challenges, may be
more effective than placing emphasis on any one technique.
* Provide more options for financing mobility improvements and consider
additional sources of revenue. This strategy--which involves providing
more flexibility in funding across modes, expanding financial support
for alternative financing mechanisms (e.g., credit assistance to state
and local governments), and considering various revenue-raising
methods--may offer promise for addressing key mobility problems.
Background:
The U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems facilitate
mobility through an extensive network of infrastructure and operators,
as well as through the vehicles and vessels that permit passengers and
freight to move within the systems. The systems include 3.9 million
miles of public roads, 121,000 miles of major private railroad
networks, and 25,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways. They
also include over 500 major urban public transit operators in addition
to numerous private transit operators, and more than 300 ports on the
coasts, Great Lakes, and inland waterways.
Maintaining transportation systems is critical to sustaining America‘s
economic growth. Efficient mobility systems significantly affect
economic development: cities could not exist and global trade could not
occur without systems to transport people and goods. The pressures on
the existing transportation system are mounting, however, as both
passenger and freight travel are expected to increase over the next 10
years, according to Department of Transportation (DOT) projections.
Passenger vehicle travel on public roads is expected to grow by 24.7
percent from 2000 to 2010. Passenger travel on transit systems is
expected to increase by 17.2 percent over the same period. Amtrak has
estimated that intercity passenger rail ridership will increase by 25.9
percent from 2001 to 2010. Preliminary estimates by DOT indicate that
tons of freight moved on all surface and maritime modes--truck, rail,
and water--are expected to increase by 43 percent from 1998 through
2010, with the largest increase expected to be in the truck sector. The
key factors behind increases in passenger travel, and the modes
travelers choose, are expected to be population growth, the aging of
the population, and rising affluence. For freight movements, economic
growth, increasing international trade, and the increasing value of
cargo shipped may affect future travel levels and the modes used to
move freight.
The relative roles of each sector involved in surface and maritime
transportation activities--including the federal government, other
levels of government, and the private sector--vary across modes. For
public roads, the federal government owns few roads but has played a
major role in funding the nation‘s highways. With the completion of the
interstate highway system in the 1980s--and continuing with passage of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA)[Footnote 6] and its successor legislation, the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)[Footnote 7], in 1998--the
federal government shifted its focus toward preserving and enhancing
the capacity of the system. While the federal government‘s primary role
has been to provide capital funding for the interstate system and other
highway projects, state and local governments provide the bulk of the
funding for public roads in the United States and are responsible for
operating and maintaining all nonfederal roads, including the
interstate system.
For transit systems--which include a variety of multiple-occupancy
vehicle services designed to transport passengers on local and regional
routes--the federal government provides financial assistance to state
and local transit operators to develop new transit systems and improve,
maintain, and operate existing systems. The largest portion of capital
funding for transit comes from the federal government, while the
primary source for operating funds comes from passenger fares.
The respective roles of the public and private sector and the revenue
sources vary for passenger as compared with freight railroads. For
passenger railroads, the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created
Amtrak to provide intercity passenger rail service because existing
railroads found such service unprofitable. Since its founding, Amtrak
has rebuilt rail equipment and benefited from significant public
investment in track and stations, especially in the Northeast corridor,
which runs between Boston and Washington, D.C. The role of the federal
government in providing financial support to Amtrak is currently under
review amid concerns about the corporation‘s financial viability and
discussions about the future direction of federal policy toward
intercity rail service. For freight railroads, the private sector owns,
operates, and provides almost all of the financing for freight
railroads. Currently, the federal government plays a relatively small
role in financing freight railroad infrastructure by offering some
credit assistance to state and local governments and railroads for
capital improvements.
The U.S. maritime transportation system primarily consists of
waterways, ports, the intermodal connections (e.g., inland rail and
roadways) that permit passengers and cargo to reach marine facilities,
and the vessels and vehicles that move cargo and people within the
system. The maritime infrastructure is owned and operated by an
aggregation of state and local agencies and private companies, with
some federal funding provided by the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast
Guard, and DOT‘s Maritime Administration.
Funding authorization for several key federal surface transportation
programs will expire soon. For example, TEA-21‘s authorization of
appropriations expires in fiscal year 2003 and the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997[Footnote 8] authorized federal
appropriations for Amtrak through the end of fiscal year 2002. In
addition, the federal funding processes and mechanisms for the maritime
transportation system are currently under review by two interagency
groups.[Footnote 9]
Key Mobility Challenges Include Growing Congestion and Other Problems:
There are several challenges to mobility. Three of the most significant
are growing congestion, ensuring access to transportation for certain
underserved populations, and addressing the transportation system‘s
negative effects on the environment and communities.
Congestion:
Ensuring continued mobility involves preventing congestion from
overwhelming the transportation system. Congestion is growing at
localized bottlenecks (places where the capacity of the transportation
system is most limited) and at peak travel times on public roads,
transit systems, freight rail lines, and at freight hubs such as ports
and borders where freight is transferred from one mode to another. In
particular:
* For local urban travel, a study by the Texas Transportation
Institute[Footnote 10] showed that the amount of traffic experiencing
congestion during peak travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982
to 66 percent in 2000 in the 75 metropolitan areas studied. In
addition, the average time per day that roads were congested increased
over this period, from about 4.5 hours in 1982 to about 7 hours in
2000. Increased road congestion can also affect public bus and other
transit systems that operate on roads. Some transit systems are also
experiencing increasing rail congestion at peak travel times.[Footnote
11] In addition, concerns have been raised about how intercity and
tourist travel interacts with local traffic in metropolitan areas and
in smaller towns and rural areas, and how this interaction will evolve
in the future. According to a report sponsored by the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, Mobility 2001,[Footnote 12]
capacity problems for intercity travelers are severe in certain heavily
traveled corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, which links
Washington, D.C., New York, and Boston. In addition, the study said
that intercity travel may constitute a substantial proportion of total
traffic passing through smaller towns and rural areas.
* Congestion is expected to increase on major freight transportation
networks at specific bottlenecks, particularly where intermodal
connections occur, and at peak travel times. This expectation raises
concerns about how interactions between freight and passenger travel
and how increases in both types of travel will affect mobility in the
future. Trucks contribute to congestion in metropolitan and other areas
where they generally move on the same roads and highways as personal
vehicles, particularly during peak periods of travel. In addition, high
demand for freight, particularly freight moved on trucks, exists in
metropolitan areas where overall congestion tends to be the worst.
* With international trade an increasing part of the economy and with
larger containerships being built, some panelists indicated that more
pressure will be placed on the already congested road and rail
connections to major U.S. seaports and at the border crossings with
Canada and Mexico. According to a DOT report,[Footnote 13] more than
one-half of the ports responding to a 1997 survey of port access issues
identified traffic impediments on local truck routes as the major
infrastructure problem. This congestion has considerable implications
for our economy given that 95 percent of our overseas trade tonnage
moves by water, and the cargo moving through the U.S. marine
transportation system contributes billions of dollars to the U.S. gross
domestic product.[Footnote 14]
* Railroads are beginning to experience more severe capacity
constraints in heavily used corridors, such as the Northeast corridor,
and within major metropolitan areas, especially where commuter and
intercity passenger rail services share tracks with freight railroads.
Capacity constraints at these bottlenecks are expected to worsen in the
future.
* On the inland waterways, congestion is increasing at aging and
increasingly unreliable locks. According to the Corps of Engineers, the
number of hours that locks were unavailable due to lock failures
increased in recent years, from about 35,000 hours in 1991 to 55,000
hours in 1999, occurring primarily on the upper Mississippi and
Illinois rivers. Also according to the Corps of Engineers, with
expected growth in freight travel, 15 of 26 locks that they studied are
expected to exceed 80 percent of their capacity by 2020, as compared to
4 that had reached that level in 1999.
:
Some of the systemic factors that contribute to congestion include (1)
barriers to building enough capacity to accommodate growing levels of
travel; (2) challenges to effectively managing and operating
transportation systems; and (3) barriers to effectively managing how,
and the extent to which, transportation systems are used. First, there
is insufficient capacity at bottlenecks and during peak travel times to
accommodate traffic levels for a variety of reasons. For example,
transportation infrastructure (which is generally provided by the
public sector, except for freight railroads) takes a long time to plan
and build, is often costly, and can conflict with other social goals
such as environmental preservation and community maintenance.
Furthermore, funding and planning rigidities in the public institutions
responsible for providing transportation infrastructure tend to promote
one mode of transportation, rather than a combination of balanced
transportation choices, making it more difficult to deal effectively
with congestion. In addition, some bottlenecks occur where modes
connect, and because funding is generally mode-specific, dealing with
congestion at these intermodal connections is not easily addressed.
Second, many factors related to the management and operation of
transportation systems can contribute to increasing congestion.
Congestion on highways is in part due to poor management of traffic
flows on the connectors between highways and poor management in
clearing roads that are blocked due to accidents, inclement weather, or
construction. For example, in the 75 metropolitan areas studied by the
Texas Transportation Institute, 54 percent of annual vehicle delays in
2000 were due to incidents such as breakdowns or crashes. In addition,
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported that, nationwide,
significant delays are caused by work zones on highways; poorly timed
traffic signals; and snow, ice, and fog.[Footnote 15]
Third, some panelists said that congestion on transportation systems is
also due in part to inefficient pricing of the infrastructure because
users--whether they are drivers on a highway or barge operators moving
through a lock--do not pay the full costs they impose on the system and
on other users for their use of the system. If travelers and freight
carriers had to pay a higher cost for using transportation systems
during peak periods to reflect the full costs they impose, they might
have an incentive to avoid or reschedule some trips and to load
vehicles more fully, possibly resulting in less congestion.
Panelists also noted that the types of congestion problems that are
expected to worsen involve interactions between long-distance and local
traffic and between passengers and freight. Existing institutions may
not have the capacity or the authority to address them. For example,
some local bottlenecks may hinder traffic that has regional or national
significance, such as national freight flows from major coastal ports,
or can affect the economies and traffic in more than one state. Current
state and local planning organizations may have difficulty considering
all the costs and benefits related to national or international traffic
flows that affect other jurisdictions as well as their own.
Furthermore, in our recent survey of states, most states reported that
the increasing volume of both car and truck traffic over the next
decade would negatively affect the physical condition of pavement and
bridges and the safety of their interstate highways.[Footnote 16]
Other Mobility Challenges:
Besides dealing with the challenge of congestion, ensuring mobility
also involves ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved
populations. Settlement patterns and dependence on automobiles limit
access to transportation systems for some elderly people and low-income
households, and in rural areas where populations are expected to
expand.
The elderly have different mobility challenges than other populations
because they are less likely to have drivers‘ licenses, have more
serious health problems, and may require special services and
facilities, according to the Department of Transportation‘s 1999
Conditions and Performance report.[Footnote 17] People who cannot drive
themselves tend to rely on family, other caregivers, or friends to
drive them, or find alternative means of transportation. Many of the
elderly also may have difficulty using public transportation due to
physical ailments. As a result, according to the 1999 Conditions and
Performance report and a 1998 report about mobility for older
drivers,[Footnote 18] they experience increased waiting times,
uncertainty, and inconvenience, and they are required to do more
advance trip planning. These factors can lead to fewer trips taken for
necessary business and for recreation, as well as restrictions on times
and places that healthcare can be obtained. As the population of
elderly individuals increases over the next 10 years, issues pertaining
to access are expected to become more prominent in society.
Lower income levels can also be a significant barrier to transportation
access. The cost of purchasing, insuring, and maintaining a car is
prohibitive to some households, and 26 percent of low-income households
do not own a car, compared with 4 percent of other households,
according to the 1999 Conditions and Performance report. Among all low-
income households, about 8 percent of trips are made in cars that are
owned by others as compared to 1 percent for other income groups.
Furthermore, similar uncertainties and inconveniences apply to this
group as to the elderly regarding relying on others for transportation.
In addition, in case studies of access to jobs for low-income
populations, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) researchers found
that transportation barriers to job access included gaps in transit
service, lack of knowledge of where transit services are provided, and
high transportation costs resulting from multiple transfers and long
distances traveled.[Footnote 19]
Rural populations, which according to the 2000 Census grew by 10
percent over the last 10 years, also face access problems. Access to
some form of transportation is necessary to connect rural populations
to jobs and other amenities in city centers or, increasingly, in the
suburbs. Trips by rural residents tend to be longer due to lower
population densities and the relative isolation of small communities.
Therefore, transportation can be a challenge to provide in rural areas,
especially for persons without access to private automobiles. A report
prepared for the FTA in 2001[Footnote 20] found that 1 in 13 rural
residents lives in a household without a personal vehicle. In addition,
according to a report by the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility,[Footnote 21] while almost 60 percent of all nonmetropolitan
counties had some public transportation services in 2000, many of these
operations were small and offered services only to limited geographic
areas during limited times.
Finally, transportation can also negatively affect the environment and
communities by increasing the levels of air and water pollution. As a
result of the negative consequences of transportation, tradeoffs must
be made between facilitating increased mobility and giving due regard
to environmental and other social goals. For example, transportation
vehicles are major sources of local, urban, and regional air pollution
because they depend on fossil fuels to operate. Emissions from vehicles
include sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compounds, particulate matter, and nitrous oxides. Vehicle emissions in
congested areas can trigger respiratory and other illnesses, and runoff
from impervious surfaces, such as highways, can carry pollutants into
lakes, streams, and rivers, thus threatening aquatic
environments.[Footnote 22]
Freight transportation also has significant environmental effects.
Trucks are significant contributors to air pollution. According to the
American Trucking Association, trucks were responsible for 18.5 percent
of nitrous oxide emissions and 27.5 percent of other particulate
emissions from mobile sources in the United States. The Mobility 2001
report states that freight trains also contribute to emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide, although generally at
levels considerably lower than trucks. In addition, while large
shipping vessels are more energy efficient than trucks or trains, they
are also major sources of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and diesel
particulate emissions. According to the International Maritime
Organization, ocean shipping is responsible for 22 percent of the
wastes dumped into the sea on an annual basis.
Three Strategies for Addressing Mobility Challenges:
The experts we consulted presented numerous approaches for addressing
the types of challenges discussed throughout this statement, but they
emphasized that no single strategy would be sufficient. From these
discussions and our literature review, we have identified three key
strategies that may help transportation decisionmakers at all levels of
government address mobility challenges and the institutional barriers
that contribute to them. The strategies include (1) focusing on
systemwide outcomes, (2) using a full range of techniques, and (3)
providing options for financing surface and maritime transportation.
Focus on the Entire Surface and Maritime Transportation System Rather
Than on Specific Modes or Types of Travel to Achieve Desired Mobility
Outcomes.
Shifting the focus of government transportation agencies at the
federal, state, and local levels to consider all modes and types of
travel in addressing mobility challenges--as opposed to focusing on a
specific mode or type of travel in planning and implementing mobility
improvements--could help achieve enhanced mobility. Addressing the
types of mobility challenges discussed earlier in this statement can
require a scope beyond a local jurisdiction, state line, or one mode or
type of travel. For example, congestion challenges often occur where
modes connect or should connect--such as ports or freight hubs where
freight is transferred from one mode to another, or airports that
passengers need to access by car, bus, or rail. These connections
require coordination of more than one mode of transportation and
cooperation among multiple transportation providers and planners, such
as port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations
(MPO),[Footnote 23] and private freight railroads. Therefore, a
systemwide approach to transportation planning and funding, as opposed
to focus on a single mode or type of travel, could improve focus on
outcomes related to user or community needs. The experts we consulted
provided a number of examples of alternative transportation planning
and funding systems that might better focus on outcomes that users and
communities desire, including the following:
* Performance-oriented funding system. The federal government would
first define certain national interests of the transportation system--
such as maintaining the entire interstate highway system or identifying
freight corridors of importance to the national economy--then set
national performance standards for those systems that states and
localities must meet. Federal funds would be distributed to those
entities that address national interests and meet the established
standards. Any federal funds remaining after meeting the performance
standards could then be used for whatever transportation purpose the
state or locality deems most appropriate to achieve state or local
mobility goals.
* Federal financial reward-based system. Federal support would reward
those states or localities that apply federal money to gain
efficiencies in their transportation systems, or tie transportation
projects to land use and other local policies to achieve community and
environmental goals, as well as mobility goals.
* System with different federal matching criteria for different types
of expenditures that might reflect federal priorities. For example, if
infrastructure preservation became a higher national priority than
building new capacity, matching requirements could be changed to a 50
percent federal share for building new physical capacity and an 80
percent federal share for preservation.
* System in which state and local governments pay for a larger share of
transportation projects, which might provide them with incentives to
invest in more cost-effective projects. Reducing the federal match for
projects in all modes may give states and localities more fiscal
responsibility for projects they are planning. If cost savings
resulted, these entities might have more funds available to address
other mobility challenges. Making federal matching requirements equal
for all modes may avoid creating incentives to pursue projects in one
mode that might be less effective than projects in other modes.
In addition, we recently reported on the need to view various
transportation modes, and freight movement in particular, from an
integrated standpoint, particularly for the purposes of developing a
federal investment strategy and considering alternative funding
approaches.[Footnote 24] We identified four key components of a
systematic framework to guide transportation investment decisions
including (1) establishing national goals for the system, (2) clearly
defining the federal role relative to other stakeholders, (3)
determining the funding tools and other approaches that will maximize
the impact of any federal investment, and (4) ensuring that a process
is in place for evaluating performance and accountability.
Use a Full Range of Techniques to Address Mobility Challenges:
Using a range of techniques to address mobility challenges may help
control congestion and improve access. This approach involves a
strategic mix of construction, corrective and preventive maintenance,
rehabilitation, operations and system management, and managing system
use through pricing or other techniques. No one type of technique would
be sufficient to address mobility challenges. Although these techniques
are currently in use, the experts we consulted indicated that planners
should more consistently consider a full range of techniques, as
follows:
* Build new infrastructure. Building additional infrastructure is
perhaps the most familiar technique for addressing congestion and
improving access to surface and maritime transportation. Although there
is a lot of unused capacity in the transportation system, certain
bottlenecks and key corridors require new infrastructure.
* Increase infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation. An emphasis
on enhancing capacity from existing infrastructure through increased
corrective and preventive maintenance and rehabilitation is an
important supplement to, and sometimes a substitute for, building new
infrastructure. Maintaining and rehabilitating transportation systems
can improve the speed and reliability of passenger and freight travel,
thereby optimizing capital investments.
* Improve management and operations. Better management and operation of
existing surface and maritime transportation infrastructure is another
technique for enhancing mobility because it may allow the existing
transportation system to accommodate additional travel without having
to add new infrastructure. For example, the Texas Transportation
Institute reported that coordinating traffic signal timing with
changing traffic conditions could improve flow on congested roadways.
One panelist noted that shifting the focus of transportation planning
from building capital facilities to an ’operations mindset“ will
require a cultural shift in many transportation institutions,
particularly in the public sector, so that the organizational
structure, hierarchy, and rewards and incentives are all focused on
improving transportation management and operations.[Footnote 25]
* Increase investment in technology. Increasing public sector
investment in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies that
are designed to enhance the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of
the transportation network, can serve as a way of increasing capacity
and mobility without making major capital investments. ITS includes
technologies that improve traffic flow by adjusting signals,
facilitating traffic flow at toll plazas, alerting emergency management
services to the locations of crashes, increasing the efficiency of
transit fare payment systems, and other actions. Other technological
improvements include increasing information available to users of the
transportation system to help people avoid congested areas and to
improve customer satisfaction with the system.
* Use demand management techniques. Another approach to reducing
congestion without making major capital investments is to use demand
management techniques to reduce the number of vehicles traveling at the
most congested times and on the most congested routes. One type of
demand management for travel on public roads is to make greater use of
pricing incentives. In particular, some economists have proposed using
congestion pricing that involves charging surcharges or tolls to
drivers who choose to travel during peak periods when their use of the
roads increases congestion. These surcharges might help reduce
congestion by providing incentives for travelers to share rides, use
transit, travel at less congested (generally off-peak) times and on
less congested routes, or make other adjustments--and at the same time,
generate more revenues that can be targeted to alleviating congestion
in those specific corridors.
In addition to pricing incentives, other demand management techniques
that encourage ride-sharing may be useful in reducing congestion. Ride-
sharing can be encouraged by establishing carpool and vanpool staging
areas, providing free or preferred parking for carpools and vanpools,
subsidizing transit fares, and designating certain highway lanes as
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes that can only be used by vehicles
with a specified number of people in them (i.e., two or more).
Demand management techniques on roads, particularly those involving
pricing, often provoke strong political opposition. The panelists cited
a number of concerns about pricing strategies including (1) the
difficulty in instituting charges to use roads that previously had been
available ’free“, (2) the equity issues that arise from the potentially
regressive nature of these charges (i.e., the surcharges constitute a
larger portion of the earnings of lower income households and therefore
impose a greater financial burden on them), and (3) the concern that
restricting lanes or roads to people who pay to use them is elitist
because that approach allows people who can afford to pay the tolls to
avoid congestion that others must endure.
Provide Options for Financing Mobility Improvements and Consider
Additional Sources of Revenue:
More options for financing surface and maritime transportation projects
and more sources of revenue may be needed to achieve desired mobility
outcomes and address those segments of transportation systems that are
most congested. Our panelists suggested three financing strategies:
* Increase funding flexibility. The current system of financing surface
and maritime transportation projects limits options for addressing
mobility challenges. For example, separate funding for each mode at the
federal, state, and local level can make it difficult to consider
possible efficient and effective ways for enhancing mobility. Providing
more flexibility in funding across modes could help address this
limitation.
* Expand support for alternative financing mechanisms. The public
sector could also expand its financial support for alternative
financing mechanisms to access new sources of capital and stimulate
additional investment in surface and maritime transportation
infrastructure. These mechanisms include both newly emerging and
existing financing techniques such as providing credit assistance to
state and local governments for capital projects and using tax policy
to provide incentives to the private sector for investing in surface
and maritime transportation infrastructure. These mechanisms currently
provide a small portion of the total funding that is needed for capital
investment and some of them could create future funding difficulties
for state and local agencies because they involve greater borrowing
from the private sector.[Footnote 26]
* Consider new revenue sources. A possible future shortage of revenues
may limit efforts to address mobility challenges, according to many of
the panelists. For example, some panelists said that because of the
increasing use of alternative fuels, revenues from the gas tax are
expected to decrease, possibly limiting funds available to finance
future transportation projects.
One method of raising revenue is for counties and other regional
authorities to impose sales taxes for funding transportation projects.
A number of counties have already passed such taxes and more are being
considered nationwide. However, several panelists expressed concerns
that this method might not be the best option for addressing mobility
challenges because (1) moving away from transportation user charges to
sales taxes that are not directly tied to the use of transportation
systems weakens the ties between transportation planning and finance
and (2) counties and other taxing authorities may be able to bypass
traditional state and metropolitan planning processes because sales
taxes provide them with their owns funding sources for transportation.
New or increased taxes or other fees imposed on the freight sector
could also help fund mobility improvements, for example, by increasing
taxes on freight trucking. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated
that raising the ceiling on the tax paid by heavy vehicles to $1,900
could generate about $100 million per year.[Footnote 27] Another
revenue raising method would be to dedicate more of the revenues from
taxes on alternative fuels, such as gasohol, to the Highway Trust Fund
rather than to Treasury‘s general fund, as currently happens. However,
this would decrease the amount of funds available for other federal
programs. Finally, pricing strategies, mentioned earlier in this
statement as a technique to reduce congestion, are also possible
additional sources of revenue for transportation purposes.
In summary, the nation faces significant challenges in maintaining and
enhancing mobility on its surface and maritime transportation systems,
particularly with the growing congestion that accompanies increased
passenger and freight travel. However, as the Congress considers
reauthorizing surface transportation legislation--and weighs the
structure, nature, and level of federal investment it will provide in
future years to support surface and other transportation activities--it
has an opportunity to consider new strategies for dealing with
congestion and promoting enhanced mobility. While no single approach is
sufficient, the key strategies that we have outlined today may help
transportation decisionmakers at all levels of government address
mobility challenges and the institutional barriers that contribute to
them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may
have at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony, please contact JayEtta Z.
Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Christine Bonham, Jay Cherlow,
Colin Fallon, Rita Grieco, David Hooper, Jessica Lucas, Sara Ann
Moessbauer, Jobenia Odum, Katherine Siggerud, and Andrew VonAh.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our work covered major modes of surface and maritime transportation for
passengers and freight, including public roads, public transit,
railways, and ports and inland waterways. To identify mobility
challenges and strategies for addressing those challenges, we primarily
relied upon expert opinion, as well as a review of pertinent
literature. In particular, we convened two panels of surface and
maritime transportation experts to identify mobility issues and gather
views about alternative strategies for addressing the issues and
challenges to implementing those strategies. We contracted with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and its Transportation Research
Board (TRB) to provide technical assistance in identifying and
scheduling the two panels that were held on April 1 and 3, 2002. TRB
officials selected a total of 22 panelists with input from us,
including a cross-section of representatives from all surface and
maritime modes and from various occupations involved in transportation
planning. In keeping with NAS policy, the panelists were invited to
provide their individual views and the panels were not designed to
build consensus on any of the issues discussed. We analyzed the content
of all of the comments made by the panelists to identify common themes
about key mobility challenges and strategies for addressing those
challenges. Where applicable, we also identified the opposing points of
view about the strategies.
The names and affiliations of the panelists are as follows. We also
note that two of the panelists served as moderators for the sessions,
Dr. Joseph M. Sussman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Dr. Damian J. Kulash of the Eno Foundation, Inc.
* Benjamin J. Allen is Interim Vice President for External Affairs and
Distinguished Professor of Business at Iowa State University.
* Daniel Brand is Vice President of Charles River Associates, Inc., in
Boston, Mass.
* Jon E. Burkhardt is the Senior Study Director at Westat, Inc., in
Rockville, Md.
* Sarah C. Campbell is the President of TransManagement, Inc., in
Washington, D.C.
* Christina S. Casgar is the Executive Director of the Foundation for
Intermodal Research and Education in Greenbelt, Md.
* Anthony Downs is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
* Thomas R. Hickey served until recently as the General Manager of the
Port Authority Transit Corporation in Lindenwold, N.J.
* Ronald F. Kirby is the Director of Transportation Planning at the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
* Damian J. Kulash is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., in Washington, D.C.
* Charles A. Lave is a Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the
University of California, Irvine where he served as Chair of the
Economics Department.
* Stephen Lockwood is Vice President of Parsons Corporation, an
international firm that provides transportation planning, design,
construction, engineering, and project management services.
* Timothy J. Lomax is a Research Engineer at the Texas Transportation
Institute at Texas A&M University.
* James R. McCarville is the Executive Director of the Port of
Pittsburgh Commission.
* James W. McClellan is Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning at
the Norfolk Southern Corporation in Norfolk, Va.
* Michael D. Meyer is a Professor in the School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology and
was the Chair of the school from 1995 to 2000.
* William W. Millar is President of the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA).
* Alan E. Pisarski is an independent transportation consultant in Falls
Church, Va., providing services to public and private sector clients in
the United States and abroad in the areas of transport policy, travel
behavior, and data analysis and development.
* Craig E. Philip is President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Ingram Barge Company in Nashville, Tenn.
* Arlee T. Reno is a consultant with Cambridge Systematics in
Washington, D.C.
* Joseph M. Sussman is the JR East Professor in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering and the Engineering Systems Division at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
* Louis S. Thompson is a Railways Advisor for the World Bank where he
consults on all of the Bank‘s railway lending activities.
* Martin Wachs is the Director of the Institute of Transportation
Studies at the University of California, Berkeley and he holds faculty
appointments in the departments of City and Regional Planning and Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the university.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Related GAO Products:
Transportation Infrastructure: Alternative Financing Mechanisms for
Surface Transportation. GAO-02-1126T. Washington, D.C.: September 25,
2002.
Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on the Timely
Completion of Highway Construction Projects. GAO-02-1067T. Washington,
D.C.: September 19, 2002.
Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for
Infrastructure Investments. GAO-02-1033. Washington, D.C.: September
9, 2002.
Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for
Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge. GAO-02-775. Washington, D.C.:
August 30, 2002.
Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have Improved,
but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue. GAO-02-571. Washington,
D.C.: May 31, 2002.
Highway Financing: Factors Affecting Highway Trust Fund Revenues. GAO-
02-667T. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2002.
Transportation Infrastructure: Cost and Oversight Issues on Major
Highway and Bridge Projects. GAO-02-702T. Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2002.
Intercity Passenger Rail: Congress Faces Critical Decisions in
Developing National Policy. GAO-02-522T. Washington, D.C.: April 11,
2002.
Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land
Use That Protects Air and Water Quality. GAO-02-12. Washington, D.C.:
October 31, 2001.
Intercity Passenger Rail: The Congress Faces Critical Decisions About
the Role of and Funding for Intercity Passenger Rail Systems. GAO-01-
820T. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2001.
U.S. Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Federal Agencies‘ Investment
Estimates. GAO-01-986T. Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2001.
Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA, but Capital Planning
Could Be Enhanced. GAO-01-744. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2001.
Intercity Passenger Rail: Assessing the Benefits of Increased Federal
Funding for Amtrak and High-Speed Passenger Rail Systems. GAO-01-480T.
Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2001.
Performance and Accountability: Challenges Facing the Department of
Transportation. GAO-01-443T. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002.
Highway Funding: Problems With Highway Trust Fund Information Can
Affect State Highway Funds. RCED/AIMD-00-148. Washington, D.C.: June
29, 2000.
Highway Infrastructure: FHWA‘s Model for Estimating Highway Needs Is
Generally Reasonable, Despite Limitations. RCED-00-133. Washington,
D.C.: June 5, 2000.
Mass Transit: …Mobility Improvements‘ Is One of Many Factors Used to
Evaluate Mass Transit Projects. RCED-00-6R. Washington, D.C.: October
15, 1999.
FOOTNOTES
[1] We have not had an opportunity to review the Department of
Transportation‘s Conditions and Performance Report that is expected to
be released at today‘s hearing.
[2] In a July 2001 testimony before the former Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, we reviewed the infrastructure investment estimates of
seven federal agencies and found that they focus mostly on the
condition of the infrastructure rather than the desired outcomes (e.g.,
less traffic congestion) that can be expected from additional
infrastructure investments. We cautioned against relying mainly on
measures of need based primarily on the condition of existing
infrastructure and instead suggested comparing the costs and benefits
of alternative approaches for reaching outcomes, including noncapital
alternatives (such as strategies to manage demand rather than build new
infrastructure). See U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S.
Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Federal Agencies‘ Investment
Estimates, GAO-01-986T (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2001).
[3] In this testimony, we define the surface transportation modes to
include highways, mass transit systems, and railroads; and the maritime
transportation modes to include ports, inland waterways, and the
intermodal connections leading to them. Pipelines were not part of our
review.
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Surface and Maritime
Transportation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A
National Challenge, GAO-02-775 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002).
[5] David Shrank and Tim Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report (College
Station, Tex.: Texas Transportation Institute, June 2002).
[6] P.L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
[7] P.L. 105-178 (June 9, 1998).
[8] P.L. 105-134 (Dec. 2, 1997).
[9] The two groups are the Interagency Committee on the Marine
Transportation System and the Marine Transportation System National
Advisory Council.
[10] Shrank and Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report.
[11] For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority‘s
studies on crowding found that, of the more than 200 peak morning rail
trips observed over a recent 6-month period, on average, 23 percent
were considered ’uncomfortably crowded or crush loads.“ See U.S.
General Accounting Office, Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at
WMATA, but Capital Planning Could Be Enhanced, GAO-01-744 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2001).
[12] Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River
Associates, Inc., Mobility 2001: World Mobility at the End of the
Twentieth Century and Its Sustainability (World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, Aug. 2001).
[13] An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 1999).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Marine Transportation: Federal
Financing and a Framework for Infrastructure Investments, GAO-02-1033
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2002).
[15] S.M. Chin, O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L. Hwang, and R. Gibson,
Temporary Losses of Capacity Study and Impacts on Performance, Report
No. ORNL/TM-2002/3 (Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
May 2002).
[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Interstate
Physical Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures
Continue, GAO-02-571 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2002).
[17] Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration,
1999 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions
and Performance (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation,
2000).
[18] Jon E. Burkhardt, Arlene M. Berger, Michael Creedon, and Adam T.
McGavock, Mobility and Independence: Changes and Challenges for Older
Drivers (July 1998). This report was developed under a cooperative
agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
under the auspices of the Joint DHHS/DOT Coordinating Council on Access
and Mobility.
[19] Federal Transit Administration, Access to Jobs: Planning Case
Studies (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept.
2001).
[20] Community Transportation Association of America, Status of Rural
Public Transportation-2000 (April 2001).
[21] Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines
for Coordinated State and Local Specialized Transportation Services
(Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Transportation, Dec. 20, 2000).
[22] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection:
Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and
Water Quality, GAO-02-12 (Washington, D.C., Oct. 31, 2001).
[23] MPOs are organizations of city, county, state, and federal
officials that provide a regional forum for transportation planning.
[24] GAO-02-1033.
[25] Joseph M. Sussman, ’Transitions in the World of Transportation: A
Systems View,“ Transportation Quarterly 56 (2002): 21-22.
[26] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure:
Alternative Financing Mechanisms for Surface Transportation,
GAO-02-1126T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2002).
[27] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Financing: Factors
Affecting Highway Trust Fund Revenues, GAO-02-667T (Washington, D.C.,
May 9, 2002).
