Highway Infrastructure
Perceptions of Stakeholders on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time
Gao ID: GAO-03-398 April 9, 2003
Constructing, improving, and repairing roads is fundamental to meeting the nation's mobility needs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) supplies most of the money (about $20 billion in fiscal year 2003), and state departments of transportation are primarily responsible for completing projects. Many federal and state agencies (called resource agencies) help ensure that environmental and other concerns are considered. These and other organizations have recognized that the time it takes to complete complex federally funded highway projects is too long--in some cases nearly 20 years. GAO was asked to report the views of knowledgeable officials on the most promising approaches for reducing completion time for federally funded highway projects. GAO obtained the views of 33 officials from federal, state, and private organizations with interests in federally funded roads.
Respondents from 33 organizations identified 13 approaches as most promising for reducing the time it takes to plan, design, gain approval for, and build a federally funded highway project. These approaches fell into three areas. Improving project management: Most approaches (8 of 13) focused on state-level activities that could be conducted earlier than customary, with 90 percent of respondents indicating that establishing early partnerships and early coordination among all project stakeholders is highly important to reducing project completion time. Other approaches included added flexibility for states in determining impacts on historic properties and imposing time limits on environmental reviews. Delegating environmental review and permitting authority: Between half and two-thirds of the respondents indicated that utilizing programmatic agreements between transportation and resource agencies to address commonly occurring issues, unifying overall environmental assessments with reviews of project impacts on wetlands, and creating large banks of wetlands to replace those lost at highway project sites offered significant promise for reducing project completion time. Improving agency staffing and skills: Nearly 60 percent of the respondents indicated that using interagency funding agreements in which state departments of transportation can ensure timely attention to environmental reviews of their projects by funding staff at federal or state resource agencies offered significant promise to reduce project completion time. About half of the respondents told us that adequate training of transportation staff on the requirements of all steps in completing a highway project was also a promising approach. For the most part, the respondents were not able to estimate how much time adopting one or more of these approaches might save. Respondents' views varied both within similar types of organizations (such as state departments of transportation) and across lines of responsibility or interest. Generally, agencies and other organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests in building and funding highways ranked certain approaches higher than did agencies and associations with a primary focus on resource issues, and vice versa. Nonetheless, most of the 13 most promising approaches had widespread support across organizations. Although some of these approaches are in use across the country, respondents acknowledged that the usefulness of these approaches could vary by the type of project or community values. For example, projects that are not complex or contentious would not necessarily achieve the time savings that these approaches afford for projects with complex characteristics or disagreement among stakeholders.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-03-398, Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-398
entitled 'Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on
Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time' which was
released on May 12, 2003.
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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and
Public Works, U.S. Senate:
April 2003:
Highway Infrastructure:
Perceptions of Stakeholders on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project
Completion Time:
GAO-03-398:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-398, a report to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works
Why GAO Did This Study:
Constructing, improving, and repairing roads is fundamental to meeting
the nation's mobility needs. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) supplies most of the money (about $20 billion in fiscal year
2003), and state departments of transportation are primarily
responsible for completing projects. Many federal and state agencies
(called resource agencies) help ensure that environmental and other
concerns are considered. These and other organizations have
recognized that the time it takes to complete complex federally funded
highway projects is too long”in some cases nearly 20 years.
GAO was asked to report the views of knowledgeable officials on the
most promising approaches for reducing completion time for federally
funded highway projects. GAO obtained the views of 33 officials from
federal, state, and private organizations with interests in federally
funded roads.
What GAO Found:
Respondents from 33 organizations identified 13 approaches as most
promising for reducing the time it takes to plan, design, gain
approval for, and build a federally funded highway project. These
approaches fell into three areas:
* Improving project management. Most approaches (8 of 13) focused on
state-level activities that could be conducted earlier than customary,
with 90 percent of respondents indicating that establishing early
partnerships and early coordination among all project stakeholders is
highly important to reducing project completion time. Other
approaches included added flexibility for states in determining
impacts on historic properties and imposing time limits on
environmental reviews.
* Delegating environmental review and permitting authority. Between
half and two-thirds of the respondents indicated that utilizing
programmatic agreements between transportation and resource agencies
to address commonly occurring issues, unifying overall environmental
assessments with reviews of project impacts on wetlands, and creating
large banks of wetlands to replace those lost at highway project sites
offered significant promise for reducing project completion time.
* Improving agency staffing and skills. Nearly 60 percent of the
respondents indicated that using interagency funding agreements in
which state departments of transportation can ensure timely attention
to environmental reviews of their projects by funding staff at federal
or state resource agencies offered significant promise to reduce
project completion time. About half of the respondents told us that
adequate training of transportation staff on the requirements of all
steps in completing a highway project was also a promising approach.
For the most part, the respondents were not able to estimate how much
time adopting one or more of these approaches might save.
Respondents‘ views varied both within similar types of organizations
(such as state departments of transportation) and across lines of
responsibility or interest. Generally, agencies and other
organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests in
building and funding highways ranked certain approaches higher than
did agencies and associations with a primary focus on resource issues,
and vice versa. Nonetheless, most of the 13 most promising approaches
had widespread support across organizations.
Although some of these approaches are in use across the country,
respondents acknowledged that the usefulness of these approaches could
vary by the type of project or community values. For example,
projects that are not complex or contentious would not necessarily
achieve the time savings that these approaches afford for projects
with complex characteristics or disagreement among stakeholders.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that FHWA consider the benefits of the 13 most
promising approaches and take actions needed to foster more widespread
adoption of those that appear to be the most cost effective. While
not commenting on the recommendation, the Department of Transportation
generally agreed that these approaches represent opportunities to
reduce project completion time.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-398.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or
siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most Promising Approaches Identified by Stakeholders Focus on Improving
Project Management:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project
Completion time as Identified by Respondents:
Tables :
Table 1: Most Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project
Completion Time, as Identified by Stakeholders:
Table 2: Percent of Respondents Rating the 13 Most Promising Approaches
Highly, Including Average Rating:
Table 3: Comparison of Rankings of 34 Approaches to Reduce Highway
Project Completion Time by Transportation and Resource Respondents:
Table 4: Organizations Contacted to Determine Most Promising
Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time:
Table 5: Structured Interview Questions Used to Identify the Most
Promising Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time:
Table 6: Promising Approaches to Reduce Project Completion Time
Identified and Rated by Respondents, by Average Rating:
Table 7: Views on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time
Often Varied by Respondent Affiliation:
Abbreviations:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
Letter April 9, 2003:
The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Jeffords:
Constructing, improving, and repairing roads and bridges are
fundamental to meeting the nation's mobility needs to facilitate
commerce, national defense, and pleasure use and to promote economic
growth. Therefore, the Congress has an interest in seeing that
federally funded highway projects are completed in a timely manner.
Many of the organizations with a role in highway project completion
have recognized that completing major highway construction projects
takes too long--in some cases about 20 years. As a result, these
organizations--including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
state departments of transportation, and other stakeholders--have acted
to reduce project completion time by developing initiatives in several
areas and by publicizing what they believe are successful strategies.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century, enacted in 1998,
contained provisions designed to streamline environmental reviews, a
component of projects often cited as offering the greatest opportunity
for reducing the completion time of federally funded highway projects.
As the reauthorization of this act approaches, the Congress may again
consider approaches for reducing the time it takes to complete a
federally funded highway project so that transportation benefits are
realized sooner.
You requested that we report on knowledgeable officials' views on the
most promising approaches to reduce project completion time for
federally funded highway projects. To carry out this work, we asked
officials from various federal and state agencies with responsibilities
relating to the construction of federally funded roads, transportation
engineering organizations, transportation professional associations,
historic preservation organizations, environmental organizations, and
tribal organizations to identify the most promising approaches for
reducing project completion time by a substantial amount for federally
funded highway projects of all types and complexities. We asked these
officials to identify other stakeholders with expertise and asked those
individuals also to identify promising approaches. Overall, 42
stakeholders identified 49 approaches. We then asked these officials to
rate each approach on its potential for reducing project completion
time. Thirty-three officials representing different interests provided
these ratings. The approach we used makes two contributions. First, it
captures the views of a wide range of stakeholders that are identified
by their peers as knowledgeable. Second, it provides a systematic
assessment of the perceived value of all approaches involving all
aspects of completing federally funded highway projects that were
identified by knowledgeable stakeholders. We did not attempt to
corroborate the need to implement these approaches or the reasons why
respondents rated individual approaches as they did. In addition, we
did not attempt to determine how effective the promising approaches,
where already implemented, were in reducing highway project completion
time. (See app. I for additional details on our scope and
methodology.):
Results in Brief:
Respondents from 33 organizations representing a wide range of federal,
state, tribal, and advocacy interests generally rated 13 approaches of
the 49 that they identified as most promising for reducing the time it
takes to plan, gain approval for, design, and build a federally funded
highway project. (See table 1.) These approaches fell into three key
areas: (1) improving project management, (2) delegating environmental
review and permitting authority, and (3) improving agency staffing and
skills. One of these approaches, establishing early partnerships and
coordination among stakeholders so that technical, environmental,
policy, and other issues can be resolved in a timely and predictable
manner, was strongly supported by 28 of 31 (90 percent)
respondents.[Footnote 1] Other approaches, although viewed as promising
by respondents overall, received less widespread support across
different groups of stakeholders that we contacted. Some state
departments of transportation are employing some of these approaches.
For example, according to FHWA, 34 states have agreements in which
state departments of transportation provide funding for personnel at
state and federal environmental agencies for expediting reviews. For
the most part, respondents were not able to estimate how much time
adopting one or more of these approaches might save. The respondents
also acknowledged that the usefulness of these approaches could vary by
the type of project or community values. For example, for projects that
are not complex or contentious, these approaches would not necessarily
save the same amount of time that they would for projects with complex
characteristics or disagreement among stakeholders. We are making a
recommendation to the Department of Transportation to foster more
widespread use of the 13 most promising approaches, where appropriate.
While it did not directly comment on our proposed recommendation, the
department generally agreed that the 13 most promising approaches
discussed in our draft report represent opportunities to reduce project
completion time.
Table 1: Most Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project
Completion Time, as Identified by Stakeholders:
Key area: Improving project management:
Approach: Establish early
partnerships and coordination - Involve stakeholders early so that
technical, environmental, policy, and other issues can be resolved in a
timely and predictable manner.
Approach: Revise section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act -
For projects on public lands, use the protections found in section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for consideration of
historic properties and other historic resources.
Approach: Use geographic information systems - Use the data collected
by federal and state resource agencies on the location of historic
properties and environmental resources in the state to identify
environmental and historic issues early during environmental review.
Approach: Establish time frames for resource agency review - Provide
specific time frames for resource agencies to respond to environmental
documents and produce any needed analyses. Reduce the 6-year time frame
for lawsuits filed under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Approach: Prepare preliminary environmental assessment reports -
Provide information on any conditions and constraints prior to
programming project cost and project schedule.
Approach: Establish project milestones and performance monitoring
systems - Specify key dates, such as when final design must be
completed, and manage the project to meet the dates.
Approach: Employ context sensitive design - Design projects that
consider the community's environmental and social context so that
projects are consistent with the values of the community.
Approach: Hold public information meetings early - Hold public meetings
early and more often to provide information on projects that are
planned or underway.
Key area: Delegating review and permitting authority:
Approach: Use
programmatic agreements - Use agreements between transportation and
resource agencies at the federal and/or state level to address commonly
occurring issues.
Approach: Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and National Environmental
Policy Act reviews - Unify reviews so that section 404 wetlands reviews
are addressed concurrently with other environmental issues.
Approach: Employ wetlands banking - Use agreements between state
departments of transportation and wetlands permitting agencies to
create large areas of wetlands in designated areas rather than
addressing effects on small wetlands at each construction site.
Key area: Improving agency staffing and skills:
Approach: Use
interagency funding agreements - State departments of transportation
provide funding for staff at federal or state resource agencies to
ensure timely attention to environmental issues.
Approach: Provide training - Determine the skills available at state
transportation departments in relation to federal and state
requirements to complete each phase of highway projects and establish
training programs for shortfalls.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]:
Background:
Officials in federal transportation and environmental agencies, state
transportation agencies, and other stakeholder organizations (such as
environmental organizations) generally agree that constructing a new
federally funded highway is complicated and time consuming.[Footnote 2]
According to FHWA, constructing a new, major federally funded highway
project that has significant environmental impacts typically takes from
9 to 19 years to plan, design, gain approval for, and complete
construction. Projects take this long to complete because there can be
as many as 200 major steps requiring actions, approvals or input from a
number of federal, state, and other stakeholders. Projects with
significant environmental impacts also face high levels of controversy
that often results in a lack of sustained support from stakeholders.
Federally funded highway projects are typically completed in four
phases:
* Planning: State and local planning organizations and state
departments of transportation assess a project's purpose and need and
consider its need in relation to other potential highway projects.
* Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of
transportation identify project cost, level of service, and
construction location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed
project and alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred
alternative.
* Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of
transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate
utilities.
* Construction: State departments of transportation award construction
contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.
The time required varies with the size of the project, its complexity,
and the public interest in the project, but officials in federal and
state agencies and other stakeholder organizations agree that
delivering larger, more complex projects may take longer than is
typical for most highway projects. In addition to needing more time
because of their size and complexity, these projects often take longer
to complete because they must comply with more federal and state
requirements and because of the public concern over environmental
impacts they may generate.
FHWA provides financial assistance to states to build and improve
highways and roads; establishes requirements related to planning,
design, environmental review, and construction; and provides
transportation engineering services (such as planning and design) for
federally owned highways and bridges. For fiscal year 2003, FHWA
expects to fund about $20 billion in highway infrastructure
improvements and congestion mitigations. The responsibility for
designing, planning, and awarding contracts for federally funded
highway projects generally rests with state departments of
transportation and local planning organizations.
Before a federally funded highway project can be built, it must comply
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), among other things. Under the act, the consequences, if any, of
proposed transportation projects and alternative choices (such as
alternative routings) on the natural and human (e.g., health)
environment and on historic properties must be identified and assessed.
For a federally funded highway project that will have a significant
impact on the environment, the state department of transportation
prepares an environmental impact statement, which FHWA must approve
before the project can be built. The environmental impact statement
must describe the project, characterize the surrounding environment,
analyze the environmental effects of a range of reasonable project
alternatives, and indicate plans for complying with environmental laws
and mitigating environmental damage, if any. Other federal agencies
(called resource agencies), such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, participate in the preparation and
review of the environmental impact statements for highway projects
because of their responsibilities under federal laws. These laws
include section 404 of the Clean Water Act, section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act, and section 106 of the National
Historic
Preservation Act.[Footnote 3] According to FHWA, only about 3 percent
of all highway projects (accounting for about 9 percent of the funds)
that received federal funding in 2001 had a significant enough impact
on the environment to require preparation of an environmental impact
statement.
Factors throughout the duration of a highway project can extend
completion time; however, much attention has been given to the
environmental requirements and their effect on timely completion.
Concerned about how long highway projects take, the Congress included
provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century to
streamline environmental reviews. These provisions require FHWA to
identify and work with federal agencies that have environmental and
historic preservation jurisdiction over highway projects to
cooperatively establish realistic project development time frames among
the agencies and to work with the agencies to adhere to those time
frames. Because transportation projects are also affected by state and
local environmental requirements, the act allows individual states to
participate in these streamlining approaches, as long as all affected
states' agencies participate. Finally, the act also allows FHWA to
approve state requests to use their federal-aid highway funds to
provide additional environmental personnel dedicated to conducting
environmental reviews of transportation projects in order to meet time
limits established by the act.
Most Promising Approaches Identified by Stakeholders Focus on Improving
Project Management:
Knowledgeable officials from 33 organizations representing a wide range
of interests and responsibilities for the planning, design,
environmental review, and construction of federally funded highways
generally identified 13 approaches from the 49 promising approaches
they identified as most promising for reducing the time it takes to
complete a federally funded highway project. (See table 2 for how
respondents rated the 13 most promising approaches. A more detailed
discussion of the 13 approaches follows table 2. Table 6 in app. II
describes the 49 approaches identified and the degree to which
respondents told us each had potential for reducing highway project
completion time.) One of the 13 approaches, establishing early
partnerships and coordination among stakeholders so that technical,
environmental, policy, and other issues can be resolved in a timely and
predictable manner, was strongly supported by nearly all respondents.
Other approaches, although viewed as promising by respondents overall,
had less widespread support across different groups of stakeholders.
Some state departments of transportation are already employing some of
the 13 approaches, such as funding specialized staff, including
biologists and historic preservation specialists, at federal and state
resource agencies to assist with environmental reviews. For the most
part, respondents were not able to estimate how much time adopting one
or more of these 13 approaches might save.
Table 2: Percent of Respondents Rating the 13 Most Promising Approaches
Highly, Including Average Rating:
Nature of approach: Improving project management:
Approach: Establish early partnerships and coordination; Percent of
respondents rating approach highly[A]: 90; Average rating[B]:
4.5.
Approach: Revise section 4(f); Percent of respondents rating
approach highly[A]: 70; Average rating[B]: 4.0.
Approach: Use geographic information systems; Percent of
respondents rating approach highly[A]: 63; Average rating[B]:
3.5.
Approach: Establish time frames for environmental reviews;
Percent of respondents rating approach highly[A]: 60; Average
rating[B]: 3.6.
Approach: Prepare preliminary environmental assessment reports;
Percent of respondents rating approach highly[A]: 53; Average
rating[B]: 3.6.
Approach: Establish project milestones and performance
monitoring systems; Percent of respondents rating approach highly[A]:
52; Average rating[B]: 3.6.
Approach: Employ context sensitive design; Percent of
respondents rating approach highly[A]: 50; Average rating[B]:
3.5.
Approach: Hold public information meetings early; Percent of
respondents rating approach highly[A]: 50; Average rating[B]:
3.5.
Nature of approach: Delegating review and permitting authority:
Approach: Use programmatic agreements; Percent of respondents
rating approach highly[A]: 68; Average rating[B]: 4.0.
Approach: Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA reviews;
Percent of respondents rating approach highly[A]: 58; Average
rating[B]: 3.7.
Approach: Employ wetlands banking; Percent of respondents
rating approach highly[A]: 46; Average rating[B]: 3.5.
Nature of approach: Improving agency staffing and skills:
Approach: Use interagency funding agreements; Percent of respondents
rating approach highly[A]: 59; Average rating[B]: 3.6.
Approach: Provide training; Percent of respondents rating
approach highly[A]: 53; Average rating[B]: 3.7.
[A] Percent of all respondents ranking the approach as either having great
or very great potential to reduce highway project completion time. Not
all respondents rated each approach. Thirty or more of the 33
respondents (at least 91 percent) rated 11 of 13 approaches; 26
respondents (79 percent) rated the remaining 2 approaches. (See app.
II.):
[B] The 13 most promising approaches were those with a rating of 3.5 or
more on a 5-point scale, where a rating of 3 represented a moderate
potential for reducing completion times and ratings of 4 and 5
represented great and very great potential for reducing project
completion time, respectively. (See
app. I.):
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Most of the approaches (8 of 13) rated by our respondents as most
promising fell into the category of strategies to improve project
management, focusing primarily on state-level activities. Respondents
also supported delegation of review and permitting authority (3 of 13
approaches, including the second and fourth highest rated approaches in
terms of average rating); and identifying improvements in agency
staffing and skills (2 of 13 approaches). None of the approaches in
other broad areas identified by respondents as promising--alternatives
to current construction contracting practices and improvements in
disseminating information--were among the top 13. Furthermore, our
results indicated that 9 of the 13 promising approaches (about 70
percent) were related solely to the planning and environmental review
phases of a highway project; the remaining 4 approaches offered
opportunities for improved performance throughout the entire life of a
project.
As can be expected, the level of support for each of these approaches
varied within similar organizations, such as state departments of
transportation. (See table 7 in app. II.) However, at least half of
those charged primarily with funding and constructing highways (federal
and state departments of transportation and organizations representing
highway interests) as well as those organizations whose primary
responsibilities or interests focus on resource issues (e.g., federal
resource agencies and associations representing environmental
interests) rated 6 of the 13 approaches (46 percent) as most promising.
While our results also showed a pattern that agencies and other
organizations with primary responsibilities for or interests in
building and funding highways ranked certain approaches higher than did
agencies and associations with a primary focus on resource issues, and
vice versa, most of the 13 most promising approaches had widespread
support across organizations. (See table 3.) Regarding differences in
rating, four approaches--metropolitan capacity building,
acculturation, travel model improvement, and state funding of historic
preservation activities--were rated highly by respondents with primary
responsibilities for or interests involving resources and were rated
significantly lower by respondents with primary responsibilities for or
interests in funding or constructing a highway project.[Footnote 4]
This can be explained, in part, by the fact that organizations we
contacted identified roughly twice as many knowledgeable persons at
organizations with primary responsibilities or interests in funding or
constructing a highway project as they did for organizations with
primary responsibilities for or interests involving resources, and the
former group's views outweighed the latter group's views. Despite these
differences, 8 of the 13 most promising approaches overall were in each
group's "top 13" approaches.
Table 3: Comparison of Rankings of 34 Approaches to Reduce Highway
Project Completion Time by Transportation and Resource Respondents:
Approach: Early partnership and coordination; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 1; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 1; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 11.
Approach: Revise section 4(f); Ranking among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 2; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 16; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 10.
Approach: Establish time frames for NEPA process; Ranking among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: 3; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 28; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 10.
Approach: Programmatic agreements; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 4; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 9; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 11.
Approach: Establish project milestones and performance monitoring
systems; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 5; Ranking
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or
historic environmental issues: 20; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
20; Number of respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 11.
Approach: Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA processes; Ranking
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: 6; Ranking among agencies
or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 25; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 6.
Approach: Formal elevation process; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 7; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 23; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 12.
Approach: Wetlands banking; Ranking among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 8; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 29; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 6.
Approach: Training; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 9;
Ranking among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with
natural or historic environmental issues: 8; Number of respondents
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues: 12.
Approach: Geographic information systems; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 10; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 3; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 12.
Approach: Preliminary environmental assessment reports; Ranking among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: 11; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 6; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 12.
Approach: Interagency funding agreements; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 12; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 4; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 12.
Approach: Allow early right-of-way acquisition; Ranking among agencies
or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 13; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 31; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 10.
Approach: Public information meetings; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 14; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 7; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 12.
Approach: Partner with groups; Ranking among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 15; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 14; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 19; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 12.
Approach: Biennial reviews; Ranking among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 16; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 27; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 18; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 11.
Approach: Context sensitive design; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 17; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 2; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 12.
Approach: Hire consultants or contractors; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 18; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 34; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 8.
Approach: Internet; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
19; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with
natural or historic environmental issues: 11; Number of respondents
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues: 12.
Approach: National conferences; Ranking among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 20; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 21; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 11.
Approach: Single agency point of contact; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 21; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 33; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 10.
Approach: Acculturation; Ranking among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 22; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 5; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 19; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 12.
Approach: Environmental compliance mitigation systems; Ranking among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: 23; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 15; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 12.
Approach: Metropolitan capacity building; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 24; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 13; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 18; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 8.
Approach: Environmental information center; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 25; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 18; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 11.
Approach: Aerial surveying and imaging technology; Ranking among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: 26; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 19; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 18; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 10.
Approach: Videotaped guidance on promising approaches; Ranking among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: 27; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 22; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 11.
Approach: State funding of historic preservation activities; Ranking
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: 28; Ranking among agencies
or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 10; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 11.
Approach: Professional organization membership; Ranking among agencies
or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 29; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 30; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 10.
Approach: Regular publications; Ranking among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 30; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 17; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 12.
Approach: Awards program to recognize agency achievements; Ranking
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: 31; Ranking among agencies
or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 26; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 11.
Approach: Infer the presence of endangered species; Ranking among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: 32; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 24; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 20; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 9.
Approach: Peer reviews; Ranking among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: 33; Ranking among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 32; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 20; Number of respondents primarily
affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues: 10.
Approach: Travel model improvement; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: 34; Ranking among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: 12; Number of respondents primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: 19; Number of
respondents primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental
issues: 9.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In all, respondents identified 49 promising approaches. This
table includes the 34 approaches where 75 percent or more of the
respondents rated an approach. See app. I for a discussion of our
methodology and table 6 in app. II for a description of the remaining
15 approaches.
Approaches in bold are the 13 approaches that respondents rated most
highly overall.
The table is ordered from most popular to least popular among
respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding
or constructing a highway project, to better show similarities and
differences in rating.
[End of table]
The respondents acknowledged that these approaches might not work for
every project or in every state because projects and communities vary
widely. For example, projects that are not complex or contentious would
not necessarily achieve the time savings that these approaches afford
for projects with complex characteristics or disagreement among
stakeholders.
Strategies to Improve Project Management:
Among the 13 most promising approaches, 8 focused on improving project
management at the state level. About half of these approaches were
directed at undertaking activities earlier than usual. One promising
approach--establishing early partnerships and coordination--stood out.
Establishing early partnerships and coordination. Ninety percent of the
respondents rated establishing early partnerships and early
coordination as highly important to reducing the time needed to
complete a highway project. This approach addressed the commonly voiced
concern that projects are halted late during environmental review
because previously unrecognized environmental impacts are brought to
light. Respondents overwhelmingly told us that early identification of
these issues and concerted efforts to address them sooner rather than
later was the most promising approach for reducing the time it takes to
complete a federally funded highway project. Support for this approach
was generally unified across respondent affiliations, with 85 percent
of those with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or
constructing a highway project and all of those with primary
responsibilities for or interests involving resources rating it highly.
Adding flexibility to historic property reviews by revising section
4(f). About 70 percent of the respondents told us that adding
flexibility to reviews of the potential impacts of proposed highway
projects on historic properties and sites would either greatly or very
greatly improve states' abilities to manage their highway projects.
Historic properties are protected under two laws that are often viewed
by stakeholders as duplicative and adding time to project completion:
section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 4(f)
legislation prohibits the Department of Transportation from approving
any highway project that uses, among other things, land of an historic
site of national, state, or local significance unless it finds that (1)
there is no prudent and feasible alternative that avoids such resources
or causes less harm to them and (2) the project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to those resources. Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that projects that
include federal participation consider the effects on any properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places. Section 106 establishes a flexible consultive process
that brings all parties into discussion, and was cited by some
respondents as allowing for more productive outcomes that preserve the
goals of the transportation project while creating meaningful
protections of historic properties. Those advocating change wanted
section 4(f) requirements to offer the flexibility of section 106
requirements. There was less agreement on the efficacy of this approach
between those with a primary responsibility for or interest in funding
or constructing highways (80 percent viewed this approach highly) and
those whose primary responsibilities or interests rest with resources
(50 percent viewed this approach highly). In some part, this lack of
consensus reflected the differing views of whether legislative changes
are needed to implement this approach or whether it could be
accomplished administratively. For example, the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials has established a historic
preservation work group to discuss and possibly seek solutions for
section 4(f) implementation, such as whether the requirements of
section 4(f) could be considered as met if all parties sign a
memorandum of agreement under section 106.
Use of geographic information systems data. Overall, 63 percent of the
knowledgeable officials indicated that the use of geographic
information systems data on the locations of historic property and
environmental resources in the state had great or very great potential
to reduce highway project completion time. Project duration can be
extended when states are unable to accurately identify environmental
resources or historic properties at the outset of environmental review
when alternative road alignments are initially developed. Without this
information, a preferred alternative may be selected, only to discover
later that environmental resources or historic properties lie within
the project alignment, delaying the project as impacts on the newly
discovered resource are assessed. To address this dilemma, state
transportation agencies and resource agencies increasingly use
geographic information systems databases. According to respondents, by
consulting these databases early during environmental review,
transportation agencies can determine which project alignments would
likely minimize any adverse impacts to natural or historic
environmental areas. In addition, respondents indicated that using
these databases would support integrated interagency reviews of a
project's impact on the environment. Half of those with primary
responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway
project and 83 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or
interests involving resources rated this approach highly.
Establishing deadlines for resource agency reviews. The majority of
respondents also told us that projects could be managed better if more
predictability existed in how long reviews to determine the level of
impacts that proposed highway projects have on environmental and
historic properties could be expected to take. In this vein, about 60
percent of the respondents highly supported establishing by law
specific deadlines for resource agencies to provide their assessments
of how a proposed highway project affects the environment or historic
places. Some commented that resource agencies have no requirement for
providing timely comments and feedback during creation of draft or
final environmental impact statements, without which FHWA cannot allow
a project to proceed. In addition, lawsuits challenging these FHWA
decisions under NEPA can be filed for up to 6 years after FHWA has
approved funding for the project after environmental review. Officials
told us that lawsuits to challenge projects that are filed after the
project has been put out to bid resulted in substantial lost time and
increased costs for state departments of transportation. According to
these officials, establishing a shorter statute of limitations than the
current 6 years for lawsuits to be filed would fully preserve citizens'
rights to bring legal challenge while also achieving closure more
quickly on any disputed issues. However, there was little consensus on
this approach: 80 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or
interests in funding or constructing a highway project rated this
approach highly, but only 20 percent of those with primary
responsibilities for or interests involving resources did so.
Preparing preliminary environmental assessment reports. About half of
all respondents rated the idea of preparing preliminary environmental
assessment reports highly. As discussed previously, state highway
departments must assess the proposed project's impacts on the
environment, if any. Respondents told us that obtaining information
about a project's potential environmental impacts early, such as during
the planning phase, could help transportation officials identify issues
sooner and help move toward resolution earlier, thus saving time.
Similar to establishing and utilizing geographic information systems
databases, respondents explained that conducting field visits to the
planned project sites, conducting literature searches, and documenting
a proposed project site through photographs could help identify any
environmental issues early. Slightly less than half of those with
primary responsibilities or interests in funding or constructing a
highway project (45 percent) and about two-thirds of those with primary
responsibilities or interests involving resources (67 percent) rated
this approach highly.
Establishing project milestones and performance monitoring systems.
About half of the knowledgeable officials rated highly the concept of
establishing project milestones and performance monitoring systems to
help state transportation officials manage projects. Project milestones
establish goals and expectations for as many as 200 major steps needed
to plan, design, gain approval for, and construct a federally funded
highway project. Performance monitoring allows state departments of
transportation to determine whether goals are being achieved and take
corrective action, if needed. Respondents indicated that off-the-shelf
project scheduling software could meet this need. Finally, state
transportation agencies do not typically capture information centrally
on time spent on various aspects of their highway projects. Such
information could be useful in managing the agencies' overall
performance and help to identify opportunities for
improvement.[Footnote 5] This approach was rated highly more often by
those with primary responsibilities for or interest in funding or
constructing a highway project (60 percent) than those with primary
responsibilities or interests involving resources (36 percent).
Use of context sensitive design. Fifty percent of the respondents
indicated that the use of context sensitive design has great or very
great potential to reduce highway project completion time. In context
sensitive design, engineering is driven by the needs of the community
and the environment as well as by technical considerations. Context
sensitive design goes beyond the early partnership and coordination
approach discussed above to plan a project that not only meets
transportation needs but also meets the underlying values of the
community, such as strong attachment to certain historic or
environmental resources. This requires an approach that involves all
stakeholders, seeks to develop a highway project that fits its physical
setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental
resources while maintaining safety and mobility. About one-third (30
percent) of those with primary responsibilities for or interests in
funding or constructing a highway project rated this approach highly.
In contrast, 83 percent of those with primary responsibilities for or
interests involving resources rated this approach highly.
Holding earlier, more frequent public meetings. About half of the
respondents viewed earlier and/or more frequent public meetings as
highly useful in reducing the time to complete highway projects.
Respondents explained that public comments were sometimes not solicited
until the state department of transportation had already identified a
preferred alternative, rather than allowing for meaningful public input
to address community concerns at the outset of developing suitable
alternatives.[Footnote 6] Public information meetings allow
transportation agencies to present information to the public on
projects that are planned or underway and to obtain informal comments
from community residents. Such meetings can help project sponsors
understand the views of the community while communicating the project's
purpose and possible impacts. At the same time, early opportunities for
and incorporation of comments provides the community buy-in as the
department of transportation addresses their concerns. About 40 percent
of those with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or
constructing a highway project rated this approach highly, while two-
thirds of those with primary responsibilities for or interests
involving resources rated this approach highly.
Delegation of Review and Permitting Authority:
A second set of promising approaches generally involved routinizing
decisions on commonly occurring issues. According to FHWA, over 90
percent of highway projects are routine activities that do not impose
extensive environmental impacts nor require substantial review.
However, these routine activities may undergo lengthy or duplicative
reviews that respondents noted as potentially slowing project
completion.
Using programmatic agreements. Using programmatic agreements between
federal and/or state transportation and resource agencies to address
commonly occurring issues received the second highest rating from
respondents on average of the 13 most promising approaches. Sixty-eight
percent of the respondents indicated that programmatic agreements to
handle routine projects or commonly occurring resource effects (e.g.,
endangered species) or to delegate review authority from resource
agencies to transportation agencies have great or very great potential
to reduce project completion time. This approach was rated highly by 70
percent of those respondents with primary responsibilities for or
interests in funding or constructing a highway project. Moreover,
nearly two-thirds of the respondents with primary responsibilities for
or interests involving resources rated the approach highly.
Unifying section 404 and other environmental requirements. Fifty-eight
percent of the respondents rated highly the idea of unifying the
requirements of section 404 of the Clean Water Act with other
environmental review requirements. Traditionally, FHWA and the states
completed environmental reviews of the proposed highway project before
approaching the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit involving a
wetland under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Yet, even after FHWA
had issued its record of decision on environmental issues allowing the
project to move forward, a project might fail to obtain the needed
permits from the Corps and therefore be halted despite having cleared
an extensive environmental review. Officials told us that by
effectively integrating the two processes, approval of the section 404
permit could be concurrent with FHWA's final action, resulting in
reduced project completion time, more environmentally sound projects,
and increased relationship building. Knowledgeable officials suggested
that this approach could occur through merger agreements or through
changes in legislation. Sixty percent of the respondents with primary
responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway
project and 50 percent of respondents with primary responsibilities for
or interests involving resources rated the approach highly. According
to FHWA, 29 states have adopted agreements to unify NEPA environmental
reviews and section 404 Clean Water Act permit reviews to ensure that
the reviews are conducted concurrently.
Wetlands banking. Slightly less than half (46 percent) of the
respondents rated the concept of wetlands banking highly. As required
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, transportation agencies must
compensate for any wetlands that are disturbed by highway projects, as
determined by the Army Corps of Engineers and state environmental
agencies. Transportation agencies address these wetlands impacts by
creating new wetlands areas near the highway project site. The problem
cited by some is that this approach to wetlands is piecemeal rather
than comprehensive. According to respondents, these efforts can add
significant time to highway projects, especially if the wetlands are
not detected until late in the project. Under wetlands banking, state
departments of transportation and wetland permitting agencies enter
into blanket agreements to create large areas of wetlands rather than
small wetlands at each construction site. While saving time on project
completion, proponents state that wetlands banking can also provide
more wildlife habitat and more ecologically significant restoration and
enhancement in larger areas. Fifty percent of the respondents with
primary responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a
highway project and 33 percent of the respondents with primary
responsibilities or interests involving resources rated this approach
highly.
Improving Agency Staffing and Skills:
Two of the 13 most promising approaches involved improving staffing
through interagency funding agreements and increased training as a
means for reducing highway project completion time.
Using interagency funding agreements. About 60 percent of the
respondents rated highly the use of interagency funding agreements to
provide staff at resource agencies. As noted above, some believe that
resource agencies do not always provide needed feedback to FHWA or
departments of transportation on the environmental effects of proposed
highway projects in a timely manner. Various reasons for this were
cited, but both respondents with responsibilities for or interests in
funding or constructing a highway and respondents with responsibilities
or interests involving resources noted that staff shortages at resource
agencies were a significant reason for this problem. As a result, state
departments of transportation have increasingly used federal funds
authorized under section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21ST Century to pay for technical staff positions at resource agencies,
including biologists and historic preservation specialists. According
to FHWA, 34 states have agreements that provide state and federal
environmental agency personnel for expediting reviews. The hired
personnel devote their attention solely to proposed federally funded
highway projects, thus potentially improving the timeliness of resource
agency assessments of any environmental issues associated with these
projects. Slightly less than one-half of those with responsibilities or
interests in funding or constructing a highway project (45 percent)
rated this approach highly; however, over four-fifths of those with
responsibilities or interests involving resources (83 percent) did so.
Increased training. Finally, about half of the respondents supported
increased training for state department of transportation officials
regarding understanding the requirements associated with completing a
highway project.[Footnote 7] About 50 percent of those with primary
responsibilities for or interests in funding or constructing a highway
project and 58 percent of those with primary responsibilities or
interests in involving resources rated this approach highly.
Conclusions:
Our results showed, overall, strong stakeholder support for 13
approaches to reduce the time it takes to complete a federally funded
highway project. While stakeholders' support varied, 8 of these
approaches had strong support across groups representing different
primary interests. We recognize that it may be neither feasible nor
appropriate to utilize each of these 13 approaches on every federally
funded highway project. In addition, some of these approaches, such as
interagency funding agreements, are already being utilized at the state
level and still others may require congressional action. Nonetheless,
they do represent a reasonable number of actions that can be considered
further as to the benefits, in relation to the costs, that they bring
to reducing highway project completion time. FHWA would need to work
with other lead agencies to assess how these actions would be
implemented, including whether any legislative changes would be
required. Such assessments could lead to more widespread adoption and
corresponding increased transportation and environmental benefits.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
In order to reduce highway project completion time, we recommend that
the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, FHWA, to
consider the benefits of at least each of the 13 most promising
approaches discussed in this report relative to the costs and
feasibility of implementing them and take the actions needed to foster
more widespread adoption of those approaches that appear to be the most
cost effective.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from the Department
of Transportation. Generally, the Department agreed that the 13 most
promising approaches discussed in our draft report represent
opportunities to reduce project completion time. While it did not
directly comment on our proposed recommendation, the Department noted
that most, if not all, of the promising approaches coincide with the
streamlining activities that the Department and its partners, such as
state departments of transportation and resource agencies, have been
developing and implementing under section 1309 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21ST Century.
:
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to congressional committees with responsibilities for
highway issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration; and the Director, Office of Management
and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
In addition, this report will be available at no charge on our home
page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact either James Ratzenberger at ratzenbergerj@gao.gov or me at
siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512-2834.
Key contributors to this report were Jennifer Clayborne, Kenya Jones,
SaraAnn Moessbauer, James Ratzenberger, Deena Richart, and Matthew
Zisman.
Sincerely yours,
Katherine Siggerud
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by Katherine Siggerud:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To perform our work, we reviewed laws and regulations governing the
construction of federally funded highway projects. We discussed these
requirements, the time required to complete projects, and initiatives
to reduce this time with officials from the Federal Highway
Administration (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 time and initiatives to reduce the
completion times 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.
To determine transportation stakeholders' views on the most promising
approaches to substantially reduce project completion time for
federally funded highway projects, we reached out to 62 organizations
with a role or interest in highway project completion. (See table 4.)
Of these organizations, officials from 42 organizations agreed to
participate in structured interviews, including federal and state
agencies with responsibilities relating to the construction of
federally funded roads, transportation engineering organizations,
transportation professional associations, historic preservation
organizations, environmental organizations, tribal organizations and a
university. To identify the 62 organizations, we initially contacted
agencies and organizations that have primary responsibility for highway
project completion or that have been vocal on the issue. We asked these
officials to identify, for subsequent interviews, other agencies or
organizations undertaking or knowledgeable about promising approaches
for substantially reducing highway project completion time. We
continued to ask for names from the subsequent organizations until no
new names were identified.
Table 4: Organizations Contacted to Determine Most Promising Approaches
to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time:
Organization: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Organization: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Organization: American Concrete and Pavement Association.
Organization: American Council of Engineering Companies.
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance.
Organization: American Public Transportation Association.
Organization: American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
Organization: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Organization: Association of General Contractors.
Organization: California Department of Transportation.
Organization: Center for Transportation and the Environment (North
Carolina State University).
Organization: Construction Industry Institute.
Organization: Defenders of Wildlife.
Organization: Delaware Department of Transportation.
Organization: Endangered Species Coalition.
Organization: Environmental Council of the States.
Organization: Environmental Defense.
Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Historic Preservation.
Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Infrastructure.
Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Planning.
Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Right-of-Way.
Organization: Federal Highway Administration - Technical Modeling.
Organization: Florida Department of Transportation, State Highway
Engineer's Office.
Organization: Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of
Environment/Location.
Organization: Georgia Department of Transportation, Transportation
Planning, Data and Intermodal Development Division.
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering.
Organization: Georgia Regional Transportation Authority.
Organization: HDR, Inc.
Organization: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Organization: Kentucky Heritage Council.
Organization: Lafayette, Louisiana Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Organization: Maryland State Highway Administration, Enhancement
Program.
Organization: Maryland State Highway Administration, Project Planning
Division.
Organization: Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Organization: National Association of Development Organizations.
Organization: National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers.
Organization: National Coalition to Defend NEPA.
Organization: National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers.
Organization: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Organization: National Wildlife Federation.
Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council.
Organization: Navajo Nation, Historic Preservation Department.
Organization: New Hampshire Department of Transportation.
Organization: New Jersey Department of Transportation, Quality
Management Services.
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways (Pre-construction) and Planning and Environment Unit.
Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering
District 10.
Organization: Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage
Commission.
Organization: San Diego Association of Governments.
Organization: Sierra Club.
Organization: Smart Growth America.
Organization: South Carolina Department of Transportation.
Organization: Surface Transportation Policy Project.
Organization: Transportation Development Institute.
Organization: Texas A&M University.
Organization: Tribal Preservation Programs of the National Park
Service.
Organization: University of Utah.
Organization: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Organization: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington, NC District.
Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Organization: Vermont Division for Historic Preservation.
Organization: Washington Department of Transportation.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Using a structured interview, we asked knowledgeable officials at each
of the 42 organizations to provide information about the most promising
approaches for substantially reducing completion time for projects of
all types and complexities and in each project phase (i.e., planning,
preliminary engineering and environmental review, final design and
right-of-way acquisition, and construction). We also obtained
information from these contacts on opportunities to reduce project
completion time through administrative changes, changes in federal or
state law, improvement of staff skills, and improvements in
disseminating information about approaches to reduce project completion
time. For each approach cited as the most promising for substantially
reducing project completion time, we asked these officials to provide
information on: (1) the nature of the approach, (2) reason(s) why the
approach was taken, (3) agencies/organizations involved with the
approach, (4) size of the project, (5) changes to federal or state law
(if any) required for each approach, (6) expected/actual benefits, and
(7) methods (if any) for measuring these benefits. (See table 5 for the
structured interview questions.):
Table 5: Structured Interview Questions Used to Identify the Most
Promising Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time:
1. Please identify any initiatives your organization has taken to
expedite project delivery (e.g., earlier coordination between state
departments of transportation and environmental resource agencies;
historic preservation programmatic agreements; design/build
construction techniques). For each initiative, please provide the
following information: (1) description of initiative; (2) why
initiative was taken; (3) organizations participating in initiative;
(4) type of project to which initiative applies (size, complexity); (5)
project phase to which initiative applies; (6) whether this initiative
required any changes to federal or state law; (7) expected/actual
benefit of initiative; and (8) how benefit is measured.
2. Please identify any further opportunities that exist to measurably
reduce project delivery times through changes in federal or state law,
while keeping basic policies (e.g., metropolitan/statewide planning;
environmentally responsible projects) in place. For each initiative,
please provide the following information: (1) law that should be
changed; (2) why change is needed; (3) organizations affected by change
in law; (4) type of project to which initiative applies (size,
complexity); (5) project phase to which change in law applies; (6)
expected benefit of change in law; and (7) how benefit would be
measured.
3. Some have commented that highway oversight is historically focused
on engineering and contracting rather than oversight of management and
financial issues. Please discuss if this is the case and if any reforms
in this area are needed. Also, please identify any initiatives your
organization has taken that address human capital reform (e.g.,
refocusing staff efforts from oversight of engineering and contract
issues to management and financial issues) to improve project delivery.
For each initiative, please provide the following information: (1)
description of initiative; (2) why initiative was taken; (3)
organizations participating in initiative; (4) type of project to which
initiative applies (size, complexity); (5) project phase to which
initiative applies; (6) expected/actual benefit of initiative; and (7)
how benefit is measured.
4. How well is information about initiatives to improve project
delivery times shared among federal and state agencies? Do you have any
suggestions to improve the current practices? Please describe how your
organization shares what it has learned with others and how you learn
about initiatives that other organizations are taking by providing the
following: (1) method of dissemination/learning; (2) initiative to
which this applies; and (3) agencies involved.
5. Please identify any further opportunities that could be pursued to
expedite transportation project delivery. Please provide the following
information: (1) opportunity; (2) problem to be addressed; (3)
organizations affected; (4) project type to which opportunity applies
(size, complexity); (5) project phase to which opportunity applies; (6)
expected benefit of opportunity; and (7) how benefit would be
measured.
6. Are you aware of any promising initiatives that other organizations
are taking to improve highway project delivery times? If so, please
provide the following information: (1) organization; (2) nature of
initiative; (3) point of contact; (4) phone number; (5) email/web
address.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To determine which of the identified approaches hold the most promise
for substantially reducing highway project completion time, we compiled
a list of 49 approaches identified by the respondents and asked each of
the 42 officials we interviewed to rate the potential of each of the
approaches to reduce project completion time on a scale of 1 to
5.[Footnote 8] Thirty-three officials agreed to participate in this
aspect of our work. Of those not participating, officials declined for
a variety of reasons. We compiled these ratings and calculated an
average rating for each approach where at least 75 percent of the 33
officials provided a rating. We identified the most promising as those
with an average rating of 3.5 or higher. There were 13 approaches with
ratings of 3.5 or higher. None of the 13 most promising approaches were
rated by all 33 officials. Eleven of these 13 approaches were rated by
30 or more (91 percent) officials, while the remaining 2 approaches
were rated by 26 officials (79 percent). We did not attempt to
corroborate the need to implement these approaches or obtain details on
how they might be structured. In addition, we did not attempt to
determine how effective the promising approaches, where already
implemented, were in reducing highway project completion time.
We conducted our work from September 2002 through March 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Promising Approaches for Reducing Highway Project
Completion Time as Identified by Respondents:
Of the 34 approaches that were assessed by at least 75 percent of
respondents, 19 (56 percent) were rated on average as having moderate,
great, or very great potential to reduce highway project completion
time. (See table 6.) The remaining 15 approaches (44 percent) were
assessed as having, on average, some, little, or no potential to reduce
highway project completion time. Fewer than 75 percent of the
respondents provided an assessment for 15 other approaches, and we did
not report on these results.
Table 6: Promising Approaches to Reduce Project Completion Time
Identified and Rated by Respondents, by Average Rating:
Approach: Early partnership and coordination;
Description: All affected parties (e.g., federal government, state
government, tribal, public) with input into the project completion
process (1) collaborate early and throughout project planning so that
technical, environmental, policy, and program issues can be resolved in
a predictable and timely manner; and (2) develop collaborative work
plans that are comprehensive, realistic, and deliverable;
Number of respondents: 31; Average rating[A]: 4.5; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
90.3.
Approach: Programmatic agreements; Description: Use
programmatic agreements (i.e., between transportation and resource
agencies at the federal and/or state level) to review environmental
impact of routine projects or commonly occurring resource effects
(i.e., commonly encountered species, typical project types) or
delegation of authority (i.e., reviews from state historic preservation
agency to state department of transportation); Number of
respondents: 31; Average rating[A]: 4.0; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 67.7.
Approach: Revise section 4(f) process; Description:
Use the protections found in section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act instead of the protections found in section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act for consideration of historic
properties and other historic resources; Number of
respondents: 30; Average rating[A]: 4.0; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 70.0.
Approach: Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes; Description: Unify
the Clean Water Act section 404 permit and NEPA environmental review
processes to ensure that projects that pass the NEPA review process
also comply with section 404; Number of respondents: 26;
Average rating[A]: 3.7; Percent of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 57.7.
Approach: Training; Description: Determine agency
staff skill set and establish training programs to eliminate knowledge
shortfalls among transportation staff on requirements to complete all
phases of highway projects. Ensure that new recruits to the
transportation field have orientation and training for all phases of
project completion; Number of respondents: 32; Average
rating[A]: 3.7; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: 53.1.
Approach: Establish time frames for NEPA process;
Description: Provide specific time frames for resource agencies to
respond to environmental documents and produce any needed analyses.
Reduce the 6-year time frame for lawsuits filed under NEPA;
Number of respondents: 30; Average rating[A]: 3.6; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
60.0.
Approach: Interagency funding agreements;
Description: State departments of transportation fund additional staff
at state or federal resource agencies. Work of funded staff must have a
measurable impact in reducing time to complete environmental reviews on
transportation projects; Number of respondents: 32;
Average rating[A]: 3.6; Percent of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 59.4.
Approach: Preliminary environmental assessment reports;
Description: Provide information on any conditions and constraints
early in the process, prior to programming project cost and schedule.
Reports are based on a field visit, literature search, geographic
information systems, and photo log review to include a work plan for
the subsequent environmental analysis for NEPA; Number of
respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 3.6; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 53.1.
Approach: Establish project milestones and performance
monitoring systems; Description: Specify key dates, such as
when final design must be completed, when the contract is let, and when
construction must conclude, and manage the project to meet the dates.
Use project-scheduling software available off the shelf that indicates
where project delays occur as well as what is ahead of schedule:
Number of respondents: 31; Average rating[A]: 3.6; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
51.6.
Approach: Context sensitive design; Description:
Projects must be designed to consider their environmental and social
context so that projects meet the needs of the communities. These
factors are incorporated into the transportation planning process;
Number of respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 3.5; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
50.0.
Approach: Geographic information systems;
Description: Use of data collected by various federal and state
resource agencies to identify environmental and historic issues early
during environmental review, determine alignments that minimize adverse
impacts, and support integrated interagency review; Number of
respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 3.5; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 62.5.
Approach: Public information meetings; Description:
Hold public meetings early and often to provide information on projects
that are planned or underway; Number of respondents: 32;
Average rating[A]: 3.5; Percent of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 50.0.
Approach: Wetlands banking; Description: Blanket
agreements between state departments of transportation and wetland
permitting agencies to create large areas of wetlands rather than small
wetlands at each construction site; Number of respondents: 26;
Average rating[A]: 3.5; Percent of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 46.2.
Approach: Partner with groups; Description:
Identify groups that have developed best practices, or offer technical
expertise, to ensure that information is shared in order to expedite
project completion; Number of respondents: 31; Average
rating[A]: 3.3; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: 41.9.
Approach: Acculturation; Description: Work to
achieve recognition in transportation staff of the inherent benefits of
environmentally sound projects; work to achieve recognition of the
value of transportation projects on behalf of resource agencies:
Number of respondents: 31; Average rating[A]: 3.3; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
41.9.
Approach: Formal elevation process; Description:
Formalized process in which resource agencies elevate unresolved issues
through the chain of command, with the final step being senior
management; Number of respondents: 32; Average
rating[A]: 3.2; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: 46.9.
Approach: Internet; Description: Use the internet
to provide technical training and reference materials. Use the internet
to allow access to agency guidance materials, regulations, and federal
and state laws; Number of respondents: 32; Average
rating[A]: 3.0; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: 34.4.
Approach: Allow early right-of-way acquisition;
Description: To save time and money associated with relocation, acquire
potential project right-of-way during project design; Number
of respondents: 29; Average rating[A]: 3.0; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
34.5.
Approach: Biennial reviews; Description: Conduct
biennial reviews by state transportation agencies to help identify
bottlenecks; Number of respondents: 29; Average
rating[A]: 3.0; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: 31.0.
Approach: National conferences; Description: Hold
national conferences to bring practitioners and other stakeholders
together to share information; Number of respondents: 31;
Average rating[A]: 2.9; Percent of respondents indicating approach
has great or very great potential: 25.8.
Approach: Environmental information center;
Description: Fund and operate a central information storehouse for
transportation and resource agencies; Number of respondents:
31; Average rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 22.6.
Approach: Aerial surveying and imaging technology;
Description: Highly accurate digital terrain data models and maps can
become available early in project design with substantially reduced
time, effort, and expense compared with only using ground surveys.
Contractors can manage the earthwork of a project with significant
precision; Number of respondents: 28; Average rating[A]:
2.8; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 25.0.
Approach: Hire consultants or contractors;
Description: Consultants or contractors provide technical analyses
instead of agency staff who instead focus on project management;
Number of respondents: 27; Average rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
25.9.
Approach: State funding of historic preservation activities;
Description: State governments provide funds for historic
preservation activities outside the federal State Historic Preservation
Officers program; Number of respondents: 30; Average
rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: 33.3.
Approach: Metropolitan capacity building;
Description: Work to improve the technical skills of metropolitan
planning organizations so that planning can focus on policy decisions
rather than technical and administrative issues; Number of
respondents: 26; Average rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 38.5.
Approach: Environmental compliance mitigation systems;
Description: Provide a system to ensure that mitigation measures
are carried out as needed and specified; Number of
respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 2.8; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 28.1.
Approach: Single agency point of contact;
Description: Rather than have multiple contacts for members of the
public, have one single contact, reducing confusion, and communication
delays; Number of respondents: 30; Average rating[A]:
2.7; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 16.7.
Approach: Videotaped guidance on promising approaches;
Description: Videotaped presentations on methods to reduce project
completion time; Number of respondents: 31; Average
rating[A]: 2.7; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: 19.4.
Approach: Travel model improvement; Description:
Improve transportation modeling to more accurately portray traffic
patterns and growth; Number of respondents: 28; Average
rating[A]: 2.6; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: 25.0.
Approach: Awards programs to recognize agency achievements;
Description: Design a national awards program to provide
recognition for departments of transportation and resource agencies for
innovative projects and leadership; Number of respondents: 30;
Average rating[A]: 2.5; Percent of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 13.3.
Approach: Regular publications; Description:
Organize and distribute publications on a regular basis (i.e., weekly
newsletters, monthly magazines, and quarterly web magazines);
Number of respondents: 32; Average rating[A]: 2.5; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
25.0.
Approach: Peer reviews; Description: Federal
transportation officials provide state transportation officials with
recommendations on revising existing specifications or procedures.
Surveys of peers allow transportation and resource agency officials to
determine performance relative to peers; Number of
respondents: 30; Average rating[A]: 2.4; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 6.7.
Approach: Infer the presence of endangered species;
Description: Proceed under the assumption that endangered species are
present at a project site, reducing the likelihood of later delay and
ultimately saving costs; Number of respondents: 30;
Average rating[A]: 2.4; Percent of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 6.7.
Approach: Professional organization membership;
Description: Participation in engineering, accounting, finance,
management, and other discipline organizations; Number of
respondents: 29; Average rating[A]: 2.2; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 17.2.
Approach: Subsurface utility engineering;
Description: Provides accurate mapping of existing underground
utilities during the project design process using geophysics, surveying
and civil engineering rather than determining utility locations later
during the construction phase; Number of respondents: 24;
Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach
has great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: Clarify role of metropolitan planning
organizations; Description: Clarify laws to reduce confusion
of roles between state departments of transportation and metropolitan
planning organizations for creating and implementing transportation
plans; Number of respondents: 24; Average rating[A]:
[B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: [B].
Approach: Incentive/disincentive construction contracting;
Description: Giving the contractor a financial incentive for
every day that the contract is completed early and a financial
disincentive for failure to complete a project on time; Number
of respondents: 23; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: Use consultants or contractors;
Description: Expedite the procurement process for appraisal services
and reduce fees and costs; Number of respondents: 22;
Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: Design build contracting; Description:
One entity, the design-builder, forges a single contract with the state
transportation agency to provide for architectural and engineering
design and construction services; Number of respondents: 21; :
Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach
has great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: A + B bidding for construction contracts;
Description: Involves cost and time in the low bid determination.
Submitted bids consist of dollar amount of all work to be performed, as
well as total number of calendar days required to complete the
project; Number of respondents: 21; Average rating[A]:
[B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: [B].
Approach: Advanced clearing and grubbing contracts;
Description: Contract for clearing vegetation and removing roots and
stumps (grubbing) in the project right-of-way in advance of the
project; Number of respondents: 21; Average rating[A]:
[B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: [B].
Approach: Change control policy for construction contracts;
Description: Establish procedures to monitor and limit
contractor change orders; Number of respondents: 21;
Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: Lane rental construction contracts;
Description: Assess the contractor a fee for each day of lane closure
in excess of the number of total lane rental days originally bid by the
contractor; Number of respondents: 20; Average
rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: [B].
Approach: Lump sum construction contracts;
Description: Contractor submits a lump sum price to complete a project
as opposed to bidding on individual items; Number of
respondents: 20; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: Utility relocation contracts;
Description: Include utility relocation in construction contract;
Number of respondents: 20; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: Indefinite quantity,; indefinite completion
contracting; Description: Contractors bid on work items with
the location to be determined under future work orders (e.g., for
installation of traffic signals on a citywide, or areawide basis);
Number of respondents: 19; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: Noncost selection factor contracting;
Description: Allow contracts to consider such factors as previous work
quality, rather than selecting the lowest bidder; Number of
respondents: 19; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: [B].
Approach: System integrator contracts; Description:
Allow contractors to serve as the construction manager, including
advertising, letting and awarding contracts using state and federal
acquisition guidelines. In addition to contract management, the
contractor will perform project supervision and system integration;
Number of respondents: 18; Average rating[A]: [B]; Percent
of respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential:
[B].
Approach: Bid averaging method of contracting;
Description: Once a minimum number of bids are received, state
determines the average bid and selects contractor whose bid is closest
to the average; Number of respondents: 16; Average
rating[A]: [B]; Percent of respondents indicating approach has great or
very great potential: [B].
Source: GAO.
[A] Respondents rated each approach's potential for reducing project
completion time using the following scale: 1= little to no potential to
reduce project completion time; 2= some potential to reduce project
completion time; 3= moderate potential to reduce project completion
time; 4= great potential to reduce project completion time; 5= very
great potential to reduce project completion time. Respondents could
also tell us that they did not know or had no basis to judge.
[B] No statistic is reported because less than 75 percent of the 33
respondents provided a rating for this approach.
[End of table]
In some cases, respondents with similar primary interests or
responsibilities rated approaches similarly; in other cases, their
views diverged. (See table 7; approaches in bold are the 13 approaches
that respondents rated most highly overall.):
Table 7: Views on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time
Often Varied by Respondent Affiliation:
Approach:
Early partnership and coordination; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 17; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 2; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 11; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 0;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 0.
Establish time frames for NEPA process; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 16; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 3; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 4.
Revise section 4(f); Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 16; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 0; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 2.
Programmatic agreements; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 14; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 1; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 7; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 0.
Establish project milestones and performance monitoring systems; Views
among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has great or very great potential: 12; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 8; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 0; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 4.
Formal elevation process; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 12; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 4; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 6.
Unify Clean Water Act section 404 and NEPA processes; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 12; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1.
Geographic information systems; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 6; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.0: 4: 2: 0: 4: 6: 1: 1.
Wetlands banking; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 10;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 0; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 2.
Training; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 10;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has moderate potential: 8; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 2; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 7; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 0.
Preliminary environmental assessment reports; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 9; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 4; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 8; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1.
Interagency funding agreements; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 9; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 6; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1.
Allow early right-of-way acquisition; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 8; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 9; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 2; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 0;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 8.
Partner with groups; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 8; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 4; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 6;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1.
Public information meetings; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 8; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 8;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 4; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 8; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1.
Biennial reviews; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 7; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 8; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 4.
Hire consultants or contractors; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 6;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 7; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 1; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 4.
Context sensitive design; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 9;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 5; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 10; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1.
National conferences; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 10; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 3.
Internet; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 5;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has moderate potential: 8; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 7; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 3.
Metropolitan capacity building; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 11; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 0.
Acculturation; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 8; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 7; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 9; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1.
Single agency point of contact; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 9;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 7; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 1; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 6.
Environmental compliance mitigation systems; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 4; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 5; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 11; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 3.
Aerial surveying and imaging technology; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 8; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 2.
State funding of historic preservation activities; Views among agencies
or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 6; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 10; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 7; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 2.
Professional organization membership; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 5; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 11; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 7.
Environmental information center; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 8;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 9; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 4; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 2.
Video; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with
funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has moderate potential: 6; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 11; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 5;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 3.
Regular publications; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very great
potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing,
or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 13; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 5; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 1;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 6.
Awards program to recognize agency achievements; Views among agencies
or associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 7; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 10; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 6;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 3.
Infer the presence of endangered species; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has great or very great potential: 2; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has moderate potential: 5; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 13; [Empty]; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 3; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 3;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 3.
Travel model improvement; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway
projects: Number of respondents indicating approach has great or very
great potential: 1; Views among agencies or associations primarily
affiliated with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects:
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 6;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has no to some potential: 12; [Empty]; Views among
agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 6; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 2;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 1.
Peer reviews; Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated
with funding, managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of
respondents indicating approach has great or very great potential: 1;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with funding,
managing, or constructing highway projects: Number of respondents
indicating approach has moderate potential: 9; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with funding, managing, or
constructing highway projects: Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 10; Views among agencies or
associations primarily affiliated with natural or historic
environmental issues: Number of respondents indicating approach has
great or very great potential: 1; Views among agencies or associations
primarily affiliated with natural or historic environmental issues.
Number of respondents indicating approach has moderate potential: 4;
Views among agencies or associations primarily affiliated with natural
or historic environmental issues.Number of respondents indicating
approach has no to some potential: 5.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Includes the 34 approaches where more than 75 percent of the 33
respondents rated an approach.
The table is ordered from most popular to least popular among
respondents with primary responsibilities for or interests in funding
or constructing a highway project to better show similarities and
differences in rating.
[End of table]
(542007):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Two of the 33 respondents did not provide a rating for this
approach.
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary
Information on the Timely Completion of Highway Construction Projects,
GAO-02-1067T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002).
[3] Any transportation project that involves discharge of dredged or
fill material to navigable waters, including certain wetlands, requires
a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The permit review may require mitigation of project
impacts through specific measures to minimize or avoid damage to
wetlands and compensate for unavoidable impacts.
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act applies to project
use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation areas or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or public or private land of an historic
site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the
federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park,
recreation areas refuge, or site). Property for which section 4(f) is
applicable can be approved for use of a transportation program or
project only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using
that land, and the program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl
refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires
federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings
on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. Historic properties
are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic
Places or that meet the criteria for the National Register.
[4] Acculturation, in part, is working to achieve recognition by
transportation staff of the inherent benefits of environmentally sound
projects and vice versa. See table 6 in app. II for a description of
these approaches.
[5] GAO-02-1067T.
[6] FHWA requires that, during statewide transportation planning, state
officials proactively provide the public with complete information,
timely public notice, full public access to decisions, and
opportunities for early and continuing involvement.
[7] We did not ask the respondents to identify specific areas where
training would be beneficial.
[8] 1=little to no potential to reduce project completion time; 2=some
potential to reduce project completion time; 3=moderate potential to
reduce project completion time; 4=great potential to reduce project
completion time; 5=very great potential to reduce project completion
time. Respondents could also indicate whether they did not know or had
no basis to judge.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: