Safe Routes to School
Progress in Implementing the Program, but a Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate Program Outcomes Is Needed
Gao ID: GAO-08-789 July 31, 2008
In August 2005, Congress established the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program primarily to encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. GAO was asked to determine (1) the steps the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and states have taken to implement the program, (2) the extent to which FHWA and states have evaluated the results of the program, and (3) how the program is related to other surface transportation programs and some considerations for future reauthorization. GAO reviewed statutes, regulations, and guidance; analyzed program obligation data and funds awarded by states; and interviewed officials with FHWA, state departments of transportation, and local grant recipients.
FHWA and the states have implemented key aspects of the SRTS program. FHWA established a clearinghouse to provide technical assistance for SRTS programs and a national task force to study and develop a strategy for advancing SRTS programs nationwide. It also provided an interim report to Congress on its progress and developed program guidance that provides states with flexibility in implementing their SRTS programs. Although state-level implementation varies, states have made progress in implementing the program. Approximately 2,700 schools nationwide are participating in the program. As of March 31, 2008, states obligated almost $75 million in SRTS funding or approximately 18 percent of the total amount apportioned by FHWA since September 2005. FHWA, in collaboration with the clearinghouse and the national task force, has taken significant steps to develop a framework for evaluating SRTS program outcomes, including developing standardized data collection forms. However, FHWA lacks a comprehensive plan to monitor and evaluate the full range of SRTS program outcomes. FHWA requests, but does not require states to develop and report information on program results. The Department of Transportation (DOT) could require states to develop and report such information by including language in its grant agreements. The Government Performance and Results Act requires agencies to measure performance toward the achievement of program goals and objectives. The clearinghouse has made an initial effort to talk with key stakeholders, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about appropriate measures for health and environmental outcomes, but additional work is needed to determine the feasibility of developing these outcome measures. The SRTS program broadens the federal transportation role in that it addresses concerns about bicycle and pedestrian safety of students, childhood obesity and inactivity, and traffic and environmental problems in the vicinity of schools, rather than primarily addressing broader concerns about the condition of surface transportation infrastructure or highway safety. Also, we note that while most federal funds for federal highway projects require a 20 percent match from state and local governments, a 100 percent federal share is established for SRTS projects or activities. GAO has previously reported that grants with federal matching requirements may promote relatively more state and local spending than nonmatching grants. Finally, the SRTS program incorporates some of GAO's principles for re-examining federal programs--such as sharing best practices--but the program has had more limited success in implementing performance accountability.
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-08-789, Safe Routes to School: Progress in Implementing the Program, but a Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate Program Outcomes Is Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-789
entitled 'Safe Routes To School: Progress in Implementing the Program,
but a Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate Program Outcomes Is Needed' which
was released on July 31, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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 Member, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2008:
Safe Routes To School:
Progress in Implementing the Program, but a Comprehensive Plan to
Evaluate Program Outcomes Is Needed:
GAO-08-789:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-789, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In August 2005, Congress established the Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
program primarily to encourage children to walk and bicycle to school.
GAO was asked to determine (1) the steps the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and states have taken to implement the program,
(2) the extent to which FHWA and states have evaluated the results of
the program, and (3) how the program is related to other surface
transportation programs and some considerations for future
reauthorization. GAO reviewed statutes, regulations, and guidance;
analyzed program obligation data and funds awarded by states; and
interviewed officials with FHWA, state departments of transportation,
and local grant recipients.
What GAO Found:
FHWA and the states have implemented key aspects of the SRTS program.
FHWA established a clearinghouse to provide technical assistance for
SRTS programs and a national task force to study and develop a strategy
for advancing SRTS programs nationwide. It also provided an interim
report to Congress on its progress and developed program guidance that
provides states with flexibility in implementing their SRTS programs.
Although state-level implementation varies, states have made progress
in implementing the program. Approximately 2,700 schools nationwide are
participating in the program. As of March 31, 2008, states obligated
almost $75 million in SRTS funding or approximately 18 percent of the
total amount apportioned by FHWA since September 2005.
FHWA, in collaboration with the clearinghouse and the national task
force, has taken significant steps to develop a framework for
evaluating SRTS program outcomes, including developing standardized
data collection forms. However, FHWA lacks a comprehensive plan to
monitor and evaluate the full range of SRTS program outcomes. FHWA
requests, but does not require states to develop and report information
on program results. The Department of Transportation (DOT) could
require states to develop and report such information by including
language in its grant agreements. The Government Performance and
Results Act requires agencies to measure performance toward the
achievement of program goals and objectives. The clearinghouse has made
an initial effort to talk with key stakeholders, including the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), about appropriate measures for health and
environmental outcomes, but additional work is needed to determine the
feasibility of developing these outcome measures.
The SRTS program broadens the federal transportation role in that it
addresses concerns about bicycle and pedestrian safety of students,
childhood obesity and inactivity, and traffic and environmental
problems in the vicinity of schools, rather than primarily addressing
broader concerns about the condition of surface transportation
infrastructure or highway safety. Also, we note that while most federal
funds for federal highway projects require a 20 percent match from
state and local governments, a 100 percent federal share is established
for SRTS projects or activities. GAO has previously reported that
grants with federal matching requirements may promote relatively more
state and local spending than nonmatching grants. Finally, the SRTS
program incorporates some of GAO‘s principles for re-examining federal
programs”such as sharing best practices”but the program has had more
limited success in implementing performance accountability.
What GAO Recommends:
To enhance its oversight of the SRTS program, GAO is recommending that
DOT (1) develop a comprehensive plan to monitor and evaluate the
program and (2) formalize its efforts to work jointly with CDC and EPA
in developing health and environmental outcome measures. To improve the
effectiveness of the federal investment in the program, Congress should
consider requiring a state or local match that will help encourage
additional state and local investment in SRTS activities. DOT officials
generally agreed with GAO‘s findings and said they are considering the
recommendations, and they provided technical clarifications, which are
incorporated as appropriate.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-789]. For more
information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or
siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
FHWA and the States Have Taken Steps to Implement Key Aspects of the
SRTS Program:
Significant Evaluation Efforts Have Been Made, but FHWA and States Do
Not Have a Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate the Program:
SRTS Program Broadens Federal Transportation Role and Overlaps with
Other Surface Transportation Programs, but Has Successfully Applied
Some Criteria for Addressing 21st Century Challenges:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: SRTS Apportionments, by Fiscal Year:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Status of FHWA's Implementation of Key SAFETEA-LU Requirements
for SRTS:
Table 2: State Progress in Implementing SRTS Programs through March 31,
2008:
Table 3: Total SRTS Funding Awarded by States, by Fiscal Year:
Table 4: Total SRTS Funding Apportioned, Obligated, Unobligated, and
Obligation Rate, by Fiscal Year:
Table 5: Description of Selected Program Outcomes Identified by
National Stakeholders:
Table 6: Selected Federal SRTS Activities to Date in Visited States and
Local Grant Recipients:
Table 7: Key Challenges to Program Implementation and Overall Program
Effectiveness Identified by National, State, and Local Stakeholders:
Figures:
Figure 1: Program Administration Characteristics of States We Visited
or Interviewed:
Figure 2: Picture of Speed Feedback Sign:
Abbreviations:
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
SRTS: Safe Routes to School:
SR2S: California State-Legislated Safe Routes to School Program:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 31, 2008:
The Honorable James Inhofe:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Inhofe:
The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established the federal Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) program, the first Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) program designed primarily to encourage children
to walk and bicycle to school. According to FHWA, in 1969,
approximately 50 percent of U.S. children walked or rode bicycles to
school, but by 2001, only about 15 percent of students did so.
Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates
that 20 percent of children and youth in the United States will be
obese by 2010. Moreover, data from local communities show that
approximately 20 percent of morning traffic can be generated by parents
driving their children to school, and according to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2005, motor vehicle traffic
crashes were the leading cause of death for children ages 3 through 6
and 8 and over. Although the National Research Council's Transportation
Research Board reports that transportation by school bus is the safest
mode of school travel, it has also suggested that steps can be taken to
improve the safety of students who walk or bicycle to school.
Congress mandated the establishment of the SRTS program in August 2005
to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to
walk and bicycle to school; make bicycling and walking to school a
safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby
encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; and
facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects
and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel
consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. FHWA is
responsible for administering the program,[Footnote 1] which provides
$612 million over 5 years to state Departments of Transportation to
implement state SRTS programs and for infrastructure and
noninfrastructure projects benefiting school children in kindergarten
through eighth grade.[Footnote 2] States are responsible for developing
their own program administration structure and process for soliciting
and selecting SRTS projects and activities.[Footnote 3] As you
requested, this report discusses (1) the steps FHWA and states[Footnote
4] have taken to implement the SRTS program, (2) the extent to which
FHWA and states have evaluated the results of the SRTS program, and (3)
how the SRTS program is related to other surface transportation
programs and some considerations for the future reauthorization of
funding for the SRTS and other surface transportation programs.
To address the first two objectives related to the SRTS program
implementation and evaluation, we reviewed the legislative history of
the federal SRTS program and conducted a literature review of key
health, safety, and environmental concerns the program is intended to
address, including the relative risks of the available options for
transporting children to and from school. We reviewed and analyzed key
documents and data, including FHWA program guidance, the draft report
from the National Safe Routes to School Task Force (i.e., the national
task force), FHWA's reports that track obligated SRTS funds,[Footnote
5] SRTS tracking reports from the National Center for Safe Routes to
Schools (i.e., the clearinghouse) that contain information on SRTS
amounts awarded by states[Footnote 6] and the number of participating
schools, and other information on the program. To assess the
reliability of FHWA's data on SRTS funding apportionments and
obligations and the data in the tracking reports from the
clearinghouse, we reviewed related documentation and interviewed
knowledgeable agency officials about the quality of the data. As a
result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. In addition, we interviewed officials from
FHWA; the clearinghouse; the national task force; and numerous national
stakeholders familiar with health, safety, and environmental concerns
and SRTS program design and implementation at the national level.
Finally, we conducted four site visits--involving three states
(California, Florida, and South Dakota) and the District of
Columbia[Footnote 7]--where we interviewed FHWA division officials,
state officials, local grant recipients, and state and local level
stakeholders and collected in-depth information to obtain views on the
program's design, implementation, and results to date as applicable. To
select states, we reviewed data on the coordinator status, application
cycles, and number of local SRTS projects funded as of June 2007. To
address the third objective regarding how the SRTS program relates to
other surface transportation programs and some considerations for
reauthorization, we assessed the extent to which the SRTS program has
addressed several of the criteria and principles that we have developed
in our prior work--including our reports on 21st century challenges--
for re-examining government transportation programs. A more detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology appears in appendix I.
We performed our review from August 2007 to July 2008 in accordance
with generally accepted governmental auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
FHWA and the states have taken steps to implement the key aspects of
the SRTS program and states have made some progress in awarding grants.
As required by SAFETEA-LU, FHWA has established a clearinghouse to
develop and disseminate information and provide technical assistance
for state and local SRTS programs and a national task force to study
and develop a strategy for advancing state and local SRTS programs
nationwide. It has also provided an interim report to Congress on its
progress and developed program guidance that provides states with
flexibility in implementing their SRTS programs. Although state-level
implementation varies, states have made progress in implementing the
program. For example, all states have SRTS program coordinators, all
but one state has started the process of awarding funds to grantees,
and approximately 2,700 schools nationwide are participating in the
program. In addition, the states awarded grants totaling about $222
million or 53 percent of SRTS funding apportioned by FHWA through March
31, 2008. With respect to spending these funds, states must take
several steps before obligating awarded funds. As of March 31, 2008,
states obligated almost $75 million in SRTS funding or approximately 18
percent of the total amount apportioned by FHWA since the first
apportionment in September 2005. In awarding SRTS grants, states have
funded activities such as sidewalk installation, sidewalk gap closures,
bicycle and pedestrian education programs, and increased traffic
enforcement in school zones.
FHWA, in collaboration with the clearinghouse and the national task
force, has taken significant steps to develop a framework for
evaluating SRTS program outcomes, including developing standardized
data collection forms and a six-step process to assist state and local
SRTS programs in preparing evaluation plans. However, these efforts
focus on measuring program participation and potential safety outcomes
and, therefore, do not fully address the evaluation of the multiple
program purposes and potential outcomes of SRTS. FHWA recommends that
states evaluate their SRTS programs, but it does not require them to do
so. FHWA's program guidance requests that states gather and provide
information to FHWA on the evaluation of safety benefits, behavioral
changes, and other potential benefits including improved student
health, improved air quality, decreased traffic congestion, and others.
According to FHWA officials, they did not require states to evaluate
their SRTS programs because they believed they lacked the statutory
authority to do so. Nevertheless, we believe that the Department of
Transportation (DOT) may require states to collect and report data
relevant for evaluating the program and include that requirement in its
agreements with grantees. The authority to make a grant implies
authority to do those things that are reasonably required to administer
the grant, including the duty to ensure that the grant funds are
effectively used to carry out the purpose of the grant. This duty, in
turn, may require the collection of data to measure performance. The
Government Performance Results Act requires agencies to measure
performance toward the achievement of program goals and objectives.
Performance data allow agencies to share effective approaches,
recognize problems, look for solutions, and develop ways to improve
results. While it may be too early in the program to determine whether
the voluntary nature of SRTS's evaluation component will provide a
comprehensive picture of national SRTS results, officials from both
FHWA and the clearinghouse told us they do not believe that the lack of
an evaluation requirement will hinder evaluation efforts. Some
stakeholders, however, raised concerns about the lack of an evaluation
requirement. For example, the director of the Safe Routes to School
National Partnership--a network of nonprofit organizations, government
agencies, schools, and professionals working to advance the SRTS
movement in the United States--told us that gauging the performance of
a $612 million program is important and will require data and analysis.
While FHWA's guidance recommends that states gather and provide
information on potential health and environmental outcomes, FHWA and
the clearinghouse have not developed guidance and tools that states and
local programs could use to assess those outcomes. The clearinghouse's
director said the clearinghouse has engaged in initial discussions with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about developing appropriate
outcome measures. Finally, program outcomes to date are limited, in
part, because the SRTS program is in its early stages of
implementation, but entities we interviewed were able to identify
challenges to program implementation and program effectiveness. To
improve DOT's ability to evaluate SRTS program outcomes, we are
recommending that DOT (1) develop a comprehensive plan to monitor and
evaluate the SRTS program and (2) formalize its efforts to work jointly
with the clearinghouse, CDC, and EPA to explore the feasibility of
developing health and environmental outcome measures. DOT is
considering these recommendations.
The SRTS program broadens the federal transportation role in that it is
the first[Footnote 8] surface transportation program designed to
address concerns about bicycle and pedestrian safety of children
traveling to and from school, childhood obesity and inactivity, and
traffic and environmental problems in the vicinity of schools, rather
than primarily to address broader concerns about the condition of
surface transportation infrastructure or highway safety. SRTS funding
constitutes less than 1 percent of total highway funding authorized by
SAFETEA-LU, although some SRTS activities can also be funded under a
broad array of other surface transportation programs. While most
federal funds for highway projects require a 20 percent match from
state and local governments, SAFETEA-LU established a 100 percent
federal share for SRTS projects or activities. We have previously
reported that grants with federal matching requirements may promote
relatively more state and local spending than nonmatching grants, thus
reducing the likelihood that states will use the federal funds to
replace, rather than supplement, their own spending.[Footnote 9] The
national task force is considering including a recommendation in its
forthcoming report that future SRTS legislation allow matching funds
for infrastructure projects to stimulate state and local spending,
while maintaining the 100 percent funding requirement for
infrastructure projects that serve disadvantaged schools (following
established guidelines for schools that participate in free and reduced
lunch programs) or schools that are located in areas where child
pedestrians are at a higher risk of deaths and injuries. Accordingly,
we have included a matter for consideration by Congress in this report
suggesting that Congress consider requiring a state or local match for
the SRTS program that will improve the ability of the program to
encourage state and local investments in SRTS activities while
protecting low-income communities from being at a disadvantage when
competing for SRTS funds. Finally, as Congress prepares for the
reauthorization of surface transportation programs in 2009, we note
that transportation stakeholders have expressed various views about the
extent to which programs, such as SRTS, which are designed in part to
address nontransportation goals, should be funded in the upcoming
reauthorization. We have developed and reported criteria and principles
for re-examining federal programs that can assist congressional
decision makers and others in assessing the relative contributions of
transportation programs that may expand the federal transportation role
beyond those programs that represent traditional transportation
goals.[Footnote 10] Our work on the SRTS program shows that it
addresses some of the criteria and principles, such as developing
coordinated solutions to problems and sharing best practices, although,
as noted above, the program has made limited progress in developing and
implementing a framework for evaluating its performance outcomes which
could limit FHWA's ability to report on how well the SRTS program is
meetings its national goals and objectives.
Background:
Prior to the establishment of the federal SRTS program, some states
began implementing safe routes to schools programs in the late 1990's
in response to concerns that declining rates of children walking and
bicycling to school adversely affected children's health, child
pedestrian and bicycle safety, and air quality around schools. In
August 2000, NHTSA implemented two pilot SRTS projects, the Marin
County Bicycle Coalition and Walk Boston. Based on the experiences of
the pilot projects and other local programs, NHTSA created a toolkit
for communities to develop SRTS programs.
The federal SRTS program is also intended to address health, safety,
and environmental concerns such as childhood obesity, bicycle and
pedestrian safety while traveling to and from school, and air pollution
and congestion around schools. Recent research shows that children are
experiencing illness and other health problems associated with obesity,
including Type II diabetes and hypertension,[Footnote 11] and that
obesity is on the rise due in part to a lack of physical activity. In
an October 2005 report, we concluded that multiple factors affecting
physical activity may contribute to childhood obesity.[Footnote 12]
Additional research suggests that organizations and individuals can
employ measures to mitigate the safety risks when walking or biking to
school. In its January 2007 report on traffic safety countermeasures,
NHTSA cited a study in New Zealand which found that when parents walked
children to and from school, the risk of injury was only 36 percent of
the risk of unaccompanied children.[Footnote 13] Other research also
suggests that policies that increase the number of people walking or
bicycling appear to be an effective way of improving the safety of
people walking or bicycling because motorists adjust their behavior in
the presence of multiple persons walking or bicycling.[Footnote 14]
Studies have also shown that efforts to reduce traffic congestion near
schools may affect air quality and health. FHWA has reported that to
the extent that bicycling and walking displace motor vehicle trips,
they reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the associated pollution
and other environmental damage.[Footnote 15] In addition, a study by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that efforts to
reduce downtown traffic congestion in Atlanta during the Olympic Games
resulted in decreased traffic density, ozone concentrations, and asthma
acute care events.[Footnote 16]
SAFETEA-LU included several key requirements for the SRTS program. For
example, SAFETEA-LU required FHWA to establish a national safe routes
to school clearinghouse to develop and disseminate information and
provide technical assistance, establish a national safe routes to
school task force to study and develop a strategy for advancing safe
routes to school programs nationwide, and submit a report to Congress
by the task force describing the results of its study. The legislation
also required each participating state to hire a full-time SRTS
coordinator. FHWA requested that each state have a coordinator in place
by December 31, 2005. Each state is also responsible for developing its
own policies and procedures for soliciting and selecting projects for
SRTS funding. SRTS programs can be implemented at different levels--at
a single school, a cluster of schools, on a school system or regionwide
basis, or in some cases, on a statewide level. In its program guidance,
FHWA recommends SRTS efforts incorporate, either directly or
indirectly, five components. These components are commonly referred to
as the "five 'E's" and include: engineering (creating physical
improvements); education (teaching children, parents, and the community
about safe walking and bicycling behavior, expectations of safe driver
behavior around schools, and safety skills for walking and bicycling);
enforcement (ensuring traffic laws are obeyed); encouragement
(promoting walking and bicycling); and evaluation (monitoring and
documenting outcomes and trends).
FHWA provides SRTS funds to each state by formula based on the state's
percentage of the national total of school-aged children in
kindergarten through eighth grade, with a minimum allocation of $1
million in any fiscal year (see app. II for the projected funding by
state).[Footnote 17] The funds are not transferable, and they remain
available until expended. The SRTS program is a reimbursement program;
only costs incurred by states and local grant recipients after FHWA
project approval are eligible for reimbursement. The federal share of
the cost of a project or activity is 100 percent and states are not
allowed to require a local match.
Eligible activities for funding under SRTS include infrastructure and
noninfrastructure projects. SAFETEA-LU defined infrastructure projects
as those that will substantially improve the ability of students to
walk and bicycle to school, including sidewalk improvements, traffic
calming and speed reduction improvements, pedestrian and bicycle
crossing improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, and traffic diversion improvements in the
vicinity of schools. Construction, capital improvements, and traffic
education and traffic enforcement activities must take place within
approximately 2 miles of a primary or middle school (kindergarten
through eighth grade). SAFETEA-LU defined eligible noninfrastructure
activities as those that encourage walking and biking to school,
including public awareness campaigns; provide traffic education and
enforcement in the vicinity of schools; and train managers and
volunteers of safe routes to school programs. States must spend a
minimum of 10 percent on noninfrastructure activities with a maximum of
30 percent.
Under SAFETEA-LU, SRTS infrastructure projects and noninfrastructure
activities are subject to applicable Federal-Aid Highway
Program[Footnote 18] requirements in chapter 1 of title 23, including
establishing project agreements between the state and the grantee and
obtaining project approval from FHWA prior to incurring costs.[Footnote
19] In addition, infrastructure projects under the SRTS program must
comply with Davis Bacon prevailing wage rates.[Footnote 20]
Finally, our series of reports on 21st Century Challenges suggest
criteria for re-examining all federal programs and commitments--
including SRTS and other transportation programs--to assist in setting
priorities and linking resources to results.[Footnote 21]
These criteria include clearly defining the appropriate federal roles,
incorporating performance results into funding decisions, using best
practices, and developing coordinated solutions to complex, cross-
cutting challenges.
FHWA and the States Have Taken Steps to Implement Key Aspects of the
SRTS Program:
FHWA and states have taken steps to implement the key aspects of the
SRTS program outlined in SAFETEA-LU. FHWA established the National
Center for Safe Routes to School and the National Safe Routes to School
Task Force, and provided an interim report to Congress on its progress.
FHWA also developed program guidance that provides state departments of
transportation with flexibility in implementing the SRTS program.
States have taken steps such as hiring SRTS coordinators and initiating
funding cycles to implement the SRTS program.
Federal-Level Implementation Addresses Key SAFETEA-LU Requirements:
FHWA has taken steps to address the key requirements contained in
SAFETEA-LU for FHWA's implementation of the SRTS program at the federal
level, completing two requirements and partially completing a third
requirement, as shown in table 1.
Table 1: Status of FHWA's Implementation of Key SAFETEA-LU Requirements
for SRTS:
SAFETEA-LU requirement: Establish a national safe routes to school
clearinghouse to develop and disseminate information and provide
technical assistance;
Status: Complete.
SAFETEA-LU requirement: Establish a national safe routes to school task
force to study and develop a strategy for advancing safe routes to
school programs nationwide;
Status: Complete.
SAFETEA-LU requirement: Submit a report to Congress by the national
task force describing the results of its study;
Status: Partially complete[A].
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by FHWA.
[A] DOT submitted an interim report in April 2006 to respond to this
requirement and is working with the national task force on a more
detailed report. As of May 2008, DOT did not have a target date for
submitting a full report to Congress and the public.
[End of table]
In May 2006, FHWA established the clearinghouse, which has been
developed and led by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
through a cooperative agreement between it and FHWA. As of February
2008, the total value of the cooperative agreement was approximately
$8.1 million.[Footnote 22] The clearinghouse offers a centralized
source of information on how to start and sustain a SRTS program, as
well as many other resources for training and technical assistance.
Entities we interviewed generally indicated that the clearinghouse is a
useful resource for garnering easy access to information.
In October 2006, FHWA established the national task force, representing
health, safety, education, and transportation experts, under a 2-year
charter that expires in October 2008. FHWA's legal counsel determined
that the establishment of the national task force fell within the scope
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Under the provisions of
FACA, federal agencies sponsoring advisory committees must, among other
things, file a charter with Congress before the committee can begin
operating; publish adequate advance notice of meetings in the Federal
Register; open advisory committee meetings to the public (with some
exceptions); make available for public inspection, subject to the
Freedom of Information Act, papers and records, including detailed
minutes of each meeting; and maintain records of expenditures. FACA
also requires that committee membership be balanced in terms of points
of views represented. The DOT selected the national task force members
through an application process, using a variety of selection factors
such as geographical distribution, gender, minority status,
organization represented, and expertise. The national task force
includes representatives from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety,
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Works Association,
American Traffic Safety Services Association, Association of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Professionals, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Institute of Transportation Engineers, local law
enforcement, education and metropolitan planning officials, the
National Association of Regional Councils, the National Center for
Bicycling and Walking, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership,
the State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association, and
state and local SRTS program representatives. According to DOT, the
national task force represents a cross section of agencies,
organizations and individuals that are involved in SRTS activities and
programs throughout the United States.
SAFETEA-LU required the national task force to submit a report to
Congress by March 31, 2006, detailing the results of its work.
According to FHWA, because of the steps required by FACA and the
limited time available after SAFETEA-LU was enacted in August 2005, the
national task force was not yet established and therefore could not
submit a full report by the required date. Therefore, to address the
statutory requirement, DOT submitted an interim status report to
Congress in April 2006 detailing the actions FHWA took to implement the
SRTS program nationwide and stating that the national task force would,
at a later date, submit a more detailed report with recommendations for
moving the SRTS program forward. According to minutes from its
meetings, the national task force is in the process of developing a
draft report covering such topics as program success, program
challenges and opportunities, and national strategies for advancing
SRTS, and it expects to submit the full report to DOT no later than
September 30, 2008. As of May 2008, DOT did not have a target date for
submitting the full report to Congress and the public.
FHWA Developed Program Guidance That Provides State DOTs with
Flexibility in Implementing the SRTS Program:
FHWA issued its SRTS program guidance on January 3, 2006 to coincide
with its recommendation that states hire their SRTS coordinators by
December 31, 2005. The guidance suggested that states consider the
following objectives when structuring their program:
* enable participation on a variety of levels,
* make the program accessible to diverse participants,
* promote comprehensive SRTS programs and activities, and:
* maximize impact of the funds. [Footnote 23]
Each state is responsible for developing its own policies and
procedures for soliciting and selecting projects for funding such as
selection criteria, funding cycles, grant amounts, and time limits.
Given the flexibility the FHWA guidance provides states in developing
policies and procedures, program administration differed across the
states we visited or interviewed. Figure 1 provides a description of
program characteristics of the states we visited or SRTS officials we
interviewed by telephone. Program administration information was not
available on a national level; therefore, the examples below are
provided for illustrative purposes.
Figure 1: Program Administration Characteristics of States We Visited
or Interviewed:
This figure is a diagram of program administration characteristics we
visited or interviewed.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state DOT information.
[End of figure]
In addition, the SRTS program stakeholders we interviewed generally
said the federal program provides the appropriate level of flexibility.
Those that said the federal program was not flexible generally cited
difficulties in complying with the title 23 requirements as the reason.
For example, several local grant recipients described the title 23
requirements as burdensome relative to the small scale of SRTS
projects.
States Have Taken Steps, Such as Hiring SRTS Coordinators and
Initiating Funding Cycles, to Implement the SRTS Program:
States have made progress in implementing the SRTS program. As shown in
table 2, as of March 31, 2008, all states had designated SRTS program
coordinators, and only one state (Georgia) had yet to start its SRTS
funding process. In addition, the number of participating schools
increased substantially during the second year of the program's
implementation--from approximately 300 through December 2006 to
approximately 2,700 through March 2008, an increase of about 2,400
schools or 800 percent during that period.
Table 2: State Progress in Implementing SRTS Programs through March 31,
2008A:
Implementation category: Approximate number of participating schools;
Number: 2,700.
Implementation category: States with program coordinators; Number: 51.
Implementation category: States that have started the funding
process[B];
Number: 50.
Implementation category: States that have awarded funds for local and/
or statewide SRTS programs;
Number: 46.
Implementation category: States that have started a second funding
cycle;
Number: 26.
Implementation category: States that have started a third funding
cycle;
Number: 6.
Source: National Center for Safe Routes to School.
[A] Includes the District of Columbia.
[B] Includes meeting at least one of the following criteria: awarded
funding, has a current open application process, or closed applications
pending announcement of funding recipients.
[End of table]
States have also made some progress in awarding SRTS funds, according
to data compiled by the clearinghouse. As shown in table 3, as of March
2008, states had awarded nearly $222 million or 53 percent of the $416
million apportioned by FHWA for SRTS through that period.
Table 3: Total SRTS Funding Awarded by States, by Fiscal Year:
Time period: Through fiscal year 2006;
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: $147,030,000;
Cumulative amount awarded by states[A]: Not available.
Time period: Through fiscal year 2007;
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: 269,030,000;
Cumulative amount awarded by states[A]: 156,081,270.
Time period: Through fiscal year 2008 (as of March 31, 2008);
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: 416,030,000;
Cumulative amount awarded by states[A]: 221,721,516.
Source: FHWA and the National Center for Safe Routes to School.
[A] Amounts awarded by states include the amounts that state SRTS
programs have announced they will spend on specific local SRTS projects
or programs. All funds awarded may not have yet been dispersed. In
addition, data is not available through September 2006 because the
clearinghouse's first tracking report covers the period through October
2006.
[End of table]
With respect to spending these funds, states generally must take
multiple steps before obligating awarded SRTS funds such as developing
a project agreement with the grantee, including the funds in the
appropriate metropolitan planning organization's Transportation
Improvement Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program, and as applicable, completing environmental clearances and
preliminary engineering studies.[Footnote 24] As shown in table 4, as
of March 2008, states have obligated approximately $75 million or 18
percent of the $416 million apportioned by FHWA for SRTS through that
period.
Table 4: Total SRTS Funding Apportioned, Obligated, Unobligated, and
Obligation Rate, by Fiscal Year:
Time period: Through fiscal year 2006;
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: $147,030,000;
Cumulative amount obligated by states: $11,178,350;
Cumulative unobligated balance: $135,851,650;
Obligation rate: 8.
Time period: Through fiscal year 2007;
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: 269,030,000;
Cumulative amount obligated by states: 51,872,298;
Cumulative unobligated balance: 217,157,702;
Obligation rate: 19.
Time period: Through fiscal year 2008[A];
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: 416,030,000;
Cumulative amount obligated by states: 74,929,993;
Cumulative unobligated balance: 341,100,007;
Obligation rate: 18[B].
Source: FHWA.
[A] This is as of March 31, 2008.
[B] The obligation rate shows a decrease, in part, because the fiscal
year has not been completed.
[End of table]
While each state's SRTS program funds a unique list of specific
projects, there are commonalities. During our site visits we found that
SRTS activities taking place at the state and local level include both
infrastructure and noninfrastructure activities such as sidewalk
installation; sidewalk gap closures; traffic calming measures (traffic
management techniques designed to slow cars); pedestrian and bicycle
safety education programs; and increased traffic enforcement in school
zones. On the basis of our site visits, some examples of some specific
activities funded include:
* The Washington Area Bicyclist Association's "Street Smart" program,
which was implemented in the District of Columbia, teaches children how
to safely cross the street and intersection, the importance of wearing
bicycle helmets, how to make sure children and their bicycles are ready
for a safe ride, the rules of the road, and how to safely control
bicycles. The core of the program is a 1 week pedestrian and bicycle
course taught in specific elementary schools. Kindergarten, first, and
second graders are taught pedestrian safety, while third, forth, and
fifth graders are taught bicycle safety. Officials from this
association told us that they try to incorporate students with
disabilities into their lessons and other activities, such as helmet
fittings.
* The Florida DOT provided funding to Pinellas County to purchase speed
feedback signs for 16 locations near schools. Two of the speed feedback
signs have been placed at designated locations and the rest have been
ordered, according to officials from Pinellas County. The signs collect
traffic and speed data continuously that can be used to more
effectively deploy law enforcement to problem areas and times. The
county selected the locations in conjunction with the school district
using criteria such as the current number of students walking or biking
to school based on crossing guard counts, the type of roadways being
crossed by students, traffic safety devices already in the areas, and
areas with high levels of noncompliance with traffic rules based on
citations issued by law enforcement. See figure 2 for a picture of the
speed feedback sign.
Figure 2: Picture of Speed Feedback Sign:
This figure is a picture of a speed feedback sign.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Significant Evaluation Efforts Have Been Made, but FHWA and States Do
Not Have a Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate the Program:
FHWA, the clearinghouse, and the national task force have made
significant efforts to develop a framework for measuring program
outcomes, including creating standardized evaluation forms and a six-
step process to assist local SRTS programs in developing their
evaluation plans. However, a more comprehensive program evaluation plan
may further help FHWA to identify and target desired national and local
outcomes. Although it is too early to comprehensively identify results
to date, challenges to program implementation and overall program
effectiveness have been identified, such as compliance with title 23
requirements and school siting policies.
Although Significant Efforts Have Been Made, FHWA and States Have Not
Fully Developed Comprehensive Policies and Procedures for Evaluating
Program Outcomes:
SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of Transportation to report to
Congress on the work of the national task force and on the uses of SRTS
funds. FHWA's program guidance recommends that states evaluate their
SRTS programs. The guidance requests that states gather and provide
information on the evaluation of safety benefits, behavioral changes,
and other potential benefits including "measurements of student health,
air quality, congestion, and other metrics noted or implied by the
legislative purposes of the program." According to the SRTS program
manager, FHWA division offices are responsible for overseeing SRTS
projects in their respective states. FHWA headquarters did not develop
specific oversight guidance for SRTS projects since the program falls
under the regular federal-aid process which FHWA division staff manage
on a daily basis.
We have previously described challenges related to developing national
evaluations of federal programs when (1) program goals are broad and
general and (2) state or local agencies have been delegated the
authority to determine how to carry out the programs to meet specific
local needs.[Footnote 25] When states and localities set their own
short-term and intermediate goals, common measures to aggregate across
projects are often lacking, so it is difficult to assess national
progress toward a common goal. Additionally, such programs also tend to
have limited federal reporting requirements. Therefore, little
information may be available on how well a national program is
progressing toward its national goals. Agencies facing these challenges
generally have two options: (1) find common measures or (2) encourage
locally tailored evaluations.
The clearinghouse, FHWA, and the national task force have taken steps
to develop a framework for evaluation efforts that address both finding
common measures and encouraging locally tailored evaluations. For
example, the clearinghouse has undertaken multiple efforts to address
program evaluation, including collecting national level data and
developing evaluation guidance for local programs. The clearinghouse
developed standardized data collection forms to collect national-level
data on the number of children walking and bicycling to school, as well
as parental attitudes toward these transportation modes. Using these
forms, programs can either enter their own data into the
clearinghouse's Web-based data entry system or send completed data
collection forms to the clearinghouse for processing. In addition,
state and local programs are able to use this information to generate
other reports about their SRTS activities. As of May 1, 2008, data from
34 states had been either entered through the online system or
processed by the clearinghouse. More than 17,000 parent surveys and
3,400 student tally forms (representing approximately 63,000 students)
from about 230 schools were in the database.
In November 2007, FHWA modified its agreement with the clearinghouse to
provide an additional $1.8 million to, among other things, evaluate
SRTS program strategies and develop a safety monitoring program. The
clearinghouse will use an expert panel and information from its
tracking database to identify specific strategies to evaluate. It is
currently in the process of identifying representatives to sit on the
expert panel and will provide FHWA with three to six evaluation reports
of specific SRTS strategies each year once activities are underway,
including a 6-and 12-month report for the fiscal year ending in
September 2009. These evaluation reports will concentrate on the 4 E's
(education, encouragement, enforcement, and engineering) as they are
implemented at the local level. In addition, the clearinghouse will
establish a safety monitoring program--employing a comprehensive
database of large-scale state and national crash databases and local
program details--to develop and implement a process to monitor,
document, and measure potential safety outcomes from SRTS programs.
These outcomes will include crash reductions, fatality reductions, and
parental perceptions of safety. The clearinghouse plans to develop an
initial report by September 2008, conduct analysis of initial data by
December 2008, and to subsequently provide annual reports.
At the state and local levels, the clearinghouse has conducted Web-
based evaluation training sessions for SRTS state coordinators and
developed evaluation guidance for local SRTS programs. The guidance
includes a six-step process to assist local programs in developing and
implementing evaluation plans. These six steps involve identifying
local objectives and determining what, how, and when to measure. The
clearinghouse is also working to develop a safety index, requested by
engineers and other local transportation professionals, to assist with
identifying and prioritizing infrastructure improvement needs along
school routes.
Although not mandatory, FHWA strongly recommends that states use the
standardized collection instruments described above to help evaluate
the SRTS program. States we visited or interviewed said their plans for
program evaluation were still under development but each one indicated
it would require grant recipients to use the standardized evaluation
tools developed by clearinghouse. FHWA program guidance also stated
that additional guidance will be provided in the future to evaluate
program success. In November 2006 and May 2007, FHWA's SRTS program
manager sent an e-mail to the SRTS state coordinators recommending the
use of the standardized forms, as well as additional guidance for
entering the information into the clearinghouse's database. Moreover,
the national task force is considering potential strategies and
recommendations to improve performance accountability for its
forthcoming report to Congress.
Considering SRTS' multiple program purposes and potential outcomes and
varying SRTS activities and projects at the state and local levels, the
clearinghouse, FHWA, and the national task force have made significant
efforts toward establishing evaluation measures but challenges remain.
FHWA did not require states to evaluate their SRTS programs because
SAFETEA-LU did not contain an explicit requirement to evaluate the
program. According to FHWA officials, the agency did not believe it had
the legislative authority to require evaluation. However, we believe
that federal and other agencies that have been given the authority to
award grants have implied authority to do those things that are
reasonably required to administer the grant, including ensuring
accountability for the performance of the grant. In particular, federal
and other government agencies are accountable for ensuring that the
grant funds are used to carry out the purpose of the grant, a duty
which in turn may require the collection of data to measure
performance. We believe, therefore, that FHWA should have included
language in its grant agreements that would have required the states to
collect and report data relevant to appropriate performance indicators.
Stakeholders we interviewed had mixed views about whether the voluntary
nature of SRTS's evaluation component will yield comprehensive national
data on SRTS results. For example, officials from both the FHWA and the
clearinghouse indicated they do not believe that the lack of an
evaluation requirement will hinder evaluation efforts. In contrast,
some SRTS stakeholders would prefer an evaluation requirement. For
example, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, a network of
nonprofit organizations, government agencies, schools, and
professionals working to advance the SRTS movement in the United
States, sent a letter to FHWA in June 2007 expressing concern that FHWA
cannot do more than "strongly encourage" state DOTs to collect SRTS
program data because the Partnership believes that gauging the
performance of a $612 million program is important and will require
data and analysis.[Footnote 26] A public health advisor from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition,
Physical Activity, and Obesity, also stated that evaluation should not
be an option for states because everyone involved with SRTS needs to
know if the program is achieving its objectives.
While the clearinghouse's SRTS guidance includes an evaluation section
and provides tools to assist local communities in evaluating their SRTS
projects, these tools focus on safety-related measures and
participation in SRTS activities, but do not address measuring
potential health and environmental outcomes. The director of the
clearinghouse told us the clearinghouse has engaged in initial
discussions with CDC and EPA to identify opportunities to collaborate
in many program areas, including developing appropriate outcome
measures and methodologies.
Finally, although the clearinghouse's standardized data collection
forms provide a method for reporting on how students get to school and
parental perceptions about walking to school, neither FHWA nor the
clearinghouse have issued guidance to states and local program
recipients on reporting other potential safety, health, or
environmental outcomes. The lack of reporting requirements could limit
FHWA's ability to evaluate progress towards meeting the purposes of the
program.
Developing reasonable outcome-based performance measures is a key re-
examination criterion from our 21st Century Challenges work. In March
2008, we suggested that Congress should consider reexamining and
refocusing surface transportation programs to, among other things, make
grantees more accountable through more performance-based links between
funding and program outcomes.[Footnote 27] In addition, the Government
Performance Results Act also requires agencies to measure performance
toward the achievement of program goals and objectives. Performance
data allow agencies to share effective approaches, recognize problems,
look for solutions, and develop ways to improve results. We also
reported that measures should represent performance that is within the
grantee's sphere of influence and that can be achieved and evaluated
within a specified time frame; grantees should have the necessary
knowledge of the measures and the ability to effectively implement
them; and implementation should be phased in.[Footnote 28] FHWA, the
clearinghouse, and the national task force have made significant
efforts to develop appropriate performance measures. However, the
current gaps in the evaluation framework--the lack of an FHWA
requirement for states to collect data relevant for evaluating the
program, limited performance measures for potential health and
environmental outcomes, and limited reporting requirements--could limit
FHWA's ability to report on SRTS program outcomes.
Too Early to Comprehensively Identify Results to Date, but Challenges
to Program Implementation and Overall Program Effectiveness Have Been
Identified:
FHWA's program guidance lists numerous possible outcomes, including,
among other things, increased bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety;
more children walking and bicycling to and from schools; decreased
traffic congestion; improved childhood health; and increased community
security. However, no outcome-oriented results to date at the national
level have been identified.
National stakeholders, state coordinators, local grant recipients, and
the national task force indicated it is too early in implementation to
quantify results of the SRTS program. In lieu of outcome results,
national stakeholders identified other initial program outcomes, as
highlighted in table 5.
Table 5: Description of Selected Program Outcomes Identified by
National Stakeholders:
Results: Increased coordination;
Source: Safe Routes to School National Partnership;
Description: The SRTS program has helped build partnerships among
cities, schools, and counties, as well as with other stakeholders
including various state and regional agencies that serve on state
advisory committees.
Results: Institutional support for SRTS activities has increased;
Source: National Center for Bicycling and Walking;
Bicycle Transportation Alliance[A];
Description: Federal support for SRTS activities legitimized efforts,
encouraged additional support from law enforcement and school
officials, and focused national attention on school transportation
issues.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] The Bicycle Transportation Alliance is a nonprofit organization in
Oregon that works to create healthier, more sustainable communities by
making bicycling safe, convenient, and accessible. It also serves as a
technical advisor for Oregon's SRTS program.
[End of table]
Although results to date are limited, states we visited reported SRTS
projects are underway. Table 6 illustrates examples of current SRTS
activities in the state and local level programs we visited.
Table 6: Selected Federal SRTS Activities to Date in Visited States and
Local Grant Recipients:
Site: California: Statewide;
Description of SRTS activities: Funded 98 applications (out of
approximately 500 to 600 applications) in the first application cycle.
Site: California: City of Sebastopol, local grant recipient;
Description of SRTS activities: Received an infrastructure grant for
sidewalk gap closure and enhanced pedestrian crossing. Received a
noninfrastructure grant to implement an SRTS education program in four
elementary schools.
Site: California: Marin County, local grant recipient;
Description of SRTS activities: Received an infrastructure grant for
six to eight blocks of sidewalk to complete a path of travel to school.
Site: California: City and County of San Francisco, local grant
recipient;
Description of SRTS activities: Received two infrastructure grants,
including traffic-calming measures, cross-walks with flashing beacons,
and signalizing areas in the vicinity of two schools;
One noninfrastructure grant for five elementary schools in the first
year and an additional ten schools in the second year of a pilot
program, including pedestrian and bicycle safety classes, walking
audits, and Walk to School Day activities;
Obtained a commitment from the San Francisco Police Department for
increased traffic enforcement in the vicinity of the pilot schools.
Site: District of Columbia: Washington Area Bicyclists Association,
contract service provider;
Description of SRTS activities: Delivered education program to
approximately 3,500 students between October 2006 and October 2007.
Site: Florida: Statewide;
Description of SRTS activities: Funded 177 local SRTS projects and two
statewide projects through the first application cycle.
Site: Florida: Florida Department of Transportation, District 7;
Description of SRTS activities: Completed two application cycles,
funding 106 infrastructure projects and three noninfrastructure
projects.
Site: Florida: More Health, local grant recipient in District 7;
Description of SRTS activities: Taught a total of 3,178 first grade
students bicycle and pedestrian safety lessons as of December 2007.
Site: Florida: Pinellas County and Pinellas Public Schools, local grant
recipient in District 7;
Description of SRTS activities: Installed two speed feedback signs near
school zones. After installation, observed a 94 percent compliance rate
within school zone speed limits.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by states and local grant
recipients.
[End of table]
The clearinghouse also developed overviews of state SRTS programs
nominated for the 2007 James Oberstar Safe Routes to School award,
recognizing exemplary initiation of a state program. In addition, the
clearinghouse has compiled a list of SRTS case studies from programs
that have used federal SRTS funding, as well as programs that received
SRTS funding from other sources such as NHTSA and state and local
governments. The clearinghouse both identified candidate programs for
the case studies and prepared those summaries, as well as requested
that states and local programs submit a description of activities
undertaken in their communities. Approximately 100 case studies at
various stages of implementation were either written by the
clearinghouse or submitted by states and local programs. The case
studies featured activities such as:
* bicycle and pedestrian education programs,
* Walk to School Days,
* infrastructure activities including curb extensions and the
construction of a trail to connect neighborhoods with an elementary
school, and:
* crossing guard programs and increased enforcement of school zone
speed limits.
About 40 percent of the case studies provided results to date
including:
* increased student knowledge of bicycle and pedestrian safety
procedures,
* increased participation in Walk to School Day events,
* increased numbers of students walking and biking to school,
* slower traffic in school zones, and:
* increased parental involvement.
Evaluation efforts of other SRTS-related activities may also provide
examples of potential measures and standards for further developing
plans to monitor program performance. For example, in addition to the
federally funded SRTS program, California administers a state
legislated SRTS program referred to as "SR2S." Mandated studies in 2003
and 2007 of the California SR2S program found that the state-funded
safe routes to school activities increased walking and bicycling among
children.[Footnote 29] The 2007 study also found that although the SR2S
program increased walking and bicycling among children, the estimated
effect varied greatly from school to school and varied depending on the
method used to determine changes in physical activity (e.g., direct
observations versus parent surveys). In addition, when the increase in
the numbers of children walking and bicycling to school was taken into
account, the SR2S program appeared to have had a net benefit in terms
of safety (i.e., a decline in the numbers of children involved in
crashes while walking or bicycling). Lastly, the study reported that a
wide range of stakeholders--including parents, school boards, school
officials and administrators, teachers, local communities and
residents, and other involved parties--expressed satisfaction with the
SR2S program.
Although overall results have not yet been identified, stakeholders we
interviewed identified challenges to identifying and achieving SRTS
program results, including challenges to implementation and overall
program effectiveness, as shown in table 7.
Table 7: Key Challenges to Program Implementation and Overall Program
Effectiveness Identified by National, State, and Local Stakeholders:
Challenge: Challenges to program implementation: Compliance with title
23;
Description/example: Federal funding requirements for funding
allocations and construction of small SRTS projects mirror those for
large state highway projects. Small SRTS grant awards can require
considerable time and effort to administer. These requirements can
deter some schools and communities from applying for funds due, in
part, to compliance costs. Communities with limited experience dealing
with federal contracting requirements also may face delays in project
implementation. For example, one state coordinator told us that some
local grant recipients had limited experience with title 23
requirements and were confused about how to comply with the
requirements, which delayed their SRTS projects.
Challenge: Challenges to program implementation: Data collection;
Description/example: State coordinators and local grant recipients have
identified challenges to collecting consistent and reliable data. For
example, using existing national and state data, it is difficult to
identify the purpose of a pedestrian or bicycling trip (e.g., whether
they were traveling to or from school) when an injury or fatality
occurs.
Challenge: Challenges to program implementation: Personal safety;
Description/example: Parent perceptions of safety can be a barrier in
successfully implementing SRTS programs. For example, according to
state DOT officials in Florida, three high profile child abductions in
the Tampa metropolitan area had a tremendous impact on parents' safety
perceptions of walking and biking to school.
Challenge: Challenges to overall program effectiveness: Limited
research linking SRTS programs with health outcomes;
Description/example: One study concluded that the current literature
does not support a link between walking to school and reduced body-mass
index or levels of obesity.[A]; The National Center for Safe Routes to
Schools acknowledged that health outcomes may be difficult to measure
because health outcomes may result from multiple interventions (changes
in diet, physical activities, etc.) outside of the SRTS activities and
because the program is administered by transportation professionals who
may lack expertise in measuring health outcomes.
Challenge: Challenges to overall program effectiveness: Local school
district attitudes and policies;
Description/ example: Some communities have faced challenges in
involving school districts in SRTS programs because school
administrators are under pressure to achieve academic gains and are
reluctant to participate in programs that do not directly address that
priority. In addition, policies such as open school enrollment and
magnet schools can reduce opportunities for students to walk or bicycle
to school.
Challenge: Challenges to overall program effectiveness: School siting;
Description/example: School siting policies can result in children
living in communities outside of walking and bicycling distance to
school.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Murray Lee, et. al., Health Impacts of the School Commute
(forthcoming).
[End of table]
In addition to the challenges described above, communities will also
need to address other related issues. For example, the Safe Routes to
School National Partnership indicated some urban communities have a
need to address negative safety perceptions caused by vacant lots or
abandoned housing, but activities such as mowing vacant lots or
demolition are not eligible. In addition, a local grant recipient in
Florida noted that rural areas may have a greater need for projects to
address safe routes to bus stops.
SRTS Program Broadens Federal Transportation Role and Overlaps with
Other Surface Transportation Programs, but Has Successfully Applied
Some Criteria for Addressing 21st Century Challenges:
The SRTS program broadens the federal transportation role although
federal funding for the program is relatively small. SRTS activities
can be funded under other surface transportation programs, as well as
state and local programs, but the lack of a matching requirement may
limit the ability of the SRTS program to encourage additional state and
local investment. Finally, as Congress prepares for reauthorizing SRTS
and other surface transportation programs, it will need to consider the
relative contributions of the programs in solving our nation's
transportation problems and achieving federal goals.
SRTS Program Broadens Federal Transportation Role, although Federal
Funding for the Program Is Relatively Small:
The SRTS program is the first FHWA program designed primarily to
encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. The program was
established largely to address concerns about bicycle and pedestrian
safety of children traveling to and from school, childhood obesity and
inactivity, and traffic and environmental problems in the vicinity of
schools, rather than primarily to address broader concerns about the
condition of surface transportation infrastructure or highway safety.
Accordingly, the program expands the federal transportation role into
new areas. However, the budget authorization for the SRTS program under
SAFETEA-LU constitutes less than 1 percent of the total highway program
authorization under the legislation.[Footnote 30] The SRTS program is
one of several that address other societal and environmental goals. As
we reported in March 2008, the federal role in surface transportation
has expanded over the decades to include broader goals (e.g., civil
rights, environmental protection, urban planning, and economic
development); more programs; and a variety of program structures. We
suggested to Congress that it consider re-examining and refocusing
surface transportation programs to ensure that they are linked to
federal goals and interests, have performance-based outcomes, use tools
that emphasize the return on the federal investment, and ensure fiscal
sustainability.[Footnote 31]
SRTS Activities Could Be Funded from Multiple Federal and Other
Programs, but the Lack of a Matching Requirement May Limit the Ability
of the Program to Encourage State and Local Investment:
The federal SRTS program provides funding for activities that, at least
in part, could also be funded by a broad array of other federal, state,
and local funding sources. For example, according to FHWA, some SRTS
activities may be eligible for funding under six other federal surface
transportation programs--including five programs administered by FHWA
(Transportation Enhancements Program, the Surface Transportation
Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program,
the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the Equity Bonus Program)
and one program administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA's Section 402 Traffic Safety program)--provided
that transportation decision makers are willing to allocate such
program monies toward SRTS activities. Furthermore, FHWA's program
guidance for the SRTS program points out that numerous other federal,
state, and local funding sources are available to complement the SRTS
funds, including various transportation, health, recreation, physical
education, law enforcement, and safety program funds. These include six
state-funded SRTS programs that mirror the federal SRTS program in that
they are designed to address similar objectives.
While some SRTS activities may be eligible to receive funds from these
other federal transportation programs, the federal, state, and local
officials we spoke with had varying opinions about whether funds from
other federal transportation programs would actually be awarded for
SRTS activities. For example, during our four site visits, three of the
four FHWA division officials we interviewed said that it would likely
be difficult for SRTS projects to obtain other DOT funding because they
believed that federal and state officials had other priorities for
those funds. On the other hand, three of the four state SRTS
coordinators we interviewed said that SRTS projects could be successful
in securing funds from other federal transportation programs, since
such projects have been successful in doing so in the past. While
opinions varied about whether SRTS activities would be a high enough
priority to be awarded funding under the other federal programs, over
two-thirds of the entities we interviewed in both the site visits and
the national stakeholder meetings (23 of 34 entities) indicated that
eliminating funding for the federal SRTS program would adversely affect
the momentum of the program and likely result in many SRTS projects
being eliminated.
Generally, most federal funds for federal-aid highway projects must be
matched by funds from other sources; state and local governments
usually contribute 20 percent to the costs of a project. SRTS is an
exception. SAFETEA-LU sets the federal share of the cost of a SRTS
project or activity at 100 percent. We have previously reported that
grants with federal matching requirements may promote relatively more
state and local spending than nonmatching grants, thus reducing the
likelihood that states will use the federal funds to replace, rather
than supplement, their own spending.[Footnote 32] Furthermore, we have
concluded that, in some instances, the federal matching requirement
should be revised upward for federal-aid highway program funds to
increase the extent to which federal-aid highway program funds are used
to supplement state highway funds rather than substitute for
them.[Footnote 33]
The national SRTS task force is considering including a recommendation
in its forthcoming report that future SRTS legislation allow matching
funds for infrastructure projects to stimulate state and local
spending, while maintaining the 100 percent funding requirement for
infrastructure projects that serve disadvantaged schools (following
established guidelines for schools that participate in free and reduced
lunch programs) or schools that are located in areas where child
pedestrians are at a higher risk of deaths and injuries.
Considerations in Reauthorizing SRTS and Other Surface Transportation
Programs:
As Congress prepares for the reauthorization of the surface
transportation programs in 2009, it will need to re-examine the
relative contributions of SRTS and all other federal surface
transportation programs in solving our nation's transportation problems
and achieving federal goals. As we have previously reported, many
current federal surface transportation programs may not be effective in
addressing such key transportation challenges as increasing congestion
and freight demand because the federal goals and roles are unclear;
many programs lack links to needs or performance; and the programs
often do not employ the best tools and approaches.[Footnote 34] At the
same time, the funding outlook for surface transportation programs is
uncertain. Without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue
sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund--the major source
of federal highway and transit spending--is projected to incur
significant deficits in the years ahead.
Many transportation groups and stakeholders are currently examining
reauthorization issues and articulating their views about national
transportation priorities and the types of federal surface
transportation investments that best address those priorities. All of
these groups acknowledge a need for transportation programs that
address the traditional transportation goals of improving mobility,
safety, and the transportation infrastructure. However, some groups,
such as "Transportation for America"--which is a consortium of 13
organizations representing diverse perspectives in transit, housing,
aging, the environment, community development, and other issues--the
Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, and the Center for Clean Air
Policy, argue that future transportation investments must also be
designed to enhance the economy, improve public health, protect the
environment, and promote social equity to ensure sustainability and
enhance the quality of life for all Americans. Other groups, such as
the American Road and Transportation Builders Association and the
American Highway Users Alliance, emphasize the need to protect federal
surface transportation spending levels in the reauthorization process
and prevent the diversion of federal highway revenues to nonhighway
uses, so that the federal government can support the types of
investments needed to enhance infrastructure capacity, highway safety,
and congestion relief.
In our prior work, we have identified several principles that
congressional decision makers and others can use in re-examining the
relative contributions of all federal surface transportation programs,
including the SRTS program. For example, in March 2008, we identified
five principles to guide the assessment of options for restructuring
federal surface transportation programs, as follows: (1) create well-
defined goals based on identified areas of federal interest, (2)
establish and clearly define the federal role in achieving each goal,
(3) incorporate performance accountability for results into funding
decisions, (4) employ the best tools and approaches to emphasize return
on investment, and (5) ensure fiscal sustainability.[Footnote 35] In
addition, our prior body of work on 21st Century Challenges also
provides additional criteria for re-examining all government programs,
including federal surface transportation programs.[Footnote 36] In
addition to the principles discussed above, the criteria include
developing coordinated solutions to complex, cross-cutting challenges
and targeting benefits to those most in need.
Our work on the SRTS program addresses the extent to which the program
has addressed a few of these principles and criteria such as federal
interest, coordination, targeting, best practices, and performance
accountability. For example, the program expands the role and interest
of the federal government by adding prevention of obesity and improving
children's health to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. In addition, in
designing and implementing the SRTS program, FHWA and the national task
force encouraged coordination with many stakeholders, including other
federal agencies. The national task force included representatives from
public health, the transportation industry, education, law enforcement,
and the bicycle and pedestrian community and FHWA's program guidance
encouraged state DOTs to collaborate with all interested organizations
and to leverage additional funds from related funding sources. With
respect to targeting, as previously mentioned, the SRTS program has a
provision under SAFETEA-LU--requiring the federal government to pay for
100 percent of project costs--that can protect low-income communities
from being at a disadvantage when competing for funds since they do not
have to provide matching funds to secure SRTS funding for a project.
Furthermore, both FHWA and its SRTS partners (the national task force,
the clearinghouse, the SRTS National Partnership, and NHTSA) have
collectively taken a number of steps to identify and share best
practices related to the program, including:
* disseminating the two publications "Safe Routes to School," a tool
kit for implementing SRTS activities and "Safe Routes to School--
Practices and Promises" both developed by NHTSA;
* sponsoring a national conference in 2007 to bring together
practitioners and share lessons learned;
* promoting good principles for conducting an SRTS program, known as
the "five Es", that include education, encouragement, enforcement,
engineering, and evaluation;
* promoting and updating a national SRTS training course and the online
SRTS training guide reflecting learned experiences;
* encouraging a unified evaluation approach using standardized data
collection instruments to collect predata and postdata from local SRTS
programs on the number of children walking and bicycling to school and
parental attitudes toward these transportation modes; and:
* developing draft strategies to further best practices, such as
sharing operational successes, profiling creative SRTS approaches to
inspire and advance SRTS programs nationwide, and providing standards
for SRTS programs to ensure that funds are spent wisely.
Finally, the SRTS program has had more limited success in addressing
the principles and criteria related to performance accountability. As
discussed earlier in this report, FHWA encourages states to evaluate
their SRTS program and the clearinghouse has developed some
standardized data collection instruments to help collect basic
information on program participants, but FHWA has not developed a
comprehensive plan for evaluating SRTS program outcomes.
Conclusions:
FHWA has made considerable progress in implementing the SRTS program.
It has established the National Center for Safe Routes to School and
National Safe Routes to School Task Force and successfully applied some
criteria for addressing 21st Century Challenges. However, FHWA lacks a
comprehensive plan for measuring the results of the program. Until a
comprehensive plan is in place, it will be difficult to measure both
national and local program outcomes and hold grantees accountable for
their use of program funds. Developing these procedures is important as
states complete more funding cycles and local grant recipients
implement more SRTS activities. In addition, because some states have
put SRTS program evaluations in place, FHWA will need to determine
whether and how to incorporate these state evaluations into its overall
evaluation effort. More importantly, as Congress prepares for the
reauthorization of the federal surface transportation programs,
comprehensive performance data will be critical in determining the
relative contributions of the SRTS program. Furthermore, given that the
SRTS program has expanded the federal transportation role into new
areas, including childhood obesity and inactivity and traffic and
environmental problems in the vicinity of schools, it will be important
for FHWA and the states to try to evaluate whether the SRTS program has
a positive impact in those areas. The clearinghouse has made an initial
positive effort to talk with key stakeholders, including CDC and EPA,
about appropriate measures for health and environmental outcomes, but
additional work is needed to determine the feasibility of developing
these outcome measures. For example, it would be beneficial to
formalize and enhance this emerging collaboration among the three
federal agencies--DOT, CDC, and EPA--that have a common interest in
SRTS outcomes. This collaboration may occur by forming a coordinating
group that meets regularly, so that they can effectively work together
to address the challenge of developing health and environmental outcome
measures for the SRTS program. Finally, the SRTS program is unusual in
that SAFETEA-LU sets the federal share of the cost of a SRTS project or
activity at 100 percent, while most federal funds for federal-aid
highway projects must be matched by funds from other state or local
sources. Although some SRTS activities might be funded from multiple
federal and other sources, the lack of a matching requirement may limit
the program's ability to ensure that states use SRTS funds to
supplement, rather than replace, state and local spending on similar
programs. The national SRTS task force is considering including a
recommendation in its forthcoming report to allow matching funds for
infrastructure projects to leverage state and local spending, while
protecting the ability of low-income areas to participate in the
program.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enhance the oversight of the SRTS program, we recommend that the
Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, FHWA, to take the
following two actions:
* Develop a comprehensive plan to monitor and evaluate the program. The
plan should include the following three components:
- an assessment of the extent to which states are currently evaluating
the progress of their SRTS programs, and a determination of whether and
how those state evaluations can be incorporated into FHWA's overall
evaluation of the SRTS program;
- a requirement that states collect data relevant for evaluating the
SRTS program--which should be specified by FHWA--and that the required
data be listed in grant agreements between the states and grantees;
- reporting requirements and timeframes for FHWA's evaluation results;
and:
* Formalize collaborative efforts with the clearinghouse, CDC, and EPA
to explore the feasibility of developing health and environmental
outcome measures.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
To improve the likelihood that federal investment in the SRTS program
will be used to supplement, rather than replace, state or local
spending on similar activities, Congress should consider requiring a
state or local match for the program, while possibly including
provisions that would protect low-income communities from being at a
disadvantage when competing for SRTS funds.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment prior
to finalizing the report. DOT generally agreed with the information and
findings in the report and said that they are considering our
recommendations. DOT noted that they thought it might be premature for
the agency to add evaluation requirements at this time as part of a
comprehensive plan. Nevertheless, we believe that since the SRTS
program was established nearly 3 years ago, this is an appropriate time
for DOT to develop a comprehensive evaluation plan. DOT also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and to the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Katherine Siggerud:
Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To gather information related to all three objectives, we reviewed the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the legislative history of the federal
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, and the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) SRTS program guidance. We also conducted a
literature review to identify key health, safety, and environmental
concerns the program is intended to address, including the relative
risks of the different options to transport kids to and from school.
To identify the steps FHWA and states have taken to implement the SRTS
program, we reviewed documentation describing SRTS implementation
activities taking place nationwide, including the hiring status of the
program coordinator, number of application cycle completed, and
announced spending amounts for specific local and statewide SRTS
projects. These documents included program tracking briefs from the
clearinghouse which summarize key attributes from all programs, such as
statewide spending and the number of schools participating in SRTS
programs. In addition, we used data from FHWA on SRTS funding
apportionments and obligations. To assess the reliability of the data
in the tracking reports from the clearinghouse and FHWA's data on SRTS
funding apportionments and obligations, we reviewed related
documentation and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the
quality of the data. As a result, we determined the data to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also
interviewed officials from FHWA, the clearinghouse, the national task
force, and numerous national stakeholders familiar with health, safety,
and environmental concerns, and SRTS program design and program
implementation. These stakeholders were identified from a variety of
sources, including the national task force membership list,
contributors to SRTS program guidance, and a snowball sample approach
in which key individuals were identified by those knowledgeable about
SRTS. We also collected in-depth information from three states
(California, Florida, and South Dakota) and the District of Columbia to
obtain their views on the program's design, implementation, challenges,
and results to date as applicable. To select states, we considered the
coordinator status, status of application cycles, the number of local
SRTS projects funded as of June 2007, and whether the state was
previously involved in SRTS projects or related efforts. For balance,
we selected two states with permanent coordinators that had completed
at least one application cycle, funded local projects, previously been
involved in SRTS projects or related activities, and had urban and
rural grant recipients that we could interview in a single site visit
and two other states that did not have permanent coordinators, had not
completed an application cycle as of June 2007, and had not funded
local projects. During these site visits,[Footnote 37] we interviewed
FHWA division officials, state officials and local grant recipients,
and state and local level stakeholders. We also obtained pertinent
documentation such as copies of state applications and guidelines.
To assess the extent to which FHWA and states have evaluated the
results of the SRTS program, we reviewed GAO standards for internal
controls and performance evaluation to compare against FHWA's plans for
monitoring program performance and measuring outcomes. In addition, we
examined FHWA's evaluation methodology, including information from
FHWA's program guidance, resources developed by the clearinghouse, and
recommendations provided in the draft report from the national task
force. These activities were supplemented by interviews with the FHWA
Program Manager, the clearinghouse, and national stakeholders to garner
more detailed information about evaluation efforts at the national
level. As part of the site visits described above, we also identified
evaluation plans at the state and local levels.
Lastly, to address the third objective regarding how the SRTS program
relates to other surface transportation programs and some
considerations for reauthorization, we spoke with agency officials and
stakeholders described above and reviewed pertinent documentation to
determine the extent to which the SRTS program is coordinated with
other transportation programs that can potentially provide funding for
SRTS activities. We also reviewed prior GAO reports on the economic
aspects of federal matching requirements and GAO's body of work on 21st
Century Challenges to identify criteria and principles for re-examining
government transportation programs, including the SRTS program. We
compared the practices of the SRTS program to some of these criteria
and principles. Finally, we reviewed publicly available reports and
other documents of various transportation groups to identify a range of
views on national surface transportation priorities and the types of
federal investments that best address those priorities.
We performed our review from August 2007 to July 2008 in accordance
with generally accepted governmental auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II SRTS Apportionments, by Fiscal Year:
Table 8:
Dollars in millions.
State: Alabama;
Actual 2005: $1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: $1,313,659;
Actual 2007: $1,767,375;
Actual 2008: $2,199,717;
Projected 2009[B]: $2,751,297;
Total: $9,032,048.
State: Alaska;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Arizona;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,557,644;
Actual 2007: 2,228,590;
Actual 2008: 2,896,828;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,623,208;
Total: 11,306,270.
State: Arkansas;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,027,338;
Actual 2008: 1,297,202;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,622,475;
Total: 5,937,015.
State: California;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 11,039,310;
Actual 2007: 14,832,295;
Actual 2008: 18,066,131;
Projected 2009[B]: 22,596,218;
Total: 67,533,954.
State: Colorado;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,254,403;
Actual 2007: 1,679,463;
Actual 2008: 2,119,802;
Projected 2009[B]: 2,651,342;
Total: 8,705,010.
State: Connecticut;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 998,325;
Actual 2007: 1,332,573;
Actual 2008: 1,617,319;
Projected 2009[B]: 2,022,862;
Total: 6,971,079.
State: Delaware;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: District of Columbia;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Florida;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 4,494,278;
Actual 2007: 6,133,717;
Actual 2008: 7,763,038;
Projected 2009[B]: 9,709,622;
Total: 29,100,655.
State: Georgia;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 2,578,305;
Actual 2007: 3,499,747;
Actual 2008: 4,487,050;
Projected 2009[B]: 5,612,178;
Total: 17,177,280.
State: Hawaii;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Idaho;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Illinois;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 3,729,568;
Actual 2007: 4,934,826;
Actual 2008: 6,049,154;
Projected 2009[B]: 7,565,980;
Total: 23,279,528.
State: Indiana;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,798,399;
Actual 2007: 2,408,772;
Actual 2008: 2,994,241;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,745,048;
Total: 11,946,460.
State: Iowa;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,084,775;
Actual 2008: 1,339,951;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,675,945;
Total: 6,090,671.
State: Kansas;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,064,595;
Actual 2008: 1,313,282;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,642,587;
Total: 6,010,464.
State: Kentucky;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,127,212;
Actual 2007: 1,512,032;
Actual 2008: 1,885,289;
Projected 2009[B]: 2,358,026;
Total: 7,882,559.
State: Louisiana;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,404,776;
Actual 2007: 1,864,469;
Actual 2008: 2,106,118;
Projected 2009[B]: 2,634,228;
Total: 9,009,591.
State: Maine;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Maryland;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,576,594;
Actual 2007: 2,092,753;
Actual 2008: 2,514,307;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,144,771;
Total: 10,328,425.
State: Massachusetts;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,752,904;
Actual 2007: 2,293,605;
Actual 2008: 2,771,492;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,466,445;
Total: 11,284,446.
State: Michigan;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 3,009,800;
Actual 2007: 4,005,253;
Actual 2008: 4,811,697;
Projected 2009[B]: 6,018,231;
Total: 18,844,981.
State: Minnesota;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,441,060;
Actual 2007: 1,897,225;
Actual 2008: 2,324,104;
Projected 2009[B]: 2,906,874;
Total: 9,569,263.
State: Mississippi;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,196,855;
Actual 2008: 1,471,512;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,840,494;
Total: 6,498,861.
State: Missouri;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,620,703;
Actual 2007: 2,146,792;
Actual 2008: 2,646,419;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,310,009;
Total: 10,723,923.
State: Montana;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Nebraska;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,017,718;
Total: 5,007,718.
State: Nevada;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,152,500;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,441,489;
Total: 5,583,989.
State: New Hampshire;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: New Jersey;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 2,399,056;
Actual 2007: 3,330,370;
Actual 2008: 4,087,785;
Projected 2009[B]: 5,112,798;
Total: 15,930,009.
State: New Mexico;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,134,000;
Total: 5,124,000.
State: New York;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 5,114,558;
Actual 2007: 6,894,554;
Actual 2008: 8,280,423;
Projected 2009[B]: 10,356,742;
Total: 31,646,277.
State: North Carolina;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 2,333,556;
Actual 2007: 3,175,243;
Actual 2008: 4,050,525;
Projected 2009[B]: 5,066,196;
Total: 15,625,520.
State: North Dakota;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Ohio;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 3,295,093;
Actual 2007: 4,339,214;
Actual 2008: 5,299,892;
Projected 2009[B]: 6,628,841;
Total: 20,563,040.
State: Oklahoma;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,010,647;
Actual 2007: 1,332,691;
Actual 2008: 1,664,295;
Projected 2009[B]: 2,081,617;
Total: 7,089,250.
State: Oregon;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,242,468;
Actual 2008: 1,543,621;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,930,684;
Total: 6,706,773.
State: Pennsylvania;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 3,345,128;
Actual 2007: 4,430,549;
Actual 2008: 5,436,148;
Projected 2009[B]: 6,799,263;
Total: 21,011,088.
State: Rhode Island;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: South Carolina;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,186,047;
Actual 2007: 1,584,924;
Actual 2008: 1,948,124;
Projected 2009[B]: 2,436,616;
Total: 8,155,711.
State: South Dakota;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Tennessee;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,596,222;
Actual 2007: 2,158,074;
Actual 2008: 2,700,824;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,378,056;
Total: 10,833,176.
State: Texas;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 7,009,094;
Actual 2007: 9,408,067;
Actual 2008: 12,114,991;
Projected 2009[B]: 15,152,828;
Total: 44,684,980.
State: Utah;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,063,690;
Actual 2008: 1,365,995;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,708,519;
Total: 6,128,204.
State: Vermont;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Virginia;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 2,024,830;
Actual 2007: 2,717,436;
Actual 2008: 3,370,807;
Projected 2009[B]: 4,216,038;
Total: 13,329,111.
State: Washington;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,694,515;
Actual 2007: 2,271,034;
Actual 2008: 2,809,776;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,514,328;
Total: 11,289,653.
State: West Virginia;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: Wisconsin;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 1,554,314;
Actual 2007: 2,048,636;
Actual 2008: 2,499,641;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,126,427;
Total: 10,229,018.
State: Wyoming;
Actual 2005: 1,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000;
Actual 2007: 1,000,000;
Actual 2008: 1,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000;
Total: 4,990,000.
State: All States;
Actual 2005: 51,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 96,030,000;
Actual 2007: 122,000,000;
Actual 2008: 147,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 180,000,000;
Total: 596,030,000.
State: FHWA Admin Cost;
Actual 2005: 3,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: 2,970,000;
Actual 2007: 3,000,000;
Actual 2008: 3,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: 3,000,000;
Total: 14,970,000.
Total;
Actual 2005: $54,000,000;
Actual 2006[A]: $99,000,000;
Actual 2007: $125,000,000;
Actual 2008: $150,000,000;
Projected 2009[B]: $183,000,000;
Total: $611,000,000.
Source: FHWA.
[A] Due to a 1 percent across-the-board rescission of fiscal year 2006
funds, some allocations were less than $1 million.
[B] The apportionment for fiscal year 2009 was projected using the
fiscal year 2008 factors. The official apportionment for fiscal year
2009 will be based on the latest available data; consequently, the
actual apportionment for fiscal year 2009 may differ from the estimate
presented here.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Rita Grieco (Assistant
Director) Derrick Collins, Colin Fallon, Bert Japikse, Brandon Wheeler,
and Tracy Williams made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] FHWA generally administers its programs through its headquarters in
Washington, D.C., and division offices located in every state, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FHWA delegates much of its
decision-making, program implementation, and oversight to those
offices.
[2] Infrastructure projects generally refer to construction projects
while noninfrastructure projects generally refer to behavioral
activities to encourage walking and biking to school (such as public
awareness campaigns and student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian
safety).
[3] The states may provide SRTS funding to state, local, and regional
agencies, including nonprofit organizations.
[4] All references to "states" in this report include the District of
Columbia.
[5] FHWA distributes SRTS funding through annual apportionments
established by the statutory formula in SAFETEA-LU. Once FHWA has
apportioned SRTS funds, they are available to be awarded by states.
After the states have established project agreements with their
grantees, the states may obligate the funds in accordance with each
state's approved transportation improvement program.
[6] Amounts awarded by states include the amounts that state SRTS
programs have announced they will spend on specific local SRTS projects
or programs.
[7] We conducted the interviews in California, Florida, and the
District of Columbia in person and the interviews in South Dakota by
telephone.
[8] Although the SRTS is the first such federal transportation program,
NHTSA previously funded two pilot SRTS projects in August 2000 in Marin
County, Calif., and Boston, Mass.
[9] GAO, Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal
Resources Go Further, GAO/AIMD-97-7 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 1996).
[10] For example, see GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the
Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.:
February 2005). GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal
Approach Needed for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable
Programs, GAO-08-400 (Washington D.C.: March 6, 2008).
[11] See, for example, Office of the Surgeon General, The Surgeon
General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity
2001 (Washington, D.C., 2001) and Salinsky et al., Obesity in America:
A Growing Threat, (Washington, D.C., National Health Policy Forum, July
2003).
[12] GAO, Childhood Obesity: Most Experts Identified Physical Activity
and the Use of Best Practices as Key to Successful Programs, GAO-06-
127R (Washington D.C.: Oct. 7, 2005).
[13] Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety
Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, (Washington,
D.C., 2007).
[14] Peter L. Jacobsen, "Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and
Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling," Injury Prevention (September
2003).
[15] Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Environmental Benefits of Bicycling and Walking: National Bicycling and
Walking Study, Case Study 15 (January 1993).
[16] Michael S. Freidman, et. al., "Impacts of Changes in
Transportation and Commuting Behavior During the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma," Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA), vol. 285 (February 2001), pp. 897-
905.
[17] FHWA deducts up to $3 million per year for administrative expenses
to carry out the program.
[18] Federal grant programs for highway infrastructure are collectively
known as the Federal-Aid Highway Program.
[19] While SRTS projects are subject to applicable title 23
requirements as required by SAFETEA-LU, FHWA officials noted that,
since 1996, they have allowed other types of low cost federal-aid
highway projects to use state-approved procurement procedures for
projects outside the right-of-way of a federal-aid highway.
[20] The Davis Bacon Act requires that laborers and mechanics employed
on construction work performed on projects must be paid wages at rates
not less than those prevailing on the same type of work on similar
construction in the immediate locality as determined by the Department
of Labor.
[21] GAO-05-325SP.
[22] This amount includes funding for two base years, three 1-year
options, and modifications made in July 2006, November 2007, and
February 2008.
[23] According to FHWA officials, it conducted an extensive outreach
effort in preparing the guidance by soliciting input from multiple
program stakeholders including national bicycle and pedestrian advocacy
organizations, a review team of officials from state DOTs, an FHWA
field review team, and NHTSA.
[24] Transportation projects proposed for funding under title 23,
including recipients of SRTS funds, must be programmed in a
metropolitan planning organization's Transportation Improvement program
and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. A transportation
improvement program is a prioritized listing of transportation projects
covering a period of 4 years that is developed and formally adopted by
a metropolitan planning organization as part of its planning process. A
statewide transportation improvement program is a statewide prioritized
listing of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years.
[25] GAO, Program Evaluation: Strategies for Assessing How Information
Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals, GAO-02-923 (Washington D.C.:
Sept. 30, 2002).
[26] FHWA addressed a concern of the national partnership when it
worked to include student travel data in the 2008 Household Travel
Survey. The survey is a DOT effort sponsored by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics and FHWA to collect data on both long-
distance and local travel.
[27] GAO-08-400.
[28] GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability
Provisions Could Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington D.C.:
Sept. 29, 2006).
[29] Only 10 schools were reviewed for the 2003 mobility study; the
2007 study used a representative sample of 125 of the 570 projects that
received SR2S funding in the first three years of the program. Boarnet,
et. al., Safe Routes to School, Volume1: Study Overview and Summary of
Results, a report to the legislature (December 2003). Orenstein, et.
al., Safe Routes to School Safety and Mobility Analysis, a report to
the California legislature (University of California Berkley Traffic
Safety Center, January 2007).
[30] SAFETEA-LU authorized $612 million for the SRTS program for fiscal
years 2005 through 2009, an amount that constitutes less than 1 percent
of the $193 billion authorized for all highway programs during the same
4-year period under the legislation.
[31] GAO-08-400.
[32] GAO/AIMD-97-7.
[33] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and
Options for Future Program Design, GAO-04-802 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
31, 2004).
[34] GAO-08-400.
[35] GAO-08-400.
[36] For example, see GAO-05-325SP.
[37] We conducted the interviews in California, Florida, and the
District of Columbia in person and the interviews in South Dakota by
telephone.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
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. Government Accountability 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: