Surface Transportation
Clear Federal Role and Criteria-Based Selection Process Could Improve Three National and Regional Infrastructure Programs Gao ID: GAO-09-219 February 6, 2009To help meet increasing transportation demands, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) created three programs to invest federal funds in national and regional transportation infrastructure. As requested, this report provides (1) an overview of the goals, funding status, and types of projects and activities funded by the three programs; (2) advantages and challenges identified by program stakeholders; and (3) potential program enhancements. GAO reviewed pertinent federal laws and rules; examined plans for selected projects; conducted site visits; and interviewed officials, stakeholders, and experts.
The goals of the projects funded by the three national and regional infrastructure programs--Projects of Regional and National Significance (PNRS), the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (NCIIP), and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) program--are varied, most projects have been reviewed and funded, most projects are for highway improvements, and funds have been applied toward various related activities. PNRS and NCIIP funds were distributed by congressional directive, and CBI funds were distributed by formula. The states GAO visited or whose officials GAO interviewed had established a variety of project goals, including increasing capacity and enhancing mobility. As of December 2008, the Federal Highway Administration had reviewed most projects submitted by states and had obligated $1.2 billion, or about 33 percent of the $3.6 billion authorized for the three programs through September 30, 2008. However, some states had not initiated efforts to obtain available funding. The officials GAO interviewed cited various reasons for not pursuing the funds, such as trying to complete an environmental impact statement and trying to identify a project that met the program's funding criteria. The programs' contributions to projects' estimated total costs varied, from less than 30 percent of the estimated total costs for the majority of reviewed PNRS projects and about half of the reviewed NCIIP projects to 80 percent or more of the estimated total costs for almost half of the reviewed CBI projects. Furthermore, for high-cost projects--those expected to cost over $500 million--the programs' funding contributions ranged from about 4 to 13 percent of the estimated total project cost. States have used the program funds mainly for highway projects and for various related activities, such as conducting environmental studies and expanding ongoing projects. In discussing the three programs, stakeholders cited advantages less often than challenges. The most frequently cited advantage was the funding the programs provided to support and move projects forward. The most commonly cited challenge also involved funding and included funding uncertainty. This was a challenge because project sponsors did not know whether they would receive additional federal funds to complete their projects--especially high-cost projects. According to GAO's interviews and prior work, clearly defining the federal role in surface transportation is an important step in enhancing these programs. Two historical approaches could then be used to distribute federal funds--a criteria-based competition or a formula-based distribution. GAO's interviews and prior work suggest that a criteria-based competition could enhance these programs. Some interviewees also called for a wide range of other enhancements, from broad proposals to increase investment in different transportation modes to specific suggestions, such as using cost-benefit analysis in selecting projects. The Department of Transportation generally agreed with the report's information and conclusions and offered to work with Congress on GAO's three proposed matters.
RecommendationsOur 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-09-219, Surface Transportation: Clear Federal Role and Criteria-Based Selection Process Could Improve Three National and Regional Infrastructure Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-219
entitled 'Surface Transportation: Clear Federal Role and Criteria-Based
Selection Process Could Improve Three National and Regional
Infrastructure Programs' which was released on February 6, 2009.
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 Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2009:
Surface Transportation:
Clear Federal Role and Criteria-Based Selection Process Could Improve
Three National and Regional Infrastructure Programs:
GAO-09-219:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-219, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
To help meet increasing transportation demands, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) created three programs to invest federal funds in national
and regional transportation infrastructure. As requested, this report
provides (1) an overview of the goals, funding status, and types of
projects and activities funded by the three programs; (2) advantages
and challenges identified by program stakeholders; and (3) potential
program enhancements. GAO reviewed pertinent federal laws and rules;
examined plans for selected projects; conducted site visits; and
interviewed officials, stakeholders, and experts.
What GAO Found:
The goals of the projects funded by the three national and regional
infrastructure programs”Projects of Regional and National Significance
(PNRS), the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program
(NCIIP), and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) program”are
varied, most projects have been reviewed and funded, most projects are
for highway improvements, and funds have been applied toward various
related activities. PNRS and NCIIP funds were distributed by
congressional directive, and CBI funds were distributed by formula. The
states GAO visited or whose officials GAO interviewed had established a
variety of project goals, including increasing capacity and enhancing
mobility. As of December 2008, the Federal Highway Administration had
reviewed most projects submitted by states and had obligated $1.2
billion, or about 33 percent of the $3.6 billion authorized for the
three programs through September 30, 2008. However, some states had not
initiated efforts to obtain available funding. The officials GAO
interviewed cited various reasons for not pursuing the funds, such as
trying to complete an environmental impact statement and trying to
identify a project that met the program‘s funding criteria. The
programs‘ contributions to projects‘ estimated total costs varied, from
less than 30 percent of the estimated total costs for the majority of
reviewed PNRS projects and about half of the reviewed NCIIP projects to
80 percent or more of the estimated total costs for almost half of the
reviewed CBI projects. Furthermore, for high-cost projects”those
expected to cost over $500 million”the programs‘ funding contributions
ranged from about 4 to 13 percent of the estimated total project cost.
States have used the program funds mainly for highway projects and for
various related activities, such as conducting environmental studies
and expanding ongoing projects.
In discussing the three programs, stakeholders cited advantages less
often than challenges. The most frequently cited advantage was the
funding the programs provided to support and move projects forward. The
most commonly cited challenge also involved funding and included
funding uncertainty. This was a challenge because project sponsors did
not know whether they would receive additional federal funds to
complete their projects”especially high-cost projects.
According to GAO‘s interviews and prior work, clearly defining the
federal role in surface transportation is an important step in
enhancing these programs. Two historical approaches could then be used
to distribute federal funds”a criteria-based competition or a formula-
based distribution. GAO‘s interviews and prior work suggest that a
criteria-based competition could enhance these programs. Some
interviewees also called for a wide range of other enhancements, from
broad proposals to increase investment in different transportation
modes to specific suggestions, such as using cost-benefit analysis in
selecting projects. The Department of Transportation generally agreed
with the report‘s information and conclusions and offered to work with
Congress on GAO‘s three proposed matters.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is not recommending executive action. However, to enhance these
programs, Congress should consider the following matters: (1) defining
the federal role in accordance with national and regional program
priorities, (2) implementing a criteria-based, competitive project
selection process, and (3) working with the Secretary of Transportation
to develop any specific program enhancements that could help these
programs meet priorities and achieve the highest possible return on
federal investments.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-219]. For more
information, contact Phillip R. Herr, 202-512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Project Goals Vary, Most Projects Have Been Reviewed and Received
Funding, Highway Projects Predominate, and Funds Are Used for Various
Activities:
Stakeholders Cited Advantages Less Often Than Challenges Associated
with DOT's National and Regional Programs:
Key Program Enhancements Include Defining a Clear Federal Role and a
Criteria-Based, Competitive Project Selection Process:
Conclusions:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Stakeholder-Identified Advantages of the National and
Regional Infrastructure Programs:
Appendix III: Stakeholder-Identified Challenges of the National and
Regional Infrastructure Programs:
Appendix IV: Stakeholder-Identified Enhancements:
Appendix V: PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI Projects and Their Funding:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected Features of Selected Federal Transportation Programs:
Table 2: Total Amounts Authorized for DOT's National and Regional
Programs, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009:
Table 3: Goals for Selected PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI Projects Reviewed by
GAO:
Table 4: Funding Status of PNRS and NCIIP Projects, as of December 2,
2008:
Table 5: Authorizations, Appropriations, and Obligations for Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2008, as of September 30, 2008:
Table 6: Federal Share of Contributions Relative to Estimated Total
Project Costs, by Program and Cost Category:
Table 7: Range of Federal Percentage of Estimated Total Project Cost
and Average Federal Percentage of Estimated Total Cost for Projects
That Received Funding, by Program and Cost Category:
Table 8: Number of Reviewed PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI Projects, by Type:
Table 9: Range of Characteristics of Available Approaches for
Restructuring Federal Funding for the Three Programs, Based on
Stakeholder Views and Prior GAO Reports:
Table 10: Names and Locations of Entities Interviewed:
Table 11: Projects of National and Regional Significance:
Table 12: National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program:
Table 13: Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program:
Abbreviations:
APGCI: Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative:
CBI: Coordinated Border Infrastructure program:
CREATE: Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency
program:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration:
GSA: General Services Administration:
MARAD: Maritime Administration:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
NCIIP: National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program:
PNRS: Projects of National and Regional Significance:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 6, 2009:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
As traffic congestion increases and our nation's transportation
infrastructure ages, governments at the federal, state, and local
levels face growing demands for infrastructure improvements. To help
address these demands, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted in
August 2005, established three federal transportation programs to
target funds to infrastructure projects that have high costs, involve
national or regional impacts, and cannot easily or specifically be
addressed within existing federal surface transportation programs. The
programs, which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers,
are as follows:
* The Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) program
provides funding for high-cost[Footnote 1] transportation projects that
are of national or regional importance in enhancing the surface
transportation system.
* The National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (NCIIP)
provides funding for highway construction projects in corridors of
national significance to promote economic growth and international or
interregional trade by enhancing freight mobility.
* The Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) program provides funding
to support the safe movement of motor vehicles across the land borders
of the United States with Canada and Mexico.
To fund these three programs, SAFETEA-LU authorized spending of over
$4.5 billion from the federal Highway Trust Fund during fiscal years
2005 through 2009.[Footnote 2] According to the latest data available
from FHWA, these three programs have contributed federal funds to 153
projects in 35 states and the District of Columbia.[Footnote 3] The act
did not define the terms "projects of national or regional importance"
or "corridors of national significance," but it established a
competitive, criteria-based process for FHWA to follow in selecting
PNRS and NCIIP projects. However, this process was never implemented
because, in different sections of SAFETEA-LU, all of the available
funds for these two programs were directed to 24 PNRS and 31 NCIIP
projects. CBI funds were distributed to 15 border states, by formula,
for these states to allocate to projects that met CBI criteria
described in SAFETEA-LU. As of September 30, 2008, states had allocated
CBI funds to 98 projects. The projects that received federal funds
through the three programs vary in complexity and size--from replacing
a major highway bridge to rehabilitating a highway rest area. While CBI
differs in some ways from PNRS and NCIIP, we included it in our
analysis at your request and because it provides federal funds to
improve transportation infrastructure projects on our borders with
Canada and Mexico. Such projects could have national and regional
implications.
While demands for transportation infrastructure investment are
increasing, the purchasing power of revenues to the Highway Trust Fund
continues to erode with inflation and the introduction of more fuel-
efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles. In addition, federal surface
transportation programs are due for reauthorization at the end of
fiscal year 2009. Hence, Congress will soon face the challenge of
allocating federal resources to meet demands for a wide range of
surface transportation infrastructure projects. You asked us to review
the three programs established in SAFETEA-LU and to identify possible
enhancements that could be applied to future authorizations. To do so,
we addressed the following questions: (1) What are the goals, funding
status, and types of projects and activities funded for the three
programs? (2) What advantages and challenges did stakeholders say were
associated with these three programs? (3) What approaches are available
for enhancing the three programs?
To address these questions, we (1) reviewed federal law, proposed
regulations, and a Department of Transportation (DOT) report on the
PNRS program; (2) reviewed pertinent documentation, including some of
the project proposals, plans, and information submitted to DOT for
projects funded by these programs; and (3) interviewed officials from
56 "stakeholder" entities to understand the programs' advantages,
challenges, and possible enhancements. Stakeholders broadly have
interest and expertise in one or more of the three programs, in a
specific transportation project funded by one of these programs, or in
federal surface transportation policy generally. The stakeholders we
interviewed included officials from the following entities:
* DOT headquarters in Washington, D.C., including the Office of the
Secretary; FHWA; the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); and the
Maritime Administration (MARAD), as well as FHWA division offices in
eight states for a total of 12 DOT entities; and:
* 16 state transportation departments, 16 local government agencies,
and 12 transportation associations or other expert organizations. We
conducted some of these interviews as part of our site visits to eight
states--California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois,
Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon--where we met with officials who
manage projects funded through the three programs. The 16 state
transportation departments we selected for interviews included 14
states that collectively accounted for 86 projects funded by the three
programs and 2 states, Florida and Wyoming, that did not have projects
funded by these three programs.
In selecting our sites, we considered geographic diversity, the funding
authorized by states for these programs, and the characteristics of the
projects funded. In addition, for comparison, we contacted Transport
Canada, the transportation department of the federal Canadian
government, and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure of
the Canadian province of British Columbia, to obtain information about
similar infrastructure investment programs. (See app. I for a full list
of the entities we contacted during our work on this report.
We also reviewed FHWA's data on amounts authorized, appropriated, and
obligated for PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI. To assess the reliability and
quality of FHWA's financial data, we analyzed related documentation and
interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. Through these efforts, we
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for this report. We
conducted this performance audit from December 2007 to February 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government 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. (See app. I for further
details about our objectives, scope, and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
The goals of the projects funded through the three national and
regional programs are varied, with most projects having received FHWA's
review and funding, and most projects are for highway improvements and
various related activities. The 14 states we reviewed in our work,
which had projects funded by these three programs, had established a
variety of project goals, including increasing transportation capacity,
enhancing passenger and freight mobility, reducing congestion,
promoting economic development, and improving safety. According to the
latest data available for the three programs, FHWA had reviewed most
PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI projects submitted by states. A few states and the
District of Columbia had not initiated efforts to obtain funds for
certain projects authorized by SAFETEA-LU, including 3 of 24 PNRS
projects and 4 of 31 NCIIP projects, and one state had not taken steps
to spend its CBI funding. The transportation officials we interviewed
cited different reasons for not pursuing the funds, such as trying to
complete an environmental impact statement first and trying to identify
a project that met CBI funding criteria. As of September 30, 2008, FHWA
had obligated nearly $1.2 billion, or about 33 percent of the $3.6
billion authorized under the three programs.[Footnote 4] Federal
funding contributions to estimated total projects costs varied by
program. Under PNRS, the federal funding contributions represented less
than 30 percent of the estimated total project cost for the majority of
reviewed projects (i.e., for 15 of 19 PNRS projects). Under NCIIP, the
federal funding contributions represented less than 30 percent of the
estimated total project cost for about half of the reviewed projects
(i.e., for 13 of 27 NCIIP projects). For high-cost projects--those
whose estimated total cost equals or exceeds $500 million (11 of 19
PNRS projects, 11 of 27 NCIIP projects, and 1 of 98 CBI projects)--PNRS
funds averaged about 8 percent of the estimated total project costs,
NCIIP funds averaged about 4 percent of the estimated total project
costs, and CBI funds averaged about 13 percent of the estimated total
project costs. CBI funds represented 80 percent or more of the
estimated total project costs for almost half (44 of 98) of reviewed
CBI projects selected by the states. Generally, CBI funds were often
used by states for smaller-scope, lower-cost projects--such as
resurfacing highway pavement, rehabilitating rest areas, refurbishing
tollbooths, or installing guardrails.
In discussing the three programs, stakeholders discussed a wide variety
of both advantages and challenges, but they cited advantages less often
than challenges.[Footnote 5] The most frequently cited advantage was
that the federal funding provided support and helped move projects
forward. The stakeholders who cited this feature saw it as an advantage
because the program funds helped initiate some projects and advance
other projects that were already under construction. Three other
funding advantages included the opportunity the programs provided to
address high-cost projects and transportation projects of national
importance, the direction of PNRS funds to nonhighway projects, and the
ability of the program funds to attract additional nonfederal funds.
The most commonly cited challenges associated with the three programs
were also related to funding issues, including funding uncertainty and
the relatively limited amount of funding provided for large projects,
and difficulties in complying with federal requirements for using the
funds. Funding uncertainty was a challenge because project sponsors
said that even with the SAFETEA-LU funds provided under these three
programs, they did not know whether they would receive additional
federal funds needed to complete their projects. As noted, for high-
cost projects, PNRS funds averaged about 8 percent of the estimated
total project costs, NCIIP funds averaged about 4 percent of the
estimated total project costs, and CBI funds averaged about 13 percent
of the estimated total project costs. Some stakeholders cited
compliance with federal requirements as a challenge, in part, they
said, because it entails additional time and expense--a concern that
our work supports in some instances, but not in others. Finally, some
stakeholders said that not using the criteria-based competitive process
established in SAFETEA-LU to select projects made it difficult to
determine whether the projects funded by congressional directive
addressed national and regional priorities. DOT officials said that not
using the criteria-based competitive process made it difficult to
assess the entire transportation system across modes to determine where
improvements should be made.
According to our stakeholder interviews and our prior work on federal
surface transportation programs[Footnote 6] clearly defining the
federal role in surface transportation is an important first step in
focusing these programs. Consistent with a newly clarified federal
role, two approaches that have historically been used to distribute
federal transportation funds could be used to fund projects under these
three programs--a criteria-based competition or a formula-based
distribution. These approaches have a range of characteristics,
including both advantages and disadvantages; however, regardless of the
approach taken, Congress could still direct funds to individual
transportation projects as it did in two of the three programs. Our
stakeholder interviews and our prior work suggest that a criteria-based
competition may provide the best opportunity to enhance these programs
by targeting federal investments toward achieving a more clearly
defined federal role and achieving the programs' other stated
objectives. Some stakeholders we interviewed also called for a wide
range of program enhancements, from broad proposals to increase the
programs' ability to invest in different transportation modes for these
programs, to specific suggestions, such as, for using cost-benefit
analysis in selecting projects.
Our work indicates that, to enhance these programs, Congress should
consider defining the national and regional transportation priorities
that these programs are supposed to address, and then linking the three
programs directly to an identified federal interest and role in surface
transportation when it is considering the reauthorization of federal
surface transportation programs. Congress should also consider allowing
a criteria-based, competitive project selection process to be
implemented and work with the Secretary of Transportation to determine
any program enhancements that could help ensure that these programs
meet those priorities and achieve the highest return on the federal
investment.
We provided copies of a draft of this report to DOT for its review and
comment. DOT officials generally agreed with the information in this
report, and stated that the department would be happy to assist
Congress on the proposed matters.
Background:
While PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI all provided federal funds for
transportation infrastructure projects, they differed somewhat in their
goals, methods used for selecting projects, and methods used for
distributing the federal funds to states,[Footnote 7] as indicated in
table 1. (See app. V for a list and description of the 153 projects
funded by the three programs.)
Table 1: Selected Features of Selected Federal Transportation Programs:
Program: PNRS;
Program goals: To fund high-cost infrastructure projects of national
and regional importance;
Number of projects: 24[A];
Project selection method used: Congressional directive;
Method used to distribute funds to states: Congressional directive.
Program: NCIIP;
Program goals: To fund projects in corridors of national significance;
Number of projects: 31[B];
Project selection method used: Congressional directive;
Method used to distribute funds to states: Congressional directive.
Program: CBI;
Program goals: To fund projects to facilitate cross-border movement of
motor vehicles;
Number of projects: 98;
Project selection method used: State selection;
Method used to distribute funds to states: Formula[C].
Sources: GAO analysis of SAFETEA-LU and FHWA documentation.
[A] SAFETEA-LU listed 25 directives to 24 different projects for PNRS.
One project, the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, Washington, received
two different directives.
[B] SAFETEA-LU listed 33 directives to 31 different projects for NCIIP.
Two projects, I-49 North and State Route 1, both in Louisiana, each
received two different directives.
[C] CBI's funding formula considers several factors, including numbers
of incoming commercial trucks and the weight of their cargo, incoming
personal motor vehicles and buses through land border ports of entry,
and land border ports of entry. States must select projects within 100
miles of their international land border with Canada or Mexico, and the
projects are to be selected for their ability to expedite cross-border
movements of vehicles and cargo, among other things.
[End of table]
SAFETEA-LU authorized different funding levels for the three programs
in each fiscal year of the 5-year authorization period, as shown in
table 2; however, the amounts ultimately distributed to the states for
those years were adjusted downward for several reasons.
Table 2: Total Amounts Authorized for DOT's National and Regional
Programs, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009:
Program: PNRS;
Fiscal year: 2005: $178 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $356 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $445 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $445 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $356 million;
Total amount authorized: $1,780 million.
Program: NCIIP;
Fiscal year: 2005: $195 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $390 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $487 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $487 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $390 million;
Total amount authorized: $1,949 million.
Program: CBI;
Fiscal year: 2005: $123 million;
Fiscal year: 2006: $144 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $165 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $190 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $210 million;
Total amount authorized: $832 million.
Total: $4,561 million.
Source: FHWA.
[End of table]
The funds authorized for these programs, which come from the federal
Highway Trust Fund, represent funds that can be made available to the
Secretary of Transportation, acting through FHWA, to carry out these
programs. These funds are subject to limitation through the annual
appropriations process and deductions may be made for rescissions,
among other things. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the funding for
these three programs was 14 percent less than the authorizations for
those 2 years and in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 the funding was 8
percent less than the authorizations for those years. After funds are
allocated for these programs and FHWA has reviewed project
documentation for completeness and consistency with congressional
language, funds may be obligated, or set aside, for the projects. These
three programs, like most federal-aid highway programs, distribute
federal funds by reimbursement to the states. States spend other funds
for eligible project expenses and submit claims to FHWA for review and
approval before they receive the federal funds under these programs as
reimbursement.[Footnote 8]
Before federal funds are distributed to a state for a project under
these three programs, the state must submit a proposal for a PNRS or an
NCIIP project, or a project eligibility form for a CBI project, to
FHWA. FHWA compares information about the project against the project
description included in SAFETEA-LU for PNRS or NCIIP projects and
against eligibility criteria as defined in SAFETEA-LU for CBI projects.
[Footnote 9] In addition, FHWA follows the normal steps for reviewing a
project application for the use of federal-aid highway program funds.
For example, FHWA ensures that the state agrees to apply federal laws
as a condition of receiving funds under these and other federal-aid
highway programs, such as the environmental assessment provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [Footnote 10] and the
Davis-Bacon Act's prevailing wage requirements.[Footnote 11]
SAFETEA-LU directed all of the PNRS and NCIIP funds to specific
projects. SAFETEA-LU also contained other provisions that set forth a
criteria-based, competitive process for selecting PNRS and NCIIP
projects; however, this process was superseded by the congressional
directives. According to SAFETEA-LU's competitive process, PNRS
projects selected for federal funding were to have national and
regional significance and benefits that the act described as improving
economic productivity by facilitating international trade and relieving
congestion, among other things.[Footnote 12] The criteria for selecting
NCIIP projects were that they be located in "corridors of national
significance" and that their selection be based on the extent to which
a corridor links two existing segments of the Interstate System, is
able to facilitate major multistate or regional mobility, and promotes
economic growth. Additional criteria for NCIIP funding included the
value of commercial vehicle traffic cargo in the corridor and economic
costs arising from congestion.
Federal funds distributed through the CBI program to states had to be
used generally for infrastructure or operational improvements on
highways within 100 miles of a border with Canada or Mexico. In
addition, states can transfer up to 15 percent or $5 million (whichever
is less) of the state's yearly amount of CBI funds to the General
Services Administration (GSA), which owns and leases facilities at U.S.
land border ports of entry.[Footnote 13] GSA can use these funds for
CBI-eligible projects on its property. Border states can also propose
to use CBI funds on projects located in Canada or Mexico that
facilitate cross-border movement at an international port of entry in
the border region of the state.[Footnote 14]
Project Goals Vary, Most Projects Have Been Reviewed and Received
Funding, Highway Projects Predominate, and Funds Are Used for Various
Activities:
States established goals for their projects to address capacity,
congestion, economic and safety issues. According to the latest data
available from FHWA, most PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI projects had been
reviewed by FHWA, and funds had been distributed to states; however,
some states had not initiated efforts to obtain federal funds for their
projects under these programs. The federal contributions to estimated
total project costs varied by program. States have used the program
funds mainly for highway projects, although some rail and intermodal
projects were funded under PNRS. Furthermore, states have used the
project funds for various activities and purposes.
Projects Funded by the Programs Have a Variety of Goals:
The 14 states we reviewed established a variety of goals for the
national and regional projects funded by the three programs. In broad
terms, these goals included increasing transportation capacity,
enhancing passenger and freight mobility, reducing congestion,
promoting economic development, and improving safety. Table 3
identifies more detailed goals for some projects.
Table 3: Goals for Selected PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI Projects Reviewed by
GAO:
Project and location: Interstate I-5 Bridge Repair (Oregon);
Program: PNRS;
Goal(s)[A]: Improve freight flow by approximately 20 percent (as
measured by average daily truck count) through bridge upgrades on the I-
5 corridor. Avoid disruptions in traffic flow across bridges resulting
from truck weight or height restrictions that could reduce the local
economy's productivity by an estimated $168 billion annually.
Project and location: Liberty Corridor (New Jersey);
Program: PNRS;
Goal(s)[A]: Target funds in eight counties to transportation projects
aimed at enhancing economic development, reclaiming "brownfields"[B]
improving freight movement, creating more transit opportunities, and
encouraging technological and workforce development. The projects are
designed to build on the strength of existing transportation resources
and advance a strategic marketing plan to attract businesses.
Project and location: Chicago Region Environmental And Transportation
Efficiency Program (CREATE) (Illinois);
Program: PNRS;
Goal(s)[A]: Improve freight velocity, thereby resulting in faster goods
movement nationwide, improved travel times for intercity and regional
rail passengers, and shifts from car to rail travel that will improve
air quality. In addition, improve safety for rail and roadway users,
reduce motorist delays, and reduce emissions through road-rail grade
separations. Produce monetary benefits for the Chicago region,
including an estimated $595 million related to safety improvements and
reduced delays for motorists and rail passengers; $1.1 billion related
to air quality improvements; and $2.2 billion related to savings in
construction contracts in the area.
Project and location: Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Connecticut);
Program: NCIIP;
Goal(s)[A]: Increase corridor capacity by adding a lane in each
direction and allowing trucks to enter the highway at higher speeds, as
well as create safer access ramps for trucks entering the highway from
the Port of New Haven and provide shoulders for emergency vehicle
access. At the cost of some increased noise, increase access to and
from the port and reduce congestion and idling time at the I-95/I-91
interchange.
Project and location: I-5/Blaine Exit-Interchange Improvements
(Washington);
Program: CBI;
Goal(s)[A]: Keep congestion "acceptable" until 2030 through
improvements that are expected to improve the flow of vehicles entering
and exiting GSA's reconstructed Peace Arch Port of Entry with Canada in
Blaine, Washington. Any additional impact on national and regional
transportation capacity will be determined after the project is
complete.
Project and location: State Route 905, from I-805 to the Otay Mesa Port
of Entry with Mexico (California);
Program: CBI;
Goal(s)[A]: By constructing a new 6-lane highway, increase efficiency
and capacity at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry with Mexico for commercial
truck movement; improve mobility for existing and forecasted local,
regional, interregional, and international traffic; alleviate
congestion and provide consistency and reliability to freight
movements; and achieve a net reduction in future vehicle emissions over
the no-build alternative. According to state estimates, when completed,
the project will realize an estimated average annual travel time
savings worth $71.6 million and eliminate over 9.9 million annual
person-hours of delay.
Project and location: Brawley Bypass (California);
Program: CBI;
Goal(s)[A]: Increase freight and passenger mobility and improve air
quality and safety by constructing a new extension of State Route 111
that will bypass the town of Brawley in Imperial County and connect to
State Route 78, thereby diverting trucks from Brawley's local streets.
Currently, trucks coming into the United States from Mexico and trash
trucks heading from Los Angeles to an area landfill pass through
Brawley. According to state estimates, when complete, the project will
realize an estimated average annual travel time savings of $16.3
million and eliminate over 2 million annual person-hours of delay.
Source: GAO summary and analysis of project documentation.
[A] GAO did not independently review or validate the estimated benefits
of the projects listed in this table.
[B] The term brownfield generally refers to a site with a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant that may complicate the expansion,
redevelopment, or reuse of the property.
[End of table]
Most Projects Have Been Reviewed and Funds Have Been Distributed, but
Some States Have Not Requested Funds for Certain Projects:
As of December 2, 2008, FHWA had received project descriptions for and
reviewed and distributed funds for most of the projects funded by
congressional directive (46 of 55 projects) under PNRS and NCIIP, as
shown in table 4.
Table 4: Funding Status of PNRS and NCIIP Projects, as of December 2,
2008:
National and regional program: PNRS;
Number of congressionally directed projects: 24;
Number of projects reviewed by FHWA and funds distributed to states:
19;
Number of projects under review by FHWA: 2;
Number of projects for which states have not submitted project
proposals to FHWA for review: 3.
National and regional program: NCIIP[A];
Number of congressionally directed projects: 31;
Number of projects reviewed by FHWA and funds distributed to states:
27;
Number of projects under review by FHWA: 0;
Number of projects for which states have not submitted project
proposals to FHWA for review: 4.
National and regional program: Total;
Number of congressionally directed projects: 55;
Number of projects reviewed by FHWA and funds distributed to states:
46;
Number of projects under review by FHWA: 2;
Number of projects for which states have not submitted project
proposals to FHWA for review: 7.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
[A] For the NCIIP program, "states" includes the District of Columbia.
[End of table]
As of September 30, 2008, 14 of 15 border states had initiated efforts
to obtain CBI funds by submitting required descriptions of proposed
projects to FHWA. These 14 states had received funds for 98 CBI
projects.
Since SAFETEA-LU was passed in August 2005, FHWA has distributed most
of the funds appropriated for these programs to the states for use on
reviewed projects; however, FHWA has set aside, or obligated, only a
portion of these funds for specific projects. As shown in table 5, as
of September 30, 2008, FHWA had obligated nearly $1.2 billion, or about
33 percent of the $3.6 billion authorized under the three programs
through that period.
Table 5: Authorizations, Appropriations, and Obligations for Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2008, as of September 30, 2008 (Dollars in
millions):
National and regional program: PNRS;
Authorizations: $1,424;
Appropriations: $1,279;
Obligations: $423.
National and regional program: NCIIP;
Authorizations: $1,558;
Appropriations: $1,400;
Obligations: $499.
National and regional program: CBI;
Authorizations: $622;
Appropriations: $622;
Obligations: $260.
National and regional program: Total;
Authorizations: $3,604;
Appropriations: $3,301;
Obligations: $1,182.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
[End of table]
Although FHWA has obligated about a third of the authorized funds for
reviewed projects, many of these projects are generally still in
preliminary stages. As we have previously reported, FHWA has determined
that it typically takes from 9 to 19 years to plan, gain approval for,
and construct a new, major, federally funded highway project that has
significant environmental impacts.[Footnote 15] As many as 200 major
steps can be involved in developing such a project, from identifying
the need for it to starting construction.
While states have submitted complete project descriptions to FHWA for
most projects and have received funds for them, some states have not
done so, including the following:
* Three states had not submitted descriptions or requested funds for 3
of the 24 PNRS projects, as of December 2, 2008. Transportation
officials in Michigan and Minnesota told us they were waiting to
complete the environmental impact statement before submitting a project
description and requesting PNRS funds for 2 of these projects (Blue
Water Bridge Border/Port Huron Plaza project in Michigan and the Union
Depot Multimodal Transit Facility in Minnesota). FHWA also did not
receive a project description for the PNRS project involving
improvements to I-80 in Pennsylvania.
* Three states and the District of Columbia had not submitted project
descriptions or requested funds for 4 of 31 NCIIP projects, as of
December 2, 2008. Officials we interviewed in two of those states
offered varied reasons for not using the funds. For example, Arizona
DOT officials said they did not submit a description for the State
Route 85 project because they were trying to identify an appropriate
project segment that could meet the NCIIP funding criteria. Wisconsin
DOT officials told us they had not yet requested the NCIIP funds for
the U.S. 41 project since the NCIIP funds do not have to be used by a
specified date. In addition, FHWA has not received NCIIP project
descriptions for the Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge in the District
of Columbia and I-80 improvements in Indiana.
* One of 15 border states (New Hampshire) had not used any of its
distribution of CBI funds, as of September 30, 2008. An FHWA official
told us that New Hampshire has only one border crossing, and it is not
always open; therefore, the New Hampshire DOT is trying to identify a
suitable project that meets CBI funding criteria.
Federal Share of Contributions to Total Project Costs Varies by Type of
Program:
The federal share of contributions relative to the estimated total
project costs varies widely between the PNRS and NCIIP programs and the
CBI program, as shown in table 6.[Footnote 16] For example, under PNRS,
the federal funding contributions represented less than 30 percent of
the estimated total project cost for the majority of reviewed projects
(i.e., for 15 of 19 PNRS projects). Under NCIIP, the federal funding
contributions represented less than 30 percent of the estimated total
project cost for about half of the reviewed NCIIP projects (i.e., for
13 of 27 NCIIP projects). The federal shares for the congressionally
directed PNRS projects that received funding from FHWA varied widely,
ranging from about 2 percent for the construction of I-73 between North
and South Carolina to 104 percent for a project to relocate freight
rail operations from El Paso, Texas, to New Mexico.[Footnote 17] In
contrast, CBI funds represented 80 percent or more of the estimated
total project cost for almost half (44 of 98) of reviewed CBI projects
selected by the states. Generally, CBI program funds were often used by
states for smaller-scope, lower-cost projects--such as resurfacing
highway pavement, rehabilitating rest areas, refurbishing tollbooths,
or installing guardrails.
Table 6: Federal Share of Contributions Relative to Estimated Total
Project Costs, by Program and Cost Category:
Program: PNRS: High-cost projects;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 11;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 0;
Total number of reviewed projects: 11.
Program: PNRS: Non-high-cost projects;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 4;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 2;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 2;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 0;
Total number of reviewed projects: 8.
Program: PNRS: Cost unknown;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 0;
Total number of reviewed projects: 0.
Program: NCIIP: High-cost projects;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 9;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 2;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 0;
Total number of reviewed projects: 11.
Program: NCIIP: Non-high-cost projects;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 4;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 9;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 2;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 0;
Total number of reviewed projects: 15.
Program: NCIIP: Cost unknown;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 1;
Total number of reviewed projects: 1.
Program: CBI: High-cost projects;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 1;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 0;
Total number of reviewed projects: 1.
Program: CBI: Non-high-cost projects;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 18;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 33;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 44;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 0;
Total number of reviewed projects: 95.
Program: CBI: Cost unknown;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 0;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 2;
Total number of reviewed projects: 2.
Program: Total projects--all three programs;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of less than 30%: 47;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 30% to less than
80%: 46;
Number of reviewed projects with a federal share of 80% to 100%: 48;
Number of reviewed projects whose federal share is unknown[A]: 3;
Total number of reviewed projects: 144.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
Note: The estimated total project costs are the amounts state DOT
officials estimated they would need to complete their projects. The
estimated total project costs for PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI are based on
state DOT submissions to FHWA from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2008.
[A] State DOT officials had not submitted project plans with estimated
total project costs for these projects.
[End of table]
For high-cost projects--those whose estimated total costs equaled or
exceeded $500 million (11 of 19 PNRS projects, 11 of 27 NCIIP projects,
and 1 of 98 CBI projects)--PNRS funds averaged about 8 percent of
estimated total costs, NCIIP funds averaged about 4 percent of
estimated total costs, and CBI funds averaged about 13 percent of
estimated total costs. For non-high-cost projects, the range and the
average federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs is similar for each program. Table 7 presents
information on the range and average percentage of estimated total
project costs provided by federal funds, by program.
Table 7: Range of Federal Percentage of Estimated Total Project Cost
and Average Federal Percentage of Estimated Total Cost for Projects
That Received Funding, by Program and Cost Category:
Program: PNRS: High-cost projects;
Range of federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 2%-19%;
Average federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 8%.
Program: PNRS: Non-high-cost projects;
Range of federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 11%-104%;
Average federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 32%.
Program: NCIIP: High-cost projects;
Range of federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: Less than 1%-61%;
Average federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 4%.
Program: NCIIP: Non-high-cost projects;
Range of federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 7%-93%;
Average federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 35%.
Program: CBI: High-cost projects;
Range of federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 13%;
Average federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 13%.
Program: CBI: Non-high-cost projects;
Range of federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: Less than 1%-100%;
Average federal share of contributions as a percentage of estimated
total project costs: 39%.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
Notes: The federal share is the federal funding provided by each
program. The estimated total project costs are the amounts state DOT
officials estimated they needed to complete their projects. PNRS,
NCIIP, and CBI estimated total project costs are based on state DOT
submissions to FHWA from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008.
[End of table]
Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Majority of Projects Are for Highway Improvements:
States have used the funds from the three national and regional
programs mainly for highway projects. As shown in table 8, 137 of 144
total reviewed projects, or 95 percent, involved highways.
Table 8: Number of Reviewed PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI Projects, by Type:
National and regional program: PNRS;
Number of highway projects: 12;
Number of intermodal projects: 4;
Number of rail projects: 3;
Total: 19.
National and regional program: NCIIP;
Number of highway projects: 27;
Number of intermodal projects: 0;
Number of rail projects: 0;
Total: 27.
National and regional program: CBI;
Number of highway projects: 98;
Number of intermodal projects: 0;
Number of rail projects: 0;
Total: 98.
National and regional program: Total;
Number of highway projects: 137;
Number of intermodal projects: 4;
Number of rail projects: 3;
Total: 144.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
[End of table]
While some sections of SAFETEA-LU restricted funds from all three
programs to highway projects, another section of SAFETEA-LU directed
some PNRS funds to nonhighway projects. (See app. V for complete lists
of PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI projects.) These nonhighway PNRS projects
included an intermodal project in Chicago (the CREATE program) and a
rail project in New York (the Cross Harbor Freight Movement project).
Project Funds Are Used for Various Activities and Purposes:
States have used their PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI project funds for a variety
of activities, including conducting environmental studies, planning,
preliminary engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction. Moreover, these project funds can be used for diverse
purposes, such as expanding ongoing projects, covering cost increases
or revenue shortfalls, or initiating projects and attracting nonfederal
funds. The following examples from projects in table 3 illustrate how
states have used their project funds:
* Oregon DOT officials told us PNRS funds enabled the state to
undertake additional I-5 bridge repair projects beyond those possible
with the previous level of state funding. Because I-5 is the only north-
south interstate highway linking Oregon to California and Washington,
upgrading the bridges is expected to improve the flow of freight
through all three states.
* Connecticut DOT officials told us that NCIIP funds provide the
necessary momentum to continue the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
[Footnote 18] project. Without these federal funds, the officials said,
other transportation projects would have had to be postponed until
Connecticut could finish this project. Officials stated that
Connecticut actively seeks federal funding for large transportation
projects so that it can direct state funds to other transportation
projects.
* Finally, some states have used the program funds to initiate projects
and attract other state and local funds. For example, the California
DOT used a portion of its CBI funding to attract state funds for the
Brawley Bypass project. According to California DOT officials, if
federal funds had not been distributed to this project, it would have
not have qualified for state funds--under California law, a project
sponsor must obtain nonstate matching funds before it can obtain state
funds--and the project would have been more difficult to complete.
[Footnote 19]
Stakeholders Cited Advantages Less Often Than Challenges Associated
with DOT's National and Regional Programs:
In discussing the three programs, stakeholders discussed a wide variety
of both advantages and challenges, but they cited advantages less often
than challenges. Specifically, in our interviews with 56 stakeholders,
there were 47 instances in which stakeholders cited advantages of these
programs and 66 instances in which they cited challenges.[Footnote 20]
The advantages were primarily related to the benefits of the programs'
funding, while the more numerous challenges included funding issues but
also addressed problems in complying with federal requirements and in
not using the criteria-based competitive process established in SAFETEA-
LU to select projects.
Stakeholders Cited Advantages Related to the Programs' Funding:
When asked about the advantages of the three programs, the stakeholders
we interviewed focused primarily on the funding the programs provided.
[Footnote 21] (See app. II for a complete list of these advantages and
the number of interviews in which each advantage was mentioned by a
stakeholder group.) The most frequently cited advantage was the support
the programs provided to initiate projects and to advance those that
were already under construction. For example, as stated earlier,
Connecticut DOT officials told us that NCIIP funds allowed them to
continue work on the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge project without
having to stop other transportation projects that would otherwise have
had to be postponed until the bridge could be completed.
The second most frequently cited advantage was the opportunity the
programs provided to address high-cost projects and issues the
stakeholders considered to be of national importance. For example, one
stakeholder said that PNRS funding enabled it to address a high-cost
project that required multiple funding partnerships, and another
stakeholder said the CBI funding allowed it to undertake a project that
serves regional and national needs by facilitating cross-border
commercial truck traffic.
Two additional advantages, both related to the programs' funding, were
the third most frequently cited. These included the direction of PNRS
funds to nonhighway projects and the ability of the program funds to
attract additional nonfederal funds, as follows:
* Stakeholders viewed the direction of some PNRS funds to nonhighway
projects as an advantage in addressing some states' transportation
priorities because such projects would not otherwise have been eligible
for PNRS funds under current law.
* Some stakeholders cited the ability of PNRS or NCIIP funds to attract
additional nonfederal funds. For example, some stakeholders mentioned
that because federal funds were directed toward a specific project,
nonfederal funds were distributed by the state and local government to
satisfy the state and local match requirements.[Footnote 22]
Stakeholders Cited Several Challenges Associated with DOT's National
and Regional Programs:
While stakeholders cited some advantages, there were more instances in
which stakeholders cited challenges associated with these three
programs. (See app. III for the list of challenges and the number of
instances that each challenge was cited in a stakeholder interview.)
The challenges most frequently cited were related to funding, including
the uncertainty of future federal funding, the relatively limited
amounts of funding provided for large projects, and the impact of
inflation.
* Funding uncertainty presents a challenge because almost all PNRS and
NCIIP projects were funded below their full cost and project sponsors
do not know whether they will receive additional federal funds beyond
fiscal year 2009 to complete their projects. According to one
stakeholder, states need a reliable funding stream in order to plan and
obtain nonfederal funding. As a result, some stakeholders told us they
planned to seek additional federal funds beyond fiscal year 2009 to
complete their projects.
* The percentage of total estimated project costs provided by the three
programs also presents a challenge to projects' completion. As noted,
under the PNRS program, the federal funding contributions represented
less than 30 percent of the estimated total project costs for the
majority of reviewed projects. Under the NCIIP program, the federal
funding contributions represented less than 30 percent of the estimated
total project costs for about half of the reviewed projects. For high-
cost projects, PNRS funds averaged about 8 percent of the estimated
total costs, and NCIIP funds averaged about 4 percent of the estimated
total costs. According to some stakeholders, certain projects will be
placed on hold unless they receive additional federal funds.
* Inflation poses a challenge because it reduces the value of the
federal funds from these programs over time. One stakeholder reported
that the rising cost of right-of-way acquisition has increased project
planning uncertainty. Some stakeholders reported that inflation has
also greatly increased the cost of construction materials over time.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the producer price index
for highway and street construction increased by about 41 percent from
August 2005 to August 2008 (the latest month for which these data are
available).
The second most frequently cited challenge was difficulty in complying
with federal requirements. For example, the stakeholders who cited
compliance with federal and environmental requirements as a challenge
noted the additional time and expense involved. In the view of some
state and local transportation officials, these requirements may be too
onerous to justify the use of the program funds. One stakeholder stated
that the environmental review process, established under NEPA, takes a
long time and that the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements require
higher-than-market wages, resulting in increased project costs.
[Footnote 23] Stakeholders also reported that it can be difficult to
obtain state and local funds to match the federal funds, as required.
One stakeholder reported that it was still trying to obtain enough
state and local funding to meet the matching requirements.
The third most frequently cited challenge was not using the criteria-
based competitive process in SAFETEA-LU to select PNRS and NCIIP
projects. According to the stakeholders, it was difficult to determine
whether the congressionally directed projects addressed national and
regional priorities because the projects were not evaluated against the
act's criteria. For example, DOT officials said not using the criteria-
based competitive process made it difficult to assess the national
transportation system across modes to determine where strategic
improvements should be made.
Key Program Enhancements Include Defining a Clear Federal Role and a
Criteria-Based, Competitive Project Selection Process:
According to our interviews with program stakeholders and our prior
work on federal surface transportation programs,[Footnote 24] clearly
defining the federal role in surface transportation is an important
step toward focusing these three programs. Once the federal role has
been clarified, two approaches that have been used in the past could be
used to distribute federal transportation funds to projects that are
consistent with that role--criteria-based competition or formula-based
distribution. Both approaches have a range of characteristics; however,
our interviews with stakeholders and our prior work suggest that a
criteria-based competition could enhance these programs by targeting
federal investments in accordance with a more clearly defined federal
role and directing funds to stated program goals. In addition, Congress
could still direct funds to specific projects as it did in two of the
three programs.[Footnote 25] Some stakeholders we interviewed also
suggested a wide range of both broad and specific program enhancements
(see app. IV).
The Federal Government Lacks a Clear Definition of Its Role in Surface
Transportation:
Stakeholders from all the groups we spoke with for this engagement said
that a clear definition of the federal role in transportation could
help guide federal investments toward achieving national transportation
priorities.[Footnote 26] Stakeholders mentioned several different ways
the federal role could be better defined--from reducing the federal
role in transportation infrastructure financing by giving more
responsibility to individual states for the transportation system, to
focusing more resources on fewer transportation programs, to
concentrating federal resources on large transportation projects that
affect multiple states.
In our prior work, we have frequently called for more clearly defining
the federal role in surface transportation. We have found that multiple
federal roles can be inferred from the variety of surface
transportation programs the federal government funds, but there is no
single definition or set of priorities to use to focus federal surface
transportation spending. In 2008, we called for a fundamental
reexamination of the nation's surface transportation system, noting
that the federal goals are unclear, the federal funding outlook for
surface transportation is uncertain, and the efficiency of the
transportation system is declining.[Footnote 27] We have also found
that the lack of a defined federal role in transportation is a reason
why many current federal transportation programs are ineffective in
addressing key transportation challenges, and we have identified
federal transportation funding as a high-risk area.[Footnote 28]
Additionally, in a May 2007 forum convened by the Comptroller General
on transportation policy, participating experts stated that the
nation's transportation policy has lost focus and that a better
definition of overall transportation goals is needed to better meet
current and future infrastructure needs.[Footnote 29]
Approaches Available for Restructuring Programs Have Advantages and
Disadvantages:
The two primary approaches that are available and have been used
historically to distribute federal funds to transportation
infrastructure projects--criteria-based competition and formula-based
distribution--have a range of characteristics that include both
advantages and disadvantages. Table 9 shows the characteristics of each
approach as identified by stakeholders we interviewed and through our
prior work.[Footnote 30]
Table 9: Range of Characteristics of Available Approaches for
Restructuring Federal Funding for the Three Programs, Based on
Stakeholder Views and Prior GAO Reports:
Approach: Criteria-based competition;
Range of characteristics:
* Federal government directs funds to projects that meet defined, merit-
based criteria;
* Provides opportunity to compare projects across states;
* Selection criteria are transparent and can be used to measure program
results and hold managers accountable;
* Can reflect stakeholder input;
* Competitive process may take more time to distribute funds to
projects than directives or formulas;
* Criteria can be biased, such as toward urban areas or specific modes.
Approach: Formula-based distribution;
Range of characteristics:
* Gives state most flexibility in selecting projects;
* Can be an equitable way to distribute funds to states;
* Process for distributing funds is transparent;
* Funding can be more consistent and reliable;
* Because most projects are selected by state and local governments,
funds may not be targeted to projects that meet national priorities;
* Depending on how the formula is constructed, funds may be distributed
without regard to needs or performance.
Source: GAO analysis of stakeholder interviews and prior GAO reports.
[End of table]
Regardless of the approach selected, Congress could still direct funds
to individual transportation projects as it did in two of the three
programs. According to some stakeholders, congressional directives
circumvent the established state transportation planning process and
may indirectly divert nonfederal resources as states and others
reprioritize their funds in order to use the directed federal funds.
However, other stakeholders described congressional directives as a way
to distribute federal funds more quickly than through a competition and
as a way to provide funds for projects that might otherwise not receive
funding through the established state transportation planning process.
Criteria-Based Competition and a More Clearly Defined Federal Role in
Transportation May Provide Best Opportunity to Enhance These Programs:
According to stakeholders we interviewed and our prior work, a criteria-
based, competitive approach, such as the competitive process included
in SAFETEA-LU for PNRS and NCIIP, could provide the best opportunity to
enhance these programs by better targeting federal investments in
transportation infrastructure. Such targeting is important for these
three programs because they were designed to direct federal funds
toward projects for enhancing transportation infrastructure that has
national and regional impacts. While this approach has a range of
characteristics, including some disadvantages, stakeholders stated that
it allows each project to be evaluated on its merits, and it
incorporates stakeholders' views and input. We have previously
testified that a fiscally sustainable surface transportation program
will require targeted investments in the transportation system from
federal and nonfederal stakeholders.[Footnote 31] Moreover, with regard
to freight transportation, we recommended in our prior work that DOT
define the federal role for the use of federal funds, establish clear
roles for stakeholders, and focus federal funding to support the
federal role in a cost-effective manner.[Footnote 32] In addition, we
have found that having more federal programs operate competitively
could help tie funds to performance.[Footnote 33]
Canada's Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative (APGCI) offers an
example of how the three programs discussed here could be restructured
as criteria-based, competitive programs. The Canadian government's
vision for its program is to invest in critical freight transportation
projects that facilitate the movement of freight from Asia to Canada
and through to the United States. Transport Canada, the federal
Canadian government's transportation agency, identifies key
transportation projects through analytical studies or decides to fund
projects submitted by provinces or towns using program criteria and
freight transportation data. The criteria that were developed focused
on objectives in support of the program's vision, such as enhancing
efficiency, safety, and security and minimizing environmental impacts.
According to a Transport Canada official, using data on freight flows
assisted Transport Canada in determining the extent to which specific
projects would support international trade with Asia. The official
further noted that the specific criteria enabled Transport Canada to
take a rigorous approach, be selective, and thus deliver on the key
objectives. Additionally, the official said, previous programs had less
focused objectives, allowing a considerably wider variety of projects
to be funded.
Transport Canada works with public and private stakeholders to define
what a project will entail, identify other nonfederal funding sources,
complete a cost-benefit analysis, monitor the project, and evaluate the
impact of the project after it is complete. Since October 2006, APGCI
has leveraged a federal investment of $860 million into a total federal
and nonfederal investment of $2.3 billion in 20 transportation
projects. The federal share for these projects has ranged between 33
and 50 percent of total project costs.
Conclusions:
Our national transportation network faces many challenges. As demands
for greater passenger and freight mobility increase and transportation
infrastructure continues to show signs of age, fatigue, and congestion,
governments at the federal, state, and local levels need to prioritize
their limited resources to meet these demands. The three programs
established in SAFETEA-LU were intended to address national and
regional priorities by helping to fund a range of high-cost
infrastructure projects or could not easily or specifically be
addressed within existing federal surface transportation programs. As
Congress prepares for the reauthorization of federal surface
transportation programs in 2009, it will need to reexamine the relative
contributions of these three programs and all other surface
transportation programs to solving our nation's transportation problems
and achieving federal goals. With regard to PNRS and NCIIP, the
relatively small federal share, especially for higher-cost projects,
the number of projects, and the distribution of projects across the
country, have raised concerns that the federal government did not
maximize the impact of its limited transportation funds. We have
similar concerns about the CBI program in that it was used by states
for smaller-scope, lower-cost projects. In addition, some of the
program enhancements mentioned by stakeholders could also improve all
three programs. However, without a clearly defined federal role and a
competitive, criteria-based process for distributing federal funds, it
is unclear whether or how these programs can meet national or regional
transportation priorities or maximize the benefits of investing
increasingly scarce federal funds in our transportation infrastructure.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
In order to enhance these three programs, we concluded that Congress
should consider taking the following three actions when considering the
reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs:
* Define the federal role in surface transportation in accordance with
the national and regional transportation priorities that these three
programs are designed to meet.
* Implement a criteria-based, competitive project selection process for
these three programs, in concert with other selection criteria.
* Work with the Secretary of Transportation to develop any specific
program enhancements that could help these programs meet identified
priorities and achieve the highest return on federal investments.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. On
January 22, 2009, we received comments on the report from DOT
officials, including FHWA, FRA, and MARAD officials, in an e-mail from
DOT's Office of Audit Relations. The officials generally agreed with
the information in this report and stated that the department would be
happy to assist Congress as it considers the proposed matters. In
addition, DOT provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated
in the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees with
responsibilities for transportation issues and to the Secretary of
Transportation. The report also is 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 herrp@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 VI.
Signed by:
Phillip R. Herr:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
In this report, we assessed three federal transportation programs
established by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted in
August 2005, to target funds to infrastructure projects that have high
costs, involve national or regional impacts, and cannot easily or
specifically be addressed within existing federal surface
transportation programs. The programs, administered by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), include the Projects of National and
Regional Significance (PNRS), the National Corridor Infrastructure
Improvement Program (NCIIP), and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure
(CBI) program. As requested, we addressed the following questions: (1)
What are the goals, funding status, and types of projects and
activities funded for the three programs? (2) What advantages and
challenges did stakeholders say were associated with these three
programs? (3) What approaches are available for enhancing the three
programs?
In addressing these questions, our overall approach was to (1) review
federal law, proposed regulations, FHWA's program guidance and
information, FHWA status reports on each program, and a Department of
Transportation (DOT) report on the PNRS program;[Footnote 34] (2)
review pertinent documentation, including some of the project
proposals, plans, and information submitted to DOT for projects funded
by these programs; and (3) interview officials from 56 "stakeholder"
entities to understand the programs' advantages, challenges, and
possible enhancements. Stakeholders broadly have interest and expertise
in one or more of the three programs, in a specific transportation
project funded by one of these programs, or in federal surface
transportation policy generally. The stakeholders we interviewed
included officials from the following entities, which are also listed
in table 10 at the end of this appendix:
* DOT headquarters in Washington, D.C., including the Office of the
Secretary; FHWA; the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); and the
Maritime Administration (MARAD); as well as FHWA division offices in
eight states, for a total of 12 DOT entities; and:
* 16 state transportation departments, 16 local government agencies
(including port authorities and metropolitan planning organizations),
and 12 transportation associations or other expert organizations. We
conducted some of these interviews as part of our site visits to eight
states--California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois,
Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon--where we met with officials who
manage projects funded through the three programs.
In selecting our sites, we considered geographic diversity, the funding
authorized by states for these programs, and the characteristics of the
projects funded. The 16 state transportation departments we selected
for interviews included 14 states that collectively accounted for 86
projects funded by the three programs and 2 states, Florida and
Wyoming, that did not have projects funded by these three programs.
Also, for comparison, we contacted Transport Canada, the transportation
department of the federal Canadian government, and the Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure of the Canadian province of British
Columbia, to obtain information about similar infrastructure investment
programs.
In addition, to address the first question on funding status, we
reviewed FHWA's data on amounts authorized, appropriated, and obligated
for PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI. To assess the reliability and quality of
FHWA's financial data, we analyzed related documentation and
interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. Through these efforts, we
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for this report. We
relied extensively on our interviews with transportation stakeholders
and our prior work on surface transportation to identify not only the
goals and types of projects and activities funded by these programs and
the characteristics of individual restructuring approaches for them,
but also a wide array of program enhancements. To address the second
question on advantages and challenges, we analyzed our stakeholder
interviews, and to respond to the third question, we relied on both our
prior work and our stakeholder interviews to identify potential
enhancements to the three programs.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2007 to February
2009, in accordance with generally accepted government 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.
Finally, table 10 identifies the stakeholder entities included in our
study.
Table 10: Names and Locations of Entities Interviewed:
Name: Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Department of Transportation: Federal Railroad Administration;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Department of Transportation: Maritime Administration;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: FHWA division office: Connecticut;
Location: Glastonbury, Conn.
Name: FHWA division office: Illinois;
Location: Springfield, Ill.
Name: FHWA division office: New Jersey;
Location: Trenton, N.J.
Name: FHWA division office: New York;
Location: Albany, N.Y.
Name: FHWA division office: Texas[A];
Location: San Diego, Calif.
Name: FHWA division office: Oregon;
Location: Salem, Ore.
Name: FHWA division office: Washington;
Location: Olympia, Wash.
Name: FHWA division office: Wisconsin;
Location: Madison, Wisc.
Name: State department of transportation: Arkansas;
Location: Little Rock, Ark.
Name: State department of transportation: Arizona;
Location: Phoenix, Ariz.
Name: State department of transportation: California;
Location: Sacramento, Calif.
Name: State department of transportation: Connecticut;
Location: Newington, Conn.
Name: State department of transportation: Florida;
Location: Tallahassee, Fla.
Name: State department of transportation: Illinois;
Location: Springfield, Ill.
Name: State department of transportation: Louisiana;
Location: Baton Rouge, La.
Name: State department of transportation: Michigan;
Location: Lansing, Mich.
Name: State department of transportation: Minnesota;
Location: Minneapolis, Minn.
Name: State department of transportation: New York;
Location: Albany, N.Y.
Name: State department of transportation: New Jersey;
Location: Trenton, N.J.
Name: State department of transportation: Oregon;
Location: Salem, Ore.
Name: State department of transportation: Texas;
Location: Austin, Tex.
Name: State department of transportation: Washington;
Location: Olympia, Wash.
Name: State department of transportation: Wisconsin;
Location: Madison, Wisc.
Name: State department of transportation: Wyoming;
Location: Cheyenne, Wyo.
Name: Local government: Alameda Corridor East Joint Powers Authority;
Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Name: Local government: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning;
Location: Chicago, Ill.
Name: Local government: City of Bakersfield, California;
Location: Bakersfield, Calif.
Name: Local government: Kern Council of Governments;
Location: Bakersfield, Calif.
Name: Local government: Kern County Roads Department;
Location: Bakersfield, Calif.
Name: Local government: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation
Authority;
Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Name: Local government: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey;
Location: New York, N.Y.
Name: Local government: Port of Long Beach, California;
Location: Long Beach, Calif.
Name: Local government: Puget Sound Regional Council;
Location: Seattle, Wash.
Name: Local government: New Jersey Transit;
Location: Trenton, N.J.
Name: Local government: New York City Economic Development Corporation;
Location: New York, N.Y.
Name: Local government: New York Metropolitan Planning Council;
Location: New York, N.Y.
Name: Local government: San Bernardino Associated Governments;
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Name: Local government: Seattle Department of Transportation;
Location: Seattle, Wash.
Name: Local government: South Central Regional Council of Governments;
Location: North Haven, Conn.
Name: Local government: Southern California Association of Governments;
Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Association of
American Railroads;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Chicago
Transportation Coordination Office, Chicago Region Environmental and
Transportation Efficiency Program;
Location: Chicago, Ill.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Coalition for
America's Gateways and Trade Corridors;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Greg Cohen,
American Highway Users Alliance;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Martin Wachs,
RAND Corporation;
Location: Santa Monica, Calif.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Move New York New
Jersey;
Location: New York, N.Y.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: National
Association of Regional Councils;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Tim Lomax, Texas
Transportation Institute;
Location: College Station, Tex.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Robert Poole, The
Reason Foundation;
Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Ron Utt, Heritage
Foundation;
Location: Washington, D.C.
Name: Association or other organization with experts: Transportation
Choices Coalition;
Location: Seattle, Wash.
Name: Canada: Transport Canada;
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Name: Canada: Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, British
Columbia; Location: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Source: GAO.
[End of section]
[A] We interviewed an official based in San Diego, California, from
FHWA's Southern Border Liaison for the FHWA Divisional Offices in
FHWA's Texas Division.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Stakeholder-Identified Advantages of the National and
Regional Infrastructure Programs:
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
Advantages: Supported and moved projects forward;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 2;
States (16): 5;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 9.
Advantages: Addressed high-cost projects and issues of national
importance;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 3;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 2;
Total (56): 6.
Advantages: Directed some PNRS funds to nonhighway projects;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 3;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 1;
Total (56): 5.
Advantages: Attracted additional nonfederal funds;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 3;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 5.
Advantages: Made a broad array of project costs eligible for PNRS and
NCIIP funds;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 2;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 4.
Advantages: Distributed CBI funds by formula or ability to use funds in
Canada;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 2;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 2;
Total (56): 4.
Advantages: Federal involvement helped enable interstate cooperation;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 3.
Advantages: Made DOT think system wide instead of locally;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 3;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 3.
Advantages: Funds do not expire;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 2;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 2.
Advantages: Funds did not reduce a state's distribution of formula
funds or funding for other high-cost projects;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 1.
Advantages: Allowed for geographically targeted funding;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 1.
Advantages: Useful criteria in SAFETEA-LU;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 1.
Advantages: Congressional directives reduce time to get funds to
projects;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 1.
Advantages: States could use other funds for the state and local match
requirement;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 1.
Advantages: Established no maintenance of effort requirement for
states;
Number of instances in which the advantage was identified in an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 1.
Advantages: Total: Total (56): 47.
Source: GAO analysis of stakeholder interviews.
[A] We interviewed DOT headquarters officials, including officials with
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, FHWA, FRA, and MARAD;
and FHWA field officials in the eight states we visited.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Stakeholder-Identified Challenges of the National and
Regional Infrastructure Programs:
Challenges: Funding issues (such as uncertainty, small funding amounts
for large projects, and inflation);
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 2;
States (16): 12;
Local governments (16): 7;
Associations and experts (12): 3;
Total (56): 24.
Challenges: Compliance with federal requirements;
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 7;
Local governments (16): 6;
Associations and experts (12): 1;
Total (56): 14.
Challenges: Criteria-based competitive process in SAFETEA-LU for PNRS
and NCIIP was not used to select projects;
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 5;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 3;
Total (56): 10.
Challenges: States had to reprioritize projects to use program funds;
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 4;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 1;
Total (56): 8.
Challenges: Funds can only be used as indicated in the project
description for PNRS and NCIIP congressionally directed projects;
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 2;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 3.
Challenges: Public opposition to projects;
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 3;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 3.
Challenges: Use of cost-benefit analysis and performance measures is
limited;
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 1;
Total (56): 2.
Challenges: Coordination among multiple stakeholders;
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 1.
Challenges: Project descriptions were not submitted for some PNRS and
NCIIP projects which delayed the release of funds;
Number of instances in which the challenge was identified in the an
interview (number in parenthesis is the total number of interviewees in
the group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0;
Total (56): 1.
Challenges: Total: Total (56): 66.
Source: GAO analysis of stakeholder interviews.
[A] We interviewed DOT headquarters officials, including officials with
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, FHWA, FRA, and MARAD;
and FHWA field officials in the eight states we visited.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Stakeholder-Identified Enhancements:
Enhancement: Better define the federal role;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 2;
States (16): 9;
Local governments (16): 7;
Associations and experts (12): 12.
Enhancement: Implement PNRS and NCIIP as written in SAFETEA-LU using a
criteria-based competition with DOT recommending to Congress which
projects should be funded;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 3;
States (16): 5;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 4.
Enhancement: Use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate projects before
investment and performance metrics after investments;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1; N
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 8.
Enhancement: Make the full amount of the authorization available in the
first year to get projects completed faster;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 1.
Enhancement: Retain or increase the program's ability to invest in
different modes;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Distribute more federal funds to the programs;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 2;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Reduce the number of federal programs;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 2;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 2.
Enhancement: Use a formula-based distribution;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 3;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Have different areas compete for different pots of funds
to introduce more equity between different-sized states or metro areas;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 2;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Establish a multimodal Highway Trust Fund account;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 1.
Enhancement: Require projects to be included in federally mandated
state and local transportation improvement plans;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 1;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 2.
Enhancement: Make directives more flexible;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 3;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Reduce the amount of nonfederal matching funds required to
obtain federal funds;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 2;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Use full funding grant agreements to increase the
certainty of federal funds for selected projects;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 2;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 1.
Enhancement: Allow CBI funds to be used for environmental reviews and
for multimodal projects and increase the amount of CBI funds that can
be transferred to the General Services Administration (GSA) in any
given year;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 2;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Focus more on core federal-aid highway programs;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Reduce federal rescissions to increase the amount of
federal funds that will go toward the selected projects;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Make some amount available for congressional directives;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 1.
Enhancement: Fund fewer projects with the same amount of funds;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 2;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 1.
Enhancement: Allow funds to be transferred between projects during the
authorization period as long as the full authorized amount is allocated
by the end of the authorization period to increase the flexibility of
the funds;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Use a consistent definition of the border area to ensure
states use CBI funds consistently;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Freight fees, taxes, or tolls could go to a commission
that would identify freight projects;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 1.
Enhancement: Coordinate more with GSA;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Allow more states to conduct environmental impact
statements;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: High-cost projects need funding that spans acts;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 1;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: High-cost projects should submit finance plans;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 2;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Increase the federal reimbursement rate to states;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Provide incentives to consider more than just "pavement";
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 1;
Associations and experts (12): 0.
Enhancement: Establish an expiration date for federal funds to help
ensure that projects with firm plans and nonfederal commitments are
selected and to get projects completed faster;
Number of interviews in which the enhancement was identified (number in
parenthesis in the heading is the total number of interviewees in the
group):
DOT (12)[A]: 0;
States (16): 0;
Local governments (16): 0;
Associations and experts (12): 1.
Source: GAO analysis of stakeholder interviews.
[A] We interviewed DOT headquarters officials, including officials with
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, FHWA, FRA, and MARAD;
and FHWA field officials in the eight states we visited.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI Projects and Their Funding:
Table 12: Projects of National and Regional Significance (Dollars in
millions):
State: California;
Project name and summary: Alameda Corridor East-Construct 131 highway
grade crossing separations and make other improvements in Los Angeles
metro area;
PNRS funds authorized: $125;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $4,600;
PNRS share of total costs: 2.7%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: Bakersfield Beltway-Construct or improve a
system of highways around Bakersfield;
PNRS funds authorized: $140;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $336;
PNRS share of total costs: 41.7%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: Desmond Bridge-Replace the current Gerald
Desmond Bridge and its interchanges connecting the Port of Long Beach
with I-710;
PNRS funds authorized: $100;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $851;
PNRS share of total costs: 11.8%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: Inland Empire Goods (Norton Air Force Base)-
Add a mixed flow and high-occupancy vehicle lane to I-215 and a new
interchange on I-10 in San Bernardino County;
PNRS funds authorized: $55;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $556;
PNRS share of total costs: 9.9%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: Sacramento Intermodal-Create a multimodal
transportation center out of the current Sacramento Valley Passenger
Rail Station;
PNRS funds authorized: $3;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $300;
PNRS share of total costs: 1.0%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Under review.
State: California;
Project name and summary: Transbay Terminal-Create a new multimodal
transit center, extending a commuter rail line and redeveloping
property in downtown San Francisco;
PNRS funds authorized: $27;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $3,600;
PNRS share of total costs: 0.8%; Status of funding (as of Nov. 17,
2008): Under review.
State: Colorado;
Project name and summary: Union Station, Denver-Construct transit
improvements to the station including light rail and passenger and
regional bus facilities;
PNRS funds authorized: $50;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $435;
PNRS share of total costs: 11.5%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Illinois;
Project name and summary: CREATE-Implement a series of railroad and
grade separation projects intended to speed freight, commuter and
intercity passenger rail traffic through Chicago's rail network;
PNRS funds authorized: $100;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $1,054;
PNRS share of total costs: 9.5%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Illinois;
Project name and summary: Mississippi River Bridge-Constructing a new 8-
lane bridge over the Mississippi River in the St. Louis, Mo. area,
realign I-70 in Ill., and a partial reconstruction of the I-70/I-64
interchange;
PNRS funds authorized: $150;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $910;
PNRS share of total costs: 16.5%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Illinois;
Project name and summary: O'Hare Bypass-Elgin/O'Hare Extension-
Extending the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway west of O'Hare International
Airport and build a new highway across the western and southern borders
of O'Hare;
PNRS funds authorized: $140;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $2,171;
PNRS share of total costs: 6.4%; Dollars in millions:
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Michigan;
Project name and summary: Blue Water Bridge Border Plaza-Construct a
new bridge plaza and improvements to adjacent roads;
PNRS funds authorized: $20;
Estimated total project cost[A]: [B];
PNRS share of total costs: [B];
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): No application received.
State: Minnesota;
Project name and summary: Union Depot Multimodal Transit-Renovate the
Union Depot in downtown St. Paul as an intermodal transit center;
PNRS funds authorized: $50;
Estimated total project cost[A]: [B];
PNRS share of total costs: [B];
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): No application received.
State: Multiple (Ohio, Va., W.Va.);
Project name and summary: Heartland Corridor-Remove overhead
obstructions that prevent the handling of double-stack trains from
Columbus, Ohio, and Walton, Va;
PNRS funds authorized: $90;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $150;
PNRS share of total costs: 60.0%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: New Jersey;
Project name and summary: Liberty Corridor-Implement 10 transit, rail,
road and highway bridge projects in eight counties in northern N.J;
PNRS funds authorized: $100;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $601;
PNRS share of total costs: 16.6%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: New Mexico;
Project name and summary: Relocate El Paso rail-Plan, design and
construct transportation improvements to relocate freight rail
operations from El Paso, Tex. to N.Mex.[C];
PNRS funds authorized: $14;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $13;
PNRS share of total costs: 104.0%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: New York;
Project name and summary: Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project-
Proposes the rehabilitation and long-term improvement of the New York
City freight rail infrastructure east of the Hudson River;
PNRS funds authorized: $100;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $125;
PNRS share of total costs: 80.0%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Oregon;
Project name and summary: I-5 Bridge repair-Resolve low clearance and
width issues on highway bridges on I-5 to increase truck freight
mobility;
PNRS funds authorized: $160;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $864;
PNRS share of total costs: 18.5%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Pennsylvania;
Project name and summary: I-80 improvements-Rehabilitate and
reconstruct I-80 including roadways, bridges, interchanges, and
Intelligent Transportation Systems[D];
PNRS funds authorized: $15;
Estimated total project cost[A]: [B];
NRS share of total costs: [B];
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): No application received.
State: Pennsylvania;
Project name and summary: U.S. 28 widening-Widen and make safety
improvements along a 1.8-mile stretch of U.S. 28 in western Pa.;
PNRS funds authorized: $15;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $120;
PNRS share of total costs: 12.5%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Pennsylvania;
Project name and summary: U.S. 422 improvements-Safety and operational
improvements on U.S. 422 near Valley Forge National Historical Park in
eastern Pa.;
PNRS funds authorized: $20;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $169;
PNRS share of total costs: 11.8%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: South Carolina;
Project name and summary: I-73 construction-Construct a new Interstate
highway to provide access between N.C. and S.C.;
PNRS funds authorized: $40;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $2,526;
PNRS share of total costs: 1.6%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Virginia;
Project name and summary: Portsmouth Rail Relocation-Relocate existing
rail lines serving two intermodal terminals in Portsmouth to increase
train speeds and eliminate grade crossings;
PNRS funds authorized: $15;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $60;
PNRS share of total costs: 25.0%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Washington;
Project name and summary: Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall-Replace
earthquake damaged sections of State Route 99 and related seawall
through downtown Seattle;
PNRS funds authorized: $220;
Estimated total project cost[A]: [B];
PNRS share of total costs: [B];
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Wisconsin;
Project name and summary: Marquette Interchange-Rebuild the interchange
between I-43, I-94, and I-794 in downtown Milwaukee;
PNRS funds authorized: $30;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $810;
PNRS share of total costs: 3.7%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data and project documentation.
[A] Figures represent total project cost estimates submitted by states
to FHWA for distribution of federal program funds. Figures represent
nominal dollar amounts as of the year the project plan was submitted.
[B] Not available.
[C] The total cost estimate for this project takes into account the
annual federal obligation limitation. This limitation decreases the
estimated amount of federal funds available for the project.
[D] As amended by the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008.
[End of table]
Table 13: National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (Dollars
in millions):
State: Alaska;
Project name and summary: Knik Arm Bridge--Use funds originally
designated for construction of Knik Arm and Gravinia Island bridges in
Alaska for any eligible transportation purpose[C];
NCIIP funds authorized: $30;
Estimated total project cost[A]: [B];
NCIIP share of total costs: [B];
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Arkansas;
Project name and summary: I-69 and Great River Bridge--Construct a 185-
mile 4-lane highway in Ark. This length includes the southeast Ark. I-
69 Connector and Great River Bridge;
NCIIP funds authorized: $75;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $1,523;
NCIIP share of total costs: 4.9%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Arkansas;
Project name and summary: I-530 (I-69 Connector)--Construct the I-69
southeast connector, a 38.6-mile, 4-lane highway from I-530 near Pine
Bluff to Highway 278 in Wilmar;
NCIIP funds authorized: $40;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $401;
NCIIP share of total costs: 10.0%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Arkansas;
Project name and summary: I-49 Bella Vista Bypass--Construct a 20-mile
4-lane highway from Bentonville, Ark., to Pineville, Mo.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $20;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $198;
NCIIP share of total costs: 10.1%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Arizona;
Project name and summary: State Route 85--Expand the 37 mile corridor
to 4 lanes;
NCIIP funds authorized: $3;
Estimated total project cost[A]: [B];
NCIIP share of total costs: [B];
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): No application received.
State: California;
Project name and summary: Centennial Loop--Build the Centennial
Corridor South, a new 6-to 8-lane highway, and construct an elevated
bypass for Hageman Road over State Route 99 in Bakersfield;
NCIIP funds authorized: $330;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $539;
NCIIP share of total costs: 61.2%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: State Route 178--Extend and widen three
sections of State Route 178 in northeast Bakersfield;
NCIIP funds authorized: $100;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $144;
NCIIP share of total costs: 69.4%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: I-405--Add a high-occupancy vehicle carpool
lane to northbound I-405 from I-10 to U.S.101 in Los Angeles area;
NCIIP funds authorized: $100;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $950;
NCIIP share of total costs: 10.5%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: Rosedale Highway--Widen Rosedale Highway
(State Route 58) and State Route178 in Bakersfield;
NCIIP funds authorized: $60;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $105;
NCIIP share of total costs: 57.1%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: I-80 Capacity Improvements--Add a lane and
other improvements to I-80 in Sacramento and Placer Counties;
NCIIP funds authorized: $50;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $123;
NCIIP share of total costs: 40.8%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: California;
Project name and summary: State Route 4 East Upgrade--Widen and make
other improvements to State Route 4 in Contra Costa County;
NCIIP funds authorized: $20;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $142;
NCIIP share of total costs: 14.1%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Colorado;
Project name and summary: U.S. 287 Ports-to-Plains--Replace the U.S.
40/U.S. 287 highway bridge over the Union Pacific railroad tracks in
Kit Carson;
NCIIP funds authorized: $3;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $7;
NCIIP share of total costs: 42.9%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Connecticut;
Project name and summary: Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge--Reconstruct the
I-95 bridge and its interchange with I-91 in New Haven;
NCIIP funds authorized: $35;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $2,000;
NCIIP share of total costs: 1.8%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: District of Columbia;
Project name and summary: Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge--Renovate
and repair of existing structures;
NCIIP funds authorized: $75;
Estimated total project cost[A]: [B];
NCIIP share of total costs: [B];
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): No application received.
State: Illinois;
Project name and summary: I-80 to I-88 Connector--Construct a highway
between I-80 and I-88 in northeastern Ill.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $152;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $1,013;
NCIIP share of total costs: 15.0%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Illinois;
Project name and summary: State Route 34 interchange--Construct an
interchange between State Route 34 and a new highway connecting I-80
with I-88 in northeastern Ill.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $55;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $76;
NCIIP share of total costs: 72.4%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Illinois, Iowa;
Project name and summary: I-74 Bridge--Plan, design, and acquire right-
of-way for construction of the I-74 bridge between Bettendorf, Iowa,
and Moline, Ill.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $15;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $774;
NCIIP share of total costs: 1.9%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Indiana;
Project name and summary: State Route 312--Improve State Route 312 in
Hammond[D];
NCIIP funds authorized: $10;
Estimated total project cost[A]: [B];
NCIIP share of total costs: [B];
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): No application received.
State: Louisiana;
Project name and summary: I-49 North--Build a new 35-mile Interstate
from I-220 from Shreveport to the Ark. state line;
NCIIP funds authorized: $178;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $500;
NCIIP share of total costs: 35.6%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Louisiana;
Project name and summary: I-49 South--Continual upgrading of U.S. 90
(from the point where I-49 terminates at I-10 in Lafayette to the
Westbank Expressway in Orleans Parish) to Interstate standards;
NCIIP funds authorized: $28;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $34;
NCIIP share of total costs: 80.9%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Louisiana;
Project name and summary: State Route 1 replacement--Design, acquire
right-of-way for, and construct the first phase of a new State Route 1;
NCIIP funds authorized: $25;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $361;
NCIIP share of total costs: 6.9%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Maryland;
Project name and summary: Intercounty Connector--Build an 18-mile
tolled highway between Montgomery and Prince George's Counties;
NCIIP funds authorized: $10;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $2,456;
NCIIP share of total costs: 0.4%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Minnesota;
Project name and summary: Falls to Falls Corridor--Construct and extend
Trunk Highway 53 in northern Minn.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $50;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $79;
NCIIP share of total costs: 63.2%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Multiple;
Project name and summary: I-69--Plan, design, and construct a new I-69
highway over 1,600 miles through Tex., La., Ark., Miss., Tenn., Ky. and
Ind.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $50;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $9,023[E];
NCIIP share of total costs: 0.6%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Oklahoma;
Project name and summary: I-44 Tulsa--Add 2 lanes to the existing 4-
lane I-44 highway through Tulsa;
NCIIP funds authorized: $110;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $330;
NCIIP share of total costs: 33.3%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Oklahoma;
Project name and summary: Ports-to-Plains Corridor--Upgrade U.S. 287 in
Cimarron County to a 4-lane highway;
NCIIP funds authorized: $35;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $61;
NCIIP share of total costs: 57.1%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: South Carolina;
Project name and summary: I-73 Corridor of National Significance--
Construct a new Interstate highway between coastal S.C. and N.C.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $10;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $2,300;
NCIIP share of total costs: 0.4%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Tennessee;
Project name and summary: I-69--Design, acquire right-of-way for, and
construct a new interstate (I-69) highway through Tenn.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $100;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $107;
NCIIP share of total costs: 93.3%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Virginia;
Project name and summary: I-81 Truck Lanes--Construct dedicated truck
climbing lanes in mountainous areas of I-81 in western Va.;
NCIIP funds authorized: $100;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $137;
NCIIP share of total costs: 73.1%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
State: Wisconsin;
Project name and summary: U.S. Hwy 41--Improve U.S. 41 between
Milwaukee and Green Bay;
NCIIP funds authorized: $30;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $835;
NCIIP share of total costs: 3.6%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): No application received.
State: West Virginia;
Project name and summary: I-73/I-74 Corridor--Reconstruct U.S. 52 into
a 4-lane highway between U.S. 119 near Williamson and I-77 at
Bluefield;
NCIIP funds authorized: $50;
Estimated total project cost[A]: $1,610;
NCIIP share of total costs: 3.1%;
Status of funding (as of Nov. 17, 2008): Funding distributed.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data and project documentation.
[A] Figures represent total project cost estimates submitted by states
to FHWA for distribution of federal program funds. Figures represent
nominal dollar amounts as of the year the project plan was submitted.
[B] Not available.
[C] As modified by the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-115, § 186, 119 Stat
2396, at 2429 (2005).
[D] As amended by the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008.
[E] This estimate does not include any cost estimates from Texas.
[End of table]
Table 14: Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (Dollars in
thousands):
State: Alaska;
Project name and description: Alaska Highway Milepost 1308--Reconstruct
the Tok weigh station;
CBI funds authorized: $4,504;
Total estimated cost: $5,934;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 75.9%.
State: Arizona;
Project name and description: Construction of Area Services Highway
(Robert A. Vaughn Expressway)--Construction of a new road leading to
the New San Luis II Port of Entry;
CBI funds authorized: $28,019;
Total estimated cost: $56,025;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 50.0%.
State: Arizona;
Project name and description: Intelligent Transportation System for
commercial vehicle operators at Nogales Port of Entry;
CBI funds authorized: $220;
Total estimated cost: $1,261;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 17.4%.
State: California;
Project name and description: The proposed State Route 78/111
expressway will supersede the existing route segments of State Route 78
and State Route 111 in the City of Brawley (Brawley Bypass);
CBI funds authorized: $10,000;
Total estimated cost: $226,500;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 4.4%.
State: California;
Project name and description: State Route 905 from I-805 to the Otay
Mesa Port of Entry with Mexico, a distance of approximately 10
kilometers (6.2 miles);
CBI funds authorized: $80,000;
Total estimated cost: $618,400;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 12.9%.
State: California;
Project name and description: San Ysidro Intermodal Rail Yard;
CBI funds authorized: $600;
Total estimated cost: $40,460;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 1.5%.
State: Idaho;
Project name and description: Bridge #18795, U.S. 95 Milepost 536 to
Canadian Border--Replace bridge and reconstruct roadway;
CBI funds authorized: $15,100;
Total estimated cost: $16,300;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 92.6%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 1 in Perry--Resurface highway;
CBI funds authorized: $3;
Total estimated cost: $130;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 2.3%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 27 in Eustis--Resurface highway;
CBI funds authorized: $188;
Total estimated cost: $229;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 82.0%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 1 in East Machias--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $217;
Total estimated cost: $271;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 1 in Pembroke--Resurface highway;
CBI funds authorized: $221;
Total estimated cost: $275;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.3%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 1A in Limestone--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $256;
Total estimated cost: $356;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 72.0%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 1 in Perry--Resurface highway;
CBI funds authorized: $3;
Total estimated cost: $408;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 0.7%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Fort Road in Mars Hill--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $345;
Total estimated cost: $486;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 71.1%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 1 in Northport--Resurface highway;
CBI funds authorized: $466;
Total estimated cost: $576;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.9%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Eustis to Jim Pond Township, Route 27--
Resurface highway;
CBI funds authorized: $364;
Total estimated cost: $596;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 61.1%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Airline Road in Clifton--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $383;
Total estimated cost: $601;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 63.7%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 11 in Winterville to Eagle Lake--
Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $626;
Total estimated cost: $804;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 77.9%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 201 in Caratunk--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $633;
Total estimated cost: $829;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 76.4%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 11 from Township 14 to Route 6--
Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $692;
Total estimated cost: $922;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 75.1%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: U.S. 1 from Belfast to Searsport--
Resurface highway;
CBI funds authorized: $769;
Total estimated cost: $989;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 77.8%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 2 in Canaan--Reconstruct pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $520;
Total estimated cost: $2,260;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 23.0%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 2 in Canaan, Junction Route 23--
Reconstruct pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $861;
Total estimated cost: $2,500;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 34.4%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 11 in Wallagrass--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $2,140;
Total estimated cost: $2,985;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 71.7%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Highway 2A in Houghton--Reconstruct
highway;
CBI funds authorized: $154;
Total estimated cost: $5,575;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 2.8%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 163 in Castle Hill--Reconstruct
highway;
CBI funds authorized: $3,589;
Total estimated cost: $6,043;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 59.4%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Highway 161, north of T17-R4 in Cross
Lake-- Reconstruct highway;
CBI funds authorized: $3,611;
Total estimated cost: $6,150;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 58.7%.
State: Maine;
Project name and description: Route 27, Eustis-Jim Pond-Alder Street--
Reconstruct highway;
CBI funds authorized: $6,926;
Total estimated cost: $9,955;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 69.6%.
State: Michigan;
Project name and description: Blue Water Bridge Plaza--Reconstruct
plaza;
CBI funds authorized: [A];
Total estimated cost: [A];
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): [A].
State: Michigan;
Project name and description: Detroit River International Crossing
project;
CBI funds authorized: [A];
Total estimated cost: [A];
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): [A].
State: Minnesota;
Project name and description: Trunk Highway 11 from Clementson, east to
county line--Rehabilitate pavement, improve safety;
CBI funds authorized: $1,040;
Total estimated cost: $1,300;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Minnesota;
Project name and description: Grand Portage Rest Area in Cook County--
Rehabilitate rest area;
CBI funds authorized: $1,800;
Total estimated cost: $1,800;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 100.0%.
State: Minnesota;
Project name and description: Baptism River Rest Area on Trunk Highway
61 north of Silver Bay--Rehabilitate rest area;
CBI funds authorized: $2,200;
Total estimated cost: $2,200;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 100.0%.
State: Minnesota;
Project name and description: Trunk Highway 11 from County State Aid
Highway 4 to County Road 83 in Koochiching County--Improve safety and
reconstruct pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $2,821;
Total estimated cost: $5,456;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 51.7%.
State: Minnesota;
Project name and description: Trunk Highway 11 from Trunk Highway 72
east of Baudette to Bridge 5557 in Clemenston--Reconstruct roadway
grade and surface;
CBI funds authorized: $6,000;
Total estimated cost: $7,500;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Minnesota;
Project name and description: Trunk Highway 11 from County State Aid
Highway 4 to County Road 83 in Koochiching County--Improve safety and
reconstruct pavement and repair roadway and bridge;
CBI funds authorized: $7,050;
Total estimated cost: $8,813;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Montana;
Project name and description: Stillwater River-north, Reconstruct
existing 2-lane section of U.S. 93 to a 4-lane divided facility;
CBI funds authorized: $8,063;
Total estimated cost: $9,313;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 86.6%.
State: Montana;
Project name and description: Four kilometers north of Stillwater
River--Reconstruct existing 2-lane section of U.S. 93 to a 4-lane
divided facility;
CBI funds authorized: $4,187;
Total estimated cost: $12,225;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 34.2%.
State: North Dakota;
Project name and description: I-29 from Bathgate to Canadian line,
northbound--Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $5;
Total estimated cost: $6;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 90.0%.
State: North Dakota;
Project name and description: U.S. 52, Flaxton Overpass;
CBI funds authorized: $47;
Total estimated cost: $58;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 81.0%.
State: North Dakota;
Project name and description: U.S. 83, 6 miles north of Max north to 9
miles south of State Route 23--Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $1,165;
Total estimated cost: $2,530;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 46.1%.
State: North Dakota; Project name and description: U.S. 83, Snake Creek
Embankment--Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $2,449;
Total estimated cost: $3,026;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.9%.
State: North Dakota;
Project name and description: State Route 1 from Nekoma north to
junction with State Route 5--Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $2,598;
Total estimated cost: $3,190;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 81.4%.
State: North Dakota;
Project name and description: State Route 5 from junction of State
Route 1 at Langdon, east 10 miles--Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $2,921;
Total estimated cost: $3,609;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.9%.
State: North Dakota;
Project name and description: I-29 Joilette to Canadian Border,
southbound-- Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $3,254;
Total estimated cost: $3,616;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 90.0%.
State: North Dakota;
Project name and description: U.S. 81 from north junction with State
Route 66, north to junction with State Route 5--Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $4,147;
Total estimated cost: $5,124;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.9%.
State: New Mexico;
Project name and description: Columbus bypass at the Columbus Port of
Entry project--Construct a truck lane further east of the Port of
Entry, alleviating congestion and conflicts;
CBI funds authorized: $567;
Total estimated cost: $3,067;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 18.5%.
State: New Mexico; Project name and description: State Route 273
(McNutt Road)--Phase 3 Expansion and Improvements;
CBI funds authorized: $925;
Total estimated cost: $3,330;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 27.8%.
State: New Mexico;
Project name and description: State Route 460/State Route 478 (Anthony
Drive)-- Improve highways near the Tex./N. Mex. state line;
CBI funds authorized: $993;
Total estimated cost: $4,631;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 21.4%.
State: New Mexico;
Project name and description: State Route 273 (McNutt Road)--Phase 2
Expansion and Improvements;
CBI funds authorized: $1,099;
Total estimated cost: $7,133;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 15.4%.
State: New Mexico;
Project name and description: Project outside the Santa Teresa Port of
Entry-- Replace inefficient, temporary commercial inspection facilities
with modernized, permanent facilities;
CBI funds authorized: $1,000;
Total estimated cost: $12,500;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 8.0%.
State: New York;
Project name and description: County Road 52, Chateauquay to the
Canadian border-- Reconstruct pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $4,800;
Total estimated cost: $6,000;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: New York;
Project name and description: I-87 Truck Inspection facility;
CBI funds authorized: $12,500;
Total estimated cost: $15,625;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: New York;
Project name and description: Route 11 over I-87--Replace bridge to
increase vertical clearance;
CBI funds authorized: $13,400;
Total estimated cost: $16,750;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: New York;
Project name and description: County Road 26 over I-87--Bridge
replacement/low clearance for trucks;
CBI funds authorized: $8,382;
Total estimated cost: $8,382;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 100%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: New FAST lane exit plus two exit booths
at the Bridge of the Americas in El Paso;
CBI funds authorized: $160;
Total estimated cost: $200;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Los Indios--Construct parking lot to take
parked trucks out of travel lane at bridge;
CBI funds authorized: $256;
Total estimated cost: $425;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 60.2%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Hidalgo International Bridge;
CBI funds authorized: $800;
Total estimated cost: $1,000;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Progreso International Bridge--Concrete
perimeter road;
CBI funds authorized: $800;
Total estimated cost: $1,000;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Spur 241--Widen highway;
CBI funds authorized: $1,280;
Total estimated cost: $2,000;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 64.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Del Rio International Bridge--Replace
tollbooth;
CBI funds authorized: $2,320;
Total estimated cost: $2,930;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 79.2%.
State: Texas; Project name and description: Del Rio Roadway Port of
Entry to Industrial Park--Construct off-system roadway improvements;
CBI funds authorized: $2,400;
Total estimated cost: $3,030;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 79.2%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Del Rio Roadway Qualia Dr. to Spur 239
and Aldrete Ln--Construct off-system roadway improvements;
CBI funds authorized: $2,200;
Total estimated cost: $2,785;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 79.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Bravo Extension (Roma);
CBI funds authorized: $2,640;
Total estimated cost: $3,300;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: World Trade Bridge--Add seven tollbooths;
CBI funds authorized: $3,233;
Total estimated cost: $4,091;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 79.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Farm to Market Road 755--Realign highway;
CBI funds authorized: $3,440;
Total estimated cost: $4,300;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Commercial Vehicle Demo project for
Intelligent Transportation System/Clean Air;
CBI funds authorized: $3,583;
Total estimated cost: $4,479;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Eagle Pass II--Improve infrastructure;
CBI funds authorized: $3,600;
Total estimated cost: $4,535;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 79.4%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Pharr/Reynosa International Bridge--Widen
bridge;
CBI funds authorized: $4,000;
Total estimated cost: $5,000;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Los Tomates--Widen bridge;
CBI funds authorized: $5,000;
Total estimated cost: $6,250;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Farm to Market Road 1015--Widen to 4
lanes;
CBI funds authorized: $5,637;
Total estimated cost: $7,046;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Cuatro Vientos--Acquire right-of-way;
CBI funds authorized: $5,600;
Total estimated cost: $7,037;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 79.6%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: U.S. 57 passing lane project;
CBI funds authorized: $5,712;
Total estimated cost: $7,139;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas; Project name and description: U.S. 281-Military Highway--
Construct a new 4-lane highway;
CBI funds authorized: $7,000;
Total estimated cost: $13,000;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 53.8%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Spur 115--Widen highway;
CBI funds authorized: $7,200;
Total estimated cost: $13,400;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 53.7%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Aguilera Hwy--Tornillo/Guadelupe--
Construct a 2-lane highway from relocated Port of Entry to I-10;
CBI funds authorized: $17,223;
Total estimated cost: $32,731;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 52.6%.
State: Texas; Project name and description: Industrial Parks Recreation
Project--Rehabilitate city streets within industrial parks;
CBI funds authorized: $15,200;
Total estimated cost: $19,050;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 79.8%.
State: Texas; Project name and description: U.S. 281-Military Highway--
Widen to 4 lanes;
CBI funds authorized: $8,400;
Total estimated cost: $20,500;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 41.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Farm to Market Road 396--Extend to a new
4-lane road;
CBI funds authorized: $8,000;
Total estimated cost: $22,000;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 36.4%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Interchange Loop 20/Spur 400--Construct a
grade separation;
CBI funds authorized: $22,376;
Total estimated cost: $27,970;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Texas; Project name and description: I-35 at Milepost 8 (San
Isidro)--Reconstruct interstate;
CBI funds authorized: $12,800;
Total estimated cost: $40,000;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 32.0%.
State: Texas;
Project name and description: Farm to Market Road 511--Widen highway;
CBI funds authorized: $8,310;
Total estimated cost: $55,653;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 14.9%.
State: Vermont;
Project name and description: State Route 243 in Troy--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $12;
Total estimated cost: $300;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 4.1%.
State: Vermont;
Project name and description: State Route 105 in Troy--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $24;
Total estimated cost: $1,300;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 1.9%.
State: Vermont;
Project name and description: State Route 101 in Troy--Resurface
pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $24;
Total estimated cost: $1,400;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 1.7%.
State: Vermont;
Project name and description: Williamstown-Montpelier, I-89--Resurface
highway;
CBI funds authorized: $1,145;
Total estimated cost: $1,432;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Vermont; Project name and description: Montgomery-Berkshire,
State Route 118--Pave highway;
CBI funds authorized: $3,448;
Total estimated cost: $4,309;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Vermont;
Project name and description: Brighton and Warren Gore State Route 114--
Resurface pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $65;
Total estimated cost: $4,600;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 1.4%.
State: Vermont; Project name and description: Maidstone-Bloomfield
State Route 102--Pave highway;
CBI funds authorized: $3,962;
Total estimated cost: $4,952;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Vermont;
Project name and description: Belvidere-Montgomery State Route 118--
Pave highway;
CBI funds authorized: $4,671;
Total estimated cost: $5,839;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Vermont;
Project name and description: Highgate-Franlin Rown Highway 3--
Reconstruct highway;
CBI funds authorized: $5,323;
Total estimated cost: $6,653;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 80.0%.
State: Washington;
Project name and description: Okanogan County Road 9425/Loomis-Orville
guardrail project--Install guardrail and spot widening;
CBI funds authorized: $250;
Total estimated cost: $250;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 100.0%.
State: Washington;
Project name and description: U.S. 97 border--Make vicinity
improvements and safety improvements;
CBI funds authorized: $723;
Total estimated cost: $740;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 97.7%.
State: Washington;
Project name and description: U.S. 97--Improve intersection safety;
CBI funds authorized: $725;
Total estimated cost: $799;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 90.7%.
State: Washington;
Project name and description: U.S. 97 south of Orville to Canadian
border--Restore pavement;
CBI funds authorized: $1,700;
Total estimated cost: $1,700;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 100.0%.
State: Washington;
Project name and description: State Route 25 Bossburg to Canadian
border--Restore pavement, improve safety;
CBI funds authorized: $6,928;
Total estimated cost: $7,266;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 95.4%.
State: Washington;
Project name and description: I-5/Blaine Exit--Improve interchange;
CBI funds authorized: $13,457;
Total estimated cost: $22,607;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 59.5%.
State: Washington;
Project name and description: State Route 543/I-5 to Canadian border--
Add lanes;
CBI funds authorized: $14,751;
Total estimated cost: $50,796;
CBI share of total costs (as of Sept. 30, 2008): 29.0%.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data and project documentation from
individual states.
[A] Not available.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Phillip Herr, (202) 512-2834, or herrp@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Rita Grieco, Assistant
Director; Amy Abramowitz; Derrick Collins; Elizabeth Eisenstadt;
Gregory Hanna; Carol Henn; Susan Irving; Bert Japikse; Thanh Lu; Sara
Ann Moessbauer; Michelle Sager; and Laura Shumway made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] SAFETEA-LU defines "high-cost" projects as those PNRS projects
whose estimated total costs are generally $500 million or more. In this
report, we are also applying this same definition of "high-cost" to
projects that are funded through the other two programs discussed in
this report, the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program
and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure program.
[2] Pub. L. No. 109-95, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
[3] This number includes: 144 projects reviewed by FHWA, 2 projects
under review by FHWA, and 7 projects for which states have not
submitted project proposals to FHWA for review. For PNRS and NCIIP
projects, the latest available data on numbers of projects funded by
FHWA are as of December 2, 2008. For CBI projects, the latest available
data on numbers of projects funded by FHWA are as of September 30,
2008. According to FHWA officials, states can submit projects for
federal CBI funding to FHWA, which updates its list of CBI projects
quarterly.
[4] For the period through September 30, 2008, $3.3 billion was
appropriated for projects under the three programs. The amount
appropriated was less than the amount authorized for reasons discussed
in the background section of this report.
[5] Specifically, in our interviews with 56 stakeholders, there were 47
instances in which program advantages were cited, and 66 instances in
which program challenges were cited. A stakeholder could mention
multiple advantages or challenges in an interview.
[6] GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed
for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 6, 2008); GAO, Freight Transportation: National Policy and
Strategies Can Help Improve Freight Mobility, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-287] (Washington, D.C.: Jan.7,
2008); GAO, Highlights of a Forum: Transforming Transportation Policy
for the 21st Century, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1210SP] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19,
2007); GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the
Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-325SP] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1,
2005).
[7] With one exception--the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey-
-states are the recipients of funds for projects under these three
programs. Congress designated the Port Authority as the recipient of
funds for the Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project in SAFETEA-LU. For
convenience, we include the Port Authority when we refer to states in
discussing PNRS.
[8] For more information on this process, see FHWA, Financing Federal-
Aid Highways (Washington, D.C.: March 2007).
[9] Projects eligible for CBI funding include improvements to existing
infrastructure, construction of new infrastructure, safety enforcement
facilities, or operational improvements in a border region; or
regulatory or international planning projects. All of these projects
must support the cross-border movement of motor vehicles and cargo.
[10] NEPA requires that federal agencies consider, and if possible,
avoid or mitigate the impact of proposed actions that would
significantly affect the environment. For a detailed description of how
the act affects highway planning, design, and construction, see GAO,
Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct
Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-534] (Washington, D.C.: May 23,
2003) and GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Federal Requirements for Highways
May Influence Funding Decisions and Create Challenges, but Benefits and
Costs Are Not Tracked, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-36] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12,
2008).
[11] Under the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement, the wages for
work on all federal-aid highway projects must at least equal the local
prevailing wage for that work as determined by the Department of Labor.
[12] Other criteria and selection considerations specified in SAFETEA-
LU for selecting PNRS projects included the ability of the project to
garner support for nonfederal financial commitments; leverage the
federal investment; provide evidence of stable and dependable financing
for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the facility; use
new technologies that enhance project efficiency; and help maintain or
protect the environment.
[13] GSA is the lead agency on any road construction project or
maintenance that occurs on GSA property, including land border port of
entry facilities.
[14] As of December 8, 2008, no border state has proposed using CBI
funds for a project in Canada or Mexico.
[15] GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on
Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-398] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9,
2003).
[16] The estimated total project costs are based on state DOT
submissions to FHWA.
[17] State DOT officials in New Mexico told us that the federal
authorization exceeded 100 percent of the total cost estimate (i.e.,
104 percent) on the project to relocate freight rail operations from
Texas to New Mexico because state officials took into account actual
and anticipated federal rescissions to the amount authorized in SAFETEA-
LU for the project. Officials projected that actual and anticipated
federal appropriations for the project will be 88 percent of the total
estimated project costs. In commenting on this report, DOT officials
stated that although the congressional directive exceeds 80 percent of
the total estimated project cost, a match is required for using federal
funds and FHWA monitors this match.
[18] The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in Connecticut is expected to
increase capacity by adding a lane in each direction.
[19] California DOT officials told us that they applied for California
bond funding for this project but did not have sufficient nonstate
matching funds allocated to the project to qualify for state bond
funds. Adding CBI funds to local funds that had been allocated to this
project allowed the state DOT to secure state funds for this project.
[20] A stakeholder could mention multiple advantages or challenges in
an interview.
[21] We placed the stakeholders we interviewed into four groups: (1)
DOT offices (mainly FHWA division offices in the states we visited),
(2) state transportation departments, (3) local government agencies
(including port authorities and metropolitan planning organizations
(MPO), and (4) national associations and transportation experts.
[22] Some stakeholders also said that they reprioritized nonfederal
transportation funding to satisfy the state and local match
requirements in order to obtain federal funding from these programs
(see app. III).
[23] Our work has shown that the stakeholders' views are, in some
instances, warranted, but that in other instances, state requirements
are as stringent or more stringent than the federal requirements or the
federal requirements do not result in higher costs. In our December
2008 report on federal requirements for highway projects (GAO-09-36),
we noted that a majority of state DOTs reported that, in the past 10
years, NEPA factored into their decision to use nonfederal funds for
highway projects that were eligible for federal aid. We also found that
some states' NEPA requirements are more stringent than the federal
requirements. Furthermore, in some states, the Davis-Bacon prevailing
wage requirement led to higher labor costs, but in other states the
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rate was lower than the state's prevailing
wage rate.
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-287], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1210SP], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-325SP].
[25] For more information on congressional directives, see GAO,
Congressional Directives: Selected Agencies Processes for Responding to
Funding Instructions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-209] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31,
2008).
[26] Thirty of the 56 stakeholders we spoke with (2 of 12 DOT and FHWA
state officials, 9 of 16 state transportation departments, 7 of 16
local governments, and 12 of 12 national associations or transportation
experts) called for a better definition of the federal role in
transportation funding.
[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400].
[28] GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-310] (Washington, D.C.: January
2007).
[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1210SP].
[30] GAO, Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal
Resources Go Further, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-7] (Washington, D.C.: Dec.18,
1996); GAO, Surface Transportation: Preliminary Observations on Efforts
to Restructure the Current Program, GAO-08-478T (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
6, 2008); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-325SP];
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1210SP]; and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400].
[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-478T] (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 6, 2008).
[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-287]. DOT did not
comment on this recommendation.
[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400].
[34] Department of Transportation, Projects of National and Regional
Significance, 2007 Report to Congress, Project Information, December
2007 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2008).
[End of section]
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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
