Transportation Programs
Challenges Facing the Department of Transportation and Congress Gao ID: GAO-09-435T March 10, 2009A safe, efficient, and convenient transportation system is integral to the health of our economy and quality of life. Our nation's vast transportation system of airways, railways, roads, transit systems, and waterways has served this need, yet is under considerable pressure due to increasing congestion and costs to maintain and improve the system. Calls for increased investment come at a time when traditional funding for transportation projects is increasingly strained. The authorizing legislation supporting transportation programs will soon expire. The Department of Transportation (DOT) implements national transportation policy and administers most federal transportation programs. DOT received funds for transportation infrastructure projects through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to aid in economic recovery. DOT also requested $72.5 billion to carry out its activities for fiscal year 2010. This statement presents GAO's views on major challenges facing DOT and Congress as they work to administer recovery funds and reauthorize surface transportation and aviation programs. It is based on work GAO has completed over the last several years. GAO has made recommendations to DOT to improve transportation programs; the agency has generally agreed with these recommendations. To supplement this existing work, GAO obtained information on the recovery funds provided to DOT.
The Department of Transportation received about $48 billion of recovery funds for investments in transportation infrastructure from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As with other executive agencies, DOT is faced with the challenges of using these funds in ways that will aid economic recovery, making wise funding choices while spending the money quickly, and ensuring accountability for results. GAO will report to Congress bimonthly on how states and localities use the recovery funds received from DOT. DOT and Congress will also be faced with numerous challenges as they work to reauthorize surface transportation and aviation programs. Funding the nation's transportation system. Revenues to support the Highway Trust Fund are not keeping pace with spending levels and the Highway Account was nearly depleted last summer. In addition, the excise taxes that fund Airport and Airway Trust Fund revenues have been lower than previously forecasted, and forecasts of future revenues have declined. Declining revenues in both trust funds may adversely affect DOT's ability to continue to fund surface transportation and aviation programs at levels previously assumed. Improving transportation safety. Although the number of traffic crashes and the associated fatality rate has decreased over the last 10 years, the number of fatalities has remained at about 42,000 annually. The continued high level of fatalities and difficulties experienced by states in implementing grant programs raise issues for Congress to consider in restructuring these programs during reauthorization. While the U.S. commercial aviation industry is among the safest in the world, accidents can have catastrophic consequences. The lack of performance measures and complete data limit DOT's ability to improve safety and manage safety risks. Improving transportation mobility. Despite large increases in transportation spending, congestion on our nation's highways has increased over the last 10 years and increased demand will further strain the system. Flight delays and cancellations at congested airports continue to plague the U.S. aviation system. For example, almost one in four flights either arrived late or was canceled in 2008, and the average flight delay increased despite a 6 percent annual decline in the total number of operations through December 2008. Congestion poses serious economic as well as environmental and health concerns for the nation. Transforming the nation's air traffic control system. The air traffic control modernization program is technically complex and costly. The Federal Aviation Administration will need to accelerate the implementation of new and existing technologies, consider incentives for aircraft operators to acquire those technologies, and sustain the current system while transitioning to the new one, among other things.
GAO-09-435T, Transportation Programs: Challenges Facing the Department of Transportation and Congress
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-435T
entitled 'Transportation Programs: Challenges Facing the Department of
Transportation and Congress' which was released on March 10, 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies; Committee on Appropriations;
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
March 10, 2009:
Transportation Programs:
Challenges Facing the Department of Transportation and Congress:
Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-09-435T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-435T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies;
Committee on Appropriations; House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
A safe, efficient, and convenient transportation system is integral to
the health of our economy and quality of life. Our nation‘s vast
transportation system of airways, railways, roads, transit systems, and
waterways has served this need, yet is under considerable pressure due
to increasing congestion and costs to maintain and improve the system.
Calls for increased investment come at a time when traditional funding
for transportation projects is increasingly strained. The authorizing
legislation supporting transportation programs will soon expire.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) implements national
transportation policy and administers most federal transportation
programs. DOT received funds for transportation infrastructure projects
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to aid in
economic recovery. DOT also requested $72.5 billion to carry out its
activities for fiscal year 2010.
This statement presents GAO‘s views on major challenges facing DOT and
Congress as they work to administer recovery funds and reauthorize
surface transportation and aviation programs. It is based on work GAO
has completed over the last several years. GAO has made recommendations
to DOT to improve transportation programs; the agency has generally
agreed with these recommendations. To supplement this existing work,
GAO obtained information on the recovery funds provided to DOT.
What GAO Found:
The Department of Transportation received about $48 billion of recovery
funds for investments in transportation infrastructure from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As with other executive
agencies, DOT is faced with the challenges of using these funds in ways
that will aid economic recovery, making wise funding choices while
spending the money quickly, and ensuring accountability for results.
GAO will report to Congress bimonthly on how states and localities use
the recovery funds received from DOT.
DOT and Congress will also be faced with numerous challenges as they
work to reauthorize surface transportation and aviation programs.
* Funding the nation‘s transportation system. Revenues to support the
Highway Trust Fund are not keeping pace with spending levels and the
Highway Account was nearly depleted last summer. In addition, the
excise taxes that fund Airport and Airway Trust Fund revenues have been
lower than previously forecasted, and forecasts of future revenues have
declined. Declining revenues in both trust funds may adversely affect
DOT‘s ability to continue to fund surface transportation and aviation
programs at levels previously assumed.
* Improving transportation safety. Although the number of traffic
crashes and the associated fatality rate has decreased over the last 10
years, the number of fatalities has remained at about 42,000 annually.
The continued high level of fatalities and difficulties experienced by
states in implementing grant programs raise issues for Congress to
consider in restructuring these programs during reauthorization. While
the U.S. commercial aviation industry is among the safest in the world,
accidents can have catastrophic consequences. The lack of performance
measures and complete data limit DOT‘s ability to improve safety and
manage safety risks.
* Improving transportation mobility. Despite large increases in
transportation spending, congestion on our nation‘s highways has
increased over the last 10 years and increased demand will further
strain the system. Flight delays and cancellations at congested
airports continue to plague the U.S. aviation system. For example,
almost one in four flights either arrived late or was canceled in 2008,
and the average flight delay increased despite a 6 percent annual
decline in the total number of operations through December 2008.
Congestion poses serious economic as well as environmental and health
concerns for the nation.
* Transforming the nation‘s air traffic control system. The air traffic
control modernization program is technically complex and costly. The
Federal Aviation Administration will need to accelerate the
implementation of new and existing technologies, consider incentives
for aircraft operators to acquire those technologies, and sustain the
current system while transitioning to the new one, among other things.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-435T] or key
components. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202)
512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss
the challenges facing the Department of Transportation (DOT) and
Congress as they work to aid economic recovery and address the
reauthorization of the surface transportation and aviation programs. A
safe, efficient, and convenient transportation system is critical to
the nation's economy and affects the daily life of most Americans.
However, this system is under pressure, and estimates to repair,
replace, or upgrade aging infrastructure--as well as expand capacity to
meet increased demand--top hundreds of billions of dollars. Calls for
increased investment in transportation coincide with growing strains on
traditional funding for transportation projects. For example, revenues
to support the Highway Trust Fund are not keeping pace with spending
levels, and the fund's Highway Account was nearly depleted last summer.
[Footnote 1] Similarly, excise tax revenues to support the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund have been lower than previously forecasted, a trend
which is likely to continue given the downturn in the economy.[Footnote
2] The federal government's current financial condition and the
nation's weakening economy will further strain funding sources for
transportation projects.
DOT will immediately be faced with overseeing the distribution of
economic stimulus funds that were provided in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 to states and localities.[Footnote 3] Congress
and DOT will also soon face the challenge of allocating federal
resources to meet demands for a wide range of surface transportation
infrastructure projects, as the current authorization of federal
surface transportation programs expires at the end of fiscal year 2009.
Furthermore, federal aviation programs have been operating under a
series of funding extensions since the authorizing legislation expired
at the end of fiscal year 2007. Timely reauthorization is critical to
ensuring the continuity of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
current programs and progress in transforming the nation's air traffic
control system. DOT faces these challenges with few officials named or
confirmed to appointed posts.
My statement is primarily based on work that we have completed over the
past several years. (A list of related GAO products is included with
this statement.) To supplement our existing work, we also obtained
information on the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 and the
President's budget for the Department of Transportation for fiscal year
2010.[Footnote 4]
Background:
The safe, efficient, and convenient movement of people and goods
depends on a vibrant transportation system. Our nation has built vast
systems of roads, airways, railways, transit systems, pipelines, and
waterways that facilitate commerce and improve our quality of life.
However, these systems are under considerable strain due to increasing
congestion and the costs of maintaining and improving the systems. This
strain is expected to increase as the demand to move people and goods
grows resulting from population growth, technological change, and the
increased globalization of the economy.
DOT implements national transportation policy and administers most
federal transportation programs. Its responsibilities are considerable
and reflect the extraordinary scale, use, and impact of the nation's
transportation systems. DOT has multiple missions--primarily focusing
on mobility and safety--that are carried out by several operating
administrations. (See table 1.) For fiscal year 2010, the President's
budget requested $72.5 billion to carry out these and other activities.
Table 1: Primary Missions of the Department of Transportation:
DOT operating administration: Federal Highway Administration;
Mission: Enhancing the quality and performance of the nation's highway
system and intermodal connections.
DOT operating administration: Federal Aviation Administration;
Mission: Promoting the safety and efficiency of the national airspace
system.
DOT operating administration: Federal Transit Administration;
Mission: Supporting locally planned and operated public mass transit
systems.
DOT operating administration: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration;
Mission: Reducing motor vehicle crashes and their associated deaths and
injuries.
DOT operating administration: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration;
Mission: Reducing commercial motor vehicle-related (large trucks and
buses) fatalities and injuries.
DOT operating administration: Federal Railroad Administration;
Mission: Improving safety on the nation's rail systems and providing
grants for intercity passenger rail activities.
DOT operating administration: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration;
Mission: Maintaining the safety and integrity of the nation's pipeline
transportation system and the safety of transporting hazardous
materials.
DOT operating administration: Maritime Administration;
Mission: Strengthening the nation's maritime transportation system,
including infrastructure, industry, and labor.
Source: DOT.
Note: This table does not include the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration or the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation. In addition, the Surface Transportation Board, which has
jurisdiction over such areas as railroad rate and service issues and
rail restructuring transactions, is an economic regulatory agency that
is decisionally independent but administratively affiliated with DOT.
[End of table]
DOT carries out some activities directly, such as employing more than
15,000 air traffic controllers to coordinate air traffic. However, the
vast majority of the programs it supports are not under its direct
control. Rather, the recipients of transportation funds, such as state
departments of transportation, implement most transportation programs.
For example, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides funds
to state governments each year to improve roads and bridges and meet
other transportation demands, but state and local governments decide
which transportation projects have high priority within their political
jurisdictions.
We have previously reported that current surface transportation
programs--authorized in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)--do not
effectively address the transportation challenges the nation faces. As
a result, we have called for a fundamental reexamination of the
nation's surface transportation programs to (1) have well-defined goals
with direct links to an identified federal interest and federal role,
(2) institute processes to make grantees more accountable by
establishing more performance-based links between funding and program
outcomes, (3) institute tools and approaches that emphasize the return
on the federal investment, and (4) address the current imbalance
between federal surface transportation revenues and spending.[Footnote
5]
We have also called for a timely reauthorization of FAA programs that
expired at the end of fiscal year 2007 and have continued under a
series of funding extensions. Such short-term funding measures could
delay key capital projects and may affect FAA's current programs and
progress toward the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
Aiding Economic Recovery and Ensuring Accountability for Recovery
Funds' Use:
Congress and the presidential administration have fashioned the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to help our nation
respond to what is generally reported to be the worst economic crisis
since the Great Depression. DOT received about $48 billion of these
funds for investments in transportation infrastructure--primarily for
highways, passenger rail, and transit--mostly for use through fiscal
year 2010. (See table 2.) As with other executive agencies, DOT now
faces the challenges of using these funds in ways that aid economic
recovery, making wise funding choices while spending the money quickly,
and ensuring accountability for results.
Table 2: 2009 Recovery Act Funds Provided to the Department of
Transportation:
Area: Highway;
Uses: Capital assistance to states and localities to restore, repair,
and construct highways and passenger and freight rail transportation
and port infrastructure;
Amount: $27.5.
Area: Intercity passenger rail;
Uses: Capital assistance for high-speed rail, intercity passenger rail,
and Amtrak;
Amount: $9.3 billion.
Area: Transit;
Uses: Capital assistance for transit projects;
Amount: $8.4 billion.
Area: Supplemental discretionary awards[A];
Uses: Capital assistance to states and localities for capital
improvements in surface transportation infrastructure;
Amount: $1.5 billion.
Area: Aviation;
Uses: Capital assistance to airports for improvements and for FAA
facilities and equipment;
Amount: $1.3 billion.
Area: Maritime;
Uses: Capital assistance to small shipyards;
Amount: $0.1 billion.
Total: $48.1 billion.
Source: GAO summary of information in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.
[A] These funds are for investments in surface transportation
infrastructure in addition to the other amounts listed in the table.
The funds are to be awarded competitively for highway, bridge, public
transportation, passenger and freight rail, and port infrastructure
projects.
[End of table]
The act largely provided for increased transportation funding through
existing programs--such as the Federal-Aid Highways, the New Starts
transit, and the Airport Improvement programs. Channeling funding
through existing programs should allow DOT to jump start its spending
of recovery funds. However, there is a need to balance the requirement
in the recovery act to get funds out quickly to help turn around the
economy with the equally powerful need to make sure that funds are
spent wisely on infrastructure investments and are not subject to
waste, fraud, and abuse.
We have reported on important design criteria for any economic stimulus
package including that it be timely, temporary, and targeted.[Footnote
6] This is a difficult challenge for transportation infrastructure
projects.[Footnote 7] First, they require lengthy planning and design
periods. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), even those
projects that are "on the shelf" generally cannot be undertaken quickly
enough to provide a timely stimulus to the economy.[Footnote 8] Second,
spending on transportation infrastructure is generally not temporary
because of the extended time frames needed to complete projects. Third,
because of differences among states, it is challenging to target
stimulus funding to areas with the greatest economic and infrastructure
needs.
The act will substantially increase the federal investment in the
nation's surface transportation system. However, the current federal
approach to addressing the nation's surface transportation problems is
not working well. Many existing surface transportation programs are not
effective at addressing key challenges because goals are numerous and
sometimes conflicting, roles are unclear, programs lack links to the
performance of the transportation system or of the grantees, and
programs in some areas do not use the best tools and approaches to
ensure effective investment decisions and the best use of federal
dollars. In addition, evidence suggests that increased federal highway
grants influence states and localities to substitute federal funds for
state and local funds they otherwise would have spent on highways. In
2004, we estimated that states used roughly half of the increases in
federal highway grants since 1982 to substitute for state and local
highway funding, and that the rate of substitution increased during the
1990s.[Footnote 9] Our work has also shown that there is still room for
improved oversight in surface transportation programs including the
Federal-Aid Highway program. For example, we and the DOT Inspector
General have each recommended that FHWA develop the capability to track
and measure the costs of federally-aided projects over time.[Footnote
10]
Among other things, the act gives our office the responsibility of
reporting to Congress bimonthly on how selected states and localities
are using the recovery funds. We will work with the department's Office
of Inspector General and with the state and local audit community to
coordinate our activities.[Footnote 11] We also anticipate that
committees of jurisdiction will request that we assess specific issues
related to the department's use of recovery funds. We look forward to
working with this subcommittee and others to meet Congress's needs.
Addressing Funding, Safety, Mobility, and Modernization Challenges in
Surface Transportation and Aviation Reauthorization Efforts:
DOT and Congress will be faced with numerous challenges as they work to
reauthorize the surface transportation and aviation programs. In
particular, the department and Congress will need to address challenges
in (1) ensuring that the nation's surface transportation and aviation
systems have adequate funding, (2) improving safety, (3) improving
mobility, and (4) transforming the nation's air traffic control system.
Surface transportation program funding is one of the issues on our high-
risk list.[Footnote 12]
Funding the Nation's Transportation System:
Revenues from motor fuels taxes and truck-related taxes to support the
Highway Trust Fund--the primary source of funds for highway and
transit--are not keeping pace with spending levels. This fact was made
dramatically apparent last summer when the Highway Account within the
trust fund was nearly depleted. The balance of the Highway Account has
been declining in recent years because, as designed in SAFETEA-LU,
outlays from the account exceed expected receipts over the
authorization period. Specifically, when SAFETEA-LU was passed in 2005
estimated outlays from Highway Account programs exceeded estimated
receipts by about $10.4 billion. Based on these estimates, the Highway
Account balance would have been drawn down from $10.8 billion to about
$0.4 billion over the authorization period. This left little room for
error. Assuming all outlays were spent, a revenue shortfall of even 1
percent below what SAFETEA-LU had predicted over the 5-year period
would result in a cash shortfall in the account balance.
Figure 1: Highway Account Balance, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2009:
Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Fiscal year: 1998;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $16.5 billion;
Fiscal year: 1999;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $19.2 billion;
Fiscal year: 2000;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $22.6 billion;
Fiscal year: 2001;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $20.4 billion;
Fiscal year: 2002;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $16.1 billion;
Fiscal year: 2003;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $13 billion;
Fiscal year: 2004;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $10.8 billion;
Fiscal year: 2005;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $10.6 billion;
Fiscal year: 2006;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $9 billion;
Fiscal year: 2007;
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $8.1 billion;
End of year balance, without $8 billion transfer: 8.1 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate);
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $10 billion;
End of year balance, without $8 billion transfer: 2 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate);
End of year balance, with $8 billion transfer: $2.7 billion;
End of year balance, without $8 billion transfer: -3.1 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
[End of figure]
In fact, actual Highway Account receipts were lower than had been
estimated, particularly for fiscal year 2008. Account receipts were
lower in fiscal year 2008 due to a weakening economy and higher motor
fuel prices that affected key sources of Highway Trust Fund revenue.
For example, fewer truck sales, as well as fewer vehicle miles traveled
and correspondingly lower motor fuel purchases resulted in lower
revenues. As a result, the account balance dropped more precipitously
than had been anticipated and was nearly depleted in August 2008--1
year earlier than the end of the SAFETEA-LU authorization period. In
response, Congress passed legislation in September 2008 to provide $8
billion to replenish the account. However, according to CBO, the
account could reach a critical stage again before the end of fiscal
year 2009. Without either reduced expenditures or increased revenues,
or a combination of the two, shortfalls will continue.
In the past, we have reported on several strategies that could be used
to better align surface transportation expenditures and revenue.
[Footnote 13] Each of these strategies has different merits and
challenges, and the selection of any strategy will likely involve trade-
offs among different policy goals. The strategies related to funding
sources are also included in the recent report from the National
Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission.[Footnote
14]
* Altering existing sources of revenue. The Highway Account's current
sources of revenue--motor fuel taxes and truck-related taxes--could be
better aligned with actual outlays. According to CBO and others, the
existing fuel taxes could be altered in a variety of ways to address
the erosion of purchasing power caused by inflation, including
increasing the per-gallon tax rate and indexing the rates to inflation.
* Ensure users are paying fully for benefits. Revenues can also be
designed to more closely follow the user-pay concept--that is, require
users to pay directly for the cost of the infrastructure they use. This
concept seeks to ensure that those who use and benefit from the
infrastructure are charged commensurately. Although current per-gallon
fuel taxes reflect usage to a certain extent, these taxes are not
aligned closely with usage and do not convey to drivers the full costs
of road use--such as the costs of congestion and pollution. We have
reported that other user-pay mechanisms--for example, charging
according to vehicle miles traveled, tolling, implementing new freight
fees for trucks, and introducing congestion pricing (pricing that
reflects the greater cost of traveling at peak times)--could more
equitably recoup costs.
* Supplement existing revenue sources. We have also reported on
strategies to supplement existing revenue sources. A number of
alternative financing mechanisms--such as enhanced private-sector
participation--can be used to help state and local governments finance
surface transportation. These mechanisms, where appropriate, could help
meet growing and costly transportation demands. However, these
potential financing sources are forms of debt that must ultimately be
repaid.
* Reexamine the base. Given the federal government's fiscal outlook, we
have reported that we cannot accept all of the federal government's
existing programs, policies, and activities as "givens." Rather, we
need to rethink existing programs, policies, and activities by
reviewing their results relative to the national interests and by
testing their continued relevance and relative priority.
* Improve the efficiency of current facilities. Finally, better
managing existing system capacity and improving performance of existing
facilities could minimize the need for additional expenditures. We have
reported that the efficiency of the nation's surface transportation
programs are declining and that the return on investment could be
improved in a number of ways, including creating incentives to better
use existing infrastructure.
In addition to better aligning revenues and outlays, improving existing
mechanisms that are intended to help maintain Highway Account solvency
could help DOT better monitor and manage the account balance, thereby
reducing the likelihood of a funding shortfall. For example, statutory
mechanisms designed to make annual adjustments to the Highway Account
have been modified over time--particularly through changes in SAFETEA-
LU--to the extent that these mechanisms either are no longer relevant
or are limited in effectiveness.[Footnote 15] Furthermore, monitoring
indicators throughout the year that could signal sudden changes in the
Highway Account revenues could help DOT better anticipate potential
changes in the account balance that should be communicated to Congress,
state officials, and other stakeholders. We recently made
recommendations to help DOT improve solvency mechanisms for the Highway
Account and communication on the account's status with stakeholders.
Turning to aviation funding, the excise taxes that fund Airport and
Airway Trust Fund revenues have been lower than previously forecasted,
and forecasts of future revenues have declined because of a decline in
airline passenger travel, fares, and fuel consumption.[Footnote 16]
Moreover, the uncommitted balance in the Trust Fund has decreased since
fiscal year 2001. (See figure 2). For the short run, lower-than-
expected excise tax revenues will reduce the Trust Fund balance even
further and could affect funding for FAA programs this year and next.
In the longer run, continued declines in Trust Fund revenues may
require Congress to reduce spending on FAA operations and capital
projects, increase revenues for the trust fund by introducing new fees
or increasing taxes, or increase FAA's funding provided by the General
Fund.
Figure 2: Airport and Airway Trust Fund End-of-Year Uncommitted
Balance, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Fiscal year: 1998;
Balance: $4.589 billion.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Balance: $7.363 billion.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Balance: $7.074 billion.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Balance: $7.345 billion.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Balance: $4.815 billion.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Balance: $3.898 billion.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Balance: $2.447 billion.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Balance: $1.94 billion.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Balance: $1.773 billion.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Balance: $1.533 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Balance: $1.435 billion.
Source: Treasury Income Statements.
[End of figure]
Improving Transportation Safety:
Improvements in transportation safety are needed to reduce the number
of deaths and injuries from transportation accidents, the vast majority
of which occur on our nation's roads. We recently reported that
although the number of traffic crashes and the associated fatality
rates has decreased over the last 10 years, the number of fatalities
has, unfortunately, remained at about 42,000 annually and some areas
are of particular concern.[Footnote 17] For example, in 2007, over half
of the passenger vehicle occupants killed were not using safety belts
or other proper restraint, nearly one-third of the total fatalities
were in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, and motorcyclist fatalities
increased for the 10th year in a row.
Figure 3: Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate, 1998 through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: combination vertical bar and line graph]
Year: 1998;
Total fatalities: 41,501;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.58.
Year: 1999;
Total fatalities: 41,717;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.55.
Year: 2000;
Total fatalities: 41,945;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.53.
Year: 2001;
Total fatalities: 42,196;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.51.
Year: 2002;
Total fatalities: 43,005;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.51.
Year: 2003;
Total fatalities: 42,884;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.48.
Year: 2004;
Total fatalities: 42,836;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.44.
Year: 2005;
Total fatalities: 43,510;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.46.
Year: 2006;
Total fatalities: 42,708;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.42.
Year: 2007;
Total fatalities: 41,059;
Fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles traveled: 1.36.
Sources: NHTSA and FHWA.
[End of figure]
While the U.S. commercial aviation industry is among the safest in the
world, aviation safety is also a major concern because when accidents
or serious incidents occur they can have catastrophic consequences.
Moreover, last year there were 25 serious runway incursions--nine of
these involved commercial aircraft--when collisions between aircraft on
runways were narrowly avoided. Runway incursions can be considered a
precursor to aviation accidents.[Footnote 18] Figure 4 shows the number
of serious incursions involving commercial aircraft from fiscal year
2001 through fiscal year 2008.
Figure 4: Total Number of Serious Runway Incursions Involving at Least
One Commercial Aircraft, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2001;
Serious incursions involving at least one commercial aircraft: 26;
Serious incursions not involving commercial aircraft: 27.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Serious incursions involving at least one commercial aircraft: 11;
Serious incursions not involving commercial aircraft: 26.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Serious incursions involving at least one commercial aircraft: 9;
Serious incursions not involving commercial aircraft: 23.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Serious incursions involving at least one commercial aircraft: 9;
Serious incursions not involving commercial aircraft: 19.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Serious incursions involving at least one commercial aircraft: 9;
Serious incursions not involving commercial aircraft: 20.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Serious incursions involving at least one commercial aircraft: 10;
Serious incursions not involving commercial aircraft: 21.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Serious incursions involving at least one commercial aircraft: 8;
Serious incursions not involving commercial aircraft: 16.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Serious incursions involving at least one commercial aircraft: 7;
Serious incursions not involving commercial aircraft: 16.
Source: FAA.
[End of figure]
DOT has taken steps to address surface and aviation safety concerns. To
improve traffic safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has made substantial progress in administering
traffic safety grant programs and high-visibility enforcement programs
which, according to state safety officials, are helping them address
key traffic safety issues, such as safety belt use and alcohol-impaired
driving. NHTSA has also taken steps to improve the consistency of its
process for reviewing states' management of traffic safety grants. To
maintain and expand the margin of safety within the national airspace
system, FAA is moving to a system safety approach to oversight and has
established risk-based, data-driven safety programs to oversee the
aviation industry. FAA has also taken recent actions to improve runway
safety, including conducting safety reviews at airports and
establishing an FAA-industry team to analyze the root causes of serious
incursions and recommend runway safety improvements.
Despite NHTSA's progress in administering and overseeing traffic safety
programs, several challenges may limit the effectiveness of the
programs and NHTSA's ability to measure and oversee program
effectiveness:
* The grant programs generally lack performance accountability
mechanisms to tie state performance to receipt of grants.
* Some states have faced challenges passing legislation required to
qualify for some traffic safety incentive grants.
* Each safety incentive grant has a separate application process, which
has proven challenging for some states to manage, especially those with
small safety offices.
* Some states also would have preferred more flexibility in using the
safety incentive grants to focus on key safety issues within the state.
Over the past several years, we have made recommendations to help NHTSA
further improve its ability to measure and oversee surface traffic
safety programs and to help FAA improve its oversight of aviation
safety. However, some challenges related to traffic safety--such as
state challenges in administering the programs and the lack of
performance accountability measures--result from the structure of the
grant programs established under SAFETEA-LU. These challenges and the
persistence of substantial numbers of traffic fatalities nationwide
raise issues for Congress to consider in restructuring surface traffic
safety programs during the upcoming reauthorization. Furthermore, to
maintain the high level of safety in the aviation industry, FAA needs
to address challenges in accessing complete and accurate aviation
safety data, and improving runway and ramp safety. For example, recent
actions by some major airlines to discontinue participation in an
important data reporting program limit data access. Moreover, a lack of
national data on operations involving air ambulances, air cargo, and
general aviation hinders FAA's ability to evaluate accident trends and
manage risks in these sectors. Improving runway safety will require a
sustained effort by FAA that includes developing new technologies and
revised procedures to address human factors issues, such as fatigue and
distraction, which experts have identified as the primary cause of
incursions.
Improving Transportation Mobility:
Congestion has worsened over the past 10 years, despite large increases
in transportation spending at all levels of government and improvements
to the physical condition of highways and transit facilities.
Furthermore, according to DOT, highway spending by all levels of
government has increased 100 percent in real dollar terms since 1980,
but the hours of delay during peak travel periods have increased by
almost 200 percent during the same period. These mobility issues have
increased at a relatively constant rate over the last two decades.
[Footnote 19] (See table 3.)
Table 3: Urban Congestion Impacts on the Nation's Urban Areas:
Travel delay (billions of hours);
1985: 1.1;
1995: 2.5;
2005: 4.2.
Wasted fuel (billions of gallons);
1985: 0.7;
1995: 1.7;
2005: 2.9.
Congestion cost (billions of 2005 dollars);
1985: $20.5;
1995: 45.4;
2005: 78.2.
Source: Texas Transportation Institute.
[End of table]
In addition, demand has outpaced the capacity of the system, and
projected population growth, technological changes, and increased
globalization are expected to further strain the system. Likewise,
increased demand and capacity constraints have threatened the mobility
of the nation's freight transportation network. According to DOT,
volumes of goods shipped by trucks and railroads are projected to
increase by 98 percent and 88 percent, respectively, by 2035 over 2002
levels, at the same time that the ability to increase capacity will be
constrained by geographic barriers, population density, and urban land-
use development patterns. One study estimates that highway congestion
alone costs shippers $10 billion annually. Constraints on freight
mobility can also result in undesirable environmental effects, such as
air pollution, and contribute to increased risks for illnesses, such as
respiratory disease.
Flight delays and cancellations at congested airports also continue to
plague the U.S. aviation system. Flight delays and cancellations
steadily increased from 2002 through 2007 and decreased slightly in
2008. (See figure 5.) For example, almost one in four flights either
arrived late or was canceled in 2008, and the average flight delay
increased despite a 6 percent decline in the total number of operations
through December 2008. Delays are a particular problem at a few
airports, such as those in the New York area, where less than 70
percent of flights arrive on time. Because the entire airspace system
is highly interdependent, delays at one airport may lead to delays
rippling across the system and throughout the day.
Figure 5: Trends in Percentage of Late Arriving and Canceled Flights--
Systemwide (1998 through 2008):
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: 1998;
Late arrivals: 19.9%;
Canceled flights: 2.7%.
Year: 1999;
Late arrivals: 20.9%;
Canceled flights: 2.8%.
Year: 2000;
Late arrivals: 23.9%;
Canceled flights: 3.3%.
Year: 2001;
Late arrivals: 18.5%;
Canceled flights: 3.9%.
Year: 2002;
Late arrivals: 16.5%;
Canceled flights: 1.2%.
Year: 2003;
Late arrivals: 16.3%;
Canceled flights: 1.6%.
Year: 2004;
Late arrivals: 19.9%;
Canceled flights: 1.8%.
Year: 2005;
Late arrivals: 20.5%;
Canceled flights: 1.9%.
Year: 2006;
Late arrivals: 22.6%;
Canceled flights: 1.7%.
Year: 2007;
Late arrivals: 24.2%;
Canceled flights: 2.2%.
Year: 2008;
Late arrivals: 21.76%;
Canceled flights: 1.96%.
Source: DOT.
[End of figure]
Commissions, proposals, and actions have attempted to address mobility
issues in past years. To address concerns with the performance of the
surface transportation system, including mobility concerns, Congress
established two commissions to examine current and future needs of the
system and recommend needed changes to surface transportation programs,
one of which called for significantly increasing the level of
investment in surface transportation. Various other transportation
industry associations and research organizations have also issued
proposals for restructuring surface transportation programs. DOT has
also taken several steps in the last 5 years to address key impediments
to freight mobility by developing policies and programs to address
congestion in the United States. For example, it has drafted a
framework for a national freight policy, released a national strategy
to reduce congestion, and created a freight analysis framework to
forecast freight flows along national corridors and through gateways.
[Footnote 20] DOT and FAA began implementing several actions in summer
2008 intended to enhance capacity and reduce flight delays,
particularly in the New York region. These actions include redesigning
the airspace around the New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia
metropolitan area and establishing schedule caps on takeoffs and
landings at the three major New York airports.[Footnote 21] In
addition, as part of a broad congestion relief initiative, DOT awarded
over $800 million to several cities under its Urban Partnership
Agreements initiative to demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of
comprehensive, integrated, performance-driven, and innovative
approaches to relieving congestion.
We have previously reported on several challenges that impede DOT's
efforts to improve mobility:
* Although all levels of government have significantly invested in
transportation, and recommendations have been made by transportation
stakeholders for increasing investment in surface transportation even
further, we have previously reported that federal transportation
funding is generally not linked to specific performance-related goals
or outcomes, resulting in limited assurance that federal funding is
being channeled to the nation's most critical mobility needs. Federal
funding is also often tied to a single transportation mode, which may
limit the use of those funds to finance the greatest improvements in
mobility.
* DOT does not possess adequate data to assess outcomes or implement
performance measures. For example, DOT lacks a central source for data
on congestion--even though it has identified congestion as a top
priority--and available data are stovepiped by mode, impeding efficient
planning and project selection.
* Although DOT and FAA should be commended for taking steps to reduce
mounting flight delays and cancellations, as we predicted this past
summer, delays and cancellations in 2008 did not markedly improve over
2007 levels despite a decline in passenger traffic.[Footnote 22] The
growing air traffic congestion and delay problem that we face is the
result of many factors, including airline practices and inadequate
investment in airport and air traffic control infrastructure. Long-term
investments in airport infrastructure and air traffic control, or other
actions by Congress, DOT, or FAA could address the fundamental
imbalance between underlying demand for, and supply of, airspace
capacity.
Modernizing the Air Traffic Control System and Ensuring a Safe and
Efficient Transformation to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System:
FAA has made significant progress in addressing weaknesses in its air
traffic control modernization. It established a framework for improving
system management capabilities, continued to develop an enterprise
architecture, implemented a comprehensive investment management
process, assessed its human capital challenges, and developed an
updated corrective action plan for 2009 to sustain improvement efforts
and enhance its ability to address risks, among other things. Because
FAA has shown progress in addressing most of the root causes of past
problems with the air traffic control modernization effort and is
committed to sustaining progress into the future, we removed this area
from the high-risk list in January 2009. Nonetheless, we will closely
monitor FAA's efforts because the modernization program is still
technically complex and costly, and FAA needs to place a high priority
on efficient and effective management.
FAA's improvement efforts are even more critical because the
modernization has been extended to plan for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen)--a complex and ambitious multiagency
undertaking that is intended to transform the current radar-based
system to an aircraft-centered, satellite-based system by 2025. As the
primary implementer of NextGen, FAA faces several challenges that, if
not addressed, could severely compromise NextGen goals and potentially
lead to a future gap between the demand for air transportation and
available capacity that could cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars
annually. Challenges facing FAA include the following:[Footnote 23]
* Accelerating the implementation of available NextGen technologies,
which, according to some industry stakeholders, are not being
implemented fast enough to have NextGen in place by 2025.
* Working with stakeholders to explore a range of potential options
that would provide incentives to aircraft operators to purchase NextGen
equipment and to suppliers to develop that equipment. These options
could include some combination of mandated deadlines, operational
credits, or equipment investment credits.
* Reconfiguring facilities and enhancing runways to take full advantage
of NextGen's benefits. FAA has not developed a comprehensive
reconfiguration plan, but intends to report on the cost implications of
reconfiguration this year.
* Sustaining the current air traffic control system and maintaining
facilities during the transition to NextGen. More and longer
unscheduled outages of existing equipment and support systems indicate
more frequent system failures. These systems will be the core of the
national airspace system for a number of years and, in some cases,
become part of NextGen.
To implement NextGen, the department is undertaking several
initiatives. For example, FAA has formed partnerships with industry to
accelerate the availability of NextGen capabilities. These partnerships
include (1) entering into agreements with private sector firms to
conduct NextGen technology demonstration projects; (2) working with
industry and the local community on their plans to build an aviation
research and technology park where FAA can work with industry on the
research and development, integration, and testing of NextGen
technologies; and (3) establishing a NextGen midterm task force to
forge a consensus on operational improvements and planned benefits for
2013 to 2018. In addition, to increase the capacity of existing runways
at busy airports, FAA has begun implementing the High-Density Terminal
and Airport Operations initiative that changes requirements for
aircraft separation and spacing, among other things.
One step for moving forward with the NextGen transition was proposed in
the 2009 House reauthorization bill, which directed FAA to establish a
working group to develop criteria and make recommendations for the
realignment of services and facilities--considering safety, potential
cost savings, and other criteria, in concert with stakeholders,
including employee groups. Until FAA establishes this working group and
the group develops recommendations, the configurations needed for
NextGen cannot be implemented and potential savings that could help
offset the cost of NextGen will not be realized.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee might have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information on this statement, please contact Katherine
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the
last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony were Sara Vermillion, Assistant Director; Steve Cohen,
Matthew Cook, Heather Krause, Nancy Lueke, James Ratzenberger, and
Teresa Spisak.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
National Airspace System: FAA Reauthorization Issues Are Critical to
System Transformation and Operations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-377T]. Washington, D.C.: February
11, 2009.
High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271]. Washington, D.C.: January
2009.
FAA Airspace Redesign: An Analysis of the New York/New Jersey/
Philadelphia Project. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-786]. Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2008.
Surface Transportation Programs: Proposals Highlight Key Issues and
Challenges in Restructuring the Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-843R]. Washington, D.C.: July 29,
2008.
Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States' Challenges, and Issues for
Reauthorization. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-990T].
Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2008.
Physical Infrastructure: Challenges and Investment Options for the
Nation's Infrastructure. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-763T]. Washington, D.C.: May 8,
2008.
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.: March 6,
2008.
Federal Aviation Administration: Challenges Facing the Agency in Fiscal
Year 2009 and Beyond. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-460T]. Washington, D.C.: February 7,
2008.
Federal-Aid Highways: Increased Reliance on Contractors Can Pose
Oversight Challenges for Federal and State Officials. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-198]. Washington, D.C.: January 8,
2008.
Freight Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve
Freight Mobility. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-287].
Washington, D.C.: January 7, 2008.
Highlights of a Forum: Transforming Transportation Policy for the 21st
Century. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1210SP].
Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2007.
Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making Existing
Road Infrastructure Perform Better. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-920]. Washington, D.C.: July 26,
2007.
Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing
Congress and the Department of Transportation. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-545T]. Washington, D.C.: March 6,
2007.
Highway Trust Fund: Overview of Highway Trust Fund Estimates.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-572T]. Washington, D.C.:
April 4, 2006.
Highlights of an Expert Panel: The Benefits and Costs of Highway and
Transit Investments. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-423SP]. Washington, D.C.: May 6,
2005.
Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Needs a Comprehensive Approach to Improving
Project Oversight. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-173].
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2005.
Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options for
Future Program Design. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-802]. Washington, D.C.: August 31,
2004.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The Highway Trust Fund is the mechanism used to account for federal
highway user taxes (e.g., federal excise taxes on fuel) that are
dedicated for highway-and transit-related purposes. The Highway Trust
Fund has two accounts: the Highway Account and the Mass Transit
Account.
[2] The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is primarily funded by an
appropriation from The Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which comes from
various excise taxes paid by passenger and cargo airlines and general
aviation operators. FAA also receives an appropriation from the General
Fund to support its operations.
[3] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).
[4] We conducted our work in accordance with all sections of GAO's
Quality Assurance Framework that were relevant to the objectives of
each engagement. The framework requires that we plan and perform each
engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our
stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We
believe that the information and data obtained, and the analyses
conducted, provided a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions
in each report.
[5] 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).
[6] GAO, Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Action Is Needed to Avoid the
Possibility of a Serious Economic Disruption in the Future, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-411T] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29,
2008).
[7] GAO, Physical Infrastructure: Challenges and Investment Options for
the Nation's Infrastructure, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-763T] (Washington, D.C.: May 8,
2008).
[8] Congressional Budget Office, Options for Responding to Short-Term
Economic Weakness, January 2008.
[9] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and
Options for Future Program Design, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-802] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 31,
2004). The recovery act requires that each governor certify to DOT that
their state will maintain its efforts for the types of projects that
are funded by the act.
[10] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Needs a Comprehensive Approach to
Improving Project Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-173] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31,
2005). We recently reported on the need to better oversee states'
increased use of contractors and consultants to assure the public's
interest is adequately protected. See GAO, Federal-Aid Highways:
Increased Reliance on Contractors Can Pose Oversight Challenges for
Federal and State Officials, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-198] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 8,
2008). See also Office of Inspector General, FHWA Needs to Capture
Basic Aggregate Cost and Schedule Data to Improve Its Oversight of
Federal-Aid Funds, MH-2005-046 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2005). In
addition, the department's Office of Inspector General recently
reported that the department needed to better oversee states' oversight
of design and engineering firms' indirect cost billing. See Office of
Inspector General, Oversight of Design and Engineering Firms' Indirect
Costs Claimed on Federal-Aid Grants, ZA-2009-033 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 5, 2009).
[11] GAO, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: GAO's Role in Helping
to Ensure Accountability and Transparency, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-453T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 5,
2009).
[12] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22,
2009). Surface transportation modes included in the high-risk report
are highways and transit, intercity passenger rail, and freight rail.
[13] 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).
[14] National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing
Commission, Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance,
February 2009.
[15] Two mechanisms are intended to help keep the Highway Account
solvent by making annual adjustments to ensure there are adequate funds
to reimburse states (through the Byrd Test) and align outlays with
actual revenues (through Revenue Aligned Budget Authority).
[16] Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes expired at the end of
fiscal year 2007 but were extended through March 31, 2009.
[17] GAO, Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States' Challenges, and
Issues for Reauthorization, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-890T] (Washington, D.C.: July 16,
2008).
[18] GAO, Aviation Safety: FAA Has Increased Efforts to Address Runway
Incursions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1169T]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2008).
[19] Texas Transportation Institute, The 2007 Urban Mobility Report,
September 2007. The statistics cited are for the 437 urban areas in the
United States.
[20] 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).
[21] GAO, FAA Airspace Redesign: An Analysis of the New York/New
Jersey/Philadelphia Project, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-786] (Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2008).
[22] GAO, National Airspace System: DOT and FAA Actions Will Likely
Have a Limited Effect on Reducing Delays during Summer 2008 Travel
Season, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-934T]
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2008).
[23] GAO, National Airspace System: FAA Reauthorization Issues are
Critical to System Transformation and Operations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-377T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11,
2009).
[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:
