DOT Headquarters

GAO is unconvinced that constructing a headquarters building for the Department of Transportation (DOT) using air rights over the railroad tracks directly behind Union Station in Washington, D.C., is the best solution to DOT's needs. The executive branch is unclear about whether the headquarters should be located at the Union Station site or the Federal Triangle Building. Neither option will fully consolidate the agency, and DOT has not shown a need for full consolidation. After determining the extent to which DOT needs to be consolidated, the General Services Administration (GSA) and DOT must decide where to meet that requirement--in the District of Columbia, the metropolitan Washington area, or possibly a combination of locations. Although initial studies suggest that the air rights site may be less environmentally harmful than other alternatives, building on that location may prove complicated. GAO also believes that GSA's estimate of the building's cost on the air rights site may be high. Furthermore, unless GSA and DOT solicit space for land, they cannot be sure that all possible sites in the District have been considered.

GAO found: (1) the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) did not recommend a specific option, but suggested that the air rights option would have the least negative environmental impact; (2) building on air rights would not increase total project costs; (3) the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC) reviewed the DOT/GSA air rights building cost estimate and concluded that it might be high due to generous escalation and contingency assumptions; (4) GSA and DOT can not be assured that they have identified all possible sites until they attempt to solicit land offers; (5) AMTRAK officials are concerned with how much of the station will be taken out of service and with construction workers' safety; (6) AMTRAK officials said that the platform would protect the tracks from inclement weather, and the station would benefit from the many site improvements included in the project; and (7) DOT has not provided convincing analysis to support the need for consolidation.