Detailed Information on the
Highway Infrastructure Assessment

Consider and propose modifications and performance-based improvements to the program design during the formulation of a reauthorization proposal in FY 2009. (Specific actions to be developed at a later date).

Direct more resources to comprehensive evaluation activities, particularly at the State project level.

Prepare a plan for improving program and project oversight of States.

Devise efficiency measures to show that program delivery is cost-effective.

Advocate amending the program's authorizing statute to establish an oversight program to monitor the effective and efficient use of funds.

Implement oversight program in Section 1904 of SAFETEA-LU.

Continue pursuing financial management improvements in order to eliminate all material weaknesses in the FY 2009 financial audit.

Measure: Non-occupant highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

Explanation:Highway related fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles-of-travel. The long term goal is to reduce the number of fatalities by 20% from a baseline of 41,501 fatalities, or 1.6 fatalities per 100 million VMT, in 1998. The 2008 target was revised recently and a new schedule and target for 2011 is currently under review within DOT.

Measure: Percentage of travel on the National Highway System (NHS) meeting pavement performance standards for a "good" rated ride.

Explanation:The condition of NHS pavements affects wear-and-tear on vehicles, fuel consumption, travel time, and comfort, as well as public safety. In FY 2008, the target is to increase the percent of "good" rated ride to 57.0 percent.

Measure: Percent congested travel.

Explanation:DOT measures the percent of total annual travel time on freeways and major arterial streets in major urban areas that is moving at less than free flow speeds. Congestion is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 0.7 percent. DOT's goal is to reverse the trend in annual growth beginning in FY 2009 to reach a target of 31.0% in 2011.

Measure: Percent congested travel.

Explanation:DOT measures the percent of total annual travel time on freeways and major arterial streets in major urban areas that is moving at less than free flow speeds. Congestion is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 0.7 percent. DOT's goal is to reverse the trend in annual growth beginning in FY 2009 to reach a target of 31.0% in 2011.

Measure: Median time to complete and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Explanation:In FY 2008, the target is to decrease the median completion time for all EIS projects to 36 months.

Measure: Percent of schedule milestones and cost estimates for major Federally funded transportation infrastructure projects

Explanation:DOT's target is to achieve 95% of schedule or miss by less than 10%.

Measure: Number of freight corridors with an annual decrease in the average buffer index rating.

Explanation:The BI is a measure of travel time reliability and variability that represents the extra time (or time cushion) that would have to be added to the average travel time to ensure on-time arrival 95 percent of the time. Low variability in travel time enables carriers to get goods to market with better predictability. FHWA collected travel time data in 5 corridors in FY 2006. This effort expanded to 25 corridors in FY 2007.

Measure: Delay at NHS border crossings (under development)

Explanation:Hours of delay per 1,000 commercial vehicles at NHS border crossings. FY 2008 target will be established after baseline data becomes available in FY 2007.

Measure: 12-month average number of areas in a transportation conformity lapse.

Explanation:DOT attempts to minimize the number of area transportation conformity lapses through improved integrated transportation and air quality planning. At the end of FY 2006, there were no areas in a conformity lapse. In 2006, the average number of areas in a conformity lapse at any given time was 1.3 percent, less than 1 percent of approximately 300 designated nonattainment or maintenance areas. The FY 2008 target is to maintain the 12 month moving average at 6.0 or less.

Measure: Ratio of wetland acreage replacement resulting from Federal-aid highway projects.

Explanation:This measure contributes to goal of reducing pollution and other adverse environmental effects of transportation. This measure was discontinued in FY 2007. Since FHWA has replaced at least 1.5 acre to every one acre of wetlands lost throughout the Federal aid highway program during the past ten years, achieving the stated target is now viewed as routine practice.

Measure: Percent of major Federally funded transportation infrastructure projects with less than 2% annual growth in the project completion milestone.

Explanation:This measure was introduced in FY 2007. The FY 2008 target is 90% of all major projects with a financial plan.

Measure: Percent of major Federally funded transportation infrastructure projects with less than 2% annual growth in cost estimates.

Explanation:The measure was introduced in FY 2007. The FY 2008 target is 90% of major projects with a finance plan.

Measure: Number of human exemplary ecosystem initiatives. An exemplary ecosytems initiative is an action or measure that will help sustain or restore natural ecosystems and their functions and values, using an ecosystem or landscape approach.

Explanation:This measure was introduced in FY 2007. The FY 2008 target was revised upward to 55, after the FY 2005-06 targets were exceeded.

Measure: Number of human exemplary ecosystem initiatives. An exemplary ecosytems initiative is an action or measure that will help sustain or restore natural ecosystems and their functions and values, using an ecosystem or landscape approach.

Explanation:This measure was introduced in FY 2007. The FY 2008 target was revised upward to 55, after the FY 2005-06 targets were exceeded.

Measure: Percent of U.S. population with access to 511 travel telephone service.

Explanation:

Measure: Passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per 100 million passenger miles traveled. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Measure: Motorcycle rider highway fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Measure: Large truck and bus fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of top 40 metropolitan areas with full service patrols, quick clearance policies, and quick clearance laws. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Measure: Number of freight corridors with an annual decrease in the average buffer index rating greater than the national average. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Measure: Number of U.S. border crossings with an increase in reliability (inbound and outbound). (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of deck area on National Highway System (NHS) bridges rated deficient. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Federal-Aid Highway program is to provide federal financial and technical assistance to States to construct, maintain, and improve the performance of the Nation's highway system in accordance with federal policy goals. Although State, local, and tribal governments own most of the Nation's highways, the statutes authorizing the Federal-aid Highway program direct the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide technical assistance and grants to States for a wide variety of purposes related to the interstate highway system, including construction and maintenance, improving highway safety and traffic congestion mitigation, addressing environmental impacts of surface transportation projects, conducting training and undertaking other activities related to the development and operation of a national system of roads.

Evidence: For statutes authorizing the Federal-aid Highway program, see Section 101(b) of Title 23, U.S.C. and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU , P.L. 109-59). The purpose of the Federal-aid Highway Program is stated in the DOT FY 2008 Budget in Brief - see www.dot.gov/bib2008/pdf/bib2008.pdf To emphasis this dual role of national policy leadership and Federal-Aid Highway program oversight and stewardship, the FHWA Mission Statement was restated in early 2007 as to "Improve Mobility on our Nation's Highways through National Leadership, Innovation, and Program Delivery."

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: When President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, he wrote that he envisioned "a vast system of inter-connected highways crisscrossing the Country." At the time, no coordinated system of roadways existed, making interstate travel difficult, time-consuming and dangerous. The 1956 Act set the framework for the Federal-Aid Highway program, providing federal funding to States to build what is now the world's premier transportation system. Over 50 years later, the Interstate Highway System is now complete. However, the need for a federal program has evolved beyond the construction of a national system of highways. Recent highway legislation, including SAFETEA-LU, has adapted the Federal-Aid program to address new transportation challenges while minimizing impacts on the community and ecosystems. These new challenges include the increasing demand for system capacity as the movement of goods and people expands rapidly, maintaining an aging infrastructure, the continuing need to improve highway safety and security, and the increasing burden of traffic congestion.

Evidence: DOT and the National Archives maintain a history of federal interest in a highway program. (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/summer/interstates.html). Section 1909 of SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59) describes the transportation needs of the 21st century. National transportation needs are detailed in the 2006 DOT Conditions and Performance Report (www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/index). State and local governments rely on Federal-Aid Highway program funds for about 22 percent of all funding generated for use on highways, including capital projects, maintenance, administration, planning and research. In 2004, Federal funds accounted for 44 percent of total outlays for highway capital projects. Stakeholder organizations such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials also continue to identify a need for Federal-aid highway program funding (see http://www.transportation1.org/tif1report).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Federal-Aid Highway program is to a large degree redundant and duplicative of efforts of state and local governments, which share responsibility for the nation's highways. The program provides 22 percent of total national highway funding with the remainder funded by states and local governments, which, like the Federal government, use their taxing power to generate revenues to pay for roads. The division of responsibility between Federal and states and locals is not always clear. By design, FHWA distributes grants annually to states, which independently decide how to spend these funds in conjunction with their own resources. As a consequence, GAO has found that as Federal spending has increased, states have used Federal grants to offset their own highway spending. Specifically, GAO reports that "Increases in federal-aid highway grants influence state and local governments to substitute federal funds for funding they would have otherwise spent on highway projects from their own resources." Furthermore, FHWA data shows that states have chosen to spend a large portion of their Federal funds on local roads that are not part of the National Highway System, suggesting the Federal and state and local programs serve overlapping purposes. The National Highway System is comprised of 160,000 miles of designated major roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. But in 2004, for example, 42 percent of Federal funds ($13 billion) were spent on roads and projects off of the National Highway System that aren't identified as having national significance.

Evidence: See the GAO Report FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options for Future Program Design, which states, "Our analysis suggests that significant substitution has occurred and that the rate of grant substitution increased significantly over the past two decades, rising from 18 percent in the early 1980s to about 60 percent during the 1990s??the periods that ISTEA and TEA-21 were in effect." It continues, "??the program is, to some extent, functioning as a cash transfer, general purpose grant program. This raises broader questions about the effectiveness of the federal investment in highways in accomplishing the program's goals and outcomes." http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04802.pdf. Also see Federal Highway Statistics for information for data on spending on the NHS. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/pdf/fa6a.pdf

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: There is no strong evidence that another approach or mechanism would be more efficient or effective to achieve the purposes of the Federal-Aid Highway program. While there are some elements of the design of the program that appear to reduce the efficiency of the program (e.g., GAO has noted that State funding allocations are not necessarily based on need or performance, and certain programs have been increasingly earmarked), DOT performance data indicate that the program is able to deliver highway program funding to States for highway construction and maintenance projects.

Evidence: Funding procedures used by the FHWA as described in the 'Financing of Federal-Aid Highways' at www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/finfedhy.html (Note: an updated version of this manual will be available soon). Increased State flexibility is described in various sections of Title 1 from ISTEA through TEA-21 to SAFETEA-LU. See also General Accountability Office, "Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing Congress and the Department of Transportation," GAO-07-545T, March 6, 2007. More information about the HSIP program, authorized in Sections 1101(a)(6) and 1401, is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/hsip.htm More information about the Real Time System Management Information Program, authorized in Section 1201 of SAFTEA-LU, at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/realtimesmi.htm

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The statutes authorizing the Federal-aid program require that the majority of the program funds, or approximately 98% of the $39.6 billion obligation limitation in FY 2008, are either apportioned by formula or directly allocated to the States. Funds made available for the program are immediately reallocated to the States, and funding that is not going to be obligated during a fiscal year is returned to FHWA during August and reallocated to States that can make use of them. States ultimately use these funds to complete construction, maintenance and improvement projects on qualified highway projects in accordance with federal requirements. While the program design provides flexibility to the States and enables them to target the specific areas in their State that will best enable them to achieve their State-specific goals and results, the program design limits the federal ability to allocate resources to directly address the most needed improvements related to the national highway infrastructure as a whole. The GAO recently found that "most highway grant programs are apportioned by formula, with regards to needs and capacity of the recipients" and "as such, there is little assurance that the projects selected and funded best meet national goals for addressing the nation's mobility needs" (GAO, 2007, p. 13). In addition, both authorizing legislation and annual appropriations legislation have traditionally been heavily earmarked for specific projects that may or may not be in the State or federal interest. However, stewardship agreements between FHWA Division Offices and State departments of transportation define the roles and responsibilities between the two parties and outline procedures to ensure that federal funds are spent to improve and enhance our Nation's highway infrastructure, to support a safe and efficient transportation system, and to prevent any duplication of effort. FHWA has made strides during the past few years to provide stewardship and oversight control of the use of federal program funds particularly for major infrastructure projects and safety initiatives.

Evidence: Distribution of program funds to States is determined by annual apportionment formulas and distribution tables. See also GAO, "Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing Congress and the Department of Transportation," Repor07-545T, March 6 2007. Sections 1101(a)(6) and 1401 of SAFETEA-LU requires that States develop Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) and conduct safety planning where data show a need to improve injury and fatality rates. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) provides States with flexibility to use safety funds for projects on all public roads and publicly owned pedestrian and bicycle paths, and to focus efforts on implementation of a State SHSP. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/hsip.htm

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Federal-Aid highway program has outcome-oriented, long-term performance measures regarding maintenance and improvement of the National Highway System. The measures of highway safety, traffic congestion, and environmental streamlining are of particular importance as they were identified as the top three priorities of FHWA in 2002. The measure of the traffic safety outcome is the highway fatality rate, which is the number of fatalities per hundred million miles of vehicle travel in any given year. The measure for the traffic congestion-related outcome is the percent of daily travel on freeways and arterial roads in urban areas that is occurring under congested conditions, which is defined as being at less than free flow speeds. The measure for environmental streamlining is the median time, in months, to complete an Environmental Impact Statement for a Federal aid funded project.

Evidence: These outcomes and the associated performance measures are stated in the DOT FY 2006-2011 and the DOT FY 2008 Performance Budget. In addition, national strategies for achieving these outcomes are included in the DOT Strategic Plan. See http://www.dot.gov/stratplan2011/index.htm

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The DOT and FHWA have established targets and timeframes for the long term performance measures that are very ambitious. As reported in the annual DOT Performance & Accountability Report, the FHWA has collected baseline information for these performance measures for the past several years. For example, in 1998, the DOT set a target of reducing the highway fatality rate from 1.6 to 1.0 in 2008. According to highway safety experts, this target was considered to be ambitious when compared to historical trends. Additionally, the DOT and FHWA recently set aggressive targets to reverse the increase in traffic congestion by 2009 largely as a result of the Transportation Secretary's Congestion Initiative. Based on expert opinion and historical trends, the new ambitious target is to reduce the percent of daily congested travel in urban areas to 31.0 percent by 2011, which is below the 2006 level of 32.1 percent.

Evidence: Annual performance targets and existing baseline results that measure progress in achieving the agency's long term targets for these performance measures are included in the DOT Performance and Accountability Report and the FHWA Performance Budget. See http://www.dot.gov/perfacc2006/index.htm and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/budget/fy2008/section4.htm

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has annual objectives with associate output, or intermediate outcome, performance measures and targets that indicate progress toward achieving strategic outcomes and the longer term targets for the performance measures. For example, a goal of the Federal-aid program is to reduce highway congestion. The long-term outcome measure for this goal is the precent of travel under congested conditions, and one of the annual measures is the proportion of the U.S. population with access to 511 telephone traveler information service. Although this measure is an output measure rather than an outcome measure, it was chosen based on research indicating that progress in 511 deployments will contribute to a long-term reduction in the percent of congested travel. In 2003, FHWA adopted as its measure the timeliness of the review of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for projects funded by the Federal aid highway program. In 2004, the FHWA adopted additional measures for major project oversight that address timeliness in meeting scheduled project milestones and accuracy of initial costs estimates.

Evidence: The objectives and performance measures are included in the FHWA 2008 Performance Budget and the FY 2007 FHWA Strategic Implementation Plan.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Because the performance measures associated with the annual FHWA objectives were recently adopted, limited baseline data are available. While the targets established are ambitious based on research and historical patterns, it will be several years before sufficient trend data are available. At that point, it may be necessary to adjust the annual targets. However, for the strategic outcome measures and the program efficiency measures mentioned in 2.2 and 2.3 above, the DOT and FHWA have established annual targets for each performance measure. As noted in 2.3, DOT and FHWA adopted a measure for environmental streamlining in 2003 with a target of achieving a median processing time of 36 months by 2007. The median time in 2006 was 57 months, well above the target of 40 months. Progress has been elusive in achieving this ambitious target, even after FHWA and States agree on timelines to move projects in their annual and long term transportation plans. Part of the reason the target is ambitious is due to the magnitude of the issues and the pipeline effect of complex projects with an EIS initiated many years ago. States are responding to reductions in staffing and budgets at resource agencies by increasing the use of funding agreements for liaisons and data to support streamlining. But, progress can be masked by the process delays created from responding to emerging issues such as air toxics and changes in wetland banking rules. In 2004, DOT and FHWA adopted as its performance measure for major federally funded infrastructure project oversight, the percent of scheduled milestones and cost estimates on time or on budget, or within 10 percent or less, with an annual target of 95% or more of all projects being monitored. After meeting the target in 2002, the annual targets proved elusive by 2005 when 3 of 12 projects being monitored exceeded the 10% threshold. When it became apparent that the loss of time in the schedules and the increase in costs made the targets unachievable in future years, the DOT and FHWA revised the performance measures to allow for a more realistic assessment and encourage annual improvements in project oversight and management. The new measures adopted in the FY 2006-2011 DOT Strategic Plan are based on limiting the increase in the schedule and costs to 2 percent or less on an annual basis, with a target of meeting these criteria in 90 percent or more of all major projects being monitored. The difficulty the DOT and FHWA has experienced in achieving the ambitious targets for the two efficiency measures above, as well as the targets for the outcome measures discussed in 2.2 above, is due, in part, to the fact that progress in achieving the goals and strategic outcomes outline in the DOT Strategic Plan depends on decisions and actions taken by its State and local partner agencies. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in 2004, "DOT has established performance measures and outcomes for the federal aid highway program to enhance mobility and economic growth, the program's current structure does not link funding with performance or the accomplishment of these goals and outcomes." (GAO, 2004, p. 5). However, with effective implementation of the Highway Safety Improvement Program and other safety programs within SAFETEA-LU, the Agency believes the highway fatality and crash rates will be significantly reduced. In the area of traffic congestion mitigation, the FHWA believes that the Nation's transportation system can be improved by advancing a variable pricing program that increases throughput. Also, funds will be used to improve the performance of our existing transportation system through operational and management improvements, and by increasing physical capacity.

Evidence: Annual performance measures and targets with existing baselines that measure progress in achieving the agency's long term strategic outcomes and goals are identified in the FHWA's annual Performance Budget and Strategic Implementation Plan. See General Accountability Office, "Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options for Future Program Design," GAO-04-802, August 2004.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: FHWA partners with State Departments of Transportation and Highway Agencies, as well as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and local governments, to deliver the federal-aid highway program. As noted earlier in Section I, FHWA has the dual responsibility for developing national policies and goals, while also administering and overseeing the use of Highway Trust fund monies for surface transportation improvements. The GAO recently opined that "most highway grant programs are apportioned by formula, with regards to needs and capacity of the recipients" and "as such, there is little assurance that the projects selected and funded best meet national goals for addressing the nation's mobility needs" (GAO, 2007, p. 13). While project selection is not always based on need and performance, many States and MPOs have adopted similar policies or goals, such as improving safety and mitigating traffic congestion, and adopted FHWA endorsed approaches such as Strategic Highway Safety Planning and Congestion Management Systems. Furthermore, national associations such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have endorsed the DOT and FHWA safety goals. FHWA is also active in many of the AASHTO technical committees that establish voluntary standards, guidelines, and training materials. Individual FHWA regional offices have taken the initiative to adopt stewardship and partnership agreements with their State counterparts, develop joint multi-year strategic plans with common goals and measures, lead and facilitate program risk assessments with State and MPO counterparts, conduct joint assessments of programs such as traffic incident management programs, and share performance data and information. The FHWA also has significant influence over its partners through the delivery of numerous training and educational programs. For example, the FHWA Georgia Division office was instrumental in establishing the Metro Atlanta Performance (MAP) Report and recently sponsored a travel time reliability workshop that involved staff from the Georgia DOT, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, and the Metro Atlanta Transit Authority.

Evidence: See "General Accountability Office, Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing Congress and the Department of Transportation," GAO-07-545T, March 6, 2007. An example of how the FHWA and a State have adopted mutually agreed upon goals and outcomes is the vital few partnership agreement signed in 2003 between the Georgia DOT and the FHWA Georgia Division office, which served as a catalyst for the Georgia DOT to revise its own Strategic Plan to better reflect their involvement in achieving national goals and priorities. Also, the South Carolina Department of Transportation/FHWA Strategic Plan for FY 2006-2008 is the result of a joint planning exercise that illustrates how a State and a FHWA Division Office have adopted mutually agreed upon goals and share in the responsibility of implementing strategies to achieve their stated outcomes. See http://www.scdot.org/inside/strategic_plan05.shtml Information about FHWA- State Stewardship agreements and a sample memorandum of agreement is available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/stewardship/sotfg.cfm See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/legreg.htm for more information about FHWA Planning legislation, regulations, and guidance and a list of SAFETEA-LU Environmental Provisions at http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/es2safetealu.asp

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: At the present time, there are no comprehensive and independent program evaluations currently scheduled for the federal-aid highway program, nor have any been completed as a routine measure. Program and project evaluations have been conducted in the past for selected areas such as the deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies . In 2006, the Office of Safety in the FHWA initiated a preliminary study by the DOT Volpe Center to assess the relative effectiveness of various countermeasures. However, this effort was curtailed after the first phase of the study due to budget constraints. With respect to federally funded projects, the Government Accountability Office in 2005 reported that state, regional and local transportation officials use formal economic analytical tools infrequently to evaluate projects, and that some highway projects do not meet projected outcomes such as cost or usage. When questioned, they cited several reasons why more use of these tools, such as benefit-cost analyses, is not necessarily a priority. Legislative earmarks for projects restrict competition for funding against alternatives. Statutorily defined factors, which are not always easily quantified, can be more important considerations in project selection than the results of benefit-cost analyses. Finally, the high expense of conducting independent evaluations is a disincentive when agency budgets are constrained (GAO, 2005, pp. 46-47). With respect to federally funded transportation projects, the Government Accountability Office in 2005 reported that state, regional and local transportation officials use formal economic analytical tools infrequently to evaluate projects, and that some highway projects do not meet projected outcomes such as cost or usage. When questioned, they cited several reasons why more use of these tools, such as benefit-cost analyses, is not necessarily a priority. Legislative earmarks for projects restrict competition for funding against alternatives. Statutorily defined factors, which are not always easily quantified, can be more important considerations in project selection than the results of benefit-cost analyses. Finally, the high expense of conducting independent evaluations is a disincentive when agency budgets are constrained (GAO, 2005, pp. 46-47).

Evidence: For an example of an ITS case study evaluation, see "Incorporating ITS into Corridor Planning: Seattle Case Study," prepared by Mitretek, August 1999 at http://hovpfs.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/cfprojects/uploaded_files/seattle%20case%20study%20methodology%20exec%20report.pdf See GAO, "Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation Systems' Promise for Managing Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate Their Strategic Use," GAO-05-943, September 14, 2005, and GAO, "Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results." GAO-05-172, January 2005.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Although Federal-aid highway programs are authorized on a six-year basis, FHWA has submitted an annual performance-based budget to Congress beginning in 2004. In addition, FHWA budgets for all direct and indirect costs associated with administering this program at the Federal level. FHWA reinforced the linkages between performance and budget through the Administration's reauthorization proposal, SAFETEA. In support of the FHWA safety goal, the agency intends to double the amount it spends on highway safety through its reauthorization proposal. Despite the Administration's efforts toward budget and performance integration through its budget submittals and reauthorization proposal, there is only minor evidence that when Congress sets these funding levels every six years that they relate them to program goals. The linkage between performance and budget are reinforced by SAFETEA-LU. For example, the new Highway Safety Improvement Program authorized in SAFETEA-LU features strategic safety planning, provides a total of $5.1 billion in funding for 2006-2009, and supports innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities. In addition, the FHWA proposed to reprogram $175 million in the FY 2008 DOT Budget to fund national priorities in the Transportation Secretary's Congestion Initiative and requested $100 million for the Value Pricing Pilot and Urban Partnerships Programs. Despite the Administration's efforts to further budget and performance integration through its budget submittals and in its proposals for authorizing legislation, it is incumbent upon Congress to act to relate funding levels in authorizing legislation to national goals and policies.

Evidence: FHWA annual Performance Budget and Congressional Justifications. Section 1401 of the SAFETEA-LU requires each State develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan by October 2007.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: As noted earlier in 2.1, FHWA has adopted long-term strategic outcomes and measures, as well as annual objectives and measures. The FHWA adopted its Strategic Plan in 1998 and contributed significantly to the update of the DOT multi-year Strategic Plans in 2003 and 2007. Each year, the FHWA's strategic goals, outcomes and measures are refined and further aligned with the DOT Strategic Plan during the development of the agency's annual Strategic Implementation Plan. In 2003, the Agency adopted a goal of achieving organizational excellence and began to introduce performance objectives, measures, and strategies to correct recognized management deficiencies. For example, in 2004, the Agency adopted objectives and measures to limit cost growth and schedule delays for major projects. In 2006, performance objectives and measures for the Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) program were introduced into the annual Strategic Implementation Plan. In FY 2007, the need to address program risk though program risk assessments and manage the agency's workforce more strategically was recognized with new performance objectives, measures and strategies under the organizational excellence goal. Earlier this year, the agency's mission was revised to place a new emphasis on program delivery and new objectives and measures for program delivery and stewardship will be introduced in the FY 2008 Plan. In response to a report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), FHWA will be convening a working group later this year to evaluate and establish performance objectives and measures to assess the agency's value engineering program. While steady progress has been made in addressing management deficiencies in its annual performance-based planning process, FHWA acknowledges the point made recently by the General Accountability Office (GAO) that "certain areas require increased attention. In particular, improvements in data, performance measures, and evaluations are needed to determine whether programs are achieving intended results" (GAO, 2007, p. 17). The FHWA also concurs with the GAO studies that one of the shortcomings of the federal-aid highway program is that federally funded projects are not necessarily funded by States solely based on a performance-based need.

Evidence: DOT's FY 2008 Performance Budget submission reflects integration of budget planning and strategic planning processes - see http://www.dot.gov/bib2008/pdf/bib2008.pdf The FHWA has documented their goals and objectives at correcting specific management challenges for major project oversight within the Department's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan - see http://www.dot.gov/stratplan2011/index.htm

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: States regularly report program performance data to DOT and FHWA so that the Agency can report its progress in achieving outcomes using measures for traffic injuries and fatalities, bridge and pavement performance and conditions, and environmental streamlining. The Department shares the data with other government agencies and publicly releases the State-level data annually in publications such as Highway Statistics. For other outcome measures including traffic congestion, FHWA collects personal vehicle and commercial freight movement data directly from traffic management centers and probe vehicles. The DOT and FHWA use the data to identify national policy priorities, such as FHWA's focus on reducing intersection-related and pedestrian-related fatal crashes, in an attempt to improve system performance where large deficiencies exist. As noted earlier in the response to 1.5, Sections 1101(a)(6) and 1401 of SAFETEA-LU requires that States collect data, analyze highway safety problems and produce a list of projects to be funded based upon the analysis. However, there are limits to what can be done since multi-year authorizing language does not allow DOT to use the data to make resource reallocations or to manage the program in another way. FHWA acknowledges that data collection and management could be improved. The agency is currently conducting an assessment of the future needs of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and has conducted extensive outreach efforts to States and other partners. The Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS), the financial reporting system States use to report to the DOT, does not accept performance measures data. Other than for major projects, the DOT and FHWA do not require States to report the cost and schedule performance of Federal-aid Highway funded projects. In 2003, the DOT IG noted that FHWA information system only tracks costs data on individual contracts, which makes it difficult to determine the reasons for overall project costs increases.

Evidence: See Highway Statistics at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index.htm More information about the HPMS reassessment is at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hpms/hpmsreassessment.cfm See OIG Testimony, "Management of Cost Drivers on Federal aid Highway Projects, May 8, 2003.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: While DOT and FHWA now includes performance objectives that contribute to the achievement of national policy goals and strategic outcomes as part of its performance management system, Federal managers are not held accountable for the performance or outcomes of individual projects or project selection in State highway programs. The FHWA does not penalize States for poor program performance (e.g., poor safety ratings, cost overruns, or schedule slippages) on Federally-funded projects. States receive Federal highway dollars according to a static formula regardless of results. An exception is that FHWA can withhold funds if a State fails to meet air quality requirements in a non-attainment area. At the contractor level, States may hold construction contractors accountable for not meeting terms of their contracts by withholding payments. Contractors found guilty of waste, fraud, and abuse are debarred and are permanently prevented from bidding on government contracts.

Evidence: See description of FHWA Performance Management System at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/m30001c/p1ch5s2.htm

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) made many notable improvements to its financial management systems, policies, and practices to ensure timely obligations, appropriate spending, and accurate reporting of Federal-aid funds. In 2005, the FHWA established the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The CFO mission is to develop agency-wide policies and procedures and provide support and assistance to the FHWA Headquarters and field offices related to formulation and execution of Agency budgets, and the proper utilization and accounting of Agency resources. The CFO also provides support and assistance to State departments of transportation and other program partners in improving financial management practices. As a remedy to longstanding issues that resulted in a material weakness in grant financial management oversight in the 2005 Highway Trust Fund Financial Statements, the FHWA worked with the State departments of transportation to develop and implement the Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) Program. The FIRE program was issued in April 2005 and provided a framework for consistently applying oversight and stewardship responsibilities, as well as documenting and reporting the results of the efforts in a standard format. Within two years of implementation, the agency's comprehensive oversight program deserves credit for the elimination of a grants management material weakness from the Highway Trust Fund 2006 financial statements. The FIRE Program provides the necessary level of oversight to help ensure that adequate controls are in place for the Federal-aid highway program obligations, over $59 billion last fiscal year. This includes the management of the financial status of Federal-aid projects. For example, between September 2005 and September 2006, the total dollar amount of funds classified as "Tier 1" (projects with an unobligated balance of $500,000 or more and inactive for 1 year or more) dropped by nearly $200 million, representing over one-half of one percent of annual apportionments nation-wide. The next step in this continued effort is to develop and move toward a national performance goal for inactive obligations. Additionally, preliminary analyses indicate that FHWA has very low rates of erroneous payments at the state, local, and contract levels.

Evidence: See description of CFO Office functions and responsibilities at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/m11001a/11001a14.htm See FHWA FIRE Order at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/45601a.htm

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: To track the efficiency of the Highway Infrastructure program, in FY 2003 the FHWA adopted as one of its measures, the timeliness of the review of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for projects funded by the Federal aid highway program. Decreasing the median time to process EISs improves organizational performance and productivity. In 2004, the FHWA implemented additional measures for major project oversight that address timeliness in meeting scheduled project milestones and accuracy of initial costs estimates. The percent of scheduled milestones and cost estimates on time or on budget, or within 10 percent or less, with an annual target of 95% or more of all projects being monitored. To allow for a more realistic assessment and encourage annual improvements in project oversight and management, these performance measures were recently updated in the DOT's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. The updated measures in the FY 2006-2011 DOT Strategic Plan are based on limiting the increase in schedule and costs to 2 percent or less on an annual basis, with a target of meeting these criteria in 90 percent or more of all major projects being monitored (see program performance measures section). Additionally, FHWA is taking preliminary steps to improve internal management practices. The Agency expects to use the results of its FY 2006 and previous FAIR Act Inventories to determine whether feasibility studies are in order and to continue work begun in prior years. The Agency will continue to utilize our activity-based approach in compiling its annual Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act inventory and continue to provide written justifications for all activities determined to be unsuitable for competition. The FHWA has begun an intensive review of the commercial training and technical assistance activities that reside in the otherwise inherently governmental and commercial work of program specialists (i.e., engineers, right-of-way specialists, environmental specialists) throughout the Agency nationwide. Though this review is being conducted as part of FHWA's strategic workforce planning analysis, it should also provide insights into the nature of this activity and the viability and consequences of separating this activity from other work. It is anticipated that this review will conclude in late FY 2007 at which time FHWA will review its options for future workforce actions.

Evidence: See discussion of progress in Competitive Sourcing and other PMA initiatives in the Management Discussion and Analysis of the FY 2006 Highway Trust Fund Financial Report at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/htffy06/mda.htm See DOT Strategic Plan FY 2006-2011 at: http://www.dot.gov/stratplan2011/index.htm See DOT FY 2007 Performance Measures Methodology Report and FHWA's FY2008 Congressional Budget.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: FHWA collaborates and coordinates with other Federal agencies, States, local governments, and transportation organizations. FHWA works closely with NHTSA and FMCSA on safety and freight programs, the FTA on transportation planning, and the U.S. EPA on air and water quality programs. In recent years, FHWA headquarters and division offices have developed a number of assessment instruments that are used to engage the States and MPOs in a collaborative review of traffic operations programs such as work zone and traffic incident management. FHWA specialists meet with their counterparts in partner organizations and review a program from several perspectives - program and institutional, operational, and communications and technology. A national summary of the initial round of Traffic Incident Management Assessments conducted by the FHWA in 2003 is at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/incidentmgmt/inst_coordination/timsaxs.htm

Evidence: Two examples below illustrate how the FHWA works closely with other Federal agencies to deploy national policies and programs. Within the DOT, FHWA (23 CFR Parts 450 and 500) and FTA (49 CFR Part 613) collaborated with the Environmental Protection Agency in the development of the Final Rule on Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning, which was published in February 2007. In August 2006, FHWA conducted a nationwide survey of its State DOT partners in headquarters, regional and district offices to measure their satisfaction with the agency as a partner. Overall satisfaction with FHWA was 3.57 on a 5 point scale, with 5 being very satisfied and 1 being very dissatisfied.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Although FHWA has made significant strides in improving financial management practices over the past several years, material internal control weaknesses affecting the Federal-aid program remain. The deficiencies contributing to the material internal control weakness for fiscal year 2006 include: (1) the preparation, approval, and processing of journal entries; (2) the preparation and analysis of the HTF financial statements; (3) the analysis of abnormal account balances; (4) the analysis of proprietary and budgetary account relationships; (5) the coordination with non-DOT agencies that receive HTF appropriations through FHWA; and (6) the estimation and reporting of grant accruals. However, FHWA is making progress regarding financial management. The Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) program has established a comprehensive agency wide strategy that requires the consistent application of strong financial management oversight and stewardship responsibilities in administering the Federal-aid highway program. These responsibilities include reviews of financial processes, financial transactions, funds management activities, along with external audit coordination, and evaluations of the key administrative processes. These collectively contribute to the FHWA's annual certification of internal controls as outlined in the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Within two years of implementation, the agency's comprehensive oversight program deserves credit for the elimination of a grants management material weakness from the Highway Trust Fund 2006 financial statement.

Evidence: Office of Inspector General report on the Department of Transportation Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2005: http://www.dot.gov/perfacc2006/igauditreport.htm FHWA FIRE Order: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/45601a.htm

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: FHWA responds to the recommendations of the IG and GAO for improving its program management. FHWA made a significant accomplishment regarding management deficiencies in eliminating a 2005 audit material weakness by improving its management and oversight of state highway programs, including oversight of higher level management and financial issues. For example, FHWA now works closely with states on project plans for large projects and has started tracking cost growth on all projects of $10 million or more. Further, FHWA is reviewing the project cost estimating practices of states and using risk analysis to identify potential cost overruns. Still, to prevent cost and schedule overruns, FHWA must make program stewardship and oversight a central organizational goal. To do so, FHWA needs to restructure the composition of its workforce to bolster project management and cost estimating skills. FHWA has provided its staff with clear guidance on FHWA's oversight mission. On May 8, 2006, FHWA issued guidance on developing future stewardship/oversight agreements to develop and implement a consistent approach to stewardship and oversight throughout FHWA in support of its evolving oversight mission. In April 2005, FHWA introduced the Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) Program, an oversight program to require each Federal-aid division office to perform reviews in support of FHWA's annual certification of internal and financial control and financial statements.

Evidence: See FHWA Policy on Stewardship and Oversight of the Federal Highway Program at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/stewardship/sotfa.cfm See FHWA Financial Integrity and Review (FIRE) 2006 Federal aid Program guidance at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/toolkit.htm

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: FWHA field staff work very closely with state highway departments providing technical assistance and approving changes to different aspects of a project. Yet until very recently, FWHA has not focused on project and financial oversight, leading to insufficient knowledge about whether Federal funds are used efficiently and effectively. As evidence, the DOT IG reports that FHWA efforts have generally centered with low level issues such as approving change orders, and that this focus has prevented the agency from spotting larger cost issues. There have been cases, for example, where FHWA was surprised by announcements of significant costs increases on major projects, despite reviewing many low level change orders. The IG notes that FHWA's information system only tracks costs for contracts rather than projects. The IG has repeatedly seen unreliable cost estimates that have resulted in substantial cost increases. Further, the IG has found that cases where statewide transportation plans are unrealistic and of little value, despite being reviewed by FHWA. Additionally, GAO reported in May of 2002 that it has previously found that cost growth on major projects and that neither FWHA nor State highway departments tracked the reasons for this. In January 2007, FHWA updated its financial plan guidance for Federal-aid projects and its major project program cost estimating guidance. In February 2007, FHWA updated its project management plan guidance for Federal-aid projects. While these documents focus on Major Projects (projects with a total estimated cost of $500 million or more), the financial plan, major project program cost estimating, and project management plan guidance apply to projects of lesser value. FHWA completed a national review on the administration of Federal-aid projects by local public agencies to assess the administration, stewardship and oversight of local public agency Federal-aid projects in several states and to identify areas for improvement. Based on the findings and recommendations associated with this review, additional implementing instructions will be provided soon.

Evidence: January 2007 financial plan guidance at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/011907.cfm January 2007 major project program cost estimating guidance at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/cefinal.cfm February 2007 project management plan guidance at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/pmpguide.cfm

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: While FHWA does collect substantial information from states and report this data through various outlets, it does not consolidate performance its data and share it in summarized fashion for public consumption. As noted in the previous response to 3.1 above, the states regularly report program performance data to DOT and FHWA, so that the Agency can report its progress in achieving outcomes using measures for traffic injuries and fatalities, bridge and pavement performance and conditions, and environmental streamlining. The Department shares the data with other government agencies and publicly releases the State-level data annually in publications such as FHWA's Highway Statistics and the NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts. The FHWA and DOT report on its progress in achieving its strategic outcomes to the public annually in DOT Performance and Accountability Report. As noted in the previous response to 2.4 above, FHWA does collect and report performance data regarding project costs and schedules for major projects. The DOT and FHWA recently revised the performance measures to allow for a more realistic assessment and encourage annual improvements in project oversight and management. The new measures adopted in the FY 2006-2011 DOT Strategic Plan are based on limiting the increase in the schedule and costs to 2 percent or less on an annual basis, with a target of meeting these criteria in 90 percent or more of all major projects being monitored. Also, FHWA does maintain a Major Projects Web site that includes reports such as a "Lessons Learned" Approach to Collaborative Leadership in Mega Project Management. A number of States report to the public on the status of projects, including federally-funded projects. Notable examples include the Washington DOT Gray Notebook and the Virginia DOT "VDOT Dashboard."

Evidence: The 2005 Highway Statistics report (see Table PS-1) is availalble at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/htm/ps1.htm The 2005 Traffic Safety Facts report (see Chapter 5) is available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2005.pdf The 2006 DOT Performance and Accountability Report is available at http://www.dot.gov/perfacc2006/index.htm For examples of how States keeps the public aware of their costs, schedules, and performance, see the Virginia DOT "VDOT Dashboard" at http://dashboard.virginiadot.org/ and the Washington DOT "Gray Notebook" at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Despite not reaching established targets for every performance measure, the long-term trends for all strategic outcome measures continue in a positive direction. Progress in achieving the performance measures associated with each DOT goal and outcome is reported annually in the DOT Performance and Accountability Report. As noted earlier in the response to question 2.2., DOT set a target of reducing the highway fatality rate from 1.6 in 1998 to 1.0 in 2008. Between 1998 and 2005, the rate declined from 1.6 to 1.45. In recent years, percent of travel in urban areas that is congested continued to increase but at a slower rate than forecast. In many states, pavement smoothness exceeds the targets set in 1998. But, it was recognized in 2006 that the nationwide target for 2008 would not be met because significant amounts of pavement in a few key states with high traffic volumes are not of acceptable ride quality. A new measure of pavement condition was adopted recently to encourage states to adopt an asset management philosophy, instead of waiting until pavements deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation or reconstruction is the only viable alternative. Since FHWA has replaced at least 1.5 acre to every one acre of wetlands lost throughout the Federal aid highway program during the past ten years, achieving the target for this performance measure is now viewed as routine practice. As an additional measure, FHWA exceeded its expectations for the number of Exemplary Ecosystem Initiatives (EEI) throughout the U.S. In large part due to FHWA efforts, the number of nonattainment and maintenance areas that are in a conformity lapse was zero at the end of FY 2006. This result speaks well for the close working relationships that FHWA has fostered with the EPA and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

Evidence: See the most recent results for the outcome measures in the DOT Performance and Accountability Report. http://www.dot.gov/perfacc2006/mgmtdiscanalysis.htm#performance

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has met a majority of its annual performance objectives since 2004. These programs reflect the short-term objectives that, if achieved, are likely to produce a positive effect on the desired outcomes over the longer term. For example, the number of States with a Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan met the target of 25 at the end of FY 2006. The 511 Traveler Information Systems deployment steadily increased from 14% of the U.S. population in FY 2002 to 35% in FY 2006. Still, as noted in the response to 2.2, there are only limited baseline data for these measures. It will be several years before enough trend data are available to determine if may be necessary to adjust the annual targets.

Evidence: Annual performance objectives are listed in the Agency's Strategic Implementation Plan, which is on file in the FHWA Office of Policy and Government Affairs.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program was not able to demonstrate measurable improvements using the two efficiency measures introduced in the 2004 planning cycle. As noted in the response to 2.3 above, DOT and FHWA adopted a measure for environmental streamlining in 2003 with a target of achieving a median processing time of 36 months by 2007. The median time in 2006 was 57 months, well above the target of 40 months. Progress has been elusive, even after FHWA and States agree on timelines to move projects in their annual and long term transportation plans. SAFETEA-LU includes a number of changes aimed at streamlining the environmental review process. For example, a project delivery pilot program will allow 5 States (Alaska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and California) to apply to the DOT to assume all environmental responsibilities under NEPA and other environmental laws, excluding the Clean Air Act and transportation planning requirements. In 2004, DOT and FHWA adopted as its performance measure for major federally funded infrastructure project oversight, the percent of scheduled milestones and cost estimates on time or on budget, or within 10 percent or less, with an annual target of 95% or more of all projects being monitored. After meeting the target in 2002, the annual targets proved elusive by 2005 when 3 of 12 projects being monitored exceeded the 10% threshold. When it became apparent that the loss of time in the schedules and the increase in costs made the targets unachievable in future years, the DOT and FHWA revised the performance measures to allow for a more realistic assessment and encourage annual improvements in project oversight and management. The new measures adopted in the FY 2006-2011 DOT Strategic Plan are based on limiting the increase in the schedule and costs to 2 percent or less on an annual basis, with a target of meeting these criteria in 90 percent or more of all major projects being monitored. In 2004, 50 percent of the projects met the project completion milestone. Significant improvements occurred over the next two years, and the percent of the projects meeting the milestone increased to 86%.

Evidence: The results for the revised major projects efficiency measures are presented in the FHWA's FY 2008 Performance Budget narrative. These measures were adopted in the DOT FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan and the FHWA annual Strategic Implementation Plan.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: With respect to the management of project costs and schedules, the FHWA Federal Aid program compares favorably with the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) formula and bus grants program. Schedule performance data for FY 2004 reflects 100 percent of FHWA federally funded major infrastructure projects meet schedule timelines established in project or contract agreements or only missed them by 10 percent (for FTA 75 percent). Also, in FY 2005, 92 percent of FHWA projects met scheduled timelines while FTA met 100 percent of scheduled milestones. In FY 2004 and 2005, FHWA met 75 percent of their cost milestones for federally funded major infrastructure projects cost timelines established in project or contract agreements or only missed them by 10 percent (for FTA FY 2004 was 75 percent and in FY 2005 was 100 percent). Additionally, the Virginia DOT is recognized as a leader in reporting on-time and on-budget delivery of construction and maintenance projects. In FY 2006, 86% and 88% of all construction and maintenance contracts, respectively, were completed within 110% of the contract award amount; while 79% of all maintenance contracts were completed by the original specified completion date. By comparison, of the 14 major projects had reached the financial plan stage, the FHWA and DOT reported that 79% percent were currently on or within allowable budget variances in FY 2006. In addition, 86% percent of the major projects were within the forecasted schedule completion variance.

Evidence: See FHWA results in the FY 2006 DOT Performance and Accountability Report at: http://www.dot.gov/perfacc2006/orgexc.htm See project management results for VA DOT on p. 2 in their Strategic Plan at: http://www.virginiadot.org/about/resources/VDOT_Strategic_Plan_Oct06.pdf

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: A comprehensive evaluation of the Federal-Aid Highway program has not been conducted. Because of the many different program components and its complexity, it is unlikely that such a study will be conducted. The GAO has studied various program aspects such as management of large projects, project financial plans, CMAQ and alternative-fuel vehicles, and duplicate payments. Based on a 2004 study of State DOT (and transit agency) practices and an in-depth study of 10 highway and transit projects in five major metropolitan areas, the GAO recently commented that federally funded "projects often do not meet anticipated outcomes, and evaluations of outcomes are not typically conducted (GAO, 200, pp. 14-15). As noted in the response to 2.6, evaluations were conducted in the past for selected program areas such as the deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies into the transportation planning process in the Seattle I-5 corridor. In 2006, the Office of Safety in the FHWA initiated a preliminary study by the DOT Volpe Center to assess the best approach to determine relative effectiveness of various traffic safety countermeasures. However, this effort was curtailed after the first phase of the study due to budget constraints. Internal documents such as the biennial Conditions and Performance Report also provide good analyses.

Evidence: See General Accountability Office, "Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing Congress and the Department of Transportation," GAO-07-545T, March 6, 2007, and "Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results." GAO-05-172, January 2005. See also the 2006 DOT Conditions and Performance Report at www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/index