Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have
Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue (31-MAY-02,
GAO-02-571).
Federal spending on Interstate highways has contributed to
changes in residential and business land-use patterns. In 1991,
GAO raised concerns about the condition of Interstate highways
and rising levels of congestion. The original purposes for the
Interstate system were to provide for efficient long-distance
travel, support defense, and connect metropolitan and industrial
areas. Today, the most important role that the Interstates
perform, other than supporting safe travel, is moving freight
traffic across their states. The federal government provides
funding for. and oversight of, the Interstate system while the
states do most of the maintaining and planning for the future of
the system. Combined federal and state spending on the Interstate
System increased from $13.0 billion in 1992 to 16.2 billion in
2000. States are required to pay ten percent of the cost of an
Interstate project; however, GAO found that the average
nonfederal share of urban Interstate projects was 15 percent and
11 percent for rural projects. Interstate highways are in better
physical condition and are safer than other classes of roads,
although they are generally more congested. The states expect
that increased traffic, the aging of the infrastructure, and
funding constraints will affect their ability to maintain
physical and safety conditions of the Interstate Systems and to
alleviate congestion, but the costs to address the factors
pressuring their Interstates were difficult to determine.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-571
ACCNO: A03479
TITLE: Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions
Have Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue
DATE: 05/31/2002
SUBJECT: Federal aid for highways
Highway engineering
Highway planning
Public roads or highways
Highway safety
Federal/state relations
Funds management
FHWA Interstate Maintenance Program
Interstate Highway System
National Highway System
FHWA Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program
FHWA Interstate Maintenance
Discretionary Program
Strategic Highway Network
Highway Trust Fund
International Roughness Index
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-571
A
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives
May 2002 HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE Interstate Physical Conditions Have
Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue
GAO- 02- 571
Letter 1 Results in Brief 3 Background 6 The Role of the Interstate Highway
System Has Expanded Over
Time 11 Both the Federal and State Governments Have a Role in Managing
and Funding the Interstate System 15 Since 1992, Most Interstate Highway
Investments Have Been for
Preservation or Capacity Additions 21 Most Interstate Conditions Have
Improved, but Congestion Has
Grown 27 Increases in Traffic, the Age of the Interstates, and Funding
Constraints May Negatively Affect Interstate Conditions; However, the Costs
to Address These Factors Are Uncertain 45 Concluding Observations 50 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 51
Appendixes
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 52
Appendix II: Survey of States? Views on the Future of the Interstate System
55
Appendix III: State Planning Processes 77
Appendix IV: Tools for Addressing Congestion 80
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 81 GAO Contacts 81 Staff
Acknowledgments 81
Tables Table 1: The Number of States Identifying the Negative Effects of
These Factors on Interstate Highway Conditions 46 Table 2: Percent Increase/
Decrease in Planning Interstate Project
Cost (2002- 2006) 78 Figures Figure 1: Types of Interstate Pavement Projects
from 1992 through 2000, by Miles 5
Figure 2: Overview of Interstate Section 8 Figure 3: Urban and Rural
Interstate Mileage, 1990 through 2000 9
Figure 4: Number of States Characterizing the Role of Their Interstate
Highways as Very Great for Particular Purposes 13 Figure 5: Apportionments
for Interstate Highways, 1990 through
2001 17 Figure 6: Capital Outlays for Interstate Highways from All Funding
Sources, 1992 through 2000 22 Figure 7: Nonfederal Share of Interstate
Projects 23 Figure 8: Obligations for Interstate Highways, 1992 through
2000 24 Figure 9: Interstate Pavement Project Miles, 1992 through 2000 25
Figure 10: Interstate Pavement Project Dollars, 1992 through
2000 26 Figure 11: Percentage of Poor Interstate Pavement- Urban Versus
Rural, 1990 through 2000 28
Figure 12: Survey Responses about Current Pavement Conditions 30 Figure 13:
Percentage of Roads with Poor Pavement- Interstates Versus Other Major
Arterials (2000) 32
Figure 14: Interstate Pavement Conditions Today and Expected 10 Years from
Now, Given Expected Levels of Funding 34 Figure 15: Number of Deficient
Interstate Bridges from 1992 through 2000 36 Figure 16: Fatality Rates on
the Interstate Highway System, 1990 through 2000, in Terms of Fatalities per
100 Million VMT 37
Figure 17: U. S. Average Urban Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by Class of
Road, 1990 through 2000 40 Figure 18: U. S. Average Rural Daily Vehicle Lane
Miles Traveled by Class of Road, 1990 through 2000 41 Figure 19: Percent
Increase in Urban Travel Time During the Peak Period by Class of Road, 1990
through 2000 42 Figure 20: Percent Change of Variables Related to
Congestion, 1990
through 2000 43 Figure 21: Number of States Expecting Performance on Their
Interstate Systems to Fall Behind in the Next Decade 45
Figure 22: Year Interstate Bridges Were Built 48
Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
DOD Department of Defense DOT Department of Transportation FHWA Federal
Highway Administration GAO General Accounting Office IM Interstate
Maintenance Program ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 NHS National Highway System TEA- 21 Transportation Equity Act for
the 21 st Century STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program STRAHNET
Strategic Highway Network VMT vehicle miles traveled
Lett er
May 31, 2002 The Honorable Don Young Chairman, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Interstate Highway System, begun nearly a half
century ago, has become central to transportation in the United States.
Federal officials consider the Interstate Highway System the backbone of the
nation?s transportation system- connecting people with work, school,
community services, marketplaces, and each other, while providing a greater
level of safety than other roads. Federal spending on Interstate highways
has also
contributed to changes in residential and business land- use patterns. From
1954 through 2001, the federal government has invested over $370 billion 1
in Interstate highways- nearly half of all federal highway apportionments
during this period.
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act provided
funding for the completion of the Interstate Highway System. Since that
time, the federal government and the states have focused primarily on
preserving and enhancing the capacity of the existing system. With age and
constant use, the system?s roads and bridges have required significant
levels of maintenance. Moreover, 24 percent of all car and truck travel
occurs on the Interstate System, contributing to growing levels of
congestion. In 1991, we raised concerns about the condition of Interstate
highways and the rising levels of congestion. Now, as Congress begins to
plan the next reauthorization of federal highway programs, it is appropriate
to examine the Interstate Highway System again.
Concerned about the condition of Interstate highways and bridges now and
into the future, you asked us to determine (1) how the role of the
Interstate Highway System has changed over time; (2) the roles of the
federal and
state governments in managing and funding the Interstate System; (3) the
financial resources that states and the federal government have devoted to
the system; (4) how physical conditions, safety, and congestion of the
Interstate System have changed and how they compare to other classes of 1
All dollar figures in this report are constant 2001 dollars, unless
otherwise noted.
roads; and (5) the factors that could affect future Interstate conditions
and the cost of addressing these factors. To provide you with information
addressing your concerns about the
Interstate Highway System, we conducted a nationwide mail survey of all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (referred to in this
report as states). We received responses from all 52 states. Our survey
focused on state officials? views of the Interstate Highway System?s role in
their states? transportation system, including changes in their roles over
the past 20 years. The survey also asked state officials for their views of
the
Interstate System in 10 years and their perceptions of the current condition
of the system?s infrastructure, safety, and congestion. A summary of
responses to the survey appears in appendix II of this report. 2 We also
visited five states- Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and
Pennsylvania- to obtain more detailed information on their Interstate
Systems and their plans for managing them. We also
reviewed the Interstate Highway System?s history and obtained data on how
it is currently used;
interviewed Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials at
headquarters and division (state) offices and Department of Defense (DOD)
officials;
obtained information from FHWA on funding for the system; and
obtained information from the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on
pavement conditions, bridge conditions, safety conditions, and congestion
levels. We did not review the impact of federal funding through the federal
aid highway program on states? patterns or levels of investment in their
Interstate and other roads and bridges. (See app. I for a more detailed
discussion of our methodology.) 2 The federal government announced in
January 2002 that the level of federal highway
funding to states would decline in fiscal year 2003 because of a decrease in
revenue to the federal Highway Trust Fund. All respondents returned their
surveys before that date, so they could not take this potential decrease in
funding into account in their responses.
Results in Brief The role of the Interstate Highway System has expanded over
time. The original purposes were to provide for efficient long- distance
travel, support defense, and connect metropolitan and industrial areas. The
majority of the
state transportation officials we surveyed said that, today, the most
important role that the Interstates perform, other than supporting safe
travel, is moving freight traffic across their states. They also said that
the original purposes continue to be important but that the Interstate?s
importance for freight movement had increased greatly in importance over the
last 20 years. For example, truck traffic on the Interstates accounted for
over 41 percent of total truck miles traveled in 2000. The states also
reported that Interstate highways are important for their economic
development. In addition, the role of urban mobility has also grown in
importance. While the original planners of the Interstate Highway System may
not have seen them as essential to moving people within cities, 39 states
now report that Interstate highways are very important for travel within
urban areas; these highways account for only 4 percent of the
capacity on urban roads, but they carry 24 percent of all metropolitan
traffic. Finally, 30 states responded that getting people to airports is an
increasingly important role for Interstate highways- a reflection of the
increase in air travel. The federal government?s role is primarily to
provide funding for and
oversight of the system, while the states do most of the ?hands- on? work of
maintaining and planning for the future of the Interstate System. Since
1991, when it provided final funding for the completion of the Interstate
System, Congress has continued to provide funding for the maintenance of the
system. However, the percentage of funds the federal government has provided
specifically for use on the Interstate System has declined from more than
half of all federal highway aid prior to 1992 to 17.5 percent during the
period 1992 through 2001. FHWA was originally heavily involved
in selecting Interstate routes, overseeing their construction, and ensuring
that they were adequately maintained, but state departments of
transportation now handle many of these duties. FHWA continues to have
oversight responsibilities for significant Interstate projects carried out
by the states, as well as the state?s planning process that leads to the
allocation
of state and federal funds to projects on various classes of roads. 3 States
are expected to plan and carry out their investments in Interstate and other
highways and to ensure that Interstate highways are adequately
maintained. States also fund a portion of Interstate projects, though to a
much smaller extent than the federal government. Combined federal and state
spending on the Interstate System increased
from about $13.0 billion in 1992 to about $16.2 billion in 2000. States are
generally required to pay 10 percent of the cost of an Interstate project;
however, we found that the average nonfederal (state and other) share of
urban Interstate projects was about 15 percent and 11 percent for rural
projects. 4 This federal and state spending focused largely on the
preservation and maintenance of the existing system. As shown in figure 1,
the kinds of projects undertaken after 1991 show the shift from construction
to maintenance: of all miles of Interstate projects undertaken, 1.4 percent
was for new construction, 5.6 percent was for widening the roads, and the
remaining 93. 0 percent was for projects to reconstruct, relocate, restore
and rehabilitate, or resurface pavement.
3 In a previous report, we expressed concern over how well FHWA performs
this oversight of large dollar projects- U. S. General Accounting Office,
Transportation Infrastructure: Managing the Costs of Large- Dollar Highway
Projects, GAO/ RCED- 97- 47 (Washington, D. C.: 1997). We also testified
about FHWA?s oversight on May 1, 2002-- U. S. General Accounting Office,
Transportation Infrastructure: Cost and Oversight Issues on Major Highway
and Bridge Projects, GAO- 02- 702T (Washington, D. C.: May 2002). 4 These
percentages refer only to the nonfederal share of projects that use federal
funding.
Figure 1: Types of Interstate Pavement Projects from 1992 through 2000, by
Miles
Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
Over the past decade, the physical condition of the Interstate Highway
System has improved; the safety of the system has stayed steady; and
congestion has increased. Interstate highways are also in better physical
condition and are safer than other classes of roads, although they are
generally more congested. When surveyed about the condition of the pavement
on their Interstate highways, 39 states responded that their pavement is in
good or excellent condition. This is consistent with FHWA statistics, which
show that pavement condition improved over the past decade- 8.6 percent of
the pavement was in poor condition in 1990,
compared with 3. 4 percent in 2000. However, pavement condition varies
across the country. For example, while half of the states have less than 2
percent of their Interstate pavement in poor condition, 4 states have more
than 12 percent of their pavement in poor condition. In addition, the number
of structurally deficient Interstate bridges declined by over 22 percent
from 1992 through 2000. States also reported that their Interstates
continue to provide a safe means of travel, and federal data reinforce this
view. Interstate fatality rates remained about steady over the past decade,
and Interstates continue to have lower fatality rates than other types of
roads. On the other hand, DOT and other data show that congestion on
urban Interstate highways increased and is generally worse than on all other
classes of roads. Traffic is increasingly dense on urban Interstates, and
the amount of time required for an average trip during peak travel periods
increased by about 12 percent from 1990 through 2000. States also identified
congestion on some of their rural Interstate roads as an emerging issue.
The states expect that increases in traffic, the aging of the
infrastructure, and constraints on funding will affect their ability to
maintain physical and safety conditions of their Interstate Systems and to
alleviate congestion, but the costs to address the factors pressuring their
Interstates were difficult to determine. First, FHWA and almost all states
expect the volume
of both car and truck traffic to increase over the next 10 years, and most
states reported that the expected increase in traffic would negatively
affect the physical condition of pavement and bridges, safety, and levels of
congestion on their Interstates. In addition, states expect the continued
aging of the Interstates to have a negative effect on the conditions of
their pavement and bridges. Transportation officials we spoke with were also
concerned that large, expensive projects might restrict the availability of
funds for maintaining the rest of their systems. Finally, budgetary
pressures at the state and federal level may make it difficult to increase
spending on the Interstate System. It is difficult to determine the cost of
addressing these factors, in part because the federally required short- term
plans that states develop for investing in their highways are designed to
provide a realistic list of projects that can be completed with expected
revenue. As a result, states? plans might not identify the funding needed to
address all of the pressures states expect on their Interstate highways.
Some states we visited prepared longer- term plans that estimated the
funding necessary to meet their goals for their highway systems, including
their Interstates, and these plans showed a gap between expected revenue and
what states would like to invest.
We obtained comments on a draft of this report from DOT and DOD officials.
They generally agreed with the report.
Background The Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1944 established the Interstate
Highway System but did not provide specific funding for construction. In the
Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1956, Congress declared that the completion of a
?National System of Interstate and Defense Highways? was essential to the
national interest. The act called for new system design standards, began an
accelerated construction program, established a new method for
apportioning funds among states, and set the federal government?s cost share
for Interstate construction projects at 90 percent. 5 At the same time, the
Highway Revenue Act of 1956 introduced a dedicated source for federal
highway expenditures, providing that revenue from certain federal motor fuel
and other motor vehicle related taxes be credited to the Highway Trust Fund.
The federal government, from 1954 through 2001, invested over $370
billion on Interstates through apportionments to the states, more than on
any other class of road. Today, FHWA, within DOT, administers a variety of
federal highway programs supported by the trust fund- collectively referred
to as the Federal- Aid Highway Program.
The Interstate Highway System, as it came to be known, has particular design
characteristics. Its roads are generally divided highways with at least four
lanes of traffic and wide shoulders. The Interstate avoids intersections by
having other roads pass over or under it, and it has access control- that
is, vehicles generally join or leave the flow of traffic by a limited number
of access or exit ramps. (See fig. 2.) Certain characteristics were meant to
facilitate military movement, such as the requirement for 16
feet of clearance under bridges that pass over Interstate highways. 6 A
distinctive red, white, and blue shield denotes Interstate highways.
5 The federal share of Interstate project costs was set at 90 percent, but
in states with large areas of federal public land, the federal share is
increased proportionately up to a 95- percent limit. 6 The states are
required to coordinate with DOD on exceptions to the 16-foot vertical
clearance standard. According to DOD officials, DOD typically concurs with
the exemptions.
Figure 2: Overview of Interstate Section
The Interstate Highway System, as of 2000, extended over 46,000 miles in
length and 209, 655 lane miles. 7 In 1991, Congress provided final funding
for the completion of the Interstate System. From 1990 through 2000,
Interstate mileage grew by about 3.1 percent, or 1,405 miles in length, or
11, 491 lane miles during the decade. Growth occurred primarily in urban
areas. Overall, urban mileage climbed by 1,885 miles, or 16. 2 percent, 7
Lane miles are the number of lanes in a mile of road. For example, a
four-lane road, 2 miles long, would equal 8 lane miles.
during this period, while rural Interstate mileage declined by 480 miles, or
1.4 percent. (See fig. 3.) Some of the urban mileage gain occurred as new
road mileage expanded the system. The rest occurred as urban boundaries grew
to take in Interstate highway miles that were originally in rural areas.
Figure 3: Urban and Rural Interstate Mileage, 1990 through 2000 Source:
FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
According to FHWA, Interstate highways are a principal part of an overall
network of roads throughout the nation. The Interstate System composes 29
percent of the estimated 161,000- mile National Highway System (NHS)
designated by Congress in 1995. The NHS also includes other arterial roads
of national interest. The entire Interstate Highway System is also part of
the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET), an approximately 61,000- mile
network of roads designated as important to the U. S. military. 8 Currently,
both the federal government and states fund the construction and maintenance
activities on the Interstate Highway System. Each year, billions of dollars
are provided to the states for the construction and repair of highways
through various highway programs. Under one such
program- the Interstate Maintenance Program (IM)- federal funds support
projects for resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating, or reconstructing
portions of the Interstate System. Those projects generally require a 10
percent state match, while projects on other classes of roads generally
require a 20 percent match. Under certain circumstances, states may
transfer funds among various highway programs. For example, subject to
certain limitations, states may transfer IM funds to other programs and use
them on other classes of roads (with a 20 percent match). Similarly, states
may also transfer funds from other funding categories to their IM program
and use them for qualifying projects on Interstate highways. The Interstate
Maintenance Discretionary Program provides funding for the kinds of projects
funded under the IM program. In addition, Bridge Discretionary Program funds
can be used on Interstate bridges. FHWA solicits candidates
for the discretionary programs and selects projects for funding from
applications. Finally, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program provides funds for states to replace or rehabilitate deficient
highway bridges located on any public road, including the Interstate
System. In 1991, we reported on Interstate conditions. 9 In that report, we
raised concerns about the poor condition of Interstate highways and about 8
The NHS is a system of designated highways that serve major population
centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation
facilities, and major travel destinations. The NHS includes all Interstate
highways, plus other principal arterials, the STRAHNET, major STRAHNET
connectors, high- priority corridors, and intermodal
connectors. There is a separate funding category specifically for the NHS. 9
U. S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: Preserving
the Nation?s Investment in the Interstate Highway System, GAO/ RCED- 91- 147
(Washington, D. C.: Aug. 2, 1991).
FHWA?s oversight of them. Among other things, we suggested that the DOT
report to Congress on the levels of investment required for Interstate
maintenance and on the progress being made to achieve adequate maintenance.
DOT included information in Appendix A of the 1999
Conditions and Performance Report 10 that was partially responsive to this
recommendation. The Role of the According to state officials, the Interstate
Highway System plays an Interstate Highway
important and expanding role in the country?s transportation system. The
original purposes of the system were to provide for efficient long- distance
System Has Expanded
travel, support defense requirements, and connect metropolitan and Over Time
industrial areas. Most states agree that these roles continue to be
important but emphasized that several additional important roles have
emerged in recent years. For example, most state officials see the
Interstates as increasingly supporting economic growth and moving freight,
as well as getting passengers to airports and supporting urban travel.
Interstates Were Developed The Interstate Highway System was primarily
developed to address (1) the to Support Long- Distance public?s demand for
efficient long- distance travel, (2) the needs of the
Travel and National Defense military, and (3) the nation?s economic
development through the
connection of metropolitan and industrial areas. 11 The expectations for the
and Connect Metropolitan
Interstate Highway System are described in the following sections. Areas
The public?s desire for easy long- distance travel manifested itself in
the early 1900s through an increase in car ownership and a growing interest
in cross- country travel. Along with this increase in vehicle ownership came
a significant increase in travel and tourism, quickly making crosscountry
travel a major recreational activity for millions of Americans. 10 1999
Status of the Nation?s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and
Performance, U. S. Department of Transportation (May 2000). DOT prepared
this report in response to requirements for reports to Congress on the
condition, performance, and future capital investment requirements of the
nation's highway and transit systems. This edition also includes the results
of a study on Interstate needs required by Section 1107( c) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century. 11 The Federal- Aid Highway
Act of 1956 stated that the system was to: serve the principal metropolitan
areas, cities and industrial centers; support the national defense; and
connect with routes of continental importance in Canada and Mexico.
The system allows the nation?s military a means to expeditiously reach
military cross- country installations and ports for deployment. In 1922, the
United States Army developed the ?Pershing Map,? which illustrated for the
first time the major roads of prime importance during times of war. Each of
the routes that the Army identified in the map was included
with those roads eligible for federal aid. The military importance of the
Interstate System was emphasized in 1956 when legislation named the
Interstate Highway System the National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways.
By connecting metropolitan and industrial areas, the Interstate System was
also meant to promote the nation?s economic growth and development. Without
an efficient, far reaching national highway system, merchants found it
difficult to move their goods to market in a timely manner. The 1944
Interregional Highways report 12 explained that the Interstate System was
also intended to serve the nation?s economic needs in agricultural
production, mineral production, forestry, and manufacturing centers.
Interstates? Role in Moving According to state officials, the previously
mentioned roles continue to be Freight and Supporting
important, but the role of the Interstate System in freight movement has
Economic Development
increased significantly. State officials we spoke with said that the
Interstate Have Increased in System plays a significant role in their
economy by facilitating the movement of goods by truck. State officials are
concerned about economic Importance development in their states and see the
Interstates, especially in terms of freight movement, as playing a
significant role in economic development. In responding to our survey,
officials reported that today, after affording
safe transportation, the most important roles of the Interstates include
moving freight and supporting economic development. (See fig. 4 for the
number of states classifying the importance of different Interstate
functions.) Officials from 33 states indicated that supporting their state?s
general economic development is a very great role for the Interstate System.
Officials from 35 states responded that moving freight through
their state is a very great role for their Interstates, and 30 states
believed that moving freight within their state is a very great role.
12 The National Interregional Highway Committee was appointed by the
president in 1941 ?to investigate the need for a limited system of national
highways?? The committee included highway officials and planners from the
federal, state, and local governments.
Figure 4: Number of States Characterizing the Role of Their Interstate
Highways as Very Great for Particular Purposes
Source: GAO survey data.
According to state officials, moving freight on their Interstate System is
an important focus of their transportation programs. For example, state of
Florida transportation officials told us that although reducing congestion
for cars is important, maintaining mobility for freight traffic on their
Interstate System is very important for industries in their state. For
example, three Interstate routes connect the state?s dairy industry with
other areas of Florida, which consume 85 percent of the milk produced in the
state. In addition, Ohio?s survey response indicated that the Interstate
System was very important for moving freight. The state estimates that its
Interstate and multilane freeway system currently carry about 85 percent of
all the state?s freight and ?Keeping the state?s Interstate [S] ystem moving
smoothly and freely is not only important to the economy of the state, but
also to the nation?s economy.? The role of the Interstate System in carrying
freight has increased
significantly over the past 20 years. According to our survey results, 45 of
the state departments of transportation reported that the role of the
Interstate System in moving freight through their state had increased;
officials from 43 states responded that the Interstates had a greater role
moving freight within the state.
Our nation?s freight is currently moving extensively by truck on the
Interstate System, and this movement is important to economic development.
The most recent U. S. Commodity Flow Survey (1997) 13 reported that trucks
carry over 69 percent of the tons shipped in the United States and 72
percent of the value of goods shipped in the country. In
addition, truck traffic on the Interstates made up over 41 percent of total
truck miles traveled in 2000. An FHWA report and a consultant?s report
explain that freight movement has significantly contributed to improving the
country?s economic efficiency and productivity by, among other things,
making ?just- in- time? delivery more feasible, thereby reducing warehouse
and manufacturing costs.
Roles Supporting Urban Officials from 39 states identified the Interstate
System?s support of travel
Mobility Are Becoming within metropolitan areas as a great or very great
role. Officials from 33 of More Important for the states said that this role
has become greater in the past 20 years. When Interstates
the Interstate System was planned, it was expected to provide efficient
travel through the country and to connect major metropolitan areas where
feasible. However, according to FHWA, Congress never expected the Interstate
System to accommodate local traffic. Now a number of trips on urban
Interstates, such as commuting trips, are completed within an urban area,
rather than going through or beyond the urban area. For example,
while urban Interstates make up about 4 percent of all urban lane miles,
they carry about 24 percent of all urban traffic. According to states, the
Interstate System provides efficient urban travel, and as such, urban users
want easy access to it. In addition, according to North Dakota officials,
the
urban area of Fargo, North Dakota has encompassed Interstate 29 and the
Interstate is now sometimes used as a local street. Finally, some of the
states that we surveyed said that Interstate highways are increasingly
important for moving people to specific locations that may not have been
seen as important when the Interstate was designed. For example, 30 states
reported that moving people to airports is a greater or much greater role
now than previously. Airport enplanements have grown
rather steadily over the past 20 years- increasing by almost 129 percent
from 1980 through 2000.
13 ?1997 Economic Census- Transportation- 1997 Commodity Flow Survey,? U. S.
Department of Transportation and U. S. Department of Commerce (Dec. 1999).
Both the Federal and Since establishing the Interstate Highway System, the
federal government
State Governments has provided both funding for and oversight of the system.
While still providing funding for the system, the federal government?s
oversight focus
Have a Role in is currently on ensuring that states have the procedures in
place to manage
Managing and Funding the Interstates, as well as providing some project-
level oversight. State the Interstate System
departments of transportation manage most of the ?hands- on? work of
constructing, maintaining, and planning for the future of the Interstate
System. States also fund a portion of Interstate projects, though to a much
smaller extent than the federal government. The Federal Government Congress,
FHWA, and the Department of Defense (DOD) play important Funds the
Interstate roles with respect to the Interstate Highway System, including
funding and
Highway System and overseeing state planning activities, and financing the
majority of Oversees States? construction and maintenance of the system.
Management of the System Congress Establishes and Funds By passing
authorization and appropriations legislation, Congress plays a Highway
Programs significant role with respect to federal highway programs,
including Interstate- related programs. Authorization legislation, such as
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991( ISTEA) and the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA- 21), enacted in 1998,
provide funding for various highway programs and related activities,
establish mechanisms for the distribution of those funds, and set forth
eligibility requirements for the highway programs, including the Interstate
programs, limiting how the funds made available may be used. Among other
things, annual appropriation acts make amounts from the Highway Trust Fund
available for payment of obligations incurred for various highway programs.
Funding for the Interstate System has been a major part of total federal
highway funding, since 1954, when federal funding for Interstate
construction began. However, the proportion of apportionments to states,
specifically for the Interstate activities, 14 has decreased over time as
compared with overall highway program apportionments.
In 1960, the annual Interstate apportionment was $12.2 billion (in 2001
dollars), or 72.8 percent of that year?s federal highway apportionments to
states. From 1954 through 1991, total apportionments for Interstate
construction and preservation reached $331.2 billion, or 56.8 percent of
federal highway funding apportioned to states for the period.
From 1992 through 2001, Interstate highway apportionments were $39.1
billion, or 17. 5 percent of funding apportioned to states. With ISTEA,
Congress scaled back funding apportioned to states specifically for
Interstate highways to $23.9 billion or 20. 3 percent of federal highway
apportionments from 1992 through 1997. In addition, Interstate
apportionments were $15. 2 billion, or 14. 3 percent, of federal highway
apportionments for the next 4 years under TEA- 21. (See fig. 5.) ISTEA also
created the NHS and the Surface Transportation Program. 15 Those programs
accounted for 18.0 percent and 21.8 percent, respectively, of the $223.8
billion in federal highway apportionments made to the states from 1992
through 2001.
As Congress considers reauthorization of the surface transportation programs
in 2003, it will face decisions about the continued level of federal
involvement in managing and financing the Interstate System. 14
Apportionments refer to funds distributed by statutory formula for various
types of highway programs or activities. Since 1954, funds have been
apportioned for projects on the Interstate System; however, the focus of
Interstate funding provisions has changed over time from construction to
preservation and maintenance. 15 The Surface Transportation Program provides
flexible transportation funding for states and localities. Eligible uses
include projects on any federal- aid highway, bridges on any public road,
and transit projects.
Figure 5: Apportionments for Interstate Highways, 1990 through 2001 Note: In
2001 dollars. Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics. Even after providing final
funding for Interstate completion in 1991, Congress has continued to
designate new Interstate routes. In 1991, Congress also found that the
Interstate System, or comparable highways, did not adequately serve many of
the nation?s regions and identified highpriority corridors for development
on the NHS to help meet the demands for increased capacity. Since 1991, 43
of these high- priority corridors have been designated, 10 of which were
designated to become part of the Interstate System. 16 In addition,
authorization and appropriations acts have designated funding specifically
for certain identified high- priority projects, which may include improving
access to Interstate highways, reconstructing
Interstate interchanges, extending Interstate highways, or performing work
on roads other than Interstates. 16 Designation of a road as a future
Interstate highway does not necessarily guarantee specific funds for
construction of the road.
FHWA Oversees State Activities FHWA?s role in managing the Interstate System
has changed from projectspecific oversight to primarily overseeing state
processes and procedures and specific projects. While FHWA was heavily
involved in selecting routes
for the Interstate System, for overseeing their construction, and ensuring
that the system was adequately maintained, much of the responsibility for
managing them now falls to the states. FHWA is also responsible for
overseeing certain high- cost projects on the Interstate System. 17 FHWA
reviews and approves project designs; approves plans, specifications, and
estimates; concurs in contract awards; and inspects projects. 18 Today, FHWA
does not have significant responsibilities for Interstate maintenance. For
about two decades- until 1998 19 -each state was required by statute to
annually certify that the Interstate highways in their state were being
maintained in accordance with federal requirements. The law authorized
sanctions against states that did not adequately maintain their Interstate
highways; but, they were rarely applied. TEA- 21 repealed the statutory
provisions regarding maintenance certification in 1998.
However, if FHWA finds that highways constructed with federal funds are not
being properly maintained, it is required to inform the state and withhold
federal approval of future state- highway projects in all or part of
the state if the condition is not corrected within 90 days. 17 In May 2002,
we testified on how FHWA is carrying out oversight on large dollar projects-
U. S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: Cost and
Oversight Issues on Major Highway and Bridge Projects, GAO- 02- 702T
(Washington, D. C.: May 2002).
18 By law, FHWA may not assume more oversight responsibility than was
permitted under TEA- 21, unless agreed to by a state. As a result, with
respect to Interstates, states may be responsible for all resurfacing,
restoring, and rehabilitation projects, and construction and reconstruction
projects less than $1 million. The extent of FHWA?s oversight for Interstate
projects is typically an agreement with each state?s department of
transportation. 19 The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978
required the Secretary of Transportation to establish guidelines for
ensuring the maintenance of the Interstate System. In 1980, DOT promulgated
related regulations- requiring states to develop an initial
Interstate maintenance program and to annually certify that they were
adequately maintaining the Interstate System in accordance with the
program?s guidelines. FHWA inspected state maintenance efforts and
determined whether a state should be certified as having adequately
maintained its Interstates.
Although construction of the Interstate System is essentially complete, the
agency may approve additions to the existing Interstate Highway System when
states request such an addition. When FHWA receives requests for additions
to the existing system from states, it considers, among other things,
whether the proposed new segment is a logical addition or connection to the
Interstate System and whether it meets Interstate geometric 20 and safety
standards. Although both Congress and FHWA designate specific additions to
the Interstates, the nation does not currently
have a centralized system for determining whether new routes are needed and
building them. Similarly, the agency approves adding access points
(interchanges and ramps) to the existing system and system design
exceptions. FHWA is also responsible for overseeing states? planning
processes by reviewing and approving statewide transportation improvement
programs
(STIPs). These federally required plans cover at least 3 years and describe
the state?s planned construction, maintenance, and other highway projects,
including Interstate projects. FHWA?s review of the STIP primarily focuses
on whether the required processes were followed rather than on the content
of the plan. (See app. III for more details about the planning process.)
FHWA also has other responsibilities related to the Interstate System. For
example, the agency sets performance goals, as required by the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act), for pavement quality,
bridge condition, highway congestion, and safety. 21 Although FHWA does not
have Interstate- specific performance goals, its
performance goals do include Interstate highways. For example, FHWA?s safety
goal is to reduce highway fatalities and injuries by 20 percent by 2008.
FHWA?s performance goal for pavement quality applies to the NHS,
which includes the entire Interstate System. These are FHWA?s goals, and
states are not required to meet them for their Interstates or other roads.
Finally, other FHWA responsibilities include providing technical assistance
20 Geometric standards are guidelines FHWA adopts from the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials? policy for
constructing the physical layout of roads such as shoulder width. 21 The
Results Act is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,
management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results
and outcomes achieved by federal programs. The act requires federal agencies
to establish performance goals and report yearly on the extent to which
these goals were achieved.
and management tools, such as investment- analysis models, to aid in the
planning process at state transportation agencies; conducting
transportation- related research; and disseminating the results throughout
the country. DOD Works with FHWA and DOD played an important role in
establishing the Interstate Highway States to Meet Defense
System. However, state officials reported that this role has not increased
Requirements significantly in the past 20 years. DOD participated in
selecting the Interstate highway routes, and according to DOD and FHWA
officials, DOD works with federal and state transportation officials to
ensure that the Interstate System meets its national defense requirements.
In 1981, DOD, in partnership with FHWA, identified public highways to make
up the
STRAHNET. 22 This network of highways gives the military the ability to move
equipment and personnel expeditiously over the highway system from military
installations to ports for deployment. The STRAHNET consists of 61,044 miles
plus 1,700 miles of connectors that link over 200 important military
installations and ports to the network. All of the nation?s Interstate
highways are included in the STRAHNET. STRAHNET and its major connectors
were incorporated into the NHS in 1995. 23 This continues to emphasize the
military importance of these highways. According to DOD officials, the
working relationship between DOD and FHWA, and the conditions on the
Interstate System, are adequate.
States Plan, Construct, States handle many of the responsibilities for
managing the Interstates as
Maintain, and Help Fund the well as providing some funding. State
responsibilities include developing
Interstate System plans for maintaining the physical and operational
conditions and the safety of Interstate highways. States are required to
develop at least two
planning documents- a 20- year Statewide Transportation Plan and a shortterm
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that covers at least 3
years. The plans outline how the states will use available funds to maintain
the physical and operational conditions and the safety of their
Interstates. To develop these planning documents and maintain their
Interstates, states use a variety of approaches. See appendix III for a
description of states? planning processes. In addition, state departments of
22 According to the Military Traffic Management Command, while DOD has
worked with
FHWA and the states to identify routes important to the national defense
since at least 1956, the first STRAHNET was designated in 1981. 23 See
footnote 8.
transportation are responsible for the day- to- day operations of
constructing and maintaining the Interstates. Finally, state governments
provide some funding for the Interstate Highway System; however, they spend
less on the Interstates than does the federal government. States raise
highway funds to match federal funds and to pay for other state highway
projects and programs.
Since 1992, Most The federal and state governments have invested heavily in
Interstate
Interstate Highway highways. Because 97. 4 percent of the system?s length in
2000 was
complete before 1992, much of the subsequent investment was to preserve
Investments Have Been and maintain the existing system. When states added to
the system?s size, for Preservation or they did so mainly in urban areas.
From 1992 through 2000, the type of Capacity Additions
Interstate pavement and bridge construction projects also shifted from new
construction to primarily maintenance.
Overall Spending on Outlays, that is, expenditures of federal, state, and
other funds for projects Interstates Has Grown on Interstate highways have
generally increased since 1992. State spending of federal, state, and local
funds for Interstates grew from $13.0 billion in 1992 to $16. 2 billion in
2000. States reported total capital outlays for
Interstates of $105 billion, or an average of $11.7 billion per year in 2001
dollars from 1992 through 2000. (See fig. 6.) Besides capital outlays,
states also had routine Interstate maintenance outlays that averaged $1.6
billion per year. These outlays, which generally consist of nonfederal
funds, were for routine tasks like sealing cracks and patching potholes,
which help keep the pavement in good condition, but did not cover capital
improvements like resurfacing, rehabilitation, or reconstruction.
Figure 6: Capital Outlays for Interstate Highways from All Funding Sources,
1992 through 2000
Note: In 2001 dollars. Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
States Have Spent More on From 1992 through 2000, states allocated more of
their Interstate Urban Interstates investments of federal, state, and other
funds to urban highways (68. 4
percent of outlays) than to rural highways (31.6 percent of outlays).
Furthermore, states have invested higher levels of state or local funds in
urban projects than in rural projects. Specifically, federal Interstate
obligation data for projects show that, from 1992 through 2000, rural
Interstate projects averaged 11. 2 percent in state or local funding, while
urban projects averaged 15.1 percent in state or local funding. 24 (See fig.
7.)
Figure 7: Nonfederal Share of Interstate Projects
Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
States Are Spending More States spent available funds for different types of
projects on their for Preservation of
Interstate Systems, including pavement, bridge, and other related items
Pavement and Bridges
(including safety, traffic operations, and environmentally related
projects). FHWA reported obligations of $48.5 billion for Interstate highway
projects from 1992 through 2000. Of this amount, 66.2 percent, or $32.1
billion, was for pavement projects, 19.7 percent, or $9.6 billion, was for
bridge projects, and the rest, $6. 8 billion, was for other related items.
(See fig. 8.)
24 States need match only 10 percent of a lane addition project?s costs if
the added lanes are high- occupancy vehicle lanes. Otherwise, states must
match 20 percent of a lane addition project?s cost. Moreover, these
percentages refer only to the nonfederal share of Federal- Aid projects.
Figure 8: Obligations for Interstate Highways, 1992 through 2000
Note: Expenditures total $48.5 billion (in 2001 dollars). Source: FHWA?s
Highway Statistics.
Accounting for the largest area of expenditures, Interstate pavement
projects since 1992 were clearly focused on existing roadways. Among
pavement project miles, 98. 6 percent were to improve existing highways;
only 1.4 percent for new construction. (See fig. 9.) Costs for improving
existing highways were $29.0 billion, or 90.2 percent of total pavement
costs. Only 424 miles, or 1.4 percent of Interstate projects? length, were
for new construction. (See fig. 10.) Costs for new construction were $3. 1
billion, or 9. 8 percent of total pavement costs.
Figure 9: Interstate Pavement Project Miles, 1992 through 2000
Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
Figure 10: Interstate Pavement Project Dollars, 1992 through 2000
Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
Interstate pavement construction projects from 1990 through 2000 shifted
toward maintaining the existing system. Based on FHWA obligation data, new
pavement construction project miles declined during the period, while
reconstruction project miles tended to decline during the period and
pavement maintenance project miles- restoration and rehabilitation, and
resurfacing- increased.
In addition, Interstate bridge projects 25 were more likely for preservation
or replacement than for new construction. Among the 11,530 bridge projects
25 FHWA?s bridge project classifications are as follows: new bridge- new
bridge that did not replace or relocate an existing bridge; bridge
replacement- total replacement of a deficient bridge with a new bridge in
the same traffic corridor; major bridge rehabilitation- major
work to restore a bridge?s structural integrity or to correct major safety
defects; minor bridge rehabilitation- minor structural repairs, patching,
curbs and gutters, etc.
reported, 10, 363, or 89. 9 percent, were replacement or rehabilitation
projects.
Most Interstate The Interstate?s physical conditions (pavement and bridge)
and safety are
Conditions Have in good overall shape; however, congestion has grown.
Pavement conditions improved from 1992 to 2000, and officials from 39 states
now
Improved, but regard their pavement as good or excellent. Officials from a
majority of Congestion Has Grown
state highway departments predict pavement will still be in good condition
10 years from now. However, officials from 23 states predict that, in 10
years, they will be falling behind in dealing with the condition of their
Interstate pavement. Bridge conditions parallel pavement conditions: since
1992, bridge conditions have generally improved, and officials from a
majority of states report bridge conditions are currently good or excellent,
but officials from 19 states predict the condition of their bridges will
worsen 10 years from now. Safety on the Interstate System has remained
relatively stable. Interstate fatality rates declined from 1990 to 1992 and
remained fairly stable after 1992. A majority of state officials rated the
safety of travel on their Interstates as good or excellent today, and 41
predicted it will remain so 10 years from now. Moreover, DOT data showed
that pavement, bridge, and safety conditions are better on Interstates than
on other roads. But unlike pavement, bridge, and safety factors, Interstate
congestion has gotten worse. One measure showed that rush hour travel time
on urban Interstates increased 12 percent from 1990 through 2000. State
officials in nearly half of the states reported that urban congestion is
already high, and officials from 41 states predicted it will be high 10
years
from now. State officials reported high rural congestion in only 1 state
now, but expected it in 18 states within 10 years. Pavement Conditions Have
Generally, Interstate pavement conditions have improved since 1990. Improved
According to FHWA data, 8.6 percent of Interstate pavement, or 3,897 miles,
was in poor condition in 1990. By 2000, the share of poor Interstate miles
26 had dropped to 3.4 percent, or 1, 560 miles. In addition, pavement data
for 1990 through 2000 show that urban Interstates have a higher 26 Since
1995, FHWA?s Highway Statistics reports have portrayed pavement conditions
in
International Roughness Index unit categories without quality descriptions.
Thus, FHWA reported that 1,560 miles of Interstate pavement in 2000 had a
roughness index over 170 inches per mile. We use the term ?poor? to describe
this pavement, following the descriptive approach used in DOT?s Condition
and Performance reports.
percentage of poor mileage than rural Interstates, but both have improved
since 1990 (see fig. 11). The improvement pattern was not continuous partly
because FHWA asked the states to adopt a new condition measure.
States had historically reported pavement condition using a subjective
rating scale. By 1992, states were also reporting pavement data with a more
objective statistic called the International Roughness Index. In 1993, FHWA
adopted the roughness index as a required statistic for reporting pavement
conditions on Interstates. States needed new measuring devices to adopt
the International Roughness Index. When these devices were later upgraded,
some states such as North Dakota, noticed an improvement in their pavement
condition statistics.
Figure 11: Percentage of Poor Interstate Pavement- Urban Versus Rural, 1990
through 2000
Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
Two factors may have contributed to the long- term improvement in Interstate
pavement. First, the federal government has increased its commitment to
pavement quality, along with highway funding in general. FHWA has supported
quality pavement management by promoting better planning and techniques for
building smoother, longer- lasting roads. In addition, state highway
programs have received increased federal funding since TEA- 21 ?guaranteed?
certain overall funding levels based on Highway Trust Fund revenue. (See
fig. 6 for increases in Interstate capital outlays during this period.)
Second, state transportation departments have increased their commitment to
Interstate pavement quality. This
commitment may be ongoing, as in Florida, which adopted a statutory
requirement in 1984 requiring goals for the quality of the pavement on its
state highways. Or the commitment may come in response to customer feedback,
as when Pennsylvania initiated a pavement upgrade program in response to
truckers? surveys criticizing conditions on the state?s roads.
Interstate Pavement Is in Good Of 51 respondents, 39 states reported that
their Interstate pavement is Overall Condition, but Some
currently in good or excellent condition; 9 said that their pavement is in
fair Sections Are in Poor Condition condition; 3 reported poor Interstate
pavement conditions; and none reported very poor conditions. (See fig. 12.)
In addition, state pavement data submitted to FHWA for 2000 showed that for
the nation as a whole, 63. 5 percent of pavement was in good or very good
condition, 27 18.2 percent was in fair condition, and 18. 3 percent was in
mediocre or poor
condition. Half of the states reported that less than 2.0 percent of their
pavement was in poor condition. FHWA?s pavement categories describe a
pavement?s need for upcoming improvement as interpreted from a roughness
index.
27 Our survey asked states to rate their pavement quality on a scale of very
poor to excellent. This scale was not necessarily designed to match FHWA?s
pavement condition categories that are based on International Roughness
Index data.
Figure 12: Survey Responses about Current Pavement Conditions
Source: GAO?s survey.
Rural Interstate pavement, which gets less heavy traffic, is in better
condition than urban Interstate pavement, according to data that the states
supply to FHWA. According to an FHWA report on pavement conditions in 2000,
only 14. 4 percent of rural mileage is in poor or mediocre condition,
compared with 28. 2 percent of urban mileage.
While the overall condition of Interstate pavement is generally good, it is
much worse in certain states than our aggregate survey responses or
nationwide pavement condition statistics suggest. For example, according to
FHWA data, while 18. 3 percent of the nation?s Interstate pavement is in
mediocre or poor condition, 10 states have at least one- third of their
pavement in mediocre or poor condition. Four of these states have more than
12. 0 percent of their pavement in poor condition, compared with a
nationwide rate of 3.4 percent for pavement in the poor condition category.
Missouri, one of our case study states, has 4.1 percent of its Interstate
pavement in the poor category, fairly close to the nationwide level.
However, 40.1 percent of its Interstate pavement is in mediocre condition.
28 According to a draft long- range transportation plan, many of Missouri?s
Interstates need total reconstruction. State officials said that they plan
to focus on I- 70 between St. Louis and Kansas City, one of the oldest
segments on the Interstate System, where, by state criteria, one- third to
one- half of
the pavement is poor or very poor. Compared with ?other major arterials,?
Interstates are in better condition in both rural and urban areas. According
to Interstate standards, 29 in urban areas, 6.5 percent of Interstates are
in poor condition, compared with 27. 0 percent of other ?urban major
arterials.? In rural areas, 2.1 percent of Interstates are in poor
condition, compared with 4. 0 percent of ?other
major arterials.? (See fig. 13.) 28 According to an official in Missouri?s
Department of Transportation, the state has a higher percentage of pavement
it considers poor for state purposes. However, we used state data as
reported in FHWA?s Highway Statistics 2000.
29 Unlike our analysis in figure 13, FHWA generally uses lower condition
standards to rate classes of roads that are not Interstates. FHWA?s criteria
for the best road categories (very good and good) are the same no matter
which class of roads is being considered. But the ranges of fair, mediocre,
and poor roads are more stringent for Interstates than for other roads. For
example, non- Interstate highways are considered to be in poor condition
once their roughness index exceeds 170 inches per mile.
Figure 13: Percentage of Roads with Poor Pavement- Interstates Versus Other
Major Arterials (2000)
Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
FHWA has no requirements or standards for states to keep their Interstate
highways in a particular condition. However, FHWA?s Fiscal Year 2002
Performance Plan included a pavement condition goal for the NHS, which
includes the Interstate Highway System. FHWA originally determined that, by
2008, 93 percent of NHS pavement should have acceptable ride quality-
meaning an International Roughness Index of 170 inches per mile or less. As
a whole, the NHS had met this goal as of 2000, and the Interstate portion of
the NHS met this goal by 1996. Since the 2008 goal had already been met,
FHWA revised its performance goal. The current goal emphasizes that
highly traveled roads should be in good condition and requires that, in
2002, 92 percent of vehicle miles on the NHS will be traveled on pavement
that meets the acceptable ride standard.
Expectations of Future We did not find agreement on whether Interstate
pavement conditions will Interstate Pavement Conditions be as good in a
decade as they are now. A majority of state officials Vary
responding to our survey predict 30 that Interstate pavement will still be
in excellent or good condition 10 years from now. However, 21 respondents
predict that their pavement will be in fair or worse condition. Compared
with their assessments of current conditions, our respondents? assessments
of future conditions predict less pavement in good or excellent condition
and more pavement in fair, poor, or very poor condition. Officials from 23
states predict that, in 10 years, they will be falling behind in dealing
with the condition of their Interstate pavement. In addition, officials from
44 states predict that the portion of their
transportation spending devoted to improving Interstate pavement conditions
will increase (27 states) or stay the same (17 states). (See fig. 14.)
30 We asked state officials to predict future pavement condition, given
expected levels of funding. See appendix II, Survey of States? Views on the
Future of the Interstate System, question 6. The same funding assumption
applies to all survey predictions discussed later in this report.
Figure 14: Interstate Pavement Conditions Today and Expected 10 Years from
Now, Given Expected Levels of Funding Source: GAO?s survey.
DOT recently predicted 31 that, given expected future investment levels,
states could improve Interstate pavement conditions over a 10- year planning
period. However, DOT?s primary funding projection could be higher than
states assumed in responding to our survey. DOT projected that states would
increase their Interstate funding levels from 2. 8 to 3.0 percent annually
in constant dollar terms from 2003 to 2007, consistent with
historic trends. State officials might not assume such funding increases,
according to a FHWA official. Thus, the funding level in DOT?s analysis 31
1999 Status of the Nation?s Highways, Bridges and Transit: Condition and
Performance, May 2, 2000, Appendix A Interstate Needs. According to DOT?s
analysis, expected future investments could produce improvements of 3. 8 to
6.7 percent in the average pavement condition statistic. This prediction
assumes that federal funding for Interstates could increase through 2003 as
provided for in TEA- 21 and would remain at the 2003 level in constant
dollar terms through 2007. DOT also analyzed the impact of lower
funding levels on future pavement conditions, showing that pavement
conditions could decline, consistent with the results of our survey.
might be higher than state officials expect, which could account for DOT?s
prediction of better future pavement conditions.
Interstate Bridge Conditions The number of deficient Interstate bridges has
declined over the last 8
Have Generally Improved years. Specifically, the number of structurally
deficient bridges declined by
over 22 percent from 1992 through 2000. In addition, FHWA information also
shows that the bridge deck area associated with structurally deficient
Interstate bridges decreased by over 27 percent during the same period. 32
Structurally deficient bridges can have restrictions on the weight of
vehicles using them or may need to be closed and repaired before they can be
used again. In addition, the number of functionally obsolete bridges
declined by more than 10 percent over the same period. However, the deck
area associated with functionally obsolete bridges increased 9 percent over
this period. Functionally obsolete bridges are not up to design standards
and generally face less serious problems than structurally deficient
bridges- for example, shoulders that are not as wide as the roadway leading
to the bridge. Figure 15 shows the decreasing trend in number of deficient
bridges. 33 32 FHWA provided this information for Interstate bridges that
are eligible for federal- aid funds but had not received funding during the
past 10 years.
33 We are focusing our discussion on the number of deficient bridges
because, according to FHWA, this is a more widely used indicator than bridge
component ratings. In addition, component ratings are more difficult to
discuss on a national level because they provide more detail and a broader
perspective on the specific condition of a bridge?s deck, superstructure and
substructure.
Figure 15: Number of Deficient Interstate Bridges from 1992 through 2000
Source: FHWA data. Interstate Bridge Conditions Are Overall, state officials
responding to our survey reported that their bridges Currently Good are
currently in good condition. Of the states responding to our survey, 31 said
that the overall condition of their Interstate bridges is good or excellent;
another 19 said it is fair. As of April 2001, 5 percent of the nation?s
Interstate bridges were structurally deficient. In addition, another 16
percent were functionally obsolete. Interstate bridges are generally in
better condition than those on other classes of roads. According to 1998
FHWA data, about 27 percent of urban
Interstate bridges were deficient, 34 compared with a range from over 27
percent for ?urban other freeways and expressways? to over 38 percent for
both ?urban minor arterials? and ?urban collectors.? In addition, 16 percent
of rural Interstate bridges were deficient, compared with a range from 17 34
Includes both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges.
percent for ?rural other principal arterials? to over 36 percent for ?rural
local roads.? Expectations of Future Some state officials said that they are
optimistic about future bridge Interstate Bridge Conditions conditions- 24
expect conditions 10 years from now to be good or Vary
excellent. However, others are aware of problems bridges could face in the
future. Nineteen state respondents believed that their state would fall
behind in maintaining the condition of their bridges over the next 10 years,
given the expected level of funding. However, they were not as concerned
about falling behind on their Interstate bridges, as they were about the
problems they would face with congestion and pavement condition. (See fig.
21.) In addition, officials from 32 states expect to increase the portion of
their budget spent on Interstate bridges.
Interstate Safety Has Been The fatality rate on the Interstate System has
been relatively steady, after
Mainly Stable falling early in the 1990s. The number of fatalities on
Interstate highways has increased over the past decade, but so has the level
of traffic, as
indicated by the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 35 (See fig. 16.)
Figure 16: Fatality Rates on the Interstate Highway System, 1990 through
2000, in Terms of Fatalities Per 100 Million VMT
Note: This figure contains data from the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, but it does not contain data from Puerto Rico.
Source: FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
35 VMT is a measure of the level of travel on roads: 1 VMT is equal to one
vehicle traveling 1 mile on a road.
Safety Is Better on Interstates Relatively speaking, Interstate highways are
the safest of all highway
Than on Other Roads classifications. We recently reported 36 that among
urban road types, ?other
principal arterial? roads had the highest 1999 fatality rate 37 at 1.27-
compared with 0. 61, the lowest fatality rate, on urban Interstate roads.
Similarly, we reported that among the rural road types, ?rural local roads?
had the highest 1999 fatality rate at 3. 79- compared with 1.24, the lowest
fatality rate, on rural Interstate roads. In addition, 45 states we surveyed
said that the current level of safety on their Interstates was good or
excellent.
Several factors, including unique design characteristics, may contribute to
the Interstate System?s higher level of safety. According to a 1999 FHWA
report, 38 most of the Interstate mileage in the country met geometric
design
criteria that support safe transportation in 1997. These criteria refer to
the physical layout or alignment of a roadway. FHWA and states recognize
guidelines established by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 39 as the appropriate design standards for
many of their roads. The Interstate System meets these guidelines to a
great extent- over 99 percent of urban Interstate mileage and about 97
percent of rural Interstate mileage. Almost all of the rural Interstate
mileage not meeting the guidelines is in rural Alaska; about 50 percent of
the urban Interstate mileage not meeting the guidelines is in Puerto Rico.
Other design characteristics are also important to safety:
According to FHWA, the vast majority of Interstate mileage has full access
control 40 -which FHWA policy classifies as critical to maintaining
Interstate safety and mobility. Research shows that highways without access
control have higher crash rates than those with access control. 36 U. S.
General Accounting Office, Federal Highway Funding by Program and Type of
Roadway, With Related Safety Data, GAO- 01- 836R (Washington, D. C.: July
16, 2001). 37 The fatality rate here is measured as the number of deaths per
100 million VMTs. DOT uses fatality rate rather than crash rate because the
data are more reliable. 38 See footnote 10.
39 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2001). 40 Access
control means that access to the highway is regulated to limit interference
with through traffic.
According to FHWA, the vast majority of Interstate mileage also consists
of divided highways with at least four lanes. AASHTO?s guidance reports that
a study on the effect of the Interstate Highway System on crashes found a
lower crash rate on divided highways than on undivided highways.
The uniformity of Interstate highway design plays a part in safety by
reducing the number of decisions drivers make and thus minimizing the number
of crashes related to driver error. FHWA also believes that other factors,
including increased seat belt use and reduced alcohol- impaired driving,
have contributed to lowering the
fatality rate and the number of fatalities on the nation?s highways-
including Interstate highways.
Interstates Are Expected to State officials responding to our survey expect
the safety of Interstate Remain Safe
travel in their states to remain relatively safe. Among 51 responses, 41
said the safety of Interstate travel in 10 years will be good or excellent,
9 said travel safety would be fair, and 1 said safety would be poor. A
majority of officials- 29- said the portion of state transportation spending
for
improving safety in their states would stay about the same over the next 10
years, though 19 predicted some increase or a moderate increase. Interstate
Highways Have
As congestion on the country?s roadways has increased, so has congestion
Become More Congested
on the Interstate System. Whether measured in terms of traffic density or
travel time, congestion has increased over the past decade. Furthermore,
Interstate highways are generally more congested than other freeways and
other principal arterials. While there is no single indicator for
congestion, we looked at FHWA?s
?daily vehicle miles traveled per lane mile? 41 to measure traffic density.
42 As figures 17 and 18 show, the overall density of traffic on all major U.
S. roads has been increasing over the past decade and traffic density is
higher on
41 Daily vehicle miles of travel per lane mile is a basic measure of how
much travel is being accommodated on our highway systems since it is a
count- based metric. Daily vehicle miles traveled is the average daily
traffic of a section of roadway multiplied by the length (in miles) of that
section of roadway. 42 FHWA used this indicator in its Fiscal Year 1999
Federal Highway Administration Performance Plan and the biennial Conditions
and Performance report.
urban highways than on rural ones. 43 In addition, the traffic density on
urban Interstate highways is higher than on other classes of urban road.
(See fig. 17.)
Figure 17: U. S. Average Urban Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by Class of
Road, 1990 through 2000
Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics.
Although the density of traffic on urban Interstate highways is higher than
on rural Interstates, traffic on rural Interstate highways is increasing at
a faster rate than on any other classes of road. From 1990 through 2000, the
daily vehicle lane miles traveled on rural Interstates increased at an
average annual rate of 3.3 percent. By comparison, the daily vehicle lane
miles traveled on rural principal arterials increased at an annual rate of
1. 9 percent. (See fig. 18.) In addition, daily vehicle miles traveled on
urban Interstates increased at an annual average rate of 1. 7 percent, and
the rate increased by 1.3 percent on other urban freeways and expressways.
43 The five classes of roads that we compared were (1) urban Interstates,
(2) urban freeways and expressways, (3) urban other principal arterial
streets, (4) rural Interstates, and (5) rural other principal arterial
streets.
Figure 18: U. S. Average Rural Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by Class of
Road, 1990 through 2000
Source: FHWA?s Highway Statistics. While daily vehicle lane miles traveled
measures traffic density, it does not indicate the effect of congestion on
drivers, especially the amount of time it takes them to reach their
destinations. The Texas Transportation Institute 44 has developed measures
that address a central concern of urban drivers- how travel time is affected
by congestion. One measure- the travel time index- indicates how much more
time it takes to travel during a peak period than at other times of day. The
travel time index indicates that urban
Interstate congestion has increased from 1990 through 2000, and congestion
levels are higher on the urban Interstate System than on any other class of
roads, including urban freeways and expressways and urban principal
arterials. (See fig. 19.) During the past decade, the travel time index
increased by about 12 percent. This statistic provides information about
drivers? experiences as 44 The Texas Transportation Institute has been
conducting an Urban Mobility Study since 1982. The study?s purpose is to
develop useful congestion figures from generally available
data sources and to provide information on trends in mobility levels. To
accomplish this goal, the Institute considers multiple congestion measures-
one of which we will focus on in this report.
well as the level of congestion on the road because it accounts for delays
due both to the traffic demand on the road and to roadway incidents, like
accidents. For example, a travel time index of 1. 63 means that a trip that
takes 30 minutes in an off- peak (noncongested) period would, on average,
take 63 percent longer, or almost 19 extra minutes in the peak period- in
other words, the trip would take an average of about 49 minutes rather than
30 minutes when the road is congested. In addition, the Texas Transportation
Institute data show that delay from incidents is greater than
recurring delay from traffic. Specifically, their Mobility Report 2001
states that delay from incidents accounts for 54 percent of total delay. 45
Figure 19: Percent Increase in Urban Travel Time During the Peak Period by
Class of Road, 1990 through 2000
Note: Interstates show a 3 percentage point decrease in travel time from
1990 to 1992. According to Texas Transportation Institute officials, this is
partially due to the urban boundary redefinitions that usually get included
in the first and second years after a Census. Source: Texas Transportation
Institute data obtained through FHWA.
45 The 2001 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute and The
Texas A& M University System (May 2001). This estimate may be low since
according to the Mobility Report, the high percentages of congestion due to
incidents are found in areas where
congestion levels are lower, and the Institute?s report only covers 68 urban
areas.
Many Factors Account for Many factors can contribute to congestion. As
figure 20 shows, increases in
Growth in Congestion overall population and the number of licensed drivers
are factors that could
each cause more cars to be on the road during peak hours. The Census Bureau
reports that, from 1990 to 2000, the population increased by about 13
percent nationwide. In addition, according to FHWA, the number of
licensed drivers increased by 14 percent during the past decade. These,
along with other factors, resulted in a 39 percent increase in the number of
miles traveled in the United States in the past decade. Freight movement by
truck also increased by 40 percent over the first 8 years of the decade.
However, Interstate capacity in terms of lane miles increased by only 6
percent over the past decade. Finally, expansion of metropolitan areas and
the choices people make about where they live and work also contribute to
congestion.
Figure 20: Percent Change of Variables Related to Congestion, 1990 through
2000
a Freight data were only available for 1990 to 1998. Source: Prepared by GAO
based on data from FHWA?s Highway Statistics, U. S. Census Bureau?s
Census 2000 Brief, and Bureau of Transportation Statistics? National
Transportation Statistics 2000.
Currently Worse on Urban Officials from 24 states rated the present level of
congestion on their urban
Interstates, Congestion Is Interstates as ?high? or ?very high,? and
officials from 21 states rated their Expected to Increase on Both urban
Interstate congestion as ?average.? By contrast, no officials rated Urban
and Rural Interstates
rural congestion as ?very high,? and just one official rated the level of
congestion on rural Interstates as ?high?; officials from 27 states rated
congestion on their rural Interstates as ?average.?
In response to our survey, nearly all states expressed concern about future
congestion on their urban Interstates. For example,
42 states predicted that, 10 years from now, they would be falling behind
in terms of alleviating urban congestion and
41 states expected to rate urban congestion in the next 10 years as high
or very high. (See app. II.)
State respondents generally do not expect that their efforts to alleviate
congestion will be entirely successful. Although 34 states indicated that
they expect to spend a greater portion of their budget on urban congestion
over the next 10 years, 42 states believe they will be falling behind in
dealing with urban congestion. In addition, in its 1999 Condition and
Performance report, FHWA predicted that congestion would worsen- that is,
average travel time costs would continue rising- if investment and
allocations stay at the current expected levels. In its reauthorization of
surface transportation programs, Congress could decide to select methods for
investing federal resources in the Interstates and other highway programs to
help address local congestion problems in urban areas. To assist in making
these decisions, we asked states about policies and tools that can be used
in alleviating congestion. (See app. IV for the states? responses.) Although
states are particularly concerned about urban congestion levels,
they also think that rural congestion will increase, especially on specific
routes. Officials from 18 states expect to rate rural congestion as ?high?
or
?very high? in the next 10 years. For example, rural congestion is
increasing on the I- 70 corridor- a 140- mile- long stretch through the
Rocky Mountains of Colorado. This section serves in moving skiers and
truckers through the mountains. However, traffic congestion has become an
increasing problem along this corridor, in part due to population growth in
the surrounding areas- and will continue to worsen over the years.
Increases in Traffic, the States expect certain factors, especially the
levels of truck and car traffic, Age of the Interstates,
the age of the Interstates? pavement and bridges, and funding constraints to
negatively affect the conditions of their Interstates over the next 10
years. and Funding FHWA data also indicate that traffic, especially the
volume of truck traffic, Constraints May
will increase. In addition, many states believe they will be ?falling
behind? Negatively Affect in satisfying the users of their systems,
especially in terms of congestion. (See fig. 21.) Transportation officials
have also indicated that large- dollar Interstate Conditions; projects may
negatively affect states? financial ability to maintain their However, the
Costs to systems. States responding to our survey indicated that they plan
to spend
larger portions of their budgets addressing these Interstate pressures.
Address These Factors
However, identifying the states? cost to maintain and improve their systems
Are Uncertain is difficult. States? STIPs, required to include only projects
that can be built with estimated revenues, show how states plan to use the
funding they estimate will be available, rather than the funding they
estimate will be needed for their Interstates. Some states have developed
plans that provide some insight into what it will cost to maintain
conditions or reach specific goals. These estimates indicate that states
perceive Interstate needs as larger than estimated funding.
Figure 21: Number of States Expecting Performance on Their Interstate
Systems to Fall Behind in the Next Decade
Source: GAO?s survey.
Increasing Truck Traffic to According to our survey, states expect truck
traffic to have a negative effect Have Greatest Negative on the most
elements of Interstate conditions including physical conditions Effect on
Interstate (pavement and bridges), safety, and rural congestion. (See table
1.) For
Conditions example, all 52 states expect truck traffic to increase over the
next 10
years, and 49 states said that they expect this to negatively affect the
condition of their pavement. Current estimates used by FHWA also show
freight movement by truck increasing by 28 percent from the end of 2001
through the end of 2010. 46 Finally, an alliance of primarily southern and
southeastern states released a 2001 study that estimates an annual 6.9
percent increase in Latin American truck traffic in the United States
(resulting in almost a doubling in 10 years). Ninety- six percent of this
truck
traffic will be on Interstates. Table 1: The Number of States Identifying
the Negative Effects of These Factors on Interstate Highway Conditions
Elements of Interstate condition Pavement
Bridge Urban
Rural Factor condition condition Safety congestion congestion
Truck traffic volume 49 46 45 49 43
Traffic volume 44 41 43 51 41 Percent of truck 48 45 44 44 40 traffic Age of
structures 38 45 a aa
Note: Fifty- one of 52 states replied to questions about how these factors
affect pavement, safety, and rural congestion. a Not applicable. Source: GAO
survey data.
State officials? concerns about increases in truck traffic may reflect, in
part, the estimated highway costs of damage to the pavement or bridge of
each additional truck- mile driven compared with the cost of a car. A recent
46 FHWA has developed a Freight Productivity Program to understand freight
demands, assess implications for the surface transportation system, and
develop policy and program initiatives to improve freight efficiency. The
Freight Analysis Framework is the policy and systems analysis tool developed
to support this effort.
FHWA study 47 explains that while car drivers pay about the same share of
user taxes as their share of highway costs, heavy truck operators commonly
pay less than their share of highway costs. Specifically, FHWA estimated
that an additional mile of Interstate car travel cost of 0. 1 cent in terms
of pavement damage, while an additional mile of Interstate truck
travel had a pavement damage cost as high as 12. 7 cents on rural
Interstates and 40.9 cents on urban Interstates. In 1994, we recommended
that FHWA conduct this highway cost- allocation study. 48 In addition to
increases in truck traffic, estimates that FHWA uses show that passenger
traffic will increase by 17 percent from the end of 2001 through the end of
2010- an increase from 2.7 trillion vehicle miles traveled to 3. 1 trillion.
States are also concerned about increases in traffic volume. Of the 52
states we surveyed, 51 predict that overall traffic volumes will increase
over the next 10 years. Fifty- one of the states expect this increase in
traffic volume to negatively affect urban congestion, and 41 of 51
respondents believe that the changes in traffic volume will negatively
affect rural congestion. Another factor negatively affecting the condition
of Interstate pavement and bridges is the age of the infrastructure. For
example, half of the Interstate bridges are currently over 33 years old.
Figure 22 shows when all Interstate bridges were built. Officials from one
state we visited explained
that many of their state?s Interstate bridges were built about 40 years ago
and are reaching the end of their estimated 50- year design life. 49 In
addition, 45 states believe age may jeopardize their bridge conditions,
while 38 states expect age to negatively affect their pavement conditions 10
years from now.
47 Addendum to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study Final Report,
May 2000. 48 U. S. General Accounting Office, Highway User Fees: Updated
Data Needed to Determine Whether All Users Pay Their Fair Share, GAO/ RCED-
94- 181 (Washington, D. C.: June 7, 1994). We recommended that DOT conduct a
new highway cost- allocation study, which it accomplished in August 1997 and
updated in May 2000. We also said that Congress should consider policy
options to increase equity and promote more efficient use of the nation?s
highways. 49 Pavement has shorter life expectancy than bridges, usually
ranging from 15 to 40 years depending on factors including the type of
material used. Routine and preventive maintenance can extend the life of the
bridges. In addition, one state?s transportation plan indicated that the
older bridges are not necessarily in danger of falling down, although they
may be outdated.
Figure 22: Year Interstate Bridges Were Built
Note: When the Interstate was built, it incorporated some portions of
already existing roadways; therefore, some Interstate bridges were built
before the official establishment of the program. Source: FHWA data. Cost of
Large- Dollar Transportation officials are concerned that some states may
face an Projects and Other
increasing number of large- dollar projects such as work on bridges or
Economic Conditions Could
interchanges that may constrain spending for those states? other projects
Negatively Affect States? for a number of years. For example, Missouri is
looking at reconstructing the 200- mile I- 70 corridor at a cost of $2.5
billion to $3.0 billion. In addition, Highway Programs
the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which moves north- south traffic on I- 95 around
Washington, D. C., is expected to cost over $2 billion and is being funded
by two states and FHWA. According to a Maryland official, over the 6- year
project, funding for the bridge accounts for 45 percent of expenditures on
major projects in the state?s capital budget.
In addition, 40 states are facing budget shortfalls for 2002. Furthermore,
the amount of funds available for federal highway programs may decrease for
fiscal year 2003, 50 depending on congressional action. These potential
reductions in federal and state funds could reduce the funds available for
maintaining the Interstates and increase states? estimated funding
shortfalls.
Costs to Maintain It is difficult to identify state needs on the Interstate
System and to Interstates Are Uncertain determine what level of funding is
needed to meet these needs. When surveyed, most states indicated that they
expect to spend the same or increasing portions of their transportation
budgets to maintain Interstate
conditions. However, when states provided information on their planned
expenditures, the amounts did not show a consistent upward trend, rather
they varied considerably from year to year. (See table 1 in app. III.) State
and FHWA officials explained that one common reason for these increases and
decreases is that work on Interstates is not done in a vacuum; that is,
Interstate projects must be weighed against projects on other classes of
roads, such as expressways or ?principal arterials.? For example, North
Dakota officials explained that they are completing projects, which are
focused on improving the condition of their Interstate highways. They
expect to shift their attention and funding toward projects on other classes
of roads. In addition, states? federally required plans do not usually
provide information on all needs and related costs. States? short- term
STIPs do not identify funds needed to maintain Interstate conditions because
they include lists of proposed projects that can be built with estimated
revenues. 51 Therefore, as state and federal officials explain, STIPs
reflect affordability rather than identifying projects that are needed and
would be
constructed if additional funding were available. In addition to STIPs,
states are required to develop long- term (20- year) plans. However, these
plans may not contain specific projects and cost estimates, and thus do not
provide information on states? needs and related costs.
Nevertheless, some states have developed additional transportation plans
that identify long- term funding gaps for various parts of their highway 50
U. S. General Accounting Office, Highway Financing: Factors Affecting
Highway Funding Fluctuations and Revenue Trends, GAO- 02- 527T (Washington,
D. C.: Mar. 20, 2002). 51 See appendix III for description of state planning
processes and role of required federal planning documents.
networks, including the Interstates. 52 For example, North Dakota is
developing a needs estimate for its state roads (excluding urban
Interstates). The state defined its need by using criteria for pavement,
bridge, design, and safety conditions. State officials estimated the funds
needed to bring the roads (except urban Interstates) to the desired physical
condition and level of performance as nearly a billion dollars more than
available. According to state officials, eliminating the backlog will
require either an increase in revenue or a decrease in service. In addition,
in 2001, Florida officials estimated that to meet capacity needs on its
Intrastate System 53 (including Interstates), it would need $20 billion more
through
2010 than the $11 billion it expects to have. Missouri?s draft 2000 long-
term plan also indicates that the state?s needs outweigh the available
funds.
Concluding Interstate highways continue to play a vital role in moving
people and Observations
freight in this country. Over the past few decades, however, they have taken
on an important and expanded role in facilitating travel within urban areas.
They have also become central to moving freight and, as a result, to
economic growth. These roles will continue to be important; however, they
have consequences that will challenge the federal government and state and
local governments in assuring that Interstate highways continue to provide
efficient travel and remain in relatively good condition. In particular, the
challenges for Interstate highways include
finding effective methods of easing traffic congestion, particularly in
urban areas;
providing for efficient freight movement given increases in both passenger
and freight traffic; and
responding to the effect of traffic on roads and bridges given the
continued aging of these structures. 52 We did not verify the accuracy of
these plans. 53 Florida?s Intrastate Highway System is about 3,750 miles of
the state highway system, which serves regional commerce and high- speed and
long- distance travel. The state?s system encompasses the Interstate System
as well as the turnpike and other major expressways and arterials, which
carry 32 percent of the state?s traffic and 70 percent of its truck traffic
on the state highway system.
Agency Comments and We provided a draft of this report to DOT and DOD for
their review and
Our Evaluation comment. DOT officials, including the Team Leader for Highway
Needs and Investment Analysis within FHWA, provided oral comments. They
generally agreed with the observations in the report, and they also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate. DOD
officials, including the Chief, Office of Special Assistant for
Transportation Engineering, Military Traffic Management Command, provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We conducted our review from March 2001 through April 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. As arranged with your
office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no
further distribution of this report until 7 days after the date of this
letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to cognizant
congressional committees; the Secretary of Transportation; and
the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. If you or your staff have
any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 2834.
Appendix V lists the key contacts and contributors to this report.
Sincerely yours, JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendi Appendi xes x I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology With the upcoming reauthorization of the
surface transportation programs, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure asked us to report on Interstate highways and bridges.
Accordingly, this report examines the condition of the Interstate System,
including, (1) how the role of the Interstate System has changed over time;
(2) the roles of the federal and state governments in managing and funding
the Interstate System; (3)
the financial resources that states and the federal government have devoted
to the system; (4) how physical conditions, safety, and congestion of the
Interstate System have changed and how they compare to other classes of
roads; and (5) the factors that could affect future Interstate conditions
and the cost of addressing these factors.
To determine how the role of the Interstate System has changed over time, we
reviewed historical documents. We also conducted a nationwide mail survey of
state transportation agencies in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico. Our survey focused on state officials? views on
the changing role of Interstate highways in their states? transportation
systems; the usefulness of various approaches for addressing operations and
maintenance of their Interstate highways and bridges; their views on the
Interstate System in 10 years; and their perceptions of the current
condition of their Interstate System?s infrastructure, safety, and
congestion. We received survey responses from all 52 governments- most
states responded to most of the questions. A summary of responses to the
survey appears in appendix II of this report.
To develop our mail survey, we discussed potential survey topics with state
officials in two states to determine how to design our survey questionnaire.
Then, we conducted pretests of our questionnaire with transportation
officials in four states. We selected states for our survey development
phase to provide perspectives from a variety of geographic areas and from
states with various types of weather, population patterns, and other factors
that affect Interstate planning. Each of the four pretests consisted of a
visit with state officials by our staff to ensure that (1) questions were
readable and clear, (2) terms used were clear, (3) the survey did not place
undue burden on state governments that would result in a lack of
cooperation,
and (4) the survey was independent and unbiased in its point of view.
Appropriate changes were incorporated into the final survey based on our
pretesting. In addition to our pretesting, we discussed our questionnaire
with an official at FHWA headquarters and representatives of the AASHTO in
Washington, D. C. We incorporated comments from these discussions, as
appropriate.
To determine which officials should receive our survey, we used AASHTO?s
Reference Book to identify the appropriate state officials. We verified our
selection by contacting FHWA division officials in most of the 52 locations.
During the return period, an unprecedented terrorist incident occurred on
September 11, 2001. Although it is possible that the responses completed
after this date may have differed from those received beforehand, our
analysis of the question of the role of the Interstates in moving military
personnel and equipment shows that answers did not differ for these two time
periods. We received the last survey included in our analysis on
November 21, 2001. To address our second objective, we reviewed historical
Federal- Aid Highway Program data obtained from FHWA, which discussed why
the Interstate System was developed and the roles Congress, FHWA, DOD, and
states played and how they have evolved into the current roles. We also
interviewed FHWA and DOD staff about their roles and identified current
federal requirements related to the Interstates. Finally, we examined
federal apportionments to the states for Interstates as well as other
activities. For our third objective, we analyzed FHWA?s obligation of funds
for Interstate- related projects. We also reviewed outlays from all levels
of government for Interstate- related projects, as reported by states on an
annual basis. For the fourth objective, we used the responses to our survey
described previously. To compare conditions of Interstate highways to other
classes of roads as well as obtain trend information on Interstate highway
conditions, we reviewed DOT?s published data on actual highway conditions
and its forecasts of potential future conditions. To learn how officials
assess Interstate highway conditions in their states, we interviewed
officials in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. We
selected these states to obtain perspectives from a variety of regions with
various types of weather, population differences,
and other factors that affect Interstate planning. In addition, to determine
the current condition of the Interstate System in terms of congestion, we
relied on a number of measures reported by FHWA. We requested FHWA to obtain
Texas Transportation Institute analysis of congestion levels on Interstate
highways in comparison with other classes of roads. We also reviewed DOT?s
Bureau of Transportation Statistics and U. S. Census Bureau data on factors
related to congestion
trends. Furthermore, to assess safety, we reviewed data from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration?s Fatality Analysis Reporting System,
and FHWA data on trends in fatality rates and number of fatalities.
To address the last objective, we analyzed state survey responses and
discussed the factors with state and FHWA officials during our site visits,
as necessary. We focused on factors such as demographic changes or changes
in traffic, but we did not focus on the influence of federal funding through
the existing Federal- Aid Highway Program on state?s decisions about their
investment in Interstate roads and bridges. To examine states? plans for
Interstate investment, we asked states to provide information on
their planned costs for their Interstate highways in our survey. We reviewed
states? written plans for investment in Interstate highways and other roads.
Again, we also visited the five states mentioned earlier to obtain more
detailed information on their planning. Additionally, we interviewed FHWA
division officials to obtain a general overview of FHWA?s approach to
assisting states with their Interstate System plans.
We conducted our review from March 2001 through April 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Survey of States? Views on the Future of the
Appendi x II
Interstate System Appendix II
(( )* + (
,