oversight

Transportation Infrastructure: States' Implementation of Transportation Management Systems

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-01-13.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                 United States General Accounting Office

GAO              Report to Congressional Committees




January 1997
                 TRANSPORTATION
                 INFRASTRUCTURE
                 States’ Implementation
                 of Transportation
                 Management Systems




GAO/RCED-97-32
      United States
GAO   General Accounting Office
      Washington, D.C. 20548

      Resources, Community, and
      Economic Development Division

      B-272788

      January 13, 1997

      The Honorable John H. Chafee
      Chairman
      The Honorable Max S. Baucus
      Ranking Minority Member
      Committee on Environment and Public Works
      United States Senate

      The Honorable John W. Warner
      Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
        and Infrastructure
      Committee on Environment and Public Works
      United States Senate

      The Honorable Bud Shuster
      Chairman
      The Honorable James L. Oberstar
      Ranking Minority Member
      Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
      House of Representatives

      The Honorable Thomas E. Petri
      Chairman
      The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II
      Ranking Minority Member
      Subcommittee on Surface Transportation
      Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
      House of Representatives

      The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
      required states to develop and implement six systems for managing
      highway pavement, bridges, highway safety, traffic congestion, public
      transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal transportation
      facilities and systems. These management systems are tools that provide
      information to assist state and local decisionmakers in selecting
      cost-effective policies, programs, and projects to protect and improve the
      nation’s transportation infrastructure. Management systems take a variety
      of forms, including computerized inventories of assets, software programs,
      systematic procedures or processes for collecting and analyzing
      information, and committees that develop recommendations to improve
      the systems’ performance.




      Page 1                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                   B-272788




                   In 1995, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995—often
                   called the NHS Act—made the systems optional, except the congestion
                   management system in certain areas, and prohibited the U.S. Department
                   of Transportation (DOT) from withholding funds from states that elected
                   not to implement any system.1 In addition, the NHS Act required GAO to
                   examine issues concerning the states’ implementation of the management
                   systems.

                   In discussions with your offices, we agreed to identify (1) the status of the
                   states’ development and implementation of the systems, (2) how the states
                   expect to use the systems, and (3) the factors that have facilitated or
                   hindered the development and implementation of the systems. We
                   obtained general information from state and federal reports on the status
                   of development and implementation of the systems in the 50 states,
                   Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. We obtained more detailed
                   information from state and local transportation officials in the seven states
                   we selected for case studies of their experiences in developing,
                   implementing, and using the systems.2 Additional information on our
                   methodology is discussed at the end of this letter.


                   As of September 1996, about half the states were moving forward with all
Results in Brief   six transportation management systems even though they were no longer
                   mandatory. The remaining states were developing or implementing at least
                   three of the systems originally mandated by the Intermodal Surface
                   Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. All states were implementing the
                   pavement management system, and nearly all states were implementing
                   the bridge, safety, and congestion management systems. Congestion
                   management systems were being developed for all transportation
                   management areas, where they are still mandatory. About 30 states were
                   implementing the public transportation and intermodal management
                   systems.

                   The states were developing the systems for use by decisionmakers in the
                   planning process and to help transportation officials conduct daily
                   operations. Three states that we visited recognized that marketing the

                   1
                    The NHS Act made statewide congestion management systems optional but still required the systems
                   in transportation management areas (urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000 or other
                   areas so designated at the request of the governor and the metropolitan planning organization or
                   affected local officials).
                   2
                    Our case study states were Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and
                   Texas. In addition, we obtained anecdotal, less-comprehensive information about Colorado, Florida,
                   and Missouri.



                   Page 2                                  GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
             B-272788




             systems to potential users—such as executives, planners, and
             engineers—is critical to ensuring the optimal use of the systems. In
             addition, some states have realized that to obtain the most uses from the
             systems, each needs to be integrated with the others so that, for example,
             users can combine information from several management systems to
             analyze the overall transportation needs in a geographic area. Nationwide,
             over half the states plan to integrate the systems.

             Although pavement and bridge management systems have been around for
             several decades, the other mandated systems were new to many states.
             Three states that we reviewed indicated that the 1991 mandate provided a
             catalyst, or “jump start,” to developing and implementing the new systems.
             The mandate resulted in the systems’ receiving high-level support and
             top-priority status in these states. Although implementing the systems is
             now optional, several states are continuing this effort because they view
             the systems as beneficial to the decision-making process in that they
             provide more accurate, timely information than was previously available.
             On the other hand, the removal of the federal mandate lessened support
             for developing certain systems. In addition, some states reported that DOT’s
             failure to issue a clear and timely rule on management systems following
             the 1991 mandate had caused difficulties in implementing the public
             transportation, congestion, and intermodal management systems.
             However, several states told us that the Federal Highway Administration
             was helpful in providing initial workshops and training to develop the
             systems. Finally, officials in all seven states that we reviewed indicated
             that they continue to need federal assistance in solving technical problems
             with software and/or learning from other states’ experiences in
             implementing and integrating the systems.


             The nation’s public transportation infrastructure—its highways, bridges,
Background   and transit systems—represents a multibillion-dollar investment that
             allows for the essential movement of people and goods. During the 1990s,
             all levels of government provided annually about $90 billion for highway
             and bridge programs and about $16 billion for transit programs. The
             volume of infrastructure assets is immense—over 8 million lane-miles of
             highways;3 more than 576,000 bridges; and, for transit operations, nearly
             130,000 vehicles, 7,439 miles of rail track, 2,271 rail stations, and 1,172
             maintenance facilities. Management systems are tools that provide
             information to assist state and local decisionmakers in selecting

             3
              Lane-miles represent the number of lanes per section of roadway multiplied by the actual length of
             the section.



             Page 3                                   GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
B-272788




cost-effective policies, programs, and projects to improve the efficiency
and safety of the nation’s infrastructure and protect the public’s
investment in it.

In 1991, ISTEA required the states to develop and implement systems for
managing (1) the pavement of federal-aid highways, (2) bridges on and off
federal-aid highways, (3) highway safety, (4) traffic congestion, (5) public
transportation facilities and equipment, and (6) intermodal transportation
facilities and systems. Before this legislation, many states had begun
developing some of these systems. Management systems for pavement, for
example, were first developed in the late 1960s, and the concepts of bridge
and highway safety management systems were introduced in the early
1980s.4 Very few states, however, had experience with congestion, public
transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal management
systems before the ISTEA mandate.

The legislation required DOT to, among other things, issue regulations for
the states to develop and implement each system. The legislation also
authorized DOT to withhold up to 10 percent of federal highway and transit
funds, beginning in fiscal year 1996, from states that failed to implement
the management systems. ISTEA called for the states to develop and
implement the systems in cooperation with metropolitan planning
organizations5 in urbanized areas and the affected agencies receiving
assistance under the Federal Transit Act. In addition, to help ensure that
large urban communities focus on congestion management and relief,
ISTEA specifically required that the planning process in transportation
management areas6 include a congestion management system.7

ISTEA required DOT to issue its regulations on management systems by
December 18, 1992, one year after the date of enactment. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration

4
 In 1989, the Federal Highway Administration issued a rule requiring all states to have a pavement
management system that would cover rural arterial and urban principal arterial routes under the
states’ jurisdiction.
5
 A metropolitan planning organization is an entity in an urban area with a population greater than
50,000 that carries out certain transportation planning activities.
6
 Nationwide, there are 128 transportation management areas. All states and Puerto Rico have at least
one transportation management area, except Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
7
 The legislation also placed restrictions on those transportation management areas classified as
nonattainment areas for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act. These nonattainment
areas may not program federal funds for any highway project that will result in a significant increase in
the number of vehicles with single occupants unless the project is part of an approved congestion
management system.



Page 4                                    GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
B-272788




(FTA) jointly issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the
management systems in June 1992, a proposed rule for the management
systems in March 1993, and an interim final rule in December 1993. The
interim rule included technical requirements and compliance schedules
for each system and required the states to be implementing all systems
beginning in fiscal year 1995. Table 1 provides a general description of
each of the six management systems, as defined by DOT.




Page 5                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                    B-272788




Table 1: DOT’s Definitions of the
Management Systems                  Management system          Definition
                                    Pavement management        This system provides information for use in implementing
                                    system                     cost-effective reconstruction, rehabilitation, and
                                                               preventative maintenance programs and results in
                                                               pavements designed to accommodate current and
                                                               forecasted traffic in a safe, durable, and cost-effective
                                                               manner.
                                    Bridge management system   This system, among other things, includes procedures for
                                                               collecting, processing, and updating bridge inventory
                                                               data; predicts bridge deterioration; identifies projects to
                                                               improve bridge conditions, safety, and serviceability;
                                                               estimates costs; and determines least-cost strategies for
                                                               bridge maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation.
                                    Safety management system   This system is a systematic process for reducing the
                                                               number and severity of traffic accidents by incorporating
                                                               opportunities to improve highway safety in all phases of
                                                               highway planning, design, construction, and
                                                               maintenance. It includes collecting and analyzing
                                                               highway safety data; disseminating public information
                                                               and providing educational activities; and ensuring
                                                               coordination among the agencies responsible for different
                                                               safety elements (such as vehicle, roadway, and human
                                                               factors).
                                    Congestion management      This system is a systematic process that provides
                                    system                     information on a transportation system’s performance and
                                                               alternative strategies to alleviate congestion and enhance
                                                               the mobility of persons and goods. The system includes
                                                               monitoring and evaluating transportation system
                                                               performance, identifying alternative strategies to alleviate
                                                               congestion, assessing and implementing cost-effective
                                                               strategies, and evaluating the effectiveness of the
                                                               implemented actions.
                                    Public transportation      This system is a systematic process for collecting and
                                    management system          analyzing information on the condition and cost of transit
                                                               assets (e.g., maintenance facilities, stations, terminals,
                                                               equipment, and rolling stock) on a continual basis,
                                                               identifying needs, and enabling decisionmakers to select
                                                               cost-effective strategies for providing and maintaining
                                                               transit assets in serviceable condition.
                                    Intermodal management      This system is a systematic process for identifying
                                    system                     linkages between modes of transportation, defining
                                                               strategies for improving the effectiveness of modal
                                                               interactions, and evaluating and implementing these
                                                               strategies.

                                    DOT received over 200 sets of comments—primarily from state
                                    transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations—on
                                    the proposed and interim rules. Many of the comments on the interim rule
                                    expressed concerns that (1) the data requirements would be too




                                    Page 6                          GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                            B-272788




                            burdensome; (2) the rule was too prescriptive, not allowing states enough
                            flexibility to tailor the systems to their individual circumstances; and
                            (3) the time frames for compliance were too short. However, despite their
                            concerns, many commenters supported the concept of management
                            systems.

                            Because of concerns such as those described above, the Congress
                            reconsidered the mandate for management systems. In 1995, the NHS Act
                            made the six management systems optional for the states and prohibited
                            the Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds from the states
                            that elected not to implement the systems. The act did not affect the
                            provisions for congestion management systems in transportation
                            management areas. DOT issued a final rule on December 19, 1996, to reflect
                            this legislative change of 1995.


                            All states reported they are implementing pavement management systems,
All States Are              and nearly all states reported they are implementing the bridge, safety, and
Implementing Some           congestion management systems. Fewer states reported implementing
Systems but                 public transportation and intermodal management systems. Before ISTEA,
                            our seven case-study states were all implementing some management
Customizing Them to         systems to varying degrees. Each state, however, had to enhance its
Meet Their Own              existing systems and develop some new ones in response to ISTEA and
                            DOT’s interim rule. When the NHS Act made the systems optional, these
Needs                       states decided to tailor the systems to meet their own needs and time
                            frames. Most of the seven states scaled back roadway coverage for some
                            systems, and several discontinued development of the public
                            transportation and intermodal management systems, which they deemed
                            unnecessary.


Twenty-Four States Are      As of September 1996, about half the states reported they were moving
Implementing All Systems;   forward with all six systems even though they were no longer mandatory.
Remaining States Are        (See fig. 1.) The remaining states reported they were developing or
                            implementing at least three of the transportation management systems
Implementing Some           originally mandated by ISTEA. Two states—Wyoming and South
Systems                     Carolina—decided to implement only three systems. Wyoming was going
                            forward with the pavement, bridge, and safety management systems;
                            South Carolina reported it was developing or implementing the pavement,
                            bridge, and congestion management systems. South Carolina, however,
                            planned to develop a safety management system beginning in fiscal year
                            1997.



                            Page 7                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                              B-272788




Figure 1: Number of Management Systems Being Developed and Implemented by Each State


                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                     AAAA
                     AAAAAAAA
                          AAAAAAAA
                              AAAAAAA
                                   AAA                                                                                                  AAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                                                                                    AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                                             AAAAAA
                                                                                                                                                 AA
                     AAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAA
                          AAAAAAAAAAA
                                   AAA
                                                                                                                                        AAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                                        AAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                                                                                    AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                                             AAAAAA
                                                                                                                                                 AA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                                                                                    AAAAAAAAAA
                     AAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                          AAAAAAAA AAA
                                                                                                                                        AAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                                        AAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                                                                                    AAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                                             AAAAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                                                                                    AAAAAAAAAA
                     AAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                          AAAAAAAA AAA
                                                                                                                                        AAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                                        AAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                                                                                    AAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                                             AAAAAA
                     AAAA
                     AAAAAAAA
                          AAAAAAAA
                              AAAAAAA
                                   AAA
                                                                                                                                        AAAAAAAAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                     AAAAAAAA
                     AAAA AAAAAAAA
                              AAAAAAA
                                   AAA
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                       AAAA
                                                                                                       AAAA AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                       AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                            AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA
                                                                                                       AAAA
                                                                                                       AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                            AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA
                                                                                                       AAAA
                                                                                                       AAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                            AAAA
                                                                         AAAA
                                                                         AAAAAAAA
                                                                               AAAAAAAA
                                                                                    AAAAAAAA
                                                                                         AAAA          AAAA AAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA
                                                                         AAAA
                                                                         AAAA  AAAA
                                                                               AAAA AAAA
                                                                                    AAAA AAAA          AAAAAAAA
                                                                                            AAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                         AAAA          AAAA
                                                                                                            AAAAAAA
                                                                                                            AAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA
                                                                         AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                                                                       AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                            AAAAAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA
                                                                         AAAA  AAAA AAAA
                                                                         AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                            AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                         AAAA
                                                                                            AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAA
                                                                         AAAA  AAAA AAAA
                                                                         AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                            AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                         AAAA
                                                                                            AAAA
                                                                                                            AAAAAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                   AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                                         AAAA
                                                                            AA AAAA AAAA    AAAAAAAA
                                                                                         AAAA    AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                      AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                            AAAA
                                                                                                            AAAAAAA
                                                                                                           AAAA  AAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                AAA   AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                           AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                               AAAAAA
                                                   AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                         AAAA
                                                                            AA AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                                                            AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                                                                            AAAAAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                      AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                           AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                               AAAAAA
                                                   AAAA
                                                                            AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                         AAAA               AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                   AAAAAAAA
                                                        AAAAAAAA
                                                             AAAAAAAA
                                                                  AAAAAAAA
                                                                         AAAA
                                                                       AAAA AA
                                                                            AAAAAAAAAAAAAA                  AAAA
                                                                                                            AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                      AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                           AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                               AAAAAA
                                                   AAAA
                                                   AAAAAAAA
                                                        AAAAAAAA
                                                             AAAAAAAA
                                                                  AAAAAAAA
                                                                       AAAAAA
                                                                            AA                          AAAA
                                                                                                        AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                             AAAA
                                                                                                             AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                            AAAA  AAAA
                                                                                                                  AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                 AAAA  AA
                                                                                                                       AA AAAA
                                                                                                                      AAAA AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                               AAAAAA
                                                   AAAAAAAA
                                                   AAAA AAAAAAAA
                                                             AAAAAAAA
                                                                  AAAAAAAA
                                                                       AAAAAA
                                                                            AA                          AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                        AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                   AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AA                          AAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                  AAAAAA
                                                   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                               AAAA
                                                                                                        AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                             AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                  AAAAAA
                                                                                                                       AA
                                                                               AAAA
                                                                               AAAAAAAA
                                                                                    AAAAAAAA
                                                                                         AAAAAA
                                                                                              AA        AAAA
                                                                                                        AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                             AAAAAAAA
                                                                                                                  AAAAAA
                                                                                                                       AA
                                                                               AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                                               AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AA        AAAA
                                                                                                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                             AAAA AAAA AA
                                                                               AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                                               AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AA        AAAA
                                                                                                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                                                                                             AAAA AAAA AA
                                                                               AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                                               AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AA
                                                                               AAAA AAAA AAAA
                                                                               AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AA
                                                                               AAAA
                                                                               AAAAAAAA
                                                                                    AAAAAAAA
                                                                                         AAAAAA
                                                                                              AA
                                                                                  AAAAAAA
                                                                                  AAAA
                                                                                  AAAAAA
                                                                                       AAAA
                                                                                         AA




                   2 states developing and implementing 3 systems

                    15 states and Washington, D.C., developing and implementing 4 systems
             AAAA
             AAAA A
             AAAAAA 9 states and Puerto Rico developing and implementing 5 systems

                   24 states developing and implementing 6 systems




                                              As shown in figure 2, nearly all states reported they were developing and
                                              implementing a pavement management system, a bridge management
                                              system, a safety management system, and a congestion management
                                              system. Pavement and bridge management systems may be easier for the
                                              states to develop and implement than other management systems because
                                              many states had established inventories or a form of management system




                                              Page 8                                         GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
B-272788




for these assets before ISTEA. Similarly, the states have had experience
with establishing systematic approaches to resolving highway safety
problems since the mid-1960s. Most states were developing and
implementing congestion management systems, which continue to be
required in transportation management areas. Congestion management
systems were being developed by state or local agencies for all
transportation management areas. Moreover, several states that did not
have transportation management areas were developing this system.
About two-thirds of the states reported they were developing and
implementing the public transportation management system and the
intermodal management system. According to transportation officials,
fewer states may be proceeding with these two systems because (1) the
systems are newer and the states are less familiar with them and (2) the
states generally lack jurisdiction over the assets covered in these systems.
(See apps. I through VI for more information on each management
system.)




Page 9                         GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                        B-272788




Figure 2: Number of States Developing
and Implementing Each Management
System                                  Number of states
                                        60

                                                   52
                                                                 50            50
                                        50                                                   47


                                        40
                                                                                                               34
                                                                                                                    31
                                        30


                                        20


                                        10


                                         0
                                                  PMS          BMS          SMS       CMS                PTMS       IMS
                                                                          Management systems


                                        PMS = Pavement management system
                                        BMS = Bridge management system
                                        SMS = Safety management system
                                        CMS = Congestion management system
                                        PTMS = Public transportation management system
                                        IMS = Intermodal management system


                                        Note: Data are for the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.




Case-Study States Were                  For case-study purposes, we held discussions with transportation officials
Implementing Some                       in seven states—Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina,
Systems When ISTEA Was                  Oregon, and Texas—about their implementation of the six management
                                        systems. When ISTEA was enacted, these states already had certain
Enacted                                 transportation management systems (see figure 3). To meet the mandate
                                        and DOT’s interim rule, these states needed to enhance their existing
                                        management systems and develop some new ones. New York, for
                                        example, had existing management systems for pavement, bridges, safety,
                                        congestion, and public transportation. To meet the new requirements, the
                                        state began developing an intermodal management system with separate
                                        components for passengers and freight and began modifying the other
                                        systems. For example, the state expanded its public transportation



                                        Page 10                                  GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                     B-272788




                                     inventory from buses and bus-related items to include bus facilities and
                                     was developing a condition-rating system and performance measures for
                                     these assets. Michigan, on the other hand, had only a pavement
                                     management system and a bridge inventory; it had to modify these
                                     systems, adding pavement condition information, such as ride quality, to
                                     the pavement management system and adding analytical capabilities to its
                                     bridge inventory. Michigan began developing the other four systems
                                     pursuant to the ISTEA mandate.


Figure 3: Status of Management
Systems in Seven States When ISTEA
Was Enacted




                                                                                                                   ion
                                                                                                                    n




                                                                                                                  al
                                                                             nt




                                                                                                                tio



                                                                                                               tat

                                                                                                               od
                                                                          me




                                                                                                              es
                                                                           e



                                                                                                 ty




                                                                                                             or

                                                                                                           erm
                                                                       idg
                                                                        ve




                                                                                               fe




                                                                                                      Tr lic
                                                                                                            ng



                                                                                                           sp
                                                                                             Sa
                                                                     Pa



                                                                     Br




                                                                                                          b
                                                                                                        Co




                                                                                                        Int
                                                                                                        an
                                                                                                       Pu
                                          State
                                                                      a
                                          Maryland
                                                                                 b
                                          Michigan
                                                                     b
                                          Montana

                                          New York
                                                                     b                                             b
                                          North Carolina
                                                                                 b                                 b
                                          Oregon
                                                                                 b, c                              b
                                          Texas

                                            Management systems in place before ISTEA
                                            Management systems to be developed



                                     a
                                         System not automated.
                                     b
                                         Inventory only.
                                     c
                                         System limited to setting priorities for bridge replacement/rehabilitation projects.




                                     Page 11                                         GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                         B-272788




Case-Study States        Once the NHS Act made the systems optional, officials in the seven states
Customizing Systems to   we reviewed told us that they had reassessed their needs and decided
Meet Their Own Needs     whether to (1) proceed with the systems as originally planned, (2) reduce
                         the scope of the systems, and/or (3) discontinue certain systems. Among
Since Systems Became     our case-study states, Michigan was the only one that decided to
Optional                 implement the six management systems with no change in scope to the
                         plans it had developed on the basis of DOT’s interim rule. Michigan
                         transportation officials viewed the management systems as an opportunity
                         to improve decision-making and as a way to address other departmental
                         objectives.

                         The other six states scaled back their coverage of certain systems. For
                         example, ISTEA required the states to incorporate all federal-aid highways,
                         which included some roads under local jurisdiction, in their pavement
                         management systems. After the NHS Act made the systems optional, five of
                         the states we reviewed—Maryland, Montana, New York, Oregon, and
                         Texas—decided to include only state-maintained roads and the National
                         Highway System in their pavement management system, at least initially.
                         New York intends to include all federal-aid highways by 1998. North
                         Carolina scaled back the coverage of its pavement management system to
                         include state-maintained roads and only those portions of the National
                         Highway System maintained by the state. Our case-study states also scaled
                         back the coverage of other systems, to varying degrees, after the passage
                         of the NHS Act. For example, North Carolina and Texas decided that their
                         congestion management systems would cover only their transportation
                         management areas. In earlier plans for their congestion management
                         systems, both states had intended to have statewide coverage.

                         Finally, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas decided to discontinue
                         certain management systems once they were no longer mandatory. North
                         Carolina decided not to develop the intermodal management system;
                         Texas and Maryland decided not to implement the public transportation
                         and intermodal management systems.8 In each case, state transportation
                         officials determined that the state’s needs were being met sufficiently by
                         existing programs and/or activities. (See apps. I through VI for examples of
                         systems being implemented by our case-study states.)




                         8
                          According to state officials, the Texas transportation department has chosen not to implement a
                         public transportation management system. The department’s Public Transportation Division, however,
                         has been delegated the authority for and is developing its own internal management system.



                         Page 12                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                          B-272788




Some Case-Study States    Five states we reviewed—Montana, New York, Maryland, Oregon, and
Were Extending Time       Texas—used the flexibility they gained from the passage of the NHS Act to
Frames for Implementing   extend the time frames for implementing some systems beyond those
                          established in initial work plans.9 Officials in these five states found ISTEA’s
Systems                   and DOT’s initial time frames unrealistic and replaced them with more
                          accurate estimates for completing the initial work on the management
                          systems. This work has often entailed hiring staff or consultants to
                          develop new systems or enhance the existing ones. In addition,
                          implementing the systems has involved training staff and inspectors on
                          new software and, in states with a decentralized transportation
                          department, delivering the systems to regions or districts within the state.
                          Before ISTEA, Montana’s pavement management system, for example,
                          provided information to decisionmakers that was often outdated by 3 to 4
                          years. To meet ISTEA’s and DOT’s requirements for a pavement management
                          system, state officials determined that improvements to the existing
                          process were needed. The state hired a consulting firm to develop and
                          implement a state-of-the-art system that could be tailored to the state’s
                          needs and also hired additional staff so that pavement inspections could
                          be conducted each year. The system is expected to be delivered to district
                          offices for their use in conducting pavement inspections within 1-1/2 years.
                          State transportation department staff and consultants are training all users
                          of the system.


                          States are developing the management systems for use by decisionmakers
Use of Systems for        in the planning process as well as in undertaking day-to-day activities.
Planning and Daily        Three states that we visited recognized that marketing the systems to
Decision-Making           potential users—such as planners, engineers, and executives—is critical to
                          ensuring the optimal use of the systems. In addition, some states have
Enhanced by               realized that to obtain the most uses from the systems, they need to be
Marketing and             integrated with one another so that, for example, users can combine
                          information from several systems to analyze the overall transportation
Integration of Systems    needs in a geographic area. Integration raises additional, cross-cutting
                          issues—such as establishing common data definitions—beyond those that
                          arise in developing individual systems. Four of our case-study states have
                          begun integrating their systems and are addressing integration issues
                          through special committees and additional resources. Officials of one state
                          told us they would like DOT to provide them with additional technical
                          assistance on integrating systems.


                          9
                           Under DOT’s interim rule, the states were required to develop work plans for each system that
                          identified major activities and schedules that would ensure the systems were operational by specified
                          dates.



                          Page 13                                  GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                           B-272788




States Expect to Use       Many state decisionmakers intend to use the information from the
Systems for Planning and   management systems in developing statewide and regional transportation
Daily Decision-Making      plans. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
                           Officials surveyed its membership in May 1996 and found that all 37 states
                           that responded intended to integrate the systems within their planning
                           processes. With respect to our seven case-study states, each was using or
                           intended to use the management systems in its planning process. For
                           example, North Carolina’s transportation department used a ranked list of
                           pavement projects from its pavement management system in developing
                           its 7-year transportation improvement program. Maryland’s transportation
                           department has used its congestion management system to analyze four
                           highly congested highway corridors in the
                           Baltimore-Annapolis-Washington, D.C., areas. Applying the state’s
                           congestion management process, transportation planners (1) evaluated the
                           current level of congestion (using performance measures such as the time
                           spent in delays), (2) identified strategies to reduce the congestion (such as
                           improved traffic signal coordination, additional bus service, and new
                           high-occupancy-vehicle lanes), and (3) projected levels of congestion in
                           the year 2010 under the different strategies. The corridor studies were
                           used in developing Maryland’s long-range transportation plans.

                           Transportation officials from our seven case-study states also were using
                           or planned to use information from the management systems in making
                           decisions involving day-to-day activities. For example, in North Carolina,
                           state and county maintenance engineers use information on pavement
                           condition from the pavement management system to determine
                           maintenance needs and priorities. Similarly, district offices in Texas use
                           the pavement management system to identify preventive maintenance and
                           rehabilitation projects, to distribute funding within the districts, and to
                           evaluate the condition of pavements after maintenance or rehabilitation.

                           In January 1995, the Management Systems Integration Committee was
                           established by several states to assist states and local agencies in using
                           outputs from the transportation management systems in their
                           decision-making processes. The committee—consisting of several state,
                           metropolitan planning organization, and FHWA representatives—was
                           established with financial and technical support from FHWA. The
                           committee has identified four general components in
                           decision-making—long-range planning, short-range planning, program
                           implementation/daily decisions, and evaluation of implemented
                           actions—that can involve or benefit from management system
                           information. It identifies best practices and offers recommendations to the



                           Page 14                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                            B-272788




                            states on how information from management systems can assist in making
                            these decisions. The committee met once during 1995 and quarterly during
                            1996; at the time of our review, however, it had not established time
                            frames for completing its work.


Marketing Is Critical to    In three states we reviewed, transportation officials were developing
Ensuring Optimal Use of     strategies to increase the number of users of the systems both within and
Systems                     outside of the state transportation departments. For example, in Montana,
                            the developers of the pavement management system believed that their
                            existing system—a database of pavement condition surveys—was not
                            widely used or efficient. As a result, they developed a comprehensive
                            marketing plan to expand the use of the new system. They identified
                            potential users of the system within Montana’s transportation department
                            (such as engineering, planning, construction, and maintenance
                            departments) as well as others (such as FHWA, metropolitan planning
                            organizations, and counties). To achieve greater use of the pavement
                            management system, they—among other things—planned to hold
                            one-on-one meetings with prospective users, hire a consultant to train
                            users, and provide necessary technical support. Their goals were to
                            (1) have the system operational by the end of 1997, (2) expand the use of
                            the system by state districts within 2-1/2 years, and (3) have the system
                            recognized as an integral part of the statewide transportation management
                            system within 5 years.

                            Other states were also exploring ways to increase the uses of their
                            management systems. In Oregon, for example, the systems’ developers
                            were preparing a users’ guide. In New York, the systems’ developers had
                            prepared slide presentations of their systems, which they were using as a
                            tool to market their systems to upper management, regions, metropolitan
                            planning organizations, and counties.


Integration of Systems Is   Some states that we reviewed planned to use the management systems as
Important to Their          stand-alone tools to assist decisionmakers in their respective departments.
Usefulness but Poses        Other states also planned to use or are using the systems in an
                            integrated/coordinated manner, such as using the output from one system
Technical and Procedural    as input to another system. For example, in New York, safety evaluations
Problems                    suggested that resurfacing pavement with high-friction asphalt will reduce
                            wet-weather accident rates by 50 percent at locations with high accident
                            rates. Therefore, New York now matches the locations that are identified
                            by the pavement management system as needing resurfacing with the



                            Page 15                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
B-272788




locations identified by the safety management system as having a high
number of wet-weather accidents to develop a list of projects that address
both considerations.

DOT’s interim rule called for the states to integrate the management
systems in terms of sharing common data and coordinating the outputs of
the systems so that they provide timely information for use in developing
transportation plans and programs.10 Although system integration is no
longer required since the NHS Act made the systems optional, at least 26
states planned to integrate parts of their management systems, according
to a May 1996 survey by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. Coordination and integration of the systems
helps to eliminate duplication by identifying common features and data
elements and enhances the usefulness of the systems by enabling
decisionmakers to compare trade-offs at a program level or among
transportation modes. In addition, the Management Systems Integration
Committee takes the position that integration among the systems will
provide decisionmakers with higher-quality information at less cost.

Among the states that we reviewed, Michigan, Oregon, New York, and
Texas were actively pursuing the integration of their systems in various
ways.11 Michigan, for example, was redesigning all of its data and placing
them into a single integrated database for use by the six management
systems as well as a maintenance management system that is being
developed to identify nonconstruction activities to extend the lives of
pavement and structures. Oregon, on the other hand, had a pilot project
that was beginning to address integration issues as the individual systems
were being developed. The pilot had identified 70 to 80 data elements that
were shared by two or more systems and will use this information to
develop a common geographically based database. Texas and New York
were developing geographical information systems that will provide a
basis for integrating information among systems.12



10
  Specifically, DOT’s interim rule called for states to (1) use databases that have common or
coordinated reference systems and methods for sharing data and (2) have a mechanism to address
issues related to more than one management system.
11
 Montana plans to begin addressing integration in several years after the individual systems are
operational. North Carolina was not planning to integrate its systems. Maryland was creating a
geographic information system that will include information from several management systems but
otherwise had no plans to integrate the systems.
12
 Geographical information systems are the computer hardware and software that allow for the
assembly, storage, manipulation, and display of geographically referenced data (i.e., data that are
associated with specific places on earth, such as the location of a bridge).



Page 16                                   GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                            B-272788




                            Integrating the management systems raises numerous issues, such as
                            establishing common definitions for data and common geographical
                            referencing systems. To handle these issues, Michigan, New York, and
                            Oregon have established special committees and dedicated resources
                            beyond those that are needed to develop and implement the individual
                            systems. For instance, New York has established an executive steering
                            committee and working groups to oversee the administrative and technical
                            coordination and integration of the systems. Oregon has dedicated
                            full-time staff to a pilot project to identify and resolve such issues as
                            establishing common definitions for shared data elements.


                            Several factors have affected the states’ development and implementation
A Variety of Factors        of the transportation management systems, including (1) the high-level
Has Influenced              support and top priority that the systems received after they were
Implementation of           mandated and (2) the potential benefits expected to accrue from the
                            systems. On the other hand, the removal of the ISTEA mandate lessened the
Management Systems          support for and priority of the systems in some states. Finally, several
                            states reported that the lack of clear, timely guidance from DOT following
                            the enactment of ISTEA hindered the development and implementation of
                            the systems as well.


High-Level Support and      Several states we reviewed responded to the ISTEA mandate and DOT’s
Potential Benefits Have     prescribed time frames by providing high-level support and top priority to
Facilitated Systems’        quickly develop and implement the six management systems. For instance,
                            in New York we were told that the mandate provided a “jump start” to the
Implementation in Several   overall development and implementation of the systems. This effort
States                      became one of the state transportation department’s top priorities.13 The
                            state provided additional resources and technical support for enhancing
                            the pavement, bridge, congestion, safety, and public transportation
                            management systems and for developing an intermodal management
                            system. State transportation officials met with an assistant commissioner
                            on a monthly basis, and an executive steering committee oversaw the
                            efforts to implement the systems. Officials from Michigan’s transportation
                            department also stated that the mandate served as a catalyst and provided
                            the state with an opportunity to enhance what they had already begun.
                            Before ISTEA, the state had started a pavement management system and
                            used the mandate to begin developing the other systems. In addition, the
                            state appointed a steering committee to oversee the systems’ development

                            13
                              New York also has a law, passed in 1988, which requires the state transportation department to
                            establish a bridge management and inspection system and report on its progress to the governor and
                            legislature annually. This law was passed after a bridge on the New York Thruway collapsed.



                            Page 17                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
B-272788




and integration. Montana transportation officials told us that the mandate
provided the push they needed to develop a better pavement management
system.

Although implementation of the management systems is now optional,
many states see the potential benefits associated with the systems and
have continued supporting their further development and implementation.
First, several states commented that the systems reduce redundancy and
provide more complete, accurate information in one location. For
instance, Missouri’s transportation department views the systems as
providing “one-stop shopping” for decisionmakers, as compared with the
current method of gathering information from several different sources,
which often takes several weeks.

Second, states view the management systems as a way to improve the
planning process by providing objective, timely information to
decisionmakers. For example, a Colorado state transportation official
stated that in the past, decisions were often made without much data and
analysis and that management systems are now providing better
information on which to base decisions. New York transportation
department officials believe that the management systems are a
mechanism to better manage the transportation system and can be tailored
to the state’s decision-making environment. Montana transportation
officials told us that the management systems provide the state with a
better idea of the budgetary and economic impacts of various
transportation decisions.

Finally, many states found that in developing several systems, benefits
accrued from forging new relationships and improving coordination and
cooperation within and outside of their state transportation departments.
A February 1996 Transportation Research Board survey of the states found
that over half of the respondents indicated that the safety management
process “opened new and increased lines of communication” among
various organizations.14 We found similar results with our case-study
states. For instance, in New York, representatives from 45 agencies or
groups now participate on a technical advisory committee. We were told
that the safety management system process brought together traditional
and nontraditional safety-related agencies to improve highway safety. For
example, as a result of input from motorcyclists, the state recently
modified its policy on sealing pavement cracks. The state now fills cracks

14
   Safety Management System: A National Status, Transportation Research Circular Number 452,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1996).



Page 18                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                          B-272788




                          flush with the pavement surfaces rather than applying heavy layers of
                          crack-sealing materials. Similarly, North Carolina, Oregon, and Florida
                          believe that their safety and/or congestion management systems have
                          facilitated lasting and valuable interagency coordination.


Removal of Mandate and    In several states, the removal in 1995 of the ISTEA mandate lessened
Lack of Clear Federal     support for the development and implementation of transportation
Guidance Hindered         management systems and resulted in some systems’ being dropped. For
                          instance, several Florida transportation officials told us that there was
Systems’ Implementation   substantial initial support for developing and implementing the systems
in Several States         not only because of the federal mandate but also because Florida law calls
                          for the development and implementation of the six management systems.
                          However, since the NHS Act made the implementation of the systems
                          optional in 1995, support for the systems has lessened. Florida is still going
                          forward with all six systems but has scaled back on their scope and has
                          extended some implementation time frames. In Colorado, the lack of a
                          mandate has decreased the level of support for implementing all but the
                          pavement and bridge management systems.

                          Some states reported that DOT’s failure to issue a clear and timely rule
                          following the enactment of ISTEA on developing and implementing the
                          management systems has caused difficulties, particularly in terms of the
                          congestion, public transportation, and/or intermodal management
                          systems. Although pavement and bridge management systems have been
                          around for several decades,15 the other systems mandated by ISTEA were
                          new to many states—thus prompting concern and uncertainty about how
                          to implement them. Some states commented that DOT’s interim rule was
                          untimely and did not clearly specify what was expected of them. For
                          instance, Maryland state officials noted that the concept of an intermodal
                          management system was not clearly spelled out in either ISTEA or the
                          interim rule. Maryland has chosen not to implement an intermodal
                          management system. Some states also waited for the rule before
                          developing some systems. For example, Montana transportation officials
                          told us that the lack of a rule made the development of the systems risky
                          for the state. The state officials wanted to make sure they were headed in
                          the right direction before moving forward.

                          Several states also indicated that they had received little or no assistance
                          from FTA on implementing the public transportation management system.
                          For instance, an Oregon transportation department official told us that the

                          15
                            See apps. I and II for historical information on the pavement and bridge management systems.



                          Page 19                                  GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                            B-272788




                            department had not received any guidance or assistance from FTA
                            clarifying the interim rule, providing examples of a public transportation
                            management system, or sponsoring workshops/training classes. Officials
                            in other states told us that it had not been communicated to them that FTA
                            had a role to play in providing assistance. A North Carolina state official
                            told us that, while the state had received assistance from FTA on
                            developing the public transportation management system, the assistance
                            was limited. We were told that by the time FTA clarified what was expected
                            of the states, many states had hired consultants or gone forward on their
                            own. Montana, Oregon, and Texas hired the same consultant to assist
                            them in complying with the interim rule’s requirements for congestion,
                            public transportation, and/or intermodal management systems. Oregon has
                            since decided to scale back on the congestion management system, while
                            Texas has opted out of the public transportation and intermodal
                            management systems. Montana is implementing these systems according
                            to the interim rule.

                            FTA officials told us that they had, in fact, provided assistance on
                            implementing public transportation management systems by
                            issuing—jointly with FHWA—guidance on the systems in July and
                            December 1994, cosponsoring several training classes in 1994 and 1995,
                            and helping guide the development of the Transportation Research
                            Board’s Guidelines for Development of Public Transportation Facilities
                            and Equipment Management Systems in 1995. In addition, in
                            September 1995, FTA issued an enhanced version of its National Transit
                            Analysis Tool software, which included a menu of management system
                            data. According to FTA officials, the states’ perception that the agency was
                            not helpful in developing their systems is due largely to the fact that FTA
                            has traditionally been oriented toward metropolitan areas rather than
                            toward states and, consequently, does not understand states’ needs very
                            well. In addition, FTA does not have the staff, resources, and presence at
                            the state level that FHWA has. FHWA, for example, has a division office for
                            each state, while FTA has regional offices encompassing a number of
                            states. According to FTA officials, the agency is trying to enhance its
                            relations with the states. For example, its planning office has recently
                            reorganized to establish a statewide planning division.


More Technical Assistance   Most states would like additional federal assistance in implementing the
Needed in Implementing      management systems. The American Association of State Highway and
and Integrating Systems     Transportation Officials surveyed the states in May 1996 and found that a
                            majority of the states that responded to the survey would like both FHWA



                            Page 20                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
              B-272788




              and FTA to provide more technical assistance by sponsoring conferences
              and training courses, acting as an information clearinghouse, establishing
              task forces, and funding research. Specifically, the American Association
              of State Highway and Transportation Officials believes that FHWA can do a
              great deal to help support the development and implementation of the
              management systems.

              Our case-study states indicated that FHWA generally met their needs by
              providing assistance in understanding the requirements of ISTEA and the
              interim rule. For instance, FHWA has (1) developed a catalog of pavement
              management software, (2) developed a video to introduce the states to
              safety management systems, (3) produced newsletters on congestion and
              intermodal management systems, (4) sponsored conferences and
              workshops on various systems, and (5) offered courses on the
              management systems (cosponsored with FTA through FHWA’s training
              office—the National Highway Institute). However, all seven states told us
              that they now need additional technical assistance—such as technical
              conferences and workshops—from FHWA that focuses on different areas,
              such as developing and implementing software, explaining geographic
              information systems technology, establishing performance measures for
              systems, and integrating the management systems. For instance, Oregon
              transportation department officials suggested that DOT could provide
              information on software applications and sponsor technical workshops
              and conferences on a regional basis. New York officials would like
              assistance on incorporating cost analysis information into a bridge
              management system. States and metropolitan planning organizations also
              told us that DOT should establish an information clearinghouse that would
              provide the results of research pertaining to the management systems and
              examples of various states’ best practices in implementing and integrating
              systems.


              The NHS Act, which made the management systems optional, resulted in
Conclusions   reduced federal involvement with the systems and an increase in the
              states’ role. The states are continuing to develop and implement most
              systems, but they are now doing so according to their own needs and time
              frames rather than by following DOT’s requirements. States are generally
              proceeding with the systems because they believe that the systems are
              beneficial to the decision-making process by providing more objective and
              timely information for decisionmakers than is otherwise available.




              Page 21                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                      B-272788




                      As the states proceed, they are facing technical problems that they need
                      help in addressing. Many states have indicated that they would like further
                      federal assistance to address technical problems such as integrating the
                      systems, establishing performance measures, and implementing
                      geographical information system technology. Early assistance from FHWA
                      helped the states to understand ISTEA’s and DOT’s requirements as they
                      began developing the systems. Although FTA has provided assistance on
                      implementing the public transportation management system, it has not
                      adequately communicated the availability of this assistance to the states.
                      While the management systems are no longer mandatory, we believe there
                      continues to be a role for FHWA and FTA to play in helping the states
                      address the problems they now face in developing, implementing, and
                      integrating the systems that will best meet their needs.


                      To better assist the states and metropolitan planning organizations in
Recommendations       addressing the issues they are encountering as they further implement the
                      transportation management systems and to better communicate the
                      availability of the assistance provided within and outside of DOT, we
                      recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrators,
                      Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, to

                  •   work with the states to more fully determine the types of technical
                      assistance needed by the states and
                  •   establish an information clearinghouse on (1) training, conferences, and
                      workshops being offered, regionally and nationally; (2) the status of and
                      the states’ experience with the implementation and integration of the six
                      management systems; (3) the available software applications and
                      technology; (4) the systems’ performance measures; (5) examples of the
                      “best practices” of the states that are effectively implementing and
                      integrating the systems; and (6) other issues identified by the states.


                      We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. We
Agency Comments       received technical comments and updated information from officials in
                      FHWA’s Metropolitan Planning Division and the chief of FTA’s Intermodal
                      and Statewide Planning Division. In particular, FTA asked us to further
                      clarify why the states perceived the agency as unhelpful. FTA officials
                      believe the fundamental problem is the agency’s traditional orientation
                      toward metropolitan areas, rather than toward the states. This problem,
                      they noted, is made worse by limited staff and resources. We changed the
                      report to reflect this viewpoint. In addition, we have incorporated other



                      Page 22                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
              B-272788




              comments and clarifications where appropriate. Neither agency
              commented on our recommendations.


              To evaluate the status of the states’ implementation of the management
Scope and     systems, we summarized the status reports submitted by the state
Methodology   transportation departments to FHWA in early 1996. We sent our summary to
              FHWA’s division offices to update the information to September 1996 and
              obtain missing information. The states have different systems and describe
              them with varying amounts of detail and terminology. We made no attempt
              to establish uniformity or consistency among the reports. We also
              reviewed the results of the May 1996 survey of the states on the status of
              implementing management systems, conducted by the American
              Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. We did not
              independently verify the information in the state reports or the survey
              results and, therefore, do not attest to their accuracy. We supplemented
              this information with the results from seven case studies we conducted
              with Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
              and Texas. We selected these states to provide geographic balance and a
              variety of experiences in implementing the management systems. We
              expanded the information gathered from our case studies by obtaining
              anecdotal, less-comprehensive information from officials of three
              additional states—Colorado, Florida, and Missouri—whom we met with at
              a meeting of the Management Systems Integration Committee in
              August 1996. We also discussed the development and implementation of
              the management systems with officials at FHWA’s and FTA’s headquarters in
              Washington, D.C., and FHWA’s region and/or division offices in the
              case-study states.

              To determine how the states expect to use the systems and what factors
              have hindered or facilitated the development of the systems, we discussed
              these issues with state and local transportation officials from the seven
              case-study states and the three additional states and reviewed the
              supporting documentation. In addition, we obtained similar information
              from six metropolitan planning organizations—those for Broward County,
              Florida; Albany, New York; Raleigh, North Carolina; Portland, Oregon; and
              Houston-Galveston and Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. We performed our work
              from May 1996 through December 1996 in accordance with generally
              accepted government auditing standards.




              Page 23                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
B-272788




We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation;
the Administrators, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; state
departments of transportation; and interested congressional committees.
We will also send copies to other interested parties upon request. Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.




Phyllis F. Scheinberg
Associate Director, Transportation and
  Telecommunications Issues




Page 24                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Page 25   GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Contents



Letter                                                                           1


Appendix I                                                                      28

Pavement
Management Systems
Appendix II                                                                     33

Bridge Management
Systems
Appendix III                                                                    39

Safety Management
Systems
Appendix IV                                                                     44

Congestion
Management Systems
Appendix V                                                                      50

Public Transportation
Facilities and
Equipment
Management Systems
Appendix VI                                                                     55

Intermodal
Transportation
Facilities and Systems
Management Systems




                         Page 26   GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                        Contents




Appendix VII                                                                                       63

Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables                  Table 1: DOT’s Definitions of the Management Systems                        6
                        Table VI.1: Status of States’ Implementation of Intermodal                 58
                          Management Systems (as Reported by the States)

Figures                 Figure 1: Number of Management Systems Being Developed and                  8
                          Implemented by Each State
                        Figure 2: Number of States Developing and Implementing Each                10
                          Management System
                        Figure 3: Status of Management Systems in Seven States When                11
                          ISTEA Was Enacted
                        Figure I.1: The States Implementing Pavement Management                    30
                          Systems, as Reported by the States
                        Figure II.1: The States Implementing Bridge Management                     36
                          Systems, as Reported by the States
                        Figure III.1: The States Implementing Safety Management                    41
                          Systems, as Reported by the States
                        Figure IV.1: The States Implementing Congestion Management                 47
                          Systems, as Reported by the States
                        Figure V.1: The States Implementing Public Transportation                  52
                          Management Systems, as Reported by the States
                        Figure VI.1: The States Implementing Intermodal Management                 57
                          Systems, as Reported by the States


                        Abbreviations

                        BMS        Bridge Management System
                        CMS        Congestion Management System
                        DOT        U.S. Department of Transportation
                        FHWA       Federal Highway Administration
                        FTA        Federal Transit Administration
                        GAO        U.S. General Accounting Office
                        IMS        Intermodal Management System
                        ISTEA      Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
                        NHS        National Highway System
                        PMS        Pavement Management System
                        PTMS       Public Transportation Management System
                        SMS        Safety Management System


                        Page 27                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix I

Pavement Management Systems


             A pavement management system is a systematic process that provides,
             analyzes, and summarizes pavement information for use in selecting and
             implementing cost-effective pavement construction, rehabilitation, and
             preventative maintenance programs. Unlike other management systems
             that have begun in recent years, pavement management systems were
             started two decades ago. By the end of the 1980s, more than half of the
             states were developing or implementing such systems. In 1989, the Federal
             Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a rule requiring all states to have a
             pavement management system that would cover the rural arterial and
             urban principal arterial routes under the states’ jurisdiction; the
             Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
             expanded the scope to include all federal-aid highways. The Department of
             Transportation’s (DOT) interim rule on management systems issued in 1993
             required a pavement management system to cover all federal-aid
             highways, except those that were federally owned, and include three
             components: (1) data collection and management, (2) analyses, and
             (3) updates. The components under data collection include an inventory of
             physical pavement features; a history of construction, rehabilitation, and
             maintenance; condition surveys that include ride, roughness, and
             pavement distress; information on traffic volumes and vehicle types; and a
             compilation of this information into a database. The second component
             includes (1) network-level analysis that estimates the total costs of present
             and projected conditions and (2) project-level analysis that determines
             investment strategies, including a ranked list of recommended projects.
             The final component is an annual evaluation of the pavement management
             system, with updates as necessary.

             Because most states had had a pavement management system in place for
             a number of years, they used the ISTEA mandate to enhance what they
             already had. However, enhancing such a system still poses several
             challenges for the states. Most states do not have a complete project
             history (i.e., preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction
             data) for the National Highway System. Maintenance information is the
             weakest link. Many states have recently developed a file in the pavement
             management system for preventive maintenance activities. In cases for
             which it is impractical to resurrect the pavement’s history because of time,
             labor, and cost, the states are now beginning to track the project’s history.
             Other system enhancements could include developing a relational
             database and a multiyear list of projects that are justifiable and
             cost-effective, measuring the structural carrying capacity of pavement at
             the network level, and determining the remaining service life of various
             pavement sections. The states are using pavement management systems to



             Page 28                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix I
Pavement Management Systems




help manage their pavement networks. Pennsylvania issues an annual
state-of-the-interstate report that uses data on pavement condition and
roughness and traffic counts to analyze the current and projected
rehabilitation needs of the state’s interstate system. Similarly, Maine’s
management system identifies deficient roadway sections; predicts
deterioration; assesses current and future capital, preservation, and
maintenance needs; and determines the consequences of various funding
levels on all highways under the state’s jurisdiction. Finally, Nevada’s
management system was developed to quantify the backlog of pavement
repairs on the state highway network, identify project priorities, and
monitor the state’s progress toward eliminating the backlog of pavement
work. The state also uses its management system to identify the long-range
funding needed to maintain the highway network at a serviceable level.

There is little or no uniformity among the states in the way they measure,
collect, and report pavement condition. Because the states have been
developing their pavement management systems independently, no two
are the same. As of September 1996, all states, Washington, D.C., and
Puerto Rico were developing a pavement management system, but only six
states were including all federal-aid highways—including roads under
local jurisdiction—as originally called for in ISTEA. (See fig. I.1.) The
remaining states, for the most part, intend to include only state-maintained
roads and those within the National Highway System. For example,
Montana is implementing a pavement management system for its state
highway system and the National Highway System. The state is no longer
developing a system to cover nonstate federal-aid highways but will
encourage local governments to develop pavement management systems
of their own.




Page 29                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                                  Appendix I
                                                  Pavement Management Systems




Figure I.1: The States Implementing Pavement Management Systems, as Reported by the States




                                                                         F
                                                                                                                        F
                                                                                                                            F


          F




                                                                               F
                       F




              50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems



                                                  F = System covers all federal-aid highways.

                                                  Note: We do not have information on the systems’ coverage for New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Rhode
                                                  Island, and Washington, D.C.

                                                  Sources: Status reports submitted by the states to FHWA during 1996; American Association of
                                                  State Highway and Transportation Officials’ survey, May 1996; GAO’s interviews with state
                                                  officials.




Case-Study States                             •   Maryland’s pavement management system covers all state-maintained
                                                  roads and the National Highway System. The state is also working with
                                                  local governments interested in developing their own pavement
                                                  management system. The system components include data collection and
                                                  management, analysis, and engineering feedback. Additional performance



                                                  Page 30                                    GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix I
    Pavement Management Systems




    analysis techniques are being developed to predict current and future
    maintenance and rehabilitation needs.

•   Michigan’s pavement management system includes all state highways,
    including the National Highway System. The system includes data on
    surface distress and project-and network-level analyses that predict
    pavement conditions and future budget needs. The system is being
    converted to a client/server environment and enhanced to include (1) ride
    quality, friction, and rut data; (2) an on-line “fix guide” system; and (3) a
    component to generate candidate programs that meet short- and long-term
    pavement condition goals. In addition, performance measures and
    performance standards are being developed. The state transportation
    department is assisting local agencies in developing pavement
    management systems for local roads.

•   Montana is developing a pavement management system that will include
    all state-maintained roads and the National Highway System. The state
    plans to consult with local agencies interested in developing their own
    pavement management system. The components of the system will include
    data collection and audit, condition analysis, performance analysis,
    network and economic analysis, and feedback analysis. The state expects
    to use the management system as a tool to make cost-effective project
    selections and maintenance strategies, analyze the state’s project- and
    network-level conditions, and provide feedback on the consequences of
    decisions. Montana’s system is one of five pavement management systems
    selected for FHWA’s pavement management analysis/multiyear
    prioritization demonstration project, which is designed to help states,
    metropolitan planning organizations, and local agencies learn more about
    the available pavement management analytical techniques that are used to
    set priorities for periods of multiple years.

•   New York’s pavement management system covers state-maintained roads
    and the National Highway System, with future plans to include local roads
    on the federal-aid system. The management system is tailored to the state’s
    decentralized decision-making environment where pavement decisions are
    made in the regional offices. The system functions at two levels of
    decision-making—network level and project level. The network level
    addresses the development of a multiyear program of projects while the
    project level addresses the technical aspects of treatment selection.

•   North Carolina’s pavement management system covers all
    state-maintained roads, which is about 98 percent of the roads eligible for



    Page 31                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix I
    Pavement Management Systems




    federal funds. The management system uses performance prediction
    modeling to determine service life for each pavement section and provides
    summaries by areas, functional classifications, and other desired
    categories. A ranked list of recommended projects and treatments for
    interstate highways is used as input in the planning process. Division
    offices of the state’s transportation department will eventually be able to
    access and query pavement data and performance prediction modeling
    information for each section of road, which will assist in planning
    maintenance activities.

•   Oregon’s pavement management system covers all state-maintained roads
    and the National Highway System. The state has established data
    collection and reporting procedures and has used the system to rank and
    recommend candidate projects for selection and development. The
    pavement management system will soon be able to run “what if” scenarios
    with its new software. In addition, most of the counties are developing
    their own pavement management systems.

•   Texas’ system covers all state-maintained roads and only those portions of
    the National Highway System that are in urbanized areas and are part of
    the state-maintained system. The system components—data, scores,
    reports, and analysis—have all been implemented. In fiscal year 1996, the
    output from the management system was used to help allocate about
    $485 million for five pavement-related statewide transportation plan
    categories. In addition, district offices are using the system to identify
    preventive maintenance and rehabilitation projects, distribute funding, and
    monitor the progress of specific highways and treatments.




    Page 32                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix II

Bridge Management Systems


              According to FHWA, about a third of the nation’s roughly 577,000 bridges
              are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.1 To maintain
              these bridges, FHWA estimates that billions of dollars will be required
              annually over the next 10 years or so. Bridge management systems are
              decision support tools for state transportation agencies and are intended
              to identify current and future bridge needs and determine the optimal use
              of limited funds to address these needs.

              DOT’s interim rule on management systems required each state to have a
              management system that covered bridges on and off federal-aid highways,
              except federally owned bridges, including bridges subject to the National
              Bridge Inspection Standards. The bridge management system was required
              to include two components: (1) a database and an ongoing program for the
              collection and maintenance of the inventory, inspection, cost, and
              supplemental data needed to support the management system and (2) a
              procedure for applying network-level analysis and “optimization” to the
              bridge inventory.2 The analysis component called for the ability to
              (1) predict bridge deterioration; (2) identify actions to improve bridge
              condition, safety, and serviceability; (3) estimate costs of actions;
              (4) estimate users’ expected cost savings for safety and serviceability
              improvements; (5) determine least-cost maintenance, repair, and
              rehabilitation strategies for bridge elements using life-cycle cost analysis
              or a comparable procedure; (6) perform “multiperiod optimization”;
              (7) use feedback from actions taken to update prediction and cost models;
              and (8) generate summaries and reports for planning and programming.
              DOT acknowledged the Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems issued
              in 1993 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
              Officials as representing good practices and incorporated into the interim
              rule many of the recommendations concerning minimum bridge
              management system requirements.

              Before ISTEA, all states had established a database (the National Bridge
              Inventory) and an ongoing bridge inspection program to meet federal
              requirements for the National Bridge Inspection Standards. The
              requirements, first established under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968,
              covered only those bridges on the federal-aid system. The Surface
              Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 expanded the program to include

              1
               FHWA defines a structurally deficient bridge as one that (1) has been restricted to light vehicles only,
              (2) is closed, or (3) requires immediate rehabilitation to remain open. A functionally obsolete bridge is
              one on which the deck geometry, load-carrying capacity, clearance, or approach roadway alignment no
              longer meets the usual criteria for the highway system of which it is an integral part.
              2
               “Optimization” is a procedure that can be proven to maximize some objective measure of value within
              the assumptions of a set of models.



              Page 33                                   GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix II
Bridge Management Systems




bridges on all public roads. Although the information in the National
Bridge Inventory provides data on the overall condition of the nation’s
bridges, it does not include details on the condition of individual elements,
which are used in a bridge management system.

A bridge management system may be easier to implement than other
transportation management systems because (1) all states currently have
established databases and ongoing bridge inspection programs and
(2) off-the-shelf software packages are available. In addition, prior to ISTEA,
some states were already developing or using this management system.
Nonetheless, many states face challenges in implementing the system. For
example, although some of the data used in a bridge management system
is already collected for the National Bridge Inventory, the analytic
components of the system may require more detailed data on the
condition of bridge elements (i.e., girders, bearings, columns, pier caps,
decks, or joints) than are required for the national inventory. As a result,
the states may face additional work (1) to update their bridge inventories
with the new data on bridge elements and (2) to train bridge inspectors to
conduct element-level inspections. In addition, a 1996 study found that few
state departments of transportation have adequate data on which to base
cost estimates for maintenance and repair actions needed for their bridge
management systems, few states monitor actual expenditures in order to
validate their cost estimates, and many states have no organizational
mechanism or systems in place to uncover and solve problems in cost
estimation.3 According to this study, these deficiencies can affect the
credibility of some bridge management systems and of the planning
process in general.4

As of September 1996, 48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico were
implementing a bridge management system. (See fig. II.1.) Only Kentucky
and Idaho reported that they had elected not to have one. Twenty states
and Washington, D.C., reported that they intended to include in their
system all bridges on or off federal-aid highways; one state (West Virginia)
planned to include only structures on the National Highway System; most
of the remaining states planned to include bridges under state and/or local
jurisdiction. In addition, 41 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico had


3
 Paul D. Thompson and Michael J. Markow, Collecting and Managing Cost Data for Bridge
Management Systems, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway
Practice 227, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: 1996).
4
 Florida officials commented that historical costs are unnecessary because it is a high priority to
eliminate bridge problems. The state has sufficient bridge funding and a stated policy to fix existing
bridge infrastructure before making capacity improvements.



Page 34                                    GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix II
Bridge Management Systems




adopted an off-the-shelf software package—Pontis—for their management
systems.

Pontis was funded under an FHWA demonstration project, which began in
December 1991 and included FHWA, six participating states, and private
consultants. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ version (3.0) of the software has been available
since July 1995, and version 3.1 was issued in July 1996. Key components
of Pontis are (1) a master database, which includes bridge inventory and
condition data; maintenance, improvement, and users’ cost models;
feasible actions for maintenance and improvement; element deterioration
prediction models; and updating procedures; (2) a maintenance, repair,
and rehabilitation optimization routine, which uses prediction models and
maintenance costs to choose maintenance strategies for bridges; (3) an
improvement model, which identifies and ranks potential improvement
actions (including widening, raising, strengthening, or replacing the
bridge) on the basis of cost savings to users and level-of-service standards;
and (4) an integration model, which combines the maintenance strategies
and improvement actions into a single recommended network-level bridge
program using a benefit-cost ranking to set priorities.




Page 35                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                                      Appendix II
                                                      Bridge Management Systems




Figure II.1: The States Implementing Bridge Management Systems, as Reported by the States




              F
                                      F                    F
          F                                                                                                                F
                                                                                  F                                 F
                                                                                             F                            F
                                                                                                                               -Connecticut
                                                                                                   F                           -Delaware
                                                                                                                               -Massachusetts
      F                                       F                                                                                -New Hampshire
                                                                                                                               -New Jersey
                                                                                                                F              -Rhode Island
                                      F                          F                                                             -Vermont
                                                                                                                               -Washington, D.C.
                                                                                            F                       F - Washington, D.C.
                                                                             F
                  F
                                                                                                            F
                                          F


       48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems
       2 states not developing systems

       States using Pontis software



                                                      F = System covers all bridges on and off federal-aid highways.

                                                      Note: We do not have information on the coverage of the system for Nevada, Puerto Rico, Rhode
                                                      Island, and Vermont.

                                                      Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; The Status of the Nation’s
                                                      Highway Bridges: Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and National Bridge
                                                      Inventory, FHWA, June 1995; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’
                                                      survey, May 1996; GAO’s interviews with state officials.




Case-Study States                                 •   Maryland uses the Pontis software for its bridge management system. The
                                                      system includes state-maintained bridges and all other bridges on the



                                                      Page 36                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix II
    Bridge Management Systems




    National Highway System (about 25,000 bridges in total). Before ISTEA,
    Maryland had a bridge management system, but it was not automated.

•   Michigan’s bridge management system has two components: (1) Pontis,
    which will be used to analyze the state’s bridge network and provide
    project recommendations, and (2) an in-house system that will contain
    additional bridge data to aid the state in managing its bridges. The system,
    which will include all bridges in the state (about 10,500 bridges), is
    expected to be operational in early 1997.

•   Montana has chosen the Pontis software for its bridge management
    system. State officials expect to start conducting element-level bridge
    inspections in the fall of 1996 and expect the management system to be
    fully operational in 1997. The management system will include all 4,800
    bridges in the state.

•   New York’s bridge management system is being developed in-house and
    will cover all bridges in the state (about 19,000 bridges). The system was
    required by a 1988 New York State law. The key components of the system
    are (1) a bridge database that includes information on inventory and
    inspection, safety assurance, construction and maintenance, and current
    and projected bridge needs; (2) a bridge decision support system that will
    provide network-level analyses (needs analysis, strategy recommendation,
    cost estimation, ranking, optimization, and forecasting) and project-level
    analyses (individual bridge needs, life-cycle strategy, and work strategy
    selection); and (3) a bridge engineering support system that includes
    drafting, load rating, bridge design, and current, complete information on
    individual bridges. The system is expected to be fully operational by
    October 1998.

•   North Carolina’s bridge management system has been developed in stages
    since the early 1980s. The current system has been operational for 3 or 4
    years. Key features of North Carolina’s system include (1) a bridge
    inventory record significantly expanded beyond FHWA’s minimum
    requirements for the national inventory; (2) detailed bridge maintenance
    needs reported during inspections; (3) detailed history of maintenance
    work; (4) an economic assessment of alternatives for maintenance,
    rehabilitation, and replacement; (5) analyses based on both agency’s and
    users’ costs associated with level of service; (6) estimates of current
    backlog and prediction of optimum future needs for bridge maintenance
    and improvement; and (7) predictions of future system performance under
    various funding levels. North Carolina’s management system includes all



    Page 37                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix II
    Bridge Management Systems




    bridges on the state roadway system (about 17,000 bridges) and municipal
    bridges. North Carolina’s system served as a model to the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and others in
    developing guidelines for bridge management systems.

•   Oregon is using Pontis software for its bridge management system. The
    system will include all state and local bridges reported in the National
    Bridge Inventory (about 2,600 state bridges and about 4,000 local bridges).
    State officials expect the system to be operational by the end of 1997.

•   Texas’ bridge management system has two components: (1) Pontis and
    (2) an in-house program to process and load element-level condition data.
    The in-house program was developed because the Pontis software was not
    capable of handling the large number of bridges in the state system (about
    48,000 bridges). According to state officials, they are unable to set definite
    time frames for implementing the system because of the large amounts of
    resources already being required to address other more critical bridge
    safety concerns.




    Page 38                        GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix III

Safety Management Systems


               The purpose of a safety management system is to provide decisionmakers
               with improved tools and practices on which they can base decisions to
               increase the safety of the highways. The Highway Safety Act of 1966
               established the framework for a systematic approach to resolving highway
               safety problems and required the states to develop highway safety
               programs. Subsequent legislation, including the Highway Safety Act of
               1973, Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, Commercial Motor
               Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, and the Intermodal Surface Transportation
               Efficiency Act of 1991, expanded the role of federal, state, and local
               governments in highway safety activities.

               DOT’s interim rule on management systems required a safety management
               system to cover all public roads, except federally owned public roads, and
               address six areas: (1) coordinating and integrating broad-based safety
               programs (such as motor carrier, corridor, and community-based traffic
               safety activities) into a comprehensive management approach;
               (2) identifying and investigating hazardous or potentially hazardous
               highway safety problems and roadway locations and features;
               (3) establishing countermeasures to correct the hazards; (4) ensuring early
               consideration of safety in all highway programs and projects;
               (5) identifying the safety needs of special groups, such as older drivers and
               pedestrians, in the planning, design, construction, and operation of
               highways; and (6) routinely maintaining and upgrading safety hardware,
               highway elements, and operational features. The system was to be
               designed to be comprehensive, meaning that it should incorporate a
               combination of all safety elements (human, vehicle, and roadway).
               Formalized coordination and communication mechanisms among safety
               organizations were to be established to ensure cooperation and efficiency.
               Furthermore, the states were required to consider and include projects
               and programs identified by the safety management system in their highway
               safety plans and in their enforcement plans for their motor carrier safety
               assistance programs. A February 1996 Transportation Research Board
               survey found that over 80 percent of the states have developed a mission
               statement, a goal, or major objectives to guide the safety management
               system implementation process.1 The states cited many positive outcomes
               resulting from the safety management system initiative as well as barriers
               to development and implementation. The most frequently mentioned
               positive outcomes include increased communication; improved
               coordination and cooperation; increased awareness of safety needs; and
               improved crash data collection, entry, and reporting. The barriers to

               1
                 Safety Management System: A National Status, Transportation Research Circular Number 452,
               Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1996).



               Page 39                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix III
Safety Management Systems




developing and implementing this management system mentioned by the
states include inadequate funding, lack of commitment and cooperation
between agencies, lack of staff, and data issues.

As of September 1996, 48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico were
developing a safety management system (see fig. III.1). Of these states, at
least 30 were including all public roads or all state-maintained roads in
their systems; 2 states were including only National Highway System
roads. Two states—South Carolina and Ohio—reported they were not
implementing the system. However, South Carolina planned to begin
implementing the system in fiscal year 1997, and Ohio had components of
a safety management system in place, according to the Transportation
Research Board’s February 1996 study. The composition of a safety
management system takes many forms—from an administrative structure
composed of a coordinating or executive committee and subcommittees
with members representing many agencies to a large database that merges
safety information from a number of sources. For instance, Virginia
established a Transportation Safety Policy Committee in order to better
integrate and unify a state-agency-level perspective pertaining to
transportation safety planning and program development. Similarly,
Wisconsin’s safety management system established coordination links
with the Governor’s Councils, the County Highway Safety Commissions,
other ISTEA management systems, metropolitan planning organizations,
and local communities. Oregon recognized that the many state and local
agencies were working together effectively, but frequently lacked access
to transportation safety data and analysis tools to identify problems and
solutions and evaluate the results of actions taken to improve safety.
Oregon’s safety management system focuses on providing this information
and merging various databases that exist in a number of places.




Page 40                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                                  Appendix III
                                                  Safety Management Systems




Figure III.1: The States Implementing Safety Management Systems, as Reported by the States




            48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems
            2 states not developing systems



                                                  Sources: Status reports submitted to FHWA during 1996; American Association of State Highway
                                                  and Transportation Officials’ survey, May 1996; GAO’s interviews with state officials.




Case-Study States                             •   Maryland’s safety management system covers all public roads. The state
                                                  has established a management system core team, which includes
                                                  representatives from a number of state, federal, and local agencies. The
                                                  management system covers all safety components (highway, vehicle, and
                                                  human), all public roads, and all phases of traffic safety. The system is
                                                  being used to develop the state’s annual highway safety plan and state
                                                  enforcement plan for motor carrier safety and will also provide input into




                                                  Page 41                                  GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix III
    Safety Management Systems




    the highway safety improvement plan.

•   Michigan’s safety management system is statewide, covering all roads in
    the state. It is composed of two parts: (1) a communications network with
    various safety organizations and agencies and (2) a computer component
    that analyzes various safety data. The communications network
    (composed of 13 action teams) provides a means for coordinating the
    state’s highway safety efforts in the areas of planning, developing,
    implementing, and evaluating safety projects and programs. The
    management system will assist decisionmakers and planners in identifying
    safety problems and recommending courses of action.

•   Montana’s safety management system covers all highways in the state, but
    the elimination of hazards is concentrated mostly on state highways,
    which account for about 70 percent of the state’s vehicle miles traveled. A
    steering committee is the core of the management system. Four working
    groups (hazard removal, work zone safety, community corridor, and injury
    prevention) identify safety issues and recommend courses of action. The
    steering committee has representatives from several state agencies, the
    Montana Association of Counties, and the Montana League of Cities. The
    state has found that the safety management system process provides
    information for selecting and implementing effective highway safety
    strategies and projects.

•   New York’s safety management system covers all highways in the state.
    The management system consists of the state’s safety goal, a safety
    information management system (the data component), a traffic records
    strategic study (a plan for improving traffic records for the accident and
    ticket records systems), and an advisory committee to communicate with
    the agencies promoting highway safety. While the focus of the system is to
    improve the safety of the state highway network, the system will also
    provide a forum and process for the state to join with other local and
    metropolitan planning organization highway safety officials to provide
    support for individual and joint ventures to improve highway safety.

•   North Carolina’s safety management system covers all state roadways. The
    backbone of the management system is a 75-member technical committee,
    with members from government and from public and private agencies
    representing drivers, vehicles, highways, and highway data. The committee
    defines safety problems, identifies alternatives to address the problem(s),
    and recommends courses of action. As a result of the safety management
    system process, the state is now receiving information on vehicle crashes



    Page 42                       GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix III
    Safety Management Systems




    on Marine Corps bases. In the past, this information was not readily
    available but, according to state officials, is very useful given the high
    incidence of these crashes in the state.

•   Oregon’s safety management system initially covers all highways in the
    state but will eventually provide safety information on all public roads.
    The management system comprises various databases that have existed in
    a number of places—at the state transportation department and other
    agencies. The safety management system will merge these databases and
    will ultimately provide information on primary accident data, fatal
    accident reporting system, conviction data, corridor and jurisdiction
    analysis tools, emergency medical service, and citizens’ complaints.
    Oregon plans to use the system to identify safety problems, select among
    alternative solutions, track safety investments, evaluate the outcome of
    projects, and monitor the overall safety performance of the transportation
    system.

•   The Traffic Operations Division of the Texas Department of
    Transportation has been delegated the authority and responsibility to
    develop and implement the state’s safety management system. The
    division is continuing to implement the system as outlined in its workplan
    with modifications. The system is subject to review for support and annual
    funding. The state’s safety management system process includes
    representatives from federal, state, and local agencies.




    Page 43                         GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix IV

Congestion Management Systems


              Traffic growth, leading to congestion, is an escalating problem,
              particularly in many urban areas across the country. In 1989, we reported
              that half of all urban interstate roads operate under congested conditions.1
               FHWA estimates that congestion in the nation’s 50 most populous urban
              areas costs over $39 billion a year in time and fuel wasted. Financial and
              environmental constraints limit the ability of the state and local
              governments to provide extensive new road capacity to reduce
              congestion. As a result, some of this congestion will have to be handled by
              better management and increased use of public transit. Congestion
              management systems are designed to address the problem of traffic
              congestion by providing a systematic process for obtaining information on
              transportation systems’ performance and identifying alternatives for
              alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of both people and
              goods. In addition to requiring the states to develop congestion
              management systems, ISTEA specifically required transportation
              management areas2 to include congestion management systems in their
              transportation planning processes. ISTEA also placed restrictions on those
              transportation management areas classified as nonattainment areas for
              ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act. These nonattainment
              areas may not program federal funds for any highway project that will
              result in a significant increase in single-occupant-vehicle capacity unless
              the project is part of an approved congestion management system.

              Under DOT’s interim rule on management systems, the components of
              congestion management systems were to include (1) performance
              measures that define the extent of congestion and permit the evaluation of
              alternatives for reducing congestion; (2) data collection and system
              monitoring to identify the duration and magnitude of congestion and
              evaluate the effectiveness of actions to reduce congestion; (3) the
              identification and evaluation of strategies for more efficiently using
              current and future transportation systems; (4) implementation of
              strategies; and (5) evaluations of the effectiveness of implemented
              strategies. Among other things, a congestion management system was also
              to identify all transportation corridors and facilities with existing or
              potential recurring congestion and consider strategies that reduce
              single-occupant-vehicle travel. Although the National Highway System
              Designation Act of 1995 made implementation of this and other
              management systems optional for the states, it did not affect the

              1
               Traffic Congestion: Trends, Measures, and Effects (GAO/PEMD-90-1, Nov. 30, 1989).
              2
               Transportation management areas are urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000 or other
              areas so designated at the request of the governor and the metropolitan planning organization or
              affected local officials.



              Page 44                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix IV
Congestion Management Systems




provisions for transportation management areas to develop congestion
management systems.

As with other transportation management systems, implementing a
congestion management system will be a challenge. First, states may
experience difficulties in developing performance measures and obtaining
the necessary information to support these measures. According to FHWA,
several types of performance measures may be applicable to a congestion
management system, including measures of congestion, mobility,
accessibility (e.g., the ease or difficulty in accessing such areas as
hospitals or shopping centers), and the system’s efficiency. Although some
measures, such as those based on traffic volume, have been traditionally
used and are relatively easy to develop, others, such as those related to
mobility (e.g., travel time, speed, and person-miles traveled) are more
difficult and costly to develop, and the state of the art is not well advanced
for these mobility measures. Second, the states may encounter difficulties
trying to compare transportation projects across modes. This comparison
will be important in developing strategies to reduce or control congestion.
We reported in October 1993 on the need for better tools for making
comparisons of transportation projects and indicated that such
comparisons are critical for identifying the right mix of projects,
regardless of mode, to address such problems as congestion and air
pollution.3 Information from FHWA indicates that there continue to be
significant problems and costs associated with developing measures that
are sensitive to transportation choices and the impact of decisions among
transportation modes.

As of September 1996, 46 states and Puerto Rico were implementing a
congestion management system. (See fig. IV.1.) Recognizing the largely
urban nature of congestion, 17 states and Puerto Rico were developing the
system only in transportation management areas, and another 5 states
(California, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, and Virginia) were
including these areas, if applicable, as well as other urban areas. Most of
the remaining states that were implementing a congestion management
system reported that the systems will have statewide coverage. Four states
and Washington, D.C., do not plan to implement this system. Of the four
states not implementing a congestion management system, two states




3
 Transportation Infrastructure: Better Tools Needed for Making Decisions on Using ISTEA Funds
Flexibly (GAO/RCED-94-25, Oct. 13, 1993).



Page 45                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix IV
Congestion Management Systems




(Vermont and Wyoming) have no transportation management areas.4
Although Arkansas reported that it was not implementing this system, the
metropolitan planning organization for the Little Rock-North Little Rock
area is developing a congestion management system. In addition, the state
plans to monitor future traffic growth and potential areas of congestion.
Washington, D.C., reported that it would address congestion issues by
continuing to participate in the metropolitan area’s congestion
management system process. Delaware did not report why it was not
continuing to implement the system.




4
 Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia also do not have any
transportation management areas. However, as indicated in the figure, these states are implementing
systems nonetheless.



Page 46                                  GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                               Appendix IV
                                               Congestion Management Systems




Figure IV.1: The States Implementing Congestion Management Systems, as Reported by the States



                 T

                                                                          T



                                                             T            T
                               T                                                    T
                                               T
                                                               T
                                                                                            T                 T
                                                                   T
                                                                                                          T
                                                                                                    T
                                                                                    T
                                                           T                  T
                      T

                                                                               T

              46 states and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems
              4 states and Washington, D.C., not developing systems



                                               T = System covers only transportation management areas.

                                               Note: We do not have information on the coverage of the systems in Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, and
                                               Rhode Island.

                                               Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; American Association of State
                                               Highway and Transportation Officials’ survey, May 1996; GAO’s interviews with state officials.




Case-Study States                          •   Maryland’s congestion management system consists of 28 transportation
                                               corridors throughout the state that will be examined to develop
                                               congestion improvement strategies. Although the state did not have a
                                               congestion management system before ISTEA, in 1991 it completed a study




                                               Page 47                                GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix IV
    Congestion Management Systems




    of 24 commuter corridors across the state. This study used a
    methodology—including travel demand forecasting, identification of travel
    demand management strategies, performance measures, and a method to
    compute the cost of capital improvements—that became the prototype for
    the state’s congestion management system. At the time of our review, the
    state had completed four additional corridor studies in the
    Baltimore-Annapolis-Washington, D.C., areas. These studies evaluated the
    current level of congestion, identified strategies to reduce congestion, and
    projected levels of congestion in the year 2010 under the different
    strategies. The corridor studies were used in developing the state’s
    long-range transportation plans.

•   Michigan is developing a congestion management system that will include
    data for all state-maintained roads and the National Highway System,
    travel demand forecasts for urban areas and rural areas, and
    socioeconomic and demographic information at the levels of the county
    and smaller, defined “traffic analysis zones.” State officials expect the
    management system to (1) provide input to long-range transportation
    plans and (2) help identify, rank, and implement individual projects. At the
    time of our review, the congestion management system was available as an
    inventory tool. State officials expect the system to be operational by early
    1997.

•   Montana is developing a congestion management system that will
    distinguish between the urban, rural, and seasonal congestion that results
    from tourism and agricultural activity. The management system will
    address the entire state but use different performance-monitoring
    procedures in the seven urban areas. The state department of
    transportation will be responsible for forecasting and measuring
    congestion on highway corridors outside of urban areas, and the
    metropolitan planning organizations and other urban planning agencies
    will generate data and measure congestion in the urban areas. The urban
    areas will report data to the state, which will maintain a database for the
    congestion management system. State officials expect to have initial
    output from the management system in March 1997. The management
    system is expected to provide information for the statewide transportation
    plan and to generate project-specific information.

•   New York is continuing to develop a statewide congestion management
    system that will measure and report congestion levels; improve existing
    methods used to evaluate mobility plans, programs, and projects; and
    implement an upgraded statewide congestion management system that



    Page 48                         GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix IV
    Congestion Management Systems




    emphasizes transportation system management and transportation
    demand management. State officials expect the management system to be
    in use by regional offices by October 1997. In addition, central offices of
    the state transportation department are assisting the metropolitan
    planning organizations and other local agencies in developing their own
    congestion management systems to be compatible with the statewide
    system.

•   The four transportation management areas in North Carolina are
    developing their own local congestion management systems. The
    transportation department is not implementing a congestion management
    system at the state level; rather, it intends to develop a statewide “needs”
    system that will incorporate many of the criteria set forth for the
    management system but will not be limited to projects to mitigate
    congestion. State officials expect the needs systems to be operational in
    1998.

•   Oregon is developing a statewide congestion management system that will
    include corridors on the National Highway System, connectors to
    intermodal facilities, and other selected highway corridors. The
    components of the system will include four documents: (1) a congestion
    overview; (2) a congestion inventory, which will provide information on
    current and forecasted congestion; (3) a congestion solutions guideline,
    which will provide guidance on appropriate and effective congestion
    solutions; and (4) a congestion management system manual, which will
    provide documentation for the system. State officials expect the
    management system to provide an analysis of congestion on the National
    Highway System to be published during 1996. The Portland transportation
    management area is developing its own congestion management system.

•   Texas originally planned to develop a congestion management system for
    the entire state that would consist of subsystems for each of the state’s 25
    metropolitan planning organizations. When the systems became optional,
    the state decided to include only the seven metropolitan areas that were
    designated as transportation management areas. Each transportation
    management area is expected to develop its own congestion management
    system. The state department of transportation has assisted local planning
    agencies in developing congestion management systems by sponsoring
    workshops, training, and guidance.




    Page 49                         GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix V

Public Transportation Facilities and
Equipment Management Systems

               In 1996, the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration stated
               that a total of about $8 billion per year will need to be invested over the
               next 20 years by all levels of government just to maintain the nation’s
               transit facilities and equipment in their current state of repair. About
               $13 billion per year will be needed to improve the current quality of
               service. Public transportation management systems are expected to help
               the states and metropolitan planning organizations identify where future
               investments should be made to address these needs by systematically
               collecting and analyzing information on the condition and cost of transit
               assets on a continual basis. Furthermore, a purpose of this system is to
               provide input to the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning
               processes to help decisionmakers select cost-effective strategies for
               providing and maintaining transit assets in a serviceable condition.

               Under DOT’s interim rule on management systems, the systems’
               components were to include (1) the development of measures and
               standards for evaluating the condition of transit assets, (2) the collection
               of data on the inventory of transit assets and their use, (3) the
               identification and evaluation of strategies for maintaining and replacing
               transit assets, and (4) the implementation of strategies and projects
               (including costs and potential funding sources) and the evaluation of
               strategies and projects for possible inclusion in transportation plans. This
               management system was to be closely coordinated with the congestion
               and intermodal management systems. The identification of transit assets
               and their condition was to include operators in urban, metropolitan areas
               as well as rural areas. In addition, this system was to cover the public
               transportation management systems operated by the states, local
               jurisdictions, public transportation agencies and authorities, and private
               transit operators receiving funds under sections 3, 9, 16, or 18 of the
               Federal Transit Act,1 as well as the systems operated by contracted service
               providers with capital equipment funded under those sections.

               As of September 1996, 33 states plus Puerto Rico had indicated that they
               would continue to develop and implement a public transportation
               management system. (See fig. V.1.) A total of 17 states and Washington,
               D.C., said they were not implementing the system. Of those states
               implementing the system, 7 already have operational systems in place,2
               and 5 said their systems would include all transit operators in the state.

               1
                Former sections 3, 9, 16, and 18 are now found at 49 U.S.C. 5309, 5307, 5310, and 5311, respectively.
               2
                These states are Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and
               Tennessee. Connecticut and New York reported that their systems were in place even before ISTEA
               was enacted.



               Page 50                                   GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix V
Public Transportation Facilities and
Equipment Management Systems




Among those states that said they were not implementing this
management system, at least two—Arkansas and North Dakota—indicated
that they may maintain some information on and/or inventory of public
transit vehicles. Another state—Kansas—that was not implementing a
public transportation management system said it plans to monitor the
condition of vehicles through annual inspections.




Page 51                                GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                                Appendix V
                                                Public Transportation Facilities and
                                                Equipment Management Systems




Figure V.1: The States Implementing Public Transportation Management Systems, as Reported by the States




                                 F
          F
                      F                                                       F                                       F
                                                                                                               F          F
                                                                                        F
                                                                      F                                    F              F - Rhode Island
                                                                                       F
                                                                                                   F

                                                                                        F                  F
                          F
                                     F

                                                                          F
                  F
                                                                                                       F




          33 states and Puerto Rico developing/implementing systems
          17 states and Washington, D.C., not developing systems




                                                F = System covers federally funded or FTA-funded transit operators.

                                                Note: Those states that reported they were including FTA-funded operators did not indicate
                                                whether their systems would include all of these operators’ vehicles and other major assets or
                                                only those vehicles and assets funded by FTA. We do not have information on the coverage of the
                                                systems in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma,
                                                Puerto Rico, and Vermont.

                                                Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; American Association of State
                                                Highway and Transportation Officials’ survey, May 1996; GAO’s interviews with state officials.




                                                Page 52                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                        Appendix V
                        Public Transportation Facilities and
                        Equipment Management Systems




Case-Study States   •   Maryland has chosen not to implement a public transportation
                        management system. The state plans to continue using its current asset
                        management system.

                    •   Michigan’s public transportation management system includes all transit
                        operators in the state, including federally funded transit systems. The
                        management system’s components include transit characteristics, annual
                        requests for state and federal operating assistance, annual requests for
                        funding for capital assets, annual application forms, an inventory of transit
                        facilities and fleets, operating assistance reports, and performance
                        measures. The management system will be used by transit agencies in
                        developing their annual funding applications and financial reports and by
                        decisionmakers in analyzing and planning for future transit needs.

                    •   Montana’s public transportation management system will include all
                        federally funded transit operators and will provide information on the
                        condition and performance of transit assets. These data will be available to
                        local and state planning offices and public transportation providers and
                        will assist decisionmakers in the development of programs and projects at
                        the state level. According to state officials, there is a real need for rural
                        transit providers, and the management system will be a tool to assess the
                        state’s infrastructure needs.

                    •   New York’s public transportation management system includes operators
                        with both federally and locally funded transit capital assets. The focus will
                        be on both current and predicted future use of assets. Based on inventory
                        data, performance measures, condition rating, and replacement costs,
                        strategies and needs analyses will be developed for managing transit
                        assets. The results of these strategies and needs analyses will be used to
                        allocate funds for transit assets.

                    •   North Carolina’s public transportation management system includes all
                        transit facilities and vehicles within the state. The system is used to
                        manage grants for sections 16 and 18 transit operators. The system also
                        includes an inventory of these operators and describes the condition and
                        performance of their facilities and fleets. The management system also
                        allows the state to forecast future transit and funding needs and assists in
                        making changes to the funding allocations.

                    •   Oregon’s public transportation management system will include federally
                        and state-funded transit operators. The system performs grants
                        management services—for capital investments, operations, administration,



                        Page 53                                GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix V
    Public Transportation Facilities and
    Equipment Management Systems




    and planning for public transit for the state—and provides an inventory of
    transit assets. The components include measures and standards for
    evaluating the condition and performance of transit assets and systems.

•   Texas’ department of transportation has chosen not to implement a public
    transportation management system. The Public Transportation Division of
    the state’s transportation department, however, has been delegated
    authority to develop its own internal management system. The division is
    developing this system with two main components: (1) transit operators
    providing service for the elderly and disabled, rural areas, and urbanized
    areas and (2) metropolitan transit authorities in Austin, Corpus Christi,
    Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio.




    Page 54                                GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix VI

Intermodal Transportation Facilities and
Systems Management Systems

               An intermodal transportation facilities and systems management system
               represents a systematic process for identifying the key linkages between
               one or more modes of transportation, especially where the performance or
               use of one mode will affect another. It is designed to define strategies for
               improving the effectiveness of modal interactions and to evaluate and
               implement strategies that will enhance the overall performance of the
               transportation system. DOT’s interim rule on management systems required
               an intermodal management system to include components for
               (1) identifying intermodal facilities, (2) identifying performance measures,
               (3) collecting data from and monitoring intermodal facilities and systems,
               (4) evaluating facility and system efficiency, and (5) developing and
               evaluating strategies and actions to improve intermodal efficiency for the
               movement of people and goods. The system was to involve a process that
               considered, among other things, opportunities afforded by modal systems
               that allow users to select their preferred means of transportation and
               coordination between planners, users, and transportation providers to
               resolve travel demands by investment in dependable, high-quality
               transportation service by either a single mode of transportation or a
               combination of modes. Furthermore, DOT required that the development of
               this system be coordinated with the congestion and public transportation
               management systems because of their interrelationships.

               An intermodal management system may be one of the more difficult
               transportation management systems to implement. Historically, the
               transportation planning process has been oriented more toward highways
               and mass transit than toward intermodal issues. As a result, FHWA and
               others have noted that planning tools and data sources on intermodal
               transportation and freight forecasting have not been well developed. FHWA
               and others have also noted potential difficulties in developing
               performance measures for this management system. FHWA has noted that
               current measures of mobility are largely geared toward the condition of a
               facility (e.g., vehicle capacity on highway segments) and traditional
               measures of congestion, such as volume and capacity, and not toward the
               mobility of people and goods or accessibility to facilities. Furthermore, it
               may be difficult to obtain data on intermodal transportation movements,
               particularly freight traffic flows. As we recently reported, obtaining data
               on freight transportation movements that private firms may consider
               proprietary may be difficult, particularly if private firms are unsure about
               how the data may be used.1



               1
                Intermodal Freight Transportation: Projects and Planning Issues (GAO/NSIAD-96-159, July 9, 1996).



               Page 55                                  GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix VI
Intermodal Transportation Facilities and
Systems Management Systems




As of September 1996, 30 states and Washington, D.C., had elected to
implement an intermodal management system, while 20 states and Puerto
Rico had elected not to implement such a system. (See fig. VI.1.) Of the 30
states electing to implement an intermodal management system, 19 have
said they would implement a system on a statewide basis and not just
locally. Implementation takes a variety of forms. For example, Minnesota
and Idaho said they would develop intermodal management systems but
would focus more on freight issues than on passenger issues. New Jersey
said it would focus more on passenger issues. For other states, the
development of performance measures and efficiency evaluations were
creating difficulties. For example, Illinois said it would develop a system
but would not incorporate performance measures and facility
performance evaluations. Texas and Utah, which were choosing not to
develop the system, indicated that they were incorporating the
components of an intermodal management system into their state
transportation planning efforts. (See table VI.1.)




Page 56                             GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                                 Appendix VI
                                                 Intermodal Transportation Facilities and
                                                 Systems Management Systems




Figure VI.1: The States Implementing Intermodal Management Systems, as Reported by the States




                                         S                                                                                    S
              S                                                                                                           S
                                                                                                                           S
                                                                                              S                          S
                                                                           S                                    S
                                                                                     S      S
          S
                                                                             S

                                                                                                S
                             S               S                                  S


                       S
                                                                                                            S




              30 states and Washington, D.C., developing/implementing systems

              20 states and Puerto Rico not developing systems



                                                 S = Statewide coverage of management system.

                                                 Note: We do not have information on the coverage of the systems in Kentucky, Minnesota, New
                                                 Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C.

                                                 Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; American Association of State
                                                 Highway and Transportation Officials’ survey, May 1996; GAO’s interviews with state officials.




                                                 Page 57                                 GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                          Appendix VI
                                          Intermodal Transportation Facilities and
                                          Systems Management Systems




Table VI.1: Status of States’ Implementation of Intermodal Management Systems (as Reported by the States)
                                                                      Coverage
                                                    Highway connectors
                                                    from freight facilities to Other (as reported by
State                     Implementing system       NHSa                       the states)                 Comments
Alabama                                                                                                    Part of system will be
                                                                                                           incorporated into a
                                                                                                           congestion management
                                                                                                           system
Alaska                    Xb                        X                         Statewide
Arizona                   X                         X                         Statewide                    System focuses on
                                                                                                           facilities
Arkansas                  X                         X                         Statewide (highways,
                                                                              railways)
California                X                         Not mentioned             System includes about
                                                                              50 major facilities and 15
                                                                              corridors of statewide
                                                                              significance
Colorado                                                                                                   System has passed the
                                                                                                           concept stage; a
                                                                                                           decision to design and
                                                                                                           implement the system
                                                                                                           has not been reached
Connecticut               X                         X                         Statewide                    System will be reviewed
                                                                                                           in 2-3 years to determine
                                                                                                           continuation
Delaware
Florida                   X                         X                         Statewide significant        System will be reviewed
                                                                              facilities                   over next 1-2 years to
                                                                                                           determine continuation
Georgia                                                                                                    Current work to be
                                                                                                           concluded and future
                                                                                                           work done only if there is
                                                                                                           demonstrable benefit
Hawaii                    X                         X                         No
Idaho                     X                         X                         To be determined             System will concentrate
                                                                                                           more on freight issues
                                                                                                           than on passenger issues
Illinois                  X                         X                         Statewide inventory of       Metropolitan planning
                                                                              intermodal facilities        organizations will be
                                                                                                           responsible for system in
                                                                                                           large urban areas.
                                                                                                           Performance measures
                                                                                                           and facility performance
                                                                                                           evaluations will be
                                                                                                           eliminated
                                                                                                                          (continued)




                                          Page 58                             GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                              Appendix VI
                              Intermodal Transportation Facilities and
                              Systems Management Systems




                                                            Coverage
                                        Highway connectors
                                        from freight facilities to Other (as reported by
State           Implementing system     NHSa                       the states)                Comments
Indiana         X                       X                         Statewide (highways,        System to be
                                                                  railways, waterways)        coordinated with
                                                                                              congestion and public
                                                                                              transportation
                                                                                              management systems
Iowa            X                       X                         Statewide
Kansas                                                                                        Intermodal activities will
                                                                                              be undertaken through
                                                                                              the state’s long-range
                                                                                              plan
Kentucky        X                       Not mentioned             Not mentioned
Louisiana       On hold                                                                       System implementation
                                                                                              on hold while a decision
                                                                                              is made whether or not to
                                                                                              continue with this system
Maine           X                       X                         Statewide (coastal ferry
                                                                  terminals, park-n-ride
                                                                  lots, rail terminals,
                                                                  airports, highways)
Maryland                                                                                      State will support the
                                                                                              Baltimore Freight Task
                                                                                              Force
Massachusetts   X                       X                         Regional (areas             System is being
                                                                  encompassed by 10           coordinated with
                                                                  regional planning           congestion and public
                                                                  agencies)                   transportation
                                                                                              management systems
Michigan        X                       X                         Statewide (waterways,       Coverage includes
                                                                  railways, nonmotorized      passenger and freight
                                                                  and highway facilities)     activities
Minnesota       X                       Not mentioned             Not mentioned               System will include only
                                                                                              freight initiative
Mississippi
Missouri        X                       X                         Statewide                   Work has primarily been
                                                                                              an inventory of facilities
                                                                                              and rolling stock. State is
                                                                                              combining system with a
                                                                                              public transportation
                                                                                              management system
Montana         X                       X                         All intermodal facilities
                                                                  and systems
Nebraska        X                       X                         To be determined            System may be
                                                                                              implemented through the
                                                                                              state’s long-range plan
Nevada
                                                                                                             (continued)


                              Page 59                             GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                               Appendix VI
                               Intermodal Transportation Facilities and
                               Systems Management Systems




                                                             Coverage
                                         Highway connectors
                                         from freight facilities to Other (as reported by
State            Implementing system     NHSa                       the states)             Comments
New Hampshire    X                       X                         Statewide
New Jersey       X                       Not mentioned             Not mentioned            Focus is mainly on
                                                                                            passengers; system
                                                                                            being coordinated with
                                                                                            congestion and public
                                                                                            transportation
                                                                                            management systems
New Mexico       X                       X                         Statewide                Consultants doing
                                                                                            analysis of railroads and
                                                                                            historic depots
New York         X                       X                         Not mentioned            System has separate
                                                                                            components for freight
                                                                                            and passengers; freight
                                                                                            component to focus on
                                                                                            connectors to the NHS
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio             X                       Not mentioned             Not mentioned
Oklahoma
Oregon           X                       X                         Statewide (connector
                                                                   routes and terminals);
                                                                   main transportation
                                                                   routes (the NHS, state
                                                                   roads, local roads)
Pennsylvania     X                       X                         Statewide (local planning System being
                                                                   agencies determine        implemented by regional
                                                                   criteria for inclusion)   planning agencies,
                                                                                             which develop and
                                                                                             maintain intermodal
                                                                                             facilities inventory
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island     X                       Not mentioned             Not mentioned
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee        X                       X                         Statewide                Metropolitan planning
                                                                                            organizations will be
                                                                                            encouraged to give more
                                                                                            attention to intermodal
                                                                                            issue.
Texas                                                                                       System will be
                                                                                            incorporated into existing
                                                                                            planning efforts
                                                                                                          (continued)




                               Page 60                             GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
                                    Appendix VI
                                    Intermodal Transportation Facilities and
                                    Systems Management Systems




                                                                         Coverage
                                                   Highway connectors
                                                   from freight facilities to Other (as reported by
State               Implementing system            NHSa                       the states)                Comments
Utah                                                                                                     System will be eliminated
                                                                                                         and made part of the
                                                                                                         planning process
Virginia                                                                                                 Each metropolitan
                                                                                                         planning organization
                                                                                                         given the option of
                                                                                                         developing a system or
                                                                                                         not; there will be no
                                                                                                         statewide system
Vermont
Washington                                                                                               System will be
                                                                                                         incorporated into state’s
                                                                                                         transportation plan
Washington, D.C.    X                              Not mentioned             Not mentioned               System is stagnant
West Virginia       X                              X                         Not mentioned               System and facility
                                                                                                         efficiency portions of the
                                                                                                         management system will
                                                                                                         not be implemented
Wisconsin           X                              X                         None
Wyoming

                                    a
                                        NHS = National Highway System.
                                    b
                                        X = Yes.



                                    Sources: Status reports submitted by states to FHWA during 1996; American Association of State
                                    Highway and Transportation Officials’ survey, May 1996; GAO’s interviews with state officials.




Case-Study States               •   Michigan’s intermodal management system includes all intermodal
                                    facilities regardless of their size or connection to the National Highway
                                    System—e.g., passenger facilities, airports, railways, carpool parking lots,
                                    border crossings, freight facilities, ports, pipeline terminals, ferry and
                                    intercity bus service, and weigh stations. The system includes an inventory
                                    of intermodal facilities, condition identification, performance measures,
                                    needs assessment, and proposed actions.

                                •   Montana’s intermodal management system will include inventorying state
                                    intermodal facilities and systems, identifying performance measures,
                                    collecting data, monitoring systems, and evaluating systems’ and facilities’
                                    efficiency. The state has several goals for the system, including improving



                                    Page 61                                  GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
    Appendix VI
    Intermodal Transportation Facilities and
    Systems Management Systems




    the understanding of freight issues, addressing regional and international
    trade issues, and providing information on freight and passenger flows.

•   New York’s intermodal management system is divided into two
    components: intermodal freight facilities connected to the National
    Highway System and intermodal passenger facilities, focusing on the
    downstate region. The freight component will consist of a facility
    inventory, including facilities’ attributes, conditions, and accessibility to
    the National Highway System. An interagency committee will be the core
    of the passenger component, which will identify and develop
    strategies/evaluation tools for passengers’ intermodal problems (such as
    ease of transfer between modes and availability of park-and-ride facilities).

•   Oregon’s intermodal management system focuses on roadways that
    connect intermodal facilities with main transportation routes. Phase one,
    completed in April 1994, included developing an intermodal inventory and
    assessing performance measures and data requirements for the system.
    Phase two, the statewide management system, will identify intermodal
    problems/needs, further specify performance measures, and develop a
    database. The state is working with several advisory groups, such as the
    Intermodal Transportation Council, Passenger Task Force, and Statewide
    Intermodal Management System Advisory Committee, to assist in
    developing and implementing the system.

•   Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas chose not to develop an intermodal
    management system when the mandate was removed.




    Page 62                             GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Appendix VII

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Susan A. Fleming
Resources,              Paul D. Lacey
Community, and          Ralph W. Lamoreaux
Economic                Teresa F. Spisak

Development
Division, Washington,
D.C.
                        Helen T. Desaulniers
Office of General
Counsel, Washington,
D.C.




(342918)                Page 63                GAO/RCED-97-32 Transportation Management Systems
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested