This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-571 
entitled 'Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have 
Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue' which was 
released on June 07, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as 

alternative text descriptions for reformatted tables and agency comment 

letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or 

format in the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file 

is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 

feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding contents or 

accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



GAO: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives:



May 2002: Highway Infrastructure: Interstate Physical Conditions Have 

Improved, but Congestion and Other Pressures Continue.



GAO-02-571:



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



The Role of the Interstate Highway System Has Expanded Over Time:



Both the Federal and State Governments Have a Role in Managing and 

Funding the Interstate System:



Since 1992, Most Interstate Highway Investments Have Been for 

Preservation or Capacity Additions:



Most Interstate Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion Has Grown:



Increases in Traffic, the Age of the Interstates, and Funding 

Constraints May Negatively Affect Interstate Conditions; However, 

the Costs to Address These Factors Are Uncertain:



Concluding Observations:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Appendix II: Survey of States’ Views on the Future of the Interstate 

System:



Appendix III: State Planning Processes:



Appendix IV: Tools for Addressing Congestion:



Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



Staff Acknowledgments:



Tables:



Table 1: The Number of States Identifying the Negative Effects 

of These Factors on Interstate Highway Conditions:



Table 2: Percent Increase/Decrease in Planning Interstate 

Project Cost (2002-2006):



Figure 1: Types of Interstate Pavement Projects from 1992 

through 2000, by Miles:



Figure 2: Overview of Interstate Section:



Figure 3: Urban and Rural Interstate Mileage, 1990 through 2000:



Figure 4: Number of States Characterizing the Role of Their 

Interstate Highways as Very Great for Particular Purposes:



Figure 5: Apportionments for Interstate Highways, 1990 through 

2000:



Figure 6: Capital Outlays for Interstate Highways from All 

Funding Sources, 1992 through 2000:



Figure 7: Nonfederal Share of Interstate Projects:



Figure 8: Obligations for Interstate Highways, 1992 through 

2000:



Figure 9: Interstate Pavement Project Miles, 1992 through 2000:



Figure 10: Interstate Pavement Project Dollars, 1992 through 

2000:



Figure 11: Percentage of Poor Interstate Pavement--Urban Versus 

Rural, 1990 through 2000:



Figure 12: Survey Responses abotu Current Pavement Conditions:



Figure 13: Percentage of Roads with Poor Pavement--Interstates 

Versus Other Major Arterials (2000):



Figure 14: Interstate Pavement Conditions Today and Expected 10 

Years From Now, Given Expected Levels of Funding:



Figure 15: Number of Deficient Interstate Bridges from 1992 

through 2000:



Figure 16: Fatality Rates on the Interstate Highway System, 1990 

through 2000, in Terms of Fatalities per 100 Million VMT:



Figure 17: U.S. Average Urban Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled 

by Class of Road, 1990 through 2000:



Figure 18: Average Rural Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by 

Class of Road, 1990 through 2000:



Figure 19: Percent Increase in Urban Travel Time During the Peak 

Period by Class of Road, 1990 through 2000:



Figure 20: Percent Change of Variables Related to Congestion, 

1990 through 2000:



Figure 21: Number of States Expecting Performance on Their 

Interstate Systems to Fall Behind in the Next Decade:



Figure 22: Year Interstate Bridges Were Built:



Abbreviations:



AASHTO:	American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials:					



DOD: Department of Defense: 



DOT: Department of Transportation: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 



GAO: General Accounting Office: 



IM: Interstate Maintenance Program: 



ISTEA: 	Intermeddle Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991:



NHS: National Highway System: 



TEA-21:	Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:



STIP: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program: 



STRAHNET: Strategic Highway Network:



VMT: vehicle miles traveled:



May 31, 2002:



The Honorable Don Young Chairman, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure House of Representatives:



Dear Mr. Chairman:



The Interstate Highway System, begun nearly a half century ago, has 

become central to transportation in the United States. Federal 

officials consider the Interstate Highway System the backbone of the 

nation’s transportation system--connecting people with work, school, 

community services, marketplaces, and each other, while providing a 

greater level of safety than other roads. Federal spending on 

Interstate highways has also contributed to changes in residential and 

business land-use patterns. From 1954 through 2001, the federal 

government has invested over $370 billion [Footnote 1] in Interstate 

highways--nearly half of all federal highway apportionments during this 

period.



In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act provided 

funding for the completion of the Interstate Highway System. Since that 

time, the federal government and the states have focused primarily on 

preserving and enhancing the capacity of the existing system. With age 

and constant use, the system’s roads and bridges have required 

significant levels of maintenance. Moreover, 24 percent of all car and 

truck travel occurs on the Interstate System, contributing to growing 

levels of congestion. In 1991, we raised concerns about the condition 

of Interstate highways and the rising levels of congestion. Now, as 

Congress begins to plan the next reauthorization of federal highway 

programs, it is appropriate to examine the Interstate Highway System 

again.



Concerned about the condition of Interstate highways and bridges now 

and into the future, you asked us to determine (1) how the role of the 

Interstate Highway System has changed over time; (2) the roles of the 

federal and state governments in managing and funding the Interstate 

System; (3) the financial resources that states and the federal 

government have devoted to the system; (4) how physical conditions, 

safety, and congestion of the Interstate System have changed and how 

they compare to other classes of roads; and (5) the factors that could 

affect future Interstate conditions and the cost of addressing these 

factors.



To provide you with information addressing your concerns about the 

Interstate Highway System, we conducted a nationwide mail survey of all 

50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (referred to in 

this report as states). We received responses from all 52 states. Our 

survey focused on state officials’ views of the Interstate Highway 

System’s role in their states’ transportation system, including changes 

in their roles over the past 20 years. The survey also asked state 

officials for their views of the Interstate System in 10 years and 

their perceptions of the current condition of the system’s 

infrastructure, safety, and congestion. A summary of responses to the 

survey appears in appendix II of this report. [Footnote 2] We also 

visited five states--Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and 

Pennsylvania--to obtain more detailed information on their Interstate 

Systems and their plans for managing them. We also:



* reviewed the Interstate Highway System’s history and obtained data on 

how it is currently used;



* interviewed Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials at 

headquarters and division (state) offices and Department of Defense 

(DOD) officials;



* obtained information from FHWA on funding for the system; and:



* obtained information from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

on pavement conditions, bridge conditions, safety conditions, and 

congestion levels.



We did not review the impact of federal funding through the federal aid 

highway program on states’ patterns or levels of investment in their 

Interstate and other roads and bridges. (See app. I for a more detailed 

discussion of our methodology.):



Results in Brief:



The role of the Interstate Highway System has expanded over time. The 

original purposes were to provide for efficient long-distance travel, 

support defense, and connect metropolitan and industrial areas. The 

majority of the state transportation officials we surveyed said that, 

today, the most important role that the Interstates perform, other than 

supporting safe travel, is moving freight traffic across their states. 

They also said that the original purposes continue to be important but 

that the Interstate’s importance for freight movement had increased 

greatly in importance over the last 20 years. For example, truck 

traffic on the Interstates accounted for over 41 percent of total truck 

miles traveled in 2000. The states also reported that Interstate 

highways are important for their economic development. In addition, the 

role of urban mobility has also grown in importance. While the original 

planners of the Interstate Highway System may not have seen them as 

essential to moving people within cities, 39 states now report that 

Interstate highways are very important for travel within urban areas; 

these highways account for only 4 percent of the capacity on urban 

roads, but they carry 24 percent of all metropolitan traffic. Finally, 

30 states responded that getting people to airports is an increasingly 

important role for Interstate highways--a reflection of the increase in 

air travel.



The federal government’s role is primarily to provide funding for and 

oversight of the system, while the states do most of the “hands-on” 

work of maintaining and planning for the future of the Interstate 

System. Since 1991, when it provided final funding for the completion 

of the Interstate System, Congress has continued to provide funding for 

the maintenance of the system. However, the percentage of funds the 

federal government has provided specifically for use on the Interstate 

System has declined from more than half of all federal highway aid 

prior to 1992 to 17.5 percent during the period 1992 through 2001. FHWA 

was originally heavily involved in selecting Interstate routes, 

overseeing their construction, and ensuring that they were adequately 

maintained, but state departments of transportation now handle many of 

these duties. FHWA continues to have oversight responsibilities for 

significant Interstate projects carried out by the states, as well as 

the state’s planning process that leads to the allocation:



of state and federal funds to projects on various classes of roads. 

[Footnote 3] States are expected to plan and carry out their 

investments in Interstate and other highways and to ensure that 

Interstate highways are adequately maintained. States also fund a 

portion of Interstate projects, though to a much smaller extent than 

the federal government.



Combined federal and state spending on the Interstate System increased 

from about $13.0 billion in 1992 to about $16.2 billion in 2000. States 

are generally required to pay 10 percent of the cost of an Interstate 

project; however, we found that the average nonfederal (state and 

other) share of urban Interstate projects was about 15 percent and 11 

percent for rural projects. [Footnote 4] This federal and state 

spending focused largely on the preservation and maintenance of the 

existing system. As shown in figure 1, the kinds of projects undertaken 

after 1991 show the shift from construction to maintenance: of all 

miles of Interstate projects undertaken, 1.4 percent was for new 

construction, 5.6 percent was for widening the roads, and the remaining 

93.0 percent was for projects to reconstruct, relocate, restore and 

rehabilitate, or resurface pavement.



Figure 1. Types of Interstate Pavement Projects from 1992 through 2000, 

by Miles:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



Over the past decade, the physical condition of the Interstate Highway 

System has improved; the safety of the system has stayed steady; and 

congestion has increased. Interstate highways are also in better 

physical condition and are safer than other classes of roads, although 

they are generally more congested. When surveyed about the condition of 

the pavement on their Interstate highways, 39 states responded that 

their pavement is in good or excellent condition. This is consistent 

with FHWA statistics, which show that pavement condition improved over 

the past decade--8.6 percent of the pavement was in poor condition in 

1990, compared with 3.4 percent in 2000. However, pavement condition 

varies across the country. For example, while half of the states have 

less than 2 percent of their Interstate pavement in poor condition, 4 

states have more than 12 percent of their pavement in poor condition. 

In addition, the number of structurally deficient Interstate bridges 

declined by over 22 percent from 1992 through 2000. States also 

reported that their Interstates continue to provide a safe means of 

travel, and federal data reinforce this view. Interstate fatality rates 

remained about steady over the past decade, and Interstates continue to 

have lower fatality rates than other types of roads. On the other hand, 

DOT and other data show that congestion on urban Interstate highways 

increased and is generally worse than on all other classes of roads. 

Traffic is increasingly dense on urban Interstates, and the amount of 

time required for an average trip during peak travel periods increased 

by about 12 percent from 1990 through 2000. States also identified 

congestion on some of their rural Interstate roads as an emerging 

issue.



The states expect that increases in traffic, the aging of the 

infrastructure, and constraints on funding will affect their ability to 

maintain physical and safety conditions of their Interstate Systems and 

to alleviate congestion, but the costs to address the factors 

pressuring their Interstates were difficult to determine. First, FHWA 

and almost all states expect the volume of both car and truck traffic 

to increase over the next 10 years, and most states reported that the 

expected increase in traffic would negatively affect the physical 

condition of pavement and bridges, safety, and levels of congestion on 

their Interstates. In addition, states expect the continued aging of 

the Interstates to have a negative effect on the conditions of their 

pavement and bridges. Transportation officials we spoke with were also 

concerned that large, expensive projects might restrict the 

availability of funds for maintaining the rest of their systems. 

Finally, budgetary pressures at the state and federal level may make it 

difficult to increase spending on the Interstate System. It is 

difficult to determine the cost of addressing these factors, in part 

because the federally required short-term plans that states develop for 

investing in their highways are designed to provide a realistic list of 

projects that can be completed with expected revenue. As a result, 

states’ plans might not identify the funding needed to address all of 

the pressures states expect on their Interstate highways. Some states 

we visited prepared longer-term plans that estimated the funding 

necessary to meet their goals for their highway systems, including 

their Interstates, and these plans showed a gap between expected 

revenue and what states would like to invest.



We obtained comments on a draft of this report from DOT and DOD 

officials. They generally agreed with the report.



Background:



The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 established the Interstate Highway 

System but did not provide specific funding for construction. In the 

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Congress declared that the completion 

of a “National System of Interstate and Defense Highways” was essential 

to the national interest. The act called for new system design 

standards, began an accelerated construction program, established a new 

method for apportioning funds among states, and set the federal 

government’s cost share for Interstate construction projects at 90 

percent. [Footnote 5] At the same time, the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 

introduced a dedicated source for federal highway expenditures, 

providing that revenue from certain federal motor fuel and other motor 

vehicle related taxes be credited to the Highway Trust Fund. The 

federal government, from 1954 through 2001, invested over $370 billion 

on Interstates through apportionments to the states, more than on any 

other class of road. Today, FHWA, within DOT, administers a variety of 

federal highway programs supported by the trust fund--collectively 

referred to as the Federal-Aid Highway Program.



The Interstate Highway System, as it came to be known, has particular 

design characteristics. Its roads are generally divided highways with 

at least four lanes of traffic and wide shoulders. The Interstate 

avoids intersections by having other roads pass over or under it, and 

it has access control--that is, vehicles generally join or leave the 

flow of traffic by a limited number of access or exit ramps. (See fig. 

2.) Certain characteristics were meant to facilitate military movement, 

such as the requirement for 16 feet of clearance under bridges that 

pass over Interstate highways. [Footnote 6] A distinctive red, white, 

and blue shield denotes Interstate highways.



Figure 2. Overview of Interstate Section:



[See PDF for image]



[End of Figure]



The Interstate Highway System, as of 2000, extended over 46,000 miles 

in length and 209,655 lane miles. [Footnote 7] In 1991, Congress 

provided final funding for the completion of the Interstate System. 

From 1990 through 2000, Interstate mileage grew by about 3.1 percent, 

or 1,405 miles in length, or 11,491 lane miles during the decade. 

Growth occurred primarily in urban areas. Overall, urban mileage 

climbed by 1,885 miles, or 16.2 percent, during this period, while 

rural Interstate mileage declined by 480 miles, or 1.4 percent. (See 

fig. 3.) Some of the urban mileage gain occurred as new road mileage 

expanded the system. The rest occurred as urban boundaries grew to take 

in Interstate highway miles that were originally in rural areas.



Figure 3. Urban and Rural Interstate Mileage, 1990 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



According to FHWA, Interstate highways are a principal part of an 

overall network of roads throughout the nation. The Interstate System 

composes 29 percent of the estimated 161,000-mile National Highway 

System (NHS) designated by Congress in 1995. The NHS also includes 

other arterial roads of national interest. The entire Interstate 

Highway System is also part of the Strategic Highway Network 

(STRAHNET), an approximately 61,000-mile network of roads designated as 

important to the U.S. military. [Footnote 8]



Currently, both the federal government and states fund the construction 

and maintenance activities on the Interstate Highway System. Each year, 

billions of dollars are provided to the states for the construction and 

repair of highways through various highway programs. Under one such 

program--the Interstate Maintenance Program (IM)--federal funds 

support projects for resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating, or 

reconstructing portions of the Interstate System. Those projects 

generally require a 10 percent state match, while projects on other 

classes of roads generally require a 20 percent match. Under certain 

circumstances, states may transfer funds among various highway 

programs. For example, subject to certain limitations, states may 

transfer IM funds to other programs and use them on other classes of 

roads (with a 20 percent match). Similarly, states may also transfer 

funds from other funding categories to their IM program and use them 

for qualifying projects on Interstate highways. The Interstate 

Maintenance Discretionary Program provides funding for the kinds of 

projects funded under the IM program. In addition, Bridge Discretionary 

Program funds can be used on Interstate bridges. FHWA solicits 

candidates for the discretionary programs and selects projects for 

funding from applications. Finally, the Highway Bridge Replacement and 

Rehabilitation Program provides funds for states to replace or 

rehabilitate deficient highway bridges located on any public road, 

including the Interstate System.



In 1991, we reported on Interstate conditions. [Footnote 9] In that 

report, we raised concerns about the poor condition of Interstate 

highways and about FHWA’s oversight of them. Among other things, we 

suggested that the DOT report to Congress on the levels of investment 

required for Interstate maintenance and on the progress being made to 

achieve adequate maintenance. DOT included information in Appendix A of 

the 1999 Conditions and Performance Report [Footnote 10] that was 

partially responsive to this recommendation.



The Role of the Interstate Highway System Has Expanded Over Time:



According to state officials, the Interstate Highway System plays an 

important and expanding role in the country’s transportation system. 

The original purposes of the system were to provide for efficient long-

distance travel, support defense requirements, and connect metropolitan 

and industrial areas. Most states agree that these roles continue to be 

important but emphasized that several additional important roles have 

emerged in recent years. For example, most state officials see the 

Interstates as increasingly supporting economic growth and moving 

freight, as well as getting passengers to airports and supporting urban 

travel.



Interstates Were Developed to Support Long-Distance Travel and National 

Defense and Connect Metropolitan Areas:



The Interstate Highway System was primarily developed to address (1) 

the public’s demand for efficient long-distance travel, (2) the needs 

of the military, and (3) the nation’s economic development through the 

connection of metropolitan and industrial areas. [Footnote 11] The 

expectations for the Interstate Highway System are described in the 

following sections.



* The public’s desire for easy long-distance travel manifested itself 
in 

the early 1900s through an increase in car ownership and a growing 

interest in cross-country travel. Along with this increase in vehicle 

ownership came a significant increase in travel and tourism, quickly 

making cross- country travel a major recreational activity for millions 

of Americans.



* The system allows the nation’s military a means to expeditiously 
reach 

military cross-country installations and ports for deployment. In 1922, 

the United States Army developed the “Pershing Map,” which illustrated 

for the first time the major roads of prime importance during times of 

war. Each of the routes that the Army identified in the map was 

included with those roads eligible for federal aid. The military 

importance of the Interstate System was emphasized in 1956 when 

legislation named the Interstate Highway System the National System of 

Interstate and Defense Highways.



* By connecting metropolitan and industrial areas, the Interstate 
System 

was also meant to promote the nation’s economic growth and development. 

Without an efficient, far reaching national highway system, merchants 

found it difficult to move their goods to market in a timely manner. 

The 1944 Interregional Highways report [Footnote 12] explained that the 

Interstate System was also intended to serve the nation’s economic 

needs in agricultural production, mineral production, forestry, and 

manufacturing centers.



Interstates’ Role in Moving Freight and Supporting Economic Development 

Have Increased in Importance:



According to state officials, the previously mentioned roles continue 

to be important, but the role of the Interstate System in freight 

movement has increased significantly. State officials we spoke with 

said that the Interstate System plays a significant role in their 

economy by facilitating the movement of goods by truck. State officials 

are concerned about economic development in their states and see the 

Interstates, especially in terms of freight movement, as playing a 

significant role in economic development. In responding to our survey, 

officials reported that today, after affording safe transportation, the 

most important roles of the Interstates include moving freight and 

supporting economic development. (See fig. 4 for the number of states 

classifying the importance of different Interstate functions.) 

Officials from 33 states indicated that supporting their state’s 

general economic development is a very great role for the Interstate 

System. Officials from 35 states responded that moving freight through 

their state is a very great role for their Interstates, and 30 states 

believed that moving freight within their state is a very great role.



Figure 4. Number of States Characterizing the Role of Their Interstate 

Highways as Very Great for Particular Purposes:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO survey data.



[End of Figure]



According to state officials, moving freight on their Interstate System 

is an important focus of their transportation programs. For example, 

state of Florida transportation officials told us that although 

reducing congestion for cars is important, maintaining mobility for 

freight traffic on their Interstate System is very important for 

industries in their state. For example, three Interstate routes connect 

the state’s dairy industry with other areas of Florida, which consume 

85 percent of the milk produced in the state. In addition, Ohio’s 

survey response indicated that the Interstate System was very important 

for moving freight. The state estimates that its Interstate and 

multilane freeway system currently carry about 85 percent of all the 

state’s freight and “Keeping the state’s Interstate [S]ystem moving 

smoothly and freely is not only important to the economy of the state, 

but also to the nation’s economy.”:



The role of the Interstate System in carrying freight has increased 

significantly over the past 20 years. According to our survey results, 

45 of the state departments of transportation reported that the role of 

the Interstate System in moving freight through their state had 

increased; officials from 43 states responded that the Interstates had 

a greater role moving freight within the state.



Our nation’s freight is currently moving extensively by truck on the 

Interstate System, and this movement is important to economic 

development. The most recent U.S. Commodity Flow Survey (1997) 

[Footnote 13] reported that trucks carry over 69 percent of the tons 

shipped in the United States and 72 percent of the value of goods 

shipped in the country. In addition, truck traffic on the Interstates 

made up over 41 percent of total truck miles traveled in 2000. An FHWA 

report and a consultant’s report explain that freight movement has 

significantly contributed to improving the country’s economic 

efficiency and productivity by, among other things, making “just-in-

time” delivery more feasible, thereby reducing warehouse and 

manufacturing costs.



Roles Supporting Urban Mobility Are Becoming More Important for 

Interstates:



Officials from 39 states identified the Interstate System’s support of 

travel within metropolitan areas as a great or very great role. 

Officials from 33 of the states said that this role has become greater 

in the past 20 years. When the Interstate System was planned, it was 

expected to provide efficient travel through the country and to connect 

major metropolitan areas where feasible. However, according to FHWA, 

Congress never expected the Interstate System to accommodate local 

traffic. Now a number of trips on urban Interstates, such as commuting 

trips, are completed within an urban area, rather than going through or 

beyond the urban area. For example, while urban Interstates make up 

about 4 percent of all urban lane miles, they carry about 24 percent of 

all urban traffic. According to states, the Interstate System provides 

efficient urban travel, and as such, urban users want easy access to 

it. In addition, according to North Dakota officials, the urban area of 

Fargo, North Dakota has encompassed Interstate 29 and the Interstate is 

now sometimes used as a local street.



Finally, some of the states that we surveyed said that Interstate 

highways are increasingly important for moving people to specific 

locations that may not have been seen as important when the Interstate 

was designed. For example, 30 states reported that moving people to 

airports is a greater or much greater role now than previously. Airport 

enplanements have grown rather steadily over the past 20 years--

increasing by almost 129 percent from 1980 through 2000.



Both the Federal and State Governments Have a Role in Managing and 

Funding the Interstate System:



Since establishing the Interstate Highway System, the federal 

government has provided both funding for and oversight of the system. 

While still providing funding for the system, the federal government’s 

oversight focus is currently on ensuring that states have the 

procedures in place to manage the Interstates, as well as providing 

some project-level oversight. State departments of transportation 

manage most of the “hands-on” work of constructing, maintaining, and 

planning for the future of the Interstate System. States also fund a 

portion of Interstate projects, though to a much smaller extent than 

the federal government.



The Federal Government Funds the Interstate Highway System and Oversees 

States’ Management of the System:



Congress, FHWA, and the Department of Defense (DOD) play important 

roles with respect to the Interstate Highway System, including funding 

and overseeing state planning activities, and financing the majority of 

construction and maintenance of the system.



Congress Establishes and Funds Highway Programs:



By passing authorization and appropriations legislation, Congress plays 

a significant role with respect to federal highway programs, including 

Interstate-related programs. Authorization legislation, such as the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991(ISTEA) and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21), enacted in 

1998, provide funding for various highway programs and related 

activities, establish mechanisms for the distribution of those funds, 

and set forth eligibility requirements for the highway programs, 

including the Interstate programs, limiting how the funds made 

available may be used. Among other things, annual appropriation acts 

make amounts from the Highway Trust Fund available for payment of 

obligations incurred for various highway programs.



Funding for the Interstate System has been a major part of total 

federal highway funding, since 1954, when federal funding for 

Interstate construction began. However, the proportion of 

apportionments to states, specifically for the Interstate activities, 

[Footnote 14] has decreased over time as compared with overall highway 

program apportionments.



* In 1960, the annual Interstate apportionment was $12.2 billion (in 
2001 

dollars), or 72.8 percent of that year’s federal highway apportionments 

to states.



* From 1954 through 1991, total apportionments for Interstate 

construction and preservation reached $331.2 billion, or 56.8 percent 

of federal highway funding apportioned to states for the period.



* From 1992 through 2001, Interstate highway apportionments were $39.1 

billion, or 17.5 percent of funding apportioned to states. With ISTEA, 

Congress scaled back funding apportioned to states specifically for 

Interstate highways to $23.9 billion or 20.3 percent of federal highway 

apportionments from 1992 through 1997. In addition, Interstate 

apportionments were $15.2 billion, or 14.3 percent, of federal highway 

apportionments for the next 4 years under TEA-21. (See fig. 5.) ISTEA 

also created the NHS and the Surface Transportation Program. [Footnote 

15] Those programs accounted for 18.0 percent and 21.8 percent, 

respectively, of the $223.8 billion in federal highway apportionments 

made to the states from 1992 through 2001.



As Congress considers reauthorization of the surface transportation 

programs in 2003, it will face decisions about the continued level of 

federal involvement in managing and financing the Interstate System.



Figure 5. Apportionments for Interstate Highways, 1990 through 2001:



[See PDF for image]



Note: In 2001 dollars.



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



Even after providing final funding for Interstate completion in 1991, 

Congress has continued to designate new Interstate routes. In 1991, 

Congress also found that the Interstate System, or comparable highways, 

did not adequately serve many of the nation’s regions and identified 

high- priority corridors for development on the NHS to help meet the 

demands for increased capacity. Since 1991, 43 of these high-priority 

corridors have been designated, 10 of which were designated to become 

part of the Interstate System. [Footnote 16] In addition, authorization 

and appropriations acts have designated funding specifically for 

certain identified high-priority projects, which may include improving 

access to Interstate highways, reconstructing Interstate interchanges, 

extending Interstate highways, or performing work on roads other than 

Interstates.



FHWA Oversees State Activities:



FHWA’s role in managing the Interstate System has changed from project- 

specific oversight to primarily overseeing state processes and 

procedures and specific projects. While FHWA was heavily involved in 

selecting routes for the Interstate System, for overseeing their 

construction, and ensuring that the system was adequately maintained, 

much of the responsibility for managing them now falls to the states. 

FHWA is also responsible for overseeing certain high-cost projects on 

the Interstate System. [Footnote 17] FHWA reviews and approves project 

designs; approves plans, specifications, and estimates; concurs in 

contract awards; and inspects projects. [Footnote 18]



Today, FHWA does not have significant responsibilities for Interstate 

maintenance. For about two decades--until 1998 [Footnote 19]--each 

state was required by statute to annually certify that the Interstate 

highways in their state were being maintained in accordance with 

federal requirements. The law authorized sanctions against states that 

did not adequately maintain their Interstate highways; but, they were 

rarely applied. TEA-21 repealed the statutory provisions regarding 

maintenance certification in 1998. However, if FHWA finds that highways 

constructed with federal funds are not being properly maintained, it is 

required to inform the state and withhold federal approval of future 

state-highway projects in all or part of the state if the condition is 

not corrected within 90 days.



Although construction of the Interstate System is essentially complete, 

the agency may approve additions to the existing Interstate Highway 

System when states request such an addition. When FHWA receives 

requests for additions to the existing system from states, it 

considers, among other things, whether the proposed new segment is a 

logical addition or connection to the Interstate System and whether it 

meets Interstate geometric [Footnote 20] and safety standards. Although 

both Congress and FHWA designate specific additions to the Interstates, 

the nation does not currently have a centralized system for determining 

whether new routes are needed and building them. Similarly, the agency 

approves adding access points (interchanges and ramps) to the existing 

system and system design exceptions.



FHWA is also responsible for overseeing states’ planning processes by 

reviewing and approving statewide transportation improvement programs 

(STIPs). These federally required plans cover at least 3 years and 

describe the state’s planned construction, maintenance, and other 

highway projects, including Interstate projects. FHWA’s review of the 

STIP primarily focuses on whether the required processes were followed 

rather than on the content of the plan. (See app. III for more details 

about the planning process.):



FHWA also has other responsibilities related to the Interstate System. 

For example, the agency sets performance goals, as required by the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act), for 

pavement quality, bridge condition, highway congestion, and safety. 

[Footnote 21] Although FHWA does not have Interstate-specific 

performance goals, its performance goals do include Interstate 

highways. For example, FHWA’s safety goal is to reduce highway 

fatalities and injuries by 20 percent by 2008. FHWA’s performance goal 

for pavement quality applies to the NHS, which includes the entire 

Interstate System. These are FHWA’s goals, and states are not required 

to meet them for their Interstates or other roads. Finally, other FHWA 

responsibilities include providing technical assistance and management 

tools, such as investment-analysis models, to aid in the planning 

process at state transportation agencies; conducting transportation-

related research; and disseminating the results throughout the country.



DOD Works with FHWA and States to Meet Defense Requirements:



DOD played an important role in establishing the Interstate Highway 

System. However, state officials reported that this role has not 

increased significantly in the past 20 years. DOD participated in 

selecting the Interstate highway routes, and according to DOD and FHWA 

officials, DOD works with federal and state transportation officials to 

ensure that the Interstate System meets its national defense 

requirements. In 1981, DOD, in partnership with FHWA, identified public 

highways to make up the STRAHNET. [Footnote 22] This network of 

highways gives the military the ability to move equipment and personnel 

expeditiously over the highway system from military installations to 

ports for deployment. The STRAHNET consists of 61,044 miles plus 1,700 

miles of connectors that link over 200 important military installations 

and ports to the network. All of the nation’s Interstate highways are 

included in the STRAHNET. STRAHNET and its major connectors were 

incorporated into the NHS in 1995. [Footnote 23] This continues to 

emphasize the military importance of these highways. According to DOD 

officials, the working relationship between DOD and FHWA, and the 

conditions on the Interstate System, are adequate.



States Plan, Construct, Maintain, and Help Fund the Interstate System:



States handle many of the responsibilities for managing the Interstates 

as well as providing some funding. State responsibilities include 

developing plans for maintaining the physical and operational 

conditions and the safety of Interstate highways. States are required 

to develop at least two planning documents--a 20-year Statewide 

Transportation Plan and a short- term Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) that covers at least 3 years. The plans 

outline how the states will use available funds to maintain the 

physical and operational conditions and the safety of their 

Interstates. To develop these planning documents and maintain their 

Interstates, states use a variety of approaches. See appendix III for a 

description of states’ planning processes. In addition, state 

departments of transportation are responsible for the day-to-day 

operations of constructing and maintaining the Interstates. Finally, 

state governments provide some funding for the Interstate Highway 

System; however, they spend less on the Interstates than does the 

federal government. States raise highway funds to match federal funds 

and to pay for other state highway projects and programs.



Since 1992, Most Interstate Highway Investments Have Been for 

Preservation or Capacity Additions:



The federal and state governments have invested heavily in Interstate 

highways. Because 97.4 percent of the system’s length in 2000 was 

complete before 1992, much of the subsequent investment was to preserve 

and maintain the existing system. When states added to the system’s 

size, they did so mainly in urban areas. From 1992 through 2000, the 

type of Interstate pavement and bridge construction projects also 

shifted from new construction to primarily maintenance.



Overall Spending on Interstates Has Grown:



Outlays, that is, expenditures of federal, state, and other funds for 

projects on Interstate highways have generally increased since 1992. 

State spending of federal, state, and local funds for Interstates grew 

from $13.0 billion in 1992 to $16.2 billion in 2000. States reported 

total capital outlays for Interstates of $105 billion, or an average of 

$11.7 billion per year in 2001 dollars from 1992 through 2000. (See 

fig. 6.) Besides capital outlays, states also had routine Interstate 

maintenance outlays that averaged $1.6 billion per year. These outlays, 

which generally consist of nonfederal funds, were for routine tasks 

like sealing cracks and patching potholes, which help keep the pavement 

in good condition, but did not cover capital improvements like 

resurfacing, rehabilitation, or reconstruction.



Figure 6. Capital Outlays for Interstate Highways from All Funding 

Sources, 1992 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Note: In 2001 dollars.



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



States Have Spent More on Urban Interstates:



From 1992 through 2000, states allocated more of their Interstate 

investments of federal, state, and other funds to urban highways (68.4 

percent of outlays) than to rural highways (31.6 percent of outlays). 

Furthermore, states have invested higher levels of state or local funds 

in urban projects than in rural projects. Specifically, federal 

Interstate obligation data for projects show that, from 1992 through 

2000, rural:



Interstate projects averaged 11.2 percent in state or local funding, 

while urban projects averaged 15.1 percent in state or local funding. 

[Footnote 24] (See fig. 7.):



Figure 7. Nonfederal Share of Interstate Projects:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



States Are Spending More for Preservation of Pavement and Bridges:



States spent available funds for different types of projects on their 

Interstate Systems, including pavement, bridge, and other related items 

(including safety, traffic operations, and environmentally related 

projects). FHWA reported obligations of $48.5 billion for Interstate 

highway projects from 1992 through 2000. Of this amount, 66.2 percent, 

or $32.1 billion, was for pavement projects, 19.7 percent, or $9.6 

billion, was for bridge projects, and the rest, $6.8 billion, was for 

other related items. (See fig. 8.):



Figure 8. Obligations for Interstate Highways, 1992 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Note: Expenditures total $48.5 billion (in 2001 dollars).



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



Accounting for the largest area of expenditures, Interstate pavement 

projects since 1992 were clearly focused on existing roadways. Among 

pavement project miles, 98.6 percent were to improve existing highways; 

only 1.4 percent for new construction. (See fig. 9.) Costs for 

improving existing highways were $29.0 billion, or 90.2 percent of 

total pavement costs. Only 424 miles, or 1.4 percent of Interstate 

projects’ length, were for new construction. (See fig. 10.) Costs for 

new construction were $3.1 billion, or 9.8 percent of total pavement 

costs.



Figure 9. Interstate Pavement Project Miles, 1992 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



Figure 10. Interstate Pavement Project Dollars, 1992 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



Interstate pavement construction projects from 1990 through 2000 

shifted toward maintaining the existing system. Based on FHWA 

obligation data, new pavement construction project miles declined 

during the period, while reconstruction project miles tended to decline 

during the period and pavement maintenance project miles--restoration 

and rehabilitation, and resurfacing--increased.



In addition, Interstate bridge projects [Footnote 25] were more likely 

for preservation or replacement than for new construction. Among the 

11,530 bridge projects reported, 10,363, or 89.9 percent, were 

replacement or rehabilitation projects.



Most Interstate Conditions Have Improved, but Congestion Has Grown:



The Interstate’s physical conditions (pavement and bridge) and safety 

are in good overall shape; however, congestion has grown. Pavement 

conditions improved from 1992 to 2000, and officials from 39 states now 

regard their pavement as good or excellent. Officials from a majority 

of state highway departments predict pavement will still be in good 

condition 10 years from now. However, officials from 23 states predict 

that, in 10 years, they will be falling behind in dealing with the 

condition of their Interstate pavement. Bridge conditions parallel 

pavement conditions: since 1992, bridge conditions have generally 

improved, and officials from a majority of states report bridge 

conditions are currently good or excellent, but officials from 19 

states predict the condition of their bridges will worsen 10 years from 

now. Safety on the Interstate System has remained relatively stable. 

Interstate fatality rates declined from 1990 to 1992 and remained 

fairly stable after 1992. A majority of state officials rated the 

safety of travel on their Interstates as good or excellent today, and 

41 predicted it will remain so 10 years from now. Moreover, DOT data 

showed that pavement, bridge, and safety conditions are better on 

Interstates than on other roads. But unlike pavement, bridge, and 

safety factors, Interstate congestion has gotten worse. One measure 

showed that rush hour travel time on urban Interstates increased 12 

percent from 1990 through 2000. State officials in nearly half of the 

states reported that urban congestion is already high, and officials 

from 41 states predicted it will be high 10 years from now. State 

officials reported high rural congestion in only 1 state now, but 

expected it in 18 states within 10 years.



Pavement Conditions Have Improved:



Generally, Interstate pavement conditions have improved since 1990. 

According to FHWA data, 8.6 percent of Interstate pavement, or 3,897 

miles, was in poor condition in 1990. By 2000, the share of poor 

Interstate miles [Footnote 26] had dropped to 3.4 percent, or 1,560 

miles. In addition, pavement data for 1990 through 2000 show that urban 

Interstates have a higher percentage of poor mileage than rural 

Interstates, but both have improved since 1990 (see fig. 11). The 

improvement pattern was not continuous partly because FHWA asked the 

states to adopt a new condition measure. States had historically 

reported pavement condition using a subjective rating scale. By 1992, 

states were also reporting pavement data with a more objective 

statistic called the International Roughness Index. In 1993, FHWA 

adopted the roughness index as a required statistic for reporting 

pavement conditions on Interstates. States needed new measuring devices 

to adopt the International Roughness Index. When these devices were 

later upgraded, some states such as North Dakota, noticed an 

improvement in their pavement condition statistics.



Figure 11. Percentage of Poor Interstate Pavement--Urban Versus Rural, 

1990 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



Two factors may have contributed to the long-term improvement in 

Interstate pavement. First, the federal government has increased its 

commitment to pavement quality, along with highway funding in general. 

FHWA has supported quality pavement management by promoting better 

planning and techniques for building smoother, longer-lasting roads. In 

addition, state highway programs have received increased federal 

funding since TEA-21 “guaranteed” certain overall funding levels based 

on Highway Trust Fund revenue . (See fig. 6 for increases in Interstate 

capital outlays during this period.) Second, state transportation 

departments have increased their commitment to Interstate pavement 

quality. This commitment may be ongoing, as in Florida, which adopted a 

statutory requirement in 1984 requiring goals for the quality of the 

pavement on its state highways. Or the commitment may come in response 

to customer feedback, as when Pennsylvania initiated a pavement upgrade 

program in response to truckers’ surveys criticizing conditions on the 

state’s roads.



Interstate Pavement Is in Good Overall Condition, but Some Sections Are 

in Poor Condition:



Of 51 respondents, 39 states reported that their Interstate pavement is 

currently in good or excellent condition; 9 said that their pavement is 

in fair condition; 3 reported poor Interstate pavement conditions; and 

none reported very poor conditions. (See fig. 12.) In addition, state 

pavement data submitted to FHWA for 2000 showed that for the nation as 

a whole, 63.5 percent of pavement was in good or very good condition, 

[Footnote 27] 18.2 percent was in fair condition, and 18.3 percent was 

in mediocre or poor condition. Half of the states reported that less 

than 2.0 percent of their pavement was in poor condition. FHWA’s 

pavement categories describe a pavement’s need for upcoming improvement 

as interpreted from a roughness index.



Figure 12. Survey Responses about Current Pavement Conditions:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO’s survey.



[End of Figure]



Rural Interstate pavement, which gets less heavy traffic, is in better 

condition than urban Interstate pavement, according to data that the 

states supply to FHWA. According to an FHWA report on pavement 

conditions in 2000, only 14.4 percent of rural mileage is in poor or 

mediocre condition, compared with 28.2 percent of urban mileage.



While the overall condition of Interstate pavement is generally good, 

it is much worse in certain states than our aggregate survey responses 

or nationwide pavement condition statistics suggest. For example, 

according to FHWA data, while 18.3 percent of the nation’s Interstate 

pavement is in mediocre or poor condition, 10 states have at least one-

third of their pavement in mediocre or poor condition. Four of these 

states have more than 12.0 percent of their pavement in poor condition, 

compared with a nationwide rate of 3.4 percent for pavement in the poor 

condition category. Missouri, one of our case study states, has 4.1 

percent of its Interstate pavement in the poor category, fairly close 

to the nationwide level.



However, 40.1 percent of its Interstate pavement is in mediocre 

condition. [Footnote 28] According to a draft long-range transportation 

plan, many of Missouri’s Interstates need total reconstruction. State 

officials said that they plan to focus on I-70 between St. Louis and 

Kansas City, one of the oldest segments on the Interstate System, 

where, by state criteria, one-third to one-half of the pavement is poor 

or very poor.



Compared with “other major arterials,” Interstates are in better 

condition in both rural and urban areas. According to Interstate 

standards, [Footnote 29] in urban areas, 6.5 percent of Interstates are 

in poor condition, compared with 27.0 percent of other “urban major 

arterials.” In rural areas, 2.1 percent of Interstates are in poor 

condition, compared with 4.0 percent of “other major arterials.” (See 

fig. 13.):



Figure 13. Percentage of Roads with Poor Pavement--Interstates Versus 

Other Major Arterials (2000):



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



FHWA has no requirements or standards for states to keep their 

Interstate highways in a particular condition. However, FHWA’s Fiscal 

Year 2002 Performance Plan included a pavement condition goal for the 

NHS, which includes the Interstate Highway System. FHWA originally 

determined that, by 2008, 93 percent of NHS pavement should have 

acceptable ride quality-- meaning an International Roughness Index of 

170 inches per mile or less. As a whole, the NHS had met this goal as 

of 2000, and the Interstate portion of the NHS met this goal by 1996. 

Since the 2008 goal had already been met, FHWA revised its performance 

goal. The current goal emphasizes that highly traveled roads should be 

in good condition and requires that, in 2002, 92 percent of vehicle 

miles on the NHS will be traveled on pavement that meets the acceptable 

ride standard.



Expectations of Future Interstate Pavement Conditions Vary:



We did not find agreement on whether Interstate pavement conditions 

will be as good in a decade as they are now. A majority of state 

officials:



responding to our survey predict [Footnote 30] that Interstate pavement 

will still be in excellent or good condition 10 years from now. 

However, 21 respondents predict that their pavement will be in fair or 

worse condition. Compared with their assessments of current conditions, 

our respondents’ assessments of future conditions predict less pavement 

in good or excellent condition and more pavement in fair, poor, or very 

poor condition. Officials from 23 states predict that, in 10 years, 

they will be falling behind in dealing with the condition of their 

Interstate pavement. In addition, officials from 44 states predict that 

the portion of their transportation spending devoted to improving 

Interstate pavement conditions will increase (27 states) or stay the 

same (17 states). (See fig. 14.):



Figure 14. Interstate Pavement Conditions Today and Expected 10 Years 

from Now, Given Expected Levels of Funding:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO’s survey.



[End of Figure]



DOT recently predicted [Footnote 31] that, given expected future 

investment levels, states could improve Interstate pavement conditions 

over a 10-year planning period. However, DOT’s primary funding 

projection could be higher than states assumed in responding to our 

survey. DOT projected that states would increase their Interstate 

funding levels from 2.8 to 3.0 percent annually in constant dollar 

terms from 2003 to 2007, consistent with historic trends. State 

officials might not assume such funding increases, according to a FHWA 

official. Thus, the funding level in DOT’s analysis might be higher 

than state officials expect, which could account for DOT’s prediction 

of better future pavement conditions.



Interstate Bridge Conditions Have Generally Improved:



The number of deficient Interstate bridges has declined over the last 8 

years. Specifically, the number of structurally deficient bridges 

declined by over 22 percent from 1992 through 2000. In addition, FHWA 

information also shows that the bridge deck area associated with 

structurally deficient Interstate bridges decreased by over 27 percent 

during the same period. [Footnote 32] Structurally deficient bridges 

can have restrictions on the weight of vehicles using them or may need 

to be closed and repaired before they can be used again. In addition, 

the number of functionally obsolete bridges declined by more than 10 

percent over the same period. However, the deck area associated with 

functionally obsolete bridges increased 9 percent over this period. 

Functionally obsolete bridges are not up to design standards and 

generally face less serious problems than structurally deficient 

bridges--for example, shoulders that are not as wide as the roadway 

leading to the bridge. Figure 15 shows the decreasing trend in number 

of deficient bridges. [Footnote 33]



Figure 15. Number of Deficient Interstate Bridges from 1992 through 

2000:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA data.			



[End of Figure]



Interstate Bridge Conditions Are Currently Good:



Overall, state officials responding to our survey reported that their 

bridges are currently in good condition. Of the states responding to 

our survey, 31 said that the overall condition of their Interstate 

bridges is good or excellent; another 19 said it is fair. As of April 

2001, 5 percent of the nation’s Interstate bridges were structurally 

deficient. In addition, another 16 percent were functionally obsolete.



Interstate bridges are generally in better condition than those on 

other classes of roads. According to 1998 FHWA data, about 27 percent 

of urban Interstate bridges were deficient, [Footnote 34] compared with 

a range from over 27 percent for “urban other freeways and expressways” 

to over 38 percent for both “urban minor arterials” and “urban 

collectors.” In addition, 16 percent of rural Interstate bridges were 

deficient, compared with a range from 17 percent for “rural other 

principal arterials” to over 36 percent for “rural local roads.”:



Expectations of Future Interstate Bridge Conditions Vary:



Some state officials said that they are optimistic about future bridge 

conditions--24 expect conditions 10 years from now to be good or 

excellent. However, others are aware of problems bridges could face in 

the future. Nineteen state respondents believed that their state would 

fall behind in maintaining the condition of their bridges over the next 

10 years, given the expected level of funding. However, they were not 

as concerned about falling behind on their Interstate bridges, as they 

were about the problems they would face with congestion and pavement 

condition. (See fig. 21.) In addition, officials from 32 states expect 

to increase the portion of their budget spent on Interstate bridges.



Interstate Safety Has Been Mainly Stable:



The fatality rate on the Interstate System has been relatively steady, 

after falling early in the 1990s. The number of fatalities on 

Interstate highways has increased over the past decade, but so has the 

level of traffic, as indicated by the number of vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT). [Footnote 35] (See fig. 16.):



Figure 16. Fatality Rates on the Interstate Highway System, 1990 
through 

2000, in Terms of Fatalities Per 100 Million VMT:



[See PDF for image]



Note: This figure contains data from the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia, but it does not contain data from Puerto Rico.



Source: FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.



[End of Figure]



Safety Is Better on Interstates Than on Other Roads:



Relatively speaking, Interstate highways are the safest of all highway 

classifications. We recently reported [Footnote 36] that among urban 

road types, “other principal arterial” roads had the highest 1999 

fatality rate [Footnote 37] at 1.27-- compared with 0.61, the lowest 

fatality rate, on urban Interstate roads. Similarly, we reported that 

among the rural road types, “rural local roads” had the highest 1999 

fatality rate at 3.79--compared with 1.24, the lowest fatality rate, on 

rural Interstate roads. In addition, 45 states we surveyed said that 

the current level of safety on their Interstates was good or excellent.



Several factors, including unique design characteristics, may 

contribute to the Interstate System’s higher level of safety. According 

to a 1999 FHWA report, [Footnote 38] most of the Interstate mileage in 

the country met geometric design criteria that support safe 

transportation in 1997. These criteria refer to the physical layout or 

alignment of a roadway. FHWA and states recognize guidelines 

established by the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [Footnote 39] as the appropriate 

design standards for many of their roads. The Interstate System meets 

these guidelines to a great extent--over 99 percent of urban Interstate 

mileage and about 97 percent of rural Interstate mileage. Almost all of 

the rural Interstate mileage not meeting the guidelines is in rural 

Alaska; about 50 percent of the urban Interstate mileage not meeting 

the guidelines is in Puerto Rico. Other design characteristics are also 

important to safety:



* According to FHWA, the vast majority of Interstate mileage has full 

access control [Footnote 40]--which FHWA policy classifies as critical 

to maintaining Interstate safety and mobility. Research shows that 

highways without access control have higher crash rates than those with 

access control.



* According to FHWA, the vast majority of Interstate mileage also 

consists of divided highways with at least four lanes. AASHTO’s 

guidance reports that a study on the effect of the Interstate Highway 

System on crashes found a lower crash rate on divided highways than on 

undivided highways.



* The uniformity of Interstate highway design plays a part in safety by 

reducing the number of decisions drivers make and thus minimizing the 

number of crashes related to driver error.



FHWA also believes that other factors, including increased seat belt 

use and reduced alcohol-impaired driving, have contributed to lowering 

the fatality rate and the number of fatalities on the nation’s 

highways-- including Interstate highways.



Interstates Are Expected to Remain Safe:



State officials responding to our survey expect the safety of 

Interstate travel in their states to remain relatively safe. Among 51 

responses, 41 said the safety of Interstate travel in 10 years will be 

good or excellent, 9 said travel safety would be fair, and 1 said 

safety would be poor. A majority of officials--29--said the portion of 

state transportation spending for improving safety in their states 

would stay about the same over the next 10 years, though 19 predicted 

some increase or a moderate increase.



Interstate Highways Have Become More Congested:



As congestion on the country’s roadways has increased, so has 

congestion on the Interstate System. Whether measured in terms of 

traffic density or travel time, congestion has increased over the past 

decade. Furthermore, Interstate highways are generally more congested 

than other freeways and other principal arterials.



While there is no single indicator for congestion, we looked at FHWA’s 

“daily vehicle miles traveled per lane mile” [Footnote 41] to measure 

traffic density. [Footnote 42] As figures 17 and 18 show, the overall 

density of traffic on all major U.S. roads has been increasing over the 

past decade and traffic density is higher on urban highways than on 

rural ones. [Footnote 43] In addition, the traffic density on urban 

Interstate highways is higher than on other classes of urban road. (See 

fig. 17.):



Figure 17. U.S. Average Urban Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by 
Class 

of Road, 1990 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



Although the density of traffic on urban Interstate highways is higher 

than on rural Interstates, traffic on rural Interstate highways is 

increasing at a faster rate than on any other classes of road. From 

1990 through 2000, the daily vehicle lane miles traveled on rural 

Interstates increased at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent. By 

comparison, the daily vehicle lane miles traveled on rural principal 

arterials increased at an annual rate of 1.9 percent. (See fig. 18.) In 

addition, daily vehicle miles traveled on urban Interstates increased 

at an annual average rate of 1.7 percent, and the rate increased by 1.3 

percent on other urban freeways and expressways.



Figure 18. U.S. Average Rural Daily Vehicle Lane Miles Traveled by 
Class 

of Road, 1990 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FHWA’s Highway Statistics.



[End of Figure]



While daily vehicle lane miles traveled measures traffic density, it 

does not indicate the effect of congestion on drivers, especially the 

amount of time it takes them to reach their destinations. The Texas 

Transportation Institute [Footnote 44] has developed measures that 

address a central concern of urban drivers-- how travel time is 

affected by congestion. One measure--the travel time index--indicates 

how much more time it takes to travel during a peak period than at 

other times of day. The travel time index indicates that urban 

Interstate congestion has increased from 1990 through 2000, and 

congestion levels are higher on the urban Interstate System than on any 

other class of roads, including urban freeways and expressways and 

urban principal arterials. (See fig. 19.):



During the past decade, the travel time index increased by about 12 

percent. This statistic provides information about drivers’ experiences 

as well as the level of congestion on the road because it accounts for 

delays due both to the traffic demand on the road and to roadway 

incidents, like accidents. For example, a travel time index of 1.63 

means that a trip that takes 30 minutes in an off-peak (noncongested) 

period would, on average, take 63 percent longer, or almost 19 extra 

minutes in the peak period--in other words, the trip would take an 

average of about 49 minutes rather than 30 minutes when the road is 

congested. In addition, the Texas Transportation Institute data show 

that delay from incidents is greater than recurring delay from traffic. 

Specifically, their Mobility Report 2001 states that delay from 

incidents accounts for 54 percent of total delay. [Footnote 45]



Figure 19. Percent Increase in Urban Travel Time During the Peak Period 

by Class of Road, 1990 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Note: Interstates show a 3 percentage point decrease in travel time 

from 1990 to 1992. According to Texas Transportation Institute 

officials, this is partially due to the urban boundary redefinitions 

that usually get included in the first and second years after a Census.



Source: Texas Transportation Institute data obtained through FHWA.



[End of Figure]



Many Factors Account for Growth in Congestion:



Many factors can contribute to congestion. As figure 20 shows, 

increases in overall population and the number of licensed drivers are 

factors that could each cause more cars to be on the road during peak 

hours. The Census Bureau reports that, from 1990 to 2000, the 

population increased by about 13 percent nationwide. In addition, 

according to FHWA, the number of licensed drivers increased by 14 

percent during the past decade. These, along with other factors, 

resulted in a 39 percent increase in the number of miles traveled in 

the United States in the past decade. Freight movement by truck also 

increased by 40 percent over the first 8 years of the decade. However, 

Interstate capacity in terms of lane miles increased by only 6 percent 

over the past decade. Finally, expansion of metropolitan areas and the 

choices people make about where they live and work also contribute to 

congestion.



Figure 20. Percent Change of Variables Related to Congestion, 1990 
through 

2000:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Freight data were only available for 1990 to 1998.



Source: Prepared by GAO based on data from FHWA’s Highway Statistics, 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Census 2000 Brief , and Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics’ National Transportation Statistics 2000.



[End of Figure]



Currently Worse on Urban Interstates, Congestion Is Expected to 

Increase on Both Urban and Rural Interstates:



Officials from 24 states rated the present level of congestion on their 

urban Interstates as “high” or “very high,” and officials from 21 

states rated their urban Interstate congestion as “average.” By 

contrast, no officials rated rural congestion as “very high,” and just 

one official rated the level of congestion on rural Interstates as 

“high”; officials from 27 states rated congestion on their rural 

Interstates as “average.”:



In response to our survey, nearly all states expressed concern about 

future congestion on their urban Interstates. For example,



* 42 states predicted that, 10 years from now, they would be falling 

behind in terms of alleviating urban congestion and:



* 41 states expected to rate urban congestion in the next 10 years as 

high or very high. (See app. II.):



State respondents generally do not expect that their efforts to 

alleviate congestion will be entirely successful. Although 34 states 

indicated that they expect to spend a greater portion of their budget 

on urban congestion over the next 10 years, 42 states believe they will 

be falling behind in dealing with urban congestion. In addition, in its 

1999 Condition and Performance report, FHWA predicted that congestion 

would worsen--that is, average travel time costs would continue rising-

-if investment and allocations stay at the current expected levels. In 

its reauthorization of surface transportation programs, Congress could 

decide to select methods for investing federal resources in the 

Interstates and other highway programs to help address local congestion 

problems in urban areas. To assist in making these decisions, we asked 

states about policies and tools that can be used in alleviating 

congestion. (See app. IV for the states’ responses.):



Although states are particularly concerned about urban congestion 

levels, they also think that rural congestion will increase, especially 

on specific routes. Officials from 18 states expect to rate rural 

congestion as “high” or “very high” in the next 10 years. For example, 

rural congestion is increasing on the I-70 corridor--a 140-mile-long 

stretch through the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. This section serves in 

moving skiers and truckers through the mountains. However, traffic 

congestion has become an increasing problem along this corridor, in 

part due to population growth in the surrounding areas--and will 

continue to worsen over the years.



Increases in Traffic, the Age of the Interstates, and Funding 

Constraints May Negatively Affect Interstate Conditions; However, the 

Costs to Address These Factors Are Uncertain:



States expect certain factors, especially the levels of truck and car 

traffic, the age of the Interstates’ pavement and bridges, and funding 

constraints to negatively affect the conditions of their Interstates 

over the next 10 years. FHWA data also indicate that traffic, 

especially the volume of truck traffic, will increase. In addition, 

many states believe they will be “falling behind” in satisfying the 

users of their systems, especially in terms of congestion. (See fig. 

21.) Transportation officials have also indicated that large-dollar 

projects may negatively affect states’ financial ability to maintain 

their systems. States responding to our survey indicated that they plan 

to spend larger portions of their budgets addressing these Interstate 

pressures. However, identifying the states’ cost to maintain and 

improve their systems is difficult. States’ STIPs, required to include 

only projects that can be built with estimated revenues, show how 

states plan to use the funding they estimate will be available, rather 

than the funding they estimate will be needed for their Interstates. 

Some states have developed plans that provide some insight into what it 

will cost to maintain conditions or reach specific goals. These 

estimates indicate that states perceive Interstate needs as larger than 

estimated funding.



Figure 21. Number of States Expecting Performance on Their Interstate 

Systems to Fall Behind in the Next Decade:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO’s survey.



[End of Figure]



Increasing Truck Traffic to Have Greatest Negative Effect on Interstate 

Conditions:



According to our survey, states expect truck traffic to have a negative 

effect on the most elements of Interstate conditions including physical 

conditions (pavement and bridges), safety, and rural congestion. (See 

table 1.) For example, all 52 states expect truck traffic to increase 

over the next 10 years, and 49 states said that they expect this to 

negatively affect the condition of their pavement. Current estimates 

used by FHWA also show freight movement by truck increasing by 28 

percent from the end of 2001 through the end of 2010. [Footnote 46] 

Finally, an alliance of primarily southern and southeastern states 

released a 2001 study that estimates an annual 6.9 percent increase in 

Latin American truck traffic in the United States (resulting in almost 

a doubling in 10 years). Ninety-six percent of this truck traffic will 

be on Interstates.



Table 1. The Number of States Identifying the Negative Effects of These 

Factors on Interstate Highway Conditions:



Factor: Truck traffic volume; Elements of Interstate condition: 

Pavement: 49; Elements of Interstate condition: 46; Elements of 

Interstate condition: 45; Elements of Interstate condition: Urban 

congestion: 49; Elements of Interstate condition: 43.



Factor: Traffic volume; Elements of Interstate condition: Pavement: 44; 

Elements of Interstate condition: 41; Elements of Interstate condition: 

43; Elements of Interstate condition: Urban congestion: 51; Elements of 

Interstate condition: 41.



Factor: Percent of truck traffic; Elements of Interstate condition: 

Pavement: 48; Elements of Interstate condition: 45; Elements of 

Interstate condition: 44; Elements of Interstate condition: Urban 

congestion: 44; Elements of Interstate condition: 40.



Factor: Age of structures; Elements of Interstate condition: Pavement: 

38; Elements of Interstate condition: 45; Elements of Interstate 

condition: [A]; Elements of Interstate condition: Urban congestion: 

[A]; Elements of Interstate condition: [A].



Note: Fifty-one of 52 states replied to questions about how these 

factors affect pavement, safety, and rural congestion.



[A] Not applicable.



Source: GAO survey data.



[End of table]



State officials’ concerns about increases in truck traffic may reflect, 

in part, the estimated highway costs of damage to the pavement or 

bridge of each additional truck-mile driven compared with the cost of a 

car. A recent:



FHWA study [Footnote 47] explains that while car drivers pay about the 

same share of user taxes as their share of highway costs, heavy truck 

operators commonly pay less than their share of highway costs. 

Specifically, FHWA estimated that an additional mile of Interstate car 

travel cost of 0.1 cent in terms of pavement damage, while an 

additional mile of Interstate truck travel had a pavement damage cost 

as high as 12.7 cents on rural Interstates and 40.9 cents on urban 

Interstates. In 1994, we recommended that FHWA conduct this highway 

cost-allocation study. [Footnote 48]



In addition to increases in truck traffic, estimates that FHWA uses 

show that passenger traffic will increase by 17 percent from the end of 

2001 through the end of 2010--an increase from 2.7 trillion vehicle 

miles traveled to 3.1 trillion. States are also concerned about 

increases in traffic volume. Of the 52 states we surveyed, 51 predict 

that overall traffic volumes will increase over the next 10 years. 

Fifty-one of the states expect this increase in traffic volume to 

negatively affect urban congestion, and 41 of 51 respondents believe 

that the changes in traffic volume will negatively affect rural 

congestion.



Another factor negatively affecting the condition of Interstate 

pavement and bridges is the age of the infrastructure. For example, 

half of the Interstate bridges are currently over 33 years old. Figure 

22 shows when all Interstate bridges were built. Officials from one 

state we visited explained that many of their state’s Interstate 

bridges were built about 40 years ago and are reaching the end of their 

estimated 50-year design life. [Footnote 49] In addition, 45 states 

believe age may jeopardize their bridge conditions, while 38 states 

expect age to negatively affect their pavement conditions 10 years from 

now.



Figure 22. Year Interstate Bridges Were Built:



[See PDF for image]



Note: When the Interstate was built, it incorporated some portions of 

already existing roadways; therefore, some Interstate bridges were 

built before the official establishment of the program.



Source: FHWA data.



[End of Figure]



Cost of Large-Dollar Projects and Other Economic Conditions Could 

Negatively Affect States’ Highway Programs:



Transportation officials are concerned that some states may face an 

increasing number of large-dollar projects such as work on bridges or 

interchanges that may constrain spending for those states’ other 

projects for a number of years. For example, Missouri is looking at 

reconstructing the 200-mile I-70 corridor at a cost of $2.5 billion to 

$3.0 billion. In addition, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which moves 

north-south traffic on I-95 around Washington, D.C., is expected to 

cost over $2 billion and is being funded by two states and FHWA. 

According to a Maryland official, over the 6-year project, funding for 

the bridge accounts for 45 percent of expenditures on major projects in 

the state’s capital budget.



In addition, 40 states are facing budget shortfalls for 2002. 

Furthermore, the amount of funds available for federal highway programs 

may decrease for fiscal year 2003, [Footnote 50] depending on 

congressional action. These potential reductions in federal and state 

funds could reduce the funds available for maintaining the Interstates 

and increase states’ estimated funding shortfalls.



Costs to Maintain Interstates Are Uncertain:



It is difficult to identify state needs on the Interstate System and to 

determine what level of funding is needed to meet these needs. When 

surveyed, most states indicated that they expect to spend the same or 

increasing portions of their transportation budgets to maintain 

Interstate conditions. However, when states provided information on 

their planned expenditures, the amounts did not show a consistent 

upward trend, rather they varied considerably from year to year. (See 

table 1 in app. III.) State and FHWA officials explained that one 

common reason for these increases and decreases is that work on 

Interstates is not done in a vacuum; that is, Interstate projects must 

be weighed against projects on other classes of roads, such as 

expressways or “principal arterials.” For example, North Dakota 

officials explained that they are completing projects, which are 

focused on improving the condition of their Interstate highways. They 

expect to shift their attention and funding toward projects on other 

classes of roads.



In addition, states’ federally required plans do not usually provide 

information on all needs and related costs. States’ short-term STIPs do 

not identify funds needed to maintain Interstate conditions because 

they include lists of proposed projects that can be built with 

estimated revenues. [Footnote 51] Therefore, as state and federal 

officials explain, STIPs reflect affordability rather than identifying 

projects that are needed and would be constructed if additional funding 

were available. In addition to STIPs, states are required to develop 

long-term (20-year) plans. However, these plans may not contain 

specific projects and cost estimates, and thus do not provide 

information on states’ needs and related costs.



Nevertheless, some states have developed additional transportation 

plans that identify long-term funding gaps for various parts of their 

highway networks, including the Interstates. [Footnote 52] For example, 

North Dakota is developing a needs estimate for its state roads 

(excluding urban Interstates). The state defined its need by using 

criteria for pavement, bridge, design, and safety conditions. State 

officials estimated the funds needed to bring the roads (except urban 

Interstates) to the desired physical condition and level of performance 

as nearly a billion dollars more than available. According to state 

officials, eliminating the backlog will require either an increase in 

revenue or a decrease in service. In addition, in 2001, Florida 

officials estimated that to meet capacity needs on its Intrastate 

System [Footnote 53] (including Interstates), it would need $20 billion 

more through 2010 than the $11 billion it expects to have. Missouri’s 

draft 2000 long-term plan also indicates that the state’s needs 

outweigh the available funds.



Concluding Observations:



Interstate highways continue to play a vital role in moving people and 

freight in this country. Over the past few decades, however, they have 

taken on an important and expanded role in facilitating travel within 

urban areas. They have also become central to moving freight and, as a 

result, to economic growth. These roles will continue to be important; 

however, they have consequences that will challenge the federal 

government and state and local governments in assuring that Interstate 

highways continue to provide efficient travel and remain in relatively 

good condition. In particular, the challenges for Interstate highways 

include:



* finding effective methods of easing traffic congestion, particularly 
in 

urban areas;



* providing for efficient freight movement given increases in both 

passenger and freight traffic; and:



* responding to the effect of traffic on roads and bridges given the 

continued aging of these structures.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



We provided a draft of this report to DOT and DOD for their review and 

comment. DOT officials, including the Team Leader for Highway Needs and 

Investment Analysis within FHWA, provided oral comments. They generally 

agreed with the observations in the report, and they also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate. 

DOD officials, including the Chief, Office of Special Assistant for 

Transportation Engineering, Military Traffic Management Command, 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.



We conducted our review from March 2001 through April 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.



As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days 

after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of 

this report to cognizant congressional committees; the Secretary of 

Transportation; and the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.



If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834. Appendix V lists the key contacts and 

contributors to this report.



Sincerely yours,



JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:



Signed by JayEtta Z. Hecker.



(392005):



FOOTNOTES



[1] All dollar figures in this report are constant 2001 dollars, unless 

otherwise noted.



[2] The federal government announced in January 2002 that the level of 

federal highway funding to states would decline in fiscal year 2003 

because of a decrease in revenue to the federal Highway Trust Fund. All 

respondents returned their surveys before that date, so they could not 

take this potential decrease in funding into account in their 

responses.



[3] In a previous report, we expressed concern over how well FHWA 

performs this oversight of large dollar projects--U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: Managing the Costs of 

Large-Dollar Highway Projects, GAO/RCED-97-47 (Washington, D.C.: 

1997). We also testified about FHWA’s oversight on May 1, 2002--U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: Cost and 

Oversight Issues on Major Highway and Bridge Projects, GAO-02-702T 

(Washington, D.C.: May 2002).



[4] These percentages refer only to the nonfederal share of projects 

that use federal funding.



[5] The federal share of Interstate project costs was set at 90 

percent, but in states with large areas of federal public land, the 

federal share is increased proportionately up to a 95-percent limit.



[6] The states are required to coordinate with DOD on exceptions to the 

16-foot vertical clearance standard. According to DOD officials, DOD 

typically concurs with the exemptions.



[7] Lane miles are the number of lanes in a mile of road. For example, 

a four-lane road, 2 miles long, would equal 8 lane miles.



[8] The NHS is a system of designated highways that serve major 

population centers, international border crossings, intermodal 

transportation facilities, and major travel destinations. The NHS 

includes all Interstate highways, plus other principal arterials, the 

STRAHNET, major STRAHNET connectors, high-priority corridors, and 

intermodal connectors. There is a separate funding category 

specifically for the NHS.



[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Infrastructure: 

Preserving the Nation’s Investment in the Interstate Highway System, 

GAO/RCED-91-147 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2, 1991).



[10] 1999 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 

Conditions and Performance, U.S. Department of Transportation (May 

2000). DOT prepared this report in response to requirements for reports 

to Congress on the condition, performance, and future capital 

investment requirements of the nation’s highway and transit systems. 

This edition also includes the results of a study on Interstate needs 

required by Section 1107(c) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21ST Century.



[11] The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 stated that the system was to: 

serve the principal metropolitan areas, cities and industrial centers; 

support the national defense; and connect with routes of continental 

importance in Canada and Mexico.



[12] The National Interregional Highway Committee was appointed by the 

president in 1941 “to investigate the need for a limited system of 

national highways…” The committee included highway officials and 

planners from the federal, state, and local governments.



[13] “1997 Economic Census-Transportation-1997 Commodity Flow Survey,” 

U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Commerce (Dec. 

1999).



[14] Apportionments refer to funds distributed by statutory formula for 

various types of highway programs or activities. Since 1954, funds have 

been apportioned for projects on the Interstate System; however, the 

focus of Interstate funding provisions has changed over time from 

construction to preservation and maintenance.



[15] The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible 

transportation funding for states and localities. Eligible uses include 

projects on any federal-aid highway, bridges on any public road, and 

transit projects.



[16] Designation of a road as a future Interstate highway does not 

necessarily guarantee specific funds for construction of the road.



[17] In May 2002, we testified on how FHWA is carrying out oversight on 

large dollar projects--U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation 

Infrastructure: Cost and Oversight Issues on Major Highway and Bridge 

Projects, GAO-02-702T (Washington, D.C.: May 2002).



[18] By law, FHWA may not assume more oversight responsibility than was 

permitted under TEA-21, unless agreed to by a state. As a result, with 

respect to Interstates, states may be responsible for all resurfacing, 

restoring, and rehabilitation projects, and construction and 

reconstruction projects less than $1 million. The extent of FHWA’s 

oversight for Interstate projects is typically an agreement with each 

state’s department of transportation.



[19] The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 required the 

Secretary of Transportation to establish guidelines for ensuring the 

maintenance of the Interstate System. In 1980, DOT promulgated related 

regulations--requiring states to develop an initial Interstate 

maintenance program and to annually certify that they were adequately 

maintaining the Interstate System in accordance with the program’s 

guidelines. FHWA inspected state maintenance efforts and determined 

whether a state should be certified as having adequately maintained its 

Interstates.



[20] Geometric standards are guidelines FHWA adopts from the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ policy for 

constructing the physical layout of roads such as shoulder width.



[21] The Results Act is intended to shift the focus of government 

decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and 

processes to the results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. The 

act requires federal agencies to establish performance goals and report 

yearly on the extent to which these goals were achieved.



[22] According to the Military Traffic Management Command, while DOD 

has worked with FHWA and the states to identify routes important to the 

national defense since at least 1956, the first STRAHNET was designated 

in 1981.



[23] See footnote 8.



[24] States need match only 10 percent of a lane addition project’s 

costs if the added lanes are high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Otherwise, 

states must match 20 percent of a lane addition project’s cost. 

Moreover, these percentages refer only to the nonfederal share of 

Federal-Aid projects.



[25] FHWA’s bridge project classifications are as follows: new bridge-

-new bridge that did not replace or relocate an existing bridge; bridge 

replacement--total replacement of a deficient bridge with a new bridge 

in the same traffic corridor; major bridge rehabilitation-major work to 

restore a bridge’s structural integrity or to correct major safety 

defects; minor bridge rehabilitation--minor structural repairs, 

patching, curbs and gutters, etc.



[26] Since 1995, FHWA’s Highway Statistics reports have portrayed 

pavement conditions in International Roughness Index unit categories 

without quality descriptions. Thus, FHWA reported that 1,560 miles of 

Interstate pavement in 2000 had a roughness index over 170 inches per 

mile. We use the term “poor” to describe this pavement, following the 

descriptive approach used in DOT’s Condition and Performance reports.



[27] Our survey asked states to rate their pavement quality on a scale 

of very poor to excellent. This scale was not necessarily designed to 

match FHWA’s pavement condition categories that are based on 

International Roughness Index data.



[28] According to an official in Missouri’s Department of 

Transportation, the state has a higher percentage of pavement it 

considers poor for state purposes. However, we used state data as 

reported in FHWA’s Highway Statistics 2000.



[29] Unlike our analysis in figure 13, FHWA generally uses lower 

condition standards to rate classes of roads that are not Interstates. 

FHWA’s criteria for the best road categories (very good and good) are 

the same no matter which class of roads is being considered. But the 

ranges of fair, mediocre, and poor roads are more stringent for 

Interstates than for other roads. For example, non-Interstate highways 

are considered to be in poor condition once their roughness index 

exceeds 170 inches per mile.



[30] We asked state officials to predict future pavement condition, 

given expected levels of funding. See appendix II, Survey of States’ 

Views on the Future of the Interstate System, question 6. The same 

funding assumption applies to all survey predictions discussed later in 

this report.



[31] 1999 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit: 

Condition and Performance, May 2, 2000, Appendix A Interstate Needs. 

According to DOT’s analysis, expected future investments could produce 

improvements of 3.8 to 6.7 percent in the average pavement condition 

statistic. This prediction assumes that federal funding for Interstates 

could increase through 2003 as provided for in TEA-21 and would remain 

at the 2003 level in constant dollar terms through 2007. DOT also 

analyzed the impact of lower funding levels on future pavement 

conditions, showing that pavement conditions could decline, consistent 

with the results of our survey.



[32] FHWA provided this information for Interstate bridges that are 

eligible for federal-aid funds but had not received funding during the 

past 10 years.



[33] We are focusing our discussion on the number of deficient bridges 

because, according to FHWA, this is a more widely used indicator than 

bridge component ratings. In addition, component ratings are more 

difficult to discuss on a national level because they provide more 

detail and a broader perspective on the specific condition of a 

bridge’s deck, superstructure and substructure.



[34] Includes both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete 

bridges.



[35] VMT is a measure of the level of travel on roads: 1 VMT is equal 

to one vehicle traveling 1 mile on a road.



[36] U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Highway Funding by Program 

and Type of Roadway, With Related Safety Data, GAO-01-836R (Washington, 

D.C.: July 16, 2001).



[37] The fatality rate here is measured as the number of deaths per 100 

million VMTs. DOT uses fatality rate rather than crash rate because the 

data are more reliable.



[38] See footnote 10.



[39] A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2001).



[40] Access control means that access to the highway is regulated to 

limit interference with through traffic.



[41] Daily vehicle miles of travel per lane mile is a basic measure of 

how much travel is being accommodated on our highway systems since it 

is a count-based metric. Daily vehicle miles traveled is the average 

daily traffic of a section of roadway multiplied by the length (in 

miles) of that section of roadway.



[42] FHWA used this indicator in its Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Highway 

Administration Performance Plan and the biennial Conditions and 

Performance report.



[43] The five classes of roads that we compared were (1) urban 

Interstates, (2) urban freeways and expressways, (3) urban other 

principal arterial streets, (4) rural Interstates, and (5) rural other 

principal arterial streets.



[44] The Texas Transportation Institute has been conducting an Urban 

Mobility Study since 1982. The study’s purpose is to develop useful 

congestion figures from generally available data sources and to provide 

information on trends in mobility levels. To accomplish this goal, the 

Institute considers multiple congestion measures--one of which we will 

focus on in this report.



[45] The 2001 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute and 

The Texas A&M University System (May 2001). This estimate may be low 

since according to the Mobility Report, the high percentages of 

congestion due to incidents are found in areas where congestion levels 

are lower, and the Institute’s report only covers 68 urban areas.



[46] FHWA has developed a Freight Productivity Program to understand 

freight demands, assess implications for the surface transportation 

system, and develop policy and program initiatives to improve freight 

efficiency. The Freight Analysis Framework is the policy and systems 

analysis tool developed to support this effort.



[47] Addendum to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study Final 

Report, May 2000.



[48] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway User Fees: Updated Data 

Needed to Determine Whether All Users Pay Their Fair Share, GAO/RCED-

94-181 (Washington, D.C.: June 7, 1994). We recommended that DOT 

conduct a new highway cost-allocation study, which it accomplished in 

August 1997 and updated in May 2000. We also said that Congress should 

consider policy options to increase equity and promote more efficient 

use of the nation’s highways.



[49] Pavement has shorter life expectancy than bridges, usually ranging 

from 15 to 40 years depending on factors including the type of material 

used. Routine and preventive maintenance can extend the life of the 

bridges. In addition, one state’s transportation plan indicated that 

the older bridges are not necessarily in danger of falling down, 

although they may be outdated.



[50] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Financing: Factors 

Affecting Highway Funding Fluctuations and Revenue Trends, GAO-02-527T 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2002).



[51] See appendix III for description of state planning processes and 

role of required federal planning documents.



[52] We did not verify the accuracy of these plans.



[53] Florida’s Intrastate Highway System is about 3,750 miles of the 

state highway system, which serves regional commerce and high-speed and 

long-distance travel. The state’s system encompasses the Interstate 

System as well as the turnpike and other major expressways and 

arterials, which carry 32 percent of the state’s traffic and 70 percent 

of its truck traffic on the state highway system.



[End of section]



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



With the upcoming reauthorization of the surface transportation 

programs, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

asked us to report on Interstate highways and bridges. Accordingly, 

this report examines the condition of the Interstate System, including, 

(1) how the role of the Interstate System has changed over time; (2) 

the roles of the federal and state governments in managing and funding 

the Interstate System; (3) the financial resources that states and the 

federal government have devoted to the system; (4) how physical 

conditions, safety, and congestion of the Interstate System have 

changed and how they compare to other classes of roads; and (5) the 

factors that could affect future Interstate conditions and the cost of 

addressing these factors.



To determine how the role of the Interstate System has changed over 

time, we reviewed historical documents. We also conducted a nationwide 

mail survey of state transportation agencies in all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Our survey focused on state 

officials’ views on the changing role of Interstate highways in their 

states’ transportation systems; the usefulness of various approaches 

for addressing operations and maintenance of their Interstate highways 

and bridges; their views on the Interstate System in 10 years; and 

their perceptions of the current condition of their Interstate System’s 

infrastructure, safety, and congestion. We received survey responses 

from all 52 governments--most states responded to most of the 

questions. A summary of responses to the survey appears in appendix II 

of this report.



To develop our mail survey, we discussed potential survey topics with 

state officials in two states to determine how to design our survey 

questionnaire. Then, we conducted pretests of our questionnaire with 

transportation officials in four states. We selected states for our 

survey development phase to provide perspectives from a variety of 

geographic areas and from states with various types of weather, 

population patterns, and other factors that affect Interstate planning. 

Each of the four pretests consisted of a visit with state officials by 

our staff to ensure that (1) questions were readable and clear, (2) 

terms used were clear, (3) the survey did not place undue burden on 

state governments that would result in a lack of cooperation, and (4) 

the survey was independent and unbiased in its point of view. 

Appropriate changes were incorporated into the final survey based on 

our pretesting. In addition to our pretesting, we discussed our 

questionnaire with an official at FHWA headquarters and representatives 

of the AASHTO in Washington, D.C. We incorporated comments from these 

discussions, as appropriate.



To determine which officials should receive our survey, we used 

AASHTO’s Reference Book to identify the appropriate state officials. We 

verified our selection by contacting FHWA division officials in most of 

the 52 locations. During the return period, an unprecedented terrorist 

incident occurred on September 11, 2001. Although it is possible that 

the responses completed after this date may have differed from those 

received beforehand, our analysis of the question of the role of the 

Interstates in moving military personnel and equipment shows that 

answers did not differ for these two time periods. We received the last 

survey included in our analysis on November 21, 2001.



To address our second objective, we reviewed historical Federal-Aid 

Highway Program data obtained from FHWA, which discussed why the 

Interstate System was developed and the roles Congress, FHWA, DOD, and 

states played and how they have evolved into the current roles. We also 

interviewed FHWA and DOD staff about their roles and identified current 

federal requirements related to the Interstates. Finally, we examined 

federal apportionments to the states for Interstates as well as other 

activities.



For our third objective, we analyzed FHWA’s obligation of funds for 

Interstate-related projects. We also reviewed outlays from all levels 

of government for Interstate-related projects, as reported by states on 

an annual basis.



For the fourth objective, we used the responses to our survey described 

previously. To compare conditions of Interstate highways to other 

classes of roads as well as obtain trend information on Interstate 

highway conditions, we reviewed DOT’s published data on actual highway 

conditions and its forecasts of potential future conditions. To learn 

how officials assess Interstate highway conditions in their states, we 

interviewed officials in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and 

Pennsylvania. We selected these states to obtain perspectives from a 

variety of regions with various types of weather, population 

differences, and other factors that affect Interstate planning.



In addition, to determine the current condition of the Interstate 

System in terms of congestion, we relied on a number of measures 

reported by FHWA. We requested FHWA to obtain Texas Transportation 

Institute analysis of congestion levels on Interstate highways in 

comparison with other classes of roads. We also reviewed DOT’s Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau data on factors 

related to congestion trends. Furthermore, to assess safety, we 

reviewed data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System, and FHWA data on trends in fatality 

rates and number of fatalities.



To address the last objective, we analyzed state survey responses and 

discussed the factors with state and FHWA officials during our site 

visits, as necessary. We focused on factors such as demographic changes 

or changes in traffic, but we did not focus on the influence of federal 

funding through the existing Federal-Aid Highway Program on state’s 

decisions about their investment in Interstate roads and bridges. To 

examine states’ plans for Interstate investment, we asked states to 

provide information on their planned costs for their Interstate 

highways in our survey. We reviewed states’ written plans for 

investment in Interstate highways and other roads. Again, we also 

visited the five states mentioned earlier to obtain more detailed 

information on their planning. Additionally, we interviewed FHWA 

division officials to obtain a general overview of FHWA’s approach to 

assisting states with their Interstate System plans.



We conducted our review from March 2001 through April 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.



Appendix II: Survey of States’ Views on the Future of the Interstate 
System:



[See PDF for image]



[End of Section]



Appendix III: State Planning Processes:



States must meet specific planning requirements set forth by federal 

law. In addition, state transportation agencies may face state-level 

requirements. Within these requirements, states develop plans to 

allocate available funds throughout their transportation systems.



Federal law requires each state to develop at least two planning 

documents--a 20-year Statewide Transportation Plan and a short-term 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that covers at 

least 3 years. The STIP should include a list of proposed projects that 

is financially constrained--that is, projects that can be built with 

estimated revenues. States must submit their proposed STIPs to FHWA and 

the Federal Transit Administration for joint approval at least every 2 

years; however, the STIPs may be amended at any time, subject to 

federal approval.



Some states also have policies or laws that direct the use of their 

funds. These directives are taken into consideration when planning 

projects. For example, Florida officials are concerned about the safety 

and preservation of the current system. First, the state addresses 

safety in all their transportation projects. Next, it is the state’s 

policy to preserve the existing system before spending anything on new 

construction. In addition, Florida law requires that at least 50 

percent of the amount of new funds available for capacity construction 

must go towards the state’s Intrastate system. [Footnote 1] Also, in 

Arizona, according to a statewide agreement, 50 percent of the funding 

available to the Arizona Department of Transportation must be spent on 

state highway projects within the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan 

areas, and the remaining 50 percent must be spent on state highway 

projects outside these two metropolitan areas.



To develop these planning documents and maintain their Interstate 

highways, states use a variety of planning approaches. For example, 

Florida has a complex system relying on policies, measurable 

objectives, and performance monitoring to make its investment 

decisions. Florida officials develop a 20-year long-range policy plan. 

Based on this 20-year plan, they develop a 10-year program and 

resources plan containing program funding levels given estimated 

revenues. Finally, the officials develop and update annually a 5-year 

list of projects. To help select specific projects that meet their 

goals, Florida officials use decision support software to consider a 

multitude of data, including pavement condition surveys, biennial 

bridge inspections, routine maintenance, safety data, and analyses of 

congestion levels. Arizona is revising its long-term planning process. 

In the meantime, Arizona is using an interim process to develop its 5-

year construction program.



To identify states’ plans to meet Interstate needs over the next few 

years, we asked states to provide information on the level of funding 

directed toward the Interstates. Table 2 shows the amount states plan 

to spend in 2001 and the increases and decreases compared with 2001 

throughout the 5 subsequent years. The states in bold indicate states 

included in our site visits.



Table 2. Percent Increase/Decrease in Planning Interstate Project Cost 

(2002-2006):



State: Alabama; Cost: 2001: $135,311,556; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 111; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 147; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -31; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 61; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Alaska; Cost: 2001: $106,590,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 35; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 16; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 31; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 43.



State: Arizona; Cost: 2001: $89,194,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 5; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 35; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 20; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 32; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 112.



State: Arkansas; Cost: 2001: $387,600,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 18; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -95; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: California; Cost: 2001: $1,500,000,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -37; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 3; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: 19; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -8; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 7.



State: Colorado; Cost: 2001: $582,495,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 10; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -9; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -4; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -6; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -9.



State: Connecticut; Cost: 2001: $190,460,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -12; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 12; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 

-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Delaware; Cost: 2001: $43,406,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -44; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -22; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -44; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -70; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -70.



State: District of Columbia; Cost: 2001: $50,000,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 0; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -18; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -34; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Florida; Cost: 2001: $747,600,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 146; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -4; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 34; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 17; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -29.



State: Georgia; Cost: 2001: $107,883,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 305; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 770; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 194; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 204; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 187.



State: Hawaii; Cost: 2001: $13,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -9; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 477; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 81; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Idaho; Cost: 2001: $102,484,500; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004: 

-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Illinois; Cost: 2001: $463,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 45; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 39; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -23; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -31.



State: Indiana; Cost: 2001: $165,691,860; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -52; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -32; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Iowa; Cost: 2001: $46,816,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 116; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 91; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 115; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 276; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 186.



State: Kansas; Cost: 2001: $117,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -4; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 63; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -20; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -24; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -66.



State: Kentucky; Cost: 2001: $145,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 14; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 3; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004: 

-6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -22; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -45.



State: Louisiana; Cost: 2001: $75,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 0; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 0; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004: 

-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Maine; Cost: 2001: $12,700,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 32; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -28; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Maryland; Cost: 2001: $63,100,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 25; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 34; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 15; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -23; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -69.



State: Massachusetts; Cost: 2001: $113,900,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -27; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -67; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -63; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -68; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -70.



State: Michigan; Cost: 2001: $445,120,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 0; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -18; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -36; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -51; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -58.



State: Minnesota; Cost: 2001: $101,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 169; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 99; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -37; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -65; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -73.



State: Mississippi; Cost: 2001: $250,000,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -78; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -48; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -52; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -40; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Missouri; Cost: 2001: $250,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 42; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 21; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -62; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -92; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -89.



State: Montana; Cost: 2001: $77,826,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -21; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -25; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -37; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Nebraska; Cost: 2001: $70,402,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 14; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 13; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -4; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 8; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 4.



State: Nevada; Cost: 2001: $159,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 85; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 81; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 44; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 12.



State: New Hampshire; Cost: 2001: $46,000,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -42; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -64; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -41; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -68; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -44.



State: New Jersey; Cost: 2001: $87,658,800; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 22; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 48; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: New Mexico; Cost: 2001: $85,100,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -45; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -46; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -41; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -59; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -52.



State: New York; Cost: 2001: $195,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -26; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -13; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 56; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -23; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -28.



State: North Carolina; Cost: 2001: $233,640,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -31; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -21; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -24; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -61; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -47.



State: North Dakota; Cost: 2001: $48,156,176; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 24; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 35; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -14; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: 24; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -1.



State: Ohio; Cost: 2001: $331,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 82; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 5; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004: 

-17; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 17; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -23.



State: Oklahoma; Cost: 2001: $51,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 41; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -8; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -67; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -56; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -30.



State: Oregon; Cost: 2001: $96,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -20; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -6; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -30; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 2; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Pennsylvania; Cost: 2001: $345,951,240; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 5; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -7; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 

-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Puerto Rico; Cost: 2001: $93,958,800; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 61; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 74; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -98; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -87; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -90.



State: Rhode Island; Cost: 2001: $45,900,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 2; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 16; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: 62; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: 64; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 80.



State: South Carolina; Cost: 2001: $245,893,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -11; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -25; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -27; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -36; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: South Dakota; Cost: 2001: $86,151,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -21; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: -28; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -26; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -28; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -25.



State: Tennessee; Cost: 2001: $192,000,000; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 19; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -3; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -17; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Texas; Cost: 2001: $1,155,967,467; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 11; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: 17; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 24; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 24; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Utah; Cost: 2001: $787,142,151; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -19; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -37; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -47; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Vermont; Cost: 2001: $17,983,620; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 52; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004: 

-; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Virginia; Cost: 2001: -; [Empty]; Percent increases/decreases 

from 2001 costs: 2002: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2003: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2004: -; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Washington; Cost: 2001: $181,035,354; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: 52; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 8; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: -49; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -55; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: West Virginia; Cost: 2001: $68,865,000; [Empty]; Percent 

increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -23; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2003: 65; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2004: 64; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2005: -; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -.



State: Wisconsin; Cost: 2001: $119,050,584; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -5; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -3; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: 14; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: 63; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: 32.



State: Wyoming; Cost: 2001: $95,555,300; [Empty]; Percent increases/

decreases from 2001 costs: 2002: -26; Percent increases/decreases from 

2001 costs: 2003: -32; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 

2004: -35; Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2005: -43; 

Percent increases/decreases from 2001 costs: 2006: -23.



Note: Dollar amounts were adjusted to 2001 dollars. The state data may 

be either fiscal or calendar year.



Source: GAO’s analysis of the states’ responses to survey question 31. 

(See app. II.) :



[End of table]



FOOTNOTES



[1] Florida’s Intrastate Highway System is about 3,750 miles of the 

state highway system, which includes Interstate highways in the state. 

See footnote 51.



[End of Section]



Appendix IV: Tools for Addressing Congestion:



States’ views differ on effectiveness of congestion relief tools. We 

surveyed the states about the tools they were using to relieve 

congestion and the tools’ usefulness. Although we identified below some 

of the tools mentioned on our survey, based on our case study states, 

we found that different tools may be more effective in one state than 

in another. For example, adding lanes may be a useful tool to deal with 

congestion for states with relatively low population density; however, 

this tool may not be useful for states with relatively high population 

densities--particularly in their urban areas, where the ability of 

adding lanes is limited since many urban areas have the maximum number 

of lanes that will fit into available space.



States reported using a variety of tools and varied in their assessment 

of the tools’ usefulness. For example:



Increasing capacity through the addition of lanes. Forty-four states 

indicated that adding lanes to increase capacity is very useful or 

moderately useful.



Redesigning problematic highway sections. Three-fourths of the 52 

states found redesigning highway sections to address traffic 

bottlenecks to be very useful or moderately useful.



Using traffic incident management tools. About two-thirds of the state 

departments of transportation stated that traffic incident management 

tools (e.g., protocols for handling accidents) were very useful or 

moderately useful.



Using technology for handling high-volume traffic--such as variable 

message signs, ramp metering, and electronic tolls--42 states found 

these to be useful.



Providing alternative transportation modes to reduce Interstate traffic 

(e.g., buses, rail, and ferries)--12 states found these to be very 

useful or moderately useful.



Providing incentives to drivers to reduce congestion. While 30 states 

used these techniques--for example, reserving lanes for high-occupancy 

vehicle and varying tolls by time of day--only 15 states believed them 

to be very useful or moderately useful.



[End of Section]



Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



JayEtta Z. Hecker (202) 512-2834 Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-2834:



Staff Acknowledgments:



In addition to those named above, Carolyn Boyce, Richard Calhoon, 

Jennifer Clayborne, Catherine Colwell, Fran Featherston, Timothy J. 

Guinane, and Josephine Perez made key contributions to this report.



[End of Section]



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548