This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-943 
entitled 'Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation Systems' 
Promise for Managing Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could Better 
Facilitate Their Strategic Use' which was released on September 14, 
2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
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 text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of 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 the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

September 2005: 

Highway Congestion: 

Intelligent Transportation Systems' Promise for Managing Congestion 
Falls Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate Their Strategic Use: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-943, a report to congressional committees: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Congestion is a serious and growing transportation problem for the 
nation. Many strategies—like adding new lanes—have the potential to 
alleviate congestion but can be costly and have limited application. 
Another strategy is the use of communications, electronics, and 
computer technologies—intelligent transportation systems (ITS)—to more 
effectively utilize existing transportation infrastructure by improving 
traffic flow. Congress established an ITS program in 1991, and the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) subsequently set an ITS deployment 
goal. 

In this report GAO (1) describes the federal role in deployment; (2) 
assesses DOT’s ITS goal and measurement efforts; (3) identifies what 
ITS studies have found regarding the impacts of ITS deployment; and (4) 
identifies the barriers to ITS deployment and use. 

What GAO Found: 

The federal role in ITS deployment includes goal setting, funding, and 
facilitating states’ investment in ITS. In 1991, Congress set broad 
goals and established funding for ITS, and in 1998, Congress 
established a program to support ITS deployment. In a 1996 speech, the 
Secretary of Transportation established a vision for ITS deployment to 
save time and lives and improve quality of life. As part of this 
vision, the Secretary also established a goal that the 75 largest 
metropolitan areas deploy a complete ITS infrastructure by 2005 and 
measures to track progress toward this goal. DOT has taken several 
actions to support this goal, though it does not plan to update it. 

Progress has been made toward achieving DOT’s deployment goal, but 
DOT’s goal and measures have limitations and fall short of capturing 
ITS’s impact on congestion. Among other things, the measures do not 
capture the extent to which deployed ITS technologies are effectively 
operated, and we found that some metropolitan areas’ operations of ITS 
technologies are limited. For example, Chicago developed 10 traffic 
management centers to monitor and respond to traffic congestion by 
notifying emergency responders of traffic accidents, among other 
things; however, 6 centers do not have full-time operators, which is 
likely to limit their impact on congestion mitigation. 

Many of the ITS studies we reviewed suggest that ITS deployment can 
have benefits such as relieving congestion, traffic throughput, safety, 
and air quality. Results from some studies suggest that ITS benefits 
depend on effectively operating ITS technologies to meet local 
conditions. However, few studies provided information about cost 
effectiveness of the ITS deployments, which is essential for maximizing 
public investments. 

According to transportation officials GAO spoke with, barriers to ITS 
deployment and use include the limited public awareness of the impact 
of ITS, difficulty of funding ITS operations, limited technical 
expertise, and lack of technical standards. DOT actions have had 
limited success in overcoming these barriers. 

A Chicago Metropolitan Area’s Traffic Management Center That Lacks 
Staff Dedicated throughout the Day: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation improve the 
measurement of ITS deployment and address some barriers to ITS 
deployment to help state and local governments select projects that 
cost effectively meet transportation goals. GAO provided a draft of 
this report to the Department of Transportation for its review and 
comment. The department generally agreed with the information in the 
report and agreed to consider the recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact JayEtta Z. Hecker at 
(202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

The Federal Role in ITS Deployment Includes Goal Setting, Funding, and 
Activities to Support States' Deployment of ITS: 

Although Progress Has Occurred, DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Have 
Limitations and Fall Short of Capturing Impact on Congestion: 

Studies Have Found Positive Impacts of ITS Deployment Depend on 
Effective Operations, but Few Have Included Cost-Effectiveness 
Analyses: 

Several Barriers Limit the Widespread Deployment of ITS: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Organizations Contacted: 

Appendix II: Summary of DOT's Deployment Tracking Methodology: 

Appendix III: Metropolitan Area Case Studies: 

Chicago, Illinois: 

San Francisco, California: 

Las Vegas, Nevada: 

Indianapolis, Indiana: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Examples of Deployment Impacts from Our Review of ITS Studies: 

Table 2: DOT's Deployment Component Indicators and Threshold Values: 

Table 3: DOT's Integrated Deployment Classification Scheme: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Select ITS Technologies Used to Manage Congestion: 

Figure 2: Examples of ITS Technologies That Can Be Deployed and 
Integrated in Metropolitan Areas: 

Figure 3: ITS Deployment Ratings for 75 Metropolitan Areas, 1997 to 
2004: 

Figure 4: A Chicago Metropolitan Area's Traffic Management Center That 
Lacks Staff Dedicated to Monitoring Traffic throughout the Day: 

Figure 5: Artist's Depiction of Real-Time Travel Information in San 
Francisco: 

Figure 6: Indiana Hoosier Helper Van: 

Abbreviations: 

CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991: 

ITS: intelligent transportation systems: 

JPO: Joint Program Office: 

NHS: National Highway System program: 

NTOC: National Transportation Operations Coalition: 

SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: 

SDO: standards development organization: 

STP: Surface Transportation Program: 

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

Letter September 14, 2005: 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Christopher S. "Kit" Bond: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Bart Gordon: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Science: 
House of Representatives: 

Increasing passenger and freight travel has led to growing congestion 
in the nation's transportation system, which has posed a burden on the 
nation's quality of life through wasted energy, time, and money; 
increased pollution; and threats to safety. According to transportation 
researchers, even with slow growth in jobs and travel in 2003, the cost 
of congestion to the nation's economy in terms of extra fuel used and 
time spent in congestion was $63 billion.[Footnote 1] Moreover, 
passenger and freight traffic are expected to grow substantially in the 
future, increasing the challenge of preventing congestion from 
overwhelming the transportation system. For example, by 2010, the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) forecasts that travel on roads will 
have increased by about 25 percent from 2000, while freight traffic 
will have increased by 43 percent from 1998. One tool available to help 
reduce congestion is the use of intelligent transportation systems 
(ITS), such as electronic technologies designed to monitor or control 
traffic flow, in order to improve transportation system operations, 
management, and performance.[Footnote 2]

We have previously reported that there are a range of strategies to 
mitigate the effect of increasing congestion, including building 
capacity through construction, corrective and preventative maintenance, 
rehabilitation, managing system use through pricing or other 
techniques, and operations and system management, including the use of 
ITS.[Footnote 3] We have also reported that using the full range of 
these strategies offers the promise of being more effective than 
placing emphasis on any one technique. For example, building new 
infrastructure can ease congestion, but it is not always a viable 
solution due to constraints such as the cost of construction or limited 
availability of land. Moreover, improving system operations, 
management, and performance through the strategic use of ITS 
technologies has the potential to reduce congestion without major 
capital investments. ITS technologies range in complexity from ramp 
meters, which are small traffic light-like devices that control the 
traffic flow on ramps leading to freeways or tollways, to fully 
integrated systems in which several technologies work together to 
process information and respond to traffic conditions. For example, a 
traffic-sensing device could collect data on traffic flow by monitoring 
traffic volume and speed, which could be used to alter the timing of 
freeway ramp meters and arterial road traffic signals to improve 
traffic flow as well as to alert travelers to specific traffic 
conditions using variable message boards or other devices. 

Over the past 14 years, the federal government has provided billions of 
dollars for investment in surface transportation projects through the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and 
its successors, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-
21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).[Footnote 4] Recognizing 
the potential of ITS as a tool to improve mobility, among other 
benefits, Congress established a federal ITS research program and some 
dedicated ITS funding in ISTEA and continued this program and funding 
in TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU. Dedicated funding for integrating ITS 
deployments from TEA-21 has averaged about $113 million a 
year.[Footnote 5] Although it continued to fund the ITS research 
program, SAFETEA-LU did not directly reauthorize the ITS integration 
deployment program. It did create a new program, known as the 
intelligent transportation infrastructure program, that will help 
states monitor real time traffic and travel conditions on major U.S. 
highways. In addition to dedicated ITS funding, state and local 
governments may choose to spend some of the billions of dollars of 
federal funds provided through other surface transportation programs on 
ITS technologies. Among many activities DOT has undertaken in support 
of the ITS program, in 1996, it established a goal that 75 of the 
nation's largest metropolitan areas would have a complete intelligent 
transportation infrastructure by 2005. 

SAFETEA-LU authorized billions of dollars more in federal funding for 
surface transportation projects through fiscal year 2009. As we have 
reported, for these funds to have the greatest effect on the congestion 
of the existing transportation system, transportation planners and 
decision makers need to select the appropriate mix of tools and 
resulting projects to efficiently use available funds. Making 
appropriate and cost-effective investment choices will become even more 
critical if, as we and other analysts have been reporting, the nation 
faces a sustained period of deficits and fiscal imbalance, resulting 
from the growing mandatory commitments for programs including Social 
Security and Medicare as well as a large investment in homeland 
security. Given these fiscal challenges, careful decisions will need to 
be made to ensure that transportation investments maximize the benefits 
of federal highway funds and achieve projected performance outcomes. 
However, as we have noted previously, there are currently no mechanisms 
in the federal-aid highway program that link federal funding to project 
performance.[Footnote 6]

In order to assess the extent to which ITS is being effectively used as 
a tool to reduce congestion, this report has the following 
objectives:[Footnote 7] (1) describe the federal role in ITS 
deployment; (2) assess progress toward DOT's ITS deployment goal and 
DOT's measures for assessing the status of ITS; (3) identify what ITS 
studies have found regarding the impacts of ITS deployment; and (4) 
identify barriers to ITS deployment and use. 

To describe the federal role in ITS deployment for mitigating 
congestion, we reviewed legislation, the Secretary of Transportation's 
1996 speech for the Transportation Research Board's annual conference, 
as well as documents from DOT, including performance plans and other 
relevant materials. To assess progress toward DOT's ITS deployment goal 
and DOT's measures, we reviewed DOT's status reports on ITS deployment 
and interviewed DOT ITS officials who track deployment of ITS 
technologies in over 75 metropolitan areas. We also selected four 
congested areas to study in depth by sorting the 75 largest U.S. 
metropolitan areas according to both congestion level and DOT's 
integrated deployment rating and selecting two areas that DOT has 
determined have deployed ITS to a great extent and two areas that DOT 
has determined have deployed ITS to a lesser extent. During our visits 
to these four areas--Chicago, San Francisco, Indianapolis, and Las 
Vegas--we interviewed federal, state, and local transportation 
officials about their experiences with ITS and the ITS technologies 
deployed in each area. To identify the impacts of ITS deployment on 
congestion, we reviewed 38 studies issued since 2000 that we obtained 
from our site visits and DOT's ITS benefits database, a repository of 
academic and government papers evaluating the deployment of ITS 
technologies in U.S. and international locations, including any cost- 
effectiveness information encompassed in the studies. A DOT contractor 
reviewed the studies for methodological soundness before including them 
in DOT's benefits database. We also reviewed the DOT benefit database 
studies we selected to ensure these studies were based on sound 
methodologies and determined these studies were sufficiently reliable 
for describing actual and potential impacts of ITS technologies. We 
selected only studies on U.S. deployments, since our review is focused 
on ITS deployment in the United States and the federal ITS program. In 
addition, we did not assess the potential benefits of any one 
technology, such as open road electronic tolling, on the nation's 
transportation system. To determine barriers to ITS deployment in 
congested metropolitan areas, we discussed barriers to deploying and 
maintaining ITS technologies with the federal, state, and local 
transportation officials we visited at our four case study locations. 
Although ITS technologies can be used for many purposes, including 
improving highway safety, we focused this analysis on the role of ITS 
for mitigating congestion. We conducted our work from October 2004 
through August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. (See app. 1 for more information about our scope 
and methodology.)

Results in Brief: 

The federal role in ITS deployment includes setting goals, providing 
funding, and performing other activities to facilitate states' and 
localities' investment in ITS. Congress set broad goals and established 
funding for ITS through ISTEA in 1991. In 1998, TEA-21 established the 
ITS integration program with the goal of improving ITS deployment 
through supporting the integration of ITS systems across and within 
metropolitan and rural areas. TEA-21 authorized about $113 million 
annually for the integration program since 1998, and each year since, 
Congress has designated these funds to specific states or projects. In 
addition, other federal-aid highway funds are available for states to 
use for ITS technologies. In a 1996 speech, the Secretary of 
Transportation, Federico Peña, DOT established a vision for ITS 
deployment to create an intelligent transportation infrastructure 
across the United States that would save time and lives and improve the 
quality of life for Americans. In this speech, Secretary Peña 
articulated an ITS deployment goal--to achieve a complete ITS 
infrastructure in the country's 75 largest metropolitan areas within 10 
years--by the end of fiscal year 2005 according to DOT officials. The 
Secretary also emphasized the importance of strategic investment in ITS 
technologies; projected impacts of increasing infrastructure capacity 
and reducing Americans' travel time by at least 15 percent; and 
emphasized the cost effectiveness of ITS. The Secretary's goal was 
incorporated into subsequent DOT performance plans with interim 
measures under its mobility and economic growth goal. DOT does not plan 
to update the deployment goal once it expires at the end of 2005. DOT 
has undertaken several roles to facilitate states' ITS deployment, such 
as showcasing ITS benefits through a benefits database available on its 
Web site. DOT also developed measures to track progress toward the ITS 
deployment goal. DOT biennially surveys the 75 metropolitan areas' 
transportation-related agencies and rates the areas' deployment levels 
according to its measures. 

Progress has been made toward achieving DOT's deployment goal, but 
DOT's goal and measures have limitations and fall short of capturing 
ITS's impact on congestion. According to DOT, 62 of the 75 metropolitan 
areas had met its goal of deploying integrated ITS infrastructure in 
2004. DOT defined the Secretary's goal of complete intelligent 
transportation infrastructure to include two elements--deployment, 
meaning the extent that certain technologies are installed over certain 
areas such as freeways, and integration, meaning the extent of 
coordination between different agencies that deploy ITS technologies. 
However, although the Secretary's goal calls for a "complete" ITS 
infrastructure, according to DOT's criteria, metropolitan areas with 
relatively low thresholds of ITS infrastructure--such as 20 percent of 
freeway miles and 33 percent of signalized intersections covered by 
certain ITS technologies--may meet the goal. DOT officials stated they 
established these relatively low thresholds because they did not have a 
way to determine the extent to which ITS should be deployed in each 
metropolitan area, and they also stated that complete deployment is a 
very long-term goal that perhaps will never be reached. In addition, 
although DOT's goal and measures give a sense of progress of ITS 
deployment, they fail to capture a number of important dimensions of 
evaluating the status of ITS that the Secretary alluded to in his 1996 
speech: they do not take into account the level of ITS needed to 
accomplish local goals and priorities; they do not capture the extent 
to which deployed ITS technologies are being effectively operated; and 
they do not evaluate the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS. The lack 
of evaluation of outcomes, including impact or cost effectiveness, also 
has been identified as a limitation of other highway programs. The 
status of ITS in the four metropolitan areas we visited illustrate the 
shortfalls of DOT's ITS deployment goal and measures. Although San 
Francisco and Chicago, both of which DOT counted toward meeting the 
deployment goal, have made considerable strides in implementing ITS, 
they face limitations related to operating their ITS technologies. For 
example, Chicago developed 10 traffic management centers, which monitor 
traffic conditions and can respond to traffic incidents by dispatching 
emergency vehicles to quickly clear highway accidents, thus reducing 
traffic delays. However 7 of the 10 centers do not have full-time 
operators, which limits the centers' potential congestion mitigation 
benefits. Similarly, although neither Indianapolis nor Las Vegas were 
rated by DOT as contributing toward meeting the deployment goal, 
transportation officials in these metropolitan areas stated they had 
deployed the amount of ITS needed to meet their local needs. For 
example, Las Vegas was rated as not meeting the goal because the area 
had not yet deployed ITS technologies on freeways--a key measure in 
DOT's rating of ITS deployment. However, Las Vegas officials said they 
had focused on deploying ITS on arterial roadways because they 
experienced more congestion on the arterials than on the freeways. 

While studies show that ITS technologies can provide benefits including 
reducing congestion and increasing safety, the studies also indicate 
that the existence and level of most benefits depends on the extent to 
which ITS technologies are effectively operated to coordinate with 
local traffic conditions. In addition, most studies do not include an 
analysis of cost effectiveness. Although congestion is a serious 
problem, ITS is one tool that has the potential to reduce the delay due 
to congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute, a leading 
transportation research institution, estimated that in 2003, congestion 
caused 3.7 billion hours of travel delay, while operations 
improvements, including ITS, reduced the hours of delay by 336 million 
hours in 85 urban areas. In addition to congestion benefits, ITS 
deployment can improve traffic throughput (number of vehicles 
accommodated on highways), safety, air quality, and traveler behavior. 
However, studies also suggest that the effectiveness of ITS 
technologies depends on local conditions and how state and local 
agencies implement and operate the ITS technology. For example, one 
study suggested that ramp metering in Detroit would be most effective 
during major events or traffic incidents when freeway congestion was 
higher, because during average conditions, the improvement of traffic 
flow on the freeway due to ramp metering did not outweigh the delays on 
entrance ramps and arterials leading to the freeway. In addition, 33 of 
the 38 studies we reviewed did not include a review of cost 
effectiveness. Cost information in relation to benefits is necessary to 
help states and localities choose the best tool for addressing their 
congestion problem while maximizing the return on their transportation 
investments. This is especially important because ITS applications may 
have different cost structures and life cycles as compared to other 
types of highway investments--for example, relatively low initial 
deployment costs but ongoing operational costs--that need to be 
understood in order to strategically evaluate ITS as a tool. 

State and local agencies responsible for deploying ITS technologies 
have faced several barriers to deploying ITS. One barrier to deployment 
is that state and local transportation officials often view other 
transportation investment options, such as adding a new lane to a 
highway, more favorably than ITS when deciding how to spend their 
limited transportation funds. DOT has worked to make ITS projects a 
more appealing option by emphasizing the benefits of ITS technologies 
through its benefits database on its Web site and field office support 
to local transportation officials. However, in prior work, we found 
that information on benefits does not have a decisive impact on the 
final investment choices made by state and local officials.[Footnote 8] 
Another barrier to ITS deployment cited by state and local 
transportation officials is a lack of funding for ITS installations and 
operations. We also found that officials in four areas we visited were 
not aware that federal funds could be used for operational costs. DOT 
officials said they have attempted to inform state transportation 
agencies that operational costs are eligible for federal assistance, 
but confusion on this issue remains. State transportation officials 
also told us that a lack of technical expertise has hindered ITS 
deployment. Finally, state transportation officials said that a lack of 
technical standards for ITS technologies makes it difficult to ensure 
that systems purchased by different localities can be integrated. DOT 
has taken steps to support the issuance of technical standards by 
standards organizations, but they have had difficulty keeping up with 
the pace of technological advances. According to transportation 
officials we spoke with, these barriers have reduced the amount of ITS 
deployed, and therefore have likely limited the impact of ITS on 
mitigating congestion on our nation's roads. 

Generally, the promise of ITS as an integrated tool for managing 
congestion has not yet been met. Although we recognize that DOT can not 
always influence ITS investments, limitations of DOT's efforts in goal 
setting, measuring, and other activities such as evaluating outcomes 
have reduced DOT's ability to facilitate state and local governments' 
strategic investment in ITS. We are making a recommendation to improve 
DOT's ITS deployment measures. We also are making recommendations to 
improve DOT's efforts to address some barriers to ITS deployment to 
help state and local governments invest strategically in ITS. We 
provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for 
its review and comment. DOT officials generally concurred with the 
report and agreed to consider the recommendations. 

Background: 

ITS technologies use communications, electronics, sensors, and computer 
hardware and software to improve the performance or safety of freeway 
and transit systems that are designed to improve traffic flow. Traffic 
congestion results from many sources such as recurring high levels of 
daily traffic as well as nonrecurring events such as traffic incidents, 
special events and bad weather that can limit the usable physical 
capacity of existing roadways. Therefore strategies, such as ITS, that 
are designed to improve the operations or efficiency of existing 
roadways may improve traffic flow and reduce congestion. 

The ITS technologies that local transportation agencies deploy to 
manage traffic in congested areas typically are ones that have gone 
through research and development and are readily available. Some 
technologies, like pavement loop detectors (devices that indicate the 
presence or passage of vehicles), have been around for at least 40 
years, while others, like adaptive traffic control systems (traffic 
light systems that are timed according to current traffic conditions) 
are just beginning to be deployed. Figure 1 depicts some examples of 
ITS technologies that are used to address congestion. 

Figure 1: Select ITS Technologies Used to Manage Congestion: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In highly congested metropolitan areas, ITS infrastructure tends to be 
more complex because it typically consists of a set of systems deployed 
by multiple agencies. For example, the state transportation department, 
city traffic department, transit agency, and toll authority may each 
deploy different ITS technologies that address their transportation 
needs. Transportation agencies may integrate their ITS technologies by 
coordinating ITS information sharing and other operations. For example, 
a city transportation department that deploys loop detectors designed 
to measure the number and speed of vehicles passing through an 
intersection may use technology to provide the traffic volume data 
collected by the loop detector to the state highway agency, in order 
that a different ITS technology can create travel time reports for 
variable message signs. Integration like this can facilitate the flow 
of information between a number of technologies and involved 
institutions and improve the overall traffic flow throughout a system. 
ITS can be further refined--and made more "intelligent"--by the 
deployment of technologies that adjust automatically to current traffic 
conditions, such as adaptive traffic control systems. Figure 2 
illustrates some of the ITS technologies that can be deployed and 
integrated to improve transportation system management. 

Figure 2: Examples of ITS Technologies That Can Be Deployed and 
Integrated in Metropolitan Areas: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Funding for transportation projects, including ITS, comes from a 
variety of sources, including federal, state, and local governments; 
special taxing authorities and assessment districts; and user fees and 
tolls. Federal transportation funds primarily come from the federal 
Highway Trust Fund--the mechanism to account for federal highway user 
tax receipts. These funds are distributed to states through formulas 
that determine the amount of money given to each state. 

As we reported earlier, although DOT has established goals and 
performance measures for the federal-aid highway program to enhance 
mobility and economic growth, the program's current structure does not 
link funding with performance or the accomplishment of these 
goals.[Footnote 9] In addition, because the federal-aid highway program 
is primarily funded under a formula program, projects are not subject 
to an evaluation process at the federal level, and there are no federal 
requirements for performance evaluation of highway investments-- 
although the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does ensure that 
federal highway funding is being spent on an eligible roadway for 
eligible purposes. State and local transportation officials have the 
flexibility to select projects on the basis of their communities' 
priorities and needs.[Footnote 10] ITS technologies, which can be 
developed as projects in their own right or as one component of a 
larger project (for example, a project to replace the surface of a 
roadway could include the installation of loop detectors), are among 
the many types of projects transportation officials may consider during 
the project selection process. 

The Federal Role in ITS Deployment Includes Goal Setting, Funding, and 
Activities to Support States' Deployment of ITS: 

Congress set broad goals for ITS through ISTEA and TEA-21 and 
established funding for ITS deployment in TEA-21. In 1996, DOT 
established a goal for ITS deployment that was incorporated into DOT's 
performance plans. DOT also has taken on several roles and activities 
related to facilitating ITS deployment. 

Congress Set Broad Goals and Established Funding for ITS Deployment 
through Recent Legislation: 

The federal ITS program was established by ISTEA, when Congress 
authorized the program to support the development and field testing of 
ITS systems. During ISTEA, Congress provided the ITS program with about 
$1.3 billion for research and testing of ITS technologies such as 
adaptive traffic signal control and advanced vehicle control systems. 
This funding included $645 million for ITS under ISTEA and $624 million 
provided through the appropriations process. While ISTEA did not 
establish a deployment program per se, the field test program consisted 
of testing and evaluating the application of ITS technologies in real 
world conditions. 

In 1998, TEA-21 authorized a total of about $1.3 billion for ITS. It 
provided about $679 million--an average of about $113 million annually-
-for a newly established ITS integration program with the broad goal of 
improving ITS deployment through supporting and accelerating the 
integration of ITS systems across and within metropolitan and rural 
areas, and about $603 million primarily for ITS research.[Footnote 11] 
TEA-21 also directed DOT to fund projects that demonstrated or 
considered a number of elements, including cooperation among agencies 
and ensuring long-term operations and maintenance, among other things. 
In practice, however, the appropriations and authorizing committees 
together have fully designated the amount of funding for the ITS 
integration program through legislative earmarks. For example, in 
fiscal year 2001, Congress designated about $128 million to 92 projects 
in 41 states and the District of Columbia. DOT reviews the projects to 
ensure that the projects being funded meet guidelines DOT established 
based on legislative direction, but has not had a role in directing the 
funding to specific projects.[Footnote 12]

In addition to the congressionally designated funds, Congress has made 
federal funding available to state and local governments for ITS 
technologies through other federal transportation programs within the 
federal-aid highway program. For example, ITS projects are funded 
through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program 
(CMAQ), which provides funding for projects that contribute to air 
quality improvements and congestion mitigation in areas with poor air 
quality; the National Highway System program (NHS), which provides 
funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the 
NHS, including the Interstate System; and the Surface Transportation 
Program (STP), which provides funding for projects on any federal-aid 
highway. In general, FHWA distributes highway program funds to state 
transportation departments through formulas; and the states, in turn, 
allocate the funds to urban and rural areas primarily on the basis of 
local priorities and needs. Consistent with requirements protecting 
state and local agencies' ability to select projects, the federal 
government does not control the allocation of these formula funds to 
projects. To determine which projects they will fund, state and local 
governments go through a planning process that involves the 
participation of many stakeholders and entails evaluating goals, 
finances, and other factors. DOT estimates that states and localities 
annually invest between $500 million to $1 billion in ITS projects, but 
DOT does not track the actual amounts invested in ITS. According to DOT 
and local transportation officials, tracking would be difficult because 
often ITS is funded as one element of a larger project, such as 
building a road, and the funds that go toward the ITS application are 
not separated from the funds for the overall project. 

DOT Established a Goal for ITS Deployment in 1996 and Incorporated It 
into DOT's Performance Plans: 

In a 1996 speech, 2 years before TEA-21 established the ITS integration 
program, the Secretary of Transportation, Federico Peña, established a 
broad vision for ITS deployment to create an intelligent transportation 
infrastructure across the United States that would save time and lives 
and improve the quality of life for Americans. In articulating this 
vision, Secretary Peña compared the potential for ITS to past 
accomplishments including building the interstate system and landing a 
man on the moon. He also compared it to the development of the 
Internet, saying that the next frontier for surface transportation 
would be in the information age, and that if Americans could surf on 
the information superhighways, they should be able to drive on high- 
tech highways. As part of this speech, the Secretary articulated an ITS 
deployment goal--to achieve a complete ITS infrastructure in the 
country's 75 largest metropolitan areas within 10 years--by the end of 
fiscal year 2005 according to DOT officials.[Footnote 13] The Secretary 
emphasized that achieving this goal would require partnerships between 
federal, state, and local officials and the private sector. 

The Secretary also projected several results or impacts of this goal: 
reduced congestion-related costs and commuting times and increased 
safety through reduced response time for emergency vehicles responding 
to traffic accidents, and he declared that DOT would measure progress 
toward this goal and report on it annually. He also included an outcome-
oriented measure for the goal, declaring that the initiative would 
reduce the travel time of Americans by at least 15 percent, whether 
they traveled by car, bus, train, or subway--an amount that he declared 
was the equivalent to an extra week of vacation every year for 
Americans who commute one hour a day. 

In addition, the Secretary emphasized the importance of integration so 
that the different technologies could be used together. He described 
nine components that should make up ITS in the 75 metropolitan areas, 
including such systems as traffic control systems and freeway 
management systems.[Footnote 14] He stated that the federal role in 
making this goal a reality included developing a national architecture 
and standards for ITS technologies to ensure that local ITS investments 
would be interoperable, investing in model deployment sites to serve as 
examples for the rest of the country, and investing in training to 
expand technical expertise for deploying ITS technologies. He 
emphasized strategic investment to pay for this infrastructure, alluded 
to the fact that federal-aid funds could be used to fund it, and 
emphasized the cost effectiveness of ITS, saying that building the 
needed highway capacity for 50 cities in the next 10 years would cost 
$150 billion, while implementing an intelligent transportation 
infrastructure for these 50 cities would cost $10 billion and gain two- 
thirds of the capacity needed. 

The metropolitan deployment goal established by the Secretary in this 
speech was incorporated into subsequent DOT performance plans as a 
measure under the broader goal of mobility. In addition, in DOT's 2004 
Performance Plan, ITS was included as a strategy to achieve another 
performance measure under the goal of mobility--to limit annual growth 
of urban area travel time under congested conditions to 0.2 percent 
below the otherwise expected increases in congestion. 

DOT officials indicated that they do not plan on updating the ITS 
deployment goal once it expires at the end of 2005. They noted that 
SAFETEA-LU provides for or implies several other challenging goals for 
the ITS program, such as reducing metropolitan congestion by not less 
than 5 percent by 2010. DOT officials are reviewing the statute and 
considering how to implement these new provisions. 

DOT Has Established Several Roles to Facilitate ITS Deployment: 

DOT has established several roles to facilitate ITS deployment in line 
with the federal roles laid out in the Secretary's 1996 speech. 
Although DOT originally included creating funding incentives for ITS as 
one of its roles, it has since dropped that role because Congress, 
through the authorization and appropriations process, has fully 
designated the locations and amounts of funding from the ITS 
integration program during TEA-21. Other roles DOT has maintained 
include demonstrating ITS deployment, showcasing deployment benefits, 
facilitating the development of technical standards, and building 
technical expertise.[Footnote 15]

To demonstrate deployment, DOT established model deployment sites to 
provide real-world examples of ITS technology's potential application 
to other metropolitan areas across the country. In 1996, DOT chose the 
Phoenix, San Antonio, Seattle, and New York/New Jersey/Connecticut 
areas to lead a new program to demonstrate the value of ITS technology 
in improving transportation. This program called for public and private 
sector partners to develop and integrate ITS technology to reduce 
travel times, improve safety, and provide enhanced travel information 
to the public. To ensure that lessons from these sites were documented 
and available to be shared, DOT conducted and documented a 
comprehensive ITS evaluation for the Seattle, San Antonio, and Phoenix 
sites. In addition, a national evaluation was performed with a focus on 
synthesizing findings across the entire program. These evaluations are 
available in DOT's benefits database. 

DOT established this benefits database in 1998 to showcase and expand 
the understanding of ITS benefits and transmit existing knowledge of 
ITS benefits to transportation professionals. The database is 
accessible on DOT's Web site and contains about 230 summaries of 
academic, government, and other studies of ITS deployments in the 
United States and internationally. The summaries in the database 
generally include information such as the type of ITS deployment, the 
location of the ITS deployment, and the results of the deployment. DOT 
also maintains a database on ITS costs. The purpose of this cost 
database, which contains a range of costs for various ITS technologies 
as reported from completed projects and from the initial phases of ITS 
projects, is to provide cost data to state and local transportation 
officials in the planning and initial cost estimation phases of ITS 
projects. While benefits and cost information are not directly linked, 
the two databases do use the same classification scheme for 
categorizing different ITS, and by browsing the various categories, 
users could obtain benefits and costs information for similar systems. 

DOT is also facilitating the development of technical standards. These 
technical standards specify, in detail, how technological components 
will communicate with one another. By specifying how systems and 
components interconnect, the standards promote interoperability--the 
ability of systems to provide services and to accept services from 
other systems so that different ITS technologies can be integrated and 
operated together. DOT, through cooperative agreements with six 
standards development organizations (SDOs) such as the Institute of 
Transportation Engineers, develops nonproprietary, industry-based, 
consensus ITS standards. To date, SDOs have published 75 ITS standards, 
approved another 9, and have begun processing another 6. The SDOs are 
developing 21 other standards and DOT officials expect that many will 
be completed by the end of 2005. In addition, to implement a 
requirement in TEA-21 that ITS projects conform to national 
architecture and standards, DOT finalized a rule in 2001 requiring ITS 
projects using federal funds be part of a regional architecture plan 
that establishes a process to ensure that ITS projects conform to 
national standards in order that they can be integrated with other 
areas. Regions and states then had until April 2005 to complete their 
regional ITS architectures. 

Further, to build technical expertise on ITS technologies, DOT has 
provided education, training, and technical assistance for ITS 
technologies through FHWA resource centers, divisions, and guides and 
pamphlets. DOT also has a professional capacity building program that 
is designed to provide state and local transportation officials the 
curriculum needed to install ITS applications. In addition, DOT 
headquarters office offers additional resources including a Peer-to- 
Peer program designed to link technical experts from one local area to 
an agency in a different geographic location. 

DOT also used the nine components established in the Secretary's speech 
to develop criteria to track progress toward the goal of having 75 of 
the largest metropolitan areas outfitted with a complete intelligent 
transportation infrastructure by 2005. DOT biennially surveys the 
areas' transportation-related agencies and rates the areas' deployment 
levels according to its criteria.[Footnote 16]

Although Progress Has Occurred, DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Have 
Limitations and Fall Short of Capturing Impact on Congestion: 

Although progress has been made toward DOT's ITS deployment goal, DOT's 
goal and measures provide a misleading picture of the status of ITS, 
are not designed around local priorities, do not assess the level of 
operations of deployed ITS, and do not capture information on ITS 
impacts or cost effectiveness. In past work, we have found that 
analyses of impacts and cost effectiveness are absent from other 
federal-aid highway programs as well, in part due to the structure of 
the federal-aid highway program. The four metropolitan areas we visited 
illustrate limitations of DOT's goal and measures. 

Some Progress Has Been Made Toward Achieving DOT's Deployment Goal, but 
DOT's Measures and Rating System Overstate the Status of ITS 
Deployment: 

DOT's reporting on progress toward its deployment goal shows that many 
of the 75 metropolitan areas targeted in the goal have increased their 
level of ITS deployment since 1997, when DOT began tracking this 
progress, but DOT's ratings overstate the actual status of ITS in these 
metropolitan areas. According to DOT, 62 of the 75 metropolitan areas 
had met DOT's goal of deploying integrated ITS infrastructure in 2004, 
up from 36 metropolitan areas meeting the goal in 1997. While 13 of the 
75 metropolitan areas still were rated as falling short of the goal in 
2004, the increase in the number of metropolitan areas counted toward 
meeting the goal since 1997 suggests that a significant increase in the 
level of ITS has occurred in many of the 75 metropolitan areas. 

Although many metropolitan areas have made progress in deploying ITS, 
the measures and rating system that DOT uses to report progress toward 
the ITS deployment goal, particularly when compared to the language of 
the Secretary's goal--for a "complete" intelligent transportation 
infrastructure--provides an overstated sense of success regarding the 
actual status of ITS in these metropolitan areas. Specifically, DOT 
defined the Secretary's goal of complete intelligent infrastructure to 
include two measurable elements--deployment, meaning the extent that 
certain technologies have been installed over certain areas, such as 
freeways; and integration, meaning the extent of coordination between 
different agencies that deploy ITS technologies. DOT used the 9 
components established in the Secretary's speech to develop criteria to 
measure ITS deployment,[Footnote 17] and also developed criteria to 
measure integration between three entities in each metropolitan area-- 
state governments, local governments, and public transit authorities. 
(For more information on DOT's rating system, see app. 2.) DOT also 
developed criteria to combine metropolitan areas' measures for 
deployment and integration to come up with an overall rating of high, 
medium, or low. 

DOT considers its goal met when all 75 metropolitan areas are rated 
high or medium. However, it established fairly low thresholds for 
rating an area as high or medium because it did not have a way to 
determine the extent of ITS that should be deployed in each area based, 
for example, on local traffic conditions or priorities. For example, an 
area can be rated medium--and thus meet the goal--if its level of 
deployment includes 20 percent of its freeway miles under electronic 
surveillance and 33 percent of its signalized intersections under 
computerized control--even if it has no ITS applications related to 
transit management, traveler information, or emergency management 
services.[Footnote 18] In addition, the area rated as medium would have 
to demonstrate its level of integration by including some coordination 
between state government, local government, and the transit authority. 
According to DOT, it set these thresholds at relatively low levels 
because few metropolitan areas have local ITS goals establishing the 
level of ITS deployment they deem appropriate. Without such local 
goals, DOT decided to measure (1) the extent of ITS deployment in 
locations where ITS could be deployed and (2) current integration 
compared to extensive integration between three government entities-- 
but to use low thresholds for considering a metropolitan area to have 
met the goal. 

DOT itself states that the metropolitan areas it rates as meeting the 
goal do not have a complete ITS infrastructure. For example, in its 
2004 report on progress toward the goal, DOT states that even 
metropolitan areas that are deployment leaders may still have "miles to 
go" before deploying a complete ITS infrastructure--a level of 
deployment beyond DOT's rating of high deployment, which DOT does not 
define. DOT officials told us that complete deployment is a very long- 
term endeavor that may never be reached and that it was important to 
get the "seeds" of deployment planted. DOT officials stated that 
according to its criteria, metropolitan areas that received high 
ratings had officials who demonstrated an understanding of ITS and were 
making improvements in deployment and integration to an already 
existing ITS infrastructure. However, those metropolitan areas may not 
have deployed or integrated ITS technologies to their fullest potential 
and may be experiencing significant challenges to more fully deploying 
and integrating these technologies. 

In spite of these issues, DOT's criteria and the deployment information 
it collects have been useful in measuring the 75 metropolitan areas' 
progress in increasing deployment and integration since 1996 and DOT 
intends to continue to track deployment even though it does not plan to 
update the deployment goal once it expires at the end of 2005. For 
example, the Tucson metropolitan area was rated low in 1997 but was 
rated as high in 2004, suggesting that it has made substantial progress 
in deploying and integrating ITS. Similarly, DOT officials said their 
tracking methods provide a basic means of comparing the extent of ITS 
in one metropolitan area versus another. For example, in Chicago, which 
is rated high, 55 percent of the area's freeway miles are covered by 
electronic surveillance, and several ITS deployments controlled by the 
state are linked to deployments controlled by local transportation or 
law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, in Las Vegas, which is 
rated low, none of the area's freeway miles are covered by electronic 
surveillance, and the state DOT is just beginning to link its 
deployments with those of the local transportation and law enforcement 
agencies. DOT officials indicated that they intend to continue to track 
deployment after the 2005 deadline expires. Figure 3 shows the number 
of the 75 metropolitan areas ranked high, medium, and low from 1997 to 
2004. 

Figure 3: ITS Deployment Ratings for 75 Metropolitan Areas, 1997 to 
2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Fail to Capture Important Dimensions of 
Evaluating ITS Status, Including, Similar to Other Highway Programs, 
Evaluating Outcomes: 

DOT's ITS goal and measures fail to capture a number of important 
dimensions of evaluating ITS status that were alluded to in the 
Secretary's 1996 vision for ITS: they do not take into account the 
level of ITS needed to accomplish local goals and priorities; they do 
not capture the extent to which deployed ITS technologies are being 
effectively operated; and they do not evaluate the impact or cost- 
effectiveness of ITS. The lack of evaluation of outcomes such as impact 
or cost effectiveness has also been identified as a limitation in other 
highway programs and is partly due to the structure of the federal-aid 
highway program. 

DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Do Not Take into Account the Level of ITS 
Needed to Accomplish Local Goals: 

In establishing DOT's vision for ITS deployment, the Secretary 
emphasized the need for strategic investment; however, DOT's ITS goal 
and measures do not incorporate any evaluations of local ITS needs that 
could help ensure that ITS was used as a component of a balanced 
strategy to address local transportation conditions. Without an idea of 
what a metropolitan area's integrated transportation system, including 
ITS, should consist of, it is difficult to determine what the right 
percentage of deployment of different technologies would be. In the 
absence of such information, DOT created a goal and thresholds for the 
measures that assumed that all 75 metropolitan areas should exceed 
specified levels of ITS rather than reflecting local priorities 
established through local ITS strategies and goal setting. 

DOT officials acknowledge that the goal focuses on measuring what a 
metropolitan area could deploy rather than what a metropolitan area 
should deploy and that deployment goals should be specific to a 
metropolitan area and its specific transportation needs. According to a 
DOT official, a goal focused on what metropolitan areas should deploy 
would be ideal but would be difficult to establish because it would 
require establishing the transportation needs of each metropolitan 
area. According to a 2003 DOT ITS deployment report, this could be 
done, for example, through locally defined deployment goals that could 
then provide the basis for establishing a national goal. According to 
DOT, while this approach would be more meaningful, few metropolitan 
areas have completed ITS needs assessments or set deployment goals. 

DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Do Not Capture the Extent of ITS 
Operations: 

Another dimension of evaluating ITS status not captured in DOT's goal 
and measures is the extent to which deployed ITS technologies are 
operated and maintained effectively. Among other things, the 1996 DOT 
Secretary's speech envisioned that ITS would increase the capacity of 
existing infrastructure, an outcome likely to depend on ITS 
technologies being operated effectively as well as deployed and 
integrated. However, although DOT tracks progress toward the goal by 
measuring deployment and integration, it does not track the operational 
level of ITS technologies in the 75 metropolitan areas.[Footnote 19] 
This is a concern since there are indications that some metropolitan 
areas have not been fully operating systems that are deployed and 
integrated. For example, the National Transportation Operations 
Coalition recently gave a collective grade of D minus for the 
operations of about 83,000 of the 260,000 traffic signals across the 
U.S.[Footnote 20] According to the study, a contributing factor to this 
low grade was that officials operating traffic signals are updating the 
signal timing plans so infrequently that they are not responding to 
current traffic conditions. 

DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Do Not Capture Evaluation of Outcomes, 
Similar to Other Highway Programs: 

Another limitation of DOT's goal and measures in evaluating the status 
of ITS is that they do not include outcome-oriented measures such as 
the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS. Although the Secretary's 1996 
speech envisioned that ITS would lead to positive impacts on congestion 
and even included an outcome measure of reducing travel time of 
Americans by at least 15 percent, DOT's goal and measures focus on 
outputs such as a metropolitan area's deployment of certain types of 
ITS on certain types of roads. However, DOT's rating system does not 
consider the impact of such deployment on outcomes such as travel time 
or road capacity. 

In its 2004 Performance Plan, DOT identified ITS deployment as a 
strategy to help it meet the outcome-oriented goal of limiting annual 
growth of urban area travel time under congested conditions to 0.2 
percent below the otherwise expected increases in congestion. However, 
it did not establish a method to measure whether ITS deployment was 
helping to meet this outcome. DOT's 2004 Performance Plan also 
incorporates its ITS deployment goal as a performance measure for the 
strategic goal of mobility. However, the strategies and initiatives for 
achieving this performance measure also emphasize deployment and 
integration rather than impact. For example, DOT's strategies include 
continued deployment of ITS applications, systems operations and 
training, and ITS standards setting. 

Moreover, in his 1996 speech, the Secretary emphasized the cost 
effectiveness of ITS investments in comparison to investments in 
increasing highway capacity through construction. However, no element 
of the cost-effectiveness of deployed ITS technologies is included in 
DOT's measures. In addition, while DOT collects and summarizes benefits 
established by ITS studies in its ITS benefits database, and summarizes 
cost estimates in its cost database, it has not highlighted benefit- 
cost information on ITS technologies and has not incorporated such 
information into its goal or measures. Furthermore, although DOT's cost 
database may help state and local transportation officials budget for 
ITS technologies they wish to deploy, such cost information is not 
directly linked to benefit information. Without this linkage, the cost 
information is of limited use in helping state and local transportation 
officials evaluate the value of ITS investments as a tool to reduce 
congestion in comparison to other alternatives. 

DOT's lack of measures for the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS 
deployment makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of 
ITS and the federal investment in ITS as a strategy to reduce 
congestion. However, this lack of evaluation also exists for many other 
federal-aid highway programs. According to a DOT official, it is 
critical to compare the benefits of ITS with the costs of 
implementation, and the ITS program should allocate resources to 
improving benefit-cost analyses. However, it would be difficult for DOT 
to obtain the information needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 
ITS deployment, as in many cases this information is not collected. 

As we have previously reported, in general there is no requirement for 
state and local governments to set goals for highway projects, nor to 
use specific analytical methods such as benefit-cost analysis to choose 
projects. Moreover, the federal-aid highway program does not have the 
mechanisms to link funding levels with the accomplishment of specific 
performance-related goals and outcomes.[Footnote 21] In addition, we 
have found in previous work that such requirements would require 
legislative change because the federal agencies cannot require benefit- 
cost analysis as a condition of receiving highway funds.[Footnote 22]

In addition, while TEA-21 requires recipients of congressionally 
designated ITS integration funds to report cost data annually and 
complete self-evaluations, it does not require formal benefit-cost 
analyses.[Footnote 23] In general, we found that evaluations of 
outcomes of completed highway projects are typically not conducted and, 
as a result, officials only have limited or anecdotal evidence of 
whether projects produced the intended results. Thus, transportation 
agencies miss opportunities to learn from successes and shortcomings of 
past projects or to evaluate how well investment strategies are meeting 
goals or priorities.[Footnote 24]

Four Case Studies Illustrate Limitations of DOT's Goal and Measures: 

The status of ITS in the four metropolitan areas we visited--two that 
were rated high by DOT and were therefore counted toward meeting the 
ITS deployment goal and two that were rated low by DOT and therefore 
were not counted toward meeting the goal--illustrate the shortfalls of 
DOT's ITS deployment goal and measures. While the two metropolitan 
areas we visited that were counted toward meeting the goal have both 
made considerable investments in ITS technologies, both have 
limitations in terms of the level of operations of deployed ITS 
technologies, which may reduce their potential impact on congestion. 
Officials from the two metropolitan areas we visited that were 
considered not to have met the goal indicated that they had appropriate 
levels of ITS given their local conditions and needs. (See app. 3 for 
additional information on activities each metropolitan area has taken 
to support ITS deployment.) Specifically, we found: 

* The San Francisco Bay Area, which was ranked by the Texas 
Transportation Institute as the fifth most congested area in 
2003,[Footnote 25] was rated high by DOT in part because of its level 
of ITS deployment--4,700 traffic sensing detectors on its over 2,800 
freeway miles. As a result, 29 percent of the freeways featured sensing 
devices spaced every 1 mile or less, and 40 percent of the freeways 
featured sensing devices spaced every 2 miles or less in order to 
provide local transportation agencies information on traffic data such 
as speed and volume. However, about 45 percent of these devices are out 
of service, reducing the ability of staff to collect traffic 
data.[Footnote 26] According to DOT Resource Center's Operations 
Technical Service Leader, while having about half of the traffic 
detectors out of service happens in other areas, it is not typical. 

* Chicago, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the 
fourth most congested area in 2003, was also rated high by DOT, partly 
because area transportation agencies have the potential to monitor 55 
percent of the area's freeway miles. A combination of traffic sensors 
and management centers provide the area the ability to quickly spot 
traffic problems and take appropriate action such as providing the 
traveling public information on traffic conditions, alternative 
transportation routes or options during special events affecting 
traffic to avoid traffic delays, and dispatching appropriate officials 
to clear incidents quickly to decrease delays. We found, however, that 
six of the ten traffic management centers do not have any staff 
dedicated to monitoring traffic conditions and that an additional 
center has only one part-time staffer. Periodically, staff will go to 
the centers to change message signs to alert travelers to likely 
congestion due to a planned event such as a construction project or 
sports game. However, without staff dedicated to monitoring traffic 
conditions on a regular basis, the centers can not be used to respond 
to unplanned or non-recurring incidents such as traffic accidents, 
which limit congestion mitigation benefits. 

* Indianapolis, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the 
25TH most congested city in the nation in 2003, was rated low by DOT 
because of a lack of investment in ITS technologies, and therefore was 
not counted toward meeting the goal. However, Indianapolis officials 
stated that the current level of ITS deployment and integration meets 
the area's needs, as they do not consider the area very congested, and 
they do not see the need for many ITS technologies. 

* Las Vegas, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the 
ninth most congested city in the nation in 2003, was also rated low by 
DOT, partly because in order for a metropolitan area to be rated 
medium, it must meet the threshold of having either at least 20 percent 
of its freeways covered by ITS technologies or at least 33 percent of 
its transit covered by ITS technologies (to be rated high it would have 
to meet these thresholds plus additional thresholds). However, Las 
Vegas transportation officials told us that the metropolitan area has 
experienced high levels of congestion on the arterial roadways and 
relatively low levels of congestion on freeways. Therefore, rather than 
focusing on freeways or transit, transportation agencies in the Las 
Vegas metropolitan area have made considerable investments in deploying 
and integrating ITS technologies on their arterial roadways and only 
recently have begun investing in ITS technologies for freeways. Las 
Vegas transportation officials said that this strategy made the most 
sense for their specific local conditions. 

Studies Have Found Positive Impacts of ITS Deployment Depend on 
Effective Operations, but Few Have Included Cost-Effectiveness 
Analyses: 

Studies evaluating ITS deployment have found improvements in 
congestion, throughput of traffic (number of vehicles accommodated on 
highways), safety, environmental quality, and traveler 
behavior.[Footnote 27] Studies also have found that the existence and 
level of most benefits depends on operating the ITS technology 
effectively given local conditions. Few of the studies analyzed the 
benefits of ITS investments in terms of the costs, information that 
could help state and local governments make sound investment decisions. 

Studies Indicate ITS Deployment Can Provide Benefits: 

A number of studies show that ITS applications have provided some 
benefits either nationally or locally, including improvements in 
congestion, throughput of traffic, safety, environmental quality, or 
traveler behavior. Although congestion levels are high, ITS 
technologies are estimated to limit the increase in congestion. For 
example, the Texas Transportation Institute, a leading transportation 
research institution, estimated that in 2003, congestion caused 3.7 
billion hours of travel delay in 85 urban areas.[Footnote 28] However, 
the study also estimated that ramp metering, incident management, 
traffic signal coordination, and arterial access management combined 
reduced delay in 2003 in the same urban areas by 9 percent--336 million 
hours, leading to a $5.6 billion reduction in annual costs due to 
reduced fuel consumption and hours of delay. The study also estimates 
that if ITS or similar operational treatments were deployed on all 
major freeways and streets in the 85 urban areas, it would reduce the 
delay by 15 percent. Thus, although delay due to congestion is 
increasing, this increase is limited by ITS deployment. 

Many of the studies in DOT's database focus on examining the impacts of 
particular ITS technologies deployed in particular locations. For 
example, one study measured the impacts of a regional system in the 
Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky metropolitan areas that uses traffic 
monitoring technologies to detect incidents and provide traveler 
information. The study, which measured the impacts of the system on 
several factors such as traveler behavior, safety, and environmental 
quality, found that of 375 survey respondents in the area, 56 percent 
changed their morning routes based upon the availability of traffic 
information provided by the system. In addition, modeling efforts 
estimated that the system had contributed to a 3.2 percent reduction in 
fatalities by responding to incidents earlier, and a 3.6 to 4.7 percent 
reduction in vehicle emissions. Table 1 provides examples of study 
findings related to several commonly studied impacts of ITS deployment. 

Table 1: Examples of Deployment Impacts from Our Review of ITS Studies: 

Impacts: Congestion; 
Examples: 
* Deployment of E-Z Pass, an electronic tolling system, on the New 
Jersey Turnpike reduced delay for all vehicles at toll plazas by 85 
percent; 
* Adaptive traffic signal control reduced travel times at several 
intersections in Tucson, Ariz. by 7.9 percent and delay by 17.9 
percent.[A]. 

Impacts: Throughput; 
Examples: 
* A study in Minneapolis-St. Paul found that during peak traffic 
conditions, freeway throughput decreased by an average of 14 percent 
during the period that they turned off the ramp meters. 

Impacts: Safety; 
Examples: 
* Evaluations of the Maryland based freeway and incident management 
program, known as CHART, showed a potential reduction in secondary 
incidents by 1,267 based on reported incidents; 
* An integrated freeway and incident management system in San Antonio 
reduced the average annual secondary crash risk for all travelers by 
2.8 percent.[A]. 

Impacts: Environmental quality; 
Examples: 
* Computerized operations of 40 traffic signals in the Tysons Corner 
area of Virginia decreased the total annual emissions for carbon 
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile oxygen compounds by 134,611 
kilograms. In addition, annual fuel consumption improved by 9 percent, 
thus an estimated savings of about $1.48 million; 
* Traffic signal coordination among two jurisdictions in Phoenix, Ariz. 
indicated benefits of a 1.6 percent reduction in fuel consumption. 

Impacts: Traveler behavior; 
Examples: 
* Over 600 users in the Seattle area ranked the state-sponsored 
traveler information Web site as their most useful source of traffic 
information. In addition, most of the respondents (88 to 94.8 percent) 
reported they used the Web site to decide among alternative routes, 
when to start a trip, and had reliable indications of how long a trip 
would take; 
* In the DC metro area, a simulation model estimated that commuters who 
used traveler information arrive on time and within 15 minutes of the 
target arrival time 79 percent of the time. Those not using the 
traveler information arrive on time and within 15 minutes of the target 
42 percent of the time.[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of studies gathered by DOT. 

Notes: Examples in this table are not necessarily representative of 
what would happen with a similar deployment in another location. 

[A] These examples report on potential improvements using estimated 
data, rather than actual improvements using empirical data. 

[End of table]

Anecdotally, several state and local officials we spoke with agreed 
that ITS applications have improved congestion in their areas. For 
example, Las Vegas officials stated the FAST program, an integrated 
traffic management system that adapts traffic signal plans to real-time 
conditions, had definitely improved traffic congestion on the Las Vegas 
arterials. One official stated that without the FAST system, the city 
of Las Vegas would be "shut down," especially during events such as New 
Year's Eve, NASCAR weekends, and major boxing events. 

Studies Suggest That ITS Benefits Depend on Effectively Operating ITS 
Technologies to Meet Local Conditions: 

The studies in DOT's benefits database also suggest that the existence 
and level of benefits from ITS deployment depend on adapting the 
deployment to local conditions and monitoring the effect in order to 
make operating adjustments. For example, as discussed earlier, the 
National Transportation Operations Coalition recently found that across 
the country traffic signals are not operating as efficiently as they 
could be, resulting in unnecessary delay to travelers. A benefit 
database study of traffic signal timing in North Seattle found that a 
single signal-timing plan could not satisfy all traffic conditions. The 
study suggested that more benefits could be expected if signal systems 
were implemented so that they would respond to traffic levels based on 
demand and weather conditions. For example, agencies could develop 
longer timing plans when demand is heavy and shorter cycle lengths for 
light demand conditions. One researcher we talked to also emphasized 
that to effectively deploy traffic signal control systems, signal 
timing plans should be regularly adjusted to respond to changes in 
traffic patterns surrounding the intersection.[Footnote 29]

Similarly, a study on deploying ramp meters on Detroit area freeways 
found that effectively operating the meters to maximize benefits meant 
using the meters only during specific traffic conditions. The study 
concluded that using ramp meters helped reduce congestion during major 
events or traffic incidents when traffic demand or congestion was high. 
During average conditions, however, the study found that the benefits 
of ramp metering in terms of moderating the flow of traffic on the 
freeway would not outweigh the delays on the entrance ramps and 
arterials leading to the freeway. The study found that by turning off 
metered ramps in the absence of major events or incidents, corridorwide 
delay would improve. 

Few ITS Studies Include Analysis of ITS Projects' Cost Effectiveness: 

Most of the ITS studies we reviewed did not include information on the 
cost effectiveness of ITS deployment, such as benefit-cost analyses. 
Analysis of benefits in relation to costs is essential to helping local 
decision makers determine whether and when ITS is a good investment. As 
we have shown in previous work, careful decisions need to be made to 
ensure that transportation investments maximize the benefits of each 
public dollar invested. Moreover, according to a recent study, compared 
to other highway projects, such as highway construction projects, many 
ITS applications have distinct cost structures and life cycles--for 
example, relatively low initial deployment costs but ongoing 
operational costs that do not apply to many construction projects--that 
need to be explicitly described and evaluated in order to determine the 
benefits and costs of ITS technologies compared to other 
alternatives.[Footnote 30]

Thirty-three of the 38 studies we reviewed (87 percent) did not measure 
benefits in relation to total dollars invested. The five studies that 
did include an evaluation of benefits reported that the benefits of the 
ITS deployment examined were greater than the costs. 

Several Barriers Limit the Widespread Deployment of ITS: 

Transportation officials in the four metropolitan areas we visited 
identified four barriers that our previous work and DOT officials 
acknowledge limit the deployment and integration of ITS in metropolitan 
areas. These barriers include the limited appeal of ITS as an option 
for congestion mitigation, the difficulty of obtaining funding for 
implementing and operating ITS technologies along with confusion about 
the fact that ITS operational costs are eligible for federal funding, a 
lack of technical training in deploying and operating ITS technologies, 
and a lack of technical standards to help ensure that ITS technologies 
will be able to be integrated with other ITS systems within and across 
metropolitan and rural areas. These barriers have limited the amount of 
ITS deployed and therefore have likely limited the impact of ITS on 
mitigating congestion on our nation's roads. 

ITS Projects Are Sometimes Seen as a Less Appealing Investment Option 
for Mitigating Congestion: 

According to transportation officials we spoke with, one barrier to ITS 
deployment is that in light of a high number of potential projects 
competing for limited transportation funds, system enhancements such as 
ITS are sometimes less appealing than transportation investment options 
that improve the physical condition of the roads.[Footnote 31] Demand 
for transportation funding usually exceeds the supply of these funds. 
For example, in the San Francisco Bay area, the MPO estimates that it 
needs an additional $419 million above its available funding to fully 
deploy the area's regional operations programs--including ITS 
applications. Furthermore, state and local governments face difficult 
decisions regarding the allocation of their highway and transit funds, 
especially when federal and state budget deficits exist. Within these 
funding constraints, transportation officials must prioritize and make 
trade-offs between projects that add new or preserve infrastructure and 
those that enhance the existing infrastructure, such as ITS. Thus, ITS 
must compete with other highway investments that add new infrastructure 
or preserve existing roads.[Footnote 32] In previous work, we found 
that state and regional transportation decision makers are increasingly 
giving priority to highway investments that preserve the existing 
infrastructure.[Footnote 33]

In addition, ITS applications sometimes have limited public and 
political appeal. We have reported in prior work that public input and 
political considerations shape transportation investment decisions. 
However, unlike capital improvements that build or expand new roads and 
those that preserve existing roads, the benefits of traffic operations 
improvements such as ITS are not always visible to the public. 
According to DOT officials, deteriorating roadways, like those with 
potholes and other physical problems, affect the public's ability to 
drive on the road. Conversely, many ITS applications that are not 
operating well or need maintenance, like nonworking message signs or 
delayed traffic signals, do not necessarily affect the public's ability 
to drive on the road in an obvious way. As a result, drivers may not 
realize that a failing ITS application could be contributing to 
congestion. One state responded to this public perception issue by 
ordering a shut down study so that levels of congestion with and 
without ITS could be compared. In 2000, the Minnesota legislature 
passed a bill to study the effectiveness of ramp meters due to public 
questioning of the effectiveness of ramp meters on freeways. The state 
undertook a study that demonstrated the effectiveness of the ramp 
meters and increased public support for the ramp meters.[Footnote 34] 
The state DOT conducted two, 5-week studies--one with the ramp meters 
in operation, the other without--and estimated that ramp meters 
annually saved 25,121 hours in travel time, 2,583,620 hours of 
unexpected delay, and 5.5 million gallons of fuel. Consequently, 
commuter support for ramp meters significantly increased.[Footnote 35] 
However, in the absence of such studies, the public may not realize the 
potential benefits of ITS deployment and therefore may not support them 
as much as the more visually obvious benefits of such things as 
improved road surface conditions. 

Moreover, several officials in the metropolitan areas we visited agreed 
that investments in system "enhancements," such as ITS, are not as 
politically appealing as expanding roadways. Specifically, Chicago and 
San Francisco transportation officials stated that since ITS 
applications do not usually offer groundbreaking ceremonies, which 
offer positive media attention, politicians are generally not motivated 
to support ITS projects. 

In its role of encouraging interest in ITS, DOT has taken steps to 
counter this lack of appeal for ITS technologies, such as establishing 
the benefits database we previously described. In addition, according 
to DOT officials, DOT division staff advertise the benefits of ITS or 
suggest it as a way to mitigate congestion to state and local 
transportation officials. Furthermore, DOT officials are planning to 
develop lessons learned information from studies of ITS technologies to 
share with states and localities on how to implement effective ITS 
applications. This is important information to begin disseminating as 
we found that DOT's benefits database did not consistently provide 
information on lessons learned for maximizing the benefits of ITS, even 
when that information was included as part of a study summarized in the 
database. For example, a study of the impacts of call boxes in Georgia 
provided lessons-learned information on reducing maintenance costs to 
improve the cost-effectiveness of the deployment, but the summary in 
the ITS benefit database did not include this information. DOT 
officials acknowledge that lessons learned information is needed to 
provide practitioners with helpful advice on how to cost effectively 
deploy ITS. Consequently, DOT plans to unveil a new database in 
September 2005 that will provide lessons learned information from the 
ITS studies and other sources. 

Although DOT has undertaken these efforts to make ITS more appealing, 
DOT's ability to affect state and local decisions to deploy ITS has 
been limited by its inability to use funding incentives to encourage 
ITS. As we previously noted, although TEA-21's ITS integration program 
included funding to help state and local governments integrate ITS 
technologies, Congress has fully designated this funding. Moreover, the 
extent to which DOT's benefits database is helping to counter the 
limited public appeal of ITS deployment is unclear. In 2004, we found 
that although useful, impact analysis such as benefit-cost information 
does not play a decisive role in many investment decisions.[Footnote 36]

Lack of Operational Funding and Misunderstanding of Federal Funding 
Policy Are Barriers to Deployment: 

Another barrier to deploying and operating ITS technologies, according 
to metropolitan transportation officials, is that once an ITS 
application has been deployed, state and local transportation agencies 
do not always fund operations on an ongoing basis, in light of other 
priorities for transportation investments. As previously mentioned, 
state and local governments face difficult decisions regarding the 
allocation of their highway and transit funds, especially when state 
and local governments face budget deficits. At times, funding for 
ongoing operations is not fully available. In the San Francisco Bay 
area, for example, the MPO estimates that it needs an additional $419 
million above its available funding to fully deploy the area's regional 
operations programs--including ITS applications. Similarly, although 
the Chicago area funded the establishment of 10 transportation 
management centers, they have operators in 3 of the centers and a part- 
time operator in a fourth center due to a lack of operational funding. 
Finally, Indianapolis transportation officials said that operations 
were one of the first areas cut during budget crunches. 

In addition to limited funds in state and local operation budgets, 
several state and local officials were not aware that they could use 
federal transportation funds, such as Surface Transportation Program 
funds, to operate and maintain ITS technologies. Operating costs for 
traffic monitoring, management, and control systems such as integrated 
traffic control systems, incident management programs, and traffic 
control centers are eligible for federal reimbursement from National 
Highway System and Surface Transportation Program funding.[Footnote 37] 
In addition, for projects located in air quality nonattainment and 
maintenance areas, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
Program funds may be used for operating costs for a 3-year period--as 
long as the funded systems measurably demonstrate reductions in traffic 
delays. The lack of understanding about the availability of federal 
funding for operations has at times led to poor financial decision 
making. In San Francisco, for example, FHWA officials told us that the 
state and local officials' lack of knowledge that federal funds could 
be used to operate and manage ITS technologies had led some agencies to 
use federal funds to replace their technology systems at much higher 
costs than would be needed to operate and maintain their existing 
technologies. 

DOT officials are aware of this lack of understanding and have taken 
steps to inform state transportation agencies about the eligibility of 
ITS operational expenses for federal funding. DOT provides guidance on 
its Web site indicating that federal-aid policies allow federal 
assistance to be used for virtually any operational costs. DOT has 
issued policy manuals to its division offices to pass along to state 
officials that explain federal funds can be used for operational 
expenses. However, the misconception that federal funds can be used 
only for ITS capital expenses still exists in some locations. DOT 
officials believe they are making progress in educating transportation 
officials about funding for operating costs and believe that 
understanding will grow as transportation departments place more 
emphasis on operating roadways. 

ITS Deployment Is Hampered by a Lack of Technical Expertise: 

According to metropolitan transportation officials and as we previously 
reported in a 1997 report, another barrier state and local 
transportation agencies face when selecting and implementing ITS is a 
lack of appropriate skills and knowledge needed for selecting and 
operating ITS technologies.[Footnote 38] This lack of skills exists 
both in transportation agencies and, according to transportation 
officials in one metropolitan area, in consultants that agencies hired 
to help them purchase and deploy ITS technologies. According to DOT 
officials, it is often hard to find people who are knowledgeable in 
both of two fields that are important for fully understanding ITS 
applications--traffic systems and electrical engineering. Consequently, 
some transportation agencies hire contractors to perform some of the 
technology functions associated with ITS. In Las Vegas, however, 
transportation officials told us that consultants lacked needed skills 
as well. As a result, localities may face difficulties selecting and 
procuring appropriate systems for their areas. For example, according 
to an FHWA official, a lack of business knowledge led a San Francisco 
Bay Area agency to lease rather than purchase telecommunications lines 
needed for transmitting data from roadway sensors--a decision that 
ended up costing the agency money in the long run. 

According to DOT officials, DOT has taken numerous actions to address 
the lack of technical expertise; however, external factors have limited 
DOT's ability to resolve this issue. DOT provides technical assistance 
through FHWA. FHWA divisions in each state work with state and local 
transportation agencies to provide needed technical assistance. FHWA's 
resource center offices are staffed with technical experts in various 
fields including operations and ITS and thus provide state and local 
officials across the country with more specific technical expertise and 
support when needed.[Footnote 39] In addition, FHWA headquarters office 
offers a number of additional resources such as training programs, 
guidance documents, technical assistance, and a Peer-to-Peer program 
that facilitate the exchange of technical expertise across different 
locations. Finally, DOT also has a professional capacity-building 
program that is designed to help state and local transportation 
officials gain the expertise necessary to install ITS applications. In 
addition to DOT training, several universities have developed programs 
to provide intelligent transportation education to develop the skills 
needed in the ITS industry. Both the University of Michigan and the 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University have developed 
programs, as has the Consortium for Intelligent Transportation 
Education housed at the University of Maryland. DOT officials believe, 
however, that the lack of technical expertise will remain until an 
institutional change in transportation agencies occurs--a change that 
increases emphasis on operations. 

ITS System Integration Is Limited by Delayed Technical Standards: 

Another barrier that has limited the deployment and integration of ITS 
is that state and local decision makers do not have enough of the 
technical standards needed to select ITS equipment that can integrate 
with other systems.[Footnote 40] Having technical standards is 
important because purchasers who adhere to the standards can avoid 
being locked into proprietary systems that cannot integrate with those 
of other manufacturers and for which replacement equipment or service 
may not be available if the vendor goes out of business. According to 
transportation officials we spoke with, in some cases, the lack of 
standards may have discouraged state and local decision makers to 
invest in ITS technologies; in other cases, the lack of ITS standards 
may have led to the deployment of ITS technologies that could not 
easily be integrated with other technologies within or across 
metropolitan or rural areas. 

In each of the metropolitan areas we visited, state and local 
transportation officials stated that DOT has facilitated the issuance 
of standards slowly and that this has limited the confidence officials 
have in the technology they select. For example, an official in Chicago 
told us that the lack of standards has resulted in the agency not 
knowing if it is purchasing quality ITS applications. In another 
example, a San Francisco official stated that the slow completion of 
the standards development process at the national level caused 
transportation officials to pick a standard in the draft stage that 
they hope will have the ability to connect with future ITS deployment 
in the area. 

According to DOT, although it has worked to facilitate the issuance of 
technical standards, technology has been developing faster than the 
SDOs that DOT works with can handle. Furthermore, the issuance of 
standards by SDOs is done voluntarily, and there is no private-sector 
market influencing speedy issuance--the SDOs do not have a profit 
incentive in issuing standards. DOT has accelerated development of over 
100 standards and identified 17 standards critical to ensure ITS 
operability across the country. However, according to DOT officials, 
standard setting is a difficult, consensus driven, and time-consuming 
process. 

Conclusions: 

Generally, the promise of ITS for managing congestion has fallen short. 
Although DOT established a vision to build an intelligent 
transportation infrastructure across the United States to save time and 
lives and improve the quality of life for Americans, DOT's deployment 
goal ends in 2005. Studies show that when implemented properly, ITS 
technologies can reduce congestion, as well as lead to other benefits 
such as improved safety and reduced emissions harmful to the 
environment. However, transportation agencies have been slow to adopt 
and deploy ITS technologies, facing many barriers along the way. 
Funding for ITS deployments, particularly for ongoing operations and 
maintenance costs, is critical to ensuring that ITS deployments are 
used effectively. However, such funding continues to be a problem for 
state and local governments. In addition, state and local 
transportation agencies do not always consider ITS when developing 
their transportation plans. Moreover, DOT does not have clear 
information on the extent to which areas have deployed ITS to meet 
their particular needs, nor does it have clear information on the 
operating status of ITS where it has been deployed. Limitations of 
DOT's efforts in measuring the deployment of ITS technologies, among 
other things, have reduced its ability to help state and local 
governments invest strategically in ITS. 

Successful ITS deployment depends on selecting the appropriate level 
and types of ITS for the area, effectively integrating these 
technologies, and committing the necessary resources to operate and 
maintain them. We recognize that DOT has not been able to influence 
deployment through funding, and state and local governments are free to 
choose the extent to which they direct other federal highway funds to 
ITS. However, DOT has opportunities to assist metropolitan areas in 
developing appropriate, efficient, and cost effective transportation 
systems which include ITS. Although analyses of a project's cost 
effectiveness often do not drive transportation investment decisions-- 
many factors, political as well as other, influence project selections-
-such analyses should be part of the decision making process. And 
impact analysis for all highway projects, including ITS projects, would 
help decision makers view all tools together and make well-reasoned 
decisions about investment of their limited funds to develop the best 
possible transportation system. In addition, as the Secretary of 
Transportation indicated in 1996, providing national guidance is 
important to ensure ITS deployment. Nationally tracking measures for 
ITS deployment and operations would continue to support awareness of 
progress toward improved mobility and help states and local areas 
considering ITS determine how they could deploy and operate ITS 
technologies to help mitigate congestion and realize other benefits. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following 
three actions: 

* revise measures for ITS deployment to incorporate local needs and 
operational status for deployed ITS technologies;

* develop new strategies to better advertise the availability of 
federal funds for operating ITS technologies; and: 

* encourage cost-effectiveness analyses and their use in transportation 
planning and decision making. 

Agency Comments: 

In commenting on a draft of this report, officials from DOT's ITS Joint 
Program Office and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Transportation Policy provided comments through the Office of the 
Secretary's audit liaison generally concurring with the report and 
agreeing to consider the recommendations. DOT officials provided 
technical clarifications and information, which we incorporated in the 
report, as appropriate. The officials also provided general comments 
about the ITS deployment goal. 

Although DOT officials did not comment on the recommendation to revise 
and update the goal and measures for ITS deployment, the officials said 
that they do not plan on updating the ITS deployment goal after it 
expires in 2005. In addition, officials noted that SAFETEA-LU repealed 
the ITS integration deployment program. However, ITS Joint Program 
Office officials have indicated that they intend to continue to track 
ITS deployment. In the absence of an ITS integration deployment 
program, we revised our recommendation so that it no longer calls for 
revising and updating the goal for ITS deployment. However, we continue 
to recommend that DOT improve its ITS deployment measures to obtain 
clear and accurate information on ITS deployment that will support 
DOT's efforts to help states and local areas select, implement, 
operate, and maintain ITS technologies to address increasing congestion 
and other transportation needs in their areas. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and to the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [Hyperlink, heckerj@gao.gov]. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

JayEtta Z. Hecker: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To address our first objective--to describe the federal role in ITS 
deployment and the goals and measures for the federal ITS program--we 
reviewed transportation legislation, DOT performance plans, and other 
documents related to ITS and the federal role. We reviewed TEA-21 goals 
for the ITS deployment incentives program. We also reviewed the 
Secretary of Transportation's 1996 speech describing his vision for ITS 
deployment and met with DOT and FHWA officials to clarify the federal 
role in deploying ITS. Although ITS technologies can be used for many 
purposes, including highway safety, we focused this analysis on the 
role of ITS for mitigating congestion. 

To address our second objective--to develop information about the 
progress of ITS deployment toward DOT's deployment goal and DOT's 
measures--we reviewed reports that describe DOT's deployment program 
and its methodology for rating metropolitan areas. We interviewed ITS 
officials who track deployment of ITS technologies in over 75 
metropolitan areas. To determine progress toward the 2005 goal, we 
summarized ratings from DOT's deployment reports and deployment and 
integration tracking database--which identify the number of 
metropolitan areas with high, medium, and low ratings--and obtained 
rating information for the period of 1997 to 2004.[Footnote 41]

To assess the reliability of the deployment and integration tracking 
database, we interviewed officials from DOT's Joint Program Office who 
are knowledgeable about how data are collected, analyzed, and reported, 
and we collected deployment data from the state and local 
transportation agencies that we visited to compare it with the data 
used in the database and DOT deployment reports. In addition, in 2000, 
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reviewed and reported on 
the data quality of the ITS deployment and integration tracking 
database. BTS noted that the database frequently had been monitored and 
improved upon. The report found some reporting errors and made 
recommendations for additional improvements. DOT implemented some of 
the recommendations. DOT has not conducted any subsequent quality 
reviews. Based on interviews with DOT officials and analysis of the 
data, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our 
purposes. 

To discuss DOT's measures for assessing the status of ITS deployment in 
metropolitan areas, we interviewed DOT officials and reviewed reports 
that explain the methodology DOT uses to rate the metropolitan areas 
(high, medium, and low) in terms of deployment and integration of ITS 
technologies. (See app. 2.) We reviewed the Secretary's 1996 speech, 
recent DOT performance plans, and GAO reports that relate to impact 
analysis. We also interviewed federal, state, and local transportation 
officials from our four case study locations about their experiences 
with ITS and the ITS technologies deployed in each area. (For more 
information about site selection and agencies we contacted, see 
discussion later in this section.) We did not review the 
appropriateness of the rating that DOT had assigned to the 75 
metropolitan areas. However, we did compare the overall rating that DOT 
assigned to the four metropolitan areas we studied in depth with the 
information we gathered from our interviews with transportation and 
planning officials in those areas. 

To address our third objective--to identify the impacts of ITS 
deployment--we reviewed 38 studies issued since 2000 from our site 
visits and DOT's ITS benefits database, a repository of academic and 
government papers evaluating the deployment of ITS technologies in U.S. 
and international locations, including any cost effectiveness analysis 
included in the studies. We asked officials at each of the four 
locations if they documented the results of their ITS deployments. Las 
Vegas and San Francisco had conducted evaluations of their ITS 
deployments while Chicago and Indianapolis had not. Las Vegas conducted 
two evaluations for a traffic-signal-timing system on two major 
arterial roads. San Francisco conducted three evaluations for ramp 
meters deployed on two freeways in the metropolitan area. Therefore, we 
collected five studies from our site visits. We also reviewed 33 recent 
evaluations from the ITS benefits database. 

In order to summarize the benefits of ITS deployment on congestion, we 
reviewed those studies that relate to mobility and capacity/throughput. 
DOT used our criteria to develop a list of 76 studies. We further 
refined our review to studies published after 2000 that involved 
deployments in the U.S., ending up with 33 evaluations in total. DOT 
provided us with copies of the evaluations. We did not assess the 
potential benefits of any one technology, such as open road electronic 
tolling, on the nation's transportation system. 

In order to assess the reliability of the benefits database, we 
interviewed the DOT manager responsible for the database about data 
sources, data entry, and quality control procedures. We assessed the 
database summaries by comparing them with the complete evaluations. We 
found that they generally contained accurate information regarding the 
location of the deployment, the type of ITS technology, and the impacts 
of the ITS deployment. We determined that the benefits database was 
sufficiently reliable for our purpose of identifying evaluation 
reports. 

We also reviewed the 38 evaluations to ensure that findings from the 
studies were based on sound methodologies. A DOT contractor reviewed 
the studies for methodological soundness before including them in DOT's 
benefits database. We also reviewed the studies we selected from the 
DOT benefit database to ensure that these studies were based on sound 
methodologies and determined these studies were sufficiently reliable 
for describing actual and potential impacts of ITS technologies. We 
created a data collection instrument to systematically collect 
information from each evaluation we selected, including information 
about the evaluation design, expected and documented benefits, and 
inclusion of cost information. We then compiled and analyzed the 
information from the data collection instruments. We determined that 
the results contained in the studies were sufficiently reliable for our 
purpose of describing what is known about the impacts of ITS 
deployment. 

To address our final objective--to identify factors that limit 
deployment and use of ITS--we used a case study approach and 
interviewed federal, state, and local transportation officials about 
barriers to deploying and maintaining ITS technologies. We also used 
case study information to illustrate limitations of DOT's deployment 
integration rating measurement approach. We used level of congestion 
and DOT's integrated deployment rating to select four congested 
metropolitan areas--two areas that DOT has determined have deployed ITS 
to a great extent and two areas that DOT has determined have deployed 
ITS to a lesser extent--to study in depth.[Footnote 42] We selected 
areas with either high or low levels of integrated deployment in order 
to try to capture information that could explain the different levels 
of deployment in those locations. For example, we were interested in 
finding out whether such areas encounter similar or different barriers 
to deployment. 

To identify congested metropolitan areas, we applied DOT's integrated- 
deployment congestion rating to the largest 75 metropolitan areas and 
sorted them according to congestion level. DOT measures congestion as 
the percent of travel under congested conditions. We used the Texas 
Transportation Institute 2004 Urban Mobility Report--which ranked 
congestion under DOT's definition during our selection process--to 
identify congested metropolitan areas. The 2004 Urban Mobility Report 
used 2002 travel data to rank congestion levels. We then identified a 
list of congested metropolitan areas with varying levels of deployment. 
In our deliberations about which high deployment area to visit, we took 
into account practical considerations such as proximity of metropolitan 
area to the state capital. We selected Chicago and San Francisco, which 
were ranked fourth and fifth respectively in terms of congestion and 
which DOT rated as high in integrated deployment and Las Vegas and 
Indianapolis, which were ranked 15TH and 26TH respectively in terms of 
congestion and rated by DOT as low in integrated deployment. We 
determined that Las Vegas is the most congested location that DOT rated 
low, and Indianapolis is the second most congested location rated low. 
After we visited these locations, the Texas Transportation Institute 
issued its 2005 Urban Mobility Report using 2003 travel data to rank 
congestion levels. In that report, Chicago and San Francisco were 
ranked fourth and fifth respectively in terms of congestion, and Las 
Vegas and Indianapolis were ranked ninth and 25TH respectively. 

We developed a semistructured data collection instrument to use during 
interviews with transportation and planning officials in the 
metropolitan areas. The data collection instrument included questions 
about local transportation challenges, ITS decision-makers, ITS 
deployments, barriers and facilitators to deploying ITS, and future 
deployment. We obtained a list of contacts from the FHWA division 
offices and identified a group of state and local officials involved in 
ITS deployment in the metropolitan area. In each metropolitan area, we 
interviewed officials from the FHWA division office, the state 
department of transportation ITS office, state department of 
transportation district engineer, metropolitan planning organization, 
city department of transportation, and transit authority. (A complete 
list of agencies we contacted is included at the end of this section.) 
We conducted our site visits between November 2004 and March 2005. We 
conducted our work from October 2004 through August 2005 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Organizations Contacted: 

Department of Transportation: 

Federal Highway Administration Operations Office: 
ITS Joint Program Office: 

Chicago Metropolitan Area: 

FHWA National Resource Center (Olympia Fields, Illinois): 
FHWA Illinois Division: 
Illinois Department of Transportation, ITS program office: 
Illinois Department of Transportation, District 1: 
Chicago Area Metropolitan Planning Organization/Chicago Area 
Transportation Study (CATS): 
City of Chicago: 
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority: 
Regional Transportation Authority: 

Indianapolis Metropolitan Area: 

FHWA Indiana Division: 
Indiana Department of Transportation, ITS program office: 
Indiana Department of Transportation, Greenfield District: 
Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization: 
Indianapolis Department of Public Works: 
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo): 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Area: 

FHWA Nevada Division: 
Nevada Department of Transportation, Operations: 
Nevada Department of Transportation, District 1: 
Regional Transportation Commission/Freeway and Arterial System of 
Transportation Organization (FAST): 
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada: 

San Francisco Metropolitan Area: 

FHWA National Resource Center: 
FHWA California Division: 
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), ITS program office: 
CALTRANS, District 4: 
San Francisco Department of Traffic: 
San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI): 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission: 
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART): 
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: 
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency: 

Highway Associations: 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: 
American Highway Users Alliance: 
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association: 
Intelligent Transportation Society of America: 

Other: 

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois: 
University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois: 
University of California, Berkeley, California: 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Summary of DOT's Deployment Tracking Methodology: 

In 1996, Secretary Peña established the goal that 75 of the largest 
metropolitan areas would be outfitted with a complete intelligent 
transportation infrastructure by 2005.[Footnote 43] DOT tracks the 
level of deployment and integration and reports on the progress toward 
this goal periodically in its deployment progress report. Metropolitan 
areas are rated as high, medium, or low in terms of deployment and 
integration of ITS technology. DOT considers any metropolitan area 
having a high or medium rating as contributing to fulfilling the goal. 
At the end of 2004, DOT rated 28 areas high, 34 medium, and 13 low. 

In order to track progress toward this goal, DOT set up the 
metropolitan ITS deployment tracking methodology. The tracking system 
includes data about nine specific ITS components, including freeway 
management, incident management, arterial management, emergency 
management, transit management, electronic toll collection, transit 
electronic fare payment, highway-rail intersections, and regional 
multimodal traveler information. DOT created a set of measurable 
indicators of progress toward the overall goal and created nine data 
collection instruments (surveys) that correspond to the ITS systems. 
DOT contracted with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to collect the 
data from the entities in the 75 metropolitan areas associated with ITS 
deployment. These entities included transit agencies, toll authorities, 
municipal governments, and state transportation departments, among 
others. ORNL sent out the first deployment and integration surveys in 
1997, which represented the baseline as of the end of fiscal year 1997. 
The data were initially collected by a fax/mail survey, which later 
became a Web-based survey. After 2000, ORNL surveyed all metropolitan 
areas on a biennial basis and completed a telephone interview with the 
metropolitan areas with a low rating in the interim years to determine 
whether their rating should be increased. It completed the 2004 survey 
in September 2004 and published the results in July 2005. According to 
DOT officials, the 2005 survey was released in July 2005, and was a Web-
based rather than telephone survey. The 2005 data will be available in 
2006. 

From the survey questions, DOT compiles data about the level of 
deployment of ITS systems and the level of integration. To measure ITS 
deployment, DOT created five ITS component categories (collapsing the 
nine components mentioned above into five categories) and nine 
component indicators. For example, an indicator of the arterial 
management component is the percent of signalized intersections under 
computerized control. In order to assign a rating for deployment, DOT 
created threshold values for the ITS component indicators. (See table 
2.) For example, the threshold value for the percent computerized 
signalized intersections is 33 percent. DOT then assigns a rating of 
high, medium, and low for deployment depending on how many thresholds 
the metropolitan area exceeded. An area is rated high in component 
deployment if it exceeds the threshold value for at least one of the 
indicators in each of the five components. An area is rated medium if 
it exceeds the threshold value for freeway management/incident 
management or transit management/electronic fare payment and at least 
one other component. An area is rated low in component deployment if it 
exceeds the threshold value for one or fewer components. 

Table 2: DOT's Deployment Component Indicators and Threshold Values: 

ITS components: Freeway management/incident management; 
Component indicators: 
* Percent freeway miles under electronic surveillance; 
* Percent freeway miles with freeway service patrols; 
* Percent freeway miles with closed circuit TV (CCTV); 
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 20 percent. 

ITS components: Transit management/electronic fare payment; 
Component indicators: 
* Percent buses equipped with automated vehicle location; 
* Percent buses equipped with electronic fare payment; 
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 33 percent. 

ITS components: Arterial management; 
Component indicators: 
* Percent signalized intersections under computerized control; 
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 33 percent. 

ITS components: Regional multimodal traveler information; 
Component indicators: 
* Percent geographic coverage of traveler information from freeway 
electronic surveillance and freeway CCTV cameras; 
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 10 percent. 

ITS components: Emergency management services; 
Component indicators: 
* Percent emergency vehicles operating under computer- aided-dispatch 
(CAD); 
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 33 percent. 

Source: DOT. 

[End of table]

To measure the level of integration, DOT defined a set of links 
involving three major organizations that operate the infrastructure-- 
state governments that manage freeway management and incident 
management components; local governments that manage most arterial 
management components; and public transit authorities that manage the 
transit management component. DOT created integration indicators about 
how agencies connect, like sharing traffic condition information with 
other agencies, and assigns a value greater than zero for any 
integration indicator when a link is present. DOT then rates the 
metropolitan area according to how many links are present. An area is 
rated high if all three links are present; medium if any two out of 
three links are present; and low if one or fewer links are present. 

To measure the level of integrated deployment, DOT combines the 
component classification and the integration classification into a 
single classification. For example, a metropolitan area which DOT rated 
as high in ITS components and high in integration, will be rated as 
high overall. (See table 3.)

Table 3: DOT's Integrated Deployment Classification Scheme: 

Component classification: High; 
Integration classification: High; 
Combined classification: High. 

Component classification: High; 
Integration classification: Medium; 
Combined classification: Medium. 

Component classification: High; 
Integration classification: Low; 
Combined classification: Medium. 

Component classification: Medium; 
Integration classification: High; 
Combined classification: High. 

Component classification: Medium; 
Integration classification: Medium; 
Combined classification: Medium. 

Component classification: Medium; 
Integration classification: Low; 
Combined classification: Low. 

Component classification: Low; 
Integration classification: High; 
Combined classification: Medium. 

Component classification: Low; 
Integration classification: Medium; 
Combined classification: Medium. 

Component classification: Low; 
Integration classification: Low; 
Combined classification: Low. 

Source: DOT. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Metropolitan Area Case Studies: 

We studied four metropolitan areas that were among the 75 metropolitan 
areas included in DOT's deployment database to help identify barriers 
to deployment and use of ITS technologies that address congestion and 
help assess DOT's deployment measures.[Footnote 44] We visited two 
metropolitan areas (Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California) 
that DOT rated as having a high level of integrated deployment and two 
areas (Las Vegas, Nevada, and Indianapolis, Indiana) that DOT rated as 
having a low level of ITS integrated deployment. The officials we 
interviewed and documents we received provided detailed information on 
each area's transportation challenges, the extent to which the areas 
were using and planned to deploy different types of ITS technologies, 
and the factors that influenced ITS deployment and use in their areas. 
We were also able to observe the extent to which the two areas with 
more ITS deployed were operating their existing systems. In Las Vegas 
and Indianapolis, however, we did not observe much in terms of 
operations, likely because of the limited deployment in those areas. 
(See app. 1 for details on our scope and methodology for our case study 
selections.)

Chicago, Illinois: 

Level of Congestion: 

In 2003, Chicago was the fourth most congested area in the nation; 
commuters spent 42 percent of their travel time in congested 
conditions. Chicago travelers that year on average spent 58 hours 
delayed in traffic costing the area over $4.2 billion in lost wages and 
wasted fuel--about 150 million gallons. 

Transportation System: 

The Chicago metropolitan planning area consists of seven counties 
encompassing a population of about 8.1 million in 2000. The population 
is expected to reach 9.8 million by 2030. Seven interstates enter the 
Chicago region. In 2002, 20.5 million vehicle trips were made daily on 
the area's 24,092 miles of interstates, freeways, and principal and 
minor arterial roads, and an additional 1.5 million daily trips were 
made on transit systems--Chicago has both rail and bus service. In 
2003, over 165.7 million vehicle miles were traveled on area roadways 
daily. 

Transportation Challenges: 

Highway congestion is a major transportation challenge for the Chicago 
area. The roadway system has not grown fast enough to keep pace with 
the increase in roadway demand, especially with commercial truck 
driving. Currently, trucks comprise up to 40 percent of daily traffic 
on three of the area's most congested freeways. Furthermore, by 2030 
the number of trucks on Chicago area highways is expected to increase 
by 80 percent. Trucks use twice the average road space used by cars and 
will account for more than half of the additional vehicles and two 
thirds of the effective increase in traffic on the region's roads. 

ITS Applications: 

Chicago uses many ITS technologies. The Illinois Department of 
Transportation (IDOT) operates 22 changeable message signs that display 
real-time traffic information on Chicago's freeways. IDOT utilizes over 
2,400 loop detectors to collect such information. IDOT also utilizes 
113 ramp meters, closed circuit television cameras, and video 
surveillance cameras. Drivers with cellular telephones can also call 
*999 to notify IDOT of incidents on arterials and freeways. IDOT also 
operates three traffic management centers including the Gateway 
Traveler Information System which serves as the multimodal traveler 
information hub for the three-state Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor 
Coalition. Gateway collects, processes, validates, fuses, and 
distributes real-time traffic, travel-time, congestion, construction, 
incident, special event, and transit information from and to over a 
dozen operating agencies in the corridor to support more effective 
management and operation of the transportation system. In addition, 
IDOT operates an Emergency Traffic patrol providing over 100,000 
expressway motorists with incident assistance annually. Finally, 
multiple agencies have the capability to monitor area traffic from 10 
traffic management centers. 

On its arterial roadways, the Chicago DOT has designed six "smart 
corridors" connected by fiber optic signals. In those corridors, 
cameras and remote devices are used to improve efficiency through 
traffic signal preemptions or fast incident management. Some corridors, 
such as Lake Shore Drive, use dynamic message signs. The Chicago DOT 
also has a traffic management center with the capability of monitoring 
its roadways. 

In addition, transit agencies such as the Chicago Transit Authority 
have many ITS components on their trains and buses such as Automatic 
Vehicle Location, computer-aided dispatch and control, and real-time 
passenger information signs. 

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has also deployed ITS 
applications along its 150 miles of highways in the Chicago area. 
Specifically, the agency has an electronic toll collection system, a 
traffic incident management system to manage operations and incidents 
that is integrated with the Illinois State Police computer-aided 
dispatch, about 400 closed-circuit televisions, and over 100 detectors 
that use speed measurements to provide travel time estimates. 

Factors Impacting ITS Deployment: 

Chicago has a high level of ITS deployment due to significant federal 
funding, congested conditions, and ITS advocates. Since 1991, Chicago 
has received over $43 million in federal funding for deployment of ITS 
applications. The Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee area was one of four locations 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 
funded as part of the ITS priority corridor program. ISTEA authorized 
the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee area with over $18 million for ITS 
applications. Being a part of the ISTEA program also helped to create 
the coalitions between transportation agencies that were needed for 
further advancement of ITS after the program ended. In addition, 
transportation officials in Chicago stated that the level of congestion 
on Chicago's roadways combined with limited ability to build additional 
roadways compelled them to look into operational improvements such as 
ITS technologies. Finally, Chicago's high deployment level is also the 
result of its having ITS advocates at the state and local levels. IDOT 
has an ITS office that seeks opportunities to deploy ITS applications 
and secure the necessary funding for such applications. 

While Chicago transportation agencies have achieved a high level of ITS 
deployment, they have faced challenges in operating their ITS 
technologies. Transportation officials stated that their agencies lack 
funding for operations and were not aware that federal funds could be 
used for operations. Consequently, 6 of the 10 transportation 
management centers do not have operators monitoring traffic, updating 
message signs, and notifying incident management officials when 
necessary. (See fig. 4.)

Future ITS Initiatives: 

Chicago transportation agencies are proposing 85 ITS projects--ranging 
in size from small, low cost actions to multimillion-dollar efforts--at 
a total cost of over $304 million. These efforts include the following: 

* IDOT proposes to develop a statewide 511 information program, install 
an additional 350 cameras for closed circuit television at 1-mile 
intervals or less, and install additional dynamic message signs on its 
roadways. 

* The Chicago DOT proposes to design and implement a city traffic 
management center and hub with interfaces to the city's 911 center and 
IDOT Gateway Center to cover traffic management, traveler information, 
and incident management. 

* The Regional Transportation Authority is proposing to install transit 
signal prioritization, large message displays of train schedules at 
five locations, and regional traveler information kiosks in six 
locations. 

* The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has begun a 10-year 
renovation to transfer its tollways into an "open road" system. The 
open road concept calls for cash-paying customers (those not using the 
electronic toll collection passes) to exit the mainline to pay tolls at 
new express plazas located at the sides of the roadway. Those using 
electronic passes will be able to experience end-to-end, unimpeded 
travel over the entire 274-mile toll system. 

Figure 4: A Chicago Metropolitan Area's Traffic Management Center That 
Lacks Staff Dedicated to Monitoring Traffic throughout the Day: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

San Francisco, California: 

Level of Congestion: 

In 2003, the San Francisco Bay Area was ranked the fifth most congested 
area in the nation; commuters spent 41 percent of their travel time in 
congested conditions. Bay Area travelers that year on average spent 72 
hours delayed in traffic, costing the area over $2.6 billion in lost 
wages and wasted fuel--an excess of 96 million gallons. 

Transportation System: 

The San Francisco Bay Area consists of nine counties encompassing a 
population of about 7 million in 2004. The population is expected to 
reach 8.8 million by 2030. In 2000, about 17 million trips were made 
daily on the area's 21,218 miles of interstates, freeways, and 
principal and minor arterial roads. An additional 1.4 million daily 
trips were made on transit systems; San Francisco has ferry, rail, and 
bus service. In 2003, over 91.5 million vehicle miles were traveled on 
area roadways daily. 

Transportation Challenges: 

Changes in the Bay Area's demographics will have significant 
transportation implications in the future. The percentage of residents 
age 65 or older is expected to increase from 10 percent currently to 25 
percent in 2030. Meeting the mobility needs of the aging population 
will require changes in a number of areas, from the design of cars to 
increases in paratransit systems. In addition, average household 
incomes in the Bay Area are expected to rise in real terms from $92,000 
in 2000 to $118,000 in 2030. The level of auto ownership is likely to 
rise with this income increase, as more families will be able to 
purchase additional vehicles. 

The Bay Area also has a political culture that has significantly 
impacted transportation mobility. In the late 1950s, the city of San 
Francisco passed legislation opposing new freeway construction in the 
city limits. Almost all roads in the city are arterials. In addition, 
the Bay Area is expected to spend less on new freeway projects than any 
other large urban area in the country. 

The geography of San Francisco is a challenge for transportation 
solutions. The eight toll bridges in particular are consistently 
crowded since they are the main entrance and exits into the 
metropolitan area. San Francisco's peninsula geography makes entrance 
and exit via a vehicle very challenging. Unless a commuter is driving 
from the north, drivers must take a bridge to enter San Francisco. 

California has also significantly decentralized transportation decision 
making. In 1997, the state passed legislation allocating 75 percent of 
the state's transportation funds (including federal transportation 
funds) to local entities for regional improvement projects. The 
remaining 25 percent is for state administered interregional 
improvement programs. 

ITS Applications: 

Transportation agencies in San Francisco have deployed a wide variety 
of ITS technologies. The Bay Area is the largest metropolitan area in 
the country to activate a 511 service. The 511 service provides Bay 
Area callers and those who visit the 511 Web site with real-time 
traffic information about conditions and incidents including point-to- 
point driving times on routes throughout the area. The service also 
includes fare, schedule and trip planning information on the area's 
public transit systems; online ride-matching for ride-sharing, bicycle 
route information; and updates on construction projects and special 
events affecting traffic. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission 
(the area's MPO) partnered with the CALTRANS (the state DOT) and other 
transit agencies to launch the service in 2002. Since its inception, 
the 511 system has received praise from the Intelligent Transportation 
Society of America and the American Public Transportation Association. 

Transportation agencies in the Bay Area also control freeway movement 
through communication and roadside equipment that supports ramp 
control, lane controls, and interchange controls. Agencies operating 
freeways, such as CALTRANS, also have traffic management centers that 
monitor freeways to report on traffic information and detect incidents. 
Area transportation agencies feature 4,700 traffic sensing detectors on 
its 2,800 freeway miles. As a result, 29 percent of the freeways have a 
sensing device within 1 mile or less, and 40 percent of the freeways 
have a sensing device within 2 miles or less. About 45 percent of these 
devices, however, are out of service reducing the ability of staff to 
collect traffic data such as speed and volume.[Footnote 45] According 
to a DOT official, having 45 percent of traffic detectors out of 
service is on the low-end nationally and is not typical. In addition, 
San Francisco area drivers can also utilize a highway-advisory radio 
station that provides traffic information to highway travelers. 

The San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) is leading an 
integrated transportation management system effort to utilize ITS 
technologies to make traffic flow on arterial streets. DPT has begun an 
integrated transportation management system program for eight city 
areas. DPT officials stated that they have completed the initial phase 
of the effort and have installed electric traffic controls and loop 
detectors at 35 intersections and have 15 cameras, 5 video surveillance 
monitors, 4 fixed variable message signs, and a traffic management 
center that provides the ability to monitor traffic. 

The Bay Area Toll Authority has an electronic toll collection program 
for bridge toll users. The system has three components: a transponder, 
which is placed inside the vehicle; an overhead antenna, which reads 
the transponder and collects the toll; and video cameras to identify 
toll evaders. The Toll Authority has added at least one electronic toll 
collection lane to each of the eight area bridges. 

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and six San Francisco 
Bay Area transit agencies have developed a regional fare payment 
system. The system enables customers to use a single card to ride Bay 
Area buses, trains, light rail lines, and ferries. The nine-county Bay 
Area will be the first region in the U.S. to have a single card that 
can be used on all forms of public transit. In addition, the Bay Area 
Rapid Transit agency has installed real-time information, such as 
expected arrival time of next transit vehicle, at every rail station 
platform. 

Factors Impacting ITS Deployment: 

The San Francisco Bay Area's level of ITS deployment is high due to 
active advocates, federal resources, and a cultural climate that favors 
managing over expanding the roadway system. The MTC has taken a strong 
role in advocating and moving ITS deployment forward. In addition, 
federal funding helped in deploying ITS applications. For example, an 
ITS earmark helped launch the agency's ITS initiatives. Between 2004 
and 2005, Congress earmarked over $3.7 million for ITS applications in 
the Bay Area. The Bay Area also has several cultural factors that have 
helped to facilitate ITS deployment. The transportation planners have 
maintained a decades-long commitment to preserving and managing the 
roadway system over expansion. In addition, according to MTC officials, 
the Bay Area has a sense of pride toward developing technology systems 
since the nation's technology hub, Silicon Valley, is in the region. 

While San Francisco transportation agencies have achieved a high level 
of ITS deployment, they have also faced challenges in operating their 
ITS technologies. Transportation officials stated that their agencies 
lack funding for operations, awareness that federal funds could be used 
for operations, and technical standards. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 
for example, the MTC estimates that it needs an additional $419 million 
above its available funding to fully deploy the area's regional 
operations programs--including ITS applications. In addition, some 
local officials were not aware that federal funds can be used to 
operate and manage ITS technologies, leading some agencies to use their 
federal funding to replace their technology systems at much higher 
costs than would be needed to operate and maintain their existing 
technologies. A lack of business knowledge also led an agency to lease 
rather than purchase telecommunication lines needed for transmitting 
data from roadway sensors--this decision ended up costing the agency 
money in the long run. In addition, a San Francisco official stated 
that the slow completion of the standards development process at the 
national level caused them to pick a standard in the draft stage, 
hoping the technology they chose would be able to connect with future 
ITS deployment in the area. 

Future ITS Initiatives: 

The MTC has taken the lead on future ITS initiatives and plans to 
collaborate with local agencies to further the deployment of the 
following applications: 

* On the freeways, MTC is planning to improve the traffic operations 
system and enhance its transportation management center, freeway 
service patrol, incident management, technical assistance, and real 
time travel information. (See fig. 5 for planned use of traveler 
information.)

* On arterial roads, MTC, in cooperation with the San Francisco 
Department of Parking and Traffic, plans to implement smart parking. 
Smart parking would provide drivers with real-time information on 
available parking spots at city garages. This information may improve 
efficiency from drivers searching for available parking or double 
parking. 

* On all roadways, MTC plans to increase coverage of the 511 traveler 
information system. 

* On transit, MTC is partnering with other transit agencies to further 
the deployment of the smart card system and make it available to more 
commuters. 

Figure 5: Artist's Depiction of Real-Time Travel Information in San 
Francisco: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Las Vegas, Nevada: 

Level of Congestion: 

In 2003, Las Vegas was the ninth most congested area in the nation; 
commuters spent 39 percent of their travel time in congested 
conditions. Las Vegas drivers that year on average spent 30 hours 
delayed in traffic costing the area about $380 million in lost wages 
and wasted fuel--about 14 million gallons. 

Transportation System: 

The Las Vegas metropolitan planning area is a collection of five 
incorporated cities and unincorporated rural and urban areas, all 
located in Clark County and encompassing a population of about 1.6 
million in 2003. The population is expected to reach almost 2.4 million 
by 2025. In 2003, over 3.6 million trips were made daily on the area's 
6,569 miles of roadways. An additional approximately 124,000 daily 
trips were made on transit systems. In 2003, over 27.4 million vehicle 
miles were traveled on area roadways daily. 

Las Vegas is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation. 
Gaming, proximity to natural scenic attractions, a favorable climate, 
and direct access by air and ground resulted in a population boom 
between 1990 and 2000. During that time, the population rose from 
741,000 to about 1.38 million--an increase of 86 percent. Phoenix, by 
comparison, which during the same time period was the second fastest 
growing area had a population increase of 45 percent. 

Transportation Challenges: 

The Las Vegas population growth has outpaced transportation 
infrastructure development. The increase in population has placed an 
increased demand for transit and roadway services. Las Vegas, however, 
has only two major freeways, the U.S. 95 and the I-15. Although Clark 
County Public Works is planning on building a Beltway, motorists rely 
primarily on arterials for mobility. 

ITS Applications: 

Las Vegas transportation agencies have coordinated efforts to establish 
an ITS system on the arterial roadways in the metropolitan area. The 
Las Vegas MPO manages the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation 
organization (FAST)--an integrated freeway and arterial management 
system designed to reduce congestion, and improve incident response 
time and management. FAST is designed to both monitor and control 
traffic. To monitor traffic, FAST plans to move into a new traffic 
management center in the summer of 2005 to monitor all roadways. 
However, none of the area's freeway miles currently are covered by 
electronic surveillance, and the state DOT is just beginning to link 
its ITS sensory technologies with those deployed by the local 
transportation and law enforcement agencies. 

Factors Impacting ITS Deployment: 

Some of the barriers that have impacted ITS deployment in Las Vegas 
include funding inflexibilities, staffing limitations, and 
technological barriers. A few transportation officials stated the 
federal integration deployment program funds are specifically 
designated for integration and not strictly for deployment. This 
requirement made it difficult for Las Vegas to use a congressional 
earmark since it has already highly integrated its limited ITS 
deployment. In addition, transportation officials stated that most 
agencies do not have enough staff to keep up with developing 
technologies. Finally, needed equipment is not always readily 
available. Transportation officials stated that the ITS market is 
small, making it difficult to find equipment that meets standards and 
is not expensive. 

Future ITS Initiatives: 

The FAST organization plans to deploy ramp meters, dynamic message 
signs, and a 511 statewide traveler information system for area 
roadways. In addition, the Las Vegas area plans to provide real-time 
information on one of the two area freeways and at transit area kiosks. 

Indianapolis, Indiana: 

Level of Congestion: 

In 2003, Indianapolis was the twenty-fifth most congested area in the 
nation; commuters spent 34 percent of their travel time in congested 
conditions. Indianapolis drivers that year on average spent 38 hours 
delayed in traffic costing the area about $362 million in lost wages 
and wasted fuel--about 14 million gallons. 

Transportation System: 

The Indianapolis metropolitan area includes Marion County and portions 
of Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks, Johnson, and Morgan counties 
encompassing a population of about 1.4 million in 2000. The population 
is expected to reach about 1.7 million by 2030. The city and county are 
a unified, consolidated government entity. In 2002, over 5.5 million 
vehicles traveled daily on the area's 5,644 lane miles of roadway. An 
additional 28,000 trips were made on the transit systems. In 2003, over 
30.6 million vehicle miles were traveled on area roadways daily. The 
area has five major Interstates. 

Transportation Challenges: 

Indianapolis has an entrenched car culture. Drivers use the Interstates 
for local trips and generally do not use public transit. Between 2002 
and 2030, the Indianapolis MPO forecasts that daily vehicle trips will 
increase from 5.5 million to over 6 million trips. Transportation 
officials stated that the area has no natural barriers to limit sprawl. 
In addition, the transit system has been underutilized because of the 
continuing challenges with the number of routes, convenience, and a 
culture that does not support public transit. 

Indianapolis has isolated instances of congestion. Many large special 
events attracting tourists, such as the Indianapolis 500, NASCAR, and 
NCAA tournaments create heavy episodic congestion. Although the entire 
metropolitan area is not considered very congested, certain locations 
in the metropolitan area experience heavier congestion than others. 

ITS Applications: 

Indianapolis features few ITS applications. In 2004, the Indiana DOT 
opened a traffic management center. The traffic management center has 
incorporated cameras, sensors, and other technologies on about 25 
percent of the Interstates and is charged with posting traffic 
information via changeable message signs, highway advisory radio, 
pagers, and real-time on the Web to inform drivers. The state DOT also 
runs the Hoosier Helper program--an emergency roadside assistance 
program that assists stranded motorists, removes debris from roadways, 
and sends for help in emergency situations. (See fig. 6.) On arterial 
roads, the Indianapolis Department of Public Works also has a traffic 
control center where the agency can control and coordinate signals and 
view intersections. 

Factors Impacting ITS Deployment: 

Some of the barriers that have impacted ITS deployment in Indianapolis 
include a lack of congestion, agency coordination, ITS staff and 
technical expertise. The public does not perceive congestion levels to 
be significant. The public is not knowledgeable or interested in ITS 
technologies and may object to ITS deployment. According to a 
transportation official, the Indianapolis community may not welcome the 
deployment of ITS technologies such as ramp metering, causing local 
agencies to avoid implementing or upgrading ITS applications. 
Furthermore, some local agencies are not willing to commit to ITS, 
fearing it will take away funds from other programs. ITS deployment is 
not part of the locally established planning process and, therefore, 
planners do not consider it in their roadway building alternatives. In 
addition, transportation agencies in Indianapolis generally do not 
coordinate their ITS efforts. The state DOT traffic management system, 
for example, does not have a link to the city's traffic management 
center operated by the Department of Public Works; the agencies are 
operating independently. ITS staff is limited and lacks technical 
expertise. The ITS staff located at some agencies have increasing 
workload constraints that hinder the deployment of ITS. This ITS staff 
also lack technical expertise--there are few engineers that can provide 
the skills and knowledge needed to deploy ITS systems. 

Future ITS Initiatives: 

The state DOT is advancing its traffic management system, while the 
Indianapolis Department of Public Works is determining the ITS needs 
for arterial roadways. The state DOT is moving into advanced phases of 
its advanced traffic management system and plans to install a total of 
125 cameras spaced approximately every mile and a system of vehicle 
detection underneath the pavement placed every half mile on high-volume 
roads and one-mile on lower volume roads to measure the overall traffic 
flow. The agency plans full implementation of the system by 2008. The 
Indianapolis Department of Public Works is in the process of examining 
its ITS goals and the potential of ITS technologies such as a traffic 
management center with real time traffic information. The Department of 
Public Works also plans to centralize traffic control with the 
capabilities to respond to incidents, weather, and events over the next 
5 to 10 years. 

In addition, an DOT official stated that technical expertise in ITS is 
growing. The state DOT is expanding its ITS and traffic management 
staff. FHWA is offering additional training to the MPO staff as well. 

Figure 6: Indiana Hoosier Helper Van: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

JayEtta Z. Hecker, (202) 512-2834 or [Hyperlink, heckerj@gao.gov]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Cathy Colwell, Assistant 
Director; Samer Abbas; Kimberly Berry; Jay Cherlow; Jason Kelly; Gail 
Marnik; Sara Ann Moessbauer; and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions 
to this report. 

(544097): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] David Schrank and Tim Loma, Texas Transportation Institute, 2005 
Urban Mobility Report (College Station Texas, 2005). 

[2] ITS technologies are also used for a number of other purposes, 
including improving safety. However, safety impacts are not in the 
scope of this review. 

[3] GAO, Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for 
Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge, GAO-02-775 (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 30, 2002). 

[4] State and local governments provide an even greater share of the 
funding for surface transportation investments than the federal 
government. For example, in fiscal year 1999, state and local 
governments contributed 61 percent of the total public sector spending 
for public roads. 

[5] SAFETEA-LU authorized funding for the 2005 ITS integration 
deployment program. 

[6] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and 
Options for Future Program Design, GAO-04-802 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 
31, 2004). 

[7] Although the federal ITS program has also included a research 
component and ITS technologies are used for a number of purposes, in 
this report we are focusing on the federal role in the deployment and 
use of ITS technologies to mitigate congestion rather than on the 
research and development of such technologies. 

[8] GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment 
Decisions, GAO-04-744 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004). 

[9] GAO-04-802. 

[10] GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving 
Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing 
Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 
2005). 

[11] These projects, like most federal-aid highway projects, would 
require some matching of federal funds. The federal share of the cost 
of a project from integration program funds cannot exceed 50 percent, 
with the total federal share from all sources of funding not to exceed 
80 percent. 

[12] GAO-04-744. 

[13] The Secretary of Transportation also included a commitment to 
upgrading technologies in 450 other communities and on rural roads and 
interstates. We did not focus on this area of the goal as DOT included 
the goal for the 75 metropolitan areas in its performance plan and has 
put greater effort into tracking and reporting progress toward this 
goal and because ITS for rural areas are less likely to be focused on 
congestion mitigation. 

[14] The other seven mentioned in the speech were transit management 
systems; incident management programs; electronic toll collection for 
roads and bridges; electronic fare payment systems for such things as 
the bus, train, and toll lanes; railroad-grade crossings; emergency 
response providers; and traveler information systems. 

[15] DOT also continues to play a role in ITS research, which we did 
not examine in this study. 

[16] In 1994, DOT established the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO) to 
coordinate the ITS program among the modal administrations. The JPO 
staff perform many of the tasks mentioned here, such as tracking ITS 
deployment. 

[17] DOT closely followed the nine components established by the 
Secretary in developing its criteria, but grouped them into five areas, 
including freeway management/incident management; transit 
management/electronic fare payment; arterial management; regional 
multimodal traveler information; and emergency management services. 
According to DOT officials, DOT did not consider tollway miles in its 
assessment, since tollway miles are such a small part of the expressway 
network. 

[18] An area is rated medium if it exceeds the threshold value for 
freeway management/incident management or transit management/electronic 
fare payment and at least one other component. 

[19] Although DOT does obtain some information on the operations of 
transportation management centers, it is not used to measure progress 
toward the deployment goal. 

[20] The National Transportation Operations Coalition (NTOC) is an 
alliance of national associations, practitioners and private sector 
groups to represent the collective interests of stakeholders at state, 
local and regional levels, who have a wide range of experience in 
operations, planning and public safety. 

[21] GAO-04-802. 

[22] GAO-05-172. 

[23] DOT has made available a software program known as the ITS 
Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) for state and local planners to 
estimate the benefits and costs of ITS investments. 

[24] GAO-05-172. 

[25] The ranking is based on the congestion measure--percent of daily 
travel under congested conditions. 

[26] According to transportation officials we met with, if an agency 
has a working detection of traffic sensing within a mile, then it can 
develop a good estimation of travel time and congestion. 

[27] Although DOT identified ITS deployment as a strategy to achieve 
the 2004 target to limit annual growth of urban area travel time under 
congested conditions to 0.2 percent, the ITS benefits database does not 
provide information relating to progress toward this goal. Rather, the 
information in the database focuses on individual ITS deployments and 
local improvements. 

[28] Schrank and Lomax. 

[29] In 1994, we reported that the potential benefits of properly 
designed, operated and maintained traffic control signal systems were 
not being realized. GAO, Transportation Infrastructure: Benefits of 
Traffic Control Signal Systems Are Not Being Fully Realized, GAO/RCED- 
94-105 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 1994). 

[30] E. Bekiaris and Y J Nakanishi, Economic Impacts of Intelligent 
Transportation Systems, 8 (Elsevier, 2004). 

[31] System enhancements consist of traffic operations improvements and 
environmental enhancements. 

[32] System preservation projects would include capital improvements on 
existing roads and bridges intended to sustain the existing 
infrastructure, but not include routine maintenance activities. 

[33] GAO-04-744. 

[34] Cambridge Systematics, Inc., "Twin Cities Ramp Meter Evaluation" 
(prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation pursuant to laws 
2000, ch. 479, HF2891, Feb. 1, 2001). 

[35] Over 250 respondents rated ramp meters on a scale from zero to 10, 
with a rating of 1 meaning that respondents strongly disagreed with a 
statement and a rating of 10 suggesting that they strongly agreed. The 
respondents rated their overall satisfaction with ramp meters at 4.99, 
on average, in 2000. After the shutdown study was completed, the 
average rating increased to 6.13 in 2001. 

[36] GAO-04-744. 

[37] Operating costs include labor costs, administrative costs, costs 
of utilities and rent, and other costs including system maintenance 
costs, associated with the continuous operation of the system. Routine 
maintenance items that are not critical to the successful operation of 
the system, such as the painting of traffic signal controller cabinets, 
would normally fall outside of eligible operating costs. 

[38] GAO, Urban Transportation: Challenges to Widespread Deployment of 
Intelligent Transportation Systems, GAO/RCED-97-74 (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 27, 1997). 

[39] FHWA Resource Center offices are located in Baltimore, Chicago 
(Olympia Fields), Atlanta, and San Francisco. 

[40] Standards promote interoperability--the ability of systems to 
provide services and to accept services from other systems and to use 
the services so exchanged to enable them to be operated effectively 
together. 

[41] In 1996, Secretary Peña established the goal that 75 of the 
largest metropolitan areas would be outfitted with a complete 
intelligent infrastructure by 2005. Since 1996, DOT has increased the 
number of metropolitan areas for which it tracks deployment from 75 to 
78. However, to maintain reporting consistency across the 10-year goal, 
DOT only reports on the original 75 metropolitan areas. 

[42] There are many ways to measure the level of congestion. In this 
report, we used DOT's measure of congestion--the percent of travel 
under congested conditions--to identify congested metropolitan areas. 

[43] Since 1996, DOT has increased the number of metropolitan areas on 
which it tracks deployment from 75 to 78. However, to maintain 
reporting consistency across the 10-year goal, DOT only reports on the 
original 75 metropolitan areas. 

[44] We defined congestion as the percent of travel that is under 
congested conditions--DOT's measure of congestion. 

[45] According to transportation officials we met with, if an agency 
has a working traffic sensing detector within a mile, then it can 
develop a good estimation of travel time and congestion. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: