Twenty-Four States Are Implementing All Systems; Remaining States Are Implementing Some Systems

As of September 1996, about half the states reported they were moving forward with all six systems even though they were no longer mandatory. The remaining states reported they were developing or implementing at least three of the transportation management systems originally mandated by ISTEA. Congestion management systems were being developed by state or local agencies for all transportation management areas. New York, for example, had existing management systems for pavement, bridges, safety, congestion, and public transportation. Three states that we visited recognized that marketing the systems to potential users—such as planners, engineers, and executives—is critical to ensuring the optimal use of the systems. In addition, some states have realized that to obtain the most uses from the systems, they need to be integrated with one another so that, for example, users can combine information from several systems to analyze the overall transportation needs in a geographic area. A Variety of Factors Has Influenced Implementation of Management Systems

Several factors have affected the states’ development and implementation of the transportation management systems, including (1) the high-level support and top priority that the systems received after they were mandated and (2) the potential benefits expected to accrue from the systems. For instance, in New York we were told that the mandate provided a “jump start” to the overall development and implementation of the systems. Removal of Mandate and Lack of Clear Federal Guidance Hindered Systems’ Implementation in Several States

In several states, the removal in 1995 of the ISTEA mandate lessened support for the development and implementation of transportation management systems and resulted in some systems’ being dropped. Some states reported that DOT’s failure to issue a clear and timely rule following the enactment of ISTEA on developing and implementing the management systems has caused difficulties, particularly in terms of the congestion, public transportation, and/or intermodal management systems. States are generally proceeding with the systems because they believe that the systems are beneficial to the decision-making process by providing more objective and timely information for decisionmakers than is otherwise available. Recommendations

To better assist the states and metropolitan planning organizations in addressing the issues they are encountering as they further implement the transportation management systems and to better communicate the availability of the assistance provided within and outside of DOT, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrators, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, to work with the states to more fully determine the types of technical assistance needed by the states and establish an information clearinghouse on (1) training, conferences, and workshops being offered, regionally and nationally; (2) the status of and the states’ experience with the implementation and integration of the six management systems; (3) the available software applications and technology; (4) the systems’ performance measures; (5) examples of the “best practices” of the states that are effectively implementing and integrating the systems; and (6) other issues identified by the states.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed: (1) the status of the states' development and implementation of transportation management systems; (2) how the states expect to use the systems; and (3) the factors that have facilitated or hindered the development and implementation of the systems.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) as of September 1996, about half the states were moving forward with all six transportation management systems even though they were no longer mandatory; (2) the remaining states were developing or implementing at least three of the systems originally mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (3) all states were implementing the pavement management system, and nearly all states were implementing the bridge, safety, and congestion management systems; (4) congestion management systems were being developed for all transportation management areas, where they are still mandatory; (5) about 30 states were implementing the public transportation and intermodal management systems; (6) the states were developing the systems for use by decisionmakers in the planning process and to help transportation officials conduct daily operations; (7) three states that GAO visited recognized that marketing the systems to potential users, such as executives, planners, and engineers, is critical to ensuring the optimal use of the systems; (8) some states have realized that to obtain the most uses from the systems, each needs to be integrated with the others; (9) nationwide, over half the states plan to integrate the systems; (10) three states that GAO reviewed indicated that the 1991 mandate provided a catalyst, or "jump start," to developing and implementing the new systems; (11) the mandate resulted in the systems' receiving high-level support and top priority status in these states; (12) although implementing the systems is now optional, several states are continuing this effort because they view the systems as beneficial to the decision-making process in that they provide more accurate, timely information than was previously available; (13) on the other hand, the removal of the federal mandate lessened support for developing certain systems; (14) some states reported that the Department of Transportation's (DOT) failure to issue a clear and timely rule on management systems following the 1991 mandate had caused difficulties in implementing the public transportation, congestion, and intermodal management systems; (15) several states told GAO that the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) was helpful in providing initial workshops and training to develop the systems; and (16) officials in all seven states that GAO reviewed indicated that they continue to need federal assistance in solving technical problems with software and learning from other states' experiences in implementing and integrating the systems.