According to the latest data available from  FHWA, most PNRS, NCIIP, and CBI projects had been reviewed by FHWA,  and funds had been distributed to states; however, some states had not  initiated efforts to obtain federal funds for their projects under these  programs. The federal contributions to estimated total project costs varied  by program. Most Projects Have Been Reviewed and Funds Have Been Distributed, but Some States Have Not Requested Funds for Certain Projects

As of December 2, 2008, FHWA had received project descriptions for and  reviewed and distributed funds for most of the projects funded by  congressional directive (46 of 55 projects) under PNRS and NCIIP, as  shown in table 4. As shown in table 5, as of  September 30, 2008, FHWA had obligated nearly $1.2 billion, or about 33  percent of the $3.6 billion authorized under the three programs through  that period. Officials we interviewed in two of those states offered varied  reasons for not using the funds. For high-cost projects—those whose estimated total costs equaled or  exceeded $500 million (11 of 19 PNRS projects, 11 of 27 NCIIP projects,  and 1 of 98 CBI projects)—PNRS funds averaged about 8 percent of  estimated total costs, NCIIP funds averaged about 4 percent of estimated  total costs, and CBI funds averaged about 13 percent of estimated total  costs. Majority of Projects Are for Highway Improvements

States have used the funds from the three national and regional programs  mainly for highway projects. Stakeholders Cited Advantages Less Often Than Challenges Associated with DOT’s National and Regional Programs

In discussing the three programs, stakeholders discussed a wide variety of  both advantages and challenges, but they cited advantages less often than  challenges. The most frequently cited advantage was the support the programs  provided to initiate projects and to advance those that were already under  construction. Funding uncertainty presents a challenge because almost all PNRS and  NCIIP projects were funded below their full cost and project sponsors do  not know whether they will receive additional federal funds beyond fiscal  year 2009 to complete their projects. Under the NCIIP program, the federal funding  contributions represented less than 30 percent of the estimated total  project costs for about half of the reviewed projects. Key Program Enhancements Include Defining a Clear Federal Role and a Criteria-Based, Competitive Project Selection Process

According to our interviews with program stakeholders and our prior  work on federal surface transportation programs, clearly defining the  federal role in surface transportation is an important step toward focusing  these three programs. Criteria-Based Competition and a More Clearly Defined Federal Role in Transportation May Provide Best Opportunity to Enhance These Programs

According to stakeholders we interviewed and our prior work, a criteria- based, competitive approach, such as the competitive process included in  SAFETEA-LU for PNRS and NCIIP, could provide the best opportunity to  enhance these programs by better targeting federal investments in  transportation infrastructure. The officials generally agreed with the  information in this report and stated that the department would be happy  to assist Congress as it considers the proposed matters. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In this report, we assessed three federal transportation programs  established by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation  Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted in August 2005, to  target funds to infrastructure projects that have high costs, involve  national or regional impacts, and cannot easily or specifically be  addressed within existing federal surface transportation programs. The  programs, administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),  include the Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS), the  National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (NCIIP), and the  Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) program. As requested, we  addressed the following questions: (1) What are the goals, funding status,  and types of projects and activities funded for the three programs? Retain or increase the program’s ability to invest in different modes. Allow more states to conduct environmental impact statements.
Why GAO Did This Study

To help meet increasing transportation demands, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) created three programs to invest federal funds in national and regional transportation infrastructure. As requested, this report provides (1) an overview of the goals, funding status, and types of projects and activities funded by the three programs; (2) advantages and challenges identified by program stakeholders; and (3) potential program enhancements. GAO reviewed pertinent federal laws and rules; examined plans for selected projects; conducted site visits; and interviewed officials, stakeholders, and experts.

What GAO Found

The goals of the projects funded by the three national and regional infrastructure programs--Projects of Regional and National Significance (PNRS), the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (NCIIP), and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) program--are varied, most projects have been reviewed and funded, most projects are for highway improvements, and funds have been applied toward various related activities. PNRS and NCIIP funds were distributed by congressional directive, and CBI funds were distributed by formula. The states GAO visited or whose officials GAO interviewed had established a variety of project goals, including increasing capacity and enhancing mobility. As of December 2008, the Federal Highway Administration had reviewed most projects submitted by states and had obligated $1.2 billion, or about 33 percent of the $3.6 billion authorized for the three programs through September 30, 2008. However, some states had not initiated efforts to obtain available funding. The officials GAO interviewed cited various reasons for not pursuing the funds, such as trying to complete an environmental impact statement and trying to identify a project that met the program's funding criteria. The programs' contributions to projects' estimated total costs varied, from less than 30 percent of the estimated total costs for the majority of reviewed PNRS projects and about half of the reviewed NCIIP projects to 80 percent or more of the estimated total costs for almost half of the reviewed CBI projects. Furthermore, for high-cost projects--those expected to cost over $500 million--the programs' funding contributions ranged from about 4 to 13 percent of the estimated total project cost. States have used the program funds mainly for highway projects and for various related activities, such as conducting environmental studies and expanding ongoing projects. In discussing the three programs, stakeholders cited advantages less often than challenges. The most frequently cited advantage was the funding the programs provided to support and move projects forward. The most commonly cited challenge also involved funding and included funding uncertainty. This was a challenge because project sponsors did not know whether they would receive additional federal funds to complete their projects--especially high-cost projects. According to GAO's interviews and prior work, clearly defining the federal role in surface transportation is an important step in enhancing these programs. Two historical approaches could then be used to distribute federal funds--a criteria-based competition or a formula-based distribution. GAO's interviews and prior work suggest that a criteria-based competition could enhance these programs. Some interviewees also called for a wide range of other enhancements, from broad proposals to increase investment in different transportation modes to specific suggestions, such as using cost-benefit analysis in selecting projects. The Department of Transportation generally agreed with the report's information and conclusions and offered to work with Congress on GAO's three proposed matters.