To qualify for selection, a city had to develop and be ready to quickly  implement a comprehensive, integrated, and innovative approach to  reducing congestion through the use of the 4Ts. 1.) However, New York City failed to meet its April 2008  deadline for obtaining congestion pricing authority from the state  legislature. The Department Communicated Most Selection Information to Applicants, but Gave Two Applicants Assistance over Others

The department clearly communicated 10 of the 11 criteria it used to select  urban partners, but it could have better communicated to applicants the  relative weights it would assign to the selection criteria and the amount of  funding available under the UPA initiative. We also found that the  department provided additional attention to two applicants after they were  selected as PUPs, but in the absence of government-wide guidance it is  unclear on how to assess the appropriateness of this attention. These procedures allow  applicants to make informed decisions when preparing their applications  and help ensure the selection process is as fair and equitable as possible. 2.) Senior department officials considered the political boldness of a city’s  projects when selecting urban partners. The department subsequently  told us that political boldness was the same as political and technical  feasibility. The Department Had the Authority to Allocate Funds to the UPA Initiative, and to Consider Congestion Pricing as a Priority Selection Factor for Underlying Grant Programs

The department had the legal authority to allocate appropriated funds to  the UPA initiative as long as the funds were spent for the purposes  authorized in the appropriations legislation, and the department complied  with the restrictions and requirements of the underlying grant statutes. Each of the nine grant statutes  either explicitly permitted the consideration of congestion pricing or  afforded the department discretion to consider congestion pricing because  it is rationally related to statutory objectives. The Department Has a Framework to Ensure That Award Conditions Are Being Met and That Results Will Be Evaluated

The department is tracking urban partners’ progress in completing the  conditions of their awards, such as obtaining their authority to use  congestion pricing where needed. In addition, the department has  contracted with Battelle Memorial Institute to evaluate the outcomes of  UPA projects, such as the extent to which congestion is mitigated. According to Florida Department of Transportation officials, Miami did  this to make its UPA application more competitive and because at the  time, Miami did not know that the department would provide funding for  this activity. We did not determine whether the evaluation methodologies proposed by  Battelle or Miami were reasonable, because these methodologies have not  been fully developed. With minor exceptions, the department did a good job of letting applicants  know which criteria it would use in selecting urban partners and of the  funding available for the initiative. Second, for the  Transportation, Community, and System Preservation program, we  recommend that the Secretary direct the Administrator, FHWA, to give  priority consideration only to applicants that meet all five statutory  factors, as required by the grant statute. However, it was not clear in this document what  portion of the $329 million would be dedicated to Corridors. We did not assess these new  efforts. To describe the steps the department is taking to ensure that award  conditions are met and that results will be evaluated, we reviewed  documents on the department’s actions to monitor UPA award conditions  and plans to evaluate each urban partner’s projects to reduce congestion. Appendix V: The Department’s Legal Compliance in Awarding Grants to Support the UPA Initiative

	Introduction and Summary of Conclusions

As part of our review of the department’s National Strategy to Reduce  Congestion on America’s Transportation Network, we examined  whether, for fiscal year 2007, the department had legal authority to  allocate its lump-sum appropriations to 10 existing discretionary grant  programs in order to “fund” the UPA initiative, and if so, whether the  department could use tolling (specifically, congestion pricing) as a priority  or priority consideration factor in deciding which applicants would be  awarded grants under those programs. After narrowing the 26  applicants to 9 potential urban partners, the department selected Miami,  Minneapolis, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle as urban partners  in August 2007. . . (3)  address traffic management .
Why GAO Did This Study

As part of a broad congestion relief initiative, the Department of Transportation awarded about $848 million from 10 grant programs to five cities (Miami, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle) in 2007 as part of the Urban Partnership Agreements (UPA) initiative. The UPA initiative is intended to demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of comprehensive, integrated, and innovative approaches to relieving congestion, including the use of tolling (congestion pricing), transit, technology, and telecommuting (4Ts). Congestion pricing involves charging drivers a fee that varies with the density of traffic. This report addresses congressional interest in (1) how well the department communicated UPA selection criteria, (2) whether it had discretion to allocate grant funds to UPA recipients and consider congestion pricing as a priority selection factor, and (3) how it is ensuring that UPA award conditions are met and results are assessed. GAO reviewed departmental documents, statutes and case law, and interviewed department officials and UPA applicants.

What GAO Found

Although GAO did not assess the merits of the UPA initiative's design, it has reported on its support for integrated approaches to help reduce congestion. With minor exception, the department did a good job communicating the criteria it would use to select urban partners and how much funding was available, but it did not clearly communicate the relative priority of the criteria or extend the same outreach to all applicants. The department clearly communicated 10 of the 11 selection criteria--such as the political and technical feasibility of projects--that it used to decide which cities to select as urban partners, but it did not publicize which criteria, other than the 4Ts, were most important. In addition, over time, the department provided information indicating that about $852 million was available for these projects--a figure short of the actual $1.02 billion but sufficient to give applicants a rough idea of the program's size. Clearly communicating selection criteria, their relative priority, and the available funding allows applicants to make informed decisions when preparing their applications. GAO also found that the department told two semifinalists for being named urban partners how to revise their applications to make them more competitive, but did not do so for the other semifinalists. Both were ultimately selected as urban partners. However, in the absence of government-wide or departmental guidance, it is unclear how to assess the appropriateness of this assistance. The department acted within its authority to allocate about $848 million of its fiscal year 2007 appropriation under 10 grant programs to five UPA cities. Typically these funds have been awarded through congressional direction (earmarks) to thousands of jurisdictions; but the department's 2007 funds were not subject to such directives. In addition, the department had authority to consider congestion pricing as a priority selection factor when awarding funds because the underlying statutes either explicitly permit it or provide the department with the authority to do so. However, GAO found that the department likely did not comply with statutory requirements of the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation program by failing to require applicants to meet all five statutory factors in order to receive "priority consideration," but this may not have affected the selection outcome. The department has developed a framework to ensure that UPA award conditions are met and the initiative's results will be evaluated. The department is monitoring urban partners' completion of award conditions, such as obtaining congestion-pricing authority, and has already acted when conditions have not been met, such as by taking away New York City's funding when it could not obtain congestion pricing authority from the state. In addition, the department plans to evaluate urban partners' strategies for, and results in, reducing congestion. The evaluation, to be conducted by To view the full product, including the scope Battelle Memorial Institute, is in its early stages.