Survey of Initiatives to Expedite Highway Project Delivery

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Introduction

  The U.S. Government Accountability Office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that assists Congress in evaluating federal programs. We have been asked to assess the process for planning, designing, and constructing federally funded highway projects, as well as the results and impact of initiatives to expedite highway project delivery.

In our report, your name will not be associated with your responses. We intend to aggregate your answers with those of other survey respondents and to present only aggregate data in our report. We may discuss individual answers in our report, but we will not include any information that could be used to identify you or your organization.
(View responses)
 
  Scope of Survey

Please note that the scope of our work is solely on federally funded highway projects and not other transportation projects. When responding to questions in this survey, please:

•Provide your agency's views, not your personal views

•Only consider highway projects within your state

•Consider highway projects that your agency has participated in the delivery of since passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users in August 2005

•Consider all types of highway projects regardless of environmental review category (i.e., projects that are categorically excluded as well as those requiring either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement).

Acronyms Used in Survey

DOT - Department of Transportation
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
SAFETEA-LU - Safe, Accountable, Flexibile, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(View responses)
 
  Directions

We encourage you to answer each question as completely as possible. There are no right or wrong answers. This questionnaire should take approximately one hour to complete.

We understand that there are great demands on your time. Your response is critical to help us provide information to the Congress.

To learn more about completing the questionnaire, printing your responses, and who to contact if you have questions, click here for help.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
 
(View responses)
 

Definitions

  For the purposes of this survey, project delivery refers to the process by which highway projects are planned for, developed, and constructed. We refer to project delivery as having four phases:


Planning - State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations assess the purpose and need for a project in relation to other potential highway project needs.

Preliminary design and environmental review - State DOTs identify potential solutions based on needs identified during planning, potential environmental and social effects, project cost, and construction location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed project and of potential alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred alternative.

Final design and right-of-way acquisition - State DOTs finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate residents and businesses.

Construction - State DOTs award construction contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.



 
(View responses)
 

Part 1: Contact Information

1.  Please provide the following information in case we need to contact you to clarify a response. In our report, your name will not be associated with your responses nor will you be listed as a respondent. We plan to list the name of your agency as a respondent, but will not include any personally-identifiable information.:

(View responses)
  Name:
(View responses)
 
  Title:
(View responses)
 
  Agency:
(View responses)
 
  Street address:
(View responses)
 
  City:
(View responses)
 
  State:
(View responses)
 
  Zip code:
(View responses)
 
  Telephone:
(View responses)
 
  Email address:
(View responses)
 
 

Part 2: SAFETEA-LU Initiatives

  SAFETEA-LU established several initiatives aimed at expediting highway project delivery. In this section, we are interested in learning, among other things, your opinions on the potential each initiative has to expedite the delivery of federally funded highway projects implemented by your agency.
(View responses)
 

Part 2.1: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Issue Resolution

 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 established, among other things, procedures for resolving issues that could delay completion of the environmental review process or could result in denial of any approvals required for the project under applicable laws such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A project sponsor or Governor may ask the lead agency to convene a meeting of the relevant participating agencies and the project sponsor to resolve the issues. If a resolution cannot be achieved, the lead agency is to notify a number of interested parties, including the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Council on Environmental Quality, and publish notification in the Federal Register. Click here for more information on this provision.
(View responses)
 
2.  Is your agency familiar with this provision?

(Click here to go to Part 2.2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Assistance to Affected Entities)
(View responses)
 
3.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are benefits that could be realized from the issue resolution provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/Personnel
savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
3a.  What other benefits, if any, could be realized from the issue resolution provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
4.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are challenges that could be faced from the issue resolution provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Participation requirements
for this initiative are too
challenging to fulfill
(View responses)
  Programmatic agreements
could serve my agency
better than this initiative
(View responses)
  State or agency policy discourages the use of this initiative
(View responses)
 
4a.  What other challenges, if any, could be faced from the issue resolution provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
5.  For what percentage of all projects has your agency used the issue resolution provisions since SAFETEA-LU was enacted?

(Click here to go to Part 2.2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Assistance to Affected Entities)
(Click here to go to Part 2.2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Assistance to Affected Entities)
(Click here to go to Part 2.2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Assistance to Affected Entities)
(Click here to go to Part 2.2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Assistance to Affected Entities)
(Click here to go to Part 2.2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Assistance to Affected Entities)
(View responses)
 
6.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are reasons why your agency chose not to use the issue resolution provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  The burden of using
this section is more
thant the benefit is
worth
(View responses)
  State or agency
policy discourages
the use of this
initiative
(View responses)
 
6a.  What other reasons, if any, did your agency cite when choosing not to use the issue resolution provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
7.  Are there changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the issue resolution provisions established by that Section?

(Click here to go to Part 2.2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Assistance to Affected Entities)
(View responses)
 
7a.  If yes, what are the changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the issue resolution provisions established by that Section?

(View responses)
 

Part 2.2: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Assistance to Affected Entities

 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 authorizes the Secretary of DOT to approve the request of a state to provide federal-aid highway funds to a federal or state agency or Indian tribe participating in the environmental review process, to support activities that directly and meaningfully contribute to expediting and improving the planning and delivery of transportation projects in that state. Click here for more information on this provision.
(View responses)
 
8.  Is your agency familiar with this provision?

(Click here to go to Part 2.3: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations)
(View responses)
 
9.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are benefits that could be realized from the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/Personnel
savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
9a.  What other benefits, if any, could be realized from the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
10.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are challenges that could be faced from the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Programmatic agreements
could serve my agency
better than this initiative
(View responses)
  State or agency policy
discourages the use of this initiative
(View responses)
 
10a.  What other challenges, if any, could be faced from the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
11.  For what percentage of all projects has your agency used the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities since SAFETEA-LU was enacted?

(Click here to go to Part 2.3: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations)
(Click here to go to Part 2.3: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations)
(Click here to go to Part 2.3: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations)
(Click here to go to Part 2.3: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations)
(Click here to go to Part 2.3: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations)
(View responses)
 
12.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are reasons why your agency chose not to use the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  The burden of using
this section is more
thant the benefit is
worth
(View responses)
  State or agency
policy discourages
the use of this
initiative
(View responses)
 
12a.  What other reasons, if any, did your agency cite when choosing not to use the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
13.  Are there changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities established by that Section?

(Click here to go to Part 2.3: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations)
(View responses)
 
13a.  If yes, what are the changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the provisions allowing assistance to affected entities established by that Section?

(View responses)
 

Part 2.3: SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations

 
SAFETEA-LU provided for a 180-day statute of limitations on certain claims. Specifically, Section 6002 barred claims seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a federal agency for highway projects unless they are filed within 180 days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing the final agency action, unless a shorter time is specified in the federal law under which the judicial review is allowed. Click here for more information on this provision.
(View responses)
 
14.  Is your agency familiar with this provision?

(Click here to go to Part 2.4: SAFETEA-LU Section 6003)
(View responses)
 
15.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are benefits that could be realized from the statute of limitations provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/Personnel
savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
15a.  What other benefits, if any, could be realized from the statute of limitations provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
16.  What challenges, if any, could be faced from the statute of limitations provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
17.  For what percentage of all projects has your agency used the statute of limitations provisions since SAFETEA-LU was enacted?

(Click here to go to Part 2.4: SAFETEA-LU Section 6003)
(Click here to go to Part 2.4: SAFETEA-LU Section 6003)
(Click here to go to Part 2.4: SAFETEA-LU Section 6003)
(Click here to go to Part 2.4: SAFETEA-LU Section 6003)
(Click here to go to Part 2.4: SAFETEA-LU Section 6003)
(View responses)
 
18.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are reasons why your agency chose not to use the statute of limitations provisions established
in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  The burden of using
this section is more
thant the benefit is
worth
(View responses)
  State or agency
policy discourages
the use of this
initiative
(View responses)
 
18a.  What other reasons, if any, did your agency cite when choosing not to use the statute of limitations provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6002?

(View responses)
 
19.  Are there changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the statute of limitations provisions established by that Section?

(Click here to go to Part 2.4: SAFETEA-LU Section 6003)
(View responses)
 
19a.  If yes, what are the changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the statute of limitations provisions established by that Section?

(View responses)
 

Part 2.4: SAFETEA-LU Section 6003

 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6003 authorizes the DOT Secretary to establish a pilot program for up to five states to assume DOT's environmental review responsibilities for projects funded under the recreational trails program and for transportation enhancement activities. Responsibilities may be assumed by the state, including acceptance of jurisdiction in federal court, in accordance with terms specified in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the state and DOT, for an initial period of no more than three years that may be renewed by mutual agreement after that. We understand that FHWA did not implement Section 6003 because, after reviewing the requirement, no states expressed sufficient interest in participating in this pilot program. Click here for more information on SAFETEA-LU Section 6003.
(View responses)
 
20.  Is your agency familiar with this provision?

(Click here to go to Part 2.5: SAFETEA-LU Section 6004)
(View responses)
 
21.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are benefits that could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6003? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/Personnel
savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
21a.  What other benefits, if any, could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6003?

(View responses)
 
22.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are challenges that could be faced from the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6003? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Participation requirements for
this initiative are too
challenging to fulfill
(View responses)
  Participation in this initiative
would limit my agency's ability
to expedite other highway
project delivery phases or tasks
(View responses)
  Programmatic agreements
could serve my agency
better than this initiative
(View responses)
  State or agency policy
discourages the use of this initiative
(View responses)
 
22a.  What other challenges, if any, could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6003?

(View responses)
 
23.  How many times has your agency used these provisions since SAFETEA-LU was enacted?

(Click here to go to Part 2.5: SAFETEA-LU Section 6004)
(Click here to go to Part 2.5: SAFETEA-LU Section 6004)
(Click here to go to Part 2.5: SAFETEA-LU Section 6004)
(Click here to go to Part 2.5: SAFETEA-LU Section 6004)
(View responses)
 
24.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are reasons why your agency chose not to use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6003? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Staff resources
(View responses)
  Financial resources
(View responses)
  Acceptance by staff
or management
(View responses)
  Agency already has
similar agreement
(e.g., programmatic
agreement or memorandum
of agreement) in place
with U.S. DOT/FHWA
(View responses)
  State laws are not in
effect that would
authorize the state to
carry out the
SAFETEA-LU Section 6003
responsibilities.
(View responses)
  State or agency did
not want to assume
responsibility (i.e.,
'waive sovereign
immunity') for
decisions made under
this provision
(View responses)
  Implementation or
use would limit other
efforts to expedite
project delivery (e.g.,
advanced right-of-way
acquisition)
(View responses)
 
24a.  What other reasons, if any, did your agency cite when choosing not to use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6003?

(View responses)
 
25.  Are the items listed below reasons that might cause your agency to reconsider implementing or using the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6003? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Yes
No
Don't know/Not sure
  Fewer requirements
regarding staff,
financial, or other
resources
(View responses)
  Greater partnership
with federal or state
agencies, such as
resource agencies
(View responses)
 
25a.  What other changes, if any, might cause your agency to implement or use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6003?
(View responses)
 

Part 2.5: SAFETEA-LU Section 6004

 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6004 authorizes the DOT Secretary to assign and a state to assume responsibility for determining whether certain designated activities may be classified as categorical exclusions, in accordance with criteria to be established by the Secretary. Terms of the state's authority will be specified in an MOU between the state and DOT for a renewable period of three years. Click here for more information on SAFETEA-LU Section 6004.
(View responses)
 
26.  Is your agency familiar with this provision?

(Click here to go to Part 2.6: SAFETEA-LU Section 6005)
(View responses)
 
27.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are benefits that could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6004? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/Personnel
savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
27a.  What other benefits, if any, could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6004?

(View responses)
 
28.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are challenges that could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6004? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Participation requirements for
this initiative are too
challenging to fulfill
(View responses)
  Participation in this initiative
would limit my agency's ability
to expedite other highway
project delivery phases or tasks
(View responses)
  Programmatic agreements
could serve my agency
better than this initiative
(View responses)
  State or agency policy
discourages the use of this initiative
(View responses)
 
28a.  What other challenges, if any, could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6004?

(View responses)
 
29.  For what percentage of all projects has your agency used these provisions since SAFETEA-LU was enacted?

(Click here to go to Part 2.6: SAFETEA-LU Section 6005)
(Click here to go to Part 2.6: SAFETEA-LU Section 6005)
(Click here to go to Part 2.6: SAFETEA-LU Section 6005)
(Click here to go to Part 2.6: SAFETEA-LU Section 6005)
(Click here to go to Part 2.6: SAFETEA-LU Section 6005)
(View responses)
 
30.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are reasons why your agency chose not to use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6004? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Staff resources
(View responses)
  Financial resources
(View responses)
  Acceptance by staff
or management
(View responses)
  Agency already has
similar agreement
(e.g., programmatic
agreement or memorandum
of agreement) in place
with U.S. DOT/FHWA
(View responses)
  State or agency did
not want to assume
responsibility (i.e.,
'waive sovereign
immunity') for
decisions made under
this provision
(View responses)
  Implementation or
use would limit other
efforts to expedite
project delivery (e.g.,
advanced right-of-way
acquisition)
(View responses)
 
30a.  What other reasons, if any, did your agency cite when choosing not to use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6004?

(View responses)
 
31.  Are the items listed below reasons that might cause your agency to reconsider implementing or using the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6004? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Yes
No
Don't know/Not sure
  Fewer requirements
regarding staff,
financial, or other
resources
(View responses)
  Greater partnership
with federal or state
agencies, such as
resource agencies
(View responses)
 
31a.  What other changes, if any, might cause your agency to implement or use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6004?
(View responses)
 

Part 2.6: SAFETEA-LU Section 6005

 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6005 required the establishment of a project delivery pilot program to permit not more than 5 states, including Oklahoma, California, Texas, Ohio, and Alaska, to assume certain federal environmental review responsibilities (in addition to categorical exclusion determinations). Responsibility could be assumed for environmental reviews required under NEPA or other federal laws, for one or more highway projects within the state, but the DOT Secretary's responsibility for metropolitan planning or statewide transportation planning, or any conformity determination required under the Clean Air Act, could not be assigned to the state. The program was to be administered in accordance with a written agreement between U.S. DOT and the participating state DOT. Click here for more information on SAFETEA-LU Section 6005.
(View responses)
 
32.  Is your agency familiar with this provision?

(Click here to go to Part 2.7: SAFETEA-LU Section 6009)
(View responses)
 
33.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are benefits that could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6005? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/Personnel
savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
33a.  What other benefits, if any, could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6005?

(View responses)
 
34.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are challenges that could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6005? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Participation requirements for
this initiative are too
challenging to fulfill
(View responses)
  Participation in this initiative
would limit my agency's ability
to expedite other highway
project delivery phases or tasks
(View responses)
  Programmatic agreements
could serve my agency
better than this initiative
(View responses)
  State or agency policy
discourages the use of this initiative
(View responses)
 
34a.  What other challenges, if any, could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6005?

(View responses)
 
35.  How many times has your agency used these provisions since SAFETEA-LU was enacted?

(Click here to go to Part 2.7: SAFETEA-LU Section 6009)
(Click here to go to Part 2.7: SAFETEA-LU Section 6009)
(Click here to go to Part 2.7: SAFETEA-LU Section 6009)
(Click here to go to Part 2.7: SAFETEA-LU Section 6009)
(View responses)
 
36.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are reasons why your agency chose not to use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6005? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Staff resources
(View responses)
  Financial resources
(View responses)
  Acceptance by staff
or management
(View responses)
  Agency already has
similar agreement
(e.g., programmatic
agreement or memorandum
of agreement) in place
with U.S. DOT/FHWA
(View responses)
  State laws are not in
effect that would
authorize the state to
carry out the
SAFETEA-LU Section 6005
responsibilities.
(View responses)
  State or agency did
not want to assume
responsibility (i.e.,
'waive sovereign
immunity') for
decisions made under
this provision
(View responses)
  Implementation or
use would limit other
efforts to expedite
project delivery (e.g.,
advanced right-of-way
acquisition)
(View responses)
 
36a.  What other reasons, if any, did your agency cite when choosing not to use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6005?

(View responses)
 
37.  Are the items listed below reasons that might cause your agency to reconsider implementing or using the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6005? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Yes
No
Don't know/Not sure
  Fewer requirements
regarding staff,
financial, or other
resources
(View responses)
  Greater partnership
with federal or state
agencies, such as
resource agencies
(View responses)
 
37a.  What other changes, if any, might cause your agency to implement or use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6005?
(View responses)
 

Part 2.7: SAFETEA-LU Section 6009

 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6009, among other things, authorized an historic site or publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge, to be used for a transportation program or project if it is determined that such use would result in "de minimis impacts" to that resource. Click here for more information on SAFETEA-LU Section 6009.
(View responses)
 
38.  Is your agency familiar with this provision?

(Click here to go to Part 2.8: SAFETEA-LU Section 1503)
(View responses)
 
39.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are benefits that could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6009? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/Personnel
savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
39a.  What other benefits, if any, could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6009?

(View responses)
 
40.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are challenges that could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6009? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Participation requirements for
this initiative are too
challenging to fulfill
(View responses)
  Programmatic agreements
could serve my agency
better than this initiative
(View responses)
  State or agency policy
discourages the use of this initiative
(View responses)
 
40a.  What other challenges, if any, could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 6009?

(View responses)
 
41.  Of your agency's projects that affect public lands--such as historic sites, public parks, or refuges--for what percentage has your agency used these provisions since SAFETEA-LU was enacted?

(Click here to go to Part 2.8: SAFETEA-LU Section 1503)
(Click here to go to Part 2.8: SAFETEA-LU Section 1503)
(Click here to go to Part 2.8: SAFETEA-LU Section 1503)
(Click here to go to Part 2.8: SAFETEA-LU Section 1503)
(Click here to go to Part 2.8: SAFETEA-LU Section 1503)
(View responses)
 
42.  Are the items listed below reasons your agency chose not to implement or use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6009? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Yes
No
Don't know/Not sure
  Agency projects
would not impact
protected properties
(View responses)
  Agency already has a
similar agreement
(e.g., programmatic
agreement or
memorandum of
agreement) in place
with U.S. DOT/FHWA
(View responses)
 
42a.  What other reasons, if any, did your agency cite when choosing not to implement or use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 6009?
(View responses)
 
43.  Are there changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 6009 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the provisions established by that Section?

(Click here to go to Part 2.8: SAFETEA-LU Section 1503)
(View responses)
 
43a.  If yes, what are the changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 6009 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the provisions established by that Section?
(View responses)
 

Part 2.8: SAFETEA-LU Section 1503

 
Section 1503(2) of SAFETEA-LU repealed the minimum cost requirements for use of design-build contracting for federal aid highway projects. Section 1503(2) also required the Secretary of Transportation to make changes to the design-build regulations, generally to permit a State transportation department to release requests for proposals and award design-build contracts prior to the completion of the NEPA process, but preclude a contractor from proceeding with final design or construction before completion of the NEPA process. Click here for more information on SAFETEA-LU Section 1503.
(View responses)
 
44.  Is your agency familiar with this provision?

(Click here to go to Part 3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Highway Project Delivery)
(View responses)
 
45.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are benefits that could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 1503? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/Personnel
savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
45a.  What other benefits, if any, could be realized from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 1503?

(View responses)
 
46.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are challenges that could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 1503? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Programmatic agreements
could serve my agency
better than this initiative
(View responses)
  State or agency policy
discourages the use of this initiative
(View responses)
 
46a.  What other challenges, if any, could be faced from the provisions established in SAFETEA-LU Section 1503?

(View responses)
 
47.  For what percentage of projects has your agency used these provisions since SAFETEA-LU was enacted?

(Click here to go to Part 3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Highway Project Delivery)
(Click here to go to Part 3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Highway Project Delivery)
(Click here to go to Part 3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Highway Project Delivery)
(Click here to go to Part 3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Highway Project Delivery)
(Click here to go to Part 3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Highway Project Delivery)
(View responses)
 
48.  To what degree does your agency agree or disagree that the following are reasons why your agency chose not to implement or use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 1503? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Current agency
projects would
not be good
candidates for
design-build
contracting
(View responses)
  My agency
lacks sufficient
acceptance by
staff or
management
(View responses)
 
48a.  What other reasons, if any, did your agency cite when choosing not to implement or use the provisions established by SAFETEA-LU Section 1503?
(View responses)
 
49.  Are there changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 1503 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the provisions established by that Section?

(Click here to go to Part 3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Highway Project Delivery)
(View responses)
 
49a.  If yes, what are the changes to SAFETEA-LU Section 1503 that might cause your agency to reconsider using the provisions established by that Section?
(View responses)
 

Part 3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Highway Project Delivery

  Some state DOTs have implemented initiatives on their own to expedite highway project delivery. For example, some states have implemented laws or regulations, or established guidance and policies to help expedite highway project delivery. Again for the purposes of this survey, project delivery refers to the process by which highway projects are planned for, developed, and constructed. We refer to project delivery as having four phases:

Planning - State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations assess the purpose and need for a project in relation to other potential highway project needs.

Preliminary design and environmental review - State DOTs identify potential solutions based on needs identified during planning, potential environmental and social effects, project cost, and construction location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed project and of potential alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred alternative.

Final design and right-of-way acquisition - State DOTs finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate residents and businesses.

Construction - State DOTs award construction contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.
 
(View responses)
 

Part 3.1: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Planning

50.  To what extent are the following challenges for your agency during the Planning phase of the highway project delivery process? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
A very
great challenge
A
substantial challenge
A
moderate challenge
Some
challenge
Little or no
challenge
No basis
to judge
  Funding
(View responses)
  Coordination
among
stakeholder
agencies
(View responses)
  Local
controversy
(View responses)
  Project
complexity
(View responses)
  Changes to the
project's scope
(View responses)
 
51.  What other things, if any, could be challenges for your agency during the Planning phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 
52.  Since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, has your agency developed and implemented any initiatives to expedite project delivery during the Planning phase of the highway project delivery process?

(Click here to skip to question 57)
(Click here to skip to question 57)
(View responses)
 
53.  Please provide a brief description (less than 1,000 characters) of the initiative your agency feels best expedited the Planning phase of the highway project delivery process. Where possible, please provide a hyperlink to a Web site with more information.

(View responses)
 
54.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are potential benefits of the initiative described in your response to question 53? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/personnel savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
55.  What other benefits, if any, does implementation of the initiative have on expediting the Planning phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 
56.  What challenges, if any, does your agency face implementing the initiative you described in your response to question 53?

(View responses)
 
57.  What else would you recommend to expedite project delivery during the Planning phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 

Part 3.2: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Preliminary Design/Environmental Review

58.  To what extent are the following challenges for your agency during the Preliminary Design/Environmental Review phase of the highway project delivery process? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
A very
great challenge
A
substantial challenge
A
moderate challenge
Some
challenge
Little or no
challenge
No basis
to judge
  Funding
(View responses)
  Coordination
among
stakeholder
agencies
(View responses)
  Local
controversy
(View responses)
  Project
complexity
(View responses)
  Changes to the
project's scope
(View responses)
 
59.  What other things, if any, could be challenges for your agency during the Preliminary Design/Environmental Review phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 
60.  Since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, has your agency developed and implemented any initiatives to expedite project delivery during the Preliminary Design/Environmental Review phase of the highway project delivery process?

(Click here to skip to question 65)
(Click here to skip to question 65)
(View responses)
 
61.  Please provide a brief description (less than 1,000 characters) of the initiative your agency feels best expedited the Preliminary Design/Environmental Review phase of the highway project delivery process. Where possible, please provide a hyperlink to a Web site with more information.

(View responses)
 
62.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are potential benefits of the initiative described in your response to question 61? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/personnel savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
63.  What other benefits, if any, does implementation of the initiative have on expediting the Preliminary Design/Environmental Review phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 
64.  What challenges, if any, does your agency face implementing the initiative you described in your response to question 61?

(View responses)
 
65.  What else would you recommend to expedite project delivery during the Preliminary Design/Environmental Review phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 

Part 3.3: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Final Design/Right-of-Way Acquisition

66.  To what extent are the following challenges for your agency during the Final Design/Right-of-Way Acquisition phase of the highway project delivery process? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
A very
great challenge
A
substantial challenge
A
moderate challenge
Some
challenge
Little or no
challenge
No basis
to judge
  Funding
(View responses)
  Coordination
among
stakeholder
agencies
(View responses)
  Local
controversy
(View responses)
  Project
complexity
(View responses)
  Changes to the
project's scope
(View responses)
 
67.  What other things, if any, could be challenges for your agency during the Final Design/Right-of-Way Acquisition phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 
68.  Since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, has your agency developed and implemented any initiatives to expedite project delivery during the Final Design/Right-of-Way Acquisition phase of the highway project delivery process?

(Click here to skip to question 73)
(Click here to skip to question 73)
(View responses)
 
69.  Please provide a brief description (less than 1,000 characters) of the initiative your agency feels best expedited the Final Design/Right-of-Way Acquisition phase of the highway project delivery process. Where possible, please provide a hyperlink to a Web site with more information.

(View responses)
 
70.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are potential benefits of the initiative described in your response to question 69? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/personnel savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
71.  What other benefits, if any, does implementation of the initiative have on expediting the Final Design/Right-of-Way Acquisition phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 
72.  What challenges, if any, does your agency face implementing the initiative you described in your response to question 69?

(View responses)
 
73.  What else would you recommend to expedite project delivery during the Final Design/Right-of-Way Acquisition phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 

Part 3.4: Challenges and Opportunities to Expedite Construction

74.  To what extent are the following challenges for your agency during the Construction phase of the highway project delivery process? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
A very
great challenge
A
substantial challenge
A
moderate challenge
Some
challenge
Little or no
challenge
No basis
to judge
  Funding
(View responses)
  Coordination
among
stakeholder
agencies
(View responses)
  Local
controversy
(View responses)
  Project
complexity
(View responses)
  Changes to the
project's scope
(View responses)
 
75.  What other things, if any, could be challenges for your agency during the Construction phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 
76.  Since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, has your agency developed and implemented any initiatives to expedite project delivery during the Construction phase of the highway project delivery process?

(Click here to skip to question 81)
(Click here to skip to question 81)
(View responses)
 
77.  Please provide a brief description (less than 1,000 characters) of the initiative your agency feels best expedited the Construction phase of the highway project delivery process. Where possible, please provide a hyperlink to a Web site with more information.

(View responses)
 
78.  To what extent does your agency agree or disagree that the following are potential benefits of the initiative described in your response to question 77? (Select one answer in each row.)

(View responses)
   
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
No basis
to judge
  Time savings
(View responses)
  Staffing/personnel savings
(View responses)
  Increased number of
projects completed
(View responses)
 
79.  What other benefits, if any, does implementation of the initiative have on expediting the Construction phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 
80.  What challenges, if any, does your agency face implementing the initiative you described in your response to question 77?

(View responses)
 
81.  What else would you recommend to expedite project delivery during the Construction phase of the highway project delivery process?

(View responses)
 

Part 4: Additional Comments

82.  What other comments, if any, do you have about the topics covered in this survey?

(View responses)
 

Submit your responses to GAO

83.  This completes our survey. Are you ready to submit your final completed survey to GAO?

(View responses)
 

View and print responses

  You may view and print your completed survey by clicking on the Summary link in the menu to the left.
(View responses)



Questionnaire Programming Language - Version 6.1
U.S. Government Accountability Office

Please wait, file upload in progress.