Rethinking How the U.S. Department of Transportation Is Organized – The Eno Center for Transportation

Report on Reorganizing the U.S. Department of Transportation for Sustainable Development

Introduction: Aligning Transportation with Global Sustainability Mandates

An analysis of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) reveals an organizational structure, established in 1966, that is misaligned with contemporary transportation challenges and global sustainability objectives. The current framework, organized by legacy transportation modes, impedes progress on key performance indicators such as safety, efficiency, and technological integration. This report proposes a functional reorganization of the USDOT to better address these challenges and strategically advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The existing structure creates significant barriers to achieving several critical SDGs, including:

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The slow and expensive delivery of infrastructure projects hinders the development of resilient and sustainable systems.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: Inefficiencies contribute to congestion and poor reliability, undermining efforts to create safe, resilient, and sustainable urban environments.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: Stagnating safety trends demonstrate a failure to adequately address transportation-related injuries and fatalities.

A Proposed Functional Framework for SDG-Oriented Transportation Policy

To overcome these deficiencies, a shift from a modal to a functional organization is recommended. This model would align USDOT’s mission with the integrated nature of modern transportation and accelerate progress toward the SDGs. The proposed structure comprises four core functional agencies.

1. Project Delivery Accelerator (PDA)

   The PDA would be mandated to help project sponsors deliver infrastructure faster and at a lower cost. By simplifying federal approvals and aligning funding, this agency would directly support SDG 9 by building resilient infrastructure more efficiently. Its success, measured by reduced project timelines and costs, would also advance SDG 11 by accelerating the development of sustainable public transportation and urban infrastructure, fostering inclusive and sustainable communities.

2. Office of Transportation Safety and Innovation (OTSI)

   This office would unify safety oversight, integrating expertise in human factors, data analytics, and systems engineering. This consolidated approach is critical for achieving SDG 3.6, which targets a reduction in road traffic deaths and injuries. By proactively identifying and mitigating emerging risks from new technologies like automation, the OTSI would also contribute to SDG 11 by making transportation systems safer for all users.

3. Project Finance Bureau (PFB)

   The PFB would centralize expertise in infrastructure finance, including credit programs and public-private partnerships. This focus aligns with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by fostering collaboration between government and private investors. By developing sustainable financing models for highways, transit, and airports, the PFB would ensure the long-term viability of infrastructure projects, a core tenet of SDG 9, and provide the capital needed for the sustainable systems envisioned in SDG 11.

4. Emerging Transportation Technologies Research Administration (ETTRA)

   ETTRA would coordinate research and deployment of innovative technologies such as automation and advanced materials. This function is central to SDG 9, which emphasizes scientific research and upgrading technological capabilities. By bridging the gap between research and implementation, ETTRA would ensure that technological advancements contribute to a more integrated, efficient, and sustainable transportation system, supporting the goals of SDG 11 and potentially advancing SDG 13 (Climate Action) through the promotion of cleaner and more efficient transport technologies.

Conclusion: A Structure for a Sustainable and Resilient Future

Transitioning the USDOT to a functional model is a strategic imperative for aligning federal capabilities with the demands of a rapidly evolving transportation landscape. Such a reorganization would not only improve performance in safety and project delivery but would fundamentally reposition the Department to be a key driver of the Sustainable Development Goals. By focusing on core functions of delivery, safety, finance, and innovation, the USDOT can better support its partners and ensure the nation’s transportation system is prepared for a sustainable, resilient, and technologically advanced future.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses challenges and proposed reforms within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) that connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The text focuses heavily on improving the “efficiency of infrastructure delivery,” making projects less “slow and expensive,” and building resilient transportation systems (roadways, airports, public transportation, rail). It also emphasizes the need to adapt to technological innovation, such as “Artificial intelligence, automation, and connectivity,” and proposes an agency to coordinate research and deployment of these new technologies.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article’s emphasis on improving transportation systems, including public transit and managing congestion, directly relates to creating sustainable communities. The focus on safety is also a key component of this goal, which aims to provide access to safe and sustainable transport systems for all.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article explicitly mentions that “national safety trends have stagnated” and proposes a new “Office of Transportation Safety and Innovation” to mitigate risks. This directly connects to the goal of reducing injuries and deaths from road traffic accidents, a key aspect of public health and well-being.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues and solutions presented, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 9.1: “Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… to support economic development and human well-being.” The article’s proposal for a “Project Delivery Accelerator (PDA)” aims to help sponsors deliver projects “faster and at lower cost,” directly contributing to the development of reliable and efficient infrastructure. The focus on roadways, airports, public transportation, and rail covers the scope of this target.
2. Target 11.2: “By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety…” The article highlights that the current organization “has not delivered consistent improvement in… safety.” The proposed “Office of Transportation Safety and Innovation (OTSI)” is designed to unify safety oversight, anticipate emerging risks, and update standards to improve safety across all transportation modes, directly aligning with this target’s objective.
3. Target 3.6: “By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.” Although the 2020 deadline has passed, the article’s concern with stagnated safety trends and the creation of the OTSI to “mitigate those risks” embodies the ongoing spirit and objective of this target, which is to fundamentally improve transportation safety and reduce casualties.
4. Target 9.5: “Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities… encouraging innovation…” The proposal for an “Emerging Transportation Technologies Research Administration (ETTRA)” directly addresses this target. Its purpose is to “coordinate research, standards, and deployment strategies for technologies such as automation, vehicle-to-everything communication, and advanced materials” and to “bridge the gap between research and implementation.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions both explicit and implied indicators for measuring progress:

• For Target 9.1 (Infrastructure Development): The article provides a very specific indicator for the proposed Project Delivery Accelerator (PDA). Its success would be measured by the “realized timeline reduction (with targets of more than 50% of pre-construction time eliminated).” Other implied indicators mentioned are “lower cost projects and better value for taxpayers.”
• For Targets 11.2 and 3.6 (Safety): The article implies that a key indicator is the improvement of “national safety trends.” While it doesn’t specify a metric, progress for the proposed OTSI would be measured by a reversal of the current stagnation, meaning a reduction in transportation-related accidents, injuries, and fatalities across passenger cars, trucks, commercial vehicles, and other modes.
• For Target 9.5 (Innovation and Research): An implied indicator for the ETTRA would be the rate of successful “deployment” and “implementation” of new technologies. The article states the goal is to “bridge the gap between research and implementation,” so measuring the number of new technologies (like automation or advanced materials) that move from research to practical application in the transportation system would be a relevant indicator.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: enotrans.org