Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding	 
Constraints (15-AUG-01, GAO-01-987).				 
								 
The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) New Starts program has
provided state and local agencies with over $6 billion in the	 
last eight years to help design and construct transit projects.  
Although the funding for this program is higher than it has ever 
been, the demand for these resources is also extremely high. FTA 
was directed to prioritize projects for funding by evaluating,	 
rating, and recommending potential projects on the basis of	 
specific financial and project justification criteria. This	 
report discusses (1) the refinements made to FTA's evaluation and
rating process since last year; (2) how New Starts projects were 
selected for FTA's New Starts report and budget request for	 
fiscal year 2002; and (3) FTA's remaining New Starts commitment  
authority. GAO found that FTA made a number of refinements to its
rating process. For instance potential grantees were more	 
strictly assessed on their ability to build and operate proposed 
projects than in the past. FTA also made a number of technical	 
changes and established new performance measures to evaluate the 
program. New Starts projects were selected by evaluating 40 new  
projects for 2002 and developing ratings for 26 of them. FTA then
determined whether the projects rated "highly recommended" or	 
"recommended" met its readiness criteria. Of these projects, FTA 
recommended four of them for funding commitments. FTA also	 
recommended three additional projects--one that was exempt from  
the rating process and two that were rated last year. FTA reports
that it will have limited authority to make funding commitments  
to new projects in fiscal year 2003, if it enters into the seven 
New Starts grant agreements in 2002 as proposed.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-987 					        
    ACCNO:   A01478						        
  TITLE:     Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program       
             Funding Constraints                                              
     DATE:   08/15/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Federal aid for transportation			 
	     Federal grants					 
	     Funds management					 
	     FTA Newstarts Program				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-987
     
Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

August 2001 MASS TRANSIT FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding
Constraints

GAO- 01- 987

Page 1 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

August 15, 2001 The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes Chairman The Honorable Phil
Gramm Ranking Minority Member Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs United States Senate

The Honorable Don Young Chairman The Honorable James L. Oberstar Ranking
Democratic Member Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure House of
Representatives

Since the early 1970s, the federal government has provided a large share of
the nation?s capital investment in urban mass transportation. Much of this
investment has come through the Federal Transit Administration?s (FTA) New
Starts program, which helps pay for certain rail, bus, and trolley projects
through full- funding grant agreements. In the last 8 years, this program
has provided state and local agencies with over $6 billion to help design
and construct transit projects throughout the country.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21), 1 enacted in
1998, authorized $6 billion in ?guaranteed? funding for the New Starts
program through fiscal year 2003. Although the level of New Starts funding
is higher than it has ever been, the demand for these resources is also
extremely high. TEA- 21 identified over 190 projects nationwide as eligible
to compete for New Starts funding. FTA was directed to prioritize projects
for funding by evaluating, rating, and recommending potential projects on
the basis of specific financial and project justification criteria.
Furthermore, TEA- 21 required FTA to issue regulations for the evaluation
and rating process.

In addition, TEA- 21 requires GAO to report each year on FTA?s processes and
procedures for evaluating, rating, and recommending New Starts

1 Public Law 105- 178 (June 9, 1998).

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

projects for federal funding and on the implementation of these processes
and procedures. 2 In March 2000, in testimony before the Subcommittee on
Transportation, House Committee on Appropriations, we recommended that the
Department of Transportation (DOT) further prioritize among the projects it
rates as ?highly recommended? and ?recommended? for funding purposes. 3 This
report discusses (1) the refinements made to FTA?s evaluation and rating
process since last year, (2) how New Starts projects were selected for FTA?s
New Starts report and budget request for fiscal year 2002, and (3) FTA?s
remaining New Starts commitment authority.

Although FTA?s New Starts project evaluation and rating process for fiscal
year 2002 was very similar to that of fiscal year 2001, the agency made a
number of refinements to the process. For instance, for fiscal year 2002,
potential grantees were more strictly assessed on their ability to build and
operate proposed projects than in the past. Such assessments are meant to
ensure that no outstanding issues concerning a project?s scope or cost or a
locality?s financial commitment could jeopardize the project once a
fullfunding grant agreement is signed. In addition, FTA?s final rule for the
New Starts evaluation process, which will be implemented as FTA considers
its New Starts proposal for fiscal year 2003, made a number of technical
changes. For example, the final rule replaces the ?cost per new rider?
measure of cost- effectiveness with a new measure of ?transportation system
user benefits,? which emphasizes the potential reduction in the amount of
travel time and out- of- pocket costs that people would incur taking a trip.
The final rule also established performance measures to evaluate the New
Starts program and incorporates a two- step data collection process. This
process will measure how well projects remain on schedule and on budget once
commitments to fund them have been made and the success of New Starts
projects once they are in operation.

2 TEA- 21 requires GAO to report by April 30 of each year; however, this
year FTA did not publish its annual New Starts report, which outlines its
evaluation process and the results, until May 25, 2001. Consequently, we
were unable to report on FTA?s New Starts program by April 30, 2001. See
Mass Transit: FTA?s Progress in Developing and Implementing a New Starts
Evaluation Process (GAO/ RCED- 99- 113, Apr. 26, 1999); and Mass Transit:
Implementation of FTA?s New Starts Evaluation Process and FY 2001 Funding
Proposals

(GAO/ RCED- 00- 149, Apr. 28, 2000). 3 Mass Transit: Challenges in
Evaluating, Overseeing, and Funding Major Transit Projects (GAO/ T- RCED-
00- 104, Mar. 8, 2000). Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

FTA?s evaluation process led it to recommend seven new projects for funding
commitments for fiscal year 2002 in its New Starts report and budget
request. FTA evaluated 40 new projects for fiscal year 2002 and developed
ratings for 26 of them. Twenty- three of these projects were rated as
?highly recommended? or ?recommended.? FTA proposed grant agreements for
four of these projects because they met its ?readiness? criteria. 4 The
remaining 19 ?highly recommended? or ?recommended? projects were not
proposed for grant agreements for several reasons. According to FTA, the
majority of these projects did not meet tests for ?readiness? and technical
capacity. FTA is recommending three additional projects for funding
commitments- one that was exempt from the rating process and two that were
rated last year- for a total of seven projects.

FTA reports that it will have limited authority to make funding commitments
to new projects in fiscal year 2003, if it makes funding commitments to the
seven projects in fiscal year 2002 as proposed. FTA was authorized to make
funding commitments of almost $10 billion for the New Starts program for
fiscal years 1998 through 2003. According to FTA, it has already committed
about $9 billion of this amount. The funding commitments proposed in FTA?s
fiscal year 2002 New Starts report and budget request would reduce its
remaining commitment authority by over one- half, leaving FTA with less than
$500 million for new grant agreements in fiscal year 2003. This amount may
not be enough to fund all of the projects that will be ready to begin
construction in fiscal year 2003. In an effort to conserve commitment
authority for future projects, FTA?s fiscal year 2002 proposal did not
allocate New Starts funds for preliminary engineering work as it has
routinely done in the past. However, FTA could significantly increase the
commitment authority available for projects competing for New Starts funds
in 2003 by ?releasing? amounts reserved for projects that have been
suspended. As of today, two segments of a New Starts project in Los Angeles
have been suspended for over 3 years, and FTA has informed the project?s
sponsors that it no longer has funding commitments for the suspended
segments. However, FTA continues to reserve $647 million in commitment
authority for the project. ?Releasing? this amount for projects competing
for New Starts funding would give FTA additional funding flexibility through
fiscal year 2003.

4 In determining which projects can be expected to be ready for grant
agreements and thus be recommended for funding, FTA applies tests for
readiness and technical capacity. To ensure that the projects are fully
developed, FTA ensures that no outstanding project scope or cost issues
remain and that there are no outstanding local financial commitment issues.

Page 4 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Our report contains a recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation to
make commitment authority allocated to projects for which the federal
funding commitments have been withdrawn available for all projects competing
for New Starts funding. We provided DOT with a draft of this report for
review and comment. FTA did not provide any comments or technical
clarifications on the draft. In addition, FTA indicated that further
consideration will be necessary before a decision is made on the report?s
recommendation.

TEA- 21 authorized a total of $36 billion in ?guaranteed? funding 5 through
2003 for a variety of transit programs, including financial assistance to
states and localities to develop, operate, and maintain transit systems. One
of these programs, the New Starts program, provides funds to transit
providers for constructing or extending certain types of mass transit
systems. 6 A full- funding grant agreement (FFGA) establishes the terms and
conditions for federal participation, including the maximum amount of
federal funds available for the project, which cannot exceed 80 percent of
its estimated net cost. The grant agreement also defines a project?s scope,
including the length of the system and the number of stations; its schedule,
including the date when the system is expected to open for service; and its
cost. To obtain a grant agreement, a project must first progress through a
local or regional review of alternatives, develop preliminary engineering
plans, and obtain FTA?s approval for final design. 7

TEA- 21 requires that FTA evaluate projects against ?project justification?
and ?local financial commitment? criteria contained in the act. FTA assesses
the project justification or technical merits of a project proposal by
reviewing the project?s mobility improvements, environmental benefits,

5 ?Guaranteed? funds are subject to a procedural mechanism designed to
ensure that minimum amounts of funding are available each year. 6 Other
federal funds available through DOT highway and transit programs can also be
used to develop, plan, and/ or construct these projects. 7 The alternatives
analysis stage provides information on the benefits, costs, and impacts of
alternative strategies leading to the selection of a locally preferred
solution to the community?s mobility needs. During the preliminary
engineering phase, project sponsors refine the design of the proposal,
taking into consideration all reasonable design alternatives- which results
in estimates of costs, benefits, and impacts. Final design is the last phase
of project development before construction and may include right- of- way
acquisition, utility relocation, and the preparation of final construction
plans and cost estimates. Background

Page 5 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

cost- effectiveness, and operating efficiencies. In assessing the stability
of a project?s local financial commitment, FTA assesses the project?s
finance plan for evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to
construct, maintain, and operate the proposed system or extension. In
evaluating this commitment, FTA is required to determine whether (1) the
proposed project?s finance plan incorporates reasonable contingency amounts
to cover unanticipated cost increases; (2) each proposed local source of
capital and operating funds is stable, reliable, and available within the
timetable for the proposed project; and (3) local resources are available to
operate the overall proposed mass transportation system without requiring a
reduction in existing transportation services.

Although these evaluation requirements existed prior to the enactment of the
act, TEA- 21 requires FTA to (1) develop a rating for each criterion as well
as an overall rating of ?highly recommended,? ?recommended,? or ?not
recommended? and use these evaluations and ratings in approving projects?
advancement to the preliminary engineering and final design phases and
approving grant agreements; and (2) issue regulations on the evaluation and
rating process. TEA- 21 also directs FTA to use these evaluations and
ratings to decide which projects to recommend to the Congress for funding in
a report due each February. These funding recommendations are also reflected
in the Department?s annual budget proposal. In addition, TEA- 21 requires
FTA to issue a supplemental report to the Congress each August that updates
information on projects that have advanced to the preliminary engineering or
final design phases since the annual report.

In April 1999 and 2000, we reported that FTA had made substantial progress
in developing and implementing an evaluation process that included the
individual criterion ratings and overall project ratings required by TEA-
21. 8 Before TEA- 21 was enacted, FTA had already taken steps to revise its
evaluation process for the New Starts program because most of the evaluation
requirements contained in the act were introduced by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). FTA uses the results to
approve projects for the preliminary engineering and final design phases, to
execute grant agreements, and to make annual

8 See Mass Transit: FTA?s Progress in Developing and Implementing a New
Starts Evaluation Process (GAO/ RCED- 99- 113, Apr. 26, 1999); and Mass
Transit: Implementation of FTA?s New Starts Evaluation Process and FY 2001
Funding Proposals

(GAO/ RCED- 00- 149, Apr. 28, 2000). FTA?s Evaluation and

Rating Process for New Starts Proposals Finalized

Page 6 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

funding recommendations to the Congress. In May 2001, FTA issued its New
Starts report for fiscal year 2002, which included project evaluations and
ratings based upon the revised process. FTA?s final rule, issued in December
2000, formalized the evaluation and rating process. 9 Next year?s process
will use the procedures set forth in the final rule.

FTA?s current New Starts evaluation process assigns projects individual
ratings for each TEA- 21 criterion in order to assess each project?s
justification and local financial commitment. The process also assigns an
overall rating that is intended to reflect the project?s overall merit. FTA
considers these overall ratings to decide which projects will proceed to the
preliminary engineering and final design phases, be recommended for funding,
and receive full- funding grant agreements (see fig. 1 for an illustration
of the process).

9 The rule became effective in April 2001. New Starts Evaluation and

Rating Process

Page 7 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Figure 1: FTA?s New Starts Evaluation and Rating Process

a The local share is the percentage of a project?s capital cost to be funded
from sources other than federal funds. b According to FTA, this optional
criterion gives grantees the opportunity to provide additional

information about a project that may contribute in determining the project?s
overall success. Source: FTA.

A project?s overall rating is a combination of the project justification and
local financial commitment ratings. With respect to project justification,
FTA provides individual ratings for the four criteria identified by TEA- 21-
mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, and
cost- effectiveness- as well as for transit- supportive land- use policies.
According to FTA, the agency also considers a variety of other factors when
evaluating the project?s justification, including the degree to which
policies and programs are in place as assumed in the forecasts, the
project?s management capability, and additional factors relevant to local
and national priorities. To evaluate a project?s local financial commitment,
FTA rates the project on its capital and operating finance plans and the
local share of its costs.

Page 8 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

After analyzing the documentation submitted by the project?s sponsors, FTA
assigns a descriptive rating (high, medium- high, medium, mediumlow, or low)
for each of the project justification and local financial commitment
criteria. (App. I summarizes the performance measures that FTA uses in
applying the criteria to develop these ratings.) As figure 1 shows, once the
individual criterion ratings are completed, FTA assigns summary project
justification and local financial commitment ratings by combining the
individual criterion ratings. In developing the summary project
justification rating, FTA gives the most weight to the criteria for transit-
supportive land use, cost- effectiveness, and mobility improvements. For the
summary local financial commitment ratings, the measures for the proposed
local share of capital costs and the strength of the capital and operating
finance plans are given equal consideration. FTA combines the summary
project justification and local financial commitment ratings to create an
overall rating for the project of ?highly recommended,? ?recommended,? or
?not recommended.? To receive a ?highly recommended? rating, a project must
have summary ratings of at least medium- high for the project justification
and local financial commitment. To receive a rating of ?recommended,? the
project must have summary ratings of at least medium. A project is rated as
?not recommended? when either summary rating is lower than medium.

In preparing its New Starts proposal each year, FTA gives first preference
to projects with existing grant agreements. Following that, consideration is
given to projects with an overall rating of ?recommended? or higher.
However, some projects rated as ?highly recommended? or ?recommended? may
not meet FTA?s ?readiness? test for funding; FTA uses a number of milestones
to determine whether a project is sufficiently developed for a grant
agreement. For example, FTA determines whether the necessary real estate has
been acquired, utility arrangements have been made, and local funding
sources are in place. According to an FTA official, this ensures that there
are no ?red flags? signaling that the project has outstanding issues it must
address. In addition, FTA has considered the following issues in evaluating
grantees:

 the degree to which the transit agency has a satisfactory plan to manage
an existing bus fleet to ensure no degradation of service for users of the
current system;  compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, including

financial commitments necessary to maintain accessible service, make
necessary improvements, and comply with key requirements for stations; and 
compliance with air quality standards in the region.

Page 9 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

For its New Starts report for fiscal year 2002, FTA evaluated a total of 40
projects and provided overall ratings for 26 of these projects. 10 Of the 26
projects that were rated, 21 were rated as ?recommended,? 2 projects were
rated as ?highly recommended,? and 3 projects received ?not recommended?
ratings. According to FTA, fewer projects received ?highly recommended?
ratings this year because FTA set the bar higher for such ratings. 11 FTA
believes that fewer projects received ?not recommended? ratings because
project officials have a better understanding of the evaluation and rating
process and criteria used to assess a project?s justification and local
financial commitment.

In assigning overall project ratings, FTA emphasized the continuous nature
of project evaluation. Throughout the report, FTA underscored the fact that
as candidate projects proceed through the final design stage, information
concerning costs, benefits, and impacts will be refined. Consequently, FTA
updates its ratings and recommendations at least annually to reflect this
new information, changing conditions, and refined financing plans. Thus, a
project that is rated as ?not recommended? in the fiscal year 2002 report
could receive a rating of ?recommended? or ?highly recommended? in the
fiscal year 2003 report to reflect changes in the project. For example, in
the report for fiscal year 2001, the New Orleans Canal Streetcar project
received a ?not recommended? rating. However, this year the project received
a ?recommended? rating and was proposed for a grant agreement. FTA
attributed the project?s improved rating to an improved finance plan-
specifically, firmer financial commitments.

Although the criteria and measures in the New Starts evaluation and rating
process have not changed, FTA?s final rule, issued in December 2000, made a
number of refinements to the process. The final rule will be used as FTA
considers its New Starts proposal for fiscal year 2003. The refinements in
the final rule reflect public comments on FTA?s proposed rule, which was
issued in April 1999. Comments on the proposed rule were accepted through
July 1999. A total of 41 individuals and organizations

10 Ten projects were not rated because projects with anticipated New Starts
funding of less than $25 million are exempt from the evaluation and rating
process. FTA strongly encourages sponsors who believe their projects to be
exempt to nonetheless submit information for evaluation Four other projects
were not rated because they submitted insufficient information for a
complete evaluation.

11 Last year, FTA rated 9 projects as ?highly recommended,? 23 projects as
?recommended,? and 9 projects as ?not recommended.? Final Rule Refines New

Starts Evaluation Process

Page 10 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

provided comments. Comments were submitted on virtually every aspect of the
proposed rule, but most centered on four key issues:

 the measure of cost- effectiveness,  the continued use of a no- build and
Transportation System Management

(TSM) alternative for evaluation purposes,  the overall project rating, and
 the measure for mobility improvements.

Twenty- three comments were received on FTA?s use of the historical ?cost
per new rider? measure to indicate the cost- effectiveness of a proposed
project. The consensus of the commenters was that the focus on new riders
ignores benefits provided to other riders, which may bias the measure
against cities with ?mature? transit systems, where the focus of a proposed
project may be to improve service, not attract new riders. In response, the
final rule replaced the ?cost per new rider? measure with a new measure of
?transportation system user benefits.? According to FTA, this measure is
based on the basic goals of any major transportation investment- to reduce
the amount of travel time and out- of- pocket costs that people incur for
taking a trip (i. e., the cost of mobility). This approach de- emphasizes
new riders by measuring not only the benefits to people who change modes but
also benefits to existing riders and highway users.

The need to evaluate a New Starts project against a no- build and TSM
alternative was also the subject of substantial public comment. Commenters
believed that evaluating proposed New Starts projects against both a no-
build and a TSM alternative was unnecessarily burdensome, noting that
certain incremental system improvements will occur whether the New Starts
project is constructed or not- that is, it is no longer appropriate to view
the no- build alternative as a ?do nothing? scenario. In response to
comments submitted on this issue and to simplify the New Starts process, the
final rule eliminates the need to evaluate a proposed project against both a
separate no- build and TSM alternatives. Instead, the final rule requires
that the proposed New Starts projects be evaluated against a single
?baseline alternative? agreed upon by project sponsors and FTA. The baseline
alternative involves transit improvements that are lower in cost than the
proposed New Starts project, resulting in a better ratio of measures of
transit mobility compared to the no- build alternative. The purpose of the
baseline comparison is to isolate the costs and benefits of the proposed
major transit investment.

Comments on the overall project rating focused on the possibility that a
rating of ?not recommended? would be misinterpreted to mean that a

Page 11 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

proposed project had no merit, resulting in the erosion of local support and
funding. In response to these comments, the final rule added oneletter
indicators to the ?not recommended? rating that explain where improvement is
needed: ?j? for project justification, ?o? for the operating funding plan,
and ?c? for the capital funding plan. Thus, in future New Starts reports, a
proposed project that was found to need improvement in the capital plan
would be rated as ?not recommended (c).?

Finally, public comment on the proposed rule recommended that the measure
for mobility improvements be refined. The proposed measure was based on (1)
projected savings in travel time and (2) the number of low- income
households within a half- mile of the proposed stations. The majority of
commenters specifically addressed the measure?s focus on low- income
households. Many recommended that the measure include the destinations to be
served by the proposed project as well as the number of households near
boarding points, arguing that a system that is located near low- income
households is of little use to residents unless it can also provide access
to employment and other activity centers. The final rule added a new factor
to calculate destinations for jobs within a half- mile of boarding points on
the new system, complementing the existing factor that measures low- income
households within a half- mile of boarding points.

Although FTA?s intent to develop performance measures to evaluate the New
Starts program for purposes of the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA) did not generate significant comment, FTA believes that the need
for them still exists. Toward that end, the final rule requires that future
project applications include a two- step data collection process for
determining the degree to which projects remain on schedule and on budget
once commitments to fund them have been made (i. e., grant agreements have
been executed); and for measuring the success of New Starts projects once
they are in operation. For those New Starts projects with grant agreements,
FTA will combine before and after data with planning projections to evaluate
the projects in several areas, including capital costs, operating costs, and
system utilization.

Page 12 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

FTA?s New Starts report and budget proposal for fiscal year 2002 requests
that $1.14 billion be made available for the construction of new transit
systems and expansions of existing systems through the New Starts program.
After amounts for FTA oversight activities and for other purposes specified
by TEA- 21 12 are subtracted, a total of $1.11 billion would remain
available for projects in fiscal year 2002. Of this amount, a total of
$993.5 million would be allocated among 26 projects with existing grant
agreements. 13 An additional $121.2 million would be allocated to seven new
projects. 14 (See fig. 2.) Unlike prior years, FTA did not request funding
for preliminary engineering activities. 15

12 FTA has proposed using 1 percent of amounts made available for the New
Starts program for project management oversight activities, rather than 0.
75 percent as currently authorized. TEA- 21 requires that specified amounts
of New Starts funds be set aside annually for projects in Alaska and Hawaii,
for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing systems that are
ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities, or that are approaches to ferry
terminal facilities.

13 FTA did not request funds for 2 of the 26 projects with existing grant
agreements. It did not request funds for the Hudson- Bergen MOS- 2 project
in Northern New Jersey because the grant agreement does not provide for
federal contributions before fiscal year 2003. No funding was requested for
the Central Link light rail project in Seattle because the grant agreement
is under review.

14 About $37.2 million would be allocated among two projects for which
funding commitments are currently pending, and $84 million would be
allocated among five projects that are expected to be ready for funding
commitments before the end of fiscal year 2002.

15 Under TEA- 21, no more than 8 percent of the amounts made available each
year for New Starts projects shall be available for activities other than
final design and construction. The House and Senate bills providing
appropriations to DOT for fiscal year 2002 would provide DOT with funding
for preliminary engineering activities. FTA Proposes Seven

New Projects for New Starts Funding

Page 13 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Figure 2: New Starts Funding Proposal, Fiscal Year 2002

Source: GAO?s analysis of FTA data.

As described earlier, for fiscal year 2002 FTA evaluated 40 projects and
prepared ratings for 26 of them. Of the 26 projects that received ratings,
FTA rated 23 projects as ?highly recommended? or ?recommended? and proposed
executing grant agreements for 4 projects that are expected to meet the
readiness criteria by the end of fiscal year 2002. In addition, FTA is
proposing three other projects for funding commitments for fiscal year 2002-
for a total of seven projects. These three projects were not rated this
year. Specifically, the Miami (South Miami- Dade Busway Extension) project
plans to use less than $25 million in New Starts funds and therefore is
exempt from the evaluation process. The Chicago (Metra Southwest Corridor
Commuter Rail) and Baltimore (Central LRT Double Tracking) projects were
proposed for grant agreements last year and are considered ?pending federal
commitments.? 16 According to FTA, the ratings of these two projects from
last year are still valid. (Table 1 shows

16 These two projects were rated and proposed in last year?s New Starts
report, but grant agreements were not executed. The Chicago (Metra Southwest
Corridor Commuter Rail) project received an overall rating of ?highly
recommended?; the Baltimore (Central LRT Double Tracking) project was rated
as ?recommended.? FTA is proposing these projects again for fiscal year
2002.

Page 14 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

the ratings for the seven projects recommended for New Starts funding in
fiscal year 2002.)

Table 1: Projects Recommended for New Starts Funding in Fiscal Year 2002

a The ratings for Chicago (Metra Southwest Corridor Commuter Rail) and
Baltimore (Central LRT Double Tracking) are the ratings they received last
year. According to FTA, these ratings are still valid. b The Miami (South
Miami- Dade Busway Extension) project expects to use less than $25 million
in

New Starts funds. Proposed projects requiring less than $25 million in New
Starts funding are exempt from the project evaluation and rating process.

Source: FTA?s New Starts Reports for fiscal year 2001 and 2002.

As table 1 shows, two of the seven proposed projects received ?highly
recommended? ratings on the basis of their strong cost- effectiveness, good
transit- supportive land- use policies, and a demonstrated local financial
commitment to build and operate the projects. For instance, the proposed San
Diego County/ Oceanside- Escondido Rail project received a mediumhigh rating
in mobility improvements because it is expected to serve 15,100 average
weekday boardings in 2015, including 8,600 new daily riders. According to
FTA, it will also help to eliminate the heavy congestion of northern San
Diego County along the Route 78 corridor, saving 700,000 hours of travel
time a year compared to the TSM

Page 15 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

alternative. In addition, the high ratings for the proposed project?s
capital and operating financing plans reflect the solid financial condition
of the transit agency and the other funding partners, as well as the
sufficient projected revenue growth and contingencies.

Five of the seven projects proposed received overall ratings of
?recommended? or were exempt from the rating process. 17 Most were rated
medium or medium- high on the project justification and/ or local financial
commitment criteria. For instance, the Baltimore/ Central LRT double
tracking project?s ?recommended? rating was based on the project?s strong
environmental benefits, cost- effectiveness, and demonstrated local
financial commitment. According to FTA?s New Starts report, the proposed
system would significantly reduce nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide
emissions and would cost $8.70 per incremental passenger. In contrast, the
sponsor of a project that was not recommended for funding in 2002 estimated
that the proposed project would annually increase carbon dioxide emissions
by 4, 360 tons and would cost $15.50 per passenger. Finally, the Baltimore
project?s strong financial rating reflects FTA?s favorable assessment of
state support of transit operating subsidies and the financial soundness of
the agency?s operations.

Nineteen other New Starts projects received ?highly recommended? or
?recommended? ratings but were not proposed for grant agreements. One of
these projects- San Diego Midcoast Corridor- received a ?highly recommended?
rating based on the project?s strong cost- effectiveness, good transit-
supportive land use, and strong local financial commitment ratings. FTA
officials told us that this project met FTA?s evaluation and rating criteria
as well as its ?readiness test? but was not selected because completing the
San Diego Mission Valley East LRT extension (an ongoing project) is the
transit authority?s top priority. FTA also notes that the authority may not
have the financial capacity to fund both projects at this time. The other 18
projects were rated overall as ?recommended.? Many of these projects were
not proposed for grant agreements in fiscal year 2002 because they are in
the early stages of development and will not be ready for final design or
construction for several years.

Finally, FTA rated three proposed projects as ?not recommended? primarily
because of low local financial commitment summary ratings,

17 The Miami (South Miami- Dade Busway extension) project was exempt from
the rating process and did not submit information to FTA.

Page 16 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

reflecting the uncertainty of their local financial commitment or lack of
committed local funding to build and operate the systems. For instance, one
of the three projects received low ratings for the stability and reliability
of its capital and operating finance plans, reflecting FTA?s concerns about
the lack of progress in the commitment of nonfederal funds and the absence
of a local entity to build and operate the project. Other reasons for
receiving a low financial rating included the absence of a dedicated funding
source for operating the project and the uncertainty of revenue sources for
the project.

According to FTA, it will have limited authority to make funding commitments
to New Starts projects throughout the remainder of the TEA- 21 authorization
period- the end of fiscal year 2003- if it makes funding commitments to
seven projects as proposed in fiscal year 2002. TEA- 21 and other
legislation provided FTA with almost $10 billion in commitment authority for
the New Starts program from fiscal years 1998 to 2003. However, FTA reports
that it has already committed about 90 percent of this amount. The projects
proposed in FTA?s New Starts report and budget request for fiscal year 2002
would reduce its remaining commitment authority by over one- half, leaving
it with about $462 million for new grant agreements in fiscal year 2003.
This may not be enough to fund the 14 projects that FTA estimates may be
ready for grant agreements during fiscal year 2003.

In an effort to conserve commitment authority for future projects, FTA?s
fiscal year 2002 proposal did not allocate New Starts funds for preliminary
engineering activities- something FTA did routinely in recent years.
However, FTA could significantly increase the commitment authority available
for projects competing for New Starts funds by ?releasing? amounts reserved
for projects that have been suspended. As of today, two segments of a New
Starts project in Los Angeles have been suspended for over 3 years, and FTA
has informed project sponsors that it no longer has funding commitments for
the suspended segments. However, FTA continues to reserve $647 million in
commitment authority for the project. Releasing this amount would give FTA
additional funding flexibility through fiscal year 2003. Furthermore, the
Administration?s proposed 50- percent cap on New Starts funding could limit
the amount of New Starts funding available to individual projects during the
next surface transportation authorization period (after fiscal year 2003).
Limited New Starts

Funding Available for Future Transit Projects

Page 17 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

FTA was authorized to make a record level of funding commitments- about $10
billion- for the New Starts program from 1998 through 2003. TEA- 21 provided
the majority of FTA?s commitment authority, authorizing $6.09 billion in
?guaranteed? funding for the New Starts program. In addition, TEA- 21 and
the Department of Transportation appropriations act for fiscal year 2001
authorized FTA to make an additional $3.4 billion in contingent commitments,
subject to future authorizations and appropriations. 18 According to FTA, it
has already committed approximately $8.9 billion for New Starts projects and
program activities. Specifically, about $7.5 billion is committed to the 26
projects with grant agreements. After accounting for other requirements
(such as the cost of project management oversight and preliminary
engineering), which are expected to total about $1.4 billion, about $1
billion remains for new grant agreements in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
(Table 2 summarizes FTA?s commitment authority and funding commitments.)

18 This contingent commitment authority is designed to allow FTA to execute
grant agreements that extend beyond the 6- year period. TEA- 21 authorized
contingent commitments in an amount equivalent to the last 2 years of
?guaranteed? funding authorized by the act. The fiscal year 2001
appropriations act for the DOT increased FTA?s contingent commitment
authority to an amount equivalent to the last 3 fiscal years of funding.
Record Amounts Provided

for New Starts Program But Most Have Been Committed

Page 18 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Table 2: FTA?s New Starts Commitment Authority and Funding Commitments, May
2001

Dollars in millions

Commitment authority and funding commitments Amount ($) Commitment authority

TEA- 21 $6,092.40 Contingent commitment authority 3, 409.20 Commitment
authority for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) a 453.56 Other b 30.99

Total commitment authority $9,986.15

Funding commitments

ISTEA FFGAs ($ 3,726.38) TEA- 21 FFGAs (3,795. 20) Project management
oversight (48.15) Mandated projects c (468.40) Other d (916.71)

Total funding commitments ($ 8,954.84) Remaining commitment authority $1031.
31

a ISTEA provided $272.95 million of commitment authority for BART, and the
fiscal year 2001 DOT appropriations act provided an additional $180.61
million. b Includes reallocated funds from unobligated balances of fiscal
year 2000 appropriations ($ 26.99

million) and $4 million in appropriations beyond the ?guaranteed?
authorization in fiscal year 2001. c Includes congressionally mandated
capital projects for Alaska, Hawaii, Chicago, and Dulles.

d Includes all project costs not covered by grant agreements, such as
preliminary engineering costs. Note: Numbers do not add due to rounding.
Source: FTA.

Implementing FTA?s New Starts report and budget proposal for fiscal year
2002 would reduce FTA?s remaining commitment authority by over onehalf-
leaving about $462 million for new grant agreements in fiscal year 2003. The
budget proposes $84.0 million for five new projects and $37.2 million for
the two projects with pending grant agreements for fiscal year 2002.
However, the $121.2 million requested for these projects for 2002 will be
only a ?down payment? on what would amount to a total federal commitment of
$569.3 million for these seven projects over the next several years, if no
changes were made to the current project proposals. 19 This would leave FTA
with $462 million for new grant

19 FTA will enter the period covered by the next authorization legislation
with significant outstanding commitments, as at the beginning of the 6- year
period covered by TEA- 21.

Page 19 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

agreements, which may not be enough to cover the projects that could be
ready for grant agreements during fiscal year 2003. For example, FTA
estimates that about 14 projects will be in or ready to enter the final
design phase at the end of fiscal year 2002- signaling that they are ready
to execute grant agreements and begin construction.

To preserve commitment authority for future projects, FTA did not request
any funding for preliminary engineering activities in the fiscal year 2002
budget. According to FTA, it has provided an average of $150 million a year
from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001 for projects? preliminary
engineering activities. However, FTA did not allocate any funds for
preliminary engineering activities in fiscal year 2002, nor does it plan to
do so for fiscal year 2003. According to a senior FTA official, this
approach helps to conserve funds for existing and new grant agreements in
fiscal year 2003 and to ensure that funds are provided only to projects that
are ready to move forward. The official further noted that projects may use
other federal funding for preliminary engineering activities, and no project
should be negatively affected if New Starts funding was not provided for
these activities in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Officials from several
transit projects in the preliminary engineering phase whom we contacted
indicated that they would use other federal funds and/ or state and local
funds to pay for their preliminary engineering work.

FTA could more than double the amount of commitment authority projected to
be available for new projects in fiscal year 2003 by making some or all of
the $647 million in commitment authority currently reserved for two
suspended segments of the Los Angeles subway project available for all
projects competing for New Starts funding. The Los Angeles project?s grant
agreement, which was executed in May 1993, committed a total of $1.4 billion
20 to the project?s three segments- North Hollywood, Eastside, and Mid-
City. The North Hollywood segment began operations in June 2000. However,
construction on the two other segments- Eastside and Mid- City- was
suspended in 1998 due to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority?s (MTA) financial difficulties. 21

20 This includes changes made to the grant agreement in December 1994. 21
See Mass Transit: Challenges in Evaluating, Overseeing, and Funding Major
Transit Projects (GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 104, Mar. 8, 2000); and Surface
Infrastructure: Review of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority?s Restructuring Plan

(GAO/ RCED- 98- 237R, Jul. 9, 1998). Commitment Authority

Could Be Made Available for Additional Projects

Page 20 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Since 1998, MTA has been studying alternative transit investment options for
the Eastside and Mid- City segments. In October 2000, FTA approved the
Eastside segment?s advancement to the preliminary engineering stage with a
light rail line rather than a subway as originally planned. 22 MTA is still
conducting alternatives analyses for the Mid- City segment. The original
grant agreement provided for a federal commitment of about $735 million to
the Eastside and Mid- City subway segments. About $88 million of the $735
million has been appropriated for these segments through 2001. FTA advised
MTA in July 1999 that FTA no longer had funding commitments for the Eastside
or Mid- City segments and that it would evaluate projects once identified
for these corridors under the New Starts criteria. However, FTA continues to
reserve $647 million in commitment authority for these segments.
Consequently, FTA is significantly understating its remaining commitment
authority. An FTA official told us that FTA has not released the commitment
authority reserved for this project because such authority was not needed to
make funding commitments to other projects ready for grant agreements.

FTA could also increase the remaining commitment authority available for
projects competing for New Starts funds by ?releasing? the $409 million
committed to the Seattle (Central Link LRT MOS- 1) project if the project is
not ready to move forward before funding decisions for fiscal year 2003 are
made. The grant agreement for the Seattle project, which was signed in
January 2001, commits a total of $500 million in New Starts funds. A total
of $91 million was appropriated to this project through fiscal year 2001,
leaving a federal commitment of $409 million. However, this grant agreement
is currently under review due to increases in the overall costs and delays
in the project?s implementation schedule. In April 2001, DOT?s Inspector
General recommended that the Secretary of DOT hold funds and funding
decisions for this project until a specific set of actions related to cost
estimation, project scope, cost control, and overall financing plans had
been implemented. FTA and project officials have begun implementing these
actions, and FTA did not propose New Starts funding for the project in 2002.

?Releasing? the amounts committed to one or both of these projects would
significantly increase FTA?s flexibility to execute grant agreements for

22 The total expected New Starts commitment for this project is $402
million. However, FTA does not expect this segment to be ready for final
design before funding decisions for fiscal year 2003 are made.

Page 21 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

projects ready to move forward and begin construction in fiscal year 2003
and provide funds for preliminary engineering activities. Such action would
not preclude the Los Angeles or Seattle projects from securing New Starts
funding in the future. Rather, these projects would be treated like all
other projects- that is, they would compete in future New Starts evaluation
processes to determine if they should be recommended for grant agreements.

The President?s fiscal year 2002 budget recommends limiting New Starts
funding to 50 percent of total project costs starting in fiscal year 2004.
23 (Currently, New Starts funding- and all federal funding- is capped at 80
percent.) According to FTA, this proposal is consistent with its recent
practice of seeking a local commitment of more than 20 percent in order to
manage the increasing demand for New Starts funding. For example, as of
February 2001, there were over 110 planning studies considering major
transit capital investments, 28 New Starts projects in the preliminary
engineering phase, and 13 projects in the final design stage. FTA estimates
these projects would require about $80 billion in local, state, and federal
funds to complete.

According to FTA, limiting the New Starts funding to 50 percent will ensure
that local governments play a major role in funding New Starts projects.
Local governments will need to decide to apply either other federal funds or
local funds to proposed New Starts projects based on their priorities. An
FTA official also pointed out that a 50- percent cap would allow more
projects to receive New Starts funding; however, the official also
acknowledged that limiting New Starts funding may prevent some projects from
being developed or moving forward because of limited local funding.

The proposed cap could affect a number of projects currently being
developed. For example, 15 of the 40 projects that were evaluated this year
and currently in the final design or preliminary engineering stages plan to
use New Starts funds to pay for over 50 percent of their total costs. The
projected use of New Starts funds for these 15 projects ranges from 61
percent for Chicago (North Central Corridor Commuter Rail) to 80 percent for
New Orleans (Canal Streetcar Spine). According to officials from

23 According to FTA, total federal participation in any given transit
project would remain capped at 80 percent. The proposed cap would limit only
the percentage of New Starts funds available for projects. Transit projects
could use other federal funds available (e. g., flexible funding) to secure
total federal support for up to 80 percent of the project?s costs.
Administration Proposes

50- Percent Cap for New Starts Funding

Page 22 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

several of these transit agencies, the impact of the proposed cap would
vary. For example, an official from one project stated that the project
would not be able to tap into any other funding sources to account for lower
than planned New Starts funding. In contrast, an official from another
project was confident that the project would be able to apply additional
federal and local funds to make up for the reduced New Starts funding.

As FTA approaches the end of the TEA- 21 authorization period, it faces
funding constraints for the New Starts program. The implementation of FTA?s
fiscal year 2002 New Starts proposal would reduce its remaining commitment
authority by over one- half, leaving less than $500 million for new projects
in fiscal year 2003. This may not be enough to fund the 14 projects that FTA
believes will be ready to begin construction in fiscal year 2003. Because of
this impending ?budget crunch,? it is important that FTA adopt the
recommendation we made last year that it further prioritize among the
projects it rates as ?highly recommended? or ?recommended? for funding
purposes. This would ensure that the ?best? projects receive New Starts
funding and allow for a better understanding of why certain projects with
similar ratings may receive funding while others do not.

In addition, FTA could significantly increase its ability to make funding
commitments to new projects through fiscal year 2003 and the next
authorization if it adopted the practice of ?releasing? commitment authority
associated with projects for which it has withdrawn a funding commitment.
For example, although two segments of the Los Angeles project have been
suspended for over 3 years, have been or will be completely redesigned, and
are not likely to be ready for construction by next year, FTA continues to
reserve about $650 million in commitment authority associated with the
original project- which significantly understates FTA?s remaining commitment
authority. Similarly, when other projects with federal funding commitments
do not move forward as expected, FTA needs to reconsider and adjust its
commitment authority accordingly. Taking these actions would give FTA
additional funding flexibility for the New Starts program.

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator
of FTA to make commitment authority allocated to projects for which the
federal funding commitments have been withdrawn available for all projects
competing for New Starts funding. Specifically, we recommend that FTA
?release? the $647 million reserved for the Los Angeles project. Conclusions

Recommendation for Executive Action

Page 23 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. FTA did
not provide any comments or technical clarifications on the draft. In
addition, FTA indicated that further consideration will be necessary before
a decision is made on the report?s recommendation.

To address the issues discussed in this report, we reviewed the legislation
governing New Starts transit projects, FTA?s annual New Starts reports for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the new regulations for New Starts transit
projects, and documents related to New Starts funding. We also interviewed
appropriate FTA headquarters officials and officials from the Baltimore, New
Orleans, Hartford, San Juan, Nashville, and Chicago New Starts projects. We
performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards from May through July 2001.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation, the
Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We will make
copies available to others upon request.

If you have questions regarding this report, please contact me on (202) 512-
2834 or at heckerj@ gao. gov. Key contributors to this report were Nikki
Clowers, Helen Desaulniers, Susan Fleming, and Ron Stouffer.

JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues Agency Comments

Scope and Methodology

Appendix I: Criteria and Related Performance Measures for New Starts
Proposals

Page 24 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Table 3 presents a summary of each of the New Starts criteria and the
related performance measures that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
uses to appraise candidate New Starts projects as part of its evaluation and
rating process.

Table 3: Summary of Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures for New
Starts Proposals

Criterion Performance measure

Mobility improvements a  Change in hours of travel time

 Low- income households served by the system, expressed in terms of the
number of such households within a half- mile of a project?s boarding points
Environmental benefits  Change in pollutant emissions

 Change in regional energy consumption, expressed in British thermal units

 The Environmental Protection Agency?s air quality designation for the
region Operating efficiencies Operating cost per passenger mile Cost-
effectiveness a Incremental cost per incremental rider Transit- supportive
land use  Existing land use

 Containment of sprawl

 Transit- supportive corridor policies

 Supportive zoning regulations

 Tools to implement land- use policies

 Performance of land- use policies

 Other land- use factors Other factors Local policies, programs, and
factors relevant to the

success of the project Local financial commitment  Proposed local share of
project costs

 Stability and reliability of capital financing

 Stability and reliability of operating funds a FTA?s final rule made
changes to the performance measures used for mobility improvements and

cost- effectiveness. Specifically, the measure for mobility improvements now
includes the number of job destinations served by the system, and the
measure for cost- effectiveness has been changed to transportation system
user benefits. These changes will be incorporated into next year?s
evaluation process.

Source: FTA.

Appendix I: Criteria and Related Performance Measures for New Starts
Proposals

Appendix II: FTA?s Fiscal Year 2002 New Starts Ratings and Funding
Recommendations

Page 25 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Dollars in millions

Location/ project Overall project rating

FY 2002 recommended

funding Existing full funding grant agreements a Atlanta - North Springs
FFGA $25.07 Boston - South Boston Piers Transitway (Phase I) FFGA 11.20
Chicago - Douglas Branch Reconstruction FFGA 35.00 Dallas - North Central
LRT Extension FFGA 71.20 Denver - Southeast Corridor LRT FFGA 71.80 Denver -
Southwest Corridor LRT FFGA 0. 19 Ft. Lauderdale - Tri- Rail Commuter Rail
Upgrade FFGA 84.83 Houston - Regional Bus Plan FFGA 0. 10 Los Angeles -
North Hollywood FFGA 49.69 Memphis - Medical Center Extension FFGA 20.00
Minneapolis - Hiawatha Corridor LRT FFGA 50.00 Newark - Rail Link (MOS- 1)
FFGA 20.00 Northern New Jersey - Hudson- Bergen LRT (MOS- 1) FFGA 151.33
Northern New Jersey - Hudson- Bergen (MOS- 2) FFGA 0. 00 Pittsburgh - Stage
II LRT Reconstruction FFGA 20.00 Portland - Interstate MAX LRT Extension
FFGA 80.09 Sacramento - South LRT Extension FFGA 0. 33 Salt Lake City - CBD
to University LRT FFGA 15.00 Salt Lake City - North- South LRT FFGA 0. 72
San Diego - Mission Valley East LRT Extension FFGA 65.00 San Francisco -
BART Extension to Airport FFGA 80.61 San Jose - Tasman West LRT FFGA 0. 11
San Juan - Tren Urbano FFGA 50.16 Seattle - Central Link LRT (MOS- 1) FFGA
0. 00 St. Louis - Metrolink St. Clair Extension FFGA 31.09 Washington, DC/
MD - Largo Extension FFGA 60.00

Subtotal $993.51 Proposed full funding grant agreements

Baltimore - Central LRT Double- Tracking Recommended b $18.11 Chicago -
Metra South West Corridor Commuter Rail Recommended b 19.12 Chicago - Metra
North Central Commuter Rail Recommended 23.00 Chicago - Metra UP West (Kane)
Commuter Rail Recommended 20.00 Miami - South Miami- Dade Busway Extension
Exempt c 5.00 New Orleans - Canal Streetcar Spine Recommended 23.00

Appendix II: FTA?s Fiscal Year 2002 New Starts Ratings and Funding
Recommendations

Appendix II: FTA?s Fiscal Year 2002 New Starts Ratings and Funding
Recommendations

Page 26 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Dollars in millions

Location/ project Overall project rating

FY 2002 recommended

funding

San Diego - Oceanside Escondido Rail Highly recommended 13.00

Subtotal $121.23 Projects in final design

Little Rock - River Rail Project Exempt c 0.00 Los Angeles - LOSSAN Rail
Corridor Improvement Exempt c 0.00 San Francisco - Third Street Light Rail
(Phase I) Recommended 0.00 Seattle - Central Link LRT (MOS- 2 and MOS- 3)
Not rated d 0.00

Subtotal $0.00 Projects in preliminary design

Alaska - Alaska Railroad Girdwood Commuter Rail Exempt c $0.00 Austin -
Austin Area LRT System Not recommended 0.00 Charlotte - South Corridor LRT
Recommended 0.00 Chicago - CTA Ravenswood Line Expansion Recommended 0.00
Cincinnati - I- 71 Corridor Not recommended 0.00 Cleveland - Euclid Corridor
Improvement Project Recommended 0.00 Hartford - New Britain- Hartford Busway
Recommended 0.00 Houston - Downtown to Astrodome Light Rail Recommended 0.00
Kansas City, Johnson County I- 35 Commuter Rail Exempt c 0.00 Las Vegas -
Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway MOS Recommended 0.00 Los Angeles - Eastside
Corridor LRT Recommended 0.00 Los Angeles - San Fernando Valley Corridor
Recommended 0.00 Maryland - MARC Commuter Rail Improvements Not rated d 0.00
Miami - North 27th Avenue Corridor Not recommended 0.00 Minneapolis- Rice,
MN - Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail Recommended 0.00 Nashua, NH - Nashua-
Lowell Commuter Rail Extension Exempt c 0.00 Nashville - East Corridor
Commuter Rail Exempt c 0.00 New Orleans - Desire Corridor Streetcar
Recommended 0.00 New York - Long Island Railroad East Side Access
Recommended 0.00 Orange County, CA - Centerline Rail Corridor Recommended
0.00 Phoenix - East Valley Light Rail Not rated d 0.00 Pittsburgh - North
Shore Connector LRT Recommended 0.00

Appendix II: FTA?s Fiscal Year 2002 New Starts Ratings and Funding
Recommendations

Page 27 GAO- 01- 987 New Starts Program Funding Constraints

Dollars in millions

Location/ project Overall project rating

FY 2002 recommended

funding

Raleigh - Regional Transit Plan (Phase I) Recommended 0.00 San Diego - Mid
Coast Corridor Highly recommended 0.00 San Juan - Minillas Extension
Recommended 0.00 Seattle - Everett- Seattle Commuter Rail Exempt c 0.00
Stamford, CT - Urban Transitway and Intermodal Transportation Center
Improvements

Recommended 0.00 Tacoma - Lakewood- Tacoma Commuter Rail Exempt c 0.00
Washington County, OR - WilsonvilleBeaverton Commuter Rail Exempt c 0.00
Washington, D. C. - Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Recommended 0.00

Subtotal $0.00 Other

Ferry capital projects in Alaska or Hawaii $10.30 Project management
oversight 11.36

Subtotal $21.66 Grand total $1,136.40

Legend FFGA = full- funding grant agreement LRT = light rail transit MOS =
minimum operable segment Note: Figures might not add to totals because of
rounding. a Projects with FFGAs were not rated, because FTA had found the
projects to be justified and to have adequate local financial commitments at
the time the FFGAs were issued. These projects are being recommended to
receive the fiscal year 2002 amount committed by the FFGA. b The ratings for
Chicago (Metra South West Corridor Commuter Rail) and Baltimore (Central LRT

Double Tracking) are the ratings they received for fiscal year 2001.
According to FTA, these ratings are still valid. c Projects rated ?exempt?
(10) were not rated because an exemption is granted to projects when the

anticipated New Starts share of the total estimated capital cost is $25
million or less. d Projects listed as ?not rated? (4) were not rated because
insufficient information precluded a complete evaluation of these projects.
Source: FTA?s New Starts Report for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

(542000)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:

Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Contact one:

 Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm  E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov  1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering
Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***