Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and	 
Additional Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process (23-JUN-03,
GAO-03-701).							 
                                                                 
Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century	 
(TEA-21), Congress authorized federal funding for New Starts	 
fixed guideway transit projects--including rail and bus rapid	 
transit projects that met certain criteria. In response to an	 
annual mandate under TEA-21, GAO assessed the New Starts	 
evaluation and ratings process for the fiscal year 2004 cycle,	 
including (1) changes to the process and any related issues and  
(2) any challenges related to New Starts initiatives contained in
the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-701 					        
    ACCNO:   A07081						        
  TITLE:     Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and 
Additional Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process		 
     DATE:   06/23/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Federal funds					 
	     Mass transit operations				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Budget activities					 
	     FTA New Starts Program				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-03-701

                                       A

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2003 MASS TRANSIT FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and
Additional Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process

GAO- 03- 701

Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 5 Changes to the New Starts Process
for Fiscal Year 2004 Have Caused

Difficulties for Some Project Sponsors 8 FTA Evaluated 52 Projects for the
Fiscal Year 2004 Cycle, Rated 32,

and Proposed 4 for New Grant Agreements 14 Proposed Initiatives in FTA*s
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Proposal Have Some Advantages, but May Create
Challenges for Future New

Starts Projects 17 Conclusions 21 Recommendations for Executive Action 22
Agency Comments 22 Scope and Methodology 22

Appendixes

Appendix I: Additional Information on Four Projects Proposed for New Full
Funding Grant Agreements in Fiscal Year 2004 25

Appendix II: Transit Sponsors and Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Contacted by GAO 27

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 28 GAO Contact 28
Acknowledgments 28

Figures Figure 1: New Starts Planning and Project Development Process 6
Figure 2: Changes to the New Starts Evaluation and Ratings

Process for Fiscal Year 2004 9 Figure 3: Distribution of New Starts
Project Ratings for Fiscal

Years 2003 and 2004 15 Figure 4: Ratings of Projects Proposed for New
Starts Funding in

Fiscal Year 2004 16 Figure 5: New Starts Funding Proposals for Fiscal Year
2004 18 Figure 6: Advantages and Disadvantages of Proposed New Starts

Initiatives 21

Abbreviations

BRT Bus Rapid Transit CTA Chicago Transit Authority DOT Department of
Transportation FFGA Full Funding Grant Agreement FTA Federal Transit
Administration FY fiscal year LIRR Long Island Rail Road LPA Locally
Preferred Alternative MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTA
Metropolitan Transit Authority NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PE
Preliminary Engineering RTC Regional Transportation Commission TEA- 21
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century TSUB Transportation System
User Benefits

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

June 23, 2003 Let er t The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Chairman The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes Ranking Minority Member Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate

The Honorable Don Young Chairman The Honorable James L. Oberstar Ranking
Minority 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 mass transportation. Much of this
investment has come through the Federal Transit Administration*s (FTA) New
Starts program, which awards full funding grant agreements for fixed
guideway 1 rail, bus rapid transit, trolley, and ferry projects. A full
funding grant agreement establishes the terms and conditions for federal

participation in a project. 2 By statute, the federal funding share of a
New Starts project cannot exceed 80 percent of its net cost. To obtain a
grant agreement, a project must progress through a regional review of
alternatives and meet a number of federal requirements, including
providing data for the New Starts evaluation and ratings process. Ongoing
and proposed New Starts projects are located in cities in every area of
the country, and collectively will transport an estimated 190 million
riders

annually when completed, according to FTA. Because the demand for New
Starts funding is high, FTA was directed to prioritize projects for
funding on the basis of specific financial and project justification
criteria. FTA

1 Fixed guideway systems use and occupy a separate right- of- way for the
exclusive use of public transportation services. They include fixed rail,
exclusive lanes for buses and other high- occupancy vehicles, and other
systems.

2 According to FTA, the term *full funding grant agreement* refers to a
multiyear contractual agreement between FTA and project sponsors for a
specified amount of funding. The full amount of funding is committed to
the projects over a set period.

evaluates and rates projects on multiple criteria and determines an
overall rating for each project. 3

Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) 4 and
subsequent amendments, Congress authorized approximately $10 billion for
New Starts projects from fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Because TEA21
expires at the end of fiscal year 2003, Congress is currently considering
reauthorization legislation that will determine the amount of future
funding for the New Starts program and any changes to the program*s
structure. TEA- 21 requires GAO to report each year on FTA*s processes and
procedures for evaluating, rating, and recommending New Starts projects
for federal funding. 5 This report discusses (1) changes made to the New
Starts evaluation and ratings process for fiscal year 2004 and issues
related to these changes, (2) the number of New Starts projects that were
evaluated and rated and which projects FTA proposed for new grant
agreements in fiscal year 2004, and (3) the proposed funding commitments
and initiatives related to New Starts in the administration*s fiscal year
2004 budget proposal and any challenges they might present for future
projects.

Results in Brief FTA made two changes to the New Starts evaluation and
ratings process for the fiscal year 2004 cycle. First, in response to
language contained in a

conference report prepared by the House Appropriations Committee, 6 FTA
instituted a preference policy in its ratings process favoring projects
that seek no more than 60 percent of total New Starts funding from the
federal government, which, in effect, generally reduced the level of New
Starts

3 The exception to the ratings process are projects that are statutorily
*exempt* because they request less than $25 million in New Starts funding.
4 Pub. L. 105- 178 (1998).

5 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Mass Transit: FTA*s New Starts
Commitments for Fiscal Year 2003, GAO- 02- 603 (Washington, D. C.: Apr.
30, 2002), Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding
Constraints, GAO- 01- 987 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 15, 2001), Mass
Transit: Implementation of FTA*s New Starts Evaluation Process and FY 2001
Funding Proposals, GAO/ RCED- 00- 149 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 28, 2000),
and Mass Transit: FTA*s Progress in Developing and Implementing a New
Starts Evaluation Process,

GAO/ RCED- 99- 113 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 26, 1999). 6 H. R. Conf. Rep.
No. 107- 308, p. 114 (Nov. 30, 2001).

federal funding share for projects from 80 percent to 60 percent. 7
Although FTA has discretion in deciding how the local share of funding
contributions should be considered in selecting New Starts projects for
funding, the agency is required to issue regulations defining the criteria
for evaluating and rating projects, including the degree of local
financial commitment. However, FTA*s 60 percent preference policy for the
amount of federal funding share for New Starts projects is not reflected
in its current regulations. By not amending its regulations to reflect
this change, FTA has not provided an opportunity for public comment on
this new policy. Furthermore, explicitly stating all of FTA*s criteria and
procedures in regulations would allow project sponsors, Metropolitan
Planning

Organizations, and others involved in considering potential New Starts
projects to make their investment decisions on the basis of a transparent
evaluation and ratings process.

A second change to the evaluation and ratings process involved FTA
revising its cost- effectiveness and mobility improvements evaluation
criteria for rating proposed New Starts projects to include a new measure
for Transportation System User Benefits that gives equal weight to
benefits for both new and existing transit system riders. Project sponsors
we

interviewed generally endorsed the new benefits measure, but implementing
it has been difficult for both FTA and the project sponsors because of the
variety of local travel forecasting models that exist and problems with
the models. For example, FTA officials told us that some of the local
models had errors in their underlying assumptions or in the data used to
generate the measure. In addition, project sponsors reported that

FTA did not provide adequate documentation on the computer software used
to calculate the measure or how FTA used the measure in determining
project ratings. As a result of these difficulties, 11 project sponsors
were

unable to generate accurate data needed to calculate a value for the new
benefits measure. FTA officials have taken some steps to provide technical
assistance, training, and guidance about the measure to project sponsors,
but they also acknowledged the need to more systematically address the

underlying problems related to the local models. For the fiscal year 2004
cycle, FTA evaluated 52 projects, rated 32 projects, and proposed 4
projects for new full funding grant agreements as a result of

7 While FTA*s preference policy reduced the level of New Starts funding a
project is likely to receive, the administration has proposed in its
reauthorization legislation that project sponsors may seek additional
federal funding from other sources.

its revised evaluation and ratings process. Twenty of the evaluated
projects were statutorily exempt from the ratings process because they
requested less than $25 million in New Starts funding. 8 In comparing
fiscal year 2004 overall project ratings with fiscal year 2003, we found
that a similar number

of projects were evaluated, but significantly more projects were *not
recommended* or *not rated* due to problems with complying with the
reduced federal share, calculating the new user benefits measure, or
resolving other data problems. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004,
the number of projects that received an overall rating of *not
recommended*

increased from 4 to 11 and the number that were *not rated* due to lack of
data or other reasons increased from 2 to 7.

The administration*s fiscal year 2004 budget proposal requests that $1.5
billion be made available for New Starts for that year. The budget
proposal contains three initiatives* reducing the maximum federal
statutory share to 50 percent, allowing nonfixed guideway projects to be
funded through New Starts, and replacing the *exempt* classification with
a streamlined ratings process for projects requesting less than $75
million in New Starts funding. These proposed initiatives have advantages
and disadvantages. For example, they may allow FTA to fund more projects
and give local communities more flexibility in choosing between transit
modes. However, they may also create challenges for future transit
projects. For example, proposed transit projects may have difficulties
generating an increased local funding share. The initiatives may also
change the original fixed guideway emphasis of New Starts by allowing
nonfixed guideway projects to be funded through New Starts, which some
project sponsors believe may disadvantage traditional New Starts projects.
Additionally, replacing the *exempt* classification may reduce the number
of smaller communities that will participate in New Starts.

This report makes recommendations to ensure that FTA*s New Starts
regulations reflect its current 60 percent preference policy on the
federal share for projects and to address problems found in the
implementation of the new user benefits measure by issuing additional
guidance to transit agencies. Department of Transportation officials
agreed with the information provided in this report and they concurred
with the recommendation about 8 According to FTA, statutorily exempt
projects must meet all planning, environmental,

project management, and other requirements that demonstrate their
readiness to advance into preliminary engineering and final design.
Statutorily exempt projects do not sign full funding grant agreements,
rather they are funded annually through scheduled grants or congressional
designation.

providing guidance on the user benefits measure. They also said that they
will consider the recommendation about amending the regulations related to
the federal funding share.

Background TEA- 21 authorized a total of $36 billion in *guaranteed*
funding through fiscal year 2003 for a variety of transit programs,
including financial

assistance to states and localities to develop, operate, and maintain
transit systems. 9 Under one of these programs, the New Starts program,
FTA identifies and funds worthy fixed guideway transit projects, including

heavy, light, and commuter rail, ferry, and certain bus projects (such as
bus rapid transit). FTA funds New Starts projects through full funding
grant agreements (FFGA), which establish the terms and conditions for
federal participation in a project. By statute, the federal funding share
of a New Starts project cannot exceed 80 percent of its net cost. To
obtain a FFGA, a project must progress through a regional review of
alternatives and meet a number of federal requirements, including
providing data for the New

Starts evaluation and ratings process. 10 Projects presented to FTA for
evaluation go through a lengthy process from planning to preliminary
engineering and final design, 11 which may culminate in a FFGA and the
actual construction phase. FTA conducts management oversight of projects
from the preliminary engineering stage through construction. All projects
that do not have an existing or pending FFGA and are in preliminary
engineering or final design are considered to be in the New Starts
pipeline. There are currently 52 projects in the pipeline. Figure 1
illustrates the overall planning and project development

process for New Starts projects. 9 *Guaranteed* funds are subject to a
procedural mechanism designed to ensure that a minimum amount of funding
is authorized each year. 10 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.

11 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
(e. g., environmental or financial). 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.

Figure 1: New Starts Planning and Project Development Process

To determine whether a project should receive federal funds, FTA*s New
Starts evaluation process assigns ratings based on a variety of financial
and project justification criteria and then assigns an overall rating.
These criteria are identified in TEA- 21 and reflect a broad range of
benefits and effects of the proposed projects, such as capital and
operating finance

plans, mobility improvements, and cost- effectiveness. 12 FTA assigns
proposed projects a rating of high, medium- high, medium, low- medium,

or low for each criterion. The individual criterion ratings are combined
into the summary financial and project justification ratings. On the basis
of these two summary ratings, FTA develops the overall project rating
using the following decision rules:

 Highly Recommended requires at least a medium- high for both the
financial and project justification summary ratings.

 Recommended requires at least a medium for both the financial and
project justification summary ratings.

 Not Recommended is assigned to projects not rated at least medium

for both the financial and project justification summary ratings.  Not
Rated indicates that FTA has serious concerns about the

information submitted for the mobility improvements and costeffectiveness
criteria because the underlying assumptions used by the project sponsor
may have inaccurately represented the benefits of the

project.  Not Available is the rating given to projects that did not
submit

complete data to FTA for evaluation for the fiscal year 2004 cycle.
Although many projects receive an overall rating of *recommended* or
*highly recommended,* only a few are proposed for FFGAs in a given fiscal
year. FTA proposes *recommended* or *highly recommended* projects for

FFGAs when it believes that the projects will be able to meet certain
conditions during the fiscal year that the proposals are made. These
conditions include the following:

 The local contribution to funding for the project must be made available
for distribution.

12 The exceptions to this process are statutorily *exempt* projects, which
are those that request less than $25 million in New Starts funding. These
projects are not required to submit project justification information and
do not receive ratings from FTA.

 The project must be in the final design phase and have progressed to the
point where uncertainties about costs, benefits, and impacts (e. g.,
environmental or financial) are minimized.

 The project must meet FTA*s tests for readiness and technical capacity.
These tests confirm that there are no cost, project scope, or local
financial commitment issues remaining.

Changes to the New FTA implemented two changes to the New Starts process
for fiscal year

Starts Process for 2004. First, in response to language contained in a
conference report

prepared by the House Appropriations Committee, FTA instituted a Fiscal
Year 2004 Have

preference policy in its ratings process favoring current and future
projects Caused Difficulties for

that do not request more than a 60 percent federal share. Second, FTA Some
Project Sponsors revised its cost- effectiveness and mobility improvements
criteria by adopting a Transportation System User Benefits (TSUB) measure
that gives equal weight to benefits for both new and existing transit
system riders. Project sponsors we interviewed endorsed the TSUB measure,
but implementing it has been difficult for both FTA and the project
sponsors because of the variety of local travel forecasting models that
exist and problems with those models. 13 These difficulties resulted in
some projects not being rated for the fiscal year 2004 cycle. FTA Made Two
Changes to

The New Starts evaluation and ratings process for fiscal year 2004 was the
New Starts Process for

generally similar to that of fiscal year 2003, but FTA implemented two
Fiscal Year 2004

changes that are described in its Annual Report on New Starts for Fiscal
Year 2004. 14 First, in response to language contained in a conference
report prepared by the House Appropriations Committee, FTA instituted a
preference policy in its ratings process favoring current and future
projects that do not request more than a 60 percent federal share. To
achieve this, FTA changed its criterion related to capital finance plans
to give projects seeking a federal share greater than 60 percent a *low*
financial rating. A

13 We interviewed 11 sponsors of ongoing New Starts projects who were
chosen to include a cross- section of projects based on geographic
distribution, project size, and a range of costeffectiveness and financial
ratings. For a more detailed description of interviewees, see the Scope
and Methodology section and app. II.

14 See Federal Transit Administration, Annual Report on New Starts:
Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2004 (Washington, D. C.:
Feb. 3, 2003).

*low* financial rating is likely to result in a *not recommended* overall
rating. Second, FTA changed the calculation of the cost- effectiveness and
mobility improvements criteria by adopting the TSUB measure. The TSUB

measure replaced the *cost per new rider* measure that had been used in
past ratings cycles. According to FTA, the new TSUB measure reflects an
important goal of any major transportation investment* reducing the amount
of travel time and out- of- pocket costs that people incur for taking a
trip (i. e., the cost of mobility). In contrast to the previous *cost per
new rider* measure, the TSUB measure gives equal weight to both new and
existing transit system riders by measuring not only the benefits to
people

who change transportation modes (e. g., highways to transit) but also
benefits to existing transit riders and highway users. Figure 2
illustrates the New Starts evaluation and ratings process, including the
changes made to the process for fiscal year 2004.

Figure 2: Changes to the New Starts Evaluation and Ratings Process for
Fiscal Year 2004

Note: The shaded boxes indicate areas where changes were made to the
process for fiscal year 2004. a According to FTA, this optional criterion
of *other factors* gives grantees the opportunity to provide

additional information about a project*s likelihood for overall success.

FTA Regulations Do Not The TEA- 21 legislation that authorizes the New
Starts program states that

Reflect Its Current federal grants are to be made *for 80 percent of the
net project cost, unless

the grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage.* 15 The legislation
Preference Policy Favoring

further provides that, in evaluating grant applications, FTA shall
consider Projects with a Federal

the degree of local financial commitment and the extent to which the local
Funding Share That Does

commitment exceeds the minimum nonfederal share of 20 percent. For the Not
Exceed 60 Percent of fiscal year 2004 cycle, FTA instituted a 60 percent
preference policy that Total Project Funding

ultimately is likely to result in an overall rating of *not recommended*
for projects that seek more than a 60 percent federal share.

Although TEA- 21 authorized FTA to consider local financial commitments
that increase the local share of net project cost, and it vested FTA with
discretion as to how to achieve this, the Secretary of Transportation is

required by law to issue regulations defining the manner in which projects
will be evaluated and rated. 16 In December 2000, FTA finalized a
regulation that stated that the evaluation and ratings process would
consider, among other things, the extent to which projects have a local
financial commitment that exceeds the 20 percent minimum. Essentially,
this

regulation merely restated the TEA- 21 statutory criteria. Also, when FTA
implemented its 60 percent preference policy, it did not amend its
regulations to support the change in policy or its current procedures. By
not amending its regulations, which have the full force and effect of law,
to reflect this change, FTA has not provided an opportunity for public
comment on its new policy. Furthermore, explicitly stating all of FTA*s
criteria and procedures in regulations would help to ensure that project

sponsors, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and others involved in
considering potential New Starts projects were fully aware of FTA*s
preference policy and could make their investment decisions on the basis
of a transparent evaluation and ratings process.

FTA has stated that in instituting the 60 percent preference policy, it
was following congressional direction as expressed in a conference report
prepared by the House Appropriations Committee. 17 That report states *the
conferees direct FTA not to sign any new full funding grant agreements
after September 30, 2002, that have a maximum federal share of higher than

15 49 U. S. C. S: 5309. 16 49 U. S. C. S: 5309( e)( 5). 17 H. R. Conf.
Rep. No. 107- 308, p. 114 (Nov. 30, 2001).

60 percent.* 18 As stated previously, TEA- 21 provides FTA with discretion
to give priority to projects that have a federal share lower than 80
percent. FTA officials told us that favoring projects with a federal share
that does not exceed 60 percent would allow more projects to receive New
Starts funding and would help ensure that local governments play a major
role in funding such projects. Reduction in Federal Share

Of the 32 projects that were rated for the fiscal year 2004 cycle, 4
received a Affected Some Ongoing

*low* financial rating and a *not recommended* overall rating because,
among other reasons, they proposed a federal share above 60 percent. 19
New Starts Projects and According to FTA, since the release of FTA*s
Annual Report in February May Adversely Affect

2003, one of these projects* the San Juan Tren Urbano Minillas Extension
Future Projects

project* was withdrawn and the three remaining projects are continuing to
address their financial issues. FTA officials expressed the view that
reducing the level of federal share to 60 percent has a minimal impact
because, over the last 10 years, the federal share for New Starts
projects* grant agreements has averaged around 50 percent and has been
trending lower. However, many of the project sponsors we interviewed (7 of
the 11) noted that the reduced federal share did, in fact, have an impact
on their projects* schedule and financing, which had to be revised prior
to or during the ratings process.

FTA*s decision to institute its preference policy for projects that seek
no more than a 60 percent federal share may also adversely affect future
projects, according to project sponsors that we interviewed, as the
following examples illustrate.  Six of the 11 project sponsors said that
continuing a 60 percent preference policy for the amount of the federal
share for projects might

reduce the number of future projects because of difficulties faced by
local and state governments in providing an increased local share. Transit
industry officials we interviewed agreed with this statement.

18 We note that statements in a committee or conference report do not have
the force or effect of law and cannot supercede or repeal statutory
requirements. See U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform:
Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT*s Job Access Program Was
Not Followed, GAO- 02- 213 (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 7, 2001), 11.

19 The four projects proposing a federal share greater than 60 percent
were San Juan Tren Urbano Minillas Extension, Ft. Collins Mason Street
Transportation Corridor, Philadelphia Schuylkill Valley Metrorail, and San
Francisco New Central Subway.

 Nine of the 11 project sponsors said that the unequal federal share for
highway and transit projects could bias the local decision- making process
in favor of highway projects. Highway projects generally receive a federal
share of 80 percent or more, in contrast to the current preference policy
of a 60 percent federal share for New Starts transit projects.

FTA*s New Costeffectiveness The nine project sponsors we interviewed who
were affected by the TSUB

Criterion Was measure believed it was an improvement over the previous
*cost per new

Endorsed by Project rider* measure because the TSUB measure takes into
account a broader set

of costs and benefits to the overall transit system. 20 For example, the
Sponsors but Resulted in

measure considers mobility benefits related to improved travel time for
all Some Implementation

users of a transportation corridor, rather than benefits accruing from
only Difficulties

new riders. However, many project sponsors encountered difficulties in
providing accurate data needed to calculate the new TSUB measure. To
implement the TSUB measure, FTA developed a software package, called
Summit, to extract certain data from local travel forecasting models that
are used in planning transit projects. FTA hired contractors to assist
project sponsors in using the Summit software to calculate the TSUB value.
During the implementation process, FTA discovered that many of the local
travel forecasting models had underlying errors. Some of these errors were
significant due to faulty design and assumptions made in some of the local
travel forecasting models; others were simple coding errors in the models.
As a result, many projects experienced difficulties that prevented them
from calculating an acceptable value for the TSUB measure.

According to FTA*s Annual Report, 11 of the 32 projects rated for the
fiscal year 2004 cycle were identified as being unable to calculate a
valid TSUB value. 21 As a result, these projects were *not rated* for the
costeffectiveness criterion. Additionally, 7 of the 9 project sponsors we
interviewed who were affected by the TSUB measure encountered difficulties
in the measure*s implementation:

20 We interviewed a total of 11 project sponsors, but 2 of these sponsors
were exempt from the evaluation and ratings process because they are
seeking less than $25 million in New Starts funding and, therefore, were
not affected by the TSUB measure.

21 There were 52 projects evaluated in the fiscal year 2004 cycle.
However, 20 of these were exempt from the ratings process and not affected
by the TSUB measure because they requested less than $25 million in New
Starts funding.

 5 had difficulty getting their local transit forecasting models to
generate the data needed for FTA*s software to calculate the measure,

 3 did not have adequate data to develop the measure, and  2 said that
FTA did not provide enough documentation about the

measure and the software used to calculate the TSUB. As described above,
FTA officials told us that they believe the major problem in implementing
the TSUB measure stemmed from problems with the underlying local travel
forecasting models, not FTA*s software or guidance on the measure.
Nonetheless, FTA is taking some steps to address the problems raised in
the implementation of the TSUB measure. For example, FTA hired contractors
to work with transit sponsors to correct problems with the local travel
forecasting models and the software used to calculate the TSUB measure.
These contractors provided technical support to all affected project
sponsors and assisted some sponsors in correcting the underlying problems
identified in their local travel forecasting models. FTA officials also
told us that they are continuing to work closely with the 11 project
sponsors who were unable to calculate values for the TSUB measure. When
the problems in the projects* local travel forecasting models are
corrected and data are resubmitted to FTA for evaluation, FTA plans to re-
rate these projects. As soon as a project receives a revised rating, FTA
officials told us that they would inform Congress and other appropriate
parties.

Project sponsors we interviewed told us that they would have benefited
from additional guidance and other technical support, such as
documentation for the software used to calculate the TSUB measure. They
also requested additional opportunities to discuss their concerns and
provide input to FTA officials about the measure. FTA officials told us
that they are developing software documentation for the TSUB measure and
plan to release it in June 2003. Furthermore, FTA has held a series of
four roundtable discussions with project sponsors and transit industry
officials, specifically on the TSUB measure and its implementation. FTA
plans to hold two additional roundtable discussions during fiscal year
2004.

FTA officials and a FTA consultant told us that they anticipate that fewer
projects will have difficulties calculating accurate TSUB values in future
New Starts evaluation and ratings cycles. FTA plans to continue addressing
technical problems related to inaccurate local travel forecasting models
on

a case- by- case basis. FTA officials also acknowledged the need to
develop a more systematic approach for dealing with these problems. FTA
Evaluated 52

Of the 52 projects FTA evaluated for the fiscal year 2004 cycle, 32 were
Projects for the Fiscal rated and 20 were statutorily exempt from the
ratings process because they requested less than $25 million in New Starts
funding. Figure 3 shows the

Year 2004 Cycle, Rated results of the process for the fiscal year 2004
cycle and how they compare

32, and Proposed 4 for with those of fiscal year 2003, when 50 projects
were evaluated. From fiscal

New Grant Agreements years 2003 to 2004, the number of *recommended*
projects decreased from

25 to 12, while the number of projects that received a rating of *not
recommended* rose from 4 to 11. The primary reasons for these changes were
(1) lower financial ratings, which resulted from the inability of some
projects to conform to the reduced federal share, and (2) *low* ratings
received on the cost- effectiveness and mobility improvements criteria

resulting from implementation of the new TSUB measure. In addition, the
number of projects that were *not rated* or *not available* rose from 2 to
7, largely due to difficulties project sponsors had in determining a value
for

the TSUB measure.

Figure 3: Distribution of New Starts Project Ratings for Fiscal Years 2003
and 2004

Following the fiscal year 2004 New Starts evaluation and ratings process,
FTA proposed four projects for new federal funding commitments. Inclusion
of one of them* the Chicago Ravenswood Line Expansion

project* is unusual because FTA assigned it an overall project rating of
*not rated* even though, on the basis of FTA*s New Starts regulations, a
project must have an overall rating of at least *recommended* to receive a
grant agreement. According to FTA officials, this project could not be
rated because its local travel forecasting data and models did not support
calculation of the new benefits measure. However, the officials told us
that they decided to select this project for a proposed grant agreement
because they believed that the data problems would be corrected, and the
project

would be able to achieve a *recommended* rating. Along with the other
three proposed projects, FTA officials believe that the Chicago Ravenswood
Line Expansion project will be ready for a grant agreement by

the end of fiscal year 2004. Officials said that other projects that
received overall ratings of *recommended* or *highly recommended* would
not be ready at that time. Figure 4 summarizes the ratings of the four
proposed projects, which are further described in appendix I.

Figure 4: Ratings of Projects Proposed for New Starts Funding in Fiscal
Year 2004

Note: According to FTA officials, some ratings criteria are weighted more
heavily than others when the project justification summary rating is
determined.

Proposed Initiatives in The administration*s fiscal year 2004 budget
proposal requests that

FTA*s Fiscal Year 2004 $1.5 billion be made available for New Starts, a
$0.3 billion increase over

the fiscal year 2003 level. The budget proposal also contains three Budget
Proposal Have

initiatives* reducing the federal share to 50 percent, allowing nonfixed
Some Advantages, but

guideway projects to be funded through New Starts, and replacing the May
Create Challenges

*exempt* classification with a streamlined ratings process for projects
requesting less than $75 million in New Starts funding. for Future New
Starts

Projects Administration*s Proposed

The administration*s budget proposal for fiscal year 2004 requests that
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget

$1.5 billion be made available for the construction of new transit systems
Requests 25 Percent

and expansion of existing systems through the New Starts program* an
Increase in New Starts

increase of $0.3 billion, or 25 percent over the $1.2 billion appropriated
for Funding

fiscal year 2003. The commitment authority for fiscal year 2004 and beyond
will be addressed in the next surface transportation authorization
legislation. 22 Because FTA*s fiscal year 2004 budget proposes that $1.5
billion in commitments be made available for the New Starts program, FTA
expects that the new commitment authority adopted in the authorization
legislation will, at a minimum, be sufficient to cover this amount. 23

Figure 5 illustrates the specific allocations FTA has requested for fiscal
year 2004. It shows that

 $1.08 billion would be allocated among 21 projects with existing grant
agreements;

 $235 million would be allocated among the 4 projects proposed for new
FFGAs;

22 FTA*s New Starts commitment authority is the amount of funding Congress
has authorized FTA to commit to New Starts projects for a given
authorization period. 23 FTA expects to end fiscal year 2003 with about
$0. 2 billion in unused commitment authority. Under TEA- 21 and subsequent
amendments, Congress authorized approximately $10.0 billion in total New
Starts commitment authority from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year
2003. FTA committed about $9. 8 billion for New Starts projects during
those years, resulting in the $0. 2 billion in unused commitment
authority.

 $121.2 million would be allocated among other projects in final design
and preliminary engineering that do not have existing, pending, or
proposed FFGAs (these projects may include those designated by Congress);

 $55 million would be allocated to 1 project with a pending grant
agreement (i. e., the FFGA was proposed in an earlier year, but has not
yet been completed); and

 the remainder of the funds would be allocated to other mandated projects
and oversight activities.

Figure 5: New Starts Funding Proposals for Fiscal Year 2004

Note: The percentages in the figure do not total 100 percent due to
rounding.

Proposed Initiatives in FTA*s The administration has proposed that the
federal share of New Starts

Fiscal Year 2004 Budget project costs be reduced from the current
statutory maximum level of 80

percent to a statutory maximum of 50 percent. 24 The possible advantages
of Proposal Have Advantages

this proposed reduction would be similar to those cited by FTA officials
as and Disadvantages

justification for the 60 percent preference policy* that is, the change
may allow FTA to fund additional projects and the local governments
sponsoring the projects would be encouraged to provide a greater degree of
financial commitment. However, a reduction in the federal share may
adversely affect some future projects. Nine of the 11 project sponsors we
interviewed were opposed to a reduction of the federal share for projects
from the current statutory level of 80 percent to 50 percent. These
sponsors said that a reduced federal share may make it more difficult for
communities to participate in the New Starts program because they will
have to provide an increased local share. It may also affect local
decision making because it would make the federal share for transit
projects higher than that required for most highway projects, which
generally receive a federal share of 80 percent or more. We reported in
2002 that a number of the nation*s leading transportation experts had
suggested that federal matching requirements should be equal for all
transportation modes to avoid creating incentives for local decision
makers to pursue projects in one mode that might be less effective than
projects in other modes. 25 However, as we noted earlier, over the past 10
years requests for federal

assistance for New Starts projects have averaged around 50 percent and
have been trending lower. Another initiative proposed in the
administration*s fiscal year 2004 budget proposal would allow certain
nonfixed guideway transit projects (e. g., regular or express bus service)
to be eligible for New Starts funding. Currently, New Starts projects are
exclusively on fixed guideways and occupy a separate right- of- way.
According to FTA, the proposal would allow project sponsors to choose the
most appropriate mode to serve specific corridors. Three of the 11 project
sponsors we interviewed supported the initiative because they believed
that it gives local communities greater flexibility when choosing types of
transit projects.

24 FTA first proposed reducing the statutory maximum level of the federal
share to 50 percent in its fiscal year 2002 budget proposal. Congress
rejected the proposal. 25 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Surface and
Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A
National Challenge, GAO- 02- 775 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 30, 2002).

Seven of the 11 project sponsors we interviewed questioned the need for
allowing nonfixed guideway projects into the New Starts process. They were
concerned that there would be less emphasis on traditional fixed guideway
New Starts projects. Transit industry officials we interviewed shared this
concern.

Finally, the administration has proposed replacing the *exempt*
classification with a streamlined ratings process for projects requesting
less than $75 million in New Starts funding. Currently, projects seeking
less than $25 million in New Starts funding are exempt from the ratings
process and are not evaluated on the same project justification criteria
as projects requesting more than $25 million. By eliminating the *exempt*
classification and replacing it with a streamlined ratings process for
projects requesting less than $75 million, FTA would ensure that all
projects receive a rating and are evaluated on the basis of the same
criteria. This is a hallmark of performance- oriented evaluation. However,
6 of 11 project sponsors we interviewed opposed eliminating the *exempt*
classification. These project sponsors believed that elimination of the
*exempt* classification would reduce the number of funding applications
from smaller cities because of the cost and time involved in providing the

full evaluation data. Figure 6 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages
of the three proposed initiatives in the administration*s fiscal year 2004
budget proposal, as expressed by FTA officials and project sponsors we
interviewed.

Figure 6: Advantages and Disadvantages of Proposed New Starts Initiatives

Conclusions Although FTA has the authority to favorably rate proposed
projects that request a lower federal share, it also has a responsibility
to fully inform all

transit agencies of changes that are made to the evaluation and ratings
process. Because FTA has not revised its regulations to reflect its 60
percent preference policy, transit sponsors, other members of the transit
community, and the public may not be fully aware of FTA*s preference
policy and have not had the opportunity to formally comment on it. By
revising its regulations to reflect its current policy, FTA would have the
opportunity to obtain public comments on its proposed rulemaking, thus
increasing the transparency of the agency*s decision- making process and
ensuring that the views of affected transit agencies and other interested
parties are considered in that process.

In its implementation of the Transportation System User Benefits measure,
FTA discovered that many local travel forecasting models used by project
sponsors in planning New Starts projects were flawed or had difficulty
generating the required data. FTA officials considered this to be a major
problem and they acknowledged the need for a more systematic way to

address the problem across all transit agencies that are current or future
New Starts project sponsors. FTA has assisted project sponsors on a
caseby- case basis and plans to do so in the future. Additional guidance
from FTA on what specific information is required from local travel
forecasting models could help transit agencies generate accurate data for
the measure.

Recommendations for To ensure that the New Starts regulations reflect
FTA*s actual evaluation

Executive Action and ratings process and procedures, the Secretary of
Transportation should

direct the Administrator, FTA, to amend the agency*s regulations governing
the level of federal funding share for projects to reflect its current
policy. To systematically address the problems with the implementation of
the

Transportation System User Benefits measure, the Secretary of
Transportation should direct the Administrator, FTA, to issue additional
guidance to transit agencies describing FTA*s expectations regarding the
local travel forecasting models and the specific type of data FTA requires
to calculate the measure.

Agency Comments We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from
the Department of Transportation. Department officials generally agreed
with the

information presented in the report and they provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. They concurred with
the recommendation about providing guidance on the user benefits measure
and said that they will consider the recommendation about amending the
regulations related to federal funding share.

Scope and To describe the changes in the New Starts process, we analyzed

Methodology information in FTA*s Annual Report on New Starts for Fiscal
Year 2004. To identify any issues related to those changes, we interviewed

 FTA officials and contractors hired by FTA to implement those changes;

 11 of the 52 sponsors of fixed guideway transit projects being
considered for New Starts funding in fiscal year 2004; 26

 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) officials involved in 5 of the
projects whose sponsors we interviewed; and

 transit industry officials, including senior officials at the American
Public Transportation Association and the Chair of the New Starts Working
Group* an organization of New Starts project sponsors, MPOs, and private
transit industry firms, who advocate improvements to the New Starts
evaluation and ratings process.

To determine how many New Starts projects were evaluated, rated, and
proposed for funding in fiscal year 2004, we analyzed information in FTA*s
Annual Report and in various budget and financial documents prepared by
FTA. To identify proposed funding commitments and initiatives related to
New Starts in the administration*s fiscal year 2004 budget proposal* and
the challenges they might present for future projects* we reviewed
pertinent FTA documents, including its Annual Report and proposed budget,
and we interviewed a wide variety of officials affected by the changes.
These included the individuals listed above (FTA officials, project
sponsors, MPO officials, and transit industry representatives). We
conducted our review from March 2003 through June 2003 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending
copies of this report to congressional committees with responsibilities
for transit issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator,
Federal Transit Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and
Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on our Web site at
http:// www. gao. gov.

26 The views expressed by the 11 transit sponsors we interviewed may not
reflect the views of all sponsors of New Starts projects, but they are a
sample chosen to include a crosssection of projects based on geographic
distribution, project size, and a range of costeffectiveness and financial
ratings.

If you or your staffs have any questions on matters discussed in this
report, please contact me at siggerudk@ gao. gov. An additional key GAO
contact and contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Katherine A. Siggerud Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Appendi xes Additional Information on Four Projects Proposed for New Full
Funding Grant

Appendi I x Agreements in Fiscal Year 2004 Chicago Ravenswood Line  The
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is planning a series of capital Expansion
Project

improvements to enhance the operation of the Ravenswood heavy rail line,
which currently experiences capacity problems through a highdensity 9.3-
mile corridor.  The Ravenswood Line Expansion Project would allow CTA to
expand

platforms and stations along the existing line to accommodate longer
trains.

 The overall capital cost of the project is estimated at $529.9 million.
The federal share requested is $245.5 million (46 percent).

 At present, this project has been identified as *not rated* due to
concerns about some of the information underlying the calculation of the
Transportation System User Benefits (TSUB) measure. However, on the basis
of work conducted to date, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
believes that the remaining issues will be resolved in the near

future and that an overall project rating of *recommended* is likely to be
granted.

Las Vegas Resort Corridor  The Las Vegas Regional Transportation
Commission (RTC) is proposing Project

a 2.28- mile Resort Corridor Automated Guideway Transit (elevated
monorail) project.

 The monorail will serve the Las Vegas central business district and the
resort corridor along the Las Vegas *strip.*

 The estimated capital cost for the project is $324.8 million. RTC is
seeking $159.7 million (50 percent) in New Starts funding.

 The Las Vegas Resort Corridor Project received a *high* rating for cost
effectiveness, as demonstrated by its high transit system user benefits.

New York East Side Access  The New York Metropolitan Transit Authority
(MTA) is designing a

Project direct access for Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) passengers to a new

passenger concourse in Grand Central Station in Midtown Manhattan.

 The 4- mile, two- station commuter rail extension under the East River
will contribute to the overall growth of the nation*s largest commuter
rail system.

 The projected capital cost of the project is $5.3 billion. MTA is
requesting $2.6 billion (49 percent) in New Starts funding.

 LIRR has 162,000 daily riders, and this project will allow them to
access the east side of New York by connecting LIRR with Grand Central
Station. FTA officials believe that the project will reduce travel time
for many riders.

Seattle Central Link Project  The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority (Sound Transit) is proposing a 24- mile Central Link light rail
transit line from central

Seattle toward, but not connecting to, the Seattle- Tacoma airport.  The
total capital cost for the project is estimated at $2.5 billion. Sound

Transit is expected to seek $500 million (20 percent) in New Starts
funding.  The Central Link project entered Preliminary Engineering in
July 1997

and Final Design in February 2000. FTA originally entered into a full
funding grant agreement for the *Seattle Sound Move Corridor* project in
January 2001.  Congress and the Department of Transportation*s Office of
the Inspector

General raised significant questions about the project costs and directed
Sound Transit to reexamine the entire project to reduce risks and better
meet budget limitations. Sound Transit identified the Central Link
component of the larger Seattle Sound Move Corridor project as its new
minimum operable segment.

Transit Sponsors and Metropolitan Planning

Appendi I I x Organizations Contacted by GAO Project Transit agencies
contacted

Chicago (Ravenswood Line Expansion) Chicago Transit Authority Cleveland
(Euclid Corridor Bus Rapid Transit) Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority Las Vegas (Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway) Regional
Transportation Commission of Clark County Little Rock (River Rail Project)
Central Arkansas Transit Authority Nashville (East Corridor Commuter Rail)
Regional Transportation Authority New York (Long Island Railroad Eastside
Access) Metropolitan Transportation Authority Philadelphia (Schuylkill
Valley Metrorail) Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
Pittsburgh (North Shore Connector Light Rail Transit) Port Authority of
Allegheny County San Francisco (New Central Subway Project) San Francisco
Municipal Railway Seattle (Central Link Initial Segment) Puget Sound
Regional Transit Authority Washington, D. C. (Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid
Transit) Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority

Geographic location Metropolitan Planning Organizations contacted

Chicago, Illinois Chicago Area Transportation Study Las Vegas, Nevada
Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Seattle,
Washington Puget Sound Regional Council Washington, D. C. National Capital
Region Transportation Planning Board at the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments

Source: GAO.

Appendi I I I x GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Rita
Grieco, (202) 512- 9047 or griecor@ gao. gov Acknowledgments In addition
to the person named above, other key contributors to this

report were Alan Belkin, Christine Bonham, R. Stockton Butler, Brandon
Haller, Bert Japikse, Ryan Petitte, and David Laverny- Rafter. (542020)

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this

list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
GAO Mailing Lists* under *Order GAO Products* heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

FTA made two changes to the New Starts evaluation and ratings process for
the fiscal year 2004 cycle. First, in response to language contained in a
conference report prepared by the House Appropriations Committee, FTA
adopted a 60 percent preference policy, which in effect, generally reduced
the level of New Starts federal funding share for projects from 80 percent
to 60 percent. Because FTA has not revised its program regulations to
reflect this change, transit agencies, project sponsors, and the public
did not have an opportunity to formally comment on the change. Explicitly
stating its criteria and procedures in regulation would allow those
involved in considering potential projects to make their investment
decisions on the basis of a transparent process. Second, FTA revised some
of the criteria used in the ratings process to include a new
Transportation System User Benefits measure. Project sponsors GAO
interviewed said that the measure was an improvement over the previous
benefits measure because it considers benefits to both new and existing
transit system riders. However, many project sponsors experienced
difficulties in generating a value for the measure for a number of
reasons, such as problems with their local forecasting models. FTA
officials are working closely with project sponsors to correct these
problems, but more guidance may be necessary to avert similar difficulties
in the future.

The administration*s fiscal year 2004 budget proposal requests that $1.5
billion be made available for New Starts for that year, a 25 percent
increase over fiscal year 2003. The budget proposal contains three
initiatives* reducing the federal share to 50 percent, allowing certain
nonfixed guideway projects to be funded through New Starts, and
establishing a streamlined ratings process for projects requesting less
than $75 million in New Starts funding. These initiatives may allow FTA to
fund more projects and give local communities flexibility in choosing
among transit modes. However, they may also create challenges for some
future transit projects, such as difficulties in generating an increased
local funding share or a reduction in the number of smaller communities
that will participate in New Starts. Light Rail Transit System in
Portland, Oregon Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century
(TEA- 21),

Congress authorized federal funding for New Starts fixed guideway transit
projects* including rail and bus rapid transit projects that met certain
criteria. In response to an annual mandate

under TEA- 21, GAO assessed the New Starts evaluation and ratings process
for the fiscal year 2004 cycle, including (1) changes to the process and
any related issues and

(2) any challenges related to New Starts initiatives contained in the
administration*s fiscal year 2004 budget proposal.

To ensure that transit agencies have clear information on the New Starts
program, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) should (1) amend its
regulations governing the level of federal funding share for projects to
reflect its current policy and (2) issue additional

guidance to transit agencies on the use of local travel forecasting models
in calculating the Transportation System User Benefits measure. Department
of Transportation

officials generally agreed with the information provided in this report.
They concurred with the recommendation about providing guidance on the
user benefits measure and they will consider the recommendation about
amending the regulations related to federal

funding share.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 701. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Rita Grieco at (202) 512- 9047 or griecor@ gao. gov
Highlights of GAO- 03- 701, a report to the

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U. S. Senate, and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

June 2003

MASS TRANSIT

FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and Additional Guidance on the New
Starts Ratings Process

Page i GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Contents

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 1 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 3 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 4 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 5 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 6 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 7 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 8 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 9 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 10 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 11 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 12 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 13 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 14 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 15 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 16 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 17 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 18 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 19 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 20 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 21 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 22 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 23 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 24 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 25 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Appendix I

Appendix I Additional Information on Four Projects Proposed for New Full
Funding Grant Agreements in Fiscal Year 2004

Page 26 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Page 27 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Appendix II

Page 28 GAO- 03- 701 Mass Transit

Appendix III

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***