Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and
Small Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the Small
Starts Application Process (27-JUL-07, GAO-07-917).
Through the New Starts program, the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) identifies and recommends new fixed-guideway
transit projects for funding. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) created a separate program, commonly called Small
Starts, which is intended to offer a streamlined evaluation and
rating process for smaller-scale transit projects. FTA
subsequently introduced a separate eligibility category within
the Small Starts program for "Very Small Starts" projects. These
are simple, low-risk projects that qualify for a simplified
evaluation and rating process. SAFETEA-LU requires GAO to
annually review FTA's New Starts process. This report presents
information on (1) FTA's fiscal year 2008 funding
recommendations, (2) the extent to which the New Starts pipeline
has changed over time, and (3) future projected trends for the
New Starts and Small Starts pipelines. To address these
objectives, GAO surveyed 215 project sponsors--78 percent of
which responded--and interviewed FTA officials, 15 project
sponsors, and 3 industry groups.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-917
ACCNO: A73530
TITLE: Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New
Starts and Small Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the
Small Starts Application Process
DATE: 07/27/2007
SUBJECT: Program evaluation
Evaluation criteria
Cost analysis
Bus rapid transit
Program management
Mass transit funding
Budgeting
Future budget projections
Procurement planning
FTA New Starts Program
FTA Small Starts Program
FTA Very Small 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-07-917
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]FTA Recommended 14 Projects for Fiscal Year 2008 Funding; SA
* [4]FTA Evaluated and Rated 14 New Starts Projects, and Recommen
* [5]FTA Evaluated and Rated 4 Small Starts and Very Small Starts
* [6]The Administration's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Proposal Reques
* [7]FTA Is Implementing Several Changes to the New Starts Evalua
* [8]Changes in the Size and Composition of the New Starts Pipeli
* [9]The Number of Projects in the New Starts Pipeline Has Decrea
* [10]FTA and Project Sponsors Attributed the Decrease in the New
* [11]Future Demand for New Starts Program Expected; Project Spons
* [12]Project Sponsors Indicated That Future Demand for New Starts
* [13]Project Sponsors Would Like FTA to Further Streamline the Sm
* [14]Project Sponsors Seek Additional Application Assistance and
* [15]Conclusions
* [16]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [17]Agency Comments
* [18]GAO Contact
* [19]Staff Acknowledgments
* [20]Order by Mail or Phone
Report to Congressional Committees
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
July 2007
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and Small Starts Programs, but
Improvements Needed to the Small Starts Application Process
GAO-07-917
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 4
Background 7
FTA Recommended 14 Projects for Fiscal Year 2008 Funding; SAFETEA-LU
Changes to Evaluation and Rating Process Remain 14
Changes in the Size and Composition of the New Starts Pipeline Are Likely
Due to Different Factors 22
Future Demand for New Starts Program Expected; Project Sponsors Seek Small
Starts Program Improvements 30
Conclusions 36
Recommendations for Executive Action 37
Agency Comments 38
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 39
Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 43
Related GAO Products 44
Tables
Table 1: Projects Recommended for an FFGA and Other Funding, Fiscal Year
2008 15
Table 2: Small Starts and Very Small Starts Projects, Fiscal Year 2008 16
Table 3: Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes to the New Starts Evaluation
and Rating Process, as of July 2007 19
Table 4: Number of Projects in the Pipeline, and Evaluated and Rated, by
Fiscal Year 23
Table 5: Total Dollar Amounts and Numbers of New Starts FFGAs, by Fiscal
Year 24
Table 6: New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Application
Requirements 33
Figures
Figure 1: Planning and Development Process for New Starts Projects 9
Figure 2: Project Evaluation Criteria for New Starts Projects 10
Figure 3: Planning and Development Process for Small Starts and Very Small
Starts Projects 13
Figure 4: Planned Uses of the Administration's Proposed Fiscal Year 2008
Funding for the Capital Investment Grants Program 18
Figure 5: Types of Projects in the New Starts Pipeline, by Fiscal Year 25
Figure 6: Project Sponsors' Expected Use of New Starts Funding for Planned
New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Projects 31
Abbreviations
FFGA full funding grant agreement
FTA Federal Transit Administration
PCGA project construction grant agreement
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users
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.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
July 27, 2007
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Shelby
Ranking Member
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable James L. Oberstar
Chairman
The Honorable John L. Mica
Ranking Republican Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
Since the early 1970s, a significant portion of the federal government's
share of new capital investment in mass transportation has come through
the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) New Starts program. Through
this program, FTA identifies and recommends new fixed-guideway transit
projects--including heavy, light, and commuter rail; ferry; and certain
bus projects--for grants, typically through full funding grant agreements
(FFGA).1 An FFGA establishes the terms and conditions for federal funds
available for the project, including the maximum amount of federal funds
available. Over the last decade, the New Starts program has provided state
and local agencies with over $10 billion to help design and construct
transit projects throughout the country.
More recently, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) created, and FTA implemented,
what is commonly called the Small Starts program.2 This program is
intended to advance smaller-scale projects through an expedited and
streamlined evaluation and rating process. Small Starts projects are
defined as those with a need for less than $75 million in funding from
this program and a total capital cost of less than $250 million.3 FTA
subsequently introduced a new eligibility category within the Small Starts
program called Very Small Starts, which is for projects with a total
capital cost of less than $50 million. Very Small Starts projects will
qualify for an even simpler and more expedited evaluation and rating
process than other Small Starts projects. In July 2006, FTA issued interim
guidance on Small Starts, including Very Small Starts, to govern the
administration of the program until the final rule is issued. FTA expects
to issue the final rule in April 2008.
1Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for the
exclusive use of public transportation services. These fixed-guideway
systems include fixed rail, exclusive lanes for buses and other
high-occupancy vehicles, and other systems.
Although SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the New Starts program,
including the creation of the Small Starts program, it also maintained
many program requirements imposed by previous authorizing legislation. For
example, FTA must continue to prioritize projects for funding by
evaluating, rating, and recommending potential projects on the basis of
specific financial commitment and project justification
criteria--including mobility improvements, cost-effectiveness, economic
development, land use, environmental benefits, and operating efficiencies.
Using these statutorily identified criteria, FTA evaluates potential
projects annually and as a condition for advancement into each phase of
the process, including preliminary engineering, final design, and
construction. FTA refers to projects in the preliminary engineering or
final design phases as the "pipeline" through which successful projects
advance to receive funding. FTA determines which projects to fund through
an evaluation and rating process, whereby projects are evaluated on the
basis of various criteria and then are assigned a "high," "medium," or
"low" rating.
2Although SAFETEA-LU did not create a separate Small Starts program, it
established various requirements to be applied to projects receiving
capital investment grants of less than $75 million and where the total
estimated net capital cost of the project is less than $250 million. FTA
consistently refers to this authority as the Small Starts program in its
regulations, annual report, and guidance. Thus, for the purposes of this
report, we refer to Small Starts as a program. Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Pub. L.
No. 109-59, title III, S 3011, 119 Stat. 1573 (2005), codified as positive
law at 49 U.S.C. S 3509. See, in particular, 49 U.S.C. S 3509(e).
3Transit projects that qualify for the Small Starts program are referred
to as "Small Starts projects" in this report as well as in FTA's guidance
and reports. Transit projects that do not qualify for the Small Starts
program because they request more federal funding, or are larger in scope,
than is permitted by 49 U.S.C. S 5309(e) are referred to as "New Starts
projects." Thus, in this report, we use the term "New Starts" in two
contexts: (1) to identify projects that are larger in scope than is
permitted by 49 U.S.C. S 5309(e) and (2) as a reference to the entire
capital investment grants program that is subject to 49 U.S.C. S 5309(d)
or (e). As used in this report, "New Starts projects" refer to projects
that do not qualify as Small Starts, while "New Starts program," "New
Starts funding," and "New Starts pipeline" refer generally to the capital
investment grants program.
We are required to report each year on FTA's processes and procedures for
evaluating, rating, and recommending New Starts projects for federal
funding and on FTA's implementation of these processes and procedures.4
This report examines (1) how many and what types of projects FTA
evaluated, rated, and recommended for funding in the fiscal year 2008
evaluation and rating cycle, and the extent to which FTA has implemented
SAFETEA-LU's changes to the New Starts evaluation and rating process; (2)
the extent to which, if any, the New Starts pipeline has changed since the
fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, and the factors that
contributed to any such trends; and (3) any projected trends for the New
Starts and Small Starts pipelines and the views of project sponsors on the
Small Starts program. To address these objectives, we surveyed all project
sponsors that are located in urbanized areas with a population of over
200,000 and that have an annual transit ridership of over 1 million.5 In
total, we surveyed 215 project sponsors, asking them about their
experience to date with the New Starts program and plans to apply for the
program in the future. Of the 215 project sponsors, 168 responded to the
survey--for a survey response rate of 78 percent. The survey and a more
complete tabulation of the results can be viewed at
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? [21]GAO-07-927SP . We also interviewed 15
project sponsors, including the 10 sponsors that applied for funding for
Small Starts projects, including Very Small Starts projects, for the
fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle. We selected the other 5 project
sponsors that we interviewed on the basis of their agencies' experience
with the New Starts processes, size, and location. In addition, we
interviewed FTA officials and representatives from transportation industry
associations. We also reviewed FTA's New Starts and Small Starts guidance,
the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Small Starts, and the
statutory provisions that address the New Starts program. In May 2007, we
reported on preliminary findings from our work.6 We conducted our work
from November 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. (See app. I for more information about our
scope and methodology.)
449 U.S.C. S 5309(k)(2).
5Project sponsors that we surveyed may or may not have previously applied
to the New Starts program, but because of their size and ridership, these
sponsors would be more likely to plan the types of transit projects that
would potentially qualify for New Starts funding. Project sponsors are
typically transit agencies, but they may also include city transportation
offices and metropolitan planning organizations, among other entities. In
this report, project sponsors are current sponsors of transit projects as
well as past or potential sponsors of such projects.
Results in Brief
For the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle, FTA evaluated and rated 18
projects--including 14 New Starts, 1 Small Starts, and 3 Very Small Starts
projects--and recommended to Congress 14 of these projects for funding. Of
the 14 New Starts projects rated, 2 were rated as "high," 12 were rated as
"medium," and none were rated as "low." FTA recommended 10 of the 14 New
Starts projects for funding. Specifically, FTA recommended 2 New Starts
projects for proposed FFGAs and 2 projects for pending FFGAs.7 In
addition, FTA identified 6 "other" New Starts projects that may be
eligible for funding outside of FFGAs in fiscal year 2008. FTA received 12
requests to enter project development for Small Starts and Very Small
Starts projects, and evaluated and rated 4 of them. FTA rated these 4
projects as "medium" and recommended them for funding. The
administration's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the New Starts
program is $1.40 billion. A majority of the requested funding is allocated
to New Starts projects with existing and pending FFGAs and to those
proposed for new FFGAs. SAFETEA-LU made several changes to the New Starts
evaluation and rating process, including adding economic development as an
evaluation criterion and changing the rating scale. FTA is in the process
of addressing these SAFETEA-LU changes and expects to have them
implemented by the completion of its upcoming rulemaking.
The New Starts pipeline has changed in size and composition since the
fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, and a variety of factors
have contributed to these changes. Since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation
and rating cycle, the number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has
decreased by more than one-half (from 48 to 19). The level of funding per
project has grown since fiscal year 2001, from about $20 million to about
$103 million on average. In addition, the types of projects in the
pipeline have changed, as bus rapid transit projects are now more common
than commuter or light rail projects, although bus rapid transit projects
account for a small portion of the total cost (13 percent) for all
projects in the pipeline. FTA officials and project sponsors offered
different reasons for the decrease in the New Starts pipeline. FTA
officials said that they had increased their scrutiny of applications to
help ensure that only the strongest projects enter the pipeline. According
to these officials, they took steps to remove projects from the pipeline
that were not advancing or that did not adequately address identified
problems--although the officials noted that most project sponsors
voluntarily withdrew projects from the pipeline, rather than have FTA
remove them. Project sponsors we interviewed provided other reasons for
the decrease in the New Starts pipeline. In particular, they maintained
that the New Starts process is complex, time-consuming, and costly. In
addition, project sponsors said they found alternative sources of funding
or decided not to apply because the process is well-established and they
realize their projects are unlikely to receive funding. Our survey
identified similar reasons offered by project sponsors. For example, the
project sponsors we surveyed with completed transit projects most often
said they did not apply to the New Starts program because the process was
lengthy or they wanted to move the project along faster than could be done
in the New Starts process. About two-thirds of these project sponsors
reported that their most recent project was eligible for the New Starts
program, yet more than one-fourth of them did not apply to the program.8
The lengthiness of the New Starts process is due, at least in part, to the
rigorous and systematic evaluation and rating process established by
law--which we have previously noted could serve as a model for other
transportation programs. FTA has recognized that the process can be
lengthy and, in 2006, commissioned a study to examine, among other issues,
opportunities for accelerating and simplifying the process for
implementing the New Starts program. FTA is currently reviewing the
study's findings and recommendations.
6GAO, Preliminary Analysis of Changes to and Trends in FTA's New Starts
and Small Starts Programs, [22]GAO-07-812T (Washington, D.C.: May 10,
2007).
7Projects with pending FFGAs were previously recommended for FFGAs by FTA;
however, FFGAs have not been executed. FTA expects to execute both pending
FFGAs by the end of fiscal year 2007.
Despite these concerns, our survey of project sponsors indicated that
there is likely to be a future demand for New Starts funding. The project
sponsors we surveyed reported having 141 planned projects--that is,
projects currently undergoing an alternatives analysis or another type of
corridor-based planning study.9 According to the project sponsors, they
plan to seek New Starts funding for almost three-fourths (72 percent) of
these 141 New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts projects. The
project sponsors we surveyed also indicated that they were considering a
range of project alternative types in their planning. The most commonly
cited types were bus rapid transit and light rail. Our survey results
further indicated that, through its Small Starts and Very Small Starts
programs, FTA is attracting project sponsors that would not otherwise
apply for the New Starts program or that have not previously applied to
the New Starts program. For example, of 30 project sponsors that intend to
seek New Starts funding for their planned Small Starts or Very Small
Starts projects, 13 have not previously applied for New Starts funding.10
Although project sponsors we interviewed expressed appreciation for the
creation of the Small Starts program, noting that it fulfilled a funding
gap, they said the Small Starts application process is not tailored to the
Small Starts program and is time-consuming, costly, and duplicative. They
suggested, for example, that FTA further streamline the Small Starts
application process by eliminating requests for information already
requested in required worksheets. We also found that the application is
not always tailored for Small Starts applicants and, in several instances,
requests duplicative information. FTA officials acknowledged that the
Small Starts application process could be further streamlined, and they
are working to decrease the burden. The project sponsors we interviewed,
especially those that have never applied for New Starts funding, would
also like more assistance from FTA on how to complete the application
process. According to FTA, 8 of the 12 applications for fiscal year 2008
were incomplete or the proposed projects were ineligible. In some
instances, project sponsors did not understand what constitutes an
eligible project. We found that although FTA's Small Starts guidance
outlines the elements required for a project to receive funding, such as
traffic signal priority/preemption, level boarding, or branding of the
proposed service, it does not explicitly identify as ineligible those
projects that have already begun to incrementally incorporate certain
Small Starts elements.
8Of the 54 project sponsors with a completed transit project, 35 reported
that their most recently completed project was eligible for New Starts
funding. Of those 35 sponsors, 10 did not apply to the program.
9An alternatives analysis (also known as a major investment study or a
multimodal corridor analysis) is conducted to evaluate a range of
transportation alternatives (including the appropriate modal and alignment
options) developed to address transportation problems and mobility needs
in a given corridor. The alternatives analysis is intended to provide
information to local officials on the benefits, costs, and impacts of
alternative transportation investments developed to address the purpose
and need for an improvement in the corridor.
10Thirty project sponsors that responded to our survey intend to seek New
Starts funding for their planned Small Starts or Very Small Starts
projects. However, 2 of those sponsors did not answer whether they had
previously applied for any New Starts funding.
This report contains three recommendations to the Secretary of
Transportation to improve the Small Starts program. To facilitate
information sharing about the program, FTA should develop a Small Starts
working group and conduct training for applicants. To ensure that project
sponsors better understand what types of projects are eligible for funding
as Small Starts, FTA should clarify in its guidance that a project must
include all of the required elements listed in the program guidance and
must also be providing new service. Finally, to ensure that the Small
Starts program provides a streamlined application process for applicants,
FTA should continue to refine its Small Starts application process.
The Department of Transportation, including FTA, reviewed a draft of this
report. FTA generally agreed with the report's findings and conclusions,
and agreed to consider our recommendations. They also provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Background
SAFETEA-LU authorized over $45 billion for federal transit programs,
including $8 billion for the New Starts program, from fiscal years 2005
through 2009. Under the New Starts program, FTA identifies and recommends
fixed-guideway transit projects for funding--including heavy, light, and
commuter rail; ferry; and certain bus projects (such as bus rapid
transit). SAFETEA-LU also made changes to the New Starts program,
including changes to its evaluation and rating process. FTA already has
implemented some of these changes and has undertaken efforts to address
the remaining changes.
FTA generally funds New Starts projects through FFGAs, which establish the
terms and conditions for federal participation in a New Starts project.
FFGAs also define 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. For a project to
obtain an FFGA, it must progress through a local or regional review of
alternatives and meet a number of federal requirements, including
requirements for information used in the New Starts evaluation and rating
process (see fig. 1). As required by federal statute, New Starts projects
must emerge from a regional, multimodal transportation planning process.
The first two phases of the New Starts process--systems planning and
alternatives analysis--address this requirement. The systems planning
phase identifies the transportation needs of a region, while the
alternatives analysis phase provides information on the benefits, costs,
and impacts of different options, such as rail lines or bus routes, in a
specific corridor versus in a region. The alternatives analysis phase
results in the selection of a locally preferred alternative, which is
intended to be the New Starts project that FTA evaluates for funding, as
required by statute. After a locally preferred alternative is selected,
the project sponsor submits an application to FTA for the project to enter
the preliminary engineering phase.11 When this phase is completed and
federal environmental requirements are satisfied, FTA may approve the
project's advancement into final design,12 after which FTA may approve the
project for an FFGA and proceed to construction, as provided for in
statute. FTA oversees grantees' management of projects from the
preliminary engineering phase through the construction phase and evaluates
the projects for advancement into each phase of the process. FTA also
evaluates the projects annually for the New Starts report to Congress.
11During the preliminary engineering phase, project sponsors refine the
design of the proposal, taking into consideration all reasonable design
alternatives and estimating their costs, benefits, and impacts (e.g.,
financial or environmental). According to FTA officials, to gain approval
for entry into preliminary engineering, a project must (1) be identified
through the alternatives analysis process, (2) be included in the region's
long-term transportation plan, (3) meet the statutorily defined project
justification and financial criteria, and (4) demonstrate that the
sponsors have the technical capability to manage the project during the
preliminary engineering phase. Some federal New Starts funding is
available to projects for preliminary engineering activities, if so
appropriated by Congress.
12Final 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: Planning and Development Process for New Starts Projects
Note: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-190,
codified at 42 U.S.C. chapter 55, requires detailed statements assessing
the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions
significantly affecting the environment, including grants funding
fixed-guideway projects.
To help inform administration and congressional decisions about which
projects should receive federal funds, FTA assigns ratings on the basis of
various statutorily defined evaluation criteria--including both local
financial commitment and project justification criteria--and then assigns
an overall rating (see fig. 2).13 These evaluation criteria reflect a
broad range of benefits and effects of the proposed project, such as
cost-effectiveness, as well as the ability of the project sponsor to fund
the project and finance the continued operation of its transit system. FTA
assigns the proposed project a rating for each criterion and then assigns
a summary rating for local financial commitment and project justification.
Lastly, FTA develops an overall project rating. Projects are rated at
several points during the New Starts process--as part of the evaluation
for entry into the preliminary engineering and the final design phases,
and yearly for inclusion in the New Starts annual report to Congress.
Figure 2: Project Evaluation Criteria for New Starts Projects
Note: This figure outlines the criteria FTA currently uses to evaluate New
Starts projects, but the criteria are subject to change as a result of
SAFETEA-LU changes that FTA has yet to make.
As required by statute, the administration uses the FTA evaluation and
rating process, along with the phase of development of New Starts
projects, to decide which projects to recommend to Congress for funding.14
Although many projects receive a summary rating that would make them
eligible for an FFGA, only a few are proposed for an FFGA in a given
fiscal year. FTA proposes a project for an FFGA when it believes that the
project will be able to meet the following conditions during the fiscal
year for which funding is proposed:
13The exceptions to the evaluation process are statutorily "exempt"
projects, which are those projects with requests for less than $25 million
in New Starts funding. Sponsors of these projects are not required to
submit project justification information (although FTA encourages the
sponsors to do so). FTA does not rate these projects. As a result, the
number of projects in the preliminary engineering or final design phases
may be greater than the number of projects evaluated and rated by FTA.
o All nonfederal project funding must be committed and available
for the project.
o The project must be in the final design phase and have
progressed far enough for uncertainties about costs, benefits, and
impacts (i.e., environmental or financial) to be minimized.
o The project must meet FTA's tests for readiness and technical
capacity, which confirm that there are no remaining cost, project
scope, or local financial commitment issues.
SAFETEA-LU introduced a number of changes to the New Starts
program, including some that affect the evaluation and rating
process that we have previously described in figure 1. For
example, SAFETEA-LU added economic development to the list of
evaluation criteria that FTA must use in evaluating and rating New
Starts projects and required FTA to issue notice and guidance each
time significant changes are made to the program. SAFETEA-LU also
established the Small Starts program, a new capital investment
grant program, simplifying the requirements imposed for those
seeking funding for lower-cost projects, such as bus rapid
transit, streetcar, and commuter rail projects. This program is
intended to advance smaller-scale projects through an expedited
and streamlined evaluation and rating process. Small Starts
projects require less than $75 million in federal funding and have
a total cost of less than $250 million. According to FTA's
guidance, Small Starts projects must also (1) meet the definition
of a fixed guideway for at least 50 percent of the project length
in the peak period15 or (2) be a corridor-based bus project with
the following minimum elements:
o substantial transit stations;
o traffic signal priority/preemption, to the extent, if any, that
there are traffic signals on the corridor;
o low-floor vehicles or level boarding;
o branding of the proposed service; and
o 10-minute peak/15-minute off-peak running times (i.e., headways)
or better while operating at least 14 hours per weekday.
14The administration's funding recommendations are made in the President's
budget and are included in FTA's annual New Starts report to Congress,
which is released each February in conjunction with the President's
budget.
15The fixed-guideway portion need not be contiguous, but it should be
located to result in faster and more reliable running times.
FTA has also subsequently introduced a separate eligibility
category within the Small Starts program for "Very Small Starts"
projects. Small Starts projects that qualify as Very Small Starts
are simple, low-cost projects that FTA has determined qualify for
a simplified evaluation and rating process. These projects must
meet the same eligibility requirements as Small Starts projects
and be located in corridors with more than 3,000 existing riders
per average weekday who will benefit from the proposed project. In
addition, the projects must have a total capital cost of less than
$50 million (for all project elements) and a per-mile cost of less
than $3 million, excluding rolling stock (e.g., train cars).
FTA evaluates Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects using
various financial and project justification criteria, including
cost-effectiveness and land use. For Small Starts and Very Small
Starts, SAFETEA-LU condensed the New Starts processes used for
large projects. Preliminary engineering and final design are
combined into one phase, referred to as "project development." FTA
may recommend proposed Small Starts and Very Small Starts for
funding after such projects have been approved to enter into
project development, are "ready" to implement their proposed
project, and continue to be rated at least "medium" for both
project justification and local financial commitment. FTA intends
to provide funding for Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects
through project construction grant agreements (PCGA), which are
similar to FFGAs (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Planning and Development Process for Small Starts and
Very Small Starts Projects
Note: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No.
91-190, codified at 42 U.S.C. chapter 55, requires detailed
statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives
to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment,
including grants funding fixed-guideway projects.
FTA Recommended 14 Projects for Fiscal Year 2008 Funding;
SAFETEA-LU Changes to Evaluation and Rating Process Remain
FTA evaluated and rated 18 New Starts, Small Starts, and Very
Small Starts projects for funding during the fiscal year 2008
evaluation cycle. Of the 14 New Starts projects that FTA evaluated
and rated, FTA recommended to Congress funding for 10 projects,
including 2 new projects, 2 pending projects, and 6 "other"
projects. FTA also evaluated and rated 4 Small Starts and Very
Small Starts applications, and recommended all of these projects
for funding. The fiscal year 2008 President's budget requests
$1.40 billion in New Starts funding, including $100 million for
the Small Starts program. Although SAFETEA-LU authorized $200
million each year for the Small Starts program, no funds have yet
been allocated to the program, due, in part, to its newness.
FTA Evaluated and Rated 14 New Starts Projects, and Recommended
Funding for 10 Projects
FTA's Annual Report on New Starts: Proposed Allocations of Funds
for Fiscal Year 2008 (annual report) identified 19 New Starts
projects in preliminary engineering and final design. FTA
evaluated and rated 14 of these projects, rating 2 as "high," 12
as "medium," and none as "low."16 Five additional projects were
statutorily exempt from being rated because their sponsors
requested less than $25 million in federal funding.
FTA recommended 10 New Starts projects for funding. Specifically,
FTA recommended 2 New Starts projects for proposed FFGAs. The
total capital cost of these 2 projects is estimated to be $6.30
billion, with the total federal New Starts share expected to about
one-third of this total. In addition, FTA recommended funding for
2 projects with pending FFGAs. The total capital cost of these 2
projects is estimated to be $1.13 billion, and the total federal
New Starts share is expected to be about one-half of the total
cost. FTA also recommended reserving $72.08 million in New Starts
funding for 6 "other" projects. FTA selected these "other"
projects using the decision rules that the projects have a
"medium" or higher rating; have a "medium" or higher
cost-effectiveness rating; and is expected to advance to final
design as of June 2008. According to FTA, no other project in
preliminary engineering or final design met these decision rules.
Similar to last year, FTA did not specify how much would be set
aside for the 6 "other" New Starts projects because it wanted to
ensure that the projects were moving forward as anticipated before
making specific funding recommendations to Congress. Reserving
funds for these projects without specifying a particular amount
for any given project will allow the administration to make "real
time" funding recommendations when Congress is making
appropriations decisions. FTA does not expect that all 6 "other"
projects will be recommended for funding in fiscal year 2008 (see
table 1).17
16In comparison, 20 projects were evaluated and rated in the fiscal year
2007 evaluation cycle, with 1 rated as "high," 17 as "medium," and 2 as
"low."
17In its annual report, FTA stated that 3 of these "other" projects are
expected to be in final design by spring 2007, assuming satisfactory
resolution of any outstanding issues. FTA also stated that the remaining 3
"other" projects are in final design, but because of uncertainties related
to their scopes, schedules, and/or budgets, FTA lacked confidence--at the
time the administration was preparing its fiscal year 2008 budget
proposal--that the projects would maintain their "medium" rating and/or
achieve the necessary cost-effectiveness rating to be recommended for an
FFGA.
Table 1: Projects Recommended for an FFGA and Other Funding, Fiscal Year
2008
Dollars in millions
New Starts
Total capital share of total
Project name Location costs capital costs
Proposed FFGA
Second Avenue Subway New York, NY $4,655.40 28%
Phase I
University Link LRT Seattle, WA 1,645.90 46
Extension
Total $6,301.30
Pending FFGA
West Corridor LRT Denver, CO $574.20 51%
South Corridor I-205 / Portland, OR 557.40 60
Portland Mall LRT
Total $1,131.60
Other project
New Britain - Hartford Hartford, CT $458.78 60%
Busway
Northstar Corridor Rail Minneapolis-Big Lake, 307.31 49
MN
North Corridor BRT Houston, TX 275.30 50
Southeast Corridor BRT Houston, TX 169.80 50
Norfolk LRT Norfolk, VA 232.10 55
Dulles Corridor Northern Virginia, VA 2,065.00 44
Metrorail Project -
Extension to Wiehle
Ave.
Total $3,508.29
Legend
BRT = bus rapid transit LRT = light rail transit
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
FTA Evaluated and Rated 4 Small Starts and Very Small Starts Projects, and
Recommended Funding for All 4 Projects
In the fall of 2006, FTA received 12 Small Starts and Very Small Starts
requests to enter project development for the fiscal year 2008 evaluation
cycle.18 A majority of these Small Starts and Very Small Starts requests
to enter project development were from project sponsors in the western and
southern regions of the country and all but 2 were for bus rapid transit
projects. FTA determined that only 1 Small Starts project and 3 Very Small
Starts projects were complete, ready, and eligible to be approved into
project development. FTA subsequently proposed these projects for a PCGA.
We found that the reasons for ineligible projects and incomplete
applications ranged from unclear program guidance to inconsistent
information provided by FTA. (See table 2 for more information on the
Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects for fiscal year 2008.)
Table 2: Small Starts and Very Small Starts Projects, Fiscal Year 2008
Dollars in
millions
New
Starts Project Application
Project name City SS/VSS Cost share eligible complete
Pioneer Parkway Springfield, SS $36.99 $29.59 Yes Yes
BRT OR
Pacific Hwy So King County, VSS 25.07 14.08 Yes Yes
BRT WA
Troost Corridor Kansas City, VSS 30.73 24.58 Yes Yes
BRT MO
Metro Rapid Los Angeles, VSS 25.66 16.68 Yes Yes
System Bus Gap CA
Closure Project
Van Nuys Los Angeles, VSS 8.00 6.84 No Yes
Corridor Rapid CA
Bus
Mountlake Seattle, WA VSS 31.72 9.92 No Yes
Terrace BRT
Station
Sepulveda Los Angeles, VSS 37.00 31.60 No Yes
Corridor Rapid CA
Bus
Mason Fort Collins, SS 68.28 54.62 Yes No
Transportation CO
Corridor (BRT)
Mountain Links Flagstaff, AZ VSS 17.73 13.76 Maybe No
BRT
Bus/Gondola Breckenridge, VSS 46.70 37.36 No No
Station CO
North-South Sarasota, FL SS 140.15 N/A Maybe No
T-Way BRT
Las Colinas APT Irving, TX SS N/A N/A No No
Connector
Legend
APT = area personal transit BRT = bus rapid transit SS = Small Starts
project that does not qualify as a Very Small Starts project VSS = Very
Small Starts project
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
Note: The numbers included in this table are what was recommended by FTA
in the New Starts annual report but the actual total capital cost and
percent of New Starts share is subject to change at the time FTA executes
the FFGA.
18Portland, Oregon, submitted an application for a Small Starts project in
early 2007. The application was for a $151 million streetcar project.
However, the application was submitted after FTA's deadline for inclusion
in its fiscal year 2008 New Starts annual report. Therefore, we did not
include this project in our review.
FTA evaluated and rated the 4 Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects
that were eligible and had complete applications. All 4 of these projects
received a "medium" rating. FTA approved the 4 Small Starts and Very Small
Starts projects for advancement into the project development phase on the
basis of its review, evaluation, and rating of their applications. The
total capital cost of these projects is estimated to be $118.4 million,
and the total Small Starts, including Very Small Starts, share is expected
to be $84.9 million. FTA has also recommended that $48.2 million be
allocated for "other" Small Starts projects that were not ready for
advancement into project development at the time applications were due,
but that may be ready for advancement later in fiscal year 2008.
The Administration's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Proposal Requests $1.40 Billion for
the New Starts Program
The administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal requests that $1.40
billion be made available for the New Starts program. This amount is $166
million less than the program's fiscal year 2007 appropriation. Figure 4
illustrates the planned uses of the administration's proposed fiscal year
2008 budget for New Starts, including the following:
o $863.74 million would be shared among the 11 New Starts projects
with existing FFGAs,
o $120 million would be shared between the 2 New Starts projects
with pending FFGAs,
o $210 million would be shared between the 2 New Starts projects
proposed for new FFGAs,
o $72.08 million would be shared by as many as 6 "other" New
Starts projects to continue their development, and
o $100 million would be used for new Small Starts and Very Small
Starts projects.
Figure 4: Planned Uses of the Administration's Proposed Fiscal
Year 2008 Funding for the Capital Investment Grants Program
Notes:
FTA is authorized to use up to 1 percent of amounts made available
for the New Starts program for project management oversight
activities.
Federal statute requires that specified amounts of New Starts
funds be set aside annually for projects in Alaska and Hawaii; new
fixed-guideway systems; and extensions to existing systems that
are ferryboats, ferryboat terminals, or approaches to ferryboat
terminals.
FTA is authorized to provide $5 million for each fiscal year from
2006 through 2009 for the Denali Commission, which provides
critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support
throughout Alaska, particularly in remote communities.
Although SAFETEA-LU authorized $200 million for the Small Starts
program each year from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, no funding
for the program has been allocated to date. For fiscal year 2007,
the administration's budget proposal requested $100 million for
the Small Starts program. Of the $1.57 billion allocated to the
New Starts program for fiscal year 2007, no funding was
appropriated for Small Starts projects. The administration's
budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 also requests $100 million
for the Small Starts program. FTA officials told us that they
requested less than the authorized amounts for the Small Starts
program for both fiscal years 2007 and 2008 because it has taken
time for them to establish the program, and because they did not
receive as many Small Starts applications as expected.
FTA Is Implementing Several Changes to the New Starts Evaluation and Rating
Process
SAFETEA-LU requires FTA to make several changes to the New Starts
evaluation and rating process, including adding economic
development as an evaluation criterion and changing the rating
scale. FTA is in the process of implementing these changes. For
example, table 3 describes the act's changes to the evaluation and
rating process and the status of their implementation, as of July
2007.
Table 3: Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes to the New Starts Evaluation
and Rating Process, as of July 2007
SAFETEA-LU Status of Remaining
provision Description implementation action(s)
Revise New Starts The overall project FTA used a 3-point None.
overall rating is based on a project- rating scale
project-rating 5-point scale of for the fiscal years
scale "high," 2007 and 2008
"medium-high," evaluation and rating
"medium," cycles, but changed
"medium-low,"and ratings to "high,"
"low." Projects are "medium," and "low."
required to receive FTA's February 2007
an overall rating of policy guidance
"medium" or higher to proposed implementing
be recommended for the 5-point scale
funding. starting in May 2007.
Identify The Secretary of FTA's January 2006 Rulemaking
reliability of Transportation is policy guidance for needed to
cost estimate and required to analyze, New Starts and establish
ridership evaluate, and advanced notice of requirement.
forecast as consider the proposed rulemaking
considerations in reliability of the for Small Starts
evaluation forecasting methods proposed an approach
process used by New Starts for incorporating
project sponsors and reliability into
their contractors to project evaluations.
estimate costs and
ridership.
Add economic Projects will be FTA considers Rulemaking
development evaluated on the economic development needed to
criterion to basis of a review of as an unweighted solicit
evaluation their effects on "other factor" comments on
process local economic criterion in the and finalize
development. evaluation process. measures for
FTA has sought economic
comments from various development.
parties on the
appropriate measures
for economic
development.
Identify land use Projects will be FTA considers land None.
as a specific evaluated on the use as a weighted
evaluation basis of a review of criterion in the
criterion their public evaluation process.
transportation
supportive land-use
policies and future
patterns.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
Although FTA has taken steps to implement changes required by SAFETEA-LU,
the project sponsors we interviewed frequently expressed concern that FTA
has not yet fully incorporated economic development into its evaluation.
Specifically, FTA currently assigns a weight of 50 percent each to
cost-effectiveness and land use to calculate a project's overall rating.
The other four statutorily defined criteria, including economic
development, mobility improvements, operating efficiencies, and
environmental benefits, are not weighted. As described in table 3, to
reflect SAFETEA-LU's increased emphasis on economic development, FTA has
encouraged project sponsors to submit information that they believe
demonstrates the impact of their proposed transit investments on economic
development. According to FTA, this information is considered as an "other
factor" in the evaluation process, but is not weighted. However, FTA
officials told us that few project sponsors submit information on their
projects' economic development benefits for consideration as an "other
factor." We previously reported that FTA's reliance on two evaluation
criteria to calculate a project's overall rating is drifting away from the
multiple-measure evaluation and rating process outlined in statute and
current New Starts regulations.19 Thus, we recommended that FTA (1)
improve the measures used to evaluate New Starts projects so that all of
the statutorily defined criteria can be used in determining a project's
overall rating or (2) provide a crosswalk in the regulations showing clear
linkages between the criteria outlined in the statute and the criteria and
measures used in the evaluation and rating process in the upcoming
rulemaking process.
Many of the project sponsors and all of the industry groups we interviewed
also stated that they believe certain types of projects are penalized in
the evaluation and rating process because of the weights assigned to the
different evaluation criteria. Specifically, the project sponsors and
industry groups said that by not weighting economic development, the
evaluation and rating process does not consider an important benefit of
some transit projects. They also expressed concern that the measure FTA
uses to determine cost-effectiveness does not adequately capture the
benefits of certain types of fixed-guideway projects--such as
streetcars--that have shorter systems and provide enhanced access to a
dense urban core, rather than transport commuters from longer distances
(e.g., light or heavy rail). Project sponsors and an industry group we
interviewed further noted that FTA's cost-effectiveness measure has
influenced some project sponsors to change their project designs from more
traditional fixed-guideway systems (e.g., light rail or streetcars) to bus
rapid transit, expressly to receive a more favorable cost-effectiveness
rating from FTA.
19GAO, Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the
Communication and Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts Program,
[23]GAO-05-674 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005).
According to FTA officials, they understand the importance of economic
development to the transit community and the concerns raised by project
sponsors, and said they are currently working to develop an appropriate
economic development measure. FTA is currently soliciting input from
industry groups on how to measure economic development, studying possible
options, and planning to describe how it will incorporate economic
development into the project justification criteria in its upcoming
rulemaking. FTA officials also stated that incorporating economic
development into the evaluation process before issuing a regulation could
potentially create significant uncertainty about the evaluation and rating
process for project sponsors. Furthermore, they agreed with our previous
recommendation that this issue should be addressed as part of their
upcoming rulemaking, which they expect to be completed in April 2008. As
part of its upcoming rulemaking, FTA will also conduct several outreach
efforts with project sponsors and industry groups.
FTA officials noted that they have had difficulty developing an economic
development measure that both accurately measures benefits and
distinguishes competing projects. For example, FTA officials said that
separating economic development benefits from land-use benefits--another
New Starts evaluation criterion--is difficult. In addition, these
officials noted that many economic development benefits result from direct
benefits (e.g., travel time savings). Therefore, including economic
development benefits in the evaluation could lead to double-counting the
benefits FTA already measures and uses to evaluate projects. Furthermore,
FTA officials noted that some economic development impacts may represent
transfers between regions, rather than a net benefit for the nation,
thereby raising questions about the usefulness of these benefits for a
national comparison of projects.20 We have also reported on many of the
same challenges of measuring and forecasting indirect benefits, such as
economic development and land-use impacts.21 For example, we noted that
certain benefits are often double-counted when transportation projects are
evaluated. We also noted that indirect benefits, such as economic
development, may be more correctly considered transfers of direct user
benefits or of economic activity from one area to another. Therefore,
estimating and adding such indirect benefits to direct benefits could
constitute double-counting and lead to overestimating a project's
benefits. Despite these challenges, we have previously reported that it is
important to consider economic development and land-use impacts, since
they often drive local transportation investment choices.22
Changes in the Size and Composition of the New Starts Pipeline Are Likely Due to
Different Factors
The number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has decreased since the
fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, and the types of projects in
the pipeline have changed. FTA and project sponsors attributed these
changes to different factors, with FTA officials citing their increased
scrutiny of applications and projects, and the project sponsors pointing
to the complex, time-consuming, and costly nature of the New Starts
process. FTA is considering different ideas on how to improve the New
Starts process, some of which may address the concerns identified by
project sponsors.
The Number of Projects in the New Starts Pipeline Has Decreased, and the Types
of and Funding for Projects Have Changed
Since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle, the number of projects in the
New Starts pipeline--which includes projects that are in the preliminary
engineering or final design phases--has decreased by more than one-half,
from 48 projects in the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle to 19 projects
in the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle. Similarly, the number of
projects FTA has evaluated, rated, and recommended for New Starts FFGAs
has decreased since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle.
Specifically, as shown in table 4, the number of projects that FTA
evaluated and rated decreased by about two-thirds, from 41 projects to 14
projects.
20Indirect benefits, such as economic development, may represent transfers
of economic activity from one area to another. While such a transfer may
represent real benefits for the jurisdiction making the transportation
investment, it is not a real economic benefit from a national perspective
because the economic activity is simply occurring in a different location.
21GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information
on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results,
[24]GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005).
22GAO-05-172.
Table 4: Number of Projects in the Pipeline, and Evaluated and Rated, by
Fiscal Year
Number of projects in the Number of projectsevaluated and
Fiscal year pipelinea ratedb
2001 48 41
2002 40 26
2003 43 25
2004 52 27
2005 37 23
2006 30 18
2007 22 18
2008 19 14
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
aData include projects that were evaluated and rated for the fiscal year
evaluation cycle as well as "exempt" projects.
bData include projects in final design and preliminary engineering, both
recommended and not recommended, but do not include "exempt" projects and
those categorized by FTA as "not rated."
Although the number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has decreased,
the amount of funding FTA has requested for the program remained
relatively the same, while the average dollar amount per FFGA has
increased since fiscal year 2001. Adjusted to current dollars, FTA has
requested nearly the same funding amounts for the program during this time
frame, having requested $1.22 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $1.37
billion in fiscal year 2008. Twelve projects were recommended for FFGAs in
fiscal year 2001, while only 2 were recommended for fiscal year 2008.
However, in the fiscal years between 2001 and 2008, the number of projects
recommended for FFGAs varied from as many as 5 to as few as 2 for any
given fiscal year. Furthermore, we found that the average dollar amount
requested for proposed FFGAs has increased since fiscal year 2001. When
adjusted to current dollars, the average dollar amount of an FFGA proposed
in fiscal year 2001 was about $20 million, but for fiscal year 2008 it was
$103 million (see table 5).23
Table 5: Total Dollar Amounts and Numbers of New Starts FFGAs, by Fiscal
Year
Amounts in 2007 dollars
Total number ofproposed Average dollar amount requested per
Fiscal year FFGAs proposed FFGAa
2001 12 $20,338,288
2002 5 19,052,155
2003 2 30,568,123
2004 4 63,658,035
2005 5 62,039,958
2006 4 150,450,331
2007 5 60,520,000
2008 2 103,042,198
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
aThese dollar values are only for the year in which the project was
proposed for an FFGA. Dollar values were adjusted for inflation, using the
gross domestic product (chained) price index, with fiscal year 2007 as the
reference year. Dollar values through fiscal year 2006 were calculated
using averages of quarterly indexes from the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, and National
Income and Product Accounts, table 1.1.4 as of January 31, 2007. Dollar
values for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 are from Congressional Budget Office
projections, The Budget and Economic Outlook (Washington, D.C.: January
2007), 136-137.
The composition of the pipeline--that is, the types of projects in the
pipeline--has also changed since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle.
During fiscal years 2001 through 2007, light rail and commuter rail were
the more prevalent modes for projects in the pipeline. In fiscal year
2008, bus rapid transit became the most common transit mode for projects
in the New Starts pipeline (see fig. 5). The increase in bus rapid transit
projects is likely due to a number of factors, including foreign
countries' positive experiences with this type of transit system. To be
eligible, a corridor-based bus project must (1) operate in a separate
right-of-way dedicated for public transit use for a substantial portion of
the project or (2) represent a substantial investment in a defined
corridor. Furthermore, medium and smaller project sponsors may be
expressing more interest in the New Starts program, including Small
Starts, because bus rapid transit may serve as a more affordable and
cost-effective alternative to other fixed-guideway options.
23FTA officials told us that although the dollars per project have
increased over time, the share or percentage of New Starts funding per
project has decreased. We did not verify this information.
Figure 5: Types of Projects in the New Starts Pipeline, by Fiscal Year
Although bus rapid transit projects are now more common than commuter or
light rail projects, they represent a small amount of the total cost for
all projects in the pipeline. We found that bus rapid transit accounts for
about 12 percent of the total cost of all projects in the New Starts
pipeline, while commuter rail (36 percent), heavy rail (30 percent), and
light rail (22 percent) account for greater shares--which is not
surprising, given that bus rapid transit projects are often less expensive
than rail projects. However, although bus rapid transit projects account
for a smaller share of the total costs, we found that project sponsors
seek higher funding shares for these projects. In fiscal year 2008,
project sponsors sought, on average, New Starts funding to cover about 58
percent of the total cost of bus rapid transit projects, whereas they
sought about 49 percent for commuter rail projects, about 50 percent for
light rail projects, and about 38 percent for heavy rail projects.
FTA and Project Sponsors Attributed the Decrease in the New Starts Pipeline to
Different Factors
FTA and project sponsors identified different factors for the decrease in
the New Starts pipeline. FTA officials cited their increased scrutiny of
applications to help ensure that only the strongest projects enter the
pipeline, and said they had taken steps to remove projects from the
pipeline that were inactive, not advancing, or did not adequately address
identified problems. According to FTA officials, these projects consume
FTA oversight resources and congressional funding without demonstrating
evidence of progress. FTA officials said they believed projects had been
progressing slowly through the pipeline in recent years and, therefore,
needed encouragement to move forward or be removed from the pipeline.
Along these lines, since fiscal year 2004, FTA has issued warnings to
project sponsors that alert them to specific project deficiencies that
must be corrected by a specified date for the project to advance through
the pipeline. If the deficiency is not corrected, FTA removes the project
from the pipeline. To date, FTA has issued warnings for 13 projects. Three
projects have only recently received a warning and their status is to be
determined; 3 projects have adequately addressed the deficiency identified
by FTA; 1 project was removed by FTA for failing to address the identified
deficiency; and 6 projects were withdrawn from the pipeline by the project
sponsors. FTA officials told us that project sponsors are generally aware
of FTA's efforts to better manage projects in the pipeline.
Although FTA has taken steps to remove inactive or stalled projects from
the pipeline, FTA officials noted that most projects have been withdrawn
by their project sponsors, not FTA. According to FTA data, 23 projects
were withdrawn from the New Starts pipeline between calendar years 2001
and 2007. Of these, 16 projects were withdrawn from the pipeline at the
request of project sponsors; 6 were removed from the pipeline in response
to efforts initiated by FTA; and 1 was removed from the pipeline at
congressional direction.24 Of the 16 projects that were withdrawn by
project sponsors, the most common reasons were that the project was either
reconfigured (the project scope or design was significantly changed) or
reconsidered, or that the local financial commitment was not demonstrated.
Similarly, FTA initiated the removal of 4 of 6 projects for lack of local
financial commitments, often demonstrated by a failed referendum at the
local level. Of the 23 projects withdrawn from the New Starts pipeline, 3
were expected to reenter the pipeline at a later date.
24The 16 projects withdrawn by their sponsors and the 6 projects withdrawn
by FTA include the 7 projects that received a warning and were
subsequently withdrawn from the pipeline by the project sponsors or FTA.
The project sponsors we interviewed provided other reasons for the
decrease in the number of projects in the New Starts pipeline. The most
common reasons cited by project sponsors were that the New Starts process
is too complex, costly, and time-consuming:
o Complexity and cost of the New Starts process: The majority of
project sponsors we interviewed told us that the complexity of the
requirements--including those for financial commitment projections
and travel forecasts, which require extensive analysis and
economic modeling--creates disincentives to entering the New
Starts pipeline. Sponsors also told us that the expense involved
in fulfilling the application requirements, including the costs of
hiring additional staff and private grant consultants, discourages
some project sponsors with fewer resources from applying for New
Starts funding. Furthermore, concerns about the cost of applying
to the New Starts program come at a time when project sponsors
expect to receive less funding for their projects from the
program. Specifically, for recently completed transit projects
that received an FFGA, the project sponsors we surveyed reported
that, on average, the federal government funded approximately 60
percent of the total project costs via the New Starts program. For
ongoing projects, sponsors reported that they expect to receive an
average of about 50 percent of the total project costs from the
New Starts program.
o Time required to complete the New Starts process: More than
one-half of the project sponsors we interviewed said that the
application process is time-consuming or leads to project delays,
although sponsors could not provide specifics on how long various
components of the process contributed to a specific delay. One
project sponsor told us that constructing a project with New
Starts funding (as opposed to without such funding) delays the
timeline for the project by as much as several years, which in
turn leads to increased project costs since inflation and expenses
from labor and materials increase with the delay. The lengthy
nature of the New Starts process is due, at least in part, to the
rigorous and systematic evaluation and rating process established
by law--which, as we have previously noted, could serve as a model
for other transportation programs. In addition, FTA officials
noted that most project delays are caused by the project sponsor,
not FTA. These delays are attributable to the sponsor's inability
to obtain local funding commitments, local decisions to
significantly modify the project's scope or alignment, or
unanticipated environmental impacts.
Other reasons for the decrease in the pipeline that were cited by
the project sponsors we interviewed include that the project
sponsors are finding alternative sources of funding, such as other
federal funds or state, local, or private funding. One project
sponsor remarked that sponsors try to avoid the New Starts process
by obtaining a congressional designation, so that they can skip
the New Starts application process and construct their project
more quickly. In addition, three other project sponsors said that
since the New Starts process is well-established and outcomes are
predictable, potential project sponsors do not even apply to enter
the pipeline because they realize their projects will not fare
well against the New Starts criteria and, thus, are unlikely to
receive New Starts funding.
Our survey found similar reasons that project sponsors provided
for the decline in the New Starts pipeline. Among the project
sponsors we surveyed with completed transit projects, the most
common reasons given for not applying to the New Starts program
were that the process is lengthy or that the sponsor wanted to
move the project along faster than could be done in the New Starts
process. About two-thirds of these project sponsors reported that
their most recent project was eligible for New Starts funding, yet
more than one-fourth of them did not apply to the program.25
Instead, these project sponsors reported using other federal
funding and state, local, and private funding--with other federal
and local funding the most commonly used and private funding the
least commonly used--to fund their most recently completed
project. In addition, we found that almost two-thirds of the large
project sponsors we surveyed applied to the New Starts program for
their most recently completed project, while only about one-third
of medium and smaller project sponsors applied.26 Other reasons
these project sponsors cited for not applying to the program
include sufficient funding from other sources to complete the
project, concern about jeopardizing other projects in the
pipeline, time and resources needed to complete application each
year are too great, and difficulty in understanding and completing
the process and in understanding the program's eligibility
requirements.
FTA is considering and implementing different means of improving
the New Starts process--many of which would address the concerns
identified by project sponsors. For example, FTA has recognized
that the process can be lengthy, and in 2006 FTA commissioned a
study to examine, among other issues, opportunities for
accelerating and simplifying its implementation of the New Starts
program. According to FTA officials, one of the study's
recommendations was to use project development agreements to
solidify New Starts project schedules and improve FTA's timeline
for reviews. FTA officials told us that they are pursuing this
recommendation, and have already implemented project schedules for
three New Starts projects in the pipeline. Other key
recommendations for FTA contained in the study include developing
a simple "road map" that concisely identifies requirements for
navigating through preliminary engineering and final design, more
clearly defining entry criteria for each phase of the process,
simplifying the travel forecasting modeling, and clarifying and
consistently implementing the New Starts technical guidance and
policies. The FTA Administrator has publicly stated that FTA will
continue to look for ways to further improve the program.
25Of the 54 project sponsors with a completed transit project, 35 reported
that their most recently completed project was eligible for New Starts
funding. Of those 35 sponsors, 10 did not apply to the program.
26For the purposes of our survey, we defined "small project sponsors" as
those with an annual ridership of less than 10 million trips; "medium
project sponsors" as those with an annual ridership of between 10 and 50
million trips, inclusive; and "large project sponsors" as those with an
annual ridership of more than 50 million trips.
In June 2007, FTA issued in the Federal Register a number of
changes to the New Starts and Small Starts processes, including
streamlining through the elimination of a number of reporting
requirements. For example, FTA will no longer require project
sponsors to submit information on operating efficiencies and
environmental benefits, nor will they be required to submit
information for evaluation for FTA's annual report if their
project is not likely to be ready for a funding recommendation. In
addition, the resubmission of information on land-use patterns for
the annual report will now be optional for project sponsors. Other
changes to the processes include expanding the evaluation criteria
to a five-tiered rating scale, and considering a project's
innovative contractual agreements in the evaluation and rating of
the operating finance plan for projects. The guidance also states
that under the evaluation of "other factors," if a project is a
principal element of a congestion management strategy, this could
increase a project's overall rating. Projects could also increase
their overall rating by reporting economic development; therefore,
FTA encourages project sponsors to submit such information.
Future Demand for New Starts Program Expected; Project Sponsors Seek
Small Starts Program Improvements
Our survey and interviews of project sponsors indicated that there
will likely be a future demand for New Starts funding. Survey
respondents told us that they plan to seek New Starts funding for
101 of 141 future planned New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small
Starts transit projects. While FTA has taken steps to streamline
the Small Starts program as envisioned by SAFETEA-LU, project
sponsors find the application process to be time-consuming and too
costly to complete. In addition, project sponsors we interviewed,
especially those that have never applied for New Starts funding,
find the Small Starts interim guidance difficult to understand and
would like more assistance from FTA on how to complete the
application process.
Project Sponsors Indicated That Future Demand for New Starts Funding
Is Likely
Our survey of project sponsors indicated that there is likely to
be a future demand for New Starts funding. About 46 percent (77 of
168) of the project sponsors we surveyed reported that they had a
total of 141 planned transit projects, which we defined as
projects currently undergoing an alternatives analysis or other
corridor-based planning study. According to the project sponsors,
they will likely seek New Starts funding for almost three-fourths
(72 percent, or 101) of these 141 planned New Starts, Small
Starts, and Very Small Starts projects. More specifically, they
will likely seek New Starts funding for 57 of the planned New
Starts projects, 30 of the planned Small Starts projects, and 14
of the planned Very Small Starts projects (see fig. 6).27 Although
the project sponsors we surveyed indicated that they were
considering a range of alternative project types in their
planning, the most commonly cited alternatives were bus rapid
transit and light rail.
27For the remaining 40 planned transit projects, respondents said either
that they were not planning to apply for New Starts funding, or that they
did not know whether they planned to apply.
Figure 6: Project Sponsors' Expected Use of New Starts Funding for
Planned New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Projects
Note: "Other" refers to the project sponsors we surveyed that
selected "None of the above" in response to the type of federal
funding, if any, they are likely to request for their planned
project(s).
All of the Small Starts and Very Small Starts project sponsors we
interviewed viewed the new Small Starts program favorably. These
project sponsors told us that they appreciated the emphasis FTA
has placed on smaller transit projects through its new programs
and the steps FTA has taken to streamline the application process
for the programs. The project sponsors also told us that the Small
Starts program, including the Very Small Starts eligibility
category, address a critical and unmet funding need, and that they
believe their projects will be more competitive under these
programs because they are vying for funding with projects and
agencies of similar size. FTA officials told us that they have
been responsive in providing assistance on the program when
contacted.
Our survey results also indicated that, through its Small Starts
program, FTA is attracting more project sponsors than before,
including those that have not previously applied for the New
Starts program and also those that would not otherwise be applying
for New Starts funds. For example, of the 30 project sponsors that
intend to seek New Starts funding for their planned Small Starts
and Very Small Starts projects,28 13 have not previously applied
for New Starts funding.29 Project sponsors also indicated that the
Small Starts program, including the eligibility category for Very
Small Starts projects, has influenced how they plan for their
ongoing projects, which are projects that have completed the
alternatives analysis phase and have moved forward into the later
stages of development, such as preliminary engineering or final
design. Of the ongoing Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects
for which respondents indicated they would be requesting New
Starts funding, project sponsors definitively reported that they
would have sought New Starts funding for only about one-quarter of
those ongoing projects if the Small Starts program, including the
eligibility category for Very Small Starts projects, had not been
established.
Project Sponsors Would Like FTA to Further Streamline the Small
Starts Program
In implementing the Small Starts program, FTA has taken steps to
streamline the application and evaluation and rating processes for
smaller-scale transit projects, as envisioned by SAFETEA-LU.
According to our analysis of the numbers and types of requirements
for the New Starts and Small Starts application processes, the
Small Starts process has fewer requirements. For example, in the
categories of travel forecasting, project justification, and local
financial commitment, the number of requirements was reduced. FTA
also established a simplified financial evaluation process for
Small Starts, which reduced the reporting burden for qualified
projects. In addition, FTA allows simplified methods for travel
forecasts that predict transportation benefits, and it reduced the
number of requirements for the Small Starts application process.
For example, the Small Starts application process is about
one-quarter fewer requirements than those for the New Starts
program. FTA also established the Very Small Starts process, which
has even fewer application requirements than the Small Starts
program. This process expedites the reporting, evaluation, and
advancement of simple and inexpensive projects. FTA's steps have
greatly reduced the amount of information to be submitted for each
of the specific requirements (see table 6).
28Planned projects are in the earliest stages of development (i.e.,
alternatives analysis or a similar corridor-based planning study). The 30
project sponsors that responded to our survey intend to seek New Starts
funding for their planned Small Starts or Very Small Starts projects.
However, 2 of those sponsors did not answer whether they had previously
applied for New Starts funding.
29These projects may or may not currently be in FTA's pipeline of New
Starts or Small Starts projects.
Table 6: New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts
Application Requirements
Number of reporting requirements, by
project type
Very Small
Category of reporting requirements New Starts Small Starts Starts
Project background and maps 3 3 4
Travel forecasts 7 7a 0
Costs (operations, maintenance, and
capital) 7 5 5
Project justification criteria 12 6a 1a
Local financial commitment 4 3a 3
Certification of technical methods
and planning assumptions 1 1 0
Make-the-case document 1 1 1
Total 35 26 14
Source: GAO analysis of the New Starts, Small Starts, and Very
Small Starts application requirements.
aData indicate that in this category, whether the number of
requirements has remained the same or decreased, FTA has greatly
reduced the amount of information to be submitted for each
specific requirement. For example, in the travel forecast
category, both the New Starts and Small Starts programs have seven
application requirements, but the Small Starts program requires
substantially less information for each requirement.
Despite these efforts, many of the project sponsors we interviewed
find the Small Starts application process time-consuming and too
costly to complete, and would like to see FTA further streamline
the process. Frequently, project sponsors said that the current
Small Starts application process takes as long and costs as much
to complete as the New Starts application process, even though the
planned projects cost less. For example, a project sponsor that
applied to the Small Starts program told us that FTA asks
applicants to submit templates used in the New Starts application
process that call for information not relevant for a Small Starts
project, such as travel forecasts beyond the opening year, which
are not required for the Small Starts program. The project sponsor
suggested that FTA develop a separate set of templates for the
Small Starts program that would ask only for Small Starts-related
information. FTA officials told us that in these cases, they would
not expect project sponsors to provide the additional information
that is not required. Another project sponsor we interviewed told
us that although FTA tried to streamline the process by requiring
ridership projections only for the opening year of Small Starts
projects, the environmental impact statement still mandates the
development of multiyear ridership projections. Such extensive
ridership projections take a considerable amount of work, staff
time, and funding to produce. FTA officials explained to us that
the level of ridership projections required is dependent on the
nature of the project. Several other project sponsors that applied
to the Small Starts program, including sponsors that used the Very
Small Starts process, expressed additional concerns about having
to provide duplicate information, such as project finance and
capital cost data that can be found in other required worksheets.
FTA officials do not believe that such duplicate information is
burdensome for project sponsors to submit. Nonetheless,
smaller-sized entities that lack New Starts experience, in-house
expertise, and resources may find the process burdensome.
In reviewing the Small Starts application process requirements, we
also found that the application is not always tailored for Small
Starts applicants and, in several instances, requests duplicate
information. FTA officials acknowledged that the Small Starts
application process could be further streamlined and said that
they are working to decrease the burden by, for example, reducing
land-use reporting requirements, simplifying the rating process,
and developing specific Small Starts templates. However, FTA
officials noted that some requirements are statutorily defined or
reflect industry-established planning principles. For example,
federal statute requires that projects, even Small Starts
projects, emerge from an alternatives analysis that considers
various options to address the transportation problem at hand.
Therefore, only certain aspects of the process can be streamlined.
Project Sponsors Seek Additional Application Assistance and Consistent
Information from FTA on Small Starts
The project sponsors we interviewed, especially those that have
never applied for New Starts funding, would like more assistance
from FTA in completing the application process because some find
the interim guidance difficult to understand. Before the Small
Starts and Very Small Starts application deadline, FTA provided
initial outreach to applicants. Despite this outreach, 8 of the 12
applications were incomplete or sought funding for ineligible
projects. In some cases, the project sponsors that submitted these
applications had no past experience with the New Starts process,
limiting their familiarity with the information required for the
application. To help address this issue, FTA officials told us
that, in one instance, they provided a Very Small Starts project
sponsor with a copy of a submitted application from another
project sponsor (with New Starts program experience) to use as a
guide. The Very Small Starts project sponsor found the application
to be helpful in preparing its own application. FTA officials told
us that they plan to host an informal meeting of potential Small
Starts project sponsors later this calendar year. In addition,
some project sponsors did not understand what constitutes an
eligible project. For example, one project sponsor we interviewed
submitted an application for the construction of a new station.
However, FTA officials told us that the construction of a station
did not meet the definition of a corridor-based project, as
required. Another project sponsor we interviewed told us that it
believed FTA deemed its two Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects ineligible because service was already being provided on
the proposed route (and, therefore, the proposed service would not
be new). In response, FTA officials told us that these projects
were in fact ineligible because they already had incremental
developments, including some of the elements FTA requires for
Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects, such as traffic
signal priority or preemption and branding of the proposed
service. Yet, these project sponsors were unaware that the
incorporation of some of these elements into their existing
service rendered their project ineligible.30 We found that
although FTA's Small Starts guidance outlines the elements
required for a project to receive funding, it does not explicitly
state that projects that have already begun to incrementally
incorporate these elements are ineligible. When we discussed this
concern with FTA officials, they told us that they might consider
asking project sponsors to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of
the preexisting elements to allow for such projects to be eligible
for Small Starts funding.
The project sponsors we interviewed said they need more
consistent, reliable information from FTA. We found that on
several occasions, FTA headquarters and regional offices provided
project sponsors with inconsistent information, which contributed
to the sponsors' submitting applications for ineligible projects
and submitting incomplete applications. For example, two project
sponsors said they thought their projects were eligible after
talking with FTA regional officials. However, after submitting
their applications, these project sponsors learned from FTA
headquarters officials that their projects were ineligible.
Furthermore, one project sponsor stated that officials from a
regional FTA office said there was no need to submit a separate
application for the Small Starts program, since the sponsor had
previously applied to the New Starts program. Rather, FTA regional
officials said the project sponsor needed to submit only a few
additional pieces of information. However, after the project
sponsor sent this information, along with a letter to FTA
requesting that the application be transferred from the New Starts
program to the Small Starts program, FTA headquarters officials
responded that the application was incomplete. The study of the
New Starts process that FTA recently commissioned found similar
inconsistencies in the information provided by officials in its
regional offices and headquarters. Therefore, the study
recommended that FTA develop internal standard operating
procedures for New Starts staff that formalize the duties and
responsibilities for each position. In addition, the study
recommended implementing Web-based technology to standardize the
communication and enforcement of policies across the program, and
having FTA establish a formal policy for responding to every
project sponsor's correspondence with a formal response or written
notification. FTA officials told us that they understand the need
to ensure consistent information, and that they are already
working on developing standard operating procedures for New Starts
staff, as recommended in the study.
30According to FTA's guidance, Small Starts projects must (1) meet the
definition of a fixed guideway for at least 50 percent of the project
length in the peak period, (2) be a fixed-guideway project, or (3) be a
corridor-based bus project with the following minimum elements:
substantial transit stations; traffic signal priority or preemption, to
the extent, if any, that there are traffic signals on the corridor;
low-floor vehicles or level boarding; branding of the proposed service;
and 10-minute peak and 15-minute off-peak running times (i.e., headways)
or better while operating at least 14 hours per weekday.
Conclusions
The recent decrease in the New Starts pipeline does not appear to
be a reflection of diminishing interest in the program. In fact,
our survey showed that there will likely be substantial demand for
New Starts funding in the future if most potential project
sponsors follow through on their plans for new transit projects.
Rather, the decrease is likely due to a combination of factors,
including FTA's increased scrutiny of projects, project sponsors'
perceptions of the process as lengthy and too complex, and project
sponsors' uncertainty given the recent changes made to the New
Starts program. As FTA moves forward with the rulemaking process
for New Starts and Small Starts, it will have to balance both the
need to make the programs accessible to a range of project
sponsors--both large and small agencies--and the need to maintain
the rigor of the evaluation and rating process.
Although project sponsors expressed substantial interest in both
the New Starts and the Small Starts programs, they also identified
a number of ways to improve the programs. In particular, project
sponsors raised specific concerns about the Small Starts program.
Because the Small Starts program is in its first few years of
implementation, it is not surprising that it may experience
growing pains. Some of the project sponsors may find their
concerns about the program addressed as they become more familiar
and comfortable with it and as a number of implementation details
are finalized through the upcoming rulemaking process. However, we
believe that the relatively low number of Small Starts
applications received to date and the number of project sponsors
submitting ineligible applications due to unclear guidance suggest
that additional FTA action is warranted, including further
streamlining the Small Starts program, providing additional
information about the program through training and a working
group, and clarifying eligibility guidance. Although FTA has taken
some steps to further streamline the Small Starts program,
continued refinement is needed to ensure a simplified and
expedited evaluation process. FTA's upcoming rulemaking, including
the associated outreach efforts, will provide an opportunity for
FTA to continue to streamline the Small Starts program, provide
additional training, and clarify guidance.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To improve the Small Starts program, we are recommending that the
Secretary of Transportation direct the FTA Administrator to take
the following three actions:
o To increase awareness and information sharing about the Small
Starts, including Very Small Starts, application process, FTA
should conduct training (in-person, Web-based, or both) for
potential applicants and facilitate the development of a working
group or community of practice.
o To ensure that project sponsors better understand the types of
corridor bus projects that are eligible for Small Starts funding,
FTA should clarify in its Small Starts program guidance that bus
rapid transit projects cannot already include any of the required
elements for eligibility, or if they do, must demonstrate the
cost-effectiveness of the preexisting elements.
o To ensure that the Small Starts program provides a streamlined
application process as envisioned by SAFETEA-LU, FTA should
continue to refine this process as outlined in the Small Starts
program guidance. Examples of refinements include collapsing the
project finance or cost worksheets to minimize the duplication of
data to be submitted and providing specific guidance on how, when
applicable, Small Starts applicants can conduct a simplified
alternatives analysis.
Agency Comments
We provided DOT, including FTA, with a draft copy of this report
for review and comment. DOT generally agreed with the report's
findings and conclusions, and agreed to consider our
recommendations. DOT also provided technical clarifications, which
we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the 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 also will make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in
this report, please contact me on (202) 512-2834 or at
[email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Individuals making key contributions to this report are
listed in appendix II.
Katherine Siggerud
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To address our objectives, we reviewed the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) guidance on the New Starts and Small Starts
programs; the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Small
Starts; and the provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and prior
law that address the New Starts program. We reviewed this
legislation to identify changes that have occurred in the New
Starts program and to gather information on FTA's new Small Starts
program, which we used, in part, to analyze the quantitative
differences in application requirements between this program and
the New Starts program. Furthermore, we reviewed the FTA's Annual
Reports on New Starts for fiscal years 2001 through 2008 to
determine trends in the New Starts pipeline (those projects in
preliminary engineering and final design) for each year, including
the number of projects evaluated, rated, and recommended for
funding; the modes of projects in the pipeline; and the amount of
New Starts funding requested for projects, and the total costs of
proposed projects.
We also interviewed FTA officials and industry associations to
gain their insights on past, current, and future aspects of the
programs. We interviewed FTA officials who work extensively with
the New Starts and Small Starts programs to gain a better
understanding of the programs. In addition, we interviewed three
industry associations that represent project sponsors that
participate closely in these programs: the American Public
Transportation Association, the New Starts Working Group, and
Reconnecting America. Furthermore, we attended an American Public
Transportation Association legislative workshop to learn about the
New Starts and Small Starts programs, including New Starts project
planning and evaluation process, and Small Starts interim guidance
and rulemaking.
We also interviewed 15 project sponsors, including all 10 sponsors
that applied for the Small Starts program (including Very Small
Starts applicants) for the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle. We
interviewed the project sponsors to gather information on their
past experiences with the New Starts and Small Starts programs,
and their potential future use of these programs. The 10 project
sponsors we interviewed that applied for the fiscal year 2008
Small Starts program (including Very Small Starts applicants)
included the City of Breckenridge Public Works Department
(Breckenridge, Colorado); Dallas County Utility and Reclamation
District (Irving, Texas); Fort Collins Transportation Department
(Fort Collins, Colorado); Kansas City Area Transportation
Authority (Kansas City, Missouri); King County Metro (King County,
Washington); Lane Transit District (Springfield, Oregon); Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Los Angeles,
California); Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public
Transportation Authority (Flagstaff, Arizona); Sarasota County
Area Transit (Sarasota County, Florida); and Sound Transit
(Seattle, Washington). In addition, we interviewed 5 other project
sponsors that varied in their levels of experience with the New
Starts program, size, and regional location. These 5 sponsors were
the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston,
Texas); New Jersey Transit Corporation (Newark, New Jersey);
Orange County Transit Authority (Orange County, California); St.
Louis Regional Transit (St. Louis, Missouri); and TriMet
(Portland, Oregon).
To further address our objectives, we used a Web-based
questionnaire to survey all of the project sponsors that are
located in an urbanized area with a population of over 200,000 and
have an annual ridership of over 1 million. These project sponsors
may or may not have previously applied to the New Starts or Small
Starts programs, but because of their size and ridership, they
would be more likely to plan the types of transit projects that
would potentially qualify for New Starts funding. Project sponsors
were defined typically as transit agencies, but they may also have
included city transportation offices and metropolitan planning
organizations, among other entities.
The questionnaire to project sponsors asked questions that allowed
for a combination of open-ended and closed-ended responses. The
questionnaire included questions about project sponsors' (1)
current transit situation, (2) most recently completed transit
projects, (3) current ongoing transit projects, and (4) future
planned transit projects. For each question, we asked the project
sponsors about the types of transit project they sponsored, how
they funded or intended to fund transit projects in the future,
and their experiences with and perceptions of the various
programs.
The questionnaire was designed by a GAO survey specialist in
conjunction with other GAO staff knowledgeable about the grant
program. We pretested the questionnaire with 5 project sponsors
that had varying levels of experience in working with the New
Starts program. Three project sponsors had previously applied to
either the New Starts program or the Small Starts program, while 1
project sponsor had not applied to either program. In addition,
the 5 project sponsors represented both larger and smaller project
sponsors included in our list of the 215 largest transit agencies.
The 5 project sponsors were the Fort Collins Transportation
Department (Fort Collins, Colorado); Maryland Transit
Administration (Baltimore, Maryland); Rockford Mass Transit
District (Rockford, Illinois); TriMet (Portland, Oregon); and
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Washington, D.C.).
Furthermore, we asked two industry groups (the American Public
Transportation Association and the New Starts Working Group) and
FTA to review the project sponsor questionnaire and provide
comments. During the pretests and reviews of the questionnaire, we
asked the project sponsors and industry groups whether the
questions were understandable and if the information was feasible
to collect. We refined each of the questions as appropriate in
response to the feedback we received.
To conduct the questionnaire, we posted self-administered
electronic questionnaires to the World Wide Web and sent e-mail
notifications to project sponsor contacts provided to us by FTA in
early February 2007. We found after our first e-mail that some
addresses were no longer valid, so we contacted each agency by
telephone to find the appropriate contact to send the e-mail
notification. We also responded to inquiries from project
sponsors. Many project sponsor contacts believed they were not the
right person to answer the questions. In these instances, we
resent the e-mail notification to the correct contact at the
project sponsor. Our goal was to find the staff member at each
project sponsor who was the most knowledgeable about the New
Starts program and the Small Starts program.
After determining the correct contact, we e-mailed each potential
respondent a unique username and password to ensure that the
project sponsor would have access to the questionnaire. We asked
the project sponsor contact to complete the questionnaire within 2
weeks. To encourage respondents to complete the questionnaire, we
sent an e-mail message to prompt each nonrespondent every 2 weeks
after the initial e-mail message for approximately 6 weeks. After
6 weeks, we called all nonrespondents at least once to encourage
their participation in the questionnaire and to increase our
response rate. We closed the questionnaire on May 11, 2007. In
total, we surveyed 215 project sponsors and received responses
from 168 of them, for a response rate of 78 percent. To view our
questionnaire and the aggregated project sponsor responses, go to
[25]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-927SP .
Because the questionnaire was not a sample survey, it has no
sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting
any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as
"nonsampling" errors. For example, difficulties in how a
particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information
available to the respondents, or in how the data are entered into
a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted variability
into the questionnaire results. We took steps in developing the
questionnaire, collecting the data, and analyzing the data to
minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, as we have
previously noted, our survey specialists designed the
questionnaire in collaboration with GAO subject matter experts,
and we pretested the draft questionnaire with the appropriate
officials to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly
stated, and easy to comprehend. After the data were analyzed, a
second, independent analyst checked all computer programs. Since
this was a Web-based questionnaire, the respondents entered their
answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating
the need to have the data keyed into a database, thereby removing
an additional potential source of error.
We performed our work from November 2006 through July 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834, [26][email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, other key contributors
to this report were Nikki Clowers, Assistant Director; Elizabeth
Eisenstadt; Carol Henn; Bert Japikse; Amanda Miller; SaraAnn
Moessbauer; Nitin Rao; Tina Won Sherman; Bethany Claus Widick; and
Elizabeth Wood.
Related GAO Products
Public Transportation: Preliminary Analysis of Changes to and
Trends in FTA's New Starts and Small Starts Programs.
[27]GAO-07-812T . Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2007.
Public Transportation: New Starts Program Is in a Period of
Transition. [28]GAO-06-819 . Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006.
Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA's
Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes. [29]GAO-06-910T .
Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006.
Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the
Communication and Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts
Program. [30]GAO-05-674 . Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.
Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Better Define and Assess Impact of
Certain Policies on New Starts Program. [31]GAO-04-748 .
Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004.
Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and
Additional Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process.
[32]GAO-03-701 . Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2003.
Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Program and Potential for Bus
Rapid Transit Projects. [33]GAO-02-840T . Washington, D.C.: June
20, 2002.
Mass Transit: FTA's New Starts Commitments for Fiscal Year 2003.
[34]GAO-02-603 . Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.
Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding
Constraints. [35]GAO-01-987 . Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2001.
Mass Transit: Implementation of FTA's New Starts Evaluation
Process and FY 2001 Funding Proposals. [36]GAO/RCED-00-149 .
Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2000.
Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Transit Projects With Full
Funding Grant Agreements. [37]GAO/RCED-99-240 . Washington, D.C.:
August 19, 1999.
Mass Transit: FTA's Progress in Developing and Implementing a New
Starts Evaluation Process. [38]GAO/RCED-99-113 . Washington, D.C.:
April 26, 1999.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability 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 GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [39]www.gao.gov ). Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
newly posted products every afternoon, go to [40]www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to Updates."
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. Government Accountability 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: [41]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[42][email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
(202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [43][email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [44][email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
(542105)
[45]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-917 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above. To view the e-supplement online,
click on www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? [46]GAO-07-927SP . For more
information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [47]GAO-07-917 , a report to congressional committees
July 2007
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and Small Starts Programs, but
Improvements Needed to the Small Starts Application Process
Through the New Starts program, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
identifies and recommends new fixed-guideway transit projects for funding.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) created a separate program, commonly called
Small Starts, which is intended to offer a streamlined evaluation and
rating process for smaller-scale transit projects. FTA subsequently
introduced a separate eligibility category within the Small Starts program
for "Very Small Starts" projects. These are simple, low-risk projects that
qualify for a simplified evaluation and rating process.
SAFETEA-LU requires GAO to annually review FTA's New Starts process. This
report presents information on (1) FTA's fiscal year 2008 funding
recommendations,
(2) the extent to which the New Starts pipeline has changed over time, and
(3) future projected trends for the New Starts and Small Starts pipelines.
To address these objectives, GAO surveyed 215 project sponsors--78 percent
of which responded--and interviewed FTA officials, 15 project sponsors,
and 3 industry groups.
[48]What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that FTA make several program improvements, including
further streamlining the Small Starts application process. FTA officials
agreed to consider GAO's recommendations.
For the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle, FTA recommended to Congress 10
New Starts and 4 Small Starts projects for funding. The administration's
budget request of $1.40 billion is primarily allocated to New Starts
projects with existing and pending full funding grant agreements.
SAFETEA-LU made several changes to the New Starts evaluation and rating
process, which FTA is implementing.
Since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, the New Starts
pipeline--that is, projects in the preliminary engineering and final
design phases--has changed in size and composition, responding to a
variety of factors. The number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has
decreased by more than one-half, and the types of projects in the pipeline
have changed, with bus rapid transit replacing commuter or light rail as
the most common type of project. FTA officials attributed the decrease in
the number of projects to FTA's increased scrutiny of applications to help
ensure that only the strongest projects enter the pipeline, and to FTA's
efforts to remove projects from the pipeline that were not advancing or
did not adequately address identified problems. Project sponsors that GAO
interviewed cited other reasons for the pipeline's decrease, including the
complexity, lengthiness, and cost of the New Starts process. The lengthy
nature of the New Starts process is due, in part, to the rigorous and
systematic evaluation and rating process established by law--which GAO has
previously noted could serve as a model for other programs. Other reasons
cited by project sponsors for the decrease in the pipeline include finding
alternative sources of funding or opting not to apply because they realize
their projects are unlikely to receive funding. FTA is considering
different ideas on how to improve the New Starts process, some of which
may address the concerns identified by project sponsors.
Despite these concerns, GAO's survey of project sponsors indicated future
demand for New Starts funding. Project sponsors reported having 141
planned New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts projects and will
likely seek New Starts funding for almost three-fourths of these projects.
Of these planned projects, project sponsors indicated that they intend to
seek New Starts funding for 57 New Starts projects, 30 Small Starts
projects, and 14 Very Small Starts projects. Project sponsors GAO surveyed
also reported considering a range of alternative project types in their
planning. Although project sponsors expressed appreciation for the
creation of the Small Starts program, noting it filled a funding gap, they
said the Small Starts application process is not tailored to the Small
Starts program and is time-consuming, costly, and duplicative. GAO also
found that the application is not always tailored for Small Starts
applicants and, in several instances, requests duplicative information.
FTA officials acknowledged that the Small Starts application process could
be further streamlined, and they are working to decrease the burden.
References
Visible links
21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-927SP
22. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-812T
23. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-674
24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-927SP
26. mailto:[email protected]
27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-812T
28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-819
29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-910T
30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-674
31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-748
32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-701
33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-840T
34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-603
35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-987
36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-00-149
37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-240
38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-113
39. http://www.gao.gov/
40. http://www.gao.gov/
41. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
42. mailto:[email protected]
43. mailto:[email protected]
44. mailto:[email protected]
45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-917
46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-927SP
47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-917
*** End of document. ***