Mass Transit
Information on the Federal Role in Funding the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Gao ID: GAO-05-358T February 18, 2005In recent years, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has faced serious financial and budgetary problems as well as continuing challenges related to the safety and reliability of its transit services. At the same time, ridership is at an alltime high, and WMATA continues to provide critical services and considerable benefits to the Washington region's economic well-being and to the federal government. This statement is based on preliminary results of our work on WMATA that GAO is performing at the request of the Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, as well as on GAO's previous review of WMATA and other studies of WMATA's financial condition. It discusses (1) the extent to which WMATA relied on federal funding to build its Metrorail subway system and the federal government's rationale for providing that funding, (2) the extent to which WMATA has relied on other federal funding for capital improvements in recent years, and (3) the current funding challenges that WMATA faces and options that have been proposed to address those challenges.
WMATA relied on federal funding to pay for over 60 percent of the costs to build its Metrorail subway system. From 1969 through 1999, the federal government provided about $6.2 billion of the approximately $10 billion that WMATA spent to construct the original 103-mile system. About two-thirds of this federal funding, or $4.1 billion, came from direct appropriations. The remaining federal funding, about $2.1 billion, came from unused federal Interstate highway funds. In addition, nonfederal entities provided about $2.1 billion for Metrorail's construction, and about $1.7 billion came from revenue bonds, and other sources. Beginning in the 1960s, Congress and the Executive Branch supported federal funding for building the Metrorail system, citing several reasons including (1) the federal government's large presence in the area, (2) the attraction of the nation's capital for tourists, (3) the overlapping needs of adjacent jurisdictions, and (4) the limitations faced in raising other revenue for transit needs. WMATA has relied on other federal funding to cover over 40 percent of its capital improvement costs over the last 10 fiscal years. Of about $3.5 billion in total funding that WMATA received from all sources for capital improvements from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2005, about $1.5 billion, or about 43 percent, came from the federal government, and about $2.0 billion, or about 57 percent, came from the state and local jurisdictions that WMATA serves and from other sources. Most of the federal funding has come through grants administered by the Federal Transit Administration. Over the last 10 fiscal years, the federal grant funding has generally increased, but the nonfederal funding has varied. WMATA has combined and used its federal grant and nonfederal funds for eligible rail modernization, new construction and extensions, and bus rehabilitation programs and projects. WMATA also received and used about $49.9 million for congressionally designated projects during fiscal years 1995 through 2005. Over the years, WMATA has faced funding challenges, and options have been proposed to address them. Although WMATA has taken steps to improve its management, such as prioritizing its planned capital improvements, it lacks a dedicated funding source and must rely on contributions from local, regional, and federal organizations. These contributions can vary and have not been sufficient in recent years to fully fund WMATA's planned capital improvements. Proposed options would provide a dedicated funding source, such as a regional sales tax, and would include federal funding, particularly for capital maintenance and enhancement. This federal funding would be in addition to the federal grant funding that WMATA currently receives.
GAO-05-358T, Mass Transit: Information on the Federal Role in Funding the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-358T
entitled 'Mass Transit: Information on the Federal Role in Funding the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority' which was released on
February 18, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST Friday, February 18, 2005:
Mass Transit:
Information on the Federal Role in Funding the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority:
Statement for the Record by Katherine Siggerud, Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-05-358T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-358T a Statement for the Record for the Committee
on Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
In recent years, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) has faced serious financial and budgetary problems as well as
continuing challenges related to the safety and reliability of its
transit services. At the same time, ridership is at an all-time high,
and WMATA continues to provide critical services and considerable
benefits to the Washington region‘s economic well-being and to the
federal government.
This statement is based on preliminary results of our work on WMATA
that GAO is performing at the request of the Chairman, House Committee
on Government Reform, as well as on GAO‘s previous review of WMATA and
other studies of WMATA‘s financial condition. It discusses (1) the
extent to which WMATA relied on federal funding to build its Metrorail
subway system and the federal government‘s rationale for providing that
funding, (2) the extent to which WMATA has relied on other federal
funding for capital improvements in recent years, and (3) the current
funding challenges that WMATA faces and options that have been proposed
to address those challenges.
What GAO Found:
WMATA relied on federal funding to pay for over 60 percent of the costs
to build its Metrorail subway system. From 1969 through 1999, the
federal government provided about $6.2 billion of the approximately $10
billion that WMATA spent to construct the original 103-mile system.
About two-thirds of this federal funding, or $4.1 billion, came from
direct appropriations. The remaining federal funding, about $2.1
billion, came from unused federal Interstate highway funds. In
addition, nonfederal entities provided about $2.1 billion for
Metrorail‘s construction, and about $1.7 billion came from revenue
bonds, and other sources. Beginning in the 1960s, Congress and the
Executive Branch supported federal funding for building the Metrorail
system, citing several reasons including (1) the federal government‘s
large presence in the area, (2) the attraction of the nation‘s capital
for tourists, (3) the overlapping needs of adjacent jurisdictions, and
(4) the limitations faced in raising other revenue for transit needs.
WMATA has relied on other federal funding to cover over 40 percent of
its capital improvement costs over the last 10 fiscal years. Of about
$3.5 billion in total funding that WMATA received from all sources for
capital improvements from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2005,
about $1.5 billion, or about 43 percent, came from the federal
government, and about $2.0 billion, or about 57 percent, came from the
state and local jurisdictions that WMATA serves and from other sources.
Most of the federal funding has come through grants administered by the
Federal Transit Administration. Over the last 10 fiscal years, the
federal grant funding has generally increased, but the nonfederal
funding has varied. WMATA has combined and used its federal grant and
nonfederal funds for eligible rail modernization, new construction and
extensions, and bus rehabilitation programs and projects. WMATA also
received and used about $49.9 million for congressionally designated
projects during fiscal years 1995 through 2005.
Over the years, WMATA has faced funding challenges, and options have
been proposed to address them. Although WMATA has taken steps to
improve its management, such as prioritizing its planned capital
improvements, it lacks a dedicated funding source and must rely on
contributions from local, regional, and federal organizations. These
contributions can vary and have not been sufficient in recent years to
fully fund WMATA‘s planned capital improvements. Proposed options would
provide a dedicated funding source, such as a regional sales tax, and
would include federal funding, particularly for capital maintenance and
enhancement. This federal funding would be in addition to the federal
grant funding that WMATA currently receives.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-358T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Kate Siggerud at (202)
512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide information on the
federal government's role in funding the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority (WMATA). In recent years, WMATA has faced serious
financial and budgetary problems as well as continuing challenges
related to the safety and reliability of its transit services. At the
same time, WMATA's ridership is at an all-time high, and the agency
continues to provide critical services and considerable benefits to the
National Capital Region's economic well-being and to the federal
government.
Our statement today is based on preliminary results of our work on
WMATA. We will discuss (1) the extent to which WMATA relied on federal
funding to build its Metrorail subway system and the federal
government's rationale for providing that funding, (2) the extent to
which WMATA has relied on other federal funding for capital
improvements over the past 10 fiscal years, and (3) the current funding
challenges that WMATA faces and options that have been proposed to
address those challenges. Our work is based on a review of the laws and
regulations that have governed WMATA since its inception, an analysis
of WMATA's budgetary and program data, a review of reports on WMATA's
financial problems that we and others have issued, and interviews with
officials in WMATA and in the Department of Transportation. This
statement relies on data provided by WMATA; we did not have an
opportunity to review the reliability of that data.
In summary:
WMATA relied on federal funding to pay for over 60 percent of the costs
to build its Metrorail subway system. Since the 1960s, Congress and the
executive branch have supported federal funding for WMATA. From 1969
through 1999, the federal government provided about $6.2 billion of the
approximately $10 billion that WMATA spent to construct the original
103-mile system. About two-thirds of this federal funding, or $4.1
billion, came from direct appropriations authorized under three acts--
the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 ($1.1 billion), the
National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1979 ($1.7 billion), and
the National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1990 ($1.3
billion).[Footnote 1] The remaining federal funding, about $2.1
billion, came from unused federal interstate highway funds that the
District of Columbia was authorized to provide to WMATA to supplement
the direct appropriations for Metrorail construction. (See app. I,
table 1.) In addition, nonfederal entities provided about $2.1 billion
for Metrorail construction, and about $1.7 billion came from other
sources, including revenue bonds. Several factors contributed to the
federal government's rationale for providing funding to construct a
transit system in the District of Columbia. These included (1) the
large presence of the federal government in the area with its attendant
property, buildings, and workforce; (2) the attraction of the nation's
capital as a tourist destination; (3) the overlapping needs of adjacent
jurisdictions; and (4) the limitations faced by the District of
Columbia and by adjacent jurisdictions in raising revenue for transit
needs.
WMATA has relied on other federal funding to cover over 40 percent of
its capital improvement costs over the last 10 fiscal years. Of about
$3.5 billion in total funding that WMATA received from all sources for
capital improvements from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2005,
about $1.5 billion, or about 43 percent, came from the federal
government, and about $2.0 billion, or about 57 percent, came from the
state and local jurisdictions that WMATA serves and from other sources.
Most of the federal funding has come through grants administered by the
Federal Transit Administration. Over the last 10 fiscal years, the
federal grant funding has generally increased, but the nonfederal
funding has varied. WMATA has combined and used its federal grant and
nonfederal funds for eligible rail modernization, new construction and
extension, and bus rehabilitation programs and projects. Finally, WMATA
received and used about $49.9 million for congressionally designated
projects, including a new Metrorail station at New York Avenue in the
District of Columbia, during fiscal years 1995 through 2005. (See app.
I, table 2.)
Over the years, WMATA has faced funding challenges, and options have
been proposed to address them. In 2001, we reported that WMATA
anticipated funding shortfalls through 2025,[Footnote 2] and we
recommended that, to improve its management, it document and prioritize
its planned capital improvements. WMATA has taken these steps, but its
funding challenges have grown as the Metrorail system has aged. WMATA
lacks a dedicated source of funds to pay for its planned capital
improvements and must rely on local, regional, and federal
organizations for financial support. Their support can vary and has not
been sufficient in recent years for WMATA to fully fund its planned
capital improvements. Options proposed to address WMATA's funding
challenges would provide a dedicated source of funds, such as a
regional sales tax, and would include federal funding, particularly for
capital maintenance and enhancement. This federal funding would be in
addition to the grants that WMATA currently receives.
Background:
WMATA was created in 1967 by an interstate compact that resulted from
the enactment of identical legislation by Virginia, Maryland, and the
District of Columbia, with the concurrence of the U.S.
Congress.[Footnote 3] WMATA began building its Metrorail system in
1969, acquired four regional bus systems in 1973, and began the first
phase of Metrorail operations in 1976. In January 2001, WMATA completed
the originally planned 103-mile Metrorail system, which included 83
rail stations on five rail lines.[Footnote 4] Currently, WMATA operates
a massive transit system that serves a population of 3.5 million within
a 1,500-square-mile service area covering numerous jurisdictions within
Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.[Footnote 5] The
transit system encompasses (1) the Metrorail system, which now has 86
Metrorail stations on five rail lines and a fleet of about 900 rail
cars; (2) the Metrobus system, which has a fleet of about 1,400 buses
serving 350 routes; and (3) the MetroAccess ADA[Footnote 6]
complementary paratransit system, which provides specialized
transportation services, as required by law, to persons with
disabilities who are certified as being unable to access WMATA's fixed-
route transit system.
WMATA operates in a complex environment, with many organizations
influencing its decision-making and funding and providing oversight.
WMATA is governed by a Board of Directors, which sets policies and
oversees all of WMATA's activities, including budgeting, operations,
development and expansion, safety, procurement, and other activities.
In addition, a number of local, regional, and federal organizations
affect WMATA's decision-making, including (1) state and local
governments, which subject WMATA to a range of laws and requirements;
(2) the Tri-State Oversight Committee, which oversees WMATA's safety
activities and conducts safety reviews; (3) the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board (TPB) of the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (COG), which develops the short-and long-range
plans and programs that guide WMATA's capital investments; (4) the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which provides oversight of
WMATA's compliance with federal requirements; and (5) the National
Transportation Safety Board, which investigates accidents on transit
systems as well as other transportation modes.
WMATA estimates that its combined rail and bus ridership will total
about 342 million passenger trips in fiscal year 2005, making it the
second largest heavy rail rapid transit system and the fifth largest
bus system in the United States, according to WMATA officials. WMATA's
proposed fiscal year 2005 budget totals nearly $1.3 billion. Of the
total amount, about 76 percent, or $977.9 million, is for operations
and maintenance:
activities, including debt service, and the remaining 24 percent, or
$314.1 million, is for capital improvements. WMATA obtains its funding
from a variety of sources, including the federal, state (Maryland and
Virginia), District of Columbia, and local governments; passenger
fares; and other sources. In general, WMATA relies on passenger fares
and subsidies from its member jurisdictions to cover its operating
costs, and it obtains its capital funds from the sources discussed in
this statement.
WMATA Relied on Federal Funding to Cover over 60 Percent of Metrorail
Construction Costs:
Over about 30 years, from 1969 through 1999, the federal government
provided funding for Metrorail construction, through direct
appropriations and unused highway funds. This funding covered about 62
percent of the transit system's construction costs. The remaining
construction funds came from nonfederal entities and other sources. The
federal contribution reflected the federal government's interest in and
responsibility for a regional transit system.
Federal funding accounted for about $6.2 billion of the approximately
$10.0 billion that WMATA spent to build the original 103-mile system.
About two-thirds of this federal funding, or over $4 billion, came from
direct appropriations authorized in legislation enacted in 1969, 1979,
and 1990.[Footnote 7]
The National Transportation Act of 1969[Footnote 8] authorized $1.1
billion for Metrorail construction.
The National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1979[Footnote 9]
(also known as the Stark Harris bill) authorized $1.7 billion for
Metrorail construction.
The National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1990[Footnote 10]
authorized $1.3 billion for Metrorail construction.
Fiscal year 1999 was the last year WMATA received direct federal
appropriations for Metrorail construction. For fiscal years 1995
through 1998, it was appropriated $200 million a year, and for fiscal
year 1999, it was appropriated $50 million, for a total of $850
million. The remaining federal funding, about $2.1 billion, came from
unused federal interstate highway funds that the District of Columbia
was authorized to provide to WMATA to supplement the direct
appropriations for Metrorail construction.[Footnote 11] In addition,
nonfederal entities provided about $2.1 billion for Metrorail
construction, and about $1.7 billion came from other sources, including
revenue bonds.
WMATA used the federal and other funding provided for construction to
build the 103-mile Metrorail system, including 83 rail stations on five
rail lines. More specifically, it used the funds to plan and design the
rail system, dig tunnels, purchase rail cars, lay rails, construct
stations, and establish a communication system.
The rationale of Congress and the executive branch for providing
funding to construct a transit system in the District of Columbia dates
back to the 1950s. According to this rationale, several factors related
to the unique status of the District of Columbia as the nation's
capital call for close federal involvement in planning for and funding
a transit system for the District and adjacent jurisdictions. These
factors include (1) the large presence of the federal government in the
area with its attendant property, buildings, and workforce; (2) the
attraction of the nation's capital as a tourist destination; (3) the
overlapping needs of adjacent jurisdictions; and (4) the limitations
faced by the District of Columbia and by the adjacent jurisdictions in
raising revenue for transit needs. Congress and the administration
identified and considered these factors in legislation requiring the
planning of mass transportation for the area and establishing WMATA, as
well as in the three previously discussed acts that authorized direct
appropriations for planning and constructing the Metrorail system.
Highlights of this legislation follow; for a more detailed discussion,
see appendix II.
In 1952, Congress enacted and President Truman signed the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952[Footnote 12] (1952 Act), which provided
for comprehensive planning for the physical development of the National
Capital Region.[Footnote 13] Congress created the National Capital
Planning Commission as the central planning agency for the region's
development and made it responsible for preparing a comprehensive
regional transportation plan that would serve federal and the District
of Columbia's needs for highways and mass transit.
In 1960, Congress enacted and President Eisenhower signed the National
Capital Transportation Act of 1960[Footnote 14] (1960 Act) to promote
the development of a transit system for the National Capital Region.
This legislation found that an improved transportation system for the
National Capital Region was essential for the federal government to
perform its functions effectively and recognized that the District and
local regional governments lacked the capacity to fund such a system.
The 1960 Act established the National Capital Transportation Agency and
made it responsible for preparing and periodically revising a Transit
Development Program, as well as for submitting recommendations for
organizational and financial arrangements for regional transportation,
in consultation with local governments of the National Capital Region
and interested federal agencies. These recommendations were to provide
that users pay as much as possible of the regional transportation
system's costs and that the federal, state, and local governments
equitably share any remaining costs. Finally, the 1960 Act authorized
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to negotiate a
compact[Footnote 15] for the establishment of a regional planning and
administrative organization whose functions would include the provision
of regional transportation facilities.
In 1965, Congress and President Johnson reaffirmed the federal
government's role in developing a transit system for the National
Capital Region in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965 (1965
Act).[Footnote 16] This legislation reiterated the importance of a
coordinated regional transportation system to the effective performance
of the federal functions located within the region and provided, as did
the 1960 Act, for intergovernmental cooperation and financing by users,
the federal government, and others.
In 1966, at President Johnson's request, Congress authorized and
approved a compact negotiated between the District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia that, among other things, proposed the creation
of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA),[Footnote
17] and in 1967, WMATA was created. The preamble to the compact again
emphasized the federal interest in a coordinated regional
transportation system and again provided for intergovernmental
cooperation and financing by users, the federal government, and others.
WMATA Has Relied on Federal Grants for over 40 Percent of Its Capital
Improvement Program Funding:
In addition to relying on federal funding to construct Metrorail, WMATA
has relied on other federal funding for capital improvements. Federal
funding accounts for about $1.5 billion, or about 43 percent, of the
approximately $3.5 billion that WMATA has received from all sources for
its Capital Improvement Program from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal
year 2005, and about $2.0 billion, or about 57 percent, has come from
the state and local jurisdictions that WMATA serves and from other
sources. Most of this federal funding has come through formula and
discretionary grants administered by FTA.[Footnote 18] FTA's grant
programs provide states, local and regional transportation providers,
and others with funds for the construction, acquisition, improvement,
and operation of transit systems and projects. These grants cover up to
80 percent of the costs for eligible capital projects, but, as we have
reported, FTA has favored grant proposals for projects in at least one
program that provide more than the minimum 20 percent from nonfederal
sources.[Footnote 19]
For fiscal years 1995 through 2005, WMATA has received $778.0 million
in urbanized area formula grants (title 5307 funds[Footnote 20]). This
figure is equivalent to $824.8 million in fiscal year 2004 inflation-
adjusted dollars. These grants, which are apportioned on the basis of
legislative formulas,[Footnote 21] are available to urbanized areas
with populations of 50,000 or more for transit capital and
transportation-related planning activities. Such activities include
engineering design and other planning activities and capital assistance
for buses, crime prevention; and security equipment; the construction
of maintenance and passenger facilities; and rolling stock, track,
signals, communication equipment, and other types of equipment. As
figure 1 shows, WMATA's federal urbanized area formula grant funding
has generally increased over the last 10 fiscal years.[Footnote 22] For
fiscal year 2005, this grant funding accounts for 45 percent of the
federal funds that WMATA will receive.
Figure 1: Federal Urbanized Area Formula Grants Provided to WMATA,
Fiscal Years 1995 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of data provided by WMATA.
Note: Data are in nominal dollars (not adjusted for inflation).
[End of figure]
For fiscal years 1995 through 2005, WMATA has received $621.0 million
through federal Capital Investment grants (title 5309 funds[Footnote
23]).[Footnote 24] This figure is equivalent to $642.6 million in
fiscal year 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars. These grants are available
to states, municipalities, and public entities such as transit agencies
through three programs:
The rail and fixed guideway modernization program provides formula
grants for fixed guideway modernization projects, such as heavy rail,
commuter rail, light rail, automated guideway transit, and the portion
of motor bus service operated on busways or high-occupancy-vehicle
lanes.
The major capital investments in transit (New Starts) program provides
discretionary grants for constructing new fixed guideway systems or
extensions of existing fixed guideway systems such as those identified
under the fixed guideway modernization program.
The bus and bus facilities program provides discretionary grants for
bus and bus-related capital projects.
As figure 2 shows, WMATA's funding from the federal Capital Investment
grant programs has generally increased over the past 10 fiscal
years.[Footnote 25] For fiscal year 2005, this grant funding accounts
for 55 percent of the federal funds WMATA will receive.
Figure 2: Federal Capital Investment Grants Provided to WMATA, Fiscal
Years 1995 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of data provided by WMATA.
[End of figure]
Note: Data in nominal dollars (not adjusted for inflation).
According to WMATA officials, over the past 10 fiscal years, WMATA has
used 100 percent of its federal urbanized area formula grant funding
for rehabilitating and replacing its existing rail system and bus
assets. During the same 10-year period, the officials said, it has used
63 percent of its federal Capital Investment grants for rehabilitating
and replacing rail system assets and 37 percent for system expansion
and growth.
While WMATA's federal formula and discretionary grant funding has
generally increased over the past 10 fiscal years, its nonfederal
funding for capital improvements has varied over the same period, as
shown in figure 3. Notably, in fiscal year 2001, the nonfederal funding
level increased dramatically compared with the previous and subsequent
years' funding levels. As part of our ongoing work, we plan to examine
changes in WMATA's nonfederal funding levels in greater detail.
Figure 3: Federal and Nonfederal Contributions to WMATA's Capital
Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of data provided by WMATA.
Note: Data are in nominal dollars (not adjusted for inflation).
[End of figure]
WMATA combines its federal grant funds with its nonfederal funds and
uses them for eligible projects in its own Capital Improvement Program.
WMATA established this program in 2002 in response to recommendations
that we and others made that WMATA document and prioritize its capital
funding needs. For fiscal year 2005, the Capital Improvement Program
consists of three major elements[Footnote 26] that are designed to
address all aspects of the agency's capital investments:
The Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP) uses funds to rehabilitate or
replace WMATA's existing assets, including rail cars, buses,
maintenance facilities, tracks and other structures and systems. This
program accounted for the largest share, or about 92 percent, of the
total funding for WMATA's Capital Improvement Program funding in fiscal
year 2005.
The System Access and Capacity Program (SAP) uses funds to improve
access to and increase the capacity of the transit system by providing
additional rail cars and buses, parking facilities, and support
activities to accommodate growth in ridership.
The System Expansion Program (SEP) uses funds to expand fixed guideway
services, selectively add stations and entrances to the existing
Metrorail system, and improve bus service levels and expand service
areas.
In addition to its federal grant funds, WMATA received about $49.9
million for congressionally designated projects during fiscal years
1995 through 2005. It used these funds for capital projects, including
about $25 million for a station located at New York Avenue in the
District of Columbia.[Footnote 27]
Options for Addressing WMATA's Funding Challenges Would Generally
Establish a Dedicated Revenue Source and Include a Federal
Contribution:
Over the years, WMATA has faced funding challenges, and options have
been proposed to address them. Although WMATA has taken steps to
improve its management, such as prioritizing its planned capital
improvements, it lacks a dedicated funding source and must rely on
variable, sometimes insufficient contributions from local, regional,
and federal organizations to pay for its planned capital improvements.
Proposed options would provide a dedicated funding source, such as a
regional sales tax, and would increase federal funding for capital
improvements.
WMATA and Others Project Continuing Shortfalls in Its Capital and
Operating Budgets:
In 2001, we reported and testified that WMATA faced uncertainties in
obtaining the funding for its planned capital spending for the
Infrastructure Renewal and System Access Programs.[Footnote 28] At that
time, WMATA anticipated a shortfall of $3.7 billion in the funding for
these programs over the 25-year period from fiscal year 2001 through
fiscal year 2025.
Since that time, in response to recommendations that we and others
made, WMATA has spent considerable time documenting and prioritizing
its planned capital funding requirements, and in November 2002, its
Board of Directors adopted a comprehensive 10-year Capital Improvement
Plan calling for $12.2 billion. Then, in September 2003, WMATA launched
a campaign, called "Metro Matters," to obtain $1.5 billion in capital
funding over a 6-year period to avert what WMATA believed was a crisis
in its ability to sustain service levels and system reliability and to
meet future demands for service. In response, WMATA's Board of
Directors approved a $3.3 billion funding plan for fiscal years 2005
through 2010 to help pay for WMATA's most pressing short-term capital
investment priorities.[Footnote 29] This plan calls for an additional
$403 million in federal assistance over the 6-year period, to be used
for rail cars and security improvements. WMATA officials told us that
the agency has requested this additional funding from the federal
government, which has not yet acted on the request.
As concerns about WMATA's funding grew, a regional panel--cosponsored
by the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, the Greater
Washington Board of Trade, and the Federal City Council[Footnote 30]--
was formed in September 2004 to research funding options for the public
transit system. This panel, known as the Metro Funding Panel, reported
in January 2005 that during fiscal years 2005 through 2015, WMATA will
continue to experience substantial capital and operating funding
shortfalls totaling about $2.4 billion--including a $0.5 billion
shortfall in the operating budgets and a $1.9 billion shortfall in the
capital budgets for those years.[Footnote 31] In addition, the panel
estimated that WMATA's MetroAccess paratransit program would have a
$1.1 billion shortfall in its budgets for fiscal years 2005 through
2015. The panel noted that it did not incorporate the funding needs of
the MetroAccess paratransit program in its calculations of WMATA's
overall budgetary shortfalls because it believes that paratransit
services, which are important to the well-being of residents in the
Washington region, are "of a different nature from the basic WMATA
mission" and should be funded through creative packaging of the revenue
sources that flow into the region from social service, medical, and
other nontransportation resources. Although we have not had an
opportunity to review the assumptions underlying the Metro Funding
Panel's estimates of WMATA's budgetary shortfalls, we note that WMATA
is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of
1990[Footnote 32] to provide ADA-complementary paratransit services to
those who are unable to use the agency's fixed-route transit system.
Proposed Options Could Address Concerns about WMATA's Lack of a
Dedicated Revenue Source:
In our 2001 report and testimony,[Footnote 33] we noted that WMATA's
funding comes from a variety of federal, state, and local sources, but
that unlike most other major transit systems, WMATA does not have a
dedicated source of revenues, such as local sales tax revenues, that
are automatically directed to the transit authority. As far back as
April 1979, we reported on the need for a revenue source dedicated to
pay the costs of mass transportation in the Washington region.[Footnote
34] In that report, we outlined reasons why the cost estimates for
building the Metrorail system had escalated and pointed out that the
Department of Transportation (DOT), as well as WMATA, agreed that a
dedicated revenue source was needed to address the increasing deficits
in WMATA's capital construction and operating budgets.
In January 1983, we again raised concerns about the level of funding
available to operate the Metrorail system and recommended that DOT
issue guidance requiring periodic reevaluations of the stability and
reliability of the revenue sources, associated with WMATA's member
jurisdictions, which are used to fund the operation of WMATA's transit
system.[Footnote 35] In making this recommendation, we noted that the
National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1979 (Stark Harris)
required that WMATA's member jurisdictions demonstrate that they have
"stable and reliable" revenue sources available to fund WMATA's
operating costs, including debt service. Although DOT had told Congress
in 1982 that WMATA's jurisdictions had established such revenue
sources, our report raised a number of concerns. Specifically, it noted
that (1) WMATA's operating deficits had risen faster than the rate of
inflation and were expected to continue to rise so that future local
government revenue sources could become inadequate, (2) local
jurisdictions considered WMATA's costs burdensome, and (3) WMATA's
estimates for its 1990 operating deficit had proved to be optimistic--
that is, the deficit had proved to be larger than expected.
Consequently, we recommended that DOT issue criteria on what
constitutes a "stable and reliable" funding source and periodically
reevaluate those revenue sources.
The concerns about WMATA's lack of dedicated revenues surfaced again in
reports issued by the Brookings Institution in June 2004[Footnote
36]and by the Metro Funding Panel in January 2005.[Footnote 37]
According to the Brookings report, WMATA's lack of dedicated revenues
makes WMATA's core funding uniquely vulnerable and at risk as its
member jurisdictions struggle with their own fiscal difficulties. The
report further stated that the Washington region needs to develop a
dedicated source of revenue, and it evaluated the advantages and
disadvantages of a menu of revenue options that could support the
dedicated revenue source, including gasoline taxes, sales taxes,
congestion charges, parking taxes, land-value capture, and payroll
taxes. Similarly, the report of the Metro Funding Panel concluded that
although WMATA has provided numerous benefits to both the Washington
region and the federal government over the years, it will require a
commitment of new revenue sources to continue that progress.
Accordingly, the Panel made the following recommendations:
* The compact jurisdictions of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia should mutually create and implement a single regional
dedicated revenue source to address WMATA's budgetary shortfalls.
* The most viable dedicated revenue source that could be implemented on
a regional basis is a sales tax.
* The federal government should participate "significantly" in
addressing WMATA's budgetary shortfalls, particularly for capital
maintenance and system enhancement.
* Federal and regional authorities should consider alternate methods
for funding the paratransit needs of the region.
WMATA and the Metro Funding Panel's cosponsoring organizations have
endorsed the panel's report and recommendations. At the Chairman's
request of February 9, 2005, we plan to address WMATA's funding issues
in more detail, as well as concerns about the agency's overall
operations and management, in a comprehensive study of WMATA. In that
study, we plan to address:
WMATA's unique responsibilities for serving the interests of the
federal government--including the agency's role in transporting federal
employees and supporting homeland security for the Washington
metropolitan region--and the extent to which the federal government has
provided WMATA with financial support over the years in recognition of
its responsibility for a regional transit system; the extent to which
WMATA is still experiencing the types of challenges laid out in our
2001 report and the actions WMATA has taken to implement our
recommendations for improving its capital planning practices; and the
current funding challenges that WMATA faces and the pros and cons of
various options proposed by the Metro Funding Panel and others for
addressing these challenges.
In summary, WMATA has relied on federal funding to a great extent,
first to construct the Metrorail system and then to rehabilitate its
existing assets and to purchase new capital. As the original rail
system ages, WMATA will probably request more federal funds for
rehabilitation, but as its ridership grows, it will also need to
purchase new capital to accommodate the increased demands on the
system. Because WMATA lacks a dedicated revenue source, it relies on
federal and nonfederal contributions, which can vary and may not be
sufficient, making capital planning difficult.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For information on this testimony, please contact Katherine Siggerud at
(202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Edda
Emmanuelli-Perez, Rita Grieco, Suzanne Sapp, and Kelly Slade.
Appendix I:
Federal Funding Provided to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority for Metrorail Construction and for Capital Improvements:
Table 1: Federal Funding Provided for Metrorail Construction:
Dollars in billions
Federal funding: Appropriations;
Authorizing legislation: National Transportation Act of 1969;
Amount provided: $1.10.
Federal funding: Appropriations;
Authorizing legislation: The National Capital Transportation Act
Amendments of 1979;
Amount provided: $1.7.
Federal funding: Appropriations;
Authorizing legislation: The National Capital Transportation Act of
1990;
Amount provided: $1.3[A].
Subtotal;
Amount provided: $4.10.
Federal funding: Appropriations;
Authorizing legislation: Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973;
Amount provided: $2.10.
Total;
Amount provided: $6.20.
Source: GAO presentation of data provided by the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).
[A] Of this amount, $850 million was appropriated during fiscal years
1995 through 1999--$200 million in each fiscal year from 1995 through
1998 and $50 million in fiscal year 1999.
[End of table]
Table 2: Grants and Other Federal Funding Provided for WMATA's Capital
Improvements:
Dollars in millions:
Fiscal year: 1995;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $45.8;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $17.3;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $0;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $0;
Total: Nominal: $63.1;
Total: Adjusted: $74.1.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $48;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $17.2;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $0;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $0;
Total: Nominal: $65.2;
Total: Adjusted: $75.1.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $44.3;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $14;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $0;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $0;
Total: Nominal: $58.3;
Total: Adjusted: $66.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $47.7;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $18.3;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $0;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $0;
Total: Nominal: $66;
Total: Adjusted: $73.8.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Congressionally designated projects: $25;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $61.6;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $20.5;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $0;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $0;
Total: Nominal: $107.1;
Total: Adjusted: $118.3.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $68.3;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $33.4;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $0;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $0;
Total: Nominal: $101.7;
Total: Adjusted: $110.1.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $78.8;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $44.7;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $32;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $2.6;
Total: Nominal: $158.1;
Total: Adjusted: $167.2.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Congressionally designated projects: $24.9;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $88.1;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $48.7;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $7.4;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $1.4;
Total: Nominal: $170.5;
Total: Adjusted: $177.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $96.2;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $58.2;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $54.5;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $4.5;
Total: Nominal: $213.4;
Total: Adjusted: $217.6.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $99;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $62.5;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $59;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $1.9;
Total: Nominal: $222.4;
Total: Adjusted: $222.4.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Congressionally designated projects: $0;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $100.2;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $59.2;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $64;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $0;
Total: Nominal: $223.4;
Total: Adjusted: $219.
Total;
Congressionally designated projects: $49.9;
Urbanized area formula grants (Title 5307): $778;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Rail modernization: $394;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: New Starts: $216.9;
Capital investment grants (Title 5309)[A]: Bus-related: $10.4;
Total: Nominal: $1449.2;
Total: Adjusted: $1520.6.
Source: GAO presentation of data provided by WMATA.
[A] These are a mixture of formula (rail modernization) and
discretionary (New Starts and bus-related) grants.
[End of table]
Appendix II: Legislation Establishing the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority and Authorizing Funding for It:
From the early 1950s, Congress and the executive branch recognized
several factors related to the District of Columbia's unique status as
the nation's capital that led them to determine that the federal
government needed to be closely involved in the planning and funding
for a transit system for the District of Columbia and adjacent
jurisdictions. These factors include the large presence of the federal
government in the area with its attendant property, buildings and
workforce; the attraction of the nation's capital as a tourist
destination; the overlapping needs of adjacent jurisdictions; and the
limitations faced by the District of Columbia and the adjacent
jurisdictions in raising revenue for transit needs. Congress and the
executive branch identified and considered these factors in legislation
requiring the planning of mass transportation for the area,
establishing the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA), directly appropriating funds for the planning and construction
of the transit system, and providing grant funds through Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) programs.
Federal Involvement in Determining the Need for and Planning of a
Transit System for the District of Columbia:
Congress determined over 50 years ago that comprehensive transportation
planning for the District of Columbia and the adjoining metropolitan
area was an important priority for the federal government's operations.
In 1952, Congress enacted and President Truman signed the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952[Footnote 38] (1952 Act), which provided
for comprehensive planning for the physical development of the National
Capital Region.[Footnote 39] Congress made several findings in the 1952
Act, including the following:
* The location of the seat of the federal government in the District of
Columbia brought about the development of a metropolitan region
extending into Maryland and Virginia, and comprehensive planning was
necessary on a regional basis and of continuing importance to the
federal government.[Footnote 40]
* The distribution of federal installations throughout the region had
been and would continue to be a major influence in determining the
extent and character of the region's development.[Footnote 41]
* There was a need for a central planning agency for the National
Capital Region to coordinate the developmental activities of the many
different agencies in the federal and District of Columbia governments,
and there was "an increasing mutuality of interest and responsibility
between the various levels of government that calls for coordinate and
unified policies in planning both Federal and local development in the
interest of order and economy . . . the planning of which requires
collaboration between Federal, State and local governments in the
interest of equity and constructive action."[Footnote 42]
Congress created the National Capital Planning Commission as the
central planning agency for development of the National Capital Region,
with responsibility for:
* planning for the major movements of people and goods throughout the
region including "the general location, arrangement, character, and
extent of highways . . . subways, major thoroughfares, and other
facilities for the handling of traffic," and plans for mass
transportation,[Footnote 43] and:
* preparing a comprehensive plan that included a major thoroughfare and
mass transportation plan that would serve federal and District of
Columbia needs.[Footnote 44]
In 1960, Congress further developed its findings that the federal
government's interests and functioning would be served by the
development of a transit system for the National Capital Region.
Congress enacted and President Eisenhower signed the National Capital
Transportation Act of 1960[Footnote 45] (1960 Act) to promote the
development of a transit system for the National Capital Region.
Congress made several findings in the 1960 Act, including the following:
* An improved transportation system for the National Capital Region was
"essential for the continued and effective performance of the functions
of the Government of the United States."[Footnote 46]
* Planning for a transportation system would be needed on a regional
basis and required cooperation among the federal, state, and local
governments of the region.
* The financial participation of the federal government would be
required because the creation of certain major transportation
facilities would be beyond the financial capacity or borrowing power of
the public carriers, the District of Columbia, and the local
governments of the region.
* Finally, "it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the
Federal Government, in cooperation with the State and local governments
of the National Capital Region, and making full use of private
enterprise whenever appropriate, to encourage and aid in the planning
and development of a unified and coordinated transportation system for
the National Capital Region."[Footnote 47]
As part of the 1960 Act, Congress took several steps to provide for
direct executive branch involvement and continued federal interest and
responsibilities for the planning and financing of a transit system,
including:
* establishing the National Capital Transportation Agency, subject to
the direction and supervision of the President and headed by an
Administrator appointed by the President subject to Senate
confirmation;[Footnote 48]
* making the National Capital Transportation Agency responsible for
preparing and periodically revising a Transit Development Program
consisting of plans for the general location of transportation
facilities, a timetable for the provision of such facilities, and
comprehensive financial reports including costs, revenues and
benefits;[Footnote 49]
* requiring the National Capital Transportation Agency to submit
recommendations for organization and financial arrangements for
transportation in the region to the President for transmittal to
Congress;[Footnote 50]
requiring the National Capital Transportation Agency to consult with
local governments of the National Capital Region and the federal
agencies having an interest in transportation in that region;[Footnote
51]
* ensuring that the agency's recommendations provide that payment of
all costs be borne as much as possible by persons using or benefiting
from regional transportation facilities and services, and that any
remaining costs be shared equitably among the federal, state and local
governments.[Footnote 52]
* authorizing the states of Maryland and Virginia and the District of
Columbia to negotiate a compact[Footnote 53] for the establishment of
an organization to serve as the means of consultation and cooperation
among the federal, state, and local governments in the National Capital
Region; to plan for the development of the region; and to perform
governmental functions including the provision of regional
transportation facilities.[Footnote 54]
In 1965, Congress and President Johnson reaffirmed the federal
government's role in developing a transit system for the National
Capital Region in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965 (1965
Act).[Footnote 55] As part of its findings and purposes, Congress
stated the following:
* A coordinated system of rail transit, bus transportation, and
highways is essential in the National Capital Region for several
reasons, including "the effective performance of the functions of the
United States Government located within the Region."
* This transportation system should be developed cooperatively by the
federal, state, and local governments of the National Capital Region,
"with the costs of the necessary facilities financed, as far as
possible, by persons using or benefiting from such facilities and the
remaining costs shared equitably among the Federal, State, and local
governments."
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact:
On June 9, 1966, President Johnson transmitted to Congress a request
for the authorization and approval of the compact that had been
negotiated between the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia,
which among other things proposed the creation of the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).[Footnote 56] President
Johnson noted that the proposed bill would adequately provide for the
protection of the federal interest and that the proposed Transit
Authority would be reviewed by the President and Congress before
federal contributions are appropriated to ensure that the plans
adequately protect the interests of the federal government.
Congress granted its consent[Footnote 57] for the compact in the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact,[Footnote 58]
and WMATA was created in 1967. In the preamble to the compact, Congress
reaffirmed findings from the legislation it had enacted throughout the
1950s and 1960s, including the following:
* A coordinated system of rail transit, bus transportation, and
highways is essential in the National Capital Region for several
reasons, including "the effective performance of the functions of the
United States Government located within the Region."
* This transportation system should be developed cooperatively by the
federal, state, and local governments of the National Capital Region,
"with the costs of the necessary facilities financed, as far as
possible, by persons using or benefiting from such facilities and the
remaining costs shared equitably among the Federal, State, and local
governments."[Footnote 59]
(542057):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Congress authorized appropriations over a period of years for the
construction of the Washington Metropolitan Area transit system in
1969, 1979, and 1990. The appropriations that were authorized in 1969
went directly to WMATA, while the appropriations that were authorized
in 1979 and 1990 were directed to WMATA via the Department of
Transportation. Subsequently, Congress appropriated funds in annual
appropriation acts in accordance with these authorizing acts.
[2] See Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA, but Capital
Planning Could Be Enhanced, GAO-01-744 (Washington, D.C: July 3, 2001)
and Mass Transit: WMATA Is Addressing Many Challenges, but Capital
Planning Could Be Improved, GAO-01-1161T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21,
2001).
[3] Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact, Pub. L. No.
89-774 (1966).
[4] WMATA operates five rail lines: red, blue, orange, green, and
yellow.
[5] The WMATA service area consists of the northern Virginia counties
of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun and the cities of Alexandria,
Fairfax, and Falls Church; the suburban Maryland counties of Montgomery
and Prince George's; and the District of Columbia.
[6] The ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
[7] Subsequently, Congress appropriated these authorized funds in
annual appropriation acts.
[8] Pub. L. No. 91-143, 83 Stat. 320 (1969).
[9] Pub. L. No. 96-184, 93 Stat. 1320 (1980).
[10] Pub. L. No. 101-551, 104 Stat. 2733 (1990).
[11] The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 gave states the ability to use
highway funds on transit projects. Beginning in 1975, WMATA began
receiving interstate highway funds from the District of Columbia, which
totaled $2.1 billion as of 2004. Under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21) the federal Highway Trust Fund
continues to be used as the mechanism to account for federal highway
user-tax receipts that fund various highway and transit programs.
[12] Pub. L. 592, Chapter 949, 60 Stat. 781, July 19, 1952.
[13] The National Capital Region includes the District of Columbia and
various counties in Maryland and Virginia. 1952 Act, section 1(b). It
is also referred to as the Washington Metropolitan Area.
[14] Pub. L. No. 86-669, 74 Stat. 537 (1960).
[15] Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution provides that no
state shall enter into any agreement or compact with another state
without the consent of Congress.
[16] Pub. L. No. 89-173, 79 Stat. 663 (1965).
[17] President Johnson's letter of June 9, 1966, and attachments.
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Monday June 13, 1966.
[18] Formula grants are allocated to eligible entities on the basis of
a statutory formula; discretionary grants are awarded to eligible
entities through a process that may involve competition.
[19] See Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and
Additional Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process, GAO-03-701
(Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2003).
[20] 49 U.S.C. § 5307.
[21] The formulas take into consideration a combination of factors,
including bus revenue vehicle miles, bus passenger miles, rail revenue
vehicle miles, rail route miles, population, population density, and
other factors.
[22] Even after adjustments for inflation, this funding generally has
increased over the last 10 fiscal years.
[23] 49 U.S.C. § 5309.
[24] See GAO Transit Grants, GAO/RCED-00-260, pp. 1, 3, and appendix I;
and Benefits and Costs of Transportation Investments, GAO-05-172, p. 8.
[25] Even after adjustments for inflation, this funding generally has
increased over the last 10 fiscal years.
[26] In its proposed fiscal year 2006 budget, WMATA has expanded the
Capital Improvement Program to include a number of other capital
activities--including purchases of new rail cars and buses and the
construction of new security and credit facilities--that were proposed
as part of an initiative entitled "Metro Matters." This initiative is
discussed in detail later in this statement.
[27] District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001,
Pub.L. No. 106-522, 114 Stat. 2440 (2000).
[28] See GAO, Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA, but
Capital Planning Could Be Enhanced, GAO-01-744 (Washington, D.C: July
3, 2001) and Mass Transit: WMATA Is Addressing Many Challenges, but
Capital Planning Could Be Improved , GAO-01-1161T (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 21, 2001).
[29] The $3.3 billion included $1.8 billion in previously pledged
funding and $1.5 billion in new commitments called for in "Metro
Matters."
[30] The Federal City Council is a non-profit organization--composed of
170 of the Washington region's business, professional, educational, and
civic leaders--that addresses major issues through a variety of
projects involving the private sector, the federal government, and the
District of Columbia government.
[31] The formal name of the panel is "Panel on the Analysis of and
Potential for Alternate Dedicated Revenue Sources for WMATA". See PB
Consult Inc., Report of the Metro Funding Panel (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
6, 2005).
[32] Pub. L. 101-336.
[33] GAO-01-744 and GAO-01-1161T.
[34] GAO, Issues Being Faced by the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, CED-79-52 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 1979).
[35] GAO, Applying DOT's Rail Policy to Washington, D.C.'s Metrorail
System Could Save Federal Funds, GAO/RCED-83-24 (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
12, 1983).
[36] Robert Puentes, Washington's Metro: Deficits by Design
(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Series on Transportation
Reform, June 2004).
[37] Report of the Metro Funding Panel (2005).
[38] Pub. L. 592, Chapter 949, 60 Stat. 781, July 19, 1952.
[39] The National Capital Region includes the District of Columbia and
various counties in Maryland and Virginia. 1952 Act, section 1(b). It
is also referred to as the Washington Metropolitan Area.
[40] 1952 Act, section 1(a).
[41] 1952 Act, section 1(a).
[42] 1952 Act, section 1 (a).
[43] 1952 Act, section 4(b) and (c).
[44] 1952 Act, section 6(a) and (b). Congress appropriated $200,000 for
fiscal year 1956 to the National Capital Planning Commission to conduct
a survey of the present and future mass transportation needs of the
National Capital Region. Pub. L. 24, 84TH Cong., ch. 6, 69 Stat. 33
(1955).
[45] Pub. L. No. 86-669, 74 Stat. 537 (1960).
[46] 1960 Act, section 102.
[47] 1960 Act, section 102.
[48] 1960 Act, section 201(a).
[49] 1960 Act, section 204(a).
[50] 1960 Act, section 204(g).
[51] 1960 Act, section 204(g).
[52] 1960 Act, section 204(g).
[53] Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution provides that no
state shall enter into any agreement or compact with another state
without the consent of Congress.
[54] 1960 Act, section 301(a).
[55] Pub. L. No. 89-173, 79 Stat. 663 (1965).
[56] President Johnson's letter of June 9, 1966 and attachments. Weekly
Compilation of Presidential Documents, Monday June 13, 1966.
[57] Pub. L. No. 89-774, 80 Stat. 1324 (1966).
[58] Pub. L. No. 89-774, 80 Stat. 1324 (1966).
[59] The compact provides further details on policy and plans for
financing and budgets.
