Rail Transit
Observations on FTA's State Safety Oversight Program and Potential Change in Its Oversight Role Gao ID: GAO-10-314T December 10, 2009Rail transit generally has been one of the safest forms of public transportation. However, several recent notable accidents are cause for concern. For example, a July 2009 crash on the Washington Metro Red Line resulted in nine deaths. The federal government does not directly regulate the safety of rail transit. Through its State Safety Oversight program, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires states to designate an oversight agency to directly oversee the safety of rail transit systems. In 2006, GAO issued a report that made recommendations to improve the program. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is planning to propose legislation that, if passed, would result in a greater role for FTA in regulating and overseeing the safety of these systems. This statement (1) summarizes the findings of GAO's 2006 report and (2) provides GAO's preliminary observations on key elements DOT has told us it will include in its legislative proposal for revamping rail transit safety oversight. It is based primarily on GAO's 2006 report, an analysis of key elements of DOT's planned proposal through review of documents and interviews with DOT officials, and GAO's previous work on regulatory programs that oversee safety within other modes of transportation. GAO's 2006 report was based on a survey of the 27 state oversight agencies and transit agencies covered by FTA's program. GAO provided a draft of this testimony to DOT officials and incorporated their comments as appropriate.
GAO's 2006 report found that officials from the majority of the state oversight and transit agencies stated that the State Safety Oversight program enhances rail transit safety but that FTA faced several challenges in administering the program. For example, state oversight agencies received little or no funding from FTA and had limited funding for staff. In fact, some required that the transit agencies they oversaw reimburse them for services. Also, expertise, staffing levels, and enforcement powers varied widely from agency to agency. This resulted in a lack of uniformity in how oversight agencies carried out their duties. As of 2006, 13 oversight agencies were devoting the equivalent of less than one full-time employee to oversight functions. Also, 19 oversight agencies GAO contacted lacked certain enforcement authority, such as authority to issue fines, and those that did have such authority stated that they rarely, if ever, used it. DOT is planning to propose major changes in FTA's role that would shift the balance of federal and state responsibilities for oversight of rail transit safety. According to DOT officials, under this proposal, the agency would receive authority to establish and enforce minimum standards although states still could maintain an oversight program. States could become authorized to enforce these standards if FTA determines their program capable and financially independent of the transit system they oversee. FTA would provide financial assistance to approved programs. Such changes would have the potential to address challenges GAO cited in its 2006 report. For example, providing funding to participating state agencies could help them maintain an adequate number of trained staff, and providing FTA and participating states with enforcement authority could help better ensure that transit systems take corrective actions when problems are found. Congress may need to consider several issues in deciding whether or how to act on DOT's proposal. These include determining whatlevel of government has the best capacity to oversee transit safety, ensuring that FTA and state oversight agencies would have adequate and qualified staff to carry out the envisioned program, and understanding the potential budgetary implications of the program.
GAO-10-314T, Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety Oversight Program and Potential Change in Its Oversight Role
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-314T
entitled 'Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety Oversight
Program and Potential Change in Its Oversight Role' which was released
on December 10, 2009.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community
Development, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S.
Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST:
Thursday, December 10, 2009:
Rail Transit:
Observations on FTA's State Safety Oversight Program and Potential
Change in Its Oversight Role:
Statement of David J. Wise, Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-10-314T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-314T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Highlights of GAO-10-314T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate.
What GAO Found:
GAO‘s 2006 report found that officials from the majority of the state
oversight and transit agencies stated that the State Safety Oversight
program enhances rail transit safety but that FTA faced several
challenges in administering the program. For example, state oversight
agencies received little or no funding from FTA and had limited funding
for staff. In fact, some required that the transit agencies they
oversaw reimburse them for services. Also, expertise, staffing levels,
and enforcement powers varied widely from agency to agency. This
resulted in a lack of uniformity in how oversight agencies carried out
their duties. As of 2006, 13 oversight agencies were devoting the
equivalent of less than one full-time employee to oversight functions.
Also, 19 oversight agencies GAO contacted lacked certain enforcement
authority, such as authority to issue fines, and those that did have
such authority stated that they rarely, if ever, used it.
DOT is planning to propose major changes in FTA‘s role that would shift
the balance of federal and state responsibilities for oversight of rail
transit safety. According to DOT officials, under this proposal, the
agency would receive authority to establish and enforce minimum
standards although states still could maintain an oversight program.
States could become authorized to enforce these standards if FTA
determines their program capable and financially independent of the
transit system they oversee. FTA would provide financial assistance to
approved programs. Such changes would have the potential to address
challenges GAO cited in its 2006 report. For example, providing funding
to participating state agencies could help them maintain an adequate
number of trained staff, and providing FTA and participating states
with enforcement authority could help better ensure that transit
systems take corrective actions when problems are found. Congress may
need to consider several issues in deciding whether or how to act on
DOT‘s proposal. These include determining what level of government has
the best capacity to oversee transit safety, ensuring that FTA and
state oversight agencies would have adequate and qualified staff to
carry out the envisioned program, and understanding the potential
budgetary implications of the program.
Figure: Examples of Rail Transit Systems Subject to FTA State Safety
Oversight Program:
[Refer to PDF for image: 6 photographs]
Heavy Rail: Chicago Transit Authority ’L“;
Light Rail: Port Authority of Allegheny County ’T“;
Automated Guideway: Seattle Center Monorail;
Inclined Plane: Port Authority of Allegheny County Duquesne Incline;
Cable Car: San Francisco Municipal Railway Cable Car;
Trolley: Kenosha Transit Trolley.
Sources: PennDOT; Seattle Center Monorail; San Francisco Municipal
Railway; GAO.
[End of figure]
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-314T] or key
components. For more information, contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-
2834 or wised@gao.gov.
[End of section]
December 10, 2009:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the mechanisms in
place to oversee the safety of the nation's rail transit systems. Rail
transit moves more than 7 million people in the United States daily and
generally has been one of the safest forms of public transportation.
However, several recent notable accidents and other troubling safety
events are cause for concern. For example, a June 2009 crash on the
Washington Metro Red Line resulted in nine deaths. Metro also has
suffered from several incidents involving fatalities to track workers
and other employees. In addition, in May 2009, two trolleys in Boston
collided, injuring 49 people, and in July 2009 two rail cars collided
in San Francisco, injuring 48 people.
The federal government does not directly regulate the safety of rail
transit in the United States. However, in 1991, Congress required the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) within the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) to issue regulations requiring states to designate
an oversight agency to oversee the safety and security of rail transit
agencies and withhold federal funds if a state did not comply. Through
the resulting State Safety Oversight (SSO) program, FTA requires states
to designate an oversight agency to implement FTA safety and security
oversight over rail transit agencies. In 2006, we testified on the SSO
program and issued a report that made recommendations to improve the
program.[Footnote 1] DOT plans to submit a proposal for legislation
that, if passed, would result in a greater role for the department in
regulating and overseeing safety of rail transit systems.
My testimony today (1) summarizes the findings of our 2006 report and
(2) provides our preliminary observations on key elements DOT has told
us it will include in its legislative proposal for revamping rail
transit safety oversight. In our observations, we cite key issues
Congress may need to consider in determining whether or how to act on
DOT's proposal. My comments are primarily based on our 2006 report;
interviews with DOT officials about the department's plans for
proposing a greater federal role in rail transit safety oversight; a
review of related documents that we obtained; a comparison of key
elements of the planned proposal with issues raised in our 2006 report;
and our previous work on regulatory programs, DOT's transit programs,
and efforts to oversee safety within the various modes of
transportation. Our 2006 report was based on a survey of 27 state
safety oversight agencies and transit agencies covered by FTA's program
as well as reviews of program documentation and guidance and interviews
with FTA, the National Transportation Safety Board, the American Public
Transportation Association, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA), state safety oversight agencies, and transit agencies. We plan
to issue a report on challenges in improving rail transit safety in
fall 2010 for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs. We conducted our prior and current work in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. We provided a draft of our statement to
the Department of Transportation and incorporated its comments as
appropriate.
In summary:
* Our 2006 report found that officials from the majority of oversight
and transit agencies stated that the SSO program enhances rail transit
safety but that FTA faced several challenges in administering the
program. FTA had not definitively shown that the program had enhanced
safety, however, because it did not have performance goals and did not
measure performance. Therefore, FTA had little information with which
to track oversight agencies' performance over time. It has since taken
steps to begin developing performance goals and metrics. Other
challenges facing FTA in terms of assuring that the SSO program
adequately oversees transit safety included that state oversight
agencies received little or no funding from FTA and that some of them
had limited funding for staff--in fact some required the transit
agencies they oversaw to reimburse them for services. Also, expertise,
staffing levels, and states' enforcement authority, e.g. fines, varied
widely from agency to agency. As of 2006, 13 state oversight agencies
were devoting the equivalent of less than one full-time employee to
oversight functions. Finally, we found that transit and oversight
agencies were confused about the role of FTA and TSA in overseeing
security functions.
* DOT plans to propose major changes in FTA's role that would shift the
balance of federal and state responsibilities for oversight of rail
transit safety. According to DOT officials, under this proposal, FTA
would receive statutory authority to establish and enforce minimum
standards. Still, FTA might not have to take on the enforcement role in
all circumstances; states could become authorized to enforce these
standards if FTA determines their programs are capable and financially
independent of the transit system they oversee. FTA would provide
financial assistance to approved programs. These changes would have the
potential to address some challenges and issues we cited in our 2006
report. For example, providing funding to participating state agencies
could help them maintain an adequate number of trained staff. Also,
providing FTA and participating states with enforcement authority could
help ensure that transit systems take corrective actions when problems
are found. Congress may need to consider several issues in deciding
whether or how to act on DOT's proposal. These include:
* determining what level of government, state or federal, is most
capable of overseeing transit safety,
* ensuring that FTA and state oversight agencies would have adequate
and qualified staff to carry out the envisioned program,
* determining which enforcement mechanisms are best for rail transit so
that FTA or the state oversight agencies can ensure that identified
safety problems are corrected before they lead to accidents, and:
* understanding the budgetary implications of the program.
Background:
The SSO program covers all states with fixed guideway systems operating
in their jurisdictions. FTA defines a rail fixed guideway system as any
light, heavy, or rapid rail system, monorail, inclined plane,
funicular, trolley, or automated guideway that is not regulated by the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and is:
* included in FTA's calculation of fixed guideway route miles, or:
* receives funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas, or:
* has submitted documentation to FTA indicating its intent to be
included in FTA's calculation of fixed guideway route miles to receive
funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas.[Footnote 2]
Figure 1 shows the types of systems that are included in the SSO
program.
Figure 1: Examples of the Types of Rail Systems Included in the State
Safety Oversight Program:
[Refer to PDF for image: 6 photographs]
Heavy Rail: Chicago Transit Authority ’L“;
Light Rail: Port Authority of Allegheny County ’T“;
Automated Guideway: Seattle Center Monorail;
Inclined Plane: Port Authority of Allegheny County Duquesne Incline;
Cable Car: San Francisco Municipal Railway Cable Car;
Trolley: Kenosha Transit Trolley.
Sources: PennDOT; Seattle Center Monorail; San Francisco Municipal
Railway; GAO.
[End of figure]
In the SSO program, state oversight agencies are responsible for
directly overseeing rail transit agencies. As of December 2009, 27
state oversight agencies exist to oversee rail transit in 26
states.[Footnote 3] According to FTA, states must designate an agency
to perform this oversight function at the time FTA enters into a grant
agreement for any "New Starts" project involving a new rail transit
system, or before a transit agency applies for FTA formula funding.
[Footnote 4] States have designated several different types of agencies
to serve as oversight agencies, including state departments of
transportation, public utilities commissions, or regional
transportation funding authorities. FTA has a set of rules that an
oversight agency must follow, such as developing a program standard
that transit agencies must meet, reviewing transit agencies' safety and
security plans, conducting safety audits, and investigating accidents.
In the program, rail transit agencies are mainly responsible for
meeting the program standards that oversight agencies set out for them,
which generally include developing a separate safety and security plan,
developing a hazard management process, reporting accidents to
oversight agencies within 2 hours, and other similar tasks. Under the
program, FTA provides limited funding to oversight agencies in only
limited instances, generally for travel or training. While oversight
agencies are to include security reviews as part of their
responsibilities, TSA also has security oversight authority over
transit agencies. (See figure 2 showing roles and responsibilities of
participants in the program.)
Figure 2: Roles and Responsibilities of Participants in the SSO
Program:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
FTA:
1) State Safety Oversight 49 CFR Part 659:
DHS and FRA provide related oversight functions;
2) Conduct audit of state oversight agency and review annual, incident,
and 3-year reviews.
State Oversight Agency (SOA):
1) Oversight agency designated by state;
2) Develop a System Safety Program Standard (defines the relationship
between the SOA and the transit agency);
3) Review, approve, and monitor the implementation of the transit
agency‘s plans;
4) Require the transit agency to report the occurrence of accidents and
unacceptable hazardous conditions within a period of time specified by
the Standard;
5) Require the transit agency to conduct internal safety audits;
6) Conduct an on-site formal Triennial Safety Review of the transit
agency;
7) Require the transit agency to implement a Corrective Action Plan;
8) Submit initial, annual and periodic reports to the FTA as required by
Part 659.
Transit Agency:
1) Develop and implement a system safety plan that complies with the
SOA Standard and develop a system security plan;
2) Classify hazardous conditions;
3) Report any accidents and unacceptable hazardous conditions within
the time frame specified by the SOA and investigate if necessary;
4) Conduct internal safety and security reviews;
5) Develop annual report and certification of compliance.
6) Annually submit report on internal safety and security review,
certification of compliance, hazard management program, and 3-year
reviews;
7) Obtain the SOA‘s approval of corrective action and implement plans.
Source: GAO adaptation of State Safety Oversight Program Annual Report
2003, FTA Office of Safety and Security.
[End of figure]
FTA's role in overseeing safety and security of rail transit is
relatively limited. FTA relies on a staff member in its Office of
Safety and Security to lead the SSO program. A program manager is
responsible for the SSO program along with other duties. Additional FTA
staff within the Office of Safety and Security assist with outreach to
transit and oversight agencies and additional tasks. FTA regional
personnel are not formally involved with the program's day-to-day
activities, but officials from FTA regional offices help address
specific compliance issues that occasionally arise and help states with
new transit agencies establish new oversight agencies. FTA also relies
on contractors to do many of the day-to-day activities, ranging from
developing and implementing FTA's audit program of state oversight
agencies to developing and providing training classes on system safety.
Rail transit has been one of the safest modes of transportation in the
United States. For example, according to DOT, in 2008, 57.7 people were
injured traveling in motor vehicle accidents per 100 million miles
traveled and 5.5 people were injured in commuter rail accidents per 100
million miles traveled.[Footnote 5] For rail transit, the rate was 0.5
people injured per 100 million miles traveled. The injury rate on rail
transit has varied from 0.2 to 0.9 injuries per 100 million miles
traveled since 2002. Also, the Washington Metro Red Line accident this
summer marked the first fatalities involving a collision between two
rail cars on a U.S. rail transit system in 8 years. However, according
to FTA officials, the recent major incidents in Boston, San Francisco,
and Washington have increased their concern about rail transit safety.
In addition, FTA states that the number of derailments, worker
injuries, and collisions has increased on rail transit systems as a
whole in the last several years.
Our 2006 Report Found Most Participants Stated That the State Safety
Oversight Program Was Worthwhile but FTA Faced Several Challenges in
Administering the Program Effectively:
Our 2006 report found that officials from the majority of oversight and
transit agencies with whom we spoke stated that the SSO program
enhances rail transit safety. Officials at several transit agencies
cited improvements in reducing the number of derailments, fires, and
collisions through actions undertaken as a result of their work with
state oversight agencies. However, despite this anecdotal evidence, FTA
had not definitively shown that the program had enhanced safety because
it had neither established performance goals nor tracked performance.
Also, FTA had not audited each state oversight agency in the previous 3
years, as the agency had stated it would. Therefore, FTA had little
information with which to track oversight agencies' performance over
time. We recommended that FTA set and monitor performance goals for the
SSO program and keep to its stated schedule of auditing state oversight
agencies at least once every 3 years. Although FTA officials pointed
out that tracking safety performance would be challenging in an
environment where fatalities and incidents were low, they agreed to
implement our recommendation. FTA assigned the task to a contractor and
said that it would make auditing oversight agencies a priority in the
future.
We also found that FTA faced several challenges in assuring the
effectiveness of the program and recommending improvements to transit
agency safety practices.
Funding challenges limited staffing levels and effectiveness. Officials
at several state oversight agencies we spoke with stated that since FTA
provided little to no funding for rail transit safety oversight
functions, and because of competing priorities for limited state funds,
they were limited in the number of staff they could hire and the amount
of training they could provide. While FTA requires that states operate
safety oversight programs, capital and operating grants are not
available to support existing state oversight agencies once passenger
service commences. FTA, however, has begun to provide training for
state oversight agency staff.[Footnote 6] With the current financial
crises most states are experiencing, states face increasing challenges
in providing adequate funding for state oversight agencies. Also, in
our 2006 report, we found that 10 state oversight agencies relied on
the transit agencies they oversaw for a portion of their budgets. In
those cases, the oversight agencies required that the transit agency
reimburse the oversight agency for its oversight expenses.
Expertise varied across oversight agencies. The level of expertise
amongst oversight staff varied widely. For example, we found that 11
oversight agencies had staff with no previous career or educational
background in transit safety or security. Conversely, another 11
oversight agencies required their staff to have certain minimum levels
of transportation education or experience, such as having 5 years of
experience in the safety field or an engineering degree. In the
agencies in which oversight officials had little or no experience in
the field, officials reported that it took several years before they
became confident that they knew enough about rail transit operations to
provide effective oversight--a process that new staff would likely have
to repeat when the current staff leave their positions. Officials from
18 of the 24 oversight agencies with whom we spoke stated that
additional training could be useful in providing more effective safety
oversight. FTA, under the current system, does not have the authority
to mandate a certain level of training for oversight agency staff. In
response to our prior recommendation, FTA has created a recommended
training curriculum and is encouraging oversight agency staff to
successfully complete the curriculum and receive certification for
having done so.
Staffing levels varied across oversight agencies. The number of staff
that oversight agencies devoted to safety oversight also varied. For
example, we found that 13 oversight agencies dedicated less than one
full-time equivalent (FTE) staff member to oversight. While in some
cases the transit agencies overseen were small, such as a single
streetcar line, we found one state that estimated it devoted 0.1 FTE to
oversight of a transit agency that averaged 200,000 daily trips.
Another state devoted 0.5 FTE to overseeing five different transit
systems in two different cities.
To help ensure that oversight agency staff were adequately trained for
their duties, we recommended that FTA develop a suggested training
curriculum for oversight agency staff and encourage those staff to
complete it. FTA implemented our recommendation and over 50 percent of
state oversight agencies have staff who have completed at least the
first tier of this training. Still, the number of staff devoted to
safety oversight remains potentially problematic. FTA currently does
not require that states devote a certain level of staffing or financial
resources to oversight; without additional funding from the federal
government or another source, and due to the fiscal difficulties most
states are now experiencing, it is unlikely states will independently
increase staffing for safety oversight. FTA, however, has asked many
SSO agencies to perform formal manpower assessments to ensure they have
adequate resources devoted to oversight functions.
Enforcement powers of oversight agencies varied. The individual
authority each state oversight agency has over transit agencies varies
widely. While the SSO program gives state oversight agencies authority
to mandate certain rail safety practices, it does not give them
authority to take enforcement actions, such as fining an agency or
shutting down operations. Some states have given their oversight
agencies such authority, however. In our 2006 report, we stated that 19
of 27 oversight agencies had no punitive authority, such as authority
to issue fines, and those that did have such authority stated that they
rarely, if ever, used it. While taking punitive action against a rail
transit agency could be counterproductive (by, for instance,
withholding already limited funding), several oversight agency
officials told us the threat of such action could potentially make
their agencies more effective and other DOT modal administrations with
safety oversight authority can level fines or take other punitive
action against the entities they oversee.
Confusion existed about agency responsibilities for security oversight.
Our 2006 report also found that the transit and oversight agencies were
confused about the role TSA would take in overseeing security and what
role would be left to the state oversight agencies, if any. We made
recommendations to TSA and FTA to coordinate their security oversight
activities. The agencies agreed and FTA officials reported they are now
coordinating their audits with TSA.
Preliminary Observations on DOT's Plans For Revamping Rail Transit
Safety Oversight and Key Issues Congress May Need to Consider:
DOT is planning to propose major changes in FTA's role that would shift
the balance of federal and state responsibilities for setting safety
standards for rail transit agencies and overseeing their compliance
with those standards. Based on information provided to us by DOT, the
department plans to propose a new federal safety program for rail
transit, at an unspecified future date, with the following key
elements:
* FTA, through legislation, would receive authority to establish and
enforce minimum safety standards for rail transit systems not already
regulated by FRA.
* States could become authorized to enforce the federal minimum safety
standards by submitting a program proposal to FTA and receiving
approval of their program. In determining whether to approve state
safety programs, FTA would consider a state's capability to undertake
rail transit oversight, including staff capacity, and its financial
independence from the transit systems it oversees. DOT would provide
federal assistance to approved state safety programs. Participating
states could set more stringent safety standards if they choose to do
so.
* In states that decide to "opt out" of participation or where DOT has
found the program proposals inadequate, FTA would oversee compliance
with and enforce federal safety regulations.
These changes would give FTA the authority to directly regulate rail
transit safety and, in cooperation with the states, to oversee and
enforce compliance by rail transit systems with these regulations.
These changes would bring its authority more in line with that of other
modal administrations within DOT. For example, FRA, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration promulgate
regulations and technical standards that govern how vehicles or
facilities in their respective modes must be operated or constructed.
In addition, each of these agencies use federal or state inspectors, or
a combination of both, to determine compliance with the safety
regulations and guidance they issue. Finally, these agencies can
mandate corrective actions and levy fines to transportation operators,
among other actions, for noncompliance with regulations.
The new program DOT is planning to propose has the potential to address
some challenges and issues we cited in our 2006 report. The
consideration of staffing levels in deciding whether to approve states'
proposed programs and the provision of funds to approved programs could
increase levels of staffing. Requiring that participating states not
receive funds from transit agencies would make the state agencies more
independent of the transit agencies they oversee. Providing FTA and
participating states with the authority to enforce minimum federal
safety standards across the nation's transit systems could help ensure
compliance with the standards and improved safety practices, and might
prevent some accidents as a result.
While the new program, as envisioned by DOT, may have some potential
benefits, our work on the SSO program, other transit programs, and
regulatory programs suggests there are a number of issues Congress may
need to consider in deciding whether or how to act on DOT's proposal.
* Roles of the states versus FTA. The following questions would need to
be considered when determining whether changes are needed in the
balance of federal versus state responsibility for establishing rail
transit safety:
- Are uniform federal standards and nationwide coverage essential to
achieving rail transit safety?
- Which level of government, state or federal, has the capacity to do
the job at hand, taking into account such factors as resources and
enforcement powers?
In addition, shifting federal-state responsibilities for oversight of
rail transit safety would bring a number of operational challenges.
These include finding the appropriate level of FTA oversight of state
programs and allocating costs between the federal government and the
states. The new oversight system to be proposed would potentially
involve major changes in the way states interact with FTA in overseeing
transit safety. The new balance of state and federal responsibilities
could take some time for transit agencies to adjust to, especially
those that would now be reporting directly to federal officials.
* Adequate staff with needed skills. FTA would need to ensure it has
adequate qualified staff to oversee safety under the new program,
especially in states that opt out of participating in the new program.
FTA's current safety staff is very small as is the staff devoted to
rail transit safety oversight in most state agencies. Building the
capability within FTA, its contractors, and these state agencies to
develop and carry out the envisioned program would pose a number of
challenges. However, the actions FTA has taken in response to our 2006
recommendation to institute a training curriculum for oversight agency
staff, would give it a head start on this process.
* Enforcement. Congress would need to determine which enforcement
mechanisms to authorize FTA to use and FTA would need to develop an
enforcement approach that makes the best use of these enforcement
mechanisms. Other DOT modal administrations with safety oversight
responsibilities, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and FRA,
are authorized to issue fines or civil penalties to operators that
violate regulations. However, transit agencies are usually publicly
owned and face many financial challenges. As a result, fines and
penalties could be counterproductive to enhancing safety when funding
is at a premium and local riders or taxpayers ultimately could bear the
cost of fines. Other enforcement tools are options. For example, FRA
may order a locomotive, freight car, or passenger car out of service or
may send warning letters to individuals if a safety violation is found,
among other enforcement actions.
* Cost. According to FTA officials, their estimates of the total cost
of the new program the department plans to propose are very
preliminary. Better estimates of what, if any, costs that states would
bear under the new system will also be important before moving forward
with this proposal. This could include considering any estimated costs
the federal government would incur under various scenarios based on how
many states opt out and how many new federal employees or contractors
would be required under each scenario to act as trainers, inspectors,
and administrative staff. Currently, states bear most of the costs for
transit safety oversight. Determining these additional costs would be
added as the federal and state governments face significant increasing
fiscal pressures. Further, it is uncertain how the program will be paid
for. Congress will need to determine if riders, states, those who pay
taxes to the Highway Trust Fund, or the Department of the Treasury, or
a combination of sources, would bear the cost of this program.
In addition to the issues that Congress may need to address, FTA would
face some challenges in implementing a new system of transit safety
oversight. These include:
* Variations in the different types of transit. The U.S. rail transit
system consists of several different types of vehicles, from heavy and
light rail to monorails and funiculars or inclined planes. These
vehicles operate on different kinds of track with different power
sources and can vary from new modern vehicles to vehicles that are 30
or more years old. Setting federal safety regulations for these varying
systems could be a lengthy process and could require multiple parallel
rulemakings.
* Transition to the new system. If the new safety oversight system is
approved, it will take some time to transition to the new system.
States currently performing safety oversight that opt out in favor of
federal oversight will likely need to continue to perform their
oversight functions until FTA has additional staff and an enforcement
mechanism in place. However, a state may be less likely to replace
staff who leave or ensure staff in place stay adequately trained if the
state is in the process of giving over its oversight responsibilities
to FTA. While the likely effect of this may be minimal, this situation
could create the possibility of relaxed oversight during the transition
period.
As part of our ongoing review of challenges to improving rail transit
safety, we will review states' and FTA's current efforts to oversee and
enhance rail transit safety as well as DOT's efforts to strengthen the
federal role in overseeing rail transit safety.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee might have.
For further information on this statement, please contact David J. Wise
at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the
last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony were Catherine Colwell, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, and
Raymond Sendejas, Assistant Directors; Timothy Bober; Martha Chow;
Antoine Clark; Colin Fallon; Kathleen Gilhooly; David Goldstein; Joah
Iannotta; Hannah Laufe; Sara Ann Moessbauer; and Stephanie Purcell.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety Oversight
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-997T]
(Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2006) and Rail Transit: Additional Federal
Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State Safety Oversight Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-821] (Washington, D.C.:
July 26, 2006).
[2] 49 C.F.R. § 659.5.
[3] One state, Illinois, has two oversight agencies, each overseeing a
different rail transit agency.
[4] New Starts refers to capital investment grants that fund new fixed
guideway capital projects (49 U.S.C. § 5309).
[5] Commuter rail is a type of public transit that is characterized by
passenger trains operating on railroad tracks and providing regional
service (e.g., between a central city and adjacent suburbs).
[6] FTA also provides some funding for new oversight agencies during
their start-up process and before passenger service commences on the
transit agencies they oversee.
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
