Transit Rail
Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies Exist Gao ID: GAO-10-730 June 30, 2010Rail transit offers society a number of benefits, including reduced congestion and pollution and increased mobility. However, rail systems and cars are costly: Transit agencies can pay more than $3 million per car, often using federal funds. As requested, this report describes (1) characteristics of the U.S. market for transit rail cars, (2) the federal government's role in funding and setting standards for transit rail cars, and (3) challenges transit agencies face when procuring rail cars. GAO analyzed U.S. and worldwide rail car market data for commuter, heavy, and light rail systems and interviewed Department of Transportation (DOT) officials and domestic and international industry stakeholders, including the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
U.S. demand for transit rail cars is limited and erratic and orders tend to be for customized cars. Transit rail cars in the U.S. comprise about 5 percent of the worldwide fleet. Transit agencies' purchases vary considerably over time: A large transit agency may replace its entire fleet in 1 year, contributing to a spike in the market, whereas in other years, there may be only a fraction of that demand for the U.S. market. Transit agencies often request custom car designs to address not only legacy infrastructure requirements and interoperability issues with existing fleets, but also preferences. Rail car orders of small size and demand for customized cars can increase the price per car by, for example, concentrating design costs among fewer cars. The federal government provides some funding for transit rail cars and has varying levels of involvement in setting design standards for transit rail cars. More than half of the transit agencies GAO interviewed purchased rail cars with some type of federal funding, such as formula or discretionary capital funds. When transit agencies use federal funds to purchase rail cars, certain requirements apply, such as "Buy America"--which requires, among other things, that rail cars be assembled in the United States. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ensures that these requirements are met by overseeing new transit projects and through periodic reviews. The federal government's role in setting design standards for transit cars depends on the type of rail. For commuter rail, the Federal Railroad Administration has established safety standards that must be met, since these cars are intended to run on the same tracks as freight rail traffic. For other rail transit, FTA provided funds to help APTA--the standard-setting industry group--develop voluntary standards, including those for safety. However, the Secretary of Transportation proposed legislation in December 2009, which was introduced in Congress in February 2010, to give FTA more regulatory authority in relation to safety. Transit agency officials identified several challenges in procuring rail cars, including securing funding, given all of their competing needs. Manufacturers and transit agencies also face legal and regulatory requirements, such as "Buy America" requirements, but have generally adapted to challenges posed by them. However, market challenges still exist, including the small size of many orders that may affect price. Joint procurements, whereby transit agencies combine orders, can help them increase their order sizes; however, they can only combine orders if a design exists that meets both agencies' needs. While a few transit agencies have become aware of opportunities to jointly procure rail cars through informal mechanisms, such as industry meetings, there is currently no formal mechanism to identify mutually beneficial opportunities for joint procurement. As FTA helps fund many procurements, it may be in the best position to help transit agencies identify joint procurement opportunities. Furthermore, FTA and APTA have efforts under way to standardize light rail cars to make rail car procurement more efficient and cost-effective. Standards also might be beneficial for other types of systems, such as streetcars, particularly for those without existing infrastructure limitations. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation direct DOT to work with APTA to (1) develop a process to systematically identify and communicate opportunities for transit agencies with similar needs to participate in joint procurement and (2) identify additional opportunities for standardization, especially for new systems. DOT reviewed a draft of this report, generally concurred with its contents, and agreed to consider the recommendations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: David J. Wise Team: Government Accountability Office: Physical Infrastructure Phone: No phone on recordGAO-10-730, Transit Rail: Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies Exist
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-730
entitled 'Transit Rail: Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies
Exist' which was released on June 30, 2010.
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.
Report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S.
Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2010:
Transit Rail:
Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies Exist:
GAO-10-730:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-730, a report to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Rail transit offers society a number of benefits, including reduced
congestion and pollution and increased mobility. However, rail systems
and cars are costly: Transit agencies can pay more than $3 million per
car, often using federal funds. As requested, this report describes
(1) characteristics of the U.S. market for transit rail cars, (2) the
federal government‘s role in funding and setting standards for transit
rail cars, and (3) challenges transit agencies face when procuring
rail cars. GAO analyzed U.S. and worldwide rail car market data for
commuter, heavy, and light rail systems and interviewed Department of
Transportation (DOT) officials and domestic and international industry
stakeholders, including the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA).
What GAO Found:
U.S. demand for transit rail cars is limited and erratic and orders
tend to be for customized cars. Transit rail cars in the U.S. comprise
about 5 percent of the worldwide fleet. Transit agencies‘ purchases
vary considerably over time: A large transit agency may replace its
entire fleet in 1 year, contributing to a spike in the market, whereas
in other years, there may be only a fraction of that demand for the
U.S. market. Transit agencies often request custom car designs to
address not only legacy infrastructure requirements and
interoperability issues with existing fleets, but also preferences.
Rail car orders of small size and demand for customized cars can
increase the price per car by, for example, concentrating design costs
among fewer cars.
The federal government provides some funding for transit rail cars and
has varying levels of involvement in setting design standards for
transit rail cars. More than half of the transit agencies GAO
interviewed purchased rail cars with some type of federal funding,
such as formula or discretionary capital funds. When transit agencies
use federal funds to purchase rail cars, certain requirements apply,
such as ’Buy America“”which requires, among other things, that rail
cars be assembled in the United States. The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) ensures that these requirements are met by
overseeing new transit projects and through periodic reviews. The
federal government‘s role in setting design standards for transit cars
depends on the type of rail. For commuter rail, the Federal Railroad
Administration has established safety standards that must be met,
since these cars are intended to run on the same tracks as freight
rail traffic. For other rail transit, FTA provided funds to help APTA”
the standard-setting industry group”develop voluntary standards,
including those for safety. However, the Secretary of Transportation
proposed legislation in December 2009, which was introduced in
Congress in February 2010, to give FTA more regulatory authority in
relation to safety.
Transit agency officials identified several challenges in procuring
rail cars, including securing funding, given all of their competing
needs. Manufacturers and transit agencies also face legal and
regulatory requirements, such as ’Buy America“ requirements, but have
generally adapted to challenges posed by them. However, market
challenges still exist, including the small size of many orders that
may affect price. Joint procurements, whereby transit agencies combine
orders, can help them increase their order sizes; however, they can
only combine orders if a design exists that meets both agencies‘
needs. While a few transit agencies have become aware of opportunities
to jointly procure rail cars through informal mechanisms, such as
industry meetings, there is currently no formal mechanism to identify
mutually beneficial opportunities for joint procurement. As FTA helps
fund many procurements, it may be in the best position to help transit
agencies identify joint procurement opportunities. Furthermore, FTA
and APTA have efforts under way to standardize light rail cars to make
rail car procurement more efficient and cost-effective. Standards also
might be beneficial for other types of systems, such as streetcars,
particularly for those without existing infrastructure limitations.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation direct DOT to work
with APTA to (1) develop a process to systematically identify and
communicate opportunities for transit agencies with similar needs to
participate in joint procurement and (2) identify additional
opportunities for standardization, especially for new systems. DOT
reviewed a draft of this report, generally concurred with its
contents, and agreed to consider the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-730] or key
components. For more information, contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-
2834 or wised@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Characteristics of the U.S. Transit Rail Car Market May Have
Implications for Car Procurement:
Federal Government Is Involved to Varying Degrees in Funding and
Setting Design Standards for Transit Rail Car Procurement:
Although Procuring Rail Cars Can Be Challenging, Standardization and
Joint Purchasing Have the Potential to Reduce Costs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Phases of the Transit Rail Car Procurement Process:
Table 2: U.S. Passenger Rail Car Fleet by Mode (Commuter Rail, Heavy
Rail, Light Rail):
Table 3: Rail Transit Agencies Interviewed for GAO's Analysis:
Figures:
Figure 1: Description of Commuter Rail Cars and a Photograph of a
Commuter Train in Los Angeles, CA:
Figure 2: Description of Heavy Rail Cars and a Photograph of Heavy
Rail Cars in Chicago, IL:
Figure 3: Description of Light Rail Cars and a Photograph of a Light
Rail Car in San Diego, CA:
Figure 4: Size of U.S. Transit Rail System Based on the Number of Cars
for All Commuter Rail, Heavy Rail, and Light Rail:
Figure 5: Worldwide Transit Rail Car Fleet Totals by Location, as of
April 2010:
Figure 6: Rail Cars Produced for the U.S. Transit Agencies, 1970
through 2008:
Abbreviations:
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990:
AMT: Agence Métropolitaine de Transport:
APTA: American Public Transportation Association:
CTA: Chicago Transit Authority:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
MBTA: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority:
MTA: Metropolitan Transportation Authority:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PCC: Presidents' Conference Committee:
PRIIA: Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008:
RFP: Request for Proposals:
VRE: Virginia Railway Express:
WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 30, 2010:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
Rail transit offers passengers and society a number of benefits,
including reduced congestion and pollution, and increased mobility.
However, these systems are costly and challenging to build and
maintain. In particular, the cost of individual rail cars--which
transit agencies purchase to equip new systems and replace existing
fleets--can be high, typically $1.5 million to $3.4 million per car
for recent procurements, depending on the number and type of cars
purchased. In 2008, U.S. transit agencies spent over $2.3 billion on
rail cars. Transit rail cars can vary substantially in design across
systems and, sometimes even within systems, requiring manufacturers to
build customized cars, which can drive up the cost of procurement. In
fact, procuring standardized vehicles could reduce costs per car up to
20 percent, according to a recent Department of Transportation (DOT)
report to Congress.[Footnote 1] This issue affects not only the 54
U.S. transit agencies operating at least one rail transit line as of
the end of 2008, but will affect new rail systems, including new
streetcar systems.[Footnote 2] Since most transit agencies we
contacted use Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-administered grant
funds to purchase rail cars, reducing the cost of rail cars would
allow for more efficient use of federal funds. The Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) typically does not fund transit rail cars, but
the agency does oversee commuter rail safety.[Footnote 3]
In response to your request, we addressed the following objectives:
(1) What are the key characteristics of the U.S. market for transit
rail cars, and how do they compare with international markets? (2)
What is the federal government's role in funding and setting standards
for transit rail car procurement and design? (3) What challenges, if
any, do transit agencies face when procuring transit rail cars, and
what actions have they and other stakeholders taken to help address
them?
To determine the characteristics of the U.S. market for transit rail
cars, we reviewed two databases--the FTA's National Transit Database
and the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA) transit
database--to determine the number and types of passenger transit rail
cars in the United States. We also interviewed officials from 23 of
the 54 U.S. rail transit agencies as of 2008. We judgmentally selected
these agencies on the basis of their size; rail transit modes
(commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail); and geographic
distribution. These transit agencies were operating 33 systems among
the major transit rail modes, compared with 68 systems operated by all
U.S. transit agencies. The results of our work are not generalizeable
to all transit agencies. Furthermore, we interviewed officials from
existing and potential transit rail car manufacturers, transit agency
consultants, FTA, and APTA. To determine how the U.S. market for
transit rail cars compares with international markets, we obtained
worldwide rail car data from SCI Verkehr in Cologne, Germany, and
interviewed rail car manufacturers; transit officials from Canada,
Japan, New Zealand, and Portugal; and European railway associations.
To assess the reliability of data from FTA's National Transit
Database, APTA's 2009 Public Transportation Vehicle Database (APTA's
transit database), and SCI Verkehr, we spoke with officials from each
organization about data quality control procedures and reviewed
relevant documentation. For each data set, we determined that the data
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To
determine the federal government's role in funding and setting
standards, we reviewed applicable federal law, regulations, and grant
documents and interviewed FTA officials. Finally, to identify any
challenges transit agencies face when procuring transit rail cars, we
met with transit agency officials representing 33 transit systems
across the country, transit rail car manufacturers, transit agency
consultants, and FTA and APTA officials. Appendix I contains
additional information about our scope and methodology, including
lists of the organizations we contacted.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 through June
2010 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.
Background:
The U.S. rail transit system consists of the following three primary
modes: commuter rail, heavy rail transit, and light rail transit (see
figures 1 to 3). The numbers in figures 1 through 3 are based on
National Transit Database information, current for 2008, adjusted by
GAO for two systems and for a reporting error.[Footnote 4]
Figure 1: Description of Commuter Rail Cars and a Photograph of a
Commuter Train in Los Angeles, CA:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph and accompanying information]
Transit rail mode: Commuter rail;
Number of systems: 24;
Fleet size (percentage of total rail car fleet): 6,208 (31.3%);
General characteristics: Commuter rail refers to trains, other than
intercity passenger trains, that operate on existing rail rights-of-
way, the majority of which are owned by freight railroads. These
systems are often powered by diesel-electric engines. In general,
commuter rail systems provide service from outlying suburbs and small
cities to a central downtown area, with one or two stops in the
central downtown area.
Sources: GAO (photograph); FTA‘s National Transit Database; and DOT‘s
document entitled 2008 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions and Performance.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Description of Heavy Rail Cars and a Photograph of Heavy
Rail Cars in Chicago, IL:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph and accompanying information]
Transit rail mode: Heavy rail;
Number of systems: 15;
Fleet size (percentage of total rail car fleet): 11,570 (58.3%);
General characteristics: These systems, which include subways, operate
on exclusive tracks. Heavy rail systems are electric railways,
typically drawing power from a third rail. Trains may be four or more
cars long.
Sources: GAO (photograph); FTA‘s National Transit Database; and DOT‘s
document entitled 2008 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions and Performance.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Description of Light Rail Cars and a Photograph of a Light
Rail Car in San Diego, CA:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph and accompanying information]
Transit rail mode: Light rail;
Number of systems: 29;
Fleet size (percentage of total rail car fleet): 2,063 (10.4%);
General characteristics: Light rail refers to trains that may operate
on exclusive tracks or on tracks in the street on the same level with
pedestrians and car traffic. Light rail systems are typically electric
railways that draw power from overhead wires. Trains can operate as
single cars. This category includes streetcars and trolleys.
Sources: GAO (photograph); FTA‘s National Transit Database; and DOT‘s
document entitled 2008 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions and Performance.
[End of figure]
Current FTA data include streetcars as part of light rail, but
streetcars can be distinguished from other light rail cars because
they are usually smaller and designed for shorter routes, more
frequent stops, and lower travel speeds.
Transit agencies in six large cities--New York; Chicago; Washington,
D.C.; Boston; Philadelphia; and San Francisco--own the majority of
passenger transit rail cars in the United States. (See fig. 4.)
Agencies in these six cities manage over 16,000 rail cars, or more
than 80 percent of all the active U.S. transit rail cars.
Figure 4: Size of U.S. Transit Rail System Based on the Number of Cars
for All Commuter Rail, Heavy Rail, and Light Rail:
[Refer to PDF for image: U.S. map with areas illustrated]
Depicted on the map are locations with the following number of transit
cars:
10;
100;
500;
1,000;
1,500;
8,500.
Sources: GAO and DOT.
Note: This figure represents transit agencies that reported to the
National Transit Database in 2008. Some agencies may not be included
because they were created recently, or are not required to report and
have not reported voluntarily. For example, the figure does not show
the New Mexico Rail Runner Express, which was not required to report
to the National Transit Database and had not reported voluntarily. We
added the Valley Metro in Phoenix, Arizona, which opened late in 2008
and had not yet appeared in the National Transit Database but was
reported in APTA's 2009 Public Transportation Vehicle Database.
[End of figure]
The number of transit systems is increasing beyond the large
metropolitan areas that currently dominate the market, although new
systems tend to be small. For example, the Utah Transit Authority
began operating a 45-car commuter rail system for Salt Lake City in
April 2008. The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority began
operating a 74-car heavy rail system in San Juan in December 2004. The
Valley Metro in Phoenix began operating a 50-car light rail system in
December 2008. In addition, several new streetcar systems have opened
within the last decade in cities such as Portland, Oregon; Tampa,
Florida; and Little Rock, Arkansas. Furthermore, additional cities--
such as Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Boise, Idaho; and Cincinnati, Ohio--
have plans for transit-oriented development that include new streetcar
lines.[Footnote 5]
Rail car procurements generally take years to complete and can involve
many technical experts, including consultants. A time frame of 3 to 4
years is considered quick for a complete procurement, and many take
much longer. For example, according to officials at one transit
agency, it can take about 8 years from design to final acceptance for
heavy rail cars. The procurement process is lengthy because it
involves four phases: the transit agency's initial design;
advertising, communication, and contract award; the manufacturer's
detailed car design, prototype development, and testing; and
production. (See table 1.)
Table 1: Phases of the Transit Rail Car Procurement Process:
Procurement phase: Transit agency's initial design;
Description: During the initial design period, the transit agency,
usually with a consultant's help, prepares performance specifications
describing how it needs its new cars to perform or technical
specifications directing how the car should be built;
Approximate time frame: 1 year.
Procurement phase: Advertising, communication, and contract award;
Description: The transit agency notifies potential bidders through a
Request for Proposals (RFP) that it intends to seek bids on new cars
described in the RFP. The transit agency invites potential bidders to
meetings where they can ask questions about the specifications and
suggest ways to improve the design. At the end of this process, the
bidders are asked to submit proposals. The transit agency awards the
contract to the car builder who submits the lowest bid, whose bid
offers the "best value," or who submits the lowest bid from a group of
builders who all submitted acceptable proposals;
Approximate time frame: 1 year.
Procurement phase: Manufacturer's detailed car design, prototype
development, and testing;
Description: The car builder prepares detailed engineering designs for
the new car based on the specifications in the RFP. The manufacturer
builds and tests pilot cars representing each car to be produced. This
phase can take up to 3 years, but could take less time if the car
manufacturer can start with an existing design and use test results
from a similar car built previously;
Approximate time frame: Up to 3 years.
Procurement phase: Production;
Description: Production times vary with car builder capacity and
competing orders. Larger plants in the United States can build 200 to
300 cars per year. This means that for large orders, it may take years
to complete production. Furthermore, production on a particular
transit agency's order may not begin until the car builder finishes
work on previous orders;
Approximate time frame: Varies by order size and sequencing, but can
take 4 years or more.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Foreign-based companies supply most of the U.S. market for passenger
rail transit cars. Over the last decade, foreign-based companies, with
U.S. plants, have produced almost all of the more than 8,000 new rail
cars purchased by U.S. transit agencies. For example, Bombardier
(Canada) has been a major builder of commuter cars for U.S. transit
agencies. Alstom (France) and Kawasaki (Japan) have been major
suppliers of heavy rail cars, and Siemens (Germany) and Kinki Sharyo
(Japan) have been major suppliers of light rail cars. U.S.-based rail
car manufacturers serve niche markets for streetcars or unconventional
commuter rail cars, with typically sporadic and small orders--fewer
than 20 cars.
Characteristics of the U.S. Transit Rail Car Market May Have
Implications for Car Procurement:
U.S. Transit Rail Car Demand Is Small and Erratic over Time:
The U.S. rail car market is a small percentage of the world market for
rail cars. In particular, the U.S. transit rail car fleet constitutes
about 5 percent of the worldwide total. Other countries, such as Japan
and Germany, which have smaller populations than the United States,
account for a larger percentage of the world transit rail car fleet.
Officials from rail car manufacturers said that these countries have
relatively more resources invested in public transit infrastructure
compared with the United States. The small fleet size of the United
States also correlates with a small share of the annual world demand
for newly manufactured cars by U.S. transit agencies due to the
limited extent of our transit rail systems, relative to other
countries. See figure 5 for percentages of the worldwide transit rail
car fleet in different locations.
Figure 5: Worldwide Transit Rail Car Fleet Totals by Location, as of
April 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Canada/Mexico: 2%;
United States: 5%;
Japan: 11%;
Europe: 35%;
Rest of world: 47%.
Source: SCI Verkehr.
[End of figure]
In addition to the relatively small overall demand for rail cars in
the United States, individual rail car orders are often small. Almost
half of the transit agencies we interviewed procure rail cars in
relatively small quantities. For example, United Streetcar, a
streetcar producer, told us that it expects orders of just three to
six cars at a time.
The level of U.S. rail car purchases is also uneven over time. See
figure 6 for the number of rail cars produced per year for U.S.
transit agencies from 1970 through 2008.
Figure 6: Rail Cars Produced for the U.S. Transit Agencies, 1970
through 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
1970: 114;
1971: 168;
1972: 438;
1973: 243;
1974: 108;
1975: 904;
1976: 184;
1977: 491;
1978: 289;
1979: 146;
1980: 260;
1981: 198;
1982: 567;
1983: 679;
1984: 1,137;
1985: 442;
1986: 790;
1987: 639;
1988: 363;
1989: 264;
1990: 137;
1991: 121;
1992: 269;
1993: 365;
1994: 171;
1995: 378;
1996: 147;
1997: 298;
1998: 409;
1999: 294;
2000: 420;
2001: 1,224;
2002: 1,174;
2003: 713;
2004: 714;
2005: 578;
2006: 418;
2007: 622;
2008: 610.
Sources: FTA‘s National Transit Database and the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority New York City Transit.
Note: National Transit Database data for New York City's transit rail
car procurements may have been inaccurately reported. To correct this,
we used data from New York City Transit in conjunction with National
Transit Database data, for the years 2000 through 2008.
[End of figure]
The erratic nature of the U.S. market is primarily due to the
following reasons:
* Large transit agencies, such as the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA) New York City Transit, procuring cars in large orders
that cause spikes in the market. For example, over half of the cars
built in 2001 and 2002 were for a MTA New York City Transit
procurement of over 1,600 cars.
* Replacements of existing fleets, which are dependent upon the life
cycle of the fleets. Transit agencies generally do not procure rail
cars on an annual basis, and transit rail cars typically last 25 years
or more with a midlife overhaul, depending upon the materials used and
the car design. Some individual transit agencies may replace their
fleets of rail cars at the same time. For example, the Bay Area Rapid
Transit is in the process of purchasing 775 cars to replace and expand
its entire fleet of 669 cars.
U.S. Rail Car Designs Have a Great Deal of Customization:
U.S. rail car designs have a great deal of customization that differs
among transit agencies due to legacy infrastructure design,
interoperability concerns with existing fleets, and local preferences.
In particular, many heavy rail transit agencies have systems that
require rail cars with customized designs, rather than standard
designs. Most of these systems were built long ago, and their designs
have unique characteristics, such as tunnel size, curve radii, and the
ability to support rail car weight. The unique features of many
systems can limit the ability of a car manufacturer to produce cars
for more than one agency from one car design. For example, the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) could not
purchase the Chicago Transit Authority's (CTA) cars because they were
too tall for WMATA's tunnels, and CTA could not purchase WMATA's cars
because they were too long to make the sharp turns of the Chicago
system, according to officials from both agencies. Furthermore, when
procuring rail cars for existing transit systems, agency officials
generally must include specifications to ensure that the new cars will
be interoperable with their existing fleets. In addition to design
features based on infrastructure requirements, transit agencies may
also request other local preferences, such as rail car compatibility
with platform heights, door requirements, and certain safety features.
This level of specificity in transit rail car design is more common in
the U.S. market than it is in other countries' markets. Transit
agency, transit association, and manufacturing officials said that
rail car designs tend to be more similar among transit agencies in
Western Europe and within some Asian countries, in part, because some
countries have established standard performance specifications or
designs that manufacturers must follow prior to building systems.
While rail car manufacturer and transit agency officials said that
unique infrastructure requirements are most prevalent in heavy rail
systems, light rail and streetcar systems can also have unique
requirements. For example, transit agency officials said that
differences, such as the length of the city blocks where the cars
travel, may influence the car length and overall design for light rail
and streetcars. Furthermore, although officials from almost half of
the commuter rail agencies we interviewed said they either had
borrowed rail cars from another commuter rail agency or had jointly
purchased cars with another commuter agency, other officials described
unique infrastructure requirements, such as tunnel size, that
necessitate customized designs.
Characteristics of U.S. Transit Agencies' Rail Car Orders Have
Implications for the Price of Rail Cars:
According to rail car manufacturer and transit agency officials,
certain characteristics of U.S. transit agencies' rail car orders have
implications for the per-car prices that transit agencies pay for
their cars. Manufacturers said that certain fixed costs related to
manufacturing start-up and rail car design are key factors in the per-
car price of an order. Rail car manufacturer officials said that the
order size necessary to capitalize on economies of scale varies from a
few cars to over 100 cars, depending upon the transit mode, the degree
of customization of the car design, and certain production costs. In
general, as manufacturers and component suppliers--such as door
manufacturers--produce more cars using the same design and production
line, the cost per car is reduced due to the manufacturers' ability to
spread the design and other fixed production costs over a larger
number of cars. Additionally, if more units are purchased, component
costs are usually lower on a per-unit basis because suppliers are also
able to capture greater economies of scale in component production. As
a result, transit agencies with large orders, such as the MTA New York
City Transit, have been able to get relatively low per-car prices.
However, certain characteristics of other U.S. transit agencies'
demand for rail cars may prevent manufacturers and suppliers from
capitalizing on these benefits.
These characteristics include the following:
* Small orders and customized designs: U.S. rail car orders tend to be
small and customized, which results in higher per-car costs. First,
officials from all four of the major manufacturers[Footnote 6] we
interviewed said that the cost to design cars for a particular
procurement is a significant up-front cost, and that it is important
to be able to spread design costs over a number of cars to obtain
economies of scale. Officials from several manufacturers said that
designing a rail car on the basis of unique specifications can add
from $20 million to $100 million to the cost of the order. However,
the degree of design specificity is also a factor. If the design is
fairly standard, the design costs will be lower, enabling the
efficient production of a smaller order of cars. However, if the
design is highly customized, design costs are greater, and it may be
very expensive to produce a small order. Second, to build customized
cars, manufacturers may have to retool their production lines for each
procurement. This retooling results in start-up costs that are
embedded in the price per car. Manufacturers said that once there is a
break in production, expenses are incurred because manufacturers and
component suppliers may need to reconfigure or retool their production
line before they can begin producing rail cars and their component
parts. For example, officials from the Virginia Railway Express (VRE),
a commuter rail system, said that when they purchased one set of cars
in 2006, they were able to obtain a price of approximately $1.6
million per car, which was considered to be a favorable price, because
the manufacturer had recently finished production of similar cars for
Chicago's Metra. However, in a later procurement in 2010, VRE paid
approximately $2.2 million per car, which was significantly higher, in
part because the manufacturer had to restart the production line for
this car design.[Footnote 7] The impact of design and start-up costs
are exacerbated by the small order sizes that are typical in the
United States.
* Erratic nature of transit agencies' procurements: The uneven nature
of the U.S. transit agencies' procurements also impacts the price of
rail cars. Officials from five of the six manufacturers we interviewed
said that the erratic nature of U.S. rail car demand reduced their
ability to maintain continuous production, which likely results in
higher production costs per rail car. Because transit agencies in the
United States may procure many cars in some years but few in others,
manufacturers and component suppliers may have to close production
facilities or produce other goods during the years that fewer cars are
procured. Therefore, as we have previously mentioned, they may have
additional start-up costs when demand recovers, and they increase
their rail car production capacity to meet this demand. In contrast,
rail car manufacturers said that in other markets (e.g., Europe),
there may be a more stable demand, which allows them to maintain more
consistent operations and avoid the costs of increasing and decreasing
capacity. For example, according to a transit association official who
we interviewed, there is a large tramway system in Düsseldorf,
Germany, that orders about 15 to 20 cars per year. Although this is
not a large order, it is continuous and helps the manufacturer
maintain consistent operations.
Because of the lengthy rail car procurement and manufacturing process,
manufacturers also face financial risks from the volatile nature of
the prices of the commodities used to manufacture rail cars; and rail
car prices reflect these risks. Officials from one transit agency said
that it can take a transit agency up to 8 years from when the decision
is made to purchase new cars to when the cars are delivered. However,
in the United States, contracts for rail cars are usually negotiated
as a fixed price--meaning that manufacturers bid on a price for a set
of cars that remains the same, even if certain costs of producing the
cars change during the lengthy production.[Footnote 8] Rail car
manufacturers estimate future prices of key commodities, such as
copper and steel, when entering a proposal to build rail cars, but
they maintain risk that these commodity prices could change in ways
they did not expect. Officials from all six of the manufacturers and
almost half of the transit agencies we interviewed said that
manufacturers face significant risk related to variable prices for
commodities such as steel. For example, on the MTA New York City
Transit's current heavy rail car procurement, the recent fluctuation
in commodity prices for copper and steel surprised one manufacturer.
The manufacturer had locked in to a price for the cars in the base
contract, so the price fluctuations caused the order to be less
profitable. While manufacturers said that they may engage in hedging
strategies--such as buying futures contracts on commodities--to
mitigate these risks, they also said that adequately hedging these
risks can be difficult.
Federal Government Is Involved to Varying Degrees in Funding and
Setting Design Standards for Transit Rail Car Procurement:
Federal Government Funds Pay for a Portion of Most Transit Agencies'
Rail Car Purchases:
Most of the transit agencies we contacted used some type of federal
funding, such as the New Starts program, to purchase rail cars for
their systems.
* FTA's New Starts program provides federal funding for the initial
rail car purchases needed to support service on a newly constructed
line or extension.[Footnote 9]
* Transit agencies can use FTA's Fixed Guideway Modernization Funds
[Footnote 10] or Section 5307 (Urbanized Area)[Footnote 11] formula
funds to purchase additional or replacement rail cars.
* More recently, transit agencies and municipalities have used funding
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)
specifically made available for transit projects or Recovery Act
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (also known as
TIGER) grants.[Footnote 12] For example, the city of Houston received
a Recovery Act grant for $87 million to expand its system and purchase
additional vehicles.
Some of the transit agencies we contacted used state or local funds
for subsequent rail car purchases, either to replace aging rail cars
or to provide additional capacity to their systems. State or local
governments fund rail car purchases with local revenues, state grants,
or bonds--such as those that are repaid from transit agency revenues
or taxes levied on real estate located in special tax districts. For
example, according to transit agency officials, over a 10-year period,
the MTA Long Island Rail Road and the Metro North Railroad purchased
1,172 rail cars without federal funds.
When Federal Funds Are Used to Purchase Rail Cars, Transit Agencies
Must Comply with Federal Procurement Requirements:
When transit agencies use federal funds, federal procurement
requirements apply. Transit agency and FTA officials identified some
of the procurement requirements that apply to transit rail car
procurements. These requirements center on compliance with "Buy
America" legislation and on whether contracts are awarded in a manner
that promotes free and open competition. FTA relies primarily on self-
certification, but also conducts triennial and periodic procurement
reviews to help ensure compliance with these requirements.
The "Buy America" requirement specifies that the cost of rail car
components manufactured in the United States must be more than 60
percent of the cost of all component parts, and that the rail cars
themselves must be assembled in the United States. Under certain
circumstances, FTA has the authority to grant waivers to transit
agencies, allowing them to purchase rail cars that may not fully meet
"Buy America" requirements. Specifically, a waiver can be granted if
(1) a product manufactured in the United States was not available, (2)
the cost of U.S.-made rail car component parts was prohibitive, or (3)
FTA deems a purchase from a foreign manufacturer to be in the best
interest of the public. For example, FTA granted a waiver for a
transit agency to purchase diesel-powered transit cars manufactured in
another country because that type of vehicle was not manufactured in
the United States. In another case, FTA approved a waiver for a
transit agency's purchase of a prototype rail car made in another
country because it would be used for testing the vehicle's
performance. As part of this agreement, the remainder of the cars in
the order was assembled in the United States and complied with the 60
percent domestic content requirement, which is computed on the cost of
components and subcomponents. According to DOT officials, these
waivers are considered on a case-by-case basis.
Transit agencies also must comply with other requirements--described
in FTA guidance--when they use federal funds to purchase rail cars.
[Footnote 13] For example, Congress has placed a 5-year limit on
transit agencies exercising options to purchase additional rail cars
under an existing contract.[Footnote 14] According to FTA officials,
this limitation promotes free and open competition because it presents
other manufacturers with the opportunity to bid on rail car purchases
that would otherwise go to a single company year after year.
In addition, to assist transit agencies FTA has issued a manual--the
Best Practices Procurement Manual--that describes various procurement
requirements and how they can be met. For example, FTA's guidance
encourages transit agencies to jointly procure rail cars with other
transit agencies in order to save money, if possible. However, there
are certain limitations and procedures that must be followed. FTA's
manual provides a roadmap on how to conduct joint procurements as well
as how options to purchase additional vehicles under one contract can
be assigned to another agency.
Finally, for FTA New Starts and major capital projects costing over
$100 million, FTA monitors the project's progress to determine whether
a project is on time, within budget, in conformance with design
criteria, constructed to approved plans and specifications, and
efficiently and effectively implemented. FTA's review of these
projects includes a review of fleet management plans to ensure that
transit agencies will be capable of operating and maintaining their
rail cars, and that the number of rail cars to be purchased is
justified by the anticipated ridership. FTA also reviews the transit
agencies' design specifications for rail cars to help ensure that the
specifications are not so narrowly defined that competition would be
limited to a single bidder.
The Federal Government Has a Limited Role in Setting Design Standards
for U.S. Transit Rail Cars That Varies Depending on the Type of Rail
System:
According to FTA officials, their input into transit rail car design
is limited to ensuring that Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) requirements are met and does not include applying uniform
design standards for commuter, heavy, or light transit rail cars. The
ADA requires that transit agencies make transit systems accessible to
persons with disabilities, so transit rail cars must be designed so
that a disabled person can board the car without assistance. FRA sets
regulations for commuter rail safety and also enforces ADA
requirements.
The federal government has had a more active role in setting safety
standards for some rail cars. Specifically:
* FRA has established safety standards for commuter passenger rail
cars that travel on tracks that also carry freight rail traffic. FRA
enlisted APTA's assistance to help develop safety standards for
commuter rail cars and then expanded the effort to establish industry
standards and recommended practices for commuter rail car safety.
According to FRA and APTA officials, this has led to greater
uniformity in the design and production of commuter rail cars. This
greater uniformity could alleviate some of the market difficulties
that we previously discussed resulting from customized designs. These
standards and recommended practices do not apply to heavy or light
rail transit systems because these transit systems do not share tracks
with freight train traffic, which is generally a prerequisite for FRA
oversight.
* While FRA sets safety standards for commuter rail cars, FTA has
adopted APTA "industry standards" and recommendations for transit rail
car safety into its safety requirements. Consequently, transit
agencies are required to follow the industry standards and recommended
practices for safety, but, unlike FRA, FTA does not have direct
oversight of compliance or enforcement authority. Instead, FTA
requires states to set up safety oversight organizations to ensure
compliance.[Footnote 15] However, in December 2009, the Secretary of
Transportation proposed legislation that would give FTA the authority
to establish and enforce minimum federal safety standards for rail
transit systems that received federal transit funding. This authority
would provide similar safety oversight for transit rail cars that FRA
has for commuter rail cars sharing tracks with freight trains. In
February 2010, legislation was introduced that would provide that
authority.[Footnote 16]
Although Procuring Rail Cars Can Be Challenging, Standardization and
Joint Purchasing Have the Potential to Reduce Costs:
Rail Car Purchases Compete for Existing Funding with Transit Agencies'
Other Needs:
Many of the transit agency officials we interviewed said that securing
funding is one of the main challenges that they face when procuring
transit rail cars. As we have previously described, transit agencies
may use federal, state, and local funds to purchase or replace cars
but must weigh these purchases against other capital and operating
needs. When a new line is built, the New Starts program can provide
specific funding for the purchase of rail cars. For example, in 2005,
FTA awarded the city of Phoenix, Arizona, $57 million to purchase 36
light rail vehicles as part of its full funding grant agreement for
the Valley Metro light rail project.[Footnote 17] However, once a line
is built, there is no federal program that provides specific funding
solely for rehabilitating or replacing transit rail cars. Transit
agencies may use other sources of federal funding, such as Fixed
Guideway Modernization funds or Section 5307 (Urbanized Area) formula
funds, to rehabilitate rail cars but often have many other needs
competing for these same funds, including the purchase of new rail
cars.
Transit agency officials we interviewed also cited several challenges
specifically related to using federal funds to purchase transit rail
cars.
* Transit agencies often replace entire fleets or generations of rail
cars at one time as the rail cars approach their replacement age--
typically, 25 years or more.[Footnote 18] Transit agencies receive
federal funding at a relatively steady level over time, and,
therefore, it can be difficult to obtain the amount of funding needed
at one time to replace a fleet or generation of rail cars.
* Transit rail car procurement can take several years. Some transit
agency officials told us that they cannot rely on federal funding for
these purchases because they do not know how much money they will
receive that far into the future.
* In addition, some transit agency officials told us that a federal
requirement intended to encourage competition among manufacturers
creates challenges. Specifically, the requirement limits agencies'
ability to exercise options to a 5-year period once a contract is
signed if federal funds are used. Although this requirement is in
place to ensure that the rail car market is fair and open, transit
agency officials report this is burdensome, because if they decide to
procure new cars after the 5th year, they must the initiate the
procurement process--which is both lengthy and costly--all over again.
Legal, Regulatory, and Other Issues Also Create Challenges:
Some of the transit agencies and manufacturers we interviewed
identified specific legal and regulatory factors that pose challenges
in the procurement process.
* Transit agency officials identified some federal requirements that
impact their rail car procurements. For example, some officials told
us that while they support the need for ADA requirements, these
requirements can be costly to implement. Officials from one agency
said that when replacing a fleet, the agency needs to buy extra rail
cars to compensate for the number of seats reduced to meet ADA
requirements. Nonetheless, the officials indicated they have
recognized the importance of the accessible service they provide and
have successfully incorporated ADA requirements into their rail
designs when they have purchased new cars or rehabilitated existing
fleets.
* Likewise, rail car manufacturers have had to adjust operations to
meet federal requirements. For example, to meet "Buy America"
requirements, which require final assembly in the United States, some
manufacturers have decided to build permanent facilities in the United
States; others have built temporary facilities in the location where
the order is filled. A manufacturer's decision to build a temporary
facility can impact transit agencies if, once the cars are built,
manufacturers close the facilities and transit agencies have to buy
certain spare parts from overseas or order them from specialty
manufacturers. Because of the unique designs of rail cars, the parts
may have to be specially made for the individual car design when
replacement parts are needed.
* Some transit agency officials and manufacturers told us that they
can also face difficulties when following state or local requirements.
For example, a transit agency and a manufacturer said that a state law
that requires full disclosure of all information, including
potentially proprietary information, in the negotiation process can
make it difficult to conduct negotiations and may limit the numbers of
proposals received when purchasing new rail cars. Officials from
another transit agency said that a state law requiring more than 9
percent sales tax on rail car purchases results in significant costs
that other transit agencies do not have to pay.
Another factor that affects some transit agencies--particularly new or
small agencies--is a lack of experience with the procurement process.
Given the 25-year expected lifespan of most rail cars, some transit
agency officials may participate in only one or two procurements in an
entire career and, therefore, have limited experience and must rely on
design consultants. For example, the Port Authority Trans Hudson's
consultant is heavily involved in developing specifications for the
current procurement to replace its entire fleet. The last time the
agency procured cars was in 1967, and the staff that worked on the
procurement are no longer with the agency. Transit agency officials
with limited procurement experience may not recognize opportunities
for cost savings when specifying their design requirements, and it may
not be in the design consultant's best interest to identify and
encourage the use of standard designs. In addition, since many transit
agencies procure rail cars in relatively small quantities, these
agencies may not be in a position to negotiate for rail car prices in
line with those of the larger agencies.
Industry Stakeholders Have Identified Opportunities for Economies of
Scale through Standardization and Joint Purchases:
Although rail car procurement can be challenging for both
manufacturers and transit agencies, industry stakeholders,
manufacturers, and transit agencies have identified opportunities to
reduce costs through standardization and joint purchases.
Standardization:
To a certain extent, increasing the standardization of transit rail
cars could benefit transit agencies. First, it would enable
manufacturers to produce rail cars for numerous agencies without
incurring start-up costs resulting from breaks in the manufacturing
process. Once there is a break in production, the manufacturer must
arrange for rail car components to be delivered from suppliers, and
some of these components have long lead times before they can be
delivered. Furthermore, time is lost and expenses incurred because
manufacturers need to reconfigure or retool their production line
before they can begin producing a rail car. Second, standardization
can benefit manufacturers and transit agencies by decreasing design
costs and may enable manufacturers to take advantage of economies of
scale in the manufacturing process by producing more vehicles with
similar parts.
However, there are arguments against standardization. Specifically,
one rail expert stated that adopting a standard design can discourage
innovation and inhibit research and development.[Footnote 19] Also, he
reported that a standard design may include features that are
unnecessary for all systems and could add to the price of each car. In
addition, standardization is not possible for all systems. As we have
previously described, many heavy rail systems have unique
infrastructure designs. Transit agencies would need to make major
infrastructure changes in order to use rail cars that are compatible
with other agencies' cars. According to FTA officials, the cost
savings associated with the use of a standard design would not offset
the cost of making these system changes. There may be more
opportunities to standardize light rail or streetcar systems,
particularly in new systems where the infrastructure has not yet been
constructed.
Although current U.S. transit rail car designs differ substantially
among systems, past efforts have attempted to standardize transit car
designs. One successful effort was the Presidents' Conference
Committee (PCC) streetcar, which was first built in 1934. The
committee, which consisted of industry representatives, produced a
standardized design that permitted the use of assembly line techniques
by multiple manufacturers and allowed for wide variation to meet the
needs of various transit agencies. The design was widely accepted, but
U.S. manufacturers stopped producing PCC cars in the 1950s. However, a
few PCC streetcars are still operating in the United States. For
example, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority both have active
PCC cars on certain lines. A later effort to create standardized
transit rail car designs was less successful. In the 1970s, the
Standard Light Rail Vehicle was promoted by the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, which created a committee to develop
the car design. A company called Boeing Vertol started building cars
of this design in 1973 for MBTA and the San Francisco Municipal
Railway, but the cars were prone to problems that led to their early
retirement.
Industry associations--including APTA and the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers--continue to promote standardization in
transit rail car procurement to make transit rail car procurement more
cost-efficient. As part of its standards development program, APTA
convened two working groups in 2009 to develop (1) technical standards
and (2) a set of standard terms and conditions for transit agencies to
use when procuring light rail vehicles. These efforts are funded
through membership dues and grants from FTA, the Transit Cooperative
Research Program, and the Joint Program Office of the Department of
Transportation. The goal of the first working group is to produce a
set of technical standards that transit agencies can use when
procuring new light rail vehicles and that FTA could apply to light
rail cars, rather than establish federal requirements.[Footnote 20]
These standards may result in reduced design costs for transit
agencies and allow manufacturers to take advantage of economies of
scale in the manufacturing process.
The goal of the second working group is to develop a set of standard
terms and conditions that agencies can use when procuring light rail
vehicles. One of the biggest challenges for transit agencies--
particularly for agencies with limited procurement experience--is
writing a contract that makes it easy to identify its terms, including
each party's financial risks.[Footnote 21] Currently, each agency
addresses risk in its Request for Proposals (RFP) and contracts in a
different format, which makes it difficult for manufacturers to
identify each party's risks and may slow down the procurement process.
The standard terms and conditions document should (1) reduce
ambiguities in procurement documents, (2) allow transit agencies and
manufacturers to save time, and (3) reduce the need for consultants.
According to APTA officials, they expect to have a draft of the
standards and a draft of the contract terms and conditions guidance to
industry stakeholders for their comment by late summer 2010.
In addition, there appears to be a push for standardizing high-speed
intercity passenger rail cars. Specifically, the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) required Amtrak to
establish a committee to design, set specifications for, and procure
standardized next-generation train corridor equipment--such as high
speed rail.[Footnote 22] Although this effort does not affect transit
rail cars, it could reduce rail car design costs for intercity
passenger rail.
Some manufacturers have also attempted to increase the standardization
of rail cars, while providing flexibility to their clients. For
example, officials from one manufacturer told us that their company
has developed two standard designs that they believe can be customized
to meet 80 percent of U.S. transit agencies' needs for new light rail
cars. One is a high-platform car and the other is a low-floor car. The
design for a low-floor car can also be used for a streetcar. These
basic designs can be customized by changing the components as
required--for example, stronger air conditioning systems for vehicles
to be used in warm weather climates. Another manufacturer has
developed a basic, more affordable design for commuter rail cars that
can be customized to meet transit agencies' needs--for example, a
customer can change seating and interior materials, but not the shape
of the car. The manufacturer also offers custom designs, but at a
higher cost. Manufacturers may have more opportunities for
standardization if transit agencies seek bids based on performance
specifications that detail agencies' needs in terms of car
performance, as opposed to design specifications that detail how a car
should be built.
Joint Procurement and "Piggybacking:"
Transit agencies have attempted to decrease costs by jointly procuring
transit rail cars or "piggybacking" on another transit agency's
contract to take advantage of economies of scale. A joint procurement
means that rail cars are purchased by two or more agencies under the
same contract. For example, the Miami-Dade Transit jointly purchased
heavy rail cars with the Maryland Mass Transit Administration in the
1980s. "Piggybacking" means that one transit agency exercises the
options on another transit agency's contract for rail cars of the same
design. For example, the Utah Transit Authority piggybacked on San
Diego Metropolitan Transit System's contract for light rail vehicles.
In joint procurements, all transit agencies must be named in the
original contract, and the car designs must not be substantially
different. In piggybacking, all transit agencies and all potential
option quantities must be named in the RFPs and again in the contract.
Transit agencies can benefit from both of these options through
reduced rail car costs resulting from economies of scale in the
production process as well as reduced design costs per car and
procurement costs.
However, transit agency and FTA officials said that the opportunities
for joint procurement and piggybacking are limited by several factors:
* First, some transit agencies--particularly those with heavy rail
systems--have infrastructure that requires specific rail car features
that are not common in other systems. For example, officials at the
Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco explained that their transit
rail cars must be built from aluminum to meet weight restrictions of
the infrastructure, whereas most other heavy rail cars in the United
States are built from stainless steel.
* Second, transit agencies may have customized design requirements
based on local preferences that limit their opportunities for joint
purchases. Officials from one transit agency told us that their riders
were accustomed to rail cars with passenger-loading in the center of
the car, and, therefore, they included this feature in their design
specifications. The transit agency would not be able to jointly
purchase vehicles with another agency, unless they both had the same
basic design.
* Third, transit agency and FTA officials also told us that it is
difficult for transit agencies to coordinate their purchases and have
funding available at the same time.
* Finally, transit agencies are not generally aware of other transit
agencies' procurement plans, and there is no entity to formally help
facilitate joint purchases. According to FTA officials, they are aware
of two informal mechanisms for discussing the potential for joint
procurement--FTA's semiannual New Starts Construction Roundtable
conference and APTA meetings. For example, the Agence Métropolitaine
de Transport (AMT) in Canada identified an opportunity to purchase
commuter cars at a reduced price at an APTA meeting. According to AMT
officials, while this was not a joint procurement, they saved money
because they had a similar design to the New Jersey Transit's commuter
cars that were currently under production.
FTA Activities:
FTA, recognizing the financial benefits of joint procurements,
piggybacking, and standardized rail cars, has recently looked for ways
to encourage these activities. FTA studied the feasibility of creating
an incentive system in conjunction with Section 5307 (Urbanized Area)
formula grants to encourage and reward transit agencies to take the
lead on joint or piggybacked procurements for buses and rail cars. As
part of this study, FTA implemented a pilot program for joint
procurement of buses. Three of the five pilot projects did not result
in successful joint procurements, but demonstrated some of the
difficulties of joint procurement. Specifically, the study found that
(1) the incentives provided must be significant, (2) it is not
adequate to increase the federal matching portion of existing formula
funds, and (3) and it is important to maintain continuous production
without significant changes to achieve potential savings. FTA did not
implement a similar pilot of rail cars as part of this study.
As a result of the study, FTA recommended to Congress, in a 2008
report,[Footnote 23] three alternatives to provide financial
incentives to and compensate agencies that jointly procure transit
rail cars:
1. FTA would award incentive grants to transit agencies that lead
joint procurements to cover a portion of their program management cost.
2. FTA would award additional federal funding on the basis of the
percentage of the rail car's contract cost for transit agencies that
participate in a joint procurement.
3. FTA would increase the federal match for rail cars purchased
according to federally designated standard terms and
specifications.[Footnote 24]
According to FTA officials, Congress authorized a pilot program to
provide incentives for joint bus procurements in the agency's annual
authorization.
Conclusions:
Rail transit offers society a number of benefits, including reduced
congestion and pollution and increased mobility. The benefits are
realized in many cities across the country. However, the relatively
small and erratic market for transit rail cars in the United States
can hamper transit agencies as they purchase rail cars for commuter,
heavy, and light rail transit systems, including streetcars, by
increasing the cost and difficulty of procuring transit rail cars.
Design specifications that focus on custom designs suited for single-
system use have increased the amount of work and related costs needed
to design and test these cars. However, efforts are under way to
promote standardized design, including APTA's efforts to develop
procurement standards for light rail cars and PRIIA's requirement for
Amtrak to set up a committee to look into designs for high speed rail
systems. DOT's support of these efforts could pay dividends into the
future by making rail cars more widely available at a lower cost. In
particular, systems built in the future may benefit from increased
standardization if they are not limited by existing infrastructure.
Joint procurements and piggybacking also have the potential to
increase the financial advantages of purchasing large numbers of cars.
These advantages typically have been limited to a handful of larger
transit agencies, since smaller transit agencies have not purchased a
sufficient amount of cars to benefit from economies of scale. While
FTA's procurement guidance encourages joint procurement, it has not
established a mechanism to assist transit agencies to successfully
pool their orders, and transit agencies have reported difficulties in
this area. Often, transit agencies are not aware of the activities of
other agencies in the procurement arena. Without a process for
coordinating performance and design standards and a means of
encouraging joint procurements, current practices may not
substantially change. A more systematic approach to linking agencies
with similar infrastructure and rail car needs could identify even
more of these opportunities. Since FTA helps fund many procurements,
it may be in the best position to help transit agencies identify joint
procurement opportunities.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that federal funds are used efficiently when procuring
transit rail cars, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation
direct the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration to, in
conjunction with the American Public Transportation Association, take
the following two actions:
1. Develop a process to systematically identify and communicate
opportunities for transit agencies with similar needs to participate
in joint procurements of transit rail cars.
2. Identify additional opportunities for standardization, especially
for new systems, such as light rail and streetcar systems.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation
for review and comment. The department provided comments via e-mail,
generally concurred with the report, and agreed to consider the
recommendations. The department also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and other interested
parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
David J. Wise:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the key characteristics of the U.S. market for passenger
transit rail cars, we reviewed rail car databases, interviewed transit
agency officials, and spoke with officials representing:
* the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
* the American Public Transportation Association (APTA),
* existing and potential transit rail car manufacturers, and:
* transit agency consultants.
We used two databases--FTA's National Transit Database and APTA's 2009
Public Transportation Vehicle Database (APTA's transit database)--to
determine the number and modes of passenger transit rail cars in the
United States. Both data sets describe the rail cars currently owned
by transit agencies as well as dates the cars were made and the
companies that built them. Both data sets also include information on
commuter rail locomotives, although we did not analyze locomotive data
for this report because locomotives carry no passengers and differ
from other passenger rail cars in terms of technology and the
companies that produce them. To assess the reliability of transit rail
car inventory data from the National Transit Database and APTA, we
interviewed FTA and APTA officials about data quality control
procedures and reviewed relevant documentation. We reviewed the data
for missing information and any obvious errors. We corrected National
Transit Database data for one transit agency, based on information
obtained directly from that agency. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We selected 23 transit agencies to interview about topics for our
three objectives. We conducted site visits at most of these transit
agencies and interviewed the rest by telephone. To select them, we
used the National Transit Database, which was current for U.S. transit
agencies, as of 2008, according to FTA officials. We adjusted this
database to include additional transit rail service reflected in
APTA's transit database. Thus, we added 1 agency, the Valley Metro
Rail of Phoenix, Arizona, that started its first rail service late in
2008 with a light rail line. We also added commuter rail service,
started in 2009, by the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon, an agency that had previously operated light rail
transit, for a total of 54 transit agencies.
From the list, we judgmentally selected transit agencies on the basis
of their size, rail transit modes (commuter rail, heavy rail, and
light rail), and geographic distribution. The 23 agencies we contacted
collectively managed about 17,600 rail cars (88 percent) of all 19,841
rail cars managed by U.S. transit agencies. These transit agencies
represent 42 percent of the 54 transit agencies we identified through
the previously mentioned transit databases. However, the results of
our work are not generalizeable to all transit agencies. As shown in
table 2, our sample agencies managed cars that approximate the
distribution of rail cars in the U.S. fleet.
Table 2: U.S. Passenger Rail Car Fleet by Mode (Commuter Rail, Heavy
Rail, Light Rail):
Rail car mode: Commuter rail;
U.S. rail car inventory: 31.3%;
GAO's selected transit agencies: 32.2%.
Rail car mode: Heavy rail;
U.S. rail car inventory: 58.3%;
GAO's selected transit agencies: 61.4%.
Rail car mode: Light rail;
U.S. rail car inventory: 10.4%;
GAO's selected transit agencies: 6.4%.
Sources: FTA's National Transit Database and GAO.
[End of table]
The 23 transit agencies we contacted, representing 33 types of transit
systems, were located in 13 states and the District of Columbia and
were distributed across the country, as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Rail Transit Agencies Interviewed for GAO's Analysis:
State: Arizona;
City: Phoenix;
Transit agency: Valley Metro;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: California;
City: Los Angeles;
Transit agency: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: California;
City: Los Angeles;
Transit agency: : Southern California Regional Rail Authority;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Oceanside;
Transit agency: : North County Transit District;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: California;
City: Sacramento;
Transit agency: : Sacramento Regional Transit District;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: California;
City: San Diego;
Transit agency: : San Diego Metropolitan Transit System;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: California;
City: San Francisco;
Transit agency: District of Columbia: Bay Area Rapid Transit;
Transit system: Commuter rail: District of Columbia: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: District of Columbia: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: District of Columbia: [Empty].
State: District of Columbia;
City: Washington;
Transit agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Miami;
Transit agency: Miami-Dade County Transit;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Chicago;
Transit agency: Chicago Transit Authority;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: [Empty].
City: Massachusetts: Chicago;
Transit agency: Massachusetts: Metra;
Transit system: Commuter rail: Massachusetts: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: Massachusetts: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: Massachusetts: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
City: Boston;
Transit agency: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: Missouri;
City: St. Louis;
Transit agency: Bi-State Development Agency;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: New Jersey;
City: Newark;
Transit agency: New Jersey Transit;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: New York;
City: New York;
Transit agency: Port Authority Trans Hudson[A];
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: : New York;
Transit agency: : MTA New York City Transit;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: : New York;
Transit agency: : MTA Metro North;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: New York;
Transit agency: Oregon: MTA Long Island Rail Road;
Transit system: Commuter rail: Oregon: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: Oregon: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: Oregon: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Portland;
Transit agency: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of
Oregon;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Philadelphia;
Transit agency: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Check];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: Utah;
City: Salt Lake City;
Transit agency: Utah Transit Authority;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
State: Virginia;
City: Alexandria;
Transit agency: Virginia Railway Express;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Empty].
State: Washington;
City: Seattle;
Transit agency: Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority;
Transit system: Commuter rail: [Check];
Transit system: Heavy rail: [Empty];
Transit system: Light rail: [Check].
Sources: GAO and FTA's National Transit Database.
[A] The National Transit Database lists the Port Authority Trans
Hudson system as a heavy rail system, so we followed this
classification in this table. However, under federal law, this system
is a commuter rail system and, thus, is subject to FRA regulations.
[End of table]
In addition, we interviewed two consulting companies working with the
transit agencies that we interviewed. One contractor, Louis T. Klauder
and Associates, was serving as a car consultant for the Port Authority
Trans Hudson at the time of our visit. The other contractor, Virginkar
& Associates, Inc., was serving as rail car procurement contractor for
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority at the time of
our visit.
To determine how the U.S. market for transit rail cars compares with
international markets for transit rail cars, we reviewed data obtained
from SCI Verkehr in Cologne, Germany. To assess the reliability of
transit rail car inventory data from SCI Verkehr, we interviewed a
company official about data quality control procedures. We determined
that the data were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report.
Furthermore, with the help of the Department of State, we contacted:
* domestic and multinational rail car manufacturers;
* Agence Métropolitaine de Transport--the commuter rail service
provider for Montreal, Canada;
* rail officials from Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Portugal;
* Korean Board of Audit and Inspection; and:
* European railway associations, including the Light Rail Transit
Association, headquartered in the United Kingdom; and UNIFE--the
Association of the European Rail Industry.
To determine the key characteristics of the U.S. market for passenger
transit rail cars and to determine how the U.S market for transit rail
cars compares with international markets for transit rail cars, we
judgmentally selected six companies that are existing and potential
transit rail car builders. Five companies were selected mainly due to
their status as either a major producer in the U.S. transit rail car
market or a U.S.-based producer. One company was selected due to the
relevance of its October 2009 congressional testimony about the U.S.
rail car market and rail car design standardization initiatives.
[Footnote 25] These companies were as follows:
* Alstom Transportation:
* Bombardier:
* Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc.
* Siemens Industry:
* United Streetcar/Oregon Iron Works:
* US Railcar LLC:
To determine the federal government's role in funding and setting
standards, we reviewed applicable federal law, regulations, guidance,
and grants and interviewed FTA officials at headquarters and select
regional offices.[Footnote 26] We also interviewed APTA officials
regarding the federal government's role in setting design standards.
To identify any challenges that transit agencies face when procuring
transit rail cars, we met with transit agencies representing 33 types
of transit systems across the country, transit rail car manufacturers,
transit agency consultants, and FTA and APTA officials.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 through June
2010 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 report to the Department of Transportation and
incorporated its comments in the report as appropriate.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Catherine Colwell, Assistant
Director; Amy Abramowitz; Richard Calhoon; Sarah Jones; Stephanie
Purcell; Amy Rosewarne; Frank Taliaferro; and Crystal Wesco made
important contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Federal Transit Administration, Report to Congress on Incentives
in Federal Transit Formula Grant Programs: Report of the Secretary of
Transportation to the United States Congress Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
5336(c) (August 2008).
[2] There were 54 transit agencies operating at least one rail transit
line in the United States in 2008, according to our analysis of FTA's
National Transit Database.
[3] Both FTA and FRA are administrations within DOT.
[4] The National Transit Database lists the Port Authority Trans
Hudson as a heavy rail system. The Port Authority Trans Hudson
operates similarly to a heavy rail system, and we count that system as
heavy rail in figure 2. However, under federal law, this system is a
commuter rail system and, thus, is subject to FRA regulations.
[5] GAO has recent work concerning public transportation investments
and economic development. See GAO, Affordable Housing in Transit-
Oriented Development: Key Practices Could Enhance Recent Collaboration
Efforts between DOT-FTA and HUD, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-871] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
2009).
[6] "Major manufacturers" are one of the top five producers in at
least one of the three transit modes.
[7] Other factors, such as the price of commodities, exchange rates,
and inflation, may have also contributed to the higher price of the
rail cars in the second procurement.
[8] Although most contracts are fixed price for the initial
procurement of rail cars, many contracts do include options that
agencies can exercise for additional procurement of cars. It is common
for terms in the options contracts to be adjustable for certain
factors, such as commodities prices and general inflation.
[9] FTA, through its New Starts program, provides state and local
agencies with funding to design and construct new or extensions of
fixed guideway systems that use and occupy a separate right-of-way for
the exclusive use of public transportation services. These systems
include fixed rail, exclusive lanes for buses and other high-occupancy
vehicles, and other systems. 49 U.S.C. § 5309(b)(1).
[10] 49 U.S.C. § 5309(b)(2).
[11] 49 U.S.C. § 5307.
[12] Recovery Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009).
[13] FTA's grant agreements with transit agencies either specifically
include procurement provisions in the grant agreements or have
references to legislation, such as the "Buy America" provision, or to
FTA and Office of Management and Budget circulars, such as FTA's
Circular 4220.1F and OMB Circular A-119.
[14] 49 U.S.C. § 5325(e)(1).
[15] GAO, 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).
[16] The Public Transportation Safety Act would amend chapter 53 of
Title 49, United States Code, to establish a public transportation
safety program. H.R. 4643, 111th Cong. (2010).
[17] A full funding grant agreement establishes the terms and
conditions for federal funds available for the project, including the
maximum amount of federal funds available. The total award for the
full funding grant agreement was $587 million. The local share for the
rail car purchase was $64 million.
[18] Under FTA guidance, transit agencies are expected to use transit
rail cars for a minimum of 25 years, otherwise, transit agencies must
reimburse FTA for their prorated share of the procurement costs for
the remaining years.
[19] William D. Middleton, "Is it time to standardize?," Railway Age
(June 1994).
[20] APTA officials said that having a set of industry standards would
be preferable because changes to the standards could be made more
easily than if the standards were set out in federal regulations.
[21] These financial risk issues include whether the transit agency or
the manufacturer should be responsible for the extra costs resulting
from problems that arise during the contract. Unknowns, such as
commodity prices, general inflation, and exchange rates, add risk to
rail car procurement. Other cost issues, such as indemnification,
bonding requirements, warranties, and car design specificity, also can
add risk to a contract.
[22] Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L.
No. 110-432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008).
[23] Report to Congress on Incentives in Federal Transit Formula Grant
Programs.
[24] While no new money would be provided with this alternative, cost
savings could be achieved through reduced procurement costs.
[25] Testimony of US Railcar LLC before the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, U.S. House of Representatives
(Oct. 14, 2009).
[26] We interviewed officials from FTA Regions 3, 9, and 10--regions
in which we conducted site visits.
[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:
