Public Transportation
Requirements for Smaller Capital Projects Generally Seen as Less Burdensome Gao ID: GAO-11-778 August 2, 2011The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Capital Investment Grant program funds, among other things, projects for fixed-guideway systems--often called New Starts projects. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established a category of lower-cost projects--Small Starts--which expands project eligibility and offers streamlined requirements. FTA subsequently created the Very Small Starts category with a further streamlined process for very low-cost projects. Exempt projects, those receiving under $25 million and typically designated by Congress, also have a simplified process. As part of GAO's annual mandate to review New Starts, this report describes (1) the history of Small Starts and Very Small Starts and the type of projects FTA recommended for funding; (2) the project development requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts and what stakeholders identify as the advantages and disadvantages of the requirements; and (3) the project development requirements for exempt projects, the projects selected to receive funding, and what stakeholders identify as the advantages and disadvantages of this category. Among other things, GAO analyzed laws, regulations, and agency guidance, and interviewed FTA headquarters staff and stakeholders from 7 FTA regional offices, 15 projects, and 2 industry groups. DOT officials reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
When SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program, it streamlined project development requirements and project evaluation and rating criteria, and authorized certain corridor-based bus projects--like bus rapid transit systems-- to receive transit capital funding. Furthermore, FTA created Very Small Starts within Small Starts to further streamline requirements for projects that are simple and low-risk, based on cost and other features. FTA has mostly recommended bus projects for funding but has also recommended light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar projects. Overall, FTA has recommended 10 Small Starts and 19 Very Small Starts projects for funding. These projects' total costs vary from about $5 million to about $232 million, and FTA has recommended capital investment program funds ranging from nearly $3 million to $75 million for these projects. FTA's project development requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts include costs and financial summaries. While all sponsors submit similar information in some respects, such as financial summaries, FTA only requires sponsors of Small Starts projects to submit information on a project's expected benefits, like travel forecasts. Some stakeholders GAO spoke with said an advantage of FTA's requirements for Very Small Starts is that they are appropriately scaled and not overly burdensome for smaller projects. For example, about half of the stakeholders experienced with Very Small Starts told GAO that the requirements were straightforward and that project sponsors were able to meet them quickly without many problems. Four project sponsors and an industry group said that a disadvantage of the Small Starts requirements is that they are too similar to those for New Starts, even though Small Starts projects have a lower total cost and are less complex. Generally, stakeholders said that the requirements for both Small Starts and Very Small Starts help project sponsors fully develop and plan projects by helping identify potential problems. Stakeholders' perspectives depend, in part, on their degree of experience with these programs, which ranged from none to several previous New Starts or Small Starts projects. Exempt projects, typically congressionally designated and below the $25 million threshold, are not evaluated and rated. Exempt projects are subject to fewer FTA requirements that mainly focus on the sponsor's ability to carry out its project. Nine exempt projects have entered the New Starts pipeline since the last reauthorization of the New Starts program in 2005. These projects vary in terms of mode and scope. For example, one project extends a bus transitway with dedicated vehicle lanes; and another project builds a new station on an existing rail line. The total costs for these projects vary from about $10 million to about $493 million, and the federal contributions range from about $1 million to nearly $25 million in capital investment program funds. Four project sponsors GAO spoke with said that the exempt category provides a useful source of capital funding for atypical transit projects that solve local transportation problems. In its 2012 budget request, FTA proposes to continue the exempt category, which is set to expire under current law, in the next surface transportation reauthorization.
GAO-11-778, Public Transportation: Requirements for Smaller Capital Projects Generally Seen as Less Burdensome
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-778
entitled 'Public Transportation: Requirements for Smaller Capital
Projects Generally Seen as Less Burdensome' which was released on
August 2, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
August 2011:
Public Transportation:
Requirements for Smaller Capital Projects Generally Seen as Less
Burdensome:
GAO-11-778:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-778, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Capital Investment Grant
program funds, among other things, projects for fixed-guideway
systems”-often called New Starts projects. In 2005, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established a category of lower-cost projects-”
Small Starts-”which expands project eligibility and offers streamlined
requirements. FTA subsequently created the Very Small Starts category
with a further streamlined process for very low-cost projects. Exempt
projects, those receiving under $25 million and typically designated
by Congress, also have a simplified process.
As part of GAO‘s annual mandate to review New Starts, this report
describes (1) the history of Small Starts and Very Small Starts and
the type of projects FTA recommended for funding; (2) the project
development requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts and
what stakeholders identify as the advantages and disadvantages of the
requirements; and (3) the project development requirements for exempt
projects, the projects selected to receive funding, and what
stakeholders identify as the advantages and disadvantages of this
category. Among other things, GAO analyzed laws, regulations, and
agency guidance, and interviewed FTA headquarters staff and
stakeholders from 7 FTA regional offices, 15 projects, and 2 industry
groups. DOT officials reviewed a draft of this report and provided
technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
When SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program, it streamlined
project development requirements and project evaluation and rating
criteria, and authorized certain corridor-based bus projects”like bus
rapid transit systems”to receive transit capital funding. Furthermore,
FTA created Very Small Starts within Small Starts to further
streamline requirements for projects that are simple and low-risk,
based on cost and other features. FTA has mostly recommended bus
projects for funding but has also recommended light rail, commuter
rail, and streetcar projects. Overall, FTA has recommended 10 Small
Starts and 19 Very Small Starts projects for funding. These projects‘
total costs vary from about $5 million to about $232 million, and FTA
has recommended capital investment program funds ranging from nearly
$3 million to $75 million for these projects.
FTA‘s project development requirements for Small Starts and Very Small
Starts include costs and financial summaries. While all sponsors
submit similar information in some respects, such as financial
summaries, FTA only requires sponsors of Small Starts projects to
submit information on a project‘s expected benefits, like travel
forecasts. Some stakeholders GAO spoke with said an advantage of FTA‘s
requirements for Very Small Starts is that they are appropriately
scaled and not overly burdensome for smaller projects. For example,
about half of the stakeholders experienced with Very Small Starts told
GAO that the requirements were straightforward and that project
sponsors were able to meet them quickly without many problems. Four
project sponsors and an industry group said that a disadvantage of the
Small Starts requirements is that they are too similar to those for
New Starts, even though Small Starts projects have a lower total cost
and are less complex. Generally, stakeholders said that the
requirements for both Small Starts and Very Small Starts help project
sponsors fully develop and plan projects by helping identify potential
problems. Stakeholders‘ perspectives depend, in part, on their degree
of experience with these programs, which ranged from none to several
previous New Starts or Small Starts projects.
Exempt projects, typically congressionally designated and below the
$25 million threshold, are not evaluated and rated. Exempt projects
are subject to fewer FTA requirements that mainly focus on the
sponsor‘s ability to carry out its project. Nine exempt projects have
entered the New Starts pipeline since the last reauthorization of the
New Starts program in 2005. These projects vary in terms of mode and
scope. For example, one project extends a bus transitway with
dedicated vehicle lanes; and another project builds a new station on
an existing rail line. The total costs for these projects vary from
about $10 million to about $493 million, and the federal contributions
range from about $1 million to nearly $25 million in capital
investment program funds. Four project sponsors GAO spoke with said
that the exempt category provides a useful source of capital funding
for atypical transit projects that solve local transportation
problems. In its 2012 budget request, FTA proposes to continue the
exempt category, which is set to expire under current law, in the next
surface transportation reauthorization.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-778] or key
components. For more information, contact Lorelei St. James at (202)
512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Small Starts and Very Small Starts History and Types of Projects:
FTA's Project Development Requirements for Small Starts and Very Small
Starts and Stakeholder Views:
FTA's Project Development Requirements for Exempt Projects and
Stakeholder Views:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Recommendation Follow-up:
Appendix II: Small Starts and Very Small Starts Projects That Have
Received Construction Grants:
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix IV: Descriptions of Exempt Projects:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Select Categories of Capital Investment Program Projects, by
Total Cost and Federal Contribution:
Table 2: Types and Number of Small Starts and Very Small Starts
Projects FTA Recommended for Funding Since Fiscal Year 2007:
Table 3: Small Starts Projects FTA Recommended for Funding Since
Fiscal Year 2007:
Table 4: Very Small Starts Projects FTA Recommended for Funding Since
Fiscal Year 2007:
Table 5: FTA's New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts
Requirements for Entry into Project Development:
Table 6: Exempt Projects That Have Entered the New Starts Pipeline
Since 2005:
Table 7: Urban Circulator Projects FTA Selected to Receive Funding:
Table 8: Recommendations to DOT in 2008:
Table 9: Recommendations to DOT in 2009:
Table 10: Project Development Dates for Small Starts and Very Small
Starts Projects That Received Construction Grants Since Fiscal Year
2007:
Table 11: Small Starts and Very Small Starts Project Sponsors
Interviewed:
Table 12: New Starts Exempt Project Sponsors Interviewed:
Figures:
Figure 1: New Starts Project Development Process:
Figure 2: Comparison of New Starts and Small Starts Project
Development Processes:
Abbreviations:
BRT: bus rapid transit:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FFGA: full funding grant agreement:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
PCGA: project construction grant agreement:
PMOC: project management oversight contractor:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act-A Legacy for Users:
TIGER: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 2, 2011:
The Honorable Tim Johnson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Chairman:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Capital Investment Grant
program provides federal capital funds to help many states, cities,
and localities plan and build new fixed-guideway systems[Footnote 1]
or extensions to existing fixed-guideway systems, often called New
Starts projects. FTA evaluates and recommends New Starts projects to
Congress for grants, and then provides grants to project sponsors,
typically transit agencies and other local governments. Over the last
decade, FTA has provided more than $10 billion in New Starts funding
to help design and construct transit projects that annually provide
billions of passenger trips nationwide.
In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) created a new category of
lower-cost projects--the Small Starts program--primarily to streamline
the project development process and evaluation and rating criteria
that apply to larger-dollar New Starts projects.[Footnote 2] At the
time Small Starts was established, FTA created an even more
streamlined evaluation process for very low-cost projects called Very
Small Starts within the Small Starts program. An additional category--
the exempt category--which dates back to 1991, provides funding for
projects identified primarily by Congress.[Footnote 3] These projects
are exempt altogether from the evaluation and rating process. Table 1
provides information on these categories of projects by total cost and
federal New Starts contribution, although projects must meet other
requirements to qualify for funding.
Table 1: Select Categories of Capital Investment Program Projects, by
Total Cost and Federal Contribution[A]:
New Starts:
Total estimated project cost is $250 million or more or federal
contribution is $75 million or more.
Small Starts:
Total estimated project cost is under $250 million and federal
contribution is under $75 million;
* Very Small Starts:
Total estimated project cost is under $50 million.
Exempt:
Federal contribution is under $25 million, regardless of total project
cost.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA documents.
[A] Federal contribution refers to Section 49 U.S.C. § 5309 Capital
Investment Grant funds only. Projects may have other sources of
federal funds, such as Recovery Act or Federal Highway Administration
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds.
[End of table]
As part of our annual mandate to review the New Starts program,
[Footnote 4] we reviewed FTA's project development requirements for
Small Starts, Very Small Starts, and exempt projects. We define
project development requirements to include the information FTA
requires from project sponsors when they apply for and proceed through
each statutorily required project development phase, based on its
guidance and regulations. These project development requirements help
FTA manage the risks associated with a project to protect the federal
investment in capital transit projects recommended for funding. This
report describes (1) the legislative and program history for the
creation of Small Starts and Very Small Starts, respectively, and the
types of Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects that have been
recommended for funding, by mode of transit and size; (2) the project
development requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts and
what stakeholders identify as the advantages and disadvantages of
these requirements; and (3) the project development requirements for
exempt projects, the projects that have been selected to receive
funding, and what stakeholders identify as the advantages and
disadvantages of this category. In addition, appendix I summarizes
recommendations from recent GAO reports on the New Starts program and
updates FTA's progress in implementing these recommendations.
The focus of this review is on FTA's project development requirements
for Small Starts, Very Small Starts, and exempt projects. We only
refer to FTA's evaluation and rating process--including both project
justification and local financial commitment criteria--as it affects
simplification of project requirements. We did not review the project
justification and local financial commitment criteria that help inform
administration and congressional decisions about which projects should
receive federal funding.[Footnote 5] However, FTA has an ongoing
rulemaking in this area.[Footnote 6]
To address the first objective, we analyzed SAFETEA-LU congressional
reports, testimonies presented before Congress, and member floor
statements to describe the legislative history for the Small Starts
program. We also analyzed program guidance and Federal Register
notices to describe program history for the Very Small Starts
category. To provide information on Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects, including cost, mode of transit, and other characteristics,
we analyzed and summarized project data compiled by FTA, as well as
data from FTA's Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations for fiscal
years 2007 through 2012. We included data on Small Starts and Very
Small Starts projects that FTA had recommended to Congress for funding
since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU. We assessed the reliability of the
data compiled by FTA by comparing it to data from the Annual Reports
on Funding Recommendations and information from project sponsors we
interviewed. We also interviewed FTA officials. We determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To address the second and third objectives, we reviewed relevant
legislation including SAFETEA-LU; FTA guidance and regulations related
to Small Starts, Very Small Starts, and exempt projects; and other
relevant FTA documents. We interviewed stakeholders of Small Starts,
Very Small Starts, and exempt projects to learn what they identify as
advantages and disadvantages of FTA's project development
requirements. These stakeholders included 15 judgmentally selected
project sponsors (4 Small Starts, 6 Very Small Starts, and 5 exempt
projects), officials at the 7 corresponding FTA regional offices,
officials at FTA headquarters, and representatives of industry groups.
While not representative, we selected the project sponsors to include
variety in project characteristics including (1) mode of transit
(e.g., light rail, commuter rail); (2) total project cost; (3)
geographic location; and (4) year recommended for funding in the
President's budget by FTA or year entering the program. Additionally,
we used stakeholder observations and experiences to obtain information
on these requirements, since there is not a reliable quantitative way
to evaluate the impact of changes in FTA's requirements for Small
Starts and Very Small Starts projects on project development time
frames compared to New Starts projects for two reasons. First, less
than half of the Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects
recommended for funding to date have completed the project development
phase and received a construction grant. Appendix II contains more
information on these 11 projects. Second, we do not have reliable data
on time frames for New Starts projects available for comparison.
[Footnote 7] However, FTA officials said they do not agree with GAO's
assessment of its data. See appendix I for more details. To provide
information on exempt projects, we verified, analyzed, and summarized
project data compiled by FTA and the Annual Reports on Funding
Recommendations for fiscal years 2007 through 2012, as described
above. As FTA does not recommend exempt projects to Congress for
funding in the President's budget to Congress, we focused on exempt
projects that FTA has approved to enter preliminary engineering since
the passage of SAFETEA-LU in August 2005.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through August
2011 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. See
appendix III for more information about our scope and methodology.
Background:
FTA's New Starts program supports new or extensions to existing fixed-
guideway transit capital projects, such as light rail, commuter rail,
ferry, and bus rapid transit (BRT) projects.[Footnote 8] Sponsors of
New Starts projects--those with a total cost of $250 million or more
or a capital investment program contribution of $75 million or more--
must take a number of steps to select a project and apply for New
Starts funding. Sponsors of New Starts projects are required by law to
go through a planning and project development process, which is
divided into three phases: alternatives analysis, preliminary
engineering, and final design. This is followed by the construction
phase. (See figure 1.) In the alternatives analysis phase, project
sponsors identify the transportation needs in a specific corridor and
evaluate a range of modal and alignment alternatives to address the
locally identified problems in that corridor.[Footnote 9] Project
sponsors complete the alternatives analysis phase by selecting a
locally preferred alternative. During the preliminary engineering
phase, project sponsors refine the design of the locally preferred
alternative and its estimated costs, benefits, and impacts. When the
preliminary engineering phase is completed and federal environmental
requirements are satisfied, FTA may approve the project's advancement
into final design, after which FTA may recommend the New Starts
project for a full funding grant agreement (FFGA). An FFGA establishes
the terms and conditions for federal participation in a transit
project.
Figure 1: New Starts Project Development Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Alternatives analysis;
Preliminary engineering;
Final design;
FFGA[A];
Construction.
Sources: GAO and FTA.
[A] FTA awards FFGAs to New Starts projects that it recommends for
funding to Congress.
[End of figure]
SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program within the capital
investment program; the Small Starts program simplifies the evaluation
and rating criteria and steps in the project development process for
lower-cost projects. According to FTA's guidance, projects must (1)
meet the definition of a fixed-guideway for at least 50 percent of the
project length in the peak period[Footnote 10] or (2) be a corridor-
based bus project with certain elements[Footnote 11] to qualify as a
Small Starts project.
FTA subsequently introduced a further streamlined evaluation and
rating process for very low-cost projects within the Small Starts
program, which it calls Very Small Starts. Very Small Starts are
projects that must contain the same elements as Small Starts projects
and also contain the following three features:
* be located in corridors with more than 3,000 existing riders per
average weekday who will benefit from the proposed project,
* have a total capital cost of less than $50 million (for all project
elements), and:
* have a per-mile cost of less than $3 million, excluding rolling
stock (e.g., train cars).
The project development process for Small Starts and Very Small Starts
is a condensed version of the process for larger New Starts projects.
For Small Starts, SAFETEA-LU set up a condensed process in which the
preliminary engineering and final design phases are combined into one
"project development" phase; see figure 2 below for a comparison to
the New Starts project development process. When projects apply to
enter project development, FTA evaluates and rates Small Starts
projects on both project justification and local financial commitment
criteria, but compared to New Starts projects, there are fewer
statutorily prescribed project justification criteria for these
projects.[Footnote 12] Very Small Starts projects also progress
through a single project development phase and are evaluated and rated
on the simplified project justification criteria. FTA may recommend
Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects to Congress for funding
once the projects have been approved to enter into project development
and meet FTA's "readiness" requirements. Congress makes final
appropriations decisions on projects. FTA provides funding for Small
Starts and Very Small Starts projects in one of two ways: through
project construction grant agreements (PCGA) or single-year
construction grants when the New Starts funding request is less than
$25 million and can be met with either a single-year appropriation or
existing FTA appropriations that remain available for this purpose.
Figure 2: Comparison of New Starts and Small Starts Project
Development Processes:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
New Starts projects, including exempt projects:
Alternatives analysis;
Preliminary engineering;
Final design;
FFGA[A];
Construction.
Small Starts projects, including Very Small Starts projects:
Alternatives analysis;
Project development;
PCGA;
Construction.
Sources: GAO and FTA.
[A] FTA awards FFGAs to New Starts projects that it recommends for
funding to Congress. For exempt projects, FTA awards construction
grants after a project completes the final design phase. FTA does not
recommend these projects for funding to Congress.
[End of figure]
Exempt projects follow the same project development process as New
Starts projects, including alternatives analysis, preliminary
engineering, final design, and construction. (See fig. 2.) Since these
projects receive less than $25 million in federal funds, they are
statutorily exempt from FTA's evaluation and rating process. However,
exempt projects must still meet other FTA federal grant requirements
before receiving federal funds.[Footnote 13] Currently, the exempt
category of funding will expire when a final regulation implementing
the Small Starts provisions of SAFETEA-LU is complete. However, FTA
has not yet issued this final regulation.[Footnote 14]
For the next reauthorization of federal transit programs, FTA proposes
in its fiscal year 2012 budget request to transform the Capital
Investment Grant program to further streamline the process for new
fixed-guideway and corridor-based bus projects. FTA proposes to
discontinue the separate categories of New Starts and Small Starts
(which includes Very Small Starts) projects in law and instead
evaluate and rate projects under a single set of streamlined criteria.
Further, FTA proposes to reduce the steps in the project development
process. FTA also proposes that projects that require less than 10
percent of the project's total anticipated cost and no more than $100
million in major capital investment funds be exempt from the
evaluation and rating process.
Small Starts and Very Small Starts History and Types of Projects:
Small Starts Was Established to Streamline New Starts and Allowed
Funding for Certain Types of Bus Projects:
The Small Starts program was created to provide a more streamlined
evaluation and rating process for lower-cost and less complex
projects. SAFETEA-LU expanded the types of projects eligible under the
new Small Starts program to include corridor-based bus projects, which
includes projects such as BRT. Thus, any new major capital project
fitting the broader definition is eligible, whether it is a BRT,
streetcar, or rail project. Although certain bus projects are now
eligible for Small Starts funding, the law does not express a
preference for any particular mode of transit and the legislative
history indicates that the program was to remain mode-neutral.
[Footnote 15]
At the time Small Starts was established, FTA created the category of
Very Small Starts to further streamline the program for simple, low-
risk projects that are, based on their features, expected to be cost-
effective and with sufficient land use to warrant funding.[Footnote
16] FTA officials stated that the features were developed and
determined based on data that FTA had on existing projects.[Footnote
17] According to FTA, it also created Very Small Starts to be mode-
neutral.
FTA Has Mostly Recommended Bus Rapid Transit Projects for Small Starts
and Very Small Starts Funding:
Since fiscal year 2007, FTA has approved 29 Small Starts and Very
Small Starts projects into project development, and has recommended
for funding to Congress all 29 of them, which are mostly BRT projects
and a handful of other transit modes.[Footnote 18] As Table 2 shows,
25 of the 29 projects FTA recommended for funding are BRT projects.
Six of the 10 Small Starts projects are BRT projects; all 19 Very
Small Starts projects are BRT projects.
Table 2: Types and Number of Small Starts and Very Small Starts
Projects FTA Recommended for Funding Since Fiscal Year 2007:
Mode: Bus rapid transit (BRT);
Number of Small Starts projects: 6;
Number of Very Small Starts projects: 19;
Total: 25.
Mode: Commuter/light rail;
Number of Small Starts projects: 3;
Number of Very Small Starts projects: 0;
Total: 3.
Mode: Streetcar;
Number of Small Starts projects: 1;
Number of Very Small Starts projects: 0;
Total: 1.
Mode: Total;
Number of Small Starts projects: 10;
Number of Very Small Starts projects: 19;
Total: 29.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of table]
The number of successful applicants does not necessarily represent the
interest of all potential project sponsors in Small Starts and Very
Small Starts. It is difficult to establish the total number of
projects that sponsors might be interested in developing because,
according to FTA officials in one regional office, FTA encourages
sponsors not to formally apply for entry into project development
until their project is ready for approval. The regional FTA officials
cited two sponsors of potential Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects that have expressed interest in the program and met with
their office, but have not been able to submit a thorough and complete
application for entry. In 2007, we also reported that FTA's increased
scrutiny of applications into New Starts was one of the likely reasons
that the number of projects in the "pipeline" of potential projects
had decreased over the past several years.[Footnote 19] It is also
difficult to establish the number of project sponsors that might have
considered applying to the program but decided against it, in part,
because these sponsors may not have notified FTA of their intentions.
Further, FTA officials we spoke with in headquarters and the regional
offices are not aware of any project sponsors that withdrew from or
were removed from Small Starts after being approved into project
development. Therefore, because the types of projects (with respect to
transit modes) that FTA can consider for funding are limited to those
from sponsors that formally apply to the program, we do not have
adequate information to determine whether FTA's funding
recommendations are mode-neutral.
It is difficult to establish the number of "potential" project
sponsors, but we identified one sponsor of a streetcar project which
initially sought federal funding through the Small Starts program
before switching to other sources of federal funding, including the
exempt category in the New Starts program and the Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program.
According to the project sponsor, it spent 2 years trying to gain
entry into project development as a Small Starts project but had
difficulty meeting the cost-effectiveness criterion. FTA evaluates
Small Starts and New Starts projects using the same cost-effectiveness
criterion, which measures effectiveness primarily in terms of travel
time savings for transit riders. As we have previously reported,
[Footnote 20] this measurement may not favor certain projects, such as
streetcars, that are not designed to create travel time savings, but
instead to create other benefits, such as providing enhanced access to
an urban center. According to the project sponsor, in early 2008, FTA
advised the sponsor to seek funding as an exempt project and to see if
a final regulation on the Small Starts program, as previously
mentioned, would result in a change to how cost-effectiveness was
formulated that would change the situation. In 2010, the sponsor
received a TIGER grant and decided to remain in the exempt category.
Several other streetcar projects have also received funding through
TIGER grants. According to FTA officials, difficulty with the cost-
effectiveness criterion was not the only issue which kept the
streetcar project from entering the Small Starts program. In
particular, the project sponsor was also unable to obtain high enough
ratings on other criteria to offset the lower cost-effectiveness
rating. Thus, the project was not able to obtain an overall rating
that was high enough to advance in the Small Starts program as
required by statute.[Footnote 21] Further, FTA officials told us that
FTA has taken steps to address the problems that streetcar projects
face in attempting to become Small Starts and New Starts projects. For
example, FTA established the Urban Circulator Program in 2009 (which
we will discuss later in our report) to provide funds to projects that
aim to connect urban destinations and foster redevelopment. However,
we have not assessed the actions that FTA has taken.
Within Small Starts and Very Small Starts, the projects FTA
recommended to Congress for funding vary in terms of the total project
costs and capital investment program contribution.[Footnote 22] For
the 10 Small Starts projects, the total project cost ranges from
nearly $40 million to about $232 million, and the median cost is about
$143 million. As shown in table 3, for half of the Small Starts
projects, the total project costs are between $100 and $200 million.
The capital investment program contribution to the projects' costs
ranges from about $28 million to $75 million, and the median capital
investment program contribution is $75 million, as is the maximum
capital investment program contribution. Seven of the 10 Small Starts
projects were recommended for the maximum allowable capital investment
program contribution.
Table 3: Small Starts Projects FTA Recommended for Funding Since
Fiscal Year 2007:
Project: Pioneer Parkway BRT;
Location: Springfield, OR;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $41.3 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $32.5 million;
Percentage: 79%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2008.
Project: Perris Valley Line;
Location: Riverside, CA;
Mode[A]: CR;
Total capital cost[B]: $232.1 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $75.0 million;
Percentage: 32%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: Fitchburg Commuter Rail Improvements;
Location: Fitchburg, MA;
Mode[A]: CR;
Total capital cost[B]: $158.3 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $75.0 million;
Percentage: 47%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: Portland Streetcar Loop;
Location: Portland, OR;
Mode[A]: Streetcar;
Total capital cost[B]: $128.3 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $75.0 million;
Percentage: 58%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: Mason Street BRT;
Location: Fort Collins, CO;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $82.0 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $65.6 million;
Percentage: 80%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: E Street Corridor BRT;
Location: San Bernardino, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $191.7 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $75.0 million;
Percentage: 39%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2010.
Project: East Bay BRT;
Location: Oakland, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $216.1 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $75.0 million;
Percentage: 35%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2011.
Project: Van Ness Avenue BRT;
Location: San Francisco, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $118.5 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $75.0 million;
Percentage: 63%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2011.
Project: Nostrand Avenue BRT;
Location: New York, NY;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $39.9 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $28.4 million;
Percentage: 71%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2011.
Project: Central Mesa Light Rail Extension;
Location: Mesa, AZ;
Mode[A]: LRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $198.5 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $75.0 million;
Percentage: 38%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2012.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[A] BRT = bus rapid transit; CR = commuter rail; LRT = light rail
transit:
[B] Dollar figures are in year of expenditure dollars.
[End of table]
For the 19 Very Small Starts projects, the total project cost ranges
from about $5 million to about $48 million and the median cost is
about $29 million. The capital investment program contribution to the
projects' costs ranges from nearly $3 million to about $39 million and
the median capital investment program contribution is about $20
million. As shown in table 4, nearly half of these projects were
recommended for $20 to $30 million in capital investment program funds.
Table 4: Very Small Starts Projects FTA Recommended for Funding Since
Fiscal Year 2007:
Project: Troost Corridor BRT;
Location: Kansas City, MO;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $30.7 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $24.6 million;
Percentage: 80%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2008.
Project: Gap Closure Project;
Location: Los Angeles, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $29.2 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $16.7 million;
Percentage: 57%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2008.
Project: Federal Way, Pacific Highway South BRT;
Location: King County, WA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $25.1 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $14.1 million;
Percentage: 56%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2008.
Project: Mid-City Rapid Bus;
Location: San Diego, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $44.5 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $21.7 million;
Percentage: 49%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: Wilshire Boulevard Bus-Only Lane Project;
Location: Los Angeles, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $31.5 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $23.3 million;
Percentage: 74%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: Bellevue-Redmond RapidRide;
Location: King County, WA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $26.9 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $20.2 million;
Percentage: 75%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: Route 10 BRT;
Location: Livermore, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $13.6 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $10.9 million;
Percentage: 80%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: Mountain Links;
Location: Flagstaff, AZ;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $8.3 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $6.2 million;
Percentage: 76%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2009.
Project: Austin BRT;
Location: Austin, TX;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $47.6 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $38.1 million;
Percentage: 80%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2010.
Project: Roaring Fork Valley BRT;
Location: Roaring Fork Valley, CO;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $39.3 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $25.0 million;
Percentage: 64%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2010.
Project: Stockton Metro Express Airport Way Corridor BRT;
Location: San Joaquin, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $9.7 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $2.8 million;
Percentage: 29%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2010.
Project: Monterey Bay Rapid Transit;
Location: Monterey, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $5.1 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $2.8 million;
Percentage: 54%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2010.
Project: West Seattle BRT;
Location: King County, WA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $28.4 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $21.3 million;
Percentage: 75%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2011.
Project: Blackstone/Kings Canyon BRT;
Location: Fresno, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $48.2 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $38.6 million;
Percentage: 80%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2012.
Project: Aurora Avenue North BRT;
Location: King County, WA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $48.1 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $21.6 million;
Percentage: 45%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2012.
Project: Grand Rapids Silver Line;
Location: Grand Rapids, MI;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $37.0 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $29.6 million;
Percentage: 80%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2012.
Project: Burien to Renton BRT;
Location: King County, WA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $36.8 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $15.9 million;
Percentage: 43%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2012.
Project: Mesa Corridor BRT;
Location: El Paso, TX;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $27.1 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $13.5 million;
Percentage: 50%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2012.
Project: North Corridor BRT;
Location: Jacksonville, FL;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $21.3 million;
Capital investment program contribution:
Amount[B]: $17.0 million;
Percentage: 80%;
Fiscal year recommended for funding: 2012.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[A] BRT = bus rapid transit:
[B] Dollar figures are in year of expenditure dollars.
[End of table]
FTA's Project Development Requirements for Small Starts and Very Small
Starts and Stakeholder Views:
FTA's Project Development Requirements:
FTA's project development requirements for Small and Very Small Starts
are similar in some respects, but FTA's submission requirements for
Small Starts' project justification criteria are more extensive.
[Footnote 23] For application into the project development phase, FTA
requires sponsors of Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects to
submit comparable information in some respects, such as project
description and local financial commitment. As outlined in FTA's
Reporting Instructions for Small Starts and other guidance, both the
number and type of requirements in these areas are similar for Small
Starts and Very Small Starts projects. As shown in table 5, FTA has a
similar number of requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects with regard to project description and maps and local
financial commitment. Sponsors of Small Starts projects are also
subject to submission requirements for project justification criteria,
such as user benefit forecasts to meet the cost-effectiveness
requirement. On the other hand, FTA does not require this information
from sponsors of Very Small Starts projects. FTA officials told us
they consider Very Small Starts projects to be inherently cost-
effective because they do not exceed certain total and per-mile costs
and meet minimum ridership thresholds (at least 3,000 per weekday). We
and others have reported that the Small Starts project justification
requirements can be complicated and require substantial resources to
complete.[Footnote 24] However, FTA officials said they do not agree
with this assessment of the work required to meet the project
justification requirements. Table 5 also lists the requirements for
New Starts projects, for comparison.
Table 5: FTA's New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts
Requirements for Entry into Project Development:
Reporting item: Project description and maps.
Project description and maps:
Reporting item: Documentation of existing riders in the corridor;
New Starts[A]: [Empty];
Small Starts: [Empty];
Very Small Starts: [Check][B].
Reporting item: Project site map;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Check].
Reporting item: Vicinity map;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Check].
Reporting item: Certification of technical methods and planning
assumptions;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Costs:
Reporting item: Standard cost categories (SCC) (6 worksheets)[C];
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Check].
Reporting item: Annualized cost worksheets (3 worksheets)[C];
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Summary of operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
productivities;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Project justification[D]:
Reporting item: Travel forecasts and cost effectiveness: User benefits
forecasts;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Travel forecasts and cost effectiveness: Thematic maps
and legend;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Travel forecasts and cost effectiveness: Summary of
travel forecasts;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Travel forecasts and cost effectiveness: Mobility
improvements and cost-effectiveness (20 years out);
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Empty];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Travel forecasts and cost effectiveness: Cost-
effectiveness (opening year);
New Starts[A]: [Empty];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Annualization factor;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Land use: Quantitative land use information for New
Starts;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Empty];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Land use: Qualitative land use information for New
Starts;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Empty];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Land use: Quantitative land use information for Small
Starts;
New Starts[A]: [Empty];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Land use: Qualitative land use information for Small
Starts;
New Starts[A]: [Empty];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Local financial commitment[E:
Reporting item: Financial plan summary (finance template);
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Check].
Reporting item: Checklist for financial submittals;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Empty];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: 20-year capital operating plan;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Empty];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: 20-year operating financial plan;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Empty];
Very Small Starts: [Empty].
Reporting item: Evidence of agency financial condition;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Check].
Reporting item: Evidence that project O&M costs are within 5% of
systemwide O&M costs;
New Starts[A]: [Empty];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Check].
Reporting item: Supporting financial documentation;
New Starts[A]: [Check];
Small Starts: [Check];
Very Small Starts: [Check].
Source: GAO analysis of FTA guidance.
[A] While Small Starts projects go through a project development
phase, New Starts projects go through two phases - preliminary
engineering and final design.
[B] FTA deems Very Small Starts projects to be inherently cost-
effective. So, FTA requires sponsors of these projects to submit
information to show that the project contains the features necessary
to qualify for Very Small Starts, such as meeting the minimum
ridership threshold, but does not require that sponsors submit other
project justification information.
[C] Each of these worksheets organizes project cost information. Two
worksheets, for example, organize the project's capital costs by year
of expenditure and type of expenditure, like vehicles or stations,
stops, and terminals. The additional worksheets required for New
Starts and Small Starts projects but not Very Small Starts projects
capture, among other things, cost information on a "baseline"
alternative project, which assumes low-cost improvements to the
current transportation in the corridor. FTA compares a sponsor's Small
Starts project to this baseline alternative to evaluate the project's
cost-effectiveness.
[D] Though several of FTA's submission requirements for project
justification apply to both New Starts and Small Starts projects, FTA
has reduced the amount of information to be submitted for specific
requirements. For example, Small Starts projects have to complete
travel forecasts for a shorter period (opening year only) than New
Starts projects. In addition, FTA has reduced the land use submission
requirements for Small Starts projects. For qualitative land use
information, for example, FTA requires a land use reporting template
for New Starts projects, which includes narrative text and references
supporting documentation for seven land use factors; for Small Starts
projects, FTA only requires three brief narratives on existing land
use, transit supportive plans and policies, and performance and
impacts of policies. The requirements for quantitative land use
information are also reduced.
[E] Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects that do not qualify
for the streamlined financial evaluation must meet the financial
reporting requirements for New Starts projects, though only for the
period up to and including the project's opening year.
[End of table]
In addition, the type of information required for project description
and maps and local financial commitment is comparable for Small Starts
and Very Small Starts projects beyond having a similar number of
requirements. For local financial commitment, for example, Small
Starts and Very Small Starts project sponsors are required by FTA to
submit the same information to FTA for a simplified financial
evaluation. Specifically, project sponsors submit a financial plan
summary, 3 years of audited financial statements to demonstrate
financial health, evidence that operations and maintenance costs for
the proposed project are no greater than 5 percent of the sponsor's
systemwide operations and maintenance costs (to qualify for a
simplified financial evaluation as opposed to the 20-year plans
required for New Starts projects), and supporting financial documents.
Besides the requirements listed in table 5, FTA also requires a
project management plan for all Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects. FTA regulations and guidance outline the general
requirements for a project management plan for all FTA-funded capital
projects.[Footnote 25] The requirements include, for example,
information on staff reporting relationships and responsibilities,
recordkeeping processes, and the budget for managing the project. FTA
does not have specific guidance on project management plans for Small
Starts and Very Small Starts projects. According to officials from FTA
headquarters, FTA regional office staff scale the general requirements
and level of detail needed for each project, based on its complexity
and the sponsor's level of experience managing capital improvement
projects. For example, officials from one regional office we spoke to
said that while all project management plans must include information
on the scope, schedule, and cost of a project, less detail would be
required for a less expensive project.
Further, sponsors of both Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects
may have additional requirements related to FTA regulations on project
management oversight. FTA may assign project management oversight
contractors (PMOC) to Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects that
have a total cost over $100 million, are technically complex, or have
less experienced sponsors, among other reasons.[Footnote 26] To
support its oversight of a project, FTA can direct a PMOC to conduct
various reviews of a project. For example, FTA can direct a PMOC to
review a sponsor's project management plan or assess a project's
readiness to enter the project development phase. For such reviews,
the PMOC would typically review information that project sponsors are
already required to submit for project development. For other PMOC
reviews, such as a review of whether a project sponsor has the
technical capacity and capability to complete its project, a project
sponsor may be required to complete additional work, like
participating in interviews with the PMOC and providing information on
staffing levels and qualifications.
While requirements are similar in several ways, FTA requires the
sponsors of Small Starts projects to submit more information on a
project's justification than the sponsors of Very Small Starts
projects. FTA evaluates and rates Small Starts projects on three
project justification criteria prescribed in statute: cost-
effectiveness, land use, and economic development. Therefore, FTA
requires travel forecasts for the project's opening year, estimates of
user benefits like travel time savings, and land use plans, among
other items. For Small Starts, travel forecasts are often generated by
regional travel models but can be provided, in some circumstances,
through a more straightforward spreadsheet analysis of data that,
according to FTA, makes these calculations easier for Small Starts
project sponsors. In our previous work, we reported that these
requirements can require substantial resources and can create
disincentives for sponsors to apply for funding. By contrast, FTA does
not require such project justification information for Very Small
Starts projects. According to FTA guidance, by containing certain FTA-
defined features, such as having a total cost under $50 million and
demonstrating that the project corridor already serves more than 3,000
riders per weekday, projects are "warranted" as being inherently cost-
effective at producing significant mobility benefits and supporting
land use and economic development.
Stakeholders' Views on Project Development Requirements:
Several project sponsors and industry groups we spoke with told us
that the project development requirements for Very Small Starts
projects were streamlined and not overly burdensome. However, they
also felt that such requirements for Small Starts projects were too
similar to the requirements for New Starts projects and required a
comparable amount of time and resources. As stated earlier, Congress
established the Small Starts program to create a streamlined process
for smaller, less complex capital transit projects, and FTA also
created the Very Small Starts category with a similar desire. However,
as described in our methodology, there is not a reliable quantitative
way to evaluate the effect of changes in requirements on project
development time frames. FTA officials said they do not agree with
GAO's assessment of its data. (See appendix III.)
FTA headquarters and regional officials, as well as three project
sponsors we spoke with, indicated that local issues, such as delays in
finalizing funding or lack of agreement on a project's route, often
affect how long a project spends in development. Of the 29 Small
Starts and Very Small Starts projects FTA has recommended for funding,
11 projects have received construction grants. These projects took
from about 9 months to almost 4 years to complete the project
development phase and receive a construction grant from FTA. While the
amount of time it takes for a project to complete project development
can be influenced by several factors, FTA officials and project
sponsors told us that local issues can delay the progress of a Small
Starts or Very Small Starts project. Of the 10 project sponsors we
interviewed, half told us that they experienced delays during project
development. Three of the five project sponsors that experienced
delays said that local issues caused the delays. One project sponsor,
for example, said that the lack of committed funds for the project
from the state government caused a 6-month delay in the project's
development, while one other project sponsor said that its project was
delayed while it addressed the public's concerns on the project route.
Another project sponsor faced delays due to local and federal issues;
specifically, the project had to wait for passage of a local
referendum providing operating funds for the project and had to do
additional work because it received conflicting information from FTA
on the work it needed to complete to fulfill federal environmental
requirements.
To examine the project development process, we discussed the
advantages and disadvantages of the requirements with a variety of
stakeholders, including 10 project sponsors, officials from FTA
headquarters and 7 regional offices, and 2 industry groups.[Footnote
27] The perspectives of the stakeholders we spoke to depend, in part,
on their experience with Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects,
as well as any experience with New Starts projects. For example, 6 of
the 10 project sponsors we spoke with had experience planning and
implementing New Starts projects, while the other 4 sponsors had no
such organizational experience. FTA officials in some regions told us
that since the sponsors of many Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects were unfamiliar with the requirements for New Starts
projects, these sponsors may not be aware of the difference in
requirements or the degree to which some requirements had been scaled
for their projects. FTA regional officials also had varying experience
overseeing Small Starts and Very Small starts projects. Five regional
offices had overseen only 1 Small Starts or Very Small Starts project
while one regional office had overseen 13 projects.
Stakeholders we spoke with cited advantages related to FTA's project
development requirements for both Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects.
* Several stakeholders we interviewed--five project sponsors, one
industry group, and FTA headquarters and officials from two regions--
said that the project development requirements for Very Small Starts
projects were straightforward and not overly burdensome and, as a
result, that Very Small Starts projects have a streamlined process.
Specifically, three project sponsors told us that an advantage of Very
Small Starts was the minimal data analysis requirements, specifically
travel forecasting. One of these sponsors said that its Very Small
Starts project required less travel analysis and had a faster
application process compared to New Starts projects that it had
previously completed. Another project sponsor told us that FTA's use
of a single-year construction grant instead of a multiyear PCGA helped
to expedite the project development process. For this grant, the
project sponsor was able to apply for the grant through FTA's
electronic grant system rather than negotiate the terms of a PCGA with
FTA. FTA may use a single-year construction grant, rather than a PCGA,
for projects with sponsors that request less than $25 million and
whose request can be met with a single-year appropriation or existing
FTA appropriations that remain available for that purpose.
* Seven stakeholders we spoke with, including officials from three FTA
regional offices and four project sponsors, told us that the project
development requirements help contribute to the success of a project
through the development of detailed plans and examination of long-term
costs. As a result, project sponsors are able to identify potential
challenges and better communicate project details to the public. For
example, one project sponsor and officials from one regional office
told us that they were better prepared to respond to public questions
on the project's design and funding after completing the project
development requirements.
* Officials from two FTA regional offices and five project sponsors
told us that the project management plan, in particular, is a valuable
tool to help organize a project's implementation, particularly for
project sponsors that have not previously implemented capital
projects. Moreover, two project sponsors we spoke with said that they
would use a project management plan even if it were not required by
FTA. However, three project sponsors told us that project management
plan requirements were not scaled to fit their smaller, less complex
projects. As described above, FTA does not have specific project
management plan guidance for Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects but scales the requirements in the general guidance to fit
each project's size and complexity. For example, officials from one
regional office said that a project management plan may not include a
section on real estate acquisition if the project sponsor did not have
to purchase property to carry out the project. In September 2009, FTA
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on project management
oversight regulations, which included the guidelines for project
management plans.[Footnote 28] The current regulations predate the
creation of the Small Starts program and Very Small Starts category.
In the notice, FTA specifically seeks comment on whether sponsors of
Small Starts projects should establish less detailed project
management plans than New Starts projects.
* Two Small Starts project sponsors said that the single project
development phase in the Small Starts program was an advantage.
According to one project sponsor, the single phase eliminated the need
to stop design work on the project while applying for and receiving
approval from FTA to enter another phase, as can be the case with the
two-stage process for New Starts projects. According to FTA officials,
FTA allows project sponsors to continue design on a project while
waiting for approval, as outlined in FTA's 2006 program guidance. In
past studies of the New Starts program, GAO and Deloitte presented the
use of a single project development phase for all New Starts projects
as one option to help expedite the New Starts process.[Footnote 29] In
its reauthorization proposal, as identified in the fiscal year 2012
budget request, FTA proposed that all projects use this single-phase
approach as one way to transform the New Starts program, balancing the
need to advance projects in a reasonable time frame with being a
steward for federal transit dollars.
Some stakeholders we spoke with also reported disadvantages of FTA's
project development requirements. As described below, stakeholders
that have experience with New Starts projects said that the Small
Starts project development requirements, which were to be streamlined,
are too similar to those for New Starts projects. These comments
suggest that, from some stakeholders' perspective, Small Starts could
be further differentiated from New Starts. However, as stated in our
previous work on the New Starts program, FTA's oversight of projects
must strike an appropriate balance between expediting project
development and maintaining the use of a rigorous and systematic
process to distinguish among projects.[Footnote 30]
* Sponsors from three Small Starts projects we spoke with were
assigned PMOCs, and all three project sponsors felt that the PMOCs'
oversight should have been better scaled to their Small Starts
projects. All three project sponsors said that their PMOCs provided
constructive comments and assistance during project development.
However, all three felt that the PMOCs' reviews should have been
better scaled to the size and complexity of their projects. Based on
their experience developing both a New Starts and Small Starts
project, two of the project sponsors told us that the PMOC reviewed
their Small Starts project as though it were a New Starts project. As
mentioned above, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on project management oversight regulations in September 2009, which,
upon completion of the rulemaking process, could affect PMOC oversight
of Small Starts projects. In the notice, FTA seeks comments on how it
should best use PMOCs in overseeing projects and the circumstances,
such as the complexity of a project, under which the agency may assign
a PMOC to a project.
* Two Small Starts project sponsors said that the length of the review
process for PCGAs was a disadvantage. After FTA and a project sponsor
negotiate a PCGA, it must go through multiple levels of review,
including the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, the Office of
Management and Budget, and Congress. By statute, a PCGA is subject to
a 60-day congressional review period.[Footnote 31] According to one
project sponsor, a reduction in the PCGA review time would be
beneficial and help them implement their projects more quickly. In a
recent congressional hearing, the FTA administrator said that the
agency would ask Congress to consider shortening this review period to
30 days when the New Starts program is reauthorized.[Footnote 32]
* According to an industry group and one project sponsor we spoke
with, New Starts and Small Starts projects entail comparable levels of
work. Officials from the industry group told us that some of its
members therefore feel it is better to apply as a New Starts project
and seek more funding rather than apply as a Small Starts project and
face constraints on the project's total cost and capital investment
program share. We have previously reviewed FTA's Small Starts program
and reported on options that exist to expedite the New Starts project
development process. In 2007, for example, we reported that FTA could
take additional action to further streamline the Small Starts program.
[Footnote 33] FTA officials acknowledged that the requirements could
be further streamlined and took steps to do so, such as reducing
duplicative requirements and developing Small Starts-specific
reporting templates.
FTA's Project Development Requirements for Exempt Projects and
Stakeholder Views:
Exempt Projects Are Subject to Fewer Requirements Than Small Starts or
Very Small Starts Projects:
Exempt projects are not evaluated and rated or recommended for funding
by FTA; exempt projects receive under $25 million in federal
assistance and are typically congressionally designated. Since FTA
does not evaluate and rate these projects, they are subject to fewer
FTA requirements. However, FTA requires exempt projects to submit
information similar to some requirements for Small Starts and Very
Small Starts projects. This consists of information on a project's
background, which includes a description of the project as well as
site and vicinity maps; costs, such as worksheets that organize the
project's capital costs by year of expenditure and type of
expenditure, like vehicles and stations, stops, and terminals; and
local financial commitment, which includes a financial plan summary
and supporting financial documentation.
According to its guidance, FTA does not have to evaluate and rate
exempt projects. However, the projects still have to be approved by
FTA into preliminary engineering and final design. FTA's approval for
advancing exempt projects is based on compliance with planning,
environmental, and project management requirements which apply to all
federal-aid transit projects. FTA officials said that, as it relates
to exempt projects, they mainly determine whether project sponsors
possess a level of technical and financial capacity that is
appropriate for the scope of the project before advancing an exempt
project into the next stage of development. For example, FTA must
determine whether a project has secured at least half of its local
funding prior to advancing to the final design phase of project
development.
In terms of other requirements, FTA requires the sponsor of an exempt
project to create and submit a project management plan to describe its
budget, processes, procedures, and schedule for managing the project.
FTA may also assign a PMOC to an exempt project with a total project
cost over $100 million, technical complexity, or a sponsor with no
previous experience implementing capital transit projects.
Nine New Exempt Projects Since 2005:
As table 6 shows, a total of nine exempt projects of various modes and
total costs have entered the New Starts pipeline since SAFETEA-LU was
enacted.
Table 6: Exempt Projects That Have Entered the New Starts Pipeline
Since 2005:
Urban Transitway Phase II;
Location: Stamford, CT;
Mode[A]: Busway;
Total capital cost[B]: $48.3 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $24.7 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2006.
Maine Marine Highway Project;
Location: Rockland, ME;
Mode[A]: Ferry;
Total capital cost[B]: $10.4 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $1.5 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2006.
Downtown Transit Enhancement Project;
Location: Jacksonville, FL;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Total capital cost[B]: $13.4 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $9.3 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2007.
Assembly Square Station;
Location: Boston, MA;
Mode[A]: Heavy rail;
Total capital cost[B]: $50.7 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $25.0 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2008.
Lackawanna Cutoff Project - Phase 1;
Location: Andover, NJ;
Mode[A]: CR;
Total capital cost[B]: $36.6 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $18.2 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2008.
Modern Streetcar Project;
Location: Tucson, AZ;
Mode[A]: Streetcar;
Total capital cost[B]: $196.5 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $5.8 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2009.
Oakland Airport Connector;
Location: Oakland, CA;
Mode[A]: Heavy rail;
Total capital cost[B]: $492.7 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $25.0 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2010.
Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter Rail Station;
Location: Pawtucket, RI;
Mode[A]: CR;
Total capital cost[B]: $53.6 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $25.0 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2010.
Crystal City-Potomac Yard Transitway;
Location: Arlington, VA;
Mode[A]: Busway;
Total capital cost[B]: $38.1 million;
Capital investment program contribution[B]: $0.98 million;
Fiscal year entered the pipeline: 2010.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[A] BRT = bus rapid transit; CR = commuter rail.
[B] Dollar figures are rounded and in year of expenditure dollars.
[End of table]
Within each mode, the exempt projects vary in characteristics, such as
scope. For example:
* For the bus projects, one extends a transitway with dedicated bus-
priority/high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, bikeways, and sidewalks;
another establishes initial components and infrastructure for a BRT
system that includes dedicated bus lanes, transit stations, and a real-
time passenger information system.
* For rail projects, one project constructs a new driverless,
automated rail system between an existing transit station and an
airport; another project builds a new transit station along an
existing heavy rail line. See appendix IV for additional information
on each of these exempt projects.
In addition to the nine exempt projects listed in table 6, on March 4,
2011, FTA selected five exempt projects to receive capital investment
program discretionary grants under FTA's newly created Urban
Circulator Program.[Footnote 34] The grants are to help state and
local governments finance new fixed-guideway capital projects,
including the acquisition of property, the initial acquisition of
rolling stock, the acquisition of rights-of-way, and relocation. The
projects fall within the exempt category because the maximum grant for
each selected project must be less than $25 million and make up no
more than 80 percent of the project's total capital cost. These are
projects such as streetcars that provide a transportation option to
connect urban destinations and foster the redevelopment of urban
spaces into walkable mixed-use, high-density environments. Table 7
lists the five Urban Circulator projects FTA selected to receive
funds.[Footnote 35]
Table 7: Urban Circulator Projects FTA Selected to Receive Funding:
Project: Chicago Central Area Transitway;
Location: Chicago, Illinois;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Amount allocated: $24.6 million.
Project: St. Louis Loop Trolley Project;
Location: St. Louis, Missouri;
Mode[A]: Trolley;
Amount allocated: $24.9 million.
Project: Charlotte Streetcar Starter Project;
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina;
Mode[A]: Streetcar;
Amount allocated: $24.9 million.
Project: Cincinnati Streetcar Project;
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio;
Mode[A]: Streetcar;
Amount allocated: $24.9 million.
Project: Olive/St. Paul Street Loop;
Location: Dallas Texas;
Mode[A]: Trolley;
Amount allocated: $4.9 million.
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[A] BRT = bus rapid transit:
According to FTA, a total of 65 applicants requested $1.1 billion,
resulting in high competition for the $130 million made available. FTA
ran a competition for these funds and evaluated project proposals
based on criteria such as livability, sustainability, economic
development, and leveraging of public and private investments, in line
with the Department of Transportation's livability initiative that
began in 2009.[Footnote 36] According to FTA, the projects selected
will provide mobility choices, improve economic competitiveness,
support existing communities, create partnerships, and enhance the
value of communities and neighborhoods.
Continuing Demand for the Exempt Category:
Although stakeholders cite a need for the exempt category, projects
considered "exempt" from the statutory evaluation and rating process
were eliminated in SAFETEA-LU, pending the publication by FTA of a
final regulation implementing Small Starts, which has not yet
occurred. However, until that happens, FTA officials said that it will
still have an exempt category. The stakeholders with whom we spoke
want to continue this category of funding because they said that a key
advantage of the exempt category is that it serves as a useful source
of funding for "unique" or atypical transit projects. For example,
four project sponsors that we spoke with indicated that their projects
may not have competed well with other projects if evaluated against
the New Starts criteria and in competition with more typical New
Starts transit projects, like light rail lines. Yet, they believe
their projects fill a transportation gap for the communities they
serve. Compared to a new commuter or light rail line, such exempt
projects are not well suited to the New Starts evaluation and rating
criteria--such as cost-effectiveness measured by travel time savings
to user. However, we do not have enough information to determine how
these exempt projects would have fared against the New Starts criteria.
In its 2012 budget request, FTA proposes to continue the exempt
category in the next surface transportation reauthorization. According
to its fiscal year 2012 budget request, FTA is proposing to raise the
amount of federal funding available to exempt projects, in conjunction
with other changes to the New Starts program.
* Specifically, projects could be "exempt" from the evaluation and
rating process if the project sponsor is seeking less than $100
million in § 5309 Capital Investment Grant program funds and the
request represents less than 10 percent of the project's anticipated
total capital cost. According to FTA, the main reason for continuing
an exempt category is the awareness that if FTA provides only a small
percentage of a project's total cost, there is a corresponding lower
amount of risk to the federal government; at the same time, other
entities, like state and local governments, provide a greater amount
of funding and assume a higher amount of risk. Because of the lowered
risk to the federal government, a project would be exempt from the
more stringent federal oversight (i.e., evaluated and rated against
criteria) that apply to other projects, while the other funding
partners would likely conduct more due diligence to protect their
increased investment. Just as they are now, these projects would only
be subject to basic federal grant requirements and would not be
evaluated and rated by FTA.
* Given that these projects are not rated and evaluated, the project
sponsors we talked with considered this as one of the major benefits
to this category, because it potentially decreases the amount of time
spent in project development and project costs.
SAFETEA-LU requires project sponsors to conduct a before-and-after
study for all New Starts projects.[Footnote 37] Additionally, FTA
requires before-and-after studies to be conducted for all Small Starts
projects, in accordance with FTA guidance. Although FTA and the
project sponsors we spoke with generally view the exempt category as
beneficial, these projects are not validated with studies, as are
other New Starts and Small Starts projects. For New Starts and Small
Starts projects, the before-and-after study describes the impact of
the project on transit services and ridership and compares the
predicted and actual project performance. Additionally, Very Small
Starts project sponsors must complete a simplified before-and-after
study on the project's actual scope, costs, and ridership. However,
according to FTA officials, exempt project sponsors do not submit such
information on completed projects. As we've previously reported,
information about the outcomes of completed transit projects can be
used to better determine what a particular project accomplished and
improve decisions on other projects.[Footnote 38]
Our interviews with stakeholders resulted in a few reported
disadvantages.
* Most notably, FTA has limited guidance on exempt projects. For
example, FTA has a checklist that shows what is required for exempt
projects, as opposed to New Starts and Small Starts. However, one
project sponsor said they felt there was a lack of guidance for exempt
projects and that their consultant helped to navigate the requirements
in lieu of more thorough guidance.
* Stakeholders, including officials from FTA and project sponsors,
also said that the exempt projects can face funding uncertainties.
Some stakeholders said that exempt projects have no guarantee of
funding beyond what has been appropriated by Congress, and a project's
exempt funding may not be appropriated all at once. One project
sponsor told us that since only a portion of its exempt funding has
been appropriated, they have had to leverage local funds to advance
the project until more exempt funds become available.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Transportation
for review and comment. DOT officials provided us with clarifying and
technical comments, which we incorporated throughout the report as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of
Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration, and appropriate congressional committees. This report
is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.
Signed by:
Lorelei St. James:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Recommendation Follow-up:
Two recent GAO reports on the New Starts program contained
recommendations that were open when we began our work on this review
in December 2010. This appendix lists those reports and updates the
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) progress in implementing these
recommendations.
Public Transportation: Improvements Are Needed to More Fully Assess
Predicted Impacts of New Starts Projects, GAO-08-844 (Washington,
D.C.: July 25, 2008).
This report made five recommendations to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to improve the New Starts evaluation process and
the measures of project benefits, which could change the relative
ranking of projects. Table 8 lists the five recommendations with
information on the status of each recommendation, as of July 2011.
Table 8: Recommendations to DOT in 2008:
Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should seek additional
resources to improve local travel models in the next authorizing
legislation;
Status: Open;
Comments: The agency concurs, in part, but awaits Congress' decisions
to provide additional resources, so no action has been taken.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should seek a
legislative change to allow the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
to consider the dollar value of mobility improvements in evaluating
projects, developing regulations, or carrying out any other duties;
Status: Open;
Comments: The agency concurs, in part, but awaits Congress' decisions
during the surface transportation reauthorization.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the
Administrator of FTA to establish a timeline for issuing, awarding,
and implementing the result of its request for proposals on short-and
long-term approaches to measuring highway user benefits from transit
improvements;
Status: Open;
Comments: FTA expects to award the contract in summer 2011 and
complete the identification of acceptable approaches to measuring
highway benefits by early 2013.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the
Administrator of FTA to establish a timeline for initiating and
completing its longer-term effort to develop more robust measures of
transit projects' environmental benefits that are practically useful
in distinguishing among proposed projects, including consultation with
the transit community;
Status: Open;
Comments: FTA concurs. FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in June 2010, which among other measures sought input on
better ways to examine environmental benefits generated by major
capital improvement projects. FTA is preparing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that will outline a proposed approach to measuring
environmental benefits.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the
Administrators of FTA and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
collaborate in efforts to improve the consistency and reliability of
local travel models, including the aforementioned request for
proposals on approaches to measuring highway user benefits;
Status: Open;
Comments: GAO received a written response to the recommendation from
FTA in January 2009. The agency indicated that it plans to take steps
to address this recommendation. However, as of the date of this
report, FTA has not provided an update on this recommendation.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New
Starts Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development, GAO-
09-784 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 6, 2009).
This report made two recommendations to DOT to improve the New Starts
program. Table 9 lists these recommendations with information on the
status of each recommendation, as of July 2011.
Table 9: Recommendations to DOT in 2009:
Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the FTA
Administrator to continue to improve data collection and retention for
statutorily defined milestones and determine if additional data would
help to better describe the time it takes for a project to move
through the New Starts process. In doing so, FTA should establish
mechanisms to ensure the accuracy of the data and routinely analyze
the data in order to identify the length of time it takes projects to
move through each phase, potential causes for perceived delays, and
potential solutions. FTA should make its analysis available to
Congress and other interested parties;
Status: Tentatively closed--not implemented;
FTA disagrees with GAO's recommendation. In particular, FTA noted that
it has maintained data needed to effectively track projects and
expressed concern that GAO used a standard for data management that is
not necessary for effective project management. GAO disagreed with the
assertion that we held this information to a standard that is not
necessary for effective management and believes that analysis based on
reliable data will only help strengthen FTA's management of the
program. We, therefore, believe that this recommendation, revised to
reflect FTA's concerns, is valid. For more information, see the Agency
Comments section of GAO-09-784.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the FTA
Administrator to continue to analyze the streamlining options
identified in this report, along with any additional options, to
determine which options, if any, to implement--seeking legislative
change if necessary--to expedite the project development within the
New Starts program;
Status: Tentatively closed--implemented;
In its fiscal year 2012 budget request, FTA proposed three changes to
New Starts to streamline project development. GAO is working to verify
FTA's actions to close this recommendation.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Small Starts and Very Small Starts Projects That Have
Received Construction Grants:
FTA has awarded construction grants to 11 of the 29 Small Starts and
Very Small Starts projects recommended for funding to Congress. Table
10 provides information on each project, including the date FTA
approved the project into the project development phase and the date
FTA obligated funds for construction.
Table 10: Project Development Dates for Small Starts and Very Small
Starts Projects That Received Construction Grants Since Fiscal Year
2007:
Project sponsor: King County Department of Transportation;
Description[A]: Federal Way, Pacific Highway South BRT;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/7/2006;
Date of construction grant obligation: 5/1/2009.
Project sponsor: Lane County Transit District;
Description[A]: Pioneer Parkway BRT;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: PCGA;
Date of approval into project development: 12/8/2006;
Date of construction grant obligation: 9/25/2009.
Project sponsor: Kansas City Area Transportation Authority;
Description[A]: Troost Corridor BRT;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/13/2006;
Date of construction grant obligation: 9/11/2007.
Project sponsor: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority;
Description[A]: Gap Closure Project;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/15/2006;
Date of construction grant obligation: 9/16/2010.
Project sponsor: City of Portland and Tri-Met;
Description[A]: Portland Eastside Streetcar (aka Streetcar Loop);
Mode: Streetcar;
Program/category: Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: PCGA;
Date of approval into project development: 4/26/2007;
Date of construction grant obligation: 11/10/2009.
Project sponsor: King County Department of Transportation;
Description[A]: Bellevue-Redmond RapidRide;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/13/2007;
Date of construction grant obligation: 2/25/2010.
Project sponsor: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority;
Description[A]: Route 10 BRT;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/13/2007;
Date of construction grant obligation: 8/28/2009.
Project sponsor: Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public
Transportation Authority;
Description[A]: Mountain Links;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/13/2007;
Date of construction grant obligation: 5/27/2011.
Project sponsor: San Diego Association of Governments;
Description[A]: Mid-City Rapid Bus;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/20/2007;
Date of construction grant obligation: 8/25/2010.
Project sponsor: Monterey-Salinas Transit;
Description[A]: Monterey Bay Rapid Transit;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/9/2008;
Date of construction grant obligation: 9/10/2010.
Project sponsor: San Joaquin Regional Transit District;
Description[A]: Stockton Metro Express Airport Way Corridor BRT;
Mode: BRT;
Program/category: Very Small Starts;
Type of grant[B]: Grant;
Date of approval into project development: 12/9/2008;
Date of construction grant obligation: 9/23/2010.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[A] BRT = bus rapid transit:
[B] Grant = single-year construction grant; PCGA = Project
construction grant agreement.
[End of table]
According to FTA officials, the agency typically recommends a Small
Starts or Very Small Starts project for funding the first year it is
in the project development phase, which is sooner than when the agency
recommends New Starts projects for funding. After a project is
recommended for funding, FTA makes firm funding commitments, such as
those in a project construction grant agreement, when the project's
development has reached a point where its scope, costs, benefits, and
impacts are considered firm and final.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology:
To describe the legislative and program history for the creation of
Small Starts and Very Small Starts, respectively, we analyzed the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), congressional reports, testimonies
before Congress, and member floor statements on the program from 2004
to 2007, the years leading up to and after the passage of SAFETEA-LU.
To describe the program history behind the Very Small Starts category,
we similarly analyzed Federal Register notices and program guidance
issued by FTA. We also interviewed FTA officials on the creation of
Very Small Starts. To provide information on Small Starts and Very
Small Starts projects, including total project cost, mode of transit,
and other characteristics, we collected and analyzed project data,
including grant data, compiled by FTA to determine the cost, mode of
transit, and other characteristics of Small Starts and Very Small
Starts projects. We included projects that had been recommended for
funding to Congress since the passage of SAFETEA-LU (August 10, 2005).
We also sought to include projects that were (1) in the project
development phase but not yet recommended for funding or (2) in the
process of applying to enter this phase. Through discussions with FTA
staff and analysis of FTA Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations,
we determined that no projects met the above conditions at the time of
our review. To verify and assess the reliability of the data compiled
by FTA, we compared it to project data contained in FTA's Annual
Reports on Funding Recommendations for fiscal years 2007 through 2012
and information from project sponsors we interviewed. We resolved any
discrepancies with FTA headquarters staff, and we determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To describe the project development requirements for Small Starts and
Very Small Starts projects, we collected and summarized relevant laws,
such as SAFETEA-LU, as well as FTA circulars and policy guidance for
the Small Starts program, including the 2007 Updated Interim Guidance
and Instructions, 2010 Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309
Small Starts Criteria, and Side-by-Side of Required Information for
New Starts/Small Starts Evaluation and Rating. To determine the views
of stakeholders on the advantages and disadvantages of these
requirements, we conducted semistructured interviews with FTA
officials from headquarters and regional offices, sponsors of projects
that have been recommended for funding, and transit industry
associations, such as the American Public Transportation Association.
We selected a judgmental sample of 10 out of 29 projects to ensure
variation in the project's geographic location, category of funding
(i.e., Small Starts or Very Small Starts), mode of transit, total
project cost, and fiscal year recommended for funding. We also
interviewed FTA staff at the seven regional offices that corresponded
with the judgmental sample of project sponsors. Table 11 lists the
Small Starts and Very Small Starts project sponsors we interviewed for
our review.
Table 11: Small Starts and Very Small Starts Project Sponsors
Interviewed:
Name of project sponsor: Capital Metro;
Project location: Austin, TX;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Project type: Very Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: City of Portland;
Project location: Portland, OR;
Mode[A]: Streetcar;
Project type: Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: Interurban Transit Partnership;
Project location: Grand Rapids, MI;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Project type: Very Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: Jacksonville Transportation Authority;
Project location: Jacksonville, FL;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Project type: Very Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: King County Department of Transportation;
Project location: Seattle, WA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Project type: Very Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: Lane County Transit District;
Project location: Springfield, OR;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Project type: Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority;
Project location: Livermore, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Project type: Very Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority;
Project location: Los Angeles, CA;
Mode[A]: BRT;
Project type: Very Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority;
Project location: Fitchburg, MA;
Mode[A]: CR;
Project type: Small Starts.
Name of project sponsor: Valley Metro Rail of Phoenix;
Project location: Mesa, AZ;
Mode[A]: LRT;
Project type: Small Starts.
Source: GAO.
[A] BRT = bus rapid transit; CR = commuter rail; LRT = light rail
transit.
[End of table]
We used stakeholder observations and experiences, as there is not a
reliable quantitative way to evaluate the impact of changes in the
requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects on
project development time frames compared to New Starts projects for
two reasons. First, only a small number of Small Starts (including
Very Small Starts) projects--11 of 29 recommended for funding--have
completed the project development phase and received a construction
grant. Second, in past work we found that FTA and project sponsor data
on time frames for New Starts projects (such as entry into preliminary
engineering and final design) are not reliable.[Footnote 39] However,
FTA officials said they do not agree with GAO's assessment of its
data. Given these reasons, we did not include such a comparison in our
methodology for this review.
To describe the project development requirements for exempt projects,
we summarized relevant laws, regulations, and FTA guidance for exempt
projects. We also interviewed officials from FTA headquarters and
regional offices. Our review of exempt projects included projects
selected to receive funding that entered the New Starts pipeline
(i.e., approved into the preliminary engineering phase) since SAFETEA-
LU was enacted. To describe the types of exempt projects that have
entered the New Starts pipeline since the passage of SAFETEA-LU, we
collected, verified, and analyzed data from FTA. We compared the data
from FTA to project data available in FTA's Annual Reports on Funding
Recommendations for fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to assess its
reliability. There were a total of nine exempt projects that entered
the New Starts pipeline since 2005. We worked with FTA to resolve any
discrepancies and found the data sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. To determine the views of stakeholders on the
advantages and disadvantages of the exempt category, we conducted
semistructured interviews with FTA officials (headquarters and
regional office staff), sponsors of exempt projects that received
funding, and transit industry associations. We selected a judgmental
sample of five exempt project sponsors to ensure variety in the
projects' geographic location, mode of transit, project cost, and the
fiscal year the projects were approved into the New Starts preliminary
engineering phase. Table 12 lists the exempt project sponsors we
interviewed for our review.
Table 12: New Starts Exempt Project Sponsors Interviewed:
Name of project sponsor: Arlington County;
Project location: Arlington, VA;
Mode[A]: Busway.
Name of project sponsor: City of Tucson Department of Transportation;
Project location: Tucson, AZ;
Mode[A]: Streetcar.
Name of project sponsor: Jacksonville Transportation Authority;
Project location: Jacksonville, FL;
Mode[A]: BRT.
Name of project sponsor: Maine Department of Transportation;
Project location: Rockland, ME;
Mode[A]: Ferry.
Name of project sponsor: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District;
Project location: Oakland, CA;
Mode[A]: Heavy rail.
Source: GAO.
[A] BRT = bus rapid transit.
[End of table]
We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through August
2011 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.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Descriptions of Exempt Projects:
The following provides detailed descriptions of the nine exempt
projects of various modes that have entered the New Starts pipeline
and their total costs since SAFETEA-LU was enacted. The descriptions
are primarily from FTA's latest annual reports or as noted. There are
four rail projects, a ferry project, a street car project, and three
bus projects. These projects are listed in the order they entered the
New Starts pipeline, beginning with the earliest.
Urban Transitway Phase II--Stamford, Connecticut:
The City of Stamford, Connecticut, is proposing to extend Phase I of
its Urban Transitway, currently in operation, for an additional 0.6
miles along Myrtle Avenue to U.S. Route 1. According to FTA's Annual
Report on Funding Recommendations, the facility will accommodate new
dedicated bus-priority/high-occupancy-vehicle lanes in both
directions, as well as bike pathways and sidewalks. Signal priority
treatments at intersections will give local and commuter buses
priority. Bus stops in the corridor will include real-time passenger
displays. The total capital cost for the Stamford Urban Transitway
Phase II project is estimated at $48.3 million, with a proposed New
Starts share of $24.7 million. FTA approved the project into
preliminary engineering in May 2006 and into final design in November
2007.
Maine Marine Highway Project--Rockland, Maine:
The Maine Marine Highway Project, sponsored by the Maine Department of
Transportation, is for the construction of a ferry boat--the Governor
Curtis. As proposed, this vessel will expand the capacity of the Maine
State Ferry Service to provide transportation between Rockland and the
off-shore islands in Penobscot Bay. It will also free up another
vessel to be retrofitted and serve as a backup vessel; currently, no
vessel of this size is available as a backup. The new vessel will hold
250 passengers and approximately 20 cars. The New Starts share is $1.5
million of an estimated total capital cost of $10.4 million. FTA
concurrently approved the project into preliminary engineering and
final design in May 2006.
Downtown Transit Service Enhancement Project--Jacksonville, Florida:
The Jacksonville Transit Authority is planning a regional bus rapid
transit system for the Jacksonville metropolitan area. The Downtown
Transit Service Enhancement Project is the first phase to be developed
and will serve as the center hub of the system. The 8.4-mile project
includes increased bus service, semi-exclusive reserved bus lanes, 22
stations and stops, traffic signal priority, and real-time traveler
information. The project is estimated to cost $15.6 million which
includes a New Starts share of $9.4 million. FTA approved the project
into preliminary engineering in December 2006 and into final design in
August 2010.
Assembly Square Station--Boston, Massachusetts:
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority proposes to build a new
Assembly Square Station on the existing Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority heavy rail Orange Line between the existing
Sullivan Square and Wellington Stations in the City of Somerville,
Massachusetts. No additional Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority rail cars are needed to provide service to this new station.
The total capital cost of the Assembly Square Station is estimated to
be $47.7 million with a proposed New Starts share of $24.9 million.
FTA approved the project into preliminary engineering in September
2008 and into final design in November 2010.
Lackawanna Cutoff Project, Minimum Operating Segment--Andover, New
Jersey:
According to FTA's latest description of this project, the Lackawanna
Cutoff project involves the restoration of commuter rail service from
Port Morris, New Jersey, to Andover, New Jersey--a distance of 7.3
miles. The Lackawanna Minimum Operating Segment is a short rail line
at the outer end of New Jersey Transit's existing Montclair/Boonton
Line. The alignment consists of the construction of a single track
along the existing right-of-way purchased by the state of New Jersey
in 2001. One station will be constructed at the terminus in Andover.
The project will utilize the existing Port Morris Yard for storage and
maintenance services. New Jersey Transit's existing rolling stock will
be used to operate the service. The estimated capital cost is $36.6
million with a proposed New Starts share of $18.2 million including
primarily New Starts funds. New Jersey Transit has already received
the full amount of appropriations necessary for this project.
Modern Streetcar Project--Tucson, Arizona:
The City of Tucson Department of Transportation proposes to build a
streetcar project in the downtown Tucson Urban Corridor. The project
includes the purchase of eight streetcar vehicles. The streetcars will
operate at grade on surface streets in mixed traffic in most
locations, with some reserved right-of-way where available. Track
placement will primarily be in the center of shared travel lanes with
stations located either in the median or on the outside of roadways.
Station platforms will be designed so that they can be used by buses
as well as by streetcars, where possible. The total capital cost of
the project is estimated to be $196.5 million; the current New Starts
share is $5.8 million. FTA approved the Tucson Modern Streetcar
Project into preliminary engineering as an exempt project in December
2008 and into final design in September 2009.
Oakland Airport Connector--Oakland, California:
The Bay Area Rapid Transit's Oakland Airport Connector is a 3.2-mile
rail project to connect the Oakland International Airport to the Bay
Area Rapid Transit's Coliseum Station and the rest of the transit
system. According to the project sponsor, it will be a driverless,
automated rail system to replace bus service and provide more
integrated service to the airport. To construct the project, Bay Area
Rapid Transit is using a design-build-operate-maintain project
delivery approach. The estimated $492.7 million project will be funded
using several funding sources, including $24.9 million in federal New
Starts funding. FTA concurrently approved the project into preliminary
engineering and final design in December 2009.
Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter Rail Station--Pawtucket, Rhode Island:
The Rhode Island Department of Transportation proposes to build a new
Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter Rail Station on the existing
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Providence-to-Boston
commuter rail route, which follows Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. The
station would be constructed in Pawtucket near the site of a station
that was closed in 1959 between the existing South Attleboro and
Providence stations. The total capital cost of the Commuter Rail
Station is estimated to be $53.6 million with a proposed New Starts
share of $24.9 million. FTA approved the project into preliminary
engineering as an exempt New Starts project in August 2010. The Rhode
Island Department of Transportation expects to begin final design in
2013, construction in 2015, and revenue operations in 2018.
Crystal City-Potomac Yard Transitway--Arlington, Virginia:
According to FTA, the Crystal City-Potomac Yard project is a 3.1 mile
bus transitway project with eight stops. It includes 1.5 lane-miles of
exclusive transit right-of-way (which is an independent roadway for
buses) and 1.3 miles of an on-street dedicated bus lane, and 0.3 lane-
miles of mixed traffic operation. Arlington County officials said this
project is not a bus rapid transit project, which has different
features such as large distances between stations. Instead, this bus
transitway project provides limited local bus service that will
replace the current standard local bus service. The purpose is to
provide high-capacity and high-quality bus transit services in the 5-
mile corridor between the Pentagon (and Pentagon City) in Arlington
County and the Braddock Road Metrorail Station in the City of
Alexandria. The total capital cost of the bus transitway is estimated
to be $38.1 million with a proposed New Starts share of $980,000. FTA
approved the project into preliminary engineering as an exempt New
Starts project in August 2010.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Lorelei St. James, (202) 512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Catherine Colwell, Assistant
Director; Lauren Calhoun; Dwayne Curry; Robert Heilman; Terence Lam;
Joanie Lofgren; Sara Ann W. Moessbauer; and Amy Rosewarne made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Public Transportation: Use of Contractors is Generally Enhancing
Transit Project Oversight, and FTA is Taking Actions to Address Some
Stakeholder Concerns. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-909]. Washington, D.C.: September
14, 2010.
Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New
Starts Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-784]. Washington, D.C.:
August 6, 2009.
Public Transportation: New Starts Program Challenges and Preliminary
Observations on Expediting Project Development. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-763T]. Washington, D.C.: June 3,
2009.
Public Transportation: Improvements Are Needed to More Fully Assess
Predicted Impacts of New Starts Projects. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-844]. Washington, D.C.: July 25,
2008.
Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and
Small Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the Small Starts
Application Process. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-917]. Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2007.
Public Transportation: Preliminary Analysis of Changes to and Trends
in FTA's New Starts and Small Starts Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-812T]. Washington, D.C.: May 10,
2007.
Public Transportation: New Starts Program Is in a Period of
Transition. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-819].
Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006.
Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA's Implementation
of SAFETEA-LU Changes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-910T]. Washington, D.C.: June 27,
2006.
Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the
Communication and Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts
Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-674].
Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for
the exclusive use of public transportation services, such as fixed
rail and exclusive lanes for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles.
[2] Although SAFETEA-LU created a separate Small Starts "category"
rather than a Small Starts "program," for the purposes of this report,
we refer to the Small Starts category as the Small Starts program, as
FTA consistently refers to the Small Starts program in reports and
guidance. See 49 U.S.C. § 5309(e).
[3] In accordance with SAFETEA-LU, 49 U.S.C. § 5309 (e)(1)(B), the
exempt category will expire when FTA publishes a final regulation
pertaining to Small Starts. However, FTA has not yet promulgated this
final regulation. According to FTA officials, currently there is no
timeline for the release of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
[4] 49 U.S.C. § 5309(k)(2).
[5] See 49 U.S.C. §§ 5309(d)(2), (e)(2). Project justification
criteria include cost-effectiveness, land use, economic development
effects, environmental benefits, mobility improvements, and operating
efficiencies. To determine the project's local financial commitment,
FTA evaluates a project's capital finance plan, operating finance
plan, and non-New Starts share. We have previously assessed FTA's
evaluation and rating process for New Starts; see GAO, Public
Transportation: Improvements Are Needed to More Fully Assess Predicted
Impacts of New Starts Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-844] (Washington, D.C.: July 25,
2008).
[6] On June 3, 2010, FTA published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the Federal Register, which seeks comments on how best
to measure a proposed project's cost-effectiveness, economic
development effects, and environmental impacts, among other things. 75
Fed. Reg. 31383. According to FTA officials, currently there is no
timeline for the release of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
[7] GAO, Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of
New Starts Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-784] (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 6, 2009).
[8] Bus rapid transit, according to FTA, is a corridor-based, enhanced
bus system that operates on bus lanes or other transitways in order to
combine the flexibility of buses with the efficiency of rail to
operate at faster speeds.
[9] New Starts projects are carried out in concert with the
statutorily established state and metropolitan planning processes. 23
U.S.C. § 134.
[10] Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for
the exclusive use of public transportation services, such as fixed
rail and exclusive lanes for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles.
For Small Starts projects, the fixed-guideway portion of the project
need not be contiguous, but it should be located to result in faster
and more reliable running times. Peak period refers to periods with
high ridership or demand.
[11] According to FTA's guidance, a corridor-based bus project must
have the following minimum elements: substantial transit stations;
traffic signal priority/preemption, to the extent, if any, that there
are traffic signals on the corridor; low-floor vehicles or level
boarding; branding of the proposed service; and 10-minute peak/15-
minute off-peak running times (i.e., headways) or better while
operating at least 14 hours per weekday.
[12] Per 49 U.S.C. § 5309(d)(2)(B), New Starts projects are rated on
six project justification criteria: cost-effectiveness, land use,
economic development effects, environmental benefits, mobility
improvements, and operating efficiencies. In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
§ 5309(e)(2)(B), Small Starts projects are rated on three project
justification criteria: cost-effectiveness, economic development, and
land use.
[13] Although exempt projects are not required by statute to go
through alternatives analysis, FTA strongly suggests that sponsors of
exempt projects conduct an analysis of alternative investment
strategies to determine the optimal improvement to implement in a
given corridor.
[14] FTA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement these
provisions on August 3, 2007. Subsequently, the SAFETEA-LU Technical
Corrections Act of 2008 required FTA to "give comparable, but not
necessarily equal, numerical weight to each project justification
criteria" when rating projects. Pub. L. No. 110-244, § 201, 122 Stat
1572. Therefore, FTA withdrew the 2007 notice in February 2009. As
noted earlier, FTA issued a new Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on June 3, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 31383.
[15] H.R. Rep. No. 109-203, at 932-933 (2005) (Conf. Rep.). See also
H.R. Rep. No. 108-452, pt. 1, at 31 (2004); H.R. Rep. No. 109-12, at
409 (2005).
[16] FTA created the Very Small Starts category based on its
discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. § 5309 to carry out the New
Starts/Small Starts program.
[17] The features that define a Very Small Starts project and that FTA
determined would make a project cost-effective include minimum daily
ridership requirements and maximum total and per-mile costs, as listed
earlier in this report.
[18] In fiscal year 2007, FTA budgeted $100 million for potential
projects which may qualify under the Small Starts program. However,
due to the early stages of rulemaking for the program, FTA did not
recommend Small Starts funding for any projects in that fiscal year.
[19] GAO, Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New
Starts and Small Starts Program, but Improvements Needed to the Small
Starts Application Process, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-917] (Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2007).
[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-844].
[21] FTA assigns each project an overall rating of "high," "medium-
high," "medium," "medium-low," or "low." 49 U.S.C. § 5309(d)(5)(B). To
qualify for funding, a project must receive an overall rating of
"medium" or higher. 49 U.S.C. § 5309(d)(1)(B)(ii).
[22] The federal contribution refers to 49 U.S.C. § 5309 Capital
Investment Grant funds only. Projects may have other sources of
federal funds, such as Recovery Act or Federal Highway Administration
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds.
[23] As stated earlier, we define project development requirements to
include the information FTA requires from project sponsors when they
apply for and proceed through each statutorily required project
development phase, based on its guidance and regulations.
[24] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-844] and
Deloitte Development LLC, New Starts Program Assessment (Feb. 12,
2007).
[25] See 49 C.F.R. part 633, subpart C.
[26] See 49 U.S.C. §§ 633.11, 633.5 for criteria by which FTA may
contract for PMOCs.
[27] The 20 stakeholders that we interviewed did not all have
experience with both Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects. For
example, of the 10 project sponsors we interviewed, 4 were sponsors of
Small Starts projects and 6 were sponsors of Very Small Starts
projects. Also, not every FTA regional office had experience with both
a Small Starts and Very Small Starts project; only two regional
offices had experience with both Small Starts and Very Small Starts
projects. Therefore, not every stakeholder applies to each category of
projects.
[28] 74 Fed. Reg. 46515 (Sept. 2009).
[29] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-784] and
Deloitte Development LLC, New Starts Program Assessment (Feb. 12,
2007).
[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-784].
[31] According to FTA officials, FFGAs and PCGAs have similar review
and approval processes. For example, FFGAs are also subject to a
statutorily required 60-day congressional review period. 49 U.S.C. §
5309(g)(5).
[32] Hearing on Public Transportation: Priorities and Challenges for
Reauthorization, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs (May 19, 2011).
[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-917].
[34] 76 Fed. Reg. 12217 (March 2011). Typically, an urban circulator
operates regular service within a closed loop--usually 3 miles or
shorter in length--and serves a discrete urban area. FTA believes
projects that provide circulation through an urban area qualify,
whether or not they have an actual loop, as long as they follow a
course that returns to the starting point and distributes riders
around the area.
[35] FTA selected a sixth project in Fort Worth, Texas, but the
project sponsor later decided not to participate in the program.
[36] The goal of the department's livability initiative is to enhance
the economic and social well-being of all Americans by creating and
maintaining a safe, reliable, intermodal, and accessible
transportation network that enhances choices for transportation users,
provides easy access to employment opportunities and other
destinations, and promotes positive effects on the surrounding
community.
[37] 49 U.S.C. § 5309(g)(1)(C). A before-and-after study is similar to
an outcome evaluation in that it compares the forecasted benefits and
costs of a project with the actual benefits and costs of the project
after the project is completed.
[38] GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving
Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing
Accountability for Results, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-712] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24,
2005).
[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-784].
[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:
