Background

SAFETEA-LU authorized over $45 billion for federal transit programs,  including $8 billion for the New Starts program, from fiscal years 2005  through 2009. Under the New Starts program, FTA identifies and  recommends fixed-guideway transit projects for funding—including heavy,  light, and commuter rail; ferry; and certain bus projects (such as bus rapid  transit). SAFETEA-LU also made changes to the New Starts program,  including changes to its evaluation and rating process. FTA already has  implemented some of these changes and has undertaken efforts to address  the remaining changes.
FTA generally funds New Starts projects through FFGAs, which establish  the terms and conditions for federal participation in a New Starts project.  FFGAs also define a project’s scope, including the length of the system  and the number of stations; its schedule, including the date when the  system is expected to open for service; and its cost. For a project to obtain  an FFGA, it must progress through a local or regional review of  alternatives and meet a number of federal requirements, including  requirements for information used in the New Starts evaluation and rating  process (see fig. 1). As required by federal statute, New Starts projects  must emerge from a regional, multimodal transportation planning process.  The first two phases of the New Starts process—systems planning and  alternatives analysis—address this requirement. The systems planning  phase identifies the transportation needs of a region, while the alternatives  analysis phase provides information on the benefits, costs, and impacts of  different options, such as rail lines or bus routes, in a specific corridor  versus in a region. The alternatives analysis phase results in the selection  of a locally preferred alternative, which is intended to be the New Starts  project that FTA evaluates for funding, as required by statute. After a  locally preferred alternative is selected, the project sponsor submits an  application to FTA for the project to enter the preliminary engineering  phase. When this phase is completed and federal environmental  requirements are satisfied, FTA may approve the project’s advancement  into final design, after which FTA may approve the project for an FFGA  and proceed to construction, as provided for in statute. FTA oversees  grantees’ management of projects from the preliminary engineering phase  through the construction phase and evaluates the projects for  advancement into each phase of the process. FTA also evaluates the  projects annually for the New Starts report to Congress.
To help inform administration and congressional decisions about which  projects should receive federal funds, FTA assigns ratings on the basis of  various statutorily defined evaluation criteria—including both local  financial commitment and project justification criteria—and then assigns  an overall rating (see fig. 2). These evaluation criteria reflect a broad  range of benefits and effects of the proposed project, such as cost- effectiveness, as well as the ability of the project sponsor to fund the  project and finance the continued operation of its transit system. FTA  assigns the proposed project a rating for each criterion and then assigns a  summary rating for local financial commitment and project justification.  Lastly, FTA develops an overall project rating. Projects are rated at several  points during the New Starts process—as part of the evaluation for entry  into the preliminary engineering and the final design phases, and yearly for  inclusion in the New Starts annual report to Congress.
As required by statute, the administration uses the FTA evaluation and  rating process, along with the phase of development of New Starts  projects, to decide which projects to recommend to Congress for  funding. Although many projects receive a summary rating that would  make them eligible for an FFGA, only a few are proposed for an FFGA in a  given fiscal year. FTA proposes a project for an FFGA when it believes  that the project will be able to meet the following conditions during the  fiscal year for which funding is proposed:    All nonfederal project funding must be committed and available for the  project.
The project must be in the final design phase and have progressed far  enough for uncertainties about costs, benefits, and impacts (i.e.,  environmental or financial) to be minimized.
The project must meet FTA’s tests for readiness and technical capacity,  which confirm that there are no remaining cost, project scope, or local  financial commitment issues.
SAFETEA-LU introduced a number of changes to the New Starts program,  including some that affect the evaluation and rating process that we have  previously described in figure 1. For example, SAFETEA-LU added  economic development to the list of evaluation criteria that FTA must use  in evaluating and rating New Starts projects and required FTA to issue  notice and guidance each time significant changes are made to the  program. SAFETEA-LU also established the Small Starts program, a new  capital investment grant program, simplifying the requirements imposed  for those seeking funding for lower-cost projects, such as bus rapid transit,  streetcar, and commuter rail projects. This program is intended to advance  smaller-scale projects through an expedited and streamlined evaluation  and rating process. Small Starts projects require less than $75 million in  federal funding and have a total cost of less than $250 million. According  to FTA’s guidance, Small Starts projects must also (1) meet the definition  of a fixed guideway for at least 50 percent of the project length in the peak  period or (2) be a corridor-based bus project with the following minimum  elements:  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.
FTA has also subsequently introduced a separate eligibility category  within the Small Starts program for “Very Small Starts” projects. Small  Starts projects that qualify as Very Small Starts are simple, low-cost  projects that FTA has determined qualify for a simplified evaluation and  rating process. These projects must meet the same eligibility requirements  as Small Starts projects and be located in corridors with more than 3,000  existing riders per average weekday who will benefit from the proposed  project. In addition, the projects must have a total capital cost of less than  $50 million (for all project elements) and a per-mile cost of less than $3  million, excluding rolling stock (e.g., train cars).
FTA evaluates Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects using various  financial and project justification criteria, including cost-effectiveness and  land use. For Small Starts and Very Small Starts, SAFETEA-LU condensed  the New Starts processes used for large projects. Preliminary engineering  and final design are combined into one phase, referred to as “project  development.” FTA may recommend proposed Small Starts and Very Small  Starts for funding after such projects have been approved to enter into  project development, are “ready” to implement their proposed project, and  continue to be rated at least “medium” for both project justification and  local financial commitment. FTA intends to provide funding for Small  Starts and Very Small Starts projects through project construction grant  agreements (PCGA), which are similar to FFGAs (see fig. 3).

	FTA Recommended 14 Projects for Fiscal Year 2008 Funding; SAFETEA-LU Changes to Evaluation and Rating Process Remain

FTA evaluated and rated 18 New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts  projects for funding during the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle. Of the 14  New Starts projects that FTA evaluated and rated, FTA recommended to  Congress funding for 10 projects, including 2 new projects, 2 pending  projects, and 6 “other” projects. FTA also evaluated and rated 4 Small  Starts and Very Small Starts applications, and recommended all of these  projects for funding. The fiscal year 2008 President’s budget requests $1.40  billion in New Starts funding, including $100 million for the Small Starts  program. Although SAFETEA-LU authorized $200 million each year for the  Small Starts program, no funds have yet been allocated to the program,  due, in part, to its newness.

		FTA Evaluated and Rated 14 New Starts Projects, and Recommended Funding for 10 Projects

FTA’s Annual Report on New Starts: Proposed Allocations of Funds for  Fiscal Year 2008 (annual report) identified 19 New Starts projects in  preliminary engineering and final design. FTA evaluated and rated 14 of  these projects, rating 2 as “high,” 12 as “medium,” and none as “low.” Five  additional projects were statutorily exempt from being rated because their  sponsors requested less than $25 million in federal funding.
FTA recommended 10 New Starts projects for funding. Specifically, FTA  recommended 2 New Starts projects for proposed FFGAs. The total capital  cost of these 2 projects is estimated to be $6.30 billion, with the total  federal New Starts share expected to about one-third of this total. In  addition, FTA recommended funding for 2 projects with pending FFGAs.  The total capital cost of these 2 projects is estimated to be $1.13 billion,  and the total federal New Starts share is expected to be about one-half of  the total cost. FTA also recommended reserving $72.08 million in New  Starts funding for 6 “other” projects. FTA selected these “other” projects  using the decision rules that the projects have a “medium” or higher rating;  have a “medium” or higher cost-effectiveness rating; and is expected to  advance to final design as of June 2008. According to FTA, no other  project in preliminary engineering or final design met these decision rules.  Similar to last year, FTA did not specify how much would be set aside for  the 6 “other” New Starts projects because it wanted to ensure that the  projects were moving forward as anticipated before making specific  funding recommendations to Congress. Reserving funds for these projects  without specifying a particular amount for any given project will allow the  administration to make “real time” funding recommendations when  Congress is making appropriations decisions. FTA does not expect that all  6 “other” projects will be recommended for funding in fiscal year 2008 (see  table 1).

		FTA Evaluated and Rated 4 Small Starts and Very Small Starts Projects, and Recommended Funding for All 4 Projects

In the fall of 2006, FTA received 12 Small Starts and Very Small Starts  requests to enter project development for the fiscal year 2008 evaluation  cycle. A majority of these Small Starts and Very Small Starts requests to  enter project development were from project sponsors in the western and  southern regions of the country and all but 2 were for bus rapid transit  projects. FTA determined that only 1 Small Starts project and 3 Very Small  Starts projects were complete, ready, and eligible to be approved into  project development. FTA subsequently proposed these projects for a  PCGA. We found that the reasons for ineligible projects and incomplete  applications ranged from unclear program guidance to inconsistent  information provided by FTA. (See table 2 for more information on the  Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects for fiscal year 2008.)
FTA evaluated and rated the 4 Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects  that were eligible and had complete applications. All 4 of these projects  received a “medium” rating. FTA approved the 4 Small Starts and Very  Small Starts projects for advancement into the project development phase  on the basis of its review, evaluation, and rating of their applications. The  total capital cost of these projects is estimated to be $118.4 million, and  the total Small Starts, including Very Small Starts, share is expected to be  $84.9 million. FTA has also recommended that $48.2 million be allocated  for “other” Small Starts projects that were not ready for advancement into  project development at the time applications were due, but that may be  ready for advancement later in fiscal year 2008.

		The Administration’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Proposal Requests $1.40 Billion for the New Starts Program

The administration’s fiscal year 2008 budget proposal requests that $1.40  billion be made available for the New Starts program. This amount is $166  million less than the program’s fiscal year 2007 appropriation. Figure 4  illustrates the planned uses of the administration’s proposed fiscal year  2008 budget for New Starts, including the following:    $863.74 million would be shared among the 11 New Starts projects with    $120 million would be shared between the 2 New Starts projects with    $210 million would be shared between the 2 New Starts projects proposed    $72.08 million would be shared by as many as 6 “other” New Starts  projects to continue their development, and    $100 million would be used for new Small Starts and Very Small Starts  projects.
Although SAFETEA-LU authorized $200 million for the Small Starts  program each year from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, no funding for the  program has been allocated to date. For fiscal year 2007, the  administration’s budget proposal requested $100 million for the Small  Starts program. Of the $1.57 billion allocated to the New Starts program  for fiscal year 2007, no funding was appropriated for Small Starts projects.  The administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 also requests  $100 million for the Small Starts program. FTA officials told us that they  requested less than the authorized amounts for the Small Starts program  for both fiscal years 2007 and 2008 because it has taken time for them to  establish the program, and because they did not receive as many Small  Starts applications as expected.

		FTA Is Implementing Several Changes to the New Starts Evaluation and Rating Process

SAFETEA-LU requires FTA to make several changes to the New Starts  evaluation and rating process, including adding economic development as  an evaluation criterion and changing the rating scale. FTA is in the process  of implementing these changes. For example, table 3 describes the act’s  changes to the evaluation and rating process and the status of their  implementation, as of July 2007.
Although FTA has taken steps to implement changes required by  SAFETEA-LU, the project sponsors we interviewed frequently expressed  concern that FTA has not yet fully incorporated economic development  into its evaluation. Specifically, FTA currently assigns a weight of 50  percent each to cost-effectiveness and land use to calculate a project’s  overall rating. The other four statutorily defined criteria, including  economic development, mobility improvements, operating efficiencies,  and environmental benefits, are not weighted. As described in table 3, to  reflect SAFETEA-LU’s increased emphasis on economic development,  FTA has encouraged project sponsors to submit information that they  believe demonstrates the impact of their proposed transit investments on  economic development. According to FTA, this information is considered  as an “other factor” in the evaluation process, but is not weighted.  However, FTA officials told us that few project sponsors submit  information on their projects’ economic development benefits for  consideration as an “other factor.” We previously reported that FTA’s  reliance on two evaluation criteria to calculate a project’s overall rating is  drifting away from the multiple-measure evaluation and rating process  outlined in statute and current New Starts regulations. Thus, we  recommended that FTA (1) improve the measures used to evaluate New  Starts projects so that all of the statutorily defined criteria can be used in  determining a project’s overall rating or (2) provide a crosswalk in the  regulations showing clear linkages between the criteria outlined in the  statute and the criteria and measures used in the evaluation and rating  process in the upcoming rulemaking process.
Many of the project sponsors and all of the industry groups we  interviewed also stated that they believe certain types of projects are  penalized in the evaluation and rating process because of the weights  assigned to the different evaluation criteria. Specifically, the project  sponsors and industry groups said that by not weighting economic  development, the evaluation and rating process does not consider an  important benefit of some transit projects. They also expressed concern  that the measure FTA uses to determine cost-effectiveness does not  adequately capture the benefits of certain types of fixed-guideway  projects—such as streetcars—that have shorter systems and provide  enhanced access to a dense urban core, rather than transport commuters  from longer distances (e.g., light or heavy rail). Project sponsors and an  industry group we interviewed further noted that FTA’s cost-effectiveness  measure has influenced some project sponsors to change their project  designs from more traditional fixed-guideway systems (e.g., light rail or  streetcars) to bus rapid transit, expressly to receive a more favorable cost- effectiveness rating from FTA.
According to FTA officials, they understand the importance of economic  development to the transit community and the concerns raised by project  sponsors, and said they are currently working to develop an appropriate  economic development measure. FTA is currently soliciting input from  industry groups on how to measure economic development, studying  possible options, and planning to describe how it will incorporate  economic development into the project justification criteria in its  upcoming rulemaking. FTA officials also stated that incorporating  economic development into the evaluation process before issuing a  regulation could potentially create significant uncertainty about the  evaluation and rating process for project sponsors. Furthermore, they  agreed with our previous recommendation that this issue should be  addressed as part of their upcoming rulemaking, which they expect to be  completed in April 2008. As part of its upcoming rulemaking, FTA will also  conduct several outreach efforts with project sponsors and industry  groups.
FTA officials noted that they have had difficulty developing an economic  development measure that both accurately measures benefits and  distinguishes competing projects. For example, FTA officials said that  separating economic development benefits from land-use benefits— another New Starts evaluation criterion—is difficult. In addition, these  officials noted that many economic development benefits result from  direct benefits (e.g., travel time savings). Therefore, including economic  development benefits in the evaluation could lead to double-counting the  benefits FTA already measures and uses to evaluate projects.  Furthermore, FTA officials noted that some economic development  impacts may represent transfers between regions, rather than a net benefit  for the nation, thereby raising questions about the usefulness of these  benefits for a national comparison of projects. We have also reported on  many of the same challenges of measuring and forecasting indirect  benefits, such as economic development and land-use impacts. For  example, we noted that certain benefits are often double-counted when  transportation projects are evaluated. We also noted that indirect benefits,  such as economic development, may be more correctly considered  transfers of direct user benefits or of economic activity from one area to  another. Therefore, estimating and adding such indirect benefits to direct  benefits could constitute double-counting and lead to overestimating a  project’s benefits. Despite these challenges, we have previously reported  that it is important to consider economic development and land-use  impacts, since they often drive local transportation investment choices.

	Changes in the Size and Composition of the New Starts Pipeline Are Likely Due to Different Factors

The number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has decreased since the  fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, and the types of projects in the  pipeline have changed. FTA and project sponsors attributed these changes  to different factors, with FTA officials citing their increased scrutiny of  applications and projects, and the project sponsors pointing to the  complex, time-consuming, and costly nature of the New Starts process.  FTA is considering different ideas on how to improve the New Starts  process, some of which may address the concerns identified by project  sponsors.

		The Number of Projects in the New Starts Pipeline Has Decreased, and the Types of and Funding for Projects Have Changed

Since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle, the number of projects in the  New Starts pipeline—which includes projects that are in the preliminary  engineering or final design phases—has decreased by more than one-half,  from 48 projects in the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle to 19 projects in  the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle. Similarly, the number of projects FTA  has evaluated, rated, and recommended for New Starts FFGAs has  decreased since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle.
Specifically, as shown in table 4, the number of projects that FTA  evaluated and rated decreased by about two-thirds, from 41 projects to 14  projects.
Although the number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has decreased,  the amount of funding FTA has requested for the program remained  relatively the same, while the average dollar amount per FFGA has  increased since fiscal year 2001. Adjusted to current dollars, FTA has  requested nearly the same funding amounts for the program during this  time frame, having requested $1.22 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $1.37  billion in fiscal year 2008. Twelve projects were recommended for FFGAs  in fiscal year 2001, while only 2 were recommended for fiscal year 2008.  However, in the fiscal years between 2001 and 2008, the number of  projects recommended for FFGAs varied from as many as 5 to as few as 2  for any given fiscal year. Furthermore, we found that the average dollar  amount requested for proposed FFGAs has increased since fiscal year  2001. When adjusted to current dollars, the average dollar amount of an  FFGA proposed in fiscal year 2001 was about $20 million, but for fiscal  year 2008 it was $103 million (see table 5).
The composition of the pipeline—that is, the types of projects in the  pipeline—has also changed since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle.  During fiscal years 2001 through 2007, light rail and commuter rail were  the more prevalent modes for projects in the pipeline. In fiscal year 2008,  bus rapid transit became the most common transit mode for projects in  the New Starts pipeline (see fig. 5). The increase in bus rapid transit  projects is likely due to a number of factors, including foreign countries’  positive experiences with this type of transit system. To be eligible, a  corridor-based bus project must (1) operate in a separate right-of-way  dedicated for public transit use for a substantial portion of the project or  (2) represent a substantial investment in a defined corridor. Furthermore,  medium and smaller project sponsors may be expressing more interest in  the New Starts program, including Small Starts, because bus rapid transit  may serve as a more affordable and cost-effective alternative to other  fixed-guideway options.
Although bus rapid transit projects are now more common than commuter  or light rail projects, they represent a small amount of the total cost for all  projects in the pipeline. We found that bus rapid transit accounts for about  12 percent of the total cost of all projects in the New Starts pipeline, while  commuter rail (36 percent), heavy rail (30 percent), and light rail (22  percent) account for greater shares—which is not surprising, given that  bus rapid transit projects are often less expensive than rail projects.  However, although bus rapid transit projects account for a smaller share  of the total costs, we found that project sponsors seek higher funding  shares for these projects. In fiscal year 2008, project sponsors sought, on  average, New Starts funding to cover about 58 percent of the total cost of  bus rapid transit projects, whereas they sought about 49 percent for  commuter rail projects, about 50 percent for light rail projects, and about  38 percent for heavy rail projects.

		FTA and Project Sponsors Attributed the Decrease in the New Starts Pipeline to Different Factors

FTA and project sponsors identified different factors for the decrease in  the New Starts pipeline. FTA officials cited their increased scrutiny of  applications to help ensure that only the strongest projects enter the  pipeline, and said they had taken steps to remove projects from the  pipeline that were inactive, not advancing, or did not adequately address  identified problems. According to FTA officials, these projects consume  FTA oversight resources and congressional funding without demonstrating  evidence of progress. FTA officials said they believed projects had been  progressing slowly through the pipeline in recent years and, therefore,  needed encouragement to move forward or be removed from the pipeline.  Along these lines, since fiscal year 2004, FTA has issued warnings to  project sponsors that alert them to specific project deficiencies that must  be corrected by a specified date for the project to advance through the  pipeline. If the deficiency is not corrected, FTA removes the project from  the pipeline. To date, FTA has issued warnings for 13 projects. Three  projects have only recently received a warning and their status is to be  determined; 3 projects have adequately addressed the deficiency identified  by FTA; 1 project was removed by FTA for failing to address the identified  deficiency; and 6 projects were withdrawn from the pipeline by the project  sponsors. FTA officials told us that project sponsors are generally aware  of FTA’s efforts to better manage projects in the pipeline.
Although FTA has taken steps to remove inactive or stalled projects from  the pipeline, FTA officials noted that most projects have been withdrawn  by their project sponsors, not FTA. According to FTA data, 23 projects  were withdrawn from the New Starts pipeline between calendar years  2001 and 2007. Of these, 16 projects were withdrawn from the pipeline at  the request of project sponsors; 6 were removed from the pipeline in  response to efforts initiated by FTA; and 1 was removed from the pipeline  at congressional direction. Of the 16 projects that were withdrawn by  project sponsors, the most common reasons were that the project was  either reconfigured (the project scope or design was significantly  changed) or reconsidered, or that the local financial commitment was not  demonstrated. Similarly, FTA initiated the removal of 4 of 6 projects for  lack of local financial commitments, often demonstrated by a failed  referendum at the local level. Of the 23 projects withdrawn from the New  Starts pipeline, 3 were expected to reenter the pipeline at a later date.
The project sponsors we interviewed provided other reasons for the  decrease in the number of projects in the New Starts pipeline. The most  common reasons cited by project sponsors were that the New Starts  process is too complex, costly, and time-consuming:    Complexity and cost of the New Starts process: The majority of project  sponsors we interviewed told us that the complexity of the requirements— including those for financial commitment projections and travel forecasts,  which require extensive analysis and economic modeling—creates  disincentives to entering the New Starts pipeline. Sponsors also told us  that the expense involved in fulfilling the application requirements,  including the costs of hiring additional staff and private grant consultants,  discourages some project sponsors with fewer resources from applying for  New Starts funding. Furthermore, concerns about the cost of applying to  the New Starts program come at a time when project sponsors expect to  receive less funding for their projects from the program. Specifically, for  recently completed transit projects that received an FFGA, the project  sponsors we surveyed reported that, on average, the federal government  funded approximately 60 percent of the total project costs via the New  Starts program. For ongoing projects, sponsors reported that they expect  to receive an average of about 50 percent of the total project costs from  the New Starts program.
Time required to complete the New Starts process: More than one-half of  the project sponsors we interviewed said that the application process is  time-consuming or leads to project delays, although sponsors could not  provide specifics on how long various components of the process  contributed to a specific delay. One project sponsor told us that  constructing a project with New Starts funding (as opposed to without  such funding) delays the timeline for the project by as much as several  years, which in turn leads to increased project costs since inflation and  expenses from labor and materials increase with the delay. The lengthy  nature of the New Starts process is due, at least in part, to the rigorous and  systematic evaluation and rating process established by law—which, as we  have previously noted, could serve as a model for other transportation  programs. In addition, FTA officials noted that most project delays are  caused by the project sponsor, not FTA. These delays are attributable to  the sponsor’s inability to obtain local funding commitments, local  decisions to significantly modify the project’s scope or alignment, or  unanticipated environmental impacts.
Other reasons for the decrease in the pipeline that were cited by the  project sponsors we interviewed include that the project sponsors are  finding alternative sources of funding, such as other federal funds or state,  local, or private funding. One project sponsor remarked that sponsors try  to avoid the New Starts process by obtaining a congressional designation,  so that they can skip the New Starts application process and construct  their project more quickly. In addition, three other project sponsors said  that since the New Starts process is well-established and outcomes are  predictable, potential project sponsors do not even apply to enter the  pipeline because they realize their projects will not fare well against the  New Starts criteria and, thus, are unlikely to receive New Starts funding.
Our survey found similar reasons that project sponsors provided for the  decline in the New Starts pipeline. Among the project sponsors we  surveyed with completed transit projects, the most common reasons given  for not applying to the New Starts program were that the process is  lengthy or that the sponsor wanted to move the project along faster than  could be done in the New Starts process. About two-thirds of these project  sponsors reported that their most recent project was eligible for New  Starts funding, yet more than one-fourth of them did not apply to the  program. Instead, these project sponsors reported using other federal  funding and state, local, and private funding—with other federal and local  funding the most commonly used and private funding the least commonly  used—to fund their most recently completed project. In addition, we  found that almost two-thirds of the large project sponsors we surveyed  applied to the New Starts program for their most recently completed  project, while only about one-third of medium and smaller project  sponsors applied. Other reasons these project sponsors cited for not  applying to the program include sufficient funding from other sources to  complete the project, concern about jeopardizing other projects in the  pipeline, time and resources needed to complete application each year are  too great, and difficulty in understanding and completing the process and  in understanding the program’s eligibility requirements.
FTA is considering and implementing different means of improving the  New Starts process—many of which would address the concerns  identified by project sponsors. For example, FTA has recognized that the  process can be lengthy, and in 2006 FTA commissioned a study to  examine, among other issues, opportunities for accelerating and  simplifying its implementation of the New Starts program. According to  FTA officials, one of the study’s recommendations was to use project  development agreements to solidify New Starts project schedules and  improve FTA’s timeline for reviews. FTA officials told us that they are  pursuing this recommendation, and have already implemented project  schedules for three New Starts projects in the pipeline. Other key  recommendations for FTA contained in the study include developing a  simple “road map” that concisely identifies requirements for navigating  through preliminary engineering and final design, more clearly defining  entry criteria for each phase of the process, simplifying the travel  forecasting modeling, and clarifying and consistently implementing the  New Starts technical guidance and policies. The FTA Administrator has  publicly stated that FTA will continue to look for ways to further improve  the program.
In June 2007, FTA issued in the Federal Register a number of changes to  the New Starts and Small Starts processes, including streamlining through  the elimination of a number of reporting requirements. For example, FTA  will no longer require project sponsors to submit information on operating  efficiencies and environmental benefits, nor will they be required to  submit information for evaluation for FTA’s annual report if their project  is not likely to be ready for a funding recommendation. In addition, the  resubmission of information on land-use patterns for the annual report  will now be optional for project sponsors. Other changes to the processes  include expanding the evaluation criteria to a five-tiered rating scale, and  considering a project’s innovative contractual agreements in the  evaluation and rating of the operating finance plan for projects. The  guidance also states that under the evaluation of “other factors,” if a  project is a principal element of a congestion management strategy, this  could increase a project’s overall rating. Projects could also increase their  overall rating by reporting economic development; therefore, FTA  encourages project sponsors to submit such information.

	Future Demand for New Starts Program Expected; Project Sponsors Seek Small Starts Program Improvements

Our survey and interviews of project sponsors indicated that there will  likely be a future demand for New Starts funding. Survey respondents told  us that they plan to seek New Starts funding for 101 of 141 future planned  New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts transit projects. While FTA  has taken steps to streamline the Small Starts program as envisioned by  SAFETEA-LU, project sponsors find the application process to be time- consuming and too costly to complete. In addition, project sponsors we  interviewed, especially those that have never applied for New Starts  funding, find the Small Starts interim guidance difficult to understand and  would like more assistance from FTA on how to complete the application  process.

		Project Sponsors Indicated That Future Demand for New Starts Funding Is Likely

Our survey of project sponsors indicated that there is likely to be a future  demand for New Starts funding. About 46 percent (77 of 168) of the  project sponsors we surveyed reported that they had a total of 141 planned  transit projects, which we defined as projects currently undergoing an  alternatives analysis or other corridor-based planning study. According to  the project sponsors, they will likely seek New Starts funding for almost  three-fourths (72 percent, or 101) of these 141 planned New Starts, Small  Starts, and Very Small Starts projects. More specifically, they will likely  seek New Starts funding for 57 of the planned New Starts projects, 30 of  the planned Small Starts projects, and 14 of the planned Very Small Starts  projects (see fig. 6). Although the project sponsors we surveyed indicated  that they were considering a range of alternative project types in their  planning, the most commonly cited alternatives were bus rapid transit and  light rail.
All of the Small Starts and Very Small Starts project sponsors we  interviewed viewed the new Small Starts program favorably. These project  sponsors told us that they appreciated the emphasis FTA has placed on  smaller transit projects through its new programs and the steps FTA has  taken to streamline the application process for the programs. The project  sponsors also told us that the Small Starts program, including the Very  Small Starts eligibility category, address a critical and unmet funding need,  and that they believe their projects will be more competitive under these  programs because they are vying for funding with projects and agencies of  similar size. FTA officials told us that they have been responsive in  providing assistance on the program when contacted.
Our survey results also indicated that, through its Small Starts program,  FTA is attracting more project sponsors than before, including those that  have not previously applied for the New Starts program and also those  that would not otherwise be applying for New Starts funds. For example,  of the 30 project sponsors that intend to seek New Starts funding for their  planned Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects, 13 have not  previously applied for New Starts funding. Project sponsors also  indicated that the Small Starts program, including the eligibility category  for Very Small Starts projects, has influenced how they plan for their  ongoing projects, which are projects that have completed the alternatives  analysis phase and have moved forward into the later stages of  development, such as preliminary engineering or final design. Of the  ongoing Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects for which respondents  indicated they would be requesting New Starts funding, project sponsors  definitively reported that they would have sought New Starts funding for  only about one-quarter of those ongoing projects if the Small Starts  program, including the eligibility category for Very Small Starts projects,  had not been established.

		Project Sponsors Would Like FTA to Further Streamline the Small Starts Program

In implementing the Small Starts program, FTA has taken steps to  streamline the application and evaluation and rating processes for smaller- scale transit projects, as envisioned by SAFETEA-LU. According to our  analysis of the numbers and types of requirements for the New Starts and  Small Starts application processes, the Small Starts process has fewer  requirements. For example, in the categories of travel forecasting, project  justification, and local financial commitment, the number of requirements  was reduced. FTA also established a simplified financial evaluation  process for Small Starts, which reduced the reporting burden for qualified  projects. In addition, FTA allows simplified methods for travel forecasts  that predict transportation benefits, and it reduced the number of  requirements for the Small Starts application process. For example, the  Small Starts application process is about one-quarter fewer requirements  than those for the New Starts program. FTA also established the Very  Small Starts process, which has even fewer application requirements than  the Small Starts program. This process expedites the reporting, evaluation,  and advancement of simple and inexpensive projects. FTA’s steps have  greatly reduced the amount of information to be submitted for each of the  specific requirements (see table 6).
Despite these efforts, many of the project sponsors we interviewed find  the Small Starts application process time-consuming and too costly to  complete, and would like to see FTA further streamline the process.  Frequently, project sponsors said that the current Small Starts application  process takes as long and costs as much to complete as the New Starts  application process, even though the planned projects cost less. For  example, a project sponsor that applied to the Small Starts program told  us that FTA asks applicants to submit templates used in the New Starts  application process that call for information not relevant for a Small Starts  project, such as travel forecasts beyond the opening year, which are not  required for the Small Starts program. The project sponsor suggested that  FTA develop a separate set of templates for the Small Starts program that  would ask only for Small Starts-related information. FTA officials told us  that in these cases, they would not expect project sponsors to provide the  additional information that is not required. Another project sponsor we  interviewed told us that although FTA tried to streamline the process by  requiring ridership projections only for the opening year of Small Starts  projects, the environmental impact statement still mandates the  development of multiyear ridership projections. Such extensive ridership  projections take a considerable amount of work, staff time, and funding to  produce. FTA officials explained to us that the level of ridership  projections required is dependent on the nature of the project. Several  other project sponsors that applied to the Small Starts program, including  sponsors that used the Very Small Starts process, expressed additional  concerns about having to provide duplicate information, such as project  finance and capital cost data that can be found in other required  worksheets. FTA officials do not believe that such duplicate information is  burdensome for project sponsors to submit. Nonetheless, smaller-sized  entities that lack New Starts experience, in-house expertise, and resources  may find the process burdensome.
In reviewing the Small Starts application process requirements, we also  found that the application is not always tailored for Small Starts applicants  and, in several instances, requests duplicate information. FTA officials  acknowledged that the Small Starts application process could be further  streamlined and said that they are working to decrease the burden by, for  example, reducing land-use reporting requirements, simplifying the rating  process, and developing specific Small Starts templates. However, FTA  officials noted that some requirements are statutorily defined or reflect  industry-established planning principles. For example, federal statute  requires that projects, even Small Starts projects, emerge from an  alternatives analysis that considers various options to address the  transportation problem at hand. Therefore, only certain aspects of the  process can be streamlined.

		Project Sponsors Seek Additional Application Assistance and Consistent Information from FTA on Small Starts

The project sponsors we interviewed, especially those that have never  applied for New Starts funding, would like more assistance from FTA in  completing the application process because some find the interim  guidance difficult to understand. Before the Small Starts and Very Small  Starts application deadline, FTA provided initial outreach to applicants.  Despite this outreach, 8 of the 12 applications were incomplete or sought  funding for ineligible projects. In some cases, the project sponsors that  submitted these applications had no past experience with the New Starts  process, limiting their familiarity with the information required for the  application. To help address this issue, FTA officials told us that, in one  instance, they provided a Very Small Starts project sponsor with a copy of  a submitted application from another project sponsor (with New Starts  program experience) to use as a guide. The Very Small Starts project  sponsor found the application to be helpful in preparing its own  application. FTA officials told us that they plan to host an informal  meeting of potential Small Starts project sponsors later this calendar year.  In addition, some project sponsors did not understand what constitutes an  eligible project. For example, one project sponsor we interviewed  submitted an application for the construction of a new station. However,  FTA officials told us that the construction of a station did not meet the  definition of a corridor-based project, as required. Another project sponsor  we interviewed told us that it believed FTA deemed its two Small Starts  and Very Small Starts projects ineligible because service was already being  provided on the proposed route (and, therefore, the proposed service  would not be new). In response, FTA officials told us that these projects  were in fact ineligible because they already had incremental  developments, including some of the elements FTA requires for Small  Starts and Very Small Starts projects, such as traffic signal priority or  preemption and branding of the proposed service. Yet, these project  sponsors were unaware that the incorporation of some of these elements  into their existing service rendered their project ineligible. We found that  although FTA’s Small Starts guidance outlines the elements required for a  project to receive funding, it does not explicitly state that projects that  have already begun to incrementally incorporate these elements are  ineligible. When we discussed this concern with FTA officials, they told us  that they might consider asking project sponsors to demonstrate the cost- effectiveness of the preexisting elements to allow for such projects to be  eligible for Small Starts funding.
The project sponsors we interviewed said they need more consistent,  reliable information from FTA. We found that on several occasions, FTA  headquarters and regional offices provided project sponsors with  inconsistent information, which contributed to the sponsors’ submitting  applications for ineligible projects and submitting incomplete applications.  For example, two project sponsors said they thought their projects were  eligible after talking with FTA regional officials. However, after submitting  their applications, these project sponsors learned from FTA headquarters  officials that their projects were ineligible. Furthermore, one project  sponsor stated that officials from a regional FTA office said there was no  need to submit a separate application for the Small Starts program, since  the sponsor had previously applied to the New Starts program. Rather,  FTA regional officials said the project sponsor needed to submit only a  few additional pieces of information. However, after the project sponsor  sent this information, along with a letter to FTA requesting that the  application be transferred from the New Starts program to the Small Starts  program, FTA headquarters officials responded that the application was  incomplete. The study of the New Starts process that FTA recently  commissioned found similar inconsistencies in the information provided  by officials in its regional offices and headquarters. Therefore, the study  recommended that FTA develop internal standard operating procedures  for New Starts staff that formalize the duties and responsibilities for each  position. In addition, the study recommended implementing Web-based  technology to standardize the communication and enforcement of policies  across the program, and having FTA establish a formal policy for  responding to every project sponsor’s correspondence with a formal  response or written notification. FTA officials told us that they understand  the need to ensure consistent information, and that they are already  working on developing standard operating procedures for New Starts  staff, as recommended in the study.

	Conclusions

The recent decrease in the New Starts pipeline does not appear to be a  reflection of diminishing interest in the program. In fact, our survey  showed that there will likely be substantial demand for New Starts funding  in the future if most potential project sponsors follow through on their  plans for new transit projects. Rather, the decrease is likely due to a  combination of factors, including FTA’s increased scrutiny of projects,  project sponsors’ perceptions of the process as lengthy and too complex,  and project sponsors’ uncertainty given the recent changes made to the  New Starts program. As FTA moves forward with the rulemaking process  for New Starts and Small Starts, it will have to balance both the need to  make the programs accessible to a range of project sponsors—both large  and small agencies—and the need to maintain the rigor of the evaluation  and rating process.
Although project sponsors expressed substantial interest in both the New  Starts and the Small Starts programs, they also identified a number of  ways to improve the programs. In particular, project sponsors raised  specific concerns about the Small Starts program. Because the Small  Starts program is in its first few years of implementation, it is not  surprising that it may experience growing pains. Some of the project  sponsors may find their concerns about the program addressed as they  become more familiar and comfortable with it and as a number of  implementation details are finalized through the upcoming rulemaking  process. However, we believe that the relatively low number of Small  Starts applications received to date and the number of project sponsors  submitting ineligible applications due to unclear guidance suggest that  additional FTA action is warranted, including further streamlining the  Small Starts program, providing additional information about the program  through training and a working group, and clarifying eligibility guidance.  Although FTA has taken some steps to further streamline the Small Starts  program, continued refinement is needed to ensure a simplified and  expedited evaluation process. FTA’s upcoming rulemaking, including the  associated outreach efforts, will provide an opportunity for FTA to  continue to streamline the Small Starts program, provide additional  training, and clarify guidance.

	Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the Small Starts program, we are recommending that the  Secretary of Transportation direct the FTA Administrator to take the  following three actions:    To increase awareness and information sharing about the Small Starts,  including Very Small Starts, application process, FTA should conduct  training (in-person, Web-based, or both) for potential applicants and  facilitate the development of a working group or community of practice.
To ensure that project sponsors better understand the types of corridor  bus projects that are eligible for Small Starts funding, FTA should clarify in  its Small Starts program guidance that bus rapid transit projects cannot  already include any of the required elements for eligibility, or if they do,  must demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the preexisting elements.
To ensure that the Small Starts program provides a streamlined  application process as envisioned by SAFETEA-LU, FTA should continue  to refine this process as outlined in the Small Starts program guidance.  Examples of refinements include collapsing the project finance or cost  worksheets to minimize the duplication of data to be submitted and  providing specific guidance on how, when applicable, Small Starts  applicants can conduct a simplified alternatives analysis.

	Agency Comments

We provided DOT, including FTA, with a draft copy of this report for  review and comment. DOT generally agreed with the report’s findings and  conclusions, and agreed to consider our recommendations. DOT also  provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the congressional committees with  responsibilities for transit issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the  Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; and the Director, Office of  Management and Budget. We also will make copies available to others  upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in this report,  please contact me on (202) 512-2834 or at siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. Individuals making key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To address our objectives, we reviewed the Federal Transit  Administration’s (FTA) guidance on the New Starts and Small Starts  programs; the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Small Starts;  and the provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient  Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and prior law that address  the New Starts program. We reviewed this legislation to identify changes  that have occurred in the New Starts program and to gather information  on FTA’s new Small Starts program, which we used, in part, to analyze the  quantitative differences in application requirements between this program  and the New Starts program. Furthermore, we reviewed the FTA’s Annual  Reports on New Starts for fiscal years 2001 through 2008 to determine  trends in the New Starts pipeline (those projects in preliminary  engineering and final design) for each year, including the number of  projects evaluated, rated, and recommended for funding; the modes of  projects in the pipeline; and the amount of New Starts funding requested  for projects, and the total costs of proposed projects.
We also interviewed FTA officials and industry associations to gain their  insights on past, current, and future aspects of the programs. We  interviewed FTA officials who work extensively with the New Starts and  Small Starts programs to gain a better understanding of the programs. In  addition, we interviewed three industry associations that represent project  sponsors that participate closely in these programs: the American Public  Transportation Association, the New Starts Working Group, and  Reconnecting America. Furthermore, we attended an American Public  Transportation Association legislative workshop to learn about the New  Starts and Small Starts programs, including New Starts project planning  and evaluation process, and Small Starts interim guidance and rulemaking.
We also interviewed 15 project sponsors, including all 10 sponsors that  applied for the Small Starts program (including Very Small Starts  applicants) for the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle. We interviewed the  project sponsors to gather information on their past experiences with the  New Starts and Small Starts programs, and their potential future use of  these programs. The 10 project sponsors we interviewed that applied for  the fiscal year 2008 Small Starts program (including Very Small Starts  applicants) included the City of Breckenridge Public Works Department  (Breckenridge, Colorado); Dallas County Utility and Reclamation District  (Irving, Texas); Fort Collins Transportation Department (Fort Collins,  Colorado); Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (Kansas City,  Missouri); King County Metro (King County, Washington); Lane Transit  District (Springfield, Oregon); Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit  Authority (Los Angeles, California); Northern Arizona Intergovernmental  Public Transportation Authority (Flagstaff, Arizona); Sarasota County  Area Transit (Sarasota County, Florida); and Sound Transit (Seattle,  Washington). In addition, we interviewed 5 other project sponsors that  varied in their levels of experience with the New Starts program, size, and  regional location. These 5 sponsors were the Metropolitan Transit  Authority of Harris County (Houston, Texas); New Jersey Transit  Corporation (Newark, New Jersey); Orange County Transit Authority  (Orange County, California); St. Louis Regional Transit (St. Louis,  Missouri); and TriMet (Portland, Oregon).
To further address our objectives, we used a Web-based questionnaire to  survey all of the project sponsors that are located in an urbanized area  with a population of over 200,000 and have an annual ridership of over 1  million. These project sponsors may or may not have previously applied to  the New Starts or Small Starts programs, but because of their size and  ridership, they would be more likely to plan the types of transit projects  that would potentially qualify for New Starts funding. Project sponsors  were defined typically as transit agencies, but they may also have included  city transportation offices and metropolitan planning organizations,  among other entities.
The questionnaire to project sponsors asked questions that allowed for a  combination of open-ended and closed-ended responses. The  questionnaire included questions about project sponsors’ (1) current  transit situation, (2) most recently completed transit projects, (3) current  ongoing transit projects, and (4) future planned transit projects. For each  question, we asked the project sponsors about the types of transit project  they sponsored, how they funded or intended to fund transit projects in  the future, and their experiences with and perceptions of the various  programs.
The questionnaire was designed by a GAO survey specialist in conjunction  with other GAO staff knowledgeable about the grant program. We  pretested the questionnaire with 5 project sponsors that had varying levels  of experience in working with the New Starts program. Three project  sponsors had previously applied to either the New Starts program or the  Small Starts program, while 1 project sponsor had not applied to either  program. In addition, the 5 project sponsors represented both larger and  smaller project sponsors included in our list of the 215 largest transit  agencies. The 5 project sponsors were the Fort Collins Transportation  Department (Fort Collins, Colorado); Maryland Transit Administration  (Baltimore, Maryland); Rockford Mass Transit District (Rockford, Illinois);  TriMet (Portland, Oregon); and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit  Authority (Washington, D.C.). Furthermore, we asked two industry groups  (the American Public Transportation Association and the New Starts  Working Group) and FTA to review the project sponsor questionnaire and  provide comments. During the pretests and reviews of the questionnaire,  we asked the project sponsors and industry groups whether the questions  were understandable and if the information was feasible to collect. We  refined each of the questions as appropriate in response to the feedback  we received.
To conduct the questionnaire, we posted self-administered electronic  questionnaires to the World Wide Web and sent e-mail notifications to  project sponsor contacts provided to us by FTA in early February 2007. We  found after our first e-mail that some addresses were no longer valid, so  we contacted each agency by telephone to find the appropriate contact to  send the e-mail notification. We also responded to inquiries from project  sponsors. Many project sponsor contacts believed they were not the right  person to answer the questions. In these instances, we resent the e-mail  notification to the correct contact at the project sponsor. Our goal was to  find the staff member at each project sponsor who was the most  knowledgeable about the New Starts program and the Small Starts  program.
After determining the correct contact, we e-mailed each potential  respondent a unique username and password to ensure that the project  sponsor would have access to the questionnaire. We asked the project  sponsor contact to complete the questionnaire within 2 weeks. To  encourage respondents to complete the questionnaire, we sent an e-mail  message to prompt each nonrespondent every 2 weeks after the initial   e-mail message for approximately 6 weeks. After 6 weeks, we called all  nonrespondents at least once to encourage their participation in the  questionnaire and to increase our response rate. We closed the  questionnaire on May 11, 2007. In total, we surveyed 215 project sponsors  and received responses from 168 of them, for a response rate of 78  percent. To view our questionnaire and the aggregated project sponsor  responses, go to www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-927SP.
Because the questionnaire was not a sample survey, it has no sampling  errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may  introduce errors, commonly referred to as “nonsampling” errors. For  example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the  sources of information available to the respondents, or in how the data are  entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted  variability into the questionnaire results. We took steps in developing the  questionnaire, collecting the data, and analyzing the data to minimize these  nonsampling errors. For example, as we have previously noted, our survey  specialists designed the questionnaire in collaboration with GAO subject  matter experts, and we pretested the draft questionnaire with the  appropriate officials to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly  stated, and easy to comprehend. After the data were analyzed, a second,  independent analyst checked all computer programs. Since this was a  Web-based questionnaire, the respondents entered their answers directly  into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need to have the data  keyed into a database, thereby removing an additional potential source of  error.
We performed our work from November 2006 through July 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, other key contributors to this  report were Nikki Clowers, Assistant Director; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Carol  Henn; Bert Japikse; Amanda Miller; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Nitin Rao; Tina  Won Sherman; Bethany Claus Widick; and Elizabeth Wood.

Related GAO Products

Public Transportation: Preliminary Analysis of Changes to and Trends  in FTA’s New Starts and Small Starts Programs. GAO-07-812T.  Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2007.
Public Transportation: New Starts Program Is in a Period of Transition.  GAO-06-819. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006.
Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA’s  Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes. 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. GAO-05-674. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.
Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Better Define and Assess Impact of Certain  Policies on New Starts Program. GAO-04-748. Washington, D.C.: June 25,  2004.
Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and Additional  Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process. GAO-03-701. Washington,  D.C.: June 23, 2003.
Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Program and Potential for Bus Rapid  Transit Projects. GAO-02-840T. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2002.
Mass Transit: FTA’s New Starts Commitments for Fiscal Year 2003.  GAO-02-603. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.
Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding  Constraints. GAO-01-987. Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2001.
Mass Transit: Implementation of FTA’s New Starts Evaluation Process  and FY 2001 Funding Proposals. GAO/RCED-00-149. Washington, D.C.:  April 28, 2000.
Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Transit Projects With Full Funding  Grant Agreements. GAO/RCED-99-240. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 1999.
Mass Transit: FTA’s Progress in Developing and Implementing a New  Starts Evaluation Process. GAO/RCED-99-113. Washington, D.C.: April 26,  1999.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

Through the New Starts program, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) identifies and recommends new fixed-guideway transit projects for funding. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) created a separate program, commonly called Small Starts, which is intended to offer a streamlined evaluation and rating process for smaller-scale transit projects. FTA subsequently introduced a separate eligibility category within the Small Starts program for "Very Small Starts" projects. These are simple, low-risk projects that qualify for a simplified evaluation and rating process. SAFETEA-LU requires GAO to annually review FTA's New Starts process. This report presents information on (1) FTA's fiscal year 2008 funding recommendations, (2) the extent to which the New Starts pipeline has changed over time, and (3) future projected trends for the New Starts and Small Starts pipelines. To address these objectives, GAO surveyed 215 project sponsors--78 percent of which responded--and interviewed FTA officials, 15 project sponsors, and 3 industry groups.

What GAO Found

For the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle, FTA recommended to Congress 10 New Starts and 4 Small Starts projects for funding. The administration's budget request of $1.40 billion is primarily allocated to New Starts projects with existing and pending full funding grant agreements. SAFETEA-LU made several changes to the New Starts evaluation and rating process, which FTA is implementing. Since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, the New Starts pipeline--that is, projects in the preliminary engineering and final design phases--has changed in size and composition, responding to a variety of factors. The number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has decreased by more than one-half, and the types of projects in the pipeline have changed, with bus rapid transit replacing commuter or light rail as the most common type of project. FTA officials attributed the decrease in the number of projects to FTA's increased scrutiny of applications to help ensure that only the strongest projects enter the pipeline, and to FTA's efforts to remove projects from the pipeline that were not advancing or did not adequately address identified problems. Project sponsors that GAO interviewed cited other reasons for the pipeline's decrease, including the complexity, lengthiness, and cost of the New Starts process. The lengthy nature of the New Starts process is due, in part, to the rigorous and systematic evaluation and rating process established by law--which GAO has previously noted could serve as a model for other programs. Other reasons cited by project sponsors for the decrease in the pipeline include finding alternative sources of funding or opting not to apply because they realize their projects are unlikely to receive funding. FTA is considering different ideas on how to improve the New Starts process, some of which may address the concerns identified by project sponsors. Despite these concerns, GAO's survey of project sponsors indicated future demand for New Starts funding. Project sponsors reported having 141 planned New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts projects and will likely seek New Starts funding for almost three-fourths of these projects. Of these planned projects, project sponsors indicated that they intend to seek New Starts funding for 57 New Starts projects, 30 Small Starts projects, and 14 Very Small Starts projects. Project sponsors GAO surveyed also reported considering a range of alternative project types in their planning. Although project sponsors expressed appreciation for the creation of the Small Starts program, noting it filled a funding gap, they said the Small Starts application process is not tailored to the Small Starts program and is time-consuming, costly, and duplicative. GAO also found that the application is not always tailored for Small Starts applicants and, in several instances, requests duplicative information. FTA officials acknowledged that the Small Starts application process could be further streamlined, and they are working to decrease the burden.