a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2004 MASS TRANSIT

FTA Needs to Better 

Define and Assess 

Impact of Certain 

Policies on New Starts 

Program

GAO-04-748
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-748.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202)512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-748, a report to

congressional committees 

June 2004

MASS TRANSIT

FTA Needs to Better Define and Assess 

Impact of Certain Policies on New Starts 

Program 

For the fiscal year 2005 cycle, FTA evaluated 38 projects, rated 29 projects, 

and proposed 7 projects for funding. FTA recommended 5 of the 7 projects 

for full funding grant agreements (FFGAs). FTA considered the remaining 2 

projects to be meritorious and recommended a total of $50 million for these 

projects in fiscal year 2005. However, FTA does not clearly explain how it 

decides which projects will be recommended for funding outside of FFGAs 

or what project sponsors must do to qualify for such a recommendation. 

Last year, in response to language contained in appropriations committee 

reports, FTA instituted a policy favoring projects that seek a federal New 

Starts share of no more than 60 percent of the total project cost—even 

though the law allows projects to seek up to 80 percent—in its 

recommendation for FFGAs. According to FTA officials, this policy allows 

more projects to receive funding and ensures that local governments play a 

major role in funding such projects. FTA describes the 60 percent policy as a 

general preference; however, FTA’s fiscal year 2005 New Starts report 

suggests that this policy is absolute in that projects proposing more than a 60 

percent federal New Starts share will not be recommended for an FFGA. 

Therefore, FTA agreed to describe the policy as a general preference in 

future reporting instructions, thus allowing for the possibility of exceptions. 

Although most of the projects evaluated during the current cycle proposed a 

federal New Starts share of less than 60 percent of total project costs, some 

project sponsors GAO interviewed raised concerns about the difficulties of 

securing the local funding share. However, the overall impact of this policy 

on projects is unknown. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget proposal requests $1.5 billion 

for the New Starts program, a $225 million increase over the amount 

appropriated for the fiscal year 2004 cycle. Congress is currently considering 

legislative reauthorization proposals, which contain a number of provisions 

and initiatives for the New Starts program including streamlining the New 

Starts evaluation process for projects requesting less than $75 million in New 

Starts funds, expanding the definition of eligible projects, changing the 

ratings categories, and maintaining the maximum federal New Starts share at

80 percent of total project cost. Project sponsors GAO interviewed had 

varying views on these provisions, but most said that clear definitions would 

be needed for any proposed changes to the New Starts process. 

All 26 projects with existing FFGAs have not received funds as scheduled—

the amount of funding appropriated was less than the amount authorized 

and scheduled by the FFGA. According to FTA, all completed projects have 

received the total amount authorized in the FFGAs, but not necessarily 

according to the original FFGA schedule. As of March 2004, the 26 projects 

have received a total of $294 million, or 5 percent, less than the amount 

scheduled by the projects’ FFGAs. The amount and timing of differences 

varied for each project. Project sponsors GAO interviewed have developed 

methods to mitigate the impact of receiving less than the scheduled annual 

amount for their project, but these methods can generate additional costs.

The Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA-21) and 

subsequent legislation authorized 

about $8.3 billion in guaranteed 

funding for the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) New Starts 

program, which funds fixed 

guideway transit projects, such as 

rail and trolley projects, through 

FFGAs. GAO assessed the New 

Starts process for the fiscal year 

2005 cycle. GAO identified (1) the 

number of projects that were 

evaluated, rated, and proposed for 

new FFGAs and how recent 

changes to the process were 

reflected in ratings; (2) the 

proposed funding commitments in 

the administration’s budget request 

and legislative reauthorization 

proposals; and (3) the extent to 

which amounts appropriated since 

1998 fulfilled FFGAs. 

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of Transportation direct 

the Administrator of FTA to (1) 

clearly explain the basis on which it 

decides which projects will be 

recommended for funding outside 

of FFGAs, such as projects 

considered to be meritorious, and 

what projects must do to qualify for 

such a recommendation and (2) 

examine the impact of FTA’s policy 

favoring projects requesting less 

than 60 percent New Starts funds. 

Department officials generally 

agreed with the information 

provided and concurred with the 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Recent Changes to the Evaluation and Rating Process Present 

Challenges and Raise Concerns 11

Administration’s Proposal Requests Increased New Starts Funds and 

Legislative Reauthorization Proposals Would Expand and 

Streamline the Program 22

Project Sponsors Have Taken Steps to Address Variances in

Funding 26

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 31

Appendix II: Projects Evaluated for the Fiscal Year 2005 Cycle 33

Appendix III: Cumulative Shortfalls by Project with Full Funding Grant 

Agreements 36

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38

GAO Contacts 38

Staff Acknowledgments 38

Tables Table 1: FTA’s Criteria for Assigning Overall Project Ratings 10

Table 2: Cost-Effectiveness and Land Use Ratings for Projects 

Proposed for Funding 17

Table 3: Criteria for New Starts Share Rating 19

Table 4: Projects Contacted for Our Review 31

Figures Figure 1: New Starts Planning and Project Development Process 7

Figure 2: New Starts Evaluation and Ratings Process 9

Figure 3: The Number and Percentage of Projects Rated by 

Category, Fiscal Years 2003 to 2005 13

Figure 4: Total New Starts Funding Proposed for Fiscal Year 2005 

Equals $1.5 Billion 23
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Abbreviations

FFGA full funding grant agreement

FTA Federal Transit Administration

LRT Light Rail Transit

MOS minimal operating segment

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TSUB Transportation System User Benefits

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. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

June 25, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Chairman

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Don Young

Chairman

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Since the early 1970s, the federal government has provided a large share of 

the nation’s capital investment in mass transportation. Much of this 

investment has come through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 

New Starts program. The New Starts program awards full funding grant 

agreements (FFGAs) for fixed-guideway rail, certain bus projects, trolley, 

and ferry projects.1

 An FFGA establishes the terms and conditions for 

federal participation in a project, including the maximum amount of federal 

funds available for the project, which by statute cannot exceed 80 percent 

of its net cost. Since 1998, FTA has funded or recommended 26 projects for 

FFGAs—the total estimated cost of these projects exceeds $17.5 billion. 

Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)2 and 

subsequent amendments, Congress authorized approximately $8.3 billion 

1

Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of 

public transportation services. They include fixed rail, exclusive lanes for buses and other 

high-occupancy vehicles, and other systems. 

2

Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998).
Page 2 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

in New Starts contract authority through 2003.3 Although this level of 

funding was higher than it had ever been, the demand for these resources is 

also increasing. For example, in 1998, TEA-21 identified over 190 projects 

nationwide as eligible to compete for New Starts funding. Several 

additional projects not authorized in TEA-21 have since received 

congressional appropriations. Because of this demand, TEA-21 directed 

FTA to prioritize projects for funding by evaluating, rating, and 

recommending potential projects on the basis of specific financial and 

project justification criteria and to issue regulations outlining its evaluation 

and rating process. FTA issued the regulations for evaluating and rating 

New Starts projects in fiscal year 2001. For the fiscal year 2004 cycle, FTA 

made two changes to the evaluation and ratings process. First, FTA 

implemented the Transportation System User Benefits (TSUB) measure as 

a variable in the calculation of cost-effectiveness and mobility 

improvements. The new measure is intended to calculate the change in the 

amount of travel time and costs that people incur for taking a trip. Second, 

in response to language contained in appropriations committee reports, 

FTA instituted a preference policy favoring projects that seek a federal New 

Starts share of no more than 60 percent of the total project cost. Both of the 

changes are reflected in the project justification and financial ratings of a 

project, respectively, which, in turn, are combined to form a project’s 

overall rating. 

TEA-21 also requires us to report each year on FTA’s processes and 

procedures for evaluating, rating, and recommending New Starts projects 

for federal funding and on the implementation of these processes and 

procedures. This report discusses (1) the number of projects that were 

evaluated, rated, and proposed for new FFGAs for fiscal year 2005 and on 

how the recent changes to the process were reflected in ratings; (2) the 

proposed funding commitments for New Starts in the administration’s 

fiscal year 2005 budget request and legislative reauthorization proposals; 

and (3) the extent to which amounts appropriated since 1998 fulfilled 

FFGAs. To address these objectives, we reviewed the administration’s 

fiscal year 2005 budget request and legislative reauthorization proposals as 

3

Contract authority is the amount of funding Congress has authorized FTA to commit to 

New Starts projects for a given authorization period. The Surface Transportation Extension 

Act of 2004, Part II, Pub. L. No. 108-224, 118 Stat. 627 (2004), extended TEA-21 until June 30, 

2004. Proposed reauthorization legislation in both the House and Senate would authorize 

similar funding levels for the New Starts program. For example, S. 1072 would authorize 

$9.6 billion in New Starts contract authority over the next 6 years; H.R. 3550 would authorize 

$9.4 billion.
Page 3 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

well as FTA’s annual New Starts reports and records on funding authorized 

and appropriated to projects with existing FFGAs. We also interviewed FTA 

officials, representatives of the American Public Transportation 

Association and sponsors of 15 projects in preliminary engineering or final 

design, and 5 projects with existing FFGAs. In addition, we attended FTA’s 

meeting with project sponsors, the New Starts Roundtable, in April 2004. 

We conducted our work from February 2004 through June 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See 

app. I for more information about our scope and methodology.) 

Results in Brief For the fiscal year 2005 cycle, FTA evaluated 38 projects, rated 29 projects, 

and proposed 7 projects for funding.4 FTA recommended 5 of the 7 projects 

for full funding grant agreements (FFGAs). FTA considered the remaining 2 

projects to be “meritorious and worthy of funding” and proposed a total of 

$50 million for the 2 projects—a substantial increase over amounts 

proposed for similar projects in prior years. FTA has not, however, clearly 

explained to project sponsors how it decides which projects will be 

recommended for funding outside of FFGAs or what they must do to 

qualify for such a recommendation. Last year, FTA made two changes to its 

evaluation and ratings process. First, FTA instituted a new measure to 

calculate a project’s cost-effectiveness—the cost per hour of 

Transportation System User Benefits (TSUB)—to replace the “cost per new 

rider” measure. Project sponsors we interviewed generally believe the 

TSUB measure is an improvement over the old measure. Although FTA has 

provided training and technical assistance, many project sponsors continue 

to experience difficulties producing reliable local travel forecasts that are 

used in the calculation of the new measure. Second, in response to 

appropriations committee reports, FTA instituted a preference policy 

favoring projects that seek a federal New Starts share of no more than 60 

percent of the total project cost—even though the law allows projects to 

seek up to 80 percent—in its recommendations for FFGAs. According to 

FTA officials, this policy will allow more projects to receive funding and 

ensure that local governments play a major role in funding such projects. 

Although FTA has the statutory authority to favorably rate proposed 

projects that request a lower New Starts share, in our view, FTA’s policy is 

permissible as long as projects are not required to request less than an 80 

percent federal New Starts share in order to be considered for a 

4

Nine of the projects were statutorily exempt from the rating process because project 

sponsors requested less than $25 million in New Starts funding.
Page 4 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

recommendation for an FFGA. FTA describes the policy as a general 

preference; however, FTA’s fiscal year 2005 New Starts report suggests that 

this policy is absolute in that projects proposing more than a 60 percent 

federal New Starts share will not be recommended for an FFGA. Therefore, 

FTA agreed to describe the policy as a general preference in future 

reporting instructions, thus allowing for the possibility of exceptions. 

Although the majority of the projects evaluated during the current cycle 

proposed a federal New Starts share of less than 60 percent, some project 

sponsors we contacted raised concerns about the difficulties of securing 

the local funding share and state that FTA’s push for a lower federal New 

Starts share would likely affect other transit projects in their area or their 

decision to advance future transit projects. However, the overall impact of 

this policy on projects is unknown. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget proposal requests $1.5 billion 

for the New Starts program, a $225 million increase over the amount 

appropriated for the fiscal year 2004 cycle. The majority of the $1.5 billion, 

$931 million or 61 percent, would be allocated to existing FFGAs. In 

addition to the fiscal year 2005 budget for New Starts, Congress is currently 

considering legislation to reauthorize federal surface transportation 

programs, including the New Starts program. Proposed reauthorization in 

both the Senate and House bills contains a number of provisions and 

initiatives for the New Starts program.5

 Some of the key provisions would 

streamline the New Starts evaluation process for projects requesting less 

than $75 million in New Starts funds, expand the definition of eligible 

projects, change the rating categories, and maintain the maximum federal 

funding share for a New Starts project at 80 percent of the project’s net 

cost. The project sponsors we interviewed had varying views on these 

provisions, but most said that clear definitions would be needed for any 

proposed changes to the New Starts process. For example, most project 

sponsors we interviewed were supportive of implementing a streamlined 

evaluation process for less expensive projects, but stated that clearly 

defined criteria would be necessary in implementing the new process. 

All 26 projects with existing FFGAs have not received the level of federal 

funding that was scheduled and authorized by the projects’ FFGAs. 

Variances in funding can occur for several reasons, including congressional 

decision making and project management oversight costs. As of March 

2004, the 26 projects have received a total of $294 million, or 5 percent, less 

5

H.R. 3550, 108th Cong. (2004), and S. 1072, 108th Cong. (2004).
Page 5 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

than the amount authorized by the projects’ FFGAs. The amount and timing 

of these differences in funding varied for each project. According to FTA, 

all completed projects have received the total amount authorized in the 

FFGAs but not necessarily according to the original FFGA schedule. FTA 

officials also stated that FTA will continue to request funds to be 

appropriated to fulfill the amounts authorized in existing FFGAs. Project 

sponsors we interviewed have developed methods to mitigate the impact of 

receiving less than the scheduled annual amount for their project. For 

example, some project sponsors entered into partnerships with the state 

and/or local government, while others implemented interim funding 

mechanisms to cover any funding differences, including issuing bonds or 

loans to generate necessary funds. Although project sponsors have used 

these methods to avoid delays and changes in scope, they can generate 

additional costs. 

We are making two recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to 

direct the Administrator, FTA, to (1) clearly explain the basis on which it 

decides which projects will be recommended for funding outside of 

FFGAs, such as projects considered to be meritorious, and what projects 

must do to qualify for such a recommendation and (2) examine the impact 

of the preference policy on projects seeking or considering New Starts 

funding and examine whether its policy results in maximizing New Starts 

funds and local participation. 

The Department of Transportation, including FTA, reviewed a draft of this 

report. FTA officials generally agreed with the information provided and 

concurred with its recommendations.

Background TEA-21 authorized a total of $36 billion in “guaranteed” funding for a 

variety of transit programs, including financial assistance to states and 

localities to develop, operate, and maintain transit systems.6

 Under one of 

these programs, New Starts, FTA identifies and funds worthy fixedguideway transit projects, including heavy, light, and commuter rail; ferry; 

and certain bus projects (such as bus rapid transit). We have recognized the 

New Starts program as a model that the federal government could use for 

approving other transportation projects. 

6

“Guaranteed” funds are subject to a procedural mechanism designed to ensure that a 

minimum amount of funding is made available each year.
Page 6 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

FTA generally funds New Starts projects through full funding grant 

agreements (FFGAs). An FFGA establishes the terms and conditions for 

federal participation in a project, including the maximum amount of federal 

funds available for the project, as well as the project’s scope, schedule, and 

cost. By statute, the federal funding share for a New Starts project cannot 

exceed 80 percent of its net cost. To obtain an FFGA, projects must go 

through an extensive process from a regional multimodal transportation 

planning process to preliminary engineering to final design and 

construction. (See fig. 1.) As required by TEA-21, 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 corridor-level options, such as rail lines or bus routes. 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. After a locally preferred alternative is selected, 

project sponsors submit a request to FTA for entry into the preliminary 

engineering phase.7

 Following completion of preliminary engineering, the 

project may be approved by FTA to advance into final design, after which 

the project may be approved by FTA for an FFGA and proceed to 

construction. FTA oversees the management of projects from the 

preliminary engineering phase through construction and evaluates the 

projects for advancement into each phase of the process, as well as 

annually for the New Starts report to Congress. 

7

During the preliminary engineering phase, project sponsors refine the design of the 

proposal, taking into consideration all reasonable design alternatives, which results in 

estimates of costs, benefits, and impacts (e.g., financial or environmental). According to 

FTA officials, to gain approval for entry into preliminary engineering, a project must (1) have 

been identified through the alternatives analysis process, (2) be included in the region’s 

long-term transportation plan, (3) meet the statutorily defined project justification and 

financial criteria, and (4) demonstrate that the sponsors have the technical capability to 

manage the project during preliminary engineering. 
Page 7 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Figure 1: New Starts Planning and Project Development Process 

To determine whether a project should receive federal funds, FTA’s New 

Starts evaluation process assigns ratings on the basis of a variety of 

financial and project justification criteria and determines an overall rating. 

These criteria are identified in TEA-21 and reflect a broad range of benefits 

and effects of the proposed projects, such as capital and operating finance 

plans, mobility improvements, and cost-effectiveness. As figure 2 shows, 

FTA evaluation for FFGA

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

= Locally preferred alternative

Alternatives analysis

Source: FTA.

FTA evaluation

to enter PE

FTA decision to 

enter into final 

design

FFGA awarded

Select LPA, MPO 

action, PE application, 

PMP

Corridor planning

Preliminary engineering

Final design

Construction

Preliminary engineering

● Complete NEPA process

● Record of decision/ FONSI 

● Refinement of financial plan

● PMP

Final design

● Commitment of nonfederal

funds 

● Construction plans 

● ROW acquisitions

Complete final design

Begin construction

● Construction management

● Start-up

FTA project management 

oversight

Decision point

Major development stage

LPA

MPO

NEPA

PE

PMP

FONSI

FFGA

Legend

Metropolitan Planning Organization

National Environmental Policy Act

Preliminary engineering

Project management plans

Finding of no significant impact

(environmental analysis)

Full funding grant agreement

=
Page 8 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

FTA has developed a series of measures for the project justification 

criteria. FTA assigns proposed projects a rating of “high,” “medium-high,” 

“medium,” “low-medium,” or “low” for each criterion. The individual 

criterion ratings are combined into the summary financial and project 

justification ratings. However, FTA does not weigh each individual criterion 

equally when calculating the summary financial and project justification 

ratings. For the summary project justification rating, FTA uses primarily 

two criteria—cost-effectiveness and land use.8

 Each of these criteria 

account for 50 percent of the summary project justification. Although FTA 

considers the full range of criteria, according to an FTA official, the other 

criteria do not produce meaningful distinctions among projects and, 

therefore, are not given an official weight in the ratings process.9

 FTA plans 

to consider revisions to the measures for the other criteria after the 

authorizing legislation is passed. 

8

The land use criterion examines the extent to which the levels of population, employment, 

and other trip generators in the area are sufficient to support a major transit investment, as 

well as the community’s commitment to land use policies that will facilitate and promote 

transit use.

9

According to FTA, these criteria may be considered by the administration and Congress as 

funding recommendations and decisions are made.
Page 9 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Figure 2: New Starts Evaluation and Ratings Process

Note: The shaded boxes indicate changes in the evaluation process made in fiscal year 2004. The 

share of non-New Starts funding has always been a measure used in the New Starts evaluation; 

however, for the fiscal year 2004 cycle, FTA instituted a policy favoring projects that request less than 

60 percent. 

a

According to FTA, this optional criterion of “other factors” gives grantees the opportunity to provide 

additional information about a project’s likelihood for overall success.

On the basis of the summary project justification and financial ratings, FTA 

develops the overall project rating. (Table 1 describes the criteria FTA uses 

to assign overall project ratings.) The exceptions to the evaluation process 

are statutorily “exempt” projects, which are those that request less than $25 

Overall project rating

Summary ratings

Measures

Project 

recommendation

Project justification

rating Financial rating

Share of nonNew Starts 

funding (20%)

Transportation 

System User 

Benefits per 

project 

passenger mile

Low-income

households 

served

Employment

near stations

Mobility 

improvements

(0%)

Change in 

regional 

pollutant 

emissions

Change in 

regional energy 

consumption

EPA air quality

designation

Environmental 

benefits

(0%)

System 

operating

cost per

passenger mile

Operating 

efficiencies

(0%)

Incremental 

cost per hour of 

Transportation 

System User 

Benefits

Costeffectiveness

(50%)

Existing land

use

Transit 

supportive 

plans & policies

Performance 

and impacts 

of policies

Land use

(50%)

Source: FTA.

Other factors a

Criterion ratings

Capital

finance plan

(50%)

Operating 

finance plan

(30%)
Page 10 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

million in New Starts funding.10 These projects are not required to submit 

project justification information and do not receive ratings. 

Table 1: FTA’s Criteria for Assigning Overall Project Ratings

Source: FTA.

Last year, we reported that FTA implemented two changes to the New 

Starts process for the fiscal year 2004 cycle.11 (These changes are shaded in 

fig. 2.) First, FTA changed the calculation of the cost-effectiveness and 

mobility improvements criteria by adopting the Transportation System 

User Benefits (TSUB) measure. This measure replaced the “cost per new 

rider” measure that had been used in past ratings cycles. According to FTA, 

the new measure reflects an important goal of any major transportation 

investment—reducing the amount of travel time that people incur for 

taking a trip (i.e., the cost of mobility). In contrast to the “cost per new 

rider” measure, the new measure considers travel time savings to both new 

and existing transit system riders. Second, in response to appropriations 

committee reports, FTA instituted a preference policy favoring projects 

that seek a federal New Starts share of no more than 60 percent of the total 

1049 U.S.C. 5309(e)(8)(A).

Overall rating category Criteria

Highly recommended Requires at least a “medium-high” for both the 

financial and project justification summary ratings.

Recommended Requires at least a “medium” for both the financial 

and project justification summary ratings.

Not recommended Assigned to projects not rated at least “medium” for 

both the financial and project justification summary 

ratings.

Not rated Indicates that insufficient information was submitted 

or that FTA has serious concerns about the 

information submitted for the mobility improvements 

and cost-effectiveness criteria because the 

underlying travel forecasting assumptions used by 

the project sponsor may have inaccurately 

represented the benefits of the project.

11U.S. General Accounting Office, 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).
Page 11 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

project cost. Under this preference policy, FTA gives projects seeking a 

federal share of New Starts funding greater than 60 percent a “low” 

financial rating, which further results in a “not recommended” overall 

project rating.12

As required by statute, FTA uses the evaluation and ratings process, along 

with its consideration of the stage of development of New Starts projects, 

to decide which projects to recommend to Congress for funding.13

Although many projects receive an overall rating of “recommended” or 

“highly recommended,” only a few are proposed for FFGAs in a given fiscal 

year. FTA proposes “recommended” or “highly recommended” projects for 

FFGAs when it believes that the projects will be able to meet certain 

conditions during the fiscal year that the proposals are made. These 

conditions include the following:

• The local contribution to funding for the project must be made available 

for distribution.

• The project must be in the final design phase and have progressed to the 

point where uncertainties about costs, benefits, and impacts (e.g., 

environmental or financial) are minimized. 

• The project must meet FTA’s tests for readiness and technical capacity, 

which confirm that there are no cost, project scope, or local financial 

commitment issues remaining.

Recent Changes to the 

Evaluation and Rating 

Process Present 

Challenges and Raise 

Concerns

Of the 38 projects evaluated for the fiscal year 2005 cycle, 29 were rated 

and 9 were statutorily exempt from the rating process because they 

requested less than $25 million in New Starts funding. While the project 

ratings for the fiscal year 2005 cycle reflect a general improvement over the 

previous year, ratings are not as high as those achieved for the fiscal year 

2003 cycle. FTA proposed 7 projects for funding for the fiscal year 2005 

cycle, including 5 projects for FFGAs. The remaining 2 projects were 

12Although the non-New Starts share accounts for only 20 percent of the summary financial 

rating, FTA’s preference policy supersedes the overall financial rating when the non-New 

Starts share is greater than 60 percent.

13FTA makes these funding recommendations in its annual New Starts report to Congress 

due in February.
Page 12 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

considered to be “meritorious and worthy of funding” and FTA proposed a 

total of $50 million for these projects—substantially more than amounts 

proposed for similar projects in prior years. FTA did not, however, clearly 

explain to project sponsors how it decides which projects will be 

recommended for funding outside of FFGAs or what they must do to 

qualify for such a recommendation. FTA implemented two changes to its 

evaluation and ratings process for the fiscal year 2004 cycle: 

implementation of a new cost-effectiveness measure and adoption of the 60 

percent federal New Starts share preference policy that contributed to 

lower ratings. Although many of those projects were able to overcome 

challenges with the new measure for the current cycle, ratings reflected 

that some projects were still unable to generate reliable local travel 

forecasts. Also, while the majority of the projects evaluated during the 

current cycle requested a federal New Starts share of less than 60 percent, 

some project sponsors raised concerns about FTA’s preference policy, 

including the challenges associated with securing the local funding share.

Project Ratings for the 

Current Cycle Reflect 

Improvement but Have Not 

Returned to Fiscal Year 2003 

Levels

Project ratings are generally higher for the fiscal year 2005 cycle than for 

the fiscal year 2004 cycle but are still lower than ratings for fiscal year 2003. 

Of the 38 projects FTA evaluated for the fiscal year 2005 cycle, 29 were 

rated, and 9 were statutorily exempt from the ratings process because 

project sponsors requested less than $25 million in New Starts funding. 

Figure 3 shows that the percentage of projects that received ratings of 

“recommended” or “highly recommended” rose from 44 percent for the 

fiscal year 2004 cycle to 59 percent for the fiscal year 2005 cycle. FTA 

attributes the increase in “recommended” projects over last year’s total to 

improved submissions, notably improved financial plans, and a better 

understanding of and increased comfort with the estimation of project 

benefits among project sponsors. In addition, FTA rated 7 projects as “not 

recommended” and designated 5 projects as “not rated.” According to FTA, 

most of the projects that received a rating of “not recommended” submitted 

poor financial plans—that is, plans that FTA considered overly optimistic in 

their assumptions about costs and revenue growth, or demonstrated no 

commitment of funds. For the projects that received a rating of “not rated,” 

either FTA had significant concerns with the travel forecasts submitted by 

the project sponsor or the project sponsor did not provide all of the 

information necessary for a complete submission. (See app. II for a full 

listing of ratings for projects evaluated for the fiscal year 2005 cycle.) 
Page 13 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Figure 3: The Number and Percentage of Projects Rated by Category, Fiscal Years 

2003 to 2005 

FTA proposed 7 projects for funding for the fiscal year 2005 cycle. FTA 

proposed 5 of the 7 projects for FFGAs, including Cleveland, Euclid 

Corridor Transportation Project; Las Vegas, Resort Corridor Fixed 

Guideway; New York, Long Island Rail Road East Side Access; Phoenix, 

Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit (LRT) Corridor; and 

Pittsburgh, North Shore LRT Connector. These projects are expected to be 

ready for FFGAs by the end of fiscal year 2005. The total costs of these 5 

projects are estimated to be $7.6 billion. The total federal New Starts share 

is expected to be $3.7 billion. 

6% 6% 0% 76% 38% 59% 12% 34% 24% 6% 22% 17%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Highly 

recommended

Recommended Not recommended Not rated or not 

available

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.

Distribution of New Starts project ratings

2 2

25

12

17

4

11

7

2

7

5
Page 14 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

In addition, FTA considered 2 other projects in final design to be 

meritorious and recommended a total of $50 million for these projects in 

fiscal year 2005. FTA proposed $30 million for the Charlotte South Corridor 

LRT Project and $20 million for the Raleigh Regional Rail Project—

substantially more than amounts proposed for similar projects in prior 

years. According to the fiscal year 2005 New Starts report, these 

meritorious projects are “located in areas that are highly congested or 

rapidly growing, and that have demonstrated a high level of local financial 

commitment and strong support from local citizens, businesses, and 

elected officials.”14 However, the report does not clearly explain to project 

sponsors how FTA decides which projects will be recommended for 

funding outside of FFGAs or what they must do to qualify for such a 

recommendation. FTA officials explained that the 2 projects considered to 

be meritorious this cycle are closer to being ready for an FFGA than the 

other projects evaluated; however, FTA did not believe the 2 projects would 

be ready for an FFGA in fiscal year 2005. FTA officials also told us that 

decisions to recommend funding for projects outside of FFGAs are made 

on an annual basis and are dependent on the readiness of the projects and 

the availability of funds after funding for existing or new FFGAs is 

allocated. This explanation, however, is not included in its New Starts 

report or other published guidance. 

FTA has funded similar projects in the past. For example, for the fiscal year 

2003 cycle, FTA considered 5 projects in preliminary engineering to be 

meritorious.15 At that time, FTA had proposed $4 million for 4 of the 5 

projects and $15 million for the remaining project. FTA reported in its 

annual New Starts report that the 5 projects “may be ready to progress 

through final design and construction by the end of fiscal year 2003.”16

However, by the fiscal year 2005 cycle, only 1 of the projects had an FFGA. 

The remaining 4 projects were either being proposed for an FFGA for the 

fiscal year 2005 cycle (3) or still in preliminary engineering (1). Therefore, 

in the past, FTA’s recommendation for funding for projects considered to be 

14U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Annual Report on 

New Starts: Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C.: 2004).

15The 5 meritorious projects for the fiscal year 2003 cycle were Chicago Ravenswood Line 

Expansion, Cleveland/Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, Las Vegas/Resort Corridor, 

Minneapolis/Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail, and New York/East Side Access.

16U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Annual Report on 

New Starts: Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).
Page 15 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

meritorious does not guarantee that a project will advance to final design 

and construction as quickly as anticipated. 

Cost-effectiveness Ratings 

Indicate Continued 

Problems with the 

Implementation of the 

TSUB Measure

Project sponsors continue to experience challenges calculating costeffectiveness. Last year, we reported that many project sponsors 

experienced difficulties that prevented them from producing accurate local 

travel forecasts to calculate the TSUB measure, resulting in 11 projects 

designated as “not rated” for cost-effectiveness. Since that time, the 

sponsors for 8 of those 11 projects were able to submit sufficient 

information to receive a rating for cost-effectiveness, suggesting that they 

were able to overcome the travel forecasting problem that they had 

experienced during the first year of the measure’s implementation. 

However, 6 additional project sponsors were unable to generate reliable 

local travel forecasts and thus could not calculate a valid TSUB value for 

the fiscal year 2005 cycle, resulting in a total of 9 of the 29 projects 

designated as “not rated” for cost-effectiveness.17 According to FTA, the 

major problem in implementing the measure this cycle stemmed from 

problems with the underlying local travel forecasting models, not FTA’s 

software or the TSUB measure. For example, FTA noted that 22 of the 29 

projects rated this year required some involvement by FTA to improve the 

accuracy of their travel forecasts. Last year, we recommended that FTA 

issue additional guidance describing its expectations regarding the local 

travel forecasting models and the specific types of data FTA requires to 

calculate the measure. FTA concurred with this recommendation and 

provided additional guidance in its updated reporting instructions, issued 

in June 2003, and has continued to provide technical assistance to project 

sponsors.18

Despite the difficulties encountered in implementing TSUB, FTA and most 

of the project sponsors we interviewed believe that this new measure is an 

improvement over the “cost per new rider” measure because it takes into 

account a broader set of benefits to transit riders. These benefits include 

reductions in walk times, wait times, ride times, and numbers of transfers, 

all of which produce perceived savings in travel time or “travel time 

17Projects receiving a “not rated” in cost-effectiveness for the fiscal year 2005 cycle either 

received an overall rating of “not rated” or “not recommended.” 

18U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Adminstration, Office of Planning, 

Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria (Washington, D.C.: June 

2003).
Page 16 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

benefits” for new riders as well as existing transit riders. By contrast, the 

“cost per new rider” measure recognized benefits only for new transit 

riders and did not measure benefits to existing transit riders. 

Although the majority of project sponsors we interviewed believe the new 

measure is an improvement over the old one, many raised concerns about 

the implementation of TSUB, including the approach for calculating TSUB 

and the weight FTA applies to the cost-effectiveness criterion. For example, 

they were concerned that the measure did not capture all benefits that 

accrue to the transportation corridor, notably for highway users; the 

amount of time provided to incorporate changes to their local travel 

forecasting software was insufficient; and the weight FTA applies to the 

cost-effectiveness criterion is disproportional to other criteria. Specifically, 

many project sponsors were unclear about the basis for a 45-minute cap on 

travel time savings included in the calculation of TSUB.19 According to an 

FTA official, this cap allows FTA to limit travel time savings to less than 45 

minutes, which they feel is appropriate, when examining the benefits of 

each project. FTA’s experience has been that time savings in excess of 45 

minutes is usually due to problems with the local travel forecasting model. 

However, FTA has allowed for exceptions to the cap in the past if well 

justified by local project sponsors. 

FTA assigns a significant weight to the cost-effectiveness criterion in 

comparison with other criteria used to calculate the project justification 

rating. According to the New Starts report, cost-effectiveness accounts for 

50 percent of the project justification rating. Land use accounts for the 

other 50 percent. Thus, although cost-effectiveness accounts for 50 percent 

of the project justification rating, a “low” cost-effectiveness rating can be 

offset by a “high” land use rating.20 This appears to be the case for the 

majority of projects proposed for funding for the fiscal year 2005 cycle. As 

table 2 shows, five of the seven projects proposed for funding received a 

“low-medium” cost-effectiveness rating. However, the projects’ land use 

ratings raised their summary project justification ratings to “medium,” 

which allowed them to receive an overall “recommended” rating. 

19In August 2003, FTA found that this cap was being applied inconsistently in the software, 

requiring project sponsors to recalculate TSUB measures. FTA officials extended 

submission deadlines for an additional 2 weeks, but project sponsors we interviewed 

indicated that more time was needed. 

20According to FTA officials, FTA does not advance projects to the next stage of 

development or funding unless they have at least a “low-medium” cost-effectiveness rating. 
Page 17 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Table 2: Cost-Effectiveness and Land Use Ratings for Projects Proposed for 

Funding 

Source: FTA. 

Most Project Sponsors 

Proposed a Federal New 

Starts Share of Less Than 60 

Percent, but Some Raised 

Concerns about FTA’s Push 

for Lower Federal New 

Starts Share 

FTA instituted a policy favoring projects that seek a federal New Starts 

share of no more than 60 percent of the total project cost in fiscal year 

2004. According to FTA, this preference policy responded to language 

contained in a conference report, prepared in November 2001, by the 

House Appropriations Committee. The report states “the conferees direct 

FTA not to sign any new FFGAs after September 30, 2002, that have a 

maximum federal share of higher than 60 percent.”21 Similar language has 

been included in all subsequent appropriations committee reports. Further, 

FTA officials told us that this policy would allow more projects to receive 

funding by spreading limited resources among them and ensure that local 

governments whose regions stand to receive substantial benefits for the 

project play a major role in funding such projects. However, when FTA 

implemented the 60 percent policy, it did not amend its regulations to 

Project

Cost-effectiveness 

rating

Land use 

rating

Project 

justification rating

Charlotte, South 

Corridor LRT

Low-medium Medium-high Medium

Cleveland, Euclid 

Corridor Transportation 

Project

Low-medium Medium-high Medium

New York, Long Island 

Rail Road East Side 

Access

Medium High Medium-high

Phoenix, Central 

Phoenix/East Valley LRT 

Corridor

Low-medium Medium Medium

Pittsburgh, North Shore 

LRT Connector

Low-medium Medium-high Medium

Raleigh, Regional Rail 

Project

Low-medium Medium Medium

Las Vegas, Resort 

Corridor Fixed 

Guideway

Medium-high Medium Medium-high

21H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-308, p. 114 (Nov. 30, 2001).
Page 18 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

support the change in policy or its current procedures. As a result, we 

noted last year that FTA did not provide an opportunity for public comment 

on the impact of the preference policy. We further advised that explicitly 

stating criteria and procedures in regulations would ensure that project 

sponsors were fully aware of the preference policy. Accordingly, last year 

we recommended that FTA amend its regulations governing the New Starts 

share for projects to reflect its current policy. FTA disagreed with our 

recommendation, noting it was not required to issue regulations because 

the policy was not legally binding. Moreover, according to FTA officials, the 

preference policy is explained in both the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 New 

Starts reports and in its June 2003 reporting instructions. 

Although FTA’s preference policy, as expressed in the recent New Starts 

report, favors projects that request a federal New Starts share of no more 

than 60 percent, FTA is encouraging project sponsors to request an even 

lower federal New Starts share. Specifically, some project sponsors have 

stated that FTA encourages project sponsors to propose a federal New 

Starts share of no more than 50 percent—which is consistent with the 

administration’s reauthorization proposal. This push for a lower New Starts 

share is reflected in FTA’s rating process. As table 3 indicates, the lower the 

amount of New Starts funding requested, the higher the New Starts share 

rating. According to the New Starts report, the non-New Starts share rating 

accounts for 20 percent of a project’s financial rating.22

22The strength and reliability of the project’s capital and operating plans account for 30 and 

50 percent, respectively, of the project’s financial rating.
Page 19 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Table 3: Criteria for New Starts Share Rating

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.

The project sponsors we contacted expressed concerns about the 

preference policy.23 Although the majority of the projects evaluated during 

the current cycle requested a federal New Starts share of less than 60 

percent, many of the project sponsors we interviewed indicated that they 

had proposed a share that was in line with FTA’s policy in order to remain 

competitive. More than half of those interviewed told us they faced 

difficulties in advancing New Starts projects under such a policy. For 

example, some project sponsors told us that transit projects have a difficult 

time competing with highway projects in the local planning process 

because highway projects typically require a 20 percent local match, 

whereas New Starts projects require a match of at least 40 percent. Other 

project sponsors described the limited resources available at the local level 

to advance New Starts projects. A number of project sponsors also 

expressed concerns about FTA’s efforts to lower the federal New Starts 

share to 50 percent. For example, one project sponsor indicated that their 

New Starts share New Starts share rating Overall project rating

Less than 35 percent High Dependent on the ratings for 

the other financial criteria 

and the project justification 

rating.

Between 35 and 49 percent Medium-high Dependent on the ratings for 

the other financial criteria 

and the project justification 

rating.

Between 50 and 59 percent Medium Dependent on the ratings for 

the other financial criteria 

and the project justification 

rating.

60 percent or greater Low Not recommended

23In addition to concerns about the percentage of New Starts funding, project sponsors from 

two projects expressed concerns about FTA’s practice of limiting the overall dollar amount 

for individual projects. According to these project sponsors, FTA limits the total amount of 

New Starts funding for an individual project to $500 million. These project sponsors noted 

that for larger projects, a cap on the overall dollar amount is of more concern than the 

percentage of the New Starts share. An FTA official told us that they do not have a formal 

policy to limit the overall dollar amount for individual projects. Rather, FTA advises project 

sponsors that, historically, it has not recommended more than $500 million in total, or $100 

million per year, for individual projects. 
Page 20 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

project would have to drop out of the process, others indicated that the 

projects would have to be redesigned, and one project sponsor indicated 

that requesting a lower federal New Starts share would weaken the 

project’s financial plan. 

According to the fiscal year 2005 New Starts report, projects that request 

more than a 60 percent federal New Starts share are not recommended to 

Congress for FFGAs. Specifically, the fiscal year 2005 New Starts report 

states that “projects seeking a federal New Starts share over 60 percent of 

total costs are given a ‘low’ rating for local financial commitment, 

regardless of the ratings received for the capital plan and operating plan. 

This ‘low’ rating further results in a ‘not recommended’ overall project 

rating.” Projects receiving an overall “not recommended” rating are not 

proposed for an FFGA. An FTA official told us that for the fiscal year 2005 

cycle, no project received an overall “not recommended” rating solely due 

to this policy preference. 

The enabling legislation for this program states that federal grants are to be 

for 80 percent of the net project cost, unless the grant recipient requests a 

lower grant percentage.24 TEA-21 required FTA to consider the strength of 

the local financial commitment, including the extent to which the project 

will have a federal New Starts share of less than 80 percent. In our view, 

FTA’s policy to favor projects with a lower federal share is permissible as 

long as projects are not required to request less than an 80 percent federal 

New Starts share in order to be considered for recommendation for an 

FFGA. FTA’s description of the preference policy in its fiscal year 2005 New 

Starts report suggests that this policy is absolute in that projects proposing 

more than a 60 percent federal New Starts share will not be recommended 

for an FFGA. However, FTA has assured us that this is a general preference 

and it may make exceptions to this policy. 25 FTA has agreed to clarify in its 

upcoming reporting instructions that this is a general preference policy, 

thus allowing for the possibility of exceptions.

2449 U.S.C. § 5309(h).

25FTA officials stated that it makes exceptions to the preference policy and demonstrated its 

willingness to do so by recommending a project for an FFGA at an 80 percent federal New 

Starts share in fiscal year 2003.
Page 21 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

FTA Continues to Develop 

Guidance for Two New 

Requirements That It 

Instituted for the Fiscal Year 

2005 Cycle

FTA instituted two new requirements for New Starts projects for the fiscal 

year 2005 cycle that were independent of the rating process. First, FTA 

required project sponsors to submit a supplemental document—a “make 

the case” document—that articulates the benefits of the proposed New 

Starts project. Project sponsors are expected to “make the case” by 

describing why the project is needed and why it is the best alternative 

available to meet these needs. According to an FTA official, the “make the 

case” document is intended to help FTA interpret the data produced by the 

local travel forecasting models. For example, the supplemental document 

could be used to explain unusual results produced by the local travel 

forecasts. In addition, an FTA official stated that the document would aid 

FTA in preparing the profile summaries of projects for the annual New 

Starts reports. FTA officials note, however, that many of the “make the 

case” submissions for the current cycle did not meet their expectations. 

For example, some of the submissions provided only a justification of the 

need for a corridor improvement; others consisted solely of a summary of 

financial and political commitment. An FTA official acknowledged that FTA 

could have done a better job in defining the purpose of the document and 

stated that FTA plans to provide more guidance in the near future. 

The second new requirement instituted for the fiscal year 2005 cycle is a 

risk assessment. The risk assessments are intended to identify the issues 

that could affect schedule or cost, as well as the probability that they will 

do so. It is also used as a project management tool by the project sponsor 

and an FTA oversight tool. FTA’s project management oversight contractors 

have been conducting the assessments, focusing on the projects that are 

closest to receiving an FFGA. As of May 2004, FTA has completed risk 

assessments for four projects.26 Eventually, FTA intends to conduct risk 

assessments on projects in earlier phases of development. FTA officials 

plan to issue more guidance on this new requirement. In addition, FTA 

continues to share and exchange information with project sponsors 

through FTA-sponsored roundtables and New Starts workshops.27

26FTA is currently conducting risk assessments for five additional projects.

27The roundtable is a forum for sharing information among FTA staff and project sponsors 

considering New Starts projects.
Page 22 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Administration’s 

Proposal Requests 

Increased New Starts 

Funds and Legislative 

Reauthorization 

Proposals Would 

Expand and Streamline 

the Program

The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget proposal requests $1.5 billion 

for the New Starts program, a $225 million increase over the amount 

appropriated for fiscal year 2004. Proposed legislation to reauthorize 

federal surface transportation programs in the House and Senate would 

expand the New Starts program to include a wider variety of transit 

projects as well as streamline the New Starts evaluation process for 

projects requesting less than $75 million in New Starts funding, among 

other things. Project sponsors had mixed reactions to these proposals and 

called for clear definitions. 

Administration’s Proposed 

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget 

Requests a 15 Percent 

Increase in New Starts 

Funding 

In its budget proposal for fiscal year 2005, the administration requests $1.5 

billion for the construction of new transit systems and the expansion of 

existing systems through the New Starts program—an increase of $225 

million, or 15 percent, over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004. 

Figure 4 illustrates the specific allocations FTA has proposed for fiscal year 

2005, including the following: 

• $931 million (61 percent) would be allocated among 26 projects under 

construction with existing FFGAs, 

• $295 million (19 percent) would be allocated among the 5 projects 

proposed for new FFGAs,

• $151 million (10 percent) would be allocated among other projects in 

final design and preliminary engineering that do not have existing 

FFGAs,28 and 

• $50 million (3 percent) would be allocated for 2 projects considered to 

be meritorious by FTA.

28TEA-21 limits the amount of New Starts funding that can be used for purposes other than 

final design and construction to not more than 8 percent of funds appropriated. FTA expects 

that no more than 8 percent of the $151 million will be allocated for purposes other than 

final design and construction. However, FTA officials noted this decision ultimately rests 

with Congress. 
Page 23 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Figure 4: Total New Starts Funding Proposed for Fiscal Year 2005 Equals $1.5 Billion

FTA has limited commitment authority remaining—about $200 million—

through June 2004. According to FTA officials, the commitment authority 

for fiscal year 2005 and beyond will be addressed in the next surface 

transportation authorization legislation. FTA officials told us that neither 

the amount of commitment authority remaining nor the delay in 

reauthorizing TEA-21 affected the number of projects proposed for an 

FFGA for the fiscal year 2005 cycle. However, FTA officials noted that FTA 

will not be able to execute all 5 proposed FFGAs until additional 

commitment authority is provided through congressional authorization.

Other projects in final design and 

preliminary engineering ($151 million)

Existing FFGAs ($931 million)

1%

Oversight activities ($15 million)

Pending FFGAs ($80 million)

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.

61%

19%

5%

10%

1%

Mandated projects ($10 million)

3%

Meritorious projects ($50 million)

Proposed FFGAs ($295 million)
Page 24 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Sponsors Have Mixed 

Reactions to Legislative 

Reauthorization Proposals 

and Call for Clear 

Definitions

Congress is currently considering legislation that would reauthorize all 

surface transportation programs, including the New Starts program.29 Both 

the Senate and House bills contain a number of provisions and initiatives 

for the New Starts program.30 Some of the key provisions of these bills 

would (1) streamline the evaluation process for projects under $75 million, 

(2) expand the definition of eligible projects, (3) change the ratings 

categories, and (4) maintain the maximum federal New Starts share at 80 

percent.31 The project sponsors we interviewed had mixed reactions to 

these provisions. In addition, most of the sponsors called for clear 

definitions to any changes to the New Starts process. 

• Streamline the New Starts evaluation process for projects under $75 

million. The Senate proposal would allow the Secretary of 

Transportation discretion to develop a streamlined evaluation process 

for projects requesting less than $75 million in New Starts funds. This 

provision would eliminate the “exempt” classification for projects 

requesting less than $25 million in New Starts funding and would allow 

FTA to analyze and rate all projects through a streamlined process. The 

House proposal would establish a “Small Starts” program for projects 

requesting between $25 million and $75 million in New Starts funding, 

and these projects would be evaluated through a streamlined ratings 

process. In addition, the House proposal would maintain the exempt 

classification allowing projects requesting less than $25 million in New 

Starts funding to be exempt from the evaluation and ratings process. 

Most project sponsors we interviewed were supportive of implementing 

a streamlined evaluation process for less expensive projects. Some 

stated that a less robust evaluation process for less expensive projects 

makes sense, and others said it would allow cities to consider a range of 

potential projects without having to develop an expensive project. 

29Both the Senate and House bills have been passed by their respective chamber and are 

currently awaiting conference. 

30H.R. 3550, 108th Cong. (2004), and S. 1072, 108th Cong. (2004). 

31Both the Senate and House proposals contain additional provisions that would affect the 

New Starts program. For example, the Senate proposal includes the creation of a new pilot 

program to demonstrate the advantages of public/private partnerships for New Starts 

projects and a provision to review the impact of allowing transit contractors to receive 

performance incentive awards if projects are completed below their original estimated cost. 

The House proposal would require FTA to provide notice and an opportunity for public 

comment before issuing any nonregulatory substantive policy statements.
Page 25 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

However, some said that clear definitions and criteria would be 

necessary in implementing the streamlined evaluation process. 

• Expand the definition of eligible projects. Currently, TEA-21 limits New 

Starts funding to fixed-guideway projects.32 Both the House and Senate 

reauthorization proposals would allow certain nonfixed-guideway 

transit projects (e.g., bus rapid transit operating in nonexclusive lanes) 

to be eligible for New Starts funding, opening the program up to projects 

that currently are ineligible. Specifically, the Senate proposal would 

allow nonfixed-guideway projects requesting less than $75 million to be 

eligible for New Starts funding. The House proposal would expand New 

Starts funding eligibility to include nonfixed-guideway projects with a 

majority of fixed-guideway components seeking between $25 million 

and $75 million, as part of its “Small Starts” initiative. The majority of 

project sponsors we interviewed supported this initiative, some noting 

that broadening the program to include nonfixed-guideway projects 

would open more transit possibilities for localities. However, some 

project sponsors did express concerns about the already high demand 

on New Starts funding and noted that nonfixed-guideway projects could 

receive funds through other federal programs or capital funds. As a 

result, a number of project sponsors that support expanding the 

program said increased and/or separate funding and a clear definition of 

eligible projects are needed. Others were reluctant to support the 

expansion of New Starts to include nonfixed-guideways projects, citing 

a lack of funds and the importance of maintaining the fixed-guideway 

focus of New Starts. 

• Change the rating categories. Under TEA-21, FTA assigns summary 

ratings of “highly recommended,” “recommended,” and “not 

recommended” to projects requesting New Starts funding. The Senate 

reauthorization proposal would revise the current rating system and 

implement five levels of ratings: “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” 

“medium-low,” and “low.” The House proposal would maintain the 

current ratings system. Project sponsors were unsure of the impact of 

the proposed changes, and a few requested clearly defined criteria for 

each new rating category. Some sponsors told us they were not 

concerned with the ratings scale as long as it was clearly defined. Other 

32Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of 

public transportation services. They include fixed-rail systems, exclusive lanes for buses 

and other high-occupancy vehicles, ferries, and other systems. 
Page 26 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

project sponsors said they did not care what the new rating categories 

were called—they just want to know what rating is needed to secure an 

FFGA. In addition, two sponsors said the new system could be more 

easily conveyed to local officials. 

• Maintain a maximum New Starts share at 80 percent. Currently, TEA21 allows a maximum New Starts share of 80 percent for individual 

projects. Both the House and the Senate versions of the TEA-21 

reauthorization proposals would maintain the maximum New Starts 

share at 80 percent, in contrast to the administration’s reauthorization 

proposal, which would lower the maximum New Starts share to 50 

percent. Furthermore, the House bill specifically prohibits FTA from 

requiring a nonfederal share that is more than 20 percent of the project’s 

cost. Currently, FTA is encouraging project sponsors to request no more 

than 50 percent in New Starts funding for their projects. As noted 

earlier, some project sponsors we interviewed were concerned about 

the potential impact of reducing the New Starts share to 50 percent, 

including the effect of this change on the balance between highway and 

transit project funding. 

Project Sponsors Have 

Taken Steps to Address 

Variances in Funding

All 26 projects with existing FFGAs have not received funds as scheduled—

that is, the amount of funding appropriated was less than the amount 

scheduled in the FFGA. FFGAs are multiyear contractual agreements 

between FTA and project sponsors for a specified amount of funding, 

which are subject to the annual appropriations process. The full amount of 

funding is committed to the projects over a set period, and the FFGA 

contains a schedule of annual federal payments to fulfill FTA’s 

commitment. According to FTA, all completed New Starts projects received 

the total FFGA amount but not necessarily according to the original FFGA 

schedule. FTA will continue to request funds to be appropriated to meet the 

amounts authorized in existing FFGAs. As of March 2004, the 26 projects 

have received a total of $294 million, or 5 percent, less than the amount 

authorized by the projects’ FFGAs. 

The amount and timing of the differences in funding varied for each 

project, but all 26 projects with FFGAs received less than the scheduled 

amount at some point. As of March 2004, 7 had received over 10 percent 

less than the scheduled amount, 2 had received between 5 and 10 percent 

less than scheduled, and 17 projects had received up to 5 percent less than 

scheduled. The timing of the differences in funding also varied. Some 

projects experienced substantial differences between appropriated and 
Page 27 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

scheduled amounts at the beginning or near the end of their FFGA, but it 

was more common for projects to experience funding differences 

throughout. (See app. III for the total amount of differences for each 

project with an existing FFGA.)

Several factors contributed to projects receiving less New Starts funding 

than scheduled. The amount of funding authorized by an FFGA is subject to 

the annual appropriations process and, therefore, differences may arise 

because of congressional decision making. In addition, projects receive 

less than the amounts authorized by the FFGAs because FTA retains 1 

percent of the funding provided each year to cover the cost of its project 

management oversight.33 According to FTA officials, each year FTA 

requests funding to cover the project management oversight costs, but 

these funds are typically not appropriated. FTA may also request that less 

New Starts funding be appropriated to a project than scheduled by the 

FFGA if it is concerned about a specific project’s progress; however, FTA 

officials said they rarely recommend less funding than is scheduled. 

Faced with these variances in funding, project officials we interviewed 

have developed methods to mitigate the impact of receiving less than the 

scheduled annual amount for their project. Some project officials entered 

into partnerships with the state and/or local government. For example, one 

transit agency arranged for the state to contribute more funds early on in 

the project and, as a result, the funding schedule did not adversely affect 

the project. Other projects implemented interim funding mechanisms to 

cover any FFGA variances, including issuing bonds or loans to generate 

necessary funds. None of the 5 project officials we contacted had to change 

the scope or schedule of their project solely due to funding variances. 

However, officials from these projects said that interim financing 

ultimately increased the cost of the project. For example, the Portland 

Interstate MAX project incurred approximately $3 million in borrowing 

costs, which equaled 4 percent of the total local commitment to the project. 

33The project management oversight program is designed primarily to help ensure that 

grantees constructing major capital projects, such as New Starts projects, have the qualified 

staff and procedures to successfully build the projects according to accepted engineering 

principles. To implement this program, FTA enters into contracts with competitively 

selected engineering firms, which serve as an extension of its limited technical staff. The 

project management oversight activities are supported by a statutorily limited set-aside of 

the funds made available annually for certain transit programs.
Page 28 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Conclusions To receive an FFGA, projects must go through a lengthy evaluation process 

by FTA—from planning to preliminary engineering to final design. The 

steps for advancing through the evaluation process and securing an FFGA 

are well documented in FTA’s New Starts reports and other published 

guidance. Documentation of these steps is important to ensure a common 

understanding among projects sponsors and to increase the transparency 

of the process. Like other programs, the transparency of the New Starts 

process is critical in ensuring that project sponsors view the process as fair 

and objective. Although the process for securing an FFGA is well-defined, 

FTA’s identification of meritorious projects—and the subsequent proposed 

funding of these projects—is not. While FTA officials were able to provide 

us additional insight regarding funding recommendations for these 

projects, FTA’s New Starts reports and other published guidance are not 

clear in its meaning. In particular, the rationale for the funding 

recommendation for these two projects in FTA’s New Starts Report for 

Fiscal Year 2005 is very broad and lacks necessary detail. FTA does not 

explain how it decides which projects will be recommended for funding 

outside of FFGAs and what project sponsors must do to qualify for such a 

recommendation. In addition, FTA did not justify the level of funding 

proposed for these projects for fiscal year 2005—which is a substantial 

increase compared to amounts proposed for similar projects in the past. 

Consequently, it is difficult to understand why these two meritorious 

projects are more worthy of funding than other projects in the pipeline. 

The implementation of FTA’s policy favoring projects requesting a federal 

New Starts share of less than 60 percent also continues to create challenges 

for some project sponsors and raises concerns. According to FTA, its policy 

is in response to language contained in appropriations committee reports 

and will result in more projects receiving funding by spreading limited 

resources among them and ensuring that local governments whose regions 

would benefit from the project play a major role in funding such projects. 

However, many of the project sponsors we interviewed experienced 

challenges in trying to secure a larger local match to comply with FTA’s 

preference policy. Several project sponsors also stated that FTA’s push for a 

lower federal New Starts share would likely affect their decision to 

advance future transit projects. Therefore, it is important for FTA to 

understand how this policy affects local decision making with regard to 

proposing and funding New Starts projects, as well as whether the policy is 

maximizing New Starts funds and local participation. 
Page 29 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To ensure that FTA’s New Starts evaluation process and policies are 

objective, transparent, and comply with federal statute, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, FTA, to take 

the following two actions: 

• Clearly explain the basis on which it decides which projects will be 

recommended for funding outside of FFGAs, such as projects 

considered to be meritorious, and what projects must do to qualify for 

such a recommendation. These explanations should be included in FTA’s 

annual New Starts report and other published New Starts guidance.

• FTA should also examine the impact of its preference policy on projects 

currently in the evaluation process, as well as projects in the early 

planning stages, and examine whether its policy results in maximizing 

New Starts funds and local participation. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for 

review and comment. Officials from the Department and FTA, including the 

Associate Administrator for Planning and the Environment, indicated that 

they generally agreed with the report and its recommendations. According 

to FTA officials, the FTA New Starts program has been recognized as wellmanaged, with consistent, proven results and accomplishments. They 

recognized, however, the need to further improve program guidance and 

operation. Specifically, FTA agreed to more clearly explain, in its guidance 

to project sponsors, the basis on which it decides which projects will be 

recommended for funding outside of FFGAs. In addition, in the draft of this 

report, we recommended that FTA revise its guidance to clarify that 

exceptions to the preference policy are permissible. In discussions with 

FTA officials about the draft of this report, FTA agreed to clarify the 

preference policy by clearly stating it is a general, rather than an absolute, 

preference in its upcoming reporting instructions and other appropriate 

sources, making a recommendation to take such action unnecessary. 

Therefore, we eliminated our recommendation on this matter in our final 

report. Finally, FTA officials also provided technical clarifications, which 

we incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees with 

responsibilities for transit issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the 

Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; and the Director, Office of 
Page 30 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Management and Budget. We also will make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in this report, 

please contact me at siggerudk@gao.gov. GAO contacts and key 

contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Katherine A. Siggerud

Director, Physical Infrastructure
Page 31 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To address our objectives, we reviewed the administration’s fiscal year 

2005 budget request and legislative reauthorization proposals, the Federal 

Transit Administration’s (FTA) annual New Starts reports, records on 

funding authorized and appropriated to projects with existing full funding 

grant agreements (FFGAs), and federal statutes pertaining to the New 

Starts program. In addition, we interviewed FTA officials and 

representatives from the American Public Transportation Association and 

attended FTA’s New Starts roundtable with project sponsors in April 2004. 

We also conducted semistructured interviews with project sponsors from 

15 projects in preliminary engineering or final design to gain their 

perspectives on recent and proposed changes to the New Starts program 

and 5 projects with FFGAs to discuss their experiences in dealing with 

shortfalls in federal funding for their New Starts projects. (See table 4 for a 

listing of all projects contacted.) The results of these interviews are not 

generalizable to all project sponsors, however we used multiple criteria in 

selecting the projects to ensure we evaluated a diverse group of projects. 

Specifically, to select the 15 projects in preliminary engineering or final 

design, we considered projects’ overall ratings for the fiscal year 2005 

cycle, mobility and cost-effectiveness ratings for fiscal years 2003 to 2005, 

percentage of New Starts funding requested for fiscal years 2003 through 

2005, total cost, and location. We obtained this information from FTA’s 

annual New Starts reports for fiscal years 2003 through 2005. In selecting 

the 5 projects with FFGAs, we considered the size and timing of any 

differences between the amount of funding authorized in projects’ FFGAs 

and the amount of funding appropriated to the projects for fiscal years 1998 

through 2004. We obtained information on the amount of funding 

authorized and appropriated to projects with existing FFGAs from FTA.

Table 4: Projects Contacted for Our Review

City, state Project

Projects in preliminary engineering or final design

Boston, MA Silver Line Phase III

Charlotte, NC South Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Columbus, OH North Corridor LRT

Denver, CO West Corridor LRT

Fort Collins, CO Mason Transportation Corridor

Los Angeles, CA Mid-City Exposition LRT 

Louisville, KY Transportation Tomorrow South Central Corridor LRT
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Sources: GAO and FTA.

To ensure the reliability of information presented in this report, we 

interviewed FTA officials about FTA’s policies and procedures for 

compiling the annual New Starts reports, including FTA’s data collection 

and verification practices for New Starts information. We also reviewed 

documentation for the database FTA uses to compile, analyze, and store 

data for New Starts projects. In addition, during our semistructured 

interviews with project sponsors, we asked about the accuracy of the 

information about their projects presented in the annual New Starts 

reports. Finally, we tested the reliability of FTA’s records of the amount of 

funding authorized and appropriated to projects with existing FFGAs by 

comparing a nonprobability sample of the records with FFGAs. We 

concluded that the FTA information presented is sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report.

Miami, FL North Corridor Metrorail Extension

Minneapolis-Rice, MN Northstar Corridor Rail Project

New Orleans, LA Desire Streetcar Line

New York, NY Long Island Railroad East Side Access

Norfolk, VA Norfolk LRT project

Philadelphia, PA Schuylkill Valley MetroRail

Phoenix, AZ Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT Corridor

Pittsburgh, PA North Shore LRT Connector

Projects with existing FFGAs

Chicago, IL Ravenswood Line Extension

Denver, CO Southeast Corridor LRT

Fort Lauderdale, FL South Florida Commuter Rail Upgrades

Portland, OR Interstate MAX LRT Extension

Washington, D.C. metropolitan 

area

Largo Metrorail Extension

(Continued From Previous Page)

City, state Project
Page 33 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Appendix II

Projects Evaluated for the Fiscal Year 2005 

Cycle ApendxiI

Dollars in millions

Phase of project 

Overall project 

rating/status

Total New Starts funding scheduled 

by FFGA or requested by project 

sponsors 

Projects with existing full funding grant agreements (FFGAs)

Atlanta–North Springs Extension FFGA $370

Baltimore–Central Light Rail Transit (LRT) Double 

Tracking

FFGA 120

Chicago–Douglas Branch Reconstruction FFGA 320

Chicago–North Central Corridor Commuter Rail FFGA 135

Chicago–Southwest Corridor Commuter Rail FFGA 103

Chicago–Union Pacific West Line Extension FFGA 81

Chicago–Ravenswood Line Extension FFGA 246

Denver–Southeast Corridor LRT FFGA 525

Fort Lauderdale–South Florida Commuter Rail 

Upgrades 

FFGA 111

Los Angeles–North Hollywood FFGA 681

Minneapolis–Hiawatha Corridor LRT FFGA 334

New Orleans–Canal Street Light Rail Line FFGA 129

Northern New Jersey–Hudson Bergen Minimal 

Operating Segment (MOS1)

FFGA 604

Northern New Jersey–Hudson Bergen (MOS2) FFGA 500

Northern New Jersey–Newark Rail Link FFGA 142

Pittsburgh–Stage II LRT Reconstruction FFGA 100

Portland–Interstate MAX LRT Extension FFGA 239

Salt Lake City–CBD to University LRT FFGA 85

Salt Lake City–Medical Center Extension FFGA 54

San Diego–Mission Valley East LRT Extension FFGA 330

San Diego–Oceanside Escondido Rail Corridor FFGA 152

San Francisco–Bay Area Rapid Transit Extension to 

Airport 

FFGA 750

San Juan–Tren Urbano FFGA 302

Seattle–Central Link Initial Segment FFGA 500

St. Louis–Metrolink St. Clair Extension FFGA 244

Washington, D.C./MD Largo Metrorail Extension FFGA 260

Subtotal $7,417
Appendix II

Projects Evaluated for the Fiscal Year 2005 

Cycle

Page 34 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Projects with pending federal funding 

commitments

Los Angeles–Metro Gold Line East Side Extension Recommended 491

Subtotal $491

Projects in final design 

Charlotte–South Corridor LRTa Recommended 193

Cleveland–Euclid Corridorb Recommended 82

Galveston–Rail Trolley Extension Exempt 8

Kansas City–Southtown BRT Exempt 12

Nashville–East Corridor Commuter Rail Exempt 23

New York–Long Island Rail Road East Side Accessb Recommended 2,633

Phoenix–Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT Corridorb Recommended 587

Pittsburgh–North Shore LRT Connectorb Recommended 218

Raleigh–Regional Rail Projecta Recommended 414

Subtotal $4,170

Projects in preliminary engineering

Boston–Silver Line Phase III Not recommended 378

Bridgeport, CT–Intermodal Transportation Center Exempt 25

Columbus, OH–North Corridor LRT Recommended 264

Dallas–Northwest/Southeast LRT Recommended 700

Denver–West Corridor LRT Not rated 412

El Paso–Sun Metro Area Rapid Transit Starter Line Exempt 8

Fort Collins, CO–Mason Transportation Center Not recommended 33

Harrisburg, PA–CORRIDORone Rail Exempt 25

Hartford, CT–New Britain/Hartford Busway Recommended 88

Johnson County, KS–Kansas City, MO–I-35 

Commuter Rail

Exempt 25

Las Vegas–Resort Corridor Fixed Guidewayb Recommended 160

Los Angeles–Mid-City Exposition LRT Not recommended 253

Louisville–Transportation Tomorrow South Central 

Corridor

Not rated 373

Lowell, MA/Nashua, NH–Commuter Rail Extension Exempt 18

Miami–North Corridor Metrorail Extension Not rated 435

Minneapolis–Northstar Corridor Rail Project Not rated 155

New Orleans–Desire Streetcar Line Not recommended 69

New York–Second Avenue Subway Recommended 8,404

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Phase of project 

Overall project 

rating/status

Total New Starts funding scheduled 

by FFGA or requested by project 

sponsors 
Appendix II

Projects Evaluated for the Fiscal Year 2005 

Cycle

Page 35 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Sources: GAO and FTA.

a

Projects considered to be meritorious.

b

Projects proposed for federal funding commitments.

c

This amount reflects the total New Starts funding requested by project sponsors for projects in 

preliminary engineering.

Projects in preliminary engineering

Norfolk, VA–Norfolk LRT Not rated 95

Orange County, CA–CenterLine LRT Recommended 483

Philadelphia–Schuykill Valley MetroRail Not recommended 2,071

Salt Lake City–Weber County to Salt Lake 

Commuter Rail

Recommended 204

San Diego–Mid-Coast Extension Recommended 66

San Francisco–New Central Subway Recommended 532

Santa Clara County, CA–Silicon Valley Rapid Transit 

Corridor

Not recommended 973

Tampa–Tampa Bay Regional Rail Not recommended 728

Washington County, OR–Wilsonville to Beaverton 

Commuter Rail

Recommended 62

Wasilia, AK–Alaska Railroad- South Wasilia Track 

Realignment

Exempt 23

Subtotal $17,062c

Total $29,140

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Phase of project 

Overall project 

rating/status

Total New Starts funding scheduled 

by FFGA or requested by project 

sponsors 
Page 36 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Appendix III

Cumulative Shortfalls by Project with Full 

Funding Grant Agreements ApendxiI

Project 

Full funding grant 

agreement amount

Total appropriations 

fiscal year 2004 and 

prior

Total authorized and 

scheduled in full funding 

grant agreement

Cumulative 

shortfall

Percentage of 

shortfall

Atlanta–North 

Springs Extension $370,543,200 $370,182,415 $370,543,200 ($360,785) 0.10%

Baltimore–Central 

Light Rail Transit 

(LRT) Double 

Tracking $120,000,000 $78,566,416 $90,984,609 ($12,418,193) 10.35%

Chicago–Douglas 

Branch 

Reconstruction $320,100,000 $189,954,810 $194,779,647 ($4,824,837) 1.51%

Chicago–North 

Central Corridor 

Commuter Rail $135,319,330 $94,705,878 $96,843,093 ($2,137,215) 1.58%

Chicago–Southwest 

Corridor Commuter 

Rail $103,018,670 $75,737,275 $76,974,890 ($1,237,615) 1.20%

Chicago–Union 

Pacific West Line 

Extension $80,762,000 $54,476,251 $60,445,851 ($5,969,600) 7.39%

Chicago–

Ravenswood Line 

Extension $245,520,000 $20,687,385 $55,845,596 ($35,158,211) 14.32%

Denver–Southeast 

Corridor LRT $525,000,000 $208,447,242 $233,439,516 ($24,992,274) 4.76%

Fort Lauderdale–

South Florida 

Commuter Rail 

Upgrades $110,500,000 $102,259,515 $110,500,000 ($11,210,695) 10.15%

Los Angeles–North 

Hollywood $681,037,000 $680,373,661 $681,037,000 ($663,339) 0.10%

Minneapolis–

Hiawatha Corridor 

LRT $334,300,000 $301,166,243 $303,836,915 ($2,670,672) 0.80%

New Orleans–Canal 

Street Light Rail Line $129,047,010 $112,591,804 $129,047,010 ($16,455,206) 12.75%

Northern New 

Jersey–Hudson 

Bergen (MOS1) $500,000,000 $147,597,005 $150,000,000 ($2,402,995) 0.48%

Northern New 

Jersey–Hudson 

Bergen (MOS2) $604,088,750 $603,774,854 $604,088,750 ($313,896) 0.05%
Appendix III

Cumulative Shortfalls by Project with Full 

Funding Grant Agreements

Page 37 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Sources: GAO and FTA.

Northern New 

Jersey–Newark Rail 

Link $141,950,000 $140,607,998 $141,950,074 ($1,342,076) 0.95%

Pittsburgh–Stage II 

LRT Reconstruction $100,200,000 $99,079,146 $100,200,000 ($1,120,854) 1.12%

Portland–Interstate 

MAX LRT Extension $257,500,000 $215,915,290 $257,500,000 ($41,584,710) 16.15%

Salt Lake City–CBD 

to University LRT $84,600,000 $83,472,595 $84,600,000 ($1,127,405) 1.33%

Salt Lake City–

Medical Center 

Extension $53,633,400 $49,914,024 $53,633,400 ($3,719,376) 6.93%

San Diego–Mission 

Valley East LRT 

Extension $329,958,000 $240,617,696 $282,107,170 ($41,489,474) 12.57%

San Diego–

Oceanside 

Escondido Rail 

Corridor $152,100,000 $84,888,939 $92,271,633 ($7,382,694) 4.85%

San Francisco–

BART Extension to 

Airport $750,000,000 $568,144,320 $577,804,031 ($9,659,711) 1.29%

San Juan–Tren 

Urbano $307,409,854 $252,590,914 $307,409,854 ($54,818,940) 17.83%

Seattle–Central Link 

Initial Segment $500,000,000 $164,785,265 $165,971,851 ($1,186,586) 0.24%

St. Louis–Metrolink 

St. Clair Extension $243,930,961 $243,877,578 $243,930,961 ($53,383) 0.02%

Washington, 

D.C./MD Largo 

Metrorail Extension $260,300,000 $184,867,113 $195,000,000 ($10,132,887) 3.89%

(Continued From Previous Page)

Project 

Full funding grant 

agreement amount

Total appropriations 

fiscal year 2004 and 

prior

Total authorized and 

scheduled in full funding 

grant agreement

Cumulative 

shortfall

Percentage of 

shortfall
Page 38 GAO-04-748 Mass Transit

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contacts Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834, siggerudk@gao.gov

Nikki Clowers, (202) 512-4010 or clowersa@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individuals named above, other key contributors to this 

report were Chris Bonham, Jay Cherlow, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Rita Grieco, 

Kara Finnegan Irving, Elizabeth McNally, Sara Ann Moessbauer, and Stacey 

Thompson.

 (542033)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00