PUBLIC TRANSIT

Challenges Funding, 

Investing in Systems, and 

Coordinating Services

Statement of Dave Wise, Director, Physical 

Infrastructure Issues

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Banking, 

Housing and Urban Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST

Thursday, January 16, 2014

GAO-14-278T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-278T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Banking, Housing, 

and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate

January 16, 2014

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Challenges Funding, Investing in Systems, and 

Coordinating Services

Why GAO Did This Study

Millions of passengers use transit 

services on a daily basis, and many 

transit agencies that provide these 

services receive federal funding. To 

meet the needs of these passengers in 

a challenging economy, transit 

agencies must use federal and other 

resources wisely, while ensuring

quality service.

The July 2012 surface transportation 

reauthorization act—MAP-21—has

addressed a number of transit issues

by strengthening federal authority to 

oversee transit safety and emphasizing 

the restoration and replacement of 

aging infrastructure, among other 

things. While it is too early to assess all 

of the impacts of MAP-21, the work 

GAO has done can help inform the 

next surface transportation 

reauthorization act.

This testimony covers GAO’s recent 

work on: (1) funding transit; (2) 

improving capital decision making; and 

(3) coordinating services for transitdisadvantaged populations.

To address these objectives, GAO 

drew from its recent reports issued 

from March 2011 through November 

2013. GAO has also analyzed MAP21, recent rulemaking, and other 

reports.

What GAO Recommends

GAO made recommendations on these 

issues in previous reports. The 

Department of Transportation agreed 

to consider these recommendations 

and is in various stages of 

implementing them.

What GAO Found

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) authorized 

$10.6 and $10.7 billion for fiscal years 2013 and 2014, respectively, for public 

transit, but did not address long-term funding. Federal funds available for FTA’s 

transit programs come from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury and the Mass 

Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund supports 

surface transportation programs, including highways and transit, and is funded 

through motor fuel and other highway use taxes; however, revenues have eroded 

over time because federal fuel tax rate stagnation, fuel efficiency improvements, 

and the use of alternative fuel vehicles. In May 2013, the Congressional Budget 

Office estimated that to maintain current spending levels plus inflation between 

2015 and 2022, the Fund will require over $132 billion more than it is expected to 

take in over that period. GAO reported that while Congress transferred over $50 

billion in general revenues to the Fund since fiscal year 2008, this approach may 

not be sustainable given competing demands for funding. For these reasons 

funding surface transportation remains on GAO’s High-Risk List.

To address these funding challenges, sound capital-investment decisions can 

help transit agencies use their funds more efficiently. GAO’s work on transit asset 

management and bus rapid transit has illustrated these benefits.

Transit asset management: According to the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), it would cost roughly $78 billion (in 2009 dollars) to rehabilitate or replace

the nation’s aging transit assets—such as buses, rail cars, and escalators. 

GAO’s 2013 report on asset management recognized that many of the nearly 

700 public transit agencies struggle to maintain their bus and rail assets in a 

state of good repair. Sound management practices can help agencies prioritize 

investments to help optimize limited funding. However, of the nine transit 

agencies GAO visited, only two measured the effects of capital investments on

asset condition and none measured the effects on future ridership. Thus, GAO

recommended additional research to measure the effects of capital investments; 

FTA concurs in part with this recommendation. FTA agency officials recognize

the importance of additional research; however, they are hesitant to commit 

additional resources given their current budget situation.

Bus rapid transit (BRT): In addition to maintaining assets, transit agencies often 

need to build or expand systems to meet demand. Transit agencies can apply for 

federal capital-investment funding for new projects through New and Small Starts 

and Core Capacity Improvement grants. GAO’s 2012 report found that many 

agencies had taken advantage of New and Small Starts funding to develop BRT

projects, which generally require less capital investment compared to rail.

GAO’s recent work also shows benefits from coordinating transit services for the 

transportation-disadvantaged—those who cannot provide their own 

transportation or face challenges accessing public transportation. GAO’s 2012

report pointed out that coordination can be challenging, as federal programs 

provide funding for a variety of services. GAO also concluded that insufficient 

federal leadership and guidance on coordinating services for the disadvantaged 

may hinder coordination among state and local providers. The Coordinating 

Council—a group of federal agencies providing these services—has completed a

strategic plan to strengthen interagency coordination, as GAO recommended.

View GAO-14-278T. For more information, 

contact Dave Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov.
Page 1 GAO-14-278T 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent work on transit 

issues. It is my hope that we can help inform the committee as it prepares 

to develop the next surface transportation reauthorization act. Millions of 

passengers use transit services on a daily basis in the United States, and 

many of the local transit agencies that provide these services receive 

federal funding. To meet the needs of these passengers in a challenging 

economy, transit agencies must use federal and other resources wisely, 

while ensuring safety and quality. The most recent surface transportation 

reauthorization act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP-21),

1 enacted on July 6, 2012, authorized funding for federal 

highway and public transportation programs through September 30, 2014. 

MAP-21 did not address concerns about funding for surface 

transportation programs over the longer term, but it did address a number 

of other areas of concern by modifying certain transit programs, at the 

same time strengthening federal authority to oversee transit safety,2

emphasizing the restoration and replacement of aging infrastructure, 

consolidating some grants, and streamlining project development, 

evaluation, and delivery. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA)3

 1

Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012).

is 

developing guidance for implementing many of these changes. I will 

highlight today our recent work that has implications for current and future 

2

Rail transit generally has been one of the safest forms of public transportation. However, 

notable accidents are cause for concern. GAO’s 2006 report found that officials from the 

majority of the state oversight and transit agencies stated that the State Safety Oversight 

program enhances rail transit safety, but that FTA faced several challenges in 

administering the program. For example, state oversight agencies received little or no 

funding from FTA and had limited funding for staff. GAO, Rail Transit: Additional Federal 

Leadership Would Enhance FTA’s State Safety Oversight Program, GAO-06-821 

(Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006). GAO’s 2011 report also found challenges including the 

low level of safety in some transit agencies and the difficulty hiring and training qualified 

staff. GAO, Rail Transit: FTA Programs Are Helping Address Transit Agencies’ Safety 

Challenges, but Improved Performance Goals and Measures Could Better Focus Efforts, 

GAO-11-199 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2011). MAP-21 provided FTA with new safety 

authority, including authority to establish new safety requirements for all recipients, as well 

as conduct investigations, audits, and examinations. Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20021, 126 

Stat. 405, 709-717.

3

The Federal Transit Administration is the agency within the Department of Transportation 

responsible for providing financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems.
Page 2 GAO-14-278T 

transit programs and describe how MAP-21 has affected these areas to 

date.

My statement today describes our work on three main challenges: (1) 

funding transit, (2) improving capital-investment decision making on 

maintaining and expanding transit systems, and (3) coordinating transit 

services for transit-disadvantaged populations among various federal and 

state or local agencies. To the extent that these challenges can be 

addressed as MAP-21 is implemented, Congress, along with transit and 

federal agencies, will better be able to leverage increasingly limited 

federal dollars.

For this statement, we drew primarily from our reports—including those 

on funding transit, managing assets, and coordinating services for the 

transportation-disadvantaged—issued from June March 2011 through 

November 2013.4 We also analyzed MAP-21, recent rulemaking, and 

other reports. The reports cited in this statement contain more detailed 

explanations of the methods used to conduct our work. The work on 

which this statement is based was conducted in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

Funding for transit projects comes from public funds allocated by federal, 

state, and local governments and system-generated revenues earned by 

transit agencies from providing transit services. The Department of 

Transportation reported: (1) that in 2008, federal funds were nearly 40 

percent of total transit agency capital expenditures; (2) that state funds 

provided approximately 12 percent; and (3) that local funds provided the 

 4

See list of these reports in Related GAO Products section.

Long-Term Funding 

Challenges Remain
Page 3 GAO-14-278T 

remaining 48 percent of total transit agency capital expenditures.5 Our 

November 2012 report found similar funding trends. Specifically, local 

funding exceeded total federal funding for the 25 projects approved for 

federal New Starts grants—part of FTA’s Capital Investment Grant 

Program—from October 2004 through June 2012.

6

Federal funds available for the FTA’s transit programs come from two 

sources: (1) the general fund of the U.S. treasury and (2) the Mass 

Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Both of these sources of 

federal funding face difficulties. Currently, congressional budget 

discussions raise issues about general fund federal spending. This affects 

transit programs, such as the Capital Investment Grant Program, which 

are funded through annual appropriations from the general fund.

Federal funding is an 

important part of this picture, and according to FTA, MAP-21 authorized 

federal funding for public transit—$10.6 billion for fiscal year 2013 and 

$10.7 billion for fiscal year 2014. However, while state and localities face 

their own funding challenges, MAP-21 did not address long-term 

transportation federal funding challenges.

 5

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and 

Transit: Conditions & Performance, Washington, D.C. In 2008, total public transit-agency 

expenditures for capital investment were $16.1 billion and accounted for 41.5 percent of 

total available funds. Federal funds were $6.4 billion in 2008, 39.8 percent of total transit 

agency capital expenditures. State funds provided an additional 12.4 percent, and local 

funds provided the remaining 47.8 percent of total transit agency capital expenditures. Of 

total 2008 transit capital expenditures, 76.4 percent ($12.3 billion) was invested in rail 

modes of transportation, compared with 23.6 percent ($3.8 billion) invested in nonrail 

modes. This investment distribution has been consistent over the last decade.

6

The Capital Investment Grant Program is the primary mechanism through which FTA 

provides capital grants to project sponsors like transit agencies. The New Starts and Small 

Starts programs provide funds to transit project sponsors to build new or expanded fixedguideway transit systems. Small Starts also includes projects known as Very Small Starts 

projects. These three categories—New, Small, and Very Small projects—vary by total 

project cost and amount of the Capital Investment Grant Program contribution to the cost. 

For New Starts, total estimated project costs exceed $250 million; for Small Starts, they 

are less than $250 million, and for Very Small Starts, they are less than $50 million. For 

New Starts, the federal contribution is at least $75 million, for Small Starts it is less than 

$75 million. For further information on sources of funding for Capital Investment Grants, 

under SAFETEA-LU, see GAO, Public Transit: Funding for New Starts and Small Starts 

Projects, October 2004 through June 2012. GAO-13-40 (Washington, D.C.: November 14, 

2012). MAP-21 made some changes this program.
Page 4 GAO-14-278T 

In addition, the Highway Trust Fund authorizes funds for transit programs 

primarily through statutory formulas,7 and there are concerns over the 

fund’s decreasing revenue. The primary mechanism for funding federal 

highway and transit for more than 50 years is the Highway Trust Fund, 

which is funded through motor fuel and other highway use taxes. These 

taxes were established to make the federal-aid highway program selffinancing—that is, paid for by the highway users who directly benefit from 

the program. For many years, user fees in the form of federal fuel taxes 

and taxes on commercial trucks provided sufficient revenues to the 

Highway Trust Fund; however, revenues into the fund have eroded over 

time, in part because federal fuel tax rates have not increased since 1993 

and in part because of improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. In May 

2013, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that to maintain current 

spending levels plus inflation between 2015 and 2022, the Highway Trust 

Fund will require over $132 billion more than it is expected to take in over 

that period. About $35 billion of that deficit would be in the transit account.

To maintain current spending levels and cover revenue shortfalls, 

Congress has transferred more than $50 billion in general revenues to the 

Highway Trust Fund since fiscal year 2008. This approach has effectively 

broken the link between taxes paid and benefits received by users and 

may not be sustainable given competing demands and the federal 

government’s growing fiscal challenge. As we have previously reported, 

this trend will continue in the years ahead as more fuel efficient and 

alternative fuel vehicles take to the roads. We have previously concluded 

that a sustainable solution to funding surface transportation is based on 

balancing revenues to and spending from the Highway Trust Fund. 

Ultimately, major changes in transportation revenues, spending, or both 

will be needed to bring the two into balance. For this and other reasons, 

and because MAP-21 did not address these issues, funding surface 

transportation remains on GAO’s High-Risk List.8

 7

Formula funds are apportioned to grant recipients based on distributions prescribed by 

federal statute. GAO, Surface Transportation: Competitive Grant Programs Could Benefit 

from Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of Key Decisions.

GAO-11-234 (Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2011).

8

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013).
Page 5 GAO-14-278T 

Our recent work describes how sound capital-investment decisions can 

help transit agencies use federal and other transit funds more efficiently, 

and MAP-21’s new requirements for transit agencies to use asset 

management are consistent with our recent findings.

Improved transit asset management is important because of (1) the large 

backlog of transit assets—such as buses, rail cars, elevators, and 

escalators—that are already beyond their useful lives; (2) increasing 

demand for transit services; and (3) financial strains on transit providers 

due to rising fuel prices, decreased state and local funding, and likely 

limitations of federal funding going forward. According to FTA, roughly 

$78 billion (in 2009 dollars)9

Our July 2013 report on transit agencies’ management of their assets 

recognized that many of the nearly 700 public transit agencies in the 

United States struggle to maintain their bus and rail assets in good repair. 

Further, assets that are not in an acceptable condition and not 

rehabilitated or replaced could reduce safety, on-time service, and 

ridership. Our review of selected transit agencies

would be necessary to cover the costs of 

rehabilitating or replacing the nation’s transit assets and bring them to a 

state of good repair. Sound asset-management practices can help 

agencies prioritize their capital investments to help optimize limited 

funding.

10

 9

Since there has been some inflation since 2009, the cost of $78 billion in 2014 dollars, 

would be somewhat higher. 

found that while some 

transit agencies were starting to follow leading practices, including 

developing asset inventories to obtain accessible, consistent, and 

comprehensive information, some also faced challenges such as 

collecting unreliable data. To help prioritize capital investments, transit 

agencies would benefit from estimating the effects of those investment 

10We reviewed agencies by conducting site visits and interviews, examining documents, 

and consulting relevant literature. We selected agencies for review in two ways: 1) using a 

selection process for transit-agency site visits, and 2) reviewing transit agency case 

studies included in two key reports we identified through a comprehensive literature 

review.

Effective CapitalInvestment Decisions 

Help Transit Agencies 

Use Funds More 

Efficiently

Transit Asset Management
Page 6 GAO-14-278T 

decisions. Transit agencies that measure and quantify the effects of their 

capital-investment decisions are likely to make a stronger case for 

additional funding from state and local decision-makers. However, of the 

nine transit agencies we visited, only two measured the effects of capital 

investments on the condition of certain transit assets and none of the 

agencies measured the effects on future ridership, in part because they 

lacked the tools to determine these effects. Figure 1 below shows the 

extent to which selected transit agencies measured the effect of capital 

investments.

Figure 1: Extent to which Selected Transit Agencies Measure Effects of Capital 

Investments on State-of-Good-Repair Backlog, On-time Service, Asset Condition, 

and Future Ridership

Accordingly, we recommended that the Administrator of FTA conduct 

additional research to help transit agencies measure the effects of capital 

investments, including future ridership effects. The FTA concurs with this 

recommendation, in part. FTA agrees that more research to identify the 

operational impacts of not addressing the state of good repair backlog will 

support better asset management by transit agencies. However, 

according to FTA officials, given the agency’s current budget situation, it 

is difficult for it to commit to conduct additional research in the near future. 

FTA has almost $10 million in research projects on transit asset 

management underway.

MAP-21 directed FTA to provide transit agencies with tools and guidance 

they need to help them better prioritize capital investment decisions. 

MAP-21 also directed FTA to develop asset management requirements 
Page 7 GAO-14-278T 

for all recipients of federal transit program funds, including a transit asset 

management plan, which must include at a minimum, capital asset 

inventories, condition assessments, and investment priorities.11 Since the 

enactment of MAP-21, FTA has been developing guidance to help transit 

agencies implement leading practices in transit asset management and a 

decision support tool to prioritize investments. FTA also issued an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in October 2013 and 

requested that comments be submitted to them by January 2, 2014.12

• the requirements of a National Transit Asset Management System, 

including four options for defining and measuring state of good repair, 

and

The 

ANPRM states that FTA is seeking to ensure public transportation 

systems are in a state of good repair and transit agencies provide 

increased transparency into their budgetary decision-making process. 

FTA is seeking public comment on, among other things, (1) proposals it is 

considering and (2) questions regarding the following:

• the relationship between safety, transit asset management, and state 

of good repair.

As FTA completes its analysis of these comments and further develops a 

National Transit Asset Management System, transit agencies may be 

better equipped to implement current leading practices in transit asset 

management and comply with future transit asset management 

requirements envisioned by MAP-21.

In addition to maintaining transit agencies’ existing assets in a state of 

good repair, some transit agencies also face a need to build and expand 

their systems to meet demand. To meet these needs in a financially 

constrained environment, transit agencies can apply for capital funding 

available from the federal government through the Capital Investment 

 11Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20019, 126. Stat. 405, 707.

1278 Fed. Reg. 61251 (Oct. 3, 2013).

Bus Rapid Transit
Page 8 GAO-14-278T 

Grant Program, which includes New and Small Starts grants.13

BRT characteristics vary from project to project but generally include 

improvements to infrastructure, technology, and passenger amenities that 

attempt to replicate rail transit. We found that starting with the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU)

In many 

cases, transit agencies have taken advantage of this federal funding to 

develop bus rapid transit (BRT) projects, which often require less capital 

investment than other transit modes. For example, New York 

implemented a BRT project for the M15 line. This BRT line provides 

critical transportation service in Manhattan for over 55,000 riders a day, 

connecting many neighborhoods that are a long walk from the nearest 

subway station. Thus transit agencies are able to meet transit demand 

with BRT projects with a lower initial capital investment than other modes 

of transit, like heavy rail. Specifically, we found in our 2012 report that 

median costs for the 30 BRT and 25 rail transit projects we examined 

from fiscal year 2005 through February 2012 were about $36.1 million 

and $575.7 million, respectively.

14

 13The Capital Investment Grant Program is the primary mechanism through which FTA 

provides capital grants to project sponsors like transit agencies. The New Starts and Small 

Starts programs provide funds to transit project sponsors to build new or expanded fixedguideway transit systems. Small Starts also includes certain corridor-based bus rapid 

transit projects and what are known as Very Small Starts projects. MAP-21 added a new 

category to this program, “core-capacity improvement projects.” New, Small, and Very 

Small Starts projects—vary by total project cost and amount of the Capital Investment 

Grant Program contribution to the cost. For New Starts, total estimated project costs 

exceed $250 million; for Small Starts, they are less than $250 million, and for Very Small 

Starts they are less than $50 million. For New Starts the federal contribution is at least $75 

million, for Small Starts it is less than $75 million. A “core capacity project” is a substantial 

corridor-based capital investment in an existing fixed-guideway system that increases the 

capacity of a corridor by not less than 10 percent. 49 U.S.C. § 5309.

in 2005, opportunities for BRT expanded and 

transit agencies took advantage of them. SAFETEA-LU revised eligibility 

for major capital investment projects to include corridor-based bus capital 

14Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005).
Page 9 GAO-14-278T 

projects.15 According to all of the five BRT project sponsors we spoke with 

during our work, even at a lower capital cost, BRT could provide rail-like 

benefits. For example, Cleveland RTA officials told us the Healthline BRT 

project cost roughly one-third ($200 million) of what a comparable lightrail project would have cost.16

 15Under SAFETEA-LU, a fixed-guideway capital project included a corridor-based bus 

capital project if—”(A) a substantial portion of the project operates in a separate right-ofway dedicated for public transit use during peak hour operations; or (B) the project 

represents a substantial investment in a defined corridor as demonstrated by features 

such as park-and-ride lots, transit stations, bus arrival and departure signage, intelligent 

transportation systems technology, traffic signal priority, off-board collection, advanced 

bus technology, and other features that support the long-term corridor investment.” Pub. 

L. No. 109-59, § 3011, 119 Stat. 1144, 1579. 

Similarly, Eugene, Oregon, Lane Transit 

District (LTD) officials told us that the agency pursued BRT when it 

became apparent that light rail was unaffordable and that an LTD light rail 

project would not be competitive in the New Starts federal grant process. 

In terms of benefits, these projects—and most other BRT project we 

examined—increased ridership and improved travel times over the 

previous bus service. As a result of the lower initial capital costs for BRT 

along with the benefits of improved service, transit agencies took 

advantage of federal New and Small Starts dollars to invest in a relatively 

large number of BRT projects, as compared to other modes of transit. 

(See fig. 2).

16In addition, Cleveland RTA told us the Healthline BRT reduced the overall operating 

budget and the average costs per rider decreased.
Page 10 GAO-14-278T 

Figure 2: Total Projects in New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts with Grant Agreements by Mode, Fiscal Year 2005 

through February 2012

Note: Exempt projects were excluded from our analysis.

a

One streetcar project, the Portland Streetcar Loop, is included in this analysis as a light rail project.

In addition, we found that although many factors contribute to economic 

development, most local officials in the five case study locations we 

visited believed that BRT projects were contributing to localized economic 

development. For instance, officials in Cleveland told us that an estimated 

$4 to $5 billion had been invested near the Healthline BRT project—

associated with major hospitals and universities in the corridor. While 

most local officials believed that rail transit had a greater economic 

development potential than BRT, they agreed that certain factors can 

enhance BRT’s ability to contribute to economic development, including 

physical BRT features that relay a sense of permanence to developers; 

key employment and activity centers located along the corridor; and local 

policies and incentives that encourage transit-oriented development. Our 

analysis of land value changes near BRT lines at our five case study 

locations lends support to these themes.

MAP-21 included a few changes that affected BRT. For example, MAP-21 

defined BRT more narrowly and specifically than SAFETEA-LU. 

Specifically, MAP-21 required that BRT projects include features that 

emulate the services provided by rail, including defined stations rather 

than bus stops. This is consistent with our work, as we found that 

including rail-like features appears to lead to increased economic 

development along BRT corridors. In addition, MAP-21 made a distinction 
Page 11 GAO-14-278T 

between BRT projects that are eligible for New Starts versus Small Starts 

funding.17

Effective federal coordination can help maximize limited resources, while 

still providing essential services—especially to transportationdisadvantaged populations, including those who cannot provide their own 

transportation or may face challenges in accessing public transportation 

due to age, disability, or income constraints. We have previously reported

that transportation-disadvantaged populations often benefit from greater 

and higher quality services when transportation providers coordinate their 

operations. Additionally, as we reported in our findings on duplicative 

efforts and programs, improved coordination of these programs and 

transportation services has the potential to improve the quality and costeffectiveness of these services, while also reducing duplication, overlap, 

and fragmentation of services.18

However, effective coordination can be challenging, as federal programs 

provide funding under a variety of services, including education, 

employment, and medical and other human services. Our 2012 report on 

transportation-disadvantaged populations found that 80 federal programs 

in eight different agencies fund a variety of transportation services. While 

some federally funded programs are transportation focused, 

transportation was not the primary mission for the vast majority of the 

programs we identified. For example, the Department of Health and 

Human Services’ Medicaid program reimburses states that provide 

Medicaid beneficiaries with bus passes, among other transportation 

options, to access eligible medical services. Total federal spending on 

services for transportation-disadvantaged populations remains unknown 

 17Under MAP-21, a corridor-based bus rapid transit project, in which the majority of the 

project does not operate in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation 

use during peak periods, is eligible for Small Starts funding; New Starts eligibility is limited 

to those fixed guideway bus rapid transit projects in which the majority of the project 

operates in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use during peak 

periods. 49 U.S.C. § 5309(a).

18GAO, Government Operations: Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in 

Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP 

(Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011) and Government Operations: List of Selected Federal 

Programs That Have Similar or Overlapping Objectives, Provide Similar Services, or Are 

Fragmented Across Government Missions, GAO-11-474R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 

2011). 

Coordination Efforts 

for TransportationDisadvantaged 

Populations Are 

Under Way
Page 12 GAO-14-278T 

because federal departments did not separately track spending for 

roughly two-thirds of the programs we identified.

Our June 2012 report also concluded that insufficient federal leadership 

and lack of guidance for furthering collaborative efforts might hinder the 

coordination of transportation services among state and local providers. 

Officials in each of the five states we selected for interviews said that the 

federal government could provide state and local entities with improved 

guidance on transportation coordination—especially related to 

instructions on how to share costs across programs (i.e., determining 

what portion of a trip should be paid by whom). To promote and enhance 

federal, state, and local coordination efforts, we recommended in 2012 

that the Secretary of Transportation, as the chair of the Interagency 

Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (Coordinating Council), 

along with the Coordinating Council’s member agencies, should meet and 

complete and publish a strategic plan outlining agency roles and 

responsibilities and articulate a strategy to help strengthen interagency 

collaboration and communication.19

FTA has made some progress in enhancing coordination for 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. According to FTA officials, as a 

result of MAP-21, the agency has been updating program guidance and 

has issued draft program circulars for its Urbanized Area Formula 

Program, Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities 

Program, and the Rural Areas Formula Program, all of which discuss 

coordinated transit programs, among other issues. In addition, FTA 

Also, the Coordinating Council should 

report on the progress of its prior recommendations and develop a plan to 

address any outstanding recommendations. DOT agreed to consider our 

recommendation and the Coordinating Council’s member agencies 

responded by issuing a strategic plan for 2011–2013, which established 

agency roles and responsibilities and identified a shared strategy to 

reinforce cooperation, and officials have indicated they will continue to 

take steps to implement our recommendations.

 19The Coordinating Council is a group of federal agencies that, among other things, is 

charged with promoting interagency cooperation and establishing appropriate 

mechanisms to minimize duplication and overlap of federal programs and services so that 

transportation-disadvantaged persons have access to improved transportation services. 

Chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, the Council is composed of the Secretaries of 

Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Housing and 

Urban Development, Interior and Justice as well as the Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration and the Chairperson of the National Council on Disability.
Page 13 GAO-14-278T 

continues to support federal programs that play an important role in 

helping transportation-disadvantaged populations by providing funds to 

state and local grantees that, in turn, offer services either directly or 

through private or public transportation providers. Further, some FTA 

programs require or encourage their grantees to coordinate transportation 

services. For example, FTA’s Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and 

Individuals with Disabilities program—which provides formula funding to 

states to serve the special needs of transit-dependent populations beyond 

traditional public-transportation service—requires grantees to coordinate 

their transportation services and establish locally developed, coordinated 

public transit-human services transportation plans.20 We continue to 

examine these funding, service delivery, and coordination issues.21

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this statement. In addition, to the contact named above, 

Cathy Colwell, Geoffrey Hamilton, Hannah Laufe, Sara Ann Moessbauer, 

Tina Paek, Stephanie Purcell, and Amy Rosewarne made key 

contributions to this statement.

 20MAP-21 consolidated DOT’s Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities and 

New Freedom programs into the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with 

Disabilities program.

21See GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Coordination Efforts are 

Underway, but Challenges Continue, GAO-14-154T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2013).

GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 14 GAO-14-278T 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Coordination Efforts are 

Underway, but Challenges Continue. GAO-14-154T. Washington, D.C.: 

November 6, 2013.

Transit Asset Management: Additional Research on Capital Investment 

Effects Could Help Transit Agencies Optimize Funding. Washington, 

D.C.: July 11, 2013.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-13-283. Washington, D.C.: February 

2013.

ADA Paratransit Services: Demand Has Increased, but Little is Known 

about Compliance. GAO-13-17. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2012.

Public Transit: Funding for New Starts and Small Starts Projects, October 

2004 through June 2012. GAO-13-40. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 

2012.

Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute 

to Economic Development. GAO-12-811. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 

2012.

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Coordination Efforts 

Could Be Further Strengthened. GAO-12-647. Washington, D.C.: June 

20, 2012.

Government Operations: Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in 

Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. 

GAO-11-318SP. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011.

Related GAO Products

(542230)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.