United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Before the Subcommittee on Highways 

and Transit, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure

PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION 

Preliminary Analysis of 

Changes to and Trends in 

FTA’s New Starts and Small 

Starts Programs 

Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Director 

Physical Infrastructure 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, May 10, 2007

 

GAO-07-812T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 10, 2007

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

Preliminary Analysis of Changes to and 

Trends in FTA's New Starts and Small 

Starts Programs 

Highlights of GAO-07-812T, a testimony to 

the Subcommittee on Highways and 

Transit, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

Through the New Starts program, 

the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) identifies and recommends 

new fixed-guideway transit 

projects for funding—including 

heavy, light, and commuter rail; 

ferry; and certain bus projects. The 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible,

Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) authorized the New Starts

program through fiscal year 2009 

and made a number of changes to

the program, including creating a 

separate program commonly called

Small Starts. This program is 

intended to offer an expedited and 

streamlined evaluation and rating

process for smaller-scale transit

projects. FTA subsequently

introduced a separate eligibility

category within the Small Starts 

program for “Very Small Starts”

projects. Very Small Starts projects

are simple, low-risk projects that

FTA has determined qualify for a

simplified evaluation and rating 

process.

This testimony discusses GAO’s 

preliminary findings on (1) FTA’s 

implementation of SAFETEA-LU 

changes to the New Starts program, 

(2) the extent to which the New 

Starts pipeline (i.e., projects in the 

preliminary engineering and final 

design phases) has changed over

time, and (3) future trends for the 

New Starts and Small Starts

pipelines. To address these

objectives, GAO surveyed 215 

project sponsors and interviewed 

FTA officials, 15 project sponsors,

and 3 industry groups. Our survey 

response rate was 77 percent. 

FTA has made progress in implementing SAFETEA-LU changes, but more 

work remains. Project sponsors frequently identified two key issues for FTA

to consider as it moves forward in implementing SAFETEA-LU changes: (1) 

further streamline the Small Starts program and (2) fully incorporate 

economic development as a criterion in the New Starts and Small Starts 

evaluation and rating processes. According to our analysis of the number 

and types of requirements for New Starts and Small Starts application 

processes, the Small Starts process has fewer requirements. However, 

project sponsors said that FTA should further streamline the process by, for 

example, eliminating requests for duplicate information requested in 

required worksheets. SAFETEA-LU added economic development to the list 

of project justification evaluation criteria that FTA must use to evaluate and 

rate projects. However, FTA currently assigns a weight of 50 percent each to 

cost-effectiveness and land use in calculating a project’s overall rating—the

other 4 statutorily identified criteria, including economic development, are 

not weighted. We previously reported that FTA’s reliance on two evaluation 

criteria to calculate a project’s overall rating is drifting away from the 

multiple-measure evaluation and rating process outlined in statute. Further, 

without a weight for economic development, project sponsors say, the 

evaluation and rating process does not reflect an important benefit of certain 

projects. FTA officials said they are currently working to develop an 

appropriate economic development measure as part of their upcoming 

rulemaking. 

The New Starts pipeline—that is, projects in different stages of planning—

has changed in size and composition since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation 

and rating cycle, and a variety of factors have contributed to these changes. 

Since then, the number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has decreased 

by more than half. Additionally, the types of projects in the pipeline have 

changed during this time frame, as bus rapid transit projects are now more 

common than commuter or light rail projects. FTA officials attributed the 

decrease in the pipeline to their increased scrutiny of applications to help 

ensure that only the strongest projects enter the pipeline, and to their efforts 

to remove projects from the pipeline that were not advancing or did not 

adequately address identified problems. Project sponsors GAO interviewed 

provided other reasons for the pipeline’s decrease, including that the New 

Starts process is too complex, time-consuming, and costly. Our survey 

results reflect many of these same reasons for the decline in the pipeline. 

Despite these concerns, GAO’s survey of project sponsors indicates future 

demand for New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts funding. The 

sponsors GAO surveyed reported having 137 planned projects and intend to 

seek New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts funding for almost threefourths of these projects. Project sponsors GAO surveyed also reported 

considering a range of project type alternatives in their planning. The most 

commonly cited alternatives were bus rapid transit and light rail. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-812T.

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. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) New Starts and Small Starts programs. As you 

know, since the early 1970s, a significant portion of the federal 

government’s share of new capital investment in mass transportation has 

come through the New Starts program. Through the New Starts program, 

FTA identifies and recommends new fixed-guideway transit projects for 

funding—including heavy, light, and commuter rail; ferry; and certain bus 

projects.1

 Over the last decade, the New Starts program has provided state 

and local agencies with over $10 billion to help design and construct 

transit projects throughout the country. 

More recently, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) created, and FTA 

implemented, what is commonly called the Small Starts program. This 

program is intended to advance smaller-scale projects through an 

expedited and streamlined evaluation and rating process. Small Starts 

projects are defined as those with a total cost of less than $250 million, 

and which require less than $75 million in funding from this program. FTA 

subsequently introduced a new eligibility category within the Small Starts 

program called Very Small Starts, which is for projects that have a total 

capital cost of less than $50 million. Very Small Starts projects will qualify 

for an even simpler and more expedited evaluation and rating process than 

Small Starts projects. In July 2006, FTA issued interim guidance on the 

Small Starts and Very Small Starts programs to govern the administration 

of the programs until the final rule is issued. FTA expects the final rule to

be issued April 2008. 

Although SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the New Starts 

program, including the creation of the Small Starts program, it also 

maintained many program requirements imposed by previous authorizing 

legislation. For example, SAFETEA-LU, like the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century, directs FTA to prioritize projects for funding by 

evaluating, rating, and recommending potential projects on the basis of 

specific financial commitment and project justification criteria—including

mobility improvements, cost-effectiveness, economic development, land 

 1

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

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

and other high-occupancy vehicles, and other systems.

Page 1 GAO-07-812T 
use, environmental benefits, and operating efficiencies. Using these 

statutorily identified criteria, FTA evaluates potential projects annually 

and as a condition for advancement into each phase of the process, 

including preliminary engineering, final design, and construction. FTA 

refers to projects in the preliminary engineering or final design phases as

the “pipeline” through which successful projects advance to receive

funding. 

My testimony today examines (1) FTA’s implementation of SAFETEA-LU 

changes to the New Starts program, (2) the extent and nature of changes

in the New Starts pipeline since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating 

cycle,

2

 and factors that have contributed to trends in the program; and (3) 

projected trends for the New Starts and Small Starts pipelines. My 

comments are based on our ongoing work for the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs as well as our body of work on the New Starts 

program.3

 We plan to complete our ongoing work and report in full to the 

Committees this summer. For our ongoing work, we surveyed all project 

sponsors that are located in urbanized areas with populations over 200,000 

and that have an annual ridership of over 1 million.4

 In total, we surveyed 

215 project sponsors, asking them about their past experiences with the 

New Starts program and plans to apply to the program in the future. Of the 

215 project sponsors, 166 project sponsors responded to the survey—for a 

survey response rate of 77 percent. We also interviewed 15 project 

sponsors, including all 10 sponsors who applied for the Small Starts and 

Very Small Starts programs for the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle. The

other 5 project sponsors were selected on the basis of their agencies’

experience with the New Starts process, size, and location. In addition, we 

 2

The fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle began in 1999—applications were due in August 1999, 

and FTA evaluated the applications in the fall of 1999. The annual report was published in 

the spring of 2000 and included funding recommendations for fiscal year 2001. 

3

TEA-21 required GAO to report on FTA’s processes and procedures for evaluating, rating,

and recommending New Starts projects for funding and on FTA’s implementation of these 

processes and procedures. SAFETEA-LU continued this requirement. See the Related GAO 

Products at the end of this testimony for a listing of previous reports on these programs. 

4

Project sponsors we surveyed may or may not have previously applied to the New Starts 

or Small Starts program, but because of their size and ridership, would be more likely to

plan the types of transit projects that would potentially qualify for New Starts funding.

Project sponsors are typically transit agencies, but may also include city transportation

offices and metropolitan planning organizations, among other entities. In this report,

project sponsors are current sponsors of transit projects as well as past or potential 

sponsors of such projects. 

Page 2 GAO-07-812T 
interviewed FTA officials and representatives from industry associations. 

We also reviewed FTA’s guidance on the New Starts and Small Starts 

programs, the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) for 

Small Starts, and the provisions of SAFETEA-LU and of its predecessor, 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), that address 

the New Starts program. We conducted our work from November 2006 

through April 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

Summary: 

• FTA has made progress in implementing SAFETEA-LU changes, including

issuing guidance for the New Starts program and interim guidance for the 

Small Starts program. However, work remains in implementing these 

changes. Project sponsors frequently identified two key implementation 

issues: further streamlining the Small Starts program and fully

incorporating economic development into the New Starts and Small Starts 

evaluation and rating process. According to our analysis of the number 

and types of requirements for the New Starts and Small Starts application 

processes, the Small Starts process has fewer requirements. However, 

project sponsors said that despite the fewer requirements, FTA should 

further streamline the Small Starts application process. For example, 

project sponsors suggested eliminating requests for duplicate information 

requested in required worksheets. In addition, project sponsors noted that 

FTA has not fully incorporated economic development—a new project 

justification evaluation criterion identified by SAFETEA-LU—into the New 

Starts and Small Starts evaluation and rating processes. Specifically, FTA

currently assigns a weight of 50 percent each to cost-effectiveness and 

land use in calculating a project’s overall rating, but does not assign a 

weight to the other four statutorily identified criteria, including economic

development. FTA officials noted that they do not weight economic 

development given the difficulties they have experienced in developing

measures that both accurately quantifies the benefits and distinguishes 

competing projects. However, we previously reported that FTA’s reliance 

on two evaluation criteria to calculate a project’s overall rating is drifting

away from the multiple-measure evaluation and rating process outlined in

statute. In addition, without a weight for economic development, project 

sponsors say, the evaluation and rating process does not reflect an 

important benefit of certain projects. FTA officials told us that they 

understand the importance of economic development to the transit 

community and the concerns raised by project sponsors, and said they are 

currently working to develop an appropriate economic development 

measure. FTA stated that these issues would be addressed as part of its 

upcoming rulemaking process. 

Page 3 GAO-07-812T 
• The New Starts pipeline has changed in size and composition since the 

fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, and a variety of factors have 

contributed to these changes. Since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation and 

rating cycle, the number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has 

decreased by more than half. In addition, the types of projects in the 

pipeline have changed, as bus rapid transit projects are now more 

common than commuter or light rail projects, although they still represent 

a small amount of the total cost for all projects in the pipeline. FTA 

officials and project sponsors offered different reasons for the decrease in 

the New Starts pipeline. FTA officials said that they had increased their 

scrutiny of applications to help ensure that only the strongest projects 

enter the pipeline. According to these officials, they took steps to remove 

projects from the pipeline that were not advancing or that did not 

adequately address identified problems—although the officials noted that 

most project sponsors voluntarily withdrew projects from the pipeline 

rather than having FTA remove them. Project sponsors we interviewed 

provided other reasons for the decrease in the New Starts pipeline. In

particular, they maintained that the New Starts process is too complex, 

time-consuming, and costly. Our survey results confirm some of the 

reasons offered by project sponsors. Among the project sponsors we 

surveyed with completed transit projects, the most common reasons given 

for not applying to the New Starts program was that the process is too 

lengthy or that the sponsor wanted to move the project along faster than 

could be done in the New Starts process. About two-thirds of these project 

sponsors reported that their most recent project was eligible for the New 

Starts program, yet more than one-fourth of them did not apply to the 

program.5

 The lengthy nature of the New Starts process is due, at least in 

part, to the rigorous and systematic evaluation and rating process 

established by law—which we have previously noted could serve as a 

model for other transportation programs. FTA has recognized that the 

process can be lengthy and in 2006, FTA commissioned a study to 

examine, among other issues, opportunities for accelerating and 

simplifying the process for implementing the New Starts program. FTA is 

currently reviewing the study’s findings and recommendations. 

• Despite these concerns, our survey of project sponsors indicates that there 

will be a future demand for New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts 

funding. The project sponsors we surveyed reported having 137 planned 

projects—that is, projects currently undergoing an alternative analysis or 

 5

Of the 54 project sponsors with a completed transit project, 35 reported that their most 

recently completed project was eligible for New Starts funding. Of those 35 sponsors, 10 

did not apply to the program.

Page 4 GAO-07-812T 
other corridor-based planning study.6

 According to the project sponsors, 

they plan to seek New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts funding for 

almost three-fourths (73 percent) of these 137 projects. Project sponsors 

we surveyed also indicated that they were considering a range of project 

type alternatives in their planning. The most commonly cited alternatives 

were bus rapid transit and light rail. Our survey results also indicate that,

through its Small Starts and Very Small Starts programs, FTA is attracting 

project sponsors that would not otherwise apply for the New Starts 

program or have not previously applied to the New Starts program. For 

example, of 28 project sponsors that intend to seek Small Starts or Very 

Small Starts funding for their planned projects, 13 have not previously 

applied for New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts funding.7

SAFETEA-LU authorized over $45 billion for federal transit programs, 

including $8 billion for the New Starts program, from fiscal year 2005 

through fiscal year 2009. Under New Starts, FTA identifies and 

recommends fixed-guideway transit projects for funding—including heavy, 

light, and commuter rail; ferry; and certain bus projects (such as bus rapid 

transit). FTA generally funds New Starts projects through full funding 

grant agreements (FFGA), which establish the terms and conditions for 

federal participation in a New Starts project. FFGAs also define a project’s 

scope, including the length of the system and the number of stations; its 

schedule, including the date when the system is expected to open for 

service; and its cost. 

For a project to obtain an FFGA, it must progress through a local or 

regional review of alternatives and meet a number of federal requirements, 

including requirements for information used in the New Starts evaluation

and rating process (see fig. 1). New Starts projects must emerge from a 

regional, multimodal transportation planning process. The first two phases 

Background 

 6

Alternatives analysis (also known as major investment study or multimodal corridor 

analysis) is conducted to evaluate a range of transportation alternatives (including 

appropriate modal and alignment options) developed to address transportation problems 

and mobility needs in a given corridor. The alternatives analysis study is intended to

provide information to local officials on the benefits, costs, and impacts of alternative 

transportation investments developed to address the purpose and need for an improvement 

in the corridor. 

7

Thirty project sponsors that responded to our survey intend to seek Small Starts or Very 

Small Starts funding for their planned projects, however two of those sponsors did not

answer whether they had previously applied for New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small 

Starts funding. 

Page 5 GAO-07-812T 
of the New Starts process—systems planning and alternatives analysis—

address this requirement. The systems planning phase identifies the 

transportation needs of a region, while the alternatives analysis phase 

provides information on the benefits, costs, and impacts of different 

options, such as rail lines or bus routes. The alternatives analysis phase 

results in the selection of a locally preferred alternative, which is intended 

to be the New Starts project that FTA evaluates for funding, as required by 

statute. After a locally preferred alternative is selected, the project sponsor 

submits an application to FTA for the project to enter the preliminary 

engineering phase.8

 When this phase is completed and federal

environmental requirements are satisfied, FTA may approve the project’s 

advancement into final design,9

 after which FTA may approve the project

for an FFGA and proceed to construction, as provided for in statute. FTA 

oversees grantees’ management of projects from the preliminary 

engineering through construction phases and evaluates the projects for 

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

New Starts report to Congress. 

 8

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

proposal, taking into consideration all reasonable design alternatives and estimating their 

costs, benefits, and impact (e.g., financial or environmental). According to FTA officials, to 

gain approval for entry into preliminary engineering, a project must (1) be 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 the preliminary engineering phases. Some federal New Starts funding is 

available to projects for preliminary engineering activities, if so appropriated by Congress. 

9

Final design is the last phase of project development before construction and may include

right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and the preparation of final construction plans 

and cost estimates. 

Page 6 GAO-07-812T 
Figure 1: New Starts Planning and Development Process 

Legend: 

LPA = locally preferred alternative 

MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization 

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act 

Planning

Preliminary

Engineering

Final Design

Final Design

Commitment of nonfederal 

funding, construction plans, 

ROW acquisition, before-after 

data collection plan, FTA 

evaluation for FFGA, begin 

negotiations

Systems

Planning

Alternatives

Analysis

Select LPA,

MPO action, develop

criteria, PMP

FTA decision 

on entry into PE

FTA decision

on entry into final

design

Full funding 

grant agreement

Preliminary Engineering

Complete NEPA process,

refinement of financial plan

Construction

Project 

management 

oversight

Construction

Source: FTA.

Decision point Major development stage

Page 7 GAO-07-812T 
PE = Preliminary engineering 

PMP = Project Management Plans

ROW = right-of-way 

Note: NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental 

impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. In the 

transportation context, the NEPA evaluation measures the impact of different alternatives by the 

extent to which the alternative meets the project purpose, need, and consistency with the goals and 

objectives of any local urban planning. 

To help inform administration and congressional decisions about which 

projects should receive federal funds, FTA assigns ratings on the basis of 

various statutorily defined evaluation criteria—including both financial

commitment and project justification criteria—and then assigns an overall

rating.10 These evaluation criteria reflect a broad range of benefits and 

effects of the proposed project, such as cost-effectiveness, as well as the 

ability of the project sponsor to fund the project and finance the continued 

operation of its transit system. FTA assigns the proposed project a rating

for each criterion and then assigns a summary rating for local financial 

commitment and project justification. Finally, FTA develops an overall 

project rating. Projects are rated at several points during the New Starts 

process—as part of the evaluation for entry into the preliminary 

engineering and final design phases, and yearly for inclusion in the New 

Starts annual report. 

As required by statute, the administration uses the FTA evaluation and 

rating process, along with the phase of development of New Starts 

projects, to decide which projects to recommend to Congress for 

funding.11 Although many projects receive a summary rating that would 

make them eligible for FFGAs, only a few are proposed for FFGAs in a 

given fiscal year. FTA proposes projects for FFGAs when it believes that 

 10The exceptions to the evaluation process are statutorily “exempt” projects, which are

those with requests for less than $25 million in New Starts funding. Sponsors of these 

projects are not required to submit project justification information (although FTA 

encourages their sponsors to do so). FTA does not rate these projects and the projects are 

not eligible for FFGAs. As a result, the number of projects in the preliminary engineering or 

final design phases may be greater than the number of projects evaluated and rated by 

FTA. Exempt projects will continue to be eligible for funding without being rated until the 

final rule for Small Starts is issued. 

11The administration’s funding recommendations are made in the President’s budget and

are included in FTA’s annual New Starts report to Congress, which is released each

February in conjunction with the President’s budget. 

Page 8 GAO-07-812T 
the projects will be able to meet the following conditions during the fiscal

year for which funding is proposed: 

• All non-federal project funding must be committed and available for the 

project. 

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

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

environmental or financial) are minimized. 

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

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

financial commitment issues. 

SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the New Starts program and 

FTA has made progress in implementing some of those changes. However, 

FTA has more work to do to implement these changes. In particular, 

although the Small Starts program has fewer application and document 

submission requirements than the New Starts program, project sponsors 

have expressed concern that the Small Starts program could be further 

streamlined. In addition, SAFETEA-LU added economic development to 

the list of evaluation criteria, but FTA has not fully incorporated this 

criterion into the New Starts and Small Starts evaluation and rating 

processes. 

SAFETEA-LU introduced a number of changes to the New Starts program. 

For example, SAFETEA-LU added economic development to the list of 

evaluation criteria that FTA must use in evaluating and rating New Starts 

projects and required FTA to issue notice and guidance each time 

significant changes are made to the program. In addition, SAFETEA-LU 

established the Small Starts program, a new capital investment grant 

program to provide funding for lower-cost fixed- and non-fixed-guideway 

projects such as bus rapid transit, streetcars, and commuter rail projects. 

This program is intended to advance smaller-scale projects through an 

expedited and streamlined evaluation and rating process. Small Starts 

projects are defined as those that require less than $75 million in federal 

funding and have a total cost of less than $250 million. According to FTA’s 

guidance, Small Starts projects must (a) meet the definition of a fixed 

FTA Has Made 

Progress in 

Implementing 

SAFETEA-LU 

Changes, but Work 

Remains 

FTA Has Taken Steps to 

Implement SAFETEA-LU’s

Changes to the New Starts 

Program 

Page 9 GAO-07-812T 
guideway for at least 50 percent of the project length in the peak period12

or (b) be a corridor-based bus project with the following minimum 

elements: 

• substantial transit stations, 

• traffic signal priority/pre-emption, to the extent, if any, that there are 

traffic signals on the corridor, 

• low-floor vehicles or level boarding, 

• branding of the proposed service, and 

• 10 minute peak/12 minute off-peak running times (i.e., headways) or better 

while operating at least 14 hours per weekday. 

FTA has made progress in implementing SAFETEA-LU changes. For 

example, it published the New Starts policy guidance in January 2006 and 

February 2007, and interim guidance on the Small Starts program in July 

2006. The July 2006 interim guidance introduced a separate eligibility 

category within the Small Starts program for “Very Small Starts” projects. 

Small Starts projects that qualify as Very Small Starts are simple, low-cost 

projects that FTA has determined qualify for a simplified evaluation and 

rating process. These projects must meet the same eligibility requirements 

as Small Starts projects and be located in corridors with more than 3,000 

existing riders per average weekday who will benefit from the proposed 

project. In addition, the projects must have a total capital cost less than 

$50 million (for all project elements) and a per-mile cost of less than $3 

million, excluding rolling stock (e.g., train cars). Table 1 describes 

SAFETEA-LU provisions for the New Starts program and the status of the 

implementation of those provisions as of April 2007. 

 12The fixed guideway portion need not be contiguous, but should be located to result in

faster and more reliable running times.

Page 10 GAO-07-812T 
Table 1: Implementation of SAFETEA-LU’s New Starts Provisions, as of April 2007

SAFETEA-LU provisions Description Status of implementation Remaining action(s)

Establish the Small Starts

program 

Projects seeking less than $25

million in New Starts funds will

no longer be exempt from the 

ratings process once the Small 

Starts rule is finalized. 

A new capital investment 

program called Small Starts

provides funding for projects that 

(1) have a total project cost of 

less than $250 million and (2) 

are seeking less than $75 million 

in federal Small Starts funding. 

FTA issued the final interim 

guidance for July 2006. By law, 

exempt projects will continue to 

be eligible for funding without 

being rated until the final rule for 

Small Starts is issued. 

Rulemaking needed to 

establish Small Starts program.

Document the before-and-after 

study requirement 

Project sponsors with FFGAs

must conduct a study that (1) 

describes and analyzes the 

impacts of the new fixed 

guideway capital project on 

transit services and transit 

ridership, (2) evaluates the 

consistency of predicted and 

actual project characteristics

and performance, and (3) 

identifies sources of differences

between predicted and actual 

outcomes. Project sponsors

must prepare an information 

collection and analysis plan, 

which must be approved prior to 

execution of the FFGA. 

FTA’s May 2006 policy guidance 

requires that project sponsors

document the information 

produced during the planning 

phase that will be needed for the 

before-and-after study and update 

the information and analysis

before entering final design. 

Rulemaking needed to 

establish requirement. 

Require FTA to publish policy 

guidance 

New Starts policy guidance must 

be published for notice and 

comment no later than 120 days

after the enactment of 

SAFETEA-LU, each time 

significant changes are made, 

and at least every 2 years. 

FTA has since published its New

Starts policy guidance for notice 

and comment each time 

significant changes have been 

made, such as for its draft New 

Starts policy guidance in January 

2006 and February 2007, and its

final New Starts policy guidance 

in May 2006. 

None. 

Page 11 GAO-07-812T 
SAFETEA-LU provisions Description Status of implementation Remaining action(s)

Revise New Starts overall 

project rating scale 

The overall project rating is

based on a 5-point scale of 

“high,” “medium-high,” 

“medium,” “medium-low,” and

“low.” Projects are required to 

receive an overall rating of 

“medium” or higher to be 

recommended for funding. 

FTA used a 3 point-scale project 

rating scale for the fiscal year 

2007 and 2008 evaluation and

rating cycles, but changed ratings

to “high,” “medium,” and “low.”

FTA’s February 2007 policy 

guidance proposed implementing 

the 5-point scale starting in May 

2007. 

Issue final guidance on

implementing the 5-point scale 

in May 2007. 

Identify reliability of cost 

estimate and ridership forecast 

as a consideration in 

evaluation process

The Secretary is required to 

analyze, evaluate, and consider 

the reliability of the forecasting 

methods used by New Starts

project sponsors and their 

contractors to estimate costs

and ridership. 

FTA’s January 2006 policy 

guidance for New Starts and 

advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking for Small Starts

proposed an approach for 

incorporating reliability into project 

evaluations. 

Rulemaking needed to 

establish requirement. 

Add economic development 

criterion to evaluation process

Projects will be evaluated based 

on a review of their effects on 

local economic development. 

FTA considers economic 

development as an unweighted

“other factor” criterion in the 

evaluation process. FTA has

sought comment from various

parties on appropriate measures

for economic development. 

Rulemaking needed to solicit 

comment on and finalize 

measures for economic 

development. 

Identify land use as a specific 

evaluation criterion 

Projects will be evaluated based 

on a review of their public 

transportation supportive land

use policies and future patterns. 

FTA considers land use as a 

weighted criterion in the 

evaluation process. 

None. 

Clarify nonfederal financial 

commitment 

The Secretary is not authorized

to require a nonfederal financial 

commitment for a project that is

more than 20 percent of its net 

capital cost. 

In its reporting instructions for 

New Starts issued in May 2006, 

FTA clarified that a nonfederal

commitment of more than 20 

percent of the project’s net capital 

cost is not required, although a

greater nonfederal commitment is

encouraged. 

None. 

Establish incentives for 

accurate cost and ridership 

forecasts

A higher share of New Starts

funding may be made available 

to project sponsors if project’s

cost is not more than 10 percent 

higher and ridership is not less

than 90 percent of those 

estimates when project was

approved for preliminary 

engineering. 

FTA implemented that a higher 

share of New Starts funding may 

be made available to project 

sponsors if the project cost and 

ridership estimates are within 10 

percent of the original estimates

in its fiscal years 2007 and 2008 

evaluation cycle. 

None. 

Page 12 GAO-07-812T 
SAFETEA-LU provisions Description Status of implementation Remaining action(s)

Assess contractors’ 

performance 

The Secretary will submit an 

annual report to congressional 

committees analyzing the 

consistency and accuracy of the 

cost and ridership estimates

made by contractors to public 

transportation agencies

developing new capital projects. 

FTA submitted an annual report 

to congressional committees in

August 2006 that described how 

FTA intends to analyze the 

consistency and accuracy of the 

costs and ridership estimates

made by contractors to public 

transportation agencies

developing new capital projects. 

None. 

Source: GAO analysis of SAFETEA-LU and FTA data. 

Work Remains in 

Implementing SAFETEALU Changes 

Although FTA has made progress in implementing SAFETEA-LU changes,

more work remains. Project sponsors identified two key issues for FTA to 

consider as it moves forward in implementing SAFETEA-LU changes: 

further streamline the Small Starts program and fully incorporate 

economic development into the New Starts and Small Starts evaluation 

and rating processes. FTA officials agree that the Small Starts program 

can be further streamlined. Further, FTA officials said they understand 

the importance of economic development, and are currently working to 

develop an appropriate economic development measure. 

In implementing the Small Starts program, FTA has taken steps to 

streamline the application and evaluation and rating process for smallerscale transit projects, as envisioned by SAFETEA-LU. According to our 

analysis of the number and types of requirements for the New Starts and 

Small Starts application processes, the Small Starts process has fewer 

requirements. For example, in the categories of travel forecasting, project 

justification, and local financial commitment, the requirements were 

reduced. In addition, FTA developed simplified methods for travel 

forecasts that predict transportation benefits and reduced the number of 

documents that need to be submitted as part of the Small Starts 

application process. For example, the number of documents required for 

the Small Starts application is one-quarter fewer than those for the New 

Starts program. Furthermore, FTA established the Very Small Starts 

program, which has even fewer application and document submission 

requirements than the Small Starts program. 

Project Sponsors Would Like 

FTA to Further Streamline the 

Small Starts Program 

Despite these efforts, many of the project sponsors we interviewed find 

the Small Starts application process time consuming and costly to 

complete, and would like to see FTA further streamline the process. 

Frequently, project sponsors said that the current Small Starts application 

process takes as long and costs as much to complete as the New Starts 

application process, even though the planned projects cost less. For 

Page 13 GAO-07-812T 
example, a project sponsor who applied for the Small Starts program told 

us that FTA asks its applicants to submit templates used in the New Starts 

application process that call for information not relevant for a Small Starts 

project. For example, while project sponsors are only required to submit 

an opening year travel forecast as part of their Small Starts application, the 

template FTA provides project sponsors asks for information on additional 

forecasting years. The project sponsor suggested that FTA develop a 

separate set of templates for the Small Starts program that would ask only 

for Small Starts-related information. FTA officials told us that in these 

cases, they would not expect project sponsors to provide the additional 

information that is not required. Another project sponsor we interviewed 

told us that although FTA tried to streamline the process by requiring 

ridership projections only for the opening year of Small Starts projects, the 

environmental impact statement still mandates the development of multiyear ridership projections.

13 Such extensive ridership projections take a 

considerable amount of work, staff time, and funding to produce. Several 

other project sponsors who applied to the Small Starts or Very Small 

Starts programs expressed additional concerns about having to provide 

duplicate information, such as project finance and capital cost data that 

can be found in other required worksheets. FTA officials do not believe 

that such duplicate information is burdensome for projects sponsors to 

submit. However, because some of the project sponsors are smaller-sized 

entities and have no previous experience with the New Starts program, the 

concerns expressed by project sponsors likely reflect their inexperience 

and lack of in-house expertise and resources. 

In reviewing the Small Starts application process requirements, we also 

found that the application is not, in some cases, tailored for Small Starts 

applicants and, in several instances, requests duplicate information. FTA 

officials acknowledged that the Small Starts application process could be 

further streamlined and are working to reduce the burden, such as 

minimizing the duplicate information project sponsors are currently 

required to submit. However, FTA officials noted that some requirements 

are statutorily-defined or reflect industry-established planning principles.

For example, SAFETEA-LU requires that projects, even Small Starts 

projects, emerge from an alternatives analysis that considered various 

options to address the transportation problem at hand. Therefore, only 

certain aspects of the process can or should be streamlined. 

 13FTA officials clarified that the level of ridership projections required is dependent on the

nature of the project. 

Page 14 GAO-07-812T 
Project sponsors also noted that FTA has not fully incorporated economic 

development—a new project justification evaluation criterion identified by 

SAFETEA-LU—into the evaluation process. Specifically, FTA currently 

assigns a weight of 50 percent each to cost-effectiveness and land use to 

calculate a project’s overall rating; the other four statutorily-identified 

criteria, including economic development, mobility improvements, 

operating efficiencies, and environmental benefits, are not weighted. To 

reflect SAFETEA-LU’s increased emphasis on economic development, 

FTA has encouraged project sponsors to submit information that they 

believe demonstrates the impacts of their proposed transit investments on 

economic development. According to FTA, this information is considered 

as an “other factor” in the evaluation process, but not weighted. However, 

FTA officials told us that few project sponsors submit information on their 

projects’ economic development benefits for consideration as an “other 

factor.” We previously reported that FTA’s reliance on two evaluation 

criteria to calculate a project’s overall rating is drifting away from the 

multiple-measure evaluation and rating process outlined in statute and 

current New Starts regulations.14 Thus, we recommended that FTA 

improve the measures used to evaluate New Starts projects so that all of 

the statutorily-defined criteria can be used in determining a project’s 

overall rating, or provide a crosswalk in the regulations showing clear 

linkages between the criteria outlined in statute and the criteria and 

measures used in the evaluation and rating process in the upcoming 

rulemaking process. 

Project Sponsors Would Like 

FTA to Fully Incorporate the 

Economic Development 

Criterion into the Evaluation 

Process 

Many of the project sponsors and all industry groups we interviewed also 

stated that certain types of projects are penalized in the evaluation and 

rating process because of the weights assigned to the different evaluation

criteria. Specifically, by not weighting economic development, the project 

sponsors and industry groups said that the evaluation and rating process 

does not consider an important benefit of some transit projects. They also 

expressed concern that the measure FTA uses to determine costeffectiveness does not adequately capture the benefits of certain types of 

fixed guideway projects—such as streetcars—that have shorter systems 

and provide enhanced access to a dense urban core rather than transport 

commuters from longer distances (like light or heavy rail). Project 

sponsors and an industry group we interviewed further noted that FTA’s 

 14GAO, Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Communication and

Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts Program, GAO-05-674 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 28, 2005). 

Page 15 GAO-07-812T 
cost effectiveness measure has influenced some project sponsors to 

change their project designs from more traditional fixed-guideway systems 

like light rail or streetcars to bus rapid transit, expressly to receive a more 

favorable cost-effectiveness rating from FTA. 

According to FTA officials, they understand the importance of economic 

development to the transit community and the concerns raised by project 

sponsors, and said they are currently working to develop an appropriate 

economic development measure. FTA is currently soliciting input from 

industry groups on how to measure economic development, studying 

possible options, and is planning to describe how it will incorporate 

economic development into the evaluation criteria in its upcoming 

rulemaking. FTA officials also stated that incorporating economic 

development into the evaluation process prior to the issuance of a 

regulation would have the potential of creating significant evaluation and

rating uncertainty for project sponsors. Furthermore, they agreed with our 

previous recommendation that this issue should be addressed as part of 

their upcoming rulemaking, which they expect to be completed in April 

2008. 

FTA officials noted that they have had difficulty developing an economic 

development measure that both accurately measures benefits and 

distinguishes competing projects. For example, FTA officials said that 

separating economic development benefits from land use benefits—

another New Starts evaluation criterion—is difficult. In addition, FTA 

noted that many economic development benefits result from direct 

benefits (e.g., travel time savings), and therefore, including them in the 

evaluation could lead to double counting the benefits FTA already 

measures and uses to evaluate projects. Furthermore, FTA noted that 

some economic development impacts may represent transfers between 

regions rather than a net benefit for the nation, raising questions about the 

usefulness of these benefits for a national comparison of projects.15 We 

have also reported on many of the same challenges of measuring and 

forecasting indirect benefits, such as economic development and land use 

 15Indirect benefits, such economic development, may represent transfers of economic 

activity from one area to another; and, while, such a transfer may represent real benefits 

for the jurisdiction making the transportation investment, it is not a real economic benefit 

from a national perspective because the economic activity is simply occurring in a different 

location. 

Page 16 GAO-07-812T 
impacts.16 For example, we noted that certain benefits are often double 

counted when evaluating transportation projects. We also noted that 

indirect benefits, such as economic development, may be more correctly

considered transfers of direct user benefits or economic activity from one 

area to another. Therefore, estimating and adding such indirect benefits to

direct benefits could constitute double counting and lead to 

overestimating a project’s benefits. Despite these challenges, we have 

previously reported that it is important to consider economic development 

and land use impacts, since they often drive local transportation 

investment choices.17

The number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has decreased since the 

fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, and the types of projects in the 

pipeline have changed. FTA and project sponsors ascribed these changes 

to different factors, with FTA officials citing their increased scrutiny of 

applications and projects, and the project sponsors pointing to the 

complex, time-consuming, and costly nature of the New Starts process. 

FTA is considering different ideas on how to improve the New Starts 

process, some of which may address the concerns identified by project 

sponsors. 

FTA Officials and 

Project Sponsors 

Attribute Changes in 

the Size and 

Composition of the 

New Starts Pipeline to 

Different Factors 

The Number of Projects in 

the New Starts Pipeline 

Has Decreased, and the 

Types of Projects Have 

Changed 

Since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle, the number of projects in the 

New Starts pipeline—which includes projects that are in the preliminary 

engineering or final design phases—has decreased by more than half, from

48 projects in the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle to 19 projects in the 

fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle. Similarly, the number of projects FTA 

has evaluated, rated, and recommended for New Starts FFGAs has 

decreased since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle. 

Specifically, as shown in table 2, the number of projects that FTA 

evaluated and rated decreased by about two-thirds, from 41 projects to 14

projects. 

 16GAO, Highway and Transit Investments, Options for Improving Information on 

Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005). 

17GAO-05-172. 

Page 17 GAO-07-812T 
Table 2: Number of Projects in the Pipeline, Evaluated and Rated Projects, by Fiscal 

Year 

Fiscal year

Number of projects in the 

pipelinea

Number of projects

 evaluated and ratedb

2001 48 41

2002 40 26

2003 43 25

2004 52 27

2005 37 23

2006 30 18

2007 22 18

2008 19 14

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data. 

a

Includes projects that were evaluated and rated for the fiscal year evaluation cycle, as well as

“exempt” projects. 

b

Includes projects in final design and preliminary engineering, both recommended and not 

recommended, but does not include “exempt” projects and those categorized by FTA as “not rated.”

The composition of the pipeline—that is, the types of projects in the 

pipeline—has also changed since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle. 

During fiscal years 2001 through 2007, light rail and commuter rail were 

the more prevalent modes for projects in the pipeline. In fiscal year 2008,

bus rapid transit became the most common transit mode for projects in 

the pipeline. Overall, heavy rail has become a less common mode for 

projects in the pipeline since fiscal year 2001 (see fig. 2). The increase in 

bus rapid transit projects is likely due to a number of factors, including 

SAFETEA-LU’s expanded definition of fixed guideways and foreign 

countries’ positive experiences with this type of transit system. In 

particular, SAFETEA-LU expanded the definition of fixed guideways for 

the Small Starts program to include corridor-based bus projects. To be 

eligible, a corridor-based bus project must (1) operate in a separate rightof-way dedicated for public transit use for a substantial portion of the 

project, or (2) represent a substantial investment in a defined corridor. 

Page 18 GAO-07-812T 
Figure 2: Types of Projects in the New Starts Pipeline, by Fiscal Year

FTA and Project Sponsors 

Attributed the Decrease in 

the New Starts Pipeline to 

Different Factors 

FTA and project sponsors identified different reasons for the decrease in 

the New Starts pipeline. FTA officials cited their increased scrutiny of 

applications to help ensure that only the strongest projects enter the 

pipeline, and said they had taken steps to remove projects from the 

pipeline that were inactive, not advancing, or did not adequately address 

identified problems. FTA officials told us that they believe projects had 

been progressing too slowly through the pipeline in recent years and 

therefore needed encouragement to move forward or be removed from the 

pipeline. Along these lines, since fiscal year 2004, FTA has issued warnings

to project sponsors that alert them to specific project deficiencies that 

must be corrected by a specified date in order for the project to advance 

through the pipeline. If the deficiency is not corrected, FTA removes the 

project from the pipeline. To date, FTA has issued warnings for 13 

projects. Three projects have only recently received a warning and their 

status is to be determined; 3 projects have adequately addressed the 

deficiency identified by FTA; 1 project was removed by FTA for failing to 

Page 19 GAO-07-812T 
address the identified deficiency; and 6 projects were withdrawn from the

pipeline by the projects’ sponsor. FTA officials told us that project 

sponsors are generally aware of FTA’s efforts to better manage the 

pipeline. 

Although FTA has taken steps to remove inactive or stalled projects from 

the pipeline, FTA officials noted that most projects have been withdrawn 

by their project sponsors, not FTA. According to FTA data, 23 projects 

have been withdrawn from the New Starts pipeline between 2001 and 

2007. Of these, 16 were withdrawn at the request of the project sponsors, 6 

were removed in response to efforts initiated by FTA, and 1 was removed 

at congressional direction (see fig. 3).

18 Of the projects that were 

withdrawn by project sponsors, the most common reasons were that the 

projects were either reconfigured (the project scope or design was 

significantly changed) or reconsidered, or that the local financial 

commitment was not demonstrated. Similarly, FTA initiated the removal 

of 4 of the 6 projects for lack of a local financial commitment, often 

demonstrated by a failed referendum at the local level. Of the 23 projects 

withdrawn from the New Starts pipeline, 3 were expected to reenter the 

pipeline at a later date. 

 18The 16 projects withdrawn by project sponsors and the 6 projects withdrawn by FTA 

include the 7 projects that received a warning and were subsequently withdrawn from the

pipeline by project sponsors or FTA. 

Page 20 GAO-07-812T 
Figure 3: Number of Projects Withdrawn or Removed from the New Starts Pipeline 

Since 2001 

The project sponsors we interviewed provided other reasons for the 

decrease in the number of projects in the New Starts pipeline. The most 

common reasons cited by project sponsors are that the New Starts process 

is too complex, costly, and time-consuming: 

• Complexity and cost of the New Starts process: The majority of 

project sponsors we interviewed told us that the complexity of the 

requirements, including those for financial commitment projections and 

travel forecasts—which require extensive analysis and economic 

modeling—create disincentives to entering the New Starts pipeline. 

Sponsors also told us that the expense involved in fulfilling the application 

requirements, including the costs of hiring additional staff and private 

grant consultants, discourages some project sponsors with fewer 

resources from applying for New Starts funding. 

• Time required to complete the New Starts process: More than half of 

the project sponsors we interviewed said that the application process is 

too time-consuming or leads to project delays. One project sponsor we 

interviewed told us that constructing a project with New Starts funding (as 

opposed to without) delays the time line for the project by as much as 

several years, which in turn leads to increased project costs as inflation 

and expenses from labor and materials increase with the delay. The 

Page 21 GAO-07-812T 
lengthy nature of the New Starts process is due, at least in part, to the 

rigorous and systematic evaluation and rating process established by 

law—which we have previously noted could serve as a model for other 

transportation programs. In addition, FTA officials noted that most project 

delays are caused by the project sponsor, not FTA. Other reasons cited by

project sponsors for the decrease in the pipeline include that project 

sponsors are finding other ways to fund projects, such as using other 

federal funds or seeking state, local, or private funding. One project 

sponsor remarked that sponsors try to avoid the New Starts process by 

obtaining a congressional designation, so that they can skip the 

cumbersome New Starts application process and construct their project 

faster. In addition, three other project sponsors we interviewed said that 

since the New Starts process is well-established and outcomes are 

predictable, many potential project sponsors do not even enter the 

pipeline because they realize their projects are unlikely to receive New 

Starts funding. 

Our survey results also reflect many of the reasons for the decline in the 

New Starts pipeline. Among the project sponsors we surveyed with 

completed transit projects, the most common reasons given for not 

applying to the New Starts program were that the process is too lengthy or 

that the sponsor wanted to move the project along faster than could be

done in the New Starts process. About two-thirds of these project 

sponsors reported that their most recent project was eligible for New 

Starts, yet more than one-fourth of them did not apply to the program.

19

Instead, these project sponsors reported using other federal funding and 

state, local, and private funding—with other federal and local funding 

being the most commonly used and private funding least commonly 

used—to fund their most recently completed project. Further, we also 

found that two-thirds of the large project sponsors we surveyed applied to

the New Starts program for its most recently completed project while only 

about one-third of medium and smaller project sponsors did.20 Other 

reasons these project sponsors cited for not applying include sufficient 

funding from other sources to complete the project, concern about 

jeopardizing other projects submitted for New Starts funding, and 

 19Of the 54 project sponsors with a completed transit project, 35 reported that their most

recently completed project was eligible for New Starts funding. Of those 35 sponsors, 10 

did not apply to the program.

20For the purposes of our survey, we defined small project sponsors as those with an

annual ridership of less than 10 million; medium project sponsors with an annual ridership 

of between 10 and 50 million, inclusive; and large project sponsors with an annual ridership 

of more than 50 million trips. 

Page 22 GAO-07-812T 
difficulty understanding and completing the process and the program’s 

eligibility requirements. 

FTA is considering and implementing different ideas on how to improve 

the New Starts process—many of which would address the concerns 

identified by project sponsors. For example, FTA has recognized that the 

process can be lengthy and in 2006, FTA commissioned a study to 

examine, among other issues, opportunities for accelerating and 

simplifying the process for implementing the New Starts program. 

According to FTA officials, one of the study’s recommendations was to 

implement project development agreements to solidify New Starts project 

schedules and improve FTA’s timeline for reviews. FTA officials told us 

that they are implementing this recommendation, and have already 

implemented project schedules for three New Starts projects in the 

pipeline. In addition, in February 2007, FTA proposed the elimination of a 

number of reporting requirements. FTA’s Administrator stated that FTA 

will continue to look for ways to further improve the program. 

Our survey of project sponsors indicates that there will be a future 

demand for New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts funding. About 

forty-five percent (75 of 166) of the project sponsors we surveyed reported 

that they had a total of 137 planned transit projects, which we defined as 

those currently undergoing an alternatives analysis or other corridorbased planning study. According to the project sponsors, they anticipate 

seeking New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts funding for 100 of 

these 137 planned projects. More specifically, they anticipate seeking New 

Starts funding for 57 of the planned projects; Small Starts funding for 29 of

the planned projects; and Very Small Starts funding for 14 of the planned 

projects (see fig 4).21 Although the project sponsors we surveyed indicated

that they were considering a range of project type alternatives in their 

planning, the most commonly cited alternatives were bus rapid transit and 

light rail. 

Future Demand for 

New Starts and Small 

Starts Programs

Expected 

 21For the remaining 37 planned transit projects, respondents either said they were not 

planning on applying for New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts funding, or they did 

not know whether they planned to apply. 

Page 23 GAO-07-812T 
Figure 4: Project Sponsors Use of New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts

for Planned Projects 

Note: “Other” refers to project sponsors we surveyed who selected “None of the above” in response 

to the type of federal funding, if any, that they are likely to request for their planned project(s). 

All of the Small Starts and Very Small Starts project sponsors we 

interviewed view the new Small Starts and Very Small Starts programs 

favorably. These project sponsors told us that they appreciate the 

emphasis FTA has placed on smaller transit projects through its new 

programs and the steps FTA has taken to streamline the application 

process for the programs. The project sponsors also told us that the Small 

Starts and Very Small Starts programs address a critical and unmet 

funding need, and that they believe their projects will be more competitive 

under these programs then under the New Starts program because they 

are vying for funding with projects and agencies of similar size. FTA told 

us that they have been responsive in providing assistance on the program 

when contacted. 

Our survey results also indicate that, through its Small Starts and Very 

Small Starts programs, FTA is attracting project sponsors that would not 

have otherwise applied for the New Starts program or have not previously 

applied to the New Starts program. For example, project sponsors 

indicated that they would not have applied for New Starts funding for 14 of 

the 18 Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects identified in our survey, 

Page 24 GAO-07-812T 
if the Small Starts and Very Small Starts programs had not been 

established. In addition, of 28 project sponsors that intend to seek Small 

Starts or Very Small Starts funding for their planned projects, 13 have not 

previously applied for New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts 

funding.22

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at 

this time. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include Nikki Clowers, Assistant Director; 

Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Carol Henn; Bert Japikse; Amanda Miller; SaraAnn 

Moessbauer; Nitin Rao; Tina Won Sherman; Bethany Claus Widick; and

Elizabeth Wood. 

Contact Information 

 22Thirty project sponsors that responded to our survey intend to seek Small Starts or Very 

Small Starts funding for their planned projects, however two of those sponsors did not

answer whether they had previously applied for New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small 

Starts funding. 

Page 25 GAO-07-812T 
Page 26 GAO-07-812T 

Related GAO Products 

Public Transportation: New Starts Program Is in a Period of Transition. 

GAO-06-819. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006. 

Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA’s 

Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes. GAO-06-910T. Washington,

D.C.: June 27, 2006. 

Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the 

Communication and Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts 

Program. GAO-05-674. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005. 

Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Better Define and Assess Impact of Certain 

Policies on New Starts Program. GAO-04-748. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 

2004. 

Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and Additional 

Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process. GAO-03-701. Washington,

D.C.: June 23, 2003. 

Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Program and Potential for Bus Rapid 

Transit Projects. GAO-02-840T. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2002. 

Mass Transit: FTA’s New Starts Commitments for Fiscal Year 2003. 

GAO-02-603. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002. 

Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding 

Constraints. GAO-01-987. Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2001.

Mass Transit: Implementation of FTA’s New Starts Evaluation Process 

and FY 2001 Funding Proposals. GAO/RCED-00-149. Washington, D.C.: 

April 28, 2000. 

Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Transit Projects With Full Funding 

Grant Agreements. GAO/RCED-99-240. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 1999. 

Mass Transit: FTA’s Progress in Developing and Implementing a New 

Starts Evaluation Process. GAO/RCED-99-113. Washington, D.C.: April 26,

1999. 

(542120) 
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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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. Government Accountability 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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER