PUBLIC TRANSIT

Observations on 

Recent Changes to 

the Capital Investment 

Grant Program

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2016

GAO-16-495

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-495, a report to 

congressional committees

April 2016

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Observations on Recent Changes to the Capital 

Investment Grant Program

Why GAO Did This Study

FTA’s Capital Investment Grant 

program provides roughly $2 billion in 

appropriated funds each year to help 

states, cities, and localities plan and 

build new or extensions to existing 

fixed-guideway transit systems. Under 

this program, project sponsors—

usually local transit agencies—have 

typically applied for their projects to 

receive federal funding as either a New 

Starts or a Small Starts project. In 

2012, MAP-21 created a new category 

of eligible projects called Core 

Capacity Improvement projects and 

also revised the process proposed 

projects must follow to be eligible for 

and receive federal funding.

MAP-21 included a provision for GAO 

to biennially review FTA’s and the 

Department of Transportation’s 

implementation of this program. This 

report discusses: (1) FTA’s progress in 

implementing changes to the program 

required by MAP-21 and (2) how 

selected project sponsors view the 

MAP-21 changes and FTA's 

implementation of those changes. To 

conduct this review, GAO reviewed the 

relevant provisions of pertinent laws 

and FTA’s policy guidance, interviewed 

FTA officials and representatives from 

13 project sponsors representing 17 of 

52 projects participating in the 

program, and visited the sites of two 

Core Capacity Improvement projects. 

Project sponsors and locations visited 

were selected based on previous 

experience in the program, among 

other things.

In written comments, DOT emphasized 

its commitment to improve and 

streamline the Capital Investment 

Grant program.

What GAO Found

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has implemented most of the key 

changes the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Act (MAP-21) made to the 

Capital Investment Grant program, which helps fund investments in new public 

transit systems or extensions to existing systems. Projects funded under this 

program fall into different categories, depending on the total project’s cost and

the amount of federal funding requested. For example, under MAP-21, New 

Starts projects had capital costs that were $250 million or greater while Small 

Starts projects had capital costs that were less than $250 million. As required by 

MAP-21, FTA has issued guidance outlining the new review and evaluation 

process for New Starts and Small Starts projects—as well as Core Capacity 

Improvement projects, which is a new category of eligible projects MAP-21 

created and which are designed to increase the capacity of an existing system. In 

addition, FTA has informed project sponsors how they can pre-qualify for a 

satisfactory rating based on the characteristics of their projects. FTA officials said 

they plan to address the remaining requirements, such as completing the 

rulemaking to fully implement the MAP-21 provisions, over the next 2 years. 

The 13 project sponsors GAO contacted—representing 7 New Starts projects, 8 

Small Starts projects, and 2 Core Capacity Improvement projects—were 

generally supportive of the changes MAP-21 made to the Capital Investment 

Grant program, as well as FTA’s implementation of the changes.

• Representatives from 9 of 13 project sponsors indicated that the MAP-21 

changes streamlined the Capital Investment Grant program’s project 

development process, such as by reducing the number of time-consuming 

FTA reviews.

• Of the three project sponsors that indicated they had an opinion on the 

addition of Core Capacity Improvement projects as a new category of 

projects, all were supportive, with representatives from one noting, for 

example, that this change gives them options to increase the capacity of 

existing systems as ridership increases. Such projects could include 

lengthening rail platforms to accommodate additional train cars or to reduce 

platform overcrowding. 

• Also, representatives from 11 of 13 project sponsors supported FTA’s 

implementation efforts, noting, for example, that FTA has taken steps to 

listen to and incorporate many of the recommendations offered by project 

sponsors in implementing the MAP-21 changes.

While project sponsors raised some concerns about the potential impact certain 

changes—such as limiting the amount of time New Starts and Core Capacity 

Improvement projects can spend in Project Development—might have on project 

sponsors in the future, they also acknowledged that not all the MAP-21 changes 

have been implemented yet. While participation in the program has increased 

substantially—by 70 percent—since the enactment of MAP-21, both project 

sponsors and FTA officials pointed out that it is too early to tell what impact the 

changes will ultimately have on the Capital Investment Grant program—including 

if the changes will help expedite projects through the program.

View GAO-16-495. For more information, 

contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

GoldsteinM@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Letter 1

Background 4

FTA Has Made Progress Implementing Most of the Key Required 

Changes in the Capital Investment Grant Program 11

Selected Project Sponsors Expressed Support for MAP-21 

Changes to the Capital Investment Grant Program and FTA’s 

Implementation of Those Changes 18

Agency Comments 26

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Transportation 29

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 30

Related GAO Products 31

Tables

Table 1: Status of Key Requirements for the Capital Investment 

Grant Program under the Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), as of March 2016 12

Table 2: New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity 

Improvement Project Sponsors Interviewed 28

Figures

Figure 1: Development Process for Capital Investment Grant 

Projects as Defined by the Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century Act 7

Figure 2: The Capital Investment Grant Program Evaluation and 

Rating Measures and Criteria under the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) 9

Figure 3: Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) Proposed Program 

of Interrelated Projects Consisting of Two Core Capacity 

Improvement Projects and One Small Starts Project 16

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Figure 4: Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) Red and Blue Line 

Platform Extensions Project 19

Figure 5: Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Canarsie 

Line Power Improvements Project 20

Figure 6: Number of Projects in the Capital Investment Grant 

Program, 2009–2016 25

Abbreviations

APTA American Public Transportation Association

DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas, TX)

DOT Department of Transportation

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

FTA Federal Transit Administration

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York, NY)

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountability, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation 

 Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

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.
Page 1 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 28, 2016

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Chairman

The Honorable Sherrod Brown

Ranking Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The federal government provides a large share of the nation’s capital 

investment in public transit systems through the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) Capital Investment Grant program, which is a 

discretionary and competitive grant program that provides roughly $2 

billion in appropriated funds each year to help states, cities, and localities 

plan and build new fixed-guideway systems or extensions to existing 

fixed-guideway systems.1 Within the Capital Investment Grant program, 

project sponsors—usually local transit agencies—have typically applied 

for their projects to receive federal funding as either a New Starts or a 

Small Starts project.2 In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP-21) established a new category of eligible projects 

 1

A fixed-guideway is a public transportation facility—using and occupying separate rightof-way for the exclusive use of public transportation; using rail; a fixed catenary system 

(i.e., a system using overhead power lines); for a passenger ferry system; or for a bus 

rapid transit system. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 112-

141, 126 Stat. 405, 626 (2012). 

2

Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, New Starts projects 

include new fixed-guideway projects, extensions to fixed-guideway projects, and fixedguideway bus rapid transit projects that have a total capital cost of $250 million or greater 

or a Capital Investment Grant program contribution of $75 million or greater. Small Starts 

projects include new fixed-guideway projects, extensions to fixed-guideway projects, and 

both fixed-guideway and corridor-based bus rapid transit projects that have a total net 

capital cost less than $250 million and a Capital Investment Grant program contribution 

less than $75 million.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

called Core Capacity Improvement projects, which are substantial 

corridor-based capital investments in existing fixed-guideway systems 

that increase the capacity of a corridor by not less than 10 percent.3 MAP21 also outlined a revised process that all proposed projects in the Capital 

Investment Grant program must follow to be eligible for and receive 

federal funding.

MAP-21 included a provision for us to biennially review FTA’s processes 

and procedures for evaluating and rating proposed fixed-guideway capital 

projects and Core Capacity Improvement projects and recommending 

them for funding and the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

implementation of such processes and procedures.4 This report 

discusses: (1) FTA’s progress in implementing changes to the Capital 

Investment Grant program required by MAP-21 and (2) selected project 

sponsors’ views of the MAP-21 changes and FTA’s implementation of 

those changes.

In conducting our review, we focused our work on selected statutory 

requirements contained in MAP-21 that were not significantly altered or 

repealed by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).5

To address our objectives, we reviewed the relevant provisions of MAP21, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),6 and the FAST Act. We also reviewed 

FTA’s policy guidance; other pertinent FTA documents, such as FTA’s 

 3

Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 656. A corridor is a largely linear geographic band 

defined by existing and forecasted travel patterns involving both people and goods. The 

corridor serves a particular travel market or markets that are affected by similar 

transportation needs and mobility issues.

4

Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 674.

5

At the time we initiated this review, the Capital Investment Grant program was governed 

by statutory provisions in place under MAP-21. However, in December 2015 the FAST Act

was enacted, which significantly altered or repealed some MAP-21 provisions. Pub. L. No. 

114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015). For the purposes of this report, unless otherwise noted, 

references to any Capital Investment Grant program-related statutory, regulatory, or other 

FTA requirements are to those provisions in place following the enactment of MAP-21 and 

exclude any subsequent amendments, such as those made by the FAST Act.

6

Prior to the enactment of MAP-21, the Capital Investment Grant program was governed 

by statutory provisions in place under SAFETEA-LU. Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 

(2005).
Page 3 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

annual reports to Congress;7 and our body of work on the Capital 

Investment Grant program.8 In addition, we interviewed FTA officials, 

representatives of the American Public Transportation Association 

(APTA), and 13 project sponsors representing 17 selected projects 

participating in the program as of February 2015.9 The project sponsors 

we contacted represent 7 New Starts projects, 8 Small Starts projects, 

and 2 Core Capacity Improvement projects. They also represent different 

rail modes (heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail) as well as both bus rapid 

transit and streetcar projects. The information obtained from these 

interviews is not generalizable to all project sponsors but provides insight 

into project sponsors’ views of the MAP-21 changes thus far. As part of 

our work, we also visited the two selected Core Capacity Improvement 

projects—in New York City and Dallas, Texas—because the addition of 

these types of projects was a significant change to the program under 

MAP-21. The project sponsors we contacted and the locations we visited 

were selected based on a number of factors, the primary being previous 

project experience in FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program under 

SAFETEA-LU, which provided a basis to compare changes made by 

MAP-21. Appendix I contains additional information on our objectives, 

scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to April 2016 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.

 7

FTA is required to issue a report to Congress with funding recommendations for the 

Capital Investment Grant program no later than the first Monday in February. FTA’s 

reports help inform the appropriations process for the upcoming fiscal year by providing 

congressional decision makers with information on the projects in the program. FTA’s 

annual reports along with profiles of the projects participating in the program are available 

through FTA’s Web site, https://www.fta.dot.gov.

8

We have issued a series of reports on the Capital Investment Grant program in response 

to congressional mandates. For a list of reports since 2000, see the Related GAO 

Products section at the end of this report.

9

In some cases, the project sponsors we interviewed were responsible for more than one 

project in the Capital Investment Grant program at the time of our review.
Page 4 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

FTA’s primary source of funding for new fixed-guideway projects or 

extensions to existing fixed-guideway systems is the Capital Investment 

Grant program, which is a discretionary program funded from annual 

appropriations rather than the Highway Trust Fund. Over the past 10 

fiscal years, FTA has provided states, cities, and other localities with 

almost $18 billion in federal funding to plan and build new projects 

through this program. Projects eligible to compete for federal funding 

under the Capital Investment Grant program include:

• Commuter rail—systems that operate along electric or dieselpropelled railways and provide train service for local, short distance 

trips between a central city and adjacent suburbs.

• Heavy rail—systems that operate on electric railways with highvolume traffic capacity and are characterized by separated right-ofway, sophisticated signaling, high platform loading, and high-speed, 

rapid-acceleration rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on 

fixed rails.

• Light rail—systems that operate on electric railways with light-volume 

traffic capacity and are characterized by shared or exclusive rights-ofway, or low or high-platform-loading, single or double-car trains, and 

overhead electric lines that power rail vehicles.

• Streetcars—systems that are similar to light rail, but distinguishable 

because they are usually smaller and designed for shorter routes, 

more frequent stops, and lower travel speeds.

• Bus rapid transit—systems in which the majority operates in a 

separated right-of-way during peak periods and includes features that 

emulate the services provided by rail transit, such as defined stations, 

traffic signal priority, short headway bidirectional services for a 

substantial part of weekdays and weekend days, pre-board ticketing, 

platform-level boarding, and separate branding.10 Fixed-guideway bus 

rapid transit systems may include portions of service that are nonfixed guideway. In addition, bus rapid transit can also include corridorbased bus rapid transit projects, which have similar characteristics as 

fixed-guideway systems, but the majority of the project does not 

operate in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation 

use during peak periods. 

 

10Headway refers to the time interval between buses moving in the same direction on a 

particular route.

Background
Page 5 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

• Ferries—systems comprised of vessels that operate over a body of 

water and are generally steam or diesel powered.

These projects are designed and implemented by project sponsors, which 

are usually local transit agencies, often in coordination with local 

metropolitan-planning organizations.11 Within the Capital Investment 

Grant program, project sponsors have typically applied for funding as 

either a New Starts or a Small Starts project. Under MAP-21, New Starts 

projects include new fixed-guideway projects, extensions to fixedguideway projects, and fixed-guideway bus rapid transit projects that 

have a total capital cost of $250 million or greater or a Capital Investment 

Grant program contribution of $75 million or greater. Small Starts projects 

include new fixed-guideway projects, extensions to fixed-guideway 

projects, and both fixed-guideway and corridor-based bus rapid transit 

projects that have a total net capital cost less than $250 million and a 

Capital Investment Grant program contribution less than $75 million.

Prior to the enactment of MAP-21, the Capital Investment Grant program 

was governed by statutory provisions put in place under SAFETEA-LU. 

MAP-21, which was enacted in July 2012, made numerous changes to

the program. For example, MAP-21 reduced the number of phases in the 

process that projects must follow to be eligible for and receive federal 

funding. Under SAFETEA-LU, project sponsors were required to identify 

the transportation needs of a specific corridor and evaluate a range of 

alternatives to address locally identified problems in that corridor during 

what was called the alternatives analysis phase.12 To complete this 

phase, project sponsors selected a locally preferred alternative to be 

advanced for further development after costs, benefits, and impacts of 

each alternative were analyzed. However, under MAP-21 the process 

relies on the review of alternatives performed during the metropolitan 

transportation planning and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

 11Metropolitan-planning organizations are federally mandated regional organizations 

responsible for comprehensive transportation planning and programming in urbanized 

areas with a population of 50,000 or more and are required to develop regional 

transportation plans. In addition, they also build, maintain, and operate transportation 

infrastructure and services. 

12For more information on the project development process under SAFETEA-LU including 

the alternative analysis phase, see GAO, Public Transit: Length of Development Process,

Cost Estimates, and Ridership Forecasts for Capital-Investment Grant Projects, 

GAO-14-472 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2014).
Page 6 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

(NEPA) environmental review processes.13 In addition, MAP-21 created a 

new category of eligible projects called Core Capacity Improvement 

projects, which are substantial corridor-based capital investments in 

existing fixed-guideway systems that increase the capacity of a corridor 

by at least 10 percent in a corridor that is at or above capacity today or is 

expected to be within 5 years. Core Capacity Improvement projects can 

include expanding system platforms, the acquisition of real property, 

rights-of-way, and rolling stock associated with increasing capacity, 

among other things, and cannot include elements to improve general 

station facilities, parking, or elements designed to maintain a state of 

good repair.

Under MAP-21, any project that fits the definition of a new fixed-guideway 

project or an extension to an existing fixed-guideway system is eligible to 

compete for federal funding under the Capital Investment Grant program. 

Once a project sponsor decides to seek Capital Investment Grant 

program funding it submits an application to FTA consisting of information 

on the proposed project, such as a description of the transportation 

problem the project is seeking to address, among other requirements. If 

accepted into the program, the process that project sponsors must follow 

varies depending on whether the project is a New Starts, Small Starts, or 

Core Capacity Improvement project (see fig. 1).

 13See Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970), codified, as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321 

et seq. See also, 40 C.F.R. § 1501.2; 23 C.F.R. Part 771. For more information on the 

environmental review process, see GAO-14-472.
Page 7 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Figure 1: Development Process for Capital Investment Grant Projects as Defined by 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

• New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects. New Starts and 

Core Capacity Improvement projects must complete two phases in the 

development process to be eligible for a Construction grant 

agreement—Project Development and Engineering.14 During the 

Project Development phase, among other requirements, the Secretary 

must determine that the project has been selected as the locally 

preferred alternative at the end of the environmental review process.

Under MAP-21 changes to the Capital Investment Grant program, 

New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects have 2 years 

after the day in which they enter into Project Development to complete 

the activities required to obtain a project rating by FTA, a process that 

is discussed further below. If approved to advance into the second 

phase of the development process—Engineering—project sponsors 

must, among other things, develop a firm and reliable cost, scope, 

and schedule for the project and obtain all non-Capital Investment 

Grant program funding commitments.

 14According to FTA, the Construction grant agreement between FTA and the project 

sponsor defines the project, including its cost, scope, schedule, and level of service; 

commits to a maximum level of annual and total Capital Investment Grant program 

financial assistance (subject to Congressional appropriation); establishes the terms and 

conditions of federal financial participation; defines the period of time for completion of the 

project; and helps FTA and the project sponsor manage the project in accordance with 

federal law. Upon completion of the payment schedule outlined in the Construction grant 

agreement, the Capital Investment Grant program funding commitment has been fulfilled. 
Page 8 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

• Small Starts projects. Small Starts projects complete a similar but 

more streamlined process that requires project sponsors to complete 

only one phase—Project Development—to be eligible for a 

Construction grant agreement. During this phase, the Secretary must 

also determine that the project has been adopted as the locally 

preferred alternative and the project sponsor must complete the 

environmental review process. To complete Project Development, 

project sponsors must develop a firm and reliable cost, scope, and 

schedule for the project and obtain all non-Capital Investment Grant 

program funding commitments, among other things.

Before FTA can recommend a project to Congress for funding, it is 

required by law to rate the project by using a number of criteria designed 

to provide important information about project merit.15 While New Starts 

and Small Starts project justification criteria have changed over time, 

there are currently six criteria: mobility improvements, environmental 

benefits, cost-effectiveness, economic development, land use, and 

congestion relief.16 In contrast, the project justification criteria for Core 

Capacity Improvement projects are: mobility improvements, 

environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness, economic development, 

congestion relief, and existing capacity needs of a corridor. FTA is also 

required to evaluate and rate the local financial commitment to the project

and the project sponsor’s ability to operate the project and continue to 

operate the existing transit system.17

FTA is also required to rate each individual criterion on a five point scale, 

from low, medium-low, medium, medium-high, and high.18 As we have 

previously reported, FTA prepares and combines a summary project 

justification, which is based on the ratings of the six criteria, and a 

summary local financial commitment rating to arrive at a project’s overall 

 15Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 660.

16MAP-21 added congestion relief as a project justification criterion. Under SAFETEA-LU,

proposed projects were rated on the following criteria: mobility improvements, 

environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, transit supportive land 

use, economic development effects, and other factors. 

17Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 658, 662.

18Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 663.
Page 9 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

rating, as shown in figure 2.19 To advance through the development 

process and be eligible for funding, proposed projects must score at least 

a medium overall project rating (which requires at least a medium rating 

for both the summary project justification and the summary local financial 

commitment). In order to recommend a project for a grant agreement in 

the President’s budget, FTA considers the evaluation and rating of the 

project under the specified criteria, availability of Capital Investment Grant 

program funds, and the readiness of the proposed project.

Figure 2: The Capital Investment Grant Program Evaluation and Rating Measures and Criteria under the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)

Note: MAP-21 directed FTA to give “comparable, but not necessarily equal” weight to the six project 

justification criteria. FTA gives equal weight to each of these criteria because, according to FTA, each 

of the criteria provides important information about project merit and therefore should receive equal 

weight.

 19See GAO, Public Transportation: Multiple Factors Influence Extent of Transit-Oriented 

Development, GAO-15-70 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2014). MAP-21 directed FTA to 

give “comparable, but not necessarily equal” weight to the six project justification criteria. 

FTA gives equal weight (16.66 percent) to each of these criteria because, according to 

FTA, each of the criteria provides important information about project merit and therefore 

should receive equal weight.
Page 10 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Projects that compete for Capital Investment Grant program funding are 

formally overseen by FTA with the help of contractors, who provide 

assistance to FTA with oversight of planning, construction, and financing 

of projects throughout the development process. FTA and its contractors 

evaluate each project’s risk, scope, cost, schedule, financial plan, and 

project management plan, as well as the project sponsor’s technical 

capacity and capability—before recommending a project for funding. 

Throughout the development process, project sponsors submit periodic 

updates to FTA on different aspects of their projects, such as on project 

cost, schedule, projected ridership, and the financing of the projects. FTA 

maintains its headquarters in Washington, D.C., with 10 regional offices 

throughout the continental United States, to assist with project oversight.

As mentioned previously, this report focuses on the statutory, regulatory, 

and other FTA requirements applicable to the Capital Investment Grant 

program under MAP-21. In December 2015, the FAST Act was enacted.20

In addition to significantly altering or repealing some of the MAP-21

requirements, the FAST Act also made other changes to the Capital 

Investment Grant program’s processes. According to FTA officials, some 

of those key changes include: (1) raising the dollar threshold for eligibility 

for New Starts and Small Starts projects,21 (2) increasing the number of 

projects eligible for funding by allowing joint public transportation and 

intercity passenger rail service and commuter rail projects to be eligible 

for funding, and (3) eliminating a requirement that corridor-based bus 

rapid transit projects must provide weekend service to be eligible for 

funding. We plan to examine FTA’s implementation of the FAST Act in 

future work on the Capital Investment Grant program.

 20Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312.

21Under FAST Act changes to the Capital Investment Grant program, New Starts projects 

have a total estimated cost of $300 million or greater or a Capital Investment Grant

program contribution of $100 million or greater, whereas Small Starts projects have a total 

estimated cost less than $300 million and a Capital Investment Grant program contribution

less than $100 million.
Page 11 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

FTA has made progress implementing most of the key changes MAP-21 

made to the Capital Investment Grant program. As shown in table 1, FTA 

has issued policy guidance outlining the new review and evaluation 

process and criteria for New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity 

Improvement projects and also provided project sponsors with 

instructions on how they can request to pre-qualify for a satisfactory rating 

based on the characteristics of their project, otherwise known as 

warrants. However, FTA has not completed the rulemaking required to 

fully implement the MAP-21 changes or fully addressed all requirements, 

such as the requirement to establish an evaluation and rating process for 

programs of interrelated projects, all of which we discuss below. FTA 

officials told us they are working toward addressing the remaining 

requirements.

FTA Has Made 

Progress 

Implementing Most of 

the Key Required 

Changes in the 

Capital Investment 

Grant Program
Page 12 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Table 1: Status of Key Requirements for the Capital Investment Grant Program under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP-21), as of March 2016

MAP-21 requirement Status

Issue rules establishing the evaluation and rating process for 

new fixed-guideway capital projects and Core Capacity 

Improvement projects.

FTA promulgated rules establishing a new regulatory framework for

New Starts and Small Starts projects in January 2013, and FTA 

officials plan to initiate additional rulemaking in the future to fully 

implement the MAP-21 changes to the Capital Investment Grant 

program.

Issue policy guidance outlining the review and evaluation 

process and criteria for new fixed-guideway capital projects 

and Core Capacity Improvement projects.a

FTA issued policy guidance outlining the review and evaluation 

process and criteria for New Starts and Small Starts projects in August 

2013 and policy guidance for Core Capacity Improvement projects in 

August 2015.

Establish an evaluation and rating process for programs of 

interrelated projects.

b FTA plans to address these provisions through future rulemaking and 

policy guidance updates.

Use an expedited technical-capacity review process for 

certain types of projects.c FTA is in the process of developing a tool to help its staff determine the level of review required of project sponsors based on a number of 

risk factors, such as the total cost and complexity of a proposed 

project and the experience of the project sponsor. FTA officials told us 

they expect to complete the development of this tool over the next few 

months.

To the maximum extent possible, develop and use 

warrants.

d FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance provided project sponsors with 

instructions on how they can request the use of warrants. According to 

FTA officials, 3 project sponsors requested the use of warrants during 

the most recent rating cycle, which occurred in the fall of 2015.

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-16-495

a

MAP-21 required FTA to issue policy guidance each time significant changes were made to the 

rating process and criteria but not less frequently than once every 2 years.

b

Under MAP-21, the term program of interrelated projects means the simultaneous development of 

(1) two or more new fixed-guideway capital projects or Core Capacity Improvement projects or (2) 

one or more new fixed-guideway capital projects and one or more Core Capacity Improvement 

projects.

c

MAP-21 required FTA to use an expedited technical-capacity review process for project sponsors 

that have recently and successfully completed at least one new fixed-guideway capital project or Core 

Capacity Improvement project if the sponsor achieved budget, cost, and ridership outcomes for the 

project that are consistent with or better than projections and demonstrated that it continues to have 

the staff expertise and other resources necessary to implement a new project.

d

Warrants refers to an approach that allows a proposed project to pre-qualify for a satisfactory rating 

on a given criterion based on the characteristics of a project or the project corridor. Under MAP-21, 

proposed projects may be eligible for warrants as long as the Capital Investment Grant program’s 

share of the project does not exceed $100 million or 50 percent of the project’s cost and the applicant 

certifies that its existing public transportation system is in a state of good repair.

FTA has promulgated new rules for the Capital Investment Grant program 

but plans to initiate the rulemaking necessary to fully implement the 

changes MAP-21 made to the program in the future. Specifically, MAP-21 

required FTA to issue rules establishing an evaluation and rating process 

for new fixed-guideway capital projects as well as Core Capacity 

Issuing Rules for 

Evaluating and Rating 

Projects
Page 13 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Improvement projects.22 In January 2013, FTA issued a final rule 

establishing a new regulatory framework for the evaluation and rating of 

New Starts and Small Starts projects.23 FTA initiated this rulemaking—by 

issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking24—prior to the enactment of 

MAP-21, and FTA’s final rule covers portions of the evaluation and rating 

requirements for New Starts and Small Starts projects that MAP-21 did 

not significantly change. According to FTA, future rulemaking will cover 

new items included in MAP-21 that have not yet been the subject of the 

rulemaking process, such as the evaluation and rating process for Core 

Capacity Improvement projects and the revised processes for New Starts 

and Small Starts projects. FTA officials told us they plan to address the 

remaining requirements of MAP-21 and now the Fast Act in future 

rulemaking. They noted that they still have to review the changes the 

FAST Act made to the Capital Investment Grant program and that factors 

outside of their control could delay their efforts.

FTA provided project sponsors with updated policy guidance for the 

Capital Investment Grant program in both 2013 and 2015 and plans to 

update its policy guidance again in 2017. MAP-21 required FTA to issue 

policy guidance specifying the review and evaluation process and criteria 

for new fixed-guideway capital projects and Core Capacity Improvement 

projects and issue updated guidance each time FTA makes significant 

changes to the rating process and criteria, but not less frequently than 

once every 2 years.25 Concurrent with the January 2013 issuance of the 

final rule, FTA solicited public comment on its proposed policy guidance 

for New Starts and Small Starts projects and,26 in August 2013, issued 

policy guidance covering the evaluation and rating process for New Starts 

and Small Starts projects.27 In April 2015, FTA again solicited public 

 22Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 664.

2378 Fed. Reg. 1992 (Jan. 9, 2013).

2477 Fed. Reg. 3848 (Jan. 25, 2012).

25Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 664. This is a continuation of a requirement under 

SAFETEA-LU, with the inclusion of Core Capacity Improvement projects. Pub. L. No. 109-

59, 119 Stat. 1577.

2678 Fed. Reg. 2038 (Jan. 9, 2013). 

27Federal Transit Administration, New and Small Starts Evaluation and Rating Process 

Final Policy Guidance (August 2013).

Issuing Guidance for 

Evaluating and Rating 

Projects
Page 14 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

comment on its proposed policy guidance for the evaluation and rating 

process for Core Capacity Improvement projects along with other topics 

not included in FTA’s August 2013 guidance,28 such as the new 

congestion relief criterion and the ways in which projects can qualify for 

warrants. Subsequently, FTA issued updated policy guidance for the 

program in August 2015.29 FTA has stated its August 2015 guidance will 

serve as a guide for running the Capital Investment Grant program until it 

completes the rulemaking to fully implement the MAP-21 changes and 

now the requirements of the FAST Act.

In addition to covering the evaluation and rating process for Core 

Capacity Improvement projects, FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance also:

• Set a deadline for project development: MAP-21 specified that New 

Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects have 2 years after the 

day in which they enter into Project Development to complete the 

activities required to obtain a project rating by FTA.30 In addressing 

this requirement, FTA’s policy guidance encourages project sponsors 

to begin planning early, noting that project sponsors may wish to 

conduct early work, such as initiating the environmental review 

process, prior to requesting entry into Project Development.31

• Implemented a new congestion relief criterion: MAP-21 added 

congestion relief as a project justification criterion for projects while 

removing operating efficiencies as a criterion,32 and under FTA’s 

policy guidance, congestion relief is calculated based on the number 

 2880 Fed. Reg. 18796 (Apr. 8, 2015).

29Federal Transit Administration, Final Interim Policy Guidance Federal Transit 

Administration Capital Investment Grant Program (August 2015). 

30Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 659, 661.

31Projects that do not meet this deadline are to be removed from the program unless FTA 

grants an extension. In order to receive an extension, project sponsors must submit to 

FTA a reasonable plan, which FTA will evaluate on a case-by-case basis, for completing 

the required activities and an estimated time period within which the sponsor will complete 

those activities.

32Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 660, 662, 665.
Page 15 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

of new weekday linked transit trips that are projected to result from a 

project’s implementation.33

• Utilized the new definition of bus rapid transit as set out in MAP-21:

34

According to an FTA official, the new definition of bus rapid transit 

represented a significant change because it impacts funding 

eligibility. For example, the new definition required eligible bus rapid 

transit projects to have short headway bi-directional service for a 

substantial part of weekdays and weekend days, which was not the 

case under SAFETEA-LU. FTA, in turn, defined the interval of time 

required for service during peak periods and during other times of the 

day and made other related determinations.

FTA officials told us they anticipated soliciting public comment on FTA’s 

policy guidance again later this year or in 2017 in order to meet the MAP21 requirement that FTA issue new guidance no less than every 2 years.

FTA plans to address the programs of interrelated project provisions of 

MAP-21 through future rulemaking and policy guidance updates.35 FTA 

officials told us that before they could begin working to address these 

provisions, they first needed to establish the evaluation and rating 

process for Core Capacity Improvement projects because a Core 

Capacity Improvement project could be one of the interrelated projects. 

FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance covers the evaluation and rating 

process for Core Capacity Improvement projects; however, officials also 

said that some aspects of the law related to programs of interrelated 

projects were unclear and made it difficult to implement. For example, 

MAP-21 did not specify which evaluation criteria FTA should use to rate 

programs of interrelated projects that include more than one type of 

 33Under FTA’s policy guidance, new weekday-linked transit trips are calculated by 

comparing the total number of weekday-linked transit trips for what is called the no-build 

alternative with the total number of weekday-linked transit trips once a proposed project is 

implemented. In general, the no-build alternative is the existing transportation system plus 

any transportation investments committed to in local Transportation Improvement Plans 

and Fiscally Constrained Long Range Plans.

34Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 657.

35Under MAP-21, the term program of interrelated projects means the simultaneous 

development of (1) two or more new fixed-guideway capital projects or core capacity 

improvement projects or (2) one or more new fixed-guideway capital projects and one or 

more core capacity improvement projects. Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 658.

Establishing an Evaluation 

and Rating Process for 

Programs of Interrelated 

Projects
Page 16 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

project. At the time of our review, FTA was working with Congress to 

address these issues and, in December 2015, the FAST Act was 

enacted, which officials told us provided the clarification they sought. FTA 

officials told us they plan to address these provisions in future rulemaking 

and policy guidance updates; however, they had no firm date for when 

these provisions would be implemented and noted it would take time. 

Figure 3 shows an illustrative example of a proposed program of 

interrelated projects consisting of two Core Capacity Improvement 

projects and one Small Starts project in Dallas, Texas.

Figure 3: Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) Proposed Program of Interrelated Projects Consisting of Two Core Capacity 

Improvement Projects and One Small Starts Project

Note: DART’s proposed program of interrelated projects consists of a platform extensions project and 

the rerouting of an existing rail line (Core Capacity Improvement projects) and a streetcar project 

(Small Starts project).
Page 17 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

FTA is finalizing the development of a tool that will help officials determine 

the level of review required of project sponsors based on a number of risk 

factors, such as the total cost and complexity of a proposed project and 

the project sponsor’s in-house technical capacity and capability. 

According to FTA officials, this tool, once complete, will address the MAP21 requirement that FTA use an expedited technical-capacity review 

process for project sponsors under certain circumstances.36 Specifically, 

the expedited review would be used for project sponsors that have 

recently and successfully completed a project that achieved budget, cost, 

and ridership outcomes consistent with or better than projections and that 

has demonstrated continued staff expertise and other resources 

necessary to implement a new project. FTA officials estimated that the 

development of this tool would be completed over the next few months.

At the time of our review, FTA had provided project sponsors with 

instructions on how to request the use of warrants; however, it was too 

early to tell the extent to which FTA will be able to make greater use of 

warrants. Warrants are ways that proposed projects can pre-qualify for a 

satisfactory rating on a given criterion based on the characteristics of a 

project or the project corridor as long as the Capital Investment Grant 

program’s share of the project does not exceed $100 million or 50 percent 

of the project’s cost and the applicant certifies that its existing publictransportation system is in a state of good repair.37 For example, New 

Starts projects can qualify for an automatic rating of medium for some 

criteria as long as the total capital cost of the proposed project and the 

number of existing weekday transit trips in the corridor meet certain 

eligibility criteria, among other things. FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance 

specified the parameters that FTA will use to determine if projects are 

eligible for warrants and provided project sponsors with instructions on 

how to request the use of warrants.38 FTA officials told us that for the 

most recent rating cycle—which is also the first rating cycle in which FTA 

allowed the use of expanded warrants—three project sponsors requested 

 36Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 658.

37Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 663.

38To request the use of warrants, FTA instructs project sponsors to submit a letter to FTA 

documenting estimated project cost, current existing transit ridership, the requested 

amount and share of the construction grant, and a description of the process in place to 

assess the condition of the transit system’s assets, among other things.

Using an Expedited 

Technical-Capacity 

Review Process

Making Greater Use of 

Warrants
Page 18 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

warrants and FTA determined two were eligible.39 According to FTA 

officials, it will take several rating cycles and feedback from project 

sponsors before the officials will have enough information to assess the 

effect of expanded warrants.

The selected project sponsors we contacted were generally supportive of 

the changes MAP-21 made to the Capital Investment Grant program and 

of FTA’s implementation of the changes. However, the project sponsors 

also told us they were concerned about the potential impact some of the 

changes—such as locking in funding at entry into Engineering and 

requiring New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects to 

complete Project Development within 2 years—might have on project 

sponsors. In addition, while the number of projects in the Capital 

Investment Grant program has increased by about 70 percent since 2012, 

project sponsors also told us it was too early to tell the extent to which the 

MAP-21 changes will help expedite projects through the program.

A prevalent theme from our discussions with representatives from 13 

project sponsors was that they generally support changes—such as: (1) 

streamlining the project development process, (2) establishing Core 

Capacity Improvement projects as a new category of eligible projects, (3) 

instituting a 2-year requirement for New Starts and Core Capacity 

Improvement projects to complete Project Development, and (4) revising 

the evaluation and rating process, that MAP-21 made to the Capital 

Investment Grant program. Representatives from 9 of the 13 project 

sponsors we interviewed told us that the changes streamlined the project 

development process by decreasing the number of time-consuming 

reviews FTA undertakes or by eliminating what these representatives 

considered to be burdensome requirements, such as the alternatives 

analysis requirement under SAFETEA-LU. According to the 

representatives we interviewed, streamlining should help expedite 

projects through the program because fewer FTA reviews decrease the 

amount of work project sponsors need to perform prior to submitting 

information to FTA for review. According to APTA representatives, the 

elimination of the alternatives analysis requirement was a particularly 

 39Project submittals are typically due to FTA in the early fall each year after which FTA 

evaluates the proposals prior to the February release of the President’s budget.

Selected Project 

Sponsors Expressed 

Support for MAP-21 

Changes to the 

Capital Investment 

Grant Program and 

FTA’s Implementation 

of Those Changes

Project Sponsors 

Generally Support the 

MAP-21 Changes but Are 

Concerned about Some 

Changes’ Potential Effects
Page 19 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

positive development for project sponsors because project sponsors 

devoted significant resources to analyzing alternatives prior to requesting 

entry into the Capital Investment Grant program.

One of the MAP-21 changes that some project sponsors indicated they 

were supportive of is the addition of Core Capacity Improvement projects. 

Representatives from one project sponsor said the addition of these 

projects is a positive development because these projects give project 

sponsors options to increase the capacity of a system as ridership 

increases, while two others noted that the addition of Core Capacity 

Improvement projects expands project eligibility for projects that would 

likely not have rated favorably under New Starts criteria. According to 

representatives from one of these project sponsors, these projects 

expand eligibility because Core Capacity Improvement projects are 

designed to increase the capacity of existing corridors, not add 

extensions to an existing system. Figures 4 and 5 provide information on 

the two Core Capacity Improvement projects we visited for this review—

Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) platform extensions project and 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) power improvements 

project in New York City.

Figure 4: Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions Project

Note: The graphic shows aspects of DART’s platform extensions project and does not reflect changes 

that will be made to any specific DART station.
Page 20 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Figure 5: Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Canarsie Line Power Improvements Project

Representatives from 6 of 13 project sponsors also indicated that they 

were generally supportive of the MAP-21 requirement that New Starts 

and Core Capacity Improvement projects complete Project Development 

within 2 years. Representatives from two project sponsors told us that 

requiring project sponsors to complete more work, such as initiating the 

environmental review process, prior to entering Project Development 

should help expedite a project’s progress through the program because 

completing this work decreases the amount of work project sponsors 

need to complete while in Project Development. Further, representatives 

from one project sponsor indicated that this change should also deter 

project sponsors that do not yet have defined projects from entering the 

program. However, as discussed below, most of the project sponsors also 

raised some concerns about the 2-year completion deadline.

In addition, representatives from 12 of the 13 project sponsors told us that 

they were generally supportive of the changes MAP-21 made to the 

evaluation and rating process. Representatives from one project sponsor 

noted, for example, that the MAP-21 changes have greatly simplified and 
Page 21 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

streamlined the review process and made it more transparent.40

Representatives from another project sponsor also noted that the 

changes required FTA to implement more evaluative measures that take 

into account improvements that benefit existing riders, such as measures

designed to reduce travel time, rather than focusing solely on the addition 

of new riders.

However, project sponsors also raised some concerns regarding certain 

aspects of the MAP-21 changes.

• Representatives from 11 of the 13 project sponsors told us that 

requiring New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects to 

complete Project Development activities within 2 years could pose a 

challenge for projects sponsors—for example, increasing project 

sponsors’ costs because project sponsors may have to perform more 

work prior to entering Project Development. These representatives 

noted that such work is not eligible for pre-award authority under 

MAP-21.41 In FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance, FTA acknowledged 

that it may be challenging for certain proposed projects to complete 

Project Development within 2 years. However, FTA also 

acknowledged that the intent of the MAP-21 changes was to help 

projects make quick progress and not linger in the program, and FTA 

encouraged project sponsors to perform whatever work they feel 

necessary prior to requesting entry into Project Development.

• Representatives from 5 of the 13 project sponsors indicated that 

locking in Capital Investment Grant program funding at entry into the 

Engineering phase could be too early in the development process and 

could pose a challenge because some projects may have yet to 

develop realistic cost and schedule estimates. According to these 

representatives, locking in funding at entry into Engineering increases 

the risk of escalating costs to project sponsors—costs which project 

sponsors would be responsible for—and is a change compared to 

under SAFETEA-LU where funding was locked in prior to a project 

 40According to FTA officials, the changes to the review process were due to modifications 

FTA made to the processes and procedures to implement the law rather than changes 

MAP-21 made to the program. 

41Activities undertaken prior to a project’s entering the Project Development phase are not 

covered by automatic pre-award authority and are not eligible for future reimbursement 

from the Capital Investment Grant program should a Construction grant be awarded in the 

future.
Page 22 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

being recommended for a grant agreement.42 APTA representatives 

told us that some projects may spend more time in Project 

Development as a result of this change, in order to help ensure that 

project sponsors develop more mature cost estimates before lockingin funding. According to FTA, project sponsors, not the federal 

government, should bear the risk of cost overruns once a project 

enters Engineering. FTA officials noted that the project sponsor 

determines when to proceed to Engineering and thus is responsible 

for ensuring that a project’s cost estimates are supported by sufficient 

engineering and design work.

• Representatives from 10 of the 13 project sponsors voiced various 

concerns regarding some of the changes MAP-21 made to the 

evaluation and rating process. For example, representatives from 4 

project sponsors told us that they thought the ridership measure of the 

new congestion relief criterion appeared biased toward more mature 

regions with legacy transit ridership compared to fast-growing regions 

with emerging transit ridership, or, according to representatives from 

one of these project sponsors, modes that transport a greater number 

of passengers, such as light rail projects.43 FTA has acknowledged 

limitations with the ridership measure and noted it intends to continue 

to refine the congestion relief measure over time with input from the 

transit industry and experience gained through its implementation of 

the MAP-21 changes.

Representatives from 11 of 13 project sponsors indicated that they were 

generally satisfied with FTA’s implementation of the MAP-21 changes. 

For example, representatives from four project sponsors said that FTA 

has made a good effort to listen to and incorporate many of the 

recommendations offered by project sponsors.44 APTA representatives 

similarly told us that FTA has done an excellent job engaging the transit 

 42According to FTA officials, under SAFETEA-LU, Capital Investment Grant program 

funding was locked in at entry into Final Design and not at the Construction grant 

agreement phase.

43The ridership measure is a calculation of existing and/or projected transit ridership on a 

system used to help determine a project’s rating on certain evaluation criteria, such as 

mobility improvements or congestion relief.

44For example, in April 2015 FTA solicited public comment on its proposed policy 

guidance. FTA received responses from 41 entities, including cities, transit operators, 

state agencies, metropolitan-planning organizations, non-profit organizations, and 

interested citizens. These responses contained more than 539 separate comments.

Selected Project Sponsors 

Generally Support FTA’s 

Efforts in Implementing the 

MAP-21 Changes
Page 23 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

industry in trying to streamline the Capital Investment Grant program. In 

addition, representatives from 11 of 13 project sponsors said that they 

were generally supportive of the policy guidance FTA has issued since 

the enactment of MAP-21. For example, representatives from five project 

sponsors said FTA’s policy guidance has been comprehensive and useful 

in explaining how FTA will implement the MAP-21 changes and 

describing what FTA expects of project sponsors. Furthermore, 

representatives from all 13 project sponsors said that FTA has continued 

to provide support to project sponsors prior to entry into Project 

Development, such as during the application process, as well as 

throughout the program, as it has worked to implement the MAP-21 

changes. For example, project sponsors noted that FTA continues to 

provide checklists, roadmaps, and technical assistance, in addition to its 

policy guidance updates and reporting instructions. FTA officials noted 

that they provide ongoing technical assistance on a routine basis during 

each of their conversations with project sponsors.

Although project sponsors were generally satisfied with FTA’s efforts thus 

far, they pointed out that not all MAP-21 changes, such as the programs 

of interrelated projects provisions, have been implemented yet. In 

addition, representatives from 9 of the 13 project sponsors told us they 

thought it took a long time for FTA to issue some of its policy guidance. 

FTA officials noted that by law they are required to issue new policy 

guidance for the Capital Investment Grant program no less than every 2 

years and emphasized that by law they are also required to invite and 

respond to public comment on their guidance via the Federal Register—

requirements that are time-consuming to comply with.45 Representatives 

from 11 of the 13 project sponsors also offered various suggestions 

regarding how FTA could enhance the support it provides project 

sponsors, such as by providing checklists for different types of projects, 

such as design-build, operate-maintain, or public-private partnerships or 

by increasing the number of training opportunities it provides project 

sponsors.

 45Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5309(g)(5), FTA is required to invite public comment on its 

guidance for the Capital Investment Grant program and publish its response to comments. 

In addition, according to FTA officials, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5334(k), FTA is required to 

follow applicable rulemaking procedures before issuing a binding obligation such as a 

substantive policy statement. Such rulemaking procedures include publishing policy 

guidance in draft form for public comment and then responding to comments received on 

the draft when preparing and publishing the final policy guidance.
Page 24 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Since 2012, the total number of projects in the Capital Investment Grant 

program has increased by 70 percent, from 37 projects as of February 

2012 to 63 projects as of February 2016, as shown in figure 6. FTA 

officials, selected project sponsors, and representatives from APTA 

largely attributed this growth to the fact that under MAP-21, FTA is no 

longer required to rate proposed projects prior to their entry into the 

Capital Investment Grant program.46 While FTA officials told us they view 

increased participation in the program as an opportunity to help improve 

public transit in communities across the country, they also said such 

growth presents challenges, noting that FTA’s resources to review and 

evaluate projects have largely remained flat over the last several years. 

Further, they noted that participation in the program by Small Starts 

projects is increasing—since 2012, Small Starts projects, as a percentage 

of the total number of projects, increased from about 24 percent to more 

than 50 percent—and that Small Starts project sponsors typically have 

little experience constructing major capital projects. Consequently, FTA 

often provides those project sponsors with greater levels of technical 

assistance and support. FTA officials told us they have requested 

additional funding from Congress to address these challenges. They also 

noted that absent being given additional resources, they cannot spend as 

much time providing technical assistance or evaluating projects.

 46For example, prior to MAP-21, New Starts project sponsors had to (1) complete an 

alternatives analysis, (2) select the locally preferred alternative, (3) get the locally 

preferred alternative included in the region’s fiscally constrained long-term transportation 

plan, (4) prepare the information necessary for FTA to evaluate and rate the project, (5) 

obtain a medium or better rating from FTA under statutorily defined project justification 

and financial criteria, and (6) meet other FTA readiness requirements before advancing 

beyond the alternatives analysis phase of the Capital Investment Grant program.

Substantially More 

Projects Have Entered the 

Program since MAP-21, 

but Whether They Will 

Progress More 

Expeditiously Is Not Yet 

Known
Page 25 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Figure 6: Number of Projects in the Capital Investment Grant Program, 2009–2016

Note: Figure reflects the number of projects that were in the project development process or under 

construction grants through the Capital Investment Grant program. For 2009 and 2010, this included 

some New Starts projects that were exempt from the evaluation and rating process. In 2009, 5 of the 

37 New Starts projects were exempt from the evaluation and rating process, while in 2010, 6 of the 

33 were New Starts projects were exempt from the evaluation and rating process.

While the number of projects in the Capital Investment Grant program has 

increased since the enactment of MAP-21, we found that limited data 

were available to assess whether projects were progressing through the 

program more quickly compared to under SAFETEA-LU. For example, at 

the time of our review only 4 projects had approached the 2-year deadline 

to complete Project Development. According to FTA officials, 3 of these 

projects completed the activities required to obtain a project rating from 

FTA before their 2-year deadlines passed while the third requested to 

postpone entry into Engineering to complete additional design work and 

address local funding issues.
Page 26 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Representatives from 8 of the 13 project sponsors we spoke with and 

representatives from APTA also felt that it was is too early to tell the 

extent to which the MAP-21 changes will help expedite projects through 

the program. For example, among other things, representatives from 

these project sponsors told us that while MAP-21 consolidated the 

number of phases in the development process it was not yet apparent to 

them how this might affect their projects since they perceived they would 

still have to complete the same amount of work. In discussing this issue 

with FTA, officials emphasized that projects were not far enough along for 

FTA to determine whether the MAP-21 changes are expediting projects 

through the program.

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. In its 

comments, which we have reproduced in appendix II, DOT noted that it is 

committed to continuing its efforts to improve the Capital Investment 

Grant program while ensuring that project evaluations provide important 

information to decision makers. DOT also provided technical comments 

that we incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss this work, 

please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Mark Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

This report discusses: (1) the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 

progress in implementing changes the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP-21) made to the Capital Investment Grant 

program and (2) how selected project sponsors view the MAP-21 

changes and FTA’s implementation of those changes. We focused our 

work on selected statutory requirements contained in MAP-21 that were 

not significantly altered or repealed by the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act).1

To address our objectives, we reviewed the relevant provisions of MAP21, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and the FAST Act. We also reviewed 

FTA’s policy guidance; other pertinent FTA documents related to the 

program, such as FTA’s annual reports to Congress; and our body of 

work on FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program. In addition, we 

interviewed FTA officials, representatives of the American Public 

Transportation Association, and selected project sponsors. Specifically, 

we interviewed representatives from 13 project sponsors representing 17 

of 52 projects participating in the program as of February 2015 and 

conducted a content analysis of the interviews with project sponsors to 

identify and summarize themes that emerged during our discussions. The 

information obtained from our interviews with project sponsors is not 

generalizable to all project sponsors but provides insight into project 

sponsors’ views of the MAP-21 changes thus far. We also visited New 

York City and Dallas, Texas, to tour the sites of two proposed Core 

Capacity Improvement projects.

2 The project sponsors we contacted and 

the locations we visited were selected based on a number of factors, the 

primary being previous project experience in FTA’s Capital Investment 

Grant program under SAFETEA-LU, which provided a basis to compare 

changes made by MAP-21. These project sponsors represent 7 New 

Starts projects, 8 Small Starts projects, and 2 Core Capacity 

Improvement projects, as well as different rail modes (heavy rail, light rail,

 1

At the time we initiated this review, the Capital Investment Grant program was governed 

by statutory provisions in place under MAP-21. However, in December 2015 the FAST Act

was enacted, which significantly altered or repealed some of MAP-21 provisions. Pub. L. 

No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015).

2

In some cases, the project sponsors we spoke with were responsible for more than one 

project in the Capital Investment Grant program at the time of our review. In addition, we 

attempted to contact one other New Starts project sponsor but were unable to obtain 

responses to our questions after several attempts.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

commuter rail) and both bus rapid transit and streetcar projects, as shown 

in table 2.

Table 2: New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity Improvement Project Sponsors Interviewed

Name of project sponsor (Project) Location Mode

New Starts projects

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Lynnwood Link Extension) Seattle, WA Light rail

Denver Regional Transportation District (Southeast Rail Extension) Denver, CO Light rail

Florida Department of Transportation (SunRail Phase II South) Orlando, FL Commuter rail

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Westside Purple Line 

Extension Section 1)

Los Angeles, CA Heavy rail

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Regional Connector 

Transit Corridor)

Los Angeles, CA Light rail

Metro Transit (METRO Blue Line Extension) Minneapolis, MN Light rail

Metro Transit (Southwest Light Rail Transit) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN Light rail

Small Starts projects

Charlotte Area Transit System (CityLYNX Gold Line Phase 2 Streetcar) Charlotte, NC Streetcar

Florida Department of Transportation (SunRail Phase II North) Orlando, FL Commuter rail

Metro Transit (METRO Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit) Minneapolis, MN Bus rapid transit

Sacramento Regional Transit District (Downtown Riverfront Streetcar) Sacramento, CA Streetcar

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (El Camino Real Corridor Bus Rapid 

Transit)

San Jose, CA Bus rapid transit

Sun Metro (Montana Avenue Rapid Transit System) El Paso, TX Bus rapid transit

Utah Transit Authority (Provo-Orem Bus Rapid Transit) Utah County, UT Bus rapid transit

Valley Metro (Tempe Streetcar) Phoenix, AZ Streetcar

Core Capacity Improvement projects

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions) Dallas, TX Light rail

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Canarsie Line Power Improvements) New York, NY Heavy rail

Source: GAO. | GAO-16-495

We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 through April 2016 

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.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation

Page 29 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 30 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Mark Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov

In addition to the contact above, key contributors to this report included 

Brandon Haller (Assistant Director), Andrew Burton, Geoffrey Hamilton, 

Wesley A. Johnson, Delwen Jones, Hannah Laufe, Malika Rice, and 

Andrew Stavisky.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 31 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Public Transportation: Multiple Factors Influence Extent of TransitOriented Development. GAO-15-70. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 

2014.

Public Transit: Length of Development Process, Cost Estimates, and 

Ridership Forecasts for Capital-Investment Grant Projects. GAO-14-472. 

Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2014.

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.

Public Transportation: Requirements for Smaller Capital Projects 

Generally Seen as Less Burdensome. GAO-11-778. Washington, D.C.: 

August 2, 2011.

Public Transportation: Use of Contractors Is Generally Enhancing Transit 

Project Oversight, and FTA is Taking Actions to Address Some 

Stakeholder Concerns. GAO-10-909. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 

2010.

Public Transportation: Federal Project Approval Process Remains a 

Barrier to Greater Private Sector Role and DOT Could Enhance Efforts to 

Assist Project Sponsors. GAO-10-19. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 

2009.

Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New 

Starts Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development. 

GAO-09-784. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2009.

Public Transportation: New Starts Program Challenges and Preliminary 

Observations on Expediting Project Development. GAO-09-763T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2009.

Public Transportation: Improvements Are Needed to More Fully Assess 

Predicted Impacts of New Starts Projects. GAO-08-844. Washington, 

D.C.: July 25, 2008.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 32 GAO-16-495 Capital Investment Grant Program

Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and Small 

Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the Small Starts 

Application Process. GAO-07-917. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007.

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

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

Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA’s Implementation 

of SAFETEA-LU Changes. GAO-06-910T. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 

2006.

Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Communication 

and Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts Program. 

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

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

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

25, 2004.

Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and Additional 

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

D.C.: June 23, 2003.

Mass Transit: 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.

(100237)
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 and read The Watchblog.

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.